<p>First I asked what the definition of victory was, and you answered. Then I asked you an entirely new question: why we didn’t hear about that definition of victory before the war. You pointed out that Congress did mention it at least once. But it seems strange that you would think Congress’ mentioning it matters, since they’re not the Commander in Chief, the Decider, who has sole responsibility for deciding what happens in this war. So how come I didn’t hear about that definition of victory from him, or his staff?</p>
<p>Or do you think that Congress actually plays an important role in deciding why and how wars are conducted?</p>
<p>AM: To quote: Have you no shame? No one here has ever called someone opposed to the war a traitor. In fact, I’m pretty up on the FAUX NEWS, and the vast right wing media, and I’ve never heard someone in opposition to the war called a traitor. </p>
<p>It is my understanding (a la Feingold) that Congress could organize a defunding of the war, which would take place at the end of six months, if it had the will to do so.</p>
<p>Hanna, do you really claim that you never heard the claim that “Saddam used WMDs against his own people” from the administration? </p>
<p>However, despite the fact that this was used many, many times to show how ruthlessly he treated his own people, I have never made any claims about the Bush team’s ability to convey the reasons for the war in a simplistic, logical manner. If you read the many speeches and interviews, they were there to be found, but sadly communications is not the Bush administration’s strength.</p>
<p>Of course Congress plays an important role. They proved that in in 1974 when they pulled the plug on a whole nation and let hundreds of thousands or millions of people die. Now some are talking about repeating that glorious part of our history.</p>
<p>“Hanna, do you really claim that you never heard the claim that “Saddam used WMDs against his own people” from the administration?”</p>
<p>I’ve heard it, and also known that it was accomplished under the auspices of the Rumsfeld Handshake. That’s why they wouldn’t allow him to go on trial for it.</p>
<p>"You want a proposal to cut off funding for the already underfunded soldiers?'</p>
<p>YES. Anything less is abandoning the troops to the lying, deceit, cheating, and just plain malfeasance of the Administration which has already underfunded them either way.</p>
<p>Are you serious HH? Shall I find you some quotes of the right wing pundits, like O’Reilly calling opponents of the war “traitors”?</p>
<p>Mini, my question was somewhat rhetorical, but I still don’t think Congress Dems have the xxxs to cut off the war funding. Just isn’t going to happen until we lose another 3000 American lives. Then…maybe.</p>
<p>I have heard some extreme hyperbole regarding Kerry or Carter or Fonda speaking against the U.S. on foreign soil, but I have also heard “right winger” media pundits go out of their way to say that critics of the war have every right to do so and are not unpatriotic (including and most especially Cindy Sheehan). </p>
<p>Perhaps I’m not as up on the vast right wing media as I thought.</p>
<p>"With people who believe that American can’t do anything right, there is really little point in discussion. "</p>
<p>Amen, HH.</p>
<p>BTW, I can’t WAIT for our next Democratic President to be elected!!! In accordance with most of the posters here, s/he will immediately solve this crisis, which would make me happy, or s/he will find it is not so easy, in which case I can say “I told you so.”</p>
<p>Oh, I believe Americans can do lots of things right. Which is different from believing this so-called administration can do anything right, though I note there are quite a few folks who often confuse “America” with “this administration” as if they were one and the same.</p>
<p>It’s a demanding puzzle to figure out how to arrange the adjectives describing this administration in order of priority and magnitude: arrogant, incompetent, stupid, obstinant, deceitful, clueless, isolated, manipulative…well, heck, it’s probably a chore just to limit the number of adjectives, let alone arrange them.</p>
<p>No one is claiming that the next Democratic president will be error free. However, it’s a great bet that s/he will be better than this one.</p>
<p>FF are you saying we should have stayed in Viet Nam? okay dokey</p>
<p>Underfunded soilders? How much are we spending? We are spending billions, and if the soliders are underfunded where in the )*#$@ is that money going- not for infrastructure, not for training, not for our troops…so where is it? and you FF want to give Bush and his cronies MORE money to misspend and misanage? If they are underfunded, where is that money going then?</p>
<p>You loyalty is truely astounding…and that is not necessarily a good thing</p>
<p>Bay, America does a lot right, and that is why this mess of a war is so frustrating…what has been done correctly in it…it is LONGER than WW2 and it is getting worse, not better…so, bay you going over to be part of the 50,000, yes 50,000 extra troops needed…</p>
<p>“.so, bay you going over to be part of the 50,000, yes 50,000 extra troops needed…”</p>
<p>CGM,</p>
<p>Actually, I believe the US has a standing military of about 1.2 million (not counting reserves, but counting Coast Guard, etc which wouldn’t be applicable), so I doubt they will need my old, decrepit body over there.</p>
<p>Honestly, I don’t pretend to know how this will all shake out, so no need to attack me. I truly hope for the best, and history will be the ultimate judge. But I do think we have done some good for the world and for our country. After 9/11, it was important to take some sort of action that would resonate. We will eventually see if this is the right path, but I will not venture to ASSUME that it is the wrong one.</p>
<p>Here’s a weird Nov. 2005 quote from the lovable Ann Coulter, regarding traitors.
“The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats’ behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle. They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors.” Uh, OK. What think you, Vox?</p>
<p>I think to justify that statement we need a lot more. Your statement “opposers of the war” implies that EVERYONE who supports Bush calls “opposers” traitors. I think that is not fair. I, for example, would not make a statement implying that all critics of the war call people supporting the war “blood thirsty jingoists.” In fact, I would probably ignore the people that do; whereas, you have a very, very hard time ignoring O’Reilly, for some reason (you probably don’t realize that you bring him up on these threads constantly). Others here prefer Coulter.</p>
<p>So yes, more (much more) would be helpful (as would adding attribution to your quotes–websites, if possible).</p>
<p>“No one here has ever called someone opposed to the war a traitor.”</p>
<p>No, instead you have said that we think that America “can’t do anything right” and that we are hoping for more disaster in Iraq. We have been accused of celebrating when more American soldiers get killed, which, if true, would indeed be traitorous.</p>
<p>I really, really hope that you weren’t referring to me with that America comment.</p>
<p>HH, you yourself have said to people here who oppose the surge, things like “maybe you can find ONE thing you like about this country.”</p>
<p>I find your “shock” that others on the RW besides you have said such rude and deliberately insulting things–more than a little overdone. Sorry, I don’t think the Academy will be handing you a statuette this year.</p>
<p>Oh, HH, surely you jest! In post # 646, I posted exactly this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><em>You</em> know I said “right wing pundits”, not “everyone”. </p>
<p>I think the point has been made. It’s so hard to be proven wrong, since you really didn’t believe ANYONE would call fellow Americans traitors. But indeed, they have.</p>
<p>Yes, you did, AM. And you found me two quotes.</p>
<p>Your original quote was as I stated above.</p>
<p>Bill O’Reilly has a television viewership of two million people. Two million people. Why are you so concerned about one statement he made, and one statement Coulter made (she doesn’t even have a tv or radio show!). </p>
<p>I wouldn’t waste my time searching for the Franken quote it sounds like O’Reilly was responding to. </p>
<p>And Coulter said liberals were either traitors or idiots; maybe idiots, then. </p>
<p>If you can’t come up with more; fine.</p>
<p>Go ahead and name one thing you like about this country, ladies. I don’t think I’ve heard you mention one. I thought maybe it was your freedom to speak your mind–maybe it’s something else.</p>
<p>It would seriously be a breath of fresh air on this board.</p>
<p>P.S. I hope you were not saying that I said people here celebrate when more soldiers get killed and hope for more disasters in Iraq. I never made those statements, nor implied them. I did say something to the effect of "maybe that’s one good thing about this country (referring to your freedom to speak your mind) which has been absurdly translated into my calling people here “traitors” and my being called the scum of the earth etc.</p>
<p>I haven’t heard you say one thing you like about this country either. All you do is criticize anyone who doesn’t blindly support the administration (as if you did that with Clinton, right)–and talk about how you’re too busy with your cooking and your shopping to educate yourself about Iraq. </p>
<p>That is hardly a position of moral superiority.</p>
</p>