Comments on: Democrats: see no evil, see no good

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:22:21 +0000

Are you pretending to be ignorant, Laura? That church group you are talking about is protesting the war because they are against the military and believe that bad things have happened to the military because the military did bad things in Iraq.

You know, broken military and all that.

By: Laura

Laura — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:48:20 +0000

Yarm, what are you talking about? Peace protestors are bad, unpatriotic?

Have you forgotten where you live?

By: Xanthippas

Xanthippas — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:17:51 +0000

Anybody who would protest and create factionalism because they don’t like war, is not a good organization.

Like a church?

By: Xanthippas

Xanthippas — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:17:16 +0000

Glad that you’re finally seeing the light, X. I’m sure you’ll support any action that needs to be taken, right?

No, I’m pointing out the inconsistencies of this hokey “drain the swamp” rationale. Attacking Iran pre-Iraq would be one thing; it’s quite a different proposal now.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:01:24 +0000

Anybody who would protest and create factionalism because they don’t like war, is not a good organization.

By: Occam's Beard

Occam's Beard — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:13:34 +0000

I did, and I do.

By: Laura

Laura — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:01:06 +0000

“I have all the problem in the world with those who hate America, and let’s face it, such people exist, and they’re largely on the left side of the aisle.”

What about the fringe far right. Do you have a “problem with them” as well? I mean, how about the wacky “rapture ready, christians united for israel” crowd that actually wish to bring about the end time? Or the westborough bapbtist church crowd that show up as soldier’s funerals.

Hopefully you mean any far left or right crowd.

By: Occam's Beard

Occam's Beard — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:42:48 +0000

My interpretation is quite different: things are improving to the point that the politically astute are tacking to avoid being caught out if things should continue to improve. After all, if the insurrection should collapse tomorrow, the Dems would look pretty stupid, so putting some equivocation on the record is just buying insurance. Dems voted to support the war (almost unanimously). Then, many of them opposed the war, when things got sticky. Now, they're trying to backwater yet again. In a year, if things continue to prove (a big if) some of them will once again be pointing out to all and sundry that they'd voted for the war. Expediency, I believe it's called. I respect Hillary, Lieberman, McCain, and of course Bush, for not vacillating from their original positions as our fortunes waxed and waned. The rest of them... I have no problem with those who merely disagree with me on policy, regardless of how silly I think their policy is. I have all the problem in the world with those who hate America, and let's face it, such people exist, and they're largely on the left side of the aisle. If you think that that statement is hyperbolic, check this.

By: Laura

Laura — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:12:11 +0000

Great Bunkerbuster!

By: bunkerbuster

bunkerbuster — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:00:41 +0000

Your reasoning is, um, versatile, OB.

When Democrats insist that things aren’t going well enough in Iraq, you accuse them of ignoring advances. When they “shift their tone” to reflect the perceived advances, you cough up some dull barb about spinning.

Wake up. War is not a sporting event with two teams, a scoreboard and cheerleaders for both sides.

I love America and I in opposing the war, I stand firmly on American principles.

I wonder if you, OB, have different ideas about what those principles actually are. Perhaps so, but I’d never accusing you of “hating America” just because you happen to disagree with me.

Why is it so hard for wingnuts to understand that?