Democrats & Liberals Archives

More resignations should follow

Card left and McClellen is leaving. So what! Rove is still in place handling what he needs to fix, the political landscape of the Republican Party. Although he doesn’t have direct influence on policy anymore, he will affect policy; let’s be frank. He should be out and shouldn’t have access to any sensitive information.

There were a few tidbits over the course of the past few days that stuck out.

"Rove gave up his responsibilities as Chief Policy Coordinator, a position he assumed just over a year ago that strengthened his influence over matters ranging from homeland security and domestic policy to the economy and national security." (Metro, April 20, 2006)

Huh? At a time when the Valerie Plame case was handing out subpoena after subpoena. Rove testified time after time again to the grand jury and President Bush, instead of restricting access to someone that isn't just being investigated for the leak, but is at the center of the investigation, decided to promote him (Rove) to handle more sensitive policy matters. What the &*@^%?

Is this the kind of leadership that Americans expect?

How can this ignorant and 'in-your-face' behavior be accepted and applauded by members of the conservative right? Wrong is wrong and given that the ethical compass that this administration uses wasn't just broken, it was throw in a bunker and was used as target practice for the nuclear bunker busters. It's a wonder what some people think. There is no ethical compass in this administration and the American people need to wake up and kick these guys out.

I've called for Bush's resignation and am calling for it again.

As Carl Bernstein wrote recently (link):

"After Nixon's resignation, it was often said that the system had worked. Confronted by an aberrant president, the checks and balances on the executive by the legislative and judicial branches of government, and by a free press, had functioned as the founders had envisioned.
The system has thus far failed during the presidency of George W. Bush - at incalculable cost in human lives, to the American political system, to undertaking an intelligent and effective war against terror, and to the standing of the United States in parts of the world where it previously had been held in the highest regard.
There was understandable reluctance in the Congress to begin a serious investigation of the Nixon presidency. Then there came a time when it was unavoidable. That time in the Bush presidency has arrived"

Although Bernstein is more cautious that I, with regards to the toll on the American government when a President is put through an impeachment process, I feel that American MUST go through this process. America must put this administration on trial and must remove this dictatorship from office.

Posted by john trevisani at April 20, 2006 10:00 AM
Comment #141906
Rove is still in place handling what he needs to fix, the political landscape of the Republican Party. Although he doesn’t have direct influence on policy anymore, he will affect policy;

One of the more astute comments I have every heard about the Bush White House is the everything is politics and nothing is policy. Now it’s true that in any White House you can claim everything is political. But the Bush White House has raised turning everything into politics to a higher level. Just look at the manipulation of 9/11 fears to attack Iraq, the way Katrina was handled, and you get the idea.

Whast this means for Rove is that nothing changes. As long as he still runs politics he has the President’s ear and nothing will change. Policy doesn’t matter in the Bush White House. Only politics

Posted by: Steve K at April 20, 2006 10:24 AM
Comment #141911


I don’t understand your position on Rove. He has been investigated thoroughly by Patrick Fitzgerald, someone who has been highly respected for his abilities. Fitzgerald has declined to charge Rove with anything, while he has charged Lewis Libby with perjury and obstruction of justice.

Many on the left accept the Libby indictments as proof of guilt, and have cheered them. But when the same prosecutor has NOT indicted Rove, the left seems to be unwilling to accept this. Seems a bit hypocritical.

I understand that you don’t like Rove or his method of politics. I’d assume you also don’t like the tremendous success he has had over the past several years in helping the Republicans gain power. But those things are different than indictments.

While I wouldn’t go so far as to suggest that Rove has been cleared of any wrongdoing, he certainly has not been charged with any wrongdoing. So unless we dispense with the notion of innocent until PROVEN guilty (as opposed to the left’s mantra of “We THINK he’s guilty, we don’t like him and besides…he’s a Republican so rule of law doesn’t matter), why on earth would Rove feel the need to resign under duress?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 20, 2006 11:09 AM
Comment #141912

The ice man cometh?Democrats will look back to yesterday as being thier worst nightmare.You dummies had Carl rove were you wanted him a great big target for the liberal media in the white house.Now this political genious will spend all of his time defeating you in November. This shows the weekness of your cant see the tree’s for the forest!Your party is a joke and i would like to be the first to say good riddens to the democrats as a serious party.

Posted by: saying at April 20, 2006 11:18 AM
Comment #141913

saying…….I’m curious. Are you a citizen….? Registered voter here….? You always have quite vitriolic things to say…..hmmm

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 20, 2006 11:26 AM
Comment #141919

Sandra Davidson Yes i am a u.s. citizen and yes i am a registered voter and yes i like it when the enemy has a short attention span this to me is victory.Democrats think one step ahead Bush thinks several steps ahead.This is called a good game plan.Try it sometime.

Posted by: saying at April 20, 2006 12:05 PM
Comment #141921

Sandra Davidson Yes i am a u.s. citizen and yes i am a registered voter and yes i like it when the enemy has a short attention span this to me is victory.Democrats think one step ahead Bush thinks several steps ahead.This is called a good game plan.Try it sometime.


What a goofball. Did you drop out of the third grade? Because your eloquent writing style seems to confirm that.

Voters like you who see your fellow americans as “enemies” scare me more than any terrorist could ever hope.

Posted by: tree hugger at April 20, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #141922

Rove has not been cleared of anything. In fact, if memory serves, Fitzgerald is still reserving judgement. And i believe it was because Rove’s attorney fashioned out some deal for him to wait.

But, at what point do you say, as a boss, that maybe, during the investigation, that you should be benched and not an active member. They do it with Internal Affairs with Police. They take Police that are under investigation off of their current duties all the time. Rove was friggin promoted! If a policeman that was suspected of shaking down merchants was promoted during the investigation; you’d be all up-in-arms. But, i supposed with Bush there’s a different criteria.

Posted by: john trevisani at April 20, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #141924


I’ve counseled in writing many many times that we need as a society to follow the “innocent until proven guilty” credo of our country. There are those on the left who want to discard that credo IFFF a Republican is in the crosshairs. That’s hypocritical.

Fitz has had his chance to bring charges—he has not done so. If he does bring charges, then Rove should be held accountable. But you want him held accountable anyways. That gives a glimpse into your method of thinking. Your initial statement gives you thought process away…. you say that “Rove has not been cleared of anything.”

If you believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, then Rove should not have to be cleared of anything. It should be incumbent on the prosecutor investigating fully and proving him guilty of something.

The questions I’ll ask are these (and I hope you have the fortitude to answer them): Do you believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty? If so, why are you NOT applying it in the case of Karl Rove?

I’m not naive about Rove’s role in the political gameplaying. He’s front and center. Same could be said for a James Carville or whomever you choose on the ‘other’ side. But I will hold to the central concept of our judicial system. The last remaining question is: Will you?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 20, 2006 12:37 PM
Comment #141925

It seems clear it’s CYA time for the neocons in the Yellow House. It’s been leaked that Fitzgerald is nipping at Rove’s shadow and so the Prez [sic] tries to put some distance but Rove moves laterally so he can still do Bush’s thinking for him. If it blows over, it’s business as usual. If the worst happens the Prez can say Rove’s already been disconnected from the Yellow House.

It won’t work. The Yellow House began crumbling a long time ago brick by brick. There’s going to be criminal indictments all the way to the top after the November elections. “Fool me once….”

Posted by: steve lang at April 20, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #141926

Tree hugger You should be scared, voters like me are fed up with talkers like you running down this country every chance you get.It will be a long hot summer and the heat will be focused on your party.Lets see who is dumb come November.

Posted by: saying at April 20, 2006 12:42 PM
Comment #141928

You can’t write, spell or think. You must be from the south, a high school drop out, a Fox News fan and like all non-thinking sheep, a pro-Bush fanatic. Do you have all your teeth? (I tried to keep this entry simple for your tiny, narrow mind).

Posted by: wheredemballs at April 20, 2006 1:29 PM
Comment #141930

wheredemballs -

Please chill on the insults. I can understand the issue with trying to have a discussion with “saying” - but it’s better to ignore than to encourage… also, I think it says more about our party by staying out of the mud.

“Lets see who is dumb come November.” - Now that’s raising the bar to new heights. I’m sure if this is all you expect in November…

“voters like me are fed up with talkers like you running down this country every chance you get.” Why can’t you separate the Bush Administration from our country. No one here is trying of “running down the country” - but if Bush walks out into traffic…

Posted by: tony at April 20, 2006 1:46 PM
Comment #141931

wheredemballs that is the question of the day?

Posted by: saying at April 20, 2006 1:49 PM
Comment #141932

i understand guilty until proven innocent if it applies here.

But just as in many, many, many other industries and fields, there are limited exceptions. Take, for example, the case of a CIA operative that is under investigation for being an alleged double-agent. What do you, as the person in-charge of the suspect (that’s all they are at that time)? Do you keep them in a position where they have access to government secrets that may fall into an enemy’s hands? Or do you reassign them to a desk job while the investigation is on-going?

In many cases that’s exactly what occurs. They reassign the suspect to:
1. show that they’re serious about the investigation and the allegations
2. to potentially protect additional secrets from escaping

With Rove, he signed official documents as condition for his white house position. It was clear that he spoke with reporters and gave out information that was secure and not intended for public consumption. Did the information pertain to the Fitzgerald investigation specifically? That’s the legal question that Fitzgerald is to ask. Did Rove violate the conditions of his employment by devulging sensitive information? Certainly; that is without discussion.

But instead of taking the allegations seriously, Bush promoted him and gave him access to more, sensitive information.

Wrong is wrong.

They all must go.

Posted by: john trevisani at April 20, 2006 1:50 PM
Comment #141934

Tony You might not be aware of this but when you weaken the president of the united states on a daily basis you weaken the united states on a daily basis.All of you very smart individuals cant seem to understand the rest of the world is watching you strip the president of his power.So i beleive that those who do so are unamerican.

Posted by: saying at April 20, 2006 1:58 PM
Comment #141935


Thanks for clarifying your point. I’d disagree that Rove has done anything wrong, much less illegal. Its possible that he has, but I haven’t seen proof of it. All I’ve seen is speculation.

Government officials give out all kinds of information all the time. Its possible that Rove responded to media claims that Wilson was working at the behest of Cheney’s office with information that showed that was not the case. In my opinion, nothing wrong with doing that. It would be naive to think that there were no dirty tricks being played…that’s not what I’m saying. But I AM saying that dirty tricks go on from both sides, and therefore I’ll not condemn one side for playing the same game the other side is playing.

To wit, its easy to see that Dems targeted Tom DeLay and got him. It was political gamesmanship—and DeLay gave them the ammo with which to shoot him. As an aside, if DeLay is found guilty of the accusations, throw the book at him. Repubs during Clinton’s years went after Bill, and got him through political gamesmanship, and Bill also loaded the guns that shot him. (And yes, I do note the phallic nature of the metaphor i used :)

Bottom line is that Rove has been investigated. You say he hasn’t been cleared. I say he hasn’t been charged. The difference is that you want him censured regardless. If we hold to that principle, then all politicians should be on the lookout. (Now that last comment is sure to have David Remer, d.a.n., and the VOID crowd salivating).

john, you’ve also called for Bush’s resignation, despite the absence of any charges against him. Seems to me you simply are playing fast and loose with the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” in order to advocate your position. I won’t do that—-and I didn’t with regard to Clinton. I advocated investigation into his actions, and I’ve advocated investigation into the current administration. Clinton eventually was cornered into an admission of his actions. If they can likewise prove that Bush has done wrong, then they can throw the book at him. But not before. Not in America. Not as long as we hold to our current judicial system.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 20, 2006 2:02 PM
Comment #141937

You’re certainly entitled to feel that way.

However i believe with the founders of our country who thought that dissent wasn’t just a topical discussion point but an extremely important leg on the democracy table. And when you weaken the leg of dissent, the table will fall.

We in America, need checks and balances, not blanket faith.

Posted by: john trevisani at April 20, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #141940

john trevisani thats true if you are fighting for welfare but when lives are put in jeopardy your table doesnt have a leg to stand on!

Posted by: saying at April 20, 2006 2:11 PM
Comment #141941

john trevisani thats true if you are fighting for welfare but when lives are put in jeopardy your table doesnt have a leg to stand on!

Posted by: saying at April 20, 2006 2:12 PM
Comment #141943

“Tony You might not be aware of this but when you weaken the president of the united states on a daily basis you weaken the united states on a daily basis.All of you very smart individuals cant seem to understand the rest of the world is watching you strip the president of his power.So i beleive that those who do so are unamerican.”

We started with an inherently weak President - and his incompetence while in office has weakened our country to new lows. He chose to prematurely attack Iraq on faulty/outright false intellignce and he has created generational hate for the US across most of the world. He has done so while creating profit for his friends and benefactors. THAT is unAmerican… as well as those who blindly support him.

Posted by: tony at April 20, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #141945

“when lives are put into jeopardy”
What are you alluding to: the live of our soldiers in Iraq who died due to a Bush admin. WMD lie, or the Katrina victims or the 9-11 victims whom Bush could have protected if he had listen to the Clinton warnings of Al Qaeda,not to mention the eroding of rights in the USA, vote tampering, redistricting corruption, rampant deficit, all thanks to the corrupt Bush administration. (And I know my fellow Dems don’t want me to mud-sling, but really what is your tatoo to teeth ratio?)

Posted by: wheredemballs at April 20, 2006 2:40 PM
Comment #141946

i think saying should be ignored from now on. It’s pretty likely that it’s someones alternate alias through which nonsensical partisan crap is spewed to derail rational discussion.
saying’s amazing improvement in grammer and sentence structure over the last few posts is truly awe inspiring! did you go to school in the last few hours, or are you trying pathetically to dumb down your own prose?

Posted by: mpc at April 20, 2006 2:42 PM
Comment #141948

I think sayings comments speak loudly for the republican position which is nothing but FUD (fear uncertainty and Doubt). How long are the red states going to buy that load of crap.

Posted by: reed at April 20, 2006 2:55 PM
Comment #141952

“How long are the red states going to buy that load of crap.”

Considering where the heads are at - it probably feels a lot like home.

Posted by: tony at April 20, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #141953

I’m guessing with Rove in charge of the Republican message again the weekly terror alerts will begin around June, just to remind the electorate how “weak” the Dems are on Security.

Posted by: reed at April 20, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #141955

LETS ALL IGNORE saying like we ignore president bush.Im devestated!!

Posted by: saying at April 20, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #141956

did you guys hear something?

Posted by: mpc at April 20, 2006 3:28 PM
Comment #141957

The bottom line is this.
If you want bush gone as bad as most of
the people in this country do my self included

Posted by: patrick at April 20, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #141960

Do not feed the trolls. I know it is hard.

Posted by: BillS at April 20, 2006 3:36 PM
Comment #141976

Rove is obviously bailing because there’s an election coming up, and he is needed to design smear campaigns, character assassinations and mudslinging. It’s what he does best. It’s the only thing he CAN do. He wouldn’tr know a clean campaign if it bit him in his fat ass. If the Repiglicans had to rely on honesty, forthrightness, ethics and concern for Americans and their rights, they couldn’t win ANYTHING!

Posted by: capnmike at April 20, 2006 4:39 PM
Comment #141981

Honesty,forthrightness,ethics the democrats?You sir are funnier than david letterman.

Posted by: troll at April 20, 2006 4:49 PM
Comment #141983

Legal Lesson 101,

Let’s start with Bill Clinton for starters. We all admit that Bill Clinton lied under oath about having a sexual relationship with Monica.
What many have wondered is why wasn’t Clinton tried in a court of law and convicted for Perjury? The answer in legal terms is this; “Perjury is lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law.”
Under our laws in the US, in order for a criminal proceeding to take place for perjury the rule is the defendant must “lie about a material fact that is criminal in nature.” So even though Clinton did lie, he lied about a non criminal (altho unethical) offense. Thus the lie about a blow job from Monica was not criminal, therefor perjury can not be persued in a criminal court. However, Clinton was held accountible by the Bar Association in Arkansas. Again, though not criminally. Like it or not those are the rules of our country. Many on the right have fumed over the fact Clinton never stood criminal trial over this fact.

Now shoot to Bush/Rove/Cheney/Libby. We on the left are going to be very dissapointed when the Plame case is closed. Yes, it is criminal to release the name of a CIA agent under current US Law and Rove, Bush, Cheney and Libby new it. However, they also know that the president can leak the name by simply saying the information is no longer classified. Thus again, like Clinton, thou unethical, not criminal. Thereby, all these guy’s will walk like it or not.

Here is where I would like some help. I am really mad at Bush for this reason, and I have not heard anyone bring it up. If Bush de-classified Plame, thus leaking her name to the press, why did he allow Fitzgerald to do an investigation of a non-criminal legal matter? How much has the Fitzgerald investigation into the leak cost us as tax payers over the past year and a half? If Bush knew in the begining that he was giving permission to Rove, Cheney or Libby to talk to reporters about his incident, why allow the investigation. That means the cost is totally unneccessary. This is what is pissing me off.

Where is the proof from Bush that he declassified the information in regards to Valarie Plame? If he did do this as reported a few weeks back, then the investigation should be over, RIGHT? Oh the games that people play, WITH OUR MONEY!!!

Posted by: Rusty at April 20, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #141985

The activity in DC just reminds me kind of the old shell game. They’re trying to divert our attention while they shuffle the players around so that we might lose track of them. The most visible change that I see is McClellan leaving, and he is just a step-puppet anyway. I believe (hopefully) that they feel their grip on the country loosening, and they’re frantically trying to find something that works. If there wasn’t already so much damage done, it would be almost funny to watch the scramble.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 20, 2006 5:05 PM
Comment #141987


My memory fails me. Why was Bill Clinton brought before the grand jury anyhow? I thought you had to be charged with a crime. Perhaps I am wrong. The point is this. How can you lie under oath for a crime you were never charged with. Was it legal for him to be dragged there in the first place?

I honestly can’t remember why Clinton was dragged before the grand jury to begin with.


Posted by: reed at April 20, 2006 5:06 PM
Comment #141994

As far as I remember - he was being investigated for lying under oath about his relationship with Monaca. He had previously given testimony under oath to Ken Starr.

Posted by: tony at April 20, 2006 5:40 PM
Comment #142002


Posted by: Rocky at April 20, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #142008

Here’s what it was, in it’s entirety:

Bill Clinton was impeached for giving false testimony in a Deposition (not a Trial), in a Civil Case (not a Criminal Case) which was subsequently Summarily Dismissed by the Judge for lack of evidence.

Compared to:

- Conflict Of Interest (Cheney - Stock Options/Halliburton)

- War Profiteering (Cheney - Closed-Door, No-Bid Contracts; Halliburton and Others)

- Violation Of Constitution (Bush - Illegal Wiretapping)

- Treason (Bush/Cheney/Rove/Libby - Valerie Wilson Betrayal)

- Criminal Conspiracy (Bush/Cheney - Lies About WMD’s; Threats Against CIA Analysts; Coverups)

- Criminal Incompetence (Bush/Cheney/Rice - Ignoring Richard Clarke and “Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S.;” Lack Of Response To Katrina Devastation; Failure To Secure Ports, Airports, Etc. After 9/11)

- Malfeasance and Abuse Of Power (Bush/Cheney - Usurpation Of Legislative and Judicial Authority)

and a host of other Crimes too numerous for me to list at this time.

None investigated by the Republican Congress.

Funny, huh?

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 20, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #142022

Betty is correct. Clinton was caught lying in a depesition he gave to Ken Starr. Starr was investigating Clinton for anything the Republican controlled congress thought they could make stick. Starr investigated, Whitewater (Starr admits no evidence to support any wrong doing), File Gate (again no evidence to support charges).
Then when Paula Jones came on the scene and accussed Clinton of Sexual Harrassment, Bam, here comes Ken Starr.
Clinton in the end was charged for perjury by the Republican controlled congress for lying in his deposition as to not having a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinski. Starr later was able to prove Clinton did have a sexual relationship, so congress impeached Clinton for lying in a civil trial about sex.
If I’m Clinton, I wouldn’t hold my head to the sky, however, I would hold it higher than Bush can hold his. Lying about a Blow Job (non-criminal)? Lying aobut WMD’s (2300 plus lives), Valarie Palme and a host of other issues? You be the judge, which is worse?
Even if Bush wasn’t lying and was just wrong about WMD’s, it is the biggest blunder since Vietnam. People need to be held accountible for their actions. The Republicans held Clinton responsible for his, now they should show the same respect and hold Bush to the same standard.

Posted by: Rusty at April 20, 2006 7:50 PM
Comment #142037

Nothing will ever happen to Bush due to the Republican Congress. But in the end when Bush faces the highest power, nothing is going to save him, he will have his day and he will lose. He will find out that he is NOT the almighty.

Posted by: Sherri at April 20, 2006 9:12 PM
Comment #142061

I am sorry that you are all upset that President Bush won twice. None of what “Betty” says can be proved, there is no evidence.
What is evidence, was Pres. Clinton’s - and his co-president, Hillary - willingness to lie to the American people, refuse to defend our country against the coming Islamic threat and hamstringing our military. Lie, cheat, steal - all points to the character of the person.
I feel safer now than I did 10 years ago. We have a president who told the terrorists “enough is enough” and didn’t allow Americans to be killed so we “wouldn’t make a billion Muslims mad” (Madeline Albright). I wouldn’t worry about George W Bush when he meets his maker - Thank God for President Bush!

Posted by: LLE at April 21, 2006 1:01 AM
Comment #142086

“john—However i believe with the founders of our country who thought that dissent wasn’t just a topical discussion point but an extremely important leg on the democracy table. And when you weaken the leg of dissent, the table will fall”

very, very wrong—-dissent, especially all this uninformed, blind dissent and even hatred, well, that’s just dead weight! And so weakening the table.

What we need is informed, constuctive critisism, and then workable alternatives, policy changes made by folks in congress who actually listen to the people{if they don’t, they will hear from us in nov.}

Posted by: charlie wyckoff at April 21, 2006 4:42 AM
Comment #142115


Posted by: WHEREDEMBALLS at April 21, 2006 11:27 AM
Comment #142156


Thank you. Unfortunately I am too “radioactive” even for WatchBlog. I rock the boat; I speak from passion and truth; I am “immoderate.” It will be a cold day in Hades before any of the present lily-livered poltroons let me lambaste the Evil Empire of Conservatism. My ideas are dangerous, don’tchaknow: I can make a very good, well-reasoned case that Conservatism is a Bankrupt Philosophy which actually harms Society, Culture, and The People.

So don’t look for me in any Official position: I am Operating On My Own, using methods which are - “unsound“…

[plays “The End” by the Doors in the background]

We must kill them. We must incinerate them. Liar after Liar, FatCat after FatCat, Lobbyist after Lobbyist, Corporation after Corporation. And they call me an assassin! What do you call it when the Assassins accuse the Assassin? They lie. They lie, and we have to be merciful for those who Lie. Those nabobs. I hate them. How I hate them.”
- Colonel Betty “Heart Of Darkness” Burke

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 21, 2006 3:13 PM
Comment #142449

Tolerance … the lifeblood of compassionate liberalism.

Do these rants serve any purpose but to divide? Is anyone else sickened by the hatred spewed by Ms. Burke in the comment above? All Ms. Burke’s comments are inexplicably rude and many seem to justify violent resistance to anyone who disagrees with her.

We live in a diverse society where everyone is entitled to hold their own opinions. Her universal condemnation of any opinion but her own is arrogant and insulting. Any society based on this sort of belief system would have as its primary characteristic mindnumbing conformity or else. Any opposition would be silenced, perhaps permanently given her predilection for advocating violence if democracy doesn’t yield the desired results.

I don’t hate all democrats or liberal principles. I don’t love all Republicans or conservative principles. Like most people, my personal agenda encompasses some liberal and conservative ideals. Unreasoning prejudice is an ugly thing which hinders the development of a better world.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 23, 2006 5:35 AM
Comment #142630

What on earth are you going on about? Are you totally off your rocker?!?

Oh - do you mean the italicised bit?!


That’s from “Apocalypse Now,” maroon! It’s the tape of Colonel Kurtz played to Captain Willard at his “non-existent briefing.” I put it there as Satire on why I am Too Bold for present mealy-mouthed Democratic Party tastes…

Sheesh! Get a life… Whiner.

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 24, 2006 3:14 AM
Comment #142631

And, oh yeah: as for “advocating violence if democracy doesn’t yield the desired results” - why don’t you read the letters of Thomas Jefferson? Or of Patrick Henry? Talk about “advocating violence” - ! You must really have been in a hole not to know this. Either that or you are just being disengenuous as all hell…

Whichever, it doesn’t speak very well of you.

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 24, 2006 3:18 AM
Comment #142643

Ms. Burke:

I recognized the source. I think it’s interesting that you empathize with a delusional psychopath.

The reason I keep saying that you advocate violence is that you keep advocating it. And I reject your comparison of your bullet box diatribes with the call for revolution by the founding fathers. They fought for the right to elect their leaders. You want the right to reject democratically elected leaders through violence if necessary. The two stances couldn’t be further apart.

Is there some special reason for making every comment you post to me a personal attack? I disagree totally with what you say, but I do not call you names or use insults as filler in my comments.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 24, 2006 5:15 AM
Comment #142884

George Bush? Democratically Elected, you say?!


Oh - oh God - [holds sides] - oh, that’s a good one… I can’t… I can’t stop -


P.S.: Maybe I’d respect you more if you stopped Whining about me like a little boy calling for his mother all the time. I dunno: why don’t you give it a try and we’ll see?

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 25, 2006 6:00 AM
Comment #143199

Yes, the Supreme Court and I do say that George W. Bush was democratically elected. It’s not that surprising that Bush won though, since all he had to beat was Gore, the Bore and Heinz’ lapdog.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 26, 2006 5:24 AM
Comment #143307

Hey i wonder if hillery and bill will bring back the stuff they stole from the white house when bill left office?I wonder if george bush’s staff will destroy computer,s and other white house property when he leave’s like the clinton,s did?I wonder if the clinton,s will ever see the inside of the white house again.

Posted by: saying at April 26, 2006 3:37 PM
Post a comment