Liberals have lost the Iraq argument, so please stop whining...

by dolphman 104 Replies latest social current

• 

  StinkyPantz

  you've all been whooped by a C average student from Texas

  We all gotta be proud of something, no matter how small.. .
• 

  Simon

  I think the "ha ha we told you" attitude that comes across strongly is quite telling of the mentality of some.

  Just picture if it was the other ways round ... imagine the American troops suffered heavy casualties. Do you image we would be posting "Right-wingers have lost the Iraq argument, so please stop whining ... yah boo we told you so"? I don't think so ...

  I hope you will put the same effort into pressuring those in high places to make sure the Iraqi people get:

  • The immediate humanitarian aid they need
  • A workable Iraqi government of their own choosing
  • Freedom to sell their oil to whoever they chose for the best price they can get to benefit them

  It is on this that things will be judged.
• 

  seawolf

  However, I think all the whooping and high-fives are a bit premature. What has to happen next is going to be a long process that could go on for many years. It is a good day but the job is far from over.

  Simon, I was thinking the same thing. Maybe they should look a bit closer at how Afghanistan is going back downhill (has been for awhile) before the cigars are passed around.
• 

  Gamaliel

  Dolphman,

  Anyone who wants to, can be "right" just by claiming the opposite of the person you disagree with. Then that person can be "right" just by claiming the opposite of what you said. There will always be plenty of proof for both sides because proof in these matters is created by looking only at what supports your view and denying anything that doesn't. You make it sound as if you merely wish to start that kind of meaningless argument, where there are only two sides; everything is simple. Everyone should just accept what they want and deny what they don't want. What a waste of time.

  When people are really interested in truth, don't they show interest in discussing the possible meaning of the evidence that the other side posts, and then encourage others to discuss the possible meaning of evidence that you post? This is, after all, a discussion board. Unless, of course, that's not what you really want. Maybe I missed your point.

  Gamaliel

  PS. By the way, what does liberal mean? Someone who supports liberation? freedoms? Is that so unpatriotic or unamerican?
• 

  Trauma_Hound

  PS. By the way, what does liberal mean? Someone who supports liberation? freedoms? Is that so unpatriotic or unamerican?

  It would be, if you were a communist.
• 

  Trauma_Hound

  http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/09/international/worldspecial/09TERR.html

  Republicans Want Terror Law Made Permanent

  By ERIC LICHTBLAU

  ASHINGTON, April 8 — Working with the Bush administration, Congressional Republicans are maneuvering to make permanent the sweeping antiterrorism powers granted to federal law enforcement agents after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, officials said today.

  The move is likely to touch off strong objections from many Democrats and even some Republicans in Congress who believe that the Patriot Act, as the legislation that grew out of the attacks is known, has already given the government too much power to spy on Americans.

  The landmark legislation expanded the government's power to use eavesdropping, surveillance, access to financial and computer records and other tools to track terrorist suspects.

  When it passed in October 2001, moderates and civil libertarians in Congress agreed to support it only by making many critical provisions temporary. Those provisions will expire, or "sunset," at the end of 2005 unless Congress re-authorizes them.

  But Republicans in the Senate in recent days have discussed a proposal, written by Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, that would repeal the sunset provisions and make the law's new powers permanent, officials said. Republicans may seek to move on the proposal this week by trying to attaching it to another antiterrorism bill that would make it easier for the government to use secret surveillance warrants against "lone wolf" terrorism suspects.

  Many Democrats have grown increasingly frustrated by what they see as a lack of information from the Justice Department on how its agents are using their newfound powers, and they say they need more time to determine whether agents are abusing those powers.

  The Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, said today that without extensive review, he "would be very strongly opposed to any repeal" of the 2005 time limit. He predicted that Republicans lacked the votes to repeal the limits.

  Indeed, Congressional officials and political observers said the debate might force lawmakers to take stock of how far they were willing to sacrifice civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism.

  Beryl Howell, a former Democratic aide in the Senate who worked extensively on the 2001 legislation, said that by forcing the issue, Mr. Hatch "is throwing down the gauntlet to people who think the U.S.A. Patriot Act went too far and who want to cut back its powers."

  Justice Department officials in interviews today credited the Patriot Act with allowing the F.B.I. to move with greater speed and flexibility to disrupt terrorist operations before they occur, and they say they wanted to see the 2005 time limit on the legislation lifted.

  "The Patriot Act has been an extremely useful tool, a demonstrated success, and we don't want that to expire on us," a senior department official said on condition of anonymity.

  Another senior official who also demanded anonymity said the department had held discussions with Congressional Republicans about how that might best be accomplished. "Our involvement has really been just keeping an open ear to the issue as it's proceeding, not to really guide the debate," the official said.

  With the act's provisions not set to expire for more than two and a half years, officials expected that the debate over its future would be many months away. But political jockeying over separate bipartisan legislation sponsored by Senators Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, and Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, appears to have given Senator Hatch the chance to move on the issue much earlier than expected.

  The Kyl-Schumer measure would eliminate the need for federal agents seeking secret surveillance warrants to show that a suspect is affiliated with a foreign power or agent, like a terrorist group.

  Advocates say the measure would make it easier for agents to go after "lone wolf" terrorists who are not connected to a foreign group and might have allowed the F.B.I. to get a warrant against Zacarias Moussaoui, known as the 20th hijacker, before the Sept. 11 attacks.

  The proposal was approved unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But Republicans are upset because several Democrats say that when the measure reaches the Senate floor for a full vote, perhaps this week or later in the month, they plan to offer amendments that would impose tougher restrictions on the use of secret warrants.

  Among other proposals, Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, wants to add amendments that would require the Justice Department to give detailed information about how the secret warrants are being used and that could give defense lawyers access to some information generated by the warrants in criminal cases.

  Republicans are countering with amendments of their own, including the idea of making the Patriot Act permanent.

  Aides to Senator Hatch would not discuss his views on repealing the time limits in the law.

  But an aide who demanded anonymity said of the "lone wolf" bill: "We support this bill as it is and that's how we want to see it passed. If the Democrats want to amend the bill, then we will offer an equal number of amendments to improve the bill as well. We hope the Democrats will stop holding this bill up."

  Members of the Judiciary Committee, which Mr. Hatch leads, have been working in recent days to reach an agreement over the amendments that will be considered, officials said. But so far neither side appears willing to back down.
• 

  Sara Annie

  Just picture if it was the other ways round ... imagine the American troops suffered heavy casualties. Do you image we would be posting "Right-wingers have lost the Iraq argument, so please stop whining ... yah boo we told you so"? I don't think so ...

  Well, yes, I think that's exactly what would happen. Exact phrasing notwithstanding the "See I told you so" party line has been posted numerous times by many posters on both ends of the ideological spectrum about various situations that have arisen in this conflict thus far.

  There will always be ineffective, childish arguments by a certain percentage of people on both sides of any debate. Neither "side" of this issue gets to claim moral or intellectual superiority in the posting around here. The inflammatory language and tiresome rhetoric is pretty much even.
• 

  SheilaM

  In all wars I don't view there being any "wins'" I think the Iraqi people and the ones in Amercia that had to flee are sincerely happy. But just as in any war there were lives lost and to me no one wins when that happens. I really hope that one day the world will learn to step in when dictatorships that are committing human atrocities before they are in power for decades ```````````
• 

  teenyuck

  Sara, I agree completely.

  Shelia, you are correct.
• 

  Simon

  I really hope that one day the world will learn to step in when dictatorships that are committing human atrocities before they are in power for decades

  Ah ... Shiela.

  I think for many, this is the crux of the matter. America put and kept Saddam where he is (same with Osama Bin Laden). Yes, it would be better if oppressive dictators like Saddam, General Pinoche, and the leaders of Egypt and Saudie Arabia were not put in power.

  Will they learn? I doubt it ...