Woody, of course you are wrong again. There would be no such outrage at this so-called "war" if there had truly been a reason for invading Iraq. There was none, and the NARO weapons inspector was actually very proficient in his inspections. If the conflict had been confined to the persuit and punishment of Bin Laden and Al Quaida and their supporting taliban. This war would have been roundly supported by the american people. We ae still of the "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" persuasion.
WWII was supported by the entire country because the citizens were asked to sacrifice and be involved in the war. Even to the extent that the 332 combat team was composed entirely of Japanese whose parente were confined to the infamous relocation centers.
Patriotism is still alive, but fools cannot arouse it.

Posted by James S Melbert at June 8, 2007 03:10 PM

James, today, I don't believe that there are any freedoms or any possessions that Leftists think are worth fighting a war over. They've turned into Frenchmen.

Posted by Woody at June 8, 2007 03:28 PM

Of course, with today's population being geographically ignorant, they would wonder why we're invading parts of Nebraska.

Jimmy, tell all your liberal Democrat Senators to do their homework next time and grow a spine.

Posted by DADvocate at June 8, 2007 07:03 PM

Please reread my last sentence.

Posted by James S Melbert at June 9, 2007 07:27 AM

Patriotism is still alive, even though fools try to suppress it.

Posted by Woody at June 9, 2007 08:48 AM

James, I would very much hope that is true. I doubt that it is. I think your sentiment is a comforting thought that George W. Bush's political opponents tell themselves. It certainly goes down more easily to think "Well, we would support necessary wars - it's just that this one is unnecessary."

Such claims, whether on your part or mine, elude simple proofs, and can only be judged on the long flow of evidence that comes in. There are few sharp break points which gives one side or the other an opportunity to point and say "See? This proves that progressives would/would not support a more reasonable war."

so evidence, rather than proof, has to be our method of discovery. I would offer the following:
1. Americans tire of every war after 3 years. We did not fully engage WWII until well into 1942, and by 1945, had no stomach to continue to fight for Eastern Europe or to invade Japan. Thus, Yalta and Hiroshima. (See also, Vietnam buildup of 1965, protests of '68).
2. Democrats were already denouncing Bush's war in Afghanistan in the Senate in February 2002. Newsweek used the word "quagmire" about Afghanistan 6 weeks after it started.
3. The predictions of what would go wrong in the Middle East, from the cruel Afghan winter to the humanitarian disaster in Iraq to the destabilization of the ME have not come to pass, but there has been zero, repeat zero acknowledgment of this. The current situation is Iraq is an expensive but low-level conflict with pluses and minuses, but is regularly referred to as a disaster. This is simply silly.
4. Every other initiative of the Bush Administration is greeted the same way by the Democrats and treated the same way in the media. The porridge is always either too hot or too cold. You might try identifying for us what Bush policies this has not been the case for - I can think of two, both of which earned him quick complaint on the right, without countervailing plaudits on the left. If Bush's opponents still wish to claim that they will support him on issues where he is reasonable are running out of time. It is hard to believe that a president could be as wrong as they claim he is, even were he trying to intentionally. (And no, this was not true under Clinton in reverse - evidence upon request).
5. Bush's political opponents have made repeated claims of torture, corruption, suppression of intelligence, suppression of dissent, court-stacking, and politicization of the war that have eventually turned out to be untrue. Their readiness to not simply doubt, but to leap to the worst possible conclusions without evidence betrays their insincerity.

I have no doubt that many reasonable people, particularly among the Roosevelt Democrats who have only gradually become radicalized by their fellows over the decades, believe they are fair-minded folk who would give Bush the benefit of the doubt and support a president as best they could. I submit that they started this way, but allowed themselves to be comfortably misled - played like fiddles, actually - since about one month after 9/11. Articles by conservatives predicted this starting in October 2001, and subsequent events have borne the predictions out. I find it transparent, and not at all puzzling.

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at June 10, 2007 03:31 PM

There is at least one substantive difference between the Iraq occupation and the efforts in WWII to defeat the Axis powers. In Iraq the 'Allied' forces are the invaders occupying foreign lands. In WWII the Axis forces were the invaders invading and occupying foreign lands.

This video would like to further the idea that the anti-war majority is all about defeatism. The problem is that the indefinate US occupation of Iraq is not now a worthy goal, never has been a worthy goal and never will be a worthy goal.

Iraq Occupation cheerleaders choose not to admit that one of the stated goals of the invasion of Iraq was to depose Saddam Hussein (goal accomplished, he is dead as are his two sons Uday and Qusay). Iraq Occupation cheerleaders choose not to admit that another stated goal of the invasion of Iraq was to eliminate the alleged imminent theat to the US by Iraq via weapons of mass destruction (goal accomplished, if there are any WMD left, the US has possession of them).

The Iraq Occupation cheerleaders are the defeatists here, they simply won't declare victory - ever.

Posted by Thane Eichenauer at June 10, 2007 05:11 PM

When the Union Banking Corporation had it's assets seized, under the trading with the enemy act, by the US government during WWII the newspapers reported that Prescott Bush, grandfather of current President George Walker Bush was a director at the Bank.

If it was reported today, here is how the headline would read:

Posted by tom at June 11, 2007 02:02 PM

Assistant Village Idiot wrote that the destabilization of the Middle East predicted to follow have not materialized.

Is the Middle East stable? Can we leave now? Do you define the Middle East as the Green zone? Not even it is secure.

Over 500,000 Iraqis have been killed.

No humanitarian disaster in Iraq?

Who is the intended audience for this AVI post? Shut-ins? People too busy golfing to find out world events for themselves? President Bush?

Posted by tom at June 11, 2007 02:17 PM

Woody wrote that liberals don't think there are any freedoms worth fighting for anymore?

Bush destroys Habeus Corpus and "liberals" don't think there are freedoms worth left fighting for?

Bush wiretaps Americans in their homes and "liberals" don't think there are freedoms worth left fighting for?

I hope a republican (unless it's Ron Paul) is elected in '08. Then republicans will really find out how uncomfortable that can be.

I can imagine a republican household telephone chat- "Hi honey, it's me, W. I bought some wine so we can praise Satan after church services, tomorrow. I really feel good about how we blew up the WTC and everyone bought it hook line and sinker except those nutty conspiracy theorists. " "Ok, hon, don't forget to pick up some milk on your way home" "b*tch" "love you too" "Bye"

Posted by tom at June 11, 2007 02:30 PM

Why are we invading Nebraska, when everyone knows Osama Bin Laden is in Pakistan, with the nuclear bomb salesmen?

Posted by tom at June 11, 2007 02:38 PM

Sorry I spelled Nebraskaq wrong, DAD.

Posted by tom at June 11, 2007 02:40 PM

tom, liberals don't fight against foreign enemies to preserve freedoms. They spend their time fighting President Bush to attain political power.

Posted by Woody at June 11, 2007 04:24 PM

Tom, there are just too many posts to answer without being tedious. The Middle East has been unstable for the last 100 years, and during many periods preceding. In comparison, it may actually be slightly more stable now.

500,000 Iraqis have died? I assume you mean some excess beyond the natural death rate. Even organizations completely unsympathetic to Bush and the war effort put the number at 10% of that.

Use of the phrase "Bush destroys Habeus Corpus" brands you as a person interested in propaganda rather than arriving at truth. In several limited circumstances, the Bush Administration has claimed that habeus corpus should not apply. Hardly the same thing - and federal courts have upheld a great deal of the supposedly wildly unconstitutional acts of the Bush Adm.

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at June 11, 2007 08:57 PM