From the 1996 Telecommunications Act to the Welfare Reform Act to the failure to deal with health care, I had lots of problems with the Clinton and have said so. Being critical of “your guy” is absolutely essential.
But as far as Clinton’s impeachment and Bush’s non-impeachment is concerned, here’s a quote that’s going around on signs, t-shirts, and bumper stickers that is right to the point:
“Would somebody please give Bush a blowjob so we can impeach him already.”
I’m all for discourse, disent and discussion, but not when it undermines the nobel efforts of our troops, who are in harm’s way daily, fighting for every American in the global war on terrorism. When I read, or hear “American’s” spew such poisonous rhetoric such as “Bush is the greatest terrorist in the world”, and it is broadcast ALL OVER THE WORLD, to our enemies, that undermines the war effort, and makes it that much harder for our troops, who I support 100%. Do you? There are actually “Americans” who have gone on record saying that they “hope we lose!” These are NOT Americans; they are traitors, pure and simple!
I don’t know you and so can only comment from what I’m reading. Your rhetoric strikes me as born from uncritical patriotism and an “America, love it or leave it” mindset. I do not find this approach to be useful.
While it can be said that the individual actions of soldiers can be brave, selfless, or nobly motivated, the act of war is itself never noble. At best it is justified collective self defense. At worst gratuitous aggression. The act of glorifying war is, in my opinion, madness. The glory of war is a mythology created by those who need soldiers to further their ends.
Do I hope we lose? Certainly not, though I could not say what victory would actually look like. Do I support the troops? Of course, insofar as I hope that each and every one will return safely home, be embraced by loved ones, supported by their community, and provided the benefits by the government that sent them there in the first place.
Is the war in Iraq a war against terrorism? Perhaps now it is, but certainly not in 2003 when it was initiated. And it is my understanding that a not insignificant number of our troops are wondering what exactly the planners of this war were thinking and why they, the planners, do not support them, the troops.
Again, I am saying nothing regarding the motives of the individual troops, but it is increasingly clear that this war was planned not in the absence of, but despite the available intelligence, justified by lies, and has been executed poorly. This war does not deserve the support of the American people.
I fixed your post for you.
(Hat-tip to Maestro8.)
That’s right; you don’t know me, and I don’t know you. That is why I spoke in generalities. I did not attack you or anyone in particular. Please show me the same courtesy. As for your second sentence, that is YOUR inference, and your opinion " to which you are entitled. I never said, nor do I say “America, love it or leave it” . But I do believe that we can elevate our discourse above the same old tired “let’s impeach Bush” rhetoric. And yes, if you hate America and want the terroists to win, than get the heck out! **If the radical left had their way in the past, we would all be "goose stepping"and speaking German today! 
I “fixed” your’s too.
Hippy
Show me where JJuggle “attacked” you…from that specific post he was replying to, it does sound like you are pushing the “Love it or leave it” agenda, which he pointed out…nowhere did he insult you, just the approach you used
When you use words like “spew”, “poisonous”, and “traitor” you are engaged in an attack whether you admit it or not. They are all, though particularly the first two, words used deliberately to create emotional reactions not add to reasoned arguments. Because villains spew poison they are not deserving even of the slightest bit of attention. Is it your intention to silence Americans exercising their right to free speech by presenting them as villainous and therefore irrelevant?
And for the record, I think I showed you a great deal of courtesy. I did not call you any names or show your disrespect. I commented on what you wrote.
[Edit]: Thank you Monkeyman (if that is your name).
You and JJuggle are putting words in my mouth. I never said that. Just like activist judges, you want to “interpret” what i said.
I said, quite clearly, that those who WANT US TO LOSE THE WAR ON TERROROSIM are ANTI-AMERICAN, and Traitors. I stand by that.
It’s 6:20 and I’m hungry. Put some high calorie words in my mouth.
That’s a riot. I haven’t seen that one yet. PM me some photographic evidence if you can and are so inclined.
And just like a right wing ideologue you’ve got the talking points down. Get that one from Hannity, O’Reilly, Savage, Limbaugh, or Coulter, did you?
Hey, how does one go about winning or losing this particular war?
As you wish:
http://wadias.in/site/arzan/blog/archives/2006/04/impeach-bush
http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/new-ss9.html (Check the bottom of the page. EvolveFish is one of the most respected names in left wing tchochkes; they originated the Darwin Fish. If they’re selling it, it’s because there’s a market.)
The thing is no one wants to lose the War on Terrosrism, we’d like to actually fight it. At it’s source, in the hearts and minds of those would use violence or threat of violence to forward their agendas. Iraq is not a War on Terrorism. The right planned to go back into Iraq before Septmeber 11th, they jsut used it as an excuse to promot their pre-determined agenda.
Also John Kerry would have been a great President. Bush has actually been a made more flip-flops than Kerry, but he decided to take the integrity route in the election.
I still haven’t heard a single VALID criticism of Kerry. Of course there are all the half-truths and bogus attacks made by the right. But looking at the actual facts remove any validity that those have.
Aslo America would not have been Goosestepping. Even if we hand’t entered the War when we did if Germany had ever actually attacked the U.S. even the most anti-war extreme liberals of the time would have fought back. No liberal is against a war against any group that has actually attacked.
Iraq has never attacked America. The only Americans that have been attacked by Iraqis were those that invaded THEIR country.
Do we need to remind you Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 or terrorism against the Untied States in any form
Invading Iraq was not an act of self-defense
America needs to stop being the world’s bully.
The attacks that right stages against eh left are pure rhetoric. The lefts critiscim of the right are based on legitimate concerns.
There are two types of Republicans these days.
I doubt the second type have the 51% of the vote to elect a president.
You stole those words out of my head, jjuggle;) That’s exactly what I tried to explain to Bud Littlebud in one of the numerous other Bush related threads (always a pleasure:o )… good to read what I think in proper English 
I would have gladly quoted you in my sig but you’re already in:D
ZZagg, the first time you said Bud Littlebud, I thought it was a bad typo, but it obviously isn’t
hehe
good one
-tips hat-
What is language, if not “interpreting” what other people say?
The phrase “I took my cat to the store” can be interpreted in a few different meanings, depending on context…
as JJuggle said, using the words “spew”, “poisonous”, and “traitor” in this context (a political debate) is both inviting, and declaring an attack, intentionally or not…there are few ways to use any of those words in a positive context
This is much better, and much less vitriolic that usin “spew poisonous rhetoric”
Are you really? Because many people who use this argument say they are, but don’t seem open to any discussion of the war being anything other than a just, legal and positive thing for America and everyone else, whether they like it or not.
In other words, discourse, dissent and discussion do not necessarily undermine the efforts of our troops. Troops who understand that they are fighting to protect the United States Constitution (is that what they fight for? It’s the President’s job at least) can understand that there is likely to be some degree of controversy about any military action. This should not matter to them, as it is not up to them to decide the course of the war or their specific actions.
For the most part, I don’t think the troops can really be undermined unless their superiors start making bad (or worse) decisions based on deflecting public opinion back home, rather than protecting said troops, or staying on-task of the goals of the war.
A small percentage of anti-war proponents want to harm the war effort, but I think it’s only a tiny one. Problem is, they tend to be loud and get lots of attention because they say the most inflammatory things.
How? Our enemies already believe it, and to more objective people it’s a clearly ridiculous statement. Same for any claims of major similarities between Bush and Hitler. Yes, our enemies are happy to have us arguing amongst ourselves. This can make us weaker. But need we be reminded that we are supposed to be able to argue amongst ourselves? Is that not one of the core tenets of our government? We can handle it, and so can our troops.
Always the question. “Don’t you support the troops?” The only people I know of who don’t are an even smaller portion of the crackpots I mentioned above. A tiny, tiny percentage of the population. We have seen the results of not supporting our own troops, a big mistake that was made in Vietnam. I don’t think we’ll make the same mistake in our generation. So we support the troops and want the war to be over. I’m sorry if this is a difficult concept to grasp. We believe our troops are the best troops in the world. We believe they are being asked to do something they maybe shouldn’t be doing, or are being ordered to do it unwell (poor leadership). We can still support them 100%, be proud of them, and welcome them home heartily.
The American people have more common sense than they’re often given credit for. Two examples. The first is how we mistreated our soldiers during and after Vietnam. It hurt everybody and left some permanent scars on many individuals, as well as our national psyche. Bad idea, and not likely to be repeated for a long, long time because we “get it.” Second example is airplane hijackings. Heard of many lately? Recently there was an attempt to break into the cockpit of an airliner somewhere. The passengers subdued this person, who I believe was acting alone and was not a terrorist. People on airliners aren’t going to take any in-flight crap any more. It’s safer to be on a plane now than it was before 9/11 NOT because of the actions of the TSA, but because of peoples’ unwillingness to be the passengers on flying bombs. They will fight.
Did we lose in Vietnam? Should we have won? Was it wrong to push for the war to end rather than going on and killing hundreds of thousands more people? What would “losing” the war in Iraq mean? I haven’t heard anyone actually suggest we put Saddam Hussein back in charge. What if we just walk away, and Iraq’s democratic government ends up working out without us? Did we lose then? What if we refuse to lose, while the insurgents, who are trying to get “their” country back, refuse to stop blowing things up? Does somebody win then? When, by your definiton, will this war be won? Does this war include Iran or Afganistan? Should it?
Sorry, a lot of questions there. But I’m trying to get at your definition of what a traitor is. Without putting words into your mouth I will offer that you are trying to say that hoping we don’t win a war, any war, makes one a traitor.
Would a Japanese citizen in 1941 be a traitor if he thought it would be a bad idea to attack Pearl Harbor? He’d be right, in the long run, but would that make him a traitor? Would an American citizen of the 1850s be a traitor if they said we should stop lying to and slaughtering all the native American peoples? I guess he would then. If your answer is yes to either of these, it means sometimes it’s okay to be a traitor. Sometimes it is. History will tell if you really were or not.
So what part of being opposed to this problematic war, which was started partially based on flawed or ignored intelligence, makes one a traitor if they don’t think we should “win” it? Remember, answer must include a definition of the conditions of “a win.”
Until then I will probably remain an almost-traitor in your eyes. Yes, we are interpreting your words. That’s what people do. Then with discussion, you can respond to our interpretation and tell us if we’re on the wrong track, and what you really meant. I for one am tired of being told I’m a traitor if I don’t agree with another American’s politics.
Great post… this info. bears repeating…
Sure some feel that being a superpower, the US has a hand in being the world’s policeman… but this is really the territory of the UN. The UN pushes for individual’s rights moreso than the current US administration (read the UN charter), and in cases it deems necessary, the UN will use physical force to do so.
If the US wants to police the world without stepping on everyone’s toes, I feel we should form a stronger relationship with the UN. “My way or the highway” isn’t how a good neighbor should act…