Sunday, August 12, 2007

On Betrayal and the Causes

Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years - New York Times

I have this acquaintance whom I run into on just about a daily basis. John is about as loyal a Republican as you can get, and there is nothing else keeping him up at night than the thought of a Hillary Clinton Presidency.

I do not at all share his concern over this matter. It's not that I don't think that she has a chance, for I think she has a tremendous chance of winning election, its that I don't think she'll change anything once in office, if she indeed does claim a victory.

I ask John, are you worried that she'll get the nation into a war? No, he says. I could of pointed out she did vote for war. I ask, John? Are you worried she'd spend more money than the government brings in, the classic big spending liberal? No, he says. I could of pointed out that she voted in favor of most Bush proposals during her terms.

He's worried that she'll raise taxes.

And that has nothing to do with the NY Times story I linked to, other than to point out that 'they' are on both sides of the isle.

But I tell John of why I think he'll get his worst fear realized anyways.

It's because roughly 40-45% of the population is going to vote for the Democrat in the election regardless of who it is. If not more this time around due to the real discontent with the Bush Administration.

Loyalty to the little 'd' is one of the persistent characteristics of life in America over the last 60 years.

Obviously, it cuts both ways. Many people will vote Republican, almost as loyally.

However, with a little help from a conservative third party candidate, and just the right blend of voter turnout, a Democrat would be assured a victory. Without a third party candidate, its still more likely than a republican winning, no matter who that is.

No doubts, Bill Clinton can testify, and who could question his integrity?

But as I said, I don't think she'll change a thing, and considering the leftist special interests are already quietly accepting betrayal of their causes, this only further convinces me that a democrat administration, regardless of who it is, will not only retain the loyalty vote but will also experience not a squawk from the corners of the liberal nation.

Without this pressure from the interest who expect change in federal government, its probable that the new President will do little. Why stir the basket when all the discontented are so at ease?

We only have to look at her husband's 8 years to understand how this plays out. About the only thing he changed were gays in the military and funding of overseas abortions, yet he sure made a lot of promises on his road to the White House.

Its horrible. All these people have been complaining for years. Since the first days of Bush's Administration, and yet they are already muting themselves for the benefit of a party. To hell with the ideals and principles.

Look at the environmentalist. Gore wrote "Earth in the Balance" in 1992. By 2000 Ralph Nader stood up and ran for president, as a Green Party candidate. He got about 5% of the vote. Al Gore got 50%. Thanks for nothing.

So I don't fear a Hillary Presidency, and I expect a full 8 years from her. I just don't expect her to change much, which is what is sorely needed anyways. Its simple logic, if the squawkers are lacking the courage to vote for someone other than a democrat, who they always vote for anyways, then they sure aren't going to do something that takes a lot more courage than that -- standing up to betrayal.

But voting for Hillary Clinton is a betrayal itself, if you've been against the War in Iraq, or a slew of other issues you have with the Bush Administration.

But considering what an act of betrayal to our allies is by quiting the War in Iraq abruptly, this indicates to me that some are very comfortable with the concept.


  1. "But considering what an act of betrayal to our allies is by quiting the War in Iraq abruptly, this indicates to me that some are very comfortable with the concept."

    Whoa! We asked those allies to co-sign for a war based on our lies. Ending the war is not a betrayal; it ends one.

  2. Joseph,

    I just want to let you know I read your comment.

    I wish you well. I hope that your interest in international politics continue since the policies of the Bush Administration has lit a passion inside of you.

    I offer a little advice to help you analyze events of the magnitude of War and how it comes to pass that some nations come together on certain issues.

    Understand that every nation has an intelligence community of their own, and that it would truly be an exception and not the rule for one nation to take the words of another as truth. Rather they have their own people verify claims and analyze proposals.

    Mr. Bush may of said a few things that you don't accept as truth, but I can assure you that most everything he said, most everything, was already part of the international case against Iraq.

    Accusations that have just recently come to your awareness in the past 7 years were being made by politicians who not only occupied the same residence as he, but also by a slew who made a living in Congress for years before he arrived in D.C. In other words past presidents and congressmen were making the same accusations as Bush did regarding Iraq long before Bush became president.

    Also, not one intelligence agency in the world rebutted what the U.S. had been saying for a decade, that which Mr. Bush is now accused of lying about, since certain "discoveries" failed to materialize.

    In fact, not only did the intelligence communities agree with the U.S. positions, but Mr. Hussein himself had been telling his neighbors for years that he had what we feared he had. Its all history, check into it.

    So did we betray our allies with lies? I don't think so, but I don't say that to demean you, I say that because I have been following events for a long time.

    I hope that you too continue to follow the events of the world around you so that slicked tongued politicians have one less voter they can easily feed lines to in order to bolster their own self interest.

    Not implying that your easily fed lines to, but there is a simplicity to your argument that I've never accepted.

    Be against War, or for it. That is your decision, but if this nation got together some allies and then just quit the cause in which we solicited them for, and left them out on a limb, especially the Iraqis, then that is a betrayal. Or is it not?


  3. Geez, Bob, is there another Joe with whom you've got me confused?

    Your response seems like an address to some middle school civics student. Anyone older than that is well aware that the catalogue of Bush's lies is firmly established or, like yourself, is a 25%er living in the non-reality based world.

  4. Joseph,

    You have your world view and I have mine.

    Your sensitivity to lies is a great trait, I hope that you're able to discern lies from all corners.

    If you read my post carefully, I let room for Bush's lies by saying "most everything."

    I'm not comfortable defending a politician, and so I try to carefully word what I write and how I respond.

    Your wrote about betraying our allies with lies, I speak only to that issue.

    If I may share, I've experienced many people who share your view about the lies coming from the Bush White House, but yet seem oblivious to lies from other corners of the political world.

    I'd be interested to learn then if you acknowledge that Bush repeated claims about Iraq that his predecessor and his opponents for office had also said?