Democrats & Liberals Archives

Osama Bin Who? Oh yeah, he did the 9/11 thing.

The President of the United States quotes Osama bin Laden in his recent speeches and compares him to Hitler. He seems so focused on the man who is responsible for the cowardly attack on the United States September 11, 2001.
So why has he ignored the man who is responsible for attacking the World Trade Center in 2001?
Why does bin Laden get a free pass until election time?
When did bin Laden move to Iraq?

I hope every Republican, who is not part of the wealthy elite who benefit from Republican policy, is deeply insulted by the Bush travelling fear monger show. It is so transparent and a slap in the face to every Americans intellectual capacity to understand political trickery.
I can't believe they still think they can trick Republican voters with "Bull S#@t". They can't can they?

He quotes from a letter from bin Laden to Taliban leader Mullah Omar regarding "a media campaign to drive a wedge between the American people and their government"

I'm pretty sure it is the war in Iraq and the use of false intelligence to get us there that's divided the country. Maybe it is his violation of human rights and dismantling of the constitution that's been a dividing factor here at home. Maybe the whole "Good job Brownie" thing. We've always been very united against bin Laden, just not so much on non-existant WMD or fantasy missle loaded ice cream trucks, tax breaks for the rich and maybe the spying on Americans or failing to save a U.S. city during a monsterous disaster or oil and energy policy or the whole "nucular" thing. We are still quite united in regard to finding and executing bin Laden.

He then goes on to quote bin Laden "Death is better than living on this earth with the unbelievers among us." Remember Bush's "Crusade?" Who's the biggest danger to America's future, a person hiding in a cave thousands of miles away or a power mad dumb ass who is the leader of the free world?
If bin Laden is such a religious fanatic maniac who puts America in danger, why not go after him?
I think he is a danger to the U.S., I mean he's not Falwell dangerous but he's up there. Let's take our troops and go after him. Oh, I forgot we're bogged down in that other thing.... the Fight for Iraqi Freedom regime change war on terror coalition of the willing mismanaged quagmire now being called by the president "The third world war in Iraq."

Here's another quote: "Al-Quaida can cause the U.S. economy to collapse by implementing a "bleed-until-bankruptcy plan."

The Bush administration is angry at bin Laden for stealing this idea from Haliburton KBR and the oil and energy companies.

Fear, secrecy, deception and intimidation. These are the most commonly used tactics by this administration. War, waste, U.S. constitution violations, expanding power, wealth disparity and failure are it's legacy.

If he really wants to put bin Laden's face on the war on terror why are we in Iraq? bin Laden's not there.
If he wants us to fear bin Laden why not agressively go after him? Why did we put so much effort getting into Iraq and so little trying to track down those who are responsible for 9/11?
Hopefully Republicans are just as tired of the Bush travelling fear monger show as the rest of us.


Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at September 6, 2006 11:29 AM
Comment #179401

“The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.”
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

“I want justice…There’s an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive,’”
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

“…Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he’s maybe in control of a cave. He’s on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we’re going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that’s what’s happening. He’s on the run, if he’s running at all. So we don’t know whether he’s in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open — we just don’t know….”
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site

“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

“I am truly not that concerned about him.”
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden’s whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

—- flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop….

Posted by: tony at September 6, 2006 2:02 PM
Comment #179408

Why is Bush telling us about GITMO now?
Hmmmm … elections perhaps?
It is all so contrived. Most Americans aren’t buyin’ the spin anymore.

But, in the coming elections, please don’t just not re-elect Republicans. Don’t re-elect (empower) irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians in BOTH parties.

Remember, the real problem is irresponsible incumbent politicians in congress (of both parties) and voters that keep re-electing them.

Congress has a 90% re-election rate. The problem is NOT just one party. Remember, most Democrats (or Demopubs, Republicrats, DINOs, RINOs, whatever) are in lock-step. Most vote on pork-barrel while troops risk life and limb. Most (if not all) look the other way.

If you really want real change, then just do the one simple, logical, common-sense, non-partisan, responsible thing voters were supposed to do all along, always:

  • Stop Repeat Offenders.

  • Don’t Re-Elect Irresponsible, Bought-and-Paid-for Incumbent Politicians !

Good job. Sort of shows the hypocrisy (or stupidity; take your pick) doesn’t it?
Not to mention these 99 blunders.
Still, the one biggest thing I can get over is the lack of WMD, and not even any forensic traces of it.

Therefore, it was either:

  • a lie.

  • Or, massive negligence and incompetence.

Or, a little of both? Either way, it was a mistake. Take your pick.
To now listen to the rationalizing and spin to smooth-over the mistake doesn’t cut it.

I’m also getting sick of the White House trying to spin the economy as good. Good for who?
What the [explicative[ is up with Elaine Chao (Labor Secretary) today?
Is she living on another planet?
On 4-Sep-2006, she says the Census Bureau is wrong and incomes have increased since 2001 ?
For the rich maybe, who got the tax cuts, but median incomes have been falling for 6 years (and that is with more workers per household).
And expenses have been rising (e.g. healthcare, rising cost and declining cost of education), and 99% of the U.S. population is not getting wealthier (i.e. their 60% of all wealth is shrinking; the middle and lower income classes are getting squeezed by unfair taxation, illegal immigration and displaced U.S. workers, overrun hospitals and schools, and politicians and government rubber stamps all of it, and refuses to enforce the laws).

D.C. is living in a bubble, and Elaine Chao is spinning and cherry-picking the data. And they wonder why they are losing credibility.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 6, 2006 2:45 PM
Comment #179413

What concerns me about the Bush administration’s campaign against terrorism is it’s basic lack of imagination. For instance, after hurricane Katrina, one of the most stunning comments ever to come out of Bush’s face was his ascertion that “Noone could have predicted the breaching of the levies protecting New Orleans.” It would be easy to dismiss this statement as the typical throw-off comment of a less-than-mediocre mind. Obviously, the Army Corps of Engineers had been warning of just such a scenario for a long time. So why would the President of the United States make such a specious statement?

In light of this comment, what of nuclear terrorism? What is the administration doing to stay ahead of terrorist strategies to acquire nuclear materials to build a workable weapon, or to steal a functioning one? This link is an involved look at such a terrifiying prospect.

The author’s point that a fundamental, head-in-the-sand denial of such a prospect of nuclear destruction not happening on one hand “because, well, who could have imagined?”, to a fatalistic throw-up-the-hands inevitability on the other, is particularly chilling.

There is no margin for error regarding nuclear terrorism—and when a well-respected defense expert like Sam Nunn states that the liklihood of a terrorist using a nuclear weapon on US soil within the next 5-10 years is greater than the probability we faced of a Soviet first-strike during the Cold War, it’s time to start acting on such warnings.

Iraq is an unpleasant distraction—the only people paying the price of this folly right now are the Iraqis, and the kids in our military. And I guess our grandchildren, who, thanks to Bush subtrafuge, will be stuck with the bill.

If we don’t keep our collective eye on the ball and start sealing our borders, inspecting our ports and shipments, in short, acting like we have a major challenge in front of us—Japan will not be the only nation to have suffered from the horrors of nuclear technology.

We cannot, we must not, lack the imagination to act—and to do it in such a way that individual freedoms and liberties are not compromised. Because once those freedoms are compromised, we will have to fight to get them back. Whether Democratic or Republican, no government willingly gives back what has been freely given; as such, government is much like a two-year-old.

It is a very delicate balance between effective defense against terrorism, and the preservation of human liberty. It has been a struggle throughout the last fifty years. But with the technology now in place, a million people can die in a matter of hours.

Combating such a threat is a 24/7 affair, a ceaseless, grinding, daily and aggressive campaign.It is largely silent, unsung, dirty and ruthless. We can’t cut corners, we can’t kick it down the road, like the national debt.

Can we really afford to have this administration in charge of such an effort? It’s foreign policy measures with a micrometer and marks with a grease pencil. It has Iraq center-stage in the terrorism fight, meanwhile, the back door is wide open.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 6, 2006 3:20 PM
Comment #179416

Have you heard the latest? This should blow your mind… Pakistan; our buddy, has said that they are pulling troops from the Afghan border in an effort to create a peaceful enviroment with the Taliban. They are returning captured Taliban fighters (with their weapons)and, get this:
said that they would not arrest Bin Laden if captured.

If he is in Pakistan, bin Laden “would not be taken into custody,” Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan told ABC News in a telephone interview, “as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen.”

Posted by: john trevisani at September 6, 2006 3:27 PM
Comment #179422

“It is a very delicate balance between effective defense against terrorism, and the preservation of human liberty.”

I think this can be achieved by simply allowing oversight of these programs by engaged members of Congress. No one suggests that you do not spy on terror-suspects… no one is worried so much about their freedoms. It is the freedom of American Citizens that must be protected, and as long as proper oversight is provided, that should be easily protected.

I can think of only one reason why a Government would want to spy on it’s citizens in complete secret (ie, with no oversight.)

Posted by: tony at September 6, 2006 3:51 PM
Comment #179435

Who is winning the “war on terrorism? I submit that not only are we not winning it, we are in fact losing badly. The objective of terrorism is to put opponents into a state of terror. Twenty suicide terrorists (and their support group of about 100 others) put this nation in a state of terror on the morning of 9/11/01. Since that date our nation has spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives, taken the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent by-standers, and willingly given up the freedoms and liberties granted us in our constitution. And despite all that, we still live in a state of perpetual terror. Meanwhile, the world’s terrorist organizations (not just al queda) have been recruiting at a record pace, winning elections, holding their own against the Israeli army, rebuilding their base in Afghanistan, and keeping us embroiled in an unwinnable occupation in Iraq.

Even the failed attempt spoiled last month by our British allies only served to remind us of our vulnerability, and cost us tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in new preventative measures. The terrorists have succeeded in putting us in a perpetual state of terror. Our elected terrorists seem willing to exploit the fear that we live with. Unlike FDR who said “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” GWB seems to be telling us “if you weren’t afraid already, we’ll make up something that will make you really afraid.”

Posted by: Stan at September 6, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #179440


I don’t think we’re loosing the “war of terror” because I don’t think we’re even fighting it. Probably better said that we are loosing the war on terror by default.

We’re off in Iraq - getting our butts kicked, playing against the wrong “team” in the wrong “stadium.”

Posted by: tony at September 6, 2006 5:10 PM
Comment #179443


One of the problems I have with your economic arguments is that they don’t seem to be intellectually honest. You post a “supposed” graph from the U.S. Census Bureau showing median household income. What, you can’t live with the actual figures so you have to create your own???
If you spent any time looking up the figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau you would find out this:
Year Household Income
2002 $43057
2003 43564
2004 44684
2005 46242

2006 figures are not posted yet because (obviously) we haven’t finished the year yet. If you want to argue a point, at least learn how to do it correctly.


Posted by: keith at September 6, 2006 5:19 PM
Comment #179445

Where are all the Republican defenders of our fearlees leader? Is there anyone out there that can make an arguement that even begins to justify GWB’s latest fearmongering? I think the old boy has gone over the edge. Just how stupid does he think we are?

Posted by: mark at September 6, 2006 5:32 PM
Comment #179447

Nothing to see here. Move along, move along. Nothing to worry about with the international Islamists. These people mean us no harm. Might nuke city or two, but what the hell. They are just an international “men’s club.” I know because Michael Moore told me so. And he always tells the truth…..

Posted by: nikkolai at September 6, 2006 5:36 PM
Comment #179448

Osama bin who? Oh yeah, he did the old 9/11 thing…Gosh he must be mssing all his old pals—- assuming room temperature courtesy of the US military.

Posted by: nikkolai at September 6, 2006 5:40 PM
Comment #179449


There’s no sense in arguing.

Everyone on this blog has already made up their mind and decided on their own truth.

Posted by: william at September 6, 2006 5:42 PM
Comment #179451


I do not find myself fearful at the present time.
What do you suggest as an alternative action plan?

Posted by: Cliff at September 6, 2006 5:54 PM
Comment #179452

keep listening to W and his administration. Be fearful of them more than the terrorist.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 6, 2006 6:00 PM
Comment #179453

Mark let me bring you up to speed. Your man Buba had the opportunity to get Bin Laden in 1993. CIA had Osamas house surrounded,and called Washington for the go ahead. Bubba said no. So if Bubba wasnt getting his Lewinskies perhaps there would be no 9/11. What say you Mark. Truth to a Liberal is like Light to a Vampire. I honestly believe that Osama is a fosil at Bora Bora.

Posted by: Thomas at September 6, 2006 6:01 PM
Comment #179457

j2t2’s post at 6:00 p.m. says it all….read it again, let it soak in. That is a very troubling mind-set. The left hits bottom, keeps digging…Everyone take note.

Posted by: nikkolai at September 6, 2006 6:34 PM
Comment #179462

“power mad dumb ass who is the leader of the free world?” Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at September 6, 2006 11:29 AM
You Sir, are despicable! You should be banned from this site. YOur words of hatred do a huge disservice to every American and your foolish commentary is comic in its confused, disjointed and lying substance. I will not honor you with a discourse refuting your lies and half-truths.

Posted by: Jim at September 6, 2006 7:30 PM
Comment #179464


Good question. What is the alternative action plan? How about really attacking the terrorists instead of some sovereign country that just happens to be standing between us and additional oil profits. At the time of the 911 attacks there were probably no more than a few thousand terrorists in the world (far fewer by some accounts). That number has grown because we’ve since antagonized a lot of people, but it’s still a number that can be dealt with. Here are some methods of dealing with them (certainly not all). They involve sacrifice:

1. Use what power we have with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Dubai, etc.—the countries that have been funding the terrorist organizations—to cease ALL such funding and freeze ALL funds. We and our allies are oil consumers. We should have some influence over the oil producers. Unfortunately, our leaders find it personally profitable to act with the oil producers, rather than as representatives of the oil consumers.

2. Require the political AND spiritual leaders of oil-supplier nations to vehemently condemn the use of terrorism, to round-up and arrest known terrorists and leaders of terrorist cells, and to establish real public relations and educational programs stressing that Islam does not support terrorst tactics. ANY nation that does not conform with these guidelines IS a rogue nation that supports terrorism and we should cease all trade with those nations.

3. Use our military, our intelligence, our strike teams, and our allies to destroy all terrorist cells that exist anywhere. We have the capability of reading a license plate from a satalite in space. We should certainly be able to identify where these cells are and strike. We should warn all innocents to avoid contact with terrorists or their lives will be in peril.

4. Try to learn what drives our enemies and see if there is some diplomatic solution—some way that we can co-exist in peace.

The sacrifices:

1. We may have to wait in long lines at the gas pump and pay $10 a gallon for gas. I believe Americans would be willing to make that sacrifice if it was to achieve victory rather than improve Exxon’s profits.

2. We may have to negotiate with the terrorists. Most American find this unpalatable, but the fact is we negotiate with our enemies all the time. Sometimes is makes more sense to compromise that to fight to the bitter end.

3. Our elected leaders may have to stop taking billions of dollars in profits, and to convince their closest friends and supporters to do the same. This will be the hardest pill to swallow. While Americans are generally willing to make sacrifices, our leaders—especially this Republican administration and congress—are not.

As a great country—as a great people, let’s not allow fear to freeze us, but rather to motivate us to do something about the problem. Let’s use our resources—our money, our buying power, the courage of our soldiers, the American spirit of sacrifice—toward ending the bulk of terrorism in the world rather than toward lining the pockets of traitorous war profiteers who have abused the power we’ve granted them or that they have stolen from us.

Posted by: Stan at September 6, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #179468


Why must you change the subject? I guess tha answer is obvious, you cannnot defend GWB.

Posted by: mark at September 6, 2006 7:52 PM
Comment #179469

Don’t feed the trolls.

Posted by: tony at September 6, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #179470


There was a mistake in the graph for 2005, but it was not intentional. Thank you for pointing out the mistake. Also, year 2006 is estimated from preliminary data for FY 2006 (being about $44K in 2004 dollars) and I have used a dotted line to indicate the current estimate.

The point is that median incomes have fallen since year 2000 (adjusted for inflation in 2004 dollars).

Posted by: d.a.n at September 6, 2006 7:57 PM
Comment #179472

I know I am not d.a.n but have to respond to your post. d.a.n. posted REAL MEDIAN income that is income ADJUSTED for INFLATION. You posted median income NOT ADJUSTED for INFLATION. so in responce you are both rith. Your income went up but the cost of living went up more. any other questions?

Posted by: timesend at September 6, 2006 8:05 PM
Comment #179473

You are correct. I should have made that clearer. It was implied by “2004 dollars” below the title.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 6, 2006 8:09 PM
Comment #179474

“Your man Buba had the opportunity to get Bin Laden in 1993. CIA had Osamas house surrounded,and called Washington for the go ahead. Bubba said no. So if Bubba wasnt getting his Lewinskies perhaps there would be no 9/11.”

Funny how no amount of actual facts will make cons drop their little Clinton scenarios that rush keeps feeding them.
Little correction:
The CIA was NOT surrounding Osama
The intelligence that he was even there was “single point”, meaning that one guy, not ours, said so, without anything to back it up.
AND, no, Clinton DID NOT give the order to not attack. He was not in on that decision, and the decision was made because of the lack of real intelligence.
But hey, mega ditto’s to you and your kind.
Cherry or grape??

Posted by: Observer at September 6, 2006 8:10 PM
Comment #179475

Posted by: Thomas at September 6, 2006 06:01 PM

Ever tried thinking……it use to be as American as apple pie and baseball.

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at September 6, 2006 8:10 PM
Comment #179476

Does anyone else find it truly amazing that this is “Security September” and what Bush feels most important (for what could be the last session of a Republican controlled Congress) is making his past actions (secret prisons, GITMO, NSA spying) legal.

Are we talking about National Security or simply Job Security for Bush?

Posted by: tony at September 6, 2006 8:32 PM
Comment #179480

What I got from the speach today is Bushco’s effort to insulate civilians from possible war crimes trials later. There ar lots of CIA, contractors and administration officials who might need this fig leaf.

Retroactive legislation may work for the speach but it will not protect those who use tecniques like water boarding, rendition and worse.

As a disabeled veteran I am appauled and disgusted with what our country has become.

We are hardly any better than those we call enemy. They used airplanes to kill almost 3000 inocent people, so we use airplanes to kill untold thousands of inocent Iraqui civilians whose only crime was to be born in a land ruled by a tyrant.

I feel we are in a land ruled by a tyrant. Never the less, we “elected ” this tyrant.

Posted by: Gedunk at September 6, 2006 9:09 PM
Comment #179485

I really dont speak for the left.
That being said I also feel we as a Country are digging ourselves deeper and deeper into a hole under this administration and the republican controlled house and senate. The corruption in Congress, The ever increasing dependence on corporations and the mixing of government with big business. Manufacturing moving offshore, Lack of concern about the environment and energy, ever increasing debt ceilings are a few reasons why I beleive this administration is to be feared more than the Islamic terrorist.
Why right now Im listening to W telling me that we are in WWIII, it seems we haven fallen right into their trap, thanks to his leadership and failed ideology. With this delusional mindset why should have we trust in this man and his leadership?
So some how the “war on terror” has escalated from capturing/killing a few thousand Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist almost 5 years ago to a third world war under the watchful eye of W and his administration. This, all because we were lead into a preemptive war in Iraq? However we look at it, we truely dont need any more leadership from this bunch. Either the sky is falling or the little boy running the country is crying wolf, which fairy tale is it this election cycle?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 6, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #179491


What I fear is not the terrorists in the Middle East.

What I fear is not the terrorists in the White House.

What I fear is not storms or the wrath of God(He loves me.)

What I fear is not the media, Liberals, or Conservatives.

What I do fear is that the American people will again be too stupid to vote for anyone FOX “News” does not endorse!

Be afraid.

Be very afraid!

Posted by: ChristianLeft at September 6, 2006 10:55 PM
Comment #179493


Very interesting…
I do not know of any Democrat that supports your plan in full…

Posted by: Cliff at September 6, 2006 11:00 PM
Comment #179494


Fear not…
For lo, they will be with you always…

Posted by: discerner at September 6, 2006 11:03 PM
Comment #179495

“Year Household Income
2002 $43057
2003 43564
2004 44684
2005 46242

2006 figures are not posted yet because (obviously) we haven’t finished the year yet. If you want to argue a point, at least learn how to do it correctly.”


I would very much like to see a link to your source. Also try “inflation adjusted” numbers. I suggest reading the “truth” at EPI:

Although their server seems to be down right now.

Back your numbers up!


Posted by: KansasDem at September 6, 2006 11:04 PM
Comment #179497

It was not until the mid-nineties that folks pieced together that Bin Laden was more than just a financier of jihadist activities. So talking about going after Bin Laden in 1993 is something of 20/20 hindsight.

What I want to know is where were these aggressive terrorist-hunting commandos in the Republican party when Clinton was going after terrorists. We bombed that “aspirin” factory(or baby formula, depending on who’s talking) because a physical sample on the site had tested positive for a unique Chemical weapon precursor. We invade Iraq on skimpier evidence. Yet who do the Republicans in congress side with, given the chance? Bin Laden’s buddy, who’s telling everybody who will listen about his “peaceful” facility.

It never failed. Clinton would lob a cruise missile Bin Laden’s way, and the Republicans would scold him for distracting from their investigation of his extramarital affair. Wag the Dog indeed.

The politics of the GOP wagged us right out of funding and approval for many counterterrorism plans, all because the Republicans couldn’t handle this flower child interupting the Reagan/Bush era of presidential politics.

The Republicans, by and large, were too busy being concerned with rogue states to take terrorism seriously. Even after we’ve been hit, they’re still inching their way back towards it, only this time drumming up support for more than just tough talk using our fear of the terrorists to top things off. We need leadership that recognizes the real threats, instead of using them simply as an excuse to play geopolitics somewhere else.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 6, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #179499

Here’s some numbers:

“Even though George W. Bush has finally acknowledged that Iraq had “nothing” to do with 9/11, 46 percent of Americans still believe that there was “a connection” between Saddam Hussein and the attacks.”

I know from living here in Kansas that at least 90% of the people I see still believe that Iraq invaded us on 9-11-01. Why? I guess it’s all part of “intelligent design”.

Or maybe it’s called, “don’t burst my bubble, please, please don’t”. Or maybe some people are just plain stupid. Someone help me out here! I don’t get it!


Posted by: KansasDem at September 6, 2006 11:37 PM
Comment #179518

Stephen Daugherty,

You’re “spot on”. Every move Clinton made against Bin Laden or any threat was painted by the GOP as him “wagging the dog” to distract attention from the true threats against America.

Now Bush and nearly all of the GOP want us to believe that we can only win the “war on terror” if we adopt the same principles as the terrorists. We must win, therefore we must be able to kidnap and torture suspects.

Even though we were unable to decipher the simple “pre-9/11” memos we must now “mine” for more info we might be able to ignore. Even though “intel” puts Iranian “nukular” warhead tech development at 4+ years we must act now!

Bush is mentally unstable and the GOP is still supporting him. Rice is no better. We could still put the lid back on the “pressure cooker” and give moderation a chance, but it’s not going to happen with this “dime store cowboy” in office.


Posted by: KansasDem at September 7, 2006 1:28 AM
Comment #179519

Why did’t Your boy Clinton take Osoma out when he had a chance.

Posted by: Ca(R) at September 7, 2006 1:32 AM
Comment #179526

“Why did’t Your boy Clinton take Osoma out when he had a chance.”


First of all he was never our “boy”! It is nice however to know that you must consider Bush as “your boy”. I doubt any Democrat would send a “boy” to do a man’s or woman’s job. We prefer keeping the boy’s and girl’s in school so they can learn to create a better America.

If you actually studied a bit more yourself you’d know that Clinton went after Bin Laden a couple of times and was also quite effective at keeping Saddam effectively impotent on a military level. All along the way the GOP fought him tooth and nail.

I suggest you check out your “boys” before you criticize mine. I’ll put my “boys” up against yours anyday.


Posted by: KansasDem at September 7, 2006 2:52 AM
Comment #179535


Every move Clinton made against Bin Laden or any threat was painted by the GOP as him “wagging the dog” to distract attention from the true threats against America.

I wonder how many today will exchange, if they could, terrorism threat with blowjob “threat”…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 7, 2006 6:05 AM
Comment #179540


While that makes sense to many of us, the cons would not like that very much. You see, for one thing no one gets rich, or re-elected by the threat of a blow job.

Posted by: Gedunk at September 7, 2006 7:45 AM
Comment #179543

d.a.n., timesend, and KansasDem

Sorry again guys but the figures from the U.S. Census Bureau are adjusted for inflation. Check out their web site (not somebody else’s KansasDem), if you are going to use THEIR statistics.

Click on People then click on Income (sorry, wasn’t sure I could get the link to post). It is just as easy to do as trying to send me to a site that tries to interpret the data (read spin) to make it fit their agenda (read liberal).


Posted by: keith at September 7, 2006 8:17 AM
Comment #179549

I’m confused. I know the Left likes to use Osama “The Cave Dweller” for political gain because he hasn’t reared his ugly head in public, but do they like him or dislike him?

I’m still trying to figure that one out.

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 7, 2006 8:41 AM
Comment #179552


I know that questioning the present leadership of the United States “emboldens” the enemy. I do realize i’m a “cut and runnner” who shows similarities to “those who supported the Nazis” and who want to “appease the Fascists” and in general “hate America.”but it is my right as an “American hating American” to voice my opinions on our leaders based on their performance. I do realize that voicing my opinion “hurts our troops” but I still feel I need to do it know matter how “unpatriotic” I may seem.
Andre M. Hernandez

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at September 7, 2006 9:08 AM
Comment #179566

Thanks for the link. However, you are overlooking one important fact. I believe that is an honest mistake on your part and will not accuse you (as you accused me) of “intellectual dishonesty”. The graph is in 2004 dollars. The numbers you gave above are nominal (for that year only), and not adjusted for inflation for one certain year, as the graph is for 2004 dollars.

Taking the values that you (Keith) provided from the Census Bureau, and adjusting for inflation in 2004 dollars yields that following:
Median Household Income (nominal and adjusted for inflation):
1999 $41,994 (in 2004 dollars = $46,636)
2002 $43,057 (in 2004 dollars = $44,752)
2003 $43,564 (in 2004 dollars = $44,566)
2004 $44,684 (in 2004 dollars = $44,684)
2005 $46,242 (in 2004 dollars = $45,026)
2006 $44,263 (estimated, in 2004 dollars = $43,099)

Once again, there is no intention to deceive. I already admitted a minor calculation mistake for 2005 and corrected it. And, again, for year 2006, it is estimated (68% of $65,093=$44,263) based on FY 2006 data (now shown as a dotted line). 2006 is not looking very good, with inflation, rising interest rates, rising energy costs, and rising prices of healthcare, education, and anything affected by rising fuel prices. If that were all included, people’s incomes are really even less that the graph shows.

Also, the point is that median incomes have fallen since 1999 and 2000 (since 2001 too, based on the 2006 estimate), when adjusted for inflation (in 2004 dollars). 2006 is not looking good.

Recessions come every 2 to 11 years for the last 46 years. The next recession may not be far away, and with massive debt, borrowing, spending, and money-printing, the next recession may not be easy to recover from.

Especially with the ongoing war (nation building) in Iraq, ongoing cost of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and poor fiscal picture in general.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 7, 2006 10:53 AM
Comment #179571

“You’re not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can’t face reality. Wrong is wrong no matter who does it or who says it.”

Malcom X

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 7, 2006 11:04 AM
Comment #179620

“I know the Left likes to use Osama “The Cave Dweller” for political gain because he hasn’t reared his ugly head in public, but do they like him or dislike him?
I’m still trying to figure that one out.”

All will become clear once you pull your head out.

Posted by: Observer at September 7, 2006 1:58 PM
Comment #179637

Andre, great article!
tony, excellent list!
Don’t feed the trolls!

Posted by: Adrienne at September 7, 2006 3:03 PM
Comment #179655

Thanks for the EPI link.
I heard the Treasury Secretary saying the same sort of thing a few days ago (i.e. “Working families fall behind”). The middle and lower income classes are getting squeezed. The distribution has never been worse since the Great Depression.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 7, 2006 4:12 PM
Comment #179850

The Killing Fields of That Little Ol’ Democracy!
The NY Times reported today (‘Blast Kills 13 in Afghan Capital, Including 2 U.S. Soldiers’, 9/8/06) that two American soldiers were killed in a car bombing in the capital of that nice little democratic sovereignty of Afghanistan, created from a handful of dirt by George W. Bush, President of the United States. It is now five years after declaring ‘Mission Accomplished’ there. Gee, Afghanistan has had elections and ‘everything’, even though politicians dare not venture out of the safety of the capital city of Kabul, where American guns protect them. Now the capital has suffered a tragedy that claimed the lives of more American military assigned to protect this model Mid East ‘democracy’. So, it would appear that even the capital, under protection of American guns, is no longer safe.
God bless the American President, Decider, who has given testimony that ‘God chose him to be President’ and lead the American Christian ‘fascists’ in the holy war against Muslim ‘fascists’ in the Mid East. Hail to the Chief (which translated into German is, Heil to the Chief)!
And oh yes, bin Laden who started this global religious war, is a big sissy for hiding out all these years. Why doesn’t bin Laden join his national guard and fight like a man.

Posted by: Richard Blankenburg at September 8, 2006 1:48 PM
Post a comment