Why do Conservatives use weenie tactics?
 

Why do Conservatives "play nice" while the liberals use "dirty" tactics and the "end justifies the means" doctrine. Are they weak cowards or just doing the right thing? This article asks similar questions:

WE LIKE YOU! WE REALLY, REALLY LIKE YOU!
November 30, 2005

When Democratic Rep. John Murtha called for the withdrawal of American troops in the middle of the war, Republicans immediately leapt to action by calling Murtha a war hero, a patriot and a great American.

I haven't heard Republicans issue this many encomiums to one man since Ronald Reagan died. By now, Murtha has been transformed into the greatest warrior since Alexander the Great and is probably dating Jennifer Aniston.

In response to Murtha's demand for the "immediate withdrawal of American troops" — as The New York Times put it — President Bush called Murtha a "fine man, a good man" who served with "honor and distinction," who "is a strong supporter of the United States military." He said he knew Murtha's "decision to call for an immediate withdrawal of our troops ... was done in a careful and thoughtful way."

Vice President Dick Cheney called Murtha "a good man, a Marine, a patriot."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Murtha is "a fine man, I know him personally ... and it's perfectly proper to have a debate over these things, and have a public debate."

National Security Adviser Steve Hadley called in his praise for Murtha from South Korea, saying Murtha was "a veteran, a veteran congressman and a great leader in the Congress."

During the House debate on Murtha's insane proposal to withdraw troops in the middle of the war, Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., said Murtha deserved an "A-plus as a truly great American," and Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., said "none of us should think of questioning his motives or desires for American troops."

On the House floor, both Republicans and Democrats repeatedly gave Murtha rousing standing ovations. There was so much praise for Murtha that one of his Democratic colleagues asked him if he still had to attend Murtha's funeral.

What is this? Special Olympics for the Democrats? Can't Republicans disagree with a Democrat who demands that the U.S. surrender in the middle of a war without erecting monuments to him first? What would happen if a Democrat were to propose restoring Saddam Hussein to power? Is that Medal of Freedom territory?

I don't know what Republicans imagine they're getting out of all this love they keep throwing at Democrats. I've never heard a single liberal preface attacks on Oliver North with a recitation of North's magnificent service as a Marine. And unlike Murtha, who refuses to release his medical records showing he was entitled to his two Purple Hearts, we know what North did. (These Democrat military veterans are hardly shrinking violets when it comes to citing their medals, but they get awfully squeamish when pressed for details.)

We also know what Rep. Randy Cunningham, R-Calif., did to earn his medals. One of only two American Navy aces that the Vietnam War produced, Cunningham shot down five MiGs, three in one day, including a North Vietnamese pilot with 13 American kills. Cunningham never did something as insane as proposing that we withdraw troops in the middle of a war, but this week he did admit to taking bribes.

And yet, no Democrat breathed a word of Cunningham's unquestioned heroism before rushing to denounce him as "the latest example of the culture of corruption" — in the words of Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

Sen. Teddy Kennedy didn't issue a 20-minute soliloquy on what a wonderful man Judge Robert Bork was as a human being before attacking his judicial philosophy. Kennedy just laid into Bork like he was George Lincoln Rockwell.

Speaking of which, George Lincoln Rockwell, former head of the American Nazi Party, served in the military during World War II. Are we obligated to praise his war service before disputing his views?

CNN's Bill Schneider summarized the Republican love-fest for Murtha by saying that House Republicans "started calling him some very ugly names — cowardly, shameful, he wanted to cut and run, he wanted to surrender to the terrorists, emboldening the enemy." Are we all looking at the same "intelligence"?

The only Republican congressman who did not offer to have sex with John Murtha on the House floor was Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio. While debating Murtha's own proposal to withdraw American troops from Iraq in the middle of a war waged to depose a monstrous dictator who posed a threat to American national security, Schmidt made the indisputably true remark that Marines don't cut and run. (She was right! Murtha voted against his own proposal.)

Schmidt's precise words were: "I received a call from Col. Danny Bubp. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do." Bubp later said — pointlessly — that he was not calling Murtha a coward. Neither was Jean Schmidt. (These guys are very brave facing down the VC, but cower before the MSM.)

Now Schmidt is Emmanuel Goldstein, subjected to the liberals' Orwellian two-minutes hate, and not one Republican will defend her. If Republicans were one-tenth as rough with the congressman who wants to withdraw troops in the middle of a war as they are on a congresswoman who calls it cowardly to withdraw troops in the middle of a war, we might have a functioning Republican Party.
by Ann Coulter

Only one slight problem w/ her outburst; we are not "in the middle of a war" in Iraq, more like reaching the end of an ill-planned and conceived operation. Even the administration is looking for the exit door right now.

I agree that we are rapidly approaching a point where the Iraqis can take over more responsibility for their defense against the terrorists....Of course the administration is looking for a way to bring home troops as soon as possible...after we have accomplished our goals. We have to start prepping those troops for Iran.

And then North Korea!

I think that North Korea will fall prey to the ultimate weapon soon...along with Cuba. If we can keep the conservatives in power. Iran will require the threat of force.

Well, that's encouraging! So I guess that business is very good right now.

Business?

For anyone in war-related business.

It is lucrative now, but it will not cost much for Cuba and North Korea. It will be mostly aid. Iran could go either way. It will either be as cheap as North Korea....or as bad as Iraq. It looks like China wants to restart the arms race....so missile defense and naval systems should be good moneymakers.
FYI...As a DoD civilian and reservist...I get paid the same in war or peace.

Fint,
Explain to me, exactly why do we consider Cuba a threat? Why to we care at all. I don't even see how they remotely threaten our interests.

On the other hand, I can understand the threat that Iran might represent. I seriously doubt that it would be wise to go in there. North Korea is down right scary though.

"Why do Conservatives "play nice" while the liberals use "dirty" tactics"

What about the sliming of McCain. Forgot that one?

The history of Republican dirty tricks:

CREEP (1972) -- Lee Atwater (1990) -- Karl Rove (2000)

As usual, Fint has it entirely backwards. Its not that Dems are any nicer, I don't think, but the Repubs have virtually locked up hardball politics since Nixon.

Smear? Off the top of my head, John McCain, Paul O'Neill, Richard Clark, Joe Wilson, John Kerry ("Swiftboating" is now a verb), Gen. Shinseki, Gen. Zinni, Larry Wilkerson. They tried Murtha (saying he had joined the Michael Moore faction of the Democratic party, calling him a coward), but reversed course when they realized it was doing more harm than good.

and what were these "goals" you speak of again?

I don't remember calling Cuba a "threat."

The Republican party did not slime McCain. He claims to be a Republican.

I guessed that was Coulter, her "Style" is unmistakable

subjected to the liberals' Orwellian two-minutes hate,

Oh! That's the style - Coulter's Conservative two minute hate! Oh well, I guess it sells the columns.

What really jumped out at me was the disingenuous "why didn't they praise Cunningham". The main reason is that Cunningham wasn't talking bribes (the problem) in his capacity as a decorated veteran.

Murtha was making his speech (the "problem" :rolleyes: ) in his capacity as a vet... it was relevant to the discussion.

Besides, isn't the whole concept of pre-emptive war predicated on "the end justifies the means"...

Umm...she's got herself a very selective history book. There are Republicans who did say bad things about Murtha and there are are Democrats who have said good things about republicans in the past, and vise versa.

Very selective. Typical chick with a pen.

Give me a break. " Making a a speech in his capacity as a vet?" You have to be kidding. He was making a speech in his capacity as a liberal democratic elected official. Being a vet does not allow you to speak on the floor...ask me how I know. he was no more speaking for vets than Cunniham was stealing for them.

Of course not. You are kidding now.

Ann Coulter is my ideal woman. A woman of ideas, intelligent, and non submissive. She puts liberals where they belong, in the gutter.

Oh, did I forget to say I am not a liberal?

No Snowman...she does not put them in the gutter
She only points out that they have chosen to reside there.

Right on. Poor choice of words on my part. But definately in the gutter.

I sure would like to get to know Ms Coulter a lot better myself.

While we are on the subject of dirty tricks...


WHAT SENATOR JOHN GLENN SAID :

Things that make you think a little:

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the
month of January. That's just one American city,
about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq

When some claim that President Bush shouldn't
have started this war, state the following:

a. FDR led us into World War II.

b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.
>From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 112,500 per year.

c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us .
>From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ..
an average of 18,334 per year.

d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us

e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
>From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
an average of 5,800 per year.

f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on
multiple occasions.

g. In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush
has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled
al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya , Iran, and North
Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who
slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining
about how long the war is taking.
But ..
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno
to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51-day operation.

We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons
in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find
the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the
Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard
than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his
Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick

It took less time to take Iraq than it took
to count the votes in Florida!!!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!
The Military morale is high!

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant
to realize the facts.


If you can read this, thank a teacher.

If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran.

Why do Conservatives use weenie tactics?

Cuz` they are all fags?

If John Glenn actually said what Joe claimed he did in the post above, I'll eat my hat. How about a source Joe?

I find it interesting that all of the time lines are related to inital attack until "mission accomplished". Coulter is out for effect. Most of what she writes plays fast and loose with the facts and is much more about lining her pockets.

Where exactly does she play fast and loose with the facts?"

Those must be the same "facts" that show we use torture. Name ONE case of torture that has been sanctioned by Bush and co.

Quote:

When Democratic Rep. John Murtha called for the withdrawal of American troops in the middle of the war, Republicans immediately leapt to action by calling Murtha a war hero, a patriot and a great American.

Is this how you paraphrase what that wench said on the house floor?

I think you know the answer to this Fint. The Republicans are smart enough to keep there mouths shut, while the Dems jump on any chance to b*tch and whine. And I wouldn't call that "weenie tactics". I would call it good business. The best example of that is the Republicans in charge have managed to get, and keep, a poor example of a Republican in office for this long. That ain't GW riding the success wave, it's the Republican party's brain trust. For that, I congratulate them on brilliant strategy and finesse. I just hope I can go back to voting straight ticket Republican next time around.

A good example follows. Weenie conservatives would never use hardball tactics like this. There was a page one article in the Chicago Tribune about a week ago that was subsequently picked up by papers nationwide. Overall the article was reasonably fair and well written. In the article, Gen. George Casey, the commander of multinational forces in Iraq, was misquoted as saying "the debate at home doesn't take a toll on the soldiers and their families." He actually said that the debate "does take a toll on the soldiers and their families."
Of course, the correction always shows up later on page 26 or so, not page 1 where the article was. Although the misquote could indeed be an honest mistake...IMHO it smells pretty bad....because they happen so often....and are so one sided.

Here is another example of effective tactics that conservatives would never use. Hillary is actively pursuing the Pro-military/pro-war vote...regardless of her personal views. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10313850/site/newsweek?rf=technorati
Why? Probably not on principle, but to shore up her weakness in that area that make her unelectable. She has witnessed the far left fruitcakes go down to defeat...one after another.....and knows that she has to campaign as a conservative. She also knows that the left will still vote for her because they are all (wink, wink) on to her strategy (except for the real idiot/tools like Cindy Sheehan). In fact, Sheehan whining about Hillary gives her instant credibility.

And then Los Angeles, San Fran, and NyC!

That is democrat-speak for "she uses unassailable facts."

The truth, to democrats, is a "vast right wing conspiracy."...of course the truth is rewritten by the democrat activist media as "attacks" and "dirty politics."

Boy, you can't hear enough about Joe McCarthy. The fact that he was absolutely right, and subsequently vindicated from years of malicious slander, gets shoved down the memory-hole face-first.

Boy, you can't hear enough about Joe McCarthy. The fact that he was absolutely right, and subsequently vindicated from years of malicious slander, gets shoved down the memory-hole face-first.

If you think McCarthy was "subsequently right", then you must think that Joe Wilson was subsequently correct about the yellowcake. So what's it to be?

That is democrat-speak for "she uses unassailable facts."

Partly true ---> she uses extremely selective facts and a lot of her own opinion. I've never seen her give even a hint that there might be another side to the story (not really her job, and ain't gonna make her any money either).

Fint - please present an argument (other than, you gotta be joking) that pre-emptive war is not built on a foundation of "the end justifies the means".

My starting point is that war is a last resort - therefore, a pre-emptive war (by definition, not a last resort) can only be justified on the basis that the end justifies the means.

Terrorist tactics require the use of preemptive war. Why? Because no nation is directly involved. Also if we cannot pursue individual terrorists to any part of the world, and the nations that host them refuse to help us track them down, we are left with no good choices. In the past this could be ignored as the consequences were not to horrible, but with nukes and other WMDs things are different. We CANNOT EVER be wrong. To do so might loose, say NYC or LA. You think Bush is taking heat, just think what any pres would be up against if he were to lose NYC!

As a practical matter we cannot pursue every terrorist, even if we wanted to. What to do? FORCE countries allowing terrorists to thrive to take care of the problem. If they do not, leadership change is in order, theirs, not ours. This approach has already shown that it works, take Libya for example.

I will predict that if any terrorist ever sets off a nuke, anywhere in the world, for any reason, that within 2 years every small country in the world will be a colony of one of the major nations. There will be leadership changes on an unprecedented scale. There will be NO liberal stance, just one, right one.

For those who think the west is soft, remember, people are people, and people do not change. Then remember Dresden, Hiroshma, and Nagasaki. Think it can't happen again, then your are DEAD wrong. Liberals might argue otherwise, but do YOU really want to BET on it???

Place your bets here. West wins 100:1 odds.

It would depend on what you mean by "last resort." Last resort before what? If you mean last resort before our country is destroyed...or pulled into a large-scale war with large US (or our allies) military and civilian losses.....I certainly would not wait until then if the means to prempt the enemy and fight the war on my own terms presented itself.

Iraq/Saddam had plenty of time...and many years to meet the terms of his surrender from the first Gulf War. He chose not to. Waiting longer just allowed him to grow stronger. Only a fool would wait. We should have doen it about six years earlier when he first refused to comply with the terms he had agreed to. Of course we did not have sufficient leadership in the White House at the time.
So you (if you were the US) would not have acted in Yugoslavia, Haiti, South Korea, or WW2?

I suspect that we're just too far apart philisophically to even begin to discuss this. The short answer is "yes" as a genuine last resort only in response to an attack or near enough. It's a b!tch being the good guys.

My opinion is that there are only a handful of countries, and possibly really only the US, which can genuinely consider waging a pre-emptive war without truely disasterous consequences. The irony for me is that if a second country acted pre-emptively against a third country ---> even if neither was clearly a US ally ---> then the US would be against pre-emptive war and for the protection of that nation's sovereignty.

So I'm stuck on "the end justifies the means" as the primary basis for a pre-emptive war (given it immediately violates the premise of a just war, as it is by (my) definition not necessary).

Snowman: Terrorist tactics require the use of preemptive war. Why? Because no nation is directly involved.

Sovereign nations. Not places to invade to root out terrorism. If you want your own sovereignty to be respected, you gotta respect other peoples' sovereignty.

Nations that shelter and or support terrorists do not respect our sovereignty. If "only a few hundered" die you can afford to take chances and woit until an attack is upon us, but no one can take that chance with WMDs. As to Iraq, even thier own generals thought they had them.

Cast yer mind back - Saddam wasn't invaded in a discretionary pre-emptive war because he was sheltering or supporting terrorism.

He was invaded because the end justifies the means. There were plenty of alternatives to war.