The Hypocrisy of Democrats

Speaking yesterday before a union rally in Worcester, Massachusetts, Senator Edward Kennedy announced: “My vote against this misbegotten [Iraq War] is the best vote I have cast in the United States Senate since I was elected in 1962.” What Kennedy forgot to mention is that his vote against the Iraq War further proves that his belief structure adjusts to wind speeds, and Massachusetts can get mighty windy.

Speaking at the Johns Hopkins School Of Advanced International Studies only weeks before Kennedy cast his “nay” vote on the Iraq War, the senator remarked, “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” (9/27/02)

Nine days later on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Kennedy added: “Saddam Hussein is a dangerous figure. He’s got dangerous weapons.” (10/6/02)

By 2005, Kennedy was singing an altogether different tune:

“Instead of providing open and honest answers . . . the president reverted to the same manipulation of facts to justify a war we never should have fought.”

Of course, Kennedy is not the first (liberal) democrat to change his opinion when the polls began to indicate that the war was unpopular. In fact, between 1998 and 2003, the Iraq WMD song was quite the hit. For music lovers everywhere, I have assembled a compilation of democrats who proudly sang along.

Senator John Kerry–Blues

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” Oct. 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...” Jan. 2003

President Bill Clinton–Jazz Fest

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” Feb. 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." Feb. 1998

Al Gore–Monotone, I Mean Baritone

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Sept. 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Sept. 2002

Backup Singers

“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.” Madeline Albright, Feb. 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 1998

“[We] urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” Letter to President Clinton, (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 1998

“Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct. 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Quaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 2002

And here I thought President Bush was behind the faulty intelligence. Impressive how he was able to manipulate his predecessor's intelligence as well while he was governing Texas.

This compilation was brought to you by Dr Politico Records, Inc., and special guest producer Glenn Beck. A source for each quote can be found here.

Getting back to Senator Kennedy, it’s worth mentioning that in the sea of inconsistencies that mark his public service, his vote against the Iraq War was a welcomed change. After all, in 1991, he voted against the Persian Gulf War as well. I guess liberating Kuwait from Saddam’s tyrannous grip did not meet his criteria for a “yea” vote. I wonder where that one falls on his list of favorite votes.

Kennedy’s Inconsistencies

On Abortion:

Until the passage of Roe v Wade, Kennedy held a pro-life position. In a letter dated August 3, 1971, Kennedy wrote to a colleague that the legalization of “abortion on demand” goes against “the value which our civilization places on human life.” Yet, with the flip of a switch, Kennedy has become one of the staunchest supporters of abortion rights.

In 1999, Kennedy voted “nay” on a bill that would ban “partial birth abortions,” the practice of which is both vile and gruesome.

On Immigration:

In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Hart-Celler Act, which dramatically changed US immigration policy. Kennedy voiced his support for the bill to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization:

“The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”

Today, Kennedy is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Immigration, and has become one of the strongest advocates for legal and illegal immigrants alike.

On Alternative Energy:

Kennedy has long been a staunch supporter of alternative energy development and has a long record of voting in support of that fact. Yet his support for such development ends where his neighborhood begins.

Today, the US Senate continues to debate a proposed Cape Cod wind energy project that would obstruct Kennedy’s million dollar view and those of his constituents. Thus, he is leading the battle against the project and has enlisted the support of his fellow, hypocritical democrats. According to John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace USA:

The maneuver to stop the wind farm “is clearly a backroom deal, and they're going to get called publicly on it. . . . The Democrats are going to kill the first big offshore wind farm in the United States because of their relationship with Ted Kennedy.” Boston Globe

Should the project be carried out, Kennedy’s Hyannis Port home would be within 8 miles of the 130-turbine, 24-square-mile cluster of windmills. Of course, you can’t really blame Kennedy. In all fairness, he never voiced support for the building of alternative energy sources in his own neighborhood; rather, Kennedy supported such construction in other people’s neighborhoods.

If you would like to learn more about the role of hypocrisy in the political complex, simply research officials from the democrat party.

Posted by Dr Politico at June 3, 2006 2:16 PM
Comment #154045

Yeah, and Bush’s rebuilding of New Orleans was going to rival the Marshall Plan, there was no surveillence of Americans without getting a search warrent, and any “memember who leaks the identity of a CIA agent will no longer work in my administration”, not to mention that the US doesn’t torture prisoners. If your point is that politicians are lying sacks of sh*t, tell us something we don’t know.

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 3, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #154057

DrP and Glenn Beck

thanks for the research very good job. I am already enjoying watching democrats side step the issues at hand. That is how there current leadership is untrustworthy due to the changing climates continually.

great job

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 3, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #154058

There is a difference between being a hypocrite and changing your mind. For example, in 1978 a certain congressional candidate told the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal that he believed whether a woman has an abortion is between her and her doctor. His name was George W. Bush.

People change their mind.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 3, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #154066

Oh my gosh!!

Republicans have never done this? Never?

Lets have some fair and balanced reporting.

Oh yeah. I forgot this column is more like Fox news.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 3, 2006 4:14 PM
Comment #154070


This is fair reporting on Kennedy’s record, with links provided for every statement. Moreover, this is a fair website, with lefty sentiments on the left, righty sentiments on the right, and everthing else can be found in between.

Of course, I should thank you. I didn’t realize that my reporting was good enough for TV. Perhaps WatchBlog is holding me back :)

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 3, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #154072

Fair and Balanced

Bush spends to much money

Bush’s immigration plan stinks. It is almost the same as amnesty.

Bush is not a small government guy even though he ran on a conservative platform

Bush has made mistakes in the war. They have cost lives.

There I am a conservative and a Republican. Those are my thoughts on some of the mistakes Bush has made. I have not gone into detail i am sure many here already have filled in the blanks in their own minds. I have yet to read in my month or so on this site a column on the left critiquing the left and there leaders. Try it maybe then you may start winning at election time again.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 3, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #154074

oops forgot the balanced part

Clinton put the nation over 1 trillion dollars more in debt during his time in office.

Clinton did not kill Osama though he had many opportunities

Clinton ignored report after report about the possibility of an attack the nature of 911

Clinton started a recession towards the end of his term. (Bush fixed it)

there that is balanced a bit for both sides :)

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 3, 2006 4:27 PM
Comment #154082

“Perhaps WatchBlog is holding me back :)”

It is. Don’t hide your light under a can of mace—keep moving, keep moving.

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 3, 2006 4:49 PM
Comment #154084

Dr. Politico, where did you get your PhD? I’m assuming it was from one of the finer correspondence schools located in this great nation.

Yours is a typical, finger-pointing rant from yet another inept Republican who fails to see the lying, bumbling incompetence and hypocrisy of his own party — so you take it out on the other side.

Oh, but I forgot. Yours is the party of enhanced moral fiber and pristine family values. Which helps to explain the following:

- Republican County Constable Larry Dale Floyd was arrested on suspicion of soliciting sex with an 8-year old girl. Floyd has repeatedly won elections for Denton County, Texas, constable.

- Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.

- Republican Party leader Bobby Stumbo was arrested for having sex with a 5-year old boy.

- Republican petition drive manager Tom Randall pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 14, one of them the daughter of an associate in the petition business.

- Republican teacher and former city councilman John Collins pleaded guilty to sexually molesting 13 and 14 year old girls.
Republican campaign worker Mark Seidensticker is a convicted child molester.

- Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.

- Republican Mayor John Gosek was arrested on charges of soliciting sex from two 15-year old girls.

- Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.

- Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.

- Republican Committeeman John R. Curtain was charged with molesting a teenage boy and unlawful sexual contact with a minor.

- Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.

- Republican zoning supervisor, Boy Scout leader and Lutheran church president Dennis L. Rader pleaded guilty to performing a sexual act on an 11-year old girl he murdered.

- Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.

- Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.

- Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.

- Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.

- Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.

- Republican advertising consultant Carey Lee Cramer was charged with molesting his 9-year old step-daughter after including her in an anti-Gore television commercial.

- Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

- Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

- Republican Congressman Donald “Buz” Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.

- Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.

- Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.

- Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.

- Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.

- Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.

- Republican Judge Ronald C. Kline was placed under house arrest for child molestation and possession of child pornography.

- Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.

- Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.

- Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. “Republican Marty”), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.

- Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.

- Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.

- Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.

- Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl.

- Republican anti-gay activist Earl “Butch” Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.

- Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.

- Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl.

- Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.

-Republican legislator Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).

- Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was found guilty of molesting a 15-year old girl.

- Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.

- Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.

- Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.

- Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.

- Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.
Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.

- Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.

- Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.

-Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.

- Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a “good military man” and “church goer,” was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

-Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.

-Republican director of the “Young Republican Federation” Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.

-Republican president of the New York City Housing Development Corp. Russell Harding pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer.

-Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was found guilty of raping a 15-year old girl. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women.

Next time you start calling the other side hypocritical, I suggest you first look at what your own party has done.

Posted by: scoreggi at June 3, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #154085


Wow! That’s a long list. Well…at least most of this perversion was heterosexual sex. What’s your point?

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 3, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #154086


Call me crazy.

While all of the folks quoted said Saddam was a bad guy and he must denied access to WMD’s, but not one of those folks quoted said that America should INVADE Iraq to accomplish that goal.

Only two, Bill Clinton and Kerry mentioned the use of force, and only Al Gore made any reference to removing Saddam from power.


Posted by: Rocky at June 3, 2006 5:11 PM
Comment #154087


As to your first question, I am a PHD candidate at UC Berkeley, and while it is not among the finer correspondence schools in the country, it is among the finer schools.

Secondly, I have no problem admitting the hypocrisy of either political party. In fact, I tend to subcsribe to the position of the first commenter to this post, Tim Crow:

“politicians are lying sacks of sh*t”

Thanks Tim for that less than subtle, though dead on remark.

Hypocrisy, criminality, etc., scoreggi, is what republicans are constantly charged with and democrats refuse to acknowledge about their own party.

Ridiculous, on the other hand, is your compilation of offenses that you attribute to the republican party, when, in fact, most of the names on your list are simply republican voters. For example:

“Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.”

Are you kidding? Please explain to me how John Butler has any effect on either political party. Perhaps it is your position that exercising his right to assemble peacefully should be questioned because of the allegations you offered. Is it your position, scoreggi, that activists on the republican side are more prone to commit criminal offenses?

Unions tend to be affiliated with, and strong supporters of, the democrats. Would you care to go through the list of union members in America to see who among them have committed criminal offenses? Are you insinuating, scoreggi, that any such wrongdoings are evidence of corruption in the democratic party?

Seriously, I’d like to know.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 3, 2006 5:21 PM
Comment #154089



Dr. P:

Yeah, didn’t a whole bunch of people support forced disarmament of Saddam when they, too, were convinced of the drum-banging WMDBS of the administration. I, personally, was not in support of it, but it’s hard to blame these Democratic leaders for accepting the lies of the administration. They’d be unpatriotic obstructionists, otherwise, no? How would you have reacted at the time if Kerry, for instance, would have said “I won’t support action against Saddam because I don’t believe the president.”


“There,” “Their” and “They’re.”

Posted by: davidL at June 3, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #154091

David L,

How would you have reacted at the time if Kerry, for instance, would have said “I won’t support action against Saddam because I don’t believe the president.”

That would depend on which president Kerry was doubting: Clinton or Bush.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 3, 2006 5:34 PM
Comment #154095

Dr P:

There are shades of gray. If the idea of nuance is unclear, let me draw a distinction between

a) posturing toward Iraq for political reasons and

b) inventing “evidence” of a significant WMD program as a single pretext for sending 130,000 Americans to the Middle East to invade a sovereign nation that hasn’t attacked us.

If you need me to help with the distinction further, just let me know!

And as an aside, it always flummoxes me to see this ultra-linear thinking. As if because Clinton does it all Dems and liberals think it’s OK. Being a liberal (i.e. thinking critically) means not automatically accepting the views and doctrines of your own camp. I think this is what makes the Left so darn weak today, in comparison.

Posted by: davidL at June 3, 2006 5:46 PM
Comment #154098


“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

That is the opening of Clinton’s speech from 1998 after he bombed Iraq. Is that what you mean by: “posturing toward Iraq for political reasons”?

It always baffles me that “critical thinkers” such as yourself can overlook fact to further a point. The evidence, which according to democrats was manufactured by Bush, was actually evidence that he received from his predecessor.

For the past few years, the Bush Administration has been repeatedly accused of inventing intelligence. It seems that politics has no memory.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 3, 2006 5:57 PM
Comment #154099

Regardless of the hot air the Republicans are spewing, the fact remains that the US cannot leave Iraq until the Al Queda Terrorists inside are destroyed.

We must stay the course no matter what it takes.

Posted by: Aldous at June 3, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #154100

“It seems that politics has no memory.”

And luckily for the politicians, neither do the voters.

Uh…was that too subtle?

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 3, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #154102

Here I am a regestered Democrat. Our party is full of lyeing cheating wrongdoers. Your party is full of lyeing cheating wrongdoers. Neither party cares about us except when it gets so uncomfortable that they might actually loose their job. We need a third party.
I admit that the dems are corrupt and molding facts/statistics.
I am also going to vote for the libertarians (sp) because I think they are closer to my values then either of the corperate whores we have in office.

Posted by: timesend at June 3, 2006 6:08 PM
Comment #154105

From the liberal perspective there is a difference between being a hypocrite and just changing your mind.

If you’re a Republican, you’re a hypocrite.

If you’re a Democrat, you’re just “changing your mind.”

If you’re a conservative, the reverse is true.

The key to never, or seldom, having to change your mind is one, you have to stand for something in the first place and, secondly, you must research and study the issue at hand BEFORE you open your mouth.

And when circumstances force a change of heart, you should be prepared to explain in detail what led to that change.

Unfortunately, most politicians just spout rhetoric depending on what’s politically expedient at the time and hope the voters memories are not too long.

Fortunately for most politicians, most voters memories are about as long as their nose.

Posted by: ulysses at June 3, 2006 6:11 PM
Comment #154106

You are acting like a school child on Ritalin! Bouncing all around,Iraq,Ted K. Abortion. This is a prime example of why Republicans can’t do anything well. (except pillage the american people)
If you bounce around, slinging mud eventually something will stick somewhere Huh?
Your attempting to show that Democratic leaders are wrong for first expressing concern about a dangerous maniac,and then voicing concern for being in Iraq? Bush and co. put us in Iraq!
Don’t even try to make it look like anything but what it is!
Bush and Co’s heavy handed attempts at gunboat diplomacy have caused needless loss of lives,cost billions of dollars and for what? So the Republican machine, in collusion with big business can make more money at everyone elses expense.

Politico,get your head out of your ass!

Posted by: jblym at June 3, 2006 6:19 PM
Comment #154108


“Bush and Co’s heavy handed attempts at gunboat diplomacy have caused needless loss of lives,cost billions of dollars and for what.”

I don’t want to split hairs with you here, but it really is “aircraft carrier” diplomacy.

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 3, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #154114

I chose to ignore Ted Kennedy along time ago, Like most Liberals his position on things changes every time the winds blow. Have another drink Teddy.

Posted by: Arnett at June 3, 2006 7:17 PM
Comment #154115
“Bush and CoⳠheavy handed attempts at gunboat diplomacy have caused needless loss of lives,cost billions of dollars and for what.”

I don’t want to split hairs with you here, but it really is “aircraft carrier” diplomacy.

true gunboat diplomacy is so vietnam era :)

anyways David L you are correct my typing is horrible and my hands tend to type the wrong stuff all the time. Thanks for pointing that out.

Tim Crow I am with you vote out the old boys/girls and put in new ones. maybe they will listen. Now here is my hope that they listen to me :)

jblym the point is not about the an issue like Iraq or Abortion. The point is quite clear it is about the hypocricy of the democrat party when all they do is condemn the republicans and if we show where they are wrong we are also condemned for doing that. Each party needs to be critical of its own but as political opponents we will show the short comings of our adversary.

There is an old saying if you can’t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 3, 2006 7:34 PM
Comment #154117


My point is simple. Both sides are hypocrites and liars. But you have attempted to single out the Democrats as the more nefarious of the two parties, when in reailtiy a) they’re both “lying acks of sh*t,” as has been pointed out; and b) your implict pro-Republican party argument is based not on what your party is doing right, but what the other party is doing wrong — at least in your eyes.

That said, I agree with you that both sides refuse to see the hypocrisy of their actions, but singling out the Dems for being hypocrital is hypocritical in and of itself — it is the pot calling the kettle black. No one does hypocrisy better than Republicans.

Your party got us into Iraq, created the largest trade deficit our country has ever seen, has spent more money than any other administration in history, has trampled our civil liberties, and refuses to acknowledge the dangers of not securing our borders, to name but a few of their accomplishments.

Further, you state that “Hypocrisy, criminality, etc., is what republicans are constantly charged with and democrats refuse to acknowledge about their own party.” Well, duh. It’s called politics, and it’s gotten more caustic than ever. Both parties stink. That said, look again at the first part of your sentence. The reason why Republicans are constantly being charged with hypocrisy and criminality is that they exhibit both on a far more regular basis than the Dems do. This doesn’t make the Dems right. But it does make Repubs the more hypocritiocal of the two parties. Compassionate conservatism? Being a uniter, not a divider? Fiscal responsibility? These are Republican platforms, and they’re all sick, hypocritical lies.

I just think it’s a little precious how someone with your education can fault the Dems for doing what the Repubs keep doing with much more regularity. And if you can’t see the hypocrisy in that, it’s further proof that you really do belong with the Bushes, Cheneys, Roves, Abramoffs, Santorums, DeLays, of the world.

Posted by: scoreggi at June 3, 2006 7:37 PM
Comment #154119


I guess you just don’t get it. We went into Iraq in a way that contradicts both American and International law.

Kerry wanted us to do it the right way. He supported action, before he realized Bush wanted to ignore 1441 and UN security council that were still seixed of the issue. The result was a lot of rediculous soundbites passed around by the foolish to try and make Kerry look like a waffler. It is only when you hear the comments made by Kerry that you realize he was right on. He WANTED TO DO IT THE RIGHT WAY!!!!

Why is that so hard to understand? It isn’t hypocrisy of democrats it’s the shallow and infantile arguments of you republicans who still DON’T GET IT!

Posted by: RGF at June 3, 2006 7:45 PM
Comment #154121

I notice a disconnect in all this discussion when Dr P quotes a specific incident to show hypocracy someone on the other side makes a statement about a conservative goal or purpose as being hypocritical. They are very different. You will notice that most conservatives have not changed their minds on the issues being discussed here.

Many have stated that they have not liked the way we have gone about it but most if not all were for and are still for the war in Iraq. We do not see the great lie. We understand that intelligence can be wrong. (dems seem to forget that most of that intelligence was gathered while under democratic control not republican).

Our leaders have differ from much of the base on the border but they are not hypocritical about it. You do not see a the main leadership of the Republican party backing away from there votes on the war. No back pedaling going on. they are standing up for what they think is right. that is where democrats seem to lose it. they change regularly what is right.

That is the problem I see. I have much more respect for those who have always opposed the war then for those who find it politically expediant to do so now. The dems are continuously changing their mind. I would like to see them find something and stick to it.

I also do not consider them hypocrits or criminals for having a different opinion then I do.

Scoreggi I am with you I wish that the republican party was more fiscally responisble this last few years. Now remember trade deficit is not real money it just means there is more coming into this country then going out. That will always be most of the world can not afford our products but we can afford theirs and by us buying their products that helps to increase the standard of living in many many developing countries which in the end will be the single greatest tool to bringing freedom to the world. Once a country has financial freedom political freedom is there as well.

David L I hope my there their and they’re’s were better.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 3, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #154122


I appreciate your comment; it is reasonable and correct. My post was one-sided and it should not have been. The purpose was not to imply that the republican party is better, but that both are equally shabby.

If you look at the list of my other posts you’ll find that they rarely, if ever, focus on any one politician/party. Yet the comments that follow are very politically divided. This was just my reply to those readers who continuously equate me to this or that corrupted official.

Really, people make the mistake of identifying with the politician rather than the positions he or she endorses. Until people recognize the err in that approach, partisan division will surely widen.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 3, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #154123


Thank you for your courage and forthrightness. Now, how can the qualities you just exhibited be assimilated by our two parties? Until they are, “We the People” will continue to be disenfranchised, compromised, and forgotten.

I love this coountry. But I hate what’s being done to it. And to us.

Posted by: scoreggi at June 3, 2006 8:03 PM
Comment #154124

Randell please explain china to me than

Posted by: timesend at June 3, 2006 8:06 PM
Comment #154129


I am not clear on what you mean. I will attempt an answer according to what I think you mean if I am wrong then let me know.

China not to long ago was close to bankruptcy themselves. They had almost no money coming in due to the communist ban on true free enterprise. They then opened up free enterprise zones in spots around the nation. If you ever looked at a map you will see that most of them were far far away from Beijing though. I found that funny. anyways this started to make them money so they could continue to fund there now semi communist ways. They had to turn to the concept of free enterprise so save themselves.

this has not made them wealthy yet. They have a long ways to go still. Most of their country has yet to be industrialized and their standard of living is still well well below where they need to be. Poverty is actually on the increase in many areas right now. They have a long ways to go.

If they work hard they will make it and you will also find more tension betweent he government and the growing middle class. this will force a change.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 3, 2006 8:22 PM
Comment #154135

— “most of that intelligence was gathered while under democratic control not republican”

… but was it Clinton out in the field collecting the intelligence? We cannot fault everything that happens in the government to one man and his administration. to do so is extremely ignorant, and dangerous.

similarly, a president does not make or break an economty. the reverse is true. while one president may advocate a larger budget (and it must be approved by congress), the ebb and flow of the economy is entirely independent of government interference. for example, it was not FDR that ended the depression, but WWII!

may i point out, also, that while many credit a single president with certain actions, most of those actions are reviewed and amended by congress. for the last 6 years of Clinton’s term in office, congress was controlled by republicans! Anyone remember Newt Gingrich?

The president does not make history; history makes the president.

Posted by: Ben at June 3, 2006 8:32 PM
Comment #154137

” August 2002, Cheney insisted: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

In a March 2003 address to the nation, Bush said: “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

In April 2003, Fleischer claimed: “But make no mistake—as I said earlier—we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about.”

In February 2003, Powell said: “We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.”

But two years earlier, Powell said just the opposite. The occasion was a press conference on 24 February 2001 during Powell’s visit to Cairo, Egypt. Answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions — the fact that the sanctions exist — not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein’s ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq…”

Posted by: tony at June 3, 2006 8:54 PM
Comment #154140

We did not have the kind of intelligence failure where in so much as a failure to gather the right information. We had a failure to do anything about what we knew!

During the Clinton years, Clinton and his administration earned a reputation for being micro-managers. That is a part of what annoyed the republicans. Does that mean he would be more likely to have put the pieces together and actually done something? Maybe. We will never know. regardless, all the pieces were present and in the hands of our intelligence people for almost a year of Bush. We didn’t re-act. Is that Bush’t FAULT? Who knows. That is one we may never figure out.

Posted by: RGF at June 3, 2006 9:18 PM
Comment #154141

randall jeramiah, dr politico et al -

The disconnect is that there is a lack of understanding here about what is meant by the appearences. I thought I explained rather well. I guess not. There is an APPERANCE of hypocrisy if you, like was DONE TO KERRY, take things out of context.

It would have been FAAAAAR better to have gone into Iraq with UN support and in a way that was legal and did not make us look like the oil-thirsty Empire the world sees us as now as a result of the way we mis-handled it. If you were a Senator and it was your desire to vote for possible action against Iraq to stop WMD’s, you might well have voted FOR action….but then voted against it once you realized that the administration intended that action was going to be taken in a way that contradicted both American and International law. That does NOT make you a hypocrit. That makes you a PATRIOT. Now, if you were a president who had little or no understanding of law, American, international or any law at all, you might well have advertised, with sound-bite samples taking statements out of context from the PATRIOT, in an effort to CREATE an APPEARENCE of hypocrisy or waffling. That is what is going on here. Apparently, Drpolitico does not even seem to realize the hypocrisy of HIS position.

We are making enemies faster than we can kill them because we are doing things the wrong way and convincing the world to see us as an empire. We are sinking to new moral depths and earning the animosity of the very people we are supposedly seeking to bring democracy to. WE are doing it in a way that is dangerous and destabilizing to our nation, our allies and trade relations with the rest of the world.

…and you fail to see the difference between DOING it according to American and International law, and doing it ‘BUSH cowboy’ style?

All you seem to see is that some democrats first supported the war and then didn’t. You call that hypocrisy. The reality is that they have not wavered. They advocated that we go into Iraq with the military and financial support of the UN. article 1441 mandated that. We did not have the power to go in unilaterally after 1441. The U.N. remained seized of the issue.

…What’s that I can hear you about to say? We couldn’t afford to risk it? Yes we could. We know that now. We knew that then too, but chose to trump up false evidence to force us into a war that was not yet necessary.

…and after all this…you have the SHERE GALL to accuse democrats of hypocrisy? Don’t you realize it is only your mis-understanding that you are illuminating?

Posted by: RGF at June 3, 2006 9:39 PM
Comment #154155

Dr. P, Randall, Scoreggi:

Geez, this argument dissolved into a civilized and well thought-out, considerate discussion! I commend you all for that, especially RJ, who I took a cheap shot at for a pet peeve of mine. RJ, I find your writing eloquent and thoughtful.

But all that said, we still have to bear in mind the important differences between this administration and those before it (including Bush I, Reagan, et al). Clinton did a lot of “posturing,” and there were frequent raids on military positions in Iraq (targeting assets by air that were seen as threats to no fly zones and air superiority). Again, though the military *was* involved, that’s absolutely no comparison with sending 130,000 troops. I’m truly confused that you can’t see this, Dr. P.

Was it three years ago that we had “Mission Accomplished?” It was a year ago that the insurgency was on its “last throes.”

We never *needed* to invade Iraq. It was for oil and hegemony. One of you Cons has to admit that at some point. And even if we *did* need to invade—unprecedented as that was—RGF is absolutely right that it had to be with multilateral support. It wasn’t, and we’re screwed right now by our own extraordinary ineptitude and massive arrogance.

It’s time for all of you R’s who have voted R your whole life to feel the freedom to take off your shackles and vote for someone else in November. Your party has forsaken you and lied to all of us to achieve the goals of most narrow few.

Someone made the point that we are in there now, so we can’t pull out. That may be true, but frankly, I’d much rather someone with competence over here running the show over there than what we have now. It’s been one lie and bungle after another.

Posted by: DavidL at June 3, 2006 11:04 PM
Comment #154158


Every decent person is ashamed of the government he lives under.


Posted by: Tim Crow at June 3, 2006 11:13 PM
Comment #154170


Well said. Thanks.

Posted by: RGF at June 4, 2006 12:19 AM
Comment #154177

If you haven’t been following the Canadian terrrorist bust and the subsequent court appearance click here. Our friends in Canada have prevented a major terrorist attack; thank G-d.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 4, 2006 12:32 AM
Comment #154185

Has anyone been following the oil for terrorists scandal that has been going on in Iraq. It is costing the Iraq government billions.

Posted by: jlw at June 4, 2006 1:14 AM
Comment #154190

Born and raised Republican. Both Pa & Ma. When I was a child, being a boy, both Grandpas would call me a Demoncrat for getting out of line, their line. When we first got a TV, the adults ran to turn the channel when Truman spoke because no one knew what he was going to say next. No curse words around the grandbabies, ever. At least not until you were 12. As I matured, I was sickened by the failures of Nixon and Goldwater and elated by Nixon’s final wins. My first Preseidential vote was for Ford. I’ve never thought the Democrats even picked their best men for the Presidential races, so I have never felt like there was a real choice to consider.
BUT NOW, I seem to be more conservative than all but a handfull of the Republicans in Washington. I feel deserted by my national party. If I feel ignored by the Republicans, you can imagine how I feel about the Demoncrats. I cannot believe there are everyday people out there dumb enough to buy that the national politics of our once great country are being fairly represented by these two groups of politicians. There is no truly organized, thoroughly conservative group or party.
Someone DO SOMETHING. If the already disappointed conservative falls any further into disgust, you will never get him to the polls in ‘06 or ‘08. That will guarantee a return to power of the Dems. It will take 6 to 10 years for them to screw up enough for the Republicans to come back to real conservatism in order to get out the voters again. There absolutely has to be a return to true conservative beliefs by someone, old or new makes little difference.
ALSO, quit letting the Dems get hold of our points such as privacy. Just because the President and some of his cabinet like surveilling the public doesn’t make it an issue for the Dems to take for themselves. In history, they are the ones willing to sacrifice all of our personal rights in order to get the government where they wanted it. I could not believe it when the lefties began the fight to ensure that privacy was not going to go down the drain. It was not their issue. It was ours.
Just like getting our men out of the hot spots in the Mid-East. A real conservative would have planned for a short but effective war, not what we got. Why are we not using bombs and missiles instead of so many men. The fear of death of civilians has been a deterrent in every war ever fought. If the arabs don’t care who gets killed, then what difference does it make anyway?

Posted by: Big Pickel at June 4, 2006 2:00 AM
Comment #154191

A few thoughts on the august body of flip-flopping Democrats in the Senate who voted for the war then ran on an anti-war platform. Several were on the Senate Intelligence committee and saw the same evidence that Bush did and voted for war. This to me suggests two possibilities. One is that they reviewed the evidence and in good conscience felt that Saddam was a threat and needed removed. You can’t even begin to argue that they felt thier vote wouldn’t lead to war, anyone who can hear heard loud and clear that we were coming for Saddam if the vote was to authorize force. If this is the case, than these Democrats are just as incompetent as they accuse Bush of being. The second possibility is that they reviewed the evidence, were not convinced, but noticed that the country was in a jingo mood (over 80% of Americans supported the war when it first began), and believed that it would be easy. In this case, they were worse than incompetent but derelict in their duty to the people of their states.

In either case, they knew that since they weren’t the ones who would end up sending the troops, they could just “change their minds” if things went wrong but could profit if things went right. That’s just the type of strong leadership I crave. The Democrats have no platform aside from “We aren’t Republicans.” The Democrats have been losing support for over 10 years now, and the radical left has become more and more shrill as time goes on. I can only hope that these held-over hippies and other bums keep their hold on the Democrats long enough to show America just how far out of the mainstream the Democrats are.

jlw could you please elaborate on the oil for terrorists scandal? I have not heard about this.

Posted by: 1LT B at June 4, 2006 2:14 AM
Comment #154225

It’s not flip-flopping to agree with somebody when you think they’re straight with you and disagreeing with them when you find out otherwise. That’s called revising your opinion to fit the facts. The GOP and this president are not entitled to agreement and unity that was bought with counterfeit factual currency, no matter how good their cause is supposed to be.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 4, 2006 9:56 AM
Comment #154229

Stephen Daugherty,

Why would all of these Democrats have voted for the war if they didn’t believe what was being said? Hell, even France said Saddam had the weapons. Furthermore, Saddam ordered them destroyed in the month before the war began. We heard his transmissions ordering this but believed, based on 12 years of lies, that it was an attempt to decieve us.

The Democrats, however, are even worse in the way they dealt with this. Rather than asking the right questions, ie where did these weapons go, they ranted and raved about being lied to. If George Bush is such an idiot, what does it say about them that they were led around so easily? Bush dien’t lie, Saddam had these weapons until literally days before we rolled into Iraq, and the Democratic party is the voice of cowardice and retreat for every overindulged ignorant hater of their own country in America.

The Democratic party is a group of held-over hippies who still haven’t gotten over Reagan, to say nothing of 2000. They say they support the troops then question our mission and try to use our deaths for political points. Wake up! Even in 2004, when we all knew we were looking at years of effort and sacrifice in Iraq, the huge majority of the military voted Republican. The only place I would trust a Democrat to lead me would be to either a bar (Kennedy) or a brothel (Clinton).

Posted by: 1LT B at June 4, 2006 10:18 AM
Comment #154231

Dr Politico, please explain how the Dems supposed hypocricy justifies Republican corruption, Republican ineptitude, Republican deceit, Republican foreign policy debacles, and Republican fiscal irresponsibility.

Your post provides additional proof that the wrong wing in this country has only one real goal and only one real tactic.

The goal: to stamp out all vestiges of liberalism in this country and anywhere in the world by any means necessary. The extreme wrong wing hates liberalism with a seething passion. They hate liberals more than they hate Osama, more than they hate Saddam, more than they hate Kim jong Il, more than they hate anyone or anything else. they are driven by hatred, and consumed by it. The wrong wing in fact hates Americans first.

The tactic: attack, attack, attack. Make the liberals the issue. Accuse them of “hating America”. Accuse them of hypocricy (pot, meet kettle). Swift-boat them. Call them extremists (again, pot meet kettle). Keep them on the defensive. Sling mud. Call them names. Lie. It doesn’t matter if you turn politics into a cesspool - after all, if there weren’t any liberals, you wouldn’t have to do this. So it’s the liberals’ fault.

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 4, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #154234

I am just concerned that all you liberal clones are getting your welfare checks on time. If not please call Howard Dean and let him know as he and the Demoncratic party will surely get on the ball and correct the problem as suredly as they will take this nation to damnation if put back in power

Posted by: Barry at June 4, 2006 10:53 AM
Comment #154237

David L,

Did you not read the top of this post? All of those Democrats said that Sadaam had the WMD,s before 911 but you people keep saying our president lied. This is getting very very old. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Peolosi and many many more. Where is the lie? If I have to keep hearing that Bush lied I am gouing to scream. If he lied, so did all of the Democrats that said the same thing. Move on, please. The people of the US are sick of hearing it.

Posted by: kim wise at June 4, 2006 11:02 AM
Comment #154239

another thing, Valerie Plame was NOT undercover. Why are my tax dollars going to investigate that whole thing? She had not been an operative for well over 5 years and from what I have heard, it was well known in the area that she worked for the CIA.

Posted by: kim wise at June 4, 2006 11:08 AM
Comment #154243

So, the Democrats can see when they are wrong and adjust accordingly. I respect that much more than some of these Neocons who never make mistakes and continue to perpetuate bad policy.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 4, 2006 11:31 AM
Comment #154244

kim wise,

Don’t believe everthing you hear.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 4, 2006 11:32 AM
Comment #154247

kim wise-
Why did the CIA ask for an investigation if there was not some secrecy surrounding her identity? That’s a legalistic quibble more than it’s a legitimate reason to discount the controversy

1LT B-
Why did they believe what was said in the first place, that Saddam was a greater threat than we previously believed. We suspected he was hiding something, true enough, but it wasn’t until Bush’s campaign for action against Iraq that the story was given that Iraq posed a serious immediate threat to our national security. Without Bush’s case for war, most people would have consider Saddam a minor enemy who was not so important to deal with as Osama Bin Laden.

So again, the question becomes why Bush deserves our cooperation. You can call us hippies all you want to, but when there is ample evidence that Bush and his staff knew one thing and told us another. Why would he do do that? The only reason I can see for doing that is that he wouldn’t trust the American people to back a war, if his case was restricted to what he could back solidly. Given the results of invasion, it might have been better for us all, if he had not made the mistake of supporting a war with such partisand distrust at its heart.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 4, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #154250

If you haven’t been following the Canadian terrrorist bust and the subsequent court appearance click here. Our friends in Canada have prevented a major terrorist attack; thank G-d.
Posted by: Dr Politico at June 4, 2006 12:32 AM

And those liberal Canadians didn’t need to start any phony wars to do it either, imagine that.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 4, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #154252


Have you heard anyting to prove that she was undercover in the last 5 years? I don’t believe everything I hear. I don’t believe much of anything that the mainstream media says. Ilook for fair and balanced. But I did hear about her on news channels that are liberal bias that she was NOT undercover.

Posted by: kim wise at June 4, 2006 11:45 AM
Comment #154254

The Cia asked for an investigation to shut up the liberals because that’s all they have to say is all about what the administration is doing wrong.Nothing to add just critisizms(sp)Did the democrats above not really say all of those things about Saddaam and his WMD’S?

If the info about Saddaam was false, why did so many democrats say that he had WMD’S before GW had even decided to run for president?

Posted by: kim wise at June 4, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #154255

Kim Wise,

Outed CIA officer was working on Iran, intelligence sources say

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 4, 2006 11:53 AM
Comment #154258


I agree with you, the Democrats want to give all of our money away to people who are too lazy to work. Why is it the government responsible to take care of people? I have to work hard for my money and have to pay a big chunk of my check on health insurance. Not to mention co-pays and what insurance doesn’t cover. I think I need to quit working and get on welfare so I care get on medicare and not have to pay for anything. The Dems want to keep giving OUR money away to the poor who won’t work. How fair is that?

Posted by: kim wise at June 4, 2006 12:00 PM
Comment #154259

I see your information came from a liberal web site The Raw Story. I wouldn’t believe everything you hear and read

Posted by: kim wise at June 4, 2006 12:05 PM
Comment #154260

1LT B: The oil for terrorist scandal is a situation which has being going on in Iraq since shortly after the invasion. The oil pipe lines were damaged or destroyed. So, oil tanker trucks have been transporting much of the oil to processing plants and export terminals. Much of this oil has been disappearing across the border into Turkey, Syria, Jordan, etc.. and sold on the black market. When a pipe line is repaired, it is quickly blown up again to keep the truck smugglers in business. Much of the procedes from the smuggling operations is ending up in the hands of terrorists and the insurgents. The Iraq government has said that the smuggling operation has cost the government billions in lost revenue and is being used to finance the insurgents and terrorists.

Posted by: jlw at June 4, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #154261

In an interview on NPR this week, Hans Blix stated he believed that if the inspectors had been given one or two more months the questions about WMD’s would have been answered definitively.

We acted as if the threat in Iraq was “imminent”.

Go figure.

Posted by: Rocky at June 4, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #154267

Lying Comes Naturally to Republicans
Whenever Republican politicians find themselves in trouble, their automatic knee-jerk reaction is to blame Democrats. If there is nothing to blame Democrats for, they merely make something up - they lie. This is exactly what the Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman, following the lead of his boss George W. Bush, has done and is doing. He is placing the blame of the mean and punitive House immigration bill on the Democrats, when he knows that it is an outrageous lie.
“To be anti- George Bush is to be pro-American,”

I think he’s dangerous, and he has to be stopped.”

U.S. Troops Killed in Iraq Tops 2,400

Top Reasons for Impeaching Bush
What are the top reasons for impeaching Bush?
Invading Iraq without any threat to the U.S.
Lying about Iraqi WMD’s to Congress and the American people
Causing the deaths of over 2,000 U.S. troops and the maiming of over 10,000 more
Failing to provide adequate equipment and armor to U.S. troops
Allowing illegal torture and murder of prisoners
Causing the deaths of 100,000 Iraqi civilians
Spending $300 billion in just two years for an occupation that could last for decades
Letting Halliburton steal billions through no-bid contracts
Using vast quantities of depleted uranium weapons that will poison Iraq now and for generations to come
September 11
Ignoring countless warnings of an attack in the U.S.
Reading “My Pet Goat” during the attack
Letting Osama Bin Laden escape from Afghanistan
Holding no bureaucrat accountable for ignoring warnings
Delaying and obstructing the 911 Commission investigation
Turning Afghanistan into the world’s largest opium producer
Allowing international terrorism incidents to quadruple and trying to cover up the facts
Failing to secure our borders and ports to prevent terrorism
Creating a new generation of terrorists through the invasion of Iraq and the killing of 100,000 civilians
Letting terrorists buy high-powered weapons inside the U.S.
Letting North Korea build nuclear bombs and missiles that can cross the Pacific Ocean
Refusing to shut down Pakistan’s nuclear weapons exports
Foreign relations
Turning the world against the United States
Preparing for another war with Iran
Signing treaties that cost America jobs and undermine American laws
Letting gasoline prices double at devastating cost to the economy while oil companies make record profits
Letting corrupt companies like Enron steal billions from consumers and employees
Cutting taxes for the rich and turning a $5 trillion budget surplus into a $5 trillion budget deficit
Adding trillions to the national debt, which our children and grandchildren will have to pay off with interest
Letting millions of American jobs go overseas
Letting bureaucrats wiretap Americans without a court order
Locking up suspects for years without charges or trials
Arresting nonviolent protesters at Bush events
Packing the courts with right-wing judges to outlaw abortion
Ordering federal courts to interfere in the Terri Schiavo tragedy
Taking away our right to sue corporations through class actions
Taking away our right to declare bankruptcy under Chapter 7 and forcing middle-class Americans into debt slavery
Stealing the Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004
Refusing to investigate the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of voters in Florida and Ohio
Promoting black-box electronic voting machines without paper trails
Embracing dictators in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Russia, and China
Overthrowing democratically-elected leaders in Haiti and Venezuela
Allowing global warming, which will cause massive environmental damage
Allowing more toxic mercury in the air and water
Allowing oil drilling in wilderness areas
Illegally “outing” CIA agent Valerie Plame, an important anti-terrorism official
Letting a gay male prostitute (Jeff Gannon) roam free in the White House
Paying journalists to give favorable coverage to the administration
Relying on an earpiece for answers during debates and press conferences
Going AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard in 1972 and covering it up ever since
Defending the most corrupt Member of Congress (Tom DeLay)

Articles of Impeachment


President George W. Bush


Vice President Richard B. Cheney,
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. - - ARTICLE II, SECTION 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

4) Instituting a secret and illegal wiretapping and spying operation against the people of the United States through the National Security Agency.

5) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.

6) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

7) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

8) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the “Supreme Law of the land” under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.

9) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an “enemy combatant.”

10) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

11) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.

12) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.

13) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.

14) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.

15) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.

16) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed “terrorist.”

17) Engaging in criminal neglect in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, depriving thousands of people in Louisiana, Mississippi and other Gulf States of urgently needed support, causing mass suffering and unnecessary loss of life.

18) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.

19) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.

20) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.

Posted by: debra from texas at June 4, 2006 1:16 PM
Comment #154269

kim wise,

you don’t believe the liberal media, and I sure as hell don’t believe the conservative media. So, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 4, 2006 1:26 PM
Comment #154270
I agree with you, the Democrats want to give all of our money away to people who are too lazy to work. Why is it the government responsible to take care of people? I have to work hard for my money and have to pay a big chunk of my check on health insurance. Not to mention co-pays and what insurance doesn’t cover. I think I need to quit working and get on welfare so I care get on medicare and not have to pay for anything. The Dems want to keep giving OUR money away to the poor who won’t work. How fair is that?

Posted by: kim wise at June 4, 2006 12:00 PM

You must be one of those “compassionate” conservatives.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 4, 2006 1:30 PM
Comment #154274

Our thanks to this team for pointing out a truth about politicians (never to hold for us mere mortals) that they have records that are very confusing. Let us begin with a definition first.
An inconsistency is when one holds two contrary views about the same issue. When that is done we should rightly point that out to whomever is holding the contrary views.

I think it is highly unlikely that if we examine anyone’s life we will find a consistency of viewpoint on all matters. This would especially hold true for a politician in a democracy. The strength of a democracy is its ability to compromise; this means, that on occasion, politicians have to give some ground on a position thus attracting the label inconsistent. Would we want politicians to always be consistent? The results of consistency may be seen in the Iraq policy followed by the current administration. So much for consistency.

Senator Kennedy is recognized by no less a non-liberal source as TIME magazine as one of the ten best Senators in Washington. Why? Because he knows how to broker a deal, thus making him a valued member of Congress. We might examine the career of another great democratic politician in the 20th century, Winston Churchill, to determine if he were “consistent.” The short answer is, no, he was not.

I continue to be amused (I guess that is the term) by persons who point out the faults of one of the greatest Senators in American history. Has he been perfect? Far from it, but who can point to more genuine accomplishments from a career in public service? You might want to look at some of that history as you trot out your scales of measurement and recognize, as one blogger did, that to change ones mind is not necessarily being inconsistent.

Peace, cml

Posted by: cml at June 4, 2006 1:57 PM
Comment #154293

Ted Kennedy is a killer and a crook. I came on this what I thought was a Republican Conservative site to talk to like minded people. Why don’t you liberals do the same?

Posted by: kim wise at June 4, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #154297

Dear Kim, persons visit the Democratic site constantly to suggest errors in judgment. Why should liberals and Democrats refrain from doing the same thing on this site? Does a little debate hurt anyone?

Andy Jackson killed a man in a duel over a woman. Did that fact make him any less or more a criminal, crook or whatever? Ted Kennedy will never live down one event in his life. He is stuck with it. That’s life. It does not, however, necessarily detract from his performance in the US Senate. Cannot persons who visit this website discriminate or navigate in this complex world? Our job as citizens is to hold their (politicians) feet to the fire, whatever political party they proclaim.

Peace, cml

Posted by: cml at June 4, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #154307

Kim Wise-
Oh, there are plenty of like-minded people around. You won’t lack for that. But this site quite purposefully allows the different sides to collide. Democrats critique Republicans, Republican critique Democrats, Everybody critiques the third parties and the Third Parties critique everybody else.

And personally I couldn’t be happier. Open competition is what good politics are all about. Nobody’s supposed to just hold onto power for no good reason. You earn your consensus and influence here by working for it.

Too much of modern conservative discourse takes place between conservatives and each other, rather than themselves and the rest of society, who after six years of GOP government are wondering just what the hell your people are thinking.

Republicans have become better at defending themselves than sitting down and asking themselves just what they want. They’ve gotten so caught up in that, that by degrees they’ve managed to get themselves defending some pretty nasty things.

This gets to be a problem as people quit thinking through what they’re defending and if they should be even defending it. It also leads them to defend contradictions within the party, which leads the both their rivals and their more self-aware party members to look on in disgust.

I’ve found you can’t win every argument. There are some times when your rival is right, and you save yourself more grief and damage by simply agreeing with them, or by finding some new way to reconcile the truth with your beliefs. Ultimately, no party benefits from cocooning itself away from reality, or pushing it’s agenda at the expense of the quality of its actions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 4, 2006 5:23 PM
Comment #154310

debra et al,

Show me the Article in the Constitution or any Federal law that makes ignoring a UN resoulution an impeachable offense. Show me any Article, treaty, law or regulation that gives The UN any legal or binding authority over this country—-or any other country, for that matter. Impeachable offense my ass!

BTW—-the US, Britain and Japan pay around 80% of the UN’s budget. That makes the rest of the UN membership something resembling welfare recipients, don’t you think? Take the money and then condemn the people who gave it to you. Sound familiar?

Posted by: someoldguy at June 4, 2006 5:32 PM
Comment #154311


If I may just add that President Clinton circumvented the UN as well during the Kosovo conflict.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 4, 2006 5:36 PM
Comment #154314

You’re right, DrP, I forgot that. Of course, I’ve been trying to forget anyone in politics named Clinton. My error. Actually, to be fair, it would be easier to list the Presidents and Congresses that circumvented the UN when it suited them than those who didn’t.

Crap is crap, doesn’t matter who’s sitting on the toilet.

Posted by: someoldguy at June 4, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #154315


Show me any Article, treaty, law or regulation that gives The UN any legal or binding authority over this country—-or any other country, for that matter.
I won’t argue Debra’s case for her, but to be fair she has already shown you an article in our own constitution that seems to apply.

Dr Politico,

If I may just add that President Clinton circumvented the UN as well during the Kosovo conflict.
Maybe someone should impeach Clinton too? Oh, wait…

Posted by: Introspective at June 4, 2006 5:53 PM
Comment #154318

Thank you, Introspective.

Perhaps debra can point out that Article—-in the Constitution—-or treaty, law etc. that “seems to apply”. “Seems” seems a little vague to pass legal muster, don’t you think?.

Near as I can see, the UN has no legal authority over this or, as I said before, any other country (PRK, Sudan, Venezuala, pick your own example)that that country doesn’t specifally cede to the UN. My guess would be zero.

In this country, wouldn’t Congress have to pass a billand the President have to sign it to make any ceding of sovereign rights to the UN *legally binding* on the US?

Posted by: someoldguy at June 4, 2006 6:08 PM
Comment #154320

someoldguy, Article six of the Constitution says

all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 4, 2006 6:13 PM
Comment #154322


“Seems” seems a little vague to pass legal muster, don’t you think?.
Yes, it does “seem” a little vague, but those were my words based on a casual reading of the article—they say nothing for or against the strength of Debra’s argument. You see, I don’t like to make strong opinionated statements unless I’m willing to put the time into researching the facts behind it—a policy I wish more people on this blog would follow.

Posted by: Introspective at June 4, 2006 6:27 PM
Comment #154324
In this country, wouldn’t Congress have to pass a billand the President have to sign it to make any ceding of sovereign rights to the UN *legally binding* on the US?


Not in the case of treaties, he only needs the consent of two thirds of the Senators present, the House has no say in it:

Article II, section 2

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 4, 2006 6:32 PM
Comment #154334

The United States has a very bad habit of signing treaties that commit us to intervening in other people’s wars.

Example #1: The Eisenhower administration, with the approval of the Democratically controlled senate, made the U.S. part of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO).

That ultimately led us into Vietnam and the deaths of more than 58,000 Americans in what was essentially a civil war.

Example #2: When John Kennedy announced that an attack on any country in the western hemisphere by the Soviets would be considered an attack on the U.S., he was compelled to do so because of our membership in the Organization of American States and the mutual defense agreement (the Rio Pact) ratified in 1947.

We came within a heartbeat of a nuclear war that would have blown us back into the stone age.

I don’t believe isolationism is a productive doctrine for the U.S. or any other country.

But there is a difference between isolationism and minding your own business.

Posted by: ulysses at June 4, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #154340


Thanks, you prove my point. None of this has happened. I do appreciate your quote of Article Six, but I still am unaware of any treaties that cede any sovereign rights, including being legally bound by any UN resolutions, to the UN.


There is no strength in an arguement that invokes ones personal political beliefs because it “seems” to them that the Constitution supports their point of view. The Constitution says what it says. Interpreting what it *means*, in a legal and binding context, is the job of the Supreme Court, not yours or mine. I don’t want to hear about so-called “activist” Courts unless you are willing to concede that Earl Warren’s Court was an activist Court, no more, or less, than any recent Court. The fact that I, personally, believe Warren’s court was right more often than it was wrong has no bearing on the fact that just because one agrees with one Court and not another is nothing more than an opinion. We all know about rectums and opinions. Everyone has one, most stink.

Beliefs and feelings are just that, beliefs and feelings. Beliefs and feelings and seemings (if that is even a word) are common to all of us, but outside of religious mythology (which is all any religious belief—-Christian, Islam, Paganism, Wican or Mumbo Jumbo can offer), have no have no business in a political debate.

JayJay Snow,

Thanks for the claification. You are correct, that’s what the Aticle says. The problem here is that none of that has happened and it doesn’t address my stated concern: What Amendment, treaty, law or regulation has ceded to the UN LEGAL (god, I hate to yell) authority That would make disregard of a UN resolution or regulation an impeachable offense for *any* US President. Show me that and I’ll swallow my pride and apologize for wasting bandwidth with my personal points of view. And I am still waiting to hear of ANY (there I go yelling again) nation that has ceded such rights to the UN.

My point is hatred of a sitting President is not grounds to start creating “reasons” to impeach based on wishful thinking and invention.

Before I get inundated by posts citing lieing to the American People or asking “what about Bubba”, I’d like to point out that the i,mpeachment wasn’t about what he was sticking in Monica’s mouth, but the fact that he “lied to the American People” about it. It was none of our business where he was putting his private parts or in who he was doing it. It was lieing about it like some adolescent who was trying to get Mommy off his back that got him in trouble. The whole issue was partisan politics to the exclusion of what is good for you and I, ie., what is good for the Nation and us as a People. It was a sideshow and the Peoples business and the Nations business became less than a secondary issue. It is the same now only worse.

Learn from history? Roll over in your grave, Mr Santayana.

Posted by: someoldguy at June 4, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #154343

If we don’t adhere to ratified treaties, how do we hold others to their treaties with us?

We use treaties because it’s a pain in the ass to try and deal with the complex structure of international politics by the seat of our pants. Additionally, the very concept of sovereignty is dependent on international law. It might strike some on your side as namby-pamby to respect nation’s sovereignty, but that respect is what keeps our own sovereignty from becoming an open question.

We will not always be on top. We will have our down times, though they will not necessarily be permanent. We should take care not to stretch any rules now that could come back to haunt us when we are more at the rest of the world’s mercy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 4, 2006 8:44 PM
Comment #154345


There is no strength in an arguement that invokes ones personal political beliefs because it “seems” to them that the Constitution supports their point of view.
And we’re supposed to believe that your argument has more strength—even though you’ve given no evidence other than your own opinions and beliefs? You previously said:
Near as I can see, the UN has no legal authority over this or, as I said before, any other country (PRK, Sudan, Venezuala, pick your own example)that that country doesn’t specifally cede to the UN. My guess would be zero.
“Near as I can see”? “My guess”? Yes, your arguments certainly seem much stronger than those that use the word “seem”…
… and apologize for wasting bandwidth with my personal points of view.
Exactly. Your personal points of view are no more LEGAL than mine, and no more FACTUAL than mine—at least based on all the evidence you haven’t bothered to provide—so to try to dismiss my arguments because I used the word “seem” is disingenuous at best.

I also find it amusing how you’re harping about a single item in Debra’s list of arguments for impeachment, yet you’ve made no comments on the other 19 items.

Posted by: Introspective at June 4, 2006 8:54 PM
Comment #154351

I have blogged and blogged and blogged on this very same issue, so one more time…:


The difference is article 1441. Bush stumped it and spoke on it and held up a copy at one point…but how many of you know it?

The United Nations Security Council remained ‘Seized’ of the issue of taking military action in Iraq pending further investigation. WE agreed to that and we are also a member nation of the UN. Our treaty binds us since the UN charter is one of the few treaties we actually both signed and ratified. We were bound to abide by article 1441 and the UN security council once we engaged them.

We never went back to achieve the final step. It was the final step that Kerry and democrats wanted us to achieve so that we would go in with the moral authority of the world behind us and with UN help in both man-power and financial support. WE WERE BOUND TO DO SO BY BOTH INTERNATIONAL AND AMERICAN LAW. And yet we did not.

In Kosovo, we were not so bound. We intervened as a NATO nation rather than as a member nation of the UN. The U.N. was not there when we were and we had not made any binding agreements with any other nations in the form of UN resolutions.

Bush first made it clear he fully intended to do everything within the agreement of article 1441 and he said he was going to go through the U.N. He lied. At that time, and because of those assurances, Kerry and others supported preparing the way by voting for action in Iraq. When it became clear that Bush and Rummy et al had no intention of going it about it legally or abiding by the U.N. security council, they naturally voted against action. This was manipulated and soundbited to death and Kerry was portrayed as a waffler for doing nothing more than sticking to his guns.
…and yet there are still silly people out there who buy the BS that we have a liberally biased media. HA! Not even a little bit!

I’m tired of teaching on this. I really am. Why do Republicans so easily misunderstand? I wonder how many of you out there even asked yourselves or wondered about the rest of comment that Kerry made that got sound-bit sampled and used out of context. Hmmm? How many out there still believe Kerry is a waffler? How many are actually buying this foolishness about democrat hypocrisy? How many?

Posted by: RGF at June 4, 2006 9:47 PM
Comment #154368


You are right. That is the most cogent statement explaining why treaties should be adhered to as I’ve read anywhere.


I don’t think legality is an issue in the honest and free exchange of ideas or ,even, opinions. Not sure what relevence all that “LEGAL” and “FACTUAL” stuff has to do with the issue at hand, either. I think the First Amendment of the Constitution got there before you. Also, refer to FDR’s Four Freedoms.

You mention debras other 19 “arguements”. The first one is the one I chose because it implied that ignoring a UN directive was an impeachable offense. The other 19 fall under the same adolescent “Impeach the President because I think…” rhetoric that any blinkered, agenda bound ractionary, left or right, resorts to when inconveniences like illegality won’t let them have their way. Hell, I read them all and I’ll stipulate that she may have a good arguement here and there. *But my issue was limited to acting unilaterally from the UN was an Impeachable offense.* debras post was a starting point to address what I thought was a continuing thread of justification for a shaky position.

debra, I was not attacking your post. If I gave any other impression, I am sorry.

All this still does not address my original point. Impeaching the President, as I recall, was not the point of DrP post nor was it the point of my post. That’s an issue better taken up on the Liberal threads where it “seems” to be taken seriously.

Here’s my original post:
debra et al,

Show me the Article in the Constitution or any Federal law that makes ignoring a UN resoulution an impeachable offense. Show me any Article, treaty, law or regulation that gives The UN any legal or binding authority over this country—-or any other country, for that matter. Impeachable offense my ass!

BTW—-the US, Britain and Japan pay around 80% of the UN’s budget. That makes the rest of the UN membership something resembling welfare recipients, don’t you think? Take the money and then condemn the people who gave it to you. Sound familiar?

No one “seems” to have actually addressed my request. It’s not up to me to defend your position.

Posted by: Someoldguy at June 4, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment #154369

For the record, I’m a card carrying Libertarian.

Posted by: someoldguy at June 4, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #154371


I don’t think legality is an issue in the honest and free exchange of ideas or ,even, opinions.
You made it an issue, not me. Since I guess this means you’re backtracking, I accept your apology.
Show me any Article, treaty, law or regulation that gives The UN any legal or binding authority over this country—or any other country, for that matter. Impeachable offense my ass!
Your question has been answered more than once—RGF answered it the most directly.
No one “seems” to have actually addressed my request. It’s not up to me to defend your position.
It’s been addressed. It’s not up to us to make you read the answer.

Posted by: Introspective at June 4, 2006 11:22 PM
Comment #154389


I like you. I don’t especially agree with much of what you say, but I respect it. And, yes, it was a sort of back door apology. Thanks for accepting it in the spirit it was given.

As for the rest of your post, may we just agree to disagree for the time being? I need to get some sleep.

Thanks for the discussion.

Posted by: someoldguy at June 5, 2006 12:53 AM
Comment #154393


I appreciate that, whether or not we can agree.

Posted by: Introspective at June 5, 2006 1:13 AM
Comment #154501

You new modern republicans are funny to me.

This article was/is an effort to make political hay by pointing out percieved hypocrisy that was actually not hypocrisy at all. I explained the reason. It is thus evident that the only waffling or shifting was done by BUSH and his administration when they first made assurances to the world, and to us, that they were going to abide by article 1441 and then DIDN’T!
(and after that became evident as the plan, who can honestly blame anyone for not supporting BUSH? The dems did nothing but remain steadfast; It is the administration that waffled.)

…and now the best any of you can do, after making such a rediculous and groundless accusation, is to say ‘we’ll just have to agree to disagree?’

What a cop-out. What profound weekness. What drivel.

Time for a change.

Posted by: RGF at June 5, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #154517


You said:

“My point is hatred of a sitting President is not grounds to start creating “reasons” to impeach based on wishful thinking and invention.”

Bush has lied to the American people over and over in an effort to justify this war, his deficits, his energy policies, his policies on Immigration, etc. etc.

Bush’s lies have cost us NATIONAL economic stability and more importantly, American lives. They have also cost us the moral high ground in the eyes of the rest of the world.

We now have growing evidence of election fraud in both 2000 and 2004 that makes Watergate look trivial. We have reports and testimony from people who saw it happening. From Programmers who wrote the election hacking software and explained how that software could be set to “eat itself” and thus be untraceable. We have statements and evidence from people inside the voting machine manufacturing companies. Why do you think anybody needs to “create” a reason to remove this twit? Wouldn’t it be better to have a sitting president who actually understood and appreciated the principles of democracy and American law? What more genuine reason do you need? Did Bush not take an oath of office? twice?… to uphold the Constitution and American law?

The stubbornness I see is clearly more of the same tone as we saw with the Clinton/Monica thing.
Millions were spent by Starr to pursue that case and his original purpose was to investigate Whitewater. He was never able to find anything with regard to Whitewater that implicated the Clinton’s in any way. Monica was only relevant as a character witness to impugn Clinton. Nothing more. And yet we now know Clinton had nothing to do with Whitewater. Lewinski should never have had anything to do with the whitewater investigation except that Starr was being secretly funded/egged on to go beyond the scope of his appointed investigation to perform a political disparagement campaign. Honor, honesty and fair dealing with the public are clearly alien concepts to those blow-hards who are creating the prevailing winds in the republican party. I don’t understand why they have any support at all considering how they have treated the American people.

Time for a CHANGE. Vote Democrat.

Posted by: RGF at June 5, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #154529

I want you, and everyone to mull this comment over slowly:

“BTW⭴he US, Britain and Japan pay around 80% of the UNⳠbudget. That makes the rest of the UN membership something resembling welfare recipients, donⴠyou think? Take the money and then condemn the people who gave it to you. Sound familiar?”

Does this not sound like the hyper-cynical ‘Golden Rule’? : He who has the Gold makes the rules?

What’s more…Don’t we owe back dues for several years for NOT paying the U.N.? (the result of ANOTHER republican idea).

Posted by: RGF at June 5, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #154564


Three posts in a row! Boy, I must have pissed you off.

I’m a Libertarian, but if it makes you feel better you can call me a modern Republican. I don’t really care. You should know that I have voted for two Republicans in my life neither was a Presidential candidate. I have voted for many codemocrats over the years mostly at the state level.
And I voted for the last honest Presidential candidate you ran. Jimmy Carter. Your party pretty well screwed him over during his term, didn’t you. Religious nut, outsider. You virtually gave Reagan the Presidency with your lukewarm support.

You have good candidates in almost every national election you never run any of them(with exception of Carter). A partial list: Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, Michael Dukakis, John Kerry. Who needs election fraud? Your guys seem content to run these guys, lose and then call the people who vote against you stupid. Run an honest candidate, you have them, you just don’t like anyone in your party who has advanced beyond 1968’s party platform. I’ll vote democrat when you guys move into the 21st century and offer a candidate who actually has some ideas and moves away from the reactionary, forward into the past, politics you guys seem to like. Most of you started out as radicals with new, if not always good, ideas. Now all you do is whine and react to the changes in the wind you no longer have any “bold new ideas” for the future. Offer some viable solutions to problems we face, not rehashed 30 year old solutions to the serious threats facing us this century and you might see a democrat in office. Hell, I might even vote for him.

You and the Republicans have done nothing but wage turf wars like a bunch of gangbangers who think their block is the world.

Lastly, let’s look at some of those UN welfare recipients” I mentioned. Germany, France, Russia—-poor countries all. I’ll concede that some, make that many, countries and one continent can’t meet their UN obligations.

My point was that without the contributions of Three countries, the UN wouldn’t bedoing any business at all.

As far as back dues go, do we owe any? You don’t seem to know either.

Posted by: someoldguy at June 5, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #154571


I’m not rich, I’m old, live on a fixed income and just want the government to operate in the peoples best interests so we can go about our daily lives with some confidence in that government. Not as some kind of platform for politicians to make political hay.

And, RGF, I’m very sorry if you perceive the need to get some sleep as a cop-out. Based on the date and time you reponded to my posts, you got yourself some sleep there, too. Hypocrasy, anyone? I don’t like your “Jane, you ignorant slut!” approach in your posts (Ask one of your older friends, if that reference confuses you.)

Lastly, that particular post was for Introspective, with whom I had an enjoyable discourse. It was to let him know why I was leaving the thread. If that’s profound “weekness” and “drivel” so be it.

Posted by: someoldguy at June 5, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #154630


I fully remember the golden days of SNL, no need to explain.

If you are a libertarian, truely, then your posts baffle me. I was once a republican. No more. Never again. No way, no how.

John Kerry was a FANTASTIC candidate and would have a far better president than the one we have now. Did you read the previous post on this thread regarding Kerry and 2004? It’s worth a look to understand why he was maligned and how, just in case you didn’t catch it two years ago.

As far as back dues go…We have NOT payed now for years. That was a rhetorical question meant to REMIND you of that fact, but apparently you were completely unaware of that.

We quoted chapter and verse of the facts and the law to you and yet you persisted in your mis-understanding of how the Iraq war was and is illegal. It is not that the UN has some kind of unlimited power over us or any other nation, it is that we entered into a binding agreement with other nations subject to our treaty with the UN and then renegged. WE sought article 1441. WE agreed to the terms from the UN security council, and then we turned around and violated them. Like so many, you don’t even seem to WANT to listen or understand. Wouldn’t that make ANY normal human being frustrated? …even angry?

John Kerry lost an election because just scant few too many CHOSE to be duped rather than to exercise some curiosity and analytical thought.

My tone is often caustic because of the level of obliviousness I encounter here all too often. At first it was mind-blowing to me to see the level of willful ignorance in so many posts. Then it sank in and I got mad. I’m still mad. I don’t understand how people can think the way that is so often expressed here. It requires a willful exclusion of facts and information to do so. Imputing hypocrusy to democrats, after what this administration did to make it look that way, is one of those things that makes me angry to see. The author of this article clearly believes Kerry to be a waffler and that is absolutely preposterous. When dishonest propaganda works, it angers me. I think that is a normal reaction, don’t you? Regardless of the SNL tone you complain of, the vehemence of my tone is NOT EVEN proportionate to the level of dishonesty it is in response to.

Consider: Dr Politico COULD have investigated the Iraq war issue a little better. He COULD have found copies of the COMPLETE speach of John Kerry that was soundbited to death in ‘04. He would have found out why it was preposterous to accuse him of waffling. Dr Politico COULD have actually asked himself (before the irresponsible post) why the democcrats appear to have shifted? Was the shift real? What was it about? What was the issue they were concerned about? I wish more Americans had done that BEFORE voting in ‘04. We would be shed of Bush already! Dr Politico obviously didn’t. He took the propaganda-induced ball and kept rolling with it for no other reason than to smear democrats! …and he NEVER even looked into the appearences to see what was going on. Why? because understanding was not his goal either with this article or with his own thought process. He solely and blindly wanted to smear democrats. That attitude, that WILLFUL and VOLUNTARY ignorance, is wreaking havoc in this country. People like Bush would not get elected if only a scant few more republicans would develop some intellectual integrity and analytical skills.

Posted by: RGF at June 5, 2006 10:49 PM
Comment #154651


Though I usually don’t comment on my own posts days after I submitted them, your attack demands a response. I should mention that I don’t have the patience to read all of your comments, only the last one submitted.

“Dr Politico COULD have investigated the Iraq war issue a little better. He COULD have found copies of the COMPLETE speach of John Kerry that was soundbited to death in `04.”

I think you missed the point, RGF. There has been a chorus of liberal voices who are condemning President Bush for falsifying intelligence. The majority of quotes I provided came between 1998-2001, BEFORE BUSH WAS ELECTED. So the question for liberals should be: “did Bush manipulate Clinton’s intelligence too. I want you to read the following very carefully:

“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”

That was the opening of Clinton’s speech after he BOMBED IRAQ. Did you not uderstand my post? President Bush did not create the Iraqi threat, his predecessors did. There were only 3 people in the world who knew Saddam had no WMDs; they were all Iraqis and they share the same last name.

The quotes I provided evince the worst kind of hypocrisy. Elected officials in the democrat party are implicitly and explicitly accusing Bush of manufacturing intelligence. That, RGF, is a condemnable action.

As for the John Kerry “speech,” I’m not sure which one you are speaking of. The election was his to win yet he couldn’t pull through so obviously he made a lot of regrettable statements. If, however,you are talking about the “I voted for it before I voted against it” debacle, then perhaps you, RGF, should do more research. When it came to the Iraq War, Kerry was all over the place and the above statement was viewed (to an extent) as an admission of his “flip-flopping.” America was in the midst of a war and Kerry was simply playing to his audiences:

We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today,” Kerry said Wednesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, I would not have gone to war. That’s plain and simple.”

But on Aug. 9, 2004 [just weeks earlier], when asked if he would still have gone to war knowing Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, Kerry said: “Yes, I would have voted for the authority [to go to war]. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have.” Speaking to reporters at the edge of the Grand Canyon, he added: “[Although] I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has.” CBS News

Yopu see, RGF, the real problem is that America is at war and NOBODY KNEW FOR SURE WHERE KERRY STOOD. Not too presidential.

The rest of your comments are beyond reason, so I won’t wate my time. I should admit that I lied earlier. It’s not that I lacked the patience to read your posts, but rather the first couple turned repelled me. Your defense of Kosovo, for example, is so ridiculous that I don’t know where to begin. How about here:

In Kosovo, we were not so bound. We intervened as a NATO nation rather than as a member nation of the UN. The U.N. was not there when we were and we had not made any binding agreements with any other nations in the form of UN resolutions.

We intervened as a NATO nation. Wow, are you sold on your liberal philosophy. How about this, then, with the Iraq War we acted as a NATION. You cannot pick and choose between NATO and the UN. Clinton went to NATO because the UN would have been a waste of time. The permanent seat members of the Security Council ensures that the UN will never support a military intervention unless one none of the members are profitting from the targeted state. Does that cohere to your liberal philosophy?

Finally, you called other commenters weak for agreeing to disagree — the main reason I stopped reading your comments. It’s not a sign of weakness, but rather a sign of civility. Unfortunately, I doubt you are capabe of learning by example.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 6, 2006 12:34 AM
Comment #154655

Dr Politico,

You really should not assume “liberal philosophy” so readily where the issue is rather obviously, as I explained in excrutiating detail,


In Iraq we were bound by article 1441 and the UN security council. In Kosovo we were not. That is IS the point.

All you have responded with is more rhetoric regarding your perception of my “liberal philosophy.” You comment on NATO and the UN in fashon that makes it clear the only thing that you have thought about is ‘what is pragmatic’ or ‘what will one body agree to or another disagree with.’ I am guessing the legal issue is something you don’t think about at all. IS it?

Whether you excuse me or not, willful ignorance makes me angry. I believe that is understandable on a human level whether it displeases you or not! Civility be damned, I don’t suffer fools lightly!

Posted by: RGF at June 6, 2006 1:11 AM
Comment #154664

Dr Politico,

Another thing…

As for your attributing inteligence concerning WMD’s to Clinton’s administration - That’s sophistry, pure sophistry on your part.

The justification for WMD’s was from a piece of British inteligence which the Brits had already rejected as contradictory to the information gathered by the weapons inspectors. If that’s manipulating inteligence, I don’t know what is.

But just for the sake of argument, let’s assume you were correct and the intelligence was from Clinton’s administration. Do you imagine that to impugn ANYTHING on Clinton? on democrats? Why? The war happened on Bush’s watch. The WMD’s were not there. The source of the information manipulated by Bush is completely irrelevant! As long as this country continues to exist, past administrations are a given. That does NOT change the responsibilities of CURRENT administrations.

The rest of your article shows a similar lack of follow up. Take the attack on Kennedy for the abortion issue: Do you know anything about a case out of IRELAND (particularly relevant considering Kennedy’s ancestry) called the “X case?” It necessitated a VERY hard look at the issue and changed a lot of understandings. I won’t try to explain it here so look it up.

It was the January ‘03 comment from Kerry which you use as an example of Kerry’s hypocrisy which angered me most. Kerry was deceived by Bush and company into believing that Bush would do things in accordance with American and International law. Voting against action after it became clear it was not going down like that was not Waffling or hypocrisy…it was moral steadfastness.

Considering the nature of your accusations, the price of the misunderstandings and the results of election ‘04, I believe your lack of understanding of the legal implications here is inexcuseable, Dr Politico. This article of yours is utterly inappropriate.

Posted by: RGF at June 6, 2006 1:43 AM
Comment #154668


I wonder how many of you out there even asked yourselves or wondered about the rest of comment that Kerry made that got sound-bit sampled and used out of context. Hmmm? How many out there still believe Kerry is a waffler?

Answer me this, RGF, is the following not evidence of “waffling”:

“We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today,” Kerry said Wednesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

But on Aug. 9, 2004, when asked if he would still have gone to war knowing Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, Kerry said: “Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have.”

Is that waffling?

You seem to miss a lot of points in your reading. I believe they call that selective attention, though I could be wrong. President Bush briefing the UN of his desire to engage Iraq and waiting for approval are two different matters, practically. As you say:

You comment on NATO and the UN in fashon that makes it clear the only thing that you have thought about is ‘what is pragmatic’ or ‘what will one body agree to or another disagree with.’

You are absolutely correct. You too should be pragmatic. How do you reconcile the FACT that military intervention in nigh all circumstances would be blocked by one of the permanent members of the Security Council? This is an important consideration that you need to address lest your opinions be rendered impractical. Informing the UN of our plans and waiting for its approval are two very different considerations. No president, democrat of republican, would wait for UN approval to carry out US policy. President Bush spoke to the UN as a courtesy, that’s it. But it’s more than Clinton was willing to do. But don’t give me the BS line that Kerry and other democrats changed their mind as Bush’s agenda shifted in a different direction. They were saying WMDs were in Iraq long before Bush came into office and since the invasion they regularly claim that Bush manufactured intelligence. Please justify that. Then justify Kerry’s waffling, but make sure you also explain the quotes I provided of him supporting AND not supporting intervention.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 6, 2006 1:51 AM
Comment #154669


One last thing. List for me all the laws and treaties Clinton broke when he bombed Iraq. Was that a UN action, a Nato action, or a US action. I suppose when a democrat is in office, he can take military action without briefing anyone, but a republican can’t even to so with the support of the US government.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 6, 2006 1:56 AM
Comment #154674


I love the cop-out that all these high level Congresspersons and others in DNC all so glibbly say they were deceived by the President. This is the same President that y’all claim is too stupid to be President. If you’re leadership is that easily deceived, your leadership are fools or arewillfully deceiving their constutuents to their own political ends.

You prove my point. The democrats have intelligent, honest people out there that they choose to ignore. You vote for national candidated who are, apparently, so gullible they can be deceived by a President who, according to you and other liberals I have discoursed with, is their intellectual inferior.

You wrote (itallics mine):

Whether you excuse me or not, willful ignorance makes me angry. I believe that is understandable on a human level whether it displeases you or not! Civility be damned, I don’t suffer fools lightly!

I would hope this extends to the fools in your own party or how do you look in the mirror each morning?

Posted by: someoldguy at June 6, 2006 2:46 AM
Comment #154676

Oh, and RGF?

It’s past my bedtime soo, I’m going to cop-out again and go to sleep. OK with you?

Posted by: someoldguy at June 6, 2006 2:52 AM
Comment #154741

Dr Politico


You are still the missing the point. LAW is the answer is all cases here.

On the one side of the equation (after Bush’s assurances) Kerry wanted to give the president the authority to use military action is necessary according to Interantional and American law, on the other side he voted to deprive the president of the mandate to act in violation the very laws he swore to uphold.

This really shouldn’t be that hard to get. I don’t understand the difficulty you are having.

You offer, what you believe is, an example of Kerry waffling. It is not. Kerry voted for the President to have the power after being assured that the law would be honored; that we would abide by 1441 and go through the UN. That is What Bush said he would do. He did NOT!!!.

So, naturally, Kerry opposed action that was in contravention of American and International law. DUH. Why is this so hard to understand? Kerry’s position on the war NEVER CHANGED. Bush’s did.

Posted by: RGF at June 6, 2006 11:36 AM
Comment #154746

Dr Politico,

I realize you were poking fun at me for following my own posts, but here goes:

One more item in response to you:

“You are absolutely correct. You too should be pragmatic. How do you reconcile the FACT that military intervention in nigh all circumstances would be blocked by one of the permanent members of the Security Council?”

LAW is LAW is LAW, Dr Politico! Besides, No WMD’s means we had the time to do it right!

There was a way around the confines of law that Bush *attempted* to invoke: The President is entitled to act in response to Clear and Present Danger, but it has to be REAL! …not just imagined or perceived. LBJ attempted to invoke this by sending our Cruisers in to the Gulf of Tonkin to be investigated and MAYBE shot at (we are not even sure of that anymore) by the North Viet Namese. I don’t mind saying that was not real either. That is how he justified sending troops in in a combat, rather than advisory, role. What LBJ did was just as wrong.

What part of NO WMD’S did you miss?

Posted by: RGF at June 6, 2006 11:50 AM
Post a comment