The death knell for the conservative movement? I think not.
In the week since the election, the talking heads on the left side of the political perspective have been gloating over the election results, as well as the so-called demise of conservatism in America. While I am admittedly happy about the results of the election, I certainly am not ready to put any nails into the coffin of the American conservative movement.
Even some on the right are suggesting a conservative implosion in this country. A former director and trustee of the National Review, Austin W. Bramwell, has a piece in the November 20th issue of The American Conservative entitled “Good-bye to All That - A former National Review trustee surveys the wreckage of contemporary conservatism.”
"Until recently, it has been almost impossible for me to speak candidly about the conservative movement, for it was my strange fate to serve as director and later trustee of the movement’s flagship journal, National Review. Earlier this year, at William F. Buckley’s request, I resigned both positions. I can therefore now declare what perhaps has oft been thought but never, at least not often enough, expressed. Notwithstanding conservatives’ belief that they, in contrast to their partisan opponents, have thought deeply about the challenges facing the United States, it is they who have become unserious."
Here’s a link to the article: http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_20/cover.html
While I don’t share Mr. Bramwell’s pessimistic outlook on conservatism in America, I do find his analysis fascinating. And some of what he suggests falls along the lines of what many of us on the left have been saying for years – QUIT DRINKING THE KOOL-AID!
My personal opinion is that the recent elections, and the aftermath to come, do not necessarily represent the death of conservatism in America. I think this represents an opportunity for the leaders of the conservative movement to reflect, regroup, and refocus on where the movement is, and where it needs to be. Make no mistake though; conservatism has been dealt a major blow, and a self-inflicted one at that. How the conservative movement chooses to deal with it will determine whether it was a fatal one.
Labels: conservative, politics
posted by Marlipern @ 1:36 PM
20 comments
20 Comments:
This is much ado about nothing.
The American conservative movement is no more moribund than the American liberal movement was when the Republicans took over. What I think we are really talking about is more a Republican, Democrat issue than a conservative, liberal one. The Republicans made some "unforced errors" which cost them dearly at the polls. This has nothing to do with conservatism as a political ideology.
And I have to say I was really quite impressed with the restrained tone of your post until I got to the "QUIT DRINKING THE KOOL-AID" comment. So in the spirit of bi-partisan co-operation, which I am certain is currently on display in our nation's capital, I will offer to meet you half way if you will agree to TAKE OFF YOUR TIN FOIL HAT!
Well, I'm sorry you took offense to the "drinking the kool-aid" remark. But I used that phrase to highlight the points that were being made by the conservative author of the article I cited:
"In the run-up to the invasion, leading conservatives announced that conservatism now meant spreading global democratic revolution. This forthright radicalism—this embrace of the sanative powers of violence—became quickly accepted as the ineluctable meaning of conservatism in foreign policy. Those who dissented risked ostracism and harsh rebuke. Had conservative leaders instead argued that global democratic revolution would not cure our woes but increase them, the rest of the movement would have accepted this position no less quickly."
"conservatism is concerned less with truth than with distinguishing insiders from outsiders. Conservatives identify themselves in part by repeating slogans (“we are at war!”) that, like “ignorance is strength,” are less important for what (if anything) they say than for what saying them says about the speaker."
"the conservative movement engages in selective editing of history. When events have a tendency to disconfirm ideology, down the memory hole they go. Thus, conservatives do not recall their dire warnings about the Soviet Union during the Cold War or about the economy after the Bush I or Clinton tax increases. On the Iraq invasion, they will not remind you of their claims that Iraqis would welcome us as liberators, that the world would soon be applauding the Iraq invasion, or that events in Lebanon and the Ukraine heralded global democratic revolution. Nor will conservatives remind you of their predictions that the insurgency’s demise was imminent, that Saddam Hussein and then Zarqawi were the Big Men of the insurgency, or that the insurgency consisted largely of foreign jihadis. As in 1984, the ability to forget that any of these events ever occurred signals one’s loyalty to the movement."
Again, this coming from a conservative.
And what, exactly is wrong with my tin foil hat? I think it looks good on me. :-)
Marlipern,
I think we can stick a fork in this one. One disaffected conservative with multiple axes to grind does not make succeed in making a convincing case for the end of conservatism. Sorry.
And as for your tin foil hat - it's darling and it really does look good on you too - especially the propeller on top!
Least we forget what the democrats said in the late 90's, pre 9-11 and post 9-11,concerning the run-up to the 2003 invasion.
Should we take the Dems at their word in the "run-up"?
Are you going to to tell me the Dems voted to fund the first 87 billion because they didnt want to seem soft on terror?
How many Dems voted against it the funding?
If you want to take this loan, disgruntled CINO, (Conservative In Name Only)...then please be my guest. However i would like for you to answer my questions.
Despite your obvious bias, i will find it fascinating if and how you answer my questions.
Well, I don't recall the Dems saying anything in the "late 90's" regarding the "run-up to the 2003 invasion". As I recall, the Clinton admin. hadn't planned a 2003 invasion. Do you know something that I don't know?
And I'm betting the Democrats who voted for the funding believed the cherry-picked intelligence they were being fed, as most of the public did.
Of course you will argue that the Dems were "looking at the same intelligence that the administration was", which is simply not true. The complete analysis and details like the questionable reliability of sources like "curveball" was omitted when presented to the Congress and to the public.
"How many Dems voted against it the funding?" Regarding the infamous $87 Billion ("I voted for it before I voted against it"), 11 in the Senate, 115 in the House. Source: The Senate and House Roll Calls. (again, do your own homework) Your point is?
"Conservative In Name Only" eh? That's rich. That is of course why he was made director and trustee of the National Review. Boy, he sure pulled the wool over the eyes of the likes of William F. Buckley.
Lone, disgruntled conservative?? (and it is lone, not "loan") Do you really think he is the only person of the conservative persuasion frustrated with the highjacking of the Republican party and the conservative movement by the current band of neocon and CINO (Christian in name only) wack jobs?? Sure. Keep telling yourself that.
"As I recall, the Clinton admin. hadn't planned a 2003 invasion. Do you know something that I don't know?"
Ummm... well for starter the policy for regime chnage in Iraq began under the clinton administration...
Yes or no?
"Ummm... well for starter the policy for regime chnage in Iraq began under the clinton administration...
Yes or no?"
Ummm... No. But nice try. The policy for regime change in Iraq started under Bush 41. Not with G.H.W.B himself, but with others within his admin.
Gather 'round children... Uncle Marlipern wants to tell you a little story about "The Project For the New American Century".
Way back in 1992, then (soon to be ex-) Defense Secretary Dick Cheney commissioned a strategy report from the Defense Department, written by then (soon to be ex-) Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy, Paul Wolfowitz. In the report, among other things, Wolfowitz outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil" and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism. 1.
After the draft of the report was leaked to the press, and there was an outcry from Democratic side of the aisle, Bush senior publicly denounced it.
During the Clinton years, several hard-right-wingers wrote articles and op-eds about American global leadership in the post cold war world, many advocating the U.S. using its military and financial influence to dominate the rest of the world. Several of these movers and shakers on the far-right got together and formed "The Project For the New American Century", a "non-profit, educational organization" that includes as founding members: Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard L. Armitage, John Bolton, Richard Perle, William Kristol, etc. This group, among other things, is a virtual who's who of the George W. Bush administration.
Anyhew, in 1998, the PNAC unsuccessfully lobbied President Clinton to attack Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. President Clinton replied that he was focusing on dealing with al-Qaida terrorist cells. 1.
So, you see my friends, it was a forgone conclusion that once Bush 43 & Co. took office, "regime change" in Iraq would soon be a matter of official U.S. foreign policy. Hell, within hours of the attacks of 9/11, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld ordered his aides to begin planning for an attack on Iraq, even though his intelligence officials told him it was an al-Qaida operation and there was no connection between Iraq and the attacks. 1.
So, even though many on the right like to use Clinton as a convenient scapegoat for just about everything, this was a right-wing operation from the get-go, and had absolutely nothing to do with Bill Clinton.
1. Much of the information presented here is available at the PNAC Primer page: http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Primer.htm
as well as the PNAC site itself: http://www.newamericancentury.org/
The project for new america century did not approve the 1998 policy, congress and Clinton did.
Look up Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Signed and delivered by Bill Clinton.
It is undeniable fact that Clinton and congress approved regime change in Iraq. The democrats talked a bunch in the run up, pre-9/11, post 9/11 and before 2003; about how saddam needed to be removed because he was still procuring WMD's and their materials. The main point and undeniable factor involved, was his violation of the cease fire agreement, saddam signed. Your attempt to obfuscate this issue is cute to say the least...lol
Again are we to believe the Dems at their words too? Of course we should.
BTW the correct answer is yes. You need to do your homework as you always put it to me.
OK Bigdog, let's talk about the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998"...
"SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act ."
Reference to 4(a)(2):
"SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ...
(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE- (A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations."
I NEVER had a problem with regime change. An all-out invasion of a sovereign nation is a whole 'nother story.
Please tell me where in the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" it refers to 150,000 of our troops on the ground, 3,000 American personnel killed, 20,000 wounded, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed.
I've said it before, I'll say it again... you can't blame this one on Clinton.
Republicans should stick with their obsession with Clinton's penis. While misguided, and humorous to be sure, it has more validity than any feeble attempt to blame the current administration's failings on the Clinton administration.
Like I said Bigdog, nice try.
Marlipern,
I've been sitting on the sidelines watching you and Big Dog duke this one out. However, I have two comments about your most recent post....
1. "I NEVER had a problem with regime change. An all-out invasion of a sovereign nation is a whole 'nother story." I’m sorry, but this smacks of you were for it before you were against it. Sometimes, depending on the bad actor we're going after, boots on the ground and everything it entails are the only means of making regime change happen.
2. And as for “Republicans should stick with their obsession with Clinton's penis.” The only time Republicans were forced to deal with Clinton’s penis was when it became the only head he thought with. Let me spell it out for you, P-E-R-J-U-R-Y.
Like I said Bigdog, nice try.
WTF!!!! im trying to have a converstaion and you want to have a political pissing contest. WTF is wrong with you man. Fuck man i swear. Removes gloves.....SMACK!!!!
Again my point of contention is this: are we to believe what the dems say also. I am not blamming anything on Clinton directly. Stop putting words into my mouth, its disengenious on your part.
Quote:"Should we take the Dems at their word in the "run-up"?"
The start of such words began before and after the 1998 Liberation Act. I DID NOT say that it approved the invasion of Iraq, only regime change. The policy towards Iraq went from containment to regime change. This is an undeniable fact, backed up by Hillary Clinton and i quote:
------------------------------------
"In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."
Source: October 10 2002 Senate floor (Clinton.senate.gov)
-----------------------------------
Everywhere you turn they all speek of the UN violations and the pecking order, at number 1, is the UN violations. Both dems and repubs have concluded, long ago, that the UN is inept and needed to be re-inforced with our troops especially after 9-11. Oh and notice how Hillary mentions Saddam supporting AlQueda.
Should we believe what the dems say also?
--------------------------------------
"Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment.
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors."
Bill Clinton feb 17, 1998 Washington (CNN)
Are we to believe everything the dems say also?
------------------------------------
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
I believe in negotiated solutions to international conflict. This is, unfortunately, not going to be the case in this situation where Saddam Hussein has been a repeat offender, ignoring the international community's requirement that he come clean with his weapons program. While I support the President, I hope and pray that this conflict can be resolved quickly and that the international community can find a lasting solution through diplomatic means."
Nancy Pelosi Dec. 16 1998 Statement on US led Military strike against Iraq (House Gov press release).
------------------------------------
Pelosi knows diplomacy is a failure, UN sanctions are loosing steam and military action maybe un-avoidable.
Again should we believe what the dems also?
Nice try huh? I will say this about your haughty attitude. I have a plethera of quotes and dates you can chew on.
Shall we believe what the dems said pre 9-11?
-----------------------------------
Most ignorant thing i ever heard.
Marli said:
"I NEVER had a problem with regime change. An all-out invasion of a sovereign nation is a whole 'nother story."
Then explain how regime change would happen without an all out invasion of a country ran by the very dictator who refuse to leave or cooperate with the cease fire agreement he signed.
Explain why there was talk about a military strike in Iraq in 1998. Only if you dont believe what the dems were saying pre 9-11. In the same manor you are calling your own party liars, cherry pickers of intell, that lead to approving this invasion by funding it..... how did you put it?
"Please tell me where in the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" it refers to 150,000 of our troops on the ground, 3,000 American personnel killed, 20,000 wounded, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed."
Seems your dissedence has been misdirected, your own party is knee deep in blame. So drop your partisanship when dealing with me. I blame them all in reality. Moreso i blame saddam for not responding to his last chance resolution 1441 and the "serious consequences" in 1441 obviously meant tea and crumpets before removal....LOL....yeh right!
Gentlemen,
As a semi-disinterested observer, may I suggest that we chalk this one up as a win for Bigdog? Without a doubt, he scores points for the best lead paragraph of any comment yet posted. SMACK, indeed!
And Bigdog, in answer to your oft asked question, which I think by now has attained rhetorical status, "Should we take the Dems at their word in the "run-up"?" the answer is, obviously, yes. But we should also note that they have an uncanny ability to be on both sides of the issue which is why they are politicians and not statesmen.
Yes, by all means, let's declare Bigdog the winner. Bravo Bigdog!
Bigdog, you've just won the "They're just as bad as we are" World Championship, what are you going to do now? Disneyworld perhaps?
This thread as I recall, was about a player within the conservative movement who actually was willing to break ranks and point out the fallacy of much of the recent "conservative" policy and ideology.
But no, let's not talk about that. Let's dismiss him as a "conservative in name only" with an axe to grind, and switch focus to whether the Dems are to be trusted.
And no doubt, that is a valid question. But it wasn't the conversation I was trying to have here.
Is it at all possible for either of you to say anything critical about your party, this administration, or the policies it has pursued? Anything at all? Or is all right with the world as far as where we are going and how the hell we got here?
Here's a hint... Admitting mistakes does not make one weak, nor does it invalidate your beliefs, your ideology, or your past successes.
On that note Squire, yes you bet Clinton was an ass to perjure himself. And there most certainly should have been ramifications because of it. And he was all the more an ass to perjure himself when testifying about an act that wasn't even illegal. Morally reprehensible to be sure, unacceptable for a man in his position at the time, and seriously embarrassing to him and his family. He screwed up, and should have been man enough to admit to it.
Of course when this President screws up, he doesn't seem to be able to admit to it as well.
Gee, I guess Clinton & Bush have more in common than I thought. Of course when Clinton screwed up, he didn't take 3000 military personnel with him.
And it matters gentlemen. It matters.
I said before that I had no problem with regime change, but I did have a problem with an all-out invasion. Squire, you suggested that sometimes having boots on the ground is necessary. Perhaps it is. But it should be a last resort.
Bigdog, you asked how you achieve regime change without invasion. Please tell me you're not naive enough to believe that has never been accomplished without an all-out invasion, even in cases of a "dictator who refuse to leave or cooperate". Of course the methods necessary to accomplish this require patience, persistence, and sophistication. Traits sadly lacking in U.S. foreign policy for many years.
I take this misguided war in Iraq very seriously, and very personally. As do you, I'm sure. Those are our citizens being killed daily. Squire, you have children the age of those fighting over there right now. And in a very short six years, it could be my kid over there, fighting, and God forbid, dying. And for what????????????
Regime change? Please. WMDs? Nope, apparently not. A free, democratic Iraq, and the possibility of that freedom spreading to the rest of the Muslim world? Truly a noble goal. But tell me, how do you accomplish that at the point of a gun, after killing thousands of the citizens you're supposed to be "liberating"?
BTW Bigdog, congratulations on your "win".
Geez, Marli – you’re a really sore loser. Bigdog comes back after doing the “homework” you assigned, hands you your ass and you get pissed. Now that’s worth a trip to Disney World!
We have discussed the free-wheeling traits of these comments offline, but if this wasn’t the conversation you wanted to have then why did you prolong it with three additional comments of your own?
The “holier than thou” admit thy mistakes cure the Democrats would have the Republicans take would be like pouring blood into shark infested waters. And if “Admitting mistakes does not make one weak, nor does it invalidate your beliefs, your ideology, or your past successes” then the Democrats can make it their full time avocation. As for “When Clinton lied nobody died” it makes a much better bumper sticker than a statement of fact. I’m sure a few people in the Balkans would like to argue that one with you. I seem to remember they called it Monica’s War.
A last resort is when the boots hit the ground. Exactly how much longer did you want to give Sadam anyway? “Patience, persistence, and sophistication” must be the smarter, Democrat way of dealing with foreign affairs. Kick the tin can down the road for the next guy. If you thought Sadam was going to leave without people forcefully removing him, you’re more naïve than I thought.
In the future I would appreciate it if you left my family out of these discussions. However, since you raised the issue I will address it - exactly one time. My son discussed the possibility of joining the military instead of going to college. He was dissuaded by his uncle, an Air Force major, who advised him to get his degree first and if he still wanted to serve his country he could do so as an office instead of an enlisted man. I would obviously be concerned if he was in harms way but I would also be extremely proud of him. If Charlie Rangel has his way and re-institutes the draft then you and yours may have something to be concerned about. But everyone in the military volunteered to be there. And sometimes liberation does occur at the end of a gun. Your problem with all of this is you think we're the bad guys.
Squire...
And exactly how many U.S. soldiers died in the Balkans???? And in the end, Milosevic died in a prison in the Hague. Sounds like a regime change occured there.
"Kick the tin can down the road for the next guy." Isn't that what dubya said when he made the comment about "future Presidents". But of course, I forget, Pres. Bush can do no wrong.
Naive? Perhaps. But I think it's naive to believe that our government, our allies governments, their diplomatic corps, and their intelligence services, can't orchestrate a regime change without the bloody mess of this protracted invasion and occupation. And don't tell me that you believe that it's never been done before. But again, I forget, war is so much more profitable.
And I don't want to bring your family into it. No more than I want my own family brought into it. But thousands of families have already been brought into it. And for nearly 3,000 of those American families, this Holiday season will be without one member.
For the record, I don't think all Republicans, or conservatives, or any particular group of Americans are the bad guys. I think, however, there are some within the current administration who are bad guys, and there are entirely too many people who blindly defend them.
You may be right in your beliefs, and I may be way off base. But just consider, just for one moment, the possibility that I may be right. That this was a war of choice, the seeds of which were planted many years ago. That it's about power, politics, and greed, and not some noble cause. If you believed what I believe, wouldn't you be just as outraged as I am? Now imagine what it's like for the families who have lost loved ones in this war, and believe what I believe. It's unimaginable.
For the past several years, I have found myself in the apparent minority in this country. Nevertheless, I have not hesitated to express my beliefs to friends, family, and in forums like this. As an American, I'm blessed with that right, even in the minority.
Edward R. Murrow said, "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it." Until January, I am proud to consider myself in the "loyal opposition". After that, you guys get a chance to help keep Congress honest. I would hope that you do it with no less passion and patriotism than I have tried to do in my small part in this forum.
This is what I mean by naive. Please list for me all of the wars that were not fought for power, politics and greed. And just for one moment, consider that wars are often fought for power, politics, greed AND a noble cause. I also think you have a great deal of difficulty understanding that our servicemen volunteered to be there. Stop viewing the current war through the prism of Viet Nam.
As an American citizen you are entitled to express your viewpoint. But being in the minority does not confer any special status on your views. Over the next two years as the Democrat majority in Congress tears apart this war and decides how much longer they will fund it, just remember the first line of your Murrow quote “We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.” Disloyalty can be cloaked as dissent. Also remember that we are the greatest nation on earth, armed with the finest military in history and the only way we can be defeated is by internal forces.
Actually my intention is to get you to realize Marli.....that is this. You cant trust what anyone of them say until you verify it yourself.
Myself and Squire are telling you what is going on and you dismiss us to fast....because IMHO it conforms into your reality. Unless of course you wish conservatism to be dead then it all is clear. You are extremely biased?
Just because, a disgrunted conservative player, critisises his own party is fine by me....but for you to act like it shows some sorta partisan victory for you or somehow it shows the conservative movement is dead. I would then say, you are not dealing with a full deck.
Speeking of wich:
The Dems voted for the funding out of some political ploy...its so obvious. However they took the side of Bush at first, so they wouldnt seem soft on terror (04 primary); because no WMD's were found they claimed he lied, cherry picked intel and people died. Only to the informed, oh.......the smell of irony, was enough to show they said the same things before Bush was ever president. BTW Joe Wilson is a liar, ill be glad to show you my evidence if needed.
So you believe what our guy says and you believe Bush lied people died.
Now do you believe Bush didnt lie? Dems said the same things pre 9-11. Pre-Bush as well.
Why is that? Didnt you realise what your people said in the run up?
Yet somehow, as long as 3 fingers doesnt point back at you, its ok?
Reality is what it is and sometimes i think people become gullible, as long as it matches what they think thier reality should be or gives them some ill perceived vantage point.
BTW i always do my homework. I am a true conservative. I am a statemans, man. I also have social views so does that make me a Lib?
Bigdog,
You proceed under the assumption that I always march in lockstep with the Democrats in Congress. I don't. Nor, quite frankly, do they march in lockstep with each other.
The Dems in the Senate voted FOR the $87B in funding. The Dems in the House voted AGAINST it. Take a look at the Congressional record if you don't believe me.
Thanks so much for showing me "what is going on", since obviously only conservatives have the skinny on "reality".
Do you really think that I don't realize that members of BOTH parties have lied for political gain in the past, and will continue to do so?
Please feel free to show me that Joe Wilson is a liar, if it will make you feel better. While you're at it, show me that Bush isn't a liar. Cause that'll make ME feel better.
Do you think I like how things have turned out in this whole asinine fiasco? Do you think I really want Bush to be such a deceitful, divisive scoundrel? Do you really think I like the fact that my party has often times become simply the lesser of two evils? If you believe all that, then I think it might be you who is not dealing with a full deck.
I would love to be able to support this President. I can't. I would love to be able to get behind this war in Iraq. I can't. (Afghanistan is a whole different ball game - I'm fully behind it)
At the end of the day, the Republicans lied. The Democrats lied. Pointing that out doesn't bring back 3,000 dead soldiers.
But in the final analysis, Bush gave the order to invade, no matter who else lied on our road to getting there. And the sad truth is history will judge him largely on what happens at the end of this whole mess, not the means used to get us there.
Perhaps I'm one of the few who believes that the means do matter.
And Squire, this is why I sometimes feel the need to close out the comments on my posts. This petty competition over who gets the last word (myself included) detracts from the legitimate intention of the discussion.
"The Dems in the House voted AGAINST it.......The Dems in the Senate voted FOR the $87B in funding. The Dems in the House voted AGAINST it. Take a look at the Congressional record if you don't believe me."
WOW!!!! i cant believe you said that. In fact 74 of 205 dems vote for it. Do some more digging and you will find that those who voted for it had the 04 primary to be concerned about also.
"At the end of the day, the Republicans lied. The Democrats lied. Pointing that out doesn't bring back 3,000 dead soldiers."
WOW!! like you really care about the 3000 soldiers....whos dead soldier household have you visited to help the widow and their children out?
You have to many instances of grandgure pointing out how Bush lied and people died. Well atleast you recognise it isnt entirely Bush's fault. Again if Bush lied then Clinton lied, Pelosi lied, Al gore lied, every frekin dem lied during the 90's up to 2003. Atleast you have half-assed admitted to that.
Just remember everytime you say Bush lied. There are atleast a dozen or so more democrat leaders who fall into your Bush lied category.
Joe Wilson is a liar. No need for evidence because it doesnt matter to you and i wont waste our time on it.
The majority of the Dems in the house voted AGAINST it. That's what I meant and you fucking know it.
"WOW!! like you really care about the 3000 soldiers....whos dead soldier household have you visited to help the widow and their children out?"
Watch your fucking tone with me, Bigdog, and your choice of words. You have no idea what is in my heart, nor do you know what I do or not do to support our troops and their families.
I may disagree with you on a number of issues. But I have never, not once, questioned your compassion, your motives, your patriotism, or your character.
And you had better not do it with me again. Otherwise you'll be finding another blog to troll.
We're done here.
<< Home