Democrats & Liberals Archives

National Security: Republican vs. Democratic Views

We keep hearing that national security is the strong suit of the Republicans. I disagree. The Republican approach to security is based on the idea that we must sacrifice some of our freedoms in order to increase our security. Even some Democrats seem to agree with this idea. It is wrong. Sacrifice of our fundamental freedoms makes us weaker, not stronger. The Democrats believe that religiously maintaining our freedoms ENHANCES our national security.

Republican Approach

To go along with their philosophy, Republicans are pursuing a closed political system. Executive meetings are secret. All sorts of documents are labeled Secret or Top Secret or given an even higher classification. To get any information from this administration is like pulling teeth. No matter what you ask for, you can't get it because it may hurt national security. If you leave the adminstration and spill the beans about almost anything, you are attacked for destroying national security.

Republicans have an obsession with national security that results in a reduction in national security. Secrets do not tend to unify the country. No, they tend to make us all suspicious of what is going on.

And then we hear that on the slimsiest of pretexts, the government could check on what books we read and where we go online and search our homes without letting us know about it, and can even call us an "enemy combatant" and place us in legal neverland. We're told that if we did not do anything wrong we need not worry about it. Do you find this reassuring? Does it make you feel more secure?

In line with their morbid sense of foreboding, Republicans have established a party line on anything even remotely related to security. Everyone must agree with the president about the "war on terror." Those who disagree with his actions in Iraq are called vile names, such as "traitors." They keep saying that Democrats, especially anti-war Democrats, do not want to defend America - a ridiculous claim. Though they spend so much time scaring the public, they claim that this fear mongering will protect America. What it actually does is polarize America. Polarization is the opposite of unity that is needed to make America strong and secure.

Republicans are so worried about an apocalypse that they have placed the running of the "war on terror" completely in the hands of Bush. And Bush claims that whatever he does is OK. He does not need to listen to Congress, nor pay attention to the courts. This is what he has done in the many warrantless spying activities on Americans. Does anyone really believe that such illegal activities make America more secure?

Democratic Approach

Democrats want an open system, not a closed system. Executive meetings - at least most of them - should take place in the open. Information should readily be available to citizens. Citizens, both Republicans and Democrats and Indpendents, should be able to interact freely with officials. Secrets ought to be at a minimum. All of us should feel that the government is working for the benefit of all of us.

Privacy is one of the most important American values. It should not be cracked, unless there is an important reason for doing so. This is why we want this to happen only with the permission of a court. Under such a system, guaranteed by the Constitution, all citizens may feel safe. Bad guys can be dealt with and innocent people are not bothered.

Which brings me to free speech. We do not want a system in which one official, Bush, tells us what is free speech and what is not free speech. Everybody has a right to express himself with regard to the "war on terror." Each of us is in danger, and therefore each of us should have a say - even if we disagree with President Bush. Dissidents do not decrease security. By listening to dissident voices we may get a better understanding of our people and learn how to better protect our security. At least there would be an increase in unity. And in unity there is strength and security.

The exceptional executive power the administration has grabbed annoys me most and is the most deleterious to national security. What makes our country strong is our system of checks and balances. With his unilateral approach to the "war on terror," Bush not only is ruining our security but is destroying the checks and balances that make our country great.

An open system with minimum secrecy, a decent respect for privacy and free speech, and one with sufficient checks and balances to assure the will of the people prevails will make us better citizens, keep us unified in the face of danger, thus increasing our national security.

The Contrast

REPUBLICANS: Freedoms Detract from Security - we must sacrifice some freedoms to achieve security

DEMOCRATS: Freedoms Enhance Security - we must maintain precious freedoms to achieve security.

Posted by Paul Siegel at February 9, 2006 7:31 PM
Comments
Comment #122929

Patriots demand freedom, sheep demand security.
Patriots defend the Constitution with their lives, sheep cower before the slaughter.
Patriots make good citizens, sheep make good soup.
DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

Posted by: T. Jefferson at February 9, 2006 7:58 PM
Comment #122933

Hey - I’ve got a great sheep shearing song:

“Oh say can you see, by the dawn’s early light…

Posted by: tony at February 9, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #122934

T. Jefferson-

Right on!!! The best short description I have ever read about Patriotism vs Sheep.

However, in today’s America, there are more sheep than patriots. Sheep allow the government, no matter which party, to decide what’s good for them. Patriots question government policies. Sheep make a lot of noise, most of which is unintelligble, to mask their ignorance. Patriots speak out only when it is necessary.

Regarding the original post:

Paul you make some good points about the value of transparency in government. To a point, I agree with you. However, I don’t believe in absolute transparency when it comes to intelligence. By it’s definition, a great deal of intelligence must be covert. If we develop sources and use those sources, and then reveal what those soources have discovered, we stand a very good chance of losing those sources. I want accountability but I don’t need to know everything the government knows, just the end result. Right now, there does not seem to be a sense of accountability regarding the gathering and use of intelligence.

Secrets are sometimes necessary, at least until the fighting is over.

Posted by: John Back at February 9, 2006 8:16 PM
Comment #122938

I’ve been thinking about this for a while now…

I was first amazed at how well the argument of ‘we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to over here” was accepted. Seriously? Our military has been reduced to serving as a moving target in hopes that the bad guys don’t notice us?

Then, the argument for illegal spying on Americans was the fear factor. And the people so quick to volunteer others to go over seas and fight and die to protect our freedoms we the first in line to hand those freedoms over.

Posted by: tony at February 9, 2006 8:33 PM
Comment #122939

Paul

Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt all felt it was their duty to intercept communications between Americans and foreign enemies. They didn’t just talk about it; they all did it. The word of freedom just don’t apply in this case. You would have to find something from the 1970s to support your position. The 1970s didn’t produce much soaring rhetoric. Maybe there is a connection.

As for free speech, once again I guess we never hear any voices critical of the President. He sure has managed to silence all the critics. I wonder how all that silence gets to be so loud.

Also, with all due respect, I am sure you are sincere. You make some good points. But your words show why liberals are unreliable on security.

Not all Democrats believe as you do, so I am not saying we cannot trust all Democrats on security. But we cannot play poker by showing all the cards to our opponent.

Posted by: Jack at February 9, 2006 8:35 PM
Comment #122942

This is today’s American Army at it’s best…?

From the Beleive it or Not Column:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/08/soldier.payment/index.html

Hurt soldier billed for gear to be repaid
Lieutenant shelled out $650 to gain discharge after injury in Iraq

From Larry Shaughnessy
CNN

Wednesday, February 8, 2006; Posted: 9:52 p.m. EST (02:52 GMT)


First Lt. William “Eddie” Rebrook takes cover during an August 2004 battle in Najaf, Iraq.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A former Army soldier will be reimbursed after he was required to pay for his equipment when he was wounded in Iraq, a military spokesman said Wednesday.

First Lt. William “Eddie” Rebrook was discharged for medical reasons last week after being injured in Iraq, and the Army said Wednesday he paid about $650 for 18 items that he was issued before going to Iraq.

“Whether procedures weren’t followed or the system failed him is currently under investigation,” said a written statement issued by a spokesman at Fort Hood in Texas. “What is clear is that this command is going to do the right thing by Lieutenant Rebrook, who is one of our nation’s proud veterans.”

The statement also said, “There is no question that [Rebrook] should not have to pay for the body armor of his that was destroyed in Iraq.”

But that development came after the matter garnered national attention Tuesday when a West Virginia newspaper reported Rebrook’s story.

The newspaper account prompted Sen. Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, to question top military leaders, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

“How can it be that the Army is charging wounded soldiers for replacing damaged body armor?” he asked.

Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the top Army officer, promised to look into the matter.

“We certainly have procedures that account for matter loss, and I just find it a highly unusual story,” he said.

The Charleston Gazette reported that Rebrook paid the Army for his outer tactical vest, which the newspaper called “body armor.” Rebrook told the newspaper he didn’t know what happened to the bloody vest because it had been removed when he was wounded.

On Wednesday, the Army said Rebrook would not have been asked to pay the money if he had filled out two required forms.

Those comments drew an angry rebuke from Rebrook’s father, Edward Rebrook of Charleston, West Virginia.

“That is a lie,” the soldier’s father told CNN. “It’s a case of CYA by the Army.”

William Rebrook was told the 18 items were missing and that he could pay for them or fill out two forms saying that the equipment had been lost, damaged or destroyed in combat.

However, Edward Rebrook said his son would have had to stay in the Army, continue to live on base at Fort Hood and wait possibly weeks while those forms were processed. Instead, he chose to pay cash for the missing items and get out of the Army.

The Gazette on Wednesday quoted the soldier as dismissing the story as a “bureaucratic snafu.”

“I love the Army,” he told the paper. “I love my soldiers. I loved being in it.”

Hours after the initial story was published, a number of people donated nearly $700 to Rebrook to pay for the gear. Rebrook’s father said that money has been donated to a family whose home was lost during Hurricane Katrina.

Meanwhile, the Web site Americablog ran the story and claimed to have raised nearly $6,000 for the soldier. The father said the family members had not received any money from Americablog, but that if they get it, they will donate it to a soldier’s support group.

A Pentagon source said the reimbursement check should be sent to Rebrook “in a matter of days.”

Posted by: Linda H. at February 9, 2006 8:43 PM
Comment #122944

“why liberals are unreliable on security.”

So, your saying that any pu_sy that pines about the Constitution and freedoms has no idea what’s required of us Americans to stay SAFE! (bbaaaa baaa baa abbbaa)

Come on - please try to make the argument without the ‘they did it too argument.’ And, as far I know, neither of your listed Presidents (Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt) were breaking the 1973 FISA law. Also, when you have to track down and actually physically determine who is saying what to whom, you’ll be more likely to spy on actual enemies. No one here is arguing the idea of whether we should be listening in on the conversaations of known terrorists. We’re saying to do it under the existing laws.

Also, each year since the Iraqi invasion, the number of terror attacks worldwide has gone through the roof - with each consecutive year breaking the record. At the same time, this administration recieved a D- from the 9/11 commission.

Wheeew. You REPs set the bar high, don’t ya?!

Posted by: tony at February 9, 2006 8:46 PM
Comment #122958

“Also, each year since the Iraqi invasion, the number of terror attacks worldwide has gone through the roof - with each consecutive year breaking the record. At the same time, this administration recieved a D- from the 9/11 commission.”

My question: how do we lower the amount of terrorist attacks? What could we possibly do to appease the terrorists?

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at February 9, 2006 9:20 PM
Comment #122984

Jack,

I am trying to understand why insisting on the following demonstrates “why liberals are unreliable on security”:

1. Requiring companies that manufacture, store, or transport chemicals that can be turned into weapons of mass destruction to secure their facilities as fast as possible even if it means impacting executive bonuses.

2. Expecting a commander-in-chief worthy of the name to put the security of bridges, tunnels, trains, seaports, hospitals, dams, power plants and every other component of our infrastructure before tax cuts for people who don’t need them.

3. Expecting supporters of warrantless wiretaps to explain why a law that doesn’t actually tie the president’s hands for a microsecond still has to be violated.

4. Being willing to pay more in taxes if that is what it takes to fund national security.

5. Demanding that Federal Emergency Management be staffed from top to bottom by competent professionals.

6. Demanding the rebuilding of a public health system that could never withstand a biological or chemical attack.

7. Being willing to kick in with our own taxes and our own time to serve our country.

Also, please tell me how supporting a president who has sneered at all of the above makes you reliable.

Posted by: Robert Benjamin at February 9, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #122985

Tony

You really didn’t dispute anything I wrote and I don’t really dispute you. We see things the same way, but draw different conclusions.

You say I should not compare. That is all we have is comparisons. How tall are you? I really don’t need the answer, but whether you are considered tall, short or average is all a matter of comparison. You can’t say that a six foot tall man is short because you believe that people should grow to be ten feet tall.

I also am not using the “they did it too argument” as an excuse. I am using the they did it too to show that it was and is the right thing to do.

Finally, you are right about the laws of the 1970s. The 1970s were a real slum of a decade. Not much good came out of them.

And if someone things what Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt was over the top, I figure it makes him unreliable in security terms.

BTW, I can respect pacifists without wanted them to run security. Nice as they are, we don’t want practicing Quakers and Amish fighting the war on terror.

And if we are talking terrorist attacks in the U.S., the record looks good so far.

Posted by: Jack at February 9, 2006 10:28 PM
Comment #122988

Robert

I tried to be nuanced. But in reading what Paul wrote, I kept on thinking of the lines from Henry V. “he which hath no stomach to this fight, let him depart.” I am not accusing anyone of moral turpitude or bad intentions. But some personality types are unsuited to some sorts of tasks.

I know there are lots of things I just can’t do, even things I think are good or useful. The other quote that comes to mind is Dirty Harry, “a man has to know his limitations.”

Posted by: Jack at February 9, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #123001

“Secrets are sometimes necessary, at least until the fighting is over.

Posted by: John Back at February 9, 2006 08:16 PM”

John Back,
I don’t think anyone’s disputed the need for secrecy. But I’m not aware of even one single instance where a member of the FISA court has “leaked” any information. It is a very secretive court.

So, simply going to the FISA court would eleviate any fear of the secret spying being used for an improper purpose, such as to gain unfair political advantage.

I seriously doubt that there would have been much resistance to making some changes. For example changing the 3 day limit before obtaining a warrant to 5 days or more if there were a large caseload. It’s simply the matter of no oversight whatever that’s troubling.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 9, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #123006

The liberal line of reasoning is somewhat slippery, perhaps because it’s not based on the real world.

In the liberal world, would-be violent terrorists (it’s not their fault, they’ve been oppressed by capitalism) become peaceful, world citizens when American patriots display their full array of civil liberties. For instance, imagine how suicide bombers will quake in their boots as America’s new super soldiers fearlessly call their cousins in England, confident that no nasty neo-con will eavesdrop in on the details of Aunt Liz’s operation. Thank God I’m American! I too can be protected by unsupervised computers in public libraries. Who needs bombs when you can borrow “Valley of the Dolls” 28 times and no one will ever know (not without a court order, by damn!)?

In the real world, the reason domestic terrorism is not occurring now is that we returned aggression for aggression, and then some. The Bush doctrine is actively managing the nation’s security, not apologetically withdrawing from the world stage.

Furthermore, this doctrine includes provisions to bring democracy and security to other people who live under truly repressive regimes. The liberal view often suggests that other people aren’t sophiticated enough to enjoy and maintain societies characterised by liberty and freedom. Despite free elections in Afganistan and Iraq, the liberal fall back is to predict the ultimate failure of the democratic process in the Middle East.

Perhaps, instead of perpetually chewing on a laundry list of civil liberties that they might, potentially lose sometime in the future, the new American patriot, the liberal, could be supportive of actual efforts to reduce the threat from terrorism.

That’s my suggestion, I’m sure some will think it’s a baaaaaaaad idea.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 9, 2006 11:29 PM
Comment #123007

Whether or not you intended to be nuanced in your comments, you made the same accusation that right-wingers have been making against their enemies - and that I certainly am - for over three quarters of a century: only they are serious aboout national security and anyone who disagrees with them on strategy rather than goals is soft, on Communism then, on terrorists now.

It was the “tough on communism” foreign policy of the Right that destroyed an actual working parliamentary system in Iran in 1953, sowing the seeds of hatred for America for decades to come. It was the foreign policy of the Right, not of liberals, that made radical anti-Americanism seem rational to otherwise intelligent people in Bolivia, Venezuela, Argentina, Nicaragua and Cuba.

The Right has a lot more to answer for on this issue than we ever have or ever will.

Posted by: Robert Benjamin at February 9, 2006 11:30 PM
Comment #123011

It was also the “Tough on Communism” policy that brought the U.S.S.R to its knees and ended the cold war. Perhaps we should embrace the liberal stance on national security and just give our enemies whatever they want. We could aid in the destruction of Israel, force all of our women into cruel submission and force all Americans to convert to Islam. But wait, wouldn’t that put an end to all things liberal?

Posted by: Duano at February 10, 2006 12:10 AM
Comment #123013
Perhaps, instead of perpetually chewing on a laundry list of civil liberties that they might, potentially lose sometime in the future, the new American patriot, the liberal, could be supportive of actual efforts to reduce the threat from terrorism.

That’s my suggestion, I’m sure some will think it’s a baaaaaaaad idea.

Umm, yeah, like the Founding Fathers.
Read the Constitution. The bulk of it deals with limiting the authority of the government to do things to its citizens. For the record, spying on anyone in the U.S. is one of those things you can’t do without a warrant. Period. You want to change that (or anything else about the Constitution) you need (wait for it…) an amendment. Not a law. Not a directive. Not a presidential order. And let’s not get into wartime powers — the Youngstown decision makes it clear that when Congress considers and rejects the power, it is at its weakest.
On the other hand, I’d be willing to trade you amendments…let’s say I give up the fourth, and all the NRA wingnuts give up the second? That work for you? Now who’s losing civil liberties?
Oh, nice try coining a phrase: “new American patriot”. Next you’ll be talking about a “new Bill of Rights”…it’s a real short read, without big words! Yay!
No one that advocates abridging the Constitution is a patriot, by any definition of the word. Defending the Constitution is the first and last duty of a Patriot. I’m defending my Constitutionally granted rights, and you’re advocating taking them away without due process. I choose liberty over absolute security, as did the Founding Fathers. You choose something else — but do not call it patriotism.

Posted by: T. Jefferson at February 10, 2006 12:11 AM
Comment #123024

The fourth amendment prohibit “unreasonable searches and seizures” Key word is UNREASONABLE! If someone is planning to slaughter thousands of innocent people, and the government uses wiretaps to prevent it, I think that falls quite a few yards short of unreasonable. The phone #’s the government chooses to wiretap are not just picked at random. They get them from cell phones and laptops of detained terrorists caught overseas. If your are on Osama’s speed dial, then maybe you should be worried about the gov’t listening in on you. For all the rest of us non-terrorists, there’s nothing to worry about.

Posted by: Duano at February 10, 2006 12:39 AM
Comment #123027
Perhaps, instead of perpetually chewing on a laundry list of civil liberties that they might, potentially lose sometime in the future, the new American patriot, the liberal, could be supportive of actual efforts to reduce the threat from terrorism.

That’s my suggestion, I’m sure some will think it’s a baaaaaaaad idea.

Ok, so lets forget about civil liberties, then we can live under a truly repressive regime too! Great idea! I don’t think it is a bad idea to reduce the threat from terrorism, I support it. Please let me know when that starts.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 10, 2006 1:05 AM
Comment #123030


“The phone #’s the government chooses to wiretap are not just picked at random. They get them from cell phones and laptops of detained terrorists caught overseas.
Posted by: Duano at February 10, 2006 12:39 AM “

Duano,
How do you know this? Because Bush say’s so?

Are we all supposed to just trust him blindly? I don’t. I wouldn’t put it past this bunch to use surveilance on DNC headquarters or any of his political foes.

I’m not suggesting we stop spying on terrorists, just do so according to the law by going thru the FISA court. What is the harm in that?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 10, 2006 1:20 AM
Comment #123038

The President may be spying on DNC headquarters because they are probably on Osama’s speed dial. How else do you explain John Murtha’s suggestion that we do exactly what Zarqawi has demanded?

Posted by: Duano at February 10, 2006 2:05 AM
Comment #123075

I don’t understand the right-wing leap to the conclusion that “liberals” don’t want security. That is always present in any response; either on blogs like this, or in the media.
I think that those on the right have hearing problems. They just cannot hear the mantra from the left.
Here it is: “Obey the law”
Is that so hard to understand? We on the left want surveillance of our enemies. We want security. We want to defeat our enemies. We also want our own laws to be obeyed in the process.
I just can’t figure out what is so hard to understand about that. Can someone from the right explain to me why it is necessary to disobey the law of the land in order to do this?

Posted by: Cole at February 10, 2006 5:02 AM
Comment #123091

Duano:The President may be spying on DNC headquarters because they are probably on Osama’s speed dial. How else do you explain John Murtha’s suggestion that we do exactly what Zarqawi has demanded?

I don’t think so spinner.
Quotes from Murtha in WSJ:

I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice: The United States will immediately redeploy—immediately redeploy.

No schedule which can be changed, nothing that’s controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target… .

My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.

The one you are referencing was put forward by Duncan Hunter (R) CA 52. The whole one sentence proposal said to immediately withdraw all US forces from Iraq. No more, no less. This proposal by a Republican was defeated 403-3.

Here’s your proof House Res 571

Posted by: MyPetGoat at February 10, 2006 6:52 AM
Comment #123096

There is a lot more to the liberal mantra than “obey the law.” From the early 50s, the Right made a habit of robotically supporting any two-bit thug who proclaimed himself anti-Communist. As a result, we went along when local non-Communist reformers were labelled Communist sympathizers. Those who were not imprisoned or killed gave up on reform and turned toward the REAL Commmunists.

The reaction to our support for Somoza? The Sandinistas. The reaction to our support for Batista? Castro. The reaction to our coup against Arbenz, a NON-Communist reformer? A 4-decade civil war that killed over a half-million Guatemalans.

Israel? When the Oslo accords were signed, most Israelis and Palestinians enthusiastically supported them, understanding that each side would have to compromise. But the Christian Right did not, and even celebrated when Yitzhak Rabin was murdered. We became, after Ariel Sharon, the most effective recruiters Hamas and Islamic Jihad could have had.

Also, for those like Duano who persist in the myth that WE brought down Communism, you might want to remember that, by 1980, Soviet Communism was already dying, from a combination of geriatric leadership, decades of ecoonomic failure, and the rise of a new generation of reform minded leaders like Gorbachev. Did Reagan, with the support of Pope John Paul II, help the process? Sure. But without Gorbachev and the others who knew the system was dying from within, the results could, and likely would, have been much more disastrous than they have been.

Posted by: Robert Benjamin at February 10, 2006 7:13 AM
Comment #123124

GKN:

“the new American patriot, the liberal, could be supportive of actual efforts to reduce the threat from terrorism.”

This liberal patriot spent 8 years in the army defending America. And yourself?

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 10, 2006 9:23 AM
Comment #123190
REPUBLICANS: Freedoms Detract from Security - we must sacrifice some freedoms to achieve security

DEMOCRATS: Freedoms Enhance Security - we must maintain precious freedoms to achieve security.

Posted by Paul Siegel at February 9, 2006 07:31 PM


Good job Paul. It’s short, simple, understandable (at least to an IQ >= 95). Get it down to 15 words in one sentence and we can have a mantra that even the sheep can follow.
We don’t need more soup :-) Posted by: Dave at February 10, 2006 11:35 AM
Comment #123193

“The President may be spying on DNC headquarters because they are probably on Osama’s speed dial. How else do you explain John Murtha’s suggestion that we do exactly what Zarqawi has demanded?

Posted by: Duano at February 10, 2006 02:05 AM”

Duano,
I’ll bet any one of these veterans running for Congress as Democrats would be glad to hear that they may be on Osama’s speed dial:
http://www.bandofbrothers2006.org/candidates/

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 10, 2006 11:40 AM
Comment #123214


“If I step in the ring and I see fear in my opponent’s eyes, I know I already won the fight.”
“That’s why I try te scare my opponent before the fight.” Mike Tyson

Fear is a tool used by many to rise to power.
This administration uses fear to cover their mistakes, to take away our rights, to silence their detractors, to ignore the wishes of the people, to distract us from their corruption and to hide behind closed doors.
Bush sucks.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at February 10, 2006 12:04 PM
Comment #123219

It was the “tough on communism” policies that had us arm and train the Taliban and Al Queada including Bin Laden. They were used to mask the imperialism that has left us with so many enemies all over the world. The same thing is now happening now only it is being call anti-terrorism. The militarist are still out of control and are more dangerious than Al Queada could ever hope to be.No? Far more people have been killed in this stupid Iraq adventure than 9/11. To quote Joseph Heller in Catch-22,”the enemy is whoever is trying to get you killed”.

Posted by: Bill at February 10, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #123313

Robert

Oslo crashed on the rock of Arafat. Arafat and peace were not compatible. We Americans, right, left or center, are not responsible for that.

It is funny that your American narcissism doesn’t spread evenly. You hold the U.S. responsible for Castro, the Iranian Revolution or the Sandinistas, but only give partial credit for the fall of Communism. All these things have multiple causes. But if you blame us for negative outcomes during the fight against communism, you may as well credit us with fighting communism.

Everybody claims to have predicted the fall of the Soviet Empire, but as far as I know only two public figures really did: Ronald Reagan and Daniel Moynihan. Everybody else is lying. Read the analysis actually from the 1980s. The right feared communism would last forever and the left hoped it would and evolve. Beyond that, had the peace movements succeeded in the early 1980s, it is possible the evil empire would not have fallen. The history was not decided yet in 1980. You only think so now because you are looking backward. Different decisions would have yielded different results.

Re Iran - the supposed cause and effect are separated in time by more than a quarter century. The Shah didn’t always do what we wanted during those intervening times, and there is a spirited argument about whether Carter’s weak hand led to the bad result.

Re Sandinistas - Jimmy Carter initially supported the Sandinistas and we gave them aid. They moved left before we opposed them, not after. The arrow of causality goes the other direction.

Re Castro - One caudillo replaced another. The old fart will die soon and I will open a bottle of champagne. Maybe the future will be better than the past.

Posted by: Jack at February 10, 2006 3:15 PM
Comment #123332

Which is more of a stretch? Saying that the President has the authority to surveil our enemies’ phone calls, citing his job description during wartime in the Constitution, or saying that a woman has a Constitutional right to end the life of her unborn child, citing a “right to privacy”, which is found nowhere in the sacred document? I give up. Let’s implement the liberal strategy of giving the same rights to the people who want to kill us as we do our own citizens. Everything bad that has happened since 1776 is America’s fault, isn’t it? The Mike Tyson quote was particularly enlightening, since it seems the left fears the terrorists a lot more than they fear the President. They fight G.W. at every turn, yet are willing to cave in to Zarqawi’s demands. As Tyson would put it, the terrorists have already defeated the American left. The Right is Lennox Lewis to their Mike Tyson.

And BTW, the resolution on the house floor was the Republicans calling out the Democrats on immediate withdrawal, a stunt, if you will. The Dems were not able to back up their “tough on freedom” rhetoric, because reelection is far more important than principles.

Posted by: Duano at February 10, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #123403

Jack:

“Also, with all due respect, I am sure you are sincere. You make some good points. But your words show why liberals are unreliable on security.”

This is a myth that has been fostered by Republicans. The greatest liberal of all, FDR, gave the country the greatest security by winning World War II. Then he presented us with Social Security to further our economic security.

Today, liberals are complaining furiously that the Bush administration has taken its eye off the real threat - Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden - with its venture in Iraq. Afghanistan seems to be returning to its previous chaotic condition. Homeland security does not exist, effectively. However, personal freedoms are being shredded in the name of security.

It’s not security the Bushies are seeking. It is power. Power to them is more important than the security of the people.

Liberals do not believe that we can win the fight by reducing our freedoms. We win by attacking our enemies and by reducing the animus against the U.S.

Our freedoms make us strong and eager to destroy anyone who would take them away from us.

Yes, yes, we all want to live. But what is the point of fighting for our lives if we must live them as slaves? Let’s maintain our freedoms while we fight.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at February 10, 2006 7:18 PM
Comment #123412

Paul

Franklin Roosevelt intercepted all communications he could coming into the U.S. Franklin Roosevelt got us into a real war with the Germans even before Pearl Harbor. Franklin Roosevelt mislead the American people about lend-lease and about his cash and carry policy. For all those things I thank and admire him. I have also praised Truman. Ronald Reagan was a Democrat is those days. The trouble is that you guys changed during the 1960s and 1970s.

So be like FDR or Truman and we won’t have any trouble with liberal unreliability.

Posted by: Jack at February 10, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #123413

Terrorism has become a dramatic event for Americans since 9-11, but prior to that, it was seen as the problem for everyone else in the world (people! terrorism has been there and is there). If Bill Clinton were to had followed the same prescription as GW after Oklahoma City, no one would have followed it! While Nationalism is great for politics, it is dangerous for the people of a nation because it acts on reaction and emmotion rather than facts and sustainability.
If one is to talk about freedom, the Constitution provides that. No one or nothing is above it! PERIOD! Washington, Lincoln, and so on, were not engaged in the similiar tactics of GW. Interception of information were mostly written in paper, except for a few telegraphs! Not telephone calls, e-mails, or from type of books being taken out of the library to private citizens! The 1973 FISA law was made to protect the public from abuse of power as it was done prior to it. Laws are made to correct prior conducts, not to prevent!
Enough with the rambling…. one has to ask, if one is to be as protected as the neo-cons want us to be then: stop all trades(become self depended (including oil, food, investments)), increase the military (Draft), Stop all diplomacy (somewhat already done), spy on every American (democracy and speech is a threat to gov’t (the monarchs of Europe found that out the hard way)), and finally why just not admit to a Police State (book “1984”)? While education, employment, health, and poverty has become in dire need of attention, the Administration has done a wonderful job of shifting attention (APPLAUDS). Yes, million of jobs are being created! But the service, manufacturing, and technology jobs are going oversees, which leaves us with? The new jobs are much likely to have have low sustainable wages and benefits compared to those of 15, 20, 30 and 50 years back. One has to look at the less 20% of Americans that can afford to buy a home and afford the cost of running it today. What about the 80% who can’t? What about free education and healthcare? Is greed more important, than paying a few dollars more in taxes or keeping the better jobs here?
The rheotoric of nationalism can only be taken too far, before someone decides to pull the plug on freedom.

Posted by: Authur K. Johan at February 10, 2006 8:18 PM
Comment #123416

FDR and Truman both believed that fascist and fascism needed to be stamped out by any means necessary. You will find that many on the left could not agree more.

Posted by: Bill at February 10, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #123463

It seems unlikely that the United States will be conquered by invading hoards of radical muslims.

The only way we can lose our freedom is to give it away.

We are in more danger from within than without.

Posted by: Arm Hayseed at February 11, 2006 12:01 AM
Comment #123482

Jack, but there was no FISA law for FDR or Truman to observe, was there. Hence, they didn’t break the law. Bush did, and is still doing it, all the while saying the law does not apply to him. George Orwell and Aldous Huxley had a lot to say about those who are more equal than others.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 11, 2006 1:05 AM
Comment #123502

“Furthermore, this doctrine includes provisions to bring democracy and security to other people who live under truly repressive regimes. The liberal view often suggests that other people aren’t sophiticated enough to enjoy and maintain societies characterised by liberty and freedom. Despite free elections in Afganistan and Iraq, the liberal fall back is to predict the ultimate failure of the democratic process in the Middle East.”

Modern day Iraq is nothing like the 18th century American colonies, which was founded on the principles of the enlightement. Americans understand all about the philosophy behind things like civil rights and the separation of church and state, and it had leaders ready to create the government, i.e. Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Washington, etc.

I’m not saying Iraq and the rest of the Middle East can’t be democratic, however Bush’s idea of forcing democracy on them doesn’t work. If the people don’t want or understand an American-style democratic government, you can’t just invade and destroy their current regime and hope to replace it from a top-down approach.

Posted by: John at February 11, 2006 2:07 AM
Comment #123533

‘Modern day Iraq is nothing like the 18th century American colonies, which was founded on the principles of the enlightement. Americans understand all about the philosophy behind things like civil rights and the separation of church and state, and it had leaders ready to create the government, i.e. Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Washington, etc.”

“I’m not saying Iraq and the rest of the Middle East can’t be democratic, however Bush’s idea of forcing democracy on them doesn’t work. If the people don’t want or understand an American-style democratic government, you can’t just invade and destroy their current regime and hope to replace it from a top-down approach.”
Posted by: John at February 11, 2006 02:07 AM

John:

I appreciate your comments. I agree that there are substantial differences between the mindsets of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the United States. I suggest that the governments established by free election is all three countries would also have differences. That is already apparant from the proportional coalitional governments established in Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither country is operating on a two party system That doesn’t mean that their governmental forms won’t work for them, given time.

I would take issue with your characterization of America’s first voting base. Yes, there were leaders who were enlightened to various degrees, but less than half of the citizens were allowed to vote. And concepts that are basic to modern American society were unthought of then. But, our governmental form came to work for us, given time.

Iraq, more than Afghanistan in my opinion, has a strong potential for establishing a functional democratic system due to the presence of a significant middle class, the backbone of democracy. But Afghanistan has made a good start and with support will become a stable democracy.

As I see tt, the Bush doctrine does not seek to create little Americas across the globe, rather the goal is to facilitate the democratic expression of a nation’s character.

I think it’s a worthy goal. It won’t work everywhere immediately, but people strive for freedom and as economic development lifts the crushing weight of poverty from the Middle East, more countries will find their citizens clamoring for freedom. America should be there to help them.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 11, 2006 5:18 AM
Comment #123548

I have noticed an interesting pattern of thought processes in the right-wing postings on this board. First, a highly selective reading of history, especially with regard to the long-term results of our past actions to control “troublesome” peoples. For example, the lack of understanding of how our overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953 led to the rise of Khomeinism, and the belief that Yasser Arafat alone was responsible for the failure of the Oso Accords, with no helo from Ariel Sharon or the Settler Movement.

In 1999, the Cato Institute (libertarian conservative, but not right-wing, in my view) published an essay by David Isenberg called The Pitfalls of U.S. Covert Operations. If you cannot refute the main points that Isenberg makes in this essay with legitimate facts, but still believe that they cannot be true, enough said.

Second, if you cannot refute facts that call into question the validity of a piece of right-wing dogma with legitimate facts of your own, shout “LIBBERRAALLL!!!” (or the HTML equivalent) and try to turn the discussion away from one you cannot win on the facts. Unfortunately, we take the bait too often.

Posted by: Robert Benjamin at February 11, 2006 7:14 AM
Comment #123549

Just spotted two typos in my posting (I hate those). Here is the correct text:

For example, the lack of understanding of how our overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953 led to the rise of Khomeinism, and the belief that Yasser Arafat alone was responsible for the failure of the Oslo Accords, with no help from Ariel Sharon or the Settler Movement.

Sorry for that.

Posted by: Robert Benjamin at February 11, 2006 7:17 AM
Comment #123597

David

Thank God there was no FISA and the exaggerated privacy establishment during World War II. You are reaching on this one. Are you saying that Roosevelt was right to intercept the communications? If you think he was right to do it, maybe the interpretation of FISA is wrong if it prevent the current president from doing the same.

Robert

Things like the overthrow or Mossedegh or Arafat make a difference, but they are part of a larger fabric with no clear stimulus and response.

Bad things happen to all the time. Some things we think are bad at the time turn out good and the reverse. Unfortunately, the Middle East is generally messed up. Other countries in other regions have recovered from much worse. Think of the case of Chile, S Korea, Malaysia.

TO the extent that the Iranians blame an incident in 1953 for their current troubles, they are losers. It is a problem for us, but we need not feel guilty for it. We just need to figure out how to deal with it and understand that reason doesn’t work with some people.

Posted by: Jack at February 11, 2006 11:09 AM
Comment #123607

If FISA had existed in 1941, FDR would have been able to intercept German and Japanese messages without any hindrance. He - and we - would have had the additional assurance of knowing he was acting within the law, instead of having to go around it. FISA actually increases a president’s legitimate power to defend the country, rather than, as right-wingers love to say, crippling it. There is simply no way that George Bush or his defenders can prove that obeying FISA hobbles them for a second.

As for the Iranians being losers for not getting over an incident that happened in 1953, here is the reality. As a result of the coup that restored the Shah, he, with our support set up a secret police force called SAVAK, that forcibly suppressed any dissent, democratic or otherwise, until he was overthrown.

SAVAK’s methods included torture, disappearances, and murder or political opponents in Iran and elsewhere. Ayatollah Khomeini’s son was one of SAVAK’s victims, and one of Khomeini’s associates from that time recalled that the death of his son killed any sense of softness, kindness or mercy in Khomeini himself.

One of his reactions was to develop his own ideology of theocratic totalitarianism, unknown in Shia Islam until then, but ruling Iran to this day. Another was to link the United States to the crimes of SAVAK, and easy link to make since the CIA had close ties to SAVAK from 1953 on.

If, after what you dismiss as an “incident in 1953” Iranians had been able to go on with their lives without the shadow of SAVAK - and our support for the Shah - hanging over them, the world would have been far different. Instead, their masters reminded them every day for 26 years what they had lost at our hands.

That, by the way, was the reason that so many NON-fundamentalists, such as Bakhtiar, supported Khomeini at first. They saw no other alternative, certainly not one offered by an American government that preached democracy but reflexively supported tyranny.

As for the comment “Bad things happen to all the time. Some things we think are bad at the time turn out good and the reverse”, this is another example of right-wing thought processes. The right habitually dismisses as insignificant, or as “Well, you win some and you lose some” the most disastrous policy choices driven by delusional ideologies, while magnifying or inventing mistakes of their opponents.

The failure of those on the right to understand - or the determination to deny at any cost - the long-term global consequences of the actions and policies they support has done immense damage to our own country, and it will take a long time to undo it, if we ever can.

Posted by: Robert Benjamin at February 11, 2006 12:03 PM
Comment #123635

Robert

It is just realistic to know you can’t predict the future, that the things you want cost and that you can’t produce ideal outcomes.

What I don’t like about interpretions of history is to take the good things achieved, assume those are the natural events, and then criticize everything else with the benefit of hindsight.

During the Cold War, we made compromises that I didn’t like. Some were mistakes. Some were nasty but not mistakes. Some were not mistakes that turned out badly, and some were mistakes that turned out well.

The issue of cause and effect is hard to figure. Sometimes cause and effect are nearly simultaneous.

But it is not the case that the U.S. is the actor and others are merely passive victims. The Shah pursued policies that he thought were pro-Iranian (or at least pro-Shah). He didn’t always cut the U.S. any breaks and we did not always support him. The Shah tried to use the U.S.; the U.S. tried to use the Shah. The Soviets worked to subvert the whole show. Islamists waited for their openings.

You also need to look at the totality of the polices post war. In 1945, the situation for freedom looked very grim indeed. There was no reason to believe Europe would not again descent into dicatorship and economic depression, or that communism would spread to the Atlantic. I have no doubt that had the communists triumphed it would have remained a grim and poor world. Harry Truman understood the stakes, so did Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan. We can look back on this period and see compromise and problem. Or we can compare the world of 1945 to that of 2006 see realty.

Posted by: Jack at February 11, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #123731

The biggest problem with the republican approach to national security is that it makes our country more like the enemies that we’re fighting as a nation. In this case, al qaeda could claim victory since it would break us of our fundamental freedoms and civil liberites. Yes, there are people out in the world who would like nothing more than the absolute destruction of our nation, but more importantly, we need to fight this menace while retaining our liberties as a people which makes us unique on the world theatre. Another important point I need to make here is that the nazis used the fear card (doom and gloom) in order to fool the German people into compliance. The current republican leadership is using the same tatic to try and fool the American people into submission. Does our President remember the words of Patrick Henery, “Give me liberty or give me death!”? Does he care? I think not.

Posted by: Michael Ajitsingh at February 11, 2006 7:58 PM
Comment #123941

Some food for thought from some respectable people…

* “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms , it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
- Abraham Lincoln
16th President of the United States

* “If tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
- James Madison
4th President of the United States

* “It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from it’s government.”
- Thomas Payne
Founding Father of the United States
and advocate of Political Liberalism

* “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.”
- Sinclair Lewis
First American to win the
Nobel Prize in Literature

* “We cannot defend freedom by deserting it at home.”
-Edward R. Murrow
American Journalist

* “Up cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.”
- Albert Einstein
Theoretical Physicist and author
of the Theory of Relativity

* “You measure democracy by the freedom it gives it’s dissidents, not the freedom it gives it’s assimilated conformists.”
- Abbie Hoffman
Anti-war activist and co-founder of
the Youth International Party

Now for my thoughts…

How can we ignore what is happening in our country?
* Free speech, if it opposes the President, is considered “unpatriotic.”
* We have, in my opinion, unwarranted spying on American citizens.
* American’s civil rights are being violated.
* American citizens and taxpayers are being lied to.
* We’ve spent $1080 on average per taxpayer in the country on the war in Iraq. A total of $322 Billon, but we have American’s that are homeless and starving and don’t have healthcare.
* America has become, in the eyes of much of the rest of the world, morally bankrupt. USA Today

So I ask this… What good is a “Strong Leader,” i.e. President Bush, if he’s leading the country in the WRONG direction?

Political parties aside, this is about the USA and what is best for OUR country! Can you truly say that the direction we are headed is prosperity? Take your Political hats off and think about the country as a whole… Is this where we want the USA to be? How we want the USA to be seen by the world?

If you can truly answer yes, then more power to you. But if you said no, then speak up… In forums such as this one, let your senators and house representatives know what you think and please make sure you VOTE! Let’s not just complain about our situation, let’s do something about it!

I’m a liberal… That means I love freedom!

Posted by: Elise Fisher at February 12, 2006 3:20 PM
Comment #124019

Terrific post Elise and I agree wholeheartily.

I just do not understand, regardless of political affiliation, how someone can defend and defend and defend what a leader is doing, regardless if it is wrong, because that is they party they subscibe to. I am not against Republicans, never have been. I disagree with their ideas is all, and thats alright. What I am against is this particular Republican, although I don’t really see him or his administration as Republican. Many of his ideas are far beyond the Republican spectrum and border, if not are, Fascist actions.

Its not about a person being wrong about who they voted for, because who cares. Its about what the person they voted for ends up doing. If it is wrong, as this one is, speak up and say so! Get another Republican in office that will represent your ideals without the corruption. It’s ok to not like the person you voted for, or the person representing your party. You are not obligated to defend him on the basis of your political sway. Same goes for all parties. I bet there are millions of Republicans that deep down, yet the wont admit, will be very happy to see this one go. I think they voted for, and defend, what was their only choice. I for one voted for Kerry and let me tell you, ewwww. I did not like him, not at all. I was hoping however that he would lead better than the current. If he didn’t, or I didn’t like the actions he had imposed, I would be complaining also, not defending everything that is not only not worth defending, but most are impossible to defend.

I find it hard to believe, in a nation as large and as smart as it is, that these people are out “Best and Brightest.” I just can’t understand why we can’t do better. We really need to figure out how to find the good ones, Republican, Democrat, or anything else.

Hope there’s no typos… not reading it over lol

Posted by: Kc at February 12, 2006 9:09 PM
Comment #124037

Kc,

Good post. I often refer to myself as a Republican-in-Exile, since I have always believed in the principles of Liberal Republicanism. I saw the Republican Party taken over from 1964 on by pseudo-conservatives, an alliance of Midwestern, Southwesterm and California right-wingers, reinforced by unrepentant segregationist Democrats who joined the party in reaction to the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.

RINOs like Susan Collins, Christine Todd Whitman, Christopher Shays, Richard Riordan, and the ultimate RINO, Mike Bloomberg, delude themselves that they can reclaim the national Republican Party from within. At the state and local level, political dynamics have made it possible for liberal and moderate Republicans (such as my NJ State Assesblyman) to survive and even thrive. But at the national level, the party has become almost beyond reform.

Those like me who have become Democrats have done so because we feel a higher loyalty to our principles than we do to any party. I am a Democrat because the Republican Party has abandoned every progressive moral and ethical value that had once been part of its “big tent” -and the Democrats have embraced those same values.

Posted by: Robert Benjamin at February 12, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #124077

Jack, the point you miss is that FDR had neither the time nor inclination to abuse wiretapping power for political gain and purpose. The discovery of Nixon’s use of this power in that manner, made FISA a necessary check on the power of the President to surveil Americans.

FISA in no way impedes the legitimate exercise of the President’s authority to spy on those with links to our enemies. What it does impede, is the use of that power for any other purposes. Which begs the question, who else was the President spying on who had no links whatsoever to anyone related to al-Queda or terrorists, and for what purpose? Bypassing FISA makes sense only if the President was spying on those he shouldn’t have been under the law.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 13, 2006 12:41 AM
Comment #124589

David

Nobody serious has acussed Bush of wiretapping for politcal gain. Like Roosevelt, he is trying to protect the country. Like Roosevelt, he will and has made some mistakes.

If you watched the Sunday news programs, or read the weekend opinion pieces, you know that leading Dems are breaking off their attack. It will remain an issue in the blogs for a while, but those who are in a position to know, know this is a dry well.

They all want to make sure the President can protect the country.

Posted by: Jack at February 13, 2006 11:02 PM
Comment #125580

Just to comment on a few blog remarks, I find it absurd anyone could possibly compare FDR and George Bush. Has no one out there noticed Repulican spin,cronyism,elitism and a blantant disregard by this Republican administration for middle class America and the poor and under privileged? Those of us over the age of 45, long remember the fear of the KGB in the Soviet Union. Without our checks and balance system, how then will we be different?

Mr. Siegel has addressed this administration’s potentially serious infringment of Amendment 5,a guarantee of due process for all citizens,as well as Amendment 4, prohibiting search and seizure absent a warrant. I say, how dare this administration claim executive privlege to suspend or delete our Constitutional rights. I believe Congress should take this matter very seriously.

Posted by: Barbara at February 15, 2006 5:16 PM
Comment #194303

The republicans may have a knack for keeping things under wraps, or wanting national security, but in my personal beliefs, they have the right idea on things… If our government told people everything, we might as well take all security cameras out of banks and let everybody know our social security numbers. Instant access for information right? That’s the goal of the Democratic people right? That our government should tell everybody their plans on secret tactics and whereabouts of highly dangerous criminals, so that we might feel secure at night, knowing the criminal lives right next to us. Because that would be a brilliant idea… Let the people know everything and push our nation into a state of panic. If any democrat was smart, they would go to check out Sun-tsu’s The Art of War. Or at very least the 9/11 commision report. That may explain to some people what we’re doing is what I like to call: The right way.

Posted by: Demosthenes at November 9, 2006 4:10 PM
Comment #203119

Is this website republican or democratic?

Also, is CNN rep. or dem.?
Is FOX NEWS rep. or dem.?

Posted by: edward at January 13, 2007 11:05 PM
Comment #241697

dang all of you liberals are idiots, I’ve been reading this whole thing in disgust. THank GOd we had bush as president or we rpobably would all have been killed by now, nuke, bombed, shot or otherwise.

Posted by: jiim at December 28, 2007 11:28 PM
Comment #247515

The Democrats are a punch of profit driven thugs that want to tare our country apart. If Clinton or Obama (which sounds like Osama I might add) get into office I will flee to Canada before its too late…. God Bless America, and no place else (except Canada if the democrats get in)

Posted by: James Macmanaman at March 10, 2008 10:38 AM
Comment #260284

I think that it’s funny how you pinned the “war on terror” on Bush ….Bush doesn’t have 100% power over anything…This isn’t a dictatorship. Both Democrats and Republicans Decided to go to Iraq and then you bitched about it and pinned it on one guy to make him look like an asshole..Look at fucking Bill Clinton. How many different countries did we invade under that fast talking little fuckers presidency.

Posted by: Spoot at August 29, 2008 11:20 PM
Comment #262357

liberals like to play mind games with words making it sound like something that would work for you but you cant protect without containment~

Posted by: blaccrob~ at September 9, 2008 5:46 PM
Comment #267163

shut up

Posted by: kissmy butt at October 17, 2008 9:05 AM
Comment #267164

you guys should all shut up cuz were all one country and its time to start acting like it
it seems like the presidential candidates are 2 year old slinging mud and geing immature
pull it together!!

Posted by: kissmy butt at October 17, 2008 9:09 AM
Comment #298815

Bush was the worst president we have had thus far.

Posted by: Danielle at April 11, 2010 9:16 PM
Post a comment