GOP Brownshirts

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
When asked exclusively about the war in Iraq, Keyes responded: "We are engaged in a war against terror that was started by the terrorists...." The clear implication of his very plain language was that the war in Iraq was in fact "started by the terrorists."

[/ QUOTE ]

No Chris, I don't believe that's what Keyes was saying, reading his answer in the larger context of his remarks. He was in the process of giving the "long answer", and you are seizing upon a passage of moderate length as his "short answer". Granted, he could have ordered his words and thoughts for greater clarity in this specific example.

[texaspimp]

Chris, I am always amazed at your research ability. I envy your ability to find information to support your opinions.

I do not have the resources to research as voraciously as you. I simply have my opinions. One of which is you assert that CNN and Fox News impuned Ritter's character. Therefore they are not to be trusted to bring the "truth" to the American people. Then you cite a CNN/Gallup poll and refer to the results multiple times to support your argument. Well, which is it? Is CNN trustworthy or not? (I vote for the latter.)

As for Keyes remarks about terrorism, Iraq, preemptive action. I used to admire Keyes a lot more than I do now, for various reasons. However, I am curious as to the Democratic position on premption. If the left wants to castigate President Bush for Iraq (which IS preemption), how can they then claim, "We will hunt down terrorists wherever they are and kill them"? Then, at some point, John Edwards states "What are you going to do, invade every country with terrorists?"

I hope we can leave all vitriolic responses out of this thread. I believe this to be the single most signifact problem the United States has ever had to encounter. Our very livlihood, and my children's livlihood depends on us defeat this scourge.

Good luck to all in the future!

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I am curious as to the Democratic position on premption. If the left wants to castigate President Bush for Iraq (which IS preemption), how can they then claim, "We will hunt down terrorists wherever they are and kill them"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you can believe in preemption while at the same time realize that preemptive action wasn't the right thing to do in this particular instance.

As a means of illustration, let's say Bush decided to bomb Iceland after 9/11 to preempt terrorism. Democrats might very well argue that the war was wrong. They might very well say that Iceland had no ties to terrorism, that they weren't a threat, and that a preemptive war against them was inappropriate. They might argue that we haven't satisfied any rational test to prove that our preemption was appropriate. Bush/Cheney would respond that the Democrats want other countries to have veto power and that the Democrats are against the right to preemptively attack.

[texaspimp]

Elwood, I understand your position. However, it is not as if Iraq was somehow mistaken as Switzerland or Iceland. I understand that reasonable people may differ on the degree of importance of Iraq. I can also understand people who think that we should not have invaded Iraq. But to suggest that Iraq posed no threat to the United States is intellectually dishonest. We may disagree on the level of the threat, but the threat was there.

Thanks for the cogent response. It is appreciated.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
wever, it is not as if Iraq was somehow mistaken as Switzerland or Iceland

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that. My point was to only illustrate that opposition preemptive action in Iraq does not necessarily mean opposing all preemptive action.

[Chris Alger]

1. Like other news organizations, I presume that CNN's polls are performed by professional opinion firms under contract. Like the rest of the mainstream, CNN does some things extremely well, but unfortunately its "job" does not include preventing the public mind from being damaged by official disinformation. "Taking care of the public" is not CNN's job. It's not anyone's job.

2. The war in Iraq wasn't "preemption" because there was no threat unique to Iraq that it was designed to preempt. This was clear when the administration ignored the results of the Blix's team, which negated the official pretext, and instead demanded that nothing short of regime change would satisfy us. Since te U.S. was not interested in Iraq's actual intentions and capabilities (the only things that would create a threat), we logically conclude that the U.S. wasn't motivated by perceived security threats but by the opportunities fostered by regime change.

3. You're right that Kerry and Edwards send mixed signals on preemption.

[anatta]

No, Global Test isn't a "test" or list of criteria that has to be answered. Its a test of legitimacy or truth. Read the quote, Kerry says this right after he says global test. Is the reason valid or are we making shite up? Is the Sec. of State going to have to apologize? Will the word of the US President be good enough again? Sorry gave you more than a yes or no answer.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"I maintain that Kerry's referring to a policy that inidicates a justification to the rest of the world for a preemptive war...."

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. Kerry opposes wars that cannot be justified. So, presumably, does the GOP. The issue is whether the Iraq war was justifiable, not whether it should have been. The GOP line that Kerry advocates the need for "permission" from foreign countries before waging a justifiable war is another of a long list of Iraq-related lies spawned by the GOP smear machine, enabled only because GOP stalwarts are so dumb that they believe almost anything their masters tell them.

[texaspimp]

This may shock you, but I agree with that. I still believe that Iraq was a valid target. I admit that I am not sure that they should have been second, but I do like the fact that we were proactive and not reactive.

BTW, may I request "B" Movie Boxcar Blues??

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
This may shock you, but I agree with that

[/ QUOTE ]

The post to which I was originally replying suggests otherwise, but it very easily could have been a misunderstanding on my part.

I have no problem with someone who honestly believes that it was valid (i.e. a good act of) preemption. I think they're wrong, but so what? I do have a problem with the intellectually dishonest approach that says that because some democrats are against the Iraq war, they must be against all preemptive wars.