Darris, You will LOVE This!

[Cindy Hamlin]

I am sure there are others, too. But, Darris, buddy, this one's for you.....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._ot/al_franken

[keithbenjamin]

I love it! The more prominent misfits the democratic party the better! :p

[Pete Hanlin]

Actually, Mr. Franken is a witty- if misguided- fellow. I've read a couple of his books, and always manage to get a few chuckles... I've been thinking of reading that other comedic satire that came out this year Living History What's that? That was supposed to be a serious attempt at explaining the 90's- wow...

Referring to the story you posted, I particularly enjoyed this particular comment by Mr. Franken- "I felt like after 9-11 this president had a chance. We were united in a way that I had never seen, and he had a chance to take this country forward in a spirit of mutual purpose and mutual sacrifice," the liberal humorist said. "Instead, he just hijacked it and used it to his own political ends."

Um, Al... maybe that's because George W. Bush is a politician. Come on now, given your familiarity with Washington and politics, surely you are aware that politicians attempt to use events to promote their policies. I mean, that is sort of in their job description- right? Remember the phrase "It's the economy, stupid?" That was one of the phrases used by your party in the 1992 Presidential elections. Seems to me they were using an economic recession for their own political ends... gasp!

So, when you're done feigning indignation Al, feel free to go up to Minnesota and run to your heart's content. Last go round, your party ran another funny candidate named Walter Mondale. Guess they figured if Minnesota was the only state willing to have him as President in 1984, maybe they were delusional enough to make him their Senator in 2002.

[chm2023]

Shrub's problems go way beyond Al Franken. People of his own political stripe are turning on him. Don't know if you caught George Will on ABC Sunday, but he absolutely lambasted the administration for its Iraq policy. He made an interesting comment: "Doesn't anyone remember how long it took to bring democracy to Mississippi?". He will catch holy hell for this I am sure, but he makes an excellent point. His other comment was likewise worth repeating (I am paraphrasing this): "Whenever government has an intractable problem, the response is to extend the scope of the problem. Establishing democracy in Iraq turning into a quagmire? Let's target the entire region for democracy!"

Insanity claims another victim dept: Heard on Fox last night some fella (don't know if he was admin or media) make the following statement: "We know that terrorists are pouring into Iraq to fight against the US. What people don't realize is THIS IS A GOOD THING. Blah, blah, blah, all in one place." Hannity of course nodded soberly in agreement. Clever guys these chicken hawks.

[keithbenjamin]

I guess I too have been claimed as a victim, because I've been wondering the EXACT same thing.


Operation Iraqi Freedom has essentialy moved the front from our soil to theirs. Terrorist organizations are pouring their resources into Iraq to fight the US military on their turf, instead of fighting innocent civilians on ours. Seems to me that's the job of the military (in which I served for six years). Maybe it's the insanity that's got a hold of me, but I fail to see how that's a bad thing. ;)

[chm2023]

I was not aware this was a zero sum game--if in Iraq, terrorists will not/ cannot be anywhere else? And fighting terrorists/guerillas on their turf has been such a walk in the park for the US in the past? (Remember Kissinger's seminal essay on Vietnam--"if the guerillas don't lose, they win")

So, the reason we went to war was to defeat the terrorists? I thought it was to remove Saddam and his WMDs? I really hate to be such a fussbudget, but when my country for the first time pre-emptively strikes another country, I like a clear and unchanging reason.

[keithbenjamin]

No it's not a zero sum game, but it does in fact bring the war to their front, it does consume resources, and it does redirect those resources to US military as opposed to civilian targets.

I don't think Vietnam is very good analogy, as the Saddam regime has already been toppled and the rebuilding of the nation and a government for and by the Iraqi people is already underway. Furthermore, the Vietnamese had no interest in destroying the Great Satan, they simply wanted us the hell out of their country (yes the Iraqis do to, but we're working toward that goal). Contrary to what the CBSs and CNNs of the world would have us believe, we are making progress and there is significant support among Iraqis for what we are doing. People seem to think this kind of thing can happen overnight. It doesn't. It isn't MTV. And unfortunately, the task has been made much more difficult by the precedents we've set in Somalia and Beruit. The terrorists believe (and with good reason), if they keep it up, send home a few body bags, we'll tuck tail and run... even more reason we have to see it through to the end.

Sure the war (or battle) was about Saddam, who I don't think anyone could argue the world is not a better place without. But, its also about a much larger picture, the war on terrorism. Islamic fundamentalists are a real enemy and threat to the United States arguably more so than the Cold War Soviet Union (remember 9/11). The tactics and nature of the enemy require the war to be fought in a manner wars have never been fought before. The establishment of a democracy in Iraq is imperative to essentially establishing a beach head. Where prosperity and freedom can speak for itself (yeah I know it sounds a bit pollyanna but I believe it to largely be true).

[Darris Chambless]

I've decided that the world has gone mad and that seemingly intelligent people simply remain clueless about so much.

I'm still reading Al's book you sent me. He is a funny guy and I've always thought that, he just isn't much for politics and has particular problems with finding facts. I would like to think that Minnesotans are smart enough to laugh at the idea of Al for governor, but then they did elect a former professional wrestler so who knows (I liked Jesse Ventura to be honest. He sure didn't take any sh** off of anyone ;)

Keith,

You've made some very salient points. One would have to assume that it is diffucult to understand that when you get all the warring factions under one roof it makes it easier to take care of business although that isn't difficult for me to understand it just seems to be difficult for some.

It's like deer hunting if you hunt from a blind. You bait your prey into a central area and wait for them to show up in the open. Not very sporting in hunting IMO but quite effective in getting your intended target.

And I also agree (because it's true) the "war" is on terrorism, the first "battle" was in Afghanistan the second in Iraq the third will probably be Syria, then Iran and into Saudi Arabia if necessary. Until we make it completely clear that we won't stop till we're done other countries will be reluctant to step up and do anything about their own problems with these groups because they're scared. If they know we are going to keep hammering away at them that fear will begin to subside. It doesn't happen overnight, never has in the past, never will. But some just want instant gratification and they are entitled to want it just not entitled to get it and realistically they never will in situations like these.

Vietnam, "quagmires" and all the other comparisons are imo insane. Vietnam (a war started in a Democratic adminstration btw) was a war where we were trying to take a side on issues that had little or nothing to do with our national intrests. Why was Vietnam a "quagmire"? Well primarily because the powers that be had no "plan" for the war and no "exit strategy" along with no direction. It was like digging a hole in the shifting sand all the while having little or no reason to be digging in the first place (thanks to the Democrats of the time) Not to mention America (as it appeared) had lost its resolve because liberals tended to embrace Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge (communist) more than our own troops.

The Iraq battle is part of this war on terror. The terrorist came to us, not the other way around, and have been for a while now but little was done (I should say nothing was done) about it until now. They messed with the bull five or six times and the spectators wanted action, but the bull just stood there so we put in a different bull and now they're getting the horns ;) Do I blame this on Clinton? Nope. I blame it on the terrorists, I blame Clinton for doing nothing when he had the chance.

Oh well, sorry to get off on that tangent when the thread was about Al Franken and running for Governor. He's funny but he's become too big for his britches when it comes to politics.

Thanks again Cindy and keep em coming.

Darris C.

[CuriousCat]

Our involvement in Vietnam began in 1954 during the Eisenhower administration, escalated during 3 successive administrations, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, and finally ended ignominiously with the Paris peace talks in 1975 during the Ford administration.

[chm2023]

Oh for those halycon days of Pol Pot.

"Liberals...embrace(d) Pol Pot and the Kymer Rouge and Pol Pot more than our own troops." Really? What an intelligent, thoughtful, insightful statement.

I was and am a liberal and resent such a mean-spirited and groundless statement. How dare you impugn my patriotism? Disagreeing with the government does not make one unpatriotic (I feel foolish even having to point this out, so civics 101). If you can't make your argument without resorting to this sort of thing, perhaps your argument needs a little work.

[Darris Chambless]

Our envolvement started as far back as 1945 and perhaps a bit earlier, but at that time we had Harry Truman and the first American casualty was in 1946. Although the Truman Presidency was envolved primarily monetarily supporting the French we did have troops on a military mission along with military adivisers (although seemingly few) as early as 1950 and were there due to the French envolvenment in Indochina.

During the Eisenhower administration our primary function was to train the South Vietnamese to fight against the Northern VC. The war was still pretty much left to theVietnamese but with a little help from us American folk. Most of the actual fighting envolving American troops in force started sometime around 1964 when the USS Maddox was fired on by a North Vietnamese PT boat. This was when we became "police" to defend our own as well as our allies the, South Vietnamese. LBJ was President at the time (successor to the Presidency after JFK was shot and killed) and said "take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression." The resolution passes unanimously in the House, and by a margin of 82-2 in the Senate. The Resolution allows Johnson to wage all out war against North Vietnam without ever securing a formal Declaration of War from Congress."

During the Nixon years he bombed the bejeezus out of the North Vietnamese and by 1972 negotiations started (rocky but started nonetheless) and Nixon began pulling US troops out of Vietnam. In 1973 the cease-fire is signed in Paris and in 1975 Ford (a Republican but in title only imo) declares the war over for the Americans and evacuates remaining forces.

I stand by what I said. Thanks though.

Darris C.

PS. Sorry chm, it's true and I stand by that also. If you believe my arguement needs work I will be happy to ablige you, but I don't think you really want me to do that because I can back it up with all kinds of stuff ;)

[CuriousCat]

Actually, the reality of the Tonkin Gulf incident has been called into question more than once, most prominently by now Admiral James Stockdale in his book about his imprisonment in Hanoi. The media negelected to report that North Vietnam was attacked during the previous 2 days by both South Vietnamese and Laotian forces. Please do not assume that I supported North Vietnam simply because I chose to listen to more than one voice. I am old enough to have had friends and family actively involved in the fighting and my opinions and feelings are quite different from yours. Not wrong or un-American, but liberal and very American. I cannot and will not change.

Now as to your statement about any liberal's support of Pol Pot, I too am offended. Liberalism is no more unpatriotic than extreme conservatism. I would like to see your research, however I am not interested in any ultra-conservative web rant. I'd like solid, Fox-free evidence about what you assume are my ethical, moral and political leanings.

The nightmare that was Vietnam is over for some but not all of us. For some of my friends, it will never be over. We cringe at the idea that our America will become mired yet again in an unwinable fight in a region that resents our presence and despises us for our arrogance.

BTW, the first American military death was Lt. Col. A. Peter Dewey, head of the American OSS mission. He was shot by Vietminh troops while traveling by jeep to the airport. He was believed to have been mistaken for a Frenchman. See the PBS website on the Vietnam Experience for a detailed timeline.

[Darris Chambless]

I'll have to get all the stuff together for the my research although it isn't my research but rather a compilation of stuff others have researched.

"Liberalism is no more unpatriotic than extreme conservatism."

Hum. I'll have to think about that but I don't remember anything in conservative ideology based on Socialism and Communism. I'll have to look again.

"I'd like solid, Fox-free evidence about what you assume are my ethical, moral and political leanings."

LiberalS Judy, it's plural. I won't single any one person out but if you take offense then I will have to assume by that offense you tend in those directions. I'm surpirsed that I've never been outwardly offended by the implications made by some of my ethical, moral and political leanings, even when they weren't implication but direct assertions and weren't as broad brushed as mine have been. Liberal ideology makes me ill. I don't hate nor dislike liberals I just don't like liberal ideology. It's feel good/ looks good on paper, totalitarianism. Yall lean your way and I'll lean mine.

I'll get the information for you might be Monday before I can post it, but we might get lucky and I may have it ready to go tomorrow.

Take care,

Darris C.

[Jana Lewis]

I'll get the information for you might be Monday before I can post it, but we might get lucky and I may have it ready to go tomorrow.

We should all feel so lucky! *groan*

[keithbenjamin]

How 'bout we keep this above the level of personal attacks and stick to an exchange of ideas. :cheers:

Having said that...

We cringe at the idea that our America will become mired yet again in an unwinable fight in a region that resents our presence and despises us for our arrogance.

I just don't see how 300 deaths classifies as "quagmire" and can even mentioned in same breath as Vietnam, perhaps its that insanity thing again. ;)

The thing that most liberals don't seem to understand is that peace cannot be defined by the absence of war. For there to be peace, there must be war. For the simple fact remains there are bad people in the world. Evil does exist and cannot be ignored and swept under the rug in the name of peace. Stalin, Hilter, Tojo, and yes Saddam are all fine examples. Imagine what the world would be like if people didn't stand up to war against these *******s, if the Neville Chamberlains of the world prevailed. The Iraqi people don't have to imagine, they've been tortured in unspeakable ways; thrown off roof tops; made to watch as their wives were tortured, raped, and executed; slaughtered en mass with unimaginably cruel WMDs (that he didn't have); and generaly were made to live every minute of every day in absolute fear and terror. Tell me they don't now have a better life. Tell me it won't be even better when they enjoy their own government and the freedom that goes along with it. Tell me that the sacrifices our men and women have made and continue to make aren't worth it. I thought liberals were supposed to be the humanitarians?

Unwinable? No. We will win, because we must win. Remember 9/11.

[keithbenjamin]

Just a reminder... the liberals said Afghanistan was unwinnable... "They defeated the Soviets!", "Our troops can't fight them in the mountains!", "It'll be another Vietnam!" ...we ousted the Taliban in like 37.9 seconds.
:drop:

[hcjilson]

If you think its over in Afganistan better look again. If you think its over in Iraq take the same approach. It will be a long time before our presence fighting in either country will be over. Sad, but unfortunately the truth.

[keithbenjamin]

C'mon, Harry, I realize we're still there. But, I think you understand the point I was illustrating. You obviously can't walk in, topple a regime, turn around and walk out, and *poof* a magic democracy appears as try not to let the door hit you in the rear. The point is, the wars, which we were told were unwinnable, have been won (with amazing speed and decisiveness, I might add).

Is there still work to do? ...obviously.

:finger: ;)

[hcjilson]

won't ever be won over in those 2 countries, regardless of how much muscle we use. Ergo we can never "win". Where do we get off, telling other countries how to live. If it were'nt for oil we wouldn't be in either country. ( Bin Laudin is a Saudi and thats where this mess started if you don't think this is about oil) I fully support the war against terrorists, but butting into the infrastructure of other countries is another story and one which will keep the "hearts and minds" of the people from being won over.

Its a lesson we didn't learn too well in Vietnam and it does not appear that we're learning it any better in Iraq and Afganistan and all the other places our troops are serving. We cannot afford be the world's police force.

The real reason we can't leave either place is that if we do, both countries will erupt in Civil War, which will have been our fault for messing around in the first place. I fear the present administration in Washington is guilty of poor planning and we are now stuck with, and paying through the nose for, the results of poor planning.

[Jana Lewis]

I believe the admin's reasoning for going into Iraq was to remove Saddam, destroy WMDs, and eliminate connections between terrorists and Iraq. I seem to recall there being a link to terrorism and Iraq before we went in, so its not something that was "invented" after WMDs were not found. Speaking of which, lost in the reports of the inspectors is the fact that they have found numerous violations of the ban on weapons development- which was part of the cease-fire agreement from the first Gulf War.

So if this our reasoning, what to do about Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran? Shall we invade all of these countries as well? They have known ties to terrorists, I can also guess that they all have some sort of WMD stored somewhere too. Curious. :D

[CuriousCat]

Not to mention Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Cuba, Bali, The Philippines, Maylasia, Sri Lanka, Ireland, The Basque Region, Brazil, Columbia, Chechnya....

[Jana Lewis]

Unwinable? No. We will win, because we must win. Remember 9/11.

I don't believe that there is one American out there that can forget 9/11. However, with all due respect, I don't believe we have been able to establish a direct connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

[Jana Lewis]

I didn't realize we were supposed to limit our self-defense solely to countries that may have participated in 9/11. I'm assuming that- if another atrocity was carried out against our country and it came to light that the admin knew there might be a threat- Democrats would give them a pass for doing nothing to proactively defend the US against such attack?

Perhaps we should be searching for the perpetrators of 9/11? Perhaps we should be trying to "really" find Bin Laden? Perhaps we should focus on our Immigrant granting status? Perhaps we should be protecting our borders better?

Get off it, folks. Did the US invade Iraq because it is in a region of the world that we are dependant on and we had an interest in stabilizing the flow of fossil fuel products? Of course!!! Its ridiculous to deny that there is absolutely no self-serving interest in being involved in Iraq. On the other hand, it is ridiculous to attempt to eliminate all other rationales for our involvement in Iraq.

At the expense of human life? At the expense of BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars? Monies that could be spent trying to find new innovative ways to curb our dependence on oil?

In other words, yep- money has a lot to do with the foriegn policy of every administration. You might not "feel all fuzzy and warm" about it, and you might not really like it much- but, unless you are willing to move to Central Pennsylvania, wear black clothing, and ride in a buggy- deal with it.

I'll never be able to deal with the loss of humans for our own selfish personal gain. This is the way I will "deal with it" I'll be at the POLLS.....

[CuriousCat]

Never, for one minute, did I doubt that invading Iraq was about anything other than oil. Trying to finish his father's job and thus salvage his reputation was just an added benefit. What I resent is that these same reasons were flatly denied by the current administration and their supporters.

The perpetrators of 9/11 were Saudi, supported by a Saudi millionaire living openly enough in Afghanistan to be interviewed by various news media personalities, yet hidden well enough to escape our armed forces.

In my opinion, this is about oil, about money, about defense contractors and NOT about ideology or patriotism or even simple revenge.

[keithbenjamin]

Ok let's play connect the dots here....

In my opinion, this is about oil, about money, about defense contractors and NOT about ideology...

At the expense of BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars? Monies that could be spent trying to find new innovative ways to curb our dependence on oil?

Oh you mean we can't connect those dots because they're not even in the same plane of existence?

Do you realize how many YEARS it would take it for Iraqi oil to pay for what we've shelled out on this war? It also seems to me, the admistration just approved some insanely large spending bill to pay for the rebuilding effort in Iraq and NOT use Iraqi oil WHICH THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE.

Yeah... it's about the oil.