Democrats & Liberals Archives

The RNC and OBL Work Together to Terrorize Americans

The Republican National Committee is up to it’s old terrorist tactics to drum up votes this November, using their old political pal spokesperson, Osama Bin Laden, to strike fear into the electorate.

    ter•ror•ism: a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorising or condition of being terrorised.

    prop•a•gan•da: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person; ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause

    ter•ror•ist prop•a•gan•da:

Now we are suppose to be all scared of OBL? It wasn't that long ago that President Bush told us that he wasn't concerned with OBL.

It has been over 5 years and this administration has failed miserably to bring OBL to justice. Now they are running an ad telling us to be afraid of the the very terrorists they have failed to capture? How is that suppose to make me want to vote for Republican incompetence? And why am I suppose to want to vote for the party that uses terrorists as their spokespeople?

Posted by JayJay Snow at October 25, 2006 3:22 AM
Comments
Comment #190088

Okay, that’s totally disgusting.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 25, 2006 1:57 AM
Comment #190090

If Democrats were as vile as Republican’ts we’d run a simple 15 second add of a counter running up the number of American deaths due to terrorist activity since Bush took office.

Or we might mention how Reagan’s decision to pull out of Lebanon after the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut emboldened the Islamic extremists.

The words “honor” and “republican” simply don’t fit in the same sentence anymore.

KD

Posted by: KansasDem at October 25, 2006 2:34 AM
Comment #190091

JayJay

Do you always get your talking points from Keith Olberman.

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20061024.asp#3

Posted by: Keith at October 25, 2006 2:56 AM
Comment #190092

KD

Or how running from Somalia or running from Vietnam…

Posted by: Keith at October 25, 2006 2:57 AM
Comment #190099

Keith,

Great response to KD. Its ironic that the very success in countering terrorism in the US that Bush’s policies have been responsible for has lulled the American people into a false sense of security that the Democrats seek to exploit while at the same time doing everything in their power to undermine.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 25, 2006 3:38 AM
Comment #190101

Same song, what verse….Keith while Im sure a very rational and insightful justification to disagree with the opening statement of the forum it seems you have chosen not to supply either of them. That is to bad, It would have been refreshing for a republican to provide a real rebuttle instead of the traditional approach of discrediting the source and labeling all criticism unfair,unamerican, unsubstantiated…..pick an adjective.


Keith did you actually start a sentence with a conjuction? That aside I am still at a loss deciphering a point.

Posted by: Aaron at October 25, 2006 4:02 AM
Comment #190108

Playing to fear has worked before; it’s not surprising the Republicans would try again. What’s interesting is that if this had been released by OBL and released by CNN (but not Fox), many Republicans would be screaming about terrorist propaganda.

Actually, I expect OBL and gang to release another video before the elections.

—-

Aaron,

And what’s wrong with starting a sentence with a conjunction?

Posted by: Trent at October 25, 2006 6:23 AM
Comment #190118

That is truly one of the vilest things I’ve seen in a long time.

Those who seek to instill fear in the hearts of the populace to achieve or retain power are not leaders, they are opportunists and panderers. True leaders seek to embolden, to raise the spirits of their followers and to lead the way to prominence, not to remind the people of their frailty and promote the illusion of a never-ending and all-consuming need for protection at all costs.

“The Republican National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.” Truer words were never spoken.

“And, again, I don’t know where he is. I - I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.” [emphasis added]

- President George W. Bush on March 13, 2002, in response to the question: “But don’t you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won’t truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?” Source

Atrocious, the whole damn thing.

Posted by: Liberal Demon at October 25, 2006 7:26 AM
Comment #190128

Keith-
So what’s your opinion about using terrorist propaganda for political purposes?

As for running from Somalia, we stayed there an additional six months after Blackhawk Down. We weren’t supposed to stay forever to begin with; our presence was supposed to persist until UN forces came to replace us. Now taking six months to leave from that point hardly counts as running. It’s not even a fast walk.

We should recall what our mission was to begin with. Somalia was a country in civil war. Our mission was humanitarian. Just what would our mission have been had we stayed? What would have been our goal? Nobody knew about Bin Laden, nobody knew that this was anything but a local warlord taking advantage of a tactical error, resulting in an embarassing fiasco for America. Why should we blame Clinton for not rubbing America’s face in a continuation of that failure? Clinton had the sense to hold the UN to its originial deal, and not perseverate on a failure just to sooth his hurt ego.

As for Vietnam? We weren’t the ones who oversaw the withdrawal from there. Nixon campaigned on running away, if that’s what you call any withdrawal you didn’t like. His idea of withdrawal, though seemed to be just him stalling for time to try and extract a victory out of the war. The results of his policy? We still lost. Vietnam was lost in the start when people started getting disconnected from reality, when we didn’t secure the political victory first, when we allowed our presence to become an addictive substitute for the South Vietnamese standing up for themselves. We lost not because we ran away, but because the South Vietnamese never really arrived.

1LT B-
Terrorists have seen a rise in their ranks, and have managed a good number of attacks, despite this supposedly successful campaign against the terrorists. Americans haven’t been lulled, they’re on edge. They’re wondering here how much worse Bush’s plans can make things.

As for your charge, it’s insulting, and it shows the deficit of understanding on your part of our true positon. Go and read what I’ve written over the last few years. My concerns are generally that of my party. We have backed the soldiers, we are more than willing to go after this nation’s worst enemies, and do so first. Many of us, myself included want to see Iraq secured before we go. Those few who don’t only take that position because they despair of the possibility given Bush’s policy over the last few years.

Why won’t you recognize your fellow allies in the War on Terrorism? Why do you have to insist on shutting us out? Why do you say we don’t know who the real enemy is when we’ve consistently identified that enemy as the son of a bitch who knocked down those buildings, and who our president promised to get dead or alive?

This bullshit has got to stop. This hatred of the Right for the left is only serving to divide America at the time it needs unity most.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 25, 2006 8:48 AM
Comment #190132

Classic. The GOP using fear the OBL is still out there, yet they are the very party that turned their backs on hunting him down in order to pursue their war of choice in Iraq. In fact:

“Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes appeared on Fox News to discuss his recent meeting with President Bush in the Oval Office. The key takeaway for Barnes was that “bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism.” Barnes said that Bush told him capturing bin Laden is “not a top priority use of American resources.”

Yet they’re tyring to use the fear that OBL is still out there to keep these buffoons in power? Hyocrisy, and incompetence, at its worst.

Posted by: Dart Independent at October 25, 2006 9:18 AM
Comment #190139

As a Born-again Christian I find myself disgusted by the fear mongering going on by the supposedly moral and Christian Republicans. Time and again the New Testament tells us not to be afraid, not to worry and to love one another. Playing the fear card does not fit with biblical teachings. Yet somehow a vast number of Christians have latched on to Republicans as being more moral than anyone else. “Look, they oppose killing an embryo, they’re so moral…”, yet gloss over the senseless killing of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of often-time innocent men, women, and children with reality-deflecting terms like, “collateral damage”. One of Jesus’ woes covered this type of thinking, “You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.” (Matt 23:24)

Posted by: johngoes at October 25, 2006 9:58 AM
Comment #190141

I am confused. As a moderate, independent voter looking for real leadership, how is this video supposed to convince me to vote for Republican candidates? It simply reminds me that after 5+ years, Republican leadership has failed to catch the greatest mass murderer in US history. After 5+ years we have spent almost 3000 lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the net result is that OBL and the Taliban are still free. Help. This video convinces me that it is time for a change. I do not know if the Dems can change things around in 2 years, but frankly it’s time for some new leadership and time to try new things. Can’t be worse than what we have seen for the past 5 years. As to the ethics of using this kind of video for political purposes, that is disgusting. And from a party that screams murder everytime a Dem uses terrorist activities for political gain. I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Posted by: SteveK at October 25, 2006 10:13 AM
Comment #190151

Stephen,

A couple of things. Number 1, I’m not at all convinced that the American people are on edge. In fact, I’m convinced that the American view this war as a goddamned spectator sport. There is no draft, no victory gardens, no scrap drives, no sacrifice except on the part of soldiers and thier families. If they were as frightened as you say, why would the Republicans need to fear-monger as you say?

As far as my charges go, which party is the one that boasted of killing the Patriot Act? Which party wants to give illegal combatants the same rights as US citizens? Which party actively undermines almost every step this President has made to keep us safe? Which party supported the war when it was politically expedient to do so, then dropped that same support when it became politically expedient to do so? The Democrats have nothing to offer but criticism, and a road that takes us down a dark path. If Pelosi and her cabal have their way, we will invalidate all the sacrifices we have made in Iraq by pulling out, we will see taxes go up, we will see socialism expand and traditional morality erode. The Democrats stand against everything I believe in and if pointing that out makes me wrong, I don’t want to be right.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 25, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #190155

Stephen

You always have such an interesting take on things. The right doesn’t hate the left, we just thing you’re wrong. The left is the side that hates the right.

Why is it when the Dems run ads saying that the Republicans covered up for a “Child Molester” that’s ok. How about showing a black man getting towed behind a car and basically saying that if you elect Bush this is what you will get.

Get off your high horse and look at both sides for a change.

Posted by: Keithq at October 25, 2006 11:37 AM
Comment #190166

What the democrats should do is run the exact same footage with a new message.

1) These terrorists killed 3000 Americans on 9/11.

2) These terrorists have been ploting and killing more Americans since 9/11.

3) These Terrorists want to kill as many Americans as they can.

4) President Bush said he is not concerned about these terrorists. ( show the actual Bush footage)

5) Isn’t it time to send President Bush a message? Send the President a message he can understand. Vote democratic.

Posted by: jlw at October 25, 2006 12:03 PM
Comment #190169

1LT:

A couple of things. Number 1, I’m not at all convinced that the American people are on edge. In fact, I’m convinced that the American view this war as a goddamned spectator sport. There is no draft, no victory gardens, no scrap drives, no sacrifice except on the part of soldiers and thier families.

The things you mention were requested by the president at the time.

What sacrifices has Bush asked of the people? How about increased taxes to pay for the war? How does lowering taxes in a time of war support the war? How does cutting health care and benefits for soldiers and veterans support the troops?

There are people who have taken it on themselves to supply the troops with things that congress and the president haven’t.

I think you need to be more honest about this. If there is a democratic “cabal” as you say, you need to look within the republican party and you will see the same thing.

If there is not draft, is that a democratic fault? Who has control of both houses of congress?

Had the President asked the country for sacrifices back when he had the support of the whole country and the whole world, he would have gotten it. He didn’t and the result is what you see today.

Why do you suppose so many republican candidates for election/re-election are trying so hard to distance themselves from the president?

I’m not even going to address your take on the patriot act.

And quite frankly, to suggest that any americans view this war as a spectator sport is offensive in so many ways.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 25, 2006 12:17 PM
Comment #190170


Take a look at the new democratic add on You Tube. Stay the course.

Posted by: jlw at October 25, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #190171
I’m convinced that the American view this war as a goddamned spectator sport. There is no draft, no victory gardens, no scrap drives, no sacrifice except on the part of soldiers and thier families.

1LT B - You make this point and in so doing make my point - it takes leadership to change this thinking. The current leadership doesn’t demand sacrifice, instead they push all responsiblity on to the next generation by funding this war on the backs of my grandchildren. Although in general I oppose new taxation, common sense dictates that perhaps we should be asked to sacrifice a little in taxes to fund the effort to defeat terrorism. The same push-it-off leadership was displayed by stating that the next president will deal with troop redployment in Iraq. I voted for GW the 1st time around expecting true conservatism, and in the belief that “compassionate conservatism” meant something good for our country. Well an impulsive poorly planned war with torture actively advocated shows no compassion, and the current leadership has brought untenable growth to our government with rampant spending and never-ending deficits, thus negating any right for Republicans to claim conservatism as a foundation of their seeking our votes. The only ones jumping for joy for this leadership are the very wealthy wallowing in their tax cuts. (In a time of war!) I would gladly give back every Bush tax cut if, in some way, we could regain the position of Honor our nation once held in the world before Bush’s God-forsaken (meant in the biblical sense) Iraq war.

(former SGT & 12 year “cold war” veteran)

Posted by: johngoes at October 25, 2006 12:23 PM
Comment #190173

JLW:

Which one? There are about 10 or so when I did a search?

Can you supply a link?

Posted by: womanmarine at October 25, 2006 12:28 PM
Comment #190176

Johngoes:

Very well said!!

Posted by: womanmarine at October 25, 2006 12:35 PM
Comment #190177


Womanmarine: I’m sorry, I am barely computer literate and don’t no how to link. It was just posted on Talking Points Memo by Josh Marshall. That is where I saw it.

Posted by: jlw at October 25, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #190178

jlw,

Thanks for the tip. Here is a link to the DSCC ad “Want a New Course?”

Posted by: JayJay at October 25, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #190184

Looks like the DSCC has a couple of these ads. Here is a link to a second one “Stay the Course?”

Posted by: JayJay at October 25, 2006 12:58 PM
Comment #190185

Thanks JayJay, and JLW.

JLW, not to worry, we were all new at this once. Thanks for pointing this out to us.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 25, 2006 12:59 PM
Comment #190187

That second ad is tight, the DSCC should be running it nationally.

Posted by: JayJay at October 25, 2006 1:02 PM
Comment #190197

Womanmarine,

The fact that there is not draft etc was not a call for these things, it was supporting my point that to most of the American people this war is a television event and nothing more. As far as lowering the taxes in a time of war, these tax cuts improved the economy and increased tax revenues. If having a smaller budget is supporting the war effort, then I suppose you might have a point. How has Bush cut benefits for Soldiers?

As far as a cabal goes, both parties are cabals. I just happen to prefer the policies of the Republicans. I would imagine the reason why so many Republicans are running away from the President is the sad fact that the war is no longer producing feel good video clips of shit blowing up that they like to see. I suppose I’ll be gracious and not take your comments (or lack thereof) as a concession. As far as many Americans viewing my comments about the war and thier view of it as offensive, to damned bad. I’d like to think that the rights to free expression that I’m sacrificing a year (so far) of my life in Iraq to protect entitles me to have an opinion and voice it. If civilians don’t like it, I suggest they gird their loins and serve themselves and do something to defend their right to be offended.

johngoes,

Good post and good points. I tend to disagree, but I think you could probably figure that based on what I posted the first time around. I don’t take it as pass the buck when Bush said the next president will have to decide the pull out of Iraq, he just acknowledged that we are going to be there longer than he’ll be in office. I would think that the mention of a next president would relieve many libs, most that I’ve encountered seem to believe that Bush is going to establish himself as king or caesar etc.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 25, 2006 1:20 PM
Comment #190200

Here’s a new ad from the DNC:

“The 17 Bin Ladens of 2006”

Posted by: JayJay at October 25, 2006 1:35 PM
Comment #190206
that to most of the American people this war is a television event and nothing more

I don’t know where you got this idea, but from everything I see and read you couldn’t be more wrong about this, and you do the people you are so proud of protecting a huge disservice. I suspect it’s more a case of they don’t agree with you that makes you say such a thing. It must be terrible to be over there and feel that way.

Nobody ever said you couldn’t express your opinion, of course you can. So can the rest of us.

If the budget wasn’t cut along with the taxes, I again point out who has charge of the WHOLE government right now. What does that tell you? I’m sorry, but you need to face that fact. Somehow Democrats were supposed to cut the budget? How realistic is that under the circumstances? Have Democrats been financially responsible on this budget? Hell no. But neither have the Republicans. They both bear responsibility. And since Republicans have control of both houses, they bear more.

If I haven’t said so before, thank you so much for your service.

Just don’t equate the declining support for the war and the current policies for lack of support for the troops. You couldn’t be more wrong, they are not the same thing at all.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 25, 2006 1:52 PM
Comment #190210

1LT B,

I have an enormous respect for servicemen that goes back to my undergraduate days of sharing an apartment with a tank commander in the Reserves. So please don’t take this question the wrong way: How is the war in Iraq protecting our rights? I’m serious. If we don’t invade North Korea, are our rights in danger? It’s not Saddam or Kim who want to know what books Americans check out, or who want to listen without warrant to our telephone calls, or who is threatening our Constitution. I truly think the greatest threat we have is ourselves. As the world’s mightiest superpower, we do not fear a genuine invasion. It is true that in an open society acts of terror can occur, but realistically we are much, much more in danger when we drive our cars or use prescription medicines. I don’t intend to be glib, 1LT B, and I am sincere when I say I’m glad there are thoughtful people like you in the military.

Posted by: Trent at October 25, 2006 2:14 PM
Comment #190216

Jay Jay: I agree, Stay the Course is ready to hit the airways. The 17 Bin Ladens of 2006 sticks Osama right on the Presidents back, just exactly the way he deserves.

One of my favorite little conspiracy plots is that a deal has been struck between the President and the Bin Ladens. The President calls off the search so the Bin Ladens can care for Osama ( he is ill, the poor thing) he is also a sick SOB) and in return, Osama makes a new tape at appropriate times.

Every American knows or should know that the Bin Ladens are a wealthy Saudi family.

Every American knows or should know that the President and some of the Bin Ladens are friends.

Every American knows or should know that some of the Bin Ladens were allowed to leave America right after 9/11 when no one else was allowed to fly.

These facts coupled with the fact that the team searching for Osama was disbanded and the fact that Osamm has been providing tapes makes the little conpiracy theory not so far fetched.

These new adds suggest to me that the democrats are finally getting it. You stick stay the course and Osama to the President and you stick the President to the republican candidates who put the rubber stamp to his policies.

Posted by: jlw at October 25, 2006 2:37 PM
Comment #190220

if i/you were a republican there simply wouldnt b any question asked,like a good little republican.questions are asked only of non(baptist)church run organizations.if one were to make the mistake of asking the higher up’s would simply point out so @ so must b a fag(plenty of evidence for this happening)from then on redneck in question does as its told.

Posted by: scott at October 25, 2006 2:48 PM
Comment #190221

I want some of what Scott’s on.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 25, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #190224

ive read your last three posts womanmarine and you have the whatever to say you want some of what i’m on. wow

Posted by: scott at October 25, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #190226

scott,

I believe that what womanmarine was referring to was not the content of your comment but the incoherence of it.

Sentences, punctuation, and grammar are your friends. I literally cannot read your comment from 2:48.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 25, 2006 3:23 PM
Comment #190234

Keith-
I think the case concerning the dragging did not show the attack, but rather the guy’s widow speaking about the incident, I believe, talking about how Bush did not support legislation against hate crimes.

In the case of Mark Foley? There is good evidence that Hastert and the leadership covered for a man they knew liked to get into inappropriate relationships with underaged boys.

In each case there is a link of substance between the charge and the actions of the people involved.

In the case of the Bin Laden ad, there is no substance to the accusation. Democrats want that man dead, and in fact consider taking care of him more important than Iraq. The only reason many Democrats still support military action in Iraq is for the sake of not handing him a failed state to exploit.

As for Hatred? There are so many charges levelled against us not for what we have done, but for things we’re expected to do. I find that more unfair than resentment over actual actions, which it can be argued is the more substantial center of Democrat animosity towards the other side.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 25, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #190239

There being no way to defend my suspect writing style,from now on I shall grunt and scratch my distrust of all things conservative.

Posted by: scott at October 25, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #190240

1LT B-
Do you not think that Americans would have given that in a second if they were asked? But they were not, and have never been asked. All they’ve been asked to do is keep electing the President’s fellow party members in the name of moral support. We waited for the “Ask not what your country can do for you” moment, and instead we got “Go Shopping.”

I may not be able to speak for others on this, but I can tell you every time I read such charges as you make I get on edge. I’ve never been for depriving this country of security. It’s not either/or with most of us; it’s both. We need both security and freedom, or else the security is just a cruel joke. (Congratulations, you’re safe now from everybody but your government.)

The Patriot act was a hastily assembled grab-bag which congress failed to read before passing, both parties guilty of letting fear, not reason and strategic thinking guide our actions.

If you want to know what’s wrong and what’s right, look to what’s happened, to what the evidence says. Where’s our victory? Where’s the end of this insurgency? Where’s the reduction in terrorist numbers? Wasn’t that the point of fighting them in Iraq, so we wouldn’t have to fight them here?

There seems to be nothing but darkside to Bush’s methods. We lose respect. We lose territory. We lose control. We lose our freedoms. We lose our dignity. We lose credibility. We lose the lives of Servicemen and women who we didn’t have to sacrifice to this misguided war. We lose security as our enemy gains prestige and new recruits. Is that the sacrifice to be asked of us? The sacrifice of our good sense? The sacrifice of our nation’s best interests? The sacrifice of our moral character?

No, that’s not what is going to continue here. Americans have turned against this war because it is sacrificing our nation’s greatness to the egos of a bunch of wannabe Churchills and Eisenhowers, people who want America to be team players even as they keep us most of us on the sidelines.

Bush’s government has become synonymous with ego-driven politics, with the inability to admit mistakes and correct errors, with politics exercised to the exception of policy. That’s the problem. As much as you might believe in this leader, over here, the people who hold on hardest to their beliefs are those who feel bound by duty or partisan sentiment to do so.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 25, 2006 4:35 PM
Comment #190248

So if the Democrats win congress, are they going to re-institute the rule that prevents the CIA from talking with the FBI?

Have any of you actually read the Patriot Act? Did you know the Patriot Act provides the money to pay the victims of 9/11? Did you know the Patriot Act provides money for Fire Departments and Police Departments to improve their communications, and get training?

So let’s just repeal the entire Patriot Act.

Let’s make it harder for our agencies to work and corrdinate together and take away the compensation for 911 victim families and fire and police departments.

REducing policy to simple soundbytes will result in unintended consequences.

Think things through, educate yourself.

I’ll give you a couple more examples:

No Child Left Behind. How many of you know that the No Child Left Behind was written by Senator Kennedy? But yet the Democrats blame Bush for this bill. This is really sad in that Bush asked Kennedy to author to bill as an effort to build a bridge and create bi-partisanship. How many of you knew that?

So voting against No Child Left Behind is voting against Kennedy. The hatred and vitriol against Bush is so blinding that facts don’t seem to matter anymore.

Posted by: jeiden at October 25, 2006 5:09 PM
Comment #190249

Maybe Bush needs to use Google Earth to find Bin Laden as well as…

WMDs, North Korean nukes, civil rights, liveable wages, the great wall of illegal immigration, Jack Abramoff, molested pages, a heart, the years he missed while coked up, the memo that said “Bin Laden determined to attack,” a conscience, unkept promises, the Constitution, etc., etc., etc.

Posted by: dcheng at October 25, 2006 5:09 PM
Comment #190254

I guess the bomb ticking sound in the background is there to justify the so-called ticking-bomb-torture?!?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 25, 2006 5:15 PM
Comment #190261

jeiden,

Actually, I have read the Patriot Act. As Stephen D. says, it’s a grab bag. Obviously not everything in it is terrible; did anyone say it was? The bad bits, though, are truly awful.

Much of the criticism of the No Child Left Behind Act deals with its not being fully funded. Therefore school districts that fail to meet the testing requirements do not have the resources to improve.

There are other problems with the Act, of course, and I can be critical even if Kennedy was involved, you know :) Personally, I think in order to get passage of some sort of educational bill, he caved too much — much of the bill is based on Bush’s over-touted experience with education as Texas governor.

Posted by: Trent at October 25, 2006 5:46 PM
Comment #190262

WMD - Interesting. At this very moment, Saddam is on his 2nd trial. This time he is being tried for Genocide during the Anfal Campaign. During this time, Saddam dropped a chemical weapon on the Kurdish town of Hallajah killing 5,000 people and maiming thousands of others. This includes Children and Women. A Chemical weapon is a WMD. Interesting how the press doesn’t report much about this trial.

North Korean Nukes - The Clinton Administration gave North Korea the materials to build nukes. N. Korea promised they would use it for energy, and not to make bombs.

Civil Rights - For who, for terrorists? Do you know what would happen if the US followed the Geneva convention to the letter? Each of the detainees would have been executed as spies. Geneva convention only applies to uniformed armies of opposing nations. If you are captured while not in uniform, you are considered a spy. Yet the Bush Administration tried to create a separate class of detainees, and then got hammered for not following the convention.

Liveable Wages - I personally don’t think an increase in minimum wage is going to damage the economy that much.

Illegal Immegration - All of a sudden there are illegal immigrants while Bush is in the White House. Like they weren’t coming over here for decades? But all of a sudden it is Bush’s fault. In 1986 there was a bill passed to address this. That was 4 Presidents ago.

Jack Abromoff - That was wrong. But again Bush’s fault. His fault for everything.

Molested Pages - This was 3 years ago. Somehow someone sat on this for 3 years. Whoever did that should be prosecuted.

Bin Laden determined to attack - Well the FBI wasn’t allowed to consult the CIA, and the CIA was not allowed to consult with the FBI. Who implemented that rule? Who actually went after Bin Laden? and who simply lobbed a couple of missles at him.

The Constitution? What about it? Foreigners are not part of the Constitution. Only US citizens.

I forgot my lunch at home this morning, must be Bush’s fault. I missed the bus this morning, must be Bush’s fault. Arizon Cardinals losing to the Bears on Monday night, must be Bush’s fault. My kid didn’t finish his homework, must be Bush’s fault. That guy who won the Chicago marathon slips and falls on the finish line, must be Bush’s fault. Hamas going to war with Israel, must be Bush’s fault. I spilled my coffee, must be Bush’s fault. Global warming, must be Bush’s fault.

bushblame.com

Posted by: Jeiden at October 25, 2006 5:50 PM
Comment #190267

jeiden its very easy to find kennedy’s involvement in nclb.In the same article you will no doubt find that kennedy has been opposed from the start to implementation of the bill.It never has been funded to within half of the figure agreed upon by both parties.Utah not known for individuality passed a law to disregard parts of the bill that dont measure up.Nclb based on findings from a bush appointed edu.Commitee using false test scores from a houston school district.There’s no denying its a sham,your problem comes from its being authored by a kennedy.Thirty years the name still responsible for bouts of rage in the pews.

Posted by: scott at October 25, 2006 6:10 PM
Comment #190275

I am more scared of what the Libs will do if they take control of the House and Senate then I am of OBL.

OBL is stuck hiding somewhere in a cave with his butt buddy Zawhari. Abd the reason they are hiding is because we are intercepting calls, tracing money transfers, killing them on the battle field, interogating and trying them in military courts.

Unlike the weak position of the Left.

Harry Reaid was happy to haved intially killed the Patriot Act.

Nancy Pelosi doesn’t even realize we are in a war with another civilization.

I know lets all meet in Pakistan and sing a round of Koom by Yah. I am sure they would love that and everything will be just fine.

Peace can only be achieved through strength and not appeasement!

Posted by: Eric at October 25, 2006 6:40 PM
Comment #190281

jeiden… No your wrong in 1994 the repugs stop the sale of the lite water reactor that would have made bomb production almost impossible. So they got the heavey water reactor from I think Russia. And by the way rummy was on the board of the company that was to supply the reactor. So find out the truth before making statements.

Posted by: Jeff at October 25, 2006 7:07 PM
Comment #190282


” You know that peace can only be won when we blow them all to kingdom come.”

Our strength shall not fail us, our resolve shall not falter, we will prevail.

” I shall not seek my party’s nomination.”

Make me president and I will end the war.

I know you made me president because I told you I would end the war but I am going to drag it out a few more years until another 20,000 of our Troops are killed.

Posted by: jlw at October 25, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #190283

And people Eric scare the hell out of the rest of us!!

Posted by: Jeff at October 25, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #190286

How far we’ve come…From the starting point of defending ourselves against Iraq’s WMD’s to ousting an evil dictator, spreading democracy in the middle east and the latest one, “we can’t leave becuase the terrorists will follow us here. Joseph Gobbles believed that the louder and longer a lie was spread the more people would believe it…sadly he was right.

One would think that after 2900 dead and 18,000 maimed Americanb kids all of us would stop to ponder…is what we’re doing working? After $300 billion of our tax dollars have been sent down a toilet ($70 billion outright stolen by the Iraqis) we would ask ourselves is what we’re doing working? With somewhere between 50,000 and 500,000 dead Iraqis we would ask ourselves is what we’re doing working? Yet I read these pages and stunned that many of us still believe we can impose our culture on others, we can bomb people to peace and torture others for the good of our country. I’m sorry people I don’t agree. We lost in Vietnam because we were wrong to be there in the first place. Somalia was a civil war, we had no right to be there as well. Iraq is Bush’s war lock, stock and barrel. It was supposed to be a cake walk, we would bew welcomed as liberators and Bush would be a great war leader and revenge Saddam’s threat to his dead…it failed miserably.

Posted by: Gary Hankin at October 25, 2006 7:22 PM
Comment #190288

All this unsubstantiated BS coming from the right. Why on earth would any American be more scared of democrats than OBL? That’s ludacrous. Especially since the easiest solution to both problems (dems getting power and OBL running free) would have been to catch him in the first place. Instead they wrote a “Patriot” act that flies in the face of the reason most of us are patriotic to begin with. Then they decided to not secure the borders. Then they decided to ignore the most basic human rights of all foreigners who have the misfortune of being labelled (even falsely) an enemy…effectively eroding away any credibility we had gained from previous wars. They run us into more debt than any democrat could have dreamed. Etc. Etc. Etc.

And now, my fellow republicans, you fail to see how these polorizing ads are anything but counterproductive for any party with any leg to stand on? Where did all the caring, responsible and enlightened conservatives go? Where did the party of common sense go? Judging by some of these posts, I’d say they got killed and eaten by a bunch of careless, ruthless and repressed ditto-heads.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 25, 2006 7:34 PM
Comment #190296

“And people like Eric scare the hell out of the rest of us!!”

Yes they do. I’m ashamed to be in the same party. My party needs to be turned upside down and shaken so that the idiots fall back into the cracks where they belong.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 25, 2006 7:53 PM
Comment #190314

Jeiden-

So if the Democrats win congress, are they going to re-institute the rule that prevents the CIA from talking with the FBI?
Have any of you actually read the Patriot Act? Did you know the Patriot Act provides the money to pay the victims of 9/11? Did you know the Patriot Act provides money for Fire Departments and Police Departments to improve their communications, and get training?
So let’s just repeal the entire Patriot Act.

First and foremost, no, most people haven’t. It’s a bill longer than most Stephen King books. You could probably kill somebody by dropping the printout on them.

All Joking aside, I’ve never heard that Democrats have any intention of repealing money for 9/11 victims, or depriving Fire and Police Departments of their moeny.

So lets not repeal the whole thing.

As for NCLB? Vote against it all. It was a bad bill, regardless of who authored it.

On the subject of WMDs, the press already has done plenty of coverage of what Saddam did. The American people are nowhere near stupid enough to require a refresher course at this point

On the subject of nuclear fuel, North Korea is reprocessing spent fuel for its Plutonium, a process that only resumed with the Bush adminstration.

On the subject of Civil Rights, don’t blame us for the fact that Bush invented a whole new category of people without consulting with anybody, folks that could be treated like spies, even though they were picked up as soldiers. He wanted to get around international law on the matter, and this mess is the result.

On the subject of illegal immigration, both arrests of illegal immigrants and levying of fines for employment of them have dropped dramatically, arrests from tens of thousands to a few hundred, and for fines from a few hundred to maybe three. This, even after 9/11.

On the subject of Jack Abramoff, White House records show numerous visits.

Bin Laden determined to attack. Well, quite a few things to clear up there.

First, it’s not clear what the separation really meant in terms of this memo, since it was delivered to the president by the CIA. It was rivalry more than anything else that was the problem. The CIA and the FBI didn’t want to talk. Bush’s own response was to reassure the rather nervous briefer that he had covered his ass. Charming. Counterterrorism, as a priority, was low in the Bush White House, not the least of which because it bore the taint of Clinton.

Second, there would have been little dispute as to whose territory this was: the FBI does counterterrorism in the United States. Bush could have easily ordered people to look deeper into it, to shake the trees, see what falls out.

Third, I’ve got news for you: it’s older than Clinton. Both Bush’s maintained it; John Ashcroft approved its continuation. It was misguided, to a certain extent, but it wasn’t the sum total of the problem that you make it out to be. As I said before, you underestimate interagency rivalries seriously.

Speaking of seriousness, my fourth point is that Bush wasn’t serious about Getting Bin Laden before 9/11. He didn’t so much as come up with a plan. There was no principles meeting on the subject until seven days previous to the attack. He had the opportunity to retaliate however he wanted for the Cole, but he chose not to.

As for cruise missiles, the attack was much more than just a couple of them. Another thing to consider is the time it took their gyroscopes to spin up. by the time the missiles were on their way, the intelligence that launched them at Bin Laden might no longer be fresh enought- that is, the bastard may have gone somewhere else. That was the difficulty in using cruise missiles.

As for the Constitution, you’re again missing an important detail. Namely, that the concerns about eavesdropping involved the data-mining of conversations where Americans were on the line. By definition, that becomes a FISA and fourth amendment matter. It’s important not to get confused about these things because an American remains innocent until proven guilty, and warrants must be attained on probable cause. It would not be difficult to get such a warrant under most circumstances. Bush decided he wouldn’t be bothered, because he was Commander in Chief. The courts threw out that argument.

As for blaming Bush? Well, you seem intent on not letting him be blamed for a great deal of things that were his responsibilities, that he had the opportunity to deal with. Your little list of things is just a rhetorical red herring. Stop trying to escape the truth of what a mess this administration has become. This crap is self inflicted.

Eric-
Peace through strength. What strength? If strength is the ability to push against resistance successfully, then the Bush administration is 98 pound weakling.

Our position is not one of weakness. improving our defenses is not weakness. Redeploying to better fight the terrorists is not weakness. Getting Iraq done and finished with is not weakness. Weakness is American military power wasting away covering Bush’s ass on this war. Weakness is Bin Laden still free after five years, and likely walking around free in East Pakistan. Weakness is more terrorists around than ever, and our reputation wrecked all over the place.

Get this straight: strength is not what you want to do, what you intend to do. It’s what you can do. Bush’s policies make us weaker every day we stick to them.

And no, we are not in a war with another civilization. We are in a war against insurgents, a specific group of people who we might have an opportunity to turn others against. If you guys hadn’t gotten so pie in the sky about the goals of this war, you might have made them modest enough not to waste this country’s efforts attempting on the spur of the moment to remake the Middle East.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 25, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #190318

Stephen

“In the case of Mark Foley? There is good evidence that Hastert and the leadership covered for a man they knew liked to get into inappropriate relationships with underaged boys.”

Nice try. First of all there has been no good evidence shown yet. Secondly that’s not what the ad said. It specifically said “child molester”, which even given what he is said to have done does not approach that degree of crime.

Posted by: Keith at October 25, 2006 8:47 PM
Comment #190333

Keith: Hassart prides himself on his memory and has claimed that nothing goes on in the House that he doesn’t know about. Now he is doing the sgt. Shultz line “I know nothing.”

There will probably be two reports released by the ethics review board. One by Hassarts hand picked republicans ( the ones he put on the board after he kicked the other republicans off for have the gull to censure that crook Delay) who will find a scape goat to put all the blame on. One by the democrats detailing the evidence. Then the republican talking heads will viciously attack the dem report calling it a partisan attack on the republicans. And, the true believers have no choice but to believe.

Posted by: jlw at October 25, 2006 9:50 PM
Comment #190334
Or we might mention how Reagan’s decision to pull out of Lebanon after the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut emboldened the Islamic extremists.By KansasDem

And pulling out of Iraq now is supposed to somehow dishearten the Islamic extremists? You stepped in it dude.

Posted by: Duane-o at October 25, 2006 9:52 PM
Comment #190378

Here are a few words from someone just coming out of the hell hole we call Iraq: Things are worse than what they say, What is shown on tv doesn’t even come close to how bad it really is. He at one time stood by the president because he is the commander in chief, but he has even lost respect for him as has most of the people over there. He voted for him the second time because they believed in what they were doing there, but if he could run again they would not vote the same and it is so bad that if they could do it over, they wouldn’t vote for him again. What does that tell you about someone that is there day in and day out, 24/7? From my nephews unit they lost 186 people alone. The Iraqi’s are no where near taking over things there and with no time limits set there won’t be.

Posted by: Sherri at October 26, 2006 12:39 AM
Comment #190382

womanmarine and johngoes. Great posts you two. Johngoes thank you for your service I didn’t say so before and I apologise. Someone mentioned the tax cuts and the checks that some os us got. While they were nice, I don’t see how they boosted the economy. They were mostly given to those who had kids. I don’t know about anyone else, but I didn’t go out and buy anything that I normally wouldn’t have bought. I paid bills with mine that I couldn’t pay before. So how that benifited anyone but me is no clue. The bottom line is this, this is the worst administration in I can’t tell you how long. Those that we elect to help govern this country aren’t doing there jobs. I would love to work less than 100 days in a year and get all the perks that our congressmen get. Paid vacations, paid health care, a vehicle and gas for it, a cell phone so that I can keep in touch with my “constituants”. A house for when I am at work and on top of that a pay raise, everytime I feel I’m not making enough money, on top of an already ridiculas salary. Oh and if I kiss someones ass enough I might just get to take the family with me when I go somewhere with someone to make it easy for me to vote on something I know (or should know) is not a good thing. Cynical and bitter yes I am. Do I think this is only a repug problem hell no. It’s just time we got someone in there that is willing to put a stop to all the bs and actually do something to earn all their perks.

Posted by: Sherri at October 26, 2006 1:07 AM
Comment #190393

Jeiden,

WMD - Interesting. At this very moment, Saddam is on his 2nd trial. This time he is being tried for Genocide during the Anfal Campaign. During this time, Saddam dropped a chemical weapon on the Kurdish town of Hallajah killing 5,000 people and maiming thousands of others. This includes Children and Women. A Chemical weapon is a WMD. Interesting how the press doesn’t report much about this trial.

Interesting. At this very moment, US invasion and occupation of Iraq since 2003 in the goal to protect american access to its large oil fields and bring democracy capitalist economy in this country had killed between 40,000 and 650,000 civilians and mained thousands of others. This includes Children and Women.
War Making Dollars is a weapon of mass destruction far more effective than any single WMD, chemical or not, real or fictionnal, ready to used or used 20 years ago.

Interesting how you don’t report much about this *today* reality.

Interesting how you also don’t report much about who sold the chemical components used to make the WMDs at work 20 years ago in Anfal.

Interesting how much you don’t report much about who use today White Phosphorous as a weapon, not anymore as a way to lighten the battlefield.

Interesting how much you don’t report much about who was asking to give Israel war against Lebanon more time (“A Chance”!) while lebanese civilians and lebanon infrastructure were destroyed blindly, this including Children and Women!

Interesting how much you don’t report much about who said 2003’ Iraq have WMDs that could even be found as a mushroom cloud over an large US city, said UN weapons inspectors are incompetents, said that he know exactly where the WMDs are (not were, are!) but totally failed to find any even after 3 years occupying the ground.

Interesting, indeed.

North Korean Nukes - The Clinton Administration gave North Korea the materials to build nukes.

And Pakistan gave the knowledge to actually build it.

Civil Rights - For who, for terrorists?

For civilian.
Every terrorists suspects detained in Gitmo or in the CIA “secret” prisons spread in the world who happened to be released free of any charge since were civilians.
Check the numbers, there were many.

Do you know what would happen if the US followed the Geneva convention to the letter? Each of the detainees would have been executed as spies. Geneva convention only applies to uniformed armies of opposing nations. If you are captured while not in uniform, you are considered a spy.

Wrong. The POW or not status *should* first be determined. Meanwhile, the doubt *should* profit the detainee:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
—— Geneva Convention, article 5

Check again the amount of former detainees at Gitmo that were released without any charge.
No all people captured are guilty, or even combatant, mind you.

But without Habeas Corpus, one could not anymore ask for a competent tribunal to state its capture status.

You don’t care but you should, because the next guy to be refused Habeas Corpus by your country or a foreign one could be you and nobody won’t even know it. Bush interpretation of unlawfull combatant rights creates a precedent many nations will follow. It’s called reciprocity.

It’s sad you can’t see it.

Yet the Bush Administration tried to create a separate class of detainees, and then got hammered for not following the convention.

See above why. Also see this :

The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.
—— Geneva Convention, article 1

Who actually went after Bin Laden?

Now? Nobody. The OBL Hunting Cell at the CIA is closed since last year, go figure.
In the past? Clinton.

… and who simply lobbed a couple of missles at him.

Clinton.
But who is in position to do better than that right now? Clinton or Bush?
Or do you mean Clinton should hire a private army and finish his job?!

The Constitution? What about it? Foreigners are not part of the Constitution. Only US citizens.

Explain us how you prove your US citizenship without Habeas Corpus.
Please.
Explain us how an US citizen *can’t* be arrested as a terrorist suspect, losing access to Habeas Corpus in the process.
Please.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 26, 2006 4:47 AM
Comment #190435

So far, there has only been 1 American released alive by Terrorists. Jill Carrol - The Christain Science Monitor freelance reporter.

All others, had their head removed, or were shot, or were dragged behind a truck until their heads came off.

What happened to their rights? Why is no one complianing or upset about their rights?

Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl, etc. What about their rights?

And why is all the scrutiny and criticism on Bush on not on the terrorists? They are the ones depriving innocents and military captives of their rights.

But I don’t hear any outrage. The only outrage is blaming Bush. Bush didn’t cutoff any heads, and those responsible for Abu Grhaib have been punished

I think if the outrage from the left was pointed in the right direction, you’d probably win more votes.

So if the Genva convention does not apply, and detaining enemy combatants is not the right course, give us an alternative. Tell us what to do.

Why does the US have to follow the Geneva convention, but the terrorists do not?


In terms of WMD in Iraq. The ones used by Saddam against his people were probaly given to him ny the US. And that was wrong.

The 650,000 Civillian dead in Iraq since the US invaded? Come on. Do you really believe that number? That means 593 civilians diend every single day for 3 years straight. Do you really believe than number? And why hasn’t the Press reported these numbers?

Only 5 Iraqi provinces out of 18 provinces are violent. The other 13 are starting to prosper.

I get my information straight from the Iraqi’s when it come to Iraq. IWPR (Institute for War and Peace Reporting) takes natives from the war torn area and trains them how to be objective reporters. Then they publish the reports.

These reports tell the good, the bad and the unvarnished truth of what is happening to the natives.

Educate yourself.

http://iwpr.net/?p=icr&s=p&o=-&apc_state=henh

They have reports from Africa, the Balkans, Central Asia, Afghanistan. You’ll know exactly hat is going on in these areas.

Posted by: jeiden at October 26, 2006 11:24 AM
Comment #190437
Why does the US have to follow the Geneva convention, but the terrorists do not?

Because the United States is a nation-state signatory of the treaty, and the terrorist are not.

It’s very simple.

But I don’t hear any outrage.

Then you’re not listening. We are definitely outraged about the atrocities committed against Americans. However, we focus that outrage towards trying to resolve the problem constructively instead of just howling uselessly on the radio waves about the atrocities. Isn’t that a better approach?

And yes, we are mad that Bush condones torture and breaking international law. The reason we focus more on trying to get Bush to behave well is that Bush represents us, that Bush is our leader, and that we supposedly have some influence on him. It’s all well and good to have moral outrage against the “evildoers”, but there’s nothing really we can do about it. Don’t damn us for trying to be effective instead of just being loud for show.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 26, 2006 11:32 AM
Comment #190442
but there’s nothing really we can do about it.

Just to clarify, I mean there’s nothing we can do about it through normal political, social, and economic processes. Whether military approaches can be used is up for debate, but the current approach tried by the Bush administration isn’t working.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 26, 2006 11:45 AM
Comment #190464

Keith-
We’ve got several people testifying that they told Hastert about this years before the scandal broke. Unless you’ve got good evidence they’re lying, it’s good evidence to me.

As for the child molester thing? It all depends on what you think pedophilia means. For some, it’s anybody whose underage. Technically its just pre-pubescent minors, but that distinction blurs in common usage, and with it, its synonymous term, child molestor.

So, I think you’re arguing a distinction that doesn’t make much of a difference.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 26, 2006 12:37 PM
Comment #190469

jeiden-
The problem with that Five out of 18 measure is that the violent provinces are the populated ones.

As for human and civil rights, if we don’t uphold them, who else will? The terrorists already come from a place where such disregard for people is common. To them, such cruelty is to be expected from their enemies.

Another thing to keep in mind is that we will be wrong, and if we free an innocent man who we’ve treated well, he can look people in the eye and tell people that we never hurt him.

The point is not to coddle the terrorists, but to make the distinction between us and them clear. Additionally, CIA agents have found that its easier to get reliable information out of people who’ve been humanely treated, than those treated otherwise.

Do not mistake the qualities of mercy and humaneness for a weakness. It’s only in our fear and our insecurity that we’ve come to believe anything like this is necessary. That should tell us something about the true “strength” represented by such actions.

We can build Democracies because we are one. The consistency with which we conduct ourselves is crucial to our credibility as apostles of free government.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 26, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #190502

jeiden,

And why is all the scrutiny and criticism on Bush on not on the terrorists? They are the ones depriving innocents and military captives of their rights.

Not anymore. Bush allows it too now. Legally.
Hence the critics.

But I don’t hear any outrage. The only outrage is blaming Bush.

Check your ears and eyes with a doctor, then.

So if the Genva convention does not apply, and detaining enemy combatants is not the right course, give us an alternative. Tell us what to do.

Apply Geneva Convention. Stop saying it doesnt apply. Only the White House say it can’t. Nobody else.


Why does the US have to follow the Geneva convention, but the terrorists do not?

US ratified the convention, so they agreed to apply it in *all* circumstance. See GC article #1.
Terrorists never ratified the convention. They behave unlawfully. Should the US too?

The 650,000 Civillian dead in Iraq since the US invaded? Come on. Do you really believe that number?

Nope. But I said *between* 40,000 and 650,000.
40,000 is still a very high cost when compared to the 5,000 americans lives taken. Or does an american live worth more than an foreign one? Around 8 times more worth?

And why hasn’t the Press reported these numbers?

They did. IIRC it was headlines two or three weeks ago. Google for it.

http://iwpr.net/?p=icr&s=p&o=-&apc_state=henh

Thanks for the link. Looks interesting.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 26, 2006 1:44 PM
Post a comment