This Republican has some doubts

[radfringe]

Monday, December 22, 2003
This Republican has some doubts
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/153303_firstperson22.html
By DANIEL LEE
GUEST COLUMNIST

It was the morning after the birthday party for my 5-year-old twins and their first full day to play with the toys they had not had time to take out of the packages.

I pulled off the plastic of the Sunday morning paper and there before me was the headline no veteran wants to see: "The U.S. Suffers Its Bloodiest Day."

---snip---

I have been a Republican my whole life and beliefs of liberty, small government, reverence for the Constitution and a fiscal discipline are typical among people who think like I do. But the politicians who said they believed in these concepts are nowhere to be seen. Above all, President Bush, who ran on the platform of "Not Believing in Nation Building," is currently building two, and no Republican seems to care.

------------------------------

wonder how many other republicans feel this way and if they will continue to support Bush*?

[4dsc]

1. My father's a republican and

he just hates dubya and this war with IRAQ. He is livid, every time there is mention of another dead American in Iraq. He won't be voting for dubya next time.

[Rebellious Republican]

2. Yes, other republicans have taken notice, I am one!

Thats why I left the Republican party, and there are many others like me.

:kick:

[radfringe]

3. my dad calls himself a conservative

he's registered as an independent

he was a registered republican for a short while - but switched during the Poppy Bush years and is not at all happy with the Son of Bush (although he voted for him as an anti-Gore Vote)

my mom has become more conservative over the years (she also voted anti-Gore) - not sure where she stands on Son of Bush

I try not to discuss politics with my parents - turns into a real nasty scene, even a safe subject - like the weather evolves into an argument about global warming

not sure which way they are going to go in Nov'04

[Rebellious Republican]

4. I think you may be pleasently surprised radfringe........

Three years of blatent lies and deceit are hard to keep hidden. Regardless of the media propaganda, the whole world hates this regime, and you can bet that the center and moderate right are moving to the left.

:toast:

[54anickel]

5. See the same with my in-laws. Republicans, but hate Shrub. The polls

that show Shrub doing fairly well are just polls. I think a lot of people that voted for him do not want to admit they were misled. They will answer a simple poll in a way that vaildates their decision. I believe it will be much different when they are in that voting booth, reviewing how their life and the ones close to them have been effected the last 4 years.

[pansypoo53219]

7. his re-elect #s

are abysmal.

[pansypoo53219]

6. Bush building 2 nations???

i do not think so. aparently, he dropped afganistan like a hot potato and so far all i see is profiteering in iWaq and very little building.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Demeter]

9. Bush is in the Nation-Destroying Business

Also the family-destroying business, the business-destroying business, and the individual-destroying business.

Currently he is destroying 3 nations:

Iraq
Afghanistan
United States of America

there are others, I am sure, in South and Central America especially, but they aren't hitting the headlines.

[salin]

10. Sadly - that is the simplistic view.

Go back to what we know about OBL - he wants to reshape the Islamic world into a single Wahabbi unit. Go back to his psychopathy and illusions of grandeur - and his 'success' in seeking harbor and assitance from the Taliban in Afghanistan... he views himself as some sort of superhero who is "THE ONE" to unite the Islamic world.

How to do this?

Create a major us/them conflict which will allow the very divided Islamic world to unite together... Bango - The ATTROCIOUS attacks of 911. For him perceived to be a win/win regarding two possible outcomes. A) The US does little - or does a few strikes (and he believes he is invincible - so he doesn't perceive his life would be endangerd)... and like his rhetoric used after Somalia... he comes off as a leader to "stand down" the US; or B) The US attacks Afghanistan (a better outcome for Osama - as it serves the unifying effort - in his mind - against the US... just as the USSR was the unifying enemy when it occupied Afghanistan years earlier).

The thing he did not count on is that most Islamic countries did NOT side with him - and it did not create the unified PanArab world that he sought to create. Furthermore most governments recognized that in OBLs view of the future - each of the governments and societies within the Islamic world would be overthrown and recreated in the image of an extreme theocratic state ala the Taliban.

Why is this important to note? Viewing the actions as simply "They Want to Kill Us" (and undoubtedly some do!) - misses the big picture and prevents making WISE policy decisions.

Go read the news for the past 18 months surrounding developments in Afghanistan.

We began to pull troops out shortly after the fall of the Taliban - to restation them (a year in advance in some cases) in KuWait and Iraq. The president failed to put ANY dollars towards the rebuilding of Afghanistan (which he had promised to do) in his budget (embarassing House leaders who scrambled to put sme into the budget.)

By March (a couple of months after the fall of Afghanistan) 2002, we began to pull intelligence resources OUT of Afghanistan and OFF of the Al Queada trail. Why? To step up the justification to invade Iraq. Sadly after a full year of intensive intelligence work - at the expense of the work against Al Queada the adminstration still had no solid intelligence to rationalize an invasion - and used faked intelligence, as we have now learned. (and to see how our War on Terror went - after we pulled our intel and military resources from Afghanistan to focus on Iraq - for fun - go search news items on arrests and detainments and obstruction of money flow to Al Queada from Sept 2001 to March 2002, and then compare the same number of successful efforts after that time til now. You should find a HUGE decrease... why? Because the administration thought that Iraq was more important - and pulled its resources away from the "war on terror).

By summer of 2002 - while the news was starting to trump up war beats against Iraq... go search the news out of Afghanistan: Al Queada groups were known to be regrouping within the outer 'frontier' areas of Afghanistan. Just months after the US denied UN requests to extend the "peace keeping efforts" beyond Kabul - to prevent conditions of extreme lawlessness and War Lord terror that led to the rise of the Taliban in the first place. With limited presence in the country - only Kabul was considered under the control of the provisional government. In addition many of the girls' schools that had opened had been targets of multiple fire bombing and quickly shuttered up.

By the winter of 2002 - a year after the fall of the taliban - there were even more reports of strengthening of Al Queada networds... and the reemergence of some Taliban resistance in former stronghold regions. The initial disruption of Al Queada... recruitment... training... financing... seemed to have ended. What had earlier been reported as networks in dissarray.... were now organizing again. Where was the US war on terror? Trying to sell the UN on an invasion in Iraq and trying to sell the public on a war with Iraq even if there was NO international support.

Now there are stories that OBL and his top folks have been living all along in the border areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan. That the Taliban has reemerged as a major force in parts of the country including Kandahar. There is great sympathy for OBL in Pakistan where there have just been TWO assassination attempts on the president - who has been - on the surface - supportive of the US efforts in Afghanistan. Meanwhile we have learned that much of the rogue nuclear technology in places such as North Korea - and very rudimentarily in Libya... came from Pakistan. But WE now are barely operating and have had negative progress since the fall of the Taliban in that region... and we are very mired in Iraq.

What does this mean for OBL's grand plans? Probably another attempt to draw the US into yet another conflict - though our own efforts in IRaq may make this unnecessary. He is a vile man with no respect for human life - and he is delusional as a loon - and he is dangerous to us. But by not 'getting it' in DC. And viewing the whole scenario in a simplistic "they want to kill us" (which was only part of the plan- the bigger plan is to recreate the entire Arab world - using the US and the West as the "Threat" to do so)... we have continued to pursue ends that let OBL and his Al Quaeda to regroup, strengthen and continue to be a very real threat against us.

Sadly the OBL story you relate is historically incorrect. There was no manner in which any president could have acted upon the alleged "offer." We have a constitution and set of laws we have to follow in the US on the one hand; and we have tended try to follow international law so that we could have international cooperation (as we saw in the initial months after 911 in many international arrests against members of Al Qeada.) Some would claim that some of the provisions in the War Resolution was to change the US laws that would allow certain actions of a president that previously would have been extralegal.

Regarding OBL and RUsh (and other conservatives) old claim (that one rarely hears anymore) about the bombing in Afghanistan that missed killing OBL by hours - in retaliation for the US Embassy bombings - that these were unnecessary actions to "wag the dog." Again history seems to indicate that it was more than 'wag the dog'. And while the mission "failed"... it seems in retrospect to have been much more close to "success" than the multiyear efforts of this adminsitration. Which, imo, is why we hear so little about this anymore.

Completely on a different note - you do know that the first round of MAJOR base closures began under George Bush Sr. - including a long-term plan for closures in the future ... and that the continuation of this program was following the plans developed and initially implemented under Geogre Bush Senior. Further more over the holidays the Administration released information on the criteria for future closures. There is NO democratic controlled part of government right now - this is ALL coming from the republicans. You are simply historically incorrect on this point.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. Oh my god! Is that what the right wing is brainwashing people to believe?

I don't know whether to resent you or feel sorry for you.

All of your points are so misinformed it's laughable!

The burden of PROOF is on you to defend a statement as hyperbolic as Clinton or Gore would have surrendered. If there WERE an imminent threat, Clinton and Gore would have done the same thing only they would NOT have alienated our most valuable allies, who, therefore, would have been sharing the risk with us.

Clinton was impeached only and SOLELY due to a partisan witch hunt which after 80 million dollars turned up JACK shit...compare that with the 3 million your good ole boy in the White House has spent on the 9/11 investigation...doesn't it make you just a little uncomfortable to know the facts surrounding that date are of so little value to your little boy king? Think about it...to the right wingnut Republican congress, a BLOW JOB is of more value than investigating and securing our nation.

Let me tell you something...IF you had a hooker in your house, Ashcroft could find her...how come he hasn't found the anthrax assassin, given that there are only very few people who could have sent this anthrax?

BTW, all those base closures under Clinton were selected by none other than DICKWAD Cheney..and veteran's benefits enjoyed the biggest increase in decades under Bill BLOWJOB CLinton...no wonder people vote Republican...it's a statement of how dreadfully misinformed they are.

[coda]

12. Definitely a nut

If Gore was in office, Gore may have surrendered our nation to the people we are fighting now.

Ossama wanted us out of Saudi Arabia. :-)


--

Sorry to say that when ever there is a Democrat in office our National Defense suffers by closing Air Bases, Army Post, Decommissioning Naval Ships and for what?

If Clinton closed so many bases, why was Rumsfeld pushing to close even more? For more corporate welfare? (Clinton's army performed very well, didn't it Dr. Wolfowitz?)


--

For their social programs?


Who just pushed, passed, and signed the largest expansion of the welfare state in 40 years?


--


The president stated that he was not in the nation building business before and after the election but on 9/1/01 that all changed.

He also said he would "protect and defend the Constitution" too, IIRC.


--


So do you want a president that does what he states or a president that talks big but does little or nothing.

Geez, what do you want?

"There ought to be limits to freedom."

G.W.Bush - May 21, 1999

===

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden.
It is our Number one priority and we will not rest until we find him!"
-- Governor Bush, September 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is.
I have no idea and I really don't care.
It's not that important. It's not our priority."
-- Governor Bush, March 13, 2002


Obviously.

[Skittles]

14. um.....BIKENUT

read the Congressional Record. CHENEY CLOSED THE BASES, NOT CLINTON. Stop listening to rightwing trash and maybe you'd learn something.

[Martin Eden]

15. point by point rebuttal

The president stated that he was not in the nation building business before and after the election but on 9/1/01 that all changed.
I think you meant 9/11/01. Anyway, nothing changed in regards to Iraq after 9/11, except it gave the neoconservatives the opportunity to implement their pre-existing agenda (are you familiar with PNAC?). Let's remember that Afghanistan and Iraq are two different countries, just as OBL and SH are not one and the same. Afghanistan was ruled by the Islamic fundamentalist Taliban and harbored the al Qaeda terrorist organization that attacked us. We supported Iraq in the 80's because their secular regime was a bulwark against Iran's Islamic revolution. Now that we have deposed his regime, Islamic extremists are making inroads where they were previously blocked by SH.

Nation-building in Afghanistan alone is an extremely difficult task. The invasion of Iraq diverted vital resources from Afghanistan, and now the Taliban are making a comeback. Instead of doing one job well, we're doing two poorly, with no guarantee that any government we install will survive when our troops are no longer there to maintain security. Real democracy in Iraq would likely result in an Islamic regime. A failed democracy (which is very likely) may result in another tyranny, only this time with Islamic extremists at the helm.

This president is required to defend this nation and he has done just that. There are some things that he has done that I do not agree with, but he has done a fairly good job. If Gore was in office, Gore may have surrendered our nation to the people we are fighting now.
The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with defending this nation. Iraq neither possessed WMD nor was it allied with al Qaeda. It was thoroughly contained and deterred. The suggestion that Gore would surrender is beyond ludicrous. Please explain how this surrender would be carried out.

Democrat’s think that everything can be resolved by negotiating, NO. These people do not want to talk -> THEY WANT YOU AND I DEAD!
Clinton and Gore did not negotiate with al Qaeda. They launched cruise missiles at them, and developed an anti-terrorism program that the Bush administration ignored. Diplomacy, on the other hand, is a valuable strategy that Bush has thoroughly trashed. Anti-Americanism is on the rise throughout the world. Bush has made us less safe. Terrorism is not a country you can invade -- it's a tactic that needs to be suppressed by brains and brawn.

You talk about Bill Clinton like this guy is your god. Let me remind you that this man disgraced the office and betrayed you (Democrat’s). He was impeached and that is okay with you. While I am on the subject of Bill Clinton, Usama was in custody and the Clinton Administration did not want him knowing that he and is followers were at war with the US. Clinton sent a couple of cruse missiles into Afghanistan and said he did something.
Clinton is not my God, but to impeach a president for lying about a blow job is a waste of taxpayer money. On the other hand, impeaching a president for lying to Congress and the American people in matters of war is a high crime that merits impeachment.
Your sentence about Usama being in custody and Clinton not wanting him to know we were at war makes absolutely no sense to me. Please explain what you mean.

Dem's need to get their priority straight, when attached, we must defend ourselves. We can not expect Germany, France, Russia or even the UN to help. We all have seen what the UN can do, We all know what France can do, We all know what Germany can do. Nothing, when ever these countries are at war, who do they call, thats correct the US of A.
Again, we were not attacked by Iraq. Our allies offered to invoke the NATO charter (in regards to Afghanistan) whereby an attack on one member is an attack on all. Bush brushed them off. Nevertheless, they have peacekeeping troops in Afghanistan and have supported us there. As for France, they were instrumental in helping us gain our independence from Britain.

Sorry to say that when ever there is a Democrat in office our National Defense suffers by closing Air Bases, Army Post, Decommissioning Naval Ships and for what? For their social programs.
What did you think of the military machine that rolled into Baghdad this spring? That was Clinton's military. Bush has our military badly overextended, and paying the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq for his lies and the neocon agenda. His huge budget deficits will make it difficult to fund anything, be it the military, homeland security, or social programs, and in the long run it will undermine the economy that is the foundation of our security.

So do you want a president that does what he states or a president that talks big but does little or nothing.
When you say "a president that does what he states", are you referring to Bush's pledge to not go into the nation-building business? Or perhaps so many of his statements about Iraq that have proven to be lies? Maybe you mean the president who talked big about being a compassionate conservative, but is neither. True conservatives are appalled at this administration, just like the lifelong Republican who wrote the commentary featured in the post that started this thread.

I invite you to respond to any of the points I made here, in the spirit of honest debate. Who knows, we may both learn something.

[Skittles]

13. sounds like fatherhood has made Mr. Lee a bit more human

probably the first time in his Republican Life he has had to think of people besides himself.

[tabasco]

16. We must welcome our republican brothers and sisters ..

back into the fold of true American patriots. They have been duped by a clever and well-funded propaganda campaign. Power to the people and not to the corporations!