Redstate

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

- because if it's the author of this piece, lose the attitude. Now. It's not our fault that international terrorists are finding the antiwar faction useful.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

n/t

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

It's just that your response to caring what they think is to want to give them money, while our response is rather different.

Why?

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

the mind-numbing reductionism that goes on with language related to the GWOT. Granted, it wasn't used in this piece by Erick, but I think we're in the same territory.

There were other things in quotes. Pay attention to those as well.

Whether reductionism or emergence terrorist is an apt description of those who terrorize. but if it is reductionism, which BTW, doesn't even imply error,would you suggest another name, something more euphemistic maybe?

In your first post, 1st para, you try and impute contradiction to the right. But to know what the enemy thinks and says is to help know the enemy's intentions and mindset. Not a bad thing whether or not that enemy likes our policies. You conflate the two, therefore the contradiction is yours.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

Maybe squeegee would be better off at someplace like Kos?

terrorists is a good idea.

Or at least emboldening them, by declaring defeat through withdrawal.

I think the difference between the anti war liberal crowd and those who support the war is that the anti war group does want to recognize the risk, and they don't realize that they are giving terrorists what they want.

They may not be doing this purposefully, and they have plausible deniability in that their goals aren't meant to meet the goals of the terrorists, but in the end you get the same result-defeat and an emboldened terrorist organization.

all i care is what i want*. if you are going to design your entire foreign policy apparatus around terrorists propaganda, (which is exactly what you have done, btw, but in reverse) then who is wagging whom?

and please don't tell me what i believe. If you are now so worried about "emboldening the terrorists" and how they feel about this or that, maybe a great idea would be to start stoning gay people, enforcing burqa wearing among women, and banning alcohol. Oh but that's not what you're advocating? Then why do you care what emboldens or does not embolden terrorists? Who cares what they say? Do you have no ability to resist consuming and internalizing their propaganda? What kind of discernment is there on the right? I expect more from U.S. citizens. I'm embarrassed by it.

*I care only so far as I need to know the information of what they want. Not because I either want to give or deny them what they want.

and why not back your tone down...for starters

"And in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

I'm not in the habit of repeating myself.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

too much honesty, i know. i'm outa here for a while. must scream at a forest or something.

...yes, you are. Work out your problems somewhere else.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

One for your collection. ;)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

If you are now so worried about "emboldening the terrorists" and how they feel about this or that, maybe a great idea would be to start stoning gay people, enforcing burqa wearing among women, and banning alcohol. Oh but that's not what you're advocating?

Which is another problem the left seems to struggle with. They in general like appeasement.

The reality is this is exactly what they Islamic terrorists want and desire, they would like to see everyone paying homage to a new Caliphate.

Then why do you care what emboldens or does not embolden terrorists? Who cares what they say?

And it isn't that I care exactly what they say, but what they say says a lot about their intentions, and how they view the US and the world. Should our whole foriegn policy be designed around it? Nope, but trying to figure out the kindest way to lose the war isn't exactly the best way to deal with their goals.

Complete surrender isn't going to get us anything but exactly what you described in my quote.

Maybe dems should consider exactly why they want us to lose, while they are discussing ways to end the war. Maybe some of their debates should actually include what they think it will take for victory, but as I already said, I am not convinced that victory is even what some democrats want-I do think some of them would like for us to lose.

I mean your whole post, incohernce is just around the corner, beware. If you are at war with someone you care about them being emboldened, you must care what the people who would kill you say, the entire [your word] foreign policy is not designed around what they say, worrying or not about stoning gay people or wearing burqas is a tad less realistic then the memories of large burning buildings and islamic murders around the world, etc.

Discernment may be where you find it Squeegee, but quality counts and you won't be getting much from Reid, Kerry, and the rest of that happy band of acrobats in Congress and the MSM. Good luck in the forest, regards to Little Red Riding Hood.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

At first I thought it was sarcasm. But I guess you really are serious.

We couldn't do a better making you on left look foolish if we tried.

Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.

...you can stop ascribing to us the above nonsense any time now.

You can also maybe read a book or two on habeas corpus disputes during the Civil War. In fact, go do that. Right now. Before I start assigning homework.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

At least you know what a copperhead is and that you are one. Dropping you behind enemy lines like Vallandigham would suffice for me and I'm not even a neocon. I've been a conservative for far too long to be tagged with "neo".

...the chaplain's gone over the hill.

In other words, if you don't like it when a no-fooling enemy of the United States of America is cheering on the activities of one of our two major political parties... well, it's a free country; be upset all you like.

But a little less of the shocked surprise next time at our noting this. It's hardly news.

Moe

PS: The argument is actually that al-Queda wants the Democrats to win, not the other way around. The author's bit about marching orders is almost certainly an attempt to provoke some long-overdue shame in his target audience... and the heavy-handedness is no doubt rooted in the old saying about how one trains a mule.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

And I appriciate your clarification. But I'd like to make the point that posts constructed such as the above are not likely to sway political opponents, such as myself, to your view of the War in Iraq.

I suppose, that what I'm looking for is a more civil discourse. And I say this as a , pro-gay marriage, anti-death penalty, anti-war, drug legalization, universal health care supporting liberal.

We've got everybody that we're going to get on the Iraq War; now it's a matter of maintaining until November of 2008. After that point, one of two things will happen:

1). A Republican will be elected. In this scenario, we start the whole carnival over again, only with different names;

or

2). A Democrat will be elected. In this scenario all we have to do is give her supporters a graceful way to pretend that they were really pumped about the GWOT all along.

Either way, we're not going to knock ourselves out on trying to bring you over. You should be here already, frankly.

Moe

PS: I can hear the objection already: "The people are against the war! The last election proved it!" To which I say: "Fine. Take the war away from us, then. If you can."

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Now this is interesting. Are you saying that you don't want to try to bring those who oppose the war/occupation/surge over to your way of thinking?

And I do enjoy your assumption that if the Democrats win the White House in '08, that it will be Hillary. Good stuff, really.

None of the others have the name rec, the money, the ties, the mojo, or the sheer ruthlessness to pull it off.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

I just enjoyed the turn of phrase that Moe used. It took a second reading to catch it.

Thank you, by the way.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

And as for your second paragraph, my response echoes Ieyasu's.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

There's no way in bringing people like you to our side. But we can bring over the independents that aren't anti-war liberals, believe we need to win this war and have a more realistic view of the dangers of this world than you do.

Then get those you elected to speak for you to engage in it. They have spent the last 6 years calling every Republican they could name a liar, a traitor, a racist, a sexict, a homophobe, and a murderer. Not content with that, they turned on the men and women in our Armed Forces and called Them terrorists, and murderers, and torturers and idiots.

Bring to the table what you demand.

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.

Lay similar accusations at the feet of Republicans, except for the homophobe part, and accusing elements of the Armed Forces of what you wrote above. And that's part of the problem too.

What I demand? I demand a viable solution to the War in Iraq. I just think that we have different ways of getting to that end.

Its called winning. It probably wouldn't be easy, but I don't see what it takes that can't be done. All it would take is for every person in America to say we are not going lose; we are united in our determination to win and will do what ever it takes.
All it would take to implement my plan is to do it. But its not going to happen, if part of our country continues to support the enemy.

Theres the old saw about those that can't remember the past are doomed to repeat it. We have been watching what happens when a population is lied to about its past.

The part that can't distinguish fiction from reality goes all lemming on us.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Do we need to tally up the number of positives things said by President Bush about Democrats while you attempt to tally up all the positive things said about the President by Democrats.

Do you really believe those lists will be anything near equal?

One is to declare defeat and leave in as orderly a fashion as the terrorists permit.
The other is to work towards victory.
If the democrats had decided to work towards victory, instead of declare defeat at every opportunity, we would be much further down an honorable road.
Instead, as soon as things got tough, the democrats started declaring defeat.
Their interests and the terrorist's interests have converged:
Get America out.
The last time the democrats led the way out of a war, millions of people died. Millions still live under authritarian rule.
You choose.

In the past, Liberals posting on conservative sites saying they are willing or looking to have their viewpoints changed, are usually flying false colors.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I am not looking to have my viewpoints changed. I'm looking for common goals. I feel that ending the Iraq War is one of them.

We're not [] interested in [just] ending it.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Winning is better than loosing.

Blame it on the weather; it's been a remarkably good excuse for all of my problems today.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I might suggest that a modest first step would be for our elected leaders to stop discussing how to lose it. Another modest idea would be to stop discussing how to pull our troops out and instead start discussing punitive actions for anyone harming them.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

nt

is what are the conditions that would determine a winning senario. If all that our elected leaders, on both sides of the aisle, can do is throw rhetoric at one another we will get nowhere.

What does winning mean to you?

An iraq with a representative form of government would be a good start. If it wasn't under Iran's thumb that would be nice. If they didn't mind having us there with say some large military bases so we could make the occasional friendly overture and intervention to neighbors that wouldn't be bad either.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

We keep troops there, they are safe from the locals, and they keep the peace.
Both nations have done very well thanks to our presence.
The regions ahve done well, as well.
As opposed to Vietnam, for instance.

Repent! It's never to late to change.

But I suppose if it's civil dicourse you're looking for you may contact the two female bloggers late of the Edwards campaign, or perhaps an excursion to Daily Kos, or play a tape of Al Gore's "he betrayed us", or reminisce at Bill Clinton calling one of his victims " a pathetic little liar", or Dick Durbin's comparison of Nazi's to American soldiers, or hang a plaque of Cindy Sheehans wisdom on your wall, or keep repeating Bushitler to yourself, and on and on.

Like the flowers in May civil discourse is all around you.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

That this bill came from someplace;

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/senate-democrats-introduce-terror...

"The bill, titled the "Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007," strikes at the core of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 by giving detainees access to U.S. courts. It was introduced by Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.), a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination."

Certain readers may recall that Sen Dodd, returned from Syria a few weeks ago. Could that be where he discovered the urgent need to protect terrorists? Could that be where he got his marching orders? Or does he just want to help the less fortunate, as long as they oppose the US?

Or detainee rights?

I beileve that Dodd and other Deomcrats held the above view on detainee rights long before his trip to Syria, and before the elections, when the initial debate on detainee status was being conduted in the Senate. And I agree with the bill.

But as to detainee rights in particular:
They have none. Period. They are Explicitly denied even the protections of the Geneva Conventions by virtue of their being illegal combatants (aka, non-uniformed combatants).

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.

What kind of detainee rights are you talking about ?

Detainees captured on the battlefield with weapons but no uniforms ?

Detainees captured with bomb making equipment ?

Detainees captured in the process of blowing things up ?

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

"detainee rights" as an expidient term. I cetainly belive that there are a number of different types of "detainees", the difficulty being sorting the relatively innocent from the destructively guilty.

When they engage on the battle field by targeting civilians while not wearing a uniform it isn't difficult to determine which type they are and what rights they have, unlawful combatants with no Geneva rights or U.S. Constitution rights.

I thought we were discussing what the terrorists were demanding the democrats do to continue to receive their support.

"Al Qaeda's number two, Aymah al-Zawahiri, has sent his marching orders to the Democrats, which may help explain why the Democrats are pushing so hard to surrender. It really is stunning, Zawahiri is urging the Democrats to implement the policies the Democrats campaigned on implementing."

Seems clear to me, Sen Dodd believed that detainees we hold should be treated as/better than American citizens. He held that
view before the elections. Our elections were held, then he flew to Syria where he was told how important this was to the
terrorists. He came back to America, but did not immediately take the necessary action that the terrorists wanted. So they sent a stronger message. The number two man in Al Qaeda sending the message. Did I miss something?

...is that the suspension of habeas corpus is just as expressly constitutional as the right of free speech and Congress' power of the purse!

It doesn't take much to pick up the nearest copy of the USC and find that Article I, Sec. 9 reads, in part:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Forget that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 in question here restricts the suspension to "alien(s) detained by the United States who (have) been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as...enemy combatant(s)" -- meaning that Dodd's bill would be "restoring the Constitution" to people who don't even enjoy its legal protections (ie, aliens).

The larger point is that the suspension of habeas corpus, good or bad, is not only not unconstitutional, it's allowed for in very plain language under Congressional powers in the Constitution.

What makes it even more amazing -- I suppose -- is that this is coming from many people who believe there's a right to privacy in the Constitution.

I guess this is what it's come to -- what's actually there are not there isn't so much what matters....it's what one thinks should or shouldn't be there that matters.

I won't say all, and I won't even say that all the voters who put them in power want that, but I do think that some of our congress members and many in the anti war crowd absolutely do want us to lose.

I think some in congress want us to lose, because they have effectively attached their wagons to the horse that leads to defeat, and if we become victorious in Iraq, that horse will pull them right off the Cliff, so they want defeat, for further political power.

There's more nuance in this point than you're giving it credit for having.

Let's just get it out of the way once and for all: Democrats are not rooting for the jihadists to "win" anything.

However, some of the positions they've staked out will likely result in that happening and, as such, they're open to such criticism and it's not at all unfair.

If we leave now or anytime before our military leaders are confident that the Iraqi military and police are prepared to secure their nation, then we will have been defeated in Iraq...which necessarily means that al-Qaida and the other various extremist groups (Baathists, Sadrists, etc.) will have gained a victory.

Now, all it takes is simple logic to connect those dots. You will concede that most Democrats either want to leave now or leave on some timetable that doesn't take into consideration the readiness of the Iraqis, right?

So, let's say that we take, say, Sen. Obama's advice and begin a phased withdrawal within 6 months. And let's say that the Iraqi military isn't ready to stand on its own against the insurgency at that point and subsequently falls.

Why is it unfair, then, to say that Sen. Obama and those who voted for his plan fought for a defeat and, thus, a jihadist victory?

It's not unfair. The ends are precisely the same -- even if Obama and you and everybody else who wants us out of there now or soon can honestly say that you don't want us to lose/the terrorists to win.

I have Ripleys believe it or not on. Someone was just stuffing his mouth with poisonous scorpions. He seems very surprised at being hauled away by the paramedics.

I suppose the democrats will feel much the same way if we have problems in the middle east down the road.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

5 n/t

You're cheering for one team to lose you're essentially cheering for the other team to win. The Democrats want nothing more than Bush to lose, which requires an Al Queda win.

It's the same when I cheer for the Steelers to lose, I'm cheering for the other team to win. To suggest otherwise is to try to have it both ways.

Or do we really need to tally up all the contemptuous statements made by Democrats towards the Commander in Chief and compare them to all their positive statements?

Any way you slice it, all the Democrats have contributed for the past four years is a negative drumbeat designed to erode support for the Commander in Chief, which like it or not emboldens the enemy.

n/t