Timmy reading from Richardson’s book where he said 18 months ago that we can’t just pull out and now he says out this year with no residual forces.
It’s because there are no WMD and the Administration has been incompetent and deceitful.
This is really a horrible appearance by Richadson. He sounds like a fool spouting talking points and pandering to the MoveOn wing.
Richardson wants to focus on the status of women around the world and a whole laundry list of items that we should be paying attention to including, of course, Darfur.
A reader reply to an article in yesterday’s Opinion Journal was very instructive, and relates directly to most people who are passionate about politics. We have to remember that most voters are not involved or committed.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010126
Excellent responses to article linked above 26 May 2007
Congress and Iraq
The end of Hillary as security hawk.
Saturday, May 26, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Goldwater Girls
Marian Booker - Conroe, Texas
When I was in college, my U.S. government professor told about Barry Goldwater’s run for president. Goldwater lost by a landslide to Lyndon Johnson, because people thought he might use the bomb (urged on by Johnson’s “Daisy” political advertisement, which was shown only once, but rebroadcast on the three evening network newscasts).
In order to get the pulse of the country, Goldwater read the letters to the editor in major newspapers and fashioned his message to appeal to those voters. My professor explained that people who write letters are in the “motivated” percentage of the electorate, which is a small, vocal group with more extreme views at each end of the political spectrum, than the vast middle.
I am beginning to wonder if Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and the others who are pandering to MoveOn.org and the vocal left, by voting against funding the troops, are doing the same thing that Goldwater did, to his detriment.
We can only hope.
____
What would you expect from Bill Clintons mexican pimp?
Expecting liberals to support a War on Terror is an unrealistic expectation.
* Past Wars have been dismal failures. The War on Poverty has resulted in higher poverty, lower numbers of married couples raising their children together, and left our society with the spectacle of the Super Dome 20,0000, who are Lyndon Johnsons spiritual grand-children; unable to do for themselves, and waiting for the Man to come take care of them. The War on Drugs has also failed in its stated goals, and remains an excuse for expanded government spending and use of paramilitary tactics by local police departments. (Do you remember seeing Jimmy Cagney being told to kneel or lay down and put his hands behind his head in a movie? That came with the War on Drugs.)
*Osama Bin Laden killed 3.000 people on 9/11, which is just about another day in the office compared to the number of abortions in this country. As a result, liberals think there is no justification for this war.
*A War on Terror diverts money and effort and attention from the ultimate liberal goal of big government, which is domestic spending devoted to controlling every aspect of a private citizens life, turning Americans into Stepford Wives.
*The War on Terror is the only thing liberals have to talk about. Its better than having ideas that people like to hear about, let alone put in place.
*And, finally, Harry Truman had to make a terrible decision in 1945. He decided to use WMD rather than invade Japan, because he and his advisors believed that the loss of life would be less than the losses expected in an invasion.
And because that use was so fresh in everybodys mind, there was no use of atomic or nuclear weapons during the Cold War, despite all the speculation about the use of limited tactical weapons of this nature.
But, it has been 60+ years; two generations; ago, and people have had time to forget how terrible the results would be. If a weapon like this actually went off, maybe liberals would change their views, but nothing short of that will make a difference in their thinking.
Nailed it!