Simple answer: stick 'em all on an island with PETA and ultra-feminists.

Put all the freaks together and let them fight it out to the bitter end. Let the rest of us live in a sane society.
Sam | Email | Homepage | 11.21.05 - 7:06 pm | #

Oh wait, they wouldn't fight it out, they'd wimper and whine themselves to death.
Sam | Email | Homepage | 11.21.05 - 7:07 pm | #

here! here! Republicans have their faults (indeed, as a gay person, I have reason to be upset with them), but their heart is in the right place when it comes to their country and its defense. The Democrats are like the French (who I'm sure they admire). They will surrender without a fight. Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry et al would give up this country and all it stands for without a moment's hesitation (Kerry already has once before). I don't trust them one iota with the security of this country. We'd be a UN protectorate in no time.
Junior | Email | Homepage | 11.21.05 - 8:22 pm | #

Way I look at it, Doc - there's a time for debate. That time came, and the issues were debated. The votes were cast - we went to war for what was judged to be good and sufficient reason.

Now, when it looks like Afghanistan's going to make it, and Iraq's also doing pretty well (three elections and counting, that's pretty decent in my book!) all of a sudden it seems the Democrats are regretting their votes. Could it be so important to them to 'win' by making Bush look bad that they'd screw over the Iraqi and Afghani people by doing a unilateral pull-out? Debate time's over - there's a war on so let's pull together and show a solid front.

I consider myself an independent - I'll examine the issues and vote accordingly. I'll vote for a Democrat, I'll vote for a Republican, I'd vote for a Libertarian or other if the issues fit.

But I'm not stupid, and I'm not forgetful. I LOOK at a person's record before casting my vote - and then I look to see if they actually follow up and try to do what they say they would. That's why I had a real problem when it came to Kerry. What sort of leadership did he show bugging out on his boat crew? And then he spent 20+ years as Kennedy's sock puppet? THAT made him qualified to be President?

Bush had plusses and minuses - but at least he made decisions. His Air Guard service wasn't a problem - as an AF Personnel Specialist I could look at his points record and see he did his time - and it astounded me that it was even an issue. (You'll note they never got anyone in the military to do an analysis of his points record - that's because the record wasn't ambiguious at all to anyone with knowledge of the Reserve and Air Guard points system.) So did I want a Prez who'd run away from leadership, or one who did his time and was governer of Texas? It wasn't a hard choice.

So really, over the last 30 years, I've been very disappointed with Democrats. They're great at telling you what you want to hear, they're great at faux caring - but when push comes to shove, they're hollow. They bail. They find some (or any) reason why they can't deliver what they promised. Republicans don't promise as much but they sure seem to get more accomplished. And as far as the future goes - well, I've come to the conclusion that the Democrats haven't a clue. Carter did me in there, he just hunkered down and took everything thrown at him - and Clinton avoided hard decisions during his term. More of the same doesn't cut it - the best thing you can say about Clinton was that nothing happened on his watch that he had to make hard decisions on, and he kept his fingers out of the machinery for the most part.

The Democrats have to answer a very simple question, and then prove to me they mean it before I'd consider voting for one again for national office.

"Which is more important - the Democratic Party, or the country?"

What I've seen in the past 6 years or so makes me think the Party wins out. And I won't go for that.

J.
JLawson | Email | Homepage | 11.21.05 - 8:46 pm | #

In his own words, Clinton believes the War on Terror to be "inconsequential". Read this shallow man's judgment here and conclude, as I did early on in the Clinton presidency that self-servingness, not national security, was his major concern.
onlineanalyst | Email | Homepage | 11.21.05 - 9:39 pm | #

You go, girl. You speak for me. I am more than disgusted at the level of political discourse. Yes, I believe these people are traitors. Maybe they haven't actually taken money from the enemy (although who would be surprised if they had--given the bottomless pockets of the Saudis).

Their nonsensical mouthings are definitely aiding and abetting the enemy. One of these days Kerry, for example, will get what's coming to him as a tool of the North Vietnamese. Yes, he's another Alger Hiss.

I also question the new "everyone knows" truism that the Bush administration "made mistakes" in Iraq. For example, the supposed big mistake of not immediately taking over and using the Iraqi army--how conveniently people forget that this army was composed largely of Baathist thugs plus slaves (not "draftees"--slaves). The Iraqi army disintegrated instantly because the slaves ran away when the Americans came. Also, anyone who has ever read anything about Arab politics knows that the entire governmental system has to be built from the bottom up. That takes time too. To rush things would just create yet another Arab caudillo. All who don't know about the "Arab mind" should read David Pryce-Jones's The Closed Circle--for starters. Not a pretty sight and not an easy task. I'm frankly surprised that Iraq is doing as well as it is--no thanks to our traitors and spineless creatures.
Promethea | Email | Homepage | 11.21.05 - 9:48 pm | #

The only "consequential" thing for Clinton is gratifying his own ego. Everything else is relatively inconsequential by definition.
LLB | Email | Homepage | 11.21.05 - 9:53 pm | #

@ Junior You sound like a South Park Conservative. You'll find more and more on your side as time goes on.

Dr. Sanity, I find that the "can dish it out but can't take it" phenomenon is so common that the two character traits must be related. While it seems (and is) an intellectual contradiction, there is nonetheless something that ties them together.

It may be akin to the help-seeking/help-rejecting of the Dependent - Borderline continuum somehow, but I can't make the connection.
Assistant Village Idiot | Email | Homepage | 11.21.05 - 9:58 pm | #

I never question the Democratic party's capacity for self-interest ...
FrauBudgie | Email | Homepage | 11.22.05 - 4:31 am | #

AVI - I think it is connected to psychological projection. The Dems are happiest when they are accusing their opponents of having their own unacceptable feelings etc (that's why they fling around the "racist" and "liar" accusations so much, for example). When those opponents turn around and call them on it and point out the reality, it is extremely uncomfortable and must be denied.
Dr. Sanity | Email | Homepage | 11.22.05 - 6:45 am | #

WTG Doc! I am past being nice to the left. As was stated above, the Debates were made and the votes counted. We went to war legally. Now, it is up to the citizens of this country to pick a side. If you decide to choose the enemies side, you are a traitor and unpatriotic. I am quite sure that during most of the many wars that have taken place all over this world, in any country, by any country and at any time in history their were people opposed to the war their country was in. But, it is a given to support your country during war. Makes no sense to wish your own country to lose. If the left doesn't want to support the country that gives them their rights, then they need to find another country that they can be happy living in. I see the left as my enemy right now. They support the enemy instead of oppose it. Standing behind and supporting your country is what being patriotic is about. All of this "being nice" crap that is still going on after spending so much time trying to show them the truth has to stop. I am glad that Bush has finally started defending our country from these traitors. As my name implies, I WAS a Democrat. Was a Democrat for many years. After 9/11 I suddenly "really" heard what the Democrats were saying. I will never go back.
EXDemocrat | Email | Homepage | 11.22.05 - 7:32 am | #

The Left is not American Party, it is a Stalinist Party. Every action and word from Left is on behalf of undermining America.

The Left is vicious and Americans are too kindhearted.
susan | Email | Homepage | 11.22.05 - 7:54 am | #

I have often wondered whether 'transference" is the term that defines the modern day democrat.
Dennis | Email | Homepage | 11.22.05 - 9:42 am | #

Yeah, those filthy leftties! I know we control the White House, the senate, the house, and soon the supreme court, but man those "liberals" are really screwing up America. I mean, the dollar would be strong if not for those traitors. And we'd be able to rescue the federal program that really is in crisis, medicare, if not for those spineless twits. And we'd have caught Bin Laden if only those french-like dunb-o-crats would let us. Man, they're screwing up this country. I mean, we're in power and we're making all these bad decisions, but I know deep down everything is still their fault!
Tammi | Email | Homepage | 11.22.05 - 10:41 am | #

The Liberals’ Creed
Editorial
May 27, 2004

by: Robert Alt

Kirkuk, Iraq—For all the talk about a widening religiosity gap between the right and the left, sentiment from the left indicates a certain religious fervor about the war in Iraq. A string of recent letters and articles from those of a more liberal persuasion suggest that they choose to ignore or simply do not believe information which is inconsistent with their basic tenets. Theirs is a policy of faith, and here is their creed.

We believe in the United Nations, and Kofi Annan, the maker of international legitimacy.

We believe that the UN inspections worked.
We believe that SCUD missiles fired at U.S. troops minutes after the war began don’t change anything;
We believe that 3 liters of sarin gas used against U.S. troops doesn’t change anything;
We believe that finding evidence of mustard gas doesn’t change anything.

We believe that the war in Iraq conducted by a Republican president was unjustified because it lacked UN approval;
We believe that the "military action" in Kosovo conducted by a Democratic president was justified without UN approval.

We believe that the Iraq war was unilateral.
We believe that the participation of Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Thailand, United Kingdom, and Ukraine does not change the fact that the war was unilateral;
We believe that multilateralism can only be achieved with the participation of France and Germany;
We believe in multilateralism.

We believe that this war was motivated by greed and oil;
We believe that when France, Germany, and Russia opposed the war, they were motivated by principle, and not by sweetheart oil deals or Oil-For-Food kickbacks;
We believe that US oil prices are too high, and that the administration failed in its responsibility to do something about it.

We believe that the U.S. may only legitimately use force for humanitarian ends in one place if it does so in all places where aid might be needed;
We believe that the U.S. may not quell threats in places where the cost is relatively low unless it is willing to use force in places like North Korea, where the cost in lives would likely be very high;
We believe that a humanitarian action is only truly humanitarian if there are no strategic interests to muddle the altruism.

We believe that President Bush lied.
We believe that Prime Minister Blair lied.
We believe that when Hillary Clinton and Dick Gephardt voted for the war based on the same intelligence relied upon by Bush and Blair, they made reasonable decisions based on the intelligence available at the time.

We believe that the administration did not make the case for war;
We believe that the administration offered many different reasons but could not offer a coherent message explaining the need to go to war;
We believe that the administration made perfectly clear that the only reason we were going to war was because of the threat from WMDs.

We believe that there were no WMDs.
We believe that finding sarin gas is 14th page news;
We believe that if the sarin gas is old, then it really isn’t a WMD we were looking for;
We believe that it wasn’t really sarin gas;
We believe that sarin gas isn’t necessarily a WMD.

We believe that there was no terrorist connection to, or threat from, Iraq.
We believe that members of Abu Nidal in Iraq would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;
We believe that al Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;
We believe that Saddam’s terrorist training camp at Salman Pak—complete with a Boeing 707 plane used for hijacking drills—did not exist or posed no real threat;
We believe that it was merely a coincidence that the pharmaceutical factory bombed by President Clinton in Sudan was using al Qaeda funds and a uniquely Iraqi formula to produce VX gas;
We believe that we are responsible for bringing terror on ourselves.

We believe that the prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib is widespread and is probably the tip of the iceberg;
We believe that Abu Ghraib proves that the America’s occupation is no different than Saddam’s tyranny;
We believe that any attempt to suggest that there is a moral difference between a regime which systematically killed 300,000 people and tortured countless others and a regime which punished the acts of Abu Ghraib is illegitimate.

We believe that soldiers deliberately target women and children;
We believe that the soldiers abuse and kill Iraqis because they are racists;
We support our troops.

We believe that no one should question our statement that we "support our troops;"
We believe that the best thing that could happen for this country would be for Bush to lose in November;
We believe that the best way for Bush to lose in November is for the Iraq effort to go poorly, even if that means that more Iraqis and troops will die;
We believe that most of the troops are minorities and the poor;
We believe that when the word "heroes" is used to describe our troops, it should always be enclosed in scare quotes.

We believe in quagmire.
We believe that when fringe Iraqi groups attack hard targets and are soundly defeated with relatively low Coalition casualties, that this is inescapable evidence of crisis;
We believe that Iraq is Bush’s Vietnam.

We believe that Vietnam is the lens through which all wars should be viewed.
We believe that soldiers in Vietnam were baby killers;
We believe that John Kerry is a hero for his service in Vietnam.

We believe that because John Kerry is a hero, he necessarily has the national security expertise necessary to be commander-in-chief.
We believe that any attempt to question his national security expertise based on his voting record, including his decision to vote against a supplemental bill used to buy the soldiers body armor, is an unfair attack on the patriotism of a hero, who by virtue of this honorific has the expertise to be commander-in-chief.

We believe in the trinity: NPR, CNN, and the New York Times. We believe in Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and all the DNC, and we look for President Clinton yet to come. Amen.
Sizzle | Email | Homepage | 11.22.05 - 10:43 am | #

Tammi -

If someone trips you up every chance they possibly can then you won't get very far - no matter how good or bad your decisions might be.

The Dems have been trying spoiling attacks since Bush got into office. It doesn't matter whether the issue was right or wrong, good or bad for the country, what mattered was that they saw a chance to disrupt the enemy's actions. A loud, repeated lie beats a quietly spoken truth virtually every time.

And sadly, I do think that's how the Democratic party sees anyone who doesn't agree as they do - they're the enemy, to be defeated any way possible. I don't see the Democratic Party as worrying about the good of the country any more - they're much more concerned about continuity of power within the Party than actually doing anything for the country.

Your mileage, of course, may vary on that.

J.
JLawson | Email | Homepage | 11.22.05 - 11:23 am | #

I appreciate your analysis of the Dem's multiple disorder syndromes. However, I wonder if there isn't a Tourette's Syndrome at work here as well - their responses seem so rote, they bark (bray?)the same disconnected nonsense over and over again at the slights indication of distress. No credible arguments, just vitriolic one-liners. What do you think?
Danny Lemieux | Email | Homepage | 11.22.05 - 11:30 am | #

“I believe demolishing Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk."
Richard Perle, Pentagon Defense Policy Board.

"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."
Vice President Dick Cheney. June 19, 2005.

"There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on."
President George Bush. July 3, 2003

"I worry about their mental health. I really do."
X. | Email | Homepage | 11.22.05 - 2:12 pm | #

Problem is, if they sieze power in 2008, they will take revenge on all who "weren't nice enough to them" in any and every way possible.

Think (1) Uday ibn Saddam or (2) high-school cheerleader or (3) spoiled-rotten three-year-old having absolute power of life and death over you their inferiors.
Ken | Email | Homepage | 11.22.05 - 2:17 pm | #

> Could it be so important to them to 'win' by making Bush look bad that they'd screw over the Iraqi and Afghani people by doing a unilateral pull-out?

A: Duh. Of course they would. In a heartbeat. They're just soooo compassionate, you know.

> His Air Guard service wasn't a problem
It also wasn't a problem because, by the time it of Rathergate he'd already been Prez for 3+ years... we did not need his service record to "guess" what kind of Prez he would be, we had his presidency to judge directly from. KERRY'S service was an issue, because
a) He made it the central theme of his campaign
b) "a" was an idiotic decision, since there were all sorts of ugly skeletons in that closet.

> You'll note they never got anyone in the military to do an analysis of his points record
I don't recall where it was, but I did see a full breakdown of this from somewhere. He'd done most of his needed points of service by the end of the first four years.

> the best thing you can say about Clinton was that nothing happened on his watch that he had to make hard decisions on, and he kept his fingers out of the machinery for the most part.

Actually, he seems to have loused up every single one of those situations he did get his hands on:
Elian Gonzalez, Ruby Ridge, Waco, the USS Cole, The first WTC bombing... and he got OFFERED Bin Laden by some government and effectively turned it down (I forget the source for this, but remember it distinctly).
Oh Bloedige Hel | Email | Homepage | 11.22.05 - 7:57 pm | #

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting sick and tired of both parties and a few that seem to belong or believe in anything.

The fact is that there is a war of civilizations that was never finished and has flared back up in terrible brilliance.

If we, thats means all of us don't get our act together and fight with all the might and solidarity we can muster, we are going to lose.

I don't want my grandkids or yours to be under the steel of an Islamic government, either as converts or slaves.

Or Dead.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
Papa Ray | Email | Homepage | 11.22.05 - 7:58 pm | #

> If the left doesn't want to support the country that gives them their rights, then they need to find another country that they can be happy living in.

Some of them did. France.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahaha!

F-Fr-Fran-BWAAAAAAAahahahahahahahaha
hahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahaha!!
Oh Bloedige Hel | Email | Homepage | 11.22.05 - 8:01 pm | #

>> Could it be so important to them to 'win' by making Bush look bad that they'd screw over the Iraqi and Afghani people by doing a unilateral pull-out?
>
>A: Duh. Of course they would. In a heartbeat. They're just soooo compassionate, you know.

In my experience, Concern & Compassion (TM) are the sure mark of a sociopath. So is Moral Superiority (TM).

But this is more along the lines of six-year-olds who've never heard the word "NO" in their pwecious widdle lives crowing & gloating "I'M RIGHT! YOU'RE WRONG! NYAAAH! NYAAAH! NYAAH-NYAAH-NYAAAAAAH!"
Ken | Email | Homepage | 11.22.05 - 8:16 pm | #

> Yeah, those filthy leftties!

Ah, Tammi. Spoken like a true lefty.

1) Yeah, i think if you look back most of the people who post here have expressed dissatisfaction at times with the domestic policies of this admin -- but for the most part, it's not because they aren't Lefty enough, it's because those-in-power aren't standing up to the lefty idiots who promoted these insanely incompetent lefty policies in the first place.

2) Many of us would gladly vote them out of office as punishment for such spinelessness, except for the obvious fact that the chief reason they can be RINOs is that the Dems have gone off the deep end to the far, far left. If the Dems were a central force (which is, after all, where ALL the votes they need are) then the GOP would have to actually differentiate itself from the Left on more than Foreign policy.

3) Foreign policy, at the moment, trumps Domestic policy. The majority of people in this nation have expressed, as of a year ago, their belief as to the best approach to foreign policy. That the Dhimmicrats can't seem to break free of their rejection of that central principle to move to the center is threatening them with irrelevance.

In other words, if the left and the Dhimmicrats were acting like something other than total loons there might actually be a sensible alternative to Bad Republicans... because a Bad Republican still is better than a Dhimmicrat Loon.

After the results of the court appointees (i.e., sub-SCotUS) votes and the Social Security non-solution fiasco (despite being in sufficient majority), I personally was fully prepared to vote some Dems in, until they just kept getting more and more vitriolic and more and more blatheringly insane. I'm not going to reward them for their inability to grasp that The American People Believe That The Iraq War Was The Right Action. Go ahead, listen to your polls that say they've "changed their mind" -- I suspect that The Only Poll That Counts, in 2006, is going to utterly blindside you yet again.
Oh Bloedige Hel | Email | Homepage | 11.22.05 - 8:38 pm | #

Tammi, your use of such terms as "control," are an overstatement of Republican power and influence. One might say you are hyping the case for Republican power, or seeing only what you want to see in the news reports, and trying to systematically deceive those who comment here as to the true state of political affairs. What the left is accusing Bush of is precisely what you are demonstrating here.

X You are not making distinctions which I find quite obvious. Perle's comment is entirely accurate. The overthrow of Saddam was a relative cakewalk. We had to be prepared for a dozen different possible complications afterward. This particular set of problems is being handled badly only in comparison to the previous military speed. By the standards of any other occupation and transfer to democracy, it is going brilliantly well.

The accuracy of Cheney's comments about the last throes of the insurgency will be known for certain only in retrospect. For now, it seems a far cannier assessment that Murtha's.

So too with Bush's "Bring 'em on" comment. I think it will prove out as well as Churchill's in 1941. Winston, you may remember, was in an extremely vulnerable position vis a vis Germany, and antagonizing a powerful enemy would certainly be seen as a foolishness today.

And yet...
Assistant Village Idiot | Email | Homepage | 11.22.05 - 9:25 pm | #

Wow, I am in rarified company here.

I would like to add an observation. My wife and I recently became involved with the Minutemen Project and have attended several gatherings that were protested. That has sprungboard out into joining some other protests where we came face to face with the extreme left.

I live in Chicago, and as a blue state conservative thought I knew what liberals were all about. I was wrong.

The level of hatred and general wide-eyed, frothing at the mouth crazy we have seen has been sobering. We have literally been called every name in the book, been threatened, told we should die, accused of being fascists, brownshirts, nazis, et al.

But what catches my attention every time is the inability of almost anyone on the left to articulate exactly what the problem is.

I assure you my wife and I are fairly inoffensive. The last protest we attended was the vigil for the 2000th dead soldier. I held a flag and we each had signs which read 'stay the course.'

We feared for our lives at certain points of the program, I do not exaggerate.

But we were evil incarnate, those few who could manage cogent speech were truly unable to relay a point of view other than you are evil. If you innocently asked why the question was met with scorn.

I just found it a fascinating display. It is ironic, to me anyway, that I too am an independent conservative, but what candidate on the left could a conservative vote for in good conscience?
Jake Jacobsen | Email | Homepage | 11.22.05 - 10:32 pm | #

Jake: They've become mad dogs, vicious animals.

There is only one thing you can do with mad dogs.
Ken | Email | Homepage | 11.23.05 - 4:44 pm | #