I have to admit that I was worried about what success in Iraq might lead to. American foreign policy has resulted in so many terrible consequences, and it hasn't even achieved the goal it had set for itself for half a century. Despite fighting the Cold War for much of the 20th century, we've seen a resurgence in leftist politics in Latin America, we've cultivated a rank disgust for the U.S. in both Latin America and the Middle East, and despite the fall of Soviet communism, Russia hasn't exactly gotten weaker or gone away--or gotten any friendlier with the West.

We say we won the Cold War--but what did we win, exactly?

So I was against the invasion of Iraq, and yes, I was (and still am) afraid that whatever immediate gains we might make may evaporate over the long haul. I'm not convinced that meddling in the internal affairs of foreign states without a multi-lateral effort is ever a good idea. We have direct evidence, fairly recent history, to guide us on that.

Nevertheless, we went to Iraq, and of course we had to hope for success, if for nothing else, at least for the Iraqi people. We'll see how their nascent democracy works out, and whether or not we'll have an ally in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

But hoping for the economy to fail is something else entirely. Now you're screwing with American prosperity. Bush tried to paint Iraq as a life-or-death deal and plenty of folks bought it, but plenty of us didn't, either. But rooting for Americans to remain out of work? To see more Americans do without health coverage? To see schools struggle to balance budgets?

I don't even know how this helps the conservative cause. There are no libertarian economies in the world for a reason. When shit hits the fan, everybody looks to government for the answer, whether they be average Joe Sixpacks or Wall Street executives. Economic deprivation is a gift to leftwingers everywhere.

Republicans ought to hope for an upturn in the economy. Nobody wants the government to meddle in their affairs when things are going well. It's easy to be conservative when times are good; it's much harder when things are going badly. Republicans are sacrificing the war to win the battle for political gain. But of course, this is why they are now calling Medicare a "right," even though they've always opposed it.

Republicans are very, very stupid.

But of course, this is why they are now calling Medicare a "right," even though they've always opposed it.

Republicans are saying that healthcare is a right? Give me one example of this. I have heard NOTHING to that extent. It is demonkeycrats that are syaing this, not republicans.

More so, republicans are not hoping the economy tanks again. It can't because it's still in the shitter. When are you knuckleheads going to realize that you can't spend your way out of a recession.

Obama, Nancy and Harry have already spent more in six months that Bush did in eight years. Explain that one to me? And don't give me the "He inherited it" crap!

evenstevenII:

But of course, this is why they are now calling Medicare a "right," even though they've always opposed it.

Republicans are saying that healthcare is a right? Give me one example of this. I have heard NOTHING to that extent. It is demonkeycrats that are syaing this, not republicans.

More so, republicans are not hoping the economy tanks again. It can't because it's still in the shitter. When are you knuckleheads going to realize that you can't spend your way out of a recession.

Obama, Nancy and Harry have already spent more in six months that Bush did in eight years. Explain that one to me? And don't give me the "He inherited it" crap!

Thats right .it did not fail untill 1 second after obama took office .he created the economic problems instantly .boy oboy you cons sure have a lust for history revisionism.

evenstevenII:

Obama, Nancy and Harry have already spent more in six months that Bush did in eight years. Explain that one to me? And don't give me the "He inherited it" crap!

Duh - Here is your explanation you are WRONG!

When Bush came into office the US debt was 5.6 trillion and when Bush left it was 11 trillion, so are you saying that Obama spent 5 and half trillion dollars in six months?

<link>

Posts like yours where people spout off the LIES that the hear on Faux News, without bothering to check the facts say alot about the poster!

Further more that debt was not being used a USEFUL purpose like moving the business cycle out of a depression, but instead to fight unneeded wars and make the rich richer.

Do you need any more "splaning" that Bush DOUBLED the national debt and we don't have jack to show for it?

Slate's Tim Noah has already written about this dramatic shift in the GOP platform.

Thats right .it did not fail untill 1 second after obama took office .he created the economic problems instantly .boy oboy you cons sure have a lust for history revisionism.

That it was a republican Congress that passed budgets that gave us surplusses during Clinton's years. By the way, He vetoed those budgets twice before signing them.

Selective demonkeycratic memory?

evenstevenII:

Thats right .it did not fail untill 1 second after obama took office .he created the economic problems instantly .boy oboy you cons sure have a lust for history revisionism.

That it was a republican Congress that passed budgets that gave us surplusses during Clinton's years. By the way, He vetoed those budgets twice before signing them.

Selective demonkeycratic memory?

Translation: Rather than admit that evensteven is grossly mistaken and has little to no grasp of facts that discredit his ideology, he's going to change the subject.

Hmmm...let me see if I get this thread right:

democrat politicians get it all right, republic politicians get it all wrong.

Or, depending on the post (albeit not anywhere within 10 yards of a Slate columnist :) ), the reverse is true.

Anyone who SERIOUSLY thinks this is a blithering IDIOT. I'd spell it again more slowly, but you'd lose the message. For every "britbailey" on the democrat side, there's another ideologue on the other side. While having this sort of idiotic time-sucking discussion on some blog is perfectly American in nature and mostly harmless, having these virally partisan views spread into the fabric of our policy is the chief reason our children will be asking...

Where are we going? And why are we in this handbasket?

Be nice to scrap the two-party system completely and argue these points without elephants and donkeys obscuring people's good sense.

Y'all be good to each other.

"But of course, this is why they are now calling Medicare a "right," even though they've always opposed it. Republicans are saying that healthcare is a right?"

You don't read very well, do you?

"Obama, Nancy and Harry have already spent more in six months that Bush did in eight years."

Blithering nonsense.

"Explain that one to me?'

You're an uninformed fool. You're welcome :)

"And don't give me the "He inherited it" crap!"

Agree that Obama is like the Gay Old Party, blaming the previous administration for everything.

I just want to know what a "demonkeycrat" is!

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

OK, maybe not the last one.