• Gay BlogAds


  • Gay News Watch


  • Chris Tweets



  • « I don't get it, Gloria | Main | Sapp quits after 'too much gay porn'? »

    January 11, 2008

    Those over-compensating Republicans

    Posted by: Chris

    Gopdebatesc Gloria Steinem was right about one thing. The Republicans running for president, like the one who's already got the job, seem obsessed with proving their masculinity. Take these cartoonish examples of bravado from last night's GOP debate in South Carolina, made during discussion over the recent confrontation between U.S. and Iranian naval vessels:

    I think one more step and they would have been introduced to those virgins that they’re looking forward to seeing."

    -- Fred Thompson

    "I think we need to make it very clear, not just to the Iranians, but to anybody, that if you think you’re going to engage the United States military, be prepared not simply to have a battle. Be prepared, first, to put your sights on the American vessel. And then be prepared that the next things you see will be the gates of Hell, because that is exactly what you will see after that."

    -- Mike Huckabee

    Thompson's remark is at least clever, but it's also completely inappropriate for the context and promises a presidency that would be a boon for Islamic extremists while finishing off what remaining credibility we have with moderates and our friends.

    I never thought I would see the day when Democrats almost uniformly give greater comfort and security than Republicans on international relations and war. Congratulations, neo-conservatives. It's an impressive feat.

    (Photo by via Washington Post/Mary Ann Chastain/AP)

    |

    TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e200e54fedbb808834

    Comments

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Jan 11, 2008 4:39:42 PM:

      Perhaps you've forgotten this little incident, Chris.

      That was what happened the last time we put not offending Muslims and moderates or appearing too "masculine" at the top of our list of priorities, versus allowing our ships to respond to threats and defend themselves.

    1. Double T on Jan 11, 2008 4:59:21 PM:

      NDT,
      the USS Cole????
      Did you fall on your newly shaved head?

      Do you have a clue as to the real reason the Cole was attacked? Or 9-11? It because US Troops were stationed in Saudi.

      It had NOTHING to do with a bunch of windbags pretending that they had a set swinging between their legs.

      You actually can be tough without being a man.
      Hello? P.M. Thatcher.
      The Iron Lady of Europe.

      Stop Living in Fear.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Jan 11, 2008 5:25:40 PM:

      And start doing whatever Osama bin Laden tells you, apparently.

      Furthermore, don't compare Margaret Thatcher, who called the bluff of the Argentine junta and ordered the British Navy to retake the Falkland Islands, to people like yourself, who are arguing that 9/11 and the Cole bombing were justified by the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, who were there AT THE REQUEST OF THE LEGITIMATE SAUDI GOVERNMENT.

    1. Double T on Jan 11, 2008 5:35:54 PM:

      NDT,
      1) I did NOT say 9-11 was justified. I merely gave the reason that motivated the act. NO JUSTIFICATION was given on my part.

      2)Since when is a Dictatorship a legitimate government in the eyes of anyone who believes in Democracy. You forget, I'm a patriot, while you are merely a poser.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Jan 11, 2008 6:24:08 PM:

      Since when is a Dictatorship a legitimate government in the eyes of anyone who believes in Democracy.

      Given that the Democrat Party and the UN both argued that Saddam Hussein's government was the "legitimate government of Iraq" and should not have been overthrown......evidently neither of them believe in democracy.

      I did NOT say 9-11 was justified. I merely gave the reason that motivated the act.

      No, the "reason that motivated the act" is that Osama bin Laden and his ilk are murderous, psychopathic idiots.

      The fact that US troops were in Saudi Arabia was the excuse they cooked up to make it palatable to people who needed a means to bash Bush and Republicans.

    1. Double T on Jan 11, 2008 7:26:13 PM:

      NDT,
      What color is the sky on your planet?

      No, they did not "cook up" this excuse. Osama spent years fighting the Russians in Afganistan. To keep the country "pure". Then he comes home to Saudi and see all theses troops, AMERICAN troops.

      I'm not saying I agree with him. I'm saying that I'm intelligent enough to understand what motivated him to action.

      "murderous, psychopathic idiots" ??? the world is a little more complexed than that. Sometimes you actually have to think about things to understand them.

      I can't speak for the U.N. and I never claimed the Democrats or Republicans believed in democracy. Judging by the totally disregard for the law, I'd say George W. doesn't believe in Democracy. I guess on this point you and I are in agreement.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Jan 11, 2008 8:04:41 PM:

      Then he comes home to Saudi and see all theses troops, AMERICAN troops.

      Who were there because King Fahd had asked them to be after Saddam's invasion of next-door-neighbor Kuwait.

      Evidently you believe that we should have sided with bin Laden rather than with the actual Saudi government.

      The problem is, Double T, since the fundamental belief you have is that Republicans are always wrong, you must minimize and deny the danger that bin Laden and Islamist terrorism presents to the United States. Hence you must portray bin Laden as a reasonable person, even though the evidence presented clearly demonstrates that he is anything BUT reasonable, so you can "prove" that Republicans are wrong.


    1. Strict Scrutiny on Jan 12, 2008 12:46:40 AM:

      Chris and Double T has it right. Many neo-cons, including the leading Republican candidates for president, feel some dire need to turn any provocative incident into war. Iranian speed boats attacking U.S. destroyers? That's like ants at a picnic. This was definitely NOT the USS Cole. But it is a good example of how the neo-cons use fear, war, and rhetoric to get votes.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Jan 12, 2008 2:50:10 AM:

      Well, Strict Scrutiny, if you remember the Cole bombing, it was carried out with a boat even smaller than these were -- filled with explosives and driven by suicide bombers right at the ship.

      Furthermore, if you remember your history, the US Navy had a rather impressive kill record against large ships using speedboats that were tiny by comparison -- PT boats.

      Again, what this discussion demonstrates is that Democrats and liberals are so desperate to be anti-Republican that they will come up with reasons for why our ships should NOT attack people who attack them, and why it is more important to worry about what Islamic extremists think than to worry about our sailors being killed.

    1. Double T on Jan 12, 2008 3:55:50 AM:

      Let’s be clear. I don’t hate Republicans.
      I voted for Reagan.

      But when you lie and send US Troops to war and upset the balance of world peace someone has to be brave enough to call these bastards out.

      Let’s have a few facts out on the table.

      Saddam Hussein was an ally of the United State of American. At no time did he attack us as a country. Self defensive is allowable and planning to murder President Bush Sr. after he left office his only true offense against us.

      During the Presidential Debates Ross Perot (the big liberal) exposed some of Bush Sr.’s lies and high treason.

      High Treason is the type of treason which causes a country to go to war, so yes, HIGH TREASON.

      Iraq in the 80’s had a beef with Kuwait. Kuwait was selling more oil than the agreed upon OPEC quotas, this combined with a border dispute was a pain in Hussein’s side.

      Now, Friend of the American People (Reagan’s term) and U.S. Ally Saddam Hussein contacts Washington thru ambassador Glaspie and informs the Bush Administration that he plans on invading Kuwait. Does the Bush Administration have a problem with this? According to Ross Perot on national television, his contact at the CIA inform that Bush’s response is that it is a conflict between Arabs and he has no position on the subject. Hussein invades.

      Now Ross Perot has requested that documents be released that would once and for all clear up this matter. However, as we all know, the truth is sometimes considered un-American. The Bush administration has classified these documents because their release how expose the truth behind a completely fabricated war. The newspaper “the Australian” produced a documentary “the Trial of Saddam Hussein, a Trial you’ll never see”. It will probably never be seen in the U.S. The film makes Michael Moore appear to be a supporter of the Bush family.

      As a result of the first Gulf War, U.S. troops are stationed in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi’s have never wanted U.S. troops there, but allow them because of the war. The civilian population of the kingdom is not so understanding. This triggers the U.S. Cole and later the attacks on 9-11.

      9-11 is basically the excuse for the Second Gulf War so Junior can prove himself to Daddy. But one thing is perfectly clear, the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11( later George W. himself admitted that ), it had nothing to do with WMD and nothing to do with keeping the world safe.

      You can't go around the world stepping on people and saying, "it doesn't matter, we're Americans". Gee, how circa 1950.

      A lot of people have made a lot of money off events that should never have taken place. If you support these people you are truly a sick person.


    1. Strict Scrutiny on Jan 12, 2008 12:34:20 PM:

      NDT:

      I am well aware of how the USS Cole bombing happened and also know that the speedboat technique has been used in naval warfare. However, there is a significant difference between the Cole bombing and the recent incident in the Strait of Hormuz, namely that our guys KNEW it was the Iranians. For their part, the Iranians would never have attacked our ships because they knew it would give Bush a reason to bomb their country. My opinion is rooted in political correctness. I'm just tired of this president's reckless wars and endless belligerence.

      And, by the way, I am not desperate to be anti-Republican. Your implication is that I just want to be anti-Republican because they're the "other team." In fact, I am well informed on many of the issues and can make up my own mind. As it happens, most of my opinions fall in line with what the Democrats are saying. For example, I can articulate several reasons I think the current administration is the worst in history: Iraq, rampant cronyism, corruption, anti-gay rhetoric, reckless foreign policy, over spending, etc.

    1. Strict Scrutiny on Jan 12, 2008 3:53:38 PM:

      Correction: I meant to say, "My opinion is NOT rooted in political correctness." My bad.

    1. Double T on Jan 12, 2008 9:33:48 PM:

      Stricty, You go girl!!! :-)

    1. Chris on Jan 12, 2008 10:39:08 PM:

      I think we have to distinguish between the actions of the commanders on the scene and the comments and the debate. My criticism was only of the latter. I have no problem with politicians supporting the defensive actions taken by our military in a high-pressure situation.

      I do have a problem when that defense has the tone of a redneck caller into a talk radio program. The comments from the S.C. debate sound straight out of a Borat sketch. We should expect more from the candidates who would be our president -- not because of the impact it might have on the Iranians, but because it contributes to the (deserved) impression the U.S. has in many parts of the world as an irresponsible bully.

      FDR said speak softly and carry a big stick, and he could hardly be considered a wuss. And yet rubes like Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee -- and I can say that because I grew up in their two states -- should take FDR's advice to heart.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Jan 12, 2008 11:00:47 PM:

      Double T, I quote:

      You can't go around the world stepping on people and saying, "it doesn't matter, we're Americans". Gee, how circa 1950.

      And yet, you fully and completely justify Saddam Hussein attacking, invading, and occupying Kuwait based on his allegations that they were pumping too much oil and over a border dispute.

      What that makes obvious is that only actions on the part of the United States constitute a threat to "world peace".

      Furthermore, Double T, given your whining about the Gulf War, certainly you must have something to say about Kosovo and the actions of the United States there being a threat to "world peace".

      Or don't you?

      And now for Strict Scrutiny.

      I'm just tired of this president's reckless wars and endless belligerence.

      Democrats usually are.

      But then again, they take a lot of heat from their fellow liberals and leftists who lost their cash cow when we removed Saddam and who were humiliated when it was realized that the main reason the UN opposed our removal of him were the bribes being made by its bureaucrats.

      Nor are they particularly eager to admit the cost of their method of dealing with Saddam -- especially when one considers that they went to war to overthrow Slobodan Milosevic's comparatively-puny activities.

      They also are not ones to discuss their flip-flop on the necessity of deposing and eliminating Saddam that magically vanished the instant they were out of power.

      Furthermore, you reveal the real issue inadvertently.

      For their part, the Iranians would never have attacked our ships because they knew it would give Bush a reason to bomb their country.

      That is called "deterrence".

      In contrast, they know full well that the Democrat Party will not attack them or retaliate, so they can do as they wish and gain the propaganda victories -- just as happened with the Cole, just as happened with Khobar Towers, just as happened with the US embassies......

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Jan 12, 2008 11:52:50 PM:

      We should expect more from the candidates who would be our president -- not because of the impact it might have on the Iranians, but because it contributes to the (deserved) impression the U.S. has in many parts of the world as an irresponsible bully.

      Of course, these same "many parts of the world" see nothing wrong with such rhetoric and tone when it comes from the right people.

      Why, then, we should care what they think, I have no idea.

      And frankly, which is preferable; a President who makes frankly and plainly clear to countries who threaten our ships that we will defend our interests and the lives of our soldiers, or one who worries that saying such a thing might be perceived as trying to be too "masculine"?


    1. Double T on Jan 13, 2008 2:21:16 AM:

      NDT, I love how you hear things that were never said.
      I didn't "fully and completely justify Saddam Hussein attacking, invading, and occupying Kuwait". President Bush Sr. did. Not me.

      Then after he did this he declare Hussein an enemy and took the Nation into a needless war.

      You fully support a traitor, then you try to accuse me of being the traitor.

      I'm the Patriot. The person who's pointing out the lies.
      And you are really having trouble understanding that you have embraced those lies.

      Someday you'll figure out the truth. You'll wake up and know how the Nazi's felt when they realized their leader was full of sh-t.

      In the meanwhile, march on little drummerboy.

    1. Double T on Jan 13, 2008 2:21:19 AM:

      NDT, I love how you hear things that were never said.
      I didn't "fully and completely justify Saddam Hussein attacking, invading, and occupying Kuwait". President Bush Sr. did. Not me.

      Then after he did this he declare Hussein an enemy and took the Nation into a needless war.

      You fully support a traitor, then you try to accuse me of being the traitor.

      I'm the Patriot. The person who's pointing out the lies.
      And you are really having trouble understanding that you have embraced those lies.

      Someday you'll figure out the truth. You'll wake up and know how the Nazi's felt when they realized their leader was full of sh-t.

      In the meanwhile, march on little drummerboy.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Jan 13, 2008 3:05:40 AM:

      Double T, you amuse me on several levels.

      According to Ross Perot on national television, his contact at the CIA inform that Bush’s response is that it is a conflict between Arabs and he has no position on the subject.

      Actually, no.

      Ross Perot's source for that claim was -- surprise! -- Saddam Hussein.

      So I say this is very simple. Saddam Hussein released a tape, as you know, claiming it was a transcript of their meeting, where she said we will not become involved in your border dispute and, in effect, you can take the northern part of the country.

      In short, what you are doing is citing Saddam Hussein's justifications for his own invasion.

      But again, that demonstrates the problem. You believe automatically anything that is anti-American. You believe automatically anything that is anti-Republican. Because of that, you end up siding with and justifying the actions of terrorists and brutal dictators.

      As the saying goes, "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels."

      You demonstrate that perfectly.

    1. Strict Scrutiny on Jan 13, 2008 12:21:00 PM:

      NDT:

      I’m not going to respond on any more of your postings because you are deliberately mischaracterizing things people say and are rambling off point. Also, I don’t think there is anything I could say that would change your mind, so what’s the point?

      My bottom line point is we don’t need any more irresponsible, chauvinistic rhetoric coming out of the Republican party or its candidates for president. I don’t think it serves our national interests.

      But I would like like to ask you to show a little respect. Please stop saying “Democrat Party.” You know damn well this is nothing more than a political slur used by conservatives to express contempt for the Democratic Party. It’s dopey and childish. I’m not whining. I’m just asking that we leave the name calling to the 3rd graders.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Jan 14, 2008 12:10:29 AM:

      FDR said speak softly and carry a big stick, and he could hardly be considered a wuss.

      FDR said nothing of the sort.

      That is a quote from Teddy Roosevelt, who also made it clear that there is a third part to that quotation; namely, be willing to use it.

      The USS Cole was nearly, not because our enemies out-firepowered us, but because, following guidelines to not be "provocative", our troops were prevented from defending themselves.

      Osama bin Laden openly stated in 1998 that the US was a "paper tiger", unwilling to fight, and helpless despite its size.

      Under Democrat leadership, he is absolutely right.


      I don’t think it serves our national interests.

      Sure -- if one considers sucking up to the European leftists who funded Saddam, got rich off his bribes as he butchered millions, and who are trying to work the same deals with Iran, as being in our "national interest".


      And finally:

      You know damn well this is nothing more than a political slur used by conservatives to express contempt for the Democratic Party.


      Yawn .

    1. Double T on Jan 14, 2008 2:49:39 AM:

      NDT,
      no, I don't believe anything that's anti-american.
      unlike you, I'm man enough to face the truth.

      You can also follow the career of Ambassador April Glaspie.

      Interesting how you never addressed how Hussein went from our #1 Arab Ally to Public Enemy #1 overnight.

      Let me know what street corner you're hustling at, it's apparent you're for sale. And cheap too.

      Here's a quote for you
      Stupid is what stupid does.


    1. Monster Beats Sale on Nov 30, 2011 1:02:57 AM:

      Here's a quote for you
      Stupid is what stupid does.

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    © Citizen Crain - All Rights Reserved | Design by E.Webscapes Design Studio | Powered by: TypePad