Hey Libs!

[OCA]

Wonder how you guys are going to spin the obviously successful election and obvious rebuff to the terrorists by the people of Iraq. I mean I thought this would never happen, that we were hated vehemently and that people both Shiite, Kurd and Sunni would stay away from the polls, or were those images of people walking miles to get to the poll, the real lack of terrorist action and the 65% turnout just media hype?

Sucks to be wrong again, doesn't it?

We were right to go into Iraq all along now watch the Euro libs try and jump on board.

 

[nakedemperor]

Wonder how you guys are going to spin the obviously successful election and obvious rebuff to the terrorists by the people of Iraq.

Liberals and conservatives alike are overjoyed to see the free elections of Iraqi citizens.

I mean I thought this would never happen, that we were hated vehemently and that people both Shiite, Kurd and Sunni would stay away from the polls, or were those images of people walking miles to get to the poll, the real lack of terrorist action and the 65% turnout just media hype?

Pardon me for being a killjoy, but as momentus an occasion as it was, actually voting isn't going to be the true test for a free Iraq. That's the easy part, relatively speaking. And let's not call 39 civilian deaths a lack of terrorist action, eh? Congratulations to all Iraqis, and best of luck in the turbulent transition phase to come.

Sucks to be wrong again, doesn't it?

We were right to go into Iraq all along now watch the Euro libs try and jump on board.

I agree that we were right to go into Iraq, but we went for the wrong reasons, and then completely shifted the justification for war after no WMDs were found. The rhetorical shift is unbelievable.

You desire for libs to be diametrcially opposed to everything you stand for isn't a reality-- we wanted the Iraqis to be free as much as the next person, but it seems that only we cared about being misdirected and mislead.

 

[manu1959]

Liberals and conservatives alike are overjoyed to see the free elections of Iraqi citizens.Pardon me for being a killjoy, but as momentus an occasion as it was, actually voting isn't going to be the true test for a free Iraq. That's the easy part, relatively speaking. And let's not call 39 civilian deaths a lack of terrorist action, eh? Congratulations to all Iraqis, and best of luck in the turbulent transition phase to come. Sucks to be wrong again, doesn't it? I agree that we were right to go into Iraq, but we went for the wrong reasons, and then completely shifted the justification for war after no WMDs were found. The rhetorical shift is unbelievable. You desire for libs to be diametrcially opposed to everything you stand for isn't a reality-- we wanted the Iraqis to be free as much as the next person, but it seems that only we cared about being misdirected and mislead.

funny thing .... randi rhodes is complaing on air america right now....the tinfoil heads on the DU are saying the whole thing is rigged and all the elected officials are US puppets .... ted kennedy and barbara boxer are saying the whole thing is a failure .... kerry is saying we shouldn't be there..elections would never happen and now he is saying in the future lies the test and that he was right all along

 

[nakedemperor]

Sorry, that "sucks to be wrong again" wasn't part of my post it was part of OCA's that i didn't in the quote box.

 

[dilloduck]

Liberals and conservatives alike are overjoyed to see the free elections of Iraqi citizens.



Pardon me for being a killjoy, but as momentus an occasion as it was, actually voting isn't going to be the true test for a free Iraq. That's the easy part, relatively speaking. And let's not call 39 civilian deaths a lack of terrorist action, eh? Congratulations to all Iraqis, and best of luck in the turbulent transition phase to come.

Sucks to be wrong again, doesn't it?



I agree that we were right to go into Iraq, but we went for the wrong reasons, and then completely shifted the justification for war after no WMDs were found. The rhetorical shift is unbelievable.

You desire for libs to be diametrcially opposed to everything you stand for isn't a reality-- we wanted the Iraqis to be free as much as the next person, but it seems that only we cared about being misdirected and mislead.

Oh fess up----when we are misled by someone who you personally prefer to be our leader it doesn't really bug ya all that much, does it?

 

[manu1959]

Oh fess up----when we are misled by someone who you personally prefer to be our leader it doesn't really bug ya all that much, does it?

oooooooooooo baby that nail was driven home in one stroke

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Even if we made a "mistake" about the WMDs, Libs should be DANCING WITH JOY about what is going on in Iraq:

1. We are ending the awful torture that's been going on. (Now I know Libs hate torture, look at all the world-wide screaming they did about Abu Graib!)

2. We are spending lots of money over there helping the poor and disenfranchised, to help the poor people get started on a better life. (Libs are always saying we should spend more money around the world to help people, I mean, they even want an international UN tax to create more money to help others!)

3. Iraqis are now a free people. Free to speak and everything - whereas they weren't before. (Libs are always saying they believe in freedom so this is something they should really be celebrating about!)

4. Iraqis are now holding real elections, getting a chance to really vote and actually choose their leaders. (Libs are always saying that everybody should get a chance to vote and their vote should always COUNT and the international observers were even quite satisfied this time!)

5. Women in Iraq are now free to vote, to go to school, and whatever they choose to do whereas before they were downtrodden. (Libs are always supportive of Womens Rights everywhere, aren't they??)

With all these wonderful reasons you would certainly think that Libs everywhere in the "International Community" would be dancing with joy about what is happening in Iraq! But, but....[oh, the shock]...they're NOT! Why are Libs everywhere so lukewarm about the REAL freedom that has come to the very happy Iraqi people?

One just has to wonder why they are not...could it be...[dare I think this]... they are really just poseurs of freedom?

 

[CSM]

... One just has to wonder why they are not...could it be...[dare I think this]... they are really just poseurs of freedom?

More likely they are upset because they cannot take credit for it...not even a little bit...because the war that brought this about was something they vehemently opposed.

 

[dmp]

I'd rather Liberals simply fess up - they are PISSED nothing major happened, and thousands weren't killed.

 

[nakedemperor]

I'd rather Liberals simply fess up - they are PISSED nothing major happened, and thousands weren't killed.

That's disgusting. Utterly disgusting. You're pretty darn rational 99% of the time Darin, but this is over the line.

I'm pissed off when I'm misled regardless of who is misleading me; I'm pretty sure you're refering in large part to Bill Clinton, but let's face it, the most oft-referenced misleading Clinton ever did was saying he didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky. That's kind of apples and oranges in terms of comparing it to how we were hoodwinked by members of both parties into believing that Iraq was the gravest threat to the U.S. in twenty years... and then completely disregarding that impetus when the deception was understood in the form of zero WMDs in favor of the new freedom on the march initiative. Its a great initiative, but it damn sure wasn't why we went to Iraq, and it frustrates me to see so many people swallowing this talk hook, line and sinker, so eager to be given re-rationalization for this war. And let's face it, as Jon Stewart put it, the election was "one good day" for Iraqis. Key word "one". There are going to be a helluva lot of crappy days for Iraqis, even if democracy eventually succeeds.

There are libs out there to whom the sentiment in the OP should be directed. Ted Kennedy should shut his Jabba the Hut yapper about how our incursion into Iraq was a catastrophic failure, because that's horseshit. We succeed in giving the Iraqis a chance for freedom. Our MANAGEMENT towards this goal was a catastrophic failure, but Democracy gaining a toe-hold is a great success. That said, I'm not willing to wear the wool pulled over my eyes in the first place TOO proudly merely because we succeeded in achieving a re-rationalized goal for incursion.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

That's disgusting. Utterly disgusting. You're pretty darn rational 99% of the time Darin, but this is over the line.

I'm pissed off when I'm misled regardless of who is misleading me; I'm pretty sure you're refering in large part to Bill Clinton, but let's face it, the most oft-referenced misleading Clinton ever did was saying he didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky. That's kind of apples and oranges in terms of comparing it to how we were hoodwinked by members of both parties into believing that Iraq was the gravest threat to the U.S. in twenty years... and then completely disregarding that impetus when the deception was understood in the form of zero WMDs in favor of the new freedom on the march initiative. Its a great initiative, but it damn sure wasn't why we went to Iraq, and it frustrates me to see so many people swallowing this talk hook, line and sinker, so eager to be given re-rationalization for this war. And let's face it, as Jon Stewart put it, the election was "one good day" for Iraqis. Key word "one". There are going to be a helluva lot of crappy days for Iraqis, even if democracy eventually succeeds.

There are libs out there to whom the sentiment in the OP should be directed. Ted Kennedy should shut his Jabba the Hut yapper about how our incursion into Iraq was a catastrophic failure, because that's horseshit. We succeed in giving the Iraqis a chance for freedom. Our MANAGEMENT towards this goal was a catastrophic failure, but Democracy gaining a toe-hold is a great success. That said, I'm not willing to wear the wool pulled over my eyes in the first place TOO proudly merely because we succeeded in achieving a re-rationalized goal for incursion.

The moral component was always part of the justifications given. You libs constrict the argument to wmd, and you do so negligently.

Thanks for admitting it was one great day. One great day can take years of preparations you snide little jackass.

 

[Zhukov]

I agree that we were right to go into Iraq, but we went for the wrong reasons, and then completely shifted the justification for war after no WMDs were found.

You're right, because the original plan was to completely destroy Iraq, seize the WMD, and then turn around and leave the country a smoking shattered ruin, right? That was the entire plan, right?

Please.

Before the war everyone expected that we would rebuild the country and encourage representative government after we deposed Hussein and confiscated the WMD.

Well we didn't find any WMD, but does that really make the final phase of the war, that would have happened regardless, a shifted justification or empty rhetoric? The change in talking points is merely a glorified way of saying, "well we didn't find WMD, which kind of surprised us, but look at all the good that came of our actions anyways."



We were right to go in, but went in for the wrong reasons? That doesn't make any sense. If we were right to go in, isn't that reason enough? Because it was right?

So the administration and the media stressed one aspect over all the others, does that make it any less right? No, it does not, as you yourself have said. So what is your problem?

 

[nakedemperor]

The moral component was always part of the justifications given. You libs constrict the argument to wmd, and you do so negligently.

Thanks for admitting it was one great day. One great day can take years of preparations you snide little jackass.

The moral component was not why we went Iraq. We went to Iraq to ensure the security of Americans. The rhetoric involved mentioned freedom for Iraqis but it is not why we decided to invade them; it is a fortunate byproduct of our decision making process.

 

[nakedemperor]

You're right, because the original plan was to completely destroy Iraq, seize the WMD, and then turn around and leave the country a smoking shattered ruin, right? That was the entire plan, right?

Please.

Uh, what? No, when we invaded to disarm Iraq we HAD to put into place a legitimate government; otherwise the sarcasm of your statement holds true. It isn't WHY we went to Iraq. We went to disarm, we stayed to rebuild, but we didn't go in the first place to grant freedom to Iraq.

Before the war everyone expected that we would rebuild the country and encourage representative government after we deposed Hussein and confiscated the WMD.

Of course, how could we be so heartless as to disarm the Iraqis and then just take off? We couldn't have, and thank God we didn't. As soon as we went in there, even opponents to the invasion had to be FOR our success in defeating the insurgency and establishing a new government.

Well we didn't find any WMD, but does that really make the final phase of the war, that would have happened regardless, a shifted justification or empty rhetoric? The change in talking points is merely a glorified way of saying, "well we didn't find WMD, which kind of surprised us, but look at all the good that came of our actions anyways."

Agreed. But the ENTIRE PROCESS is being labeled a HUGE SUCCESS, when the American government failed its people in determining our security dictated we HAD to go into Iraq; we spent 100s of billions of dollars (and counting!) and lost ~1,400 soldiers (so far) had 10s of thousands of casualties. If there weren't thought to be any WMDs, we wouldn't have gone in, and none of these lives or resources would have been lost; AND none of the liberals or conservatives who now extoll our efforts unequivocally would even be TALKING about how badly we need to liberate the poor Iraqis.

Don't get me wrong, their liberation is worth it in my opinion, but that's not what we were told. We were misled and misguided into spending billions and losing thousands of native sons and daughters.

We were right to go in, but went in for the wrong reasons? That doesn't make any sense. If we were right to go in, isn't that reason enough? Because it was right?

Coersion is coersion, even if the ends are "good". Being mislead and misguided by our government isn't justified by morally "good" BYPRODUCTS of those actions.

So the administration and the media stressed one aspect over all the others, does that make it any less right? No, it does not, as you yourself have said. So what is your problem?

If Iraq had been a free nation that had WMDs, terrorist ties, and was openly aggressive towards the U.S., would we not still have invaded? I think we would have.

If Iraq had been a repressed nation and we had 100% certainty they had no WMDs we would not have invaded.

 

[Zhukov]

[liberals] wanted the Iraqis to be free as much as the next person...

You know, I'm probably not the only one here who has trouble believing that.

 

[dmp]

That's disgusting. Utterly disgusting. You're pretty darn rational 99% of the time Darin, but this is over the line.

I wish more libs were like you then - How many of the LMM reports how many 'terrorists' were killed each day? What about reports over how many kids now have schools? I'd LOVE a daily tally of 'number of Iraqi lives saved'.

With every report of US casualities, the Libs start drooling and foaming - "SEE!! GWB's management of the war is a CATASTROPHIC FAILURE (to steal words from your post)."

Had many more Iraqi's lost their lives in voting, Liberal Leaders would have JUMPED at the chance to bash TheRight. Frankly, I'd consider it a miracle if a prominent Liberal confessed "The Administrations policies for voting day were RIGHT ON TARGET, and did a great job."

Yeah right...when swine fly out of my rectum.

 

[dmp]

You know, I'm probably not the only one here who has trouble believing that.

Indeed - Liberals see no political power to be gained by acts of selflessness.

 

[nakedemperor]

I wish more libs were like you then - How many of the LMM reports how many 'terrorists' were killed each day? What about reports over how many kids now have schools? I'd LOVE a daily tally of 'number of Iraqi lives saved'.

With every report of US casualities, the Libs start drooling and foaming - "SEE!! GWB's management of the war is a CATASTROPHIC FAILURE (to steal words from your post)."

Had many more Iraqi's lost their lives in voting, Liberal Leaders would have JUMPED at the chance to bash TheRight. Frankly, I'd consider it a miracle if a prominent Liberal confessed "The Administrations policies for voting day were RIGHT ON TARGET, and did a great job."

Yeah right...when swine fly out of my rectum.

The media does not have a liberal bias. If you're pointing to inordinant amounts of "downer" Iraqi stories vs. amounts of "uplifting" Iraqi stories, that's because news is a business. Its not because news outlets want to show how badly things are going. News is a business and appeals to what people are most interested in (which is rarely what issues are most important). That's why murders and Michael Jackson and O.J. Simpson get so much coverage, not because liberals are obsessed with celebrities.

Are you saying that if many more Iraqis had lost their lives a peep should not have been uttered? Had 2,000 Iraqis died on election day I'D be criticizing how we failed the Iraqi people. I wasn't LOOKING to do so, but had the scenario been played out, it would have been necessary to criticize!

P.S. "catastrophic failure" are not my words, they're Ted The Blob Kennedy's. Man that guy has let himself go.

P.P.S. The administration's policies for voting day were right on target, and did a great job.

 

[Zhukov]

Uh, what? No, when we invaded to disarm Iraq we HAD to put into place a legitimate government;

No we didn't. Many people didn't expect us to. Many don't think we have.

otherwise the sarcasm of your statement holds true.

The sarcasm is a response to your implication that bringing democracy to Iraq was some kind of haphazard "Plan C" concocted after the failure to find WMD.

It isn't WHY we went to Iraq. We went to disarm, we stayed to rebuild, but we didn't go in the first place to grant freedom to Iraq.

We went to disarm and overthrow. Once action was initiated Saddam Hussein's time was limited. Therefore from the very begining we went in to grant freedom to Iraq.

Agreed. But the ENTIRE PROCESS is being labeled a HUGE SUCCESS, when the American government failed its people in determining our security dictated we HAD to go into Iraq;

You think it didn't. Many people continue to believe that it did. Now that the threat is gone it's very easy to say there never was a threat, and never have to worry about being proven wrong, isn't it?

Don't get me wrong, their liberation is worth it in my opinion, but that's not what we were told.

I understood what would happen. I knew it would take a long time, our soldiers would die, and in the end there would be a democratically elected government ruling Iraq.

We were misled and misguided into spending billions and losing thousands of native sons and daughters.

I don't think we were. I think the administration stressed a threat they not only believed did exist, but further believed was the most immeadiate to our basic security. I also believe that ultimately they had in mind the reorganizing of the middle east all along. I believe they would have tried to move us to war in Iraq absent WMD but because they believed there was WMD, and it was a potential threat, why wouldn't they stress it?

You believe they knowingly lied. I think you're wrong.

If Iraq had been a free nation that had WMDs, terrorist ties, and was openly aggressive towards the U.S., would we not still have invaded? I think we would have.

I don't think that scenario is at all plausible. But in that unlikely condition, no I doubt we would have invaded, we would have bombed them, but we would not have invaded.

If Iraq had been a repressed nation and we had 100% certainty they had no WMDs we would not have invaded.

Well I would hope we would have.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The moral component was not why we went Iraq. We went to Iraq to ensure the security of Americans. The rhetoric involved mentioned freedom for Iraqis but it is not why we decided to invade them; it is a fortunate byproduct of our decision making process.

it was always PART OF The argument. WMD was PART OF the argument. Quit trying to constrict the argument to JUST WMD when that was never the case. Why do leftists insist on revising history?