61. Gwen, I read your response to Dinesh with much interest...particularly the part where you state 'There was a right way to accomplish the American mission in Iraq of establishing democracy with minimal cost of life and without unprecedented spending." In fact, if you will remember, democracy was not the American mission in Iraq...Locating and removing the threat of WMDs was the mission.... When that tanked, democracy became the new media 'buzz word'...and apparent new administration goal...You then go on about how 'the current administration has been so arrogant that it has ....chosen to alienate individuals with extensive knowledge of Middle East culture and politics and resulted in out of control spending... I would argue that all this tends to confirm my conclusion...that democracy was not a planned for event...rather, a hastily thrown together plan designed to save face...
I suggest the following may have occurred. The original goal in Iraq was as originally stated...go in...find the WMDs...get rid of them...and get out. I don't believe there was a plan for democracy at all. It simply wasn't in the original game plan...Bush's dad had already successfully squashed Sadam before...Just go in and do it again. Then, no WMDs...and increasingly, the Bush Jr. administration had egg on its face...was being laughed at and taunted...by a growing number of countries, terrorist groups, american media and politicians, and even by the Iraqi dictator himself...who they couldn't even find for quite a while...I think the Bush administration quickly began throwing together a campaign that began shifting towards occupation and establishment of democracy as a new primary goal...and a new front on the fight against terrorism...Remember how the media suddenly began focusing on treatment of women and kids like it had in Afganistan? Then, how a growing number of our soldiers were suddenly being used to search for and dig up potential burial sites for mass killings by Sadam or his regime? And we were seeing interview after interview of people that Sadam had wronged or supposedly tortured? All the above designed to build a case against Sadam staying in power (in deed, it guaranteed a trial for his life), and a case for democracy...Why? Because if Sadam was removed, what would replace him? Democracy of course...A lot of 'fly by the seat of your pants' plans got proposed...and quickly implemented to redirect goals and funding...As anyone knows, when you plan in haste, you inevitably miss details...a lot of details... Unfortunately, some of those details had to do with occupation issues, handling of Sadam's forces, handling border flow to keep terrorists out, etc...and resulted in many American deaths...Bottom line? When it kept looking like they didn't know what they were doing...they didn't...they were winging it and tweaking as they went...and it unfolded right in front of our eyes...and those of the world...

sherrie at 6:57PM on Dec 28th 2007

62. And you know all this how ... by osmosis? Do you have a gift for reading tea leaves? Are all Lefty indoctrinates issued crystal balls, or do you just listen to that evil lefty voice in your moronic head?

xxxx

that is EXACTLY the same exact quote you tried once before, and you get the same answer.

No, I have a television. >>>

It takes more than a television. One needs to comprehend the information. Not listen to and only remember what fits your lunatic ideology. You go on to say everyones says it was stolen. Clearly, you're an idiot. After the election several major news outlets paid for a recount and concluded that Bush won. Maybe you didn't have your TV on that day? Either way, you are a child incapable of learning and you prove it every damn day on these blogs. Must be a self abuse thing.

Thomas J Gassett at 6:58PM on Dec 28th 2007

63. 59. Unrestrained capitalism is synonomous with fascism. Libertarianism is unrestrained capitalism.
>>>>

What a pile of horse shit!

We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
-- Adolf Hitler
xxxxxx

"No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State.


"Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State."

-Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine Of Fascism, 1932.


Still trying the same thing expecting different results.

Mussolini's corporazione and our corporate control of congress are indistinguisable. Nothing in you hitler quote could counter that since it happened after he died.

And of course, I've told you all this before too.

Other than call it horseshit, you have nothing as usual.

Clif Kuplen at 7:00PM on Dec 28th 2007

64. Bottom line? When it kept looking like they didn't know what they were doing...they didn't...they were winging it and tweaking as they went...and it unfolded right in front of our eyes...and those of the world...
>>>>

Name any major conflict or war where all the planning didn't go out the window with the first shot?

Look, we are good at fighting wars because we practice and spend about 240 billion dollars a year on it. If you want us to be good at nation building create a dept, give them hundreds of billions of dollars every year and throw in about five countries to practice on. That reality, kid.

Thomas J Gassett at 7:02PM on Dec 28th 2007

65. Maybe you didn't have your TV on that day?

xxx

That was on fox news only. Gore won in florida - the recount and the absentee ballots. this was reported too many times for you to have missed.

You failed to address the constitutional issues and Buies' arguments. You want to get into that too? The USSC had NO jurisdiction unless YOU are the liberal.

That would be States Rights, but that's negotiable if you stand for nothing and have fallen for fascism.

Monica Goodling admitted to caging under oath. You failed to address that too, just some limbaugh 'it's the drugs talkin' rhetoric.

Do you understand the principle of esjudem generis as applied to the Florida Constitution and the LAWFUL Florida appeals court decision? You have to dig a little deeper than tv to get that.

You have no argument as usual, just the lame ad hominem drool you always have to fall back on. Apparently you have to see people as being as shallow as you are, hence all your Margaret Dumont moments.

You're nothing more than a dittohead and we both know it. Your capacity for analysis is so far zero.

But with your governments ability to create inflation, it'll probably be up to 1 soon.

Clif Kuplen at 7:12PM on Dec 28th 2007

66. Name any major conflict or war where all the planning didn't go out the window with the first shot?

xxxx

Name any major conflict between Iraq and the Spanish American War that we started.

Clif Kuplen at 7:15PM on Dec 28th 2007

67. @ Gassett... 57

What, are you complaining about me agreeing with D'Souza now...

You say, "Instead of somehow just knowing he's wrong..."

I didn't say he(either one) was 'wrong'... I agreed with DD that Neo-cons are just like the Islamic Fundamentalists.

You've went and hurt my feelings now, Gassett... if I disagree with him, I'm "spewing" and if I AGREE with him, I'm just "spewing"...

I think that we can also agree(you and I) that Islamic Fundamentalists and anyone who agrees with them should be wiped out or at least convicted of being traitors, stripped of their assets and put in jail with the crackheads for a spell(or a miracle?)...

... you know, then they can get a home in some projects and boot-strap their new-found community.

pboyfloyd at 7:21PM on Dec 28th 2007

68. If bringing democracy to the world is so great, why don't we invade Saudi Arabia?

Mikeboy at 7:32PM on Dec 28th 2007

69. Let me begin by saying that I haven’t read any of the comments on this latest “Dineshism”, so I apologize in advance to anyone whose remarks I might coincidentally repeat below. Also, I apologize for the length of this response, but such important matters require verifiable detail--not just platitudes.

Now, whew boy… Dinesh, baby, I sincerely hope that you’re not the best that Dartmouth College has to offer, because your political posts are about as sound as your religious posts. But I will hand this to you, old boy, you sure do have the “controversy” part of blogging squarely in hand.

First off, let’s begin by setting something straight--something that seems to escape you, Dinesh. ALL Americans should call for more democracy within the US rather than in any other part of the world! After all, America is where Americans live. I don’t see how “the cultural left” calling for more democracy in America (over promoting democracy in foreign nations where they don’t even vote) ranks as such a egregious infraction. In fact, if “the cultural right” isn’t calling for more democracy in the US then what’s their problem?

Conversely, the Iraqi parliament shouldn’t care what “the cultural left” in the US might think any more than the Congress in America should care what Social Democrats in Laos might think. See, Dinesh, this is how true democracy works: people determine their own civic destiny without pressure from foreign puppet masters. And right now, a majority of Iraqi government officials would like to see the US go. Should we honor their democratic choice?

What’s more, Dinesh, notable conservatives have also expressed their objections to the operations in Iraq. William F. Buckley, Ron Paul, Henry Hyde, Tucker Carlson, Walter Jones, John Duncan Jr., Lawrence Lindsey, Wayne Gilchrest, James Leach, John Hostettler have all expressed opposition to the current operations in Iraq. They’re all conservatives, Dinesh. And most are known republicans. [Is this the cultural left that you referred to?]

On top of that, experienced military leaders [active and retired] including Generals Schwartzkoph, Shinseki, Shalikashvili, Hoar, Clark, Zinni, Odom, have all expressed reservations about the operations in Iraq. This doesn’t even address the number of intelligence reports delivered to the President’s desk which blatantly told him that Iraq had no WMD before the invasion. (I believe that the October 2002 NIE clearly stated that broad surveillance of Iraq produced absolutely no verifiable evidence of WMD in Iraq. Yet, President Bush ignored that information and went on to embarrass his Secretary of State and his country at the time by plunging the United States into a costly and destructive invasion of a sovereign nation. Those damn left wing nut jobs at the NSA, CIA, NRO, and DIA are out to destroy democracy, I tells ya! How dare they report to the president that he has no real cause for war!)

So, it’s the cultural left that hates democracy? I’m convinced.

Dinesh, you mentioned how Howard Zinn equated America's displacement of the Taliban to the 9/11 attacks themselves, as though both were equivalent crimes. Now I’m not interested in discussing this at length because it all boils down to nothing but perspective.

But you see, the attacks on the WTC in the name of a political/social cause created approximately 3000 deaths. Now tell me, Dinesh, in this righteous spread of US democracy, how many Iraqi civilians died during Shock And Awe? How many Afghani civilians have died while the US has ousted the Taliban and occupied that sovereign nation? You don’t know, do you? You have no idea how much blood drips from the hands of every tax-paying American, do you? Think it might be more or less than 3000 souls?

Well, best UN estimates place the death rate among civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan at well over 3 million…conservatively speaking. And that number doesn’t even include the number of innocent civilians killed by roadside bombs (so don’t try to argue that it’s because the resistance has caused all the violence)…but it does include children. (As far as I know, no children died in the 9/11 attacks.)

If you really want to impress me, Dinesh, then at least try a little journalistic integrity by finding out how many Iraqis died during Shock And Awe. Then tell me which was the greater crime in the name of a political/social cause, 9/11 or Shock And Awe.

You did get one thing right in your post, Dinesh. The US certainly did invade Iraq. And you cited George Soros’ warning about using Iraq as a demonstration project. You wondered why the Iraqis were ineligible to rule themselves in Soros’ world. I guess it might be for the very same reason that they were ineligible to rule themselves in the George W. Bush-let’s-invade-Iraq’s world. Or in your current world where we must foist democracy upon any people we feel capable of soundly beating militarily with operations such as Shock And Awe where children die at the hands of “smart” bombs and MOABs.

As if that weren’t enough killing, once the dust of Shock And Awe settled, American troops moved in. Not surprisingly, they were met by a ragtag group of resistance fighters, which still operate today. Dinesh, I honestly wonder which side you would fight for if Chinese troops were patrolling your neighborhood, telling you when and where you could travel (such as the American troops do in Iraq). Would you not take up arms in the fight for your freedom? Just because people view Americans in Iraq as an invading force that must be stopped does not mean that they have no valid point of view. Just because resistance fighter use whatever limited means they have for causing the most harm doesn’t mean that they deserve no representation.

Don’t they teach American history at Dartmouth, Dinesh? Wasn’t the American Revolution fought (in part) on the basis of taxation without representation? Would you say that George Washington’s troops deserved no representation because they killed British troops?

See, the old standard of “might is right” simply doesn’t work, Dinesh. And even when thinkers like Ivan Eland are taken out of context, their words still ring true. Spreading democracy by force doesn't reduce terrorism! It actually can make matters worse! If you need someone to explain that to you then please return to your American history books. Reread the chapters on Vietnam. Spreading ANYTHING by force inspires resentment.

Couch it however you like, Dinesh, but when foreign troops invade your streets, you resent it and you join the resistance. And remember this, without the French resistance of WWII, the allies would have possibly failed against Nazi Germany.

But again, you were right, Dinesh. Some Americans routinely condemn George W. Bush for "hypocrisy" in using the rhetoric of democracy while the U.S. is allied with secular despots. They do so because it’s a valid criticism of an inconsistent foreign policy that seems tailored for the convenience of robber barons. And you’re right again, Dinesh, leftists rarely call for free elections in countries like Syria, Egypt or Saudi Arabia.

Similarly, we rarely hear those on the right calling for elections in Saudi Arabia. President Bush’s critics, however, do so because they wish for a more consistent and fair foreign policy. Supporters of Bush never call for elections in such countries because they fear the economic fallout of such elections.

And then you went on to wonder why some Americans would rather not see democracy succeed in the Muslim world. And you gave a reason. You said, “The reason is simple. Muslims are socially conservative and generally want a greater role for Islam in their private and public lives. Consequently Muslim democracies are likely to be more conservative socially than they are when secular despots rule them. The left fears Muslim democracy because it is terrified of Muslim values, especially sharia or Muslim holy law. Feminists and gays are not likely to fare very well under Muslim holy law.”

And all of that might very well be true. But your answer stopped short, because in a conservative Muslim democracy Christians, Jews, atheists, Buddhists, Taoists, Shin Taoists, Hindus, Wicca, astrologers, magicians, musicians like the Beattles, the Strokes, Amy Winehouse, Sanjaya (gotta love that Sanjaya!), Audio Adrenaline, and Broken Yoke aren‘t likely to fare very well either. In fact, televangelists like Creflo Dollar, Rod Parsley, Joyce Meyer, and Benny Hinn would never get any air time in a Muslim democracy. By the way, Dinesh, how many copies of your book (What’s So Great About Christianity) do you think you would sell (legally) under the watchful eyes of a Muslim government (democratically elected or otherwise?)

And lastly, you noted that. “Bush's attempt to introduce democracy to Iraq, and to expand the role of democracy in Egypt, Lebanon and Pakistan, is a brave and noble experiment. It might fail, and past historical experience is not promising. But if Bush succeeds we could see the beginning of an historical transformation no less significant than the transformation of the old Soviet Union.”

The transformation of the old Soviet Union? Transformation into what, Dinesh? The current autocracy ruled by W’s good ol’ boy, Vladimir Putin? Lower crime rates, less corruption, fewer terrorist attacks, better health conditions, or more secure property rights are some conventional measures of strong, stable government, Dinesh. Yet, Putin's Russia has made amazingly little or no progress on any of these indicators, despite eight years of economic growth. The economic growth would have benefited any Kremlin leader since crude oil prices have risen from 10 bucks a barrel in 1998 to more than 90 bucks a barrel today.

Now, Dinesh, I can’t imagine that any American is praying for more misery around the world during Christmas or during any other time of the year. Iraq is not the sole issue upon which the next election will rest. America has social issues such as immigration, welfare, Medicare, public education, and health care to think about. We also have economic issues to consider, as well as legal issues. To suggest that any American has wished an ill wind on other people just strikes me as un-American and sinister, Dinesh. I really think you’ve got your priorities in the wrong order.

But, as I’ve said at the top of this piece, you at least have the controversy aspect of blogging well in hand. I hope that you thoroughly enjoy the prosperity that your disingenuous literary strategy brings to you and your children.

Paul at 7:57PM on Dec 28th 2007

70. The real problem with this argument is that there seems to very tangible misunderstanding of Democracy. How you can go into another country, knock down their government, put a new one in its place and then call it self-rule is a little, for lack of a better word, stupid.
And why is Iraq a bad place to set up democracy? It has nothing to do with their religion.. It has to do with a country being full of factions unwilling to submit to the others, even if they are outvoted.
Take a look at our own history and you'll see that after the civil war, for quite a long time, the south was denied representation in the national government. Is that democracy? Not particularly. But if you allow a sizeable hostile faction into the government, theyre not going to let things done.
In order to have a democracy, you need people willing to sit at the table with each other. But more importantly, you need people who want a democracy. You cant force it.

Daniel at 8:12PM on Dec 28th 2007

71. DD, as usual, is displaying ignorance and setting up straw man after straw man argument. At least he has gotten off of his shameless promotion of his book which displays his incredible ignorance of Christianity and world religions.

1). The left is not against "democracy." What progressives are against is the use of American force to overthrow governments, elected or not. Progressives believe that the military is to be used to defend our country, not cram our values down the throats of others in the world with the butt of a rifle.

2). Progressives believe that American values might be fine..for Americans. But that others must be allowed to have their own values, even if those values conflict with American interests abroad. The CIA, on the other hand, is in the business of subverting sovereign nations to conform to the interests of American corporations. Progressives see this as immoral and unethical.

3). OF COURSE Progressives do not cheer when governments are elected which are aggressively Islamic fundamentalist (or Christian fundamentalist, etc.) And it is true that some Progressives have stated that minorities were better protected and women given more opportunity under authoritarian rule. This does not mean that Progressives are against "democracy." It means that we are against oppression in whatever political system happens to exist. And it is true that sometimes things are better under a tyrant than under the tyranny of the majority. Example: Christians have been all but wiped out in Iraq, brutally and with Americans standing by watching. We were protected and even served in the Cabinet under Saddam. There is now civil war and genocide in Iraq. This was kept under control under Saddam. And look at the ethnic wars in the former Soviet Union. Under Communism these ancient hatreds were managed. Things are never black and white DD, although your very infantile worldview tries to make them so.

4). Certainly Progressives were not thrilled at the introduction of another American puppet government in Iraq. These tend to fail, producing extremism. Example: Iraq.

5). "Conservatives" do not hesitate to overthrow democratically elected governments which oppose the U.S. Example: Allende in Chile, the Sandanistas, etc. "Conservatives" (who conserve nothing but the power of American corporations) LOVE "Democracy" ...as long as it is not opposed to American values in any way and cooperates with the corporate masters and money people.

6). DD --- you are simply producing faleshoods with your contention that Progressives have not called for free and fair elections in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. We call for that all the time, and are constantly exposing the repression of the Islamic governments the U.S. supports there. At LEAST try to be intellectually honest, even if ignorant.

7). Progressives do not so much object to freely elected governments in the Mid-East as to the excesses of fundamentalist Islam. "Conservatives" do not support freely elected Islamic governments either...example: Iran and our continual attempt to overthrow their freely elected Islamic government, because it doesn't slavishly adopt American values.

8). Umm...YOU, DD, are one of the people most vocal against Islamic "sharia" law. And any sensible person would be. It is barbaric. So, it is OK for you, because you're "conservative" to hate this barbarism, but not for the left. Hypocrisy at its highest.

9). In saying that fundamentalist Islam is "socially conservative" and that is why "the Left" hates it, you have adopted a new profession --- comedian. Or perhaps you are betraying the true agenda of "social conservatives" -- the oppression of everyone who doesn't agree with their narrow and flatheaded way of looking at life.

Please tell me again WHY they chose you to represent right wing conservatism on this blog? I know (and disagree with) many highly intelligent and well-spoken right wing conservatives. There are some real arguments that have validity that have been brought up by several of my right wingnut friends...and we have lots of fun dealing with both sides. Unfortunately, you are a TERRIBLE representative of the right wing, as well as of Christianity. You would do both the right wing and Christians a real favor by turning this blog over to someone with a brain, intellectual honesty and skill in writing. There are many on the right wing with all of the above. You aren't one of them.

Father John at 8:17PM on Dec 28th 2007

72. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner"

Benjamin Franklin "The First American"

We still need to be free!

rieleden at 9:06PM on Dec 28th 2007

73. ifbush stole election why does military support him so strongly

xxx

who says they do, fox news? You have cited no verifiable facts because there are none to support you. Bush stole both elections.

Clif Kuplen at 9:20PM on Dec 28th 2007

74. LIBERALISM IS CULTURAL FASCISM. LIBERALS PRIDE THEMSELVES ON THE ABILITY TO "REASON" WITH ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE. THIS IS LAUGHABLE, LOOK AT WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO ANY CONSERVATIVE SPEAKER AT A COLLEGE CAMPUS. THERE IS USUALLY AN ATTEMPT TO STOP THE SPEECH ENTIRELY OR TO SHOUT IT DOWN, SO MUCH FOR FREE SPEECH AND DEMOCRACY. LIBERALS TURN TO COURTS TO CREATE "RIGHTS" THAT NO ONE KNEW EXISTED, THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY. LIBERALS ARE A MINDLESS MASS WHO PARROT SOUND BITES WHICH THEY FIND PROFOUND: "GENERAL PETRAEUS, PLEASE DON'T BETRAY US". THIS ON THE LEVEL OF A 10 YEAR OLD, BUT THEN THAT IS WHAT LIBERALS THINK OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

IRONBLUEEYES at 9:57PM on Dec 28th 2007

75. Name any major conflict between Iraq and the Spanish American War that we started.
>>>

Clue: I don't think we "started" (loaded word) any 'major conflict.'

It's a wonder you didn't use the word 'blame' for any major conflict. Could it be you 'blame' the US for all the world ills? If not, it sure sounds like it. Seriously, could you provide a link to any post made by you or one of your comrades that points to any enemy that's not an American? I need a little help finding ONE.

Thomas J Gassett at 10:03PM on Dec 28th 2007