Kinda tired, someone wanna tackle this from another board?

[Fuzz]

Thread started:

I often hear Liberals making un or anti American statements. They bash the troops, the mission of the troops, the country in general and then say they can't be called un-American because it's their right to disent, and that disent is actually a good thing.

My question is why is the smae thing not true when discussing other subjects.

If I say I am against gay marriage it proves I am a homophobe.

When Imus uses the word nappy headed hos, it proves he is a racist.

The fact that Bush has My Sarona on his Ipod proves he's into little girls and that most of the artists on his Ipod are white and/or male it proved he was a racist and a sexist.

Why then does saying un or anti American things prove one to be un or anti american?
-----------

Couple agreement replies.

Same guy posted:

im, I'm not talking about saying you disagree with the war. I'm talking about saying and doing things that endanger the troops by giving the emeny
propaganda victories. I am also talking about people that bash the president and the war effort for purely political gain (hilary comes to mind).

I am also talking about how those on the left will damn someone for one mispoken comment as proff positive that someone is a racist etc but when they do the same thing (like Kerry or Murtha) they don't want that same standard applied to them or theirs.

I would also disagree with you about things going sky high (i assume that means the economy is bad??) but you were dead on about being in a war.

To me there are two positions that are okay when discussing the war:
1- you were for it ffom the start
2- you were against it from the start

The most reprehensible position is that of almost every dem in the house and senate which is to have voted for it and now be against it.

At best they sent people to die without understanding what war costs and how long it takes. At worst they sent people to die in order to do what was popular (and it was) at the time, and now they are trying to get us to loose so they can win the white house in "08.

Joe biden and another dem candidate (ne of the bottom ones from the seante that I can't even think of at the moment) wrotw an op ed that said they were for the war and that it would take at least 10 years to win in Iraq and they were in it for the long haul. less then 3 years later they changed their position when the war became unpopular (mostly due to media spin in my oppinion).


Also, while Bush has been a disapointment to me too, he's miles ahead of where gore or Kerry would have taken us.
-----------------------
I posted:

I'll leave with you a few quotes from people bashing the president while troops were in the field.

With a couple dozen quotes from republicans like "we can support the troops without supporting the president" from Delay, etc that came from the late 90's during the Kosovo conflict with dates of the quotes.
----------------
Dude responds with:

I'd bet many of those quotes are taken out of context or took place after the war. They don't come close to a fraction of what dem legislaters have said (much less left wing pundits and commentators).

THe left hates bush because he beat their guy, twice.

Why do you always see anti Bush signs at rallies for illegal imigration when he's their biggest supporter?

Bush is stupid is the stupid joke that stupid people can tell and laugh at according to Christopher Hitchins (i think that's who it was).
---------------

My response:

You would bet? Seriously? Do a little research. I remember this quite clearly. Of course your definition of out of contest would matter in such a bet. We can support our troops without supporting our troops? What context would that be appropriate? Actually, I find the quote fine, it's just he hypocrisy I find astounding. At least be consistent, and that goes for everyone. Don't let bias cloud your judgement.
---------------

His response:

So you are saying ever quote you posted happen during the war being refered to in the quote? Serriously? Where did you find them? Independant research? LOL

That you would point the finger of hypocrisy anywhere but the dems in congress should be astonishing, but the denial that liberals live in has stopped surprising me.
----------------------

So, my quotes weren't accurate because they may have been repeated or cataloged by a liberal.

My last response:

I'm saying that hypocrisy know no political party and that you have only seen it where it fits your world view.
---------------------

Then another dude responds with:

Your argument is flawed in so many ways.

First, the 1995 and 1999 bombings in Bosnia and Kosovo were done under the auspices of NATO, and not the United States Military. Secondly - and someone correct me if I'm wrong - Clinton did not consult congress, did not get a declaration of war, nor did he get an approval for the use of force before engaging in the 1999 bombings. he then sent in US troops as peacekeepers, placing boots on the ground also without getting approval from congress.

Nor did Clinton get authorization from the UN Security Council.

Not only did George Bush get approval from congress before going into Iraq, he also went to the UN Security council, made the case, and got specific language from a UN mandate that bolstered the legitimacy of the overturn of former Iraqi regime.

What a lot of the Republicans objected to was the use of US troops as peace keepers under UN authority.

So, in short, while Democrats falsely accuse Bush of starting an illegal war, Bill Clinton actually did it.

The United States has virtually no interest in the Balkans - everybody knew this at the time, and virtually everyone knows this now. Yet Clinton decided to engage US troops in a war. Contrast this with Bush's invasion of Iraq in which:

1) Iraq had been a long-time sponsor of terrorism (namely Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, and numerous others).

2) Iraq did have ties with Al Qaeda. In fact Richard Clarke - the sole source that most delusional Bush-haters point to as an authority in terrorism - admits that Iraq DID have some joint operations with Al Qaeda concerning the manufacture of chemical weapons in the Sudan. This was the infamous "Asprin Factory" that Clinton had bombed.

3) If you review this history of Iraq post the 1991 Cease-fire agreement, they not only violated this several times over, but also engaged in developing and attempting to deploy chemical weapons (especially VX nerve gas) during the Clinton era. In fact, numerous government documents, specifically the Iraq Survey Group, highlights Iraq's ability to reconstitute many of it's WMD programs (specifically Mustard and Sarin gas production) in the range of days and weeks.

4) We've actually found WMDs in Iraq, and have annouced it. In fact, both the Iraq Survey Group Report AND the now infamous Negroponte memo - both official government documents - state unquestionably that we have found Sarin and Mustard gas shells in Iraq. This is an outright violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement.

5) One of the justifications for one of Clinton's bombing attacks was because Iraq had deployed hit-squads into this country to kill former president Bush (Bush 41).

6) During Clinton's term, notable congressional figures - Senator Carl Levin being one - sent a signed letter to then President Bill Clinton urging military action against Iraq.

Taken out of context - which is what most liberal hack sites like Kos do - these quotes you cite seem a bit damning. However, when placed in their proper perspective, they don't amount to much. This is opposed to the NUMEROUS Democrats who have basically called our troops Nazis (Durbin), terrorists (Kerry), and murderers (Murtha).

Of your quotes, there are a few that I'd like to highlight. The first:

Quote:
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."

-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush


The mission for the troops in Iraq anf Afghanistan was clear, and is still clear today: overturn the ruling regimes. This goal was achieved. The exit strategy is to establish a stable democratic state that is able to govern itself, and does not pose a legitimate threat to the US or the region.

Clinton, when he presented his strategy on Kosovo, was to bomb and bomb some more until something happened.


Quote:
"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"

-Pat Buchanan (R)


He was also against going into Iraq.

Quote:
"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years"

-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)


Funny thing is, he was correct: we're still there. From what I heard we've got some 50,000 troops there. We haven't left Germany or Japan either.

Finally, after looking over some of the quotes, I find them to be a bit far-reaching. Democrats right now are not just criticizing the President and his foreign policy, but they are PROMOTING withdrawl and ANNOUNCING DEFEAT.

Show me where, in all these quotes, Republicans are doing that.

One last point. In the following quotes:

Quote:
"Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started"

-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)


These appeart to be factually correct. Clinton's NATO bombing campaign - initiated to stop the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans - in some ways promoted additional cleansings (Pec) and expulsions of Albanians from Serbia.
----------------------


Then something even funnier happens, another guy praises that last guy for his sources, what sources? the quotes I typed?
----------------

Another post later in the thread:

It wouldn't have mattered if Iraq nuked the Unites States, the same people would be saying the same things about Bush as they are now, except with a different storyline.

This whole anti-war protest stuff has nothing to do with the security of the United States, a vision of a different way to do things, or even about what's best for the country. It all has to do with a bunch of communists and socialists trying to obtain power.

Go back and take a good look at the Marxists of the early 1900s - they preached the same exact drivel as they do now. Look at the results: Soviet Russia, Communist China, Communist Cuba, Communist Vietnam, the Kamur Rouge, and so on.

You should always fear the man who comes to you preaching peace and equity at all costs.
----------------------

And another:

Also, Clinton gave a no-bid contract to...can you guess? HALIBURTON! Why would he do that? The same reason Bush did it. They are the only company capable of supplying what is needed.
---------------------

It's like they can't even stay on topic, just throwing in any freakin' right wing talking point they can think of at the moment. And the weird thing is, all I did was show them some quotes, but of course, they can't accept them as being in any way the same or even close.

It's strange.

Thought I'd share. And if you read this far, WOW! :D

I don't want to argue with these guys, just point out facts.

Gotta take a nap now.

[Warpy]

1. Unless you enjoy the nausea that comes from going around

in circle after circle every time some wingnut goes off topic because he's getting licked on the last topic, please end this now.

All you need to do is reply with a list of things that you were right about and he was wrong about. After each one just say, "I was right and you were wrong."

Then post the quote about how doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is one definition of insanity.

Then invoke Mr. Block.

[walldude]

2. You can't "point out the facts" to these people

they don't care about the facts. If the facts get in the way of their rhetoric they will drape themselves in the flag. They talk about liberals "bashing the troops". Make them prove it. Find me one actual liberal who bashes the troops. I'm not talking about some far left nut case or someone bashing the soldiers who raped and killed a little girl and her family, I want to see one person who bashes a soldier for doing his job. Let them find me one...

[DCKit]

3. Highly entertaining, but YIKES, how can you deal with that for any length of time?

And how dare you asnwar they're qestuns in goood Engrish. Elitist.

[Fuzz]

4. I like these guys, it's a freakin' cigar board though.

I love cigars, and they can be great guys to talk about, share cigars, trade cigars, etc, but every once in a while they bring up some shit like this and I have avoided responding, but I had a few drinks one night and just couldn't resist. I wish I had.

[ceile]

5. That was painful.

I need an aspirin.

[Fuzz]

7. Sorry

:(

I did too actually.

There was actually more.

I tried to explain what happened to my wife, and I couldn't even do it.

[yardwork]

6. I learned something new!

The fact that Bush has My Sarona on his Ipod proves he's into little girls

[treestar]

8. About "bashing" the troops

Point out to them they are the ones thinking the troops are made up of individuals so weak, that they cannot take it if Americans exercise the rights they claim they are fighting for.

They have a thing about being the toughest, strongest bully on the block. It is what they project onto the U.S. and onto the troops. So the troops can't take being not even being called names, buit just somebody saying the political decision for the war was wrong? These troops will cower in the face of Muslim terrorists because somebody in the U.S. doesn't agree with the need for the war?

Also there are many who are even in the military who realize that the war is not really necessary to "defend our way of life."

They try to control the discussion by making you accept the premise that we will be taken over by Muslim terrorists if we get out of Iraq or never went there. Ludicrous on the face of it.

[lonestarnot]

9. I want to take a nap.

:cry:

[DaveJ]

10. I would say if the majority of people have time to sit around...

..arguing about the justification of this war (with a lack of clear and unified national support and sense of eminent danger) then the war is certainly unnecessary.


Everything else they spout is deviation from the topic. That's their main weakness, is that they can't stay on one topic at a time.

[Fuzz]

11. I got SUCKED back in

with this:

Rug, I was just going to let this drop, as I try to make it a policy to never respond to political posts on a cigar message board because I prefer to keep it to cigars. But, I had a couple martinis, my usual weakness and I found myself responding against my better judgment. I realize I'm in the political minority here, but I don't start threads where I lob a hand grenade, accuse someone I disagree with politically of something that can easily be interpreted at offensive and try to start a flame war. This is a damn cigar forum.

That's number one.

Number two.I found this last comment a bit out of line.

Quote:
That wasn't what you were sayng at all. You were saying all your quotes were good and that I should do some research to imply I didn't know what I was talking about.

I called you on it and you changed the subject.


I changed the subject? I made no more posts. I don't know why I need to point out the progression of the thread because it's all there plain as day, but I was responding originally to:

rugrunner wrote:
Jim, I'm not talking about saying you disagree with the war. I'm talking about saying and doing things that endanger the troops by giving the emeny
propaganda victories. I am also talking about people that bash the president and the war effort for purely political gain (hilary comes to mind).


I then displayed quotes, most with dates, from Republicans and/or conservatives who made very disparaging comments about our policies during the Kosovo conflict. You wrote them off, out of hand, as being incorrect, out of context and compiled by a liberal source, not even considering that they were correct, even though they were in quotes, again, most with dates and easily verifiable.

I also did not say that I supported the operation in Kosovo, merely that the opposition party at the time did not and made it well known with their comments.

I realize that you may agree with one side and disagree with another side, but don't let disagreements cloud your judgment so much as to not see that these freakin' bastards play the same damn game.

I said that hypocrisy knows no party, yes, that's not changing the subject, it's seeing reality.

I've tried hard to stay on subject, and I think the three posts prior to this have. I tried to keep this one on subject as well, not sure if I was as successful.