Quote:

theory9 said:
My comment about selectivity was based on this:

Quote:

Because it doesn't really matter that Bush/Republicans are in power.
Because Democrats show the same (1) partisan lack of fairness, and (2) contempt and utter lack of civility toward conservatives/Republicans, no matter which party is in power. And I don't think it's "whining" to point out that there is a clear double-standard.



If both sides both do the same things, how can a double-standard exist?

My point about one-sidedness was this: if you assert membership before ideas, you're often forced to accept (or be associated with) a wide-ranging set of notions that may not apply to you.



I pointed out that both the republican and democrat parties, to some degree use the same tactics, yes.

The double-standard is in how the news media overwhelmingly gives a one-sided positive spin to the Democrat perspective at every turn.

Just because I express a leaning toward one side doesn't mean I don't weigh the validity of both perspectives.

Again, I made that abundantly clear in my constructive criticism of Bush's shortcomings above.
But you attempt to dismiss me as partisan, despite my criticism of Bush, both above, and in my posts over the last four years or so.

Which is ironic, considering your own liberal leanings that you are reluctant to own up to, even as you accuse me of partisanship.




Quote:

theory9 said:

That you agree with the President on the war is only part of the issue--whether or not we can achieve lasting success is the larger question.
Because of religious and cultural divides, many of the gains that the US has realized in Iraq will probably not last too long past our eventual withdrawl from the country.



Your opinion, which you are entitled to.
But you state it as if it were fact. Similar things were said about Germany and Japan after World War II.



Quote:

theory9 said:
Now stating the above does not mean you haven't considered it, but it doesn't appear as if US leadership has given it long-term thought.
Democrats have raised these concerns, only to be drown in the cries of being soft on terrorism. My concern, more generally, is simply that we've entered these countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) without realistically achievable objectives, and in the meantime have exposed ourselves to the enemy in more subtle ways.



Again, your opinion, stated as fact.
You criticize my partisanship, then lobby an argument that the Democrats have better solutions, but are being smeared as un-American and thus not listened to, despite their oh-so-superior solutions. (I see their criticism as just opportunistic kicking of the president whenever he's down, without offering any real solutions of their own. Which hurts the morale of our troops, and hurts public perception through sheer repetition of wishful thinkers in the news media, despite a lack of substantiation for their negative projections. )

All indications I've seen are that our troops on the ground are adapting and improving, as is the Bush administration's strategy.
And that despite the losses, full democracy in Iraq with an independent Iraqi security force is inevitable, that their economy is improving in Iraq, and that the insurrection is increasingly less able to go on.

I agree that there have been some mistakes, as there are in every war.
That is one of my criticisms above, that Bush didn't go into Iraq with a larger force, as the joint Chiefs said was necessary to do the job right.

It is hardly a factual inevitability that gains in Iraq are "not likely to last that long". These are people who want peace and economic opportunity, for themselves and their children.