Democrats & Liberals Archives

Security Stones

Ever since President Bush began pushing for the invasion of Iraq, he has been using the word “security” not to unify America in order to defeat Al Qaeda, but as stones to hurl on the heads of Democrats and others who dissented from his policies. Bully Bush saw that these security stones worked so he hurled them constantly. Imagine his unhappy surprise when recently the Democrats picked up the security stones and hurled them back at Bush!

These security stones were politically powerful. They helped get Bush reelected. They helped Republicans become the champions of security and thus to maintain complete control of government. They helped denigrate Democrats as soft on security, not willing to confront Al Qaeda, and even as traitors.

Throwing security stones worked like a charm. So Karl Rove, Republican mastermind, decided that national security would be the big political issue for the fall elections. All of a sudden, Democrats decided that they had been sleeping long enough. Because Bush had made such a mess of our national security with his Iraq quagmire, his torture policy, his snooping-on-citizens policy and his president-is-supreme policy, Democrats MUST do something.

Someone leaked the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that indicated that Iraq had become a "cause celebre" for jihadists. Instead of making America safer, the Iraq war has produced more terrorists ready to attack us, the NIE said. Waving the NIE, Democrats attacked Bush and the Republicans for engulfing us in this catastrophic situation.

Startled Bush angrily retorted:

Here we are, coming down the stretch of an election campaign, and it's on the front page of your newspaper. Isn't that interesting? Somebody's taken it upon themselves to leak classified information for political purposes.

Astonishing, isn't it? Somebody is using Iraq-war information in a political campaign against Republicans. This can't happen, Karl Rove had assured Bush. Security stones are for Republicans to hurl against Democrats; Democrats are supposed to take it and keep their mouths shut. Why can't Democrats behave properly? They have done that before. Why are they switching now? It makes no sense.

According to Bush, it's unnatural too. Like all bullies, he is extremely unhappy when those he bullied for so long are answering back in kind.

From now on Democrats will stay awake and catch security stones hurled at them and shoot them back with increased force at Bush and the Republicans. Democrats will in addition throw a few extra security stones of their own.

Posted by Paul Siegel at September 27, 2006 5:49 PM
Comments
Comment #184539

“From now on Democrats will stay awake and catch security stones hurled at them and shoot them back with increased force at Bush and the Republicans. Democrats will in addition throw a few extra security stones of their own. “

Talk about a day late and a dollar short. Where the hell was the Democratic Party when authorization for use of military force was being discussed in October ‘02? Where was the Democratic Party when costs for the Iraqi military incursion were made special appropriations bills, instead of being put on the yearly budget where any citizen with a high-school education could see the real cost of this fiasco? “Three hundred and fourteen billion dollar annual defict? Try $600 billion. Where was the Democratic party when the Patriot Act was first rammed through Congress, then rammed through again with none of the law-breaking aspects being addressed? Where were they for the Bankruptcy pork for the CC companies, and Bush’s donut-hole prescription bill? Katrina? The Dems managed to make Bush eat his revoking of Davis-Bacon stick. Since then, silence, total silence. And a great American city lies totally stricken, a victim of nature to be sure, but mostly human nature—the no-bid kind.

This economic, military, foreign policy fiasco, more popularly known as the Bush/GOP joy ride has been aided and abetted by the donkeys since January 2001. There is no possible way we could be behind the eight ball this badly without some serious enabling by the Dems.

So, why not make this new-found security confidence a twenty-four hour, seven day a week, 365 days a year mantra? Instead of trotting their sorry asses out two months before the elections with their ineffectual dog-and-pony show? How about highlighting the economy and why it isn’t working for most working Americans—not just for parties, but day after day, week after week, month after month? Why aren’t they bashing supply-side economics (a sorry-ass economic ponzi scheme that any real Dem could have discredited fourteen years ago when the first George left a financial mess), bashing the new monopolistic kid on the block, insurance companies? Why aren’t they screaming about a compromised electoral system, day after day after day?

It works for the fascist Right, screaming at the top of your lungs 24/7, with talking points a fax machine away. It’s time to play hardball. And for god’s sake, fire the DLC morons after the election. And get rid of Schumer and Emmanual at DCCC. Please??

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 27, 2006 6:35 PM
Comment #184548

Great Post Tim Crow I hope our party gets the message. For far to long he have taken it in the butt and all we have done is whine. We need somebody with some real stones to stand up and say enough. But who. This is why I fear we may not win enough seats to matter this fall.

Posted by: Jeff at September 27, 2006 7:09 PM
Comment #184551

Paul S.
One question. Do you vote party line? I don’t because one thing is the Democrats in my home state aren’t worth the powder to blow them to hell with. If they were I would vote Dem. I also agree with Tim Crow.

Posted by: KAP at September 27, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #184557

Spot on Tim Crow, as my fellow Irishman Edmund Burke once said, ” All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” Its time for the Dems to start acting like an opposition and speak with the voice of conviction and authority. Time to speak like men, not cissies. And in this case, the masculine includes the feminine. Or to put in another way, in the words of another Mick, ( Joe P Kennedy) “When the going gets tough, the tough get going” Hey, i’m on a roll here, as one of the heroes of our revolution put it, “Get up off the parliamentary side of your arse!” (Michael Collins)

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at September 27, 2006 7:42 PM
Comment #184558

Security stones? Throwing “powerful” security stones back and forth???

I don’t expect Shakespeare when I read a political blog, but that’s almost painfully bad. How about this, though, if the general theme in this thread is going to be horrible metaphors.

The only reason that Republicans gather and hurl security stones is that Democrats smoke anti-security mushrooms. Mushrooms that grow near the stones but never upon them. They’ve smoked so many of these mushrooms that sometimes they have trouble telling the difference between security stones and anti-security mushrooms.

Recently the Democrats have believed that they were throwing security stones at George Bush when they were actually tossing harmless mushrooms.

Or something like that.

Posted by: Pilsner at September 27, 2006 7:46 PM
Comment #184562

No I don’t vote the party line thats what leads to rhe mess we have right now. Right Pilsner.

Posted by: Jeff at September 27, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #184569

Tim Crow,

I always appreciate your “no-nonsense” posts but I must disagree with you. Democrats have tried, some much harder than others.

At this point dredging up a sh*t-load of past events would be pointless, but one recent event that alone proves my point is Nancy Pelosi requesting a closed session of the house to read and discuss the entire NIE now in debate. I can certainly understand that the entire report can’t be released to the public, but the House (which is the House of Representatives to every American) should certainly take the time to know what’s going on in every aspect of the War on Terror.

Tremors are shutting my abilty down sooner than I can express my thoughts, but I’m sure you get where I’m headed. Quite simply, “we’ve not quit trying, we’re just outnumbered”, and the bottom line is the majority of the voting public is responsible for this mess.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 27, 2006 8:28 PM
Comment #184570

Pilsner,

Bush and the rest of the Bush-Bots must be eating some of those funny mushrooms, how the hell else could they believe, or expect us to believe, that things are getting better.

Sheesh! Lay off the shrooms for a few weeks and you’ll see what I mean.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 27, 2006 8:32 PM
Comment #184574

“They’ve smoked so many of these mushrooms”

Sorry, but I’m pretty experienced and I’ve never heard of anyone “smoking” mushrooms. And that was the most accurate thing in your post.

Posted by: Observer at September 27, 2006 8:43 PM
Comment #184577

Observer, you really haven’t heard of it?

Of smoking the magic Democratic mushrooms? Then you’re missing out.

And here I thought that that was the only thing more fun about being a Democratic than being right… I mean, Republican.

Posted by: Pilsner at September 27, 2006 8:59 PM
Comment #184578

Pilsner

So how long have you been smoking the shrooms and how many dead brain cells as a result?

Posted by: mark at September 27, 2006 9:12 PM
Comment #184579

Tim Crow

Your posts are probably my favorites, but what do you propose if not Democrats?

Posted by: mark at September 27, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #184581

Jeez, Mark. I can’t remember. How many security stones have you been knocked up-side the head with by Republicans, and many dead brain cells as a result?

(we have Paul to thank for these metaphors, I believe)

Posted by: Pilsner at September 27, 2006 9:21 PM
Comment #184583

Pilsner
Fortunetly I’ve been able to dodge the security stones as I can see them coming(George telegraphs his throws).

Posted by: mark at September 27, 2006 9:39 PM
Comment #184584

When you rattle a beehive you see a lot of bees. After 9/11 it was time to rattle the Middle east. I don’t think letting the Jihadists sit and plan unabated would’ve been a good plan either. I’m glad Al Qaeda considers Iraq their central battleground, it’s better than if it was San Francisco. (Uhh, oh wait, San Francisco won’t put up a fight, they hate the US Military.) Correction: Iraq as the main battleground is better than San Diego.

THE NEXT SENTENCE IN THE NIE REPORT STATED THAT WINNING THE WAR IN IRAQ WOULD BE A DETRIMENTAL BLOW TO THE JIHADISTS!!!

Bush was partial to certain intel reports to protect the country while dems cherry pick items to damn the efforts of the USA. If that doesn’t put a big bright light on the political picture I don’t know what will.

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 27, 2006 9:40 PM
Comment #184585

I know this is more than a little “out-there” but I always thought mushrooms were “eaten” as in pizza with mushrooms.

Now I know the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats get their mushrooms with pizza.
Republican’s smoke their’s followed by a fine pilsner beer.

KD

Posted by: KansasDem at September 27, 2006 9:45 PM
Comment #184587

“WINNING THE WAR IN IRAQ WOULD BE A DETRIMENTAL BLOW TO THE JIHADISTS”

Too bad it’s not winable( unless you want to go nuclear).

Posted by: mark at September 27, 2006 9:50 PM
Comment #184588

Ken Strong,

Why would a closed House session be detrimental? Why should our House of representatives NOT see this report in it’s entirety?

You love blowing smoke about us Dems being weak, so answer me! If the Republicans have nothing to hide then let the entire house examine the report.

It’s odd that the last time a closed house session was held we Dems revealed what later led to the Iran-Contra affair isn’t it?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 27, 2006 9:54 PM
Comment #184589

Actually, Bush wasn’t the one to start “throwing security stones.”

It wouldn’t have been politically effective AT ALL if Democrats had stood by the very things they’d once voted for almost unanimously—including now such controversial things as the Iraq war and the Patriot Act.

What happened was the presidential campaign of 04 which saw the emerging but short-lived power of Howard Dean and Michael Moore and peoople of that ilk, people who started saying that America was “less secure” as a result of the very SAME measures that Democrats and Republicans had already agreed on. And which, actually, have led to thwarting several terrorist acts on our soil already.

Now, having rejected their former positions and having fallen into the embrace of the anti-American far left, their only recourse for disassociating themselves from from actions which the far left dislikes is to blame Bush for lying to them, which rings hollow considering how, for example, both Clintons, who can hardly claim to have been out of the intelligence loop, supported the Iraq invasion.

I have no doubt, actually, that John Kerry would have kicked Bush’s tail in 04 if he hadn’t been dragged over the cliff and into defeat by those who required him to start “throwing security stones” as a condition of their loyalty.

To change metaphors: all Bush did is point out that the far left has handed the Democrats a rope. It’s the Dems who hang themselves with it.

Posted by: Pilsner at September 27, 2006 9:56 PM
Comment #184592

Pilsner

There was no where near unanimous support for the Iraq war among Dems. The Senate vote (among Democratic Senators) was pretty evenly split. Both of my Democratic Senators(from Michigan) had the foresight to vote against giving GWB that authority.

Posted by: mark at September 27, 2006 10:08 PM
Comment #184598

Mark, you’re correct about the use of the word “unanimous.” That was the wrong thing for me to say, and unlike the majority of Democrats posting here, I’ll correct myself when I say something that is obviously innacurate or outright wrong.

I should have said “the majority of Democrats” including all who ran for President.

Posted by: Pilsner at September 27, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #184599

““WINNING THE WAR IN IRAQ WOULD BE A DETRIMENTAL BLOW TO THE JIHADISTS”

Too bad it’s not winable( unless you want to go nuclear).
Posted by: mark at September 27, 2006 09:50 PM”

Mark,

Excuse my laziness in not editing your last post, but It’s just too damn hard.

Anyway, I thought going into Iraq when we did was the wrong thing, actually a major blunder. That aside I think it’s absolutely necessary to truly secure Iraq.

The same was necessary in Somalia after the “Blackhawk Down” incident. Likewise at least as far back as the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut under Reagan’s administration.

I’ve read the past couple days tons of sniping about Clintons failures, ie: Somalia, #1 WTC bombing, etc. The Republicans never want to go back as far as Beirut or numerous other pre-Clinton era attacks.

The one thing that everyone leaves out is the fact that each and every time we failed to act in a more agressive manner it was because of public opinion. Well, maybe give W one extra point for ignoring public opinion since he won reelection.

Look at Iraq now. We need more troops there. We don’t have them. Somalia is a powder keg. Iran is a “nukular” powder keg. No Korea is an accident looking for a place to happen. Things are spiraling out of control and while we could bomb almost any nation back to the stone age we might well be left with no planet to live on!

We really do need to reinstate the draft, but not a draft of 18 year olds. Let’s raise the draft age to at least 25! No deferments past the age of 30. Of course you’d never get elected on a platform like that. Get what I’m saying?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 27, 2006 10:31 PM
Comment #184600

Except for Kucinich.

Posted by: Pilsner at September 27, 2006 10:33 PM
Comment #184606

One thing that really bugs me is that people still buy into the smoke and mirrors scheme that Iraq and terrorists are the same. Why are people not reminded that the Bush administration was planing to invade Iraq way before 9\11 and they were “conveniently” handed a silver platter when
9\11 occured. All of a sudden the way to stop terrorists was to invade Iraq. The worst thing was that so many people believed this anti-american administration. Hopefully some day everything will be uncovered and the truth will be unvailed.

Posted by: Lyle N. at September 27, 2006 10:43 PM
Comment #184607

KansasDem

Yes, I get what you’re saying. However I just don’t believe we can “win” in Iraq. It’s like argueing with my wife, it doesn’t matter if I’m right, I can’t win, no matter how long I argue. One way or another I lose. We will never be able to control Iraq, if that is how we define winning. I guess that is the $64,000 question, what does “win in Iraq” mean. I don’t think it will be a secure, terrorist free country as long as we are occupying it. How long will it take to become one after we leave? I don’t know.

Posted by: mark at September 27, 2006 10:45 PM
Comment #184609

Has no one noticed - We’ve already lost the war on terror. When we allow torture, When we spy on our own citizens, We when give a billon dollar contract to monitor the press about a bullshit war, ending freedom of press, WE LOSE. I am not afraid of terrorist. I am afraid of BUSH’S BULLSHIT. He has done nothing but try to take away what has always made AMERICA GREAT. He has taken away the moral high road. WWII - The cold war - wasted. BUSH lost the war on terror, and I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK.

G

Posted by: Grattan at September 27, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #184611

Lyle

Amen to that!

Pilsner
Good point on Kerry(throwing security stone costing him the election).

What about Howard Dean’s antiwar stance?

Posted by: mark at September 27, 2006 10:49 PM
Comment #184612

Gratton

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! Very well said.

Posted by: mark at September 27, 2006 10:51 PM
Comment #184615

Yes, well said, Grattan.

Now that “the freedom of the press has been ended” and anyone who even whispers a word against Bush is overheard by spies and whisked away in the dead of the night to be tortured, I truly fear for our country. It’s truly a sad day. We lost the war! We lost!

Posted by: Pilsner at September 27, 2006 10:59 PM
Comment #184627

Kansas:

“I always appreciate your “no-nonsense” posts but I must disagree with you. Democrats have tried, some much harder than others. “

With respect, the Dems, the true progressive ones, are going to have to learn some guerilla warfare. The past ten years haven’t been about formulating and presenting a program—they’ve been on their heels ever since Clinton helped the GOP pass NAFTA and universal health insurance fell through. When playing defense, it is important to emphasize that the failures of policy we’re witnessing aren’t a Bush phenomenon—they are a direct result of conservative philosophy. A $9 Trillion deficit doesn’t happen overnight—it needs to be nurtured and fed. And the GOP has been in charge of the purse strings since 1994, in charge without oversight since 2001. And it shows. The failure of public education, the falling buying power of working Americans, a duck-and-cover foreign policy that has the whole world wondering what crazy stunt we’ll pull next. No Kyoto, no job protection, no energy policy, wide open borders, no immigration policy guided by common sense and compassion, a sinister, no-end-in-sight war on terror that conveniently plays into an unprescedented power grab by the executive branch…I could go on and on.

The Dems not only lack numbers, they lack vision. That they can’t stay on the same page in calling the GOP on it’s more egregious policy failures almost smacks of collusion. The first thing out of any Democrat’s mouth isn’t the failure of Bush and the Republicans—it’s the failure of conservatism. I can’t stress this point enough. Workable policy, once you know who you really are, and who you’re really representing, is really pretty easy. Common sense, compassion with firmness, and an umcompromising allegiance to the truth.

Mark:

“Your posts are probably my favorites, but what do you propose if not Democrats.”

Thank you for your compliment. What is there to propose? You know the alternatives as well as I. You can consider this a generational rebuilding of the Democratic party that will take two or three presidential election cycles, remaking the party in a populist image and firing the corporate weasels that have brought the party to this.

Or it’s a striking out on your own stroll in the political wilderness and forging a new party that not only represents progressive thought, but celebrates it, through workable policies that benefit everyone and not just the investor/trust fund classes. This would be the longer road, something I would not see to it’s conclusion in my lifetime.

I truly believe that one of the reasons why this country is in the shape it is in is because there has been no viable, energetic Left in this country for 3o years. The Left’s decline, whether self-inflicted or circumstantial, has had a real negative effect on the American political scene. The decline of the idea of the commons, the social safety net, a foreign policy based on humility and consensus, a responsible economy that serves rather than enslaves, a responsible stewardship of the environment—all these issues have been in retreat since the rise of the Right and Conservatism. And the country is starting to realise what it has lost—there is a real feeling of malaise that discussions of torture, stop-loss measures and globalization impart. There is a reason for it—the very foundations of conservatism are inhuman, cold and miserly. It celebrates the here and now, the ‘I got mine screw you’ side of human nature. It is now in ascendency. How do you like it?

Frankly, I think a melding of the two options above is the most efficatious—use the Democratic party when it champions true progressive populist policy (on Tuesdays and Thursdays), use other options and avenues to get the message out when they turn corporate (on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays), which, at the moment, I think is it’s natural inclination. I think deep down inside of a lot of Democratic power brokers, they want to be Republicans without conscience and all the full benefits—they have a tough time facing their children and grandchildren, and sleeping at night, if they do.


It’s a quandry, Mark. What do you suggest?

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 27, 2006 11:43 PM
Comment #184629

“Except for Kucinich.”

Pilsner,

What do you mean by that? You throw stones without even defining your target.

You think Kucinich may call Bin Laden and reveal the details of the NIE?

Make yourself clear.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 27, 2006 11:48 PM
Comment #184630

Kansas Dem, huh?

In the spirit of honest dialogue, of holding myself to a standard of correctness that I only wish my debating opponents here would maintain, I became aware that I had made a factual error and attempted to correct it. I’m virtually the only one who does this, so sorry for any confusion.

I had said in my post of two minutes ealier that all Democrats in congress who ran for president in 04 had voted for the Iraqi war resolution. Then I realized I was wrong!

Except for Kucinich.

Posted by: Pilsner at September 27, 2006 11:56 PM
Comment #184631

Jeff:
“For far to long he have taken it in the butt and all we have done is whine. We need somebody with some real stones to stand up and say enough. But who.”

One man: RUSS FEINGOLD
We need to clone that man, because he’s unafraid to speak the truth. He’s been absolutely right about the Patriot Act (he’s the one Senator who actually read and voted against it), the Iraq War (voted against), and censuring the president for illegal warrantless wiretapping (though hardly any of his colleagues had the stones to stand up with him).
You want a guy with brains? Feingold.
You want a guy that does what is right and be-damned the political expediency or consequences? Feingold.
You want someone who will still do his best to try to work with the right, no matter how odious and partisan they’ve all become? Feingold.
If Feingold isn’t the future of the Democratic Party, then the party is dead.
And I’m out (for good).

Great posts Tim and Kansas Dem.
But the grand American Flag prize goes to: Gratton.
Very well said, sir.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 27, 2006 11:57 PM
Comment #184633

Tim Crow,

I definitely agree we need to show strength. I just don’t like the implication that NO Democrat has shown strength since the Neo-con takeover, which is the “whatever it takes to win” takeover.

Our losses are due to a number of things. If you find a Democrat that’s willing to legislate changes in abortion law barring abortions past the 5th month that allow for every common sense exception, an equal rights law for gays and lesbians that falls just short of “legal marriage”, and a truthful solution to our foreign policies which sadly includes an increase in our available ground forces, we’ll get elected every time.

Maybe!

We’ve become a ME, ME, ME, society.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 28, 2006 12:07 AM
Comment #184637

Pilsner,

OK, I get the Kucinich slur now.

Someting I find amazing is that I’ve brought up Pelosi’s move for a closed session of the House in three different threads and not one Republicant has been able to say two freakin’ words about it.

Why shouldn’t the House of Representatives have a closed session and read the whole damn report?

Why did all but one Republicant vote against the measure?

What do they have to hide?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 28, 2006 12:17 AM
Comment #184642

Adrienne

I can see the ticket now. Feingold/Kucinich.

Posted by: Keith at September 28, 2006 12:34 AM
Comment #184643

Kansas Dem:
“What do they have to hide?”

It’s just as plain as could be: EVERYTHING.
Because they have FAILED.
And they know it, and so should everyone by now.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 28, 2006 12:39 AM
Comment #184644

Kansasdem

You do know that Congress has had the report since April.

Posted by: Keith at September 28, 2006 12:41 AM
Comment #184645

KansasDem, the reason is obvious. The attempt to have a closed session was nothing but a political stunt intended to generate headlines and fan the flames for the Democrat’s far left base during an election season while adding nothing to anybody’s knowledge of the issue. We have the report’s key findings already.

Further, it would set a terrible precedent for the House to be blackmailed into a closed session as a result of illegal and traitorous leaks of classified information.

What needs to happen, actually, is a full investigation into what Democrats have been routinely committing treason with classified intelligence in order to undermine our national security.

My money would be on Carl Levin, who always seems to stick his face in the cameras to spew half-truths and far-left Anti-American talking points whenever one of these illegal leaks occurs.

Where’s Fitzgerald when we need him?

It’s about time we see some Democratic Senators frog-marched out of the Senate and sent up for treason.

Posted by: Pilsner at September 28, 2006 12:45 AM
Comment #184648

Adrienne,

Thank you! I’d missed Grattan’s “heads up” on this:

“Washington-based Lincoln Group won a two-year contract to monitor a number of English and Arabic media outlets and produce public relations-type products like talking points or speeches for U.S. forces in Iraq, officials said Tuesday.”

“The contract is worth roughly $6.2 million per year over a two-year period”

“The idea is to use the information to “build support” in Iraqi, Arabic, international and U.S. audiences for what the military describes as its goals in Iraq”

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2134564.php

Yeah baby, that’s where I want my money to go! Where could 6.2 million go to actually “support” the troops anyway? Maybe better toilet paper? Or to get them the f**k out of there!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 28, 2006 1:00 AM
Comment #184652

“You do know that Congress has had the report since April.
Posted by: Keith at September 28, 2006 12:41 AM”

Show me!

I live next door to the “show me” state and it’s catching.

Remember Harry Truman?

I won’t give you hell, but you better be able to show me you’re right or the truth will tear you a knew a$$hole!

And, if you’re right, then why deny the closed session? Huh? Huh? Why?

Waste of time? People are dieing damn it! Don’t tell me that some damn congressman’s time is worth more than one American Soldiers, Guardman’s or Marines life!

You damn Republican’s love to trot about your hollow rhetoric about supporting the troops so put your emails and letters where your mouth is and demand the House have a closed session to examine and discuss this.

Of course all the Neo-Cons would do is cook up some silly ass bill like withdrawing all troops immediately or some such crap.

You Republicans really have become nothing but a big joke. Sadly, that’s about half of the country.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 28, 2006 1:17 AM
Comment #184653

Pilsner,

Do you realize that the last time such a closed session happened the Iran-Contra scandal unfolded?

Grin while you can. The truth always catches up in the end.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 28, 2006 1:48 AM
Comment #184657
Talk about a day late and a dollar short. Where the hell was the Democratic Party when authorization for use of military force was being discussed in October ‘02?

Umm… They were looking at an intelligence report that had the caveats and dissenting opinions stripped out of it by the White House.

Good post, Paul. Did you see where President Bush said, the leakers were “trying to confuse the American people.”?

I think the only Americans who are confused are those who believed the President’s lies in the first place.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 28, 2006 2:13 AM
Comment #184658

One last thing:

I think this should be called, “thank you, please die now”:

“About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces”

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2500703&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 28, 2006 2:17 AM
Comment #184662

“I think the only Americans who are confused are those who believed the President’s lies in the first place.”

AP,

You’re seldom wrong, but somehow we still have a hell of a lot of confused people in the USA.

Honestly how Bush can have a 40% or better approval rating is simply astonishing.

There is an obvious disconnect from reality among at least one half of Americans.

I’m sure you’ve seen the Jay Leno bits where he asks people simple ass questions and they don’t have a clue what he’s talking about. That’s our future.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 28, 2006 2:28 AM
Comment #184669

Kansasdem

One of the reasons that you cannot believe what the MSM says, is that they are great at only telling you what you want to hear. If you actually look at the poll you will see that the numbers aren’t as bad as they say. The poll was of 1000 people with an oversample of 150 Sunnis.

Look at the actual poll numbers.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=brme

Also look a the other articles on their attitudes towards Al Qaida, Iran and Syria.

I

Posted by: Keith at September 28, 2006 3:04 AM
Comment #184671

I tend to think the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats on this issue is that while Republicans treat this as a war, Democrats continue to believe that it is a criminal matter. Thier reaction to Bush’s wiretapping is a prime example. It would have been a criminal offense, probably impeachable, for Bush to authorize warrantless wiretaps in a time of peace, espeically if the calls were domestic. However, calls from foriegn countries, especially in a time of war, enjoy no such protections. It is equivilent to Roosevelt allowing letter from Germany to American citizens without being read during WWII and just as foolish now.

Much the same applies to thier reaction to the detainee issue. What next, are we going to have to Mirandize insurgents we capture? I believe the Democrats are sincere, but I think they look at this from entirely the wrong perspective.

That being said, it would have been hard for Clinton to frame this as a war. America largely forgot about the Khobar Towers, the embassy bombings etc shortly after they happened. Espeically given Clinton’s lack of a cooperative Congress and his own domestic problems, to sustain the willpower and gather a consensus to treat the War on Terror as anything but a large criminal investigation would have been very difficult for Clinton.

Posted by: 1LT B at September 28, 2006 3:34 AM
Comment #184672

Keith,

Aren’t we agreeing rather than disagreeing?

I’m quoting your source here:

“A substantial portion of Iraqis support attacks on US led-forces, but not attacks on Iraqi government security forces or Iraqi civilians. Ethnic groups vary sharply on these questions.”

“Overall, 47% say they approve of “attacks on US-led forces” (23% strongly). There are huge differences between ethnic groups. An extraordinary 88% of Sunnis approve, with 77% approving strongly. Forty-one percent of Shia approve as well, but just 9% strongly. Even 16% of Kurds approve (8% strongly). “

Somewhat different stats, but still far from good. If slightly under or slightly over half of the people in this town wanted me dead I’d leave.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 28, 2006 3:34 AM
Comment #184673

To my question, “Where were the Dems when Authorization for military force in Iraq was debated in Oct.,’02?” American Pundit replies:

“Umm… They were looking at an intelligence report that had the caveats and dissenting opinions stripped out of it by the White House.”

Perhaps—I’m not overlooking the misrepresentation of the Bush administration. But I find it curious that there were still twenty-three senators that wouldn’t budge, including one of my senators.

Kansas:

“I definitely agree we need to show strength. I just don’t like the implication that NO Democrat has shown strength since the Neo-con takeover, which is the “whatever it takes to win” takeover.”

Of couse, there are a few Dems that have resisted some of Bush’s more telling failures—as Adrienne rightly points out, Russ Feingold has done a truly remarkable job in fighting the more insane GOP policy. There’s Kucinich, Waxman, DeFazio and Frank in the House as well.

But when John Murtha in December of 2005 had the courage to stand up and speak the unspeakable—that Iraq is a failed policy that’s breaking the US military, the Dems scattered like startled pheasants. And it was only three or four days later that Pelosi meekly allowed as to the correctness of Murtha’s position.

I’m not saying the Dems need to be lock-step on everything. But they had better at least be on the same page on major issues. The polls show that a large majority of Dems (and Americans in general) think it’s time to consider a withdrawl from Iraq. That the Democratic Party is unable, or unwilling to formulate a policy that recognizes that simple fact—I’ve got a serious problem with.

I won’t even brouch my concerns about the economy.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 28, 2006 3:49 AM
Comment #184675

1LT B,

I’d argue the point the same way I stated earlier. The vast majority of Americans don’t have the stomach for war. If it means a draft of any sort, or extremely higher taxes they want no part of it.

Why didn’t Reagan take harsher action after the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut. While Reagan was far from my favorite president he was certainly not a pu$$y.

I actually agree that we need to see this thru, but we need to make some major strategic changes not the least of which is increasing troop strength possibly 4 or 5 fold to secure all borders and maintain peace in each and every area after we’ve once taken the ground.

We played this same “whack-a-mole” game in Nam and even the Korean war. Rummy says we’re not doing body counts but I say BS! We have guys and gals there pulling their 5th freakin’ stints of duty and some being extended so it doesn’t “look” to the general public like a redeployment. This can’t go on without a large influx of new troops and we can’t train new troops in 8 to 12 weeks like we did for WWII or other subsequent wars.

And the problem extends far beyond Iraq. We’re staring down the barrels of several loaded guns and some of those with their finger on the trigger are just waiting for that one blink, where we’re caught with our pants down. I think we’re closer to that blink now than ever before in my lifetime and I’m 55 years old.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 28, 2006 4:00 AM
Comment #184677

Tim Crow,

You’re correct. I think I’m feeling a bit re-energized at the moment because of Clinton baring his fangs and wagging his finger.

Then again I just had my plasmopheresis and that always recharges my batteries for a little while.

I definitely agree that just because we’re in the minority it’s no time to wimp out. If I can survive with 80% of my neighbors being Republicans I think our elected Democrats should be able to be at least as tough as me.

It’s pretty much as simple as either standing up or getting stood on.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 28, 2006 4:13 AM
Comment #184678

KansasDem,

Being a Democrat here in Utah I know just how you feel, like being in the Alamo. But seeing Clinton on Fox was like watching Bowie draw a line in the sand.

Posted by: trublu at September 28, 2006 4:34 AM
Comment #184693

KansasDem,

I’m inclined to think you’re right, sadly enough. I think that we learned the wrong lessons of the first Gulf War. In that conflict, along with Bosnia, we got the idea that war was a spectator sport made for television where only the bad guys died. We should have been paying more attention to Somalia. The sad fact of the matter is that we today resemble the Romans in thier decline who sat watching circuses as the barbarians breached the walls.

I’m not sure that things are as bad as you make them out to be, though. While the Army is pretty much overextended, the Navy and Air Force are still well off. If anyone does get the idea of messing with us, we can still make thier lives excessively miserable by cutting off their sea trade and bombing the hell out of them without having to send in ground troops. the fortunate thing for us is that our major foes right now, North Korea and Iran, are more reliant on thier infastructure than places like Afghanistan, meaning lots of immovable and valuable targets for the aeredales to reduce to rubble.

Posted by: 1LT B at September 28, 2006 9:34 AM
Comment #184708

Mark doesn’t think we can win in Iraq. With attitudes like that we’d be speaking German east of the Mississippi River and Japanese west of it.

I know all of the 60’s pot smokers are all professors now and they’re trying to relive their youth by charging up another defeat via political uproar, but let’s try to forego that self-flagellation this one time, shall we?

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 28, 2006 11:07 AM
Comment #184717

1LT B-
I think it’s oversimplification to say that we only see it as a criminal matter. It’s more accurate to say that we don’t reject taking that route.

On the subject of detainees, I would say the point of what we and others ask is not to pamper the terrorists, but to aid the process of weeding the real terrorists from among the suspects, and ensure that we’re getting good intelligence from the real ones.

Calls between foreign nationals, true enough, do not require warrants. It’s only when an American citizen is on the line, or could likely be expected to get on the line, that we need a warrant. These warrants are rarely rejected.

Comparisons to earlier times are not warranted, because we have no official state of war at hand, and there seems to be no definite end to Bush’s state of emergency.

On the subject of Air and Sea Power, the problem is that we still can’t take and keep land. What do we do if Iran or North Korea engage and escalate with their considerable ground forces?

Ken Strong-
I’m glad you brought up the NIE, because it contradicts your past assertions on nearly every front besides the one you cite.

Here it is:

United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of
al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qa’ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization. We also assess that the global jihadist movement—which includes al- Qa’ida, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells—is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts.

• Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists,although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.
• If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.
• Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting thevulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qa’ida, could erode support for the jihadists.
We assess that the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global strategy, and is becoming more diffuse. New jihadist networks and cells, with anti-American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge. The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups.
• We assess that the operational threat from self-radicalized cells will grow in importance to US counterterrorism efforts, particularly abroad but also in the Homeland.
• The jihadists regard Europe as an important venue for attacking Western interests. Extremist networks inside the extensive Muslim diasporas in Europe facilitate recruitment and staging for urban attacks, as illustrated by the 2004 Madrid and 2005 London bombings.
We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.
• The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre. for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.
• Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq jihad; (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims, all of which jihadists exploit.
Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement. They include dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of the jihadists. radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens.
• The jihadists’ greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution, an ultra-conservative interpretation of shari’a-based governance spanning the Muslim world.is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists. propaganda would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade.
• Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. This also could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror.
• Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders. If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. Nonetheless, attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities for jihadists to exploit.
Al-Qa’ida, now merged with Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s network, is exploiting the situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role.
• The loss of key leaders, particularly Usama Bin Ladin, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and al-Zarqawi, in rapid succession, probably would cause the group to fracture into smaller groups. Although like-minded individuals would endeavor to carry on the mission, the loss of these key leaders would exacerbate strains and disagreements. We assess that the resulting splinter groups would, at least for a time, pose a less serious threat to US interests than does al-Qa’ida.
• Should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks against Muslims, we assess he could broaden his popular appeal and present a global threat.
• The increased role of Iraqis in managing the operations of al-Qa’ida in Iraq might lead veteran foreign jihadists to focus their efforts on external operations. Other affiliated Sunni extremist organizations, such as Jemaah Islamiya, Ansar al-Sunnah, and several North African groups, unless countered, are likely to expand their reach and become more capable of multiple and/or mass-casualty attacks outside their traditional areas of operation.
• We assess that such groups pose less of a danger to the Homeland than does al-Qa’ida but will pose varying degrees of threat to our allies and to US interests abroad. The focus of their attacks is likely to ebb and flow between local regime targets and regional or global ones.
We judge that most jihadist groups,both well-known and newly formed, will use improvised explosive devices and suicide attacks focused primarily on soft targets to implement their asymmetric warfare strategy, and that they will attempt to conduct sustained terrorist attacks in urban environments. Fighters with experience in Iraq are a potential source of leadership for jihadists pursuing these tactics.
• CBRN capabilities will continue to be sought by jihadist groups. While Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria, remain the most active state sponsors of terrorism, many other states will be unable to prevent territory or resources from being exploited by terrorists.
Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint.
• We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, propagandize, recruit, train, and obtain logistical and financial support.

The war is serving as a means to radicalize people. The sooner we end it, this report says, and the greater quality with which we end it, the better.

Unfortunately, all your side wants to do is keep it going until the terrorist and insurgents give up. It’s naive to think you can win a war by waiting until an enemy in their home field gets tired of fighting. We either dedicate overwhelming force and brilliant political and diplomatic arrangements to getting this war resolved in a timely manner, or we choose to lose it. That simple. And that’s what most Democrats have been telling you, and you’ve been refusing to believe we honestly meant.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 28, 2006 11:36 AM
Comment #184745

“Mark doesn’t think we can win in Iraq. With attitudes like that we’d be speaking German east of the Mississippi River and Japanese west of it.”

Gosh darn bilinguals… let’s shoot ‘em all.

Yea. Ride ‘em cowboy.

Posted by: tony at September 28, 2006 1:02 PM
Comment #184747

Ken,

WOW! The republicans mad at the Democrats for cherry picking certain lines from reports.

YIKES! Sounds just like Bush and his 2002 state of the union speech and all of his talks leading up to our attack of Iraq. Remember, we now know for a fact (thanks to the reports) that Bush had many people and reports that contridicted his assertion for attacking Iraq. But you guy’s all think that was OK.

I guess it is OK for the republicans to cherry pick reports and lines, but by god, don’t let the other side do it.

Posted by: Rusty at September 28, 2006 1:12 PM
Comment #184758

Ken Strong

What does my opinion on the fiasco in Iraq have to do with WWII? Germany was attacking other countries as was Japan. Who was Iraq attacking in 2003? Were there thousands of casualties in Germany and Japan every month, month after month, after they were occupied by Allied Forces? Did we have casualties on a daily basis after occupying those countries for three+ years?
Quit trying to divert attention to something that has nothing to do with the problems that exsist today. Our country is in no danger of being overtaken by Iraq as you suggest, perhaps you’re the one that needs to get off the hallucigins.

Posted by: mark at September 28, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #184761

By the way, Ken, I’m not a 60’s pot smoker or a college prof. I’m just a self-employed construction worker, not someone who is getting paid by the Republican Party to sit around in front of a computer all day and half the night to give Deomocrats a hard time. Later.

Posted by: mark at September 28, 2006 1:53 PM
Comment #184763

“Mark doesn’t think we can win in Iraq. With attitudes like that we’d be speaking German east of the Mississippi River and Japanese west of it.”

That was original. Hear that on rush, or hannity?

“I know all of the 60’s pot smokers are all professors now”

Yeah, all 20 million.

“and they’re trying to relive their youth by charging up another defeat via political uproar,”

You should try a doobie, might mellow you out.

” but let’s try to forego that self-flagellation this one time, shall we?”

What you do at home by yourself is your own business.

Posted by: Observer at September 28, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #184783

Kansas:

“We have guys and gals there pulling their 5th freakin’ stints of duty and some being extended so it doesn’t “look” to the general public like a redeployment. This can’t go on without a large influx of new troops and we can’t train new troops in 8 to 12 weeks like we did for WWII or other subsequent wars.”

This really strikes at the core of neo-con disingenuousness. It galls me to no end that National Guard units, through “stop-lose” mumbo-jumbo, are on their fourth tours of duty so the Bush administration doesn’t have to pay the political piper by instituting a draft.

This alone (well, along with Bush’s exhortation a few days after 9/11 for the American consumer to go out and shop [charge a credit card—kill a kommie]), is a tell-tale sign that this is a war on corporatist’s agendas. This is about money, and as in all conservative, neo-con ideas about money, it’s all about socializing the costs and the deaths, and privatizing the profits.

War on Terror indeed. This is a war on the American working class.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 28, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #184784

Kansas:

“We have guys and gals there pulling their 5th freakin’ stints of duty and some being extended so it doesn’t “look” to the general public like a redeployment. This can’t go on without a large influx of new troops and we can’t train new troops in 8 to 12 weeks like we did for WWII or other subsequent wars.”

This really strikes at the core of neo-con disingenuousness. It galls me to no end that National Guard units, through “stop-lose” mumbo-jumbo, are on their fourth tours of duty so the Bush administration doesn’t have to pay the political piper by instituting a draft.

This alone (well, along with Bush’s exhortation a few days after 9/11 for the American consumer to go out and shop [charge a credit card—kill a kommie]), is a tell-tale sign that this is a war on corporatist’s agendas. This is about money, and as in all conservative, neo-con ideas about money, it’s all about socializing the costs and the deaths, and privatizing the profits.

War on Terror indeed. This is a war on the American working class.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 28, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #184787

Kansas:

“We have guys and gals there pulling their 5th freakin’ stints of duty and some being extended so it doesn’t “look” to the general public like a redeployment. This can’t go on without a large influx of new troops and we can’t train new troops in 8 to 12 weeks like we did for WWII or other subsequent wars.”

This really strikes at the core of neo-con disingenuousness. It galls me to no end that National Guard units, through “stop-lose” mumbo-jumbo, are on their fourth tours of duty so the Bush administration doesn’t have to pay the political piper by instituting a draft.

This alone (well, along with Bush’s exhortation a few days after 9/11 for the American consumer to go out and shop [charge a credit card—kill a kommie]), is a tell-tale sign that this is a war on corporatist’s agendas. This is about money, and as in all conservative, neo-con ideas about money, it’s all about socializing the costs and the deaths, and privatizing the profits.

War on Terror indeed. This is a war on the American working class.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 28, 2006 3:28 PM
Comment #184793

Wow, a triple play—sorry folks!

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 28, 2006 3:38 PM
Comment #184812

Hi,
To all you Democrats out there , we need you at meetings when a democrat runner comes to your town , do you go out to meet them and donate to their run for office? Are you getting out to tell them what you want , and what you think.There is a super nice bunch of people out there and they need your support.
That is how the gop took our power away from us.They started it when Clinton started his first term. Of course it was Tom Delay and his friend , that set up the religious fund, to hide behind and them getting all the churches to believing the Democrats were bad people. Getting all the lies started about us. Liberals were bad, name calling.And all that type of stuff.Bullies type things, and we sat back and let them.
Well not any more , we want our America back, we want honor back, we want peace back.We want honesty back. We want the theme of love your neighbor back. We want the lies to stop. we want the hate to stop. we want the bullies stopped.
And we want honest government back.
And we are going to get what we want.We are willing to fight for what we want . We are honest , hard working people, good people, fair people,and most are Christian people, not that that is a requirement , but it is there also. We are just as good if not one heck of a lot better than , what we have now.
When they got their turn in office they started with a surplus, we will start with a debt, that will be a rope around our necks , that we will have to over come again. But maybe our lessons have been learned.
Come on out and help, it’s your country too.

Posted by: Sue McAvoy at September 28, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #184813

Does anyone have a good link to an informed review and evaluation of the key points of the NIE report summary?

Thanks,

Tom

Posted by: TMU at September 28, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #184819

TMU-
The trick is that the rest of the report is classified, so truly informed analysis is problematic. Bush could solve that with a declassified version of the document as a whole, but I think he’s choosing to dribble out the information to minimize the negative effect of it.

I know the GOP jumps on the Iraq point, but the rest of the report definitively says that our strategy has made things worse, and that we need to change course if we want to head our enemies off.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 28, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #184825

So, its not the liberal agenda that half of the American voters have a problem with, its evil corporations like Wal-Mart, lies and mumbo-jumbo, that keep people from voting for the Democrat Party?

I thought you guys wanted to finally win an election, not “stay the course.”

Posted by: kctim at September 28, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #184851

Paul in Euroland:

“Get up off the parliamentary side of your arse!” (Michael Collins)

I like that.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 28, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #184898

Stephen

“I know the GOP jumps on the Iraq point, but the rest of the report definitively says that our strategy has made things worse, and that we need to change course if we want to head our enemies off.”

Are you clairvoyant or do you work for the NYT?

Posted by: Keith at September 28, 2006 7:21 PM
Comment #184900

Stephen D.

I think there can be some fairly important conclusions drawn from the information given. I’m not convinced yet that it’s appropriate for the Executive branch to provide to the Legislative branch of government this kind of information. The lines and purposes of the two branches of government begin to get blurred…

Having said that, there may be need for a complete review, which is why I would like to see an expert evaluation of the given summary. I’m not a big partisan politics kind of guy so I like to rely on evaluations and facts rather than election dates to determine what the right thing to do is.

Thanks,
Tom

Posted by: TMU at September 28, 2006 7:25 PM
Comment #184916

Keith-
I cut and pasted the entire set of the NIE conclusions in one of my comments above. You can’t miss it.

TMU-
If we’re going to ask our Senators and Representatives to vote on wars and policies for our sake, they had damn well better know the truth. Keeping them in the dark is only going to increase the likelihood of another leap into a misguided war, or another misguided policy. We do not need the future presidents of this country to be able to spoonfeed congress information however they like it, keeping the real facts to themselves.

Americans need to have control over what wars are fought in their name. Congress must know why it’s approving such actions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 28, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #184929

Stephen

I’m sorry, I could have sworn you just said that the whole 40 something pages were not released.

Posted by: Keith at September 28, 2006 8:26 PM
Comment #184930

Well, hot off the presses—Dems fold again on Senate bill 3930; the detention/torture bill passes 65-34, with a whopping 12 Democratic senators voting for this torch to the Constitution.

This is the type of thing that infuriates me about the Democratic Party. WHERE WAS THE FILIBUSTER on this??!

If they want my vote, they’re going to have to do better than this.

Unbelievable.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 28, 2006 8:26 PM
Comment #184935

Tim Crow

I would think you would be thrilled isn’t this the bipartisanship you guys are always talking about.

Posted by: Keith at September 28, 2006 8:36 PM
Comment #184947

Keith:

Yeah, a bi-partisanship that makes a paper airplane out of the Constitution, and urinates on the Magna Carta.

This isn’t bi-partisanship. This is collusion in one of the biggest heists of human rights in this country since the Alien and Sedition Act. Welcome to 1984.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 28, 2006 9:06 PM
Comment #184964

The demacrats should refer to this president as the torture president. They should insist on knowing who has been tortured. They should demand to know who has been wiretaped. They should demand to know where all the money that is not accounted for in Iraq. Then should bring to light the 10,000 Iraqi citizens imprisoned in Iraq. Are they al-quida? Or is there only crime is being opposed to Americans on their native soil. They should beat that drum til Nov.7

Posted by: George W. Rove aka Allen at September 28, 2006 10:14 PM
Comment #184976

AMERICA DIED TODAY !!!

Washington, DC Sept.28th, 2006.
America died today and narry a shot was heard. The death of America came swiftly on the hill today and not Democrat of Republician stood their ground in protection of (please excuse my spelling) havious corpous, or the American people.

There will be no funeral held, and many Americans will go on just the same and never know when it happened or how. Many will see the headlines of Americas death, yet with little awareness or understanding.

I have been an American for over 60 years.
And, part of me died today too. I feel dead inside. I know now what it is like to be without a country. I am truly homeless.

With every year, every day a horror, with this Administration, since Jan.21, 2001 I just really dont think that if could get worse, and now I really dont think that I can take it any more. I am ready to throw in the towel.

If America doesnt care, then it really is dead. What happened today (on the hill), just only served as a way to hold a very private service (of rememberance), of the dear departed.

(No flowers were sent - It was a private ceramony — with just family and a small group of friends in attendance).

Posted by: PlayNice at September 28, 2006 11:06 PM
Comment #184979

Playnice

I gotta tell ya, that was worthy of daytime TV.

Posted by: Keith at September 28, 2006 11:23 PM
Comment #185075

Playnice,
Notice that there was absolutely no attempt to rebut the assertions in your post?

Maybe all those who do not wish to abide by the constitution should go somewhere else to live. Maybe the rest of us freedom and liberty loving Americans could exist without the threat of no habeus corpus, without the threat of pre-emptive warfare against countries that did not attack us.

There are plenty of countries that are already shitpots, as the neocons are trying to re-make this country. I’m sure that all of you who support the shredding of freedoms, the stifling of any dissent, would enjoy residing there.

I will miss the old, free America.

Posted by: Steve Miller at September 29, 2006 11:38 AM
Comment #185104

FDR told us “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Now the Occupant of the White House and the Republican Party, the neo-con, are practicing “the only thing we have to exploit is fear.”

Hear in Kansas we have our Republican candidates for Govenor and Attorney General using fear in their campaign, not fact. Fear terrorist, illegal alians, teens having sex and the list goes on and on. Even on the legislative leval we have the GOP spewing fear or people that are not “like us”, who ever that is.

If you are sick and tired of the same old fear mongering we all can do something. VOTE DEMOCRATIC.

Posted by: C.T. Rich at September 29, 2006 1:21 PM
Comment #185107

Steve Miller,
Well put. The neo-cons are making this country over in their own twisted image. Now is the time to get everyone we can get out and vote. We must take back our counrty and the moderate Republicans MUST take back their party from the ultra conservative, distroy inorder to build Republicans.

REMEMBER TO VOTE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Posted by: C.T. Rich at September 29, 2006 1:27 PM
Comment #185232

Keith-
I didn’t say the entire NIE. I said the conclusions. You should read them regardless.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 29, 2006 9:11 PM
Comment #185273

C.T. Rich,

Are you in Moran’s district. Everyone thinks I’m nuts for putting all of my eggs in Doll’s basket, but I really want to flip that House seat.

That would be such a huge wake up call for both Brownback and Roberts!

Well, a dream maybe, but it’s my dream and I’m doing everything I can (which isn’t much).

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 30, 2006 2:42 AM
Comment #185310

K.T. Rich & Steve Miller

VOTE, vote how?
What good will voting do? Get the, Democrat is “great” and Republician is “bad”, B.S. out of your eyes and just please, tell me how I am supposed to vote, to change this mess? (As if any vote will count, that could do any good, from the way voting frawd has run rampit in the last two elections.) Grow up! The deck has already been stacked, against America!

How many good Democrats do we have up there on the hill anyway? How many? You say we dont have enough. Enough for what? How many does it take to grow a pair? Huh? How many does it take to stand up and say,

“NO, NO, NO.THIS IS MY COUNTRY AND YOU WILL NOT, CAN NOT, MUST NOT, DISTROY IT, NEVER, WHILE THERE IS A BREATH IN MY BODY!”

I am turning off Air America. I have cancelled my Democrat email. And, just before I cancelled, on 9/28/06 I wrote them this:

“You absolute pukes!
How could you even think of letting what happened on the hill today happen?
Not enough votes my bloody ass!!!

If I were only a party of one, I would take that podium, and grab hold and I wouldnt stop talking or let go untill someone shot me in the head.

YOU BLOODY CHICKENS……
HOW DARE YOU BE A PARTY TO THE KILLING OF AMERICA!!!

Worthless, …… the whole lot of you!
I’ve had it!”

NOTICE TO ALL YOU DEMOCRATS AND LIBERALS OUT THERE!

America is Dead!

The 1st, 4th, 6th, 8th, and part of the 7th Amendments of the Constitution is dead, has been distroyed. What makes us free, what makes us great, what makes us what we are, IS DEAD

Heres what I wrote in case you missed it:

AMERICA DIED TODAY !!!

Washington, DC Sept.28th, 2006.

America died today and narry a shot was heard. The death of America came swiftly on the hill today, and not Democrat of Republician stood their ground in protection of (please excuse my spelling) havious corpous, the American people, or the Constitution of the United States of America.

There will be no funeral held, and many Americans will go on just the same and never know when it happened, or how. Many will see the headlines of Americas death, yet with little awareness or understanding.

I have been an American for over 60 years.
And, part of me died today, too. I feel dead inside. I know now, what it is like to be without a country. I am truly homeless.

With every year, every month, every day a horror, with this Administration, since Jan.21, 2001; I just really dont think that it could get much worse. And, now I really dont think that I can take it any more. I am ready to throw in the towel.

If America doesnt care, then it really is dead! What happened today (on the hill), just only served as a way to hold a very private service (of rememberance), of the dearly departed.

(No flowers were sent - It was a private ceramony — with just family and a small group of friends, in attendance).

Posted by: PlayNice at September 28, 2006 11:06 PM

Now as for me? Im out of here. Ive had it. I would fight until I couldnt crawl anymore, if I thought I have a chance, if we had a chance to find the old America that I grew up with. When we had real morality, when Americans, all Americans were free, and the “Law of the Land”, was respected and obeyed.

AMERICA, YOU ARE LOST…..GET THE HELL OVER IT!

I am out of here. I am going to learn to live my life as a Republician. I am going to turn off the news, turn off talk radio, and learn to be ignorant about what goes on in this world politically.

I am going to fill my life with “feel good”, words and music, and sit and think that the “world is just a wonderful, happy place to live in”.

I am going to sell the house, find some nice island somewhere, where I can live off coconuts and bananas, “climb a tree and learn to play the flute”.

So have a nice life! (Pretending that you can change the world….the world of Bushs making, I hope you all enjoy — WWIII).


Posted by: PlayNice at September 30, 2006 10:35 AM
Comment #185419

And just who the hell are you goin to shoot dip stick? You going to personally shoot the entire American military to get your rights BACK???

Or, is just your local police force enough for you, HUH?

Posted by: PlayNice at September 30, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #185484

Califrep,
In all fairness, I have a hard time imagining the founders putting up with Bush’s crap. They did,after all WRITE the constitution. You do make an excellent point, however unwittingly, about the need for the left to rise up and make a huge stink, before it’s too late. Playnice seems to think it might already be too late.

You know, there are many ways to “disarm” a populace. One way is to call people who speak out against you “unpatriotic” “for the other side” etc. And gee, look, here’s the government deciding what rights we should and should not have. Not good my friend, not good. You see, we agree on this!

Posted by: Steve Miller at September 30, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #185492

Armed or not, the wrong kind of people, be they gays, disabled, Jews, Black, Gypies, funny last names, None German, or just turned in by someone that didnt like them (Like the guy that was inocent of anything and taken to a secret prison in Syria and tortured by our governemnt; somehow those people were not taken in a crowd, or in the lite of day, or with weapons in their hands.

Now you may think your a cross between Bruce Lee, the Terminator, John Wayne and Rocky, but when they come for YOU, in the middle of the night, or at some airport somewhere, I hope you can fight off the 7th fleet


all by your lonesome.

Posted by: PlayNice at September 30, 2006 10:56 PM
Comment #186000


“A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.” Lincoln’s ‘House-Divided’ Speech in Springfield, Illinois, June 16, 1858.

What is important in this country is each other not trying to get or crush the other party… We are not the enemy

Posted by: Jeff S at October 3, 2006 8:36 PM
Post a comment