Ignore them, they'll go away.

[walldude]

BEFORE

"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." –Vice President Dick Cheney, "Meet the Press," March 16, 2002

"Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries." –Secretary of State Colin Powell, testifying about Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons capabilities before the United Nations Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003

"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army. Hard to imagine." –Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before the House Budget Committee prior to the Iraq war, Feb. 27, 2003

"From a marketing point of view, you don't roll out new products in August." --White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, on why the Bush administration waited until after Labor Day to try to sell the American people on war against Iraq, "New York Times" interview, Sept. 7, 2002

"British intelligence has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." –President Bush, 2003 State of the Union Address

"Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations." –President Bush, 2004

"It's a slam-dunk case!" –CIA Director George Tenet, discussing WMD and the case for war during a meeting in the Oval Office, Dec. 21, 2002

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." –National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, on Iraq's nuclear capabilities and the Bush administration's case for war, Sept. 8, 2002

"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." –Vice President Dick Cheney, "Meet The Press" March 16, 2003

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." —President Bush, discussing the Iraq war with Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, after Robertson told him he should prepare the American people for casualties

“"the oil will pay for the Iraq war" - Paul Wolfowitz

DURING

"My answer is bring 'em on." —President George W. Bush, challenging militants attacking U.S. forces in Iraq, July 2, 2003

"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." --Vice President Dick Cheney, on the Iraq insurgency, June 20, 2005

"As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time." —Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, responding to a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq who asked him why troops had to dig through scrap metal to armor vehicles, Dec. 8, 2004

"Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things." –Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on looting in Iraq after the U.S. invasion, adding "stuff happens," April 11, 2003

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." –President Bush, standing under a "Mission Accomplished" banner on the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier, May 2, 2003

"We found the weapons of mass destruction." –President Bush, in an interview with Polish television, May 29, 2003

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." –Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when asked about weapons of mass destruction in an ABC News interview, March 30, 2003

"I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are." –White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, July 9, 2003

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason." --Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, "Vanity Fair" interview, May 28, 2003

"Had we to do it over again, we would look at the consequences of catastrophic success, being so successful so fast that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in escaped and lived to
fight another day." —President Bush, telling Time magazine that he underestimated the Iraqi resistance, Aug. 2004

"I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons." –Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, June 24, 2003

"In Iraq, a ruthless dictator cultivated weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. He gave support to terrorists, had an established relationship with al Qaeda, and his regime is no more." –Vice President Dick Cheney, Nov. 7, 2003

NOW.

Now they are living high on the hog. book tours, speaking engagements, nice pension, lifetime health care, not to mention the money they are making from companies they favored with government contracts while they were holding office.

Now a new generation of "soldiers" has taken over, with all new lies and new fear tactics, and a brand new enemy. Yes Saddam no longer wants to come and eat your babies. Now it's LIBERALS coming to take away your way of life. Coming to get your guns, and to force you to say "Happy Holidays". Coming to take your money and turn America into a socialist nightmare. It's time to close ranks, reload, fire up your second amendment rights, be armed and dangerous against the "enemy".


We let them off, not even a slap on the wrist. Now they are using the tactics they used to drum up support for the Iraq war to attack any American who isn't part of their "plan".

If you think that they might have had a modicum of guilt or even just a thought that they might want to tone it down a bit, check out Townhall magazines newest "cover story":



I say we let them get away with it again. I say we look forward and keep ignoring the lies, the hate, and the victimization of the oppressor. Yeah that sounds like the best course of action. It worked so well in the past.

[snagglepuss]

1. The hate is being ratcheted up to prevent doubt from surfacing and it will

work.

[bobbolink]

2. "WE" let them off? I did no such thing. The guy currently in the Oval made that decision.

[walldude]

3. Agreed, but you have to admit that although

there was a contingent of us demanding justice, many, including the ones in charge, wanted to "look forward". So yes I used the collective "we". While I was certainly disgusted I didn't grab a sign and plant myself on the White house lawn demanding justice. You can exclude yourself if you were out there every day demanding justice, I wasn't so I'm not. I may have demanded it here on DU and I may have called me reps but I certainly didn't "fight" to get the proper outcome. So yeah we. Exclude yourself if you want.

[bobbolink]

4. Nope, I am NOT in your "WE".

If that is your definition, then, in your words, "you must admit" that you are complicit with all the cuts to poor folk if you're not out there every day protesting them.

[walldude]

5. You know what? I'm sorry you are having a bad day or whatever

but you can now get off my back.

Fine you are not one of US. Happy now? How much more plainly can I say it?

Fuck, I thought we were friends, you come in here to pick fucking nits with me? Really? Fine you don't want to include yourself in the collective "we" as Americans? FINE. DON'T. Unrec the post and move on.

This post had nothing to do with "fault" or blame, the post was meant to compare the tactics leading up to and during the Iraq war to the tactics used in the "War on Liberals". You took one fucking word out of a thousand word post and decided thats what it was all about. Whatever your problem is take it out on someone else.

This is a really good way to gain support. Make another post convincing me I am wasting my time with DU.

I'll be going now. Good luck to you.

[Poboy]

6. Don't take it personally. I've seen this poster attack many others in just this strange way.

People who are their allies and sympathetic to them too. Strange.


OP recommended, btw.

[bobbolink]

7. I didn't want Obama in the Oval, this is what I expected from him, and I REFUSE to take

responsibility for his ignorant actions.

I don't understand why that makes you angry, but so be it. I guess you are having the bad day.

From the moment he picked Geitner and the rest, I knew he was NOT my president, so I am not in the "we".

I will edit this to say, I don't identify with anything he is doing... it is NOT in my name, any more than what * did. O had the opportunity to do this differently, he would have had popular support, and he blew it.

I have no idea why me saying that angers you. Reading that as me "picking on" you makes no sense to me.

I hope your day gets better.

[walldude]

10. When you want to discuss what is in the post

I'd be happy to. I am not however going to sit here and discuss "blame" and who it should be assigned to. Beyond that, this post wasn't about YOU. I have no more desire to discuss YOU and could care less who YOU wanted in the oval office.

This post was about the war tactics the Right is using. YOU took the post and a small aside in the post and made it all about YOU, about how YOU weren't part of this and YOU aren't we and YOU feel insulted by my use of the general word "we".

Then I tried to diffuse the situation by agreeing with you and YOU still felt the need to come back with another "I am not WE" post.

You know what? I understand. It's not YOU. It's the rest of us. Thanks for your input, it has been most valuable.

[bobbolink]

11. hahahaha Wow, Talk about taking things personally.

Whew......

ALL of those things are in the past. What counts now is what DEM leaders do with it NOW.

This continuuing to blame the RW for ALL, when the Dems are complicit is digging the hole deeper.

So, take it all personally if you wish. The HUGE MISTAKE now is on the DEM side, and no, I won't take any responsibility for it.

[Urban Prairie]

8. Why would the Townhall ragazine illustrate the word "Liberals" in HUGH red font?

It should have been in blue, as red is the reichwingers' color.

Obviously some on the right apparently have no intentions of toning down the rhetoric, or at least the editors of Townhall ragazine won't, as the word "Dangerous" implies being potentially life-threatening.

[Initech]

9. I think we need to take a lesson from Tunisia and get out in the streets and force them to go away.

I realice this could be dangerous, but after Loughner, I think this is gonna get a whole lot worse.

[bvar22]

12. K&R, but I would go back a little farther.

The "Centrist" Clinton administration let the Reagan criminals off the hook and set the new standard.
(Iran Contra/ BCCI)