The Wackadoo Democratic Wing Wins

dbermanmd · Aug 9, 2006

The bolds are mine.
I would love to get a little insight into how some of the democratic friends are intrepreting this.
Thanks guys....

Win for the wackadoo wing

Leftward, march! The sucking sound you heard from Connecticut last night was the air going out of the war on terror. At least among many Democrats.

The party's voters have spoken - and they are wrong to try to fire Joe Lieberman after three distinguished terms in the Senate. Now we know what a nutmeg really is. It has something to do with a nutty decision.

Don't buy the baloney that Lieberman lost his primary race because he had lost touch with his home base on a range of issues. Rich upstart Ned Lamont was all about Lieberman's support for the Iraq war and coziness with President Bush. That's what this election was about, period.

So now that the wackadoo wing of the party has a bloody scalp, what are they going to do with it? Wave it at Islamic terrorists in Iraq and Lebanon and Afghanistan and Indonesia and Great Britain and Spain and Israel and New York and declare peace? That will work for sure. They better also wear armor and duck.

Lieberman is the first casualty of the war against the war on terror. If last night's results are a window on the party's tilt, then a huge slice of the Democratic party is ready to sit out the war to protect America. God help us if the Republicans also get the wobblies. Let's hope the Connecticut Condition isn't contagious. And let's hope last night's decision is overturned.

Lieberman's decision to stay in the race as an independent is the right one. Given the close margin, all the state's voters deserve a chance to have their say. Perhaps they will fix what the Democrats broke.

That many Americans are disgusted with events in Iraq is understandable. Nothing has gone as planned or promised, a point Lieberman made with some regularity. But wars never go easily, and thus are always unpopular at some point.

Even "good" wars have their bad moments, causing otherwise sensible people to look for the exits.

That is happening across our nation with Iraq, which, given the lousy intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, never was a "good" war. Yet Iraq, in all its hellishness, is important, even vital to regional stability and American security. Unplug America's commitment there, which is what the Lamont crowd is about, and how exactly does that help us? Will the terrorists suddenly stop attacking us and our allies?

And does the price of peace also require us to abandon Israel and the moderate Arab governments who are our allies in fighting the terrorists? Indeed, there was a surreal quality to the television news last night: Stations cutting away from the Israeli-Hezbollah war to update the election results, and vice versa. Too bad no one thought to link them as two parts of one story, which is what they are.

Congressional Democratic leaders recently demanded that Bush begin withdrawing our troops this year, regardless of events in Iraq. They called it a "redeployment." When I said that redeployment was another word for retreat, a top party operative disagreed. He said, earnestly, that Dems favored keeping about 35,000 troops "in the region" as something like a police force. "We could go back into Iraq if we had to," he said.

This is fantasy. And that's what Lamont's victory is based on. That somehow we can pull out of Iraq, tell the terrorists they win - and we and our allies will not suffer any consequences. And if those Islamists misbehave, well, we'll just scoot back over there with our police force and arrest those naughty fellows.

I believe that Islamic terrorists will stop at nothing in their mad quest to rule the globe. As a result, World War III has started, whether we like it or not. It will continue, whether we fight back or not. But if we think we can win by not fighting, then we're not just wrong. We're nuts. As in nutmeg.

Originally published on August 9, 2006

efusco · Aug 9, 2006

Sorry, I just don't have the energy to wade through the details of that ridiculous thing.

But here's the thing. Just b/c we disagree with the invasion of Iraq, just b/c we think Bush has been on a fool's mission, just b/c we don't believe in the dissolution of our constitutional rights to privacy (skip the 'it's not in the constitution stuff', the supreme court has ruled that we do), does NOT mean that we don't believe in defeating terrorism. We simply disagree with the way it's been gone about to this point.

We think there is a better way more likely to accomplish the mutual goal of riding the world of terroists. But when we create policies that anger more muslims and create more terrorist THAT is what defeats the war on terror.

efusco · Aug 9, 2006

The presumption, of course of this kind of litany is that "our way is the only way" attitude despite the evidence of failure.

dbermanmd · Aug 9, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Aug 9 2006, 10:13 AM) [snapback]300158[/snapback]</div>

Sorry, I just don't have the energy to wade through the details of that ridiculous thing.

But here's the thing. Just b/c we disagree with the invasion of Iraq, just b/c we think Bush has been on a fool's mission, just b/c we don't believe in the dissolution of our constitutional rights to privacy (skip the 'it's not in the constitution stuff', the supreme court has ruled that we do), does NOT mean that we don't believe in defeating terrorism. We simply disagree with the way it's been gone about to this point.

We think there is a better way more likely to accomplish the mutual goal of riding the world of terroists. But when we create policies that anger more muslims and create more terrorist THAT is what defeats the war on terror.
[/b]
Click to expand...

How would you go about getting rid of the worlds terrorists?

Jonnycat26 · Aug 9, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 9 2006, 10:52 AM) [snapback]300179[/snapback]</div>

How would you go about getting rid of the worlds terrorists?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Personally I would have finished the job in Afganistan, maybe eliminated Bin Laden, before I opened a second front.

But then, historically, second fronts have worked well (See Germany in WWI and WWII).

efusco · Aug 9, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 9 2006, 09:52 AM) [snapback]300179[/snapback]</div>

How would you go about getting rid of the worlds terrorists? [/b]
Click to expand...

I don't propse to be the one with all the answers, but I can recognize a huge error when I see it. But, in general, I'd go about it in a more precise way. IOW put the majority of the energy (and money) into intelligence gathering, infiltration, and precision strikes against known terror out posts.

I'd act in much more of a way like the terrorists do with us. Keep things quiet for a long time...up to years...then strike unexpectedly once the guard has been let down. Let them become more bold, let them make mistakes. With constant attacks and overt strikes they are forced deeper into hidding, sure, it may make it harder for them to operate in the short term, but it won't deter them in the long run.

Wasting resources destroying a country that is not a threat to us, nurturing yet more terrorist where they once didn't exist, then wasting more resouces 'harvesting the fruits of those labors", and eventually even more resources as we try to rebuild (assuming we stay there long enough to get to that point), doesn't seem to be a good way to fix the issue....Terrorist are building up, unabated, in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Pakistan, Phillipines, and who knows where else b/c we have no ability to infiltrate and stop them with our resources elsewhere.

I think a more intelligent well considered and focused approach is needed. I'm no Condi Rice or Don Rumsfeld, and I don't know how, personally, to implement such a plan or even exactly what resources are available to do so, but I do know bad vs good when I see it, and our current plan is bad.

dbermanmd · Aug 9, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Aug 9 2006, 11:01 AM) [snapback]300186[/snapback]</div>

I don't propse to be the one with all the answers, but I can recognize a huge error when I see it. But, in general, I'd go about it in a more precise way. IOW put the majority of the energy (and money) into intelligence gathering, infiltration, and precision strikes against known terror out posts.

it is easy to "recognize error" - you favor a federal ID card? Precision strikes on an independant country , or in other words an act of war??? How do you attack these posts - by air or by ground??
[/b]

I'd act in much more of a way like the terrorists do with us. Keep things quiet for a long time...up to years...then strike unexpectedly once the guard has been let down. Let them become more bold, let them make mistakes. With constant attacks and overt strikes they are forced deeper into hidding, sure, it may make it harder for them to operate in the short term, but it won't deter them in the long run.

[/b]keep quiet - let them plan and gain strength - like clinton did?? let them become more bold -- like getting their hands on nuclear weapons - cool. how would you prevent them from getting wmd's?

Wasting resources destroying a country that is not a threat to us, nurturing yet more terrorist where they once didn't exist, then wasting more resouces 'harvesting the fruits of those labors", and eventually even more resources as we try to rebuild (assuming we stay there long enough to get to that point), doesn't seem to be a good way to fix the issue....Terrorist are building up, unabated, in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Pakistan, Phillipines, and who knows where else b/c we have no ability to infiltrate and stop them with our resources elsewhere.

nuturing terrorists - interesting concept. You would have let Hitler have his day too? In Lebanon terrorists are being killed at an acceptable rate with unacceptable casualties to the good guys. they let them build and plot and plan and you see again and i say AGAIN what happened? And how do you infiltrate them with 100% certainty?????

I think a more intelligent well considered and focused approach is needed. I'm no Condi Rice or Don Rumsfeld, and I don't know how, personally, to implement such a plan or even exactly what resources are available to do so, but I do know bad vs good when I see it, and our current plan is bad.

Click to expand...

Your plan is what exactly got us into this mess - and would provide them with the probability to get their hands on nukes soon. Would you be willing to prevent Iran from going nuclear - this is the only question I ask you to answer?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 9 2006, 11:11 AM) [snapback]300195[/snapback]</div>

Your plan is what exactly got us into this mess - and would provide them with the probability to get their hands on nukes soon. Would you be willing to prevent Iran from going nuclear - this is the only question I ask you to answer?
[/b]
Click to expand...

sorry about the improper editing

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Aug 9 2006, 10:53 AM) [snapback]300180[/snapback]</div>

Personally I would have finished the job in Afganistan, maybe eliminated Bin Laden, before I opened a second front.

But then, historically, second fronts have worked well (See Germany in WWI and WWII).

[/b]
Click to expand...

We do not want OBL at this point. we are better off with him still breathing or whatever state he is currently in.
like a boxer - pound the body, pound the body, pound the body - then when there is no body left -- go for the knockout.

kingofgix · Aug 9, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Aug 9 2006, 11:01 AM) [snapback]300186[/snapback]</div>

I don't propse to be the one with all the answers, but I can recognize a huge error when I see it. But, in general, I'd go about it in a more precise way. IOW put the majority of the energy (and money) into intelligence gathering, infiltration, and precision strikes against known terror out posts.

I'd act in much more of a way like the terrorists do with us. Keep things quiet for a long time...up to years...then strike unexpectedly once the guard has been let down. Let them become more bold, let them make mistakes. With constant attacks and overt strikes they are forced deeper into hidding, sure, it may make it harder for them to operate in the short term, but it won't deter them in the long run.

Wasting resources destroying a country that is not a threat to us, nurturing yet more terrorist where they once didn't exist, then wasting more resouces 'harvesting the fruits of those labors", and eventually even more resources as we try to rebuild (assuming we stay there long enough to get to that point), doesn't seem to be a good way to fix the issue....Terrorist are building up, unabated, in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Pakistan, Phillipines, and who knows where else b/c we have no ability to infiltrate and stop them with our resources elsewhere.

I think a more intelligent well considered and focused approach is needed. I'm no Condi Rice or Don Rumsfeld, and I don't know how, personally, to implement such a plan or even exactly what resources are available to do so, but I do know bad vs good when I see it, and our current plan is bad.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Efusco, I can't say it any better so I won't try.

I will add though that the Bush folly in Iraq is the single biggest mistake the US has made, and will cost us dearly. We are now burdened with massive debt, a destablized Middle East ripe for terrorist activity, and increased hatred for the US and the terrorism that it spawns. The damage done is huge, and who can say if it can ever be repaired?

As for the original post, it is just more dirty partisan politics, and shows increased desperation on the part of Repubs.

efusco · Aug 9, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 9 2006, 10:13 AM) [snapback]300195[/snapback]</div>

Your plan is what exactly got us into this mess - and would provide them with the probability to get their hands on nukes soon. Would you be willing to prevent Iran from going nuclear - this is the only question I ask you to answer?

sorry about the improper editing [/b]
Click to expand...

You like to ask questions like Bush...only two possible answers both of his own choosing....

Yes, I want to prevent Iran from gaining the ability to produce nuclear weapons.

No, I do not think we can/should impede them from developing nuclear power.

Yes, that makes things difficult and would require strict regulation and monitoring to keep under control, and if they kick out the observers/monitors then there would be a crisis and the UN would have to have a plan, before this happens, to deal with it.

Yes, I think Iran has ulterior motives in developing it's nuclear resources.

And, as usual, you twist my words instead of thinking and considering and being rational. In no way did I suggest or imply that we sit back idly allowing terrorist to just gain strength while we do nothing. But, I did say that blindly doing something stupid, expensive and ineffectual is even worse than doing nothing at all.

The issues with Bin Laden and terrorism easily pre-dated Clinton, perhaps more could have been done under his administration, but I don't remember any cries from the republicans to do more during that period either. We were all dumb and happy during that time and had no appreciation for what was developing. Now we know. What we need is a solid, long term, plan to deal with it. No 'quicky' wars...that is pointless...we need a plan for the next 10-20 years to constrict terror activities, to root out the terrorist and to slowly but precisely cut off the flow of money, weapons, etc that they need to continue doing what they now do unimpeded almost anywhere they please..including at the front of our 'efforts' in Iraq.

kingofgix · Aug 9, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Aug 9 2006, 11:20 AM) [snapback]300198[/snapback]</div>

The issues with Bin Laden and terrorism easily pre-dated Clinton, perhaps more could have been done under his administration, but I don't remember any cries from the republicans to do more during that period either. We were all dumb and happy during that time and had no appreciation for what was developing. Now we know. What we need is a solid, long term, plan to deal with it. No 'quicky' wars...that is pointless...we need a plan for the next 10-20 years to constrict terror activities, to root out the terrorist and to slowly but precisely cut off the flow of money, weapons, etc that they need to continue doing what they now do unimpeded almost anywhere they please..including at the front of our 'efforts' in Iraq.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Yes, this is the only reasonable and possibly effective approach.

dbermanmd's continual comparing pre to post 9/11 actions and strategies is absurd, and demonstrates a complete lack of rationality. There is no comparison.

If we continue Goerge Bush's strategy to fighting wars against nations that pose virtually no threat to us, we might as well surrender to the terrorist now and get it over with. It is a path of certain and utter failure, and the only possible outcome will be the demise of the US as we know it.

tomdeimos · Aug 9, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 9 2006, 10:52 AM) [snapback]300179[/snapback]</div>

How would you go about getting rid of the worlds terrorists?
[/b]
Click to expand...

This is the problem. You can't and you won't. All you get rid of will be replaced by more.

What you can do and do pretty simply is to disarm them, stop making them rich buying their oil, and stop selling them weapons.
We have not even started to do anything useful yet.

EricGo · Aug 9, 2006

Clue to anybody in the fascist camp: Al Qaeda exists not out of hate of Democracy, not out of any desire to foist their views on western countries, but as a reaction to western and in particular US influence in muslim countries (read oil-rich countries).

Become energy independent, stop meddling and get the hell out of those countries, and watch the global Islamic anti - US movement disipate if not evaporate.

It is THAT simple.

dbermanmd · Aug 9, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Aug 9 2006, 11:51 AM) [snapback]300214[/snapback]</div>

Clue to anybody in the fascist camp: Al Qaeda exists not out of hate of Democracy, not out of any desire to foist their views on western countries, but as a reaction to western and in particular US influence in muslim countries (read oil-rich countries).

Become energy independent, stop meddling and get the hell out of those countries, and watch the global Islamic anti - US movement disipate if not evaporate.

It is THAT simple.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Wrong. What US influences are circulating in Saudi or Iran or Syria? Are you mixing up Western concepts of freedom with US influence? You honestly think by "getting out" the terrorists go away??

And if you are wrong????

kingofgix · Aug 9, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 9 2006, 12:00 PM) [snapback]300223[/snapback]</div>

Wrong. What US influences are circulating in Saudi..... [/b]
Click to expand...

hahahahahaha! OBL entire motivation was based on US influence in Saudi Arabia! Thats what got the whole ball rolling.

Godiva · Aug 9, 2006

I'm a Democrat.

What do I think about the piece and about your boldings in particular?

Here's what I think.

Everything isn't about Iraq.

And we better start focusing on other things besides that one issue.

And I'm tired of reading GOP hate-hack designed to keep the red-necks in fear.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 9 2006, 09:52 AM) [snapback]300179[/snapback]</div>

How would you go about getting rid of the worlds terrorists?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Since when is it our job to rid the world of terrorists?

Are we the world's Mommy?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Aug 9 2006, 09:53 AM) [snapback]300180[/snapback]</div>

Personally I would have finished the job in Afganistan, maybe eliminated Bin Laden, before I opened a second front.

But then, historically, second fronts have worked well (See Germany in WWI and WWII).

[/b]
Click to expand...

:lol:

TouchÃ©!

kingofgix · Aug 9, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 9 2006, 10:00 AM) [snapback]300154[/snapback]</div>

I believe that Islamic terrorists will stop at nothing in their mad quest to rule the globe. As a result, World War III has started, whether we like it or not. It will continue, whether we fight back or not. But if we think we can win by not fighting, then we're not just wrong. We're nuts. As in nutmeg.

[/b]
Click to expand...

What the author of the above wants the reader to think is that Republicans are for fighting and Democrats are for quitting. What is is implied in the above statement is that there is only one way to fight back, and that one way is the war in Iraq, a conventional nation vs. nation war. Utter nonsense.

The Iraq war, and any conventional warfare is absolutely NOT the way to fight terrorism and is a recipe for complete failure. But this is what Republicans are for. A proven ineffective and failed plan. We will certainly lose if we continue down that path.

Godiva · Aug 9, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kingofgix @ Aug 9 2006, 12:41 PM) [snapback]300282[/snapback]</div>

What the author of the above wants the reader to think is that Republicans are for fighting and Democrats are for quitting. What is is implied in the above statement is that there is only one way to fight back, and that one way is the war in Iraq, a conventional nation vs. nation war. Utter nonsense.

The Iraq war, and any conventional warfare is absolutely NOT the way to fight terrorism and is a recipe for complete failure. But this is what Republicans are for. A proven ineffective and failed plan. We will certainly lose if we continue down that path.
[/b]
Click to expand...

You forgot.

The Republicans want us to be very afraid and believe that they are the only ones that can protect us and keep us safe.

eyeguy13 · Aug 9, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Aug 9 2006, 09:13 AM) [snapback]300158[/snapback]</div>

Sorry, I just don't have the energy to wade through the details of that ridiculous thing.

But here's the thing. Just b/c we disagree with the invasion of Iraq, just b/c we think Bush has been on a fool's mission, just b/c we don't believe in the dissolution of our constitutional rights to privacy (skip the 'it's not in the constitution stuff', the supreme court has ruled that we do), does NOT mean that we don't believe in defeating terrorism. We simply disagree with the way it's been gone about to this point.

[/b]
Click to expand...

The election yesterday in Conn., GA, and Michigan was simply a vote for change. Americans are NOT content with the status quo anymore. It has nothing to do with "Wackadoo Democrats" (BTW, that's a term I use all the time). Incumbents beware!!!!! Change is coming.

Alric · Aug 9, 2006

The way the information about the Iraq/terrorism connection was manipulated was doucmented in the PBS documentary "The Dark Side" which can be watched in its entirety here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/

dbermanmd: Please watch this and even better, the whole series. It might alter the way you think.

dbermanmd · Aug 9, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kingofgix @ Aug 9 2006, 12:28 PM) [snapback]300233[/snapback]</div>

hahahahahaha! OBL entire motivation was based on US influence in Saudi Arabia! Thats what got the whole ball rolling.
[/b]
Click to expand...

?

And what was Hitlers motivation?

The worlds history is full of madmen - you by trying to explain their madness become a party to it.

The Wackadoo Democratic Wing Wins

dbermanmd New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

dbermanmd New Member

Jonnycat26 New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

dbermanmd New Member

kingofgix New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

kingofgix New Member

tomdeimos New Member

EricGo New Member

dbermanmd New Member

kingofgix New Member

Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

kingofgix New Member

Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

eyeguy13 Member

Alric New Member

dbermanmd New Member

About PriusChat

Quick Navigation

Like us on Facebook

Buy us a beer!

Useful Searches

The Wackadoo Democratic Wing Wins

dbermanmd New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus Staff Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus Staff Member

dbermanmd New Member

Jonnycat26 New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus Staff Member

dbermanmd New Member

kingofgix New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus Staff Member

kingofgix New Member

tomdeimos New Member

EricGo New Member

dbermanmd New Member

kingofgix New Member

Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

kingofgix New Member

Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

eyeguy13 Member

Alric New Member

dbermanmd New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member