PDA

View Full Version : The next move by conservatives (long)


Andrew Fletcher
12-16-2005, 03:36 PM
Republicans and conservatives, I'm sure you're going to blow this post off. I'm more interested in to know what the liberal/left folks on this board think.

-Waxie.

They're Doing it Again
by waxie

The Republican National Committee recently rolled out an advertisement that gives us a preview of the Republican strategy for 2006. The commercial features the words of several leading Democrats denouncing President Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq. After showing a few sentences from Howard Dean, scary music starting playing and a white flag of surrender is waved. The implication is clear: liberals want to retreat from Iraq and surrender to the terrorists. This would be funny if it wasn’t so outrageous. President Bush is responsible for losing this war. If anyone should be blamed, it is him. The idea that liberals are somehow to blame shows that conservatives live in alternative reality.

Willful ignorance has never been in short supply on the right. Before the invasion, both Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney made wildly inaccurate claims about estimated costs of the war. In numerous public statements, they both implied and explicitly stated that the war in Iraq would be a cakewalk and relatively inexpensive. Now administration officials and their apologists are claiming they never made such utterances. Bush and his lackeys are completely unable to admit making mistakes—even if the errors were recorded by television and newspaper. Since the Bush Administration cannot be blamed for the problems in Iraq, conservatives must find another scapegoat: liberals.

In reality, the idea that liberals and in particular the Democratic Party are somehow to blame for the disaster in Iraq is laughable. As I am constantly reminding my conservative friends, Republicans control Congress and the Presidency. Some Democrats may have voted in favor of the war, but they didn’t invent the idea to invade Iraq. That particular can of worms was opened by President Bush and his posse of neoconservative cowboys. To put it another way, Democrats simply cannot be blamed for the actions of a government they do not control. Some, like Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Joe Lieberman, may have voted for the war but ultimate responsibility rests with President Bush.

Of course, some will claim that criticism of the war and negative press coverage is responsible for the situation in Iraq. Can someone please explain to me how the front page of a newspaper encourages an insurgent to attack U.S. troops? I’m not a military expert, but I doubt Zarqawi reads the New York Times before deciding what target should get blown to pieces. If major newspapers in the U.S. starting covering all the schools our military has reopened in Iraq, would the insurgency somehow vanish overnight? It is as though conservatives believe that when you close your eyes, the world disappears. This type of thinking is not only juvenile, but has proven to be extremely dangerous in times of war.

But I’ve seen this movie before. One of the greatest tricks ever pulled by the right-wing was somehow blaming the anti-war movement of the 1960s for the U.S. defeat in Vietnam. Although people like Jane Fonda and Abbie Hoffman never gained much political power, conservatives were eager for a scapegoat. They blew the power fringe oppositional movements wildly out of proportion and avoided the grim reality that the war in Vietnam was never winnable. Now, conservatives are trying to do the same thing with Iraq.

For whatever reason, the left was eager to accept the blame for the U.S. loss in Vietnam. For the sake of the future of the country, I hope there does not happen again. We need a change of leadership and it would be political suicidal for the Democrats to accept responsibility for something as disastrous as a failed war. The American people are rightly angry that they were lied to about Iraq and want someone to blame. As usual, the Republicans are one step ahead and are offering the heads of the Democrats.

The question is, will Democrats sit back and allow this to occur? Or will they capture control of the debate and place blame on those who are responsible for the disaster in Iraq? Conservatives will do everything they can to shift accountability away from President Bush and the Republican Party. Americans must be constantly reminded who flipped the switch and sent our brave soldiers into a war that could not be won.

vulturesrow
12-16-2005, 03:43 PM
You forgot to work in Halliburton.

Andrew Fletcher
12-16-2005, 03:51 PM
Halliburton is a minor player in all of this.

BCPVP
12-16-2005, 03:54 PM
You also forgot "war for oil". C'mon, this is propaganda 101!

Andrew Fletcher
12-16-2005, 03:58 PM
sigh. somehow I knew this was going to happen.

BCPVP
12-16-2005, 04:01 PM
I don't know what else to tell you. None of this is new stuff, just rehashed Democrat talking points. What were you expecting?

Kurn, son of Mogh
12-16-2005, 05:10 PM
For whatever reason, the left was eager to accept the blame for the U.S.

Perhaps that had something to do with the fact that liberal Democrats (notably JFK & LBJ) were the ones who escalated our presence in Vietnam.

Andrew Fletcher
12-16-2005, 05:22 PM
Some would argue that Curtis LeMay and people around him were really the ones who pushed us into Vietnam. And Goldwater. But that's history that is best left unspoken about.

UATrewqaz
12-16-2005, 05:37 PM
This thread is missing a

Bush = Hitler

Kurn, son of Mogh
12-16-2005, 05:46 PM
Some would argue incorrectly.

Goldwater lost the election. Johnson escalated the war. Would Golwater have done the same thing? Probably, but at least he would have ended the draft.

Andrew Fletcher
12-16-2005, 10:45 PM
Goldwater would have nuked Vietnam, which is why he lost the election.

WillMagic
12-17-2005, 06:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Goldwater would have nuked Vietnam, which is why he lost the election.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's ridiculous.

Will

Kurn, son of Mogh
12-17-2005, 12:19 PM
Goldwater used the phrase "tactical nuclear weapons" in one campaign speech. His point was that in a war, the US should not be unwilling to consider using tac nukes. I agree with that concept, though I disagreed with the effectiveness in doing so in Vietnam. Never the less, I wasn't yet old enough to vote, so I didn't have the opportunity to vote for Barry.

He lost the election because most people thought he'd escalate the war and LBJ wouldn't. History shows they were at least half wrong.