In remarks before the National Press Club, Ted Turner recently took the American media to task for displaying American flags in the background while reporting on the war in Iraq. He was making the point that displaying an American flag is taking sides, something he believes American journalists shouldn’t do. Turner’s view that Islamic terrorism has a legitimate claim to the moral high ground over America’s involvement in the war is consistent with the money funding the Democrat Party but really has little to do with the upcoming election.
Recent polls show that while a majority of voters question the prosecution of the war, they don’t neccessarily believe we shouldn’t be there. In fact, a slight majority actually agree that involvement in Iraq is an inevitable part of a larger war on terror. Turner is preaching to the choir and anti-war views in general don’t indicate what the real problem is for Republicans. Instead, Republican politicians up for re-election are facing a constituency that feels betrayed by Bush and congressional Republicans in two key areas – the economy and immigration.
Early on, Bush won a lot of support for pushing tax cuts through Congress, and those tax cuts have dramatically increased revenues, as they always do. But Bush squandered a huge opportunity to lower taxes even further and make the cuts permanent by refusing to lay down the law with congessional Republicans to put the brakes on spending. Instead, by refusing to veto all but one bill, he gave carte blanche to Congress to do what they do best – spend other people’s money.
As bad as the view is of the President’s lack of spending restraint, the view of his handling of illegal immigration is worse. Bush has notoriously been a vocal supporter of open borders for most of his political career, but those views didn’t matter much to voters who were largely unaware that a problem even existed until the Minuteman Project began to call attention to the huge numbers of illegals flooding across the border. Since the shock of last spring’s illegal immigration rallies, Bush’s half-hearted attempts to portray himself as tough on border control have come off as insincere and condescending to the Republican base. Republicans in Congress have further fanned the flames by refusing to take the issue seriously, adding to the perception by the Republican rank-and-file that their elected representatives have become arrogant and power-hungry.
The unfortunate result of disaffected Republican voters is that Congress will likely fall into the hands of a Democrat Party that is much farther to the left than it was in 1994 when they lost control of Congress.
Although you make some valid points for why republicans are less-than impressed with this administrations track record, your summary prediction is flawed. In order to believe that democrates will win back Congress, you must first believe that the ‘disaffected’ republican base won’t show up at the polls to vote. What is it that you believe will drive them to withdraw from the election process completely? Is returning control of Congress to the democrates a better alternative? No… I intend to vote and I think you will see a very strong republican base show up to vote next month. If republicans loose the election, it will not be because of low voter turnout by the republican base. I believe this election will be decided not by democrat or republican, but by the independent (or undecided) voters that tend to waffle around the center of the political spectrum. They listen to the ‘drive by’ media and read their newspapers thinking they are getting an unbiased account of the worlds stories and issues. This minority group of voters that tend to view the polictical process through their self-induced naive outlook of the world will be the deciding vote. And that is even scarier that Ted Turner…
The fact Republican “Americans”realize that most real Americans have seen the failure of Bush’s War is just a sign that democracy might still work. Oh, I forgot the Republican pushed for electronic voting machines. So much easier to hack than a hanging chad. Somebody needs to count the votes besides Bushs Brother.
Hey, Steve-o…shouldn’t you be helping your arab buddies rig up a car bomb or something?
The hypocrit party of family values who can’t even protect pages is going to lose. And if they believed in security they would have done better in Iraq. But when they started village sweeps years ago, just like Vietnam sweeps of a hill only to let it go back to the enemy, I knew we were dead in Iraq. This is the problem, even Bush sees it, we are NOT WINNING. Hell will freeze over before we win in Iraq.
We cannot even see the enemy who turns into a civilian like in Vietnam. No difference. And if we lose Iraq it won’t matter one bit to the war on terror just like our defeat in Vietnam didn’t cause us to lose agains communism. Have the Republicans learned nothing from history? Are they that stupid? Apparently the polls show that even the gullible Americans have come to their senses.
Now that we are NOT winning, and Bush sees this, and the generals finally are being listened to, instead of that incompetant Rummy, Bush now says we are in a Vietnam like war. We have been in a Vietnam like war all along stupid Bush. Kids have DIED IN VAIN, just like in Vietnam. If I were a parent I would not rest peacefully knowing my son’s commander in chief was such a moron.
Well, since Lindsey Graham has labelled Iraq “chaos” the President has decided to CUT AND RUN. It is about time. Remember, you don’t have to win if you are an insurgent. You just have to keep from losing. That is what is happening in Iraq, and that it is why it is so difficult to win a guerrilla war. It is about time that Bush has imposed a timetable of 12-18 months for Iraq to take over its affairs. But, alas, as Lyndon Johnson pinned his political hopes on the power of the South Vietnamese, so too has Bush destroyed the Republican party in trusting Iraques to take over their country.
And yet, I don’t think Bush will take the Democrat approach of “appease and surrender”.
Oh right. Pulling out, or redeployment is not considered surrender if a Republican does it. The hypocrite party at work again. Just remember, Republicans cleaned up Vietnam by surrendering, and they did the right thing.
Democrats are ridiculous. If they had their way our women would be wearing burqas and we’d all be speaking spanish.
When I vote in November, its going to be for real Americans like these:
(Sorry, no links allowed)
I didn’t say Democrats were not ridiculous Landon. They are only brilliant when compared to George Bush. But that is enough.
Now it seems that the President has been saying that he is in Iraq to stay. He must be backing off his “stay the course” fluff. I would think that a waffler like this is unfit for President. How the world turns!
So…Gary…you and Steve joined Al Qaeda yet?
Now we see that Bush has changed the timetables to “benchmarks”. Of course, benchmarks will not be met, because the Iraqui government is not interested in going after their militia allies in any way. It won’t happen. So these “benchmarks” are doomed to failure.
Remember, the USA exists through winning a guerrilla war against the British who had military superiority. Lyndon Johnson doomed his presidency by relying on the military of another developing country. Bush is caught in the same trap. He is saying Iraq is sovereign and it is up to them to meet “benchmarks”. What about our sovereignty to avoid this continual loss of soldiers who are dying in vain? What about our sovereignty to have control over our budget when this country needs the money, and is wasting it in Iraq.
Where are the conservatives in our country who want government spending brought under control? Knewt Gingrich and Bill Clinton balanced the budget, and they did not do so to establish this spending spree by Bush.
Just now President Bush has no answer as to how to hold the Iraq government accountable for the “benchmarks”. He is stumbling all over himself as I type this. Now we cannot impose any benchmarks. What double talk!
What are benchmarks worth if they cannot be imposed??? This man is a moron still. He has lost his senses after regaining them for maybe a nanosecond.
Okay…and if you think the Democrats can offer a solution to the problem (without the standard appease and surrender tactics), then let’s hear them.
Oh…wait…I do believe that is the sound of crickets chirping in the background of a very long period of silence.
The truth is, the dems can’t think of anything else, but figure they can replace that silence with “Let’s wipe out Bush.”
Their hatred for the man is so strong they’re willing to side with the Islamics and help wipe out the rest of America just to get rid of him.
Oh…and while we’re at it…let’s talk about the liberal habit of labelling Bush and anyone else that does not follow the liberal line of thought as “nazis”. Keep in mind that it works both ways and that swastika looks just as good on you as it does on those you wish to paint it on.
Largo, the Republicans surrendered in Vietnam. We did not lose the cold war because of it. Do you see a pattern here or are you a robot?
I have a solution. We need to pull out of Iraq. We need to dictate a timeline to the Iraquis. We need to prove OUR sovereignty in this matter. If I help a drunk on the road, it is not the decision of the drunk when I should stop helping him!!!!!!
It is not the decision of the government of Iraq when we stop helping them, yet they apparently believe that they have this power. I think the Iraqui tail is wagging the Bush dog.
I remember my father being attacked by a bunch of hippies (your people) verbally and crap being thrown at him when he came home with no legs.
We lost because people like you revolted back home and sided with the enemy.
Largo, we lost because American generals misestimated the amount of power and numbers the enemy had along with little committment from the South Vietnamese. We could not have won that war short of nukes and that line was not going to be crossed. You need to study up on Vietnam, but I am sorry about your father. He did not deserve that treatment. I would have not treated him that way, ever.
Bush has a problem. It is the same problem as in Vietnam. We cannot get Iraq to fight the war the way we want them to, and that means that we can never win. Here is the statement from the President of Iraq as taken from http://smg.com.au :
” IRAQ’S Prime Minister has put himself at odds with the US Government, distancing himself from the American notion of a timetable for stabilising Iraq and criticising a US raid on a Shiite militia enclave in Baghdad’s notorious Sadr City.
Speaking in Baghdad on Wednesday, just before the US President, George Bush, held a news conference in Washington, Nouri al-Maliki tailored his remarks to a domestic audience, reassuring the millions of Shiites who form his power base that he would not bend to US pressure over how to conduct internal Iraqi affairs.”
Largo, I noticed that one of the people that is an expert on terror has stated that the opportunity to bring Sunni and Shiite together has passed. (As a side note, apparently Bush didn’t know there were warring factions in Iraq before invading.)
Therefore, he said that strategically, all America must do is to prevent the Sunni’s from taking over the entire nation of Iraq. He said we could redeploy in some fashion, and keep our soldiers out of the civil war that we just cannot be in the middle of.
It is past time for America to wise up and get out of harms way as these factions in Iraq fight it out. Almost 70 percent of US citizens agree.
Largo, I was listening to tv about how people advised President Lyndon Johnson about Vietnam. They said, declare victory and get the hell out. I would think that we could do the very same in Iraq, staying only close enough to ensure a strategic balance. It is of course surrender, but not in the same sense as the Japanese surrendered in WW2. This declaring of victory and surrenduring is because of a draw, and is on the terms of the US. Bush can say we got rid of Saddam, who is a scoundrel, and we can get out of the way of the civil war where we do not have any power to change anything.
I believe our presence is increasing hatred of the USA among Muslims, and is diverting our real mission against terrorism, which was Afghanistan. I also believe that our time in Iraq is spent in bowing to the Iraq government.
We may not be surrendering, but in fact, Bush is getting his privates cut off by the Iraqui president who derives his power from the militias that we want destroyed. Of course that will never happen. We are so naive.
Gary,
I appreciate your participation in this debeate, but I have to say that you are the one who is naive.
The reason Johnson didn’t take that advice and Bush won’t either is that it is a shameless lie. The world will not be fooled by a declaration of victory. It would be cowardly.
As for Saddam, he is still alive. If we leave, I would imagine he would be back in power in short order. He already has a lot of experience at controlling the hostile factions in Iraq.
And finally, it is a myth that we have caused Muslim hatred. They have been attacking the U.S. routinely for more than 25 years. I lived close to the World Trade Center when it was attacked and had friends and neighbors who died. It was the most horrendous thing I have ever experienced and I will never forget it.
The dirtbags who carried out those attacks and all the other attacks on civilized people , whether in Iraq, France, the U.K., Australia, the Netherlands, Bali, Israel, Indonesia, (well, I hope you get the picture) hate us because we are not like them and we do not want to be like them.
Tom I agree with you that they hate us because we have different values. But not all muslims hate us. And Muslims were killed on 9/11. The problem Bush has is that he knew when he went into Iraq that it was never about Osama! It was always about Saddam. That is the guy Bush wanted. He said one time that he didn’t even care about Osama. 9/11 provided an excuse to invade Iraq.
9/11 gave Bush a reason to commit a few troops to Afghanistan, but the primary war for our naive President was Iraq. As you recall, the American electorate was so angry that Johnson resigned, and they are now so angry that the Republicans face sheer disaster in this election.
Oh, and my mom is 94 years old. She thinks Bush is a little peacock and she thinks he is arrogant. Maybe it has something to do with the way he swings his arms when he walks. He is self confident in a false manner, and I saw through this war years ago.
So, Gary, you figure by giving in and appeasing Muslims, that there will be peace.
I hope you have your prayer mat and koran ready.
Largo, since when are you equating terrorists and muslims? You should say, “appeasing terrorists”, but you are so blinded you cannot see the distinction. Republicans have caught the disease of George Bush, lack of critical reasoning.
Of course I am not interested in appeasing terrorists, but getting in the middle of a civil war in Iraq is not the answer. You know that, unless you just want to fight and die stupidly. War for the sake of war, is that your position?
I believe it was Rummy himself who said that we could not win Iraq militarily. Or was that just the generals? I know they said it and I know they want this ended. They may not say it in the open, but they know we are treading water with no victory in sight. Remember, it was Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld who said everything was just going peachy in Iraq. It was the right wing who said that we need those positive news stories in Iraq
Well, now we know, it wasn’t about wmd’s, it wasn’t about Osama, it wasn’t about democracy. Now, we know President Bush, it was about oil you lying ***. You are a disgusting human being, President Bush. You have no moral compass, or it points south. You are not the President that this country deserves. You are a con man. Not just a neo con, but a real con man, sir. Today, it is all about oil, but wasn’t that what it was all about in the first place but you couldn’t convince anyone to go to war and invade a country over oil?? You make me sick, sir.
Pretty sad that the President says we are in Iraq to protect oil. We all knew that but at least we could have had some conservation so that we could buy non gas guzzlers. That seems like a better policy than sending our soldiers to get shot up for a measly 1.5 million barrels per day.
From bbc it appears that back in 2005 it was revealed that our invasion of Iraq was an aggressive imperialistic act that was immoral. If this is not a war crime, I am not sure how you can define a war crime. If you readers have an explanation of why this invasion was not a war crime, then perhaps you can enlighten me.
“Mr Aljibury, once Ronald Reagan’s “back-channel” to Saddam, claims that plans to sell off Iraq’s oil, pushed by the US-installed Governing Council in 2003, helped instigate the insurgency and attacks on US and British occupying forces.
“Insurgents used this, saying, ‘Look, you’re losing your country, you’re losing your resources to a bunch of wealthy billionaires who want to take you over and make your life miserable,’” said Mr Aljibury from his home near San Francisco.
“We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, built on the premise that privatisation is coming.”
Privatisation blocked by industry
Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq’s oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme.
Mr Carroll told us he made it clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that: “There was to be no privatisation of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved.”
Amy Jaffee says oil companies fear a privatisation would exclude foreign firms
Ariel Cohen, of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, told Newsnight that an opportunity had been missed to privatise Iraq’s oil fields.
He advocated the plan as a means to help the US defeat Opec, and said America should have gone ahead with what he called a “no-brainer” decision.
Mr Carroll hit back, telling Newsnight, “I would agree with that statement. To privatize would be a no-brainer. It would only be thought about by someone with no brain.”
New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper’s Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favoured by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004 under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas.
Formerly US Secretary of State, Baker is now an attorney representing Exxon-Mobil and the Saudi Arabian government.
Questioned by Newsnight, Ms Jaffe said the oil industry prefers state control of Iraq’s oil over a sell-off because it fears a repeat of Russia’s energy privatisation. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, US oil companies were barred from bidding for the reserves.
Ms Jaffe says US oil companies are not warm to any plan that would undermine Opec and the current high oil price: “I’m not sure that if I’m the chair of an American company, and you put me on a lie detector test, I would say high oil prices are bad for me or my company.”
The former Shell oil boss agrees. In Houston, he told Newsnight: “Many neo conservatives are people who have certain ideological beliefs about markets, about democracy, about this, that and the other. International oil companies, without exception, are very pragmatic commercial organizations. They don’t have a theology.”"
Well, the President was slapped down last night, and it is time to let Rummy go and to come to sanity in Iraq. We cannot let Iraq dictate to us. If they want sovereignty, let them fight for it. We are not winning, and it is time to retrench. We can support the Kurds, etc. But we need to quit spending lives and money in Iraq needlessly just so we can get oil. That is what Iraq is about you know.
And the the Muslims thank you, Gary. They thank you for your assistance in helping them with their campaign of world domination.
And yes, I do equate Muslims with terrorism. Unlike you, I’ve seen first hand the true face of Islam and the people who blindly support them (that would be people like you) in their war on the rest of the world.
I was in a Starbucks in Seattle the other day and heard people talking about how the republicans got “bitch slapped”. They also made comments about how “it’s only a matter of time before we wipe those damn christians out”.
This is also the same group of people that celebrates whenever US soldiers get killed in Iraq and they waved a banner a while back that read “Victory to the Iraqi Insurgents”.
Yes…I know where you Democrats stand…and I have to say that the nazi label your people like to paint others with fits you just as well.
So…Gary…you sent your money to CAIR yet? I’m sure Al Qaeda and Hamas could use the money and support you libs want to give them.