Carol Platt Liebau: Knowing What's "Too Far"

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Knowing What's "Too Far"

Even a Democrat, Jack Spratt, has asked his fellow Dems to withdraw the partisan ad featuring soldiers' coffins that was discussed here this morning.

43 Comments:

Blogger Dittohead said...

Blaming all of Bush failures on a mother who lost her son in Iraq is good because it helps Republican's politically

Showing a flag-drapped-coffin is bad because it hurts the Republicans.

10:32 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

It's a matter of dignity and honor, Ditto, some things with which the Democrats have shown distinct unfamiliarity for quite some time.

5:29 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Bush showed flag-drapped-coffins in his 2004 campaign.

6:19 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Our president did it with respect, the democrat ad smacks of a mean-spirited,
nasty tone with no respect for the soldiers or their families.

7:11 AM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Dittohead, you might as well stop trying. Greg and Cliff have an acute case of IOKIYAR syndrome.

Democrats call the administration's handling of the Iraq war incompetent? Nasty Democrats--politicizing the war.

Republicans call Democrats cowards for wanting to set a withdrawal date? Thumbs up Republicans--good point.

Moral: It's OK if you're a Republican.

The Jersey Girls support John Kerry? Nasty Democrats--politicizing 9/11.

President Bush uses a child of a 9/11 victim in his campaign commercial? Thumbs up Republicans--captures the moment.

Moral: It's OK if you're a Republican.

Democrats show a flag-draped coffin in a web-only commercial? Nasty Democrats--politicizing the sacrifice of our troops.

President Bush shows a flag-draped coffin in a broadcast commercial? Thumbs up Republicans--excellent visuals.

Moral: It's OK if you're a Republican.

Overall moral: Carol, Greg, and Cliff don't give two patoots about respecting the troops or this particular commercial. They are all about generating faux outrage against Democrats and giving Republicans a pass.

7:53 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Mr. Twister, my son and about five of his friends joined the military within the past year. All of these fine young men graduated from H.S. with high GPA's and are very aware of the reasons and causes for the war on terror. Are you saying that
my wife and I, along with all of the other parents of soldiers, "don't give two patoots about respecting the troops"?

8:08 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

I never met a politican from any party that didn't tell me exactly what I wanted to hear and finished with a heart felt request for my money and my vote.

8:09 AM  
Blogger Greg said...

In addition to dignity and honor, there's also this:

Republicans tend to support the troops WINNING the war.

Democrats tend to support the troops LOSING the war.

These values are apparent in the way each party presents its case. Thankfully, most Americans are disgusted when the Democrats advocate defeat for American troops.

I can understand your frustrations, Ditto & Twister. You keep trying to bring down America and the American public keeps rejecting you. Yours is a tough world to live in.

8:23 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Ditto and Mr. Twister, Do either of you want America to win this war, or loose it? You can't have it both ways.

8:29 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Cliff,

Your question in itself shows you don't know what is going on. The US can not win a civil war in Iraq. It is not US's civil war.

Bush cut & ran from Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and now NATO is taking over there. Taliban & Al-Qaeda are now stronger than in 2001. Bush's policies are total failures. But as I said now NATO will take over in Afghanistan.

Al-Qaeda is the enemy and who are they? They are not a nation and don't have a military. So how about you tell me what strategies would work to end their influence.

9:14 AM  
Blogger suek said...

>>Democrats call the administration's handling of the Iraq war incompetent? Nasty Democrats--politicizing the war.

Republicans call Democrats cowards for wanting to set a withdrawal date? Thumbs up Republicans--good point.>>

Etc.

Moral equivalence - the inability to discriminate between value systems. The belief that all cultures are equal.

9:15 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Ditto asks,"Al-Qaeda is the enemy and who are they? They are not a nation and don't have a military. So how about you tell me what strategies would work to end their influence." The strategy
that works, is the one that
we are employing right now,
Going into Iraq, and taking
down Sadaam, "BEFORE he becomes an eminent threat"
as the president said in his address. It was a BRILLIANT move for our military to set up camp in the middle of the enemy's,
"living room." We set up a
"shooting gallery" if you
will, where, when the enemy
pops his head up, it's,
"putt-ding, putt-ding" like
sitting ducks. Do you see that?
As to whether or not Iraq was the cause for 9-11, that dosen't matter. Iraq was the center of Middle Eastern terrorism, and thats why our military set up camp there. Do you understand?

9:51 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Cliff,

In 2001, Al Qaeda had 3,000 to 5,000 members who had been trained. We've killed over 50,000. Who are we killing? Insurgents are not terrorists.

Hussein was in a box. Even Kuwait and Israel did not consider him a treat.

10:18 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Ditto said, "Bush cut & ran from Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and now NATO is taking over" Didn't people on your side of the arguement say that Bush was wrong to,"go it alone" eventhough he invited as many as were willing to join him in the war on terror, but now that NATO
wants to help, he is cutting and running? Ditto,
did you think about that before you posted?

10:18 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Cliff,

Come on. Bush cut & run from Afghanistan to invade Iraq in 2003. All that Bush did in Afghanistan was to secure one city, Kubal. He even said he was not concerned about bin Laden.

10:26 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Ditto, leaving aside the Commander and Chief for a moment, I have a question,
Do you think our military is staffed with soldiers who are professional and know what they are doing?

10:27 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Just as I said before, you NEVER answer direct questions. Why is that?

10:33 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

"Hussein was in a box. Even Kuwait and Israel did not consider him a treat."
Right, because he wasn't an
EMINENT threat! As the president said in his address, we need to take out Saddam, "BEFORE he becomes an eminent threat,"
which is EXACTLY what we did. Why do you have a problem with that?

10:46 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Mr. Twister, do you plan on answering my question above? Do you still think that military families,
"don't give two patoots about respecting the troops"?

11:55 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Cliff,

The Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war require an eminent threat. And that is the reason the intelligence was fixed around the policy. Forged yellow-cake documents, Joe Wilson & Valerie Plame, Downing Street Memos, WMDs, accepting the word of Curve Ball and Chalibi.

Supporting the troops is political bull. Unless one is nuts they support the troops. At the same time troops don't set policy the president does and he's a failure.

Iraq is not a military campagin. It is a civil war. This is what Murtha was screaming about last fall. Just last week Collin Powell said it's a civil war and nothing can be done, the various factions will have to fight it out. So what are the US troops to do? They can't take sides. They can't determine who is who. Rumsfeld himself said there is probably about 900 foreign fighters in Iraq but how does a soldier know a Sunni from a Shiite from a foreign fighter?

11:58 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

How about you Dittohead,
Are you planning on answering any queations,or are you going to avoid them also, on this subject as well as SEVERAL other topics elsewhere on Carol's
blog?

11:59 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Sorry, that should be,"questions"

12:00 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Ditto, caught you in a LIE! "The Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war require an eminent threat" President Bush said, "BEFORE HE (Saddam) BECOMES AN IMMINENT THREAT"!!! not afterward. Do you care to correct that?

12:07 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Cliff,

Do you want to be serious?

Any nation could become a imminent threat is the future. Fact is Iraq was not a threat. Don't you remember Bush's case for the war? Mushroom cloud and WMDs. Dead-wrong on both counts. And now we know Cheney cooked the intell.

We are back in to Vietnam era. Bush lied and troops die. As Kerry said, "Who wants to be the last man to die for a mistake".

12:14 PM  
Blogger The Flomblog said...

Cliff;

Your Son and his friends are a credit to you and their parents. I pray for thier safe return.

We have had to face the Dittoheads in every war we've fought. Their "michagas" (Yiddish for craziness) is the price we pay for our freedom.

G-d bless your family and friends

Flomblog!

12:21 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

As I mentioned before about the "Oil for Food"
program, Saddam was actively seeking WMD's from our "friends," France,
Germany and Russia, as well as Africa,
WHILE he was being sanctioned by the UN. Should we have waited for him to have used those weapons before going into Iraq or after he acquired a stockpile?

12:28 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Flomblog, thank you for your kind words and for being a "watchman" over our country!

12:31 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Cliff,

There were no WMDs.

Paul Volker investigated the food for oil. There is no evidence that money was used to aquire WMDs.

1:25 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

Any nation could become a imminent threat is the future.

Like Liechtenstein, for instance?

2:14 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Ditto, you're not paying attention! There didn't have to be any WMD's for us
to go to Iraq. Saddam was a
gathering threat to the world, his undercover attempt to acquire them from other countries was reason enough, but remember
we had the Iraq Liberation act of 1998 as enough reason to remove him from power, and no, I don't necessarily mean assassination either.

2:45 PM  
Blogger suek said...

>>There were no WMDs. >>


http://tinyurl.com/quc3z

http://tinyurl.com/yv8ef

http://tinyurl.com/j26xu

http://tinyurl.com/yrxlu

For starters...

2:50 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

suek,

Very lame.

There was a Congressional Arms committee hearing a couple of weeks ago, which is chaired by Duncan Hunter(R). They were investigating Senator Santorum's claim that WMDs had been found. Dr Kay said no WMDs were found that would meet those Bush referred to in the run up to the war.

Some WMDs found were from Iran-Iraq war but they were degraded and no more dangerous than chemicals found in the average American home.

3:22 PM  
Blogger suek said...

>>Some WMDs found were from Iran-Iraq war but they were degraded and no more dangerous than chemicals found in the average American home.>>

There are two things wrong with your statement:
1)to say that they were degraded to a point of being no longer dangerous is false. They may have no longer been effective weapons, but the chemicals they contained were _not_ safe.
2)their presence also proved two things: a)Saddam lied when he claimed that all the weapons had been destroyed, and b)the UN inspectors were duped into thinking there were no more weapons.

5:54 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Suek,

Perhaps you should email Duncan Hunter with your ideas.

6:18 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Cliff asks, "Are you saying that
my wife and I, along with all of the other parents of soldiers, 'don't give two patoots about respecting the troops'?"


That's precisely what I am saying. Your post here has absolutely nothing to do with supporting the troops and everything to do with partisan politics. Hiding behind the honorable service of your son and his friends marks you as an opportunist and nothing more.

7:58 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Here is an article that better articulates what I was writing before.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG15Ak01.html

8:05 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Mr. Twister, so I don't care about my own son or his friends? Wow, that's bold!

9:10 PM  
Blogger The Flomblog said...

Twister - you've said some outrageous things - but:

Hiding behind the honorable service of your son and his friends marks you as an opportunist and nothing more.

Is absolutely obscene. I am sure that these families wince every time the news comes on. I know exctly what their prayers are. Without their kids (And the paarent that raised them) The Nazi crematoriums would have completed their evil job. Germany and Berlin would still be divided.

It's is because of people youe you, twist, that millions of Cambodians were slaughtered.

That last remark aimed at Cliff was despicable!

8:19 AM  
Blogger suek said...

>>That last remark aimed at Cliff was despicable!>>

There are dhimmis and there are dummies. Most of both are also Demmies. There are those who would sap our efforts so that we lose in this war against militant Islam. They are either the enemy among us or are one of the 3 Ds. There are also those who worship life so that they place more value on it than on anything else - these are the ones who have the opinion that the only way to "support the troops" is to take them out of danger's way. For them, there is absolutely _nothing_ in life that is worth risking one's life for. There are also those who have as their motto "Give me liberty or give me death". These are the two basic underlying philosophies that are warring between the political parties in the US today.
It's pretty apparent within this small blog who's on which side.

9:06 AM  
Blogger The Flomblog said...

Suek, Well said

The Torah teaches us "To Choose Life" However when facing slavery, even the most devout are willing to forfeit their life.

The Code of Conduct which every GI memorizes starts:

I am an American. I serve in the forces which guard our country and our way of lie. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

In a culture that values life -- this is a stirring statement. These young men and women will even give their lives to defend dittohead and wrabkin's silliness.

Lets all remember these GI's AND THEIR PARENTS in our prayers

9:13 AM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

I do remember them in my prayers, try as you might to conflate my opposition to this war to denigration of them. That is the tactic of simple-minded dolts, and it generally works among the rank and file of the GOP.

I also pray that they may come home alive and not have to pay the ultimate price for the folly of the small, nearsighted, foolish chimp that you elected to be their Commander in Chief.

9:31 AM  
Blogger suek said...

>>I also pray that they may come home alive and not have to pay the ultimate price>>

Whatever your motivation, prayers are always appreciated.

>> for the folly of the small, nearsighted, foolish chimp that you elected to be their Commander in Chief.>>

All of us are subjected daily for calls to donate to charitable purposes. I think it's a given that many of those are worthwhile causes and many are conducted by charlatans whose favorite charity is themselves.
You have a choice...you can choose not to donate to _anybody_ because you can't tell the charlatans from the charities, or you can make the best choice you can and risk having made a bad one. The effects of making a bad choice mean that your dollars do no good, but it doesn't lessen whatever sacrifice you may have made in order to make the donation. By the same token, whether a soldier is killed by some weird accident on the training ground, or in some high level successful action against the enemy, the sacrifice of his life is equally worthwhile.
You may not value the decisions of the cic at this time - that's pretty obvious - but it doesn't lessen the value of service to their country. It's certainly within your right to change the cic, but until that change occurs, your patriotism is in question if you do not support the cic in office.
Don't bother with the usual ... I can't quite quote it by rote, but I know the jist of it.

10:38 AM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

Suk,

Were you alive and listening in the '90s? Would you please tell me the difference between what these "patriots" said then, during the quick, successful and relatively bloodless Kosovo campaign, and what is being said now during Bush's deadly boondoggle?
___________________

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

"You can support the troops but not the president"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

11:14 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google