Democrats & Liberals Archives

King George Bush Speaks

King George Bush speaks. He gives advice to both Iraqis and Americans. The two messages are very different. To the Iraqis he says they should get together and compromise for the common good of all Iraqis. To the Americans he says that some - no doubt, Democrats - who criticize him are irresponsible. In the case of Iraq, Bush is trying to unite them. In the case of America, he is trying to divide them.

At his speech to veterans, King George Bush advised Iraqis:

"A country that divides into factions and dwells on old grievances cannot move forward and risks sliding back into tyranny."

In the same speech Bush advised Americans:

"There is a difference between responsible and irresponsible debate and it's even more important to conduct this debate responsibly when American troops are risking their lives overseas."

Translation: "Those who disagree with me on the Iraq war are irresponsible."

Bush did not mention names, but aides of his said he was referring to Howard Dean, Senator Harry Reid and Senator Dick Durbin. How come no reference to Republicans like Chuck Hagel?

Bush is correct when he says that a country "cannot move forward" if it "divides into factions." This is good advice for Iraq. I think it's also good advice for America.

I guess Bush does not care whether America divides into factions. Nay, he fights mightily to do it. He is not so much concerned with moving America forward as he is with moving the Republican Party forward. The way to do this - Bush has it straight from the architect, Karl Rove - is by intensifying factions.

King George Bush wants Iraqis to build democracy and help their minorities - Sunni - while here at home he disdains democratic procedures and strenuously tries to reduce the voices of minorities - Democrats.

Who's side is King George Bush on?


Posted by Paul Siegel at January 11, 2006 5:08 PM
Comments
Comment #112273

The fact that people tend to overlook is that the Iraqi people don’t seem to want a democracy. If the latest results from the election are any indication, they tend to favor theocratic rule and if religious governmental istroy is any indication fo the future the government of Iraq will definitely not be democratic. It is hard to have an opposing viewpoint when you are arguing against god (or in this case allah).

What could be true for Iraq may also be the fate of America if those who blindly vote republican without understanding the issues don’t wake up.

There is a definite reason that the founders of this conutry were concerned about separation of church and state. I believe the power abuses of Henry VIII of England and the subsequent wars that came about becasue of his spearation from the Catholic church and establishment of the Church of England with him as the head. had much to do with their thinking.

While we are in a “mdern” civilized era, I can see strife occuring if the Neocons are successful in their not to subtle attempt to make Christianity the religion of America.

Posted by: Roy at January 11, 2006 5:38 PM
Comment #112275

Paul,

In your estimation, does this post contribute to unity or does it foster division?

I’m just trying to understand how you define these things.

Maybe Bellafonte is a liberal, maybe he is not. Maybe Chavez is a liberal, maybe he is not. Stop calling people names.

…Generalities about “left” and “right” will get us nowhere. They merely increase shouting, blaming and emotional fatigue. Lets try to have a RATIONAL discussion.

Posted by: esimonson at January 11, 2006 5:46 PM
Comment #112281

A King always tells his subjects.
Do as I say. Not as I do.
But this one adds then I will
scr** you,and you, and you,
and all of you.


elect bush worst president ever
that is something he can win fairly.

Posted by: Honey P at January 11, 2006 6:10 PM
Comment #112286

“There is a difference between responsible and irresponsible debate and it’s even more important to conduct this debate responsibly when American troops are risking their lives overseas.”

Your Translation: “Those who disagree with me on the Iraq war are irresponsible.”

Actual Translation: “There is a difference between responsible and irresponsible debate.”

You are really stretching this one.

Posted by: THC at January 11, 2006 6:25 PM
Comment #112302

“Complaints are every where heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty; that our governments are too unstable; that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties; and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party; but by the superior force of an interested and over-bearing majority.” Federalist Paper #10.

One can argue that the founding fathers recognized the shortcomings of a partisan government and never intended for it to be multi-partied. What would happen if instead of calling each other names and fighting for control, all the viable political parties came together and formed a coalition government and all the candidates for all offices ran strictly on their merits, not on which party they belonged to? Hmmmmm, I wonder. Any thoughts?

Posted by: Rich S at January 11, 2006 7:16 PM
Comment #112310

Rich S:

That has been tried before and it was called the Union of Soviet Socialists Republic.

Posted by: Aldous at January 11, 2006 7:35 PM
Comment #112325

Aldous,
I think most reasonable people, like yourself, understand the difference between the two. Do you honestly think we are that far gone as a country that you are even close to be arrested for your political beliefs?

Posted by: THC at January 11, 2006 8:25 PM
Comment #112326

I remember Bush pounding on the Democrats for their reticence to go to war in Iraq. I remember GOP running ads comparing party members who dissented on the war to our enemies. I remember two or three years of divisive rhetoric that lead to Bush’s people eventually admitting what many of us Democrats knew already, but felt should have been taken care of early. I also recall that everytime criticism has come down on a practical matter, the Republicans have equated asking those legitimate questions to the expression of irrational hatred and irresponsible partisanship.

So, on the body of my experience, I have to say that Bush’s way of dealing with the criticism has been to encourage the Republicans to think only of the partisan politics of the war. He has been, in short, divisive.

This divisiveness is compounded by his secretiveness. Bush makes it to where anybody who wants to know about the details of what he’s doing often has to dig it up, and by digging it up actively take an action which could harm Bush. Because of the way Republicans have been encouraged to think- the siege mentality of protecting their politicians from political attack- These investigations are treated like partisan attacks, and their findings alleged to be tainted by the hatred of George Bush by the so-called liberal media.

The irony here is that Bush’s problems with his reputation and public support are largely the self-inflicted result of a great deal of charges of substance going unaddressed by anything else than these partisan denials. It’s a rare occasion when he seems to do anything of substance to recognize or redeem his mistakes. He seems desperate, or worse seems to have something to hide, and as the scorecard of mistakes fills up, it crowds out and enervates what few successes he can point to.

Worst of all, for the GOP, he has done what Democratic Leaders in general have failed to do with his stonewalling: he’s encouraged a new generation of much more activist, much more assertive, and much more hardnosed liberals, and encouraged them to organize to oppose the Republican party.

Ultimately, Bush’s problem is that he’s tried to win every battle without some kind of sacrifice, which he deems beneath him. Because the fights take their toll anyways, he has brought his party to the point to where it is exhausted, demoralized, and fractured. Iraq may not be Vietnam, but Bush is very much like LBJ, and their common failures cost their parties much.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 11, 2006 8:31 PM
Comment #112330

At this point it’s just plain sad to see how low Bush will go to try and avoid discussing tough issues or critisism of his Administration. Can someone please tell me one instance where W performed at or above expectations? Just one example…?

Posted by: tony at January 11, 2006 8:48 PM
Comment #112331

The president disagrees with what some people say. He thinks they are being irresponsible. That is his opinion.

The president’s critics say he is stupid. They criticize his policies. They claim he is dishonest. They call him a chimp and an idiot. Those are their opinions.

Equating the President stating his opinion - with no sanctions BTW - with trying to silence the opposition is just silly.

What do they say about stones and glass houses? I suppose there is also a quote about having thin skins while attacking others.

Posted by: Jack at January 11, 2006 8:49 PM
Comment #112334

Eric,
Very funny! Attacking Paul for using your tactics. What a hoot! Thanks for such a great laugh.

Posted by: ElliottBay at January 11, 2006 8:56 PM
Comment #112342

Tony

Is there any shortage of criticism for President Bush? Has he managed to avoid criticism? He doesn’t need to invite people to yell in his face.

Posted by: Jack at January 11, 2006 9:11 PM
Comment #112343

THC:

You still have not answered my question. What Topics would you consider “responsible” and what “irresponsible and helping our enemies”? Give a list.

Posted by: Aldous at January 11, 2006 9:16 PM
Comment #112344

Jack:

Considering that you could count on the fingers of one hand how many times Bush exposed himself to public or PRIVATE questioning until recently, I would say our criticisms are valid.

Posted by: Aldous at January 11, 2006 9:18 PM
Comment #112352

Why is it, in most of these, somebody says “seperation of church and state” from the fore fathers? Why do you all keep miss quoting the constatution? Has anyone of you actually read it?
As for the war in Irac, why not keep your support for our enemys quite until our troops come home, or move there.

Posted by: David at January 11, 2006 9:51 PM
Comment #112357

David:

Ah yes… the typical Rightwing Spin. No mention of the sheer incompetence of the Bush Administration. No mention of the GIs dead due to said incompetence. Just bash away at anyone who disagrees with you.

Posted by: Aldous at January 11, 2006 10:21 PM
Comment #112362

The Constitution of the United States
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

have fun david, some good reading.

Also, nobody has a problem with OUR trops doing there job. The problem is that they are over there, not so much to help the Iraqi people but to set up a Mini America. Just look at Mcdonalds, burger king, home depot and more. That does not help anyone but the people that are in thick with this President.

Posted by: gypsyirishgirl at January 11, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #112365

There’s a current post on this site calling Samuel Alito “Janus-faced” this could be more correctly adressed to Bush.

On one hand he says that (and I paraphrase) that having a hearing on FISA would be (quote) “good for democracy” then viemently defends the rights to secretive spying. What he did was actually deplorable in terms of presidence as we are a nation of laws with a constitution and bill of rights. And secondly deplorable on the level that he didn’t even file to the FISA courts which has probably due to just republican laziness (as should be no surprise—they’re that dumb/uninformed to perhaps not even know FISA courts exist) as actually it is really a system that affords very little if ANY bureaucracy/redtape and is still entirely secretive. Not to mention it can be submitted AFTER the tap is implimented. This is a system that is effective and works with ease there was no need at all for what Lazy-boy Bush did out of ignorance if not moronic arrogance.

Back to subject—Bush has a carousel message it changes on whims and means little if anything but empty threat or empty support and bears little substance beyond the mindlessly banal. maybe it’s an experiment in tepid minimalism—Oh wait that was Brecht.

Werrrrrst prrrresident everrrr!

Posted by: Novenge at January 11, 2006 10:39 PM
Comment #112368

David:

Why is it, in most of these, somebody says “seperation of church and state” from the fore fathers? Why do you all keep miss quoting the constatution? Has anyone of you actually read it?

Not only have I read it, I’ve read most Supreme Court cases interpreting it.

Your interpretation?

Posted by: mattLaw at January 11, 2006 10:49 PM
Comment #112372

I almost decided not to respond, then I decided frankly I can’t keep ignoring some of this. I realize there is this dance that both Republicans and Democrats do as far as “Oh Look he’s worse than we are” but if the truth were told, Democrats in office are just as responsible for the war in Iraq as Republicans are. John Kerry would not have pulled the troops out of Iraq, infact he felt there were not enough troops in Iraq.

May 28 (Bloomberg) — Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry called for 40,000 more U.S. troops in Iraq, saying he would “modernize our military to match its new missions” in the war on terror and homeland security.

This whole division that you speak of does exist, however both parties are responsible for this. If instead of this constant finger pointing and bashing some actual cooperative work was done? Our country would be in much better shape. Yet, neither side wants to take responsibility for their own part of anything. The only thing Republicans and Democrats seem to be able to unify on is their ability to add pork to our already over burdened federal budget.

Lastly, I don’t think calling our President “King George” sends a respectful message as to the office of President. When a Democrat regains the Whitehouse which will eventually happen, would you not want some basic respect of the office? By all means dislike or even hate George Bush, but my relatives sacrificed and some even died for our country to have the office of President and to be rid of the real King George.

I feel the same way about “Chimp” or “Resident Bush” or “Scary Kerry” or any of these insulting titles that to me serve no purpose in intelligent adult debate. While many of you may not agree with me? I feel it lowers the discussion to a level that we don’t need to go to. If you want the division to end, then both sides need to stop dividing. It has to start somewhere so who will be the “bigger” party and demonstrate they have the ability to not only unite America but help us move forward.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 11, 2006 10:58 PM
Comment #112373

Lisa Renee:

Democrats in office are just as responsible for the war in Iraq as Republicans are.

Well, that isn’t entirely true.

Between both the Senate and the House, more Democrats voted against authorization for war than voted for it.

Posted by: mattLaw at January 11, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #112379

The Bird has told us once again;
The way we should all think.
If it’s like him then things are fine;
If not, then we just stink.

He speaks of factions and of kings;
He talks of the hypocrits.
It’s strange to analyse the facts;
and look at where he sits.

He looks at things in narrow view;
He wants it just one way.
Could it be, the things he thinks;
Are just what’s wrong today?

Posted by: Poet at January 11, 2006 11:41 PM
Comment #112380

Novenge:
“And secondly deplorable on the level that he didn’t even file to the FISA courts which has probably due to just republican laziness”

Nah, not laziness, it’s just that they knew that much of the spying they were doing would never be approved of by the FISA courts — so they just ignored them. It seems that a great many people who don’t agree with them are now considered “turrurists” therefore, snoop-worthy.
I’m posting this link just in case you or anyone else might have missed it: Is the Pentagon spying on Americans?
Secret database obtained by NBC News tracks ‘suspicious’ domestic groups

How’d that go? Oh yeah: “They hate us for our freedoms.”

Posted by: Adrienne at January 11, 2006 11:48 PM
Comment #112382

Lisa Renee

Calling Bush “King George”is the nicest , most compilmentary thing that can be said of him. The fact that he occupies the President is disrespectful and a pornographic smear against the office. He has taken authority which was not his and committed CRIMES against the people and made himself America’s most dangerous Criminal.

He got us into this conflict with LIES, he has continued it with LIES, that he is building a Democracy is the biggest LIE of all. He is directly responsible for the death of every American soldier in Iraq. What he has done is nothing short of murder and he should be tried and denounced by the entire world for the “war criminal” he is. Only then will the integrety of justice be served and maintained.

Posted by: Richard at January 11, 2006 11:52 PM
Comment #112391

Lisa,
There are at least three distinct threads among the two political parties: Republicans are usually identified with conservatives; Democrats are usually identified with liberals; and finally, the ‘moderates.’ (This middle ground includes some Republicans, but it could also be characterized as the pragmatists- they have their leanings, but they’ll blow with the wind, i.e., Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and so on.)

Liberals opposed the Invasion of Iraq. As you probably know, most of the votes against going into Iraq were by liberals. I’m sure we agree the name-calling is unnecessary. However, that shouldn’t obscure the fact that, generally speaking, liberals were opposed and are opposed to the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq. Events proved the liberals to be spectacularly correct, they continue to prove liberals correct, and I’m confident events will continue to prove liberals to be correct.

Many people would agree the most important issue of our lives is Global Warming. Where do you stand, Lisa? Do you stand with the liberals, and believe in taking actions to alleviate it?

How do you feel about your rights? I’m pretty sure you’re not willing to punt on the 4th amendment. If you are a strong advocate of your constitutional rights and your civil rights, you’re a liberal.

If you’re willing to give up your constitutional rights and your civil rights in exchange for security, you’re a conservative.

Of course there are single issue voters. And of course there are independents. No thinking person marches in lockstep. There are Greens, Libertarians, and so on. But in practical terms, in terms of forming a majority within a democratic republic, it’s unavoidable for the system to develop into two major parties.

The Bush administration is a fossil fuel administration. In a party dominated by big business, the energy sector leads the pack. As a result, the Bush administration sees the world through an oil-smeared lens. In terms of issues like Iraq and Global Warming, there couldn’t be a more tragically inappropriate administration.

Posted by: phx8 at January 12, 2006 2:12 AM
Comment #112393

An attempt to suppress dialogue,on the basis that it may be iresponsible,is tantamount to saying,that truth must be qualified,that the discovery process used to evaluate the truth of a matter,can only be discussed if it falls under the confines of a partcular definition of responsibility or propriety.In order for us to determine what we believe about any given situation we must have reference to the truth.And truth is never served by being silenced.All dialogue serves us by either weakening strenthening or displacing a received truth.What does a powerful man or class want?More power.Human Nature,history tell us all we need to know about the nature of power,wealth and the rationale for war.The powerful have always prayed on ignorance and fear,Id rather make the gravest of mistakes than to give up my right to choose to think and speak as a free man.In our quest for security,propriety and control over our lives,we must surely lose our freedom.

Posted by: Danny at January 12, 2006 2:20 AM
Comment #112399

you on the rad- left just dont see it—and you wouldnt even come to the table of honest discusion—real folk dont even give your drivel a thought except for entertainment

Posted by: charlie at January 12, 2006 3:28 AM
Comment #112407

Is it just me or are the Conservative Members of this Blog getting more incapable of correct spelling and grammar as time goes by?

Posted by: Aldous at January 12, 2006 4:15 AM
Comment #112409

Aldous, I’ve definitely noticed a downward trend in coherency and intelligent thought as the Republican leadership’s trashing of every conservative and Christian value becomes more apparent. When you can’t say anything good about your own political party, all you can do is spew vitriol at the other guys.

John Kerry would not have pulled the troops out of Iraq, infact he felt there were not enough troops in Iraq.

That’s why I voted for him. Most of those troops would have been civil affairs — the guys who rebuild sewers, teach democracy classes, watchdog the police and the courts, and get the electricity running. The rest were going to be Special Ops. Kerry definitely knows how to secure a country and win hearts and minds. ;)

BTW, I agree that the “King George” moniker is disrespectful and unnecessary. President Bush’s poor leadership and un-Constitutional actions speak for themselves without the need for funny nicknames. IMO.

Posted by: American Pundit at January 12, 2006 4:40 AM
Comment #112428

Then Dr.Condi Rice must be THA QUEEN RIGHT? (ONLY in AMERICA where there is LIBERTY)!!!!

Posted by: peter at January 12, 2006 8:30 AM
Comment #112438

“If you are a strong advocate of your constitutional rights and your civil rights, you’re a liberal”

Verrrry funny.
You guys are a strong advocate of constitutional and civil rights that YOU AGREE WITH.

Also funny how everybody who refuses to just “take the lefts word,” are dolts and looked down upon by the very party that “says” they represent the common man.

Posted by: kctim at January 12, 2006 9:21 AM
Comment #112442

A theocracy will have a leader or leading group. Since we all know that Iraq is composed of three groups, two cannot be represented. The only feasible way to represent all such groups is a democracy, wanted or not. To allow Iraq to institute a theocratic government would be regressive, leading to the same lack of universal civil right that were present during Hussein’s regime. Just like in our own dealings with civil rights here in America, I think that time and patience will endure the violence and hate in Iraq.

Posted by: Ben at January 12, 2006 9:40 AM
Comment #112446

>>To allow Iraq to institute a theocratic government would be regressive, leading to the same lack of universal civil right that were present during Hussein’s regime.

Ben

By Jove, I think you’re right. We can’t ALLOW them darned Iraqis to do what they want with their country. Heck, that’d be called democracy. We know far better how they should run it…just look at how well we run our own.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 12, 2006 10:06 AM
Comment #112447

Well, actually - the statement was that a seemingly high percentage of the conservative posts here were riddled with misspellings and incoherent grammar. If those who lean more to the right would additionally like to assume the role of dolt, then be my guest.

I consider myself liberal. I also consider myself a civil libertarian. I also consider myself a pragmatist. I also consider myself a Christian, given that I was raised in a Christian church and a Christian family and try to follow the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament. I don’t think much of trying to limit the rights of gays and lesbians, they don’t bother me, even though I’m straight. My sister was a lesbian and one of the most wonderful people anybody could ever meet. I don’t think much of trying to impose my views and value systems and system of government OR economy on other people, either next door or across the globe, and I damn sure don’t think much of blowing them up - is that what Jesus would have suggested? I do understand that there are some who don’t think the way I do and are out to steal and hurt, and so I am in favor of the right to bear arms simply because unfortunately these jackasses have forced me to consider the possibility that one day I may have to use the threat of deadly force to protect my family. I also strongly support the right to a free press and free speech. I also support the right to have a legal, safe abortion UNDER VERY NARROW CIRCUMSTANCES if you decide that you must. I don’t think much of destroying our environment ‘cause for crying out loud, it’s the only one we’ve got, and strip malls and cars and land fills are just plain ugly compared with forests or oceans, and to believe otherwise or think these things aren’t harmful is just plain IDIOTIC or COMPLETELY disconnected with reality. Need oil? Get over it! Walk! Bike! Take the friggin’ train! Carpool! Buy a hybrid! Stay home and shop online! Recycle! Get off your fat ass and hike the half-mile to the store for a pack of cigarettes, you oafish loathsome layabout. Okay, that’s enough of that.

The point is that I don’t at all see how unilateral action against regimes we were all too happy to actively support twenty years ago helps the world’s population at large. I don’t see how pumping oil out of the bloody Alaskan Wildlife Refuge is going to EITHER curb our appetite for the stuff or make us any less dependent on foreign oil…after all, just because I have a pecan tree in my backyard, that in and of itself does not guarantee a foregone conclusion that I’ll never buy pecans at the grocery store again. I don’t see how forcing the children of atheists or Muslims or Jews or Buddhists or Taoists or Hindus to either participate in a Christian prayer or leave the room every morning in grade school is going to help our nation or the world at large. And I sure don’t see how a system of worshipping the unholy trinity of the almighty dollar, worldwide businesses, and an all-powerful executive branch is going to help anyone who’s not already corrupted to the gills or ready, willing and able to become so.

Posted by: macsonix at January 12, 2006 10:08 AM
Comment #112453

Charlie,
“you on the rad- left just dont see it—and you wouldnt even come to the table of honest discusion—real folk dont even give your drivel a thought except for entertainment”

I would be happy to have an honest discussion. However, I don’t see anything there to discuss other than your calling names and making slurs.

I have given this though on a different topic, but I will repeat it here.

The Democratic opposition to President Bush’s actions in Iraq are not partisan politics or simply a way to beat up on this President.

I give evidence of the support given to President Bush and his attack on Afganistan.

No one doubted the evidence that this country was under the control of the Taliban that was giving aid and comfort to OBL and Al Qaeda.

Where the disagreement came into play was with the justification leading up to the war in Iraq. These are two completely different issues. The Democrats (as well as others) had a very serious problem with the “evidence” justifying this plan of action. We still do. And, time is proving us right.

Since then it has become partisan. One side wanting everyone to blindly follow, not question and voluntarily surrender our rights and beliefs in the name of “solidarity” with the President.

This President has already shown the danger of not questioning his assumptions and listenting to people with opposing views. You want to continue to let him do what he wants without outside views being expressed? Can this country afford that?

Sir, anytime we allow a bully (terrorist)to set the tone, topic or limit the discussion of Americans, especially our representatives we have in the government, we have surrendered to their intimidation.

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 12, 2006 10:38 AM
Comment #112463

Paul Siegel,

Excellent points.

Kctim,

I don’t think anyone was calling Bush supporters dolts. I’ve noticed alot of writing errors lately from those who support President Bush.
I think it’s due to emotions running high because of the increasing evidence that the war in Iraq was a mistake. The GOP as a whole are being exposed as being corrupt and morally banckrupt. Cheney and Halliburton are being seen as the most important and influencial advocates for the war(A major reason we’re there) in Iraq and are responsible for millions of dollars misspent or that have disappeared. Cronyism has eliminated any semblence of credibility this administration once had(If it ever did). This administration is being exposed as immoral and in bed with big business, which in turn exposes the hypocrisy of all the far right morally superior beings who use religion to judge others and have very little, if any true spirituality, who voted for him. His blatent disregard for the environment. His blatent disregard for the poor and elderly.
The parasitic relationshop between Big Oil and the Whitehouse has made it obvious where this administrations priorities are.
It must be very stressful and draining trying to defend this president and his many failed policies.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at January 12, 2006 10:59 AM
Comment #112464

Jack-
The president deliberately cultivates an image of intellectual simplicity. This might please his political base, who like the idea of a good ole boy who lets things run losely, but to most of America, this presentation causes one of anxiety. Having an apparent fool for a president is not comforting, and with a track record of errors like this president does little to dissuade people that he is a fool.

As for the charges of being autocratic, it is the body of what he does that makes us take his statements along the lines he does. His unprecedented increases in executive power, his tendency to push and even move past the envelope of legality in his actions, the secrecy that Bush keeps even ordinary policy under, and the sheer amount of effort that Bush’s administration puts into spin and propaganda, all contribute to this image of King George. You don’t see it because you’re too busy apologizing for so many of these excesses an spinning them towards the positive. The rest of us, though, see a frighten level of concentration of power in one person’s hands.

The thing is, thought Bush has failed to prevent criticism, it hasn’t been for a lack of trying. It is a matter of irony, not Bush’s intentions, that made him one of the most criticized and vilified presidents of modern times.

David-
The seperation of Church and State is implied between the two clauses that compose the freedom of Religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Taken together, their dual effect is to prohibit the government from making one religion official and forbidding others. This isn’t merely between big religions, like Christianity and Islam, but also between Denominations.

The idea from the start has not been to make an atheist government, but one that is neutral to a nation of diverse churches and institutions, one that can’t, through official action, act against the religious organizations and practices of the religious rivals of our leaders. Or the lack of the same. This is what people talk about in terms of freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. Your choice of faith or unbelief is yours. That is the seperation of church and state: No religious organization can have state power, nor any state have religious power.

Lisa Renee-
There must be respect between the parties before their can be respect for the office of president. The leaders, additionally, must do things that earn them that respect. As long as the power of the presidency is used to circumvent the will of the people, folks will rightly be cynical about the office.

Charlie-
Speak for yourself, mister. The people posting here, Republican and Democrat, are real folk, and often as honest as you or I. The question is, did you come here looking to find what people really thought, or did you come here already thinking you knew?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 12, 2006 11:07 AM
Comment #112476

The Republicans hate two things: They hate to lose fair elections and they hate to get along with others.

THe first can go back to the 1948 election. They were so ticked their candidate Tom Dewey lost to a guy like Harry WHO? that it helped fuel the communist witch hunts that were to follow. (See: “The Fifties” by David Halberstam). In every election since, they’ve done their best to sabotage the winners when they’ve lost elections, more so than the Democrats. I once dismissed those claims myself, until, in November, 1992, I saw bumper stickers that said IMPEACH CLINTON. The guy hadn’t even taken office yet, and here they were crying for his ouster.

The Republicans also once upon a time played well with others. Examples: Bob Michel, Gerald Ford, John Heinz, Hugh Scott, Arlen Specter. That is, until Newt Gingrich and company decided that in order to get power, they had to be obnoxious. So they became obnoxious, won the Congress, then the presidency. And, in so doing, made the political atmosphere “noxious.”

So Bush and Rove and Company’s tactics don’t surprise me one whit. They have ruined our nation beyond anything Clinton and “dem libralls” ever did. They have been irresponsible with our treasure, with our blood, with our land.

The problem for the GOP is, they don’t know it, but folks are slowly but surely catching on to their idiocy. Vengeance is mine, sayeth the voters…

Posted by: Scot at January 12, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #112481

I don’t believe what we have here is a liberal v. conservative issue. I think it’s much more “people who think” vs. “people who believe”.

I’m “fiscal conservative” in that I support a pro business environment (not ‘pro-corporation’) with minimal regulatory interference and a fiscally responsible government. I’m “socially liberal” in that I support individual freedoms from government interference, including the right to do with one’s own body what one feels fit to do, and the public need to protect the environment and many other publicly held resources from uncontrolled or predatory business practices. I also think many other people hold these completely different yet compatible approaches.

The problem I have with Bush and the Bush-like mentality is they act on what they “believe” the world is or should be, not on what it is. For example; the administration’s “they will welcome us with open arms” and “the war will cost $50-60B”. It wasn’t “liberals” who thought this was bull; it was anyone with an open and intelligent mind. You can’t seriously call Shalikashvili a liberal when he said we would need “several hundreds of thousands” of troops or Bremmer when he also said more troops would be needed to secure the occupation. The same holds to Lindsey when he questioned the Bush estimate of $50-60B for the war and instead talked about hundreds of Billions (today the high end estimate is up to $1-2 Trillion). You can’t call O’Neill a liberal when he said the tax cuts would reward the rich (as it did), not the “people at the bottom” that Bush said it would. Those people are all conservative yet I would respect their opinions as well reasoned and supported, even when I don’t agree with them; which is more than can be said for Bush-conservatives. And, actually, I might come to their point of view on some issues. For example, Newt doesn’t seem like such a loon anymore.

Unfortunately, what we often get is an excusatory defense of the Bush policies and attacks on the non-believers. They ‘believe’ Bush is a good president so the reality of his ineffectiveness is irrelevant and ignored. In any pile of scat you’ll find an undigested seed. These seeds are held up as evidence of Bush’s genius or some other example of why the whole pile really isn’t crap, but is really myrrh, and that we’re the ones too stupid to see it.

Posted by: Dave at January 12, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #112483

Sorry, now I know what people mean about quotes and appostrophes in word processors…

Posted by: Dave at January 12, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #112484

Andre
Its very stressful and draining when one asks for facts to support the story and and is told to just rely on opinions.
Falsely grouping everybody who asks for these facts as being one of the “far right morally superior beings who use religion to judge others and have very little, if any true spirituality, who voted for him” is also wrong.
Why is it ok to say “everybody” who supports the president is a religious zealot but wrong to say “all” who don’t support the war do not support the troops? Its not.

You are correct though, asking for facts is very tiresome.
Assuming and hoping is easy.

Posted by: kctim at January 12, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #112498

Andre
“Its very stressful and draining when one asks for facts to support the story and and is told to just rely on opinions”

I agree, that is why I asked Charlie to be a bit more specific as to what he meant by:

“you on the rad- left just dont see it—and you wouldnt even come to the table of honest discusion—real folk dont even give your drivel a thought except for entertainment”

I invited him to come to the “table of honest dicsussion” but I have not heard back. It is my hope that he is just away from the computer at the moment and not just someone making a statement and then disappearing.

I do believe the original premise of this topic. That the President is not doing a very good job of communicating and showing by example the democratic process. This can have absolutely catastrophic results when we are trying to introduce democratic government into a Muslim society.

Democracy is much more than the rule of the majority. It is the rule of law and the protection and inclusion of the people who aren’t a part of the current majority. Not because it is mamby-pamby… but because they are Americans and worthy of their beliefs regardless of who is in control of which branch of the government at any particular time.

This needs to be stressed to the Sunni who are smaller than the Shiites. It needs to be stressed to the Shiites who are the majority. All rights should be respected and all opinions should be considered if you want to foster trust and cooperation.

We cannot hope to have Iraq do this if we cannot do it here at home!

Instead of discussion and persuasion and inclusion into the process it appears to me it has been dictates of what will be done. As you know… appearances can be very important in politics. I have not seen this President make a very strong effort to include.

This leads to isolation of the leader from opposing views that may have a valid point. Instead, the protective circle around the President isolates and insulates.

Great Presidents listen to all parties. They welcome the opportunity to stand their beliefs against those of people who disagree. It reinforces their position and makes it stronger, and if they are humble enough, it might cause them to modify their position. This is not “wishy-washy” “two-faced” “flip-flopping”. This is adult behavior.

Why do we blog? Simply to vent? Do we attempt to persuade others towards our way of thinking? Do we gain insight and perspective from intelligent discussion? Sometimes see that we aren’t that far apart? We all want what is best for America?

If you do change someone’s opinion… is he now and forever to be considered less “moral” and a “flip-flopper”? Of, do you credit his honesty to see where your argument is stronger than his?

This, to me, is a perfect example of the Republicans painting the President into a box. It might be the box he is most comfortable… but it created a President that is unable to listen to opposing views and who sees changing his mind as a sign of moral weakness.

Even the smallest attempt at trying to bolster his image by admitting an error cannot be done without his also pointing the finger at those democrats that stood by him based on the evidence his administration provided them.

Once again to all those that want to frame the Democrats opposition to the President as being political when it comes to Iraq… that is not true.

All Americans were behind the invasion of Afganistan and the war on terrorism. The President chose to widen the conflict to Iraq with evidence that we thought was “slim” at best.

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 12, 2006 1:03 PM
Comment #112501

kctim–

Falsely grouping everybody who asks for these facts as being one of the “far right morally superior beings who use religion to judge others and have very little, if any true spirituality, who voted for him” is also wrong. Why is it ok to say “everybody” who supports the president is a religious zealot but wrong to say “all” who don’t support the war do not support the troops? Its not.

I agree with you, but don’t you think your message would be taken a bit more seriously if you practiced what you preached? Several posts above, you made a comment about “liberals” (ie, grouping all liberals together) only supporting civil rights that they agree with.

That may be true of some people (on the Left or Right) but it isn’t true overall in ANY group.

Posted by: mattLaw at January 12, 2006 1:12 PM
Comment #112502

Paul,

Your blog is certainly a little over the edge on Bush. You think he’s “dividing” people and he really isn’t. He’s making decisions (TOUGH decisions) based on what he feels is right. And, taking on terrorists has people divided in this country. Many are actually politicizing the issue and they don’t even realize it; however, that’s what part of the division is about.

So, you can continue to blame Bush; however, the future will prove that he was right and what he did, under the scrutiny that he received, was monumental.

Posted by: rahdigly at January 12, 2006 1:14 PM
Comment #112511

kctim,

Fact: Dubbya MAY have stolen the Florida recount and been AWARDED the election by the SupCou…

Fact: Dubbya did either allow bad information to cause, or his dismissal of good information to cause, or outright lied to cause our invasion of Iraq…

Fact: Dubbya did quit chasing ObL in order to use bad information to invade Iraq…

Fact: Dubbya continues to this day to link Osl and the 9/11 attack to Saddam and Iraq, and he does this even though he knows better…

Fact: Someone in his administration ‘outed’ a CIA agent, and Dubbya hides what he knows about it behind exec privy…

Fact: Dubbya said he needed a warrant for electronic tap-tap-tapping, and then authorized warrantless tapping.

Just how many facts are required before you admit there is a problem that does not include Clinton or the Democratic party?

Posted by: Marysdude at January 12, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #112522

To the gentleman,who spoke of the unwillingness to carry on an honest discussion.Sir when a people or a nation are under political-social-and economic duress,they appeal first to theyre antagonists sense of equity,reason and/or humanity.Attempting to reconcile the differences.This of course fails pure and simply, because of vested interest.Self interest and leverage are the key words.It has been my experience that those who stand to gain wealth power or glory, are more prone to misrepresenting the truth and not being willing to carry on an honest dialogue,than those who are simply trying to protect and secure the little that belongs to them Honesty is always the first weapon of choice for those who are not trying to gain at anothers expense.To defend those things that are a god given right with dishonesty is illogical and would weaken your resolve.As far as entertainment value,whats entertaining is that was all you could bring to the table in terms of logic and honesty.And secondly ,your inference that the people who support your idealogy were capable of honesty in the interest of all.Again we go back to serving the truth,not serving the interest of the few or the idealogy of those who want one morality or a sheep mentality.Danny

Posted by: Danny at January 12, 2006 1:53 PM
Comment #112525

macsonix: I think most people on either side of the political spectrum would agree with most of your post. The problem is, the far right and far left are out of touch with the PEOPLE’S wishes, wants and desires. Thus, we have a president who presides as though he had a “mandate” to do as he pleases.
It isn’t enough to make decisions based on faulty information and it isn’t enough to spy on people by going around the law. This president even signs his name to bills and then signs an addendum to give him the right to ignore what he signed. This is not the action of an honest, upright, religious person, let alone the president of this great country.
I would like to believe that, once the power has shifted to the left, even somewhat, that the liberals would remeber all that we have been haranguing about on this blog.
We need a MODERATE government that believes in doing the right thing by the people and brings our country back to a position in the world where we are once again, respected as well as feared.
Jack P

Posted by: jcp at January 12, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #112526

Mattlaw
I admit it and I dont think I am an exception. I fall into the trap ALL the time.
My grouping liberals into one group and saying they do not support ALL of our rights, as was stated by someone else, is true though.
And any conservative who says their party supports ALL of our rights, is equally as wrong.
As far as being taken seriously: Nobody on here will take you seriously if they do not agree with you.

Posted by: kctim at January 12, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #112527

RIGHT ON, Darren. Your expression of the hypocrisy of Bushco’s democratic foreign policy and autocratic domestic policy, along with an explanation (a crying shame it is even necessary) of the logic of rational debate and the value of changing one’s mind was relevant, tasteful, and as always, quite eloquent. IMPEACH BUSH! ELECT DARREN!

Oh, sorry - you’re not running.

Posted by: macsonix at January 12, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #112532

Dude
“Fact: Dubbya MAY have stolen the Florida recount and been AWARDED the election by the SupCou…”

May have now equals fact?

“Fact: Dubbya did either allow bad information to cause, or his dismissal of good information to cause, or outright lied to cause our invasion of Iraq…”

Bad intel is not always avoidable. Prove he knew it was bad, dismissed good intel on purpose or that he knowingly lied.
Then take it to the media and let justice run its course. Its not that hard and I would have no problem with it at all.

“Fact: Dubbya did quit chasing ObL in order to use bad information to invade Iraq…”

So NO SpecOps at all are currently looking for OBL? I will have to take your word for that since I am not privy to intel briefings.
Again, prove he intentionally used bad intel to invade Iraq. I’m not saying you can or can’t, I’m saying do it to shut up those who don’t believe you.

“Fact: Dubbya continues to this day to link Osl and the 9/11 attack to Saddam and Iraq, and he does this even though he knows better…”

I agree. But can you prove that Bush is 100% sure there was NO connection?

“Fact: Someone in his administration ‘outed’ a CIA agent, and Dubbya hides what he knows about it behind exec privy…”

How do you know what he knows?

“Fact: Dubbya said he needed a warrant for electronic tap-tap-tapping, and then authorized warrantless tapping”

Yep. Have I ever said I support that? Nope.

“Just how many facts are required before you admit there is a problem that does not include Clinton or the Democratic party?”

I don’t think any of Bush’s problems include clinton.
What I say on here is that I don’t understand how the left could make excuses for ALL of the clinton administrations corruption but now think they can demand justice for the Bush administration and expect to be taken serious.

Posted by: kctim at January 12, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #112538

jcp
“I would like to believe that, once the power has shifted to the left, even somewhat, that the liberals would remeber all that we have been haranguing about on this blog”

Thats mighty fair of you to believe that. Laughable, but fair.
They will not remember and they will do exactly what the conservatives are doing now: They will ignore the peoples wishes in order to push their own agenda. They proved this in the 90s.

Posted by: kctim at January 12, 2006 2:14 PM
Comment #112546

ElliotBay,

Eric, Very funny! Attacking Paul for using your tactics. What a hoot! Thanks for such a great laugh.

Think nothing of it, that’s what I’m here for.

I just find it funny myself, that what is ‘hatred’ in one case is perfectly fine in another. It’s hypocrisy at it’s finest. I am just going by the standard set by the left here. If you are going to say that posts like this are hateful and divisive, then why not when they are written by those on the left?

Like I said, I’m just trying to understand how you define these things, like broad generalizations and, “political spin designed to split Americans and divide our country, and a very unpatriotic piece of prose in my opinion…”

Posted by: esimonson at January 12, 2006 2:27 PM
Comment #112549

Can someone answer this question for me:

Can a Congressional Resolution usurp Law? It gets to the heart of the discussion that some make that the Resolution passed by Congress gave Bush the power to ‘use whatever means’ to fight terrorism. It seems to me that a resolution can not undo established laws - so laws governing Bush’s ability to spy/wiretap without warrants would make his actions illegal regardless of what was written in the Resolution. Thoughts?

Posted by: tony at January 12, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #112551

kctim:

As far as being taken seriously: Nobody on here will take you seriously if they do not agree with you.

I will take someone who respectfully disagrees with me much more seriously than someone (even someone who professes to agree with my point of view) immaturely attacking the opposing side.

Posted by: mattLaw at January 12, 2006 2:34 PM
Comment #112563

kctim,

Did you not note the word MAY in caps?

Nothing I said can be proven without honesty from Dubbya. But whether it is proven true or not is not material. It is enough that he hides, sneaks, lies and quibbles. He is not a good President, and the PROOF is in the pudding…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 12, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #112571

One thing I’d like to point out here, although I am not an attorney, is that the presumption of innocence and burden of proof are wholly legal doctrines designed for the courtroom and not necessarily always applicable, especially under these circumstances where the right to punditry reigns supreme.

In other words, while I may not be able to effectively prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this adminstration either encouraged and supported or suppressed/ignored evidence based on its initial intent to invade Iraq, I can reasonably suspect the guilt of same based on what evidence is available. The same logic may be applied to a host of other issues and circumstances, read: Delay/Abramoff, Cheney/Halliburton/no-bid contracts/widespread contract fraud, Libby/Cheney/Rove/Plamegate, ad nauseum. Additionally, to imply little Georgie’s adventures in Iraq are not displacing funds, troops, and other vital resources from the hunt for Bin Laden and his closest officers and confidants is to deny reality outright.

I could go on, but I’d love for someone to compare ANY modern President’s track record to this miserable example of failure, apparent corruption, and ineptitude. You can convince me that he thought with his pecker a mite too much, but can you convince me that his administration was anywhere near this incompetent?

Posted by: macsonix at January 12, 2006 3:36 PM
Comment #112595

Tony… very interesting line of logic. IF the Congress mean to include illegal means in their “any and all means” that would be unconstitutional. So, if the President did take the authorization to mean “illegal means” then they would have had to have known that it would be an unConstitutional authorization by Congress. Very good!!!

kctim
“What I say on here is that I don’t understand how the left could make excuses for ALL of the clinton administrations corruption but now think they can demand justice for the Bush administration and expect to be taken serious.”

I am really not sure of the corruption of the Clinton Administration. Seriously, I am not being smug or coy. At the time of his administration I was a single father going to college with two grade school children… so my time was very limited.

All I remember was a Whitewater investigation that cost $millions and ended with no indictments concerning Whitewater.

I remember allegations of boorish behavior best dealt with either through sexual harassment suits or between a husband and his wife.

I remember the Clinton administration getting their hands slapped for looking at FBI records of political opponents.

I remember something about Travelgate… which I thought was firing the old administrations travel bookers and using their own.

Concerning this topic
It is so easy for a topic to get lost as evidence or counter evidence is argued… then add to it the “moral” aspect of corruption and there is a natural tendency to compare moral behavior of one party versus the other instead of focusing on the issues at hand and not making it into a relative morality argument.

I am positive, without a doubt 100% sure that any Republican that is proven to be corrupt causes heart ache in a Republican.

Both parties want what is best for America with different (not wrong) ideas of how to get there. Any corruption of the process deals a blow to ALL AMERICANS.

It shames one party and hurts their chances in the future and it hurts the other pary because their goals and ideas were trampled on for the greed of the government offical.

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 12, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #112598

” A man who would gie up his Freedoms for Security,Deserves neither!” (Benjamin Franklin) We as a nation are giving up our freedoms for a false sense of security! My biggest fear is that this nation will not truely wake up from this recent nightmare until we are reduced to the status of a third world nation. Wake up people, United we stand , Divided we FALL. Timber my friends;TIMBER!

Posted by: K-dog at January 12, 2006 4:37 PM
Comment #112609

Darren7160, Democrats,liberals,lefties,or whatever label you give to your opposition;Don’t need to make excuses for President Clinton or any of the scandals or corruption from his administration.We recognise him for what he WAS…Simply the GREATEST Republican President this GREAT Country has ever had! P.S. I appologise for my typo with the word “give” but I’m sure you get the point.

Posted by: K-dog at January 12, 2006 5:02 PM
Comment #112615

HUH? Clinton? Republican? I don’t get this one at all.

Posted by: macsonix at January 12, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #112616

It seems to me that a resolution can not undo established laws

I take Paul Siegel’s point to be that it took hundreds of years to develop into a nation of rule by law rather than rule by the will of one man, whether King or Prime Minister or President. Bush has turned into a different person than the one who ran for election pretending to be humble.

The problem with the Rpblcn party and the right wing ideologues is that their views are based on prejudice, which is not based on reason, so it cannot be removed by argument. (Variant on Samuel Johnson)

Posted by: ray ohrealy at January 12, 2006 5:40 PM
Comment #112625

That’s quite shallow there Ray. “Reason”? Higher taxes, killing babies, affirmative action, queers getting married, freeing criminals, global warming, this is all reasonable?

Posted by: William Goade at January 12, 2006 6:06 PM
Comment #112626

Dude
I noticed the caps, sheesh.
The proof is not in the pudding here. Without facts, the “pudding” is based on nothing more than your opinions and assumptions.
Disagreeing with his policies and such is fine.
Not being able to support your attacks with facts is politics.

Posted by: kctim at January 12, 2006 6:09 PM
Comment #112637

kctim,

Duh!! Okay, you got me there…but, I was robbed. I thought we were talking about BAD politics. Isn’t lyin’, cheatin’, and stealin’ BAD politics? Oh, well…back to the ol’ drawin’ board…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 12, 2006 7:03 PM
Comment #112641
queers getting married

Immature and inappropriate.

Posted by: mattLaw at January 12, 2006 7:26 PM
Comment #112642

William,
“That’s quite shallow there Ray. “Reason”? Higher taxes, killing babies, affirmative action, queers getting married, freeing criminals, global warming, this is all reasonable?”

I agree, however, it does look as if some of the issues have crossed party lines…
From this liberal perspective:

Higher taxes would not be such an issue if we were responsible in both our legislation, our compassion (Christian even) of the disadvantaged. Interesting that this was the first and foremost “issue” so is this itemized according to your priorities? Money first?

Killing babies. As has been discussed under the Roe v. Wade topic… is there a particular reason why, after 5 years in complete control of the federal government, the republican party hasn’t come up with a whole host of alternatives to abortion? Is it possible that it is such an effective way to cynically maintain a “moral” superiority over the liberals at the expense of the babies dying? Or, could it be because of the first priority… it would cost too much?

Queers getting married. It seems the only ones concerned about what a person does in their bedroom, or in their relationship is Republicans. Marriage as a civil instutition has been around for a long time. Its legal status is based upon the secular laws and registration of the marriage… not the Church service. Governments should stay out of everything except the bedroom?

Freeing criminals? Is this a jab at Dukkakis from, oh, I don’t know… the stone ages? Isn’t there a new playbook yet? Some may not think that the best way to deal with non-violent criminals is prison. But, there are some countries that do like to cut off hands for petty theft. Maybe that is more in line with Republicans? If so, what is the penalty for selling a federal congressman’s vote to the highest bidder? Drawn and quartering? The damage to our country is worse than any pot smoker or pick pocket.

Global warming? Are you saying that it is a problem? Then join with us liberals. If you are saying it isn’t a problem because it is a “theory” then if the evidence shows that it may be happening and the results are catastophic and irreversable… then how do you answer to God about the piss poor way his legacy and gift of this world has been treated?

Again, if money is your first priority… then I can understand it. Piss on it all because it costs too much or doesn’t provide enough profit.

Am I understanding this correctly?

Please let me know.

Also, as mentioned above, I was a bit too busy in the 1980’s to be worrying about the transgressions of President Clinton so if anyone could help me, I would love a litany of his corruption.

‘Cause seriously… at that time nothing registered on my “Give a S#!&& Meter.” It all seemed like whining to me… like the person mentioned, I too saw the “IMPEACH CLINTON” bumpersticker before he was even sworn in.

You deal in Hyperbole (i.e., crying wolf about everything and you expect people to take you seriously?) CLINTON: Murderer (Remember all those extreme right wing murder conspiracy videos out there?) master criminal, sexual pervert, left-wing Hollywood wannabe, Chinese donations (errrr… you guys might want to see that the Chinese money is still flowing in… wanna guess where??? It ain’t to my party).

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 12, 2006 7:27 PM
Comment #112643

Wow! Darren, re your answer to William…you took the words right out of my mouth…except I’m not smart enough to have those words IN my mouth…GOOD JOB!

Posted by: Marysdude at January 12, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #112649

Both Dems and Repubs are sucking big-time… that is why I lean American Independent…

Posted by: Gerald at January 12, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #112676

Marysdude,
Thank you very much for the kind words. I would give anything for a person to logically lay out an argument that was consistent and based on facts rather than innuendo and name calling. When I do ask people for specifics I never seem to get them… which makes it very difficult to have a discussion.

Gerald,
I was watching The Colbert Report the other day and they had Carl Bernstein (Of the Woodward and… of Watergate) on.

I personally thought they did a great service to our country, I don’t know what other people’s opinion of them might be.

But, what I thought was interesting was when he was asked about what is the problem with Washington today he said that none of the representatives were representing the voters anymore…. they were all chasing the money at the expense of the voters.

Your comment just reminded me of what he had to say and how true it is.

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 12, 2006 9:03 PM
Comment #112695

“they will do exactly what the conservatives are doing now: They will ignore the peoples wishes in order to push their own agenda.”

Sounds like an admission to me.
How could ya’ll let this slip by and not nail kctim on this one.

“they will do exactly what the conservatives are doing now: They will ignore the peoples wishes in order to push their own agenda.”

jeez, I could just sit here all night and copy and paste. Someone finally admitted it.!

“what the conservatives are doing now: They will ignore the peoples wishes”

I enjoy reading all the really intelligent parts of this discussion. ;)

Posted by: gypsyirishgirl at January 12, 2006 11:10 PM
Comment #112696

It’s always funny how much more intelligent and logical liberals’ posts are, compared to conservative posts.

Equating the President stating his opinion - with no sanctions BTW - with trying to silence the opposition is just silly.

What do they say about stones and glass houses? I suppose there is also a quote about having thin skins while attacking others.

The fact is that in this case he is trying to silence the opposition. Viciously demonizing anyone who disagrees with the GOP as “anti-american” or as bad as the terrorists, and furthermore threatening criminal prosecution for whoever leaked the story about Bush’s illegal spying program, is not “stating his opinion.” Nice try, but no.

Posted by: Mark at January 12, 2006 11:40 PM
Comment #112706

When Clinton revealed that he had indeed had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, it taught me a lesson: just because people are overhyping charges against one’s party’s politicians, doesn’t mean that the charges are false, or that you should not be concerned.

I think it’s important to keep in mind that our party’s interest and our own can part ways, and that it’s up to us to keep our parties in line with our own interests. Being a dittohead is like asking to be exploited.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 13, 2006 1:26 AM
Comment #112748

gypsy
It would be an admission IF I were a conservative.

Darren
“When I do ask people for specifics I never seem to get them… which makes it very difficult to have a discussion”

Exactly what I was saying.

“Queers getting married. It seems the only ones concerned about what a person does in their bedroom, or in their relationship is Republicans”

Then why does the bill pass with 70+% support?

About clinton being so innocent.
People will refuse to see whats wrong with their own.
You excused him, the right is giving Bush a pass.
We were all just conspiracy nuts. Our points had no merit.
Well guess what? Its your turn to join me in filling that roll.

Posted by: kctim at January 13, 2006 9:15 AM
Comment #112755

Stephen,
As mentioned before, I was a bit busy with a life in the 1980s so a lot of what went on against President Clinton didn’t concern me too much in the overall scheme of things.

That a President might have an affair? Really, that did not cause me, or it seems a lot of Americans, to lost their faith in our form of government or gnash our teeth and pull our hair.

That the Republicans were making such a big deal out of it was absolutely amazing. Integrety they shouted. A shocking lack of integrety!

What I thought at the time was that like family violence, alcoholism (before GWB ever entered the stage) and having affairs… they cross all social and economic lines.

Like I was saying to the gentleman who was concerned about same sex marriage… why is it that the Republicans worry so much about who has sex with whom?

I have always believed, if you want to know a person’s demons, see what he is most against. Such as the Rev. Swaggart and his crusade against pornography. Or Rush’s tirades about what should be done with drug users (even non-violent ones who might have got addicted through the use of prescription medication.)

This is not excusing President Clinton’s behavior… I am just curious as to why the Republicans want to equate an affair with every other level of behavior.

Does this make me a bad person? That I am not particularly upset at people having affairs? I don’t know. We could go back to stoning them. There would have to be a lot of people. I just don’t see the correlation between a sexual affair and being a monster. Too many people who are upstanding, law abiding and contributing to society in a positive manner are also guilty of affairs.

It just seems to me, that no matter what President Bush may do, or a Republican Congressman may be convicted of, the response will always be that President Clinton had an affair.

As to your post and your point… Yes, there were allegations and they did prove to be true.

There are allegations of wrong doing and corruption by the Republican Congressmen, so there is a very good possibility these might prove to be true.

As a Democrat, I really didn’t believe that my interests were being ignored by the actions of President Clinton. It turned out I was wrong. It was not however his inability to run the government while having sex “with that woman” but because of the unrelenting attacks by the Republicans who wanted him out of office before he ever was sworn in.

As to the President Speaking
If you listen closely… you will see the President making a shift from attacking his critics. He is now “welcoming” people with different views.

He invited 15 former Secs of State and Defense to a sit down. Of course, it was more a photo op and a stunt since the meeting lasted 45 minutes. (3 minutes per person to tell him their opinion? Is this a game show?)

President Bush HAS attempted to silence opposition by playing the “giving aid to the enemy” card. He and his supporters (Schmidt, R-Ohio) have tried to make any discussion of the war equal to being less American, less supportive of the troops, cowardly and “historical revisionism” for the sake of politics.

Anyone reading my posts will see how I feel about exploiting the military for political gains. We would be letting our men and women down if we did not continue the democratic process of accountability and responsibility of the executive branch to the congress and the American people.

To the Republicans… look to your own party and see the cracks forming. Lott is out, members of your own party are enjoying the first taste of freedom they have had in 5 years! They are not going to be pulled back into being forced to accept dictates from the President any more. (This is not because of Democrats… this is a grassroots rebellion within the Republican congressional members.)

What does that tell you?

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 13, 2006 9:27 AM
Comment #112771

What they want, Darren, is the paralysis of our moral critique of Bush and the Republican’s behavior. Which means they fear there’s something to critique, something that might lead folks to condemn their people, and lose them their power and prestige. Because they’ve been taught that the GOP is single-handedly saving American civilization, that is a frightening thing to them, even more frightening than the consequence of what their folks in Congress are doing to them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 13, 2006 10:06 AM
Comment #112825

Thanks Stephen,
That makes a whole lot of sense when you look at it from that perspective. I always knew that the Republican part wasn’t stupid… I just couldn’t understand their denial of the truth…

But, it does make sense now.

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 13, 2006 12:40 PM
Comment #112844

Or maybe past actions have shown that there are two sets of rules.
What good does it do the country if one side is not willing to acknowledge the corruption of the administration, simply because they support which party it is?
You ask how people can support this administration with all of its corruption but yet you instantly dismiss that very same question when its directed towards you.

Posted by: kctim at January 13, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #112873

What people vote for, in the end, is good governance. They will vote for fascists (see end of the Weimar Republic), religious leaders(see Iraq), corrupt officials (see Chicago, Boston, NY, etc) if it means they can make the trains run on time and the streets are plowed after a snowfall (see New York, 1972, I think). They rarely, if ever, vote for ideology or consider how much someone is on the take.

Bush and the GOP are now seen, as someone who cannot make the trains run on time or the streets plowed after a snow.

One last note about Clinton:
There is no repeat no evidence that there is a causal relationship between Clinton thinking with his little head and the way he governed. (There is a causal relationship, however, between the GOP’s pockets and they way THEY govern.)
Besides -
Clinton’s gone.
He’s history.
Been history for five repeat five years.
Give it up.
Sheesh!!

Posted by: Scot at January 13, 2006 2:11 PM
Comment #112881

Not many people care about that evidence, Scot.
Its the evidence that shows American citizens were murdered by their govt, rights were tramples in the name of security, American soldiers were sent to a war they should not have been sent to, his lies etc… that make people ask why do you care now if you didnt care then.
It is the left who insists on making the arguments about clinton only about him and monica.

So, the left makes excuses, repeat, excuses about clinton and the right makes them for Bush.
Thats why this country is going downhill.
Partisan BS. Keep it up guys.

Posted by: kctim at January 13, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #112934

My Bad!! I realized it a while ago but no one commented on it… the cracks in the Republican party are now becoming evident now that the task master Delay (wrongly attributed to Lott) has been removed.

The intent is just the same though. The Republican Congressmen are finally feeling the fresh air of freedom. They are enjoying the chance to finally think for themselves and not be battered into lockstepping with the President and DeLay. Don’t believe me? Read some of the (decidely biased because you just can’t trust MSM) stories coming out.

I would really really love a definitive answer to this quesion! Please!

I have been reading innuendos of all sorts of corruption, people being killed, civil rights being ignored… all this against the Democrats. I have asked people to please provide specifics.

It is frustrating, because I consider myself a fair historian… and somewhat attuned to what is happening in America over the past 100 years or so… and I just am not understanding how I could have missed this!!!!

Unless I can get some specifics I am going to have to assume that they are all lies… or molehills blown up to mountains in the name of partisanship (Otherwise known as lying when you are explaining these things to children).

I really do not want to believe that people here are lying just to support a position. I could be wrong though.

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 13, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #112970

kctim-
The problem here is that your argument seems meant to inhibit accountability for the president, on the grounds that Clinton wasn’t held accountable by his supporters.

What good does that do us? It just means we have two equally unaccountable president, at best, and a tradition inherited of not questioning the pecadillos of the other side.

If I were you, this would be my point:

If you’re going to apply this standard to Bush, you should be prepared to see it applied to every one of your candidates, and if you fall short, you will have no excuse.

Why that instead of your own point? Because this point doesn’t stand in the way of reform by equivocating the immorality of one candidate by that of the other.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 13, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #113027


Stephen,

I understand what you were trying to say to kctim, and I agree with it. I guess my biggest problem with the whole thing on these blogs is a matter of perception.

How anyone can perceive a corrolation between Clinton’s faults, mistakes, crimes and pecker wagging and Bush’s lies, exagerations, misrepresentations and flub-ups that sent us to war in Iraq, took us from our ‘war’ on terror, etc., is beyond me.

kc is a case in point…he insists on proofs, i.e., ‘did Bush know there was no connection between 9/11 and Saddam’? What kind of a fool question is that? What makes the difference whether I can prove it or not? Dubbya is the President. If he knows there is no connection, he’s a criminal, and if he doesn’t know, he’s a dimwitted ass. I assume kc is just trying to distract folks from serious discussion because he’s afraid we’ll be right. What he doesn’t know is that if we are right and can influence change for the better even he wins. And, if we are wrong, he gets to say ha ha ha all the way home.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 13, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #113065

Marysdude,
I don’t know .. I am leaving challenges all over the place asking people to give me specifics as to Clinton’s corruption.

I did get a very good reply from Jeff on another topic having to do with warrantless tapping on the Ames-CIA case… I agreed that it appeared similar and does not change my belief that it was illegal. I was disappointed that Clinton did not get a warrant. Two wrongs to not make a right.

If it was illegal then to use it as a precendence does not make the second event any more legal.

Republicans and the Christian right have been going on and on ever since “we” kicked God out of school… that you cannot teach morality without God. Otherwise, right and wrong would be based on the relative position of a society… and it must be an absolute morality based on the laws of God.

So, when it comes time to justify the actions of their President it turns out to be their best attempt at defense is the relative morality… that what Bush did wasn’t as bad as…. or someone else did something so it must be okay…

Regardless of whether or not someone did something that was realted is irrelevant if you believe in absolute morality. Even if you believe in relative morality you should at least compare apples to apples, which they cannot do.

Absolute morality of right and wrong does not depend on going along with the crowd. It is based on right and wrong being unmovable.

Remember… this was the basis of their attack on Clinton… Yes.. it was about a minor thing… we don’t care about the oral sex… the point is that he LIED. That is absolute morality as it is applied by the Republicans to the Democrats.

What do we get from them concerning President Bush or Republican corruption? “Look what Clinton did…” “Everyone is doing it… just the Republicans are getting caught…” “Okay. All are corrupt, lets vote them all out”

Isn’t that the same type of defense the lawyer is using to sue the fast food industry? It isn’t the lack of control, balanced diet and exercise that is the problem… it is there are too many fast food joints making it impossible to resist!

What blows me away is that I was sitting there for 8 years watching the Republican party’s sorry performance… I could not argue with their instance that a lie was wrong. I have to be intellectually honest more than I have to win an argument!

I was wondering if they really thought all would be forgiven and forgotten!!!

Did they really think that there would not be a payback? That there would not be an opportunity to do unto them?

We do not need the war in Iraq to be partisan… because it isn’t. I have explained this multiple times and no one has argued it with me. We supported this President in Afganistan in this war on terrorists… we did not support him in Iraq because his “evidence” did not measure up to the level sufficient to go to war. Also his handling of it has been pretty bad.

No, we don’t need to do the payback with the war and we aren’t.

The pay back is coming from his handling of things like FEMA, K Street Project, Abramoff, Delay’s skirting around the intent of the laws in Texas, Congressmen selling out for the money.

This is payback. And it is true… it is a dish best served cold.

The arrogance and the smugness we had to put up with for 8 years still makes my stomach hurt. Their constantly throwing out garbage to see what would stick!! The video tapes done by the Christian right outlining all the people Clinton killed to become and stay President!

I have just about reached my level of tolerance for their garbage and the democrats have played nice too long.

I will continue to discuss as intellegently as I can with any person who wishes to disucss specifics… but this constant tossing out of things President Clinton allegedly did to justify anything the Republicans are doing has to stop.

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 13, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #113109

Darren,

I don’t know what Jeff said about the Ames case, but this is the way I understand it. Although FISA was in place from 1978, there were various things it did not cover (mostly because the technology did not exist then). Clinton’s use of those techniques on Ames were NOT illegal, and to add irony, it was Clinton who had FISA updated to include these more up to date methods. The irony? Dubbya may have broken the law because Clinton was honest…kctim will now scream that I should prove what I’ve just said. But, since he likes proof so much, I’ll let him prove it ain’t so.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 14, 2006 3:46 AM
Comment #113172

Darren-
I would inform you that all wiretaps in the Ames Case were done according to FISA regulations. At the time, though, physical searches by intelligence agents were not covered by the law.

That is where the controversy is.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 14, 2006 11:47 AM
Comment #113198

“The problem here is that your argument seems meant to inhibit accountability for the president, on the grounds that Clinton wasn’t held accountable by his supporters”

WRONG Stephen.
Hold Bush accountable for everything he deserves to be held accountable for.
I am saying that due to the lefts (in)actions with clinton, there is no way they should be surprised by the same actions being displayed by the right today.

Your point is totally valid. Great to read it.
Now the two sides just need to figure out how to apply it in a fair manner.

Dude
“kc is a case in point…he insists on proofs, i.e., ‘did Bush know there was no connection between 9/11 and Saddam’? What kind of a fool question is that? What makes the difference whether I can prove it or not?”

Insisting on proof before making a judgement is wrong?
What makes the difference whether you can prove it or not? Well, IF you can prove it, then we can take legal action and move forward.
If you can’t prove anything, then you can do nothing but state opinions and assumptions that mean nothing.

“Dubbya is the President. If he knows there is no connection, he’s a criminal”

I agree. IF he knew this, then we were lied to. We were not lied to just because the left “thinks” he knew it.

“and if he doesn’t know, he’s a dimwitted ass”

Why? He relies on intel reports from all around the world. Common sense should tell you that he has neither the time or resources to personally check out each report.

“I assume kc is just trying to distract folks from serious discussion because he’s afraid we’ll be right.”

Asking for facts before coming to a judgment, is NOT a distraction.

“What he doesn’t know is that if we are right and can influence change for the better even he wins. And, if we are wrong, he gets to say ha ha ha all the way home”

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I do not care one bit if you are right or wrong.
The key words you used were “IF WE ARE RIGHT.”
Would it not benefit the country, to actually know that you are right and that you have the facts on your side to support what you say?
If you dont have facts, “IF we are right” can also mean “We could be wrong.”

I’m alot less partisan than you may need to believe.
Asking for proof does not mean that I do not agree with what is being said either.
It just means that I dont allow speculation, opinions, assumptions or gut feelings dictate whether someone is guilty or not.

Posted by: kctim at January 14, 2006 2:37 PM
Comment #113216

“I don’t know .. I am leaving challenges all over the place asking people to give me specifics as to Clinton’s corruption”

http://members.aol.com/beachbt/whemails.txt

Good thing money scandals only involve Reps.
http://members.aol.com/beachbt/chimoney.txt

Why?
http://members.aol.com/beachbt/djwirtap.txt

Spying
http://members.aol.com/beachbt/horowitz_china.txt

Ethical?
http://members.aol.com/beachbt/fbiprostit.htm

Equal rights huh
http://members.aol.com/beachbt/hazel_jobs.txt

Politics, blah
http://members.aol.com/beachbt/north_dnc.txt

Fear of Big Brother even then and here I thought it was just the evil Christians and Bush wanting to play that role
http://members.aol.com/beachbt/jf_bigbrother.txt

Only for foreigners, not Americans. Where have we heard this before?
http://members.aol.com/beachbt/ipi.txt

Weird. All those illegal donations but nothing to show for it huh.
http://members.aol.com/beachbt/panacosco.txt

I thought only Bush could be this ruthless.
http://members.aol.com/beachbt/nichols.txt
http://members.aol.com/beachbt/halepros.txt

Churches should watch what they say.
http://members.aol.com/beachbt/irschrch.txt

China
http://members.aol.com/beachbt/wtcoxrep.txt

Thought only Bush did things like this
http://members.aol.com/beachbt/labella.txt

Intimidation? Thought that was Bushs’ job.
http://members.aol.com/beachbt/wilyclin.txt

At least he isn’t a liar.
http://members.aol.com/beachbt/ccontmpt.txt

Isn’t Bush the master of cover-ups?
http://members.aol.com/beachbt/rwanda.txt

Who cares about rights?
http://members.aol.com/beachbt/rights.txt

Isn’t it the evil Republicans who send our troops to hostile areas?
Isn’t it Bush that gets rid of Generals?
http://members.aol.com/beachbt/generals.txt

Listen to soldiers who disagree with Bush, great point. But did you listen then?
http://members.aol.com/beachbt/admirals.txt

Now Darren, there is SOME of the problems you were asking for.
Kind of weird how alot of them are alot like what the left is complaining about Bush being guilty of today isn’t it.

I’m not using the “he did it so we can do it” saying either.
ANYTHING and EVERYTHING Bush may be guilty of should be investigated and IF found guilty, justice should be handed out. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT AT ALL!

The purpose of clinton being brought up is NOT to distract or to use “but clinton” as an excuse.
I am merely asking how can you expect the right to listen to all your rhetoric about Bush when you are guilty of ignoring their concerns in the past?
Is it as Stephen says, the past is the past and for the good of the nation we need to concentrate on the present?
It would be great if everybody would concentrate on fixing our problems wouldn’t it. But this is politics and we are all human.

If you want people to listen to you, you must first listen to them.

I’m sure you guys have all kinds of excuses and explanations for each of these, just as the right does for Bush today.
You believed then and even today that all of the rights concerns were partisan politics, not worthy of being taken serious.
The right believes that of you today.

Wait your turn I guess, the left will be back in power and it will be the rights turn, again.

Posted by: kctim at January 14, 2006 3:55 PM
Comment #113218

Dude
“kctim will now scream that I should prove what I’ve just said”

WHY? Based on the info, so far, I happen to think the wiretaps were wrong.
I just want to know ALL of the facts before I convict.
Some of us do believe “right” or “wrong” should be proven.

Posted by: kctim at January 14, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #113237

kctim,
I will go through them. As I said, in those years all I heard about really was Whitewater and oral sex.

Seriously… I really do mean it. At that time I was just a typical American trying to make ends meet while taking care of my family.

What I saw on the news between work, fixing dinner for the kids and then going to college at night was sex sex sex and stains on dresses.

It did not endear me to the Republican party, their legitimate political differences or whatever else. And, that is the God’s honest truth.

What I can say concerning your list without going through all of it (I have gone through 2 right now but the game is one)…

No administration gets a free pass. It is inherient in the system that there be manuevering and positioning… but they used to be based on issues… not personal picadellos of the individuals. The press KNEW about FDRs wheelchair and ignored it… they KNEW Kennedy was catting around.

The way the Republican part acted during the Clinton years was dispicable in my opinion. Remember that was not as a political junkie trying to get one up on the other side in the sleaze factor…. it was just as a busy person trying to do the best he could I saw our government being paralyzed by prudes who were just as sleazy in the sex and infidelity department as the President!

Now… after all those years… the Republicans are asking us to join hands and help the President complelete their conservative agenda. I DON’T THINK SO!

Why? Because I do not believe in the agenda of the conservatives! I want them to be argued on the basis of their positions today. Not about who did what when.

Are people geting a thrill out of nailing the President? Yes. I guess they are.

Do you happen to have any links there about Reagan and the Irangate scandal? I have absolutely no idea why Ollie North isn’t in jail. Talk about an administration that needed its ears pinned back!

Thanks and I will get to your links

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 14, 2006 6:11 PM
Comment #113247

Just a quick question.. I noted that a lot of those documents have a copyright.


Errrr… you did get permission from them to copy then entirely?

Just wondering.

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 14, 2006 7:18 PM
Comment #113251

kctim,

Can you save us some bandwidth next time and just post a single link, since all your Clinton links are coming from the same Web site? Thanks.

I like the header to the main page of that Web site:

I cannot guarantee the truth of all the material presented. But if it is here, I believe it to be worth seeing. You decide. Just from a statistical perspective, the sheer volume of incriminating material practically demonstrates that the current President of the United States is the most unethical and probably criminal person ever to hold that office.
I like it because even if we take this guy on faith, and assume that Clinton was the most unethical and criminal person ever to hold the office…then we have to also assume that Clinton no longer holds the title. The even greater preponderance of evidence against Bush means that he is now in the lead by an order of magnitude. Good thing we’re all innocent until proven guilty, right?

I’m not going to try to defend Clinton here, there are many things he did that I did not approve of. I didn’t try to defend him at the time anymore than I try to defend him now. However, if we simply must continue to compare Bush and Clinton ad nauseum, then let’s at least be consistent in applying this “preponderance of evidence” argument.

If you want people to listen to you, you must first listen to them.
Let’s assume that all the people crying about Clinton were legitimately concerned about corruption, and weren’t just playing partisan smear games. Now, if that is true shouldn’t these same people be equally concerned about the scandals our current president is involved in? Shouldn’t they be crying just as loudly? After all, if they’re legitimately concerned about corruption they shouldn’t be willing to give a free pass to our current president just because Clinton didn’t get his due, should they?
Posted by: Charles Wager at January 14, 2006 7:31 PM
Comment #113261

Charles,
I do love your point. It really is brilliant!!!

IF the Republicans were unable to persecute President Clinton because of lack of control of the Congress or Senate or because they blew their political capital with the American public over stains on a dress…

THEN here is thier opportunity to really do something about lawlessness and corruption and questionable behavior!!!

THEY pretty much control the agenda now… they have the Congress, the White House and soon the Supreme Court wrapped up. So.. this is it! It is finally their time to clean everything up!

THE rubber meets the road and with the concern over what the administration got away with when the Repubs were out of power… well, this is there chance to finally fix that!

NO Democrats to “get in their way”. It should make for an interesting show.

I hope that they do not allow the Nuremberg Defense… nor the Modified Nuremberg Defense: The other guy did it!

hehehehe. Try using that one as the cop is writing a speeding ticket!

BTW… did you notice all the Repub. congressmen jumping ship as soon as they found out DeLay was not coming back? FREEDOM! How sweet it is to be able to vote their consience and not the party line!

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 14, 2006 7:52 PM
Comment #113309

>>WHY? Based on the info, so far, I happen to think the wiretaps were wrong.
I just want to know ALL of the facts before I convict.
Some of us do believe “right” or “wrong” should be proven

kc,

You still miss the point of it all. We, i.e., you nor I CAN convict. With any luck there may be enough brave souls in the House to bring impeachment and allow the Senate to PROVE these things. But until then, these things I BELIEVE to be true.

Dubbya lied us away from chasing the bad guys.

Dubbya lied us into an oil war for his cronies.

Dubbya lied about believing the intellegence reports.

Dubbya lied about frying anyone in his administration who outed a CIA agent.

Dubbya lied about his getting warrants before wiretapping.

Dubbya lied about terrorists being the only ones subject to NSA wiretaps.

I can no longer keep track of all the lies he has told, so I’ve left some out…you fill in the blanks, you’ve worn me out.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 15, 2006 2:08 AM
Comment #113958

Charles and Darren
YES, YES, YES!
Finally.
BOTH sides should hold their party responsible.
Then and only then will corrupt politicians be held accountable for their actions.
The Dems had their chance to act and they let it go by. Now the Reps are doing the same thing.
If blaming Bush for everything and saying all he does is what makes you feel good, fine.
But unless you hold your guy to the same standards when he gets in, no change will ever come about.

Dude
“But until then, these things I BELIEVE to be true”

I believe I will win the lottery in 2010.
Doesn’t mean I can go out and start spending millions of dollars now.

Posted by: kctim at January 17, 2006 8:59 AM
Comment #113961

Charles and Darren
YES, YES, YES!
Finally.
BOTH sides should hold their party responsible.
Then and only then will corrupt politicians be held accountable for their actions.
The Dems had their chance to act and they let it go by. Now the Reps are doing the same thing.
If blaming Bush for everything and saying all he does is what makes you feel good, fine.
But unless you hold your guy to the same standards when he gets in, no change will ever come about.

Dude
“But until then, these things I BELIEVE to be true”

I believe I will win the lottery in 2010.
Doesn’t mean I can go out and start spending millions of dollars now.

Posted by: kctim at January 17, 2006 9:01 AM
Comment #114117

kctim,

Are you saying you do NOT believe them to be true?

Posted by: Marysdude at January 17, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #196528

There is only ONE oath of office for the president of the united states, and that is to uphold the constitution. dubbya has shredded the constitution, and that is not because he had to, but because he wants to

Posted by: david burrow at November 26, 2006 10:01 PM
Comment #196529

george bush is the biggest terroist of all time.. There has never been any terroists from Iraq that did harm to the usa.. dubbya has murdered 40,000 men, women, and children in iraq. But yet he calls it the war on terror??????If somenne from another country came to the U.S. and kicked in your door, and murdered your family, wouldnt you take up arms against that country? No wepons of mass destruction. No links to 9.11 but the killing continues because bush wants iraq to be a democratic government..GOOD plan dubbya, now lets attack N.Korea, and Iran, because as you know THEY are the axis of evil.not YOU.

Posted by: david burrow at November 26, 2006 10:14 PM
Post a comment