They just can't stand Bush, which is what is motivating the Left.

I was going to do this with just one big article, but I think I'll break it up into smaller pieces and post the seperate pieces. It'll be easier to read, and they'll be good news for the Republicans plastered here on AllForums to read, which would be a delightful change.


This post refers to an article about an interview conducted by Jon Stewart, who was interviewing Nancy Soderberg. Soderburg was one of the Clinton's top advisors. (I'll post her bio at the end of this article). Granted Jon Stewart, a host on the Comedy Channel is NOT a serious journalist, but I think what Soderburg says is telling and the article refers to her admission as a "microcosm" of what is happening to the Left and the Democrat Party.

You see, Stewart is amazed at what is happening in the Middle East, particularly in Lebanon, where the Lebanese are trying to kick the Syrains out of their country. Stewart KNOWS that this wouldn't have happened had the U.S. and BUSH decided to go into Iraq and clean house. Nancy Soderburg acknowledges (kind of) that democracy and self determination in the Middle East is wonderful, but not when BUSH is in the Whitehouse. Her Quote:

"[A]s a Democrat, you don't want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don't want them to have progress. But as an American, you hope good things would happen."

So it's nice when Good Things happen to America, but not when the Republicans (read Bush) are in a position to take the credit for it.

Also, Soderburg drops this little gem of a quote:

"Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's still hope for the rest of us ... There's always hope that this might not work."

I've suspected, for a long time, especially after reading the posts on this forum, that the real motivation for opposition to this War on Terrorism isn't so much the questions of whether or not Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, or the way our troops were deployed, or the idea that America went to Iraq "unilterally," or even the idea that of whether or not the Iraqis and Afghanis want democracy or not. It's just that Bush is running the show, and any excuse, ANY thing at all to put Bush and the Republicans in a bad light is to the good, as it will help achieve Democrat victories.

The really sad, and scary part, is that the Left and the Democrats don't have a better plan than that evil simpleton Bush. The Democrats would NOT have gone into Iraq, or even Afghanistan. They wouldn't have taken such a risk. They don't want to face the heat that Bush has had to put up with some 4 years now.


The only thing the Democrats have done and continue to do in the future is to oppose, oppose, oppose. Hope something BAD sticks to Bush and the Republicans (if any doubt me, just go and read what Shaman, Freethinker, Overdose and the others wrote concerning Bush's economy, war on terror, corporate scandal, how the world hates us, this forum is another microcosm on how the Left thinks) so they can get back into power.

Do you really want to elect those who don't have ANY ideas on how to run this Country?





Soderburg Bio (http://www.galegroup.com/free_resources/whm/bio/soderberg_n.htm)

Stewart Interview with Soderburg (http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050302-094959-9867r.htm)

OK, that's one lib down ... 50 million to go. Let us know when you're done.

Dop

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
The Democrats would NOT have gone into Iraq

I disagree....but IF the Democrats had decided to not go over there, there would be over 1300 American servicemen alive today that are instead dead, and we'd be maybe 400 or 500 billion dollars less in debt.

And we would not be one iota more threatened by Iraq or by further terrorist attacks than we are at present.

Probably less so, if anything.

The Democrats would NOT have gone into Iraq, or even Afghanistan. They wouldn't have taken such a risk. They don't want to face the heat that Bush has had to put up with some 4 years now

We already know what Clinton did when the USS Cole was bombed by Al Queda. N-O-T-H-I-N-G

And we saw how much good that did.

I would much rather have someone try something than sit around and do nothing like our Democratic predecessor did. Thanks, I'll pass on that strategy.

I've suspected, for a long time, especially after reading the posts on this forum, that the real motivation for opposition to this War on Terrorism isn't so much the questions of whether or not Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, or the way our troops were deployed, or the idea that America went to Iraq "unilterally," or even the idea that of whether or not the Iraqis and Afghanis want democracy or not. It's just that Bush is running the show, and any excuse, ANY thing at all to put Bush and the Republicans in a bad light is to the good, as it will help achieve Democrat victories.

This phenomenom was never more evident when the Iraqi elections were taking place, and the media was showing millions of Iraqis voting around the world. The conservative posters had a field day that day or two after that, while the liberal posters fumed. It's sad, really.

Dop,

One down and fifty million to go? What do you mean by that? One of the points of my post is that the Left hates Bush so much that they will dig up any kind of dirt in the hopes that scandal will get him out of office. Do you mean to tell me you don't do that?

Out of curiousity, what would YOU have done after 9/11?


Freethinker,

IF the democrats (read Gore) had decided to not invade Iraq (and he wouldn't have) then sooner or later, the U.N. weapons inspectors would've quit Iraq, Saddam would've gotten his WMD program kicked up into high gear, the torture/rape chambers would've been open and operating overtime.

You may think that taking action in Iraq was bad, but the not doing anything would've been worse. Dammit.


Karankawa,

Clinton doing nothing all through the 90s encouraged Bin Laden and company.

You can't compare the uss cole/clinton with 911/bush Vs. Gore.

Clinton was handcuffed with a republican congress ... he did not have 200 billion to spend, he did not have special think tanks like that one we setup in Israel to replace the fbi/cia/nsa and on and on.

Personally I would have had an immediate open investigation -- not one 2 years later ... I would not have destroyed the steel from the towers so it couldn't be tested, I would have let Sibel Edmunds speak not gag-order her ....

If Clinton or Gore was president, you would have still seen a war albeit the proof would have been such that it backed our move ... not some mitigated bullshit like yellowcake in niger .... geeesh ... were they ever digging deep for that one.

To think the dems would not have sturck is beyond naive ... it would have meant the total end of the democratic party at just about every level ... the dems would be lucky to ever have another shot at the white house and the senate would be 90-10 republicans and the house 500 - 35 republican.

Dop

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
The Democrats would NOT have gone into Iraq, or even Afghanistan.
Maybe they wouldn't have gone into Iraq, but Afghanistan? Of all the Democrats in Congress at the time, only ONE voted against using military force in Afghanistan. If so many Democratic legislators were willing to go to war, it's quite likely that a Democratic president would be also.

The only thing the Democrats have done and continue to do in the future is to oppose, oppose, oppose.
I'll be willing to bet that the roles will be reversed once there's a Democrat in the White House. When it comes to blind partisanship, the two parties are just mirror images of each other.

Originally posted by Jester
Maybe they wouldn't have gone into Iraq, but Afghanistan? Of all the Democrats in Congress at the time, only ONE voted against using military force in Afghanistan. If so many Democratic legislators were willing to go to war, it's quite likely that a Democratic president would be also.

After 9/11, Afghanistan's days were numbered...in very small numbers...everyone watching the buildings fall knew someone was going to pay.


When it comes to blind partisanship, the two parties are just mirror images of each other.

You got that right Jester. Nice post.

Dop,

I remember when Clinton was about to get impeached, and he went and bombed that aspirin factory. During that time, Orin Hatch stepped out and talked to the media. One of the things he said, was that "Politics stops at the water's edge." Meaning, that if there was a threat to the U.S., Hatch, representing the republicans, would've stood by by President Clinton.

This action does tend to point to the idea that the Republicans would stand with Clinton in time of war. Something the Dems have demonstrated they have been unwilling to do, without a great deal of kicking and screaming anyway.

Karankawa,

Clinton doing nothing all through the 90s encouraged Bin Laden and company.

This is obvious, and I completely agree in case I wasn't clear.

Yeah darth -- I guess anyone would do whatever is necessary to get the heat off an impeachment ... I'm not defending clinton on that one.

it's called politics.

Let's not forget reagan/bush/cia created this monster OBL. Don't skip over that part of history lest you look like a partisan hack.

Dop

There are definitely some democrats who put party before country. This Nancy Soderberg is no fly-by-night. President Clinton and Madeline Albright wrote the forward and the blurb for her book. She was a major player. She admits what many of us already knew.

I'm glad the libs on this thread at least have the dignity not to deny this.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Personally I would have had an immediate open investigation -- not one 2 years later ... I would not have destroyed the steel from the towers so it couldn't be tested, I would have let Sibel Edmunds speak not gag-order her ....

That would teach those terrorists!

And of course, your answer is to just rush in and start killing every dark-skinned person in the ME.

Dop

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal

Freethinker,

IF the democrats (read Gore) had decided to not invade Iraq (and he wouldn't have) then sooner or later, the U.N. weapons inspectors would've quit Iraq,

No doubt they would have.....since --we now know in retrospect--- he had NO WMDs.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Saddam would've gotten his WMD program kicked up into high gear,

Big fucking deal.

We could have monitored him so closely that he couldn't build a hand grenade without our knowledge of it.

The only time Saddam EVER got hold of any WMDs was because this country's leaders, Reagan and Bush, AUTHORIZED the precursor materiel for WMDs to be SOLD TO HIM by U.S. Corporations!!!






Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
the torture/rape chambers would've been open and operating overtime.

I wonder what sort of time scale Abu Ghraib's torture chambers ---with the full approval of Rumsfeld and other higher-ups---- were operating on??


Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
You may think that taking action in Iraq was bad, but the not doing anything would've been worse.

Interesting prophecy.

Too goddamned bad stating a prophecy does nothing to prove your case.



Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Clinton doing nothing all through the 90s encouraged Bin Laden and company.

I will join you in lambasting that prick Clinton.....but you're totally wrong about him having **done nothing** in regards to terrorist threats.

The following is taken from : http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101303A.shtml

"Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He order a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it "The enemy of our generation."

Behind the scenes, he leaned vigorously on the leaders of nations within the terrorist sphere. In particular, he pushed Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to assist him in dealing with the threat from neighboring Afghanistan and its favorite guest, Osama bin Laden. Before Sharif could be compelled to act, he was thrown out of office by his own army. His replacement, Pervez Musharraf, pointedly refused to do anything to assist Clinton in dealing with these threats. Despite these and other diplomatic setbacks, terrorist cell after terrorist cell were destroyed across the world, and bomb plots against American embassies were thwarted. Because of security concerns, these victories were never revealed to the American people until very recently.

In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.

Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, killed Clinton's bill on this matter and called it "totalitarian." In fact, he was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders.

Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement. According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to do the same. In the end, the lobbyists got what they wanted, and the Bush administration pulled America out of the plan. The Time article stated, "Without the world's financial superpower, the biggest effort in years to rid the world's financial system of dirty money was short-circuited."

His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right

The debate on that 1996 bill was about tags and bugs in houses. It was initiated in response to the Oklahoma City Bombing. The NRA fiercely opposed this bill. Are you saying that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if tagging was allowed?

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
You see, Stewart is amazed at what is happening in the Middle East, particularly in Lebanon, where the Lebanese are trying to kick the Syrains out of their country.
As usual........another NeoCon-wannabe suggests the answers (in Lebanon) are as simple (minded) as the Bush-admin sales-and-marketing staff are advertising. :rolleyes:

*

"Bashar al-Assad served clear notice in his speech that Syria would mobilise all its assets in Lebanon if it found the country becoming a playground for its enemies, especially Israel.

In such a situation, Damascus could undoubtedly count on the active support of Hezbollah, the Iranian-created, Syrian-backed Shia militia which won the respect of most Lebanese - and grudgingly, many Israelis too (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4326159.stm) - for its determination and sacrifice in driving Israel out.

Much will therefore depend on how the Lebanese opposition now plays its hand."

*

Sorry. No one's under any obligation to give Georgie what he wants, all-the-time........especially when he has no idea what's going-on, in Lebanon.......much like his fan-base! :@@:

Originally posted by Freethinker
I disagree....but IF the Democrats had decided to not go over there, there would be over 1300 American servicemen alive today that are instead dead......
Sounds like your pre-Bush-era counter might need an up-grade. (http://icasualties.org/oif/) It's only (about) 200 off.

Originally posted by Karankawa
We already know what Clinton did when the USS Cole was bombed by Al Queda. N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
Another NeoCon-wannabe popping-off. I'm shocked. :rolleyes:

You've gotta remember. Our country wasn't run by a burnt-out alcoholic, back then. Proof, before retaliation, still counted........in those days.

*

"Security changes can go into place tonight. It's very simple to put those security changes in place tonight. The investigation, they could go two or three years or longer without finding out who is responsible. In the case of Pan Am 103, we didn't really get the break in that case until 1990, almost a year and a half after the event. In the case of Dhahran, there is still a lot of suspicion about who was responsible, but no hard proof. So I think trying to retaliate without clear, convincing evidence is a stupid policy. We're better than that. We need to have clear evidence. And as George correctly noted, the retaliation after the bombing of the U.S. embassies in East Africa in August of 1998, it may have made us feel better, but we hit the wrong targets. And if we're going to be a great country, we can't afford do that. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec00/cole_10-12.html) "

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
The only thing the Democrats have done and continue to do in the future is to oppose, oppose, oppose.
.......And, we can always rely-on history-challenged NeoCons to ignore any historical-data, that got us here, from there!! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/8/newsid_2516000/2516407.stm)

Yeah........believe it, or not........there was a world, before Lil' Dumbya recovered from his last hangover! :@@:

Originally posted by Brooks
I'm glad the libs on this thread at least have the dignity not to deny this.

Deny what? That there are some democrats who are idiots? That's not a news flash.

I guess since you referred to Nancy Soderburg as a "heavy hitter" that means her opinions must be shared by a lot of people on the "left". If that's the case then we must also call Ann Coulter a "heavy hitter" and assume that there are many that share her crazy ideas.

Originally posted by Freethinker
"Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He order a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it "The enemy of our generation."

Behind the scenes, he leaned vigorously on the leaders of nations within the terrorist sphere. In particular, he pushed Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to assist him in dealing with the threat from neighboring Afghanistan and its favorite guest, Osama bin Laden. Before Sharif could be compelled to act, he was thrown out of office by his own army. His replacement, Pervez Musharraf, pointedly refused to do anything to assist Clinton in dealing with these threats. Despite these and other diplomatic setbacks, terrorist cell after terrorist cell were destroyed across the world, and bomb plots against American embassies were thwarted. Because of security concerns, these victories were never revealed to the American people until very recently.

In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.

Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, killed Clinton's bill on this matter and called it "totalitarian." In fact, he was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders.

Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement. According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to do the same. In the end, the lobbyists got what they wanted, and the Bush administration pulled America out of the plan. The Time article stated, "Without the world's financial superpower, the biggest effort in years to rid the world's financial system of dirty
money was short-circuited."

Amen

It happened on Bush's watch so it's his responsibility. PERIOD!

Bush knew -- planes fles
Bush lied -- troops died

Dop

Originally posted by Vilepagan

I guess since you referred to Nancy Soderburg as a "heavy hitter" that means her opinions must be shared by a lot of people on the "left". If that's the case then we must also call Ann Coulter a "heavy hitter" and assume that there are many that share her crazy ideas.

Ann Coulter didn't hold any position of power in any administration. These oddball (forgive me Dop) opinions of Nancy Soderbergs (who you call an idiot) reflect the feelings of someone who worked in the NSA under President Clinton.

Also Ann Coulter never had the tacit approval for her opinions by a former president and secretary of state writing blurbs and forwards for her books.