Obama can't "end" the war because we have already won it.

Well, I guess everyone can come home now, right?

Well, it is about time he admits he inherited something he said was impossible for us to achieve -- an America-friendly democracy in the Middle East.

You really are delusional, aren't you?

"If Obama had gotten his way" we wouldn't have invaded Iraq at all seven years ago and wouldn't have ever occupied it.

If George Bush hadn't done it we'd be arguing about President McCain instead.

Mission Accomplished.

Genius, the victory must be maintained - increasingly so by Iraqis themselves.

Could we have come right home after WWII Europe? Korean War? Detail for us please the conditions for the people in that scenario.

We "came home now" in two instances: Vietnam and Gulf War.

In Vietnam, we were winning militarily and came home on similar terms as you wished for Iraq - before the conflict was decided. Vietnam is a communist state now. That worked out well, didn't it?

In the Gulf War, an invading force was driven back from a liberated Kuwait and so decimated that it could not return and had been so deterred as to likely not travel that road again in the near to mid-term. And it did not.

Every one of you self-righteous "bring them home now" types have never had an Iraqi friend or even known one who has family has members missing due to Hussein's brutal hand. You conveniently avert your eyes from the mass graves unearthed, selfish and self-absorbed.

You don't give a damn about the Iraqi people, and when confronted with that truth you change the subject with the alacrity intended distractedness of a lightning strike, often citing the number of Iraqis killed in the process of liberation.

Your alternative is always to do nothing, leaving distant others subjected to brutality with the convenience of the disconnection of conscience as you contemplate another Happy Meal at the drive thru for dinner.

You make me want to vomit.

"If Obama had gotten his way" we wouldn't have invaded Iraq at all seven years ago and wouldn't have ever occupied it.

Yeah, but Obama WASN'T a senator 7 years ago. He was still voting "Present!" in Illinois. About what he's doing now, as president.

Both mantis and Adrian miss the point. Obama disparaged the troops when it was in his best political interest to do so. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Obama just changes which side of his mouth he talks out of.

In Vietnam, we were winning militarily

The fact that we we never lost a battle doesn't actually mean that we were "winning." We weren't succeeding in our mission. We never would have.

and came home on similar terms as you wished for Iraq - before the conflict was decided. Vietnam is a communist state now. That worked out well, didn't it?

Well, we should never have gone in the first place, and it worked out way worse for the Vietnamese that we did.

In the Gulf War, an invading force was driven back from a liberated Kuwait and so decimated that it could not return and had been so deterred as to likely not travel that road again in the near to mid-term. And it did not.

But we invaded anyway.

Every one of you self-righteous "bring them home now" types have never had an Iraqi friend or even known one who has family has members missing due to Hussein's brutal hand.

You don't know shit about my friends. Do you say the same thing about Iraqis who wish we'd never started a war on their country? Are they all Hussein lovers too?

You conveniently avert your eyes from the mass graves unearthed, selfish and self-absorbed.

I do?

You don't give a damn about the Iraqi people, and when confronted with that truth you change the subject with the alacrity intended distractedness of a lightning strike, often citing the number of Iraqis killed in the process of liberation.

I didn't cite the number of Iraqis killed, but since you mention it, do they not matter?

Your alternative is always to do nothing, leaving distant others subjected to brutality with the convenience of the disconnection of conscience as you contemplate another Happy Meal at the drive thru for dinner.

I opposed the Iraq war so my alternative is always to do nothing? Does not compute.

In any case, have some consistency. If you think the Iraq war was justified because Hussein was a brutal dictator, why are you not advocating the "liberation" of all other nations ruled by dictators? If there is no justifiable position against starting the Iraq War, there is no excuse not to invade each and every one of those nations as well. Now.

"You make me want to vomit."

The feeling is mutual. Ass.

Obama disparaged the troops

Cite an example, Schippert, or admit that you're a lying whiny-ass titty-baby.
depp=true

In any case, have some consistency. If you think the Iraq war was justified because Hussein was a brutal dictator, why are you not advocating the "liberation" of all other nations ruled by dictators? If there is no justifiable position against starting the Iraq War, there is no excuse not to invade each and every one of those nations as well. Now.

How like a liberal!! If we don't "invade" all countries that are ruled by a dictator then there is "no justification" for "invading" any of them.

I've heard this argument before by liberals. There's no logical thought process behind it, and it's only done to stop discussion so the lib can declare they "won".

I was going to zap the whiny hyperbolist comment, but since it is such a great example of projection I might just let it stand.

If we don't "invade" all countries that are ruled by a dictator then there is "no justification" for "invading" any of them.

Tell me why we shouldn't.

There's no logical thought process behind it, and it's only done to stop discussion so the lib can declare they "won".

I don't want to stop the discussion, I want to continue it. Tell me why we shouldn't pursue regime change militarily in every nation under the rule of a dictator. Tell me and we can discuss.

By the way, the word "logical;" I do not think that means what you think it means.

Hey "Sue", why "did" you put "quotation marks" around the word "invade"? Was it "not" an invasion of a "sovereign" "country"?

(Note to Sue: invasion is not necessarily a pejorative. An invasion can be a good thing. So just because you think the war was good and just, doesn't mean you need to invent a new vocabulary or qualify the one that every other English speaking person is comfortable using.)

"I don't want to stop the discussion, I want to continue it. Tell me why we shouldn't pursue regime change militarily in every nation under the rule of a dictator. Tell me and we can discuss." -- mantis

I don't believe you are so ignorant that you would need someone to explain that to you, so I have to assume you are joking. I think that even most people with limited knowledge realize that our military is not large enough and our government does not have the resources to invade every nation under the rule of a dictator. If you don't know that then there is no way to have even a semi-intelligent discussion. Those on the left didn't seem to have any problem understanding that we could not go everywhere or solve all the world's problems when Bill Clinton went into Kosovo.

I think that even most people with limited knowledge realize that our military is not large enough and our government does not have the resources to invade every nation under the rule of a dictator.

So it's just a question of resources and time, then? Do you believe it is the responsibility of the United States to depose dictatorial governments?

Hypothetically, imagine that we never invaded Iraq and Saddam was overthrown by the Iraqi people in 2002. Since we wouldn't have invaded Iraq, would you have liked to have seen our armed forces invade China, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Iran, North Korea, Congo, Chad, and many more? Not all at the same time, of course, but as time and resources allowed? Is that our job?

In his February 28, 2009 speech to the troops at Camp Lejeune, Obama said there were two goals for the U.S. in Iraq, removing Saddam from power and establishing a democratic government. Obama said that both of those goals had been accomplished and thanked the troops. Obviously, with Obama having been in office for just 5 weeks, the Mission was Accomplished under the leadership of George W. Bush.

Instead of a democratic government in Iraq, had Obama and the screeching left had their way we would now be dealing with a rearmed Iraq under the control of Saddam.

Now that Obama has the same firsthand knowledge and responsibility that Bush had, he's continuing most of the national security policies instituted under Bush. I give Obama credit for understanding how wrong he and most democrats were (or are) on national security, and I understand that the political cost for saying Bush was right is too high for Obama to stomach.

Actually the Iraq war is a continuation of the original gulf war. Saddam didn't live up to the cease fire agreement so the war started up again. Of course the liberals, in their little minds, see it as two separate wars. ww

So it's just a question of resources and time, then? Do you believe it is the responsibility of the United States to depose dictatorial governments?

In many ways Iraq was a unique case. First, Saddam invaded Kuwait, and in response, a coalition of nations under the leadership of the U.S. drove Saddam's forces from Kuwait. Saddam's representatives then signed a ceasefire agreement that placed restrictions on Saddam and gave coalition forces the right to search for and remove WMD and other weapons. With the signing of the ceasefire agreement Iraq was no longer a sovereign nation, but more like an occupied nation such as Japan had been after WWII.

Second, Saddam did not abide by the terms of the ceasefire agreement, nor the numerous UN sanctions and resolutions.

Third, Saddam fired on coalition aircraft, which in itself constitutes an act of war.

When we have another dictator that meets these or similar conditions then, yes, the United States should dispose of the dictator.

You guys are confusing mantis with facts. His head is starting to hurt.

And why is Hyper even commenting considering the fact that he considers Obama to be a child who never grew up in his thought processes.

Man this Obama...Hes one sick puppy.

Obama: some people out there in our nation don't have maps and uh, I believe that our, I, education like such as uh, South Africa, and uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and I believe that they should, uhhh, our education over here in the US should help the US, uh, should help South Africa, it should help the Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future, for us

You'll have to excuse Obama J-ho, His teleprompter was too ashamed to follow Him into Iraq.

Hypothetically, imagine that we never invaded Iraq and Saddam was overthrown by the Iraqi people in 2002. Since we wouldn't have invaded Iraq, would you have liked to have seen our armed forces invade China, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Iran, North Korea, Congo, Chad, and many more? Not all at the same time, of course, but as time and resources allowed? Is that our job?

That depends on whether a compelling case could be made that it is in the interests of our country to invade any or all of these countries. Obviously, practical considerations have to be weighed.

But if you're attempting to argue that those of us who were in favor of taking out Saddam Hussein and setting up some semblance of rule of law in Iraq are now somehow obligated to support a mandate to do the same thing with every other country that is run by an oppressive dictator, the proper response would be that that is a silly straw-man and can be dismissed immediately as being not worthy of serious consideration.

So where was the apology for disparaging their effort and sacrifice?

Where was the expression of unflagging support that Bush showed?

All that was evident was expediting a political opportunity.

Typical.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesman and philosophers and divines.--Emerson

Given Emerson's epigram, is it wise or foolish to apply one standard (war/invasion) to every situation (brutal, oppressive dictators)? IMO, I think it's foolish to argue 'well, there are other dictators in the world, shouldn't we invade them too?' The answer is a resounding no. And it has nothing to do with being 'consistent'; it has to do with things that are fluid in nature, like national interests or security (or world security) and many other factors.

As shocking as it may seem, yes, we do get to pick and choose who we do and don't go to war with. (Should we be acting as the aggressor, and not the victim of an invasion.) To argue that we should apply some universal foreign policy standard to all dictators would be a wonderful but wholly impractical idea. This line of thought implies that world is, or at least should be black and white. Clearly, it's grey. Situations vary. We can argue about the merits of other future invasions, and if it's wise or unwise to invade so and so; those are perfectly legit and reasonable discussions to have. But to attempt to apply or even suggest applying a 'consistency' to all dictators (or countries) is an argumentative (and foolish) hobgoblin.

Just my two cents...

The fact that we we never lost a battle doesn't actually mean that we were "winning." We weren't succeeding in our mission. We never would have.

Funny thing is that Ho-CHI-MIN said that the US was winning.
It was ant-war crowd in the USA that gave them hope.
Even after US troops pulled out of Vietnam in 73 for 2 years the ARVN fought well. It was when our Congress betrayed them and cut off the funding did the South Fall. Then many South Vietnamese fled the country rather then live under communist rule. Some of those who geld were machine gun down. Where was the peace crowds outrage?

The issue with Vietnam was the failure to pursue Victory the goal was neogotied peace instead of all out war.

M I S S I O N - A C C O M P L I S H E D

Republicans never learn.

M I S S I O N - A C C O M P L I S H E D

As admitted by Obama in is camp Lejeune speech.

That depends on whether a compelling case could be made that it is in the interests of our country to invade any or all of these countries.

I agree, but that's not the argument I was responding to, which was entirely humanitarian in nature.

Now, as to the argument that invading Iraq was in the interests of our country, well I don't know any rational people who find that argument compelling.

But if you're attempting to argue that those of us who were in favor of taking out Saddam Hussein and setting up some semblance of rule of law in Iraq are now somehow obligated to support a mandate to do the same thing with every other country that is run by an oppressive dictator, the proper response

I'm not arguing that, I'm asking someone who makes a purely humanitarian argument for regime change in Iraq through invasion and occupation if and why he doesn't support similar ventures around the world. It's not an unreasonable question.

And I really miss the days when conservatives were largely non-interventionist. We had a lot more in common back then (and I still do with those conservatives who didn't adopt on the neocon ideology.

Steve S. - "Your alternative is always to do nothing, leaving distant others subjected to brutality with the convenience of the disconnection of conscience as you contemplate another Happy Meal at the drive thru for dinner."

Damn is that isn't the precise description of the response obama received when begging for NATO/EU support in Afghanistan during the trip just concluded.

M I S S I O N - A C C O M P L I S H E D

As admitted by Obama in is camp Lejeune speech.

Mac Lorry you can not go around making up things Obama said!

Obama made no such statement in his camp Lejune speech. No where does he state or imply the mission has been accomplished or the war has been won.

"Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end."

a browne - ""If Obama had gotten his way" we wouldn't have invaded Iraq at all seven years ago and wouldn't have ever occupied it.

Math is obviously not your strong suit, it was 6 year ago, March 2003.

P.S. the country was never under "occupation," the Iraqi gov or the U.N. or at times both gave full authority for the U.S. to be in country.

But I get it, to have your anti-war street cred maintained the term "occupation" is mandatory.

We never occupied Iraq? Wow, you exist in a surreal world, don't you? Do you drive backwards to work?

hyper - "(Note to Sue: invasion is not necessarily a pejorative. An invasion can be a good thing. So just because you think the war was good and just, doesn't mean you need to invent a new vocabulary or qualify the one that every other English speaking person is comfortable using.)"

RE Sue's use of scare quotes:

Hyper you've demonstrated an inability to understand their use in the past, lets if I can shed some light of her use in this context (FAT chance I know).

March 2003 wasn't an invasion, it was a resumption of hostilities after the complete failure by Saddam to live up to the agreed upon CEASEFIRE agreement in 2001.

In even simpler terms, the "quote marks were a sign that this might not be the correct word to use."

I'd like to think you're smarter now, but I have doubts.

mantis - "We never occupied Iraq? Wow, you exist in a surreal world, don't you? Do you drive backwards to work?"

When does legal authorization equal occupation mantis?

And no, I don't drive backwards to work.
Since barack hussein obama's election I've had access to his herd of unicorns.

They fly very nicely, and in a forward direction, although they lean FAR left on many occasions.

Mac Lorry you can not go around making up things Obama said!

Obama made no such statement in his camp Lejune speech. No where does he state or imply the mission has been accomplished or the war has been won.

"Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end."

Not to bemoan the obvious to those of us who were paying attention... but Bush didn't say "Mission Accomplished" either.

That was the banner on the aircraft carrier the captain hung to congradulate his crew on a mission accomplished. All the captains I served under did something along these lines when we pulled in from a deployment (usually taping a broom to the flying bridge, to signify our deployment being "a clean sweep"). It's called military tradition.

Mac Lorry you can not go around making up things Obama said!

Sleepy, nor can you go around denying the clear meaning of the things Obama said!

From the Camp Lejeune speech. "And so I want to be very clear: We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein's regime - and you got the job done. We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government - and you got the job done. And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life - that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible."

Obama enumerated the goals and then told the troops they got the job done. In military jargon that's "Mission Accomplished", and of course the Commander In Chief who lead the way was George W. Bush.

Sure, there's still clean-up work just like after WW2 the U.S. occupied Japan for ten years, but there was no doubt then as to when the Mission was Accomplished, nor is there now with Iraq.

BTW, the link you provided is to the prepaid remarks, it's not a transcript of what Obama actually said. I heard the speech live and Obama was even more emphatic than the prepaid remarks.

ExSubNuke, don't even go down that road.

It's fought with the anti-war, anti-Bush clean sweep of their own. Clean sweep meaning ignoring the reality and changing the subject.

"Let me say this as plainly as i can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end."

Sounds like MISSION ACCOMPLISHED to me

Not to bemoan the obvious to those of us who were paying attention... but Bush didn't say "Mission Accomplished" either.

Bush may not have spoken it, however it was his administration that had the banner made.

So no, Bush did not actually say "Mission Accomplished", but he did give a speech announcing the end of major combat operations in front of the banner(made by his administration).

Before you correct this, when I said the Bush administration made the sign, what I mean is that they hired a company to make it.

No, mission is not accomplished as at no point did anybody bother to lay out criteria for success. Moving goalposts.

marc--Iraq wasn't occupied by the Coalition of the Shilling? A sovereign nation wasn't invaded? A dictator wasn't deposed of; a military disbanded; and a new regime set in place by foreign powers?

You don't understand what the word pejorative means so I'll spell it out in smaller words for you: all invasions and occupations are not bad things; and admitting that Iraq was invaded and subsequently occupied does not detract from your defence of Bush's policy towards that country. You're stepping into the dangerously stupid wingnut hair-splitting territory of 'homicide bombers' vs. 'suicide bombers'--as though it makes a f*cking difference to facts and history how some Bush apologists want to define the terminology and limit the vocabulary.

"You'd" make a "terrible" lawyer, "marc."

Not to bemoan the obvious to those of us who were paying attention... but Bush didn't say "Mission Accomplished" either.

Not to bemoan the obvious, I never said Bush said "Mission Accomplished".

Mac Lory said Obama admitted in his camp Lejeune speech that the Mission was accomplished. I merely pointed out that Obama made no such admittion in his speech.

When does legal authorization equal occupation mantis?

It doesn't. In fact the question doesn't make any sense. Occupying and controlling territory equals occupation. Do you not think there can be legal military occupations?

From the Camp Lejeune speech. "And so I want to be very clear: We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein's regime - and you got the job done. We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government - and you got the job done. And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life - that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible."

Mac Lory you are cherry picking. Read the entire transcipt, not just the parts that taken out of context support your view.

Sleepy,

First you should read the first sentence of the page you linked. It says "Following are the prepared remarks..." Don't you understand the difference between prepared remarks and a transcript?

Mac Lory you are cherry picking.

That's a generic charge that you can't sustain with facts. Nothing Obama said that day at Camp Lejeune is counter to the paragraph Obama starts with the phrase "And so I want to be very clear:". In fact the Sentence just before the paragraph I quoted is "But there should be no disagreement on what the men and women of our military have achieved." Have achieved, not will achieve. The job is done, the mission is accomplished. Stop disagreeing with your leader.

Here's a link to the actual transcript.

Mac Lorry Obama repeatedly states that there is a lot more difficult and dangerous work that still needs to be done. In light of this, your statement that Obama admitted the mission is accomplished is not correct.

Mac Lorry Obama repeatedly states that there is a lot more difficult and dangerous work that still needs to be done. In light of this, your statement that Obama admitted the mission is accomplished is not correct.

Obama's comments about future mop up work in no way counters his own words where he enumerates (do you know what the word means) the goals and emphatically states those goals were done. That's mission accomplished. Deal with it.

Not to bemoan the obvious, I never said Bush said "Mission Accomplished".

Wait sleepy,

So you're saying you DIDN'T bring up the whole "mission accomplished" portion of this thread?

M I S S I O N - A C C O M P L I S H E D

Republicans never learn.

26. Posted by Sleepy | April 7, 2009 7:26 PM

Color me not surprised that I can't keep up with all the mental backflips of the libtards.

Sleeeeeeeeepy: "Bush may not have spoken it, however it was his administration that had the banner made."

This is what is commonly referred to as a lie.

Sleeeeeeeeepy: "So no, Bush did not actually say "Mission Accomplished", but he did give a speech announcing the end of major combat operations in front of the banner(made by his administration)."

Same lie, in a different form.

The Administration did not have the banner made. The ships company did. Further, if you (Sleepy) had even a passing familiarity with how the Navy operates, how it measures performance, and the terminology utilized to describe performance, you would understand that there is no more common term used than "mission accomplished".

The Administration did not have the banner made. The ships company did.

Drago you falsely accused me of lieing. Read this.

The president told reporters the sign was put up by the Navy, not the White House.

Than it was revealed by the Navy that the White House made the sign.

Eventually McClellan admitted, "We took care of the production of it. We have people to do those things. But the Navy actually put it up."

Um... read your own links much?!?!

"Navy and administration sources said that though the banner was the Navy's idea, the White House actually made it. "

and a bit further down...

Cmdr. Conrad Chun, a Navy spokesman, defended the president's assertion.

"The banner was a Navy idea, the ship's idea," Chun said.

"The banner signified the successful completion of the ship's deployment," he said, noting the Abraham Lincoln was deployed 290 days, longer than any other nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in history.

So they Navy wanted it made to signify something... and the White House took care of it as part of the preparations for the Presidents visit.

Next time... try READING IT first.

Sleepy

"b>Drago you falsely accused me of lieing."

What is "lieing"??

Hawaiian for screwjob?

ExSubNuke,

Having a banner for the troops was a wonderful idea. I totally support banners.

The problem was the message on the banner.

Since the administration implied without stating that the Navy decided what it should say, it makes one believe it was the administration. Either way the administration should have realized it was premature and changed the banner to something else.

Geez guys. I can't believe there is an argument over Mission Accomplished. The banner was there for those troops who were returning from their mission, and probably also to honor all the troops who had fought in Iraq, and everyone who has any knowledge of the military knew that is what it was for. In the speech Bush gave in front of that banner he stressed that there would be many tough days ahead and that there was still much to do in Iraq. Dems jumped on it because they knew the media would eat it up and would ignore everything Bush said and would just parrot Dem lines. But that is all in the past.

SUBMISSION ACCOMPLISHED is what is happening today and what we just saw from Obama on his foreign tour. We have a president traveling the world talking about how horrible the United States is and apologizing to everyone for our actions. And don't even get me on Obama's deep BOW before the Saudi king.

Bush -- Mission Accomplished
Obama -- Submission Accomplished

And what's the first thing that happened? I predicted (over at hotair) that someone would kick up a ruckus over all the showing of weakness he's doing.

And Kim Jung Il took him up on the offer.

Submission Accomplished, indeed.

The mainstream media wouldn't do it. So we are trying to get your important messages to the American people. This post is a suggested read at, http://aresay.blogspot.com/

re: 53

OK Laurie, time to either retitle this post or you have the title for you next one. Excellent.

19 months? Then leaving 50-100k guys over there. Trust me John McCain would have more men out of there sooner. Only without the proclamation. Our current prez has a green light and really doesnt give a sh*t.

And now the Somali Pirates have taken him up onthe offer too.

Damn, Joe Biden was prolific in his prediction.

Wow. The Bushbots are still blaming the US Navy for that *festive* Mission Accomplished banner.

Spin-the-bottle on the tank deck?

Cocktails on the fan tail?

ExSubNuke--don't forget all of the domestic terrorists who are coming out of the woodwork. From Stormfronters and Freepers, to Randian libertarians, more and more conservatives are expressing their dissatisfaction with Obama and his policies with violence, and/or threats thereof. Now, while most of these people are harmless losers living in their parents' basements, some are obviously unbalanced psychopaths. Bush failed to prevent domestic terrorist attacks on 9/11 and afterwards (anthrax)--will Obama fare any better? We shall see...

"Wow. The Bushbots are still blaming the US Nvy for that *festive* Mission Accomplished banner."

The mission was accomplished for the Navy as well as Bush as is apparent to everyone with even half an open mind. which leaves out you trolls..

Now on to the next banner somewhere off the coast of Somalia:

Submission Accomplished concocted out of potato sacks and bamboo shoots with Obama accepting slaps on the back from the Somali pirating druglords while standing on the deck of the dingy.

Obama will go where ever the winds of opinion take him.

He's a vapid sack of clueless ignorance that has never taken the initiative in *anything*.

more and more conservatives are expressing their dissatisfaction with Obama and his policies with violence, and/or threats thereof.

More and more? Where in the hell do you come up with this crap? I mean, you've got numbers, right? Can you cite incidents?

Now, while most of these people are harmless losers living in their parents' basements, some are obviously unbalanced psychopaths.

There are psychopaths and losers in every group. Personally, I know of more liberals living with their parents than conservatives doing the same.

But, let me tell you what we're doing in the little corner of the state in which I live. 6 weeks ago 11 of us Randian libertarians got together to discuss what we could do to affect a process that has broken down because of the GOP's assimilation by the neocons. Our county GOP convention is in 2 weeks. We have identified liberty-minded candidates for chair, vice-chair, secretary, treasurer, and six state central committeemen. Our regular meeting this week was attended by over 50. We follow Robert's for our meetings. Most of the people on the steering committee are professionals and business owners. We're just people who are alarmed at what our government is becoming and are putting forth the effort to work within the system to affect real change.

If the GOP can ever eliminate the neocon influence from its midst, and return to true conservative platforms of free markets, limited government, and non-interventionism, the socialist candidates of the Democrat party would simply vanish.

You usually write decent opinions. But, when you sink to broad generalizations and insult good people, you kinda lose me.

Lorie Byrd: "Bush -- Mission Accomplished
Obama -- Submission Accomplished"

Lorie that is so flat out PERFECT!!!

You should run the Bush photo on the aircraft carrier, and Obama bowing and scraping to the Saudis side-by-side with those captions!

Obama's gonna have a tougher time getting us "guns & God clinging" Americans to bow & scrape, however. MUCH tougher!

Hyper, you are so full of crap. The only violence I saw coming out of the last 8 years has been from your side bucko. I have not seen such vile acts and vile words come from anyone but the liberal fringe. To say it isn't so is to plain lie.

Submission Accomplished. ww

The Trolls are panick stricken about the Tea Partys..

Submission Accomplished.

Lorie, you just created what will become a very popular bumpersticker. Thanks. ww

Sorry, Clay. I empathize with thoughtful libertarians who have actually read Atlas Shrugged as well as some more worthwhile texts like The Road to Serfdom, and I empathize more generally with people who have been marginalized temporarily by the political process. But I stand by the generalization that more and more "conservatives" are speaking in revolutionary terms, and are either being dishonest or sincere about it--either way, pretty silly. John Stewart had a good run-down yesterday of the more prominent culprits: Michelle Bachmann, Sean Hannity, and other Fox News bobbleheads unsurprisingly among them. People seem to equate having their ideas rejected by the voting public, and the election of a liberal Democrat, as an infringement upon their liberty--when it's simply the unfolding of a democratic process.

Willie: sorry, but I can't recall any unhinged psychopaths in America being locked up for plotting Bush's assassination; whereas it's happened a few times already with Obama, and it's not "the angry self-loathing left" (or however you're branding 50%+ of the American public these days) who are guilty of these treasonous plots.

Keep in mind, those of you who wrapped yourselves in a flag for the past eight years--rather than entertain a single critical thought--that your childish revolutionary fantasies, no more well-considered than those of an 18-year-old "anarchist" political science student, would constitute treason if you were to actually act upon them. But you aren't, because you're harmless, adorably so. Follow Clay's example: be thoughtful, and find ways of winning elections in vulnerable states/districts in 2010. Throwing a tantrum in public--when you should be at work!--will only marginalize you in the eyes of moderates.

914: again, nobody is panic-stricken. It's just funny when the politically impotent "conservative" cohort--whatever that denotes these days is anybody's guess--are speaking in revolutionary terms, when substantively the sum total of their actions amounts to little more than a tantrum. But it's really nice of you to stick up for the 2% of Americans whose incomes will be reduced under Obama's tax plan. That minority has too long lacked a voice, but there you are, sticking up for the little guy.

Hyper, if you can recall it, you can cite it.
As for your 50+%, that is all BS. 52% of the people that voted voted for President Obama. What % of the adult population do you think actually voted?

hyperbolist,

Keep in mind, those of you who wrapped yourselves in a flag for the past eight years--rather than entertain a single critical thought--that your childish revolutionary fantasies, no more well-considered than those of an 18-year-old "anarchist" political science student, would constitute treason if you were to actually act upon them. But you aren't, because you're harmless, adorably so.

Of course they're adorable, they're your strawmen. Better check, maybe your teddy bare is in there to.

As for those protesting runaway government spending, they are from across the political spectrum, not just conservatives. Anyone who understands what's going on is concerned about the Obama administration going too far and making worse problems than the current one. The fact that most representatives and senators didn't read the largest spending bill in history demonstrates a level of recklessness that should alarm any thinking adult.

The tax day tea party is just a way of reminding Obama and the democrats that they don't have carte blanche to go on a liberal fantasyland spending spree.

hyper - "Willie: sorry, but I can't recall any unhinged psychopaths in America being locked up for plotting Bush's assassination; whereas it's happened a few times already with Obama,"

Question: Why did you look before hitting the submit button? Maybe you should have.

2001, Robert Pickett, standing outside the perimeter fence of the WH, discharged a number of shots from a weapon in the direction of the White House.

That could have been an attempt, or maybe he fantasized he saw a Skeet flying by. But I'll give you a pass on this one as he in all likelihood was just "cleaning his gun."

But there's little doubt as to the intent of Ahmed Omar Abu Ali of Falls Church Virgina who was indicted on charges of plotting to assassinate Bush.

So again, why didn't you look, before you leaped?

sorry, but I can't recall any unhinged psychopaths in America being locked up for plotting Bush's assassination

Short memory? For a while, it seemed that the murder of the president was a liberal wetdream:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743260031/104-9817992-2750333?v=glance&n=283155
http://michellemalkin.com/2005/04/12/unhinged-liberal-products-for-sale/
http://brain-terminal.com/posts/2005/04/14/peace-loving-ny-liberals

Ironic. He was politics they had to survive.

Is it any shock to anyone of my conservative friends that Hyper AGAIN got his facts wrong? Not to me. Hyper, I did not start "wrapping" myself in my countries flag 8 years ago. I have for a long, long time. You should be patriotic, it is liberating. Liberals are self loathing, military hating people. Always has been always will be. You, again are wrong.

Submission Accomplished. ww

My submissions: ,

He rised. ,

hyper: "John Stewart had a good run-down"

That about sums up the level at which you're dealing with when you wade in with these folks. Pathetic.

Patriotism isn't liberating, Willie. Individualism is. It's at the core of both libertarianism and liberalism, which are the only coherent political philosophies. You're a nationalist, apparently, which means you would be quite comfortable in Italy or Germany, circa 1939. (Ad Hitler! Ad Hitler! I know, I know...) When nationalism flows from one's drive to actualize oneself, then it's a legitimately worthwhile enterprise; but as such, it is intrinsically without value.

As for the bit about liberals hating the military, that's a tired canard that nobody cares about anymore because it's false and people who say it are stupid.

I had forgotten about the early attempt on Bush's life as I wasn't paying that much attention that long ago, so I will concede that I have been pwned!!!! on that issue. However, there are already people who have committed murder because Obama was elected. Psychos, surely, but they were reading Stormfront and not Democratic Underground.

Individualism is. It's at the core of both libertarianism and liberalism

Sorry, HB, but you're flailing. Libertarianism is about individualism. Liberalism isn't. Liberalism has co-opted collectivism by embracing socialism. Socialism stands opposed to the individualism upon which this country was founded. The principles of individualism claim Juris Natualis (the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God) as its source.

Libertarianism shares with liberalism but one common belief: the 'new' right is wrong. However, we believe the same about the left. Both are statists. One covets my social liberty, the other wants to steal my economic freedom.

You've been digging a hole on this thread.

D-Hoggs: yeah, John Stewart don't know sh*t about anything! He's always so mean to your boyfriends at Fox News.

Clay: actually, liberalism--Kantian rationalism, or Nietzschean existentialism, whichever, I like 'em both--are about the full actualization of one's self, as a strong and autonomous being. However, for Kant--unlike Locke--we are fundamentally social beings, not individuals on islands of selfishness, from which all other considerations must follow. The "law of nature" as you conceive of it is so limited as to be useless. At what point in the history of "nature" was human history not a social enterprise? It's impossible to conceive of the nature of "man" as extraneous of his society.

For Kant--who is generally accepted to have gotten certain important facts about our nature correct--we are equals in kind, but not in capability, which fits with any liberal society (America, Sweden, or wherever). Thus, while the individual does have rights, the individual also has obligations as a member of a society consisting of other individuals. We're only equal to one another insofar as certain material and psychological conditions obtain, and these must be guaranteed by the state. As the state consists of the totality of individuals, it then behooves each individual to carry a portion of this obligation upon his or her own shoulders. And, as Adam Smith said, it's not unreasonable to ask more of the rich individual than of the working class individual.

Libertarianism is well suited for a vacuum where injustice is impossible and treachery and exploitation unimaginable; and where all individuals are capable of competing fairly with one another. No such place exists, fun though it may be to posit the contrary.

And, as Adam Smith said, it's not unreasonable to ask more of the rich individual than of the working class individual.

Now come on. Have you actually read Smith? Liberals love to quote the godfather of capitalism at this point. I will grant you that Smith did say that "it is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

Sounds like an argument for a steeply progressive income tax doesn't it? Thankfully, folks like Gavin Kennedy have made a living setting the record straight on Adam Smith.

Professor Kennedy notes that when the quotation is read in context it becomes clear what he's talking about:

For accuracy, the context in which Adam Smith is making this wholly acceptable assertion is in his discussion of house rents, which is a commodity widely differentiated by quality, convenience and splendour, and it begins:

"A tax upon house-rents, therefore would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable." [The above] quotation follows: "The rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." [WN V.ii.e.6: p 842]

When quoting from Adam Smith, as many do, it is incumbent on the writers to make clear the context otherwise a particular statement by Adam Smith can be given a general meaning, in this case for all forms of taxation, when Adam Smith may have intended to refer to a particular case.

Smith preferred that taxation should fall, where possible, on luxuries rather than basic necessities. Housing is a necessity but housing came in all levels of opulence and was therefore treatable as a luxury for some taxpayers, who in consequence should pay more tax on their houses and palaces.

We disagree about Kant as an individualist. I'm thinking about my answer, but need to work right now.

Smith also argued that people had the right to all goods that are required in order to appear in public "without shame"--leaving broad room for interpretation, as any acceptable political-philsophical point surely must, but necessitating material obligation on the part of society as a whole (and individuals as particular members thereof).

It's from Wealth of Nations, and is usefully explicated in this paper.

I'm not saying that Smith is a socialist; I'm saying that even for the grandfather of modern free market capitalism, certain elements of "socialism" were inherent to his thinking, as imposed by intuitions of justice and fairness that we see better explicated by liberals from Kant through to Rawls.

In the meantime, here's one of my favorite songs for your dining and dancing pleasure.

http://www.auburn.edu/academic/liberal_arts/philosophy/kantsong.mp3

And clearly capitalism in the US has failed. Just look at all the nekkid children in the streets.

Hyper, Smith was not arguing the right to leather shoes. He argued that a tax on a necessary item (salt, fuel) is the same as taxing a wage. Things that are seen a necessary item in one country (leather shoes in England at the time) may not be elsewhere (France). Taxing leather shoes to the English would be like a wage tax, to the French a luxury tax.

Taxing items that may be luxuries will lead to the poor either becoming frugal and abstaining OR neglecting actual essentials (food, medicine etc).

Taxing these items in effect raises the prices of other items, depresses wages and in time reduces the available labor pool.

This idea is what makes some US states exempt some goods and services from sales tax. In NJ, for instance, dry cleaning clothes is not taxed. Comforters, table cloths, floor buffers etc are taxed when taken to a cleaning service. Also, all of the ingredients of a burger when bought at market are tax free, but the finished product at McDonalds has 7% tax.

So you're alright with the federal government ensuring--with tax dollars and bureaucratic oversight--that every child has non-tattered clothing? I don't know how to read Smith's thoughts on this without drawing that conclusion. And it's certainly compatible with what you just said.

Clay: I will give it a listen when I'm next at a computron with speakers.

Have a great weekend. (It's a long one for papist Canuckistanis.)

No, Hyper. The government should not be a barrier to those children having clothing. Stop putting words under my fingers.

That you cannot read Smith without channeling Marx is your problem, not mine :)