violence problem? ya think?

[mrnoodle]

Let's play a game called "Democrat or Terrorist?"

Unfortunately, the sentence construction and semantic differences make it an easy game. But the point remains.

Bush you are a lying failure and a charlatan. It has been three and a half years... What happened to us? We have gained more strength and we are more insistent on martyrdom..."

Why don't you tell them how many million citizens of America and its allies you intend to kill in search of the imaginary victory and in breathless pursuit of the mirage towards which you are driving your people's sons in order to increase your profits?

Can't you be honest at least once in your life, and admit that you are a deceitful liar who intentionally deceived your nation when you drove them to war in Iraq?

He was bright in putting his sons as governors in states and he didn't forget to transfer his experience from rulers of our region to Florida to falsify elections to benefit from it in critical times.

What happened was that he was impressed by the monarchies and the military regimes, and he was jealous of them staying in power for tens of years, embezzling the public money without any accountability. And he moved the tyranny and suppression of freedom to his own country, and they called it the Patriot Act, under the disguise of fighting terrorism. And Bush, the father, found it good to install his children as governors and leaders.

More in a bit, I gotta get some work done.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

So this part of your argument, Robert, is "if, if, if, if, if."

That's a lot of ifs, none of which came to pass -- because, I think, we recognize them for the pitfalls they would be and are.

[mrnoodle]

I see immediate differences between your quotes and mine. Mine reflect seething hatred, and the fact that both Democrats and terrorists share a common enemy is telling.

Your quotes are, for the most part, simple platitudes that could've been spoken at any random Rotary Club meeting or high school speech class. You fail to make your point, although I recognize what it is.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

the fact that both Democrats and terrorists share a common enemy is telling.

It should tell you a lot about how despicable their common enemy is.

[mrnoodle]

It's like an alternate universe here sometimes. Did you read what you just posted before you pushed 'send'? I fear greatly that you did.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

It's like an alternate universe here sometimes. Did you read what you just posted before you pushed 'send'? I fear greatly that you did.

Sure I read it. I don't like Bush. The terrorists don't like Bush either. That doesn't mean I'm buddies with the terrorists.

If two distinctly different groups like the terrorists and Democrats can agree that Bush is bad, then maybe, just maybe, Bush is bad.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

I see immediate differences between your quotes and mine. Mine reflect seething hatred, and the fact that both Democrats and terrorists share a common enemy is telling.

Your quotes are, for the most part, simple platitudes that could've been spoken at any random Rotary Club meeting or high school speech class. You fail to make your point, although I recognize what it is.

And just how do repubicans sound talking about Democrats? How did conservatives sound talking about Clinton? Was it dramatically different?

[mrnoodle]

If we had been at war, you would have been hard-pressed to find a Republican trying to undermine the efforts of the commander in chief, at least until the thing was won. That's my opinion, at least.

Not that we would have stuck around long enough to win. Somalia, anyone?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

If we had been at war, you would have been hard-pressed to find a Republican trying to undermine the efforts of the commander in chief, at least until the thing was won. That's my opinion, at least.

Not that we would have stuck around long enough to win. Somalia, anyone?

I disagree with you. The way I remember it, when Clinton was planning on protecting innocent victims in Kosovo from ethinic cleansing, the repubicans were critical:

August 12, 1998

As examined in this paper, the Clinton Administration's drift toward armed intervention in Kosovo bears striking similarities to the ad hoc decision-making that led to the Bosnia intervention beginning in 1995 and which, on a broader scale, has become the hallmark of the Clinton foreign policy. These similarities include:
 The framing of a highly complex ethnic conflict, with historical roots and conflicting equities extending back hundreds of years, in grossly simplistic terms in order to justify intervention in a region few Americans know (or care) anything about (NOTE: Details on Kosovo's geography and complex history, including a discussion of the politically charged implications of the variant spellings Kosovo and Kosova, are found in the attached Appendix);
 An almost total lack of clarity and coherence as to the outcome the Administration's policy is designed to produce, as well as how that outcome serves the national interest of the United States; and
 As in Bosnia, an unacknowledged reliance by the Clinton Administration on the cooperation of the person publicly blamed for most of the violence: Slobodan Milosevic himself.
It is imperative that Congress compel the Clinton Administration honestly to address these flaws in its policy before U.S. forces are committed to Kosovo. Indeed, the fact that comparable questions were not answered with respect to the Bosnia deployment (and in most cases still have not been answered) is one reason the Bosnia operation has now become precisely what the Administration promised Congress and the American people it would not be: an ill-defined, open-ended nation-building project -- with no end in sight.

And all the while were attacking him at home with more than nasty name-calling.

August 17, 1998:

President Bill Clinton becomes the first sitting president to testify before a grand jury investigating his conduct. After the questioning at the White House is finished, Clinton goes on national TV to admit he had an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

I especially enjoy reading the repubican criticism of this military action. "highly complex ethnic conflict", "almost total lack of clarity and coherence as to the outcome the Administration's policy is designed to produce, and "address these flaws in its policy before U.S. forces are committed ...operation has now become precisely what the Administration promised Congress and the American people it would not be: an ill-defined, open-ended nation-building project -- with no end in sight" ("stay the course anyone?) all sound like the same criticisms of the Iraq policy coming from the other side of the aisle. :p

Politicians have short memories.

[Griff]

I love how the Dems and Reps traded seats on that. A pox on both their houses.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

. . . all sound like the same criticisms of the Iraq policy coming from the other side of the aisle. :p

Not exactly. There was partisanship aplenty in both cases, but Republican rhetoric didn't even begin to approach the level of hatefulness of today's Dems'. They tried to make it sound like it was the worst name-calling and character assassination in history, but it didn't hold a candle to what we're hearing today. Furthermore, the Hollywood and Washington D.C. cocktail party crowd had the left's best interests at heart then and now, and 5 Fox News Channels couldn't begin to counter the spin that they produce in the news and entertainment world. Furthermore, Milosevic didn't have an al-Jazeera to parrot the talking points of Republicans in order to undermine the effort there.

The right and the left hate each other, but the similarities end there.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Not exactly. There was partisanship aplenty in both cases, but Republican rhetoric didn't even begin to approach the level of hatefulness of today's Dems'.

It was far worse.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

The right and the left hate each other, but the similarities end there.

Well, I think both sides are in it for their own gain, especially at the Washington level. So, there's actually TWO things they have in common.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Not exactly. There was partisanship aplenty in both cases, but Republican rhetoric didn't even begin to approach the level of hatefulness of today's Dems'. They tried to make it sound like it was the worst name-calling and character assassination in history, but it didn't hold a candle to what we're hearing today. Furthermore, the Hollywood and Washington D.C. cocktail party crowd had the left's best interests at heart then and now, and 5 Fox News Channels couldn't begin to counter the spin that they produce in the news and entertainment world. Furthermore, Milosevic didn't have an al-Jazeera to parrot the talking points of Republicans in order to undermine the effort there.

The right and the left hate each other, but the similarities end there.

My response was to your assertion

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

If we had been at war, you would have been hard-pressed to find a Republican trying to undermine the efforts of the commander in chief, at least until the thing was won.

Well, there was a military action (granted, not a "war"), and the republicans' *actions* (and we all know they speak louder than words) was to stab the commander-in-chief in the back with an impeachment proceeding. One that the repubicans knew would never get enough votes, but distracted the government during an armed conflict. Maybe if Clinton's focus would not have been on the impeachment he could have stopped 9/11 from happening. Hey, you know what? REPUBLICANS CAUSED 9/11! :p

[Happy Monkey]

Wag the dog! Wag the dog!