These people sound like what Rush calls "seminar callers". They are really Democrats, but they have had lessons in the "Republican ... but..." drivel.

Mitch,

As I've said to you many times, comparing yourself to Satan, doesn't make you a Saint. The fact that Houssien was bad, hardly justifies our screw-ups. The forieng minister of Saudi Arabia warns us our presence is threatening regional stability, and all the President says is "stay the course..stay the course..stay the course" like he's some form of overgrown Parrot who doesn't really know what he's saying or why.

The bottom line is, Houssien is gone, get over it and actually do something productive. Living in the past is a waste of time. Bush's vision of a Pan-US Middle-East intimidated by a powerful US presence in Iraq is in shambles, it was a fool's dream in the first place, we are the pariah, and even Iraqi's who hated Houssien, never wanted us there.

Defending your pathetic stance by comparing yourself to Houssien is less than pitiful, it's unrelenting extremism in the face of reality.

PB

I think the stability of the middle east needs to be disrupted. Autocratic misogynistic regimes may be stable, but in that case stabiltiy is a bad thing. Iraq will be a strong Democratic force for liberalisation within the next 5 year. You know, when I was a younger person liberals supported the overthrow of dictators and the spread of Democracy, now they seem to oppose it, or is just because the fellow leading the crusade (word used on purpose) is George Walker Bush rather than William Jefferson Clinton.

Mitch, sweetheart, it has never never been the American Conservative doctrine to go off on crusades for the benefit of purifying some miserable foreigners. Woodrow Wilson wanted us to do it, and the real conservatives of his day shut him down. But there are no conservatives today of that sort. There are Republicans, without principle, who call themselves conservative, bur really ultraKeynesians, feckless crusaders, ultramontane Catholics allied with Biblical literalists from doublewide country, ignorance allied with greed....but where are the conservatives? I can only suppose Mitch keeps this up because he has in mind to be appointed to some cush bureaucratspot - good pay and no duties, something that suits his talents.

I have heard the voices of these "Republicans, but" people and I say they deserve the backbone award. The same to Congressman Curt Weldon.
To support Bush, a man who with his corrupt administration destroys three countries (including our own), a strong, proud political party, the dignity of a nation, the respect of other nations, while he plays right into the hands of terrorists, is sheer folly. He enjoys this trip down the toilet. Somehow it emboldens him. Save yourself! Don't go there with him.

Now that Mitch has unofficially drummed Rutherford out of the party, I will be watching with much anticipation for the inevitable "Big Tent" post.

Or, maybe not. There's always something to be said for "making sure everyone is on the same page", and if it means challenging someone's credentials as a "real Republican", so be it. And if those sham Republican voters become disaffected, and find themselves holding their nose and voting for a Democrat, well, it was probably going to happen anyways, right? Just like in 1980 when all those Reagan Democrats, those "What's the matter with Kansas" Democrats switched parties and stayed around for 20 plus years. No big loss, right, when you purify the party over a divisive issue?

Oh, and Mitch, welcome to the Liberal Interventionist side, I guess George Washington hadn't gotten it quite right when he was talking about foreign entanglements. Who should we pencil in for, oh, say, 2008 and 2011?

Sorry! I'm in a snarky mood right now, and too tired to throw in the requisite qualifiers to prove I am a sane, rational, compasionate human being despite the cheap shots.

Holy cow! Some leftie blog must have linked to this post to get these loons in here!

PB, you're simply clueless. SA telling us we're destabilizing the region is exactly *why* we're there. Compare their treatment of terrorists pre and post US involvement. Would you prefer the status quo ante where government supported terrorism was spreading out from the middle east and attacking the West? As to bugging out now, that would cause more problems than staying the course until Iraq is stable. The US dominating the Middle East through bases and permanent occupations? I'm curious where you got deep insights into the DoD/White House planning documents. If our goal is to disrupt terrorist funding networks, to make governments of the region leery of funding terrorist and the like invading and dismantling a terrorist supporting government seems like a good step. It makes credible threats made in the future over a lack of cooperation, and credible threats by the US in the Middle East have been lacking for decades.

"Liberal Interventionist side?" We were attacked by a movement sheltered by governements of the Middle East. A war to disrupt those who were attacking us is certainly *not* what Washington was warning about in his depreciation of foreign entrangements (go read the entire address - GW was talking about treaties, mutual defense pacts, spheres of influences and the like). If you carefully blinker yourself and ignore 9/11, Kohbar Towers, the Cole, and numerous other instances you *might* be able to frame it as a Wilsonian intervention, but you have to be pretty dishonest to frame it that way.

If you Lefties wish to disagree about the strategy of the present war you need to give alternate courses of action and probable outcomes to convince folks that you might be correct. The Left hasn't been able to do that; all they've done is harp on things not going well, but they haven't had any constructive ideas for quite some time. Where were the Left's ideas for forcing reform in the Middle East? Where were the carrot and stick for decreasing support for terrorists? We all saw how well the carrot did at curtailing North Korean actions. The Left in its present state is viewed as a total failure on the defense of this nation for a good reason, and until they overcome that they will relegated to second class status and rightfully so.

Sorry folks, but defending the country from attackers being programmed and sheltered by foreign governments calls for a war, unless you enjoy losing fellow citizens.

But on the original topic, if you want me to play the game: I'm a Republican and I support Bush on his campaign to disrupt terrorist networks, but I don't support his profligurate spending, his cronyism and lack of qualifications for many in his cabinet, nor his federalization of many of his social policies. With this array of buts, however, the odds of me being quoted by a reporter are quite remote. I don't fit into the "Republican, but" mold where those quoted by reporters are Democrats who are trying to get attention. But hey, if they're voting the right way for the wrong reasons, I'll welcome them into the tent!

Bobby the Hat. I know Mitch is way too accomodating to do this, so I'll perform the public service.

I have read your written diarrhea on the old Minnesota Politics lists, and on blogs. You are somewhat handicapped by being a fucking idiot.

Not that everyone can't see it for themselves.

Sorry. Carry on.

Heh, looks like a few of the SP forum's worker bees have ventured afield of the hive!

nerdbert said,

"I'm a Republican and I support Bush on his campaign to disrupt terrorist networks, but..."

If Bush's campaign were in fact a campaign to disrupt terrorist networks, maybe I would be a Republican too but it's not.

If it were, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia by now and bin Ladens head would be on a stake somewhere in Crawford.

We're paying for Bush's war by borrowing money (and paying it back with interest btw) from the place where 15 of the 19 hijackers came from.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to connect the dots.

Heck, "the hat" is one of the MN pol's more coherent participants; the majority of moonbats that live there would have our brains throbbing with pain by now.

Atta boy Doug! Good illustration...keep 'em comin'.

I submit that your "tent" ought to be one of honesty, integrity, transparency, peace, equality, and justice. Those possessing these qualities can be from any and all parties.
Since the Republican party is behind a group of people who do not practice these fundamental principles, why stay with them? It's a losing proposition, not just politically, but personally.

Teena is indulging in pot vs kettle activity. The GOP is a big tent party, that is obvious. For example look at the Abortion question. While the President and leadership is nominally anti-abortion, several of the leading candidates for pres in 2008 are pro-choice. Can you be a democratic leader and be pro-life? Also the arguements against Mitch seem a tad un-nuanced. Mitch is arguing with a fellow Republican on important issues hoping to persuade and the posters can not distinguish between an inquiry and an inquistion

Time to admit that Iraq is a failure? History books will tell a very different story. Let's do a little mind experiment here. It is Sept 12, 2001. 3,000 people are dead and the number could easily have been 40 or 50,000 -- and could have included the White House or Capital Building. Every intelligence agency in the world believes Saddam is in the WMD business. Oil for Fraud is pooring money into Saddam's coffers. He is the most likely source of WMD for the next terrorist attack. The Taliban runs Afghanistan. Pakistan is running a yard sale for nukes. Libya's WMD program has advanced far beyond the knowledge of world intelligence agencies. The spector of a nuclear, biological or chemical device causing casualties in the hundreds of thousands or millions is real and immediate. Al Qaeda has a safe haven from which to operate.
Now it is 2005. Libya unilateral disarms. Pakistan is out of the nuke business. Saddam is gone. Afghanistan is recovering (elections, schools, no public stonings, no centuries old Buddhas getting demolished -- you know, little things like that), and the Taliban is impotent. Elections in Iraq, with the vast majority of the country operating very well. Terrorists being fought on foreign soil by trained soldiers, rather than on US streets and planes. No major attacks on US soil. The huge number of young people in Iran see their government encouraging Iraqi Shi'ites to vote, but don't allow free and fair elections at home and think to themselves, Hmmmm... Lebanese people rally against Syrian occupation -- without mass reprisal.
Back to the mind experiment: Close your eyes and pretend that the president who accomplished all of this was named William Jefferson Clinton. What would the press be saying about him? What would the left be saying about him?
War was declared on us. We must win. We are winning. The only thing that can beat us is the defeatism of democrats and 'Republican-buts.'
Did Bush make a mistake? Yes -- going to the UN in the first place, and therefore having to place such a large emphasis on WMD as the primary justification for war. As Mitch repeatedly says the anti-war crowd seems unable to deal with the fact that there can be multiple justifications for the war.

Chriss,

Shack!

That was perfect.

Doug,

"If Bush's campaign were in fact a campaign to disrupt terrorist networks...If it were, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia by now..."

Huh? I thought you Libs were the ones with the mastery of "nuance"? And since when did "invading" other countries become the only legitimate solution?

Has it occurred to any of you that take the above strawman seriously that the sight of US troops patrolling Mecca would push the 3/4 of the Moslem world that actually *is* moderate, firmly into the radical camp? That perhaps a more subtle, diplomatic solution might make more sense?

Wow. Good thing you guys aren't in charge. We'd be at war with friggin' Luxembourgh.

"...and bin Ladens head would be on a stake somewhere in Crawford."

Whoah, there. You're saying, then, that we did not make a serious effort to catch Bin Laden? Because I have a few hundred USSF and SAS would like to have word for you, if so.

(Please, please please please respond by recycling John Kerry's trope about Tora Bora. Pretty please)

"We're paying for Bush's war by borrowing money (and paying it back with interest btw) from the place where 15 of the 19 hijackers came from."

We're borrowing money from Al Quaeda?

I mean, 1 of 1 Unibombers came from the US - does that make America a nation of letterbombers?

Again - invading Saudi Arabia, under the circumstances, would be reaaaaaly dumb. Different circumstances? One never knows, but they are not in force and ever have been.

"It doesn't take a brain surgeon to connect the dots."

And after the argument you just made, I have to hope you're not in medicine...

An article written by britt johnsen of the pioneer press listed me as the lone counter-protester; "At least one man supporting the war showed up...", and failed to mentioned the DOZEN members of protestwarrior in attendance. The article also contains a picture of page two of a two-page add in the enemy paper (Star-Trib) earlier in the week. Isn't it nice of the "Hometown paper" to feature the competition in such a way

enge

Mitch said,

"invading" other countries become the only legitimate solution?

I had hoped that you at least would have seen the comment to invade Saudi Arabia as sarchasm.

The fact remains, we're incurring massive debt owed to other countries, especially China and Saudi Arabia. If you fail to comprehend the potential consequences of this predicament, I would say you suffer from a severe case of being unimaginative. But since i'm not in the medical field, that's not a diagnosis, just my opinion...

The next massive attack our country won't have to come in the form of a 737 hitting a building.

"Whoah, there. You're saying, then, that we did not make a serious effort to catch Bin Laden?"

No Mitch. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that when we decided a really good strategy would be to "outsource" the efforts to capture bin Laden to tribal warlords who have a 3000 year history of switching alliances at the shifting of the sands, we forfeited the opportunity to bring him to justice. Of course anyone with an understanding of that part of the world could have told you that this would happen but did the administration listen?

Nope.

"I had hoped that you at least would have seen the comment to invade Saudi Arabia as sarchasm. "

I caught the sarcasm, but it's still the sort of stuff that passes as "opinion" in so much of the media. Maureen Dowd has written entire column s based on what actual smart people would refer to as "sarcasm".

"I'm saying that when we decided a really good strategy would be to "outsource" the efforts to capture bin Laden to tribal warlords who have a 3000 year history of switching alliances at the shifting of the sands, we forfeited the opportunity to bring him to justice. Of course anyone with an understanding of that part of the world could have told you that this would happen but did the administration listen?"

Y'see, you did exactly what I was praying you'd do.

The "outsourcing" argument is a canard. Yes, allegiances switch in that part of the world - but at that time, three years ago when bin Laden was still both powerful and relatively in the open, the Special Forces/SAS people in the Tora Bora WERE the leadership. They were leading the bands of Muj into the hills. There was no "outsourcing". Not only that, but there was no regular US military on the scene to GO into the hills after him, and even if there had been, they'd have been regulars with no experience in mountain warfare.

This sort of thing - convincing groups of indigs to work for us - is what the US Special Forces ("Green Berets") as well as the British/Australian/New Zealand SAS all do (and what distinguishes them from other Special Forces units like the Rangers, SEALs and Delta). Suggestions otherwise were fabrications of the Kerry campaign, designed to fool people who don't know better.

It worked in the north because it was Tajiks and Uzbeks fighting a regime that had been imposed by the Pushtan tribesmen to the south, which is essentially what the Talliban was constituated of.

At Toro Boro 300 hastily (2 weeks) recruited and trained Pushtans were sent in to root out Al Quaida. Bin Ladin had been quite generous in spending money in that region and there was a great deal of love for the man and his organization; he was a guest which, in Pushtan culture (Arabic culture, actually) they were obliged to provide him shelter.

It was the equivelent of Joshua Chamberlain and a detachment from the 20th Maine recruiting South Carolinians to attack Robert E. Lee. If the people running the show ever bothered to listen to those who understood the culture this would have been understood.

U.S. troops could have been there, 10 to 15 thousand from the 101st airborne, if they had been allowed in theater. In the two weeks it took to train and recruit the local tribesman an entire airborne division could have been available, instead of a weakened brigade. Admitedly, the force encountered was much larger than expected, but it could have been fixed in place while more forces were bought in. Al Quaida wasn't going anywhere, after all.

It was a missed opportunity due to poor and arrogant planning, or in the words of Sean Naylor, author of "Not a Good Day to Die":

"It was an opportunity that was, in part, squandered. Squandered not so much by the colonels and generals in Afghanistan, but by a series of decisions taken by their boses in the Pentagon, and at U.S. Central Command in Tampa, FL. Those decisions ... resulted in Operation Anaconda being planned and fought by a bifurcated and hopelessly confused and confusing command structure sitting on top of a force missing much of the combat power desired and requested by its commanders."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0425196097/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/104-5613649-7243164?%5Fencoding=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155

Mitch said,

"the Special Forces/SAS people in the Tora Bora WERE the leadership."

No Mitch. The Special Forces/SAS people in the Tora Bora were the assumed authority but I have news for you... these guys don't respect the US military as authority. They acted in their own best interests.

Bin Laden was at Tora Bora. We could have had him and he got away.

If it wasn't due to a poor decision to outsource the job, I guess it was just really bad military planning, really bad intelligence or maybe the decision to let him go was intentional.

Looks pretty bad any way you look at it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/

"No Mitch. The Special Forces/SAS people in the Tora Bora were the assumed authority but I have news for you... these guys don't respect the US military as authority. They acted in their own best interests."

Show me a source. No, not the Kerry Kampaign, a REAL source.

Mine: USSF troops in a number of books, most notably "Hunting Bin Laden".

"Bin Laden was at Tora Bora. We could have had him and he got away."

Wow - and they call *conservatives* the "101st Fighting Keyboards". I've seen armchair generals, but an armchair SF operator is a wonder to behold.

"If it wasn't due to a poor decision to outsource the job, I guess it was just really bad military planning, really bad intelligence or maybe the decision to let him go was intentional."

Or maybe - wait for it - the fog of war, and the fact that Bin Laden and associates were a skillful bunch. Shit happens.

"Looks pretty bad any way you look at it."

Especially if it's people who don't know what they're talking about doing the explaining.

"Especially if it's people who don't know what they're talking about doing the explaining."

How about a career CIA special forces intelligence officer? Is that good enough for 'ya Mitch?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62618-2002Apr16
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/index.html
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/4917.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200410/bergen

Oh... and here is an excellect example of why we, as Americans are in serious trouble... Enjoy

http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/bushspeechenergysep2705.wmv

You take your career intelligence officers (in branches of government traditionally hostile to the GOP), I'll take mine (among the professionals who were actually there).

Mitch, thanks for the good laugh this morning.

If you had bothered to follow the links, you would have noticed that the career intelligence officer that I am refering to was the CIA field commander at Tora Bora.

And the CIA is a branch of government traditionally hostile to the GOP?

Refresh my memory... What was one of President Bush's fathers jobs before he was the VP for Reagan?

Wasn't it director of... the FDA, FBI, AMA or something like that with three letters?

Help me out Mitch... What was it again?