Saturday, February 02, 2008


Thought of the Day

The second item in the liberal creed, after self-righteousness, is unaccountability. Liberals have invented whole college majors--psychology, sociology, women's studies--to prove that nothing is anybody's fault. No one is fond of taking responsibility for his actions, but consider how much you'd have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers. A callous pragmatist might favor abortion and capital punishment. A devout Christian would sanction neither. But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the liberal view.

P.J. O'Rourke


A devout Christian would sanction neither. So what does that make George W. Bush?

A hypocrite?
Good point praguetwin.

How stupid is that comment? Let me get this right, O'Rourke is saying that the idea of studying women, society and the brain is a liberal "invention" to excuse accountability for individual actions? You have officially dropped to the level of assaulting academic studies to advance your political agenda. Apparently, studying women, society, or the human brain is unbecoming of a conservative.

It's a shame, too. You would think that conservatives would at least want to learn a little psychology, perhaps it would help explain why some of their members of congress dedicate so much time chasing around same-sex teenage pages and trying to get a tug job in an airport men's room.

Yeah, we Republicans alone sleep with male pages. No Democrat has ever done that in the history of the page program. It's just Republicans. Thanks for the pointer.
Just like our one of our "creeds" is unaccountability. The Republicans own all three properties of the "unaccountability" monopoly. W. sends our Army into Iraq (along with a good portion of our money, but don't worry...we can borrow more from our future generations), but no heads roll when we fail to uncover any weapons of mass destruction.

Jesus Christ, this guy lands on an Aircraft Carrier almost 5 years ago with "mission accomplished" and you are posting blogs about how the Democrats are the party of "unaccountability."
I'm not following your 'logic' here. I believe our president is taking responsibility for our success in Iraq--we took out a horrible despot, a Hitler lite, so the programs for WMD are indeed over. The mission accomplished sign was for the carrier he was on which had indeed accomplished its mission. Build what myth you want that's the fact. Thanks for the comment.

Keep spinning Iraq the way you try to spin Vietnam. Tell me why it was that the Vietnamese did not rally around the government in the south?

Tell me again what the the positives are for the U.S. in Iraq.

Anything more than the big three? Saddam dead; Udey dead; Qesay dead?

How about: Iran empowered; al Qaeda present; our country entrapped.

By the latter, I mean, that there is no way out of Iraq w/o more of a deluge apres nous.

George W. Bush learned nothing from Vietnam b/c he wasn't there; didn't study it; or any other history for that matter. He just went w/ his gut, you know b/c God talks to him.

Meanwhile, given the fact that the American people are sick of a conflict w/o any discernible terminus in time and no discernible political end--hear much about flourishing democracy in Iraq these days?--If Obama is the Democratic nominee, I think that he will defeat McCain for two simple reasons. McCain supported the war from the git go, which certainly doesn't speak well for him, and he has to sell the war all over again.

Meanwhile, will Democrats have learned from Vietnam? Probably not so when the U.S. begins to w/draw after the Democrats are elected, we can reasonably expect more chaos and bloodshed.

And you continue to espouse this invasion as a good idea that was good for this nation.

I'm not spinning at all. These are inescapable historical facts. You think the war in Viet Nam was always unwinnable and we were right to withdraw our ground troops and then all military aid and air support. I see the last two as a stab in the back for a valiant (within reason) ally. The South had beaten a more determined attack in 1974 than the probe turned invasion in 1975.

You say: Meanwhile, given the fact that the American people are sick of a conflict w/o any discernible terminus in time and no discernible political end...

What you're saying is that we can't fight a long hard war for complicated long term goals. I have greater faith in Americans and we will have to fight such a war whether we are sick of it or not. The only alternative will be to surrender. We're not down with that. Your powerful Iran is a house built on sand. If I buy your belief that the invasion in '03 drew al Qaeda to Iraq (which I don't--they were there in force before the invasion) then it was brilliant stragegy to draw them into a stand up fight in another country where we could absolutely pound them down. If there are lessons to learn from Viet Nam they are: Fight to win; Don't allow sanctuaries; and, Don't stab your ally in the back. If you have different lessons they are mis-learned from liberal myths. We may not disagree on what will happen when we seriously withdraw from Iraq, but free to engage in Civil War (if that happens) is at least a free choice as opposed to a boot on their figurative throats and stomping their faces forever.

What was ever in it for us? Then, not now where the whole deal has turned into a lobster trap for our country.

Meanwhile, do you really think that Saddam Hussein would have allowed al Qaeda toi play in his sandbox? That is totally off the wall b/c that would have involved allowing an armed force not controlled by him to operate freely w/in his borders. The only reason why the Kurds could do so is b/c of the northern no fly zone. That also allowed al Zarqawi to operste in an extremely limited way against the Kurds as opposed to running amok as he did after the invasion.

Besides tyhe Kurds, who are our allies in Iraq?

Liberal myths. Give me a break. If you want mythology check out the following: "They will greet us as liberators" (some did; some still do; some didn't and now do; but a significant % want us out.)

"The insurgency is in its last throes."

"Democracy will thrive in Iraq."

The fact is that if anyone who planned this who sorry mess (which I may add is in the process of putting a serious hit on our military which is stretched to thinly and b/c of recent developments in our economy is increasing the deficit enormously)
had approached an historian familiar w/ Iraq and said: "Our plan is to invade Iraq; depose Saddam Hussein; and install a democracy" the historian would have starting laughing iuncontrollably and then begun to sob once he realized the person was serious.

It's undoable Roger. I am real glad that we will have spent more than a trillion dollars and over 4,00 of the lives of our military by the time we redeploy so as to give the Iraqis the opportunity to have a civil war.

The flaw in your thinking is the flaw in th ewar planners thinking. You continue to beleive that culturally the only difference between you and an Iraqi is that you worship in a church while he worships in a mosque and that you speak English and he speaks Arabic.


Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?