It's important to 'keep hate alive'

[ITH]

Destroying a president is not much of a strategy to win a war, but it's all the Democrats have.

The churls of the left don't seem to care whether their country wins the war, the important thing is to "keep hate alive." If hate worked in '06, maybe it will work again in '08, when the stakes will be considerably higher.

Sometimes it's not only hate, but a bit of schadenfreude, too, taking pleasure in the woes of the enemy. "Partisan pleasure in George Bush's pain dates to the anguish of the contested 2000 election loss," observes Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal. "The Democrats have run against something called 'Bush' for so long this sentiment is now bound up in any act or policy remotely attached to the president. Iraq's troubles, or Iran or North Korea, are merely an artifact of crushing this one guy."

The president's tormentors in Congress, some old and some new, insist they don't have anything against the fine young Americans with their lives on the line in Iraq, but the troops are dispensable to the larger partisan goal of destroying George W. and abdicating the responsibility that comes with being the world's only superpower. If the troops are hurt, too, well, that's just a risk the critics will have to endure.

Senators are leading the rush to judgment. Hillary Clinton, buoyed by the early polls that show her blowing Barack Obama out of the race, scoffs that the war she voted for is "a dead end." Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican, asks whether "the clock has already run out." The very point of her question is the smug assertion that of course it has. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who has all but given up his ambition to be John McCain when he grows up, says the obvious: "We have anarchy in Iraq. It's getting worse." You can hear the glee in his voice. John Warner of Virginia, eager to demonstrate that he's no son of the hard, determined men who wrote the book on standing firm against all odds as a fabled army of northern Virginia, rushes to join partisans across the aisle to forge a resolution of regret, retreat and ruin. "Nonbinding," of course. Senators never bind themselves to anything but their egos and personal interests (which is why we haven't elected a senator as president in nearly half a century).

Sometimes a senator, oily and evasive as only senators can be, lets slip a remark that reveals all. David Gregory of NBC News provoked Chuck Schumer, the Democratic senator from New York, into such a revealing remark the other day. He reminded him of Vice President Cheney's description of the Senate resolution as something (a) the president wouldn't pay any attention to because (b) it would "be detrimental to the troops on the ground."

The senator thought he was only begging to differ when he replied: "Absolutely not, and I think it's going to be shown, when this resolution comes up, and it is nonbinding, that not only are we going to get a vast majority of Democrats to vote for it in one form or another, but close to the a majority of the Republicans."

The reporter pressed him to answer the question: "But how can the public really buy the Democrats' support of the troops but don't support the mission? How can you do both?"

How, indeed. How do you tell the troops that "we resolve, to paraphrase John Kerry, you're probably not much better than war criminals, but hey, guys, we support you." Mr. Schumer squirmed, and his face reflected just for an instant the look of a man cornered. "Well," he finally replied, "that's the difficulty. A resolution that says we're against this escalation, that's easy. The next step will be how do you put further pressure on the administration but still support the troops who are there? And that's what we're trying to figure out."

The fiercest critics of the commander in chief (the one the critics despise) and his troops (the ones the critics support) concede they don't have a clue about what the president should do in Iraq. "I can't tell you what the path to success is," says Norm Coleman, a Republican of Minnesota. Joe Biden, plagiarizing every other weak sister in town, says the "primary" strategy is to make the Iraqis "compromise" and "end the violence." Hillary says the president should "talk to bad people" to see what they want (the "bad people" have already said exactly what they want, loud and clear). John Edwards says he would get tough as president, and if talk doesn't work he'll talk some more.
But of course. Isn't that what senators do?

[KhaOZ]

I dunno, all I know is this government has fucked this country in the ass and they need to be hung for the situation they've put us all in. It's to the point that I doubt if my 2 sons will have a United States to grow up in. This administration has taken us to war using lies and is using the war to fatten their own pockets with 433,000 shares in the companies running the contracts in Iraq. It is all a case of greed, and in the mean time we are creating terrorists by the thousands. The united states breeds terrorists all over the world, and makes this world a scary place to live in.

I for one am no longer proud of my red white and blue. I am ashamed. Other countries of the world look at our president as the new Hitler and are aligning against him, yet the ignorant of this country buy into his "if you don't support me, you're not American" speeches.

This country is hurt. So hurt I don't see us bouncing back for a LONG time, if ever. We have near doubled the national debt in Bush's time. Billions lost in Iraq that are unaccounted for. We have spent so much money in iraq that they say if taxes were double in the US starting next year, that we would have the IRAQ war paid off by 2040. Our own people are hurting, yet we continue to build other countries we should have never even been in to begin with.

This country needs to stand together against this administration, and stop this tyrant from doing as he sees fit with no regard of the American people. We as a Nation need to protect ourselves, cause or government no longer is capable of doing that for us. Most of all, we need to protect ourselves from the government itself.

I just can't believe we have let it get THIS bad. I am sad to see so many Americans bow down to King Bush. All hail the Monarch?

[KhaOZ]

Oh, and how do you support the troops but not the Mission? Easy. I know so many military who don't believe in the IRAQ war and think it's bullshit that we're even there, including my marine brother who's been to Iraq, but as they say "it's my job, I go where they send me". If they did not, there would be hell to pay going against orders and the mission, but they do it for their country, not the idiots in charge of it. So it is very easy for me to support people who do their duty and follow the orders of their leaders, even if they don't agree with what they are doing themselves.

[KhaOZ]

"Vice President Dick Cheney's Halliburton stock options have risen 3,281 percent in the last year, RAW STORY can reveal.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) asserts that Cheney's options -- worth $241,498 a year ago -- are now valued at more than $8 million. The former CEO of the oil and gas services juggernaut, Cheney."

Not including the billions they've "missplaced" in miss kept books over in Iraq.

-----------------
Cheney told "Meet the Press" in 2003 that he didn't have any financial ties to the firm.

"Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest," the Vice President said. "I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years"

Cheney continues to received a deferred salary from the company. According to financial disclosure forms, he was paid $205,298 in 2001; $162,392 in 2002; $178,437 in 2003; and $194,852 in 2004.
--------------

[KhaOZ]

Not saying to take everything in these videos to heart, but it's interesting to hear:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CXPD7HuDBk4

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ciXi1d4Oi1M

And here's some more numbers from what we've spent in IRAQ thus far:

Let's see, which would have given us the most for our money...or the most protection from terrorists? Would it be...

A. the money we've spent so far in Iraq
B. 6,000,000 new teachers
C. 700 new elementary schools in EVERY state
D. 8,000,000 new police officers
E. 6,000,000 new port cargo inspectors
F. a year's worth of gas for EVERY American driver

[Towlie]

How mant times did you just post in a row? :P

[Spin]

If either side of the fence digs around they can find TONS of videos/articles to support their claims....I took from ITHs' post that instead of pointing the finger and accusing and wanting the death penalty..maybe we should ALL find a solution..but nahh its much easier to just play the blame game and pass the buck. And yes I agree that the political system in this country is messed up but its what we have...nobody said jackshit when Clinton sent troops into Somalia with little or nothing to even come close to fighting that battle, and what was the purpose of us being there? People that live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.

I just wish the finger pointing would stop and the ones that are pointing the fingers would actually have a realistic solution to this problem, however I dont agree with Bush when he says that he will pass this war onto the next president, God how would ya like to have that task staring ya in the face for the next president.

[ITH]

Originally Posted by Spin

If either side of the fence digs around they can find TONS of videos/articles to support their claims....I took from ITHs' post that instead of pointing the finger and accusing and wanting the death penalty..maybe we should ALL find a solution..but nahh its much easier to just play the blame game and pass the buck. And yes I agree that the political system in this country is messed up but its what we have...nobody said jackshit when Clinton sent troops into Somalia with little or nothing to even come close to fighting that battle, and what was the purpose of us being there? People that live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.

I just wish the finger pointing would stop and the ones that are pointing the fingers would actually have a realistic solution to this problem, however I dont agree with Bush when he says that he will pass this war onto the next president, God how would ya like to have that task staring ya in the face for the next president.

thank u spin at least someone got it. and khaoz u know better than i that the president is the commander and chief he is the deciding person when it comes to military matters. no matter what the house or senate say. now when it comes to financial ties thats where he is fucked and thats also what i am saying. u cant say "we support the troops" while u cut off the money that supplies us weapons. food, and armor. u just cant say that. neither side has got it right amen to that but the opposition hasn't come up with anything good yet except bush is a tyrant and is wrong... and??? do something about it come up with a solution.. ive been to both Iraq and Afghanistan in the past two years, should we be there?? i think yes should we have gone in the first place?? no.. 2 different questions. but we cant run away now or iraq becomes worse than what it was when we started.

this country does not need anymore "lets rally against bush" rhetoric it helps nothing it creates more controversy... We stand together or fall together, we made our bed time to sleep in it for another 2 years.

[KhaOZ]

There is no solution to the problem except to continue to try and rally people against Bush. You say to stop blaming people and find a solution, good luck there, cause Bush has stated harshly many times that he will do what he wants no matter what the House, Senate, or American people say. "I am the decision maker, not you" were his words.

When you have a tyrant who gives everyone no choices, there are no "solutions" except to bring that tyrant down.

[KhaOZ]

I disagree. People have been presenting alternatives to him for years, yet he just continues to say "I will do what I want". The US spends more in funding of our military, than every other military of the world COMBINED, so I don't see cutting the funding as a bad thing. We're simply spending far to much on it. Of every tax dollar the American people pay, over 50 cents of it goes to the military alone. Less than 2 cents to our schools. Our priorities are fucked. If bush refuses to listen to the people of this country, and continues to "do what he wants" without consideration, then the they have to do SOMETHING. If taking his money out from under him is what it takes to force his hand, then that's what it takes.

Bush himself said in 2001 before ANY Of this happened, that the US needed to stop trying to rebuild other countries. That if we continued to do so, we would be in major financial trouble. Now look at us. How can you trust a man like that? There are no alternatives here. 2 years is too long. At our current rate, many analysts believe this country is on a path to doom, and if our leadership is saying things like "it's my decision. I will do what I want", then we have no choice but to stand together as the American people, and bring down these Tyrants. This is a Democracy, not a Monarchy.

If I were on the East Coast, I would have been with the 100,000 people who marched on the white house yesterday in protest. Never thought I'd say that, I mean, I voted for Bush the first time, and have always thought myself a Republican, but now with 2 kids, I fear for their future. So my ideas have changed, and I started to give a shit.