Democrats & Liberals Archives

I've Heard that Song Before

President George W. Bush is offering to compromise with Congress with reference to the Iraq War. Isn’t it wonderful? Woopee! Now we can all work together, the president and Congress, Republicans and Democrats, as one big, happy family, and peacefully come to a decision that all of us in America can feel good about.

The great news was delivered to us this way:

The Bush administration has begun exploring ways of offering Congress a compromise deal on Iraq policy to avert bruising battles in coming months, U.S. officials said.

With public support of the war dropping, President Bush has authorized an internal policy review to find a plan that could satisfy opponents without sacrificing his top goals, the officials said.

As soon as I read this, I thought of that old song

It seems to be I've heard that song before.

The song was a great song and Bush's song is a great song. But I've heard this song before. Each time people object to what he is doing, Bush rolls out a "compromise" song in order to get people to calm down and listen to "reason."

Since when does Bush try to "avert bruising battles"? The macho president is getting soft? Impossible. Bush eats, breathes, lives for conflict. His whole presidency is based on the premise that he will fight "evil" wherever it exists. He must do it because God ordered him to do it. Since this is the case, he cannot "compromise" with anyone. How does one compromise with evil?

The article makes it obvious he will not compromise. It says he will only do it "without sacrificing his top goals." One of his top goals is to establish a beachhead from which America can influence the Middle East. Iraq is that beachhead. Bush will never leave Iraq and he'll do whatever he can to stymie the next president from leaving Iraq, as well.

Yes, I've heard that song before. I'm looking for a better song from the Democrats.

Posted by Paul Siegel at June 25, 2007 5:02 PM
Comments
Comment #224092

Paul
Teah! Bushco’s negotiations will be”Drop dead or I will kill you.” How do you compromise with evil?

Posted by: BillS at June 25, 2007 10:12 PM
Comment #224100
Bushco’s negotiations will be”Drop dead or I will kill you.” How do you compromise with evil?

That’s a pretty interesting way of putting it because it’s exactly what “Bushco” says.

How do you compromise with evil? How do you compromise and use “diplomacy” instead of force with the likes of Iran and Saddam Hussein?

Bush’s problem is that he can never back up his swaggering rhetoric with action. He threatens to kill America’s enemies and then fights sloppy half-assed wars while spending whatever meager political capital he has trying to defend his lame attorney general and shoving an amnesty bill for illegal aliens down our throats.

Or did you mean that Bush is the real evil—not Saddam, not Iran—and that he’s going to try to “kill” Democrats if they negotiate with him? If that’s what you mean, what’s the punchline?

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at June 25, 2007 11:54 PM
Comment #224106


Saddam is dead, Iran we can deal with. There
were 18 Saudis +2 other bombers of in the 9/11
incident. We should go after the Saudis financing,
and Asama Binladin an his gang, an remove all
our contractors from Iraq an pay the people their
to rebuild that Country, just as we did after WW2.
A little more complicated than this, but what the
hay!

Posted by: -DAVID- at June 26, 2007 2:42 AM
Comment #224111

Same old song, indeed! The way you characterize his presidency—“fighting evil wherever it exits,” “God ordered him”—this type of ideology sounds very familiar to me. Sound kind of like how Osama Bin Laden thinks, or perhaps something like the Islamic theocracy of Iran. Or am I thinking of the anti-Israeli doctrine of Hamas?

All of these “organizations” are branded by the US (rightly or wrongly) as terrorists. What does that make “Bushco”?

Seems to me that GWB is worse than the entire group aforementioned “terrorist” because he willingly and continually sacrifices American lives to satisfy his own bravado. He doesn’t need to use propaganda or rely on disenfranchisement or discontent. He does not need to offer “Paradise” as a reward—He has the advantage of using an ALL VOLUNTEER MILITARY. These people have pledged their lives to protect our Nation from legitimate threats; but Bush abuses them and sends them off to be killed in some moronic senseless battle. He uses the heroic pledge of armed service personnel, from which they have no recourse, to wage his insane war and to pad the Bushco financial profile when the Constitution finally kicks their sorry asses back to the private sector curb.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at June 26, 2007 8:05 AM
Comment #224115

Kim-Sue, your venom seems to have infected your reasoning. I read your comments three times attempting to find some glimmer of truth or wisdom. So sorry, none found. Living in your world must be horrible.

Posted by: Jim at June 26, 2007 9:56 AM
Comment #224117

“Or did you mean that Bush is the real evil—not Saddam, not Iran—and that he’s going to try to “kill” Democrats if they negotiate with him?”

Didn’t take long for kim-sue to answer that one for you did it LO.

Posted by: kctim at June 26, 2007 10:11 AM
Comment #224122

Jim,

Why not worry about yourself rather than me. YouR concern might be touching if I knew you or (more to the point) if I gave a rats ass what you think about me.

You might try presenting pointS that counter anything I said about your Bush idol—things you find positive about his character that perhaps contrast the picture of him that I present. My guess is you DON’T HAVE ANYTHING; YOU GOT NOTHING!!!

I wish my comparisons of him to Osama Bin Laden were originial, but I borrowed that analysis from a seminar I attended. Just because you can’t stomach it, does not maKe the comparison invalid or unworthy of consideration.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at June 26, 2007 11:47 AM
Comment #224123

kctim,

It seems it took you even less time to criticize me and my well established and justified view of “president” Bush and his administration rather offer up any kind of character defense of Bush. Hmmm? I wonder why that is? Could it be, that there is no character defense for the characterless?

Why don’t you and Jim put your heads together maybe between you both you could present your “admirable” version of GWB. At least for me, there is a chance that I may find great humor in your portrait. For the two of you, however, it may possible show that you have an intellect that is suited to objective discussion rather than your now VERY PLAYED attacks and insinuations of me and my character.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at June 26, 2007 11:58 AM
Comment #224128

Where are the watchblog police when you need them—out profiling perhaps?

For the rest of you that will post comments about what a venomous hater I am—in defense of your beloved GWB. Let me remind you ONCE AGAIN:

Regardless of your attacks and insinuations of me and my character. There still will be close to 4,000 American soldiers DEAD because of George W. Bush.

George W. Bush STILL WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MORE AMERICAN DEATHS THAN ALL OF THE COMBINED AL-QAEDA ATTACKS ON US SOIL.

Bush devotees NEVER will be able to get around those facts irrespective of your steadfast, belligerent, and false portrayals of me. I would humbly and gladly accept all the personal attacks lauched at me by Bush devotees IF IT WOULD BRING BACK EVEN ONE VICTIM OF GWB’s ABUSE OF THE AMERICAN MILITARY. But it won’t. Will it?

Posted by: Kim-Sue at June 26, 2007 12:56 PM
Comment #224132

No, Kim-Sue, you’re right on about Bush having to bear the brunt of these deaths alone. He wants the world to know that his power is absolute and unquestionable, therefore, the onus falls on him.
I can’t help but ask myself daily just what it is that holds this (now) 26 percentile of the public in support of our idiot in chief. And for what it’s worth, I don’t feel you’ve spewed an inordinate amount of venom….he deserves far more!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at June 26, 2007 1:35 PM
Comment #224133

You might try presenting pointS that counter anything I said about your Bush idol—things you find positive about his character that perhaps contrast the picture of him that I present. My guess is you DON’T HAVE ANYTHING; YOU GOT NOTHING!!!

Posted by: Kim-Sue at June 26, 2007 11:47 AM

Kim-Sue, in addition to being venomious you are apparently also clairivoyant and able to read my mind and know my political beliefs. How in the world can I post counter-points to your ranting when you present no facts or substance to back it up. Please seek the help you need to regain your equilibriam. Obviously my definition of character will differ substantially from yours. I hope we can agree that blantant hatred of a fellow human being is not a sign of good character.

Posted by: Jim at June 26, 2007 1:42 PM
Comment #224139

Ok Kim-Sue, let’s look at your “well established and justified view of “president” Bush and his administration.”

First, you question his legitimacy, a very week argument and very tiresome.
Then, you make it appear as if you have facts that suggests he is some type of crazy Christian on a crusade to create a theocracy, equate him to OBL and as being a terrorist.

You tell us he is sacrificing our soldiers for his own gain and bravado, but you cannot prove it one bit. You disagree with the war, obviously because Bush is not a lefty, but you cannot prove anything other than your own personal opinions and hatred of your President. Hell, you have even gone as far as ignoring who attacked our country and who we are at war with, in order to support your own baseless rhetoric.

These are your own personal beliefs, based on hatred and opinion, not facts.
Prove them and shut us up once and for all!

“He uses the heroic pledge of armed service personnel, from which they have no recourse, to wage his insane war”

Let me guess, you never served in the military have you? Franken, moore, kennedy etc… tell you they are all mindless drones and you except it as gospel dont you. You should read some and learn a little bit.

“and to pad the Bushco financial profile”

Prove it and impeach.

“rather offer up any kind of character defense of Bush.”

I don’t offer up any “character defense” for Bush because I do not support him and did not vote for him.

“Why don’t you and Jim put your heads together maybe between you both you could present your “admirable” version of GWB.”

Sigh, OK. I will do that, just as soon as you present a factual negative version of our President to support what you say.

“At least for me, there is a chance that I may find great humor in your portrait.”

No more humorous than we find your opinionated views of him and your attempts to pass those off as facts.

“For the two of you, however, it may possible show that you have an intellect that is suited to objective discussion”

Ya ya, we know. You liberals are smarter than us common folks and we should be happy that you want to run our lives for us.

Sandra
The 26% who support him do so for the very same reasons fewer still support the Dem congress: partisanship and lack of facts which would show he is as evil as you guys want him to be seen as.

Posted by: kctim at June 26, 2007 2:52 PM
Comment #224142

kctim,

Perhaps Dubya isn’t evil, but if he isn’t, then he’s incompetent.

1) He told Congress that Iraq was trying to get yellowcake uranium from Niger.

2) Valerie Plame.

3) The serious questions of voter fraud in Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004.

In each of these cases, Dubya is either evil, if he is involved, or incompetent, if he is not. In your mind, which is worse? Me, I don’t know.

L

Posted by: leatherankh at June 26, 2007 3:17 PM
Comment #224143

kctim….I’m not sure how much more you need to see to realize the unending joke that calls himself “president”.
As far as the percentile of people against Congress right now, I’d have to admit that, yes, I’m of those. What I am against, is not what they have done, or at least have attempted to do, but what they have failed to do and that is to answer the cry of the millions out here screaming for impeachment!!!!!!!! They can either start at the bottom of the pile and work their way up, or do it the opposite way because we all know that s**t rolls downhill.
All one has to do is take the blinders off and there is daily accounts on this administrations’ gross misuse and abuse of power.
Here for just one instance is the latest lie that “they” are trying to pull on the public…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/24/AR2007062400629.html

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at June 26, 2007 3:21 PM
Comment #224158

L
IF, he is guilty of those things, then yes, one could probably call him evil. But, without factual proof that proves otherwise, he is innocent until proven guilty.

I’m not sure how you can call him incompetent if was not involved though.
He could have been using the intel given him about Niger. He has no control over who may leak names or commit voter fraud for their own personal reasons.

Sure, a conspiracy is more fun to play with, but we need facts, not opinions, to make it the truth.

Sandra
Why haven’t they answered the cry of “millions” for impeachment?
Because they do not have the facts and/or they know there are millions more who do not see grounds for impeachment and that they would pay for it at the polls.

“All one has to do is take the blinders off and there is daily accounts on this administrations gross misuse and abuse of power.”

“Here for just one instance is the latest lie that they are trying to pull on the public”

This is where we differ and is also why I believe our country is in such a mess.
You see “this administration” and “they,” meaning Republicans, as the ones overstepping laws and taking away rights, while I see it as govt as a whole, no matter who is in “power.”

And thanks for the link too.
But you can’t really call it the “latest lie” based on facts now, can you. It seems as if more clarification is needed before an honest judgment can be made.
Its not looking like I agree with the VP here, but I’ll wait until myself and the politicians know more about whats going on before I can honestly say he is lying.

Posted by: kctim at June 26, 2007 5:26 PM
Comment #224164

kctim…I can’t say with any absolute proof why there is a hesitancy to bring impeachment charges against members of this administration. The one thing is that there just aren’t enough votes to make it happen. Another thing is that I think there is a certain fear of taking things to that level, since impeachment is far from a frivolous move….and who the hell would we start with first??
I’m not having reference to all Republicans when I said “they” either, but to the administration as a whole, and the top two dogs, specifically. There are actually some more Rep. congress people falling in behind Lugar against Bush and his failing surge plan. It’s kind of like bailing out of the sinking ship deal now.
And you’re probably right about that line pointing to the last lie…….hell, there have probably been several since that was released just recently! And all of you hard line holders-on won’t accept facts no matter how they are thown at you…you just won’t believe…………

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at June 26, 2007 6:22 PM
Comment #224166

kctim…here is the link for what I was telling you…
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/washington/26cnd-cong.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at June 26, 2007 6:29 PM
Comment #224200

Sandra
I am hardly a “hard line holder-on” as you seem to think. My favorite site is infowars.com if that tells you anything.
But, there is a big difference between undisputible facts and assumed facts.

It is assumed facts, that show clinton got us illegally involved in the Bosnia/Kosovo war (where are troops were after 10+ years) and illegally comitted an act of war when he bombed the aspirin factory, in order to shift the focus off his own corruption and dishonesty.
It is assumed facts that show clinton intentionally had 70+ of his fellow Americans murdered by federal agents.
These assumed facts and probable cause, much like the ones you all levy against Bush now, show how this was true and no matter how they are thrown at you all, you “just won’t believe.”

If absolute facts are required for one to be guilty, they are required for all to be guilty.
I see it that way, why don’t you all?

Posted by: kctim at June 27, 2007 9:29 AM
Comment #224226

kctm
Bosnia/Kosovo.We are in NATO are we not?

Aspirin factory.Also capable of making nerve agents. One of his conter terrorism strikes. Instead of support we got “wag the dog”. Bin Laden must of loved that.

70 plus intentionally murdered. You mean the child molesting religious perverts that shot at federal agents?A tragedy indeed but intentional?Preposterious.

Posted by: bills at June 27, 2007 6:37 PM
Comment #224276

Bill
Assumed facts and how people use them to support their own personal views is what I am talking about.
Everything there is based on the opinions of those who have “researched” the events and believe “their” interpretation of those facts proves what they say, even though most of it is speculation.

You give a great example with what I was getting at with Sandra.
Your post is what the media and our govt told us was true and all the Dems are willing to believe it without question. You all were willing to give your own govt the benefit of the doubt until absolute proof, established from facts, says you are wrong.
And, even though I believe clinton was our worst President and that you are wrong, I do not go around trying to pass them off being true without absolute facts.

But now, with Bush, hunches and opinions are treated as facts and any of us who ask for real facts, are told we are apologists or blind followers.

I apply the same standards to both parties, you all do not and THAT is what is preposterious!

Posted by: kctim at June 28, 2007 9:48 AM
Comment #224300

kctim….I guess it would depend on when a person decides to retire personal beliefs and accept all of the research, analysis, & documentation supporting accusations. We can all just continue to turn a blind eye towards the truth and continue to live in denial. There comes a time when the list of supportive evidence is overwhelming, yet some will still not believe it.
There is rarely a day goes by now where there isn’t something uncovered with this administration that reeks of impropriety at the least. Just turn on the news, open a paper or go online…it’s overwhelming. Their stonewalling of questions and demand for evidence can’t last forever, and eventually we’ll all see. Do you really think that there is a conspiracy with every aspect of media making up charges and creating false scenarios to take this administration down?? Impossible!!! Nobody could have ever dreamed this shit up……..

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at June 28, 2007 1:57 PM
Comment #224310

Sandra
Many of us don’t have to dream this “shit” up, we lived through it during the 90’s.

People will not retire their personal beliefs and accept all the research, analysis and documentation if it does not support their party. This site proves that every day.

Overwhelming supportive evidence is based on provable facts. If even half of the “evidence” the left puts out against Bush was proven by absolute facts, it would be on every media outlet and impeachment proceedings would be going on.
But when people ask for these facts, we are called apologists or blind followers.

“There is rarely a day goes by now where there isn’t something uncovered with this administration that reeks of impropriety at the least”

No, rarely a day goes by when there isn’t something uncovered with ANY, not THIS, administration.
The problem is people pick and choose what is bad based on who is at fault.
There is no such thing as Dem bad and Rep bad. Bad is bad. Wrong is wrong.
If the left didn’t care about wrongs in the 90s, why should we expect the right to care about wrongs today? Both sides justify it by saying its ok because the alternative would be worse.

“Do you really think that there is a conspiracy with every aspect of media making up charges and creating false scenarios to take this administration down??”

Nope and I did not say that either.
The “official” reports given by the media and govt are NOT the whole story. But, the acceptance of these “official” reports, depends on who it shows favorably and which party one supports.

You see Sandra, you all on the left are concerned about this administration while many of us are concerned about all administrations.
The so-called hell you say you are living through now, is something we lived through in the 90’s while you were content.
Your 8 years of hell is nothing compared to the 16 years of hell some are open enough to have seen.

And judging by all the Defending, Ignoring and Excusing the left is giving this new Congress, things aren’t going to change anytime soon.

Posted by: kctim at June 28, 2007 2:49 PM
Comment #224349

Kctim, take away Clinton’s new gun laws and you would have nothing to dislike him for. One issue voters are soooo over.

Posted by: ray at June 28, 2007 9:42 PM
Comment #224395

And how many times did I just mention gun laws there Ray? Zero maybe?

I’m not sure how you feel, but going to war with a country who did not threaten us, rendition, lying, corruption, finance fraud, taking away rights, bombing foriegn countries who did not threaten the US, having 70+ American citizens killed by their own govt, having a terrorist attack on our own land and doing nothing about it, open borders, no knock warrants, losing military family benefits and so on, ALL were enough for me to dislike him.

Saying people disliked clinton simply because of his anti Constitutional laws with gun rights, is like saying people dislike Bush simply because of the wiretapping crap.

Posted by: kctim at June 29, 2007 10:23 AM
Post a comment