Kerry's pedestrian pomposity

"If I was president, this wouldn’t have happened."

There’s a word for this kind of stuffy arrogance. Haughtiness? Somnolent pretention? Self-assured pomposity? Yes, that’s it. Pompous. That is, in a word, the reason why Kerry lost the election in 2004.

After reading the news story about this I realized that what Kerry said is also completely incoherent.

The article quotes Kerry as saying:

Bush has been so concentrated on the war in Iraq that other Middle East tension arose as a result, he said.

"The president has been so absent on diplomacy when it comes to issues affecting the Middle East," Kerry said. "We're going to have a lot of ground to make up (in 2008) because of it."

Later in the article:

Hezbollah guerillas should have been targeted with other terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaida and the Taliban, which operate in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Kerry said. However, Bush, has focused military strength on Iraq.

"This is about American security and Bush has failed. He has made it so much worse because of his lack of reality in going into Iraq.…We have to destroy Hezbollah," he said.

Besides the obvious fallacy of blaming Bush for what he terms, "other Mideast tension," by which I can only assume he means the terror organization (created and funded by Iran) called Hezballah. Or perhaps he means the tension that Israel has created? I don't know.

The key here though is the part where he says Bush is at fault by being, "absent on diplomacy." The keystone statement that none of this would have happened if he (Kerry) had been elected President rests upon this premise, that he (Mr. Almost-Danger), in contrast to Bush would not have been "absent on diplomacy," and thus would have prevented Israel from engaging in their disproportionate response or whatever he sees as the crisis... or that Hezballah would not have attacked, kidnapped, or otherwise been at war with Israel if he had been elected President.

Of course on the face of it Kerry's statement is demonstrably false and pretentious. And it becomes even more so when you examine what his solution is supposed to be.

What kind of diplomacy would Kerry have used to diffuse this crisis before it even began? Well, he seems to say that instead of invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein we should have invaded Lebanon and destroyed Hezballah directly with U.S. forces.

Here, read it again:

Hezbollah guerillas should have been targeted with other terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaida and the Taliban, which operate in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Kerry said. However, Bush, has focused military strength on Iraq.

"This is about American security and Bush has failed. He has made it so much worse because of his lack of reality in going into Iraq.…We have to destroy Hezbollah," he said.

It appears that what Kerry is saying is that we should have invaded Lebanon instead of Iraq. In which case wouldn't everything Kerry has ever said about Iraq also apply to invading Lebanon?

Posted by Eric Simonson at July 24, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #170379

republicans can’t talk about their own policies…

republicans don’t have a plan or solution

so what do they do?

name-calling democrats

Posted by: tlc at July 24, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #170380

when the republicans can’t defend their own incompetence…

what’s the first thing they do?

start blaming everything on the Democrats.

start name-calling the Democrats.

Posted by: tlc at July 24, 2006 10:39 PM
Comment #170381

republicans don’t want to debate the issues…

republicans love war

republicans love hate

republicans only want to blame the Democrats.

Posted by: tlc at July 24, 2006 10:40 PM
Comment #170382

republicans have nothing new to say.

republicans play the same game no matter how bad things get…

what ever happened to Iraq?

why doesn’t anyone here ever post what a great job bush and the republicans are doing in Iraq?

the republicans are more preoccupied with John Kerry than what’s good for America.

the republicans spend more time demonizing Democrats than serving the best interests of America.

Posted by: tlc at July 24, 2006 10:43 PM
Comment #170383

My word, I swear I just read this elsewhere. You get around, I guess.

So you think there is nothing to the argument that if we hadn’t devoted massive resources fighting a country that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack on our country that we might be in a better position to deal with other threats?

Ah Eric, must everything be so breathless to you? The notion that Kerry would have done a better job at foreign policy than your guy is hardly controversial. Indeed, how could he have done worse?

Posted by: Trent at July 24, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #170384

John Kerry? What does he have to do with price of tea in China? Why does the conservative blog care enough to talk about John Kerry? Isn’t he a Democrat?

The Republicans must be having a hard time finding something to talk about.

Posted by: npr at July 24, 2006 10:51 PM
Comment #170390

I’ve run through this sooo many times… Here it is again:

The reason Kerry lost in ‘04, is because he was soundbited to death by an inherently dishonest and deliberately deceptive republican campaign.

To wit: Kerry NEVER waffled, BUSH most assuredly DID!!!

Kerry, like the rest of the senate, supported and voted FOR action in Iraq when it was understood that such action would be in accord with our agreement in article 1441, namely that we would come back to the U.N. security council BEFORE taking military action unilateraly in Iraq. That is what BUSH said he would do when he sold the senate on it. WE DID NOT. It was clearly used, maybe even intended as a trap to snare honest possible opponents from the Democrats! When it became clear that BUSH had NO INTENTION of honoring either article 1441, the U.N. Charter or security council, then naturally Kerry opposed action in Iraq since such action would be (and thus is) ILLEGAL. IT VIOLATES BOTH AMERICAN LAW IN THAT IT IS BASED ON THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER OF WMD’S THAT WERE NOT THERE *AND* IT VIOLATES ARTICLE 1441 OF THE U.N. and thus violates INTERNATIONAL LAW AS WELL!!!


Kerry lost because republicans have lost perspective, gained immense ability to manipulate information in the media and are basicly anarchists. “Laws? We don’t need no stinking laws!”


Posted by: RGF at July 24, 2006 11:17 PM
Comment #170391

I think Eric is just trying to point out that the Bush Bashing would be the beat to a different drummer had Kerry been elected. Forget Kerry for a second, if the Dems get someone in the Whitehouse in 2008, these problems are not going away. You have to ask yourself how is the next president goint to respond. Im guessing not that much different when it comes right down to it…

When does tlc get banned?

Posted by: b0mbay at July 24, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #170394

I think that speculating about what would happen if John Kerry were president is a joke and the most irrelevant issue today concerning everything that is going on.

Posted by: tlc at July 24, 2006 11:24 PM
Comment #170396

Yes when the Afganastain is falling apart and no headway is being made in Iraq and more and more Americans are seeing that this adminstration is rudderless on both forign and domestic policy bring John Kerry back out and run him through the mud one more time, that will unite the base.

Isn’t this about the tme somebody reminds us all how Clinton got a blowjob?

Posted by: Jeff Gannon at July 24, 2006 11:36 PM
Comment #170400

Kerry is out of the mainstream even for Democrats. The troups would be on the way home right now, that is for sure!!


Posted by: Craig Holmes at July 24, 2006 11:49 PM
Comment #170401

Christ already with the John Kerry stuff. He lost get over it. What did Saddam use on the Kurds in the 80’s, oh yes it was wmd’s called poisonous gases, maybe mustard or sarin. God knows the liberal establishment wants to cater to the dictators of the world and make us more vaunerable to attacks. God I wish there was a third term for U.S. Presidents because we could use Bush for 4 more years so we know the war goes right, or maybe we can elect the first woman president, and the first black president at the same time by putting in Condi Rice.

Posted by: forrest at July 24, 2006 11:56 PM
Comment #170402


thank the republicans that John Kerry wasn’t elected president…

because if was elected president…

there would be nothing to talk about on the republican/cosnervative archive blog.

Posted by: tlc at July 24, 2006 11:57 PM
Comment #170403


give me a break -

Saddam, Manuel Noriega and Osama bin Laden all have one thing in common - WE FUNDED THEM!
The gas which Saddam used on the Kurds was from American sources. There is no dabating that he HAD them…but ALL INTELLIGENCE said the same thing PRIOR to the war…he NO LONGER did!
…well, except for the already rejected intelligence that the BUSHIES RESURRECTED in order to commence a now proven to be illegal war!

Posted by: RGF at July 25, 2006 12:06 AM
Comment #170404

bOmbay, what Rules of Participation is tlc violating? In the future, please direct such inquiries in email to Please don’t use these forums for such inquiries, they are not on topic. Thanks.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at July 25, 2006 12:06 AM
Comment #170406

John Kerry is a United States Senator, not to mention an aspiring presidential candidate, so there is nothing wrong with paying attention to what he says.

When he says “this” would never happened, you have to wonder what he means by “this.”

Does he mean that Hezbollah wouldn’t be launching rockets at Israel and raiding across the border? If so, why wouldn’t they be? What influence does he think he has over Hezbollah that Reagan, Clinton and both Bushes didn’t have? Or does he mean Israel wouldn’t have struck back?

That’s the only thing that he could mean because as President that would be the only thing he’d have any influence over, and that’s a scary thought—he’d have Israel sit passively by and get hammered while he, apparently, would launch a full scale US invasion of Lebanon.

But talk about deja vu.

This reminds me of when Ralph Nader said 9-11 would never have happened if he’d been elected because one of his first priorities as President would have been securing cockpit doors on airplanes.

What Kerry is doing is not statesmanship. It’s not even politics, since nobody could possibly take his remarks seriously.

It’s something far simpler and more adolescent: being a sore loser.

Posted by: Mr P at July 25, 2006 12:08 AM
Comment #170408

Why is my post previous being blocked ?

Posted by: 037 at July 25, 2006 12:15 AM
Comment #170409

Kerry’s a sore loser?

More name-calling?

Wow I never thought that it could be that simple.

The republicans resorting to name-calling of Democrats…


Because he poses a threat to the republican party because he is a presidential candidate.

So what do republicans do (instead of debating the real issues)?

The republicans resort to name-calling and demonizing Democrats because they have no plans and they have no solutions.

Posted by: tlc at July 25, 2006 12:18 AM
Comment #170410

The name could just as well be John McCain, Joe Biden, Bill Frist, et al. The point is this, you can’t as a politician make a declaritive statement about how you (insert name here) would have handled past events as they occurred.

Hindsight is 20/20, placed under the pressing weight of unfolding events is where the rubber meets the road - not 5 years later from the safety and comfort of the Senate building, House or Governors mansion.

Democrat or Republican or Third Party, if you haven’t been in the “heat of the kitchen” it’s way to simple to crow, or tut-tut about how the President handled 9/11, Katerina or Iran and N. Korea, and how you would do it better.

Being a Senator/House member/Governor or talking head isn’t the same as being “the man”. Criticize? Sure. Question? Without a doubt. But don’t go back in history and insinuate your abilitites into a circumstance you never had to face.

In the words of Mark Twain:
“Suppose you were an idiot…
And suppose you were a member of Congress…

But I repeat myself.”

Posted by: JR at July 25, 2006 12:18 AM
Comment #170411

When did Kerry announce his plans to run for 08?

I don’t remember hearing that.

I guess if the republicans think Kerry is considering running in 08, than republicans should talk about him and call him names like a “sore loser”.

That way republicans don’t have to talk about the Iraqi quagmire and the Middle East.

The republicans don’t want to talk about that.

Even though, everyone else on the planet is talking about it.

Posted by: tlc at July 25, 2006 12:23 AM
Comment #170412


I must apologize to you. I saw you post at another topic but have just this bit of time, so I can’t respond this evening. I will attempt to be more prompt in the future.

Always remember the words of Abraham Lincoln:

“I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

Posted by: JR at July 25, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #170414

I’d say the best thing to do for republicans on this open blog is to change the subject.

Iraq isn’t an issue the republicans want to talk about for obvious reasons.

John Kerry is a non-issue even to those left-wing / cut and run / tax and spend / tree-hugging / terrorist-sympathizing / un-patriotic / peacenik / hippie / liberal / Democrats.

The republicans should just try and change the subject to something that the average blogger hasn’t heard a thousand times from republicans in the past.

Democratic bashing and name-calling is really getting old.

Posted by: tlc at July 25, 2006 12:29 AM
Comment #170415

Would Kerry or I be doing some original thinking if we suggested that in a war on terrorism, we bring the fight to the actual terrorists? That approach might actually get results.

Instead, you make our people and the people of Iraq sitting ducks for terrorists. Bang-up job, emphasis on banging things up.

At the very least, we could have politely suggested to Hezbollah, with a boatload of marines, or a division of our armed forces, that they disarm. Arrange with the UN and the Lebanese to work with them on their behalf.

As Von Clausewitz would have it, destroying forces isn’t necessarily about killing everybody; sometimes it’s about depriving them of the means to fight.

The trouble with the right is that they consider it inconceivable that we are for this country, capable of defending it, or sympathetic to our most important allies. I know my own heart at least, and it remains with my country.

Trick is, Eric, can you express your beliefs about what’s right without some famous liberal to beat up on?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 25, 2006 12:30 AM
Comment #170416

Why should anyone care about a pro- dictator Senator that has a picture of himself on a North Vietnamese memorial celebrating the Anti- American war effort. Thank the voters for defeating Kerry, not the the Republican spin. Nobody wants a repeat of the Demolosers war effort. If Kerry would have been elected he would have eventually been hailed as a hero for the Terrorists effort. The PLO, BinLaden, Castro, Saddam, Hezzbollah and terrorism world-wide would have benefited from a Kerry win. Shouldn’t we all deny them what they want? I wouldn’t trust a Democrat to surrender the right way.

Posted by: George at July 25, 2006 12:32 AM
Comment #170417

RGF, a couple things you say are true, but there are also some pretty amazing falsehoods and urban legends there.

TRUE: Noriega and Saddam got US funding. It’s also true (strange but true) that today both Israel and the Palestinians get substantial US fundng.

FALSE: The US funded Osama bin Laden. The US funded Afghan rebel groups fighting against the USSR, but not groups that bin Laden was associated with.

FALSE: The gas that Saddam used on the Kurds was mustard gas and was not supplied by the US. Making mustard gas is World War I era technology, and it’s very easy to make.

FALSE: ALL the intelligence prior to the war said that Saddam no longer had WMD. You can say that the intelligence to the contrary was wrong, but virtually all of the intelligence services of the world believed they were there.

Posted by: Mr P at July 25, 2006 12:33 AM
Comment #170419

TLC, you seem pretty invested in bashing Republicans with your claims that they “love war” and “love hate” and all the rest you’re saying, so let’s not claim to be so high-minded and pure, eh?

As I read the Republican columns here, I see plenty of people willing to talk about and defend the war in Iraq, so it’s simply false to say that discussing Kerry is an attempt to “change the subject.” There are in fact a lot of subjects to talk about, and Iraq is just one of them.

In fact, you seem to want to change the subject from Kerry’s ridiculous comments to an off-topic discussion of the bad character, as you see it, of Republicans.

Posted by: Mr P at July 25, 2006 12:45 AM
Comment #170420

tlc or benjifromtheDNC whoever you actually are,

For someone who complains about Republicans not having anything to say about thier own policies et al, why don’t you try reading your own posts. Its the same mindless drivel day after day. I have yet to see you say anything of substance. If you can’t say anything relevent to the conversation, why don’t you get off this blog and let those who do have something to say say it without having to get carpal tunnel scrolling past your endless mindless bullshit?

Posted by: 1LT B at July 25, 2006 12:49 AM
Comment #170421

there is a war going on between Israel and Hezbollah…

there is an Iraqi occupation…

the government is up to it’s ears in debt…

obiously the republicans don’t care about darfur because they don’t have any oil…

the world is a mess because every country has lost respect for America because of the poor decision by bush and the republicans…

and this blog is talking about John Kerry?

I would almost think that should be perceived as a compliment to John Kerry…

But even John Kerry would be scratching his head wondering, “why are they talking about me?”

Posted by: tlc at July 25, 2006 12:52 AM
Comment #170423


Republicans love hate, republicans love war, this is name-calling. You are not above your own claims.
What about Iraq do you want to discuss?

Posted by: andy at July 25, 2006 12:57 AM
Comment #170424

andy or 1LT or whomever you are,

thank you but I am not interested in discussing anything with you…

that is the last time I will engage you by name…

if you have any problems please see the managing editor…


Posted by: tlc at July 25, 2006 1:03 AM
Comment #170426

Didn’t Bush say exactly the same thing to Dick Cheney, recently?

Posted by: gergle at July 25, 2006 1:09 AM
Comment #170427

1.) Since so many Dems question this:
If not ex/future presidential candidate Kerry’s comments on a major political topic re what the Pres is doing wrong … then what is relevant material for a political blog? Only what Bush says himself???

2.) From the words quoted, Kerry does seem to say the US needs to take military action against Hezbollah as Bush did against Taliban/Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. This seems nutty.

** We have far less of a case against Hezbollah/Lebanon than we did against Sadam/Iraq

** To contradict another post, I believe every major intelligence organization in the world believed Sadam had WMDs (as did most/all of his generals)

** I suspect Hezbollah would be more organized, entrenched and dangerous in Lebanon than Al Qaeda and most insurgents in Iraq.

Personally, I do not feel the US needs to eliminate what is far more Israel’s problem/creation than ours. We should address them, but not necessarily militarily destroy.

Yes, all problems / bad-things affect everything in the universe (incl USA) and we have previously affected all of them, but I don’t think we should be the ~first line of defense for Israel, Germany, Japan, S.Korea, … maybe the *last* line of defense for those allies who are loyal to us (and Japan seems like the only one on this list that fits that bill).

Let’s soften the war drums…

Posted by: Brian at July 25, 2006 1:10 AM
Comment #170428

Thank you for not engaging me with anything….Soooo good weather today….Oh I know:

Democrats have no plan

Democrats have no policies to talk about (need a plan first)

Democrats don’t seem to like Bush very much

Posted by: andy at July 25, 2006 1:18 AM
Comment #170429

the topic up above is John Kerry…

now the republicans want to change the subject…

i thought the rules were to stay on topic…

when the republicans run out of arguments they always change the subject.

Posted by: tlc at July 25, 2006 1:21 AM
Comment #170430

one minute their talking about John Kerry…

then they are talking about he weather…

and then they are talking about the Democrats…

flip flop flip flop flip flop

Posted by: tlc at July 25, 2006 1:24 AM
Comment #170432

Acutally, tlc, I’m willing to draw a straight line between this discussion of Kerry and what you insist we “should” be talking about instead.

There is no “instead.” It’s all part of one debate.

Republicans don’t want to divert attention from the war—quite the contrary. Instead, we insist that there IS a war here that must not only be talked about but taken seriously. A war between the West and Islamic fanaticism.

The war is being faught in Iraq, just as it is being faught by Israel. It’s all part of one war, and key to this war is the need to take the challenges that face us seriously.

John Kerry is a very prominent American politician. He wants to be President, and he speaks for a great many people in the US who (even if they don’t also want him to be President), share his views.

Now, if there’s a war on, and we have prominent leaders like Kerry saying what he does, then those things are fair game for discussion. You don’t have to agree with those questioning him and his views, but just saying that his views are irrelevant is—well, ridiculous.

When we attack those views, we’re attacking the mentality behind them. A mentality which we profoundly disagree with. which is widely shared by lots and lots of Democrats beside Kerry, and which has absolutely EVERYTHING to do with questions of war and peace in the Middle East.

You don’t have to agree, and you obviously don’t. But you are the one trying to change the subject here.

Posted by: Mr P at July 25, 2006 1:28 AM
Comment #170434

Anybody can do what Dems are doing. Hell, even I could call a press conference and tell people if I had been elected, things would be different! And they’d look at me and say, “Yes and you are… Who the hell are you?”

Posted by: Joshua P. Allem at July 25, 2006 1:32 AM
Comment #170435

beautifully put Mr. P.

Posted by: andy at July 25, 2006 1:33 AM
Comment #170437

I sat there and watched that nutcase on CNN, give the new Republican talking points stating now that Iraq was because the neocons foresaw the Lebanese mess, and that it’s all part of the same war against Osama, Iran and Syria.

This is better than the Nostradomus predictions. Retrofitted reasons for going to war.

Posted by: gergle at July 25, 2006 1:34 AM
Comment #170441

Mr. P,

I am sure you are wrong because I have seen the reports to the contrary in both cases:

We DID fund Osama directly during the Afghan conflict with the USSR and I am certain of the intel regarding the NON-presence of WMD’s PRIOR to our current involvement with Iraq…well, as certain as any news-reading reasonably well-informed civilian CAN be, anyway.

However, I will go back and look and verify just to be sure.

Posted by: RGF at July 25, 2006 1:49 AM
Comment #170443


I understand your frustration, friend. I have repeatedly responded with conflicting facts and analyses of situations to various of right wing bloggers and got nothing back but off-topic deceptive obfuscation…then when I ask “Who do you support Bush?” …or “why do you continue vote republican?” …All I ever get back is non-sense about how they have already responded and don’t understand why I am not reading or understanding their responses!

It’s frustrating and dishonest isn’t it!

Posted by: RGF at July 25, 2006 1:56 AM
Comment #170444

Good, RGF. I appreciate your attitude and hope you really will get back with your findings.

You did say, though, that ALL intellgence indicated no WMD in Iraq, and though you’ll find some who said that, ALL is plainly false.. After all, George Tenet, the Clinton-appointed CIA chief, told Bush that the presence of WMD in Iraq was a “slam dunk.” That alone collapses the claim of “ALL” intelligence.

Posted by: Mr P at July 25, 2006 2:05 AM
Comment #170446

If there is to be a reasonably intelligent election in 2008 it should not include those who’s platforms are based on criticisms of past leadership, nor should it include those whose platforms are based on the garnering of support of previous executive decisions that are widely thought to be faulty. Anyone who tries to convince the public that Bush did things perfectly will lose votes, just as anyone who is overly critical of Bush will.

There is no sense in diffusing a bomb that has already exploded, nor is there merit in selecting new leadership based on a debate concerning “why” the bomb exploded.

Posted by: DOC at July 25, 2006 2:13 AM
Comment #170448

President Bush’s policy versus the terrorists is plain. We will help the people of Iraq and we will kill the “dead enders” who continue to insist that sawing off civilians’ heads is God’s will for them.

I vote for Republicans because Democrats support abortion on demand. Some Democrat leaders support very late term abortions even when the health of the mother is not at risk. As a matter of fact abortions in the eighth month is more dangerous to the mother than childbirth.

Kerry is a senator, so there is a reason to bring out the truth about him. Name calling isn’t helpful.

To see why we went to war all you need to do is read what President Bush said before we went to war.

Now this is what Kerry and other said. Some of this is years before George W was president.
“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.” President Clinton, Feb. 4, 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.” President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e 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, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom
Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 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. 16, 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. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an ilicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham
(D, FL,) and others, Dec 5, 2001

“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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means
of delivering them.” Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 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.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 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. 3, 2002

“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.” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 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 10, 2002

“He (speaking of Hussein) has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear
capacity. This he has refused to do” Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 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 Qaeda 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 10, 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. 8, 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 …” Sen. John F. Kerry (D,MA), Jan. 23. 2003

The British still back their claim that Saddam was seeking yellow cake uranium from Africa. Tony Blair, a Liberal, stands behind that claim. His government investigated the intelligence and fired the BBC leaders who deliberately supported the fabrications against Tony Blair in their false assertion that the British government was lying. It was proven that the BBC was not only mistaken, but was deliberately lying in their false claims against Tony Blair.

I welcome a discussion of the issues.

Posted by: Steve S at July 25, 2006 2:41 AM
Comment #170449

It is hard for me to not take personally (ie as in a personal attack) when certain individuals label a group as “hate filled” and “war mongers”. Reminds me of when our veterans returned from Vietnam only to be called baby killers. It is low minded, and on other blog forums would be labeled as an “attention seeking troll”.

Look it up…

Posted by: b0mbay at July 25, 2006 2:45 AM
Comment #170450

If I were the Ketchup King, that poor lady
wouldn’t have died in the Boston tunnel.

Just another fine example of pork-barrel,
high priced projects pushed by tax & spend
liberal Democrats that FALL on the pocket
books ( and cars ) of average Americans.

Posted by: Dale G. at July 25, 2006 2:49 AM
Comment #170451

Steve S,

I will start with your assumption that Democrats support abortion on demand - FALSE FALSE FALSE

I am Catholic Democrat and I absolutely do not NOT support abortion AT ALL!
…however, there are cases which DO threaten the life of the mother, and in those limited circumstances, I will grudgingly accept it. Why should a mother, especially in cases of rape or incest, be FORCED to DIE so that the unborn child can live? It’s a very hard moral choice, but one which the mother herself alone is capable of making. Anyone else dictating to her has murder n their hearts whether they know it or not.

NOW, as for the long list of quotes you offer -
They are all from politicians, not intelligence types, and all before even these politicians had seen the intelligence which supposedly led us to war. They are also moslty political posturing and conjecture regarding the one issue we now KNOW - THERE ARE NO WMD’s! The last time we KNOW there to have been WMD’s in Iraq was when they were used against the Kurds. That was long ago and apparently, that was the last of what Saddam had. …unless you want to argue that he GAVE them away to one of his neighbors? …that he was sooo friendly with? …not possible, much less likely. The only direction they could have gone would have been Syria, but if you will recall, Turkey was amassing large amounts of troops in that area and the kurd in the north of Iraq were on the lookout (which is why turkey was concerned) so it hardly seems likely that such a move would have been possible…and that’s even assuming that Saddam would have freely given them AWAY! hardly likely in the face of an immanent attack!

Quote all the politicians you like…THERE WERE NO WMD’s

Posted by: RGF at July 25, 2006 3:00 AM
Comment #170453

tlc or benjifromtheDNC,

You have no message to criticize. Typical of the Ivory Tower set, you violate the rules of participation almost everytime you post then cry about how we break the rules. Quit whining, write something other than the mindless drivel and grow up.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 25, 2006 3:21 AM
Comment #170455


Chemical weapons were found in Iraq. Saddam claimed those were destroyed. If he had provided documents showing that those WMDs were destroyed then he would have complied with the UN resolutions demanding he demonstrate that those WMDs had been destroyed. Saddam didn’t comply with the UN resolutions and was a gathering threat to the world.

I did not claim ALL Democrats or ALL liberals support abortion on demand. Most of them actually like to say they oppose abortion personally while they fight tooth and nail to support abortion when it actually comes to voting.

Actions speak louder than words.

Posted by: Steve S at July 25, 2006 3:37 AM
Comment #170456

1LT B, you always have the ability to skip over others comments. You are not forced in anyway to call others comments “endless, mindless, bullshit”.
Let’s keep it civil, and ignore comments that meet your description above.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at July 25, 2006 3:45 AM
Comment #170460


Though you speak very forcefully and authoritatively re Iraq, you seem to have a few major errors in your statements.

Any you want to re-read and withdraw / reword?

Posted by: Brian at July 25, 2006 5:55 AM
Comment #170462

Watchblog Managing Editor,

Fair enough, though his/her complaints sound to me much the same as some of the radicals who riot at a G-8 summit, stone the cops, then complain about police brutality when they get clubbed.


Whom, praytell, did the politicians go to get the information to make the above quotes? Did they look deeply into a crystal ball or perhaps call Dione Warwick? Every single nation on Earth except Iraq, to include France, concluded that Saddam still had sizable stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. Intercepted Iraqi communications have shown that Saddam ordered what remained of his WMDs destroyed in the month prior to the invasion. Based on 12 years of deciept, the intelligence types judged this to be disinformation leaked in an attempt to get Bush to call off the invasion. By thier own radio traffic, Iraq admitted to being in violation of the U.N., and I find it difficult to see how anyone knowing anything about Saddam would conclude that it was anything but a ruse.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 25, 2006 6:27 AM
Comment #170465

It is less and less fun to bash Kerry, since he is so obviously a loser, BUT …

it is good to remind people that elections are choices between real people. There is no zero option and no generic candidate. Real Bush beat real Kerry. Hypothetically, it might have been different, but we live in a real world.

Back to Kerry - he lives in an unreal world. Yes, it would be good to be rid of Hezbollah. Kerry advocated doing the IN THE PAST. He is not much about the present or future. Good he is not president.

Posted by: Jack at July 25, 2006 7:41 AM
Comment #170469


the quotes were from politicians with political purposes but also were quotes mostly from ‘02 when they themsleves were being lied to and manilpulated with intelligence that we now know to have been false. Nothing more needs to be said here. The quotes were extensive…but irrelevent.

Posted by: RGF at July 25, 2006 8:10 AM
Comment #170470


You say Kerry is “obviously” a loser? huh?
Based on what do you make such a rotten comment?

Posted by: RGF at July 25, 2006 8:12 AM
Comment #170471

Pomposity? Like Bush isn’t a pompos hind end! I’m not a Kerry fan, but calling him “pompos” while Bush has unprecedented excessive self-esteem or exaggerated dignity running. He doesn’t even listen to his own advisors, everyone that doesn’t agree with him is wrong. Even when Bush is proven wrong, he still claims he is right. Bush’s pretentious attitude has got the future of the U.S. in jeopardy, economically or along the line of international relations. Life is not going to be good when you become everyone’s enemy and isolate yourself and become an immoral role model for foriegn policy.

Bush always reminded me of those type of parents who beat or spank their kids becuase they were fighting. “Lets go kill some more people, that’ll make those terrorists quit killing us.”

No More LOVE, hate is more profitable.

Posted by: mem beth at July 25, 2006 8:20 AM
Comment #170472

I really don’t get the animosity toward Kerry. I’m not being glib here; I truly don’t understand it. He’s a war hero, he’s thoughtful, he’s certainly not far left from center — yeah, his comments the other day sound off the cuff to me, but do you guys really want to nail someone to a cross for off the cuff comments? It seems to me your guy is quite susceptible to the same treatment.

Regardless, Kerry clearly isn’t a dangerous radical, but he is a Democrat, so that’s damning enough? Anyway, by the time of the 2004 elections, the damage had been done. And I understand why the Republicans don’t want to discuss the past (except to bash Democrats, I guess). It’s strange to me that some here admit the misjudgments and errors leading up the mess we are in, but can’t conceive that a Democrat might have done better. Political blinders? A Republican at any cost?

I for one am glad to see the country starting to make more sense. I admire Spector for taking on the president over the signing statements, for instance. And, though it’s a little late, I’m glad to see the public is starting to realize it was sold a bill of goods.

Posted by: Trent at July 25, 2006 8:29 AM
Comment #170474

Wow, this article has gone everywhere and no where.
Now I see where it say’s you never talk about 2 subjects religion and politic’s, as it rasies the hackles on everyone, and to see the managing editor get into this you know it has gotten bad.

Now Kerry said if I was president, I also have heard if Gore was president and 9/11 happened he would have done nothing. Well unfortunately or fortunately we will never know if Gore or Kerry would have done either way since they were not elected. There is nothing to say that they would have not done any different the Bush(fyi I don’t care for him) or any better. You yourself can say if this happens I would do this or that but until it actually happens you don’t know.

As far as abortion, I do not believe in it, but I also believe that a woman as a right to get one within reason. I have had to make a choice between aborting a baby, or not if it came down to saving my wife’s life or not. She was 4 month preg and had a heart attack, and I had to make that decision, which was take the baby if necessary to save my wife. Luckly she had some great doctors and both were saved.

Bottom line is the person who says they would do this, that or whatever. If they have never been in that situation before, you have to take that with a grain of salt.

Posted by: KT at July 25, 2006 8:31 AM
Comment #170476


I’ll take a stab at answering your question about what makes Kerry a “loser”:

1. The way he composes himself
2. The woman that he married
——a. He’s a gold-digger
——b. He just wanted non-PAC funding
——c. She is horrid
3. He keeps harping on the same ol’ same ol’
4. He has never had an original thought
5. He is ugly as sin
6. He is a self-loathing catholic
7. His record in the senate is proof that he is always thinking about his political position rather than what he believes (I don’t think he actually “believes” anything). He triangulates like the Clintons, but without any skill or understanding of the people to he is pandering.

For the rest of you wanting trying to understand why we are still talking about Kerry:

1. He keeps reiterating his campaign statements
2. He is an active Senator with Presidential aspirations
3. He is still ugly as sin
4. He makes the most ridiculous statements of any Presidential candidate since Pat Buchanan

But most important of all… This is simply a reaction to HIS statements. We don’t WANT to talk about him. We just don’t want him to think we aren’t listening to man such as himself. The pompousity would go right out of his sails if we didn’t respond.

Posted by: Bruce at July 25, 2006 8:42 AM
Comment #170478

Posted by: 1LT B at July 25, 2006 03:21 AM

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at July 25, 2006 03:45 AM


If you a conservative disagrees with another commenter…


I rest my case again.

Posted by: tlc at July 25, 2006 9:00 AM
Comment #170480

Watchblog Managing Editor,

I have made it clear that I am not engaging with 1LT because of his attacks against the messenger and his avoidance to stay on topic.

I would appreciate if there was a level of consistency when it comes to the enforcement of the Rules For Participation.

The other blogs don’t have this problem.

But most other blogs aren’t as conservative as this one.

Posted by: tlc at July 25, 2006 9:07 AM
Comment #170481


In case you didn’t notice what I wrote, we have tapes of Iraqi military radio traffic saying specifically to dispose of their stockpiles of WMDs. The intelligence was correct until about a week before the ground war kicked off.

As far as the political process, how about them Democrats? They saw the same intelligence as Bush did and came to the same conclusions, as they’re quotes plainly illustrate. Bush could not have invaded Iraq without the approval of the House and Senate, which he got. Its not like the Democrats don’t have their own sources within the intelligence community, if the data was being manipulated, why didn’t they say anything until after it became politically profitable to do so?

The Democrats’ reaction to the intelligence indicates one of two possibilities to me. Either they viewed the intelligence and came to the conclusion that Saddam was dangerous in good faith, in which case they’re just as incompetent as they accuse Bush of being, or they looked at the intelligence, didn’t believe it, but noticed the country was all a-jingo and went along with it, making them derelict in their duty. In either case, thier actions since the enthusiasm for this war ran out smacks of nothing but political manuevering with no consideration of the costs on the war effort at all. As much as I disagree with Dean, I could at least respect him when he campaigned against the war as he wasn’t having a poll-driven change of heart, not so with Kerry, Kennedy, or any of the rest of these worthless incompetents we keep sending to Congress and the White House.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 25, 2006 9:07 AM
Comment #170482

It looks as if the republicans are still talking about Kerry.

There are Americans stranded in Lebonon, but the republicans are more interested in talking about Kerry…

republican priorities (what a joke)

Posted by: tlc at July 25, 2006 9:10 AM
Comment #170483

When the republicans can no longer talk about their own incometence…

they start blaming it on the Democrats…

Posted by: tlc at July 25, 2006 9:11 AM
Comment #170484

Why don’t the republicans talk about the issues that are important to Americans…

because the republicans have no solutions…

the republicans are the party of hate…

“why i hate liberals”

“why John Kerry is a loser”

what does that have to do with the republican incompetency?


it’s just a way to avoid the inevitable reality that the majority of Americans believe bush and the republicans are incompetent…

the majority of Americans believe that America is less safer now than it was before 9/11.

Posted by: tlc at July 25, 2006 9:14 AM
Comment #170485

the republicans believe anyone who disagrees with them are subject to…

republican name-calling.

very sad that the republicans have nothing to do but name-call Democrats…

too bad republicans are too incompetent to say anything relevant to current events.

Posted by: tlc at July 25, 2006 9:17 AM
Comment #170487

It is especially interesting to see republicans demonize VETERANS OF THE VIETNAM WAR.




Posted by: tlc at July 25, 2006 9:23 AM
Comment #170490

1LT B-
Do you believe that suspicion is a good enough reason for a pre-emptive war, or do you think it’s best to have your facts straight first?

Pre-emptive Warfare ought to be a weapon of last resort, the answer to a developing situation that we know is problematic- like the Cuban Missile Crisis. There should be no mistake about what we face if we choose that option.

Unfortunately, your leaders have chosen a course of action based on mere suspicion. With such a low standard, and the absence of evidence and knowledge to put the brakes on wrongheaded analysis, our leader’s imaginations run away with themselves. Unfortunately, reality doesn’t join them for the jog, and the decisions they make work off of false premises, and thereby become prone to failure.

There’s a reason we evolved beyond just thinking from our gut. To be better at guessing what’s beyond the limits of our perception is a survival trait.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 25, 2006 9:32 AM
Comment #170491

the republcans have no standard when it comes to pre-emptive strikes…

look at how they react to dissent and debate…

if someone doesn’t agree with them they pre-emptively start calling them names and start accusing them of speaking “mindless drivel”

they resort to attack the messenger when they can no longer address the message…

there are examples of it all over this thread and the past several threads on this “conservative” blog.

when the going gets tough…

the republicans resort to pre-emptive strikes…

against former VETERANS…

against CIA operatives…

against AMERICANS who are fed up the gun-barrel diplomacy…

against anyone that isn’t a rah rah republican cheerleader.


Posted by: tlc at July 25, 2006 9:39 AM
Comment #170492


Clinton’s policies in dealing with North Korea and the Hezbollah are WHY we are in this position. His political-correctness did nothing to protect our interests, and the interests of our allies. He pandered to world opinion, and now we are left with a mess.

One thing I LOVE about President Bush is that he is a President that says what he believes, and acts on those beliefs. Whether you disagree with his policy or not, at least we have a President with a backbone.

Posted by: Bruce at July 25, 2006 9:40 AM
Comment #170495

I can’t believe I’m trying this again, but here goes. tlc, apparently you aren’t violating forum rules (I haven’t read ‘em; I just try to behave well and that usually keeps me out of trouble with moderators), but you are spamming the same old stuff. Clearly you aren’t interested in substantive debate though you say otherwise. If you think you are helping the left, you are mistaken — you’re just providing an easy way for the right to say we’re all idiots. Some of them think that already; why give them easy ammunition?

Posted by: Trent at July 25, 2006 9:45 AM
Comment #170496



Posted by: tlc at July 25, 2006 9:45 AM
Comment #170497


You are correct. I am spamming and I will cease.

Thanks for excercising civility…

you don’t get much of that from the conservative, right-wing bloggers on this blog.

Posted by: tlc at July 25, 2006 9:47 AM
Comment #170498


You are WAY off base. Just scroll up and read my post that begins:

“I’ve run through this sooo many times…”

The dichotomy you are seeing is not the result of shifting on the part of Kerry or of Democrats. It the result of dishonest manipulation and lying on the part of BUSH.

Such comments such as “She is horrid” or “He’s a gold digger” …ARE PURE BULLSHIT based on your own bias and hatred. How can you possibly know whether there is genuine love in John Kerry’s marriage? …and more to the point, HOW DARE YOU JUMP TO SUCH A HATE MONGERING ACCUSATION ABOUT SOMETHING YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW!

Your own tone in your post removes any legitimacy that your post might otherwise have had…even if it had been actually based on anything relevent!

Posted by: RGF at July 25, 2006 9:48 AM
Comment #170499


The right will demonize the left regardless of what I say.

Posted by: tlc at July 25, 2006 9:48 AM
Comment #170500


The substantive debate that…

republicans resort to name-calling when they can’t address the issues

…isn’t a debate that I am losing.

All you have to do is read this blog.

Whenever the republicans run out of things to say about the topic…


Posted by: tlc at July 25, 2006 9:52 AM
Comment #170501


the moderators on this blog work 24/7 to remind the republicans to stay on topic…

the topic John Kerry…

and how many times have the republicans violated the rules of participation?

the republicans can only resort to unilateral and pre-emptive attacks on anyone who doesn’t agree with them.

Posted by: tlc at July 25, 2006 9:55 AM
Comment #170502

THIS BLOG IS A PATHETIC EXAMPLE OF HOW republicans aren’t concerned with the issues.

the republicans on this blog are only interested in attacking other commenters whose opinions they don’t agree with.

Posted by: tlc at July 25, 2006 9:57 AM
Comment #170503


Posted by: tlc at July 25, 2006 9:58 AM
Comment #170505

tlc, some of what you say is true, but when you make absolute statements, you negate the persuasive power of your statements. Some here on the right are quite reasonable people; they just disagree. So what’s the best strategy to spark substantive debate? I don’t think making absolute statements that Republicans are hate mongers is the way to go. You are not even arguing that claim; you are resorting to forceful assertion.

Genuine dialogue is only possible between people of good will. There are some people here I don’t bother to engage seriously, but there are some I do. I’d rather focus on those with whom it is possible to have a good conversation — I might be able to persuade them of the value of my opinion, and, just as importantly, I might learn something myself.

Posted by: Trent at July 25, 2006 10:04 AM
Comment #170506

ZZZZZZ Kerry’s pompous? ZZZZZ Haughty? ZZZZZZ Possibly French-looking? ZZZZZZ Wake me up when it’s 2006 again.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 25, 2006 10:06 AM
Comment #170508


It looks as though you and I are now engaged in a substantive debate…

unfortunately the topic of this debate is about me…

The topic of this blog is John Kerry.

Posted by: tlc at July 25, 2006 10:17 AM
Comment #170510

I hope everyone (including all my devoted republican fans) a great day…

I have a life to go to now…

I don’t want to admit it but I have to say that it’s been fun.

Posted by: tlc at July 25, 2006 10:20 AM
Comment #170511

The Democrats has gotten us into two major wars in their times … World War I with President Wilson and World War II with President Roosevelt. The problem is that sometimes world affairs can be settled throught the UN and sometimes it has to be done by a show of force ( remember Desert Storm??? ). The world would be a better place if ALL of the countries could live together in peace.

Posted by: WRA at July 25, 2006 10:33 AM
Comment #170512

I find the comments by tlc amazinginly boring, and also see that he must double space to accentuate his mindless babble. Anyone with any intelligence and insight can see that Kerry is a bitter man, and a (to put it kindly) less than HONEST one. Pres. Bush does not have sophisticated finesse, but he has an iron will that a man in his office needs. I think this country needs strength with action. Mere uttered words by Kerry are hollow and make no impression on this reader. Someday Kerry will see the light and give up his bitter mutterings.

Posted by: LJF at July 25, 2006 10:49 AM
Comment #170513

There is no question that the whole world would be better off if Kerry had been elected president. If it hadn’t been for the spin the republican party had placed on the gullible people of the US and force them to vote for someone they would not have voted for. At the same time, if Bush had not deceived every Democrat representavice and Senator, they would not have voted for the war and no one would have died anywhere. If Kerry were President, he would have brough all the parties to a table and discussed with them that it would be better to just have peace. He would have made alliances with all the European countries and together they would have forced Sadam to be nicer. At the same time, he would have invaded Lebanon and kill all the hezbolla terrorist with the Army that is now Bogged down in Iraq while at the same time not killed any Civilians.
If Kerry were President so much more people would be alive today that no one would even think of starting another war.

Posted by: frankxcid at July 25, 2006 10:52 AM
Comment #170515

I keep hearing the same BS THAT OUR invasion of Iraq was the war on terroism if you belive this I have ocean property in Az to sell. Sadams use of wmd against the Kurds in the 80s, under whose administration. We were supporting him in his war against Iran. Now it looks like Iran will come out winner with influance in the Iraqi gov. I would like to know how many American still believe the bull shit that comes from Dick Cheney. A Teddy Roosevelt Republican.

Posted by: Earl at July 25, 2006 11:02 AM
Comment #170516

Earl I will give you $1 for that property. Just one example of Terrorist in Iraq: Al-Zarqawi, Leader of local Al-Queda organization. The Kurd were gassed by Sadam, why does it happening in the past make it not count? I will grant you the point that Bush 41 listened to you liberals too much and stopped at the border. He should have kept going and finished the job then.

Posted by: frankxcid at July 25, 2006 11:19 AM
Comment #170518

Bush may be honest I don’t see it. Wrong often. I see quite a bit.

Iron will? How so? I think what you call iron will most people call inflexibility.

Was he using that “iron will” when he allowed all that pork into all those budgets?

Posted by: 037 at July 25, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #170523

WRA, yes two Dems were Presidents when the world wars happened, but if you think a Republican President would have kepted us out of it, I don’t think so. We would have been involved sooner or later. But look at between those two presidents it was Republican Presidents, and wait it was the Great Depression, big business made money, small business went under.

Posted by: KT at July 25, 2006 11:39 AM
Comment #170524


Because he lost. Because the chances of him being nominated again are near zero.

The context of my calling him a loser was that it was not fun to bother him any more. If he were a threat, then it would be useful to attack him.

You think me calling Kerry a loser is a rotten thing. I suppose you will oppose all those who call Bush names too.


We have been unable to engage you in sustantive debate because you have not debated. It is getting tiresome for you to keep on posting variations of the same things. As far as I can tell, nobody has called you a name. We have occassionally made fun of your ideas, but you must get that a lot. Criticizing the message is not only fair game, it is required in seeking the truth.

Posted by: Jack at July 25, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #170525

I was just stating the fact that in the the Regan and early in Gh Bush Admin. The US gave millitary aid to Iraq. Before Iraq invasion of Kuait we told him that his border disspute wasan Arab problem not warning him invading Kuait had had consequenses. As far as teroist in Iraq before we invaded Sadam was redy to take them out. The US pulled out of Afganistan before finishing job. So tell what has this adminstration a compilished in the last 5 year besides double the National debt. Our border are not secure or ports. What have to show for 3trillion more borowed money. A TR repub.

Posted by: Earl at July 25, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #170528

Earl, you forgot to add Iran-Contra, US law stated the US could not sell arms to Iran, or spend anymore then X amount of money for the Contra. MMmmm lets see under Ronnie Regean an, North broke the law and sold arms to Iran, and took the funds and gave it to the Contras. So North disobeyed a direct order of the President(court-martial offense), plus broke several other laws. And now North is a hero to the republican party for break the law and disobey orders.

Posted by: KT at July 25, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #170535


0.47%. That is the amount the U.S. contributed to Saddam’s arsenal. Less than Brazil or Czech Republic and in the same ball park as Denmark. The big suppliers were the Soviet Union (not a U.S. ally) and France. So you are right that the U.S. helped Saddam. But don’t make too much of what is not too much. We also let our allies share Intel re Iran. Our goal in the Iraq-Iran war was to prevent Iran from overunning the middle east. Not a bad idea then or now.

Saddam wasn’t ready to take out any terrorists and he supported terrorists openly and covertly. He had no operational links with 9/11, but his security forces cooperated with terrorists and were themselves involved in terror.

We have not pulled out of Afghanistan. You can speculate about the effects after we do. Right now, it is a model of multinational cooperation, such as it is in the real world.

We have not suffered another terror attack in the U.S. since 9/11. Maybe the bad guys gave up. More likely we are catching them before they get at their evil business. Maybe those wiretaps help.

Posted by: Jack at July 25, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #170538

You do have a point 037, he did cave on the no child left behind, the pork and immigration. I can only excuse it as political manuevering. I hope he learned his lesson that caving to liberal ideas is guaranteed to be a failure at worst and a non-starter at best. I do think he has learn this and has shown it in many ways. The stem cell veto, the staff shuffle and the court appointments are examples. WIth all these faults, having Senator Kerry say what he said only increases the contrast between the two politicians. His plan makes no sense. He is just saying things that are untrue. There is just over 100,000 troops in Iraq, over a million troops are available war. All options are available and the President is doing what he should be doing in this case.

Posted by: frankxcid at July 25, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #170540


Hurling the already disproven inuendo at Kerry is rotten - whether he is running again or not.

AS for Bush, well, let’s just keep the name callign down to what we can prove by the facts already available to us: TRAITOR TO THE COUNTRY WHO DISREGARDS LAW!!!

ARe you aware that he was turned down for admission to UT Law? …not surprising considering his lack of respect for law in general…but very surprising in light of his connections and Yale undergrad! Perhaps he really is an idiot. Can we prove that yet?

Posted by: RGF at July 25, 2006 12:55 PM
Comment #170543


Bush got higher grades at Yale than Kerry did. If Bush is such an idiot, what does it say about the Democrats that he was able to defeat a popular incumbent governor? How about a VP running on the coattails of a man who left the Oval Office with one of highest approval ratings in history? How did this idiot beat Gore in his and Clinton’s home state? How did he buck the trend of history and add onto the Republican majority in ‘02? If Bush is an idiot, then the Democrats are braindead. I’m just wondering how they’ll manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this time.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 25, 2006 1:02 PM
Comment #170544

“Kerry’s pedestrian pomposity
“If I was president, this wouldn’t have happened.”“

There is nothing pompous about making this remark at all. In my opinion, if almost anyone else (Democrat or Republican) had been president, none of what has been taking place would have happened.
Because I believe there are very few people who would have ever wanted to risk our soldiers lives and limbs by taking us into an illegal war and occupation in Iraq on such flimsy, faulty and cherry-picked intelligence.
Because there are very few people who would have been so stupid not to have any real plan at all when taking their country into war.
Because there very few people who would have so completely ignored the history of war in that region.
Because there are very few people who would ever want to keep our soldiers in the entirely untenable position of having to remain and fight when that country erupted into sectarian strife and civil war.
And because most people have enough grasp on logic to understand that by doing all of the above, there would be a very good chance they’d cause the the lid to be blown off of the Middle East powderkeg.

“I vote for Republicans because Democrats support abortion on demand.”

Translation: Controlling women and the freedom they might choose to exercise over their own bodies and lives is more important than anything else that anyone could ever name.
War doesn’t matter as much. Securing the country against terrorist attacks doesn’t matter as much. The economy and job creation doesn’t matter as much. Protecting the environment doesn’t matter as much. Debt and deficit spending doesn’t matter as much.
Nothing matters as much as being able to tell women who they don’t even know what they can and can’t do with their bodies and lives. Not even the lives of the resulting children actually matter — it’s unimportant if they end up being resented, unwanted, unloved, live in poverty, or are not cared for decently and properly by their mothers. No, nothing in the world matters as much as being able to have control over women.

“Some Democrat leaders support very late term abortions even when the health of the mother is not at risk.”

And some Republican leaders don’t believe in children receiving sex education in school, or allowing women to use contraception, or the morning-after pill, even in cases of rape and incest.

Indeed, I have found that if one scratches practically any rightwing issue or topic and look at what lies beneath the surface, one will often find that they can be easily slotted into one of three categories:
1. Controlling People. 2. Indifference Towards People. 3. Greed.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 25, 2006 1:11 PM
Comment #170549

stubborn conservative, no, you didn’t need to repost your comment which violated our policy again. Your calling tlc a DNC lap dog, clearly violates our policy. Review our Rules for Participation and comply with them.

Thank you.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at July 25, 2006 1:27 PM
Comment #170551

I’d never say Bush was an idiot — ok, that’s not true; I’ve said many things in the heat of passion. But we all know that key to getting elected to high office in this country has everything to do with 1) money, 2) campaign managers, and, lately, 3) lawyers. The so-called message of either side is dumbed down to sound bites and misleading TV ads. It is a systemic problem.

What I’d love to see during a campaign is honesty and respect, not just between the candidates for each other, but for the voters themselves. We’re treated as idiots by both sides, and with good reason. Half of us don’t bother to vote, a huge percentage casts votes for stupid reasons, many are truly ignorant of the issues or what is at stake, and a small minority actually accept their duties as citizens and cast informed votes.

A premise of democracy is that the voters are actually involved citizens, but by and large we don’t have that in this country. How can we change this? I don’t know; we struggle with baby steps such as campaign finance reform. If we lose our democracy 50, 100, or whatever years in the future, I suspect it won’t be because of foreign invaders or terrorism, it will be because we as so-called citizens didn’t give a damn.

One of the reasons I hope for civility on boards such as this is that posters and commentors here are already the political elite simply because they care enough to learn about and debate the issues.

I guess this is off topic, but, eh, I don’t care — dialogue by its nature heads off into unexpected tangents; it’s one of its strengths.

Posted by: Trent at July 25, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #170552


Excuse me for providing my personal opinions! However, this is a political blog, and based on that, I was wrong for saying those things - tongue-in-cheek or not. I am of course not the only person to do such things in here. Good God, if we only discussed policy in here it would get shut down in a matter of days.

Having said that…What I truly dislike about Sen. Kerry is that he is useless as a politician. He is an empty shirt. As I said before, he doesn’t have an original thought. There are some GREAT democrat senators out there For instance, I have nothing but respect for Chuck Schumer, for instance. He is a great thinker, and a guy that speaks what he believes, not what he believes will be good for his career, much unlike Triangulator Kerry.

Posted by: Bruce P at July 25, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #170553

Do you agree that abortions in the eighth month of pregnancy should be limited to saving the pregnant woman’s life?

Posted by: Steve S at July 25, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #170554


“…the freedom they might choose to exercise over their own bodies and lives…”

Use that freedom to choose and decide not to have sex, or use contraception if you do (and by you I am not referring to you specifically but people in general so don’t get all mad at me and accuse me of attacking the messenger). Then maybe there wouldn’t be any children who are “resented, unwanted, unloved, live in poverty, or are not cared for decently and properly by their mothers”. (None of which are acceptable excuses for ending a human life anyway).

But once you choose to go out and screw around, and you get pregnant, your “freedom to choose” is gone. You made your choice…now live with it!! Abortion is NOT birth control.

Funny how you libs are always ranting about the deaths of innocent people in Iraq/Afghanistan/fill-in-the-blank but you are so unconcerned about the deaths of innocent unborn children when they might end up having less than perfect lives. You apparently all feel that your lives are perfect and were worth preserving…at least your mother’s did.

And as for the idea of “controlling people”…that is what living in a society and a community are all about. You cannot just go out and do whatever you want whenever you want to…there are laws (ie:controls) that are put in place to keep people in check. That is how we all get along relatively peacefuly in a society.

Murder is illegal…you just want to make distinctions about when a baby is really a person so you can make murder legal and get away with it. We aren’t about controlling women…we are about preserving the sanctity of human life (an idea which you libs supposedly believe in re:my comments above about Iraq etc) and the rights of the unborn child who cannot “choose” for themselves. They don’t get any say in the matter.

Your right to choose ends WHEN that baby begins…it isn’t just about your body anymore. Men keep your pants zipped up and women keep your panties on and this problem wouldn’t be a problem. But if people are going to rut like animals then they have to take personal responsibility (Oooooh…there are those 2 ugly words that libs hate so much) for the consequences of their actions.


Posted by: DaveR at July 25, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #170556

Another false hood reason to support administration is that we have not been atack since 9/11. How long was it from first bombing of trade center to 9/11 these terroist have the all the time in world to carry out their missions. Earl

Posted by: Earl at July 25, 2006 1:53 PM
Comment #170559

ALL, please, observe our policy regarding staying on the topic of the article. If totally unrelated comments continue, this thread will be closed.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at July 25, 2006 2:07 PM
Comment #170566

Bruce P, you said Kerry is not a great thinker, but that is your opinion only. You cited another Senator for his ideas and speaking his mind, what is your opinion of Senator John Murta, a Senator who speaks his mind and is a great thinker?
Bush might have gotten better grades at Yale, but book learning does not make one smart, just means he memorized the books and passed the test. Putting what he learned to actual use hands on is where it shows. If I remember right he started a couple of oil businesses and they went under, until the Saudi’s came to his rescue.
I would rather work for a man who had commons sense then one who did great in school but could not tie his shoes.

Posted by: KT at July 25, 2006 2:29 PM
Comment #170568


You absolutely did not read my above post, did you!

Kerry is no empty shirt or “triangulator.” He is a man of substance and backbone who would have made a GREAT president!

I will give you that he lacks the same kind of plebian appeal that a red-neck wanna be like Bush seems to be able to pull off, though.

Posted by: RGF at July 25, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #170572

Jack, while it is true that Bush had a higher gpa, the flat statement you made is still a bit misleading. Their GPAs are virtually identical, one point difference.

Both apparently were more interested in other things besides classes — something I can relate to. My undergraduate GPA sucks; as a reporter and eventually chief editor of my college newspaper, I frequently skipped classes and even finals to cover stories. I wouldn’t want to be judged by my undergraduate grades; it wasn’t until grad school that I did well academically.

Anyway, for anyone who cares, here’s information about Kerry’s Yale grades.

Posted by: Trent at July 25, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #170573


As for your “opinions,”
You attacked Kerry’s wife and his marriage for no other reason than that he is a democrat. That’s CRAP. You know nothing about the nature of Kerry’s marriage neither do you know about his wife and yet you offer such bile merely because he is a democrat. That attack was a *message* of pure hate, bile and BS. It is why republicans are losing steam these days. Such sentiments and motives are ultimately self destructive. So, keep it up, if you wish. But don’t be surprised if you continue to get called on it by myself and others!

Posted by: RGF at July 25, 2006 2:39 PM
Comment #170574

Mutter — Kerry’s Yale Grades.

Posted by: Trent at July 25, 2006 2:40 PM
Comment #170581

I was so relieved that bush was re-elected in ‘04. I gives us several more years to see the effects of the bush/republican policies. By ‘08 we should have a clear picture of what the repubs stand for and if you want more of the same vote repub in ‘08!!!

Posted by: charles Ross at July 25, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #170582


How does Kerry’s saying he would have targetted Hezbollah along with many other International terrorist groups equate to a full scale invasion? This is your whole premise and it is just a huge assuption. There are many ways to target a group without invading a country. I really dislike the way you focus so narrowly on a statement that could have been made by any reasonable person (ie that the war in Iraq is a diversion from the true and helpful war on terrorism) and attribute meaning that is not necessarily meant at all. I’m glad you use the word “seems” very liberally in this post. “Seems” is even a stretch, but at least it implies subjectivity.

I am not a Kerry fan, but I really hate it when people bash politicians for the sake of bashing them. There are plenty of GOOD reasons to talk badly about politicians today, you don’t need to go out and potentially create something out of absolutely nothing…and then act as if it is some obvious scandel. I thought you were supposed to be against this sort of activism when you are judging someone. Or is “activism” defined as anything with a liberal tone? If you want to fancy yourself a textualist, you failed.

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 25, 2006 3:47 PM
Comment #170585

In exactly what way would Kerry be a better President. His plan to deal with Iraq was to Talk to the European leaders, later he changed his plan to “pack-up and leave”. Still later his new plan is he would kick the Isrealies out of lebanon and kill Hezbollah. Regardless of what his grades were he has no common sense on foreign policy, he ideal is Blame-America and make America weaker by rasing taxes and giving more benefits to people by taking the money from other people. This is the basics of a Liberal which make him the wrong choice in 2004 and in the future. Perhaps Kerry will use the same mind powers that would have allowed Christopher Reeve to walk again to force everyone to make peace. What a boob!

Posted by: frankxcid at July 25, 2006 3:55 PM
Comment #170587

Kevin23, What are those other ways to target them, like giving money and support to the enemies of the terrorist, like President Bush is doing by supporting Iraq(Next to Iran), Israel(next to Hezbollah and Syria), South Korea and Japan (next to Japan)? Or maybe his raise the quadrapligic powers.

Posted by: frankxcid at July 25, 2006 3:59 PM
Comment #170588

“Huge assuption.”

Great phrase. I can see how that one will come in handy in the future.

“This is your whole premise and it is just a huge assuption.”

Truly great sentence!

Posted by: phx8 at July 25, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #170593

If saying something ridiculous disqualifies a person from holding political office, the enitire government should eventually be populated with mimes.

Posted by: DOC at July 25, 2006 4:13 PM
Comment #170596

Trent, you made the most helpful post on this thread — THANK YOU. Let me know if I can ever do the same on the other side of the aisle:

I can’t believe I’m trying this again, but here goes. tlc, apparently you aren’t violating forum rules (I haven’t read ‘em; I just try to behave well and that usually keeps me out of trouble with moderators), but you are spamming the same old stuff. Clearly you aren’t interested in substantive debate though you say otherwise. If you think you are helping the left, you are mistaken — you’re just providing an easy way for the right to say we’re all idiots. Some of them think that already; why give them easy ammunition?

Posted by: Brian at July 25, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #170599

Charles Ross—

“By ‘08 we should have a clear picture of what the repubs stand for and if you want more of the same vote repub in ‘08!!!”

Thanks…I probably will, if for no other reason than to pi— off you Dems! HAHA


Posted by: DaveR at July 25, 2006 4:27 PM
Comment #170603

Kevin & phx8,

You are right that this is an assumption, and I agree we should refrain ourselves/others from putting words into other’s mouths.

However, while I hate to spend much of my/our time debating another’s intent from a few sentences in a long interview, he seemed to me to be advocating similar action to Bush’s against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (i.e., strong military involvement):

Hezbollah guerillas should have been targeted with other terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaida and the Taliban, which operate in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Kerry said.

I believe in defense, but would like to see Bush, Kerry, Israel, Hezbollah, etc. all back away from escalation and war.

Posted by: Brian at July 25, 2006 4:37 PM
Comment #170605


“If saying something ridiculous disqualifies a person from holding political office, the enitire government should eventually be populated with mimes.”

As would this thread.

Posted by: Rocky at July 25, 2006 4:51 PM
Comment #170610


Posted by: COLLEEN at July 25, 2006 5:02 PM
Comment #170612

Yes, when it comes to foreign policy, Kerry is fairly useless. Yet he still shines like a diamond compared to the harm done to national security by Republican conservatives.

We are working hard on WWIII.

“America didn’t come to the country for our sake. America came with a pure Zionist agenda.“
Iraqi speaker of the Parliament

The capitol of Iraq is currently occupied by American troops. The puppet government is powerless. The country is embroiled in civil war.

The capitol of Afghanistan is currently occupied by American troops and allies. The puppet government is powerless. The country is descending into anarchy.

The capitol of Lebanon is being bombed by an American ally even as we speak. Televised “pinpoint” strikes are destroying entire city blocks in southern Beirut. The country is reverting to anarchy.

Saudi Arabia has warned of war. Iran has warned of war. They are not seeking it. But if the US continues along this path, WWIII is what we will provoke.

The rapture nutjobs are really happy.

Posted by: phx8 at July 25, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #170616


I don’t much like Kerry. Its not even so much his politics, though I don’t agree with him on those. It’s that I see him as a grown up Eddie Haskell type—-the kind of guy who says whatever it takes to get people to like him, regardless of what he really thinks or plans to do.

I didn’t see any resoluteness in him when he ran in 2004. I saw a man who was torn on issues and tried to ride the fence, but ended up continually falling off the rails onto both sides. I want a President who is decisive and bold, not one who equivocates and varies his message as people disagree.

Kerry is now trying to be more bold and decisive. Perhaps he has learned enough from his past run to allow him to be a better candidate—time will tell.

I do not believe he would have handled foreign policy in the way Bush has. But for all of Bush’s “stay the course” mentality, I think Kerry would have had the “flavor of the week” mentality, changing his tune constantly.

There….I’ve talked to you in an adult manner, giving you my opinions with full respectfulness and decisiveness. You are not called upon to agree with my thoughts, but they are there for you to debate with if you so choose. If you choose to continue claiming namecalling, then you will simply be wrong. And Kerry is the topic of the thread, which is the reason he is being discussed.

Ball in your court.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 25, 2006 5:16 PM
Comment #170619


“But for all of Bush’s “stay the course” mentality, I think Kerry would have had the “flavor of the week” mentality, changing his tune constantly.”

It’s easy for us in the cheap seats to speculate on the “would’ves”, as far as Kerry is concerned.

I truly don’t think that Kerry would have been any worse than Mr. Bush.

I think the 2004 election really came down to the idiot you know, vs. the idiot you don’t.

Posted by: Rocky at July 25, 2006 5:34 PM
Comment #170624

well bagofdonuts (funny name),

i don’t believe pawning off the iraq invasion on Kerry and the Democrats would have been a wise choice either.

iraq is bush and the republicans mess…

it’s a fight they started (and can’t finish)…

and ultimately Kerry and the Democrats would have been blamed for anything that would have happened…

since he wasn’t elected, the quagmire squarely falls on the shoulders of bush and the republcans

your turn

Posted by: tlc at July 25, 2006 5:54 PM
Comment #170625


I missed an “m” … thanks for caring so much! And I appreciate the support.


There are not any quotation marks in that sentence, and the words “such as” denote that more examples having been edited out. So not only are we focusing on a small phrase, but we are also focusing on a writers edited description of his statement. Then it gets taken out of context. Nice basis for an argument eh?


Are you not familiar with terms like “strategic airstrike” and “special ops”?

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 25, 2006 5:58 PM
Comment #170632


I was not the one who mentioned Kerry’s grades, but 1LT has a point that if you call Bush stupid, you cannot really exempt Kerry, who did almost the same, just a little worse.


Your post is very ironic. You castigate me for calling Kerry a loser (when he did actually lose) and then go on to attack Bush in much stronger tones. You are free to state your opinion about Bush, but you really cannot justifiably criticize others for doing something much milder about your boy.

I really don’t understand why you think it is so bad to call the man a loser anyway. He did. By ordinary standards, of course, he is a fantastically successful guy. But by the standards of presidential hopefuls (a very small group) he is a loser. Bush - BTW - is a winner.

Posted by: Jack at July 25, 2006 6:20 PM
Comment #170633

Watchblog Manager:

Pardon the Lap Dog insult. Calling a whole party a “Party of Hate” or “Hate is a Core value in the Republican Party” is insulting people instead of politics.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at July 25, 2006 6:23 PM
Comment #170639

stubborn conservative, not according to our Rules of Participation.

Apology appreciated.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at July 25, 2006 7:06 PM
Comment #170641

Ah, sorry Jack and 1LT for the misattribution of the grades thing.

I have a feeling most of us are just posting half-heartedly here. I have the day off and time to burn is my excuse. Jack, the Gingrinch (a typo, but funny, so I’ll leave it) health care link you posted the other day intriqued me; I’d love to hear your thoughts on that. Or maybe some thoughts on the DNC’s new American Dream Initiative. Or maybe the case for McCain, but I’m sure you’ve already done that.

Posted by: Trent at July 25, 2006 7:15 PM
Comment #170646

You know, tlc, that would be less annoying if you wrote in paragraphs.

Posted by: Trent at July 25, 2006 8:23 PM
Comment #170647

tlc, you know why Clinton was impeached. Not so much for having an affair with the intern(if you want to call it a affair), it was because he lied to Congress, and the people of the United States, when he said on national tv, “I did not have sex with that woman”. He perjured himself, and believe it or not that is against the law. So he was impeached for lying in front of Congress.
Oh I voted for him twice, but I felt he should have been impeached. So the next time you go in front of a judge for a speeding ticket, tell him you weren’t(but you know you were), and when they break out the tape and show that you were, you are doing the same thing Clinton did.

Posted by: KT at July 25, 2006 8:40 PM
Comment #170688


There is much more than a differance of opinion going on here. You castigate Kerry based on political differences and your accusations cannot be proved…in fact the contrary is more factually evident.

ALL the elements of the crimes Bush and co. are guilty of are increasingly out in the open and a matter of public record. That’s hardly mere politics.

KT, this is for you too -

It was politics when Clinton was impeached, by Starr re: the Lewinski affair, for what was essentially a character issue. He had SAID he had nothing to do with the White Water real-estate scandal in Arkansas and he had SAID he “did not have sexual relations with that woman.” It was an effort to impeach that made Lewinski even remotely relevent since Starr was SUPPOSED to be looking into White Water instead of trying to find dirt on Clinton - TO THE TUNE OF MILLIONS. Clinton was clean as to White Water but Starr found Lewinski and it was off to the races!

I am not defending purjury. It was it was. But let’s not loose site of what it was realy about. When you consider that the only relevence to Lewinski at all was as a basically IRRELEVENT character impeachment…well you see what the very mechanisms in the GOP are like that are still working today. Now they are the efforts to defend Delay, shore up an illegal war, hide the real economic picture as we engage in more deficeit spending in the last five years than in all of the history of our nation prior to GWBush put together, etc. etc.

True fiscal conservatism is not something I have a problem with…it’s just that it is something that is long dead and buried and replaced by an ideology that Reagan era republicans should find utterly repugnant. Except, there are still some who have “bought the plastic Gucci bag” and so some seem loath to admit how different things really are in the GOP now. The republicans are 180 degrees in every way from the Reagan era and still some don’t seem to notice it. That is why I repeatedly make the Gucci bag analogy and accuse those on your side of blind adherence to labels with no consciousness of ideas at all. If the ideas weren’t lost on this new GOP, Bush would never have been elected a second time. That is…assuming the election was legitimate. Teh evidence to the contrary is mounting.

Posted by: RGF at July 25, 2006 11:32 PM
Comment #170712


During the Monica Lewinski scandal, Clinton attacked Starr in ways that would’ve made Nixon blush and that were totally without precedent in history. Furthermore, Clinton first asked Starr not to humiliate him and respect his office by not asking detailed questions about the nature of what he did with Lewinski. Starr made the mistake of assuming Clinton’s decency and didn’t. Clinton then used Starr not asking the right questions, ie detailed questions about what transpired, as a dodge.

This being said, Clinton was without a doubt the best politician, if not the best person or President, in recent history. It helped that the Republicans were so foolish about going after him, but that man could get dropped in septic tank and come out smelling like a rose. Even worse, despite the fact I don’t like his policies, I think I’d love to have a few beers with him and just talk.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 26, 2006 2:24 AM
Comment #170713

I happen to agree with Kerry. This would not have happen on his watch. We would not have had the capacity to even be involved in anything like that. We would all be sitting around a cesspool with our government straws sucking manure for lunch in Kerrys workers paradise.

Posted by: tomh at July 26, 2006 2:30 AM
Comment #170716


the “harm done to national security” has been
by both parties, but if it makes you feel better
to blame just one party, feel free. At least the
people of Afghanistan & Iraq are MORE free now than they were 3 years ago.
BTW. Spain & other countries have had terrorist
attacks since 9/11. Have there been any more in
the U.S. since then?

Did a Republican administration have something to
do with bringing Osama Bin Ladin to power during his fued with Russia? Yes.
Did a Democrat administration not do enough to
bring in or kill Osama & his band of terrorists
after they started threatening the US & other
western democracies? No.

The Republicans may have helped create
Frankenstein, but the Democrats were too busy
dealing with personal scandals to care that the
monster was still killing innocents.

If we’re on the brink of WWIII, it’s because the
radical Islamofascist terrorists became
emboldened by a Clinton Administration that
appeared impotent to stop them. Hence 9/11.
But hey. At least we all know that Bubba himself
wasn’t impotent. Unless it was with HIS WIFE!

Posted by: Dale G. at July 26, 2006 3:08 AM
Comment #170718


You’re funny! If I were in Kerry’s workers’ paradise, that comment would have made me blow government issued manure out my nose.

I’m in my own fantasy world where President Gore is currently having tea with the Taliban. I thrilled that the talks are going so well that the Afghan warlords are willing to forgive and forget our provocation of continuing to develop civilization without their permission.

Posted by: goodkingned at July 26, 2006 3:31 AM
Comment #170729


You are correct if you think Kerry would not have entered Iraq. Same for Al Gore. It’s Bush’s deal. I’m glad he got rid of Saddam….so are a lot of people. Its just that people like Kerry are happy that Saddam is gone—-they’ve gone on record as saying so—-but they wouldnt have had the stones to do it themselves.

You commented earlier about how you don’t think Kerry is an issue that should be discussed. Yet its plainly obvious to see that he’s hoping for another presidential run. I’m sure even you can see that even though he hasn’t declared it yet, he’s running. Same with Hillary. That makes Kerry a topic of conversation that is fully legitimate. And since he was in the news spouting of his latest position on the Iraq situation, that also makes him salient.

You don’t seem to want to allow people to discuss him. Why?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 26, 2006 7:15 AM
Comment #170815


For years the MSM has been telling us what was said in major speeches. Gore, as you said could be having tea and explaining this thing called global warming. It is really a PC for Gore. PC=Political Challenge.

Posted by: tomh at July 26, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #170819

I am seeing some really ‘rich’ stuff here.

Suppostitions that Kerry would not have “Had the stones” to go into Iraq - nevermind that Kerry wanted us to do it LEGALLY with a UN coalition mandated by our agreement in 1441! Such UN help would have taken longer to get on board but considering that the WMD’s WERE NOT THERE…We had that time. Further, such UN presence would have been exponentially less expesive in American lives and in support for our seemingly never-ending action there. UN presence in Iraq would also have PREVENTED a lot of the problems; most notably:

You see, when we went WITHOUT the UN, the result was that the ball got dropped on gaurding these explosives. Guess what the IED’s that are killing our men and women over there are made with? Yep. You guessed it - HMX and RDX.

Further, I have seen arial photgraphic evidence of the truck convoys going in and out of the facility where the UN was guarding this stuff before we went in. I would have posted it here if I could have found it again. There is no excuse for our not doing this right. The UN ALREADY had people guarding these explosives who got displaced as a result of our military actions in Iraq. Then we dropped the ball and allowed the insurgency to obtain the explosives as a result of our own continuing mis-management of intelligence.

Since Kerry was the loudest voice for doing this in Iraq THE RIGHT WAY, we can safely assume this would not have happened on Kerry’s watch.

How many lives must be lost because Bush couldn’t ‘manage’ his way out of a wet paper bag?…even if he had a CHAINSAW!

I see other rediculous shots like ‘Gore having tea with the taliban.’ What the hell is that? Those of us who have been doing human rights work have been well aware of how bad the Talivan was since they wrested power of the Afghanis in the mid ‘90’s and yet Bush actually invited them to make a diplomatic mission to our country prior to 9/11!!! Further, we have on the record proof of business dealings between the bin Laden family and the Bush’s and yet I still these proposterous accusations of democrats somehow being closer to the terrorists! Those on the red side seem willing to believe conspiracy theory madness about terrorists manipulating peace…but totally unwilling to accept overwhelming evidence that it is through WAR that we are being manipulated! I propose for your consideration, that it is EASIER to manipulate through war than it is through peace.


you last response was one of the more civilized I have seen lately. There is tendency here to just RANT at each other…I have done it, too.
But, let us consider what you possibly not like about Clinton’s policies: Did not like the WELFARE BACK TO WORK PROGRAM? THE BALANCED BUDGET, or SURPLUSSES? THE OSLO ACCORD? KYOTO AGREEMENT? RESEARCH PROGRAMS INTO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY (That Bush instantly put a stop to)?

What, 1LT? What could possibly be your issue?

Perhaps you LIKE:
More deficit spending than the entire previous history of the country COMBINED!

Statements made to the world such as: “Isreal has no greater friend than the U.S.”

Near total dependence on fossil fuels and a growing dpendency on foreign oil.

Hmmm? What is your preference, 1LT? You like your Gucci bag don’t you?

Posted by: RGF at July 26, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #170825


The Bin Laden family is a huge family. Are they all crooks, terrorists, etc.? Doesn’t every family along the way have “black sheep”? Who were the family members that Bush had dealings with? What was the business? If one is going to make a charge against somebody, then there should be some hard core evidence to make the charge viable. I don’t even know who you are. If I were to post here that you had connections with pimps, whores and drug dealers without even anything to back it up, that would totally irresponsible of me. But if I knew you and had invormation about you and your activities and those activities were immoral or illegal, then that knowledge could be used to make a case. Too many times people get all wrapped up in rhetoric and let it expand beyond rhetoric to the undefensible. That is where it gets dangerous.

Posted by: tomh at July 26, 2006 1:59 PM
Comment #170834


If you were to post that I have connections to pimps whores and drug dealers you would be lying.

That the Bush family has done business with the bin Ladens is a fact.

You point out that it is a big family…true.
You point out that bin Laden is a ‘black-sheep’ …also true.

But, nonetheless, there is a connection.

NO connection can be made to “Gore having tea with the taliban,” as was so inapproprately posted above.

Posted by: RGF at July 26, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #170835

Afghanistan and Iraq are free? Well, never mind that a foreign government installed their leadership.

I suppose anarchy must be very liberating.

“The Mayor of Kabul,” Kharzai, still has an American bodyguard. Despite all that wonderful democracy, he cannot trust his personal security to his fellow Afghans.

How many Iraqis have died because of our invasion? 100,000? 200,000? 300,000? It could be that high, you know. Hard to tell. I wonder how they voted? And how would they vote today?

Do you think Iraqi politicians will ever be able to leave the Green Zone and find out? I mean, without a convoy?

Half of this country disapproves of backing the Israel invasion, and more than half thinks we should withdraw from Iraq. Yet moderate Democrats such as Kerry refuse to recognize the fact.

Posted by: phx8 at July 26, 2006 2:33 PM
Comment #170838


The question is still there. Who in the BinLaden family was doing business with the Bush family.

Let us approach it this way. I am ignorant of any information concerning the Bin Laden family and the Bush family doing business. Yes, I have heard the charges. Not facts.

Posted by: tomh at July 26, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #170839

On the morning of 9/11, bush #41 was meeting with a brother of Osama bin Laden at the Ritz-Carlton in Washington DC. They are involved in the Carlyle Group. This is why the White House approved 13 members of the Bin Laden family to be flown out of the US immediately after 9/11.

Now, it seems to me, if ever anyone wanted to interrogate some people, the immediate relatives of OBL would be great candidates, especially one meeting with the father of the president that same morning.

Despite most of the 9/11 hijackers being from Saudi Arabia, we let the Bin Laden relatives go. To this date, we have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and supported the invasion of Lebanon by Israel; we throw around the idea of invading Syria & Iran:

Yet we never discuss any antagonisms towards the Saudis.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. However, anyone would be naive not to recognize the close ties & influence the Saudi royal family and the bin Ladens have with the Bush family.

It is all about oil, and it is all about money.

Posted by: phx8 at July 26, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #170848

Right on, phx8!

-Is that sufficient for you to UNDERSTAND now, tomh?

Posted by: RGF at July 26, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #170857



So a brother of Osama. Again the questin who?
If you said one of my brothers, of which I have three, I would ask which brother. You see the charges are still there but no ID.

Posted by: tomh at July 26, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #170858

Watchblog Manager:

“ALL, please, observe our policy regarding staying on the topic of the article. If totally unrelated comments continue, this thread will be closed. “

For what it’s worth, I believe there should be a wide latitude in responding to posted essays—quite often, the most enlightening discussions ‘break out’. I believe corraling the discussion into narrow parameters kills spontaneity.

It also limits what is being discussed to a handful of essayists and the subjects of their chosing. If limiting discussions to a small number of subjects is insisted upon, perhaps having an open discussion periodically, where people can raise issues in a more open form might be considered.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 26, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #170860

Further, tomh,

The connection is even stronger than that, really. It is was bin Laden family money that kept Bush afloat in 15 - 20 years of one failed dry hole digging company after another - which he was involved with in West Texas.

The olnly strength he brought to the table for his associations with those companies, was being his father’s son. It was about access and influence to a VP or P.

Bush knows what has gotten him through life - which is why I believe there is such a culture of influence peddling around him and the GOP today.

Same old story, same party, same group of people, different day.

Posted by: RGF at July 26, 2006 3:49 PM
Comment #170862


There is MUCH evidence of the connections, but the editor has rightfully pointed out how far we seem to have ranged from this initial essay attacking Kerry.

So, without going into long rehashings of the information I have been colecting, here is an on-line compilation someone else put together containing much of the same stuff I have been following and collecting for years now.

Here is a source of evidence for you:

Posted by: RGF at July 26, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #170864

His name is Shafig bin Laden.

“House of Bush, House of Saud” by Craig Unger is probably the best resource for Bush ties to Saudia Arabia, the royal family, and the Bin Ladens. It is from early 2004, so it is a little dated already. For example, the deal to sell US Port operations to the United Arab Emirates would not be in that book.

The fact that half or more of the suicide bombers in Iraq come from Saudi Arabia receives no attention in this country.

And while I do not believe a term like “islamofascists” is useful, if there could ever be countries meeting the defition, it would be Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait. These companies come closest to wedding totalitarianism, religious dogmatism, and corporations into a governmental body.

Lol. “companies” should be “countries.” Maybe I had it right the first time.

Posted by: phx8 at July 26, 2006 4:06 PM
Comment #170867


I wish I could buy you a beer.

I just read that book. It is the first thing on the web-link I posted above but I wanted tomh to see the other stuff on the web site as well if for no other reason than to see what he might not have seen otherwise.

Posted by: RGF at July 26, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #170870


Posted by: RGF at July 26, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #170880

I will take you up on that. One great thing about Oregon, some outstanding beer.

Staying on topic is great, but sometimes it is pretty difficult, especially when the topic concerns something recently said by a losing presidential candidate from 2004. Dude lost.

Gore, on the other hand, makes statements that actually deserve attention. He spent some time in the political wilderness, and discovered just what he really believes. He is not just going through the motions, or listening to the DLC, triangulating for some mythical middle. Unlike Kerry, Gore has looked into his heart and discovered that it is not just politics- he cares.

Posted by: phx8 at July 26, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #170881

Tim Crow, please direct your comments regarding the rules of participation to They don’t belong here. Please stay on topic. That is one of the rules.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at July 26, 2006 5:10 PM
Comment #170885


I obviously like Kerry but, we are on the same page about Gore. I believe he would be the best the Dems could offer in ‘08. But I wonder if he is electible considering how much republican bile and spin has been slung his way already. It will be an uphill battle against spin regardless of who is nominated, though.

As for the beer - I have family and friends in Seatle, Port Townsend and Portland. I love your part of the world!

Posted by: RGF at July 26, 2006 5:24 PM
Comment #170891

I looked up the definition for “elitist” in the dictionary and I found a picture of John Kerry. Thankfully, this pompous windbag never got to be president.

Posted by: nikkolai at July 26, 2006 5:32 PM
Comment #170899

nikkolai -

Kerry would never use the word “elitist” or call anybody a “pompous windbag” and yet you use those names freely.

Presumably there would be a photo of you in there as well?

Posted by: RGF at July 26, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #170930


Kerry isn’t an elitist, he just marries them. Kerry is an elitist wannabee.

Posted by: goodkingned at July 26, 2006 7:15 PM
Comment #170942


I never thought I see republicans who had vile thoughts about people just because they had money…You got a problem with wealth?

Perhaps it is only wealth that thinks in lock-step with the GOP that republicans like!

If blogging is meant to be worth anything we should stop this bile-tossing B.S. If you can’t touch Kerry on the issues, then don’t post about Kerry at all!

Posted by: RGF at July 26, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #170963


Both of the sources you linked are biased and not objective. There was nothing that I saw in the links that tells me anything that I have not heard before. Guilt by association is employed strongly. There are generalizations, but not documentation of those generalizations.

This is my last post on this item. I’m out the door to Tucson for 5 days.

I truly wish you well.

Posted by: tomh at July 26, 2006 9:25 PM
Comment #170972

When Democrats get confronted with their own words and actions then it is a “Republican dirty trick and misinformation campaign.” Kerry can run from his pompous, in his own head world and words, but he can’t hide from real America. The election of 2004 proved that. What Mr. Kerry would have done or not done is irrelevant. The American people don’t care. They showed that by their record vote for a president who is mediocre at best. The author of the article has it right when he shines light on Kerry’s simpleton approach to the what if. I hope Mr. Kerry continues his campaign into 2008. The Republicans can rest assured of another sweeping victory. And, for the commentators who said that they never hear a plan from Republicans, then get the fingers out of your ears and yelling “I can’t hear you!!!” Republicans have been clear on their objective to destroy the danger to our country and our values. Unlike Kerry, Republicans have a plan, not just a plan to have a plan.

Posted by: Eric Morgan at July 26, 2006 9:52 PM
Comment #171008


Welfare reform was Clinton’s only in that he signed it into law. He had 2 years with a Democrat House and Senate to “end welfare as we know it” but never submitted a bill nor made it an issue. The balanced budget was also a combination of things, primarily the massive growth of the economy which was the result of private businesses, not anything Clinton did or failed to do. If you want to tout the Oslo Accord, perhaps you can go to Israel and ask them if the deep sense of security they have from that is the reason they’re bombing the shit out of Hezbollah. Kyoto was bs from the beginning. Clinton went there knowing that it would never get out of committee in the Senate, to say nothing of going to the Senate. He made promises he knew he couldn’t keep and did so with a straight face. All Bush did was state the obvious, and even the Europeans are saying its too hard on their economies and aren’t following it.

No, I’m not a big fan of deficits. I have criticized the Bush administration for this numerous times. As far as saying we are Israel’s ally, what’s wrong with that? Maybe you’d be more comfortable being allies with Iran, but I would not. I have also gone on record saying that I supported alternative energy. I think we’re wasting time when we could be converting power plants to coal or nuclear power, both of which we have plenty, than using oil. I have no idea what you’re talking about with the Gucci bag, the PX doesn’t carry Gucci in Iraq. I’ll assume its some sort of insult, but since I don’t understand it, I have no response.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 27, 2006 1:49 AM
Comment #171023


Lest I personally make blogging not worth anything at all, please provide me with a list of topics on which I may comment and to save time please outline what sorts of responses would be acceptable to the thought police.

By the way, I don’t have anything against people with money. I would respect Kerry more if he had earned some that didn’t come out of the taxpayers’ pocket or his wives’ purses. Although, I have to concede that living with Terese should come with combat pay.

Posted by: goodkingned at July 27, 2006 4:52 AM
Comment #171033


In the interests of fostering amnity, I withdraw my accusation of you insulting me. However, sheer morbid curiosity begs the question: what did you mean by that?

Posted by: 1LT B at July 27, 2006 7:02 AM
Comment #172431

kerry lost because he chose to focus all presidential aspirations on the only event of note in his trite life, an abbreviated & questioanble vietman stint…with somewhat dubious, less than distinguished behavior thereafter…most believe his greatest accomplishment in life has more to do with ability to “acquire wealth” through nuptual ceremony…his senate absenteeism record is surpassed by none…and his glorious career in the senate is unblemished by any substantial legislation…
oh lets not forget…his favorite red sox player is “manny ortiz”…to coin his own word…mr. kerry’s accomplishments in life to date are “in-fin-tesmal”…in the most grandiose of styles!

Posted by: gary at July 31, 2006 9:20 PM
Post a comment