Remember Those Midterm Elections?

[fred_smith]

This is why I was not upset about “losing” the Senate. The Republicans may have but the Conservatives have not… Think of those four moderate Republicans in particular who lost, the one independent (Lieberman) and the 8 conservative Democrats who won… I predict that these same conservative Democrats will be voting along certain lines for any judicial appointments as well. Sorry Democrats. But at least you really have the House. I ain’t denying that.

[quote]Anti-war Democrats in the Senate failed in an attempt to cut off funds for the Iraq war on Wednesday, a lopsided bipartisan vote that masked growing impatience within both political parties over President Bush’s handling of the four-year conflict. The 67-29 vote against the measure left it far short of the 60 needed to advance. More than half the Senate’s Democrats supported the move, exposing divisions within the party but also marking a growth in anti-war sentiment from last summer, when only a dozen members of the rank and file backed a troop withdrawal deadline.

Ironically, the vote also cleared the way for the Democratic-controlled Congress to bow to Bush’s wishes and approve a war funding bill next week stripped of the type of restrictions that drew his veto earlier this spring. Democrats vowed in January to force an end to the war, and nowhere is the shift in sentiment more evident than among the party’s presidential contenders in the Senate. For the first time, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Barack Obama of Illinois and Joe Biden of Delaware joined Sen. Chris Dodd in lending support to the notion of setting a date to end U.S. participation in the war. Clinton, the Democrats’ presidential front-runner in most early polls, has adamantly opposed setting a date for a troop withdrawal, and she gave conflicting answers during the day when asked whether her vote signified support for a cutoff in funds.

“I’m not going to speculate on what I’ll be voting on in the future,” she said at midday. But a few hours later she said: “I support the … bill. That’s what this vote … was all about.”

Republicans voted unanimously against the measure, and several judged it harshly. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the GOP leader, said it fixed a “surrender date” for the United States. There were 28 Democrats in favor of advancing the bill, and 19 opposed. “An arbitrary cutoff date would take away an important negotiating tool,” said Sen. Jim Webb, of Virginia, a Democratic critic of the war elected to his first term last November. He noted that the administration had recently taken steps to engage Iran in diplomacy in hopes of easing the sectarian violence in neighboring Iraq.[/quote]

townhall.com/News/NewsArticl … e98fd45fed

[volcan]

Fred, I think you have memory loss problem !!! Remember what you said on November 8th? No? See below !!!

Now, I had assumed that we would keep the Senate and while I fully expected and was not that concerned about losing the House, THAT loss would move me into the testy column. Looks like it all hinges on Virginia eh? Ah well… Let’s see what happens but I will be upset if the Senate falls. THAT is far more important to me

[fred_smith]

Yes, that is what I said and then go to the same thread and read what I stated afterward when I realized just what kind of Democrats had been elected to the Senate. I realize that this might be a bit complicated for you to understand but sometimes one has to look at the results of certain events and then sometimes one finds that things are not as good as originally anticipated or in this case not as bad as originally anticipated. Notice that I have never stated losing the House was a good thing or that we are somehow “in control” there. We most certainly are not and we are paying for that. Nice Gotcha! quote though. And equally as irrelevant.

[mofangongren]

Fred, you were either upset or you weren’t about the losing of the Senate. Now, you might have subsequently comforted yourself into thinking that Dem Senators were “more conservative” than you expected, but that’s not the same thing as not being upset at the time. If you want to argue with yourself over this issue, perhaps you can do it in a PM to yourself.

[fred_smith]

Fred, you were either upset or you weren’t about the losing of the Senate. Now, you might have subsequently comforted yourself into thinking that Dem Senators were “more conservative” than you expected, but that’s not the same thing as not being upset at the time. If you want to argue with yourself over this issue, perhaps you can do it in a PM to yourself.

THAT is precisely my point. I was upset about losing the Senate during the election BUT realized LATER that this was not so bad after all. My reference to my own statements is clear. I am referring to those statements made by myself after the election in which I stated that the midterm elections were not going to lead to certain changes in our Iraq posture. Those are the ones that I am referring to. It does not, therefore, have to be the same thing as being upset at the time since that is the OTHER poster’s position NOT mine. Understand?

Have you never thought… I am so looking forward to restaurant x but when I got there I found that the service was not as good etc. Never changed your mind about anything in any regard? I also for example have changed my mind as to the difficulty of stabilizing Iraq. Are we all required to have 20/20 foresight now before we ever make a statement?

I like your Saturday “posting” better. Good job!

[mofangongren]

“posting”?

[volcan]

OK… So now it will be difficult to get you Fred when posting, you may say something now, but the next day you will pretend not to have said it, or just change your mind. :s Makes me think about Bush when he said there was weapon of mass destruction… but actually there wasn’t !!!

About the Iraq mess:

I also for example have changed my mind as to the difficulty of stabilizing Iraq

It was clear from start that without other Muslim countries surrounding Iraq as ally there was no chance to win this bloody battle. Saddam was a tyrant without doubt, but at least he did not deny it and kept his country in relative tranquillity. Bush should have for the first time in his life open a book other then the bible that descript the history of the middle east, and not only be blinded by the black gold.

Now go say to the families of those youth people who died as well as to all those disabled marines and innocent Iraqis that all this bloodshed was founded on lies and misjudgement!!! Great work republicans!!! You are on the right track to plunge the entire world into misery.

[Dog_s_Breakfast]

Quite frankly, if I were a Democratic senator/congressman, I’d kick, scream and protest about the war in Iraq - and in the end, vote for the funding without strings attached. Why? Because I believe that Bush wants nothing more than for the Democrats to cut off funding for the war so that the loss in Iraq can be blamed on the “Defeatocrats”.

“We would have won in Iraq,” he’ll exclaim, “except that the Democrats cut off the funding just when the surge was working, and victory was within our grasp.”

No, this is Bush’s war - let him have the funding for at least one more year - it will bury him, and the Republican Party for good. They will not be able to shift the blame for this humiliating defeat elsewhere, though no doubt they will try. And no doubt Fred Smith will be on the front lines explaining how the war was lost by the Democrats, even though Bush was given all the funding he asked for.

Too bad for all those US troops and Iraqi civilians who keep getting killed and maimed in this war for oil. And too bad that the US dollar might collapse because of the enormous debt that is accumulating thanks to this war.

[fred_smith]

OK… So now it will be difficult to get you Fred when posting, you may say something now, but the next day you will pretend not to have said it, or just change your mind. Makes me think about Bush when he said there was weapon of mass destruction… but actually there wasn’t !!!

I do not think that this is a fair assessment. I have changed my mind on numerous occasions. Gosh. New facts requiring new thinking. Who was it again that had the tagline, “consistency is the hobgoblin of simple minds?” Consider that posted to you. haha

It was clear from start that without other Muslim countries surrounding Iraq as ally there was no chance to win this bloody battle.

Not true. And given that it was the best of all bad options, what kind of luxury do you think we had to leave things as they were? Answer please…

Saddam was a tyrant without doubt, but at least he did not deny it and kept his country in relative tranquillity.

Saddam engaged in endless bloody wars that devastated his nation and killed on average 30,000 people one way or another himself. That is far more than died in the first three years and only recently have we achieved that same level of deaths.

Bush should have for the first time in his life open a book other then the bible that descript the history of the middle east, and not only be blinded by the black gold.

You can repeat this little mantra if it makes you happy but there are records of what officials met with Bush and when and what they discussed. You simply do not know what you are talking about. The reasons why the Bush administration acted are all listed. There are pro and con arguments. We know why one side eventually won the debate. Sometimes they were right; sometimes they were wrong but the fact remains that Iraq was never going to be easy and with Kenneth Pollack as one of the administration’s key advisors, the idea that this was not known is ludicrous. Coupled with the fact that Bush has always said this would be a long, hard struggle, I guess one must assume you ignored all that to listen to a few media pundits? Good for you!

Now go say to the families of those youth people who died as well as to all those disabled marines and innocent Iraqis that all this bloodshed was founded on lies and misjudgement!!! Great work republicans!!! You are on the right track to plunge the entire world into misery.

Likewise go and tell the millions who died because of Saddam and then go and tell the millions more who could have been devastated had Saddam ever used a nuke to attack the Saudi oil fields, plunging the world into great depression like nothing else and then you come and talk. As is, you are merely venting about events about which you have very little factual knowledge.

[fred_smith]

[quote]Quite frankly, if I were a Democratic senator/congressman, I’d kick, scream and protest about the war in Iraq - and in the end, vote for the funding without strings attached. Why? Because I believe that Bush wants nothing more than for the Democrats to cut off funding for the war so that the loss in Iraq can be blamed on the “Defeatocrats”.

“We would have won in Iraq,” he’ll exclaim, “except that the Democrats cut off the funding just when the surge was working, and victory was within our grasp.”

No, this is Bush’s war - let him have the funding for at least one more year - it will bury him, and the Republican Party for good. They will not be able to shift the blame for this humiliating defeat elsewhere, though no doubt they will try. And no doubt Fred Smith will be on the front lines explaining how the war was lost by the Democrats, even though Bush was given all the funding he asked for.

Too bad for all those US troops and Iraqi civilians who keep getting killed and maimed in this war for oil. And too bad that the US dollar might collapse because of the enormous debt that is accumulating thanks to this war.[/quote]

My, my, my… You unlike me have failed to appreciate the importance of the midterm elections. Those extra 8 senators are conservative Democrats and while Democrats more conservative than the liberal Republicans that they beat. This is NEVER going to happen in the Senate. THAT is what I finally realized last year. ALSO, I fail to understand how and when the US dollar is going to collapse. Our deficit is now in the range of 1.5 percent to 1.8 percent of GDP and falling. There are many more nations in the developed world with much higher deficits. This could be as low as 0.8 percent next year or the following. This is not a war for oil. IF it were, then where is the US control of anything in Iraq or Kuwait or even Saudi Arabia for that matter? You can repeat these media myths as much as you like but they do not stand up to scrutiny. The Butler report came to the exact same conclusions though I am sure that you have not had the chance to “read” it yet. Right?

[volcan]

what kind of luxury do you think we had to leave things as they were? Answer please…

First, you can not attack a country without the approval of the UN just because you think that there is a tyrant that needs to be replaced. Otherwise, the US could have started with other tyrant like Pinochet !!!

Saddam engaged in endless bloody wars that devastated his nation and killed on average 30,000 people one way or another himself. That is far more than died in the first three years and only recently have we achieved that same level of deaths.

We definitly not reading the same articals, the total death tool is more then 500’000 human beings including Iraqi soldiers forced into combat. I already mentioned that before and the link to the web page.

You simply do not know what you are talking about

Sure, we are all stupid except you.

Likewise go and tell the millions who died because of Saddam and then go and tell the millions more who could have been devastated had Saddam ever used a nuke to attack the Saudi oil fields

We are not responsible for all the killings in this world, but you who voted for Bush and agreed this invasion, YOU are responsible !!! And so far the only purpose of having an atomic bomb is to protect itself and not attack. Using this kind of technology is just too much counter productive and even Saddam knew that.
By the way, Back in 2000 when I lived in the US I could hear many of your citizen screaming openly to nuke those countries !!! So basicaly for you Yankies it’s OK to nuke, but it’s not OK other to nuke others !!! Weired

As is, you are merely venting about events about which you have very little factual knowledge

Once again, we are all idiots except you and don’t know anything, but at least we were right when we stated that Iraq will be and still now is a total disaster. And worse is to come.

[mofangongren]

@fred smith

This is not a war for oil. IF it were, then where is the US control of anything in Iraq or Kuwait or even Saudi Arabia for that matter?

Just a hunch, but I bet there was an ancestor of yours insisting ca. 1946 that the German invasion of the Soviet Union was “not about Lebensraum. IF it were, then were is the German control of anything in in Poland or Russia??”

And right after the Falklands war, there was probably some other relative of yours stating emphatically that the Argentinian invasion was “not about the Argentinian desire for hot Falklands-style ovisphilic action. IF it were, then where is the Argentinian control of anything in the Falklands?!”

[fred_smith]

First, you can not attack a country without the approval of the UN just because you think that there is a tyrant that needs to be replaced. Otherwise, the US could have started with other tyrant like Pinochet !!!

Bullshit. Almost all wars have taken place including the efforts in Bosnia and Kosovo without the approval of the UN. The only two since World War II when the UN was created were Korea because the Soviets were boycotting the UN and the first Gulf War. In fact, the same Kofi Annan who talked about international law so strenuously in 2002/3 was the same one who approved the US and UK action in the Balkans as morally justified despite not being technically legal with the proviso that “sometimes UN member nations need to enforce UN regulations without the official approval of the body.” What a change four years makes, eh? And what about all the illegal sanctions busting by some of the key UN members including France, Russia and China. What about the illegal actions of Iran and Iraq throughout their most recent history? What about the illegal sanctions busting of every nation that bordered Iraq?

We definitly not reading the same articals, the total death tool is more then 500’000 human beings including Iraqi soldiers forced into combat. I already mentioned that before and the link to the web page.

The standardly accepted figure is 65,000 as of February with the addition of around 2,000 to 3,000 per month since then so today is May so make that around 6,000 to 9,000 more for a total of say 74,000. Saddam was killing 30,000 ON AVERAGE not including his wars per year. Guess we are not reading the same articles. haha I guess you are right.

Sure, we are all stupid except you.

Not all but most and you are definitely included in the latter. Alternatively, you can simply chalk it down to being less well-informed. Others here are highly intelligent and very well read and we have legitimate disagreements but others are highly intelligent and very well read but choose to engage in cheap partisanship. That would be you know who.

We are not responsible for all the killings in this world, but you who voted for Bush and agreed this invasion, YOU are responsible !!!

Why? Deaths were occurring in Iraq under Saddam. Is the US or its forces responsible for those killings today? Not really. We can be said to be responsible for not being able to stop them but we are not the ones doing the killing. And there is a big difference between a nation who acts with great circumspection to protect civilian life and those that act to maximize civilian death. Given that we did NOT act in Rwanda and other places, what do you make of that? Say Darfur?

And so far the only purpose of having an atomic bomb is to protect itself and not attack. Using this kind of technology is just too much counter productive and even Saddam knew that.

You are projecting Western values and belief systems as well as a rational psychology onto Saddam. You do not know or understand his motives. One of the chief experts was Kenneth Pollack. He would disagree with you and he despite recognizing nearly all of the difficulties that we are facing now (and he advised Bush and his team of the same) advised that invading Iraq to remove Saddam was the least bad of a bunch of terrible options. Also remember that many of Bush’s team have close contacts with those from Bush I who (remember) chose not to invade because of precisely what we are facing today. 911 changed the calculus beyond belief. We were right to remove Saddam. You don’t get that. Fine. Public opinion even yours is important but the luxury of esoteric views such as this is that an empty luxury. This is not a policy that would have ever been entertained seriously by any official. That is the difference so talk away but doing so in this way merely removes you from the equation. That may be to your enjoyment or purpose, but hey, what’s the point? onanism?

By the way, Back in 2000 when I lived in the US I could hear many of your citizen screaming openly to nuke those countries !!! So basicaly for you Yankies it’s OK to nuke, but it’s not OK other to nuke others !!! Weired

Yes, I am sure that you heard the man on the street screaming to nuke those countries. That was not a realistic policy of any responsible official though. We are not a nation that is run by the mob. Ironically, your views are somewhat akin in nature to those of the ones that you decry. Do you get that? probably not.

Once again, we are all idiots except you and don’t know anything,

Nice try, but you do not know as much about this as I do nor are you as intelligent, knowledgeable or well read. You are entitled to your view but you are clearly out of your area of expertise.

but at least we were right when we stated that Iraq will be and still now is a total disaster.

Iraq was always a disaster. It was falling apart at the seams. It was a gangster nation even before Saddam was removed.

And worse is to come.

Perhaps, but I also believe that better will come from this. Just because you people did not know about Iraq or pay attention to it before the media “noticed” it does not mean that these problems were not there before. How supremely narcissistic to assume that just because it was not an issue for YOU before that it did not suffer from the exact same problems even worse in many ways that it does now. The MTV Generation has spoken. The Vox Populi. haha

[games]

@fred smith

I also for example have changed my mind as to the difficulty of stabilizing Iraq.

Any particular reason why the current situation was not predictable to youin the first place? Majored in history, travelling the area regularly (or so at least you claim) … how comes this apparent lack of foresight?

Would not have been that you had been blindsided by partisan loyalties now, would it?

@fred smith

Are we all required to have 20/20 foresight now before we ever make a statement?

Hmmmm … let’s see. Your statements demand military intervention and not only that, you also want other’s to join your endeavour and you constantly whine that you want more support for it from all side. Domestic, international, from the Middle East, from Europe. In short: Wanna! Wanna! Wanna!

Well, I guess if you do not want to come over like some whiney liberal with entitlement issues then: yes - you probably do have to cast a decent foresight if you want something.

In other circles this is called due diligence or feasibility study. Kind of an integral part of any (decent) proposal for any undertaking. Given though you majored in the liberul arts (history?) hardly a surprise you never heard of either term.

Can’t you just do the decent thing and join the other liberal dead enders officially?

With you as a cheerleader …
not helping, not helping
.

[MikeN]

Fred, the Democratic pick-ups were:

Missouri: McCaskill over Talent
Montana: Tester over Burns
Ohio: Brown over DeWine
Pennsylvania: Casey over Santorum
Rhode Island: Whitehouse over Chafee
Virginia: Webb over Allen

In what possible twisted analysis can that be construed as conservative Democrats beating liberal Republicans? In every case, the Dem was clearly to the left of his/her opponent.
Sorry, but sometimes reality bites.

[fred_smith]

[quote]Fred, the Democratic pick-ups were:

Missouri: McCaskill over Talent
Montana: Tester over Burns
Ohio: Brown over DeWine
Pennsylvania: Casey over Santorum
Rhode Island: Whitehouse over Chafee
Virginia: Webb over Allen

In what possible twisted analysis can that be construed as conservative Democrats beating liberal Republicans? In every case, the Dem was clearly to the left of his/her opponent.
Sorry, but sometimes reality bites. [/quote]

and do not forget the win of Lieberman as an independent in Connecticut.

They need not have won directly against the liberal Republicans to affect the calculus involved. I am not saying that conservative Democrat x beat liberal Republican y in state z. This is not my point. I am looking at the total slate. Before the Republicans controlled 54 and now we have 49. That is a loss of 6. But of those 6, four were liberal Republicans. Now, while the Democrats have 50 plus one independent who votes with them, what is the real calculus when it comes to CONSERVATIVE issues? Is it not that we really have 57 to 60 now? where really before we had only 52? Actually, if Bush were smart, he would run the whole gamut of judicial candidates NOW while we have a very strong force on Conservative issues in terms of judicial matters. This is also though why I am less than concerned about any cut in funding or immediate pullout from Iraq.

Again, I was worried about losing the Senate. We lost the Senate but then when I realized what had actually happened I was less upset and in many ways highly pleased. I will not put a smiling face on the loss of the House though. This is why all of these inane investigations have started. This is what is gumming up the process for us across the board. Oh, that was a big loss all right and it is proving more and more painful as the months go by. Nancy Pelosi is a true thorn in our side. Reid is of less concern. Now, perhaps, the Senate will start acting in a way that is different from at present. When and if that happens, I reserve the right to re-examine my views on whether the loss of the Senate was painful or not but for now… I am actually pleased not upset.

[MikeN]

[quote=“fred smith”][quote]Fred, the Democratic pick-ups were:

Missouri: McCaskill over Talent
Montana: Tester over Burns
Ohio: Brown over DeWine
Pennsylvania: Casey over Santorum
Rhode Island: Whitehouse over Chafee
Virginia: Webb over Allen

In what possible twisted analysis can that be construed as conservative Democrats beating liberal Republicans? In every case, the Dem was clearly to the left of his/her opponent.
Sorry, but sometimes reality bites. [/quote]

and do not forget the win of Lieberman as an independent in Connecticut.

They need not have won directly against the liberal Republicans to affect the calculus involved. I am not saying that conservative Democrat x beat liberal Republican y in state z. This is not my point. I am looking at the total slate. Before the Republicans controlled 54 and now we have 49. That is a loss of 6. But of those 6, four were liberal Republicans. Now, while the Democrats have 50 plus one independent who votes with them, what is the real calculus when it comes to CONSERVATIVE issues? Is it not that we really have 57 to 60 now? where really before we had only 52? Actually, if Bush were smart, he would run the whole gamut of judicial candidates NOW while we have a very strong force on Conservative issues in terms of judicial matters. This is also though why I am less than concerned about any cut in funding or immediate pullout from Iraq.

[/quote]

Let’s see, rankings from the American Conservative Union:

Talent 92.8
Allen 92.6
Burns 90.6
Santorum 88.1
DeWine 79.8
Chaffee 34.7

If you look at the National Journal ratings, which rank them compared to other Senators (not including Rockefeller, who wasn’t even around enough to get a ranking)

Allen 78
Burns 77
Santorum 70
Talent 68
Coleman 53
DeWine 49
Chaffee 41

Coleman and DeWine were more conservative than any Dem except Ben Nelson (Nebraska); Chaffee more so than any Dem except Nelson and Landrieu (Louisiana).

You still have to argue that the Democrats replacing them are more conservative than the people they’re replacing to get any net conservative swing.

All of the newly-elected Dems voted for the Iraqi withdrawal bill of April 26 that Bush vetoed; none of the defeated Republicans except Chaffee mever bucked the White House on a war vote.

Sure, a senator from Missouri is going to be more conservative than a senator from Rhode Island - but a Missouri Democrat is going to be less conservative than a Missouri Republican, and a Rhode Island Democrat more liberal than a Rhode Island Republican- the whole spectrum has shifted leftward.

[fred_smith]

I take your points MikeN, but only some of them are going to be valid. In the context of any of the following:

Judicial nominations
Iraq
Budget spending constraints
military support

within the framework of the new Senate, what exactly do you think that people who support the positions that I do have to worry about? and is, in fact, our position on these areas now not much stronger than pre-midterm elections? I think that it is.

[volcan]

no

[volcan]

The standardly accepted figure is 65,000 as of February with the addition of around 2,000 to 3,000 per month since then so today is May so make that around 6,000 to 9,000 more for a total of say 74,000. Saddam was killing 30,000 ON AVERAGE

So actually the number of killing matters? So you Yankees can kill between 74’000 and 500’000 people + injuries (depending on the source) and you should be rewarded? You are responsible for Your killings !!! Point.

Not all but most and you are definitely included in the latter. Alternatively, you can simply chalk it down to being less well-informed. Others here are highly intelligent and very well read and we have legitimate disagreements but others are highly intelligent and very well read but choose to engage in cheap partisanship. That would be you know who.

OK you know your subject, but inteligence is also having restrain, self-control and modesty, which you definitly don’t have. Spitting on others because they have a different point of view is not called inteligence but stupidity.

Why? Deaths were occurring in Iraq under Saddam. Is the US or its forces responsible for those killings today?

You are not responsible for the killings under Saddam, but your are responsible for the current killing and the mess.

You are projecting Western values and belief systems as well as a rational psychology onto Saddam. You do not know or understand his motives. One of the chief experts was Kenneth Pollack. He would disagree with you and he despite recognizing nearly all of the difficulties that we are facing now (and he advised Bush and his team of the same) advised that invading Iraq to remove Saddam was the least bad of a bunch of terrible options

Before the invasion there was other UN experts who didn’t have the same approche. The current situation shows the result, according to UN experts “Torture in Iraq may be worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein, with militias, terrorist groups and government forces disregarding rules on the humane treatment of prisoners”
Great no? and “Iraq has become the new epicenter for al-Qaida cells waging holy war against the West, one of the world’s foremost experts on terror said Tuesday”

Yes, it was a better choice for all of us to invade Iraq. Good remarks Fred !!!

[quote]“The epicenter has shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq,” he told a conference of business leaders on how to prepare for terror threats.

Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who replaced Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the al-Qaida chain of command, has been building a support base in Europe, he said. Al-Masri, an Egyptian militant, was endorsed by Osama bin Laden after Zarqawi was killed last June by a U.S. airstrike.

Al-Masri is believed to have joined the “jihad” or “holy war” in the 1980s and has close ties with Ayman al-Zawahri, al-Qaida’s No. 2 leader. That means al-Qaida in Iraq is likely to be drawn closer to the mainstream al-Qaida leadership than under Zarqawi, a Jordanian who ran his operation in Iraq with great autonomy until his death.

Gunaratna said most al-Qaida cells, including north African cells, had people in Iraq. They present a real risk because they see the West as a threat to their way of life, he said.[/quote]