posted on April 3, 2007 09:02:02 AM
No need to get angry, Linda_K. I understand that you think an answer is a LOL and a TSK but that's not enough of an answer for me.
For years you have posted about all the problems that you think Muslims cause in other places like the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, France, etc.
Yet you want Americans to die to bring them more liberty and freedom so they can keep moving all over the world as well as to America. Why is that? What's in it for you?
The reason I ask you is because no one else posting here has stated such dislike for Muslims yet support the troops dying to bring them more freedom. Instead of showing your conviction about this you seem to want to avoid answering by pretending you've answered before.
posted on April 3, 2007 09:14:07 AM
It's not my problem that you haven't answered and I'm not name-calling as you always do, Linda_K when you are backed into a corner. I'm not the one posting the mixed messages about disliking Muslims yet wanting Americans to die to bring them more freedoms.
posted on April 3, 2007 09:19:28 AM
It's only your mind that mixes everything you read up, kiara.
Calling you what your posts prove you are. An idiot who loves telling me to 'cram it up my ass'....but now is showing another way she's a total hypocrite...but calling me on mine.
I call you as I see you....one who is either a total idiot or is grossly memory impaired. Either way....the end result is the same.
posted on April 3, 2007 09:27:57 AM
I understand for you it's easier to call names than try to explain your position when you realize you are cornered, Linda_K. Anyone that truly believes in a cause would not be afraid to state why.
posted on April 3, 2007 10:32:29 AM
I like his style.
---------
Cheney BLASTS The Democrat on War
Vice president helps raise $500,000 for Sessions' 2008 campaign
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
CHARLES J. DEAN
News staff writer
Vice President Dick Cheney said in Birmingham on Monday that the Democratic-controlled Congress must learn there is only one commander in chief, and he lives in the White House.
Criticizing congressional resolutions supporting the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, Cheney said, "The fact is that the United States military answers to one commander in chief in the White House, not 535 commanders in chief on Capitol Hill.
"We expect the House and Senate to meet the needs of our military on time, in full and with no strings attached," Cheney told an audience of about 500 at The Club. Cheney was in Birmingham to address supporters of Sen. Jeff Sessions, who paid $1,000 each to eat lunch and hear the vice president.
Cheney, known for his tough approach in dealing with critics, didn't disappoint the crowd as he lashed out at congressional Democrats.
While he spent a few minutes praising Sessions, R-Ala., and discussing President Bush's tax cuts and low unemployment, most of his remarks were aimed at criticism of the war in Iraq, especially by congressional Democrats, who Cheney said are undercutting U.S. troops fighting the war.
Cheney was critical of a Senate-passed resolution supporting the withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq by next March. He blasted a House-passed emergency war spending bill that mandates a withdrawal of U.S. troops by Sept. 1, a date Cheney called precipitous.
"This action by the House of Representatives is irresponsible and sends exactly the wrong message to our enemy," Cheney said. "When members of the Congress speak not of victory but of time limits, deadlines or other arbitrary measures, they're telling the enemy to simply watch the clock and wait us out. It's time the self-appointed strategists on Capitol Hill understood a very simple concept: You cannot win a war if you tell the enemy when you're going to quit," Cheney said as the audience jumped to its feet applauding.
Cheney vowed Bush would veto any funding bill for the war containing a date for U.S. troop withdrawals. He also said it's clear that the votes are not there to override a presidential veto, and he called on Democrats to stop what he called "political theater" and send Bush a bill he can sign.
Cheney said that if Democrats believe they can delay funding for the war and force Bush to accept restrictions, they are wrong.
"It's nothing less than an attempt to force the president's hand," said Cheney. "They're going to find out they've misread George W. Bush."
Monday's event raised more than half a million dollars for Alabama's junior senator who, so far, is unopposed for a third six-year term. "It exceeded our goal in every way," said Sessions.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 3, 2007 11:30:10 AM
Legitimate questions are now considered baiting? I guess when a person feels trapped and can't answer without revealing once again what hypocrites they are, they may consider it as such.
Linda_K, either soften your stance here about all Muslims being the enemy or I don't buy your phony support about more troops dying to bring them freedom. You can't have it both ways.
'waco' supports the party that will allow the killing of our troops for another year. Guess that's okay because he accepts they don't have the GUTS to just not fund NOW. End the war NOW.
==================
We'll see who will be the one(s) backing down. The President or the liberals.
----------
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush on Tuesday called Democrats in Congress irresponsible for approving war bills that order U.S. troops to leave Iraq by certain dates.
He said such efforts will backfire, keeping some troops in battle even longer.
"In a time of war, it's irresponsible for the Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds," Bush said in a Rose Garden news conference.
"The bottom line is this: Congress' failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines," Bush said. "Others could see their loved ones heading back to the war sooner than they need to."
Bush's comments underscored his standoff with Congress.
Democrats won power in November, fueled in large part by national anti-war sentiment. They are intent on using their power over money to force Iraq to take more responsibility, and prod Bush to wind down the war.
The president renewed veto threats on both a Senate-passed bill calling for most U.S. combat troops to be out of Iraq by March 31, and an even stronger House-passed bill demanding a September 2008 withdrawal.
He said both bills "undercut the troops."
Bush bluntly said that Congress could not override such a veto.
The president's remarks come one day after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced he would try to eliminate money for the war if Bush rejects Congress' proposal to set a deadline to end combat.
"It's interesting that Harry Reid, leader Reid, spoke out with a different option," Bush said. "Whatever option they choose, we hope they get home, get a bill, and get it to my desk," Bush said. "And if it has artificial timetables for withdrawal, or cuts off funding for our troops, or tells our generals how to run a war, I'll veto it."
The Senate is in recess this week; the House is on break for two weeks.
The House and Senate are preparing to send Bush a bill by the end of the month that would approve of some $96 billion in new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also set an end date to combat in Iraq.
The House wants to order troops out by September 2008, whereas the Senate wants troops to begin leaving right away and set a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations on March 31, 2008.
"If the president vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period," Reid said in a statement before Bush's comments.
Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the bill to cut off funds for the war would likely be introduced as standalone legislation and would not be tied to the supplemental spending bill.
Reid's proposal would be the most extreme and divisive measure to be considered by Democrats to try to force Bush's hand on the war.
Most Republicans and many conservative Democratic senators, including Ben Nelson of Nebraska, have been reluctant to embrace a timetable in Iraq. Nelson agreed last week to swing behind the Senate spending bill, which calls for troops to leave by March 31, 2008, only because the date was nonbinding and not a firm deadline.
Nelson also agreed to vote for the measure because Reid added language Nelson wanted outlining steps the Iraqi government should take to improve stability in Iraq.
Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon were the only Republicans who supported the measure.
TAKE NOTE 'WACO' - TWO....ONLY TWO
Reid's promise marks a new shift in strategy for Democrats. Reid was previously reluctant to embrace the suggestion of using Congress' power of the purse and deflected questions on the matter by saying Democrats would provide troops with what they need to be safe.
YEP, a REID FLIP-FLOP
His latest proposal would give the president one year to get troops out, ending funding for combat operations after March 31, 2008, and allowing troops to conduct only counterterrorism operations, train Iraqi forces and provide security for U.S. infrastructure and personnel.
This latest challenge indicates Reid is likely both frustrated by Bush's insistence on the war and his own shaky majority in Congress.
Unable to override a presidential veto because he lacks the necessary two-thirds majority support, Reid is trying to ratchet up the pressure on Bush in the hopes the president will cave.
===========
HOPES???? That's all the liberals have.....hope. Hoping to find a way to ADMIT DEFEAT to the terrorists and AQ our troops are now fighting. tsk tsk tsk
And they CLAIM to be patriots. How sad.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 3, 2007 08:34:49 PM
Liar_k,
You got it wrong again its the left over republican lawmakers that are blocking the Democrats from ending THE BUSH IRAQ WAR.
The Democrats are getting the noose getting tighter and tighter. TSK TSK TSK LOL LOL LOL YES!!! YES!!! YES!!!
Remember its not about what you or I say its about FINE AMERICANS GETTING KILLED OR WOUNDED ALMOST DAILY BECAUSE OF A MISMANAGED LIED ABOUT IRAQ CIVIL WAR.
You and I both know its just a matter of a short until BUSHY is retired living in the DISGRACE of a failed Presidency and War.
To-date 3,257 fine American lives have been lost in THE BUSH IRAQ WAR.
posted on April 4, 2007 01:38:50 AM
And as I pointed out to you.....YOUR dems don't appear to be concerned about how many more deaths there will be between NOW and a year [or a year and a half] from now.
They're NOT calling for an immediate end to the war. They're NOT voting to NOT fund the wars. NOPE....but they could have.
They are COWARDS and all the deaths that take place since they've come into power are on THEIR hands....because the lack the GUTS to stop the funding.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 4, 2007 02:10:20 AM
Baghdad curfew eased as surge scores successes
By Sharon Behn
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 4, 2007
US Army Pvt. Brian Kibby uses a metal detector to look for a weapons cache during a mission with Iraqi army soldiers from 1st Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 4th Iraqi Army Division in al-Muradiyah village, north east of Baghdad. (AFP/Getty Images)
BAGHDAD -- American and Iraqi soldiers yesterday killed six terrorists and captured another 41 insurgents and death-squad suspects in operations in Baghdad and outside Fallujah, military officials said.
The raids were part of the ongoing enormous effort by U.S. and Iraqi security forces to break the backs of the various armed groups warring in Iraq. The Iraqi government cited the success of that operation yesterday in announcing that the nightly curfew will be pushed back by two hours.
In Baghdad, a U.S. Stryker battalion and an Iraqi battalion fanned out in east Mansour, an area of the city where Shi'ite death squads have been forcing Sunni families out of their homes and replacing them with followers of Muqtada al-Sadr's radical militia.
Directed by Iraqi and American intelligence sources, the soldiers of the 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment of the Stryker Brigade Combat Team raided houses overnight, capturing nine members of what they said was a known death-squad cell.
"We think they are responsible for the deaths of 22 Sunnis in this area, as well as [rocket-propelled grenade] and small-arms attacks," said an intelligence officer involved in the operation who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
In separate operations, coalition forces killed six al Qaeda in Iraq terrorists and captured 13 other "facilitators" yesterday morning south of Fallujah and in al Qaim, on the border with Syria, the U.S. military said.
The men arrested in Baghdad were swiftly flex-cuffed, blindfolded and hauled off to one of the city's detention centers, where they sat with their backs against a wall waiting to be screened by U.S. medical personnel.
One man came in whimpering and limping on the arms of two American soldiers, his arm and leg bandaged after trying to escape the raid by jumping over several walls.
Altogether, 28 detainees were brought into the holding center from raids across Baghdad.
The raids were part of the stepped-up U.S. security presence in Baghdad, but the significance is hard to judge. Although the military actions yesterday interrupted one death squad, the intelligence officer said, the long-term impact could be determined only by "going back to the neighbors and asking them if they feel safer now."
Iraqis say several neighborhoods have improved since the security plan went into operation almost eight weeks ago, an appraisal reflected in pushing back the start of the nightly curfew to 10 p.m.
Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, the spokesman for the Baghdad security operation, said the decision was made "because the security situation has improved and people needed more time to go shopping."
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 4, 2007 02:14 AM ]
posted on April 4, 2007 03:03:10 AM
I say:
If it’s worth having, it’s worth fighting for. If it’s worth fighting for, it’s worth dying for.
Winston Churchill, was a man that knew what liberty was and is, a man of courage and determination. Not a coward like so many of this board.
Here's a couple quotes from Winston Churchill:
I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this government: "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat." We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, What is our policy? I will say; "It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy." You ask, What is our aim? I can answer with one word: Victory - victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."
- First Address as Prime Minister, May 13 1940.
"Never give in - never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense."
Although these words were said many years ago, they're never more true then they are today.
Amen,
Reverend Colin http://www.reverendcolin.com
posted on April 4, 2007 02:01:57 PM
JUST ANOTHER DAY IN THE BUSH IRAQ WAR.
04/04/07 Reuters: 11 employees of power station killed near Hawija
Gunmen killed 11 employees of an electricity power station in an ambush on their vehicle near the town of Hawija, 70 km (40 miles) southwest of Kirkuk, police said.
04/04/07 Reuters: 10 Bodies found in baghdad
The bodies of 10 people were found shot in different districts of Baghdad on Tuesday, police said.
Are these districts the ones John McCain wants to take a stroll in?
posted on April 6, 2007 04:18:04 PM
Oh no, 'waco'. It will be on the liberals/dems hands IF they don't approve funding for our troops in the very near future.
They need to quit playing games with all that pork spending they've tied to the funding bill.
Make it a CLEAN bill and get it on the Presidents desk for his signature.
THEN our troops will have what they need.
END the partisan game playing that will EFFECT our troops well being and ability to fight our enemies.
==================
And optimism in Iraq
Washington Times
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
April 6, 2007
Anyone remotely familiar with the analysis provided by retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey since the Iraq war began four years ago knows that he has been sharply critical of the Bush administration's diplomatic/military management of the Iraq war.
Gen. McCaffrey (whose long, distinguished resume in the military and public service includes a stint as Bill Clinton's drug czar), visited Iraq last month, where he conducted "a strategic and operational assessment" of the security situation that provides ammunition for both sides of the U.S. debate.
The first section of the report detailing the general's stark descriptions of the problems in Iraq have received extensive coverage in the press -- a report in The Washington Post, for example, was titled "McCaffrey Paints Gloomy Picture of Iraq." But the fact that Gen. McCaffrey also provides readers with reasons for optimism in Iraq (and said in a separate interview that it would be a military mistake for the Democrats to impose a binding deadline for withdrawal) tends to get overlooked.
Although only a fraction of the scheduled U.S. reinforcements had arrived in Baghdad when Gen. McCaffrey visited last month, he found that in the Iraqi capital "the murder rate has plummeted. IED attacks on U.S. forces during their formerly vulnerable daily transits from huge U.S. bases on the periphery of Baghdad are down -- since these forces are now permanently based in their operational area."
Some of the best news comes from Anbar Province in western Iraq, home to Sunni insurgents aligned with al Qaeda. "There is a real and growing ground swell of Sunni tribal opposition to the Al Qaeda-in-Iraq [AQI] terror formations," Gen. McCaffrey wrote. "This counter-Al Qaeda movement in Anbar Province was fostered by brilliant U.S. Marine leadership. There is now unmistakable evidence that the western Sunni tribes are increasingly convinced that they blundered badly by sitting out the political process.
They are also keenly aware of the fragility of the continued U.S. military presence that stands between them and a vengeful and overwhelming Shia-Kurdish majority class -- which was brutally treated by Saddam and his cruel regime."
The Anbar Sunnis, Gen. McCaffrey said, are taking up arms to defeat al Qaeda and are cooperating with Iraqi security forces: "There is now active combat between Sunni tribal leadership and AQI terrorists. Of even greater importance, the Sunni tribes are now supplying their young men as drafts for the Iraqi police." Al Qaeda has responded with stepped-up violence aimed at intimidating the Sunni tribesmen -- further alienating them.
While this has been occurring, critical improvements are being made in the Iraqi security forces. "The equipment and resources for the Iraqi security forces [ISF] has increased dramatically," he wrote. "The ISF training system is beginning to work effectively with their own trainers."
As Gen. McCaffrey made clear, a major reason why this has been going so well has been the performance of U.S. armed forces. American combat forces "are simply superb. The Army and Marine brigade, battalion and company commanders are the most experienced and talented leaders in our history. Re-enlistment rates are simply astonishing," he wrote.
"The command and control technology, training, contractor support and flexibility of Marine and Army combat formations are magnificent."
This is not to say that success in Iraq is by any means assured. But Gen. McCaffrey's analysis shows that there is another side to the story in Iraq -- beyond all of the grim television footage and dire predictions about Iraq's future.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 6, 2007 04:25:53 PM
PORK! PORK?
You mean like the 10 BILLION DOLLARS that just up and disappeared in Iraq under this administration's watch ?
Money that could've gone to our soldiers if it had been watched properly !!!?????
And that PORK you're talking about is money for AMERICANS...sad you call that PORK.
PS, the only "clean" bill YOU want is a blank check for bushit....so he can not watch more money being poured into Iraq.
posted on April 6, 2007 04:38:06 PM
IMO, ALL pork should be eliminated - period.
But no in this case I'm talking about the 20 - 24 BILLION dollars that pelosi used part of to BRIBE/BUY votes against the war.
I don't care whether states get the money for their little pet projects.
I DO very much care that our troops get the funding THEY need to continue.
And here I thought you gave lip-service to supporting our troops.
But you'd like to just leave them HANGING over there.....without funding until next year?
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 6, 2007 08:34:16 PM
LIAR_K,
Facts are the left over republican lawmakers and BUSHY are blocking the Democrats from ending the BUSH IRAQ CIVIL WAR in an orderly way.
FROM NOW ON REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS VOTING AGAINST ENDING THE BUSH WAR HAVE THE BLOOD OF EVERY AMERICAN SOLIDER KILLED OR WOUNDED ON THEIR HANDS.
Before 2008 millions of Western Pennsylvania people will know the truth about the war monger republican lawmakers.
Me and thousand more like me will defeat republicans like (R)Senator Arlen Specter in 2008 here in Pennsylvania.
Across this land millions of everyday Americans are awake now and will spread the word about the war monger republicans. America will vote to rid our government of the left over republican war monger lawmakers.
posted on April 7, 2007 07:57:33 AM
How ignorant can one person be? His just continues on and on and on....
Bush is blocking nothing.
They haven't even gotten their act together and presented him with a bill.
And if there's a timetable he WILL veto it WHEN and if he EVER gets one to veto.
The congress COULD have gotten their act together and he could have already had a bill on his desk.
But we're four months into their new 'power' and they haven't had the guts to present him with a bill to cut off all funding....therefore stopping the war(s).
They're GUTLESS.
Now reid and pelosi are saying that IF he vetos the bill they haven't even gone to committee with...lol...lol THEN they might present a bill to stop funding.
LOL....oh yea....let's see them actually DO that...and then they'll learn how the American people feel about that. lol Cutting off funds for our troops? That should go over REAL well.
NOT.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 7, 2007 08:03:05 AM
NOPE! It's BUSHIT who's trying to stop funding for our troops , who acording to high ranking military officials desperately need the money.
BUSH threatens to veto the bill giving our troops the necessary funding...VERY ANTI-TROOPS!!! ANTI-AMERICAN !!!
He's willing to endanger THEM just so he can get his way!!!!!!!!!
posted on April 7, 2007 08:07:17 AMThe Capitulation Caucus
By Rich Lowry
Thursday, April 5, 2007
It is growing in strength and boldness. It is not a political party or a cohesive movement. But it is on the verge of becoming the most significant force in the West, one that perhaps will shape our world for years, even decades, to come.
It is the Capitulation Caucus.
Its membership consists of most nationally elected Democrats in the United States, much of the American foreign-policy elite, the balance of the U.S. media, most international bureaucrats and nongovernmental organizations, and the European political elite.
They are loosely united around their beliefs that the Iraq War is lost or not worth trying to win, that we have to accommodate ourselves to anti-Western thugs in the Middle East and that the United States today is a reckless, malign influence in the world.
On one day this past week, the Caucus had two high-profile symbolic standard-bearers:
the captured British sailors smiling and shaking hands with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, thanking him for their release;
and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi meeting with the criminal Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, relaying an offer from the Israelis to negotiate, without mentioning that they want him to abandon terrorism first. Pelosi and the sailors thus demonstrated the Caucus' favorite posture of the ingratiating cringe.
People come to their membership in the Caucus for different reasons, some of them quite legitimate.
They look at Iraq and conclude that it is lost. Or believe in the power of negotiation over any other international tool. Or think that the Middle East is a hopeless cesspool. These are reasonable views, but also in the mix are a yowling Bush hatred, an ideological anti-Americanism in Europe and a shameful will to defeat.
A strength of the West always has been its ability to generate self-criticism. (As long ago as 1901, a British politician was complaining that "eminent men write and speak as if they belonged to the enemy." This makes it easier to correct errors and avoid excesses. The problem is, if the self-criticism becomes too sweeping and unrelenting, it amounts to a kind of self-sabotage, as it did in the mid-1970s when the United States lost the Vietnam War by refusing even to provide aid and air support to the South.
Many actors in the West will always tend toward capitulation.
The key "swing state" is the United States. It is the exceptional nation, more willing to defend -- by force, if necessary -- the security and ideals of the West than any other country.
If it is robust (think Reagan), the West is strong; if it's not (think Carter), the West is not.
America is now lurching toward a repeat of Vietnam and all the national neuroses that followed. The debate over Iraq is becoming less about how to win, than about how and when to lose. Should it be by September 2008, as House Democrats propose, or by March 2008, as Senate Democrats propose, or right away, as Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid is beginning to suggest with his flirtation with an immediate cutoff of funding for the war.
The narrative of defeat in Iraq is zealously defended. Sen. John McCain could have spoken more judiciously about hopeful signs in Iraq, but the alacrity with which much of the press denounced him for his optimism was extraordinary.
It wants to impose an Eleventh Commandment: "Thou Shalt Not Covet Progress in Iraq."
If we lose in Iraq, Sunni or Shia radicals will likely gain all or portions of the country[/b];
jihadists will be emboldened and the war in Afghanistan likely will deteriorate;
Iran will be in a stronger position with which to obtain its game-changing nuclear weapon;
our Middle East allies will lose confidence in us and become even less cooperative.
All of this will mean that we will have even less leverage than we do now, and it will further encourage advocates of retreat and engagement-no-matter-what.
The Capitulation Caucus will be ascendant, and the world a much more dangerous place.
==========
Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 8, 2007 07:35:30 AM
[b]Peabrain,
My house isn't as big as yours but this Easter we'll honor the millions of Americans that have fought for our freedom and Liberty in the last few centuries.
I wish I had a seat for each of them but Alas, I'm an average middle class American.[/b]
This makes it easier to correct errors and avoid excesses. The problem is, if the self-criticism becomes too sweeping and unrelenting, it amounts to a kind of self-sabotage, as it did in the mid-1970s when the United States lost the Vietnam War by refusing even to provide aid and air support to the South. 