I can't tell you how many times I've had to correct the misimpression that this War was all about Saddam being an Evil Man and threatening us with WMDs. I just think it's scandalous that the MSM would spread that crazy idea til so many people were duped into believing it.

I only wish President Bush had done more to make it clear before the Tanks of Freedom rolled in to Liberate Baghdad that we were actually following Wolfowitz's real plan, instead of that phony one that his advisors had him read speeches about.

Jay, That reminds me. Did you do the piece on Southpark Republicans? Did I miss it? Or are you still working on it?

I just think it's scandalous that the MSM would spread that crazy idea til so many people were duped into believing it.

I only wish President Bush had done more to make it clear before the Tanks of Freedom rolled in to Liberate Baghdad that we were actually following Wolfowitz's real plan, instead of that phony one that his advisors had him read speeches about.

It's the media's fault! If only they had not listened to Bush and told us all about the Wolfowitz plan, we would have understood!
I don't doubt this was the plan all along, as many were aware, but why all the bs? Oh, that's right, because they felt they would get no support for the plan and instead pushed wmd's down our throats. The Iraqi nukes are coming! The Iraqi nukes are coming!

- mantis - As has been pointed out before....Every major intel org in the world, among them Fwance and Germville, almost all of the Liberal Dem Senators including LurchKerry, most of the Dem candidates that made a run for the presidency, even the resident murdering drunk Kennedy said in one way or another "We simply cannot allow Saddam to remain in office in possesion of WMD's....Them's the facts dude....Unfortunately for the AssHats, thats on video tape and a matter of public record.....

- So then what is your bitch with Bush......that he believed you and acted on all your well meaning, if misguided and inaccurate information. Would you have been happier if he had told everyone they were full of crap.

- Not only is this screed convoluted, its moot at this point. Things have not gone to hell in Iraq the way the lefturds hoped, and as an added bonus the effects of the plan are taking hold in Palestine, Egypt and Lebanon. Read it and weep comrades......

Well then you have to explain to everyone why it was that George Bush explicitly rejected the "Wolfowitz Plan" during the 2000 Campaign. Was bush simply one of the "dupes" described in the linked post? Bush never mentioned terrorism as a campaign them in 2000, and other then some words on Chechnya, Terrorism was not why Bush was elected, unless you all have some kind of mind reading reception device.

- RD - No one has the market cornered on that area. Everyone including Clinton for all 8 years of his admin, and yes even Bush, America and all of our politicians as a whole, failed to take the terrorist threat seriously enough....

We all got a wake up call on 9/11. Apparently some of us still haven't come to grips with reality....

- Generally you'll find if you look, that the sleep walkers among us are the same ideologs who think men, women, and children that get killed in cold blood are little Eichmens and obviously deserved it......

As has been pointed out before....Every major intel org in the world, among them Fwance and Germville, almost all of the Liberal Dem Senators including LurchKerry, most of the Dem candidates that made a run for the presidency, even the resident murdering drunk Kennedy said in one way or another "We simply cannot allow Saddam to remain in office in possesion of WMD's....Them's the facts dude

So because Democrats said Saddam should not be allowed to get or maintain wmds, then Bush is justified in pushing that theme instead of the administrations true intentions/plan? Umm, ok. The point I was making, besides pointing out minnie's contradictory post, was that they could have just told us what the plan was, and the reasoning behind it, instead of the WMD bit, which in the end proved to be pretty groundless. The question is, why justify the war on shaky intelligence of wmd's when the plan all along had much less to do with them. And even if things have not "gone to hell in Iraq" (ask some Iraqis if they think things have gone to hell), this means none of us should care that we were jerked around?

Would you have been happier if he had told everyone they were full of crap.

Yes. I would have no beef on this issue if Bush had justified the war as "Look, I don't care if Saddam has WMDs or not, he is dangerous and needs to be taken down so that we can start to establish democracy in the middle east, which will hopefully spread." But no, I had to hear about nukes and ice cream trucks and the like for months, thinking it was all bs, which it was.

Generally you'll find if you look, that the sleep walkers among us are the same ideologs who think men, women, and children that get killed in cold blood are little Eichmens and obviously deserved it......

You reveal your total intolerance of anything unlike yourself and hatred of much of your fellow citizenry when you spew crap like this. One retarded moron writes an essay no one would have read if rightie bloggers hadn't made him a celebrity, and you equate his sentiments with half the country's. Twit.

- mantis - You dissapoint....I've never seen you reduced to ad hominem personal attacks.... you must feel disadvantaged in this debate in some way....

- At any rate you deftly carry on with alacrity, even as its put to you that this endless yammering about WMD's is feckless nonsense at this point .... You would prefer to focus on past history because you apparently can't deal with the plans success...

- As an adult, do you or do you not think that what has transpired to date in the Middle East is a good thing and shows promise......

Terrorism was not why Bush was elected, unless you all have some kind of mind reading reception device.

What? Are you a mindreader in why people voted for him? I sure as hell knew I didn't want someone as soft on terrorism as Clinton and Carter were in the Whitehouse.

I've never seen you reduced to ad hominem personal attacks.... you must feel disadvantaged in this debate in some way....

Anyone who labels a massive amount of their fellow citizens as revelling in the death of innocents is a twit. That's just how I feel. And it's not a weakness of argument because I don't need nor feel like engaging in an argument about whether liberals think the WTC victims were "little eichemans". It's absurd.

At any rate you deftly carry on with alacrity, even as its put to you that this endless yammering about WMD's is feckless nonsense at this point ....

This ain't my blog.

As an adult, do you or do you not think that what has transpired to date in the Middle East is a good thing and shows promise.....

Certainly. I find the recent developments in the region as very positive. I hope democratic reforms continue to spread as they seem to be doing now. And yes I see this as a direct result of the wars in Afghanistan (I thought was a good idea from the start) and Iraq (not for). So yes, things seem to be working out better than I expected. I can't quite say at this point that the ends justify the means, and there may have been different ways to get these effects than invading Iraq, but yes it certainly shows promise. I hope things continue and Iraq finds peace soon.

- Then we are in basic agreement on the results if not the means....

- And just for the record I am not mawkish enough to ever ascribe the aforementioned screeds to anywhere like the majority of Democrats or Libertarians or even moderate Liberals for that matter. I think what I and other Conservatives keep looking for is some aggressive disavowance of the hard left by the Party as I remember it. Thats quite a different position I think you would agree.

- I could easily find some fault with Bush's slight of hand in the Iraq campaign, but I'm practical and experienced enough to have seen this sort of thing on countless occassions before. All politicians "run the car they brung" politically. Kerry, Dean, Hillery....name any leading Dem or Repub politicians you want to and, although I can't prove it, they would have acted in exactly the same way because not to act in face of imminent danger would be political suicide. But thats just reality that they all have to deal with every day. The cause celeb was the ground swell of WMD fear. everyone was agreed. So he went with it. I believe they all would have.....

The cause celeb was the ground swell of WMD fear. everyone was agreed. So he went with it. I believe they all would have.....

Wouldn't suprise me. A politician's a politician. I would have opposed the war and criticized a democrat president for jerking us around too.

As for aggressive disavowance, I don't see much of that from the Republicans concerning the fringe right. Who should disavow the "hard left"? And how should they define these people? If you want Democrats to disavow Ted Rall and Ward Churchill, I think you'll be waiting a while. If you want them to disavow Moore and Soros, get real.

- I don't think its so much a matter of focus on any specific individual, or group. It was more a case of the party leadership refecting the same attitudes and statements. The over the top name calling etc....

- You don't get that from the Comservative message in general. The Pat Buchanons aren't reflected to any great extent in the Conservative message, even when religion and values are brought in....

- Also the intensity, which I assume is ment to convey dedication, if too heavy handed, comes off as desperation and lack of assurance. It tends to make middle America nervous. I won't even try to argue the right or wrong of it. But I can say that many of my Dem friends crossed over because of that and similar things.....

RE: mantis's post (February 27, 2005 05:37 PM)

An important diversion but diversion nonetheless. Ignore if it is hardcore WOT stuff that you seek.

...One retarded moron [Churchill of CU] writes an essay no one would have read if rightie bloggers hadn't made him a celebrity, and you equate his sentiments with half the country's...

He's a celebrity of his own accord and is currently in a perpetual state of recruitment for fools. His danger is not that he wrote a sickening piece practically justifying the death of innocents though that is bad enough. No, his real danger is that he can poison young minds not yet mature enough, or independent enough, to refute his b*llsh*t. Such is the challenge and risk of winnowing higher education's minefields for diploma.

His "scholarly work" represents his beliefs and his core principles that he espouses to students, and that is contemptible. He has become a useful idiot and walking billboard for some of what is wrong in higher education. I most certainly celebrate his ignominy. I, and I'll assume others, most certainly do not equate his sentiments with half the country's, but I do equate them with the those promoting his works as intellectually worthy or those promoting his "right" to teach in view of his history and presentation.

Thankfully, "rightie bloggers" did herald this piece of work so that we may initiate the purge of idiots and frauds or at least acknowledge that the filters limiting their access have failed.

Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

Yes. We are winning the War on Terror just like Ronnie destroyed the Evil Empire with SDI. The MSM does its best to bury the good news. Many Arab peoples are asking why cant we have a democracy like Iraq? Egypt is the first to move- ever so slightly- in that direction. Given a choice most people opt for freedom and self determination.

Julie - I am with you 100%!

Thankfully, "rightie bloggers" did herald this piece of work so that we may initiate the purge of idiots and frauds or at least acknowledge that the filters limiting their access have failed.

Just to be clear, I don't mean to say that it is wrong of bloggers to expose Churchill, or he should be left alone or anything. It's just silly to assume that anyone who hasn't said so thinks like him when a month ago no one had ever heard of him. "Little Eichmanns" is his, and his alone.

No, his real danger is that he can poison young minds not yet mature enough, or independent enough, to refute his b*llsh*t

The strange circumstances surrounding Churchill's tenure and employment, not to mention he seems to be a pathological liar, make me believe that his sort of attitude is anything but common in American universities (that and having attended three of them). One of the most important things students should learn at university is when not to listen to their teachers.

DeMent, Bush was first elected in 2000, and 9/11 happened after that. A lot of people's thinking changed as a result of 9/11.

Just apparently not yours.

Rod - No, you're not! You're behind the Orange curtin. :p

When I come out from the curtin I am with you; in spirit if not in body.

WMD was a fig leaf for the Europeans. Since literally everybody, including Saddam, was saying Saddam had WMD, Bush & Co. figured putting WMD before the UN as the excuse would let the French and Germans sign on without embarrassment. The Euros don't really believe in democracy, free markets, etc., and an effort to establish an enclave of such in the Middle East would never, never, never have gained any support whatever from them.

Of course the Oil-For-Bribes bit wasn't known then, or Bush and Powell probably wouldn't even have made the effort. But the WMD thing wasn't for home consumption; the fact that it got played up was an artifact of the tendency of the MSM to think of the Europeans as more sophisticated and realistic than Americans are. The real reasons were out there.

And no, when Bush took office he wasn't buying into it. He knew what would happen -- specifically, what has happened: widespread boos, at the very least. He didn't want any part of that. His mind got changed one September morning.

Regards,
Ric

Heh, I was a South Park Republican in college.

I'd like to see that piece.

I think that's a related set of Kid Rock Republicans.

TallDave, same guys.

"I've been kicking around a piece for some time,"

Do you realize how many times you say this?

Cindy