Tuesday, September 28, 2004

You Know You're a Liberal if...

Da Man has his third installment of his hilariously funny, "you know you're a liberal if..."
If you get both your political and keg stands from Ted Kennedy, you might be a liberal.

You're so liberal if you can say "Fake but Accurate" with a straight face.
You're also so liberal if you offended by my use of the word "straight" in the previous paragraph.

If you claim to have a better picture of the situation in Iraq than the prime minister of Iraq, you are a liberal. Also, if your idea of "winning the peace" in Iraq involves calling the prime minister of Iraq a "puppet", you might be a liberal.

If you state: "I have a plan that I'm going to have a press conference at least once a month to talk to the nation about what I'm doing because I don't have anything to hide," Then go a month without taking any questions from the press because you have something to hide. You are a liberal.

If your ratings are torpedoed by a group of jammie-wearing bloggers, you might be a liberal.

You're so liberal if.... in the 60's and 70's you protested the Vietnam war and the soldiers that were committing atrocities like burning villages and raping women....then turn around and vote for one of them to run the country.

If you have a bumper sticker that reads: "my child and my money go to UC-Berkley", you might be a liberal.

You are so wrong if your campaign website lists you as once serving as Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence...even though you never held the position.

If you spent Christmas in Cambodia and Armistice day in Safwan, you might be a liberal.

You can find these and many more in the forums at Mighty Righty. Feel free to email me additions or enter them in the comments.
GOP & the City is a daily read! Check it out often.


Ghost Dansing said...

Speaking of funny jokes, take this Republican administration:

The number of flipflops and missteps committed by the Bush administration in Iraq far exceeds anything John Kerry can be accused of. First we dissolved the Iraqi army, then we tried to reconstitute it. First we tried to eliminate the Baathists, then we turned to them for help. First we installed General Jay Garner to run the country, then we gave it to Paul Bremer and when the insurgency became intractable, we installed an Iraqi government. The man we chose was a protégé of the CIA with the reputation of a strong man - a far cry from democracy. First we attacked Falluja over the objections of the Marine commander on the ground, then pulled them out when the assault was half-way through, again over his objections. "Once you commit, you got to stay committed," he said publicly. More recently, we started bombing Falluja again.

The Bush campaign is trying to put a favorable spin on it, but the situation in Iraq is dire. Much of the Western part of the country has been ceded to the insurgents. Even the so-called Green Zone (a small enclave in the center of Baghdad where Americans live and work) is subject to mortar attacks. The prospects of holding free and fair elections in January are fast receding and civil war looms. Dubya received a somber intelligence evaluation in July but he has kept it under wraps and failed to level with the electorate.

Dubya's war in Iraq has done untold damage to the United States. It has impaired our military power and undermined the morale of our armed forces. Before the invasion of Iraq, we could project overwhelming power in any part of the world. We cannot do so any more because we are bogged down in Iraq. Afghanistan is slipping from our control. North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and other countries are pursuing nuclear programs with renewed vigor and many other problems remain unattended.

By invading Iraq without a second UN resolution, we violated international law. By mistreating and even torturing prisoners, we violated the Geneva conventions. President Bush has boasted that we do not need a permission slip from the international community, but our actions have endangered our security - particularly the security of our troops.

Our troops were trained to project overwhelming power. They were not trained for occupation duties. Having to fight an insurgency saps their morale. Many of our troops return from Iraq with severe trauma and other psychological disorders. Sadly, many are also physically injured. After Iraq, it will be difficult to recruit people for the armed forces and we may have to resort to conscription. (Of course, backing Dubya means that the kind of patriotism involved with actually answering the call to duty is no longer valued, unless you don't have the money and family influence to get you into the Texas Air National Guard.. thus, the message to the young people is to dodge any draft as best you can, anyway.)

There are many other policies for which the Bush administration can be criticized but none are as important as Iraq. Iraq has cost us nearly 200 billion dollars -- an enormous sum. It could have been used much better elsewhere. The costs are going to mount because it was much easier to get into Iraq than it will be to get out of there. President Bush has been taunting John Kerry to explain how he would do things differently in Iraq. John Kerry has responded that he would have done everything differently and he would be in a better position to extricate us than the man who got us in there. But it won't be easy for him either, because we are caught in a quagmire.

STCA said...


I've done some google searches using text from your "comments." Unfortunately, I've found they usually are lifted from Maureen Dowd or from another Bush Haters site (word for word).

Until you come up with something original; I've gotta bid you farewell.

Bookmark Widget