Human Rights
I understand that "rubbing it in" is a bad habit. It really is.
But look here and especially here and then try to tell me with a straight face that I was on the wrong side of this thing when I started advocating the overthrow of Saddam's regime in early 2002.
Especially because, in an entire year of writing on this subject, I never once mentioned WMDs as my primary motivation for taking out the Baathist regime in Iraq. (Don't believe it? The Google search is over to the left. Go ahead and look.)
Isn't it time, maybe, for some folks to relent and say, "Okay, yeah, Uncle Sam done good?" I mean, come on, we all have to admit to being wrong sometimes, don't we? I know I have before, and probably will again.
With each new discovery our knowledge of the extent of the horror of Sadaam’s Iraq grows. Yet there are still many who either underplay this aspect of the story or maintain the liberation of Iraq was “American led aggression.”
Back In April I posted a thread called “They’re all executions” on the discovery of the first of what turned out to be many mass graves. Some of the comments implied that this was simply a morgue and some foreign news reports even hinted that it was an allied fabrication. A month later, how can anyone deny the ferocity of this regime?
Most of these people will never relent and say "Uncle Sam done good." They will not do this even if we find in Iraq the complete design and manufacturing documentation for nuclear weapons, alone with tactical plans for detonating these weapons in several American cities.
They will not because they can not. In many cases, their political beliefs are at the core of their personal identities. If they admit that these are wrong, there will be nothing left...
Dean,
Being a liberal means never having to admit you are wrong. These liberals are really simply savants who can do only one thing, social programs. They are togetherly inept on foreign policy. And I see no time when they will not be.
If you look carefully at American history since 1860, you will see that the only time Democrats occupy the White House is immediately following an economic catastrophe or following a political catastrophe.
The only exception to this rule is Bill Clinton, of course. Even then, he and his team of Clintonistas fabricated an economic crisis repeating to this very day that the 1992 economy was the worst economy in 50 years. I have still not seen any of their evidence to support this. Is there any?
If we experienced the worst economy if fifty years during the 1992 Presidential election cycle, then that would mean the worst economy was in 1942 during FDR's administration. Funny, but I remember a guy named Jimmy Carter, who declared himself a Keynesian President, who proffered us an economy with double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment.
These two things occuring together is absolutely impossible according to J. M. Keynes. No Democrats EVER mention that. I also thought that Carter's administratiion was the worst economy since the Great Depression. Why don't conservatives ever mention that?
Accordingly, in the bailiwick of foreign policy, Democrats must run on something. If terrorism is still a very important issue next year, which it will be, they will be forced to debate an issue on which they are absolutely incompetent. What will the Democrats then do if they admit they are currently wrong on Iraq? They are completely entangled in their own spider's web. They must say something. Everything they said so far is palpably incorrect.
If they change their position on Iraq they then tacitly admit they WERE wrong and must adopt another position, probably something in line with the Bush administration. How does that distinguish Democrats from President Bush? If any Democrat opposes President Bush he/she runs the risk of illustrating his/her own ignorance or nonchalance on an issue imporant to voters in 2004.
Dean,
Being a liberal means never having to admit you are wrong. These liberals are really simply savants who can do only one thing, social programs. They are togetherly inept on foreign policy. And I see no time when they will not be.
If you look carefully at American history since 1860, you will see that the only time Democrats occupy the White House is immediately following an economic catastrophe or following a political catastrophe.
The only exception to this rule is Bill Clinton, of course. Even then, he and his team of Clintonistas fabricated an economic crisis repeating to this very day that the 1992 economy was the worst economy in 50 years. I have still not seen any of their evidence to support this. Is there any?
If we experienced the worst economy if fifty years during the 1992 Presidential election cycle, then that would mean the worst economy was in 1942 during FDR's administration. Funny, but I remember a guy named Jimmy Carter, who declared himself a Keynesian President, who proffered us an economy with double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment.
These two things occuring together is absolutely impossible according to J. M. Keynes. No Democrats EVER mention that. I also thought that Carter's administratiion was the worst economy since the Great Depression. Why don't conservatives ever mention that?
Accordingly, in the bailiwick of foreign policy, Democrats must run on something. If terrorism is still a very important issue next year, which it will be, they will be forced to debate an issue on which they are absolutely incompetent. What will the Democrats then do if they admit they are currently wrong on Iraq? They are completely entangled in their own spider's web. They must say something. Everything they said so far is palpably incorrect.
If they change their position on Iraq they then tacitly admit they WERE wrong and must adopt another position, probably something in line with the Bush administration. How does that distinguish Democrats from President Bush? If any Democrat opposes President Bush he/she runs the risk of illustrating his/her own ignorance or nonchalance on an issue imporant to voters in 2004.
It is pretty much a guarantee that any successful terrorist attack will be used by Democrats against Bush. The line is already shaping up that the war in Iraq cost us in our war against Al Qaeda, which will play well with Democratic primary voters. Once the primary is won, then the main candidate will be able to shift, and simply concentrate on homeland security weaknesses--and every single failure, no matter how slight, will be used against the President.
The level of intensity on that will depend both on the candidate and on economic conditions. The Democrats still hope badly to run on the economy, so you can bet they are hoping badly for further economic deterioration, under the (admittedly bizarre) theory that tax cuts caused an economic downturn.
We'll see what we see. I think anyone who believes Bush is a shoe-in for re-election this early in the game is foolish.