Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Michelle Malkin :: Townhall.com Columnist
Obama: Wasting His Own Breath
by Michelle Malkin
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


I have good news for everyone offended by the description of Sen. Barack Obama as "articulate." He has quickly shed any claim to that label. Indeed, Obama's remarks this week about American troops killed in Iraq were a bumbling, incoherent mess. You may now refer to him officially as the Inarticulate Barack Obama. (As for judging his current level of cleanliness and brightness, you know that's Joe Biden's milieu.)

At one of his opening presidential campaign events on the Iowa State University campus this weekend, Obama pandered energetically to the anti-war crowd. With his smooth voice rising and thousands of fans goading him on, he proclaimed: "We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged, and to which we have now spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted."

Yes, "wasted." Squandered. Pointless. Down the drain. Meaningless. Video footage of the speech shows Sen. Obama delivering his scripted words carefully and confidently. No umms or ahhs or pauses as he argued that each and every member of the military who volunteered to serve and died in Iraq "wasted" his/her life.

This revealing slip of Obama's tongue and mind -- or "Obamanation," as conservative blogger Scott Johnson at Power Line (powerlineblog.com) calls it -- did not play well among countless service members and their families who actually support their mission and sacrifice. Who repeatedly volunteer to go back even after the war has taken a turn for the worse. Who believe their work enhances their children's and our children's safety. Who risk their lives purposefully and of their own free will. Despite every best effort of the Democrats, media and anti-war movement to infantilize or demonize them, their voices are heard.

Listen to the father of Marine Sgt. Joshua J. Frazier, who was killed by a sniper in Iraq last week on his third tour of duty: "He believed in the United States and believed what he was doing was right. He gave his life for what he thought was the right thing to do," Rick Frazier said.

Remember the words of Marine Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, who died in a 2005 firefight in Ramadi: "Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq . . . I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."

Several days after taking flak for his disparaging comments dishonoring such heroism, Obama blubbered about what he really meant.

''I was actually upset with myself when I said that, because I never use that term,'' he told the Des Moines Register. Well, then what dastardly saboteur slipped it into his well-rehearsed stump speech? What supernatural force produced the guttural noise that glided effortlessly from his voicebox through his lips and pronounced the term "wasted"?

"What I would say -- and meant to say -- is that their service hasn't been honored," Obama told The New York Times and other reporters in Nashua, N.H., "because our civilian strategy has not honored their courage and bravery, and we have put them in a situation in which it is hard for them to succeed." As opposed to pulling out precipitously?

Obama offered the standard "sorry-if-I-offended-anyone" disclaimer: " . . . I would absolutely apologize if any of them felt that in some ways it had diminished the enormous courage and sacrifice that they'd shown. You know, and if you look at all the other speeches that I've made, that is always the starting point in my view of this war.''

Except on the first day of the biggest campaign of his life, that wasn't the starting point. The starting point of his discussion on the troops in Iraq began with the letter "w" and ended with "-asted."

"Even as I said it," Obama claims, "I realized I had misspoken."

So what, one wonders, prevented him from immediately correcting himself there on stage, as thousands cheered the term he now says he immediately regretted?

Words fail.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Michelle Malkin makes news and waves with a unique combination of investigative journalism and incisive commentary. She is the author of Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild .

Be the first to read Michelle Malkin's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
Is it Kim"Burka"ly or KimBerkely
I guess it really doesn't matter much, just like you..........

get the white flag ready
he says it's a war that shouldn't have been waged?!

apply that logic to 1941 pearl harbor and guess what...we're speaking japanese.

Oh come on what do you expect?
Obama has learned from the rest of the hate America traitors, U.S. soldiers wasted their lives while or enemies are freedom fighters, heros, etc.

The problem is 50 percent of the American people believe the dribbling out of Obama Hussien's mouth just like Kerry, Hitlery, bubba, and you name it.

Like all politicians, Obama is another crook, a Chicago crook to boot. When the democrats loose this war, just like Vietnam, the biggest targets will be their constituents packed in their perpetual ghettos, have fun.




Obama's Vile Comment
Despite the apology, Obama's recent comment about the troops' lives being wasted is the most disgustingly vile comment I've heard from a politican in quite some time.

Obama's Wasted
As I see it, Obama (or as he sees himself as the next MLK jr) has "wasted" his opportunity in the sun and should just go back to Chicago, have smoke and call it a night! Chock it up to inexperience.

InHimalone -- Ron Paul
Ron Paul is a Republican Congressman. He is getting ready to announce his candidacy for President. He will be running as a Republican. He has a lot of support across the board, because adhering to the Constitution is an AMERICAN thing that cuts across political parties.

I have followed this man for geez, a lot of years. His voting record is like a dream come true. He definitely walks his talk. I have heard that some in the House jokingly call him Dr. No, because if it is not Constitutional, he votes no. Not some of the time. EVERY time. He's also known as the "tax payers best friend".

I heard him in a short interview today. He said he will be in the first round of debates that are currently scheduled on 4-4, 7:00 Eastern on CNN.

He is a true statesman. Something we haven't seen in this country for a long, long time.

By the way, I agree with you that it would be good to have a new Conservative Constitution party. There is a Constitution party, but I don't know much about it.

Critical Bill
"I called Peppermint a weirdo on another thread. Because she (or he? I have no idea - I'm assuming she because of Peppermint Patty) was up at half past four in the morning posting on Townhall because she was "bored". At half past four in the morning. If other people think that is normal behaviour then I stand corrected; I'll say again though, I think that's weird."

You know Bill, WTF do you care about whether I'm sleeping or not? What business is it of yours?
Besides you're a Brit and you have no idea what time zone I'm in. You have no idea what time it was when I was posting.

But, that is really irrelevant. I would say that it is you who is the "weirdo" to be fixated on me being bored, writing on TH, or what the he11 time it is. Don't you find that phucking WEIRD?

In fact, you are just plain weird and you are a lefty who comes on TH to muck about and throw insults at other people. That's all I see you do.
Why don't you go back to dummies underground where dummies like you belong. Besides, you misled people on the other thread making them think you were an American when you aren't. You are a fraud and why don't you keep your nose out of the USA's business. You've got enough problems in your country, I would say, with your out of control radical Muslims.

Ron Paul links, I found them, thanks
I watched the tapes. I am stunned that I haven't seen this guy before. He is fantastic. Are there others like him? New party! I have read some beating the drum for the Libertarian party. No way! Some of their ideas are okay but we need a new, constitutional conservative party. No more Repubs, no more Demon-crats!

about Ron Paul
Why have I not heard this guys name before? I want to know more abou him. We need true constitutionalists to lead this country back to where it belongs: in freedoms loving embrace, not the governments choke hold.

I cannot remember who brought up this mans name, and in what article it was discussed. Please let me know more.

Liberty, I agree with you. We can no longer just vote for Repubs, but voting for Dems is entirely out of the question. A few years ago I would have considered only two men from the Dem party to vote for: Zell Miller and possibly Joe Lieberman. Those were the only true statesmen left in that party. The rest are just 60's rejects or the disciples of the 60's rejects.

Red Tooth wrote:
I never said that the region was stable at this point, in fact, I agreed with you that things are not looking good at all.

My argument was on the first order of things: why we went in. I have made my points to undue the stupid things that some on the left have been saying on townhall.com.

Now, as a rational conservative (I am not a neocon, whatever that creature looks like) I can only agree with you that the Iraqi situation is a mess! I don't believe, at this point, that we can call this a "quagmire", as that bumpkin Kennedy states. He should know, Vietnam was his baby; he invented the word quagmire. So, Iraq is not yet a quagmire but what is it? Your thoughts and ideas would be as good as mine or anyone else who thinks clearly about the possibilities for the future. Short-term it does not look good, but neither did WWII. Long-term, we will have to wait and see. It may be that these people will have to be ruled by a strong arm like a Saddam type or like Tito in Yugoslavia.

My concern is, and this comes from my theological background not my political beliefs: can the Middle east be brought in line with Western, secular Democracies? Since Islam is more than a faith, it would be hard to see vast changes occuring, at least not right away. All of life in Islamic counrtries, from politics, to social systems, to family systems, to traditions and even education are strictly influenced if not controlled by Islam.

From a political vantage point, it might be necessary to carve up Iraq into units: Kurdish North (which the Turks would absolutely "love" [not!]), a Sunni center and a Shii'a South, possibly. That would be expedient but I don't think anyone would even want to explore the idea. Too controversial, too "nation building" like the English used to do, which is one of the reasons the world is in the situation it is in now.

However, I am not one to just throw up my hands and run. That, I'm afraid, is the worst of all scenarios to take now that we are in it. Would you at least agree to that, Red Tooth?

I enjoy reading your comments, by the way. I don't have all the answers, nobody can. Oh, I forgot, Hillary has them all!

Phil Byer
You said, "So, I have to ask you again: If the country goes down that road the Democrats take it, what makes you think that Republicans can regain their majority and reverse course, assuming that the likes of Fein deigns to again to vote for Republicans? What makes you think that all those rulings by liberal judges won't have long lasting if not permanent effects? What makes you think that the damage to the military and our national security will be reversible? You need to address these issues, and I re-think your liking of what Fein writes, which I think is political suicide."

Phil, you know as well as I do that all Republicans do not believe in the same thing. Remember way back when those Republicans that believed that increasing the size of government was the answer to everything, were referred to as "Rockefeller Republicans"? Then, along came Barry Goldwater to revive the concept of conservatism and Constitutional government. As you know, Constitutional government is the crux of conservatism and the foundation of our country.

Where does that leave the self-proclaimed Neocons? Well, they aren't conservative at all as a matter of fact. They are Trotskyite, socialist re-treads.

So, you see, Phil, merely voting "Republican" does not necessarily change the direction of increasing Socialism in our country. To do that, we have to vote for the INDIVIDUAL, regardless of party, that is TRULY conservative. That includes adhering to the Constitution and respecting individual liberty.

To vote for a big government "Rockefeller Republican" or a NEOCON, would only move us further along the socialist path.

inhimalone,
How was Iraq a threat to regional peace? Is the region peaceful after the US invasion? Iran in infiltrating the Iraqi government, Saudi Arabia is making intimations of funding the Sunnis, and the Turks are seriously considering occupying northern Iraq (Kurdistan) to prevent an autonomous Kurdistan.

Is this regional stability? Saddam was actually a bulwark of stability, since his regime was secular, and Iran's theocratic. It was a perfect balance of power. Thanks to the misguided invasion of Iraq, the balance of power in the region is upset and war looms all around.

Kimberly
Hmm.
I have to correct you. You did in fact say the words if effect: "Sawgunner, if you are real" in regard to his response to a post of yours. I immediately saw it and posted to you , with the words, "kimberly, now you've done it." Surely, you didn't scroll past that?
As for your questions all the time about cowards not wanting to be in the military why aren't they serving-Why do you care? Because we support the war are we supposed to have served in order for our opinions and support to be validated in your eyes? I am a veteran, not a coward, not yet 80. Imaagine that? I served for 5 years.

That I have no respect for your opinions is correct. Neither do you have respect when you are spewing. I have asked you several times to try and leave your nastiness and hate words behind for some spew-free debate, but you have either ignored my posts or just not read them. In as much as I dislike Clinton, I have never used the words you use to describe Bush. (perhaps his behaviors,but not the person.)
You claim conservatives are vitriolic, but leave yourself and your side out as if justified because you hate the President. But you better look in mirror, you are guilty, if I am.

And just because you are "still free", don't support the war or the President and didn't ask for volunteer soldiers to sacrifice for you, doesn't mean you will get a pass from me in your lousy cavalier attitude.
As Sawgunner suggested, you don't see a threat, he does, but at some point he can hope. And as much as I despise your spewing, I would hate to see any US Citizen wearing Burkas.

Peppermint
You asked about Ron Paul...

We have the chance to elect a real conservative this time around. His name is Dr. Ron Paul. He knows the Constitution and actually follows it. He has proven through his voting record in Congress that he is more than a political pundit that tells us what we want to hear, then turns around and does the opposite. He walks his talk.

Isn't it time to stop voting for the lesser of two evils and vote for someone that actually is a statesman and will work to return us to the limited Constitutional Republic that our Founders designed for us?

Do you want to continue down the road to socialism? I sure don't.


Voting record:
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC031929

An archive of his articles:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

Here is a speech by him called, "Neo-conned". It is 1 hour in length.

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aewpvcxAwTk
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7Wn7s8cwQs&mode=related&search=
Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHPoKhF6hW0&mode=related&search=
Part 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYdxD8UgG3A&mode=related&search=
Part 5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w_aT6L44Mg&mode=related&search=
Part 6:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i_TmD1Y9tc&mode=related&search=
Part 7:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EDScCuh4bw&mode=related&search=
Part 8:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el8evuL5Sr4&mode=related&search=
Part 9:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR31DZrrYDI&mode=related&search=
Part 10:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFOz5zC6drA&mode=related&search=
Part 11:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ymh1iZaGkyM&mode=related&search=

Red Tooth wrote:
A swing and a miss? Not true about the Ba'athists. They were a type socialist government but they were not Christian.

But my disagreement with you on what you said is off base. I did not say that we went to war with Saddam because he was brutal. Are you talking about being brutal to his own people? If so, that is not why we invaded, and would be a poor reason to do so. If that is the case, then we should be in Sudan, Saudia Arabia, quite a number of West African and southern African states, and any where else in the world where dictators roam (N. Korea?).

Saddam was a threat to regional peace: that is a fact not an opinion. And terrorist camps did most certainly exist in Iraq before the invasion. Iraq was most certainly and most importantly a threat to Israel. Now it is not, at least not for a while. Now, what has it become? Well, time will tell, but for now it is not a pretty sight and not what our government nor our military planners imagined. But you can take that up with those in charge, not me.

Maybe the MSM and Dimm Rats messed
up by starting their capaigns a year early. I mean, we all know that they did this just to make president Bush seem like a lame duck all the sooner.
Now with two years, we can watch these idiots shoot themselves in both of their feet.
Obama is just another democrat who wants to beat Hitlary, but he has about as much chance as John, "I hatea all Catholics and Christians" Edwards, of taking the White House in 2008.
These jerks are self-destructing better than the idiot doctor from New Hampshire.
Oh to Lily, tanabear, and the rest of you spies on TH. Get a clue you doofuss morons.

Just to confirm my insults
I called Peppermint a weirdo on another thread. Because she (or he? I have no idea - I'm assuming she because of Peppermint Patty) was up at half past four in the morning posting on Townhall because she was "bored". At half past four in the morning. If other people think that is normal behaviour then I stand corrected; I'll say again though, I think that's weird.

Kimberly
I posted somewhere that I am tired of your saying "last time I checked, I was still free." Your sttitude sucks.
Then you have the balls to ask others why they are not serving? Why do you care? Are you keeping a tally in your cave? And, again, Sawgunner gave you respect, that personally I don't believe you deserve since you accused him of being a fake.

Because you believe that you are still free and probably will be til you die, does that mean everyone else who believes/fights in the Country's defense is wrong?

Get over the fact that you hate Bush, and ask yourself about the volunteers who are working to keep freedom...still don't "want" their sacrifices because you are "still free?" STFU and get the He** out of here then, won't you? Logic such as yours makes me want to hurl.

Tehran Kim
I'll gladly answer your question, even if you should already know the answer, and even if you won't answer mine (which in itself IS an answer).

According to the qualifications to enlist in the armed forces, I am too old for acceptance. But I DID take the time to find out if I could join in some capacity.

Hope you won your bet! :-)

Pat
Pat is a conservative and he is hated by liberals, leftists, and Neocons because he is the only mainstream voice who consistently puts America's interests first.

Pat doesn't think we should not trade with other nations, but that we should seek to negotiate deals that don't rip the heart out of our manufacturing base and allow the Chinese to accumulate billions of dollars in American debt.

In fact, the only thing the United States produces anymore is dollars and this can work for us because the dollar now is considered the reserve currency of the world, but the moment the dollar loses its number one status, America's super power status comes to an end.

Why walk this dangerous path and why further bankrupt this country in the pointless hell of Iraq?



Swing and a miss...
To InHimalone, Iraq was not a threat to regional stability. Actually Iraq under Saddan's Ba'ath party was a secular regime, founded by Christian Socialists, that kept the radical Islamic elements out of power. What do you think happened to Muktada al-Sadr's family?

That is why it made sense -- perhaps it was rather Machiavellian -- for the United States to support Iraq during the 1980s to halt the spread of the Ayatollah's radical brand of Islam. Now that Saddam's government has been deposed, what's there to prevent the spread of Iran into Iraq and from dominating the region. Our invasion of Iraq has all but turned Iraq over to Iran through their terror backed parties, SCIRI and Dawa, which form the basis of Iraq's governing coalition.

Even if Saddam did support terrorism, and he really didn't, why is that significant because the Maliki government supported Hizbollah against Israel.

The argument for regime change can never rest on whether a regime is brutal, but only on the guarantee that the regime that we create and defend will be in our interests. Since there is no real way to guarantee this, citing the brutality of any regime as a cause for war is rather weak.



right_wing_2
Why don't the Arabs create a piece of land for the Palestinians? They have never liked them either. In fact, before the state of Israel was formed, the Arab nations did not know what to do with the Palestinians. And, the vast majority of Palestinians didn't even reside within the set borders of Israel proper. Many were in Syria, Jordan, Egypt. Actually, very few Palestinians could even call Gaza and Jerusalem or any other part of Israel home. Arab nations use the Palestinians to get at Israel indirectly. There is no love for the Palestinians by the Arabs, only hate, my friend.

A funny thing, read the biography of Yassar Arafat. He is Egyptian and not even Palestinian. He claimed that but many, even those in the Arab world, doubt his claims. Yassar was a wise guy and an engineer by trade. He made a lot of money on the plight of the Palestinians.

And speaking of books, Carter's new book is the worst researched and worst piece of "empirical" work ever done on the Palestinian/Israeli issue. Carter is fighting his critiques in the political and academic circles now because his work is so poorly done. The only ones who defend his terrrible book now are the "loyal Dems" who say "yes" to anything Democratic leaders say. Sad. I heard someone the other day quote Scripture saying, "dogs always return to their vomit". Good quote, but this is a great case of dogs that come around and feed on the feces of other dogs.

Peppermint
Ah heck, Peppermint, I don't trust the Democrats at all. I guess a couple of the new ones that were voted in because of their stance on securing the border, might not be too bad. Don't know. I like that stance, at least.

But, as we've already discussed, the top Republicans stink too. They might support the war, which I know is an important thing in your book, but everything else is a definite zero.

I think you know that I am not too fond of what we are doing, war-wise, right now. I was behind it when we first went in, because I believed what we were told. The story changed so many times, that I stopped believing. I am no peacenik at all. But, I think we have been led down a mythical path on this one. I really do.

If they were so concerned about our national security, why haven't they secured the borders? And now, at almost every turn, they resist doing one dang thing about it. It's almost being flaunted in our faces. I live in Texas, so it is front and center here. That, along with the NAFTA superhighway.

They're tolling everything around here. Spain is building the new toll roads and will be setting the rate of the tolls. Can you believe that? The access roads were removed and the existing highways are now the new access roads. Albeit they are now all disjointed as all heck. Now, they are trying to toll EXISTING ROADS, but we are fighting them. The agreements with Spain were kept confidential, even from our state legislators, until recently. Even now, the entirety has not been released. The Spanish company's lobbyist switches back and forth between working for our Governor and the Spanish company. Do you think something is funny in Denmark? Well, so do many of us! Oh, and get this, an Australian company is building toll roads in another state. Our Spanish company, Cinco, joined up with the Australian company and bought out about 40 small newspapers, all along the highway corridor. Most in Texas... a few in Oklahoma. These newspapers were writing about the dirty dealing with this NAFTA superhighway.

This is all a part of the North American Union. You've heard about that, right?
http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/NAU/

rightwing2
What are you talking about with regard to whether something is true or not? Are you doubting the veracity of the article. Since it was an Israeli newspaper, I thought you might believe it. If you do not, you can go read the "Clean Break" document yourself if you want.
http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

My point in showing you that one, is because it is the first one I'm aware of that the Neocons wrote that mentioned Iraq.

Did you take a look at the other 2 I linked to?

Liberty
Whether that's true or not is up for debate, IMHO. Personally, I'd much rather see Israel in control of its land than the so-called 'Palestinians', who will do nothing but launch attack after attack on any piece of ground called 'Israel', no matter how tiny, and on any Christian in the area as well.

If the Arabs really are concerned about the "Palestinians" why can't the create a homeland for this non-people out of Arab land in the region?

Liberty
One thing that worries me is having a dem as POTUS because I don't trust them with national security. I suppose a case could be made for all of them in that regard since the borders are not being patrolled and illegals swarming in here.

But, with Iran I don't know that I could trust a democrat with that issue. It sticks in my crawl.
That was another reason I posted Hillary's remarks because how do you trust the dems who keep flipping all over the place on wars? What does that say about them fighting the WOT?

Is Ron Paul on the national scene. I don't know anything about him. Is he running as an independent?

InHimAlone
After reading Karl's (Carl) posts, it did not appear to me that he was an educated person. I could be wrong, we all make spelling and grammar mistakes, but his were blatant. If he is as learned as he stated he sure can't write very well.

Yes, to think someone would just throw up their email address, etc. is insane. He was just goading because you called him out. Just another hatred spewer. Like you said, no worry.

I get attacked all the time on these threads. I have come to view it as quite comical and I laugh so hard at some of the things that get said to me, I about roll off of my chair.

Peppermint
on hillary...

Yeah, I know. Sorry. I am just getting so tired of the media pointing at the other side, kind of like them saying... "see, they're worse than we are". In fact, I've heard things very close to that from Sean Hannity. THEY ALL STINK. At least the front runners do. I don't think there is a dime's bit of real difference between them.

Peppermint
I'm right there with you. I know my reps are getting tired of me sending emails and calling. I rarely get a straight answer. The written responses I get are form letters, I'm sure, because they usually have nothing in common with what I wrote.

Sometimes, if it's a question, I've started calling Ron Paul's office instead. I'm not even in his district, but they always answer my questions. Yes, I just think this man is flat out wonderful. He has my vote for President in '08.

Liberty
The quote on Hillary is to point out the duplicity of the woman's stand on the Iraq war. She has flip flopped so much she is beginning to make Jon Cary look sane. It goes along with the dems and their continuing lies.
Whatever you believe is your choice, but I believe the WOT has to be fought. There is no way of getting around it.

rightwing2
The Neocons had planned to go into Iraq WAY before 9-11. Take a look at the links I posted. This was the 1st one.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=746312

Peppermint
Yeah, I should not have gone over to the dark side with Commrade Carl (Karl?) but his kind of logical fallacies really can burn a person up, especially when passed off as reasonable debate.

I guess he expected me to expose myself by listing my phone number, email address and all that sort of stuff. I do my best to keep my family away from loose canons like that. I have enough trouble with influential teacher's unions leaders who don't like what I have to say at meetings. I have had my property vandalized, I have been threatened and I have had stuff thrown my way. If what I believe is so wrong, it should play itself out to its logical ends. Trouble is that what I have been saying has brought a lot of other teachers on to my side of things. Now I am not the lone voice anymore. Now there are more of us to deal with.

So, as far as Carl (Karl?) is concerned, I would not waste money on lawyers fees just to see if he is actually somewhat educated. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't but it seems a far stretch to imagine that a learned chap would say the things he says and belive the garbage he believes.

But, no worries.

THE FEAR IS SO THICK
The fear is so evident in a vast majority of the above listed comments its almost scary.

Liberty
You are right in saying that our choices stink. I don't know what is going to happen. And, yes the country seems to be plunging more into socialism everyday, neither party seems to be wanting to stop it. The government's only purpose is to protect us from invasion and that is not being done.

I wish I had some answers. How to stop it? I don't know that either. I send letters to my reps all the time. I fax them and email them continually in regard to my disgruntlement over the borders, the illegals streaming in, ad nauseum.

Other than that we may have to take to the streets.
Lots of us here have signed petitions. No one seems to be listening. It's discouraging.

Who cares about what Hillary said?
We all know she's a big Commie.

"Hacking Democracy"
There is a very good documentary on electronic voting machines called, "Hacking Democracy". It used to be on google video, but it's gone now. HBO probably pitched a fit. It's probably somewhere on the web, if you search for it.


Here';s a quote from HIllary
after the capture of Saddam:


"... Mrs. Clinton, speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, proclaimed herself "thrilled" by the capture, and said she had kept an ear on the radio all day Sunday for the reports.
"We owe a great debt of gratitude to our troops, to the president, to our intelligence services, to all who had a hand in apprehending Saddam," she said. "Now he will be brought to justice, and we hope that the prospects for peace and stability in Iraq will improve."

Pappy
Thanks.

Geez people....
Can we get out of the left-right paradigm for just a minute? Haven't you noticed that regardless of which Party is in power, we still move toward more and more Socialism? One side may move us more slowly, but it still is moving that direction. Have you checked out the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto lately and seen how very close we are to achieving them all????

This is not good, folks. Have you ever considered that the control at the top of both political parties are really almost identical? Look at who is being pushed down our throats as the ones to vote for in '08. Are you seeing something different than I am, because I think all of them stink to high heaven. They're all for increasing big government. Most want gun control. Do any plan to secure the borders? Do any plan to get our country out of the tremendous debt we are in? How about correcting the trade imbalance or getting us out of these horrible NON-FREE trade agreements? How about honoring their oath of office and abiding by the Constitution?

Of the top-running Republicans, which one is conservative? Because I don't see it. Maybe you are going by a different set of conservative ideals than I am. Is that it? If so, what is your view of conservative ideals?

Kimberly
1) It's funny how it's always 'voter fraud' when a Democrat loses, isn't it? Despite the fact that there's no evidence, Dems only lose because of evil, right wingers.

2) 'Bush lied' us into the war. Then why was it that British intel, until only about a year ago, STILL believed that Iraq had WMD's? Or did Bush control British intel as well?

No, I don't agree with Bush on everything. I oppose his amnesty program for criminal immigrants, I oppose the 'No Child Left Behind Act' and the prescription drug plan. I hate the way Bush is spending like a drunken Democrat, I don't like his kissing up to Islamist leaders & terror funding nations like Saudi Arabia. I don't think it's the GOVERNMENT'S responsibility to pay for research into new sources of energy OR medicine. But I support Bush 100% on the war on radical, extreme Islam. If I were 10 years younger, I'd be proud to join the military to defend America against AlQueda, Hamas, Hezbolla, Islamic Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood, Jemaat al Islamya and other such groups.

Kimberly, you may think that cowering in a corner, and 'understanding' why these madmen hate us will suddenly turn them into warm, fuzzy little peaceniks. You're sadly mistaken.

Suggested reading:
Sword of the Prophet by Serge Trifkovic
Because they Hate by Brigitte Gabrielle
Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam & the Crusades by Robert Spencer
Hatred's Kingdom by Dore Gold

Phil Byler
I wanted to say thanks to you also. You are very good, factual, and calm in your responses. With you around the rest of us can just sit back and enjoy.
At least that's what I've been doing. I ran out of patience a long time ago going over facts with the left. Those facts are too pesky for them as GunnyG always says. They get in the way of the left's fantasies.

Peppermint
Thanks for that fresh air in this thread !

If anyone cares to note, Waxman is the only one who states the facts as he sees them, and does not add his own personal spin to it. He also is the only one I know of that has not attacked the POTUS since.

Rock on P-mint !

InHimAlone
You are most welcome.

Also, I wanted to say and I can't recall who wrote it on this thread, but Bush stated during one of his SOTUS speeches that we would go after those who "harbored" terrorists.

Also, Bush never said Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attack. For those that keep repeating that lie, come up with a quote. You never do. It is another lie that the left keeps repeating over and over until they think they can get enough people to believe it.

Red tooth
What's wrong with defending our own country... protecting our borders... going to war if we are attacked, against the country that attacked us. Of course, trading with all. We were doing that before the non-free trading agreements. What they brought us was a huge and growing trade imbalance, a ruling body (world trade organization and others) above our own Congress and industry and jobs being shipped overseas to countries that do not have the same strict environmental and labor laws.

That doesn't seem isolationist to me. However, it does not say using tax payer dollars to "spread Democracy". But then again, neither does the Constitution.

Red tooth, I think if you'll investigate the North American Union, and some of the UN docs such as Agenda 21, you might see a correlation between these and the other actions our government is taking. It's all about world government, Red tooth.

Phil Byler
I just wanted to say, "Thanks" for your thoughtful, well reasoned comments on many of these articles. I appreciate your ideas and persectives. Please keep it up.

We need thoughtful folks like you to offer balance to the shrill attacks from the leftists on line.

Peppermint wrote:
Thanks, Peppermint, for the quotes. Now that is some fact finding. In 2004 we had the "Swift boat Veterans" who gave us the real poop on Kerry.

Before 2008, I hope that this kind of evidence will be splashed all about to show us just how duplicitous the Dems really are.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Peppermint
and your point is.... Two wrongs make a right?

Red tooth
Curious name for a conservative.

Couple points

I dont recall ever a time when the United States was ever officialy a isolationist country. There were several isolationist movements in the past but I dont believe it was ever a policy of the U.S. government. So I am not sure that is a truely conservative stance

I am not sure if Pat calls himself a isolationist but I fear his positions are so extreme that they would do nothing but isolate us.

This nation has always been involved in world trade and always will be if it is to be the mighty force for good.

That does not mean I would submitt to a one world government.

Phil thanks for the answer I think you are one of the most reasoned posters on this site.

Again, Red Tooth
Iraq was a threat to regional stability. Europe knew it and the US understood that. The Dems understood that, and that is why most of them voted to authorize war.

More than just regional stability was the life of Israel itself, the only free Democracy in the region. Saddam himself paid the families of "martyrs" $25, 000 (I believe that was the figure but I could be off a few $s) who would blow themselves up to kill Jews.

Also, Saddam did not have direct connections with terrorists, but he allowed them into Iraq under the watchful eye of his secret police to train in his country. Saddam even used them, at times, as his pawns, in other coutries, especially in Israel. He may have never authorized them for his personal whims, but he got what he wanted from their acts.

So, to state that Saddam was not a threat to us or to our allies is just plain ignorance.

Please stop with the opinionizing. You cannot pass that garbage along as fact when the real facts tell us another story entirely.

And continue on to....
Then, you might glance at this article, called, "Liberate Iraq" from the Weekly Standard. It was published on May 14, 2001. The author was Reuel Gerecht, PNAC's Director of the Middle East Initiative. It may be noteworthy that the Weekly Standard is funded by Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox News), the editor is Bill Kristol, son of Irving Kristol, who coined the term NEOCON.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20010514.htm

Then, you might be ready to move on to the PNAC's (Project for a New American Century) paper called, "Rebuilding America's Defenses". It was released in 2000.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

You also might want to note the people that belong to PNAC and notice how many of them moved to Bush's administration. Note: PNAC is Bill Kristol's organization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

NEOCONS all...........

What the dems said:
I'm going to post this again to show what the dems were saying about Saddam, some prior to Bush ever being POTUS.


"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens in there matters a great deal here. For the risk of the leaders of a rogue state such as Iraq to use nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons againstus or our allies is the greatest threat we face. And, it is a threat we must and will stand firm."
Madeline Albright, 2/18, 1998

"He (Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of WMD and some day, some how, I am certain he will use that arsenal again as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, 2/18/1998

"I can support the president. I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because it's in the long term interest of our national security."
Hillary Clinton, 9/15/2002

"We know Saddam continues to gain access to additional capability including nuclear capability. There is a real debate to the matter of how far off that is, whether it's a matter of years or a matter of less than that. So there's much we don't know."
Joe Biden, 11/4/2002

"Saddam Hussein in effect has thumbed his nose at the world community and I think the president has approached this in the right fashion."
Harry Reid, 9/18/2002

"I support the president's efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein. I think he (Bush) was right on in his speech tonight. The lessons we learned after 9/11 were that we can't wait to be attacked again, particularly when it involves weapons of mass of destruction, so regrettably Saddam has not done the right thing, which is to disarm and we're left with no alternative but to take action."
Evan Bayh, 2/17/2003

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 20

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002









Speech by Bush, vote for war "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support.

While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision on the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.

These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgment related to Iraq's weapons programs.

As our troops fight a ruthless energy determined to destroy our way of life, the deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them."

G.W.Bush 11/11/2005




InHimAlone
I saw you another thread where some nasty piece of work named Karl was being completely obnoxious.

Saddam violated 17 UN resolutions. He was not adhering to the resolutions. In effect, the first Gulf war had not ended.

Congress granted the authority for Bush to go to war, even some hailed him for doing so. For the dems to now stand there and say they never wanted to go to war, they are either being disingenuous now, or they lied back then. Either way they are liars.

The UN sanctions were not working because the UN was involved in a food for oil scandal where major countries such as France and Russia to name a couple were supplying Saddam with weapons. This is another fact the left seems to conveniently forget.

As far as WMD goes no one really knows for sure whether weapons were removed prior to going into Iraq. There was plenty of time for Saddam to have anything removed. He had 3 months of warnings.






InHimalone
Indeed. Yes, it appears we had plans to invade Iraq as far back as 1996. I guess when 9-11 happened, President Bush used his "political capital", as he phrases it, to take advantage of the opportunity to go ahead with the plan.

Only thing is... I thought the intent of going to war was to go after those that were directly involved in 9-11. Seemed logical. Guess I was wrong.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=746312

doug
In answer to when do I sleep. I've been on a strange schedule the last 3 days because we are snowed and iced in where I live. So, I've been dozing here and there, waking up and dozing again. Just waiting for the snow plows to get here, whenever that occurs.

I guess that's what global warming does for us though. We're down below 0 degrees, piled with snow and ice. Everything in the city is shut down.

lilly
No where ever was it said by anyone except the leftist rabble in the streets that we went to war in Iraq because Saddam had something to do with 9/11. That is just ignorance or a flat out lie. You cannot produce a quote or evidence to support that at all.

Second, weapons of mass destruction were only one reason amongst many that we went to war with Iraq. The main reason we went to war with Iraq was to change the face of the middle east, clearly stated in several of the presidents speeches, and WMDs were but just one possible justification for doing so.

And as far as WMDs, the fact that large quantities were not found (and quite a few were found but not reported or just under reported) does not illigitimize the act of war. The country of Iraq was a threat to regional and international security, and we went in to wrestle power from a very dangerous man and regime.

The Democrats who say the war is illegal only do so after the fact that the WMDs were sent to Syria and they just want to make political points to gain power. Those who voted for war (Kerry, Kennedy, H. R. Clinton) did so with the full knowledge of what was at stake and what evidence our intelligence community had offered. Was it inadequate intel? Seems now that it was, but I am no expert. I do know this, that the Dems like Clinton who voted for the war are being entirely disingenuous and are only trying to garner votes from their far left base. Back peddling does not change the facts.

So enough with the lies about why we went into an "illegal, unauthoized" war. If it was so illegal, why haven't the Dems started impeachment proceedings on the prez? Cannot. Nothing illegal was done. All by the constitution. Kennedy knows that, Clinton knows that, Pelosi knows that and Kerry knows it. The facts are there but some of us don't want to look well enough to try to get at truth. Instead, we settle for unqualified opinions and lies. The only honest person in this whole blown-out-of-proportions deal is Lieberman. He has the intellectual honesty to stand up for what we did despite his political party affiliations. I applaud the guts of that man. We need more men with guts like that.

Tooth
Bush The Daddy made a mistake by not finishing off Iraq in the first war, he actually cared what people like you might say. Clinton was far to busy being a pervert to actually fight terrorism (see terrorist attacks Clinton administration) and he also cared what people like you thought. That is why you narcolibs hate Bush The Son, because he doesn't give a rats--- what people like you think. We aren't fishing for a Bush excuse, we are fishing for a Democrat with a backbone and I do believe it is a dryhole.

ch
ch writes: Wednesday, February, 14, 2007 2:49 PM
thank you
To all the righties here, especially Peppermint. Your unhinged ranting was great mindless lunch-time entertainment. :-)

You're most welcome. I'm glad I entertained you with my "rants". As in my prior post, I would suggest you definitely have your eyes checked since you read my posts as "rants". Or perhaps you need to have a brain scan since yours is obviously computing incorrectly.

The Lindbergh Solution
I see that our best chance for survival is to give the narcolibs what they want---Power. Let them have control and cram their pathetic morals down our throats, make love to the terrorist in exchange for safety (I can just see hanoi jane in a burka) and cram our Constitution in the toilet. At the point that our nightmare becomes our reality and the fanatics of the East are among us, when we taste the bitter blood that drips from a thousand 9-11s, our faith will be restored and we will slap the crap out of somebody. Until then all we can do is wait until somebody slaps us again, preferably with narcos in power, hoping it will wake a few of them up much like PH did Lindbergh.

Reports are today
that Obama is losing his cool. He has been reported to be getting testy to reporters and is very on edge. The summation is that he is too green for a presidential race.

For all of those who insist Obama's words were twisted, please go to the doctor and get your hearing aids adjusted.

Lack of Experience
This shows Barak's lack of experience.

He's not ready to be president. It's like sending a Cessna pilot to fly a Boeing 767.

Go live in France..
France is a fine example of a place where liberals and socialists are in a majority. I think they make good perfume, but I wonder what's going to happen when the Jihadists march down the Champs L'Elysee.

Pappy Michael
I have no idea what these moonbats drink but I do believe they are living in their clouds of crack pipe smoke.

Nothing there, Phil...
I read your post of 6:56 am and there wasn't a case to be made for why invading and occupying Iraq was in our national security interests. You cite the usual litany of crimes perpetrated by Saddam's regime, but why does this matter?

It wasn't news to anyone that Saddam was a ruthless dictator, who used WMD against Iranians in the 1980s and took brutal measures to secure the permanence of his regime. If this was the case against Saddam, then you're twenty years too late Why didn't the Reagan Administration take actions against Iraq during the 1980s?

All the abuses and crimes attributed to Saddam where at their apex during the 1980s, and no conservative -- no Republican -- ever articulated a case for war against Saddam Hussein during the Clinton years.

Where were the Republicans? They had control of Congress for six years under Clinton, and never tried to draw up a declaration of war against Iraq.

In short, all the outrages about Saddam's abuses are just Bush supporters fishing for excuses to justify the misconceived and operationally useless war in Iraq.

Saddam's regime was much weaker in 2003 than in 1983, so clearly our war had no connection to the fact that Iraq was threatening our nation or that eliminating Saddam was part of our national security.

It was all lies.

Obama and Foreign Policy
My problem with Obama concerning foreign policy is that what he has said so far reflects left wing views that would be a disaster for America, worse than Jimmy Carter.

To Red Tooth
To your denial about the need for the Iraq War, I refer you to my 6:56 AM post. I keep having to remind people like you. I am told you will never get it.

To Doug
I share your feelings about Pat Buchanan. I think that Buchanan has gone off in an isolationist, anti-Bush, anti-Israel direction that I think is badly misconceived. I recognize that some of Buchanan's foreign policy positions harken back to a pre-World War II "conservatism," but that is different from today's conservatism. As far as I know Pat Buschanan is still pro-life, and on that issue, we may share common ground. But Buchanan is not using his platform to discuss moral values and such issues as abortion, but rather to make his isolationist, anti-Bush, anti-Israel arguments.

Kimmie & Betty
I have to admit it, you two are the most interesting people. I grew up in the mid-West-Great-White-North which is about as Democrat as it gets, but I never met anyone from another planet.

Red Tooth-Pat Buchanan is conservative, but he seems to have become anti-Semitic in the last year or so. Maybe I am wrong here, but I believe the USA must support Israel if we are to have any say in the Mideast. Pat's brand of Isolation is fine, as long as someone has got our back, that being Israel.

Peppermint-What do moonbats drink that makes them so out of this world?

Foreign policy experience
George W Bush?
Bill Clinton?
Ronald Reagan?
Jimmy Carter?
LBJ?
JFK?

Obama is a socialist. That's the knock on him.

To utahnotmormon
You state "while it may be a stretch to say that the Iraqi government is allied with Iran, it is not a stretch to say that the main power within the Iraqi government has close ties with Iran politically, religiously and militarily." No, it is also a stretch to say "that the main power within the Iraqi government has close ties with Iran politically, religiously and militarily." That the Shiites in the Iraqi government share with Iran the same branch of Islam does not establish anything in terms of any ties, much less close ties. In fact, those "close ties" do not exist.

You deny the representativeness of the Iraqi people because certain Iraqi minorities do not have representatives, while rationalizing away my point that the current Iraqi government was voted in office in open elections. You seem to think that the definition of representation in terms of every minority having a certain number of representatives and a certain makeup in the ministries. That is not the traditional definition of representative government; that is not how the Iraqi people set up ther government in the written Constutution that the Iraqi people voted to adopt.

Is progress needed in reducing the sectarian divides in the country? Yes. The Shiite head of government Maliki called today for Iraqis to turn away from sectarianism.

Roy
nice try.

Please, tell me about Osama's foreign policy experience? What critical legislation has he written? Other than raising taxes in Illinois that is.

You post on Islam is pretty ludicrous. That peaceful religion sure took those cartoons in Holland well. And the way they treat their prisoners in Chechnya, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq is simply...awesome. So loving and peaceful.

http://noliberalspin.townhall.com/g/b777a913-056e-4019-9653-627d2d73840f

http://noliberalspin.townhall.com/g/a35056e2-3389-4baf-a114-c515e2c7296d

Barack Obama's Resume.

http://noliberalspin.townhall.com/g/63919451-2786-4edf-97ca-a778ca2e62d9

Please. Read it and refute it...if you can.

Obama may be the right person
I've often wondered why people like Michelle are so mean. Ann Coulter is much worse, of course. Must be some form of personal frustration. There are many men columnists who are as mean-spirited, too. How can they live with themselves when they constantly pour forth such negative and often-false nonsense?

Now, about Barack Obama. He may not be the right person, but I'm waiting to see. I certainly admired his books - a superb writer who seemed so ready to reveal himself, something few politicians will do.

He could make two major contributions if he should ever be president. (1) He could help heal the racial divide that continues to plague our nation. As a half-black, half-white man he might be able to serve as a bridge. There remains considerable bigotry among whites and blacks (both) that needs to be eradicated. (2) He could help improve the USA's rotten image around the world. Who knows? He might even be able to undermine much of the support of Muslim crazies who want to eliminate the USA. Obama is a Christian (a member of the same Chicago congregation as Oprah) but his father was Muslim and he lived in Kenya for awhile. He might serve ably as a bridge between Islam and Christianity, and this could save countless lives in the years ahead. As a Christian I certainly prefer reconciliation (as Jesus taught) to killing one another. My experience is that the vast majority of Muslims are fine folks and feel the same way. Islam is amazingly like Judaism if you check into it, borrowing much from the Torah, and Jesus is viewed as one of Islam's major prophets. You will find more about the Virgin Mary in the Quran than in the Bible!

Not sure yet which candidate to support. Hagel looks good. Possibly Dodd. Guiliani has had too much garbage in his personal life - two divorces, and courting his third wife publicly while still married to his second, etc. A poor role model. But we ought to give them all a fair hearing. I am an independent, rather skeptical of politicians.

Keep smiling. God bless America.

Phil Byler
>You are just wrong to state: (i) that the current Iraq government and Iran are "allied" (they are not); and (ii) that the current Iraqi government is not representative (it is the product of open elections).

You are the one straining to conform what you want to believe with the objective evidence to the contrary.<

I am straining nothing.

The strongest, most dominant force in the Iraqi government is United Iraqi Alliance, a coalition of the SCIRI and DAWA parties, and the religious leader Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, himself an Iranian. Leader of SCIRI(Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq) is Abdel Aziz Al-Hakim, who spent his exile years in Iran. He is also leader of the Badr Brigade militia, which was trained by the Iranian Republican Guard. The other major Shiite militia is led by Moqtada Al-Sadr, who power-broked Maliki into the psition of Prime Minister, and, reportedly, has fled to Iran. Sadrists hold 30 seats in Parliament. United Iraqi Alliance hold 128 seats.

The Kurdish alliance holds 53 seats, and the Sunni coalition, the Iraqi Accord Front, holds 44 seats. Another Sunni group, the Iraqi Front for National Dialogue, holds 11 seats. The rest are split among secular Shiites Ayad Allawi(US appointed interim PM).

So, while it may be a stretch to say that the Iraqi government is allied with Iran, it is not a stretch to say that the main power within the Iraqi government has close ties with Iran politically, religiously and militarily.

A representative government? Considering that 1 million Assyrian Christians have no representatives is a good start. However, the real lack of representation is within the ministries. They were awarded to different sects, and are run by those sects. According to Lawrence Kaplan in the New Republic,
"Absent U.S. oversight, politicians from competing sects have transformed the ministries into personal fiefdoms, where expertise counts for nothing and connections for everything. And, just as the ministries have proved impervious to direction from above, local factories and refineries ignore the ministries."

Great, there were lections, but all they did was provide more evidence of a fractured society unconcerned with the greater good of a national plan.

A more realistic template would be the Kurdish model of autonomy, which controls their own civic matters, their own economy, their own security and their own judiciary. That, is the only real representative government in Iraq.



Reply To Michelle Malkin

BRAVOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!

Obama told the Australian Prime Minister that if he was so ginned up about the war in Iraq, then he should "call up another 20,000 Australians and send then to Iraq."

BINGOOOOO!!!

Right between the eyes!!!!

Way to go Obama!!!

Bop them right back!!!

Buchanan
Pat Buchanan is a conservative. The Neocons hate him because he puts America first, opposes mass immigration, and doesn't believe in utopian and imperialistic foreign policies.

Neocon Bill Kristol even said that he would rather John Kerry be president than Pat Buchanan, a striking indication that Neocons, and the Bush Adminsitration, are completely lacking in any conservative principles.


Phil
So what would you call Buchannan? I used to think he was ok. Since reading his columns here I have little respect for the man now. This is in response to your 7:38 post

Phil Byler
Do you really think that Rudy will pass the smell test with Ma and Pa Nascar? Three wives one of whom was his second cousin. Oh. Strike the last part. Then there's his good friend Bernie Kerik who was bedding Judith Regan (of If I Did It=OJ infamy) in an apartment blocks from ground zero that was supposed to be used for emergency personnel at the WTC site. Plus he has never held a state office. And,shhhh...he's Eye-talian and a catholic. Jesus, people freaked over JFK being an Irish catholic and look how that turned out.
That's all folks. I'm going to listen to the Dixie Chicks and read my Quran.

Doug, doug
The idea that the war in Iraq is necessary for our national security is entirely without credence. President Bush and Condoleezza Rice had to invest stories about "mushroom clouds" blossoming over US cities to convince Americans on the need for war.

The United States cannot just decide to act on UNSC Resolutions, and without any usable weapons of mass destruction, Iraq wasn't a threat.

So regardless of why we thought the war was necessary in 2002, it is apparent that our presence in Iraq is no longer in our national security interests. Even if we can bring stability to Iraq and stop the raging sectarian feud, we will still be defending a government that supports terrorism. There is nothing in Iraq for us to win. After Saddam's statue fell in April of 2003, we should have began immediate preparations for withdrawal.

Every moment we continue to stay in Iraq the situation worsens. Instead of just fighting the hold outs of Saddam's army, we ended up fighting Sunni insurgents and Shia militias.

How many people said we needed to invade Iraq to eliminate the Madhi Army and Muktada al-Sadr? This didn't become a concern until after we invdaded, evidence that the invasion is creating more problems than it's solving.

The problem in Iraq is not military -- it's not as if we cannot defeat anyone who challenges us. The problem is that we cannot successfully create a stable, democratic regime in Iraq. Nation-building is a utopian scheme and should have no part in American foreign policy. There is no reason why more US troops should die defending this delusion.