The day reality hit home for a former far left liberal

Posted by: ST on August 19, 2007 at 4:41 pm

The Obserer/Guardian has a must read piece up – three parts actually – written by a former liberal, Andrew Anthony, whose journey to ‘former’ liberal began one Tuesday morning early in September of 2001, and who has chronicled that journey in an upcoming book, parts of which are reprinted in the Guardian links. The first part is here, and the links to the other two are at the bottom of the page. An excerpt:

In the end I reached the conclusion that 11 September had already brutally confirmed: there were other forces, far more malign than America, that lay in wait in the world. But having faced up to the basic issue of comparative international threats, could I stop the political reassessment there? If I had been wrong about the relative danger of America, could I be wrong about all the other things I previously held to be true? I tried hard to suppress this thought, to ring-fence the global situation, grant it exceptional status and keep it in a separate part of my mind. I had too much vested in my image of myself as a ‘liberal’. I had bought into the idea, for instance, that all social ills stemmed from inequality and racism. I knew that crime was solely a function of poverty. That to be British was cause for shame, never pride. And to be white was to bear an unshakable burden of guilt. I held the view, or at least was unprepared to challenge it, that it was wrong to single out any culture for censure, except, of course, Western culture, which should be admonished at every opportunity. I was confident, too, that Israel was the source of most of the troubles in the Middle East. These were non-negotiables for any right-thinking decent person. I couldn’t question these received wisdoms without questioning my own identity. And I had grown too comfortable with seeing myself as one of the good guys, the well-meaning people, to want to do anything that upset that image. I viewed myself as understanding, and to maintain that self-perception it was imperative that I didn’t try to understand myself.

In a sense 11 September was the ultimate mugging, a murderous assertion of a new reality, or rather a reality that already existed but which we preferred not to see. Over the years I had absorbed a notion of liberalism that was passive, defeatist, guilt-ridden. Feelings of guilt governed my world view: post-colonial guilt, white guilt, middle-class guilt, British guilt. But if I was guilty, 9/11 shattered my innocence. More than anything it challenged us all to wake up and open our eyes to what was real. It took me far too long to meet that challenge. For while I realised almost straight away that 9/11 would change the world, it would be several years before I accepted that it had also changed me. I had been wrong. This was my story, after all.

Normblog has another excerpt of the book – not published in the Observer/Guardian – here.

The three-parter really slams home the contrast of modern day pacifist liberalism versus the modern day ‘cowboy diplomacy’ of conservatism, and not just as it relates to responding to terrorist attacks, but on a general level of good versus evil, and how we should respond to it. Anthony was your classic hate-America lefty, who blamed all the world’s ills on none other than the US, but who found himself at odds with his beliefs the day he watched America get attacked by terrorists using commerical airplanes as weapons.

If he lived in the US, he’d be known as a 9-11 Democrat, a liberal whose worldview changed once they saw for themselves the brutal, horrific consequences of inaction in the face of a brutal enemy who had been well known by the world’s superpower for years, yet had been allowed to remain free by that same superpower, a superpower that was hamstrung by indecisiveness, political correctness, a belief that terrorism was an issue best handled by law enforcement, and an unwillingness to fully utilize its intelligence agencies and military power for what it exists to do: to study, seek out, find, and destroy those who desire to punish this country for its western values, its way of life.

Becoming a 9-11 Democrat should have been a no-brainer to the left after 9-11. Because regardless of politics, there was only one sure and appropriate response in the aftermath that we should have all been able to agree on, and that was to go after terrorists and their organizations wherever they hide, make sure they knew in no uncertain terms that America would do whatever it took to prevent another 9-11 style attack from happening on its soil. For a couple of months, even hardcore anti-Bush partisans in Congress were 9-11 Democrats, but after the shock of seeing 3000 die on our own soil in the most devastating attack since Pearl Harbor wore off, the “rally around the flag” mentality faded into obscurity, to be replaced with a level of wartime partisanship that would have been unheard of and frowned upon greatly in the WWII era, starting with charges that the President “knew” about 9-11 in advance and did nothing, a charge that was levelled by Bush-hating Democrats just months after 9-11.

I will never forget the picture of Hillary Clinton standing in the Senate, holding up the front page of the New York Post in May 2002, which bore the headline that read simply “Bush Knew.” That picture (which I can’t find at the moment) came to symbolize to me how the Democrats in Congress were more interested in politicizing the tragedy – ironically, something they later accused the administration of doing – than responding to it forcefully and directly, in the way any honest, decent American, Democrat or Republican, should do in the face of the tragedies that had happened in New York, DC, and PA.

And they haven’t stopped politicizing it, nor ceased blaming the President for it, ever since. The Bush hatred that was alive and well after he ‘stole’ the 2000 elections, but which subsided for a couple of months after 9-11, was back with a vengeance shortly thereafter and it continues unabated today. It shouldn’t have to be that way, because responding to evil in a manner that evildoers understand shouldn’t be a right or left issue. Sure, there are going to be strong disagreements, and there shouldn’t be any ‘blank checks’ but in the process of having those disagreements and debates, the Democrats’ focus should never have been taken off of the real enemy (Islamofascism) and put on to their perceived enemy (George W. Bush). The left made the war on terror a partisan fight when they started blaming the President for 9-11, and started treating him as a bigger enemy to freedom than the terrorists themselves because of warrantless wiretaps, etc.

Think about it: The few sane Democrats who could be described as 9-11 Democrats, like Joe Lieberman, are shunned and scorned as traitors to their party, simply because Joe Lieberman – for all his faults, and there are many – doesn’t subscribe to the defeatist, fatalistic, ‘all we have to do is be nice to people and they’ll leave us alone’ mentality that has taken root not just in the ‘fringe’ of the Democratic party, but the mainstream. Even critics of the administration’s approach to the war on terror, whether it be the overall handling of it or how they’ve handled post-war Iraq, who have recently admitted that in spite of all the negativity they’ve heard and talked about in the past as it relates to the war on Iraq, the surge is producing positive results, and that some elements of it are working, are downplayed as people who were ‘never really war critics to begin with’ or whose opinions are potrayed by a desperate far left as ‘insignificant in the overall scheme of things.’ And those in Congress who don’t march lockstep with the far left on war on terror issues are targeted, too, as traitors.

This is, sadly, the face of a party that cares more about winning elections and resuming/keeping its ‘rightful’ majority place in Congress than it does concentrating on the real enemy, which is not President Bush. If the left had spent more time offering up solutions for what they’ve seen as us ‘losing’ the war on terror at large, and in Iraq, and had approached the issues in a “we can win this thing, and here’s how we can do it” way, instead of a “we can’t win, we must take this law off the books, tie the President’s hands so he can’t effectively use the wartime powers a CIC has at his disposal, we must bring the troops home, no matter the very strong possibility that genocide will occur afterwards” approach, that would go a long way towards quelling the charges that they are weak, defeatist, doing everything for political gain, and playing into the hands of the enemy. But if they did so, they’d know that showing strength in a time when our country demands it is a sign of ‘warmongering’ to their lose-at-any-cost base, and they’d rather court the base and vilify the CIC as someone who is using his powers as CIC to ‘steal your rights’ rather than tell them – as Lieberman has – that the McGovernesque approach to fighting wars works about as well today as it did during Vietnam.

I daresay that if this country had a lot more Liebermans – and Andrew Anthonys – in Congress, we’d be a hell of a lot closer to winning this war than we are now, and the enemy would know without a doubt that in spite of the differences the parties hold in Washington, DC, that in a time of war we will not be divided, that we will stand together, shoulder to shoulder, and offer up competing ideas that we can all find common ground on, in order to defeat terrorism, And not just defeat those who engage in it, but the ideology of terrorism, commonly known as Islamofascism, as well.

Hey, a girl can dream, can’t she?

Others blogging about this: Jules Crittenden, Dan Collins at Protein Wisdom, Flopping Aces, USS Neverdock

RSS feed for comments on this post.


45 Responses to “The day reality hit home for a former far left liberal”


  1. stackja says:

    “Becoming a 9-11 Democrat should have been a no-brainer to the left after 9-11.”
    Assuming they have brains.

    The man who is not a socialist at 20 has no heart, but if he is still a socialist at 40 he has no head.

    The quote attributed to Aristide Briand (1862 – 1932) [French premier and former socialist]

  2. camojack says:

    My favorite former liberal is “neo-neocon”…to whom you have a link already. However, it’s outdated; the new website is HERE

  3. Terrye says:

    I know I never saw the world the same after that day.

    But the truth is it is not only the Democrats who have played politics with all this. Look at the way some on the right treat John McCain. The man was a POW for years and has been a strong supporter of the war on terror. However, that did not keep people from calling him a traitor when he failed to do their bidding. And when Noonan and Malkin go out of their way to attack Bush they are only feeding into that leftist fantasy of Bush the divider, etc.

    So I would say that while it is true partisan Democrats put politics before everything else, I would say they are not the only ones. Sadly.

  4. Rovin says:

    Excellent synopsis Sis.

    The paradox is when under a united government that puts it’s peoples concerns ahead of political ambitions, our enemies are at a disadvantage and should be easily defeated.

    While the priority of this nation should be for the safety and security that would prevent another 9/11, (and George W. Bush along with many other leaders have not forsaken this priority), there are those among us that are blinded by their greed for power.

    There is a growing number of Lieberman’s and blue dog democrats that understand this threat and the necessity for a stable and free Iraq. They are willing to put aside their political differences for the greater good of this nation as a whole.

    There is still hope…….that “a girls dreams” can come true when it becomes the dreams of those united for the same result.

  5. tommy in nyc says:

    Well ST can dream all she wishes but personally I think Michael Vick would be named the ASPCA’S doglover of the year sooner than Bush 43 and his cronies will bring this country together on this fight against terrorism. He simply doesn’t have any credibilty at all. Hopefully when we on the left regain the Oval Office this nation will be to straighten out his screwups. ST is still cool in my book though misguided but OK.

  6. PCD says:

    5, Tommy, you mean if the Defeatocrats take the White House in 08, run from the War on Terror as fast as they can, that we will be fighting Islamofascists in our streets because you Democrat won’t build a fence on the Mexican Border nor keep out terrorists, because you people believe we deserve what we get from them.

  7. Great White Rat says:

    Rovin says:

    There is a growing number of Lieberman’s and blue dog democrats that understand this threat and the necessity for a stable and free Iraq.

    Correct, and a very timely lead-in to the latest commentary by Senator Lieberman in today’s WSJ: Al Qaeda’s travel agent

    This time, Lieberman is focusing on the way AQ is using Damascus International Airport to funnel terrorists into Iraq. Among the high points:

    Thanks to Gen. David Petraeus’s new counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, and the strength and skill of the American soldiers fighting there, al Qaeda in Iraq is now being routed from its former strongholds

    That’s gotta have the pro-surrender Democrats like Tommy steaming….

    Recently declassified American intelligence reveals just how much al Qaeda in Iraq is dependent for its survival on the support it receives from the broader, global al Qaeda network, and how most of that support flows into Iraq through one country–Syria.

    In other words, we’re not fighting the Iraqis…we’re fighting Al Qaeda’s minions. Which is what we should be doing in the WOT.

    I wish the administration made the case for pressing home the war against islamofasicsm as often and as clearly as Lieberman does. There’d be a lot more popular support for it.

  8. Great White Rat says:

    tommy’s back in his usual delusional mode:

    Hopefully when we on the left regain the Oval Office this nation will be to straighten out his screwups

    Wanna tell us how, Tommy? So far the only plan we’ve heard from you is right out of Monty Python and the Holy Grail: “Run away! Run away!”

    The left’s timing is awful, as usual. Consider: first, Pelosi puts on the garb of feminine submmission and grovels at the feel of Bashir Assad. Next, Obama clucks about how he’d love to meet with the same dictators who supply AQ and discuss what concessions they’d like to see from us. So what happens right after that? The report on how Syria is working with AQ to create trouble in Iraq.

    If you don’t want us fighting AQ overseas, you leftists have a responsibility to offer a plan to keep them from attacking us here. So far, tommy and the rest of the left have not shown any intelligent appreciation of the threat we face from AQ. They haven’t shown any inclination to realize this will be a long struggle. And they haven’t shown that they have the battlefield guts to take the war to the enemy.

    The left has a true Wizard of Oz approach to terrorism: no brains, no heart, and no courage.

  9. tommy in nyc says:

    Heck in the previous 9 days two Governors and one police chief in Southern Iraq just got whacked. Now I don’t know exactly this fact inspires confidence in the Iraqi Security Forces when these cats can’t even keep the Governor breathing. Also it simply points out that the possibilty of a pro-Western secular democracy with the ability to secure it’s own borders and provide basic services to it’s citizens is probably DECADES away.not years,or months,or maybe not ever. Wake up laddies.

  10. TedintheShed says:


    I can’t speak for anyone else, but when it became apparent that 9/11 was perpetrated by terrorist I became all too aware that the yet to be named Global War on Terror was going to go on for at least a genereration.

    I have no issues with that.


  11. PCD says:

    Tommy, other than running away, what is your plan? What is your plan to deal with the Islamofascists? They won’t sit around the water bong with you.

  12. tommy in nyc says:

    Well sadly this nation is stuck in Iraq as long as 43 is president. Long term solution would to be breaking up Iraq the same way Yugoslavia was after Tito died. This will take time of course but what we are currently doing is just simply not working and never will most likely and sometimes I think most right-wingers are just unwilling to face reality. Iraq is a foreign policy disaster just like the 43’s Admin handling of Katrina was a homeland-security policy distater I can’t fathom why this nation would elect another Republican in 08. Once again wake up laddies

  13. Great White Rat says:

    Tommy, you’re even more incoherent than usual:

    Long term solution would to be breaking up Iraq the same way Yugoslavia was after Tito died.

    And look how well that worked out….wars still going on in several of the parts of old Yugoslavia. Did you happen to forget we still have military presence in Kosovo? And that’s not even a primary staging area for AQ, as Iraq would be if we walked away.

    But you want to repeat that, except in a much more volatile part of the globe, and with a much closer and more active terrorist presence. Absolutely brilliant.

    Also it simply points out that the possibilty of a pro-Western secular democracy with the ability to secure it’s own borders and provide basic services to it’s citizens is probably DECADES away. Like I said above – no brains.

    No one ever said the WOT would be over quickly. Defeating a determined, amorphous enemy that can melt away and re-form when needed isn’t something you can do during the commercial breaks. Ted’s right – this could last for a generation. It requires more perseverance, which you on the left lack. Like I said above – no heart.

    So, once again, your only concrete solution is to run away and plead with AQ not to attack again. We already know that would fail – Clinton pretty much left AQ alone and look what happened. I repeat: No brains, no heart, no courage.

    Tommy, since you don’t have a plan to confront terrorism in the middle east, you might want to explain why you’d rather be fighting them on our streets, because that’s the only other option. Tell us exactly why you’d prefer another 9/11, or worse, to what’s happening now, because, frankly, I don’t think any of the rest of us get you at all on this.

  14. Baklava says:

    tommy the expert wrote, “Long term solution would to be breaking up Iraq the same way Yugoslavia was after Tito died.

    I’m glad to see a sentence that isn’t just attack and negative assertions. It may be that is a good approach but you should hear opposing view points. A) Breaking up that area has been tried before by the UN after WW2 to disastrous consequences and Palestinians unable to find a home in Jordan, Iran or Egypt and continuing to propagandize about having their “land” stolen and wanting Israel to be erased from the map. There are other areas with these problems also in the world. Taking a pencil and drawing boundaries creates new sets of problems and 2 more governments that have to be created.

    tommy writes without any acknowledgment of current events, “but what we are currently doing is just simply not working

    Spiegel (in a very LONG piece), The New York Times (with the two Iraq war liberal critics), Michael Yon and many others have written extensively in contrast to your negative assertion that “what we are currently doing is simply not working”. This isn’t a bash tommy comment – it is simply a statement saying – what are your credentials for me to believe you over the many others recently that speak in contrast to you?

    Tommy writes candidly, “I can’t fathom why this nation would elect another Republican in 08.

    Because electing a Democrat who doesn’t understand economics 101, doesn’t like the phrase “personal responsibility”, and builds a crisis for the government to solve out of every issue is exactly NOT what this country needs.

    The further we head into the future of a nation of a) victims b) dependents c) economically illiterate people.. the further this country’s prosperity and ability to help other nations of the world is eroded. Let alone help our own needy people.

  15. Baklava says:

    tommy without any perspective on history wrote, “Hopefully when we on the left regain the Oval Office this nation will be to straighten out his screwups.

    From Wikipedia:

    During the long administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933–1945), the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress. The Republicans won control of both houses in the 1946 elections, only to lose them in 1948 [comment by Bak – only 2 years]; with Dwight D. Eisenhower’s election to the presidency in 1952, the Republicans again won both houses. However, after the Democrats again won back control in the elections of 1954 [comment by Bak – only 2 years again], it was the majority party in both houses of Congress for most of the next forty years; the Republicans were only able to win control of the Senate for a six-year period, 1981–1987. The Republicans won a majority position, in both houses of Congress, in the elections of 1994.

    Do you recognize ANY screwups by Democrats during those ruling decades (notice I didn’t say years)???

    Do you recognize ANY periods of high inflation, interest rates, recession, depression, unemployment, wars (Vietnam war during 3 Democrat presidency’s), creation of entitlement programs and more dependency, inaction on climate change, inaction on illegal immigration, voting booth problems, school shootings, increased crime, homelessness, education decline, growing Islamofascism, obesity, manufacturing jobs moving overseas, corporations giving technology to other other nations, the EPA doing nothing to improve efficiency standards, growing poverty

    I suppose not… Only those evil wepublicans can have “issues” and the Democrats are for “progress”… :-@

  16. tommy in nyc says:

    Well the first thing GWR and Baklava should do is to look up many articles that have been published in LINK especially the ones on Iraq in transistion for starters. Why I’m wondering did neither GWR or Baklava mention a word on the Governors that just got whacked. Possibly because those facts do not support their rah,rah we are winning in Iraq statements. Baklava seriously about “personal responsiblity” didn’t 43 appoint Mike Brown FEMA director? What experience did that individual have running an organization like that one after 9/11? His extensive horse show background? Who should the American people hold accountable for that? Nancy Pelosi? Hillary Clinton? GWR just needs to understand that getting rid of Islamic terrorists who hate America is almost like winning the war on drugs. It is going to be a fact of life for years to come what you can do however is minimize the problem.43’s actions not the American people are the reason why anti-American sentiment is growing in the world.And why in this country most folks don’t buy into his BS anymore.

  17. PCD says:

    12, Tommy, you are just unwilling to face reality or the truth. Bush was not as much at fault as you tell yourself over and over for Katrina. When you want to deal with the REALITIES OF FEDERAL LAW on this issue, come back.

    Tommy, as far as the War on Terror, you are full of the crap from the far left. You aren’t facing realities. There was no provocation for those Islamofascists to hijack and crash those airliners into the towers and the pentagon. Only fools believe that Bush had a hand in plotting that or that we asked for it. How big a fool are you?

  18. Lorica says:

    handling of Katrina

    Tommy you mean like not ordering a mandatory evacuation and using the cities buses to ensure people were able to get out of the city??? – Lorica

  19. Great White Rat says:

    Tommy blunders along aimlessly:

    Why I’m wondering did neither GWR or Baklava mention a word on the Governors that just got whacked.

    Umm…maybe because it’s part of AQ’s strategy to make the weak-kneed here (that means you, in case it wasn’t clear, tommy) panic?? Iraq is a violent place, no one disputes that, and it’ll take years to root out the terrorists and restore some kind of order. Ain’t gonna happen during the time span of a 7th-inning stretch. Do you think every time AQ manages to pull off a terror attack it means the entire war is lost? Glad people like you weren’t in charge during WW2…

    Desperatley trying to change the subject, tommy continues:

    didn’t 43 appoint Mike Brown FEMA director?

    All of which has nothing to do with Iraq, of course, but if you’re so hung up on appointments, then I’m sure you won’t be supporting Hillary if she wins the Dem nomination…after all, she hired bar bouncer Craig Livingstone to head up White House security and he and Hillary were behind stealing about 900 FBI files. I’m bookmarking this one, tommy….and if the Hildebeest wins the nomination, I’ll be back here to see if you repudiate her.

    Trying to leave the room, tommy does a face-plant into the door:

    GWR just needs to understand that getting rid of Islamic terrorists who hate America is almost like winning the war on drugs. It is going to be a fact of life for years to come what you can do however is minimize the problem.

    We on the right do understand that. You are the ones who call for running away from the fight.

    For a third time I ask you: what do you propose to do? We have an implacable enemy who wants to kill all of us. We know that no action or weak half-measures them will not work – we did that during the Clinton years. Yet, you do not want to confront them vigorously, as we’re doing in Iraq.

    Simply whining that you don’t like the President’s Iraq policy isn’t going to cut it. We want to know how you on the left plan to defeat islamofascist terrorism. All you’ve done is avoid the question so far. It’s put up or shut up time, tommy.

  20. Baklava says:

    tommy wrote thinking he had the trump card, “Why I’m wondering did neither GWR or Baklava mention a word on the Governors that just got whacked.

    Nowhere did we say there isn’t a war going on or will be zero deaths. Nowhere did we say there won’t be any more setbacks. Nowhere did we say Iwo Jima Iraq went perfectly. Your arguments are extremely weak.

    tommy did the definition of a strawman argument by saying, “Baklava seriously about “personal responsiblity” didn’t 43 appoint Mike Brown FEMA director?

    um.. point to my sentence saying that Bush is full of personal responsibility or Mike Brown is…. I won’t hold my breath. Because you set up your own strawman argument. Good JOB!! You ROCK!! Keep doing that and you might get persuasive!!!

    BTW – The “personal responsibility” phrase in my mind has NOTHING to do with characters in government or the government itself other than POLICY. The “personal responsibility” phrase has to do with how WE AS AMERICANS should strive to live our lives so that government can’t grow every year for 60 years claiming some NEW crisis to manage because of our stupidity. It is OUR DOING that grows government. It is our personal choices and decisions that gives government an excuse for taking our money managing it badly, zoning areas for building that shouldn’t be zoned that way (Katrina), acting like it can be the cure all and be all for us from CRADLE to GRAVE. Because of all the things the government is doing it has gotten away from it’s CONSTITUTIONAL duties of national security as over the last 40 years defense spending has gone from 50% of the federal budget to 19% now. People (liberals) without perspective talk about how the Iraq was has depleted this nations resources to spend on Infrastructure when this nation has increased spending on EVERY category of spending for over 60 years. Specifically on infrastructure spending you can see a large increase in the last decade. Excerpt from page 3:

    History of the Highway Trust Fund’s Revenues and Spending
    Many changes have been made to the highway program, to the taxes dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund, and to trust fund operations since 1983. One of the most significant changes occurred in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which increased amounts deposited into the trust fund by 4.3 cents per gallon of gasoline sold, in addition to the 14.0 cents per gallon previously allocated to the fund.1 Spending started increasing rapidly in 1999, resulting from changes enacted in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). TEA-21, which provided contract authority of $218 billion over the 1998–2003 period (an average of $36.3 billion per year), and SAFETEA-LU, which provided contract authority of $286
    billion (an average of $57.2 billion per year) over the 2005–2009 period, represented significant increases in spending over previous authorizations.

    So… while liberals and the drive-by media lie after tragedies – and extreme negativity from liberals extend this war by giving aid and comfort to the enemy
    (making the enemy feel like we are this close “” to pulling out – if only they can kill and discourage us even more!)

    Government IS the problem… More personal responsibility is the solution… Making strawmen arguments doesn’t change my mind on that.

    tommy wrote, “GWR just needs to understand that getting rid of Islamic terrorists who hate America is almost like winning the war on drugs. It is going to be a fact of life for years to come

    Just like crime, we should not give up fighting crime or “talk” to the enemy. We should not give in to the extreme negativity of the Democrats and their war on SWIFT and surveillance of terrorist communications and a whole host of other tools. For years to come we will need to minimize the chance of the terrorists getting their dream of wiping out thousands/millions of Americans. Israel does not have Iraq funding Palestinians $25,000 per suicide bomber anymore. Al Qaida IS in Iraq and being decimated over time.

    Tommy write with peculiarity, “43’s actions not the American people are the reason why anti-American sentiment is growing in the world.

    What was Bush’s action that caused muslims to commit 9/11? Or was it Bill’s actions??? These are really non-persuasive sentences you write.

    Talk about BS in your last sentence…

  21. tommy in nyc says:

    GWR I already said that Iraq should be partioned earlier. It should be obvious to everyone that there is ethnic cleansing going on over there. I posted this before but maybe youse folks forgot so I’ll print it again. On Feb 16 1992 Dick Cheney,then secretary of defense told the BBC why we had not pressed on to Baghdad:” If we’d gone to Baghdad and got rid of Saddam Hussein-assuming we could have found him-we’d have had to a lot of forces in and run him to ground someplace. He wouldf not have been easy to capture. Then you’ve got to put a new government in his place and then you’re faced with the question of what kind of government are you going to establish in Iraq? Is it going to be a Kurdish government or a Shiite government or a Suuni government? How many forces are you going to have to leave there to keep it propped up,how many casualties are you goingto take through the course of this operation?” Barely ten years later this nation charged into the very same situation they avoided back in 91. I thought you are supposed to get smarter as you get older. Just keep that in mind laddies.

  22. Baklava says:

    tommy wrote, “He wouldf not have been easy to capture.

    Check. Caught, tried and executed.

    On the rest of your post… We’ll get ‘er done despite your aid and comfort… and the rest of the negative nay sayers in Congress…

    At least I hope… Do you hope?

  23. TedintheShed says:

    On Feb 16 1992 Dick Cheney,then secretary of defense told the BBC…

    …over eight years before 9/11/2001…

    I have a question: Why do people take these quotes (and pictures, like the one of Rumsfeld shaking Hussein’s hand) out of perspective of the timeframe in which they were produced and attempt to apply them to today?

  24. PCD says:


    How credible do you think you are when you don’t address anything head on? You just spew your DNC talking points and slime on.

    What is your talking points for Kosovo? Didn’t Clinton say we were going to be out of there shortly? How long has is been tommy, 10 years???

    tommy, you might be fun to have a beer with, but your thinking and rhetoric stinks.

  25. tommy in nyc says:

    Despite my aid and comfort? To whom? TO the 5 digits that the Federal government takes out of my salary every year. Who else am I giving aid and comfort too? WTF are you implying? I also prefer sound planning and the common sense towards military action that the Powell Doctrine suggests….. not ambigious goals of an unnecersary pre-emptive attack with a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11

  26. PCD says:

    25, tommy, again you resort to talking points instead of facts and logic. Also, you don’t what sarcasm is. Your aid and comfort is more to the benefit of Al Qaeda than the US.

    Again, Hussein harbored terrorists. What part of that don’t you get?

    Again, the truth comes out from you. You advocate do nothing and do nothing after getting hit.

  27. Baklava says:

    tommy asked innocently, “To whom?

    The enemy. You and all of those folks on the left and right who for 4 years have fought against our efforts and given the enemy HOPE that we are this close “” to pulling out. With just enough casualties, get that casualty count higher and the tools on the left (and right) will give us what we want…

    Your fight against terrorist surveillance as “domestic wire-tapping”. your lies. Your continued deception. Your continued focus on negativity. Folks like you where I’m glad you WEREN’T around during Iwo Jima.

    YOU are the hopes and dreams for Al Qaida. You and all of your kind who do not offer anything except extreme negativity and opinions of illegality without foundation by an Administration’s use of tools to fight the enemy.

    tommy wrote without reading comprehension, “Who else am I giving aid and comfort too? WTF are you implying?

    I didn’t “imply” anything. I said it clearly over and over again and in past threads. THE ENEMY. You give aid and comfort to the enemy. :)>-

  28. tommy in nyc says:

    Hussein harbored terrorists.Which one of hierachery of Al-Queda did the barbaric regime of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq harbor? Talking points what are you refering to bro? The fact of the matter is that the war in Iraq has caused the deaths of over 100,000 of innocent Iraqi civilan lives tens of thousands of wounded american troops to say nothing about the over 3,700 dead ones. The millions of refugees internally and externally from Iraq and expect more of the same until Jan 20,2009. Partioning the will certainly reduce the current carnage that’s my viewpoint. If you don’t agree that’s fine but ask yourself truthfully would you consider living in a war zone and chaos going on 5 years a success story.Because I wouldn’t. I’m getting off work I’ll be back in the A.M. Later.

  29. Baklava says:

    On preemptive war. I put more value to her words than tommy’s.

  30. Great White Rat says:

    Tommy’s magic solution to stop al Qaeda is finally revealed:

    GWR I already said that Iraq should be partioned earlier. It should be obvious to everyone that there is ethnic cleansing going on over there.

    THAT’S your plan???? You think that if we just partition Iraq that al Qaeda will disband the terrorist training camps, list all the bomb-making equipment on eBay, and get jobs tending goats?? OK, I gotta hear this one…explain why that will happen.

    Actually, it’s a horrible idea, for the reasons I listed above the first time you mentioned it. Instead of one strong bulwark against terrorism, you’d have three much weaker ones, easier for AQ to infiltrate and intimidate. It’s a perfect plan – if you’re an islamofascist.

    By the way, you’re also wrong (no big shock there) on the ethnic cleansing part. The Kurds have always been pro-US, and now Sunni and Shia alike are now helping our troops root out the terrorists, which is one reason the surge is working so well.

    And you’re not even aware what side you’re on:

    Despite my aid and comfort? To whom?

    Baklava nailed it perfectly: to be perfectly blunt and honest, you’re on AQ’s side. You want our military to lose, you want weakened rump states set up in the ME for them to dominate, you want to cease any military or intelligence action to stop their activities or plots, and you are unwilling to do anything to stop them from attacking us again here. That adds up to doing what you can to help them, short of strapping on a suicide vest yourself.

    A week or two ago I posted a link to an article written by an ex-KGB general who defected in 1978. He was very clear on one important point: the biggest thing the communists had going for them during the Cold War was our leftists. They could be counted on to swallow any propaganda the USSR put out, all with the goal of making the American president the enemy, not them. AQ learned that lesson and they’re using the same technique – and look how it has you regurgitating their discredited data (100,000 deaths is a flat-out lie) and spewing hate at every turn against the president.

    Baklava’s right. AQ is pinning its hopes on you, tommy. If you and your comrades fail, they fail, and you’re doing your best not to let them down.

    But it’s a damn sad commentary about you that you’re willing to side with a bunch of cutthroat terrorists just because you have an irrational blind hatred for one man.

  31. Ryan says:


    Bringing up something stated in 1992. Great. If it applied to Iraq in 1992 it must apply in 2007. The only problem with that is 9/11. Some people in this country woke up and realized you can’t just sit back and wait for something to happen.

    By the way, Al-Qaeda isn’t and shouldn’t be our only focus on the War on Terror. There are numerous other terrorist organizations out there.

    Some questions for you: is AQ in Iraq now? Should we fight them in Iraq? Or should we fight them elsewhere?

  32. Tom TB says:

    tommy in nyc, I am Tom TB, native New Yorker and former Port Authority of NY&NJ WTC employee, and remember 2/26/93 like it was yesterday when Muslim terrorists set off a bomb in the parking garage under Two World Trade Center, murdering 7 people(I include Monica Smith’s unborn son), and injuring about 1,000. The some-time husband of the woman I assume you want to be the next president was in NJ that day, and didn’t see any need to cross the Hudson and see the damage for himself, then treated subsequent attacks on U.S. soil as individual actions, not connecting any dots, and not getting daily briefings from the C.I.A. The William Jefferson Blythe Clinton Hillary Rodham Democrats are not what we need for securing our great city and country.

  33. tommy in nyc says:

    Sometimes I really wonder why is it that when dissenting Americans to the policies of this Admin get slandered as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. First off it is a Federal crime to aid and comfort Al-Queda. Secondly I hate those clowns as much as anyonre here posting. However when this nation’s policies on serve as a recruiting tool for them then yeah I’m going to speak my mind on what I think and feel. If you don’t agree fine but it is not right to suggest that my viewpoints give aid and comfort to Al-Queda.

  34. tommy, why is it ok for you to suggest that GWB is an inadvertent terrorist recruiter because of his words and actions but not ok to suggest that Democrats who make outrageously false statements about him and our troops inadvertently give aid and comfort to the enemy?

  35. PCD says:

    34, ST, why is it OK by Tommy for Harry Reid to say the war is lost when it isn’t? Is not that giving aid and comfort to AlQaeda??

    33, Tommy, you get the guff because you can’t see how YOU hurt this country. You, and I’m talking the majority of the Democrat party, leave the “Aid and Abet” crowd run the Democrat party and YOU expect not to be tarred with their near, if not traitorous, acts.

  36. PCD says:

    28, Tommy, Who was that terrorist treated for war wounds that had part of his leg amputated?

    Ever hear of Abu Nidal? He lived in Baghdad like royalty until he didn’t accept Saddam’s orders, then he was dead.

    Tommy, get your head out of that liberal toilet called the Democrat party.

  37. Great White Rat says:

    Tommy, many of us are sick of the “don’t question my patriotism” line you on the left toss out as an excuse for every act you take that hurts our military and makes another AQ attack here more likely. We think it’s about time we did question it.

    Listen to yourself:

    I hate those clowns as much as anyonre here posting.

    That would be news to anyone who’s been reading here. Just in this thread, you haven’t uttered one word of opposition to AQ – but every single one of your posts is dripping with the usual unsubstantiated left-wing anti-Bush garbage – things like 100,000 dead, for example, which is a proven lie.

    If you don’t agree fine but it is not right to suggest that my viewpoints give aid and comfort to Al-Queda.

    Except it does exactly that. And more, they count on it. And they’ve said so.

    So let’s recap: You want to partition Iraq. That will help AQ. You know that, and you don’t care. You want to withdraw our troops from Iraq. That will help AQ. You know that, and you don’t care. From your posts of previous threads, you want our anti-terrorist surveillance programs terminated. That will help AQ, and you don’t care.

    And that’s just a sampling. You see the pattern? You see why we reach the conclusions we do?

    What you do care about is, apparently, electing Democrats. National security isn’t even on your radar screen compared to that.

  38. tommy in nyc says:

    Man maybe I should start toking up again:-?:-? What both PCD AND GWR basically are saying is that us on the left are helping Al-Queda because we disagree with how the 43 Admin is conducting the GWOT. Listen Youse guys need to understand that you can’t prove one bit that partioning Iraq will help Al-Queda. Does anyone here wish to tell me that the civil war and it is a civil war in Iraq won’t esclate unless we keep the warring factions away from each other. Your Rovian smear camapaign against us Democrats is just tiring. And getting old.

  39. PCD says:

    38, Tommy, how can we tell that you aren’t tokking now? You can’t understand that telling lies about GW, the Military, and the WOT are helping AQ’s morale. If you on the left stuck with substance, not sophistry, not weasel words meaning “We want to Cut and Run NOW!!!”, not delusion upon delusion, we would not be questioning your thinking, your personality, your patriotism. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE SEE A COCKROACH CAUGHT IN THE LIGHT SCRAMBLING FOR THE NEAREST COVER. Do you get it now, Tommy????

  40. Ryan says:

    I’m still waiting for my questions to be answered. I won’t hold my breath, though.

  41. Great White Rat says:

    Tommy, tommy…you still don’t get it:

    What both PCD AND GWR basically are saying is that us on the left are helping Al-Queda because we disagree with how the 43 Admin is conducting the GWOT.

    WRONG. It’s because you don’t want to participate in the GWOT at all. If you had constructive suggestions about how to prosecute the war better, we’d be fine with that. But you don’t. You have nothing except the usual i-hate-bush-let’s-cut-and-run-now-and-leave-the-poor-terrorists-alone nonsense.

    That, and the fact that it’s getting damned hard to tell the difference between what you and your leftist buddies say and what AQ says. You both want the same things – US out of Iraq, Bush disgraced, and no anti-terror measures here at home. So whether you want to admit it or not, you leftists and AQ are allies right now.

  42. Great White Rat says:

    Ryan, don’t expect any answers. Tommy seems to think that if we just partition Iraq today, leave Iraq tomorrow, and make Nancy Pelosi President by the end of the week, then AQ will simply disband by Labor Day. So you see, there will be no need to fight them anywhere.

    That ignores the fact that AQ was even more aggressive during the Clinton administration, but that requires deeper analytical thinking than most people on the left can manage.

  43. Lorica says:

    Sometimes I really wonder why is it that when dissenting Americans to the policies of this Admin get slandered as giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

    As if the previous administration was a pure as the driven snow when it came to dissenters. =)) How many people had the Justice Dept. attacked, just because they spoke out against the Clintons?? I am still waiting for my apology from Hillary for her “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” Comment. The whole Bill and Monica thing was just made up by the Republicans. That liar knew at that time that Bill was doing interns, and she attacked the right, and had the media on alert against us, cuz she wanted to cover up his adultery. The guys who ran the White House’s travel office where destroyed by Hillary and Bill just because they were unfairly fired from their jobs. Time and time again you guys on the left have this fantasy about GW being evil, but will let Bill and Hill’s every evil slide like it is no big deal. Well 9/11 proved that Clinton should have taken out OBL when we had the chance, and you still think that GW is the bad guy. Wake up tommy – Lorica