POST SCRIPTS

Hear! hear!

Bravo Tina.

"No sir, never before in the history of our great nation has an ex-president behaved so arrogantly or rudely."

Since when is it a conservative virtue to kowtow to power? BushCo has made a colossal blunder. We're supposed to just ignore this?

"Yes, your Lordship!" Is that how it goes?

Jimmy has simply stated a fact. No American administration has ever declared war without provocation. I'm not surprised it upsets you to hear it, but it's the truth. What are you going to do about it?

I did not suggest Jimmy had to bow to his Lordship. Your insistance on responding as if I had is rediculous.

Jimmy has not stated a fact, Jimmy has expressed an opinion. The thing that makes it distasteful, rude, arrogant and shameful in my book, is that he has broken a tradition. Presidents have, out of respect for the office and probably a shared appreciation for the difficulty of the job, agreed to not speak about the decisions and policy of later presidents.
Jimmy apparently sees himself as King of the planet or he wouldn't run around butting in as if his "reign" had been extended. Also, if the man had any integrity he would ask for an audience and address the president himself instead of indulging in what amounts to petty gossip. Insulting the Prime Minister while in his country is just plain rude. Makes him look like a teenage girl. He should know better.

Your opinion that we were not provoked is your opinion. That you share that opinion with others matters not one wit. I can do nothing about naive short sighted opinions except rebut them.

As long as we're asking questions...I thought you were supposed to be the compassionate, considerate, understanding types? Only when people kowtow to you and your ideas and opinions. Is that how it goes?

Tina: "I did not suggest Jimmy had to bow to his Lordship. Your insistance on responding as if I had is rediculous."

But here it is: ...You're words, especially at this point in time, undermine and disgrace our nation."

So nobody can say nothing that makes BushCo look bad? If that ain't kowtowing, I'd like to know what is? Jimmy musn't make statements of fact in public. Nor must I, apparently. It's them fascists in the hen house again.

The truth is often ugly, but it's still the truth and must be dealt with.

Speaking of ugly truths, I seem to remeber you insisting that I give examples of how the left has hurt the war effort. I did so, and you never replied....shocker.

As for a lack of provocation, that is simply untrue.

Here is why....

At the end of the 1st Gulf War the United States did not sign a peace treaty with Iraq, we signed a cease fire.

Said Cease fire was agreed to by the United States in return for certain assurances. By the very nature of a cease fire, if the opposing party fails to stay within the MUTUALLY agreed upon boundries, than it is considered a breech of the cease fire. The first time Saddam shot at a US plane in the no fly zone he violated the cease fire, which gave us a LEGAL right to reopen hostilities.

The argument is not one of provocation, it is clear that there was provocation, no one disputes it. The question is, was the provocation enough to warrant war. Well, in my opinion, such provocations combined with aid to terrorists, and potential for greater cooperation in the future was enough to justify war. However there are several other reasons why it was worth it. I have laid these out as well. You never seem to respond to those reasons, instead you do what you have done here and so many other times. You break away from the conversation, only to reappear down the road on a similar topic, ready to give the EXACT SAME tired arguments.

Tell me, why is it that for liberals, history always begins 5 min. ago?

I submit to you, that dealing with truth as well as reality is your problem, not ours.

I stand by my comments. If you choose to view my critique of Jimmy as a suggestion that he kowtow that is your perogative...its crap, but it's yours.

Embrace the ugly your own self.

Nick, Thank you for reminding me of the cease fire agreement with Iraq and their breach of that agreement. As with the UN resolutions this no doubt figured prominently in the decision-making process and the choice to go to war to remove Saddam. Removal of Saddam being the Clinton plan passed on to GWB...along with the WMD information...ahhh well some minds just refuse to let the facts penetrate.

Geez Nick. I'm sorry if you've been feeling left out.

Nick: "The argument is not one of provocation, it is clear that there was provocation, no one disputes it."

I dispute it. The whole "cease fire" thing is a quibble, and NOT grounds for war. Thumbing one's nose at the UN is likewise NOT grounds for invasion. You wanna get invaded, you gotta bomb somebody. We invaded the nation that harbored our bombers: Afghanistan. I fully supported that endeavor. This Iraq business is something entirely else.

Nick: "The question is, was the provocation enough to warrant war. Well, in my opinion, such provocations combined with aid to terrorists, and potential for greater cooperation in the future was enough to justify war."

Here, you parrot the BushCo position. The trouble is that there was and is very little fact to back it up. And the ineffectiveness of this little strategy is already amply demonstated: to repeat, the Bali bombing, the Madrid bombing, the London bombing, the nearly London bombing II and our nutsy hit and run drivers.

Nick: "However there are several other reasons why it was worth it. I have laid these out as well. You never seem to respond to those reasons, instead you do what you have done here and so many other times. You break away from the conversation, only to reappear down the road on a similar topic, ready to give the EXACT SAME tired arguments."

Why are you blaming me for the format of this blog? The liberal/conservative political debate is an ongoing-type thing. Other stuff gets posted. Everybody moves on. Why shouldn't I pick up an argument further up the line?

Tasker...well done, but you gotta give me this:

1. President Bush the senior did this after the agreement had been trashed by Jimmy Carter (and, I believe Bill Clinton), probably to demonstrate that his son was not his sock puppet as you nuts were claiming. It was, in a crazy kind of way, supportive.

2. He was not trashing America (or a leader of an ally in their country) on foreign soil in a time of war.

3. He was not acting like he was an official spokesperson for our country. Jimmy does this all the time.

The left leadership is famous for pulling this garbage when republicans hold the presidency.

Libby,

"You wanna get invaded, you gotta bomb somebody.

The US planes flying in the no fly zone following the first gulf war ceasfire qualifies. They were fired upon and they represent the US.

Libby, you are not entitled to your own facts.

What is the purpose of signing a cease fire if its not worth going to war if it is violated, that is the most ridiculous notion I have ever heard. I understand that liberals and the UN have turned the concept of a "cease fire" into a meaningless phrase. But once upon a time cease fires were a very serious thing. You see the whole point of such a thing is that if you honestly felt that the other side was going to do what you asked with out the threat of force, YOU WOULDNT NEED A CEASE FIRE. If I am going to be stuck arguing such OBVIOUS points, Im really going to have to lean how to type faster.

And the reason it is inappropriate to jump from debate to debate the way you and Tasker do, is because it is dishonest. You ask me to lay out a position for you, and when I do you simply ignore the points made and move on to another post and make the same argument on points which have been addressed.

As far as the war on terror is concerned, are you honestly telling me that we should be able to stop every terrorist attck any where in the world at any time? That may sound feasible from whatever air conditioned office you're sittig in, but over where the real work is getting done, things are a bit more complex.

That naive statement tells me a great deal about your level of understanding.

Offensive warfare is the ONLY way to win.

"Im really going to have to lean how to type faster."

Nick, One of my digits is a third short, I know just what you mean!

Nick: "Libby, you are not entitled to your own facts."

Of course I am. That you choose not to credit them, does not rob them of their factualness. Sorry.

Nick: What is the purpose of signing a cease fire if its not worth going to war if it is violated, ...

Using the any violation of the "ceasefire" to justify Iraq II would be Reason No. 5, and I repeat, a quibble. (Come on, guy, the Turks and the Greeks just had a little incident not too long ago, and managed to avoid warfare.) Had Saddam reinvaded Kuwait, that would have been grounds, and the GROUNDS contemplated in the ceasefire. You are all, still, grasping at straws. Admit it. You was snookered.

Nick: And the reason it is inappropriate to jump from debate to debate the way you and Tasker do, is because it is dishonest.

I'm sorry you got your feelings hurt, but there was certainly nothing dishonest about it. I've moved on. I think you should too.

Nick: As far as the war on terror is concerned, are you honestly telling me that we should be able to stop every terrorist attck any where in the world at any time?

I'm telling you that we shouldn't be doing things to provoke them, things like invading Iraq, for instance. And you all jumping up and down with your "Islamo-fascist" noises don't help very much either.

Nick: That naive statement tells me a great deal about your level of understanding.

And neener neener to you, too.

Nick: Offensive warfare is the ONLY way to win.

Offensive warfare has, in the whole course of human history, never "won" anything. It seems to afford a certain primal satisfaction to the primal among us, but it's never achieved anything except yet another war.

P.S.: I will be moving on up the board now. It's September now, you know.

Libby, I would move as high up the board I could if I were you, because this last post is simply to easy to counter.

Sorry, you insist on misrepresenting what I say, but I was discussing yur notion of Iraq never provoking us, which is factualy untrue.

As far as you "hurting my feelings", well I would say dont flatter yourself. In truth, I like it when you avoid the debate and "move on" having failed to defend your position adequately.

As far as provoking terrorists. Are you serious? Let me get this straight. I live in fear because I wat to kill terrorists. But you dont because your afraid of "provoking" them. Wow. That sort of Liberal cowardice is hard to admit. I salute your honesty. But no thanks, Ill just go right on provoking those who think terrorism is a just means of political activism.

Offensive wrfare, in point of fact is the only way to bring a sucessful conclusion to military engagements. the fact that you would say something to the contrary, suggests that your knowledge of world conflict is rather limited. I suppose it was a defensive campaign that won The Revolution, The Civil War, WWI, WWII, etc. etc. Im sorry Libby, but again, your just plain wrong. It is offesnsive warfare, or operations that win wars. To say otherwise is well, ignoant.

I do realize that it is september. But unlike you, I prefer to debate things out. That usually means I have to backtrack, at the same time I respond and interact with new discussions. As you have proved incapable of managing such a feat, i can completely understand why you are moving on. I do wish however, that you would finish just one of the debates you start.

Just one more thought on Offensive Vs. defensive warfare.

Here is what American liberals can apparently afford to ignore.

Living peacefully does not guaruntee, that others will want to live in peace with you.

Since you appear to be a contradictory pacifist. Let us explore something concerning offensive vs. defessive operations.

If you are intent on beating me to a bloody pulp and I am intent on preventing it; but I choose only to block your blows as oppose to countering with my own.....what do you think will eventually happen???

I know men like Robert E. Lee and Napoleon probably had a lot weaker grasp on military operations than you. But both of them coined famous sayings dealing with the futility of winning a conflict based soley on defensive operations.