Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Here's a Winning Iraq Strategy for the Democrats

The Democratic Party is in a state of utter disarray and infighting over which Iraq war policy to adopt and present to voters as it heads towards the November midterms. Last Fall, Sen. John Murtha (PA) put forth a controversial, immediate troop withdrawal resolution which was ridiculed by Republicans and ignored by Democrats. He's been followed last week by Sen. John Kerry (MA) who first called for a complete withdrawal by December 31 of this year. Under fire from his colleagues, including Sens. Carl Levin (MI), Chris Dodd (CT) and Joe Biden (DE) who fear being branded the "cut and run" party by the right, Kerry compromised and has shifted his timetable for withdrawal to July '07, as reported Wednesday in the NY Times.

Kerry's right. So's Murtha. It's time to get out of Iraq. We'll get to more of the why in a moment. But first it's important to come up with the how. We've created a sensible plan for withdrawal that could be the winning ticket for Democrats headed into November.

Below is our plan, which we call Peace with Security: a 5-Point Plan and a Promise. We strongly urge the Democratic leadership to adopt this measure in a unified manner. They must craft the message, create the talking points, and take it to the public as soon as possible.

1. Set timetable for 125,000 troop draw-down by Dec 31, 2007: By then, the war will have dragged on for 4 1/2 years. That's more than a reasonable amount of time to have given Bush to topple Saddam and to create his "new kind of Democracy." The Iraqis need to understand that we will not stay forever, and a timetable is the best way to get them off their asses and into serious action. Considering that 90% of the insurgency consists of Saddam loyalists and Baathist holdovers who oppose the U.S. occupation, chances are much of the violence may subside as a result. The remaining 10% will be Iraq's responsibility to contain. Democrats have a plan to bring the troops home in a realistic timetable.

2. Leave 15,000 troops stationed in Iraq after 12/31/07 to assist with peace-keeping: For over 55 years we've had troops in dozens of countries, with major deployments in S. Korea, Japan and Germany. There's no reason we can't have a minimal yet meaningful military presence in Iraq. Democrats have a plan for post-withdrawal stability.

3. Increase funding for security training and equipment to $5-billion from less than $1-billion: the House on Tuesday passed a defense spending bill which also gave $1-billion for training and equipping Iraqi and Afghan security forces. This is not enough if we're ever going to be able to pull out and have the Iraqis defend its new democracy and protect its citizens. We must aggressively step up the training process and get Iraq's security forces fully prepared to take over. Democrats have a plan to successfully train Iraqi forces to stand on their own.

4. Commit to return if necessary: Assure the American public that the U.S. is ready at the drop of a hat to re-deploy over 100,000 troops to Iraq if our intelligence and military assets on the ground indicates that Al Qaeda and/or any other terror organization which threatens us here on U.S soil has gained a stronghold over the country.

5. Embark on major new enlistment drive for armed services and National Guard: the U.S. military is currently spread so thin that soldiers and guardsmen are being forced to serve multiple tours of duty. Recruitment has missed the army's goals, and America needs to increase its troop-strength. It's time for appreciable across-the-board pay raises and increased benefits for our servicemen and women. And it's also time to beef up the Guard so that we are fully prepared to take on a major national disaster like Hurricane Katrina even if our troops are at war overseas. Democrats will honor our soldiers and veterans with compensation they deserve, and will keep our military strong, prepared and on constant alert.

The Promise: as Democrats, we promise the American people that we will never, ever, send our soldiers--men and women, husbands and wives, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters--off to war unless it is absolutely necessary, as a last resort, to defend against a direct, imminent threat to our country and/or to our allies.

This is a realistic plan to end the occupation, one that affords the U.S. government plenty of time to fully prepare our military for the transition, as well as to aggressively train the Iraqi security forces to assume the mantle on December 31, 2007. It is also a plan that will resonate with the majority of Americans who are fed up with this war and want a realistic, viable timetable and plan for withdrawal but who oppose a simple cut and run.

We need to demonstrate to voters that we are the party that can successfully end the war and continue to strongly defend our nation and protect our citizens. But more important, there has to be a very clear distinction between what we're offering voters and that of the Republicans. The Hillary strategy won't work. "Republican Lite" is not what Democratic voters want from the party, They want an alternative, not mirroring.

Now let's get back to the why. The Iraq war is an unjust, ill-conceived, under-planned, poorly orchestrated disaster that's spiraling out of control with no end in sight, and no real plan on the table from the Busheviks except "Stay the Course." As Murtha said this week, "that's not a plan." We just surpassed the milestone of 2500 U.S. soldiers killed. Contrary to what Bush says, there is no real progress. The violence and death has escalated in the last two years, and essential services--electricity, water, oil production--are at less than pre-war levels, as the Brookings Institute reported Monday. The course which Bush wants us to stay is completely undefined and unrealistic. Rather than use the pejorative cut and run, I'd much rather use the more sensible cut our losses. It's time to stop spilling the blood of our young men and women.

Peace with Security: a 5-Point Plan and a Promise. A winning campaign theme for November? We think so.


Anonymous said...

Sounds good, but Bush and company have no plans to leave Irag.


I do not consider the Dems in disaray over Irag. They are having a conversation with the nation. One that should have been done before we ever invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

And now I see in my morning paper, that 2 months is too long for Bush to wait for Iran to respond. What? Who does he think will fight this war? Oh yea, I just saw where the Army has raised the enlistment age to 42! Come on Bush war supporters. Hurry on down and join up for this president and war you love so much!

From the once great State of Michigan

Anonymous said...

the democratic promise is just a rehash of the republican promise.


the democratic promise requires america to be attacked before responding

Anonymous said...

I'm a conservative who reads your blog. You're 5 point plan doesn't look that bad. I actually think that points 2,3,&4 are valid and would also be (in general) in the current strategy.

The first point, I somewhat disagree. Not because it sets a date, but because it publicizes a date to the terrorists.

Mowaffak al Rubaie, Iraq's national security adviser writing in the Washington Post Tuesday, said:

"There is an unofficial 'road map' to foreign troop reductions that eventually will lead to total withdrawal of U.S. troops. This road map is based not just on a series of dates but, more important, on achievement of set objectives for restoring security in Iraq."

I also agree with point 5. Our military deserves more pay. On February 25, 1999 the Senate overwhelmingly approved a sweeping pay and pension increase for troops that is bigger than a plan President Clinton proposed two months earlier. The bill, a Republican priority, was approved 91 to 8, with most Democrats joining to support the politically popular measure.

Its interesting to point out who was not in favor of raising military pay:

Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Gregg (R-NH)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Nickles (R-OK)
Voinovich (R-OH)

Not Voting - 1
Moynihan (D-NY)

Anonymous said...

First of all it is good to have a person like Larry voice his opinion without YELLING like so many have been doing, nice writing and welcome. We all know this invasion was based on lies and I still blame people like Kerry, Biden, Lieberman and Hillary plus many others that voted with Bush. Going to war is a very serious move and everyone knew many lives would be lost. They also knew that once the trigger is first pulled there was no turning back, yet they still rushed into this and for what reason?

After over three years we now see there is no way we can win this thing and Iraq is more dangerous now then ever before even the “Green Zone” is not safe. The MSM is asked to tell the good things that are going on yet there just isn’t any. I’m on the fence about a time table but one thing is for sure when you’re in a hole you need to stop digging. How many more lives, on both sides, must be lost before we say “turn in your shovels we’re not digging anymore, we’re going home”? What did we learn from Korea and Vietnam, two wars/conflicts that we lost so many lives and spent so much money, and for what? At least Kerry is turning in his shovel and setting a time frame rather then the stay the course and we’ll see what happens idea. He is also right in that these people NEED a time frame to get their “schlitz” together so we don’t have to keep supporting them. We need to get out and do it now before we’re at the 3,000 dead level.

Anonymous said...

With all due respect, I don't "know" this invasion was based on lies. We didn't rush into war, there was a 13 year period between Saddams surrender in the first Gulf War and this invasion. During the 13 year period, Saddam broke the agreements of his surrender, was brutal to his people, funding Palestinian suicide bombings, and sheltering Abdul Yasin, Mohammad Abbas, Al Zarqawi, and others. We even found chemical weapons recently that were not disclosed in Saddam's reports to the UN. Unnamed DoD sources have discounted these weapon stockpiles, but so far there has been no official discounting of this find by the Pentagon.
The invasion was 5 years after Clinton made Iraqi regime change our official policy.
To state that "we all know this invasion was based on lies" is honestly just playing politics.

Since Murtha is quoted so often on this website, I just wanted to provide some of his history:

Murtha got into politics in 1968 as a 36-year-old highly decorated Marine and in 1974 became the first Vietnam War veteran elected to Congress. By 1980, Murtha was a lieutenant of Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O'Neill and was moving to the top in the House when the FBI named him as one of eight members of Congress videotaped being offered bribes by a phony Arab sheik.

The other seven congressional targets took cash and were convicted in federal court. The videotape showed Murtha declining to take cash but expressing interest in further negotiations, while bragging about his political influence. Murtha testified against the popular Rep. Frank Thompson in the Abscam case, which created lifelong enemies in the Democratic cloakroom. The House Ethics Committee exonerated Murtha of misconduct charges by a largely party-line vote, after which the committee's special counsel resigned in protest. The whole article is here


It has been stated on this blog that while Rove was unindicted it doesn't mean he's innocent. The same can be said of Murtha and Abscam.

Anonymous said...

Larry - Surely you learned during your education that documents with credibility list references as the source of information. The reader can then check the validity of the claim. Your history lesson is meaningless and therefore valueless. As so many on this blog are beginning to pose as authorities and are making statements that are supposededly factual and not just opinion, I suggest sources be cited.

Anonymous said...

Which specific fact would you like cited? I'm surely not going to run around citing every point I make to satisfy an anonymous poster. There's plenty of uncited 'facts' all over this blog. Do some research, it's not hard to investigate abscam.

Anonymous said...

Larry said “With all due respect, I don't "know" this invasion was based on lies. We didn't rush into war, there was a 13 year period between Saddams surrender in the first Gulf War and this invasion.”

Bush kept saying there were WMD over and over again. Inspectors were sent in and still no WMD’s. Powell went to the UN and gave his speech and this was a lie. Bush and Dick are STILL saying Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and we all know that is not true. They just keep trying to justify their screw up but this screw up has cost US, you and I and the rest of this country over 400 billion dollars. It has taken over 2.500 lives and countless Iraqi lives. This was an invasion of choice and it WAS rushed into, now we all must pay.

Anonymous said...

For my information, can you please cite exactly where Bush and Cheney claim Iraq had something to do with 9/11? I'm not sure I believe this has been stated.

I'll accept that you believe the war was a mistake. I personally believe we won't know for 10 years whether or not it was a mistake. No war was ever popular. It took us from December 11, 1941 until 1953 to defeat the Germans and rebuild Europe after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. The Marshall Plan invested 20 Billion dollars in June 1947 to help rebuild Europe. $20 Billion in 1947 is equivalent to 200 Billion today. It's estimated that fighting WWII cost us $4.7 trillion dollars in todays money, plus rebuilding puts us around $5 trillion dollars (2005 currency) for the 12-13 year period. Unfortunately, it's a lot of money and a lot of death.

I'm not sure you will compare WWII with WWIII, IV, or V (depending on your interpretation of the Cold War, the 'War on Drugs', or the current 'War on Terror'). There are a lot of similarities between the Nazi/Kamikaze of WWII and today's Islamic Extremists.

I know that the US is not innocent, but we didn't deserve to be attacked on 9/11. I don't think it's fair to blame this on Bush and the 'neocons' alone. I do somewhat believe in the Skull and Bones and the other secret societies - but Bill Clinton, John Kerry, etc. are also members of these societies.

I recently read a great book, called "All the Shahs Men" which discusses the overthrow of the Iranian government in the 50's (Operation Ajax). I would suggest reading it - don't worry, it's not a pro-Bush book. ;-). Today's BP is the company that was then called the AIOC (Anglo Iranian Oil Company), which was at the center of the controversy that I believe started today's terrorism. The US wasn't the only guilty party, we did try to get the Brits to compromise with our (then) Iranian friends - but they refused to compromise with a colony.

President Truman (Dem) was against operation ajax, but he put the CIA on the mission to perform covert acts on a global scale to fight the Cold War. I believe this mission made the CIA the monster it is today. President Eisenhower (Rep) was in power when operation ajax was executed. The CIA did all the ground work, planning, etc. on Truman's watch, but executed the plan on Eisenhower's. Both parties are at fault. Carter's problems in the 70's was a direct effect of operation ajax.

Unfortunately, today I think we find ourselves in a really shitty situation. I don't think it's fair to blame only Bush on this war, even if he did invade Iraq. I think we have been engaged in this war since the 1950's and the Brits have been at it for even longer. The French, Dutch, Portugese, Spanish, Italians, Germans, and Russians also get to share some blame for the entire global situation. They were all imperialists before us, they set the precedents, and they caused us to come out of isolationism.

Its my opinion that the only way we can get out of current our situation is a grass roots movement to throw all our current elected officials from office. Democrats and Republicans both. The Democrats and Republicans have the American people so fragmented that we can never throw both parties out of office. They have complete power and they create problems to keep both parties in the limelight. Plus Americans care more about who is winning American Idol than fixing the country we live in.

We need to put indepedents into office. Maybe even create term limits for all positions, to avoid having political dynasties like Kennedy, Bush, Clinton, Gore, etc. Apologies for listing 3 democratic dynasties and only 1 republican one - its all I could think of right now. By the way, it was the Roosevelts and Dulles that participated in operation ajax.

If you've read this far, you deserve a bonus -> I want to apologize for the long post and to any readers on this board that I may have offended with some earlier insults. I have made some anonymous posts that contained name calling and I used some liberal stereotypes to make some people angry. I will not take any credit for some of the grotesque comments, for they were not mine. I understand the goal of this blog is to put Democrats into power, but it would be really neat if this blog could help initiate a grass roots movement to throw all Republicans and all Democrats out of office. We can still have a 2 party system, but I think these 2 parties have more similarities and common goals than they would like us to believe. We need 2 new parties.

some references:

Anonymous said...

After reading all the previous BS that is not even related to your artical,people at this time dont know that the country has been lied too,and the were no of WMD shouldnt be able to vote for anything.I think your artical was about the war in Iraq. I think that old senator Murtha was right only it took him 3yrs to late to get his senses.
Any body with one brain in his head shouldnt vote till they come up with atleast 4 to 6 new parties.
and get rid of both Dem and republican parties by sending the congress,these people that want to follow the Bush regime{stay the course]like theones above,all party people,the lying pentogone bunch.these paid off tv stations people,these Bush Generals all put in a year on regular solder pay.
Soldier pay should be increased as one soldier is worth about 15 of these peopleon cnn --Yes it should come out of their the ordinary soldier gets their 165,000 a year and they get what he drawls now.they out to be man enough to stay the durationof the war as they were the ones that signed to go to wear.
Then after thast I can tell you what to do with them.
all they have been doing this past week is put on a poor show and then sign to keep the war agoing,none of them should hold any kind of office.

Anonymous said...

What the...?!?

Anyone have a decoder ring for that last post?

Anonymous said...

seriously is it that hard to distinquish yourselves?

Amy de Miceli said...

this would be something nader was talking about TWO YEARS AGO!

its amazing how slow it takes the dems to pull it together.

Now Kerry is making plans?

we need to take america back, this is sick whats going on, conservitive estimates say over 38,000 iraqis have been killed during this war. how is that fair?
democrats have failed the troops, and all americans as much as the republicans, the time to step up was in 2004, maybe.
Kerry was a loser from the start.
i think the dems feel that this is the way to win in 06 but it was the way to win in 04. two years late.
demand more of these people.

Anonymous said...

Larry said, “For my information, can you please cite exactly where Bush and Cheney claim Iraq had something to do with 9/11? I'm not sure I believe this has been stated.”

Larry unless you have living in a cave for the past three years you would not be asking this question. If you have not been living in a cave and had been watching TV other than just FOX, you would not be asking this question. If you had been reading papers other than the WSJ and listening to Rush you would not be asking this question.

This administration has been on every talk TV and radio show there is over these years telling the sheep of this country this very thing, where in the hell have you been for God’s sake? That was a dumb statement to make and like I said if you haven’t been listening and watching then you really need to start. Try Google and you’ll find all the info you need, if in fact you really care.

Anonymous said...

Good. Then it should be easy for you to quote a reliable, verifiable quote from President Bush and/or Vice President Cheney clearing stating that Saddam or Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

I'll believe it when I see your reference.

Anonymous said...

My god Larry can't you find anything on the internet by yourself? Must we hold your hand and look EVERYTHING up for you?

Start here:

Here is the best one Larry that even YOU can understand (maybe)

There are tons more just take your right wing blinders off and LOOK.

Anonymous said...

My god Larry can't you find anything on the internet by yourself? Must we hold your hand and look EVERYTHING up for you?

Start here:

Here is the best one Larry that even YOU can understand (maybe)

There are tons more just take your right wing blinders off and LOOK.

Anonymous said...

the links you reference are hardly reliable sources of information.

When you find a REAL quote from Bush or Cheney clearly stating that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack, I'll be happy to accept your point as something other than a liberal LIE.

Until then, the base of readers of this website will continue to think you've won your point. I'm not here for those people. I'm trying to reach out to the minority of people reading this website that are open to an independent viewpoint that is not hardcore democrat, nor hardcore republican.

The only way the get out of "more of the same" is to throw all democrats and all republicans out of office.

Anonymous said...

In case you don't know, the websites you are getting your information are registered to anonymous people. Not very reliable, nor verifiable.

BuzzFlash and Bushwatch are registered through a SpringField, IL software company (LRS) and another in Herndon, VA (Network Solutions). The content provider is unknown.

PoliticalStrategy is registered to someone in China. Not exactly a hotbed of free information exchange.

Just because it is on the internet, doesn't mean you need to take it as fact.

Anonymous said...


If you'd investigated you would have noticed that it's not a blog, but a website that cites newspapers, articles in magazine, books, and other sources of information. By newspapers I mean the Washington Post, The New York Times and nationally known newspapers. The magazines are Newsweek, Time,and the like. (Please don't get into the Republican rant about how we can't trust the NY Times, and other liberal sources.) There are links and referendes to bloggers but the main thrust of buzzflash is to report facts. As for your political inclination - I live among hardcore Republicans and Larry, you would be accepted as one of their own.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant, Ostroy. Thanks - I hope Larry and others finally understand.

Anonymous said...

I live in, traditionally, the reddest state in America - until it was bumped from the top position by Idaho in polls a few weeks ago.

I can tell you first hand that the Republicans do not and cannot problem solve, especially verbally, with higher level understanding. To do so, would require them to examine just what they believe in. Consumerism is high on their list and so, I suspect, that's why this state is also high on the bankruptcy list. Duh - if I charge too much or take on too much debt, I might not be able to pay for it. But I want my toys!!!!

Religion is high on their list, also. If I let someone else tell me how to live and what to think, then I have more time to play with my toys!!

Insightful thinking and certainly thinking for themselves is NOT a priority. My degrees are in education and psychology, so I do know what to look for. It ain't there.

So, they take the language bait and think that the Bush Co. rhetoric is the word of truth. Hell, it may even be from God himself, since the pResident is born again.

So it's easy to see how the truth is shaded or left out in what is said by this administration. They are playing to their dim lightbulb base after all.

My susupicion is that they don't WANT to think. That would entail growing intellectually and that's too much work. J

Anonymous said...

You're wrong again.

Johnny said, "Bush and Dick are STILL saying Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and we all know that is not true. "

If Johnny is correct, and Bush and Cheney are STILL saying Iraq had something to do with 9/11 - then I challenge Johnny, Ostroy, or anyone that believes this to find me ONE quote from Bush or Cheney clearly stating what you liars are claiming Bush is STILL saying.

Should be simple if you guys aren't liars.

Anonymous said...

What difference does it make which of their excuses they use at any particular time. First, it was because Iraq was responsible for 9/11; then it was WMDs; then it was because Hussein was an evil man and mean to his people; then it was so we could spread freedom and democracy; then it was so we could fight the terrorists there and not here; then it was because the Iraqis weren't able to fight the insurgents; and, now it's because we're there so we can't "cut and run" because we'd look like wimps. There's always an excuse du jour. None reflects the real motives of this administration, as has been explained before on this site.

Anonymous said...

There you go again with the lying.

"First, it was because Iraq was responsible for 9/11"

I continue to challenge anyone on this website to show me a reliable and verifiable quote from Bush or Cheney clearly stating that "Iraq was responsible for 9/11".

Just because liberals keep saying it, does not make it true. You guys are liars.

Anonymous said...

See? My red state Republican point exactly. Larry would rather argue than take Ostroy's example and comment and ACTUALLY THINK ABOUT IT!

Larry wants proof. Well, Larry where's your proof that Ostroy's point is wrong? Referenced and footnoted, please!

It's just so hard for hard for folks to admit they may have been taken in by con-men and Condi.

Anonymous said...

First - I'm a conservative independent who unfortunately lives in a blue state. Arguably, the most corrupt in the nation.

Second - Ostroy's example is garbage. It is a tangential distraction that attempts to change the subject because I'm calling liberals on the lies that form the premise for their attacks against Bush.

Finally, you libs are proving my point that you are lying. I'm sure that if a quote existed from Bush or Cheney clearly stating Iraq was responsible for 9/11, that the rabid liberals would be throwing the quote in my face.

Anonymous said...

Red-State Anonymous (J?),
degrees in education AND psychology ?? Now that's quite impressive. You must make $10, maybe $12 per hour with that background. I bet you analyze 5th graders using all the new zero tolerance guidelines during the "insightful thinking and thinking for yourself" part of your job. When you aren't analyzing the 'complex' emotional state of children, I bet you are molesting them. After all, teachers are the only ones more actively raping children than the Catholic priests.
If you are a teacher and a member of the NEA, I challenge you to quit your union. The NEA is one of the most destructive unions in the entire country. Thanks for making America one of the best 50 countries for education, well done.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Larry - you're wrong again. Not a teacher and independently financially well off, thanks. Why do you jump to such pie on the face conclusions?

It's really a snapshot into the paranoid bigotry of a kool-aid drinker when you do that. Did you say at one point, you have a Master's Degree? If that is correct, which I am doubtful of, you would have remembered dealing with critical thinking, synsthesis of information, and unbiased observation. Unless you went to an underfunded red state college, then I can believe you received a watered down degree.

An observation can be made by anyone, including you. Making an unbiased observation is more difficult. Take off the filters. Don't know what those are? You must be a teacher, a priest, a union member, because of your degrees are examples of filters.

Is money a measure of success for you? Your GOP icon Jesus wouldn't like that.

Anonymous said...

Molesting children, Larry?

My how far you will fall to justify your reason for being and thinking the way you do.

Negating another person's comments with personal attack and then begging for references on topics that are not favorable to the Republicans?

Larry, you just shot any credibility you may have had with any of us.

Anonymous said...

Time to ignore Larry.

Anonymous said...

hey, I hear larry's a pedophile?

Anonymous said...

hey, I hear larry's a pedophile?

yeah, he trolls for them on the 'net when he's not posting on this site. guy comes off all sanctimonious and self-righteous, all the while getting off looking at little kids. he's not fit to discuss anything with the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

That guy Larry should be ashamed of himself. Who caught him? Was something listed on the internet somewhere about him messing with kids?

Anonymous said...

Larry is not responding with his usual daily defensive rancor. Can we hope he's awakened and has started therapy?

Anonymous said...

You idiots can attack me all you want. The liberal mob mentality is only dangerous when:

1) liberals control the government. No need to worry about this scenario.

2) attending a peace gathering

Neither scenario applies here, so I'll just sit back and enjoy the insults. Larry isn't even my name, so if you think that I'm personally effected by any of your attacks - you're just silly liberals.

By the way, isn't this thread supposed to be about some 5-part plan for surrender? Liberals don't have the ability to stay focused. You're never going to win an election.

Need something else to attack me for saying? How about the fact that liberals celebrate the killing of 1.3 million babies every year. Liberals are responsible for more death than the bush administration.

Anonymous said...

We KNEW your name wasn't Larry. It has been obvious all along you are a liar like the rest of the group you represent. By the way some of those babies' deaths are caused by very rich Republican women who can afford to travel to countries where abortion is legal. I know some of them - don't you?

The Ostroy Report said...

Larry, you're right. This board really should be to discuss/debate relevant topics. But I think you may have hopefully gained some valuable insight from the last several posts. No one on this board originally "actually said" you were a "child molestor," but thr rumors, and the subsequent attacks, starting flying nonetheless as a result. Just like Bush and Cheney never "actually said" Saddam was responsible for 9/11--which was your claim. However the blatant innuendo and non-stop mentioning off 'Saddam and Iraq' in the same breath as '9/11 and terrorists' left about 75% of Americans believing he was responsible. The power of pursuasion, as you can personally see from this thread, is enormous. What happened to you here Larry is that innuendo, to many, became fact, and it put people on the offensive against you. Nothing else mattered. Propaganda, when effective, can be brutal. Bush and Cheney's irresponsible rhetoric about Saddam was wrong then, and it's wrong now.

Anonymous said...

I did learn something in this thread.

I started this thread with a respectful post stating that I may agree with some of the 5 point plan, but disagreed with a couple points (one of which was the surrender clause).

Johnny contradicted and we had a civilized discussion. Eventually he quit the discussion because I was quoting reliable and verifiable data, while he was quoting a chinese sponsored website and 2 anonymously sponsored websites. I even explained that I believed Republicans and Democrats (and other countries) share the blame of today's global problems.

As usual, when liberals are backed against a corner and have no where else to go, they turn to character assassinations. Liberals cannot admit that the Democrats share some of the blame because that might injure their "hot" quest to regain power - which blinds them from the truth.

I also learned that when democrats are facing facts they don't like, they will ignore the facts. Democrats are happiest when no competing opinions are presented or discussed. When someone voices an opinion that differs from a liberal opinion - it must mean that "The Republicans" are lying, or conservatives living in red states are stupid, or even the person must be a nazi, or gay.

I'm glad the Democratic party is the incredible shrinking party, because America would be in a lot of trouble if they got some power. Liberals need to stick to killing innocent babies, it's what they do best. Leave the heavy lifting to conservatives.

The democrats were wrong when they wanted slavery.

The democrats were wrong when they were hosing down black people during the civil rights movement.

The democrats are wrong as they continue to re-elect Robert "KKK" Byrd to office.

The democrats are wrong today.

The whole reason the Bush administration can spend so much money is because they know that the Democrats are not a viable alternative.

Anonymous said...

Larry, Johnny didn't drop out because of your brillance but because he and so many others decided to follow the wise advice recently posted which said: It's time to ignore Larry.

Anonymous said...


FYI, Larry called an anonymous poster a child molester based on their college degrees.


Anonymous said...

I picture you running to Ostroy to tell on me.... "andy andy, fyi, larry is teasing me..."

I didn't say Johnny dropped out because of my 'brilliance'. Johnny stopped responding because his chinese and anonymous sponsored websites could not hold up under minor scrutiny.
Also, if you look at the timestamps, the "time to ignore larry" post was about 30 hours after Johnny stopped posting. This is just another example of liberal revisionism.
I did not call an anonymous poster a child molester based on his/her college degrees. I called the anonymous poster with the exceptional credentials of "education and psychology" degrees a (gasp) teacher (gasp). I then accused the teacher of being a child molester based on the FACT that teachers are molesting more children than the Catholic priests.

I challenge you to name a professional occupation besides the two mentioned in this post that molests children at a higher frequency than 'teacher'.

Unknown said...

To leave 15,000 troops in iraq is still to be an occupier.