Even the Washington Post now claims the Left has no real Mideast policy, just anti- Bush political posturing

From the Washington Post:



Pander and Run


Friday, July 28, 2006

"After years of struggling to define their own approach to post-Sept.
11 foreign policy, Democrats seem finally to have hit on one. It's
called pandering. In those rare cases when George W. Bush shows genuine
sensitivity to America's allies and propounds a broader, more
enlightened view of the national interest, Democrats will make him pay.
It's jingoism with a liberal face.

The latest example came this week when Democratic senators and House
members demanded that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki either
retract his criticisms of Israel or forfeit his chance to address
Congress. Great idea. Maliki -- who runs a government propped up by
U.S. troops -- is desperate to show Iraqis that he is not Washington's
puppet. And the United States desperately needs him to succeed because,
unless he gains political credibility at home, his government will have
no hope of surviving on its own.


Maliki took a small step in that direction this week when he
articulated a view of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict quite different
from that of the Bush administration. His views were hardly surprising:
Iraq is not only a majority-Arab country; it is a majority-Shiite Arab
country. And in a democracy, leaders usually reflect public opinion.
Maliki's forthright disagreement with the United States was a sign of
political strength, one the Bush administration wisely indulged.

But not congressional Democrats. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and
Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid demanded that Maliki eat his words
or be disinvited from addressing Congress. "Your failure to condemn
Hezbollah's aggression and recognize Israel's right to defend itself
raise serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can
play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing
stability to the Middle East," wrote Reid and fellow Democratic Sens.
Richard J. Durbin and Charles E. Schumer on July 24.

How, exactly, publicly humiliating Maliki and making him look like an
American and Israeli stooge would enhance his "leadership" was never
explained in the missive. But of course Reid's letter wasn't really
about strengthening the Iraqi government at all; that's George W.
Bush's problem. It was about appearing more pro-Israel than the White
House and thus pandering to Jewish voters.

Reid's letter is not an anomaly; it is part of a pattern. In February
Democrats (and some Republicans) slammed the Bush administration for
allowing a company from the United Arab Emirates to take over
operation, though not management, of several U.S. ports. Democrats
insisted that they were standing up for homeland security, but in fact
homeland security experts overwhelmingly said the move did not
represent a security risk. The principle animating the Democrats'
attack was not security, it was politics. The Bush administration,
playing against type, argued that America's long-term security required
treating Arab countries with fairness and respect, especially
countries, such as the UAE, that assist us in the struggle against
jihadist terrorism. One might have thought that the Democrats, after
spending years denouncing the Bush administration for alienating world
opinion and thus leaving America isolated and weak, would find such
logic compelling. But what they found more compelling was a political
cheap shot -- their very own Panama Canal moment -- in which they
proved they could be just as nativist as the GOP.

Then, in June, the media reported that the Iraqi government was
considering an amnesty for insurgents, perhaps including insurgents who
had killed U.S. troops. Obviously the prospect was hard for Americans
to stomach. But the larger context was equally obvious: Unless Maliki's
government gave local Sunni insurgents an incentive to lay down their
arms and break with al-Qaeda-style jihadists, Iraq's violence would
never end. Democrats, however, rather than giving Maliki the freedom to
carry out his extremely difficult and enormously important
negotiations, made amnesty an issue in every congressional race they
could, thus tying the prime minister's hands. Once again, Democrats
congratulated themselves for having gotten to President Bush's right,
unperturbed by the fact that they may have undermined the chances for
Iraqi peace in the process.

Privately, some Democrats, while admitting that they haven't exactly
been taking the high road, say they have no choice, that in a
competition with Karl Rove, nice guys finish last. But even
politically, that's probably wrong. The Democratic Party's single
biggest foreign policy liability is not that Americans think Democrats
are soft. It is that Americans think Democrats stand for nothing, that
they have no principles beyond political expedience. And given the
party's behavior over the past several months, it is not hard to
understand why."

"PJ O'Donovan" wrote:

From the Washington Post:

lots of stuff irrelevant to rec.travel.europe

Peej,

Please **** off with your mindless right-wing drivel.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

Funny. I thought that getting mad that we installed an openly
pro-terrorist government in Iraq justified. I'm not paying taxes so
that Bush can create another radical terrorist religious fundementalist
government in the Middle East. I paid my taxes so that Bush could
destroy all those WMDs that he promised us that Iraq had. No WMDs.
Instead, it turns out that he just wanted to turn off the flow of oil
so as to raise oil prices for his friends at Exxon and Chevron. On top
of that, he installs a radical pro-terrorist government.

God, Republican policies make me sick.

------------
www.cafepress.com/bush_doggers


PJ O'Donovan wrote:
From the Washington Post:



Pander and Run


Friday, July 28, 2006

"After years of struggling to define their own approach to post-Sept.
11 foreign policy, Democrats seem finally to have hit on one. It's
called pandering. In those rare cases when George W. Bush shows genuine
sensitivity to America's allies and propounds a broader, more
enlightened view of the national interest, Democrats will make him pay.
It's jingoism with a liberal face.

The latest example came this week when Democratic senators and House
members demanded that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki either
retract his criticisms of Israel or forfeit his chance to address
Congress. Great idea. Maliki -- who runs a government propped up by
U.S. troops -- is desperate to show Iraqis that he is not Washington's
puppet. And the United States desperately needs him to succeed because,
unless he gains political credibility at home, his government will have
no hope of surviving on its own.


Maliki took a small step in that direction this week when he
articulated a view of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict quite different
from that of the Bush administration. His views were hardly surprising:
Iraq is not only a majority-Arab country; it is a majority-Shiite Arab
country. And in a democracy, leaders usually reflect public opinion.
Maliki's forthright disagreement with the United States was a sign of
political strength, one the Bush administration wisely indulged.

But not congressional Democrats. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and
Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid demanded that Maliki eat his words
or be disinvited from addressing Congress. "Your failure to condemn
Hezbollah's aggression and recognize Israel's right to defend itself
raise serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can
play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing
stability to the Middle East," wrote Reid and fellow Democratic Sens.
Richard J. Durbin and Charles E. Schumer on July 24.

How, exactly, publicly humiliating Maliki and making him look like an
American and Israeli stooge would enhance his "leadership" was never
explained in the missive. But of course Reid's letter wasn't really
about strengthening the Iraqi government at all; that's George W.
Bush's problem. It was about appearing more pro-Israel than the White
House and thus pandering to Jewish voters.

Reid's letter is not an anomaly; it is part of a pattern. In February
Democrats (and some Republicans) slammed the Bush administration for
allowing a company from the United Arab Emirates to take over
operation, though not management, of several U.S. ports. Democrats
insisted that they were standing up for homeland security, but in fact
homeland security experts overwhelmingly said the move did not
represent a security risk. The principle animating the Democrats'
attack was not security, it was politics. The Bush administration,
playing against type, argued that America's long-term security required
treating Arab countries with fairness and respect, especially
countries, such as the UAE, that assist us in the struggle against
jihadist terrorism. One might have thought that the Democrats, after
spending years denouncing the Bush administration for alienating world
opinion and thus leaving America isolated and weak, would find such
logic compelling. But what they found more compelling was a political
cheap shot -- their very own Panama Canal moment -- in which they
proved they could be just as nativist as the GOP.

Then, in June, the media reported that the Iraqi government was
considering an amnesty for insurgents, perhaps including insurgents who
had killed U.S. troops. Obviously the prospect was hard for Americans
to stomach. But the larger context was equally obvious: Unless Maliki's
government gave local Sunni insurgents an incentive to lay down their
arms and break with al-Qaeda-style jihadists, Iraq's violence would
never end. Democrats, however, rather than giving Maliki the freedom to
carry out his extremely difficult and enormously important
negotiations, made amnesty an issue in every congressional race they
could, thus tying the prime minister's hands. Once again, Democrats
congratulated themselves for having gotten to President Bush's right,
unperturbed by the fact that they may have undermined the chances for
Iraqi peace in the process.

Privately, some Democrats, while admitting that they haven't exactly
been taking the high road, say they have no choice, that in a
competition with Karl Rove, nice guys finish last. But even
politically, that's probably wrong. The Democratic Party's single
biggest foreign policy liability is not that Americans think Democrats
are soft. It is that Americans think Democrats stand for nothing, that
they have no principles beyond political expedience. And given the
party's behavior over the past several months, it is not hard to
understand why."

No WMDs.......
God, Republican policies make me sick.

DefendUSA



10/17/2005
Associated Press


WASHINGTON - Potential Democratic presidential candidates who voted to
give President Bush the authority to use force in Iraq could face a
political problem - ...
...Their pro-war votes -... - could haunt them as they seek early
support among die-hard Democrats and gauge whether to launch formal
candidacies for the party's 2008 presidential nomination.."


"In a 97-0 vote, the GOP-controlled Senate signed off on the
money as part of a $445 billion military spending bill...."


97-0, leftists!


And the beat goes on...


President Clinton claimed Iraq had WMDs in order to get unanimous
support for his
Iraq Liberation Act


HR.4655
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President))


Oct 7, 98:
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent (including *ALL*
Democrats).


The Democrat Madeline Albright claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Sandy Berger claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Sen Boxer claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Sen Levin claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Sen Daschle claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Sen Kerry claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Congresslady Pelosi claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Madeline Albright again claimed Iraq had WMDs in '99
The Democrat Sen Levin again claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat former Presidential candidate Gore claimed Iraq had
WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Kennedy claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Byrd claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Kerry again claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Rockefeller claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Hillary Clinton claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Feinstein claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Graham claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Kerry claimed Iraq had WMDs in '03
The Democrat former Secretary of State Madeline Albright claimed
Iraq had WMDs and was surprised that no WMDs were found in Iraq in '03.

cross posting troll

"Padraig Breathnach" wrote in message
...
"PJ O'Donovan" wrote:

From the Washington Post:

lots of stuff irrelevant to rec.travel.europe

Peej,

Please **** off with your mindless right-wing drivel.

ROTFLMAO... The left-wing insists that freedom of speech is now
dead. Sounds quite fascist to me. I don't agree with hardly anything
PJ produces, but as the words commonly attribute to Voltaire --
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
to say it."

Too bad you find yourself on the other side of that argument.

Planet Visitor II
Official publisher of AADP Official dictionary
http://www.planetvisitor.name/dictionary.html


--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

Please **** off with your mindless right-wing drivel.

ROTFLMAO... The left-wing insists that freedom of speech is
now dead. Sounds quite fascist to me. I don't agree with hardly
anything PJ produces, but as the words commonly attribute to
Voltaire -- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the
death your right to say it."

The left started the death of freedom of speech during the 1980s
and 1990s with their reactions against anyone who disagreed with
them. If you made comments against any black person, you were
branded racist. The same was true of anything related to sexism
and orientationism (if that is a word). The left went so far down
that road that on a few American university campuses entire editions
of student newspapers were stolen by lefties intent on suppressing an
opinion contrary to theirs.

Now the right has taken the same approach. Republicans,
especially Fox News, accuse anyone who disagrees with Bush
and his war policy as being un-American. The same is true of
religion. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that read "One
nation under God, or get the hell out!"

Voltaire became irrelevant long ago in the USA.


Pete

oh minding about OT now just because it is right wing ???
Just mind about ALL OT's and it will be fine, but there is a lot to sweep
away on rec.travel.europe...



"Padraig Breathnach" a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
"PJ O'Donovan" wrote:

From the Washington Post:

lots of stuff irrelevant to rec.travel.europe

Peej,

Please **** off with your mindless right-wing drivel.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

"Planet Visitor II" wrote:

"Padraig Breathnach" wrote in message
.. .
"PJ O'Donovan" wrote:

From the Washington Post:

lots of stuff irrelevant to rec.travel.europe

Peej,

Please **** off with your mindless right-wing drivel.

ROTFLMAO... The left-wing insists that freedom of speech is now
dead. Sounds quite fascist to me. I don't agree with hardly anything
PJ produces, but as the words commonly attribute to Voltaire --
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
to say it."

Too bad you find yourself on the other side of that argument.

Let's see if I understand this: Peej posts off-topic right-wing stuff
here, and it is freedom of speech; I ask him to **** off, and it is a
denial of freedom of speech.

So tell me: why should I not have the freedom to ask Peej to **** off?

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

"Pete" wrote in message ...
Please **** off with your mindless right-wing drivel.

ROTFLMAO... The left-wing insists that freedom of speech is
now dead. Sounds quite fascist to me. I don't agree with hardly
anything PJ produces, but as the words commonly attribute to
Voltaire -- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the
death your right to say it."

The left started the death of freedom of speech during the 1980s
and 1990s with their reactions against anyone who disagreed with
them. If you made comments against any black person, you were
branded racist. The same was true of anything related to sexism
and orientationism (if that is a word). The left went so far down
that road that on a few American university campuses entire editions
of student newspapers were stolen by lefties intent on suppressing an
opinion contrary to theirs.

Now the right has taken the same approach. Republicans,
especially Fox News, accuse anyone who disagrees with Bush
and his war policy as being un-American. The same is true of
religion. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that read "One
nation under God, or get the hell out!"

My point was that "freedom of speech" should not be an issue
between the left and the right, but it is. In this particular case,
a leftist was shouting down views which disagreed with his,
insisting they are "mindless right wing-drivel." While not addressing
a single point raised by that "right wing" poster. Telling the poster
to essentially "shut the **** up." If he had been civil about it,
it would not have raised my comment. He could have politely
said -- "Please limit your comments to the newsgroup you
intend them to go to." Or "Please do not cross-post to
rec.travel.europe." In which case I would have silently applauded
his comment. But if that left-wing critic cannot remain civil,
how can he expect a civil answer?

Understand that I do not disagree with much of what you say,
while my criticism was meant to express disgust with a left-wing
comment meant to deny freedom of speech from those who hold
views different from his.

In the interest of civility in rec.travel.europe I will not engage in any
dialog regarding the differences between the left and right in that
group. I understand that you already have one "cross to bear"
with the anti-American raving of Earl Evleth.

Perhaps you might consider contributing to alt.activism.death-penalty,
since if you are from the left they can use all the help they can muster,
given the brutal intellectual savaging they have experienced in opposing
the death penalty, in a group dedicated to supporting and improving the
death penalty in the U.S.

Voltaire became irrelevant long ago in the USA.

And that means it should be irrelevant?

Yours in humble respect for your views...



Planet Visitor II
Official publisher of AADP Official dictionary
http://www.planetvisitor.name/dictionary.html



Pete