Why would Blair call the bluff??? He's the leader of the Labour Party in the UK (he's a lefty). The left ends up looking good either way because they still win the economy debate after the war is over. The left opposes this crappy economy more than the invasion. The invasion is a sure thing (which is why Blair is tagging along) whereas the economy is something the the Bushies have never done well with. The left knows this and brings it up at every turn. Just look at any of the "candidate speak" as of late.
heads = hawks win, tails = doves lose
- Thread starter darkhorse
- Start date
Why would Blair call the bluff??? He's the leader of the Labour Party in the UK (he's a lefty). The left ends up looking good either way because they still win the economy debate after the war is over. The left opposes this crappy economy more than the invasion. The invasion is a sure thing (which is why Blair is tagging along) whereas the economy is something the the Bushies have never done well with. The left knows this and brings it up at every turn. Just look at any of the "candidate speak" as of late.
BLAIR is not a true "leftie" because he has too much common decency to go along with the likes of Schroeder in Germany and Daschle in the U.S. Just because he is in the Labour party doesn't mean he has totally lost his mind.
People are showing their true colors over this conflict, Blair has redeemed himself and the rest are imploding.
People are showing their true colors over this conflict, Blair has redeemed himself and the rest are imploding.
You're right about people's true colors showing up. My point is that true leaders lead regardless of polls. Bush should have done this earlier, with or without the UN, and he shouldn't have pulled any of his punches along the way. I think he waited until the poll numbers moved far enough in his direction and that's why he felt he had to go the Powell route and head back to the UN.
The American people know that Iraq needs to be liberated and Bush should have launched this no later than 8 months after 911. Just look at the poll numbers before and after he spoke a few days ago... it went from 54% to 71% approval.
Umm, would this be the same Ariana Huffington who recently bankrolled t.v. commercials featuring blood spurting gas pumps, trying to argue that SUV drivers are indirect sponsors of terrorism?
Yeah, she's real on the level, not kooky at all. Her and her husband were political players for about fifteen minutes, but now that she's out of the spotlight, she's gone section eight. Hence her new ideological outfit. It's a clown suit with neon polka dots, but hey, it got YOUR attention, right?
The nutshell charge of the Huffy cut and paste seems to be "Bush got us into this war to make his friends rich." Which, on the face of it, seems to be a pretty lameass argument- first and foremost because it shoves aside all the other ten foot tall legitimate arguments. Second of all because most are in agreement that this war, and the rebuilding to follow, will be a major economic drain on the United States at a very inopportune time which, as someone pointed out on this thread already, is likely to put Bush's butt in a sling come 2004 when the economy is still sucking wind.
So Bush is willing to risk added economic hardship and jeopardize his own re-election (and put troops in harms way) just to help out a few buddies who have no loyalty alternatives in the first place? Honest Abe or Machiavelli, doesn't make sense either way.
I think we're going to hear this same tired money criticism over and over again from the left as time goes on. It's the kinder, gentler version of the blood for oil argument. "If we can't smear them for being blood sucking oil vampires, let's smear them for trying to make money on the rebuilding process!"
This is just butt stupid. If we are going to rebuild Iraq efficiently and effectively, we are going to have to involve private enterprise. And the whole point of being in private enterprise is to make money. (I generally don't work for free. Do you?) If the government said 'we want to rebuild Iraq but make sure no one who is involved makes a profit of any kind,' who would they get? Habitat for Humanity? The idea that it's wrong to make a fair profit for providing a good or service is pathetic, puerile ignorance. The left wouldn't disagree with that statement outright, but they disagree with it in their thought processes all the time. And it shows through. And that's what Kinsley- I mean Huffington- suggested loud and clear in that cut and paste.
Repeat after me:
Capitalism is good. It gets things done.
p.s. Nice sleight of hand from Huffington, making us wring our hands for the poor children of California and Oregon (so now the government should be bailing out the states who went on wild spending sprees in the late 90's and blew their huge surpluses) and the poor Americans without public medical care (last I checked we didn't have a socialist health care system like Canada's). She's about as conservative as Che Guevara.
p.p.s. I'm not a republican (nor a democrat, nor a libertarian). I'm not even sure the label 'conservative' fits anymore, since conservatives are the ones who want to shake things up while liberals are fighting for the status quo.
You bring up some good points, but I think you are over-generalizing some of the thoughts that the liberals hold. I consider myself a libertarian, but I do hold some liberal views on certain issues. First, let's get a few facts straight:
1) Yes, Saddam and his regime has tortured innocent people and he has killed many of his own people
It is great that we're finally getting in there and putting a stop to this, but frankly why haven't we done this with every other totalitarian regime? I think there are two very strong reasons why we are in Iraq right now and not North Korea. First, Iraq can't really challenge us. Second, North Korea has no real natural resources when compared with Iraq.
However, which country is truly the greater threat to our society? Is it Saddam's weapons and possible future intentions of using them, or is it N.K's massive army and state-of-the-art weapons stockpile and that leader's very strong hatred towards this country?
2) This war is going to cost A LOT -- up to a trillion dollars possibly.
Bill O'Reilly mentioned this during his no-spin zone. He was angry with a lot of newspapers giving coverage to these secondary questions. He even said, "Who cares how much this war cost!! That shouldn't even be a question that is being printed in the papers!" (quote not verbatim). Well, I think it is a very important issue. We're going to get another terrorist attack -- it is only a matter of time. What is going to happen when the hit our largest nuclear reactor and take out 3.8 gigawatts of power? (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_21-3-2003_pg4_2)
3) Diplomatic fallout
The United States has acted basically alone with token support from a few very close allies save for Britain. After everything is said and done, we're going to have to repair a lot of the damage that this war will cause on our reputation. Some of that damage may be stains that never come out of the carpet, either.
I don't agree with the "blood for oil" argument. It is hypocrisy at its finest. These people live in lala land and probably drove to the rallies in gas guzzling SUVs. I'm not so stupid and naive to realize that, yes, oil is definitely a part of the equation. We're not trying to annex the oil -- we're trying to stabilize that region and, in the process, release a tyrant from his office. That's a win-win situation as I see it, but many people just want to run around and carry a sign because "oh my, war is bad, but its ok if people I'll never know or see get razor sharp rods shoved up their asses while watching their daughters get raped and killed." It is convenient to live in luxury and carry a sign around in complete ignorance of what the REAL truth is.
However, this war is going to cost serious money. If one thing goes wrong in this war that is considered major in severity AND if we get another major terrorist attack, this economy is going to eventually collapse and we're going to see some REAL depression. This isn't some pie in the sky scenario, either -- this is a possibility that could happen if all the wrong things happen at all the wrong times.
But in the end, Darkhorse, I don't think you can look at a few extreme liberals and paint the entire democratic party an ugly color. There are many moderate democrats that fully support Bush and our troops. I am one of them. I'd rather war not exist in this world, but I am also not so naive as to realize that war will always be around so long as humans are. Any hard-core liberal who carries a sign around shouting how bad war is should crack open a history book and realize that it was war that enabled them to carry that sign freely in the first place.
All I have to say is:
GO USA!
and
Godbless the innocent!
Dark,
Always a pleasure to see you back in the fray.
I agree. Huffington is a kook. I am not and never was a fan of hers in any of her incarnations.
I guess the purpose (my purpose) of the post was FAR to subtle, and I shouldn't have wasted the time and space to do it.
My point was not about what this whacked out woman said. It was to show that things change, people change and policies and beliefs change.
An open mind is a working mind. A closed mind is a waste of space between a pair of ears. I can't help but thinking about and coming back to Mondo Trader's post in which he said that half the American Democrats should be in jail for sedition. Has a more stupid and insulting statement ever been made on ET (in a serious manner)? Is this not Hitler in the late 1920's?
As for the rebuilding of Iraq.....well it is late and I am too tired to read Huffington's column again. But I am quite sure she never implied that it should be done NOT FOR PROFIT. If I recall, she just made an observation (true or not, I have no way of knowing) that the work has already been doled out and not on the basis of open bidding, but on the basis of political contributions. Again, I have no idea if she is just making it up as she goes along or if she actually knows something we do not.
As far as the students in Oregon and California. Here I do disagree with you. Because no matter how wasteful, how incompetent, those who were fiscally irresponsible were to bring about this situation, one thing is clear. IT WAS NOT THE KIDS THAT FUCKED UP. So why should they pay? While we have the money for books and supplies for Iraq, and not for our own kids? Do I sound too "liberal" now?
Once again, I hate being labeled. Because even I don't know how to paint myself. Yet Mondo and so many others have me all figured out. Good thing I know better than to listen to people incapable of thought.
Dark, if I need to be labeled, I would trust your judgement. Tell me what i am, and I will try to live up to it. But not the labels of a Mondo Trader or AAA in the Beltway or whatever his name is. Not any more than I would want to be labeled by any extreme left wing nut. Extremists offend me. As do those who have no opinions at all. Just as long as there is thinking going on, I can tolerate anyone's opinions. And give consideration to them.
Always a pleasure to read your posts, Darkhorse. I miss you when you go "off the air" I need you to help stimulate my tired old brain.
Peace,
rs7
This is a whole other kettle o' fish- but my initial response would be to point out that wasteful politicians and the public school system itself is actually the root of the problem, which boils down to an accountability problem, pure and simple. When you have no accountability, money is not the ultimate issue because additional amounts of it will only end up being wasted as well. (On a side note, I would love to get a straight answer from the NEA as to why inner city parents are far and away the strongest and most unanimous supporters of vouchers and school choice- and why they are being ignored.)
I feel sorry for those kids too. But handing a bigger check to profligate politicians is not the answer. There is simply not enough money to go around to paper over all the screwups that have hurt innocent people. Life has consequences that have to be dealt with. Handouts are not the answer. Getting to the root of the problem is the answer. Compassion without realism often winds up doing more harm than good.
Good point...
BTW, Blair certainly is entitled to a Nobel prize for being an outstandingly honest politician.
At great cost and risk to himself he stood firm because he felt his outlook was right.
He is a great man, one of the very few politicians who is honest
and prepared to take what he considers is correct action.
freealways
At great cost and risk to himself he stood firm because he felt his outlook was right.
He is a great man, one of the very few politicians who is honest
and prepared to take what he considers is correct action.
freealways