Comments on: John Kerry Takes Liberal Denial To New Heights

By: VinceP1974

VinceP1974 — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:54:08 +0000

All we need to do is look at Israel’s pull-out of terrority to come up with an idea what might happen if we were to leave.

Israel left it’s Lebanon occupation zone in 2000 unilaterally. It did so without defeating Hezbellah. It did so because the govt caved into the war-wariness of the Israeli left.

Israel left Gaza in 2005. It did so without defeating Hamas or the PLO. It did so because they were sick of being occupiers and they thought that by giving the Arabs all of gaza that they woudl see it as a goodwill gesture.

Well.. they were stupid. Hezeballah claimed it had won the war with Israel (i’m talking about in 2000). They came to the conclusion that the military was not invincible and that if they cause just enough misery, the Israelis will fold.

This laid teh framework for hezballah to turn South lebanon into a giant missle silo.

In Gaza, Hamas also concluded that it had driven Israel out and that it had won. It concluded what Hezbellah did.. that if you cause enough problems, you will get Israel to surrender.

And this the Democrat plan. They want us to just get up and go because of a few car bombs.

Their wreckless ignorance is appalling.

By: gwood

gwood — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:24:29 +0000

Now we have the admission from Norm that it is an “upside” that Saddam is gone, to add to his statement that Iraq has achieved a “semblance of security”. I think there’s hope for Norm, many liberals will never concede either.

I will not argue that the removal of Saddam has somehow made Iran weaker, but the specter of the presence of a functioning democracy cannot possibly be a good thing for the theocratic regime in Tehran. Iran surely has squandered its possibilities of being an ally of the new government in Iraq, by attempting to prevent it from forming. We’ll see what form the relationship between Iraq and the US will take, but how could it be worse than when Saddam was in power?

Israel will become decidedly less safe when and if the Great Satan leaves the Middle East, until then, I wouldn’t look for Iran or anyone else to try something stupid, even Hillary said she’d hit back.

By: norm

norm — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:07:53 +0000

dc…bush took office on the regular schedule…jan. 20th, 2001. 9 months later planes were driven into the wtc on his watch. i know all of you hyper-partisans love to find excuses and blame it all on the clintons. and i’m not saying the clintons were blamless, any more than 41 or reagan are. but the facts are the facts. it’s like vince claiming bush was re-defining us policy. i guess that’s what clearing brush is called in your cult. even rice has admited they were not on a war-footing. but vince knows more.

By: VinceP1974

VinceP1974 — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 13:44:46 +0000

yeah norm.. all you America-haters are chess players.. mm hmm

That’s why none of you ever offer a vision about what to do next.

By: norm

norm — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 12:54:12 +0000

obviously you have a problem with reading comprehension. some semblence of security is a far cry from winning a war. some semblence of security is about 5 years late. some semblence of security in a country that has become allied with iran is a far cry from winning a war. some semblance of security, based upon the civilian leadership’s own stated goals is not “winning”. no one would be happier to see iraq stabilized and our troops the hell out of a place we never should have gone. but if that happens tomorrow we are still losing. UPSIDE- saddam is gone. DOWNSIDE – iran is stronger. it’s allies hamas and hezzbollah are stronger. israel is less safe. al queda is still a “serious threat” according to even the most optimistic spin-meisters. we have lost more than 4000 troops, wounded and maimed 35,000 more, and borrowed over three trillion dollars. you call that winning? that’s the problem with hyper-partisans on extremist fringe sites like this…you see the world as a game of checkers…black/white – good/evil – but it’s really chess in at least four dimensions…and you all are unable to see a bunch of the dimensions because you are so invested in “winning”.

By: gwood

gwood — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 12:08:48 +0000

Norm:gwoodâ€¦
who exactly said; â€œâ€¦well, you won the war but it shouldnâ€™t have been fought to begin withâ€¦â€?
or is that just another extreme far right fringe fantasy?

That would be….you, Norm, in your post above you say: “some semblence of security has been provided to a a country we didnâ€™t need to invade or occupy.” (sic)

Perhaps “some semblance of security” is a minor concession on your part, but you’re coming around.

By: Dc

Dc — Sat, 31 May 2008 16:46:21 +0000

norm, Bush had not been in office for 9 months. There was no effective president while the “count every vote” campaign was going on in FL (sort of like now…only in reverse with DNC arguing the opposite conclusion). Beyond that, 9/11 attacks had been planned and put in motion 2 years before. Why didn’t Clinton “connect the dots”??

Lord help the next POTUS if it’s a democrat…they’ll have to be held responsible for their own intel, and then tried for treason for using it, connect their own dots, double check the CIA findings and be investigated for lieing for which ever side of those conclusions he goes with…then impeached for having his own office investigate the intelligence. Further, any political influence in their office will be impeachable offense…and the fact that congress doesn’t impeach him will be a crime. A criminal president.

Clinton surely could NOT have launched missiles without UN authority. That would be a war crime! And why would he have been launching them against AlQueda and Iraq if Saddam was fullly contained and there were no such issues ….until Bush got into office and put him on the radar for trying to hurt his daddy??

By: John Kerry Thinks We Were Not at War on September 11, 2001 … Democrats Who Are Out of Touch with Reality | Scared Monkeys

Sat, 31 May 2008 16:04:18 +0000

[...] John Kerry Takes Liberal Denial To New Heights Share This [...]

By: VinceP1974

VinceP1974 — Sat, 31 May 2008 15:21:53 +0000

norm: you’re so incoherent.

So when Bush gets into his office and his team starts to work on redefining what US Policy towards terrorism should be that is ignoring the danger.

But doing nothing for 8 years by Clinton is not.

ugh.. i hate reading anything these idiots type. I dont know why I bother trying to get to the logic of what he is saying when we all knowt hat EVERYTHING they say essential boils down to “I HATE AMERICA , REPUBLICANS AND GOD”

By: test » Blog Archive » John Kerry Takes Liberal Denial To New Heights

test » Blog Archive » John Kerry Takes Liberal Denial To New Heights — Sat, 31 May 2008 15:21:22 +0000

[...] TBogg wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptAsked if al Qaeda was a threat at the time, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee said, â€œwell yes, obviously they were a threat. But, fundamentally we were not at war at that point in time.â€ Kerry also called John McCain â€œout of … Read the rest of this great post here [...]

By: norm

norm — Sat, 31 May 2008 14:57:26 +0000

and you also mis-represent and mis-charachterised them. you claimed “…he did not want to give the impression there was a clear and present danger…” when it was the right who was ignoring the danger…and they ignored it right thru the first 9 months of bush’s presidency, when they suddenly realized they could use fear for their own political and idealogical ends. you are still scared judging by the way you were duped by the gaming image. nice rationaliztion for that blunder by-the-way.

By: norm

norm — Sat, 31 May 2008 14:50:49 +0000

gwood…
who exactly said; “…well, you won the war but it shouldnâ€™t have been fought to begin with…”?
or is that just another extreme far right fringe fantasy?

By: AJStrata

AJStrata — Sat, 31 May 2008 14:50:43 +0000

Norm,

I listed those attacks in the post silly person.

By: norm

norm — Sat, 31 May 2008 14:49:33 +0000

just more of your lies and mis-representations. in the summer of ’98 clinton bombed al qaeda targets in the sudan and afghanistan in retaliation for the embassy bombings in kenya and tanzania. but the house led by republicans was more interested in blow jobs than security. the lust for impeachment blood by the so-called “right” more than likely hindered further action. both the republicans and the press were complicit. dan coats r-ind. “…while there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack and why it was ordered today, given the president’s personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action…”
mccain…who now wants to bomb iran…noted that clinton was “distracted”.
trent lott…”both the timing and the motive are subject to question…”
now after a 20% troop escalation, 5-1/2 years, 4000 dead troops, over 30,000 other american casualties, and three trillion in deficit spending, some semblence of security has been provided to a a country we didn’t need to invade or occupy. the political reconciliation that the escalation was intended to provide an opportunity for is still a wet dream. iraq is a closer ally of iran than the us, which has emboldened iran, as it’s other allies hamas and hezzbollah. isreal, the protection of which was one of the primary reasons for this neo-con f-up, is less safe. al queda seems to be doing themselves more harm than good, but it’s arguable whether that is due to us or in spite of us. judging by protests in basr the us and al queda seem to have about the same standing. certainly the picture in pakistan is much better since bush’s policies went out the door with the leadership it was propping up. yup…that all looks like a stunning victory to me. seriously…i don’t think that word means what you think it means.

By: robert verdi

robert verdi — Sat, 31 May 2008 14:42:48 +0000

the sailors of the uss cole might disgree.