American Hiroshima Attack "Imminent"; Muslims Ordered to Leave

Canada Free Press reports that another 9/11-style attack is imminent and that all Muslims living in America should leave “…without further warning.”

Urgent news from Abu Dawood, one of the newly appointed commanders of the al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan:

The attack will be commandeered by Adnan el Shukrijumah ("Jaffer Tayyer" or "Jafer the Pilot"), a naturalized American citizen, who was raised in Brooklyn and educated in southern Florida.

The al Qaeda operatives who will launch this attack are awaiting final orders. They remain in place in cities throughout the country. Many are masquerading as Christians and have adopted Christian names.

The report also warns of a major offensive in Afghanistan against coalition forces during the holy month of Ramadan.

This is probably just Al Quaeda propoganda. It probably won't happen. But it is possible, isn't it? It's POSSIBLE.

Five years later, our borders are still wide open. We don't have the stomach for war anymore. Fifty years of liberalism has stripped us of our ability to defend ourselves. We are divided, distracted, and disillusioned; self-absorbed, sex-obsessed, and Godless. A veritable liberal Nirvana.

If an American Hirohima happens as predicted in the article cited above, will this be the event that finally unites America?


Posted by Chris Rowan at September 19, 2006 3:02 PM
Comments
Comment #182432

Why should they warn the muslims to leave. They could care less about them. This is their way guaranteeing these people will have satisfied their god’s demands by dying to kill the infidels

Posted by: Chuck C. at September 18, 2006 9:31 PM
Comment #182433

Sounds like something out of bush/rove play book.Scare the hell out of everybody so they will vote for us. I hope people are smart enough not to fall for this neo-con B.S.

Posted by: Jeff at September 18, 2006 9:31 PM
Comment #182434

Chris

If you really want people to take you seriously
I’d find some credible sources.

Posted by: mark at September 18, 2006 9:34 PM
Comment #182579

Well I have to say that however one sided this might be, this goes in line with my beliefs about our nation. I do feel that we are

“divided, distracted, and disillusioned; self-absorbed, sex-obsessed, and Godless.”

We are setting ourselves up for a disaster. Our people are so divided that only another tragedy could unite us the way we need to be to win the war against terrorism. September 11 was a horrible day, but I’ve never been so proud to be an American than when I saw the nation come together for relief efforts.
I do think that it would be more convincing to Mark and Jeff if there was more to back it up…However I’m right there with you on this line of thinking Chris.

Posted by: Becky at September 19, 2006 4:14 PM
Comment #182583

Let see, create a non existant hysterical threat and then blame the liberals for being tired of a war that a right wing Republican ELECTED to enter and refused to man.

Karl Rove , I give you your mirror.

I prefer to have fantasies about buxom blondes in my spare time.

Posted by: gergle at September 19, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #182586

Chris,

You jump from “another 9/11-style attack” to “Fifty years of liberalism has stripped us of our ability to defend ourselves” to “American Hirohima happens as predicted in the article cited above” in such a short space of time that I really can’t see what you’re trying to say.

Is Canada Free Press reporting that there’s a terrorist atomic bomb inside the US?

Posted by: Steve K at September 19, 2006 4:25 PM
Comment #182592

The SKY IS FALLING!
The SKY IS FALLING!
The SKY IS FALLING!
FEAR THEM
FEAR THEM
FEAR THEM AND FOLLOW ME AND MY G-D
FEAR THEM AND FOLLOW ME AND MY GOP
“We are divided, distracted, and disillusioned; self-absorbed, sex-obsessed, and Godless. A veritable liberal Nirvana. If an American Hirohima happens as predicted in the article cited above, will this be the event that finally unites America? “

We all need to look in the mirror and perform a critical review of the politics of your religion and your leader before regurgitating their rhetoric as a load of self righteous nonsense.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 19, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #182600
Fifty years of liberalism has stripped us of our ability to defend ourselves. We are divided,

I really hope the original poster recognizes that his use of the ridiculous rhetoric in the first sentence contributes to the problem he bemoans in the second.

I doubt it, though.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 19, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #182601

Chris,
If I may make a suggestion, the Canada Free Press may not be the most reliable source of information.

For example, in 2005 the Canada Free Press ran this article:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover032805.htm

Unfortunately, they were plagiarizing. The unfortunate and apparently humorless editor did not know “The Onion” was satire.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30922

Actually, that really is pretty damn funny.

They have done worse things, and more serious ethical transgressions. But do you really want to cite a source that does not know satire when it sees it, then plagiarizes and presents it as truth?

Posted by: phx8 at September 19, 2006 4:57 PM
Comment #182610

phx,

On his blog, Chris Rowan has a post in praise of Michael Savage. Good luck trying to get him to have a concept of what reasonable news and/or analysis is.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 19, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #182611

Chris,

Standard liberals replying, no worries … well, no additional worries anyway. Apparently their reading comprehension is in serious question since none so far have acknowledged or responded to:

“This is probably just Al Quaeda propoganda. It probably won’t happen. But it is possible, isn’t it? It’s POSSIBLE.”

What a surprise!! They didn’t respond to the major question you posed. Is there one condemnation of Islamic Jihadists (that’s what they call themselves by the way) in the previous posts? No.

And why is bringing up the idea of a terrorist attack a bad political discussion for democrats? Is it because such a thing goes against the grain of BAFSLA (Blame America First / Self-Loathing Americans)? I think so.

The answer to your 1st major question is: Yes, it’s possible.

The answer to your 2nd major question is: Any new terrorist attack will summon a call from liberals for American apologies. You see, it’s part of the morose liberal gameplan to engage in diplomacy with a massive group of people who relish death more than life … much like the Imperial Japanese Army of WWII.

And that’s why I’m not a liberal. It’s not that I hate them, I just think they’re odd as hell.

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 19, 2006 5:40 PM
Comment #182614

Yea is possible it’s also possible that a piece of blue ice from an airplane could hit me in the head and kill me. But it does not occupy my every waking moment. But if we are so worried about such things why are we spending our time and money in Iraq instead of protecting or ports and borders?

Posted by: Jeff at September 19, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #182616

Ken Strong,

No, your analysis is wrong. Is it possible that Al Qaeda is planning this? Sure - anything’s possible. Is there actually any smoke here? Nope.

Is your real criticism here that we don’t follow Chris on his goose chase? As Jeff says, there’s always something to worry about, but why should we spend any energy on this particular hypothetical (which is all we can suppose it is based on the “evidence”).

That we critique the bad logic and horrible sourcing of the original post in no way supports the conclusions you make about us. You’re inventing them out of thin air.

You’ve done nothing to explain why you’re not a liberal except attack your own straw men. And we’re the odd ones?

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 19, 2006 5:58 PM
Comment #182621

Hahaha!! Ive never laughed so hard since I read that story in the National Enquirer.You know the one?The one about an eight legged cat found in Manhattan?Yes that one.So Chris Rowan when is your project about alien abductions coming out?Cant wait.I need the entertainment.

But seriously Chris old boy,if you want to spread fear do it like you would fry a small fish.Dont overdo it.

Posted by: john doe at September 19, 2006 6:48 PM
Comment #182636

Doesn’t seem to me that Chris is saying this particular thing WILL happen so much as wondering if that’s what it would take for the US to unite together and get serious again about confronting threats.

If you think that Republicans are just fear-mongering, then ignore them completely and just listen to what muslim extremists are saying.

They do mean what they say about their intention to spread havoc. If 9-11 didn’t teach you that, consider the recently thwarted attempt to bomb bomb airliners. Look at their calls to kill the Pope, their burning of churches, their videotaped beheadings, their recent murder of a nun.

It doesn’t matter what Republicans SAY. Look at what the enemy DOES every single day and then decide whether or not to put your heads in the sand.


Posted by: Pilsner at September 19, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #182637

Not all Muslims are bad just like all reps. are not bad just the neo-cons!

Posted by: Jeff at September 19, 2006 7:57 PM
Comment #182638

Hello, Fear party.

Posted by: Torus Linvalds at September 19, 2006 7:58 PM
Comment #182639

Come on in and wear your boots!!!

Posted by: Jeff at September 19, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #182647

“Many are masquerading as Christians and have adopted Christian names.”

Between the al-Qaeda fakes and the American fakes, what’s a real Christian to do?

Become a Buddhist, I guess.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 19, 2006 8:32 PM
Comment #182651

Tim Crow I doin’t know much about them but they do seem to be a peacefull bunch.

Posted by: Jeff at September 19, 2006 8:39 PM
Comment #182661

Steve K -

You said:

You jump from “another 9/11-style attack” to “Fifty years of liberalism has stripped us of our ability to defend ourselves” to “American Hirohima happens as predicted in the article cited above” in such a short space of time that I really can’t see what you’re trying to say.

I cited what was probably just another propoganda piece that warned of an imminent terrorist attack on U.S. soil. My words:

This is probably just Al Quaeda propoganda. It probably won’t happen.

But it’s possible, just like anything’s possible. I wondered, “If it does happen, will we finally be united against our common enemy?”

I then thought about the effect that 50 years of liberalism has had on this country, and arrived at the conclusion that such an attack would only serve to divide us more than we already are.

Gergle, John Doe, Jeff, Phx, and others here prove that point. It’s very sad.

Posted by: Chris at September 19, 2006 9:10 PM
Comment #182668

Chris,

You insult us and blame us for all of America’s ills, and then you have the gall to say that our disagreement with your ridiculousness is proof that we are dividing America?

Give me a break.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 19, 2006 9:16 PM
Comment #182670

Mark -

You said -

If you really want people to take you seriously I’d find some credible sources.

First of all, I wasn’t playing “reporter” with BREAKING NEWS. I stated, right out front, that this was probably just another propoganda piece. I just wondered if it happened, would such an attack finally unify us? Judging from the rabid responses here, I’d have to say “No.”

Second, where does one go to find “reliable sources,” Mark? CNN? CBS? The New York Times? The Los Angeles Times? MoveOn.org? The Daily KOS?

Posted by: Chris at September 19, 2006 9:18 PM
Comment #182672
Second, where does one go to find “reliable sources,” Mark? CNN? CBS? The New York Times? The Los Angeles Times?

Yep. I guess you know where to look.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 19, 2006 9:22 PM
Comment #182673

The teachings of Buddhism, like those of Christianity and unlike those of Islam, have to be warped pretty badly to incite one to violence, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. A lot.

Just look at the history of places like Burma, Sri Lanka, Thailand or for that matter the blend of Buddhism, Confucianism and Shinto behind Imperial Japan.

Posted by: Pilsner at September 19, 2006 9:23 PM
Comment #182676

Try rush now there’s some fine reporting. So your saying all the msm is wrong maybe they are not wrong but better informed.

Posted by: Jeff at September 19, 2006 9:24 PM
Comment #182680
I then thought about the effect that 50 years of liberalism has had on this country, and arrived at the conclusion that such an attack would only serve to divide us more than we already are.

I have to disagree with Chris on this one. Should a Hiroshima-style attack occur with huge numbers of American casualties, the American response would be truly terrible to behold. The public would care nothing about even massive civilian collateral damage overseas, much less the rights of accused terrorists.

This is something to be avoided at all costs, in my view. If such a thing happened tomorrow, I doubt there’d be a Tehran or Damascus by this weekend.

The erosion of public unity after 9-11 was a long and complex affair having much to do with both domestic American politics, the Iraq insurgency, and the absence of any more terrorist attacks on American soil for over 5 years. Some conservatives regard this as an erosion of American character and resolve, but I don’t really agee.

“Liberalism,” per se, is not really the problem. Liberals, in my view, provide an important voice in domestic matters, but as 9-11 showed, the excessive passivism of some of their members has no real influence whenever it’s clear that America is under immediate threat.

For hawks, this poses a catch 22. You want measures to be taken to ward off dangers, but if you succeed, it becomes ever harder to take those measures in the first place.

Posted by: Pilsner at September 19, 2006 9:50 PM
Comment #182681

Lawnboy -

I stated in the original post that the report was probably just another propoganda piece. The source didn’t matter to me. What concerned me was whether another massive attack would finally unite us. I’ve heard opinion makers on the radio and TV speculate that it will take nothing less than another 9/11 to unite us against the jihadists (or “Islamic extremists” or “terrorists” or “Islamofascists”) who want to kill us.

I used to think that way, but not anymore. I don’t think another massive attack will bring liberals and conservatives closer together. It will harden the resolve of conservatives, I hope. But, in my opinion, liberals are liberals first and foremost.

Maybe it’s because liberals are infused with what Freud described as the Thanatos - the drive to die. Just look at some liberal pet causes: Abortion, euthanasia, decriminalization of drugs, redefinition (i.e., “death”) of marriage, open borders (i.e., death of the American culture), and so on. It’s almost as though liberals have come to the conclusion that we have already lost the war and just want to hurry up and get it over with.

This is just my opinion, based on posts I’ve read from liberals here and elsewhere.

Posted by: Chris at September 19, 2006 9:50 PM
Comment #182683

Chris, you need to get a grip and stop living in fear.Everytime you get a heart attack when somebody says “boo” to you,the terrorists are winning.And that is unAmerican as you can get.

Posted by: john doe at September 19, 2006 9:56 PM
Comment #182684

Do you people read only the words you want to read or what? The point is that another terrorist attack is a credible threat. How you see these words and whine about fear when its reality shows your ignorance.

Posted by: H at September 19, 2006 9:57 PM
Comment #182686

What’s this? We give up our rights to privacy, and freedom of movement without inspection, and Republicans still have no faith in their government to protect them against the al_Queda threat?

Welcome to liberal view of things you nervous conservatives.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 19, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #182687

H,
you too need to get a grip.Look at the headline of this post and tell me Chris is not scared senseless.I wonder if he ever leaves his bombshelter.

That said,tell me we are safer now when we as a people are so propagandaized we are ready to give up what makes us America just for a temporary sense of stability.George Washington must be doing 360 degree turns in his grave.

Posted by: john doe at September 19, 2006 10:03 PM
Comment #182688

Chris,

I stated in the original post that the report was probably just another propoganda piece. The source didn’t matter to me. What concerned me was whether another massive attack would finally unite us.

OK, so you were doing a hypothetical, as I expressed above. While you might not care about your sources, your readers do. Don’t be surprised, then, when readers respond when it appears that the premise of your article is something so ridiculous.

I’ve heard opinion makers on the radio and TV speculate that it will take nothing less than another 9/11 to unite us against the jihadists (or “Islamic extremists” or “terrorists” or “Islamofascists”) who want to kill us.

Personally, I reject that notion. The country was almost completely united after 9/11 to stop them. What split the country apart was the cynical misuse by the President of that unity to launch an unrelated war.

We’re united against those that attacked us. We’re not united on unrelated wars.

But, in my opinion, liberals are liberals first and foremost.

And by that, you use the word “liberal” as an insult.

If you want the country to be united, don’t foment division through your own words. It’s really that simple.

Here’s a simple test for you: when you’re about to write something, think about how it would sound coming from Michael Savage. If it wouldn’t sound out of place, then what you are planning to say is divisive.

Maybe it’s because liberals are infused with what Freud described as the Thanatos - the drive to die.

That’s patentaly ridiculous.

Just look at some liberal pet causes: Abortion, euthanasia, decriminalization of drugs, redefinition (i.e., “death”) of marriage, open borders (i.e., death of the American culture), and so on.

So, you’re a spin artist, too? How about conservatives and the death penalty? How about conservatives and the love of having lethal weapons in the home? How about conservatives and the refusal to make sure that all Americans have adequate healthcare? You’re making a ridiculous argument that can be thrown back at you just as easily.

And support of gay marriage has nothing to do with death.

It’s almost as though liberals have come to the conclusion that we have already lost the war and just want to hurry up and get it over with.

No, it’s that you’ve listened too much to the words of those who poison you to hate half of your fellow Americans.

We don’t want death or have a drive to die any more than you do. However, you for some reason have a huge drive to split the country apart.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 19, 2006 10:04 PM
Comment #182690

Jeff -

You said:

Try rush now there’s some fine reporting. So your saying all the msm is wrong maybe they are not wrong but better informed.

Yeah, Rush is definitely biased. Even so, I listen to conservative Talk Radio quite a bit. Rush, Bill, Monica (Crowley) … I listen to all of them. They’re a lot more entertaining than the sitcoms and “reality” shows on TV. Besides, I like hearing that America is a great country, that we are a great and noble people who have done more good for more people than all nations combined, past and present. I like listening to stories about our brave soldiers taking the fight to the enemy over there so I don’t have to defend my family over here. I want to hear someone tell me that our ultimate victory is certain, as long as we stick together.

I don’t get any of that by watching or reading anything that the mainstream media puts out there.

Besides, all the media outlets have access to the same facts. They just interpret the facts differently. There are no news reporters anymore; they’re news interpreters.

Posted by: Chris at September 19, 2006 10:12 PM
Comment #182692

Chris,
I too share your dreams and hopes.I too support our troops as much as you do.Only difference is, I refuse to be used as a pawn for some election.Any election.

Posted by: john doe at September 19, 2006 10:16 PM
Comment #182693
I like listening to stories about our brave soldiers taking the fight to the enemy over there so I don’t have to defend my family over here. I want to hear someone tell me that our ultimate victory is certain, as long as we stick together.

If you had to chose between being told what you wanted to hear, and being told the truth, which would you chose?

Have you already made your choice?

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 19, 2006 10:21 PM
Comment #182694

Funny stuff. Chris, now you must realize how the Pope felt when he was so outlandishly misinterpreted.

The reason you’re encountering these irrelevant attacks on your source and equally irrelevant changes of subject is that you’ve alluded to the serious possibility (no, probability) that we will be attacked again just as we have been in the past.

Only by denying that essential truth—for as long as it’s possible to still deny it—can we delay facing reality and do what needs to be done.

Posted by: Pilsner at September 19, 2006 10:21 PM
Comment #182696

Pilsner

Which is?

Posted by: mark at September 19, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #182698

Pilsner,Pilsner,Pilsner.

Dont believe everything you read.A previous poster had a link about this tabloid plagiarizing material from The Onion.That should calm you down.

Posted by: john doe at September 19, 2006 10:31 PM
Comment #182699

Americans are so wrapped up in their creature comforts and SUVs that an American Hiroshima will only serve to open one eye. It’ll take an American Nagasaki to open the other.

One plane into the first of the twin towers got us looking. It took a second to get us moving.

May the good Lord help us in the war on terror. Liberal Democrats certainly won’t.

Posted by: Swampfox at September 19, 2006 10:32 PM
Comment #182700

Swampfox,
May the lord deliver us from the fear that paralyzes our minds and blinds us to reason.

Posted by: john doe at September 19, 2006 10:35 PM
Comment #182701
May the good Lord help us in the war on terror. Liberal Democrats certainly won’t.

Statements like this always crack me up: contrary to all history and evidence, devoid of truth or logic. However, it’s right in line with the divisive partisanship of the day, so it gets said with impunity and no forethought.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 19, 2006 10:36 PM
Comment #182702

It doesn’t matter what the tabloid says or for that matter that the tabloid even exists. Who cares about this tabloid?

If you think that this questionable tabloid is the only reason to believe that there are murderous Islamists out there planning destruction, then you must live in a cave.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at September 19, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #182703

Chris, I guess I have to remind you that fifty years of liberalism won WWII, and saw things through to the end of the Cold War. We dominated the legislature the whole time, but lo and Behold, America did not become a radioactive cinder. Puzzling if you take things from the far right’s perspective, but not if you consider the fact that Liberals and Democrats actually care about keeping this country safe.

Things can get screwed up, and I guess that’s what the legacy of Vietnam (which you folks misunderstood) did to us. We let the arbitrary politics of McCarthyism push us into trying to prove what great defenders of the realm we were by preventing the next “China”- the next fall of a colonially weakened Easter power to Communist guerillas. Folks did not pay attention to factioning between the Soviets and the Chinese, the Chinese and the Vietnamese, and so misreading it, they failed to adjust the solutions to the problem.

Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. In this case, pushed by a panicked, Johnny-come-lately approach to counterterrorism, the conservatives of this country are scrambling to apply their rogue state strategies (really a misapplication of Cold War strategies themselves) to the new threat. You can even hear the tired old “commie” name cutting under the hateful claims that the Democrats are sympathetic with that enemy, too.

Funny thing about China is that there, too, they misinterpreted understanding of the Chinese motivations and prediction of their actions for sympathy and contamination.

All this bullshit about questioning sympathies is doing in the wake of traumatic and shocking events is weakening America. We’re better at wounding ourselves than our enemies are.

Years of being protected by oceans and dominance over the hemisphere has made us all too soft on defense- And I mean defense, not merely euphemized name we have for our department of war. We cannot simply rely on external methods for protection, regardless of how successful we can be in some war. It only took 19 of them to kill 3000 of us. What war, even a war of cold-blooded extermination, can keep us entirely safe from that? We could pull down Mecca and Medina around their ears, turn the Empty Quarter into a glass parking lot, and we still could not prevent every attack.

We have to have defensive measures at home. We might not stop every attack (in fact, it’s far too much to expect) but we can sure make it so difficult and so fruitless for the most part that only the luckiest get through.

If they get through now, it’s because people haven’t had their eye on the ball. This President has been lead by fringe philosophies down the garden trail, and is now trying to destroy al-Qaeda by provoking them towards willing attrition,or so the story goes. I think the flypaper strategy is better termed the fig-leaf strategy, since its hiding the embarassing parts of this administrations screwup on the strategy.

The truth is, Iraq has been better for buffering losses for al-Qaeda, both in support and manpower, than it has been in reducing them.

Meanwhile, all the attention lavished on Iraq, in lieu of Central Asia and our own shores, has allowed vulnerabilities to remain. What successful methods we do have, al-Qaeda is learning to circumvent.

If they have now decided to direct new attacks here, then we are truly in a bad spot. I think sort of thing will be inevitable sooner or later, and we should have spent more time putting up barriers to these people.

So what is it now? More escalation in the Middle East? More attempts to paper over screw-ups in Iraq? Or do we, however belatedly, start getting back on track here.

So Chris, what’s your plan, having supported an administration that’s left so much undone here, where we need the protection the most?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 19, 2006 10:39 PM
Comment #182708

Chris,
The whole argument about fighting them over there so we wont fight them over here has always struck me as inadequate and rather Juvenile.Its what you tell your little kid “eat your vegetables or the bogeyman will come for you.”

If I was to extend that logic I would reason like this:Why dont we open a jewelry shop with no security system so we can lure the criminals in so we can arrest them here instead of out in the street?That way we dont have have to go too far to catch them.

Totally boggles the mind that anybody actually believes this.

Posted by: john doe at September 19, 2006 10:54 PM
Comment #182710

Lawnboy -

You said:

Don’t be surprised, then, when readers respond when it appears that the premise of your article is something so ridiculous.

Well, I did state that it was probably propoganda. Maybe you should read more carefully. Just a suggestion.

What split the country apart was the cynical misuse by the President of that unity to launch an unrelated war.

Hitler said something about the Big Lie being more convincing than the Small Lie to the masses. The Big Lie you are parroting here is that Bush lied about WMDs and singlehandedly launched a war without Congressional approval using false and misleading information. In my opinion, you are being disingenuous when you make statements like that. You know very well that leaders of Congress had access to the very same intelligence reports as the Bush Administration. For crying out loud, does this have to be rehashed over and over again?

And by that, you use the word “liberal” as an insult.

All I said was a liberal is a liberal first and foremost. That’s my opinion, based on the posts I’ve read from liberals here and elsewhere. No offense intended.

How about conservatives and the death penalty?

Do I think certain convicted criminals (e.g., serial killers, child molesters) should die? Yes. I consider them a threat to my family’s well-being. And as long as they live, they continue to remain a threat. Convicted murderers and child molesters get paroled (and pardoned) all the time. I’m more concerned with the life of my children than the life of a convicted murderer or child molester. The way I see it, the death penalty is the one surefire method that society uses to protect the lives of its citizens.

How about conservatives and the refusal to make sure that all Americans have adequate healthcare?

I have health care. My family has health care. My mother-in-law is covered. So is my sister-in-law. Everyone I know has health care. Our school district provides free health care to anyone that wants or needs it. You should see the license plates from Mexico in the parking lot. We give free health care to anyone who wants it. I don’t know what you’re talking about!

And support of gay marriage has nothing to do with death.

Maybe it was a bit of a stretch, but I do believe that redefining marriage as anything other than the union between a man and a woman will degregate and ultimately destroy (“kill”) the institution altogether. Again, just my opinion.

No, it’s that you’ve listened too much to the words of those who poison you to hate half of your fellow Americans.

I don’t hate half of America. I don’t hate anyone. Well, maybe my sister. But that’s neither here nor there.

Posted by: Chris at September 19, 2006 11:01 PM
Comment #182713
Well, I did state that it was probably propoganda. Maybe you should read more carefully. Just a suggestion.

True, but I, like most readers, take cues from the title. The title of this little piece is American Hiroshima Attack “Imminent”; Muslims Ordered to Leave. That’s a claim. That’s not a hypothetical.

So, you spent 60% of the post claiming something you don’t know to be true, and then the rest hypothesizing whether liberals would still suck. And you wonder why you got a negative reaction?

Maybe you should write more carefully. Just a suggestion.

Hitler said something about the Big Lie being more convincing than the Small Lie to the masses.

Did you have to invoke Godwin’s Law already? You weren’t losing that badly.

The Big Lie you are parroting here is that Bush lied about WMDs and singlehandedly launched a war without Congressional approval using false and misleading information.

I never said anything about Bush lying. Yet another straw man you beat down instead of addressing the real argument.

Maybe you should consider your words more carefully. Just a suggestion.

I don’t know what you’re talking about!

Then I suggest you get outside your house and learn about the millions of Americans that don’t have healthcare. Congrats that you’re one of the lucky ones. For the record, I am, too.

Maybe it was a bit of a stretch…Again, just my opinion.

Not just a stretch or an opinion, it’s bad spin. You chose to equate agreeing with you to life and disagreeing with you death, so you twist completely irrelevant topics to the idea while ignoring the fact that the charge can be applied to you equally as well.

Is that Big Lie or a Small Lie?

Maybe you should use logic more carefully. Just a suggestion.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 19, 2006 11:12 PM
Comment #182714

Chris,
You seem rather thin skinned.Politics can be be brutal.You take it too personal you will be beat to the ground.So leave your sister out of this.She dont deserve it.

Posted by: john doe at September 19, 2006 11:16 PM
Comment #182716

Lawnboy -

You said:

If you had to chose between being told what you wanted to hear, and being told the truth, which would you chose?

That’s the whole point. I don’t have a choice. I don’t know whether or not what I read in the newspaper in true or not. I take it with a grain of salt. Might be true, might not. It’s the same for everything on TV. Might be true, might not. Same facts, different interpretations.

But I do think that the truth is like the ringing of a bell. Truth has a certain ring to it. When I hear something that coincides with a core belief (e.g., America is a force for good in the world; our leaders act in our best interest; there is evil in the world), I tend to believe it. That’s human nature. I think we all do that.

Posted by: Chris at September 19, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #182717

john doe -

I was just trying to inject a little humor with the sister comment.

Posted by: Chris at September 19, 2006 11:20 PM
Comment #182718

So, fifty years of liberalism has led to this, Chris? Hmmm. Which party held the white house and congress through the Second World War?
In any event, I am one democrat who is sick and tired of republican whining. Quit worrying about what the big mean old liberals are doing, and, either “s*** or get off the pot” in Iraq!
If I could get the Prez to do what I would want him to do, he would be on t.v. tomorrow night telling the world that if any islamofascists detonate a nuclear device on American soil that the skies over Tehran and Damascus and Mecca would be positively dark with B-1’s and B-52’s.
Yes, I really am a democrat, but I am the kind who wouldn’t wince a bit slaughtering them by the millions in their middle east rat holes for the insolence of another attack on the good ole U.S. of A.
And quit worrying about two-bit Canadian rags!

Posted by: Jeff at September 19, 2006 11:25 PM
Comment #182720

Chris,
You are forgiven.Most people would have said mother-in-law.

You say you dont have a choice.You do.And the choice is not to believe everything THEY tell you.Remember the greatest nation in human existence was fooled in to a war on a foundation of wishful thinking.You cant afford to put anything past this mob running the Whitehouse.

Just because you are paranoid doesnt mean they are not out to get you.

Posted by: john doe at September 19, 2006 11:27 PM
Comment #182721

Chris,
Uniting when under attack is normal. It is the “rally round the flag” effect; we saw it after 9/11, and it persisted until the administration went into Iraq.

On a side note, Iran would certainly do the same if we attacked their facilities. Their democratic infrastructure will eventually lead to the slide of the conservative mullahs into irrelevancy; but an attack would strengthen the hand of the mullahs, as people would rally to their side. In any event, Iran is a decade or more from developing nukes, so there is no reason to address that today with violence.

I would estimate the chances of a nuclear attack on America by terrorists as negligible.

For example, did you know nuclear weapons have a shelf life? The USSR stopped producing backpack nukes over 15 years ago. The expiration date on any existing backpack nukes from the USSR makes them highly unreliable. Furthermore, no existing nation would willingly provide nuclear weapons to terrorists. Nuclear detonations have distinctive signatures, and their national origins can be traced from samples taken from the fallout. Any nation would instantly lose the ability to use its nuclear arsenal, and perhaps risk utter annihilation, if it were traced to a terrorist detonation of a nuclear weapon.

In addition, nuclear weapons come with many, many safeties. Obtaining a weapon is not enough, not even close. There is much, much more involved before the bomb will go “boom,” and there is no way terrorists would be able to put together everything needed to successfully detonate one.

So rest easy.

Want to worry about a potentially catastrophic problem? Look into Global Warming. Terrorism is not enough of a problem to warrant being the focus of foreign policy. I know, it is exciting, we were attacked in 2001, and there are small numbers of Christians and Muslims agitating for crusade and jihad. Yes, terrorism is a problem, but it is one for law enforcement and intelligence organizations, & it requires international cooperation. Cooler heads should overrule the religious crazies abroad & at home.

The vast majority of us really, really need to pay attention to more important matters.

Posted by: phx8 at September 19, 2006 11:28 PM
Comment #182723

“When I hear something that coincides with a core belief (e.g., America is a force for good in the world; our leaders act in our best interest; there is evil in the world), I tend to believe it.”

George Bush is a duplicitous elitist ideologue whose commitment to brush-clearing is greater than his sworn promise to uphold and protect the Constitution.


Yeah… I see what you mean. That does have a ring of authenticity to it.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 19, 2006 11:29 PM
Comment #182743

Crazy Carl-
This is the method that the leaders of the Republican Party have of dealing with the threats facing us:

1)Boast that you could do better than any Democrat.

2)Imply that the Democrats would betray everybody given the chance.

3)Screw up, procrastinate, head off towards some ideological policy dead end

4)Blame the Democrats for all the problems


The charm of all this, is that you hardly need to take responsibility for your own actions.

The problem with this is, having not taken responsibility for your own actions, you also haven’t properly dealt with the problems, and things just get worse.

The true grown-up way to deal with these things is to concede that you’re wrong, start fixing things, or do both at once. The not so grown-up way is to continue the arrogant posture while sulking about the loss of control.

What the Republicans lack, at least right now, is the will to break from safe dogma, safe catchphrases, and safe methods of intimidating and scaring voters into to supporting you.

It is only with that will that a party or a leader can unite the country, enact real reforms, and deal with the problems of this nation in a wise and equitable fashion.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 20, 2006 1:14 AM
Comment #182749

Chris said: “But I do think that the truth is like the ringing of a bell. Truth has a certain ring to it. When I hear something that coincides with a core belief (e.g., America is a force for good in the world; our leaders act in our best interest; there is evil in the world), I tend to believe it. That’s human nature. I think we all do that.”

WOW! What a blatant and honest admission from a Republican. You see, many liberals would have said something very similar but, their version would be: “When I hear something that coincides with the evidence, I tend to believe it.”

This is one of the general and core differences between liberals and conservatives, which is why Republicans have the Fundamentalist Right Evangelical Christians on their side, and Democrats have Teachers Unions and Academics on theirs, in general.

I suspect there is something organic about how the brain processes information and tests it that determines whether a person will become a Democrat or Republican, if they ever consciously weigh the decision at all.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 20, 2006 1:31 AM
Comment #182757

Chris,

Besides, I like hearing that America is a great country, that we are a great and noble people who have done more good for more people than all nations combined, past and present. I like listening to stories about our brave soldiers taking the fight to the enemy over there so I don’t have to defend my family over here. I want to hear someone tell me that our ultimate victory is certain, as long as we stick together.

Go to your next movie theater then. Or read Bush press releases.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 20, 2006 6:01 AM
Comment #182774
Five years later, our borders are still wide open. We don’t have the stomach for war anymore. Fifty years of liberalism has stripped us of our ability to defend ourselves. We are divided, distracted, and disillusioned; self-absorbed, sex-obsessed, and Godless. A veritable liberal Nirvana.

Yes, wide-open borders and ports is a farce, while our telephones are tapped, and American citizens are spied on.

Yes, we are divided, distracted, disillusioned, and self-absorbed.

But, you say we are Godless?

No, that doesn’t seem the case at all. Perhaps you mistake religious tolerance for Godlessness?

Besides, what is wrong with that anyway (i.e. being agnostic or athiest)? Your statement reveals your bias and implies that you think there is something wrong with that. So, what would be your remedy for that Godlessness? What do you think should be done about that?

So, you call the U.S. “A veritable liberal Nirvana”?

No, that is not the problem. That sounds as if you are saying we need less liberals? Or, perhaps you are saying that we need more conservatives?. Again, your statement reveals your bias. What would be your solution for this so called “A veritable liberal Nirvana”?

Yes, there is massive distractions and disillusionment, and the bias of the statements reveal part of the problem. Intolerance, and the belief that there is something wrong if people don’t share the same religious belief.

The fact is, what we need most is less corruption and incompetence within government, and that goes for BOTH political parties, both conservatives and liberals, and all irresponsible incumbent politicians.

Yes, the people are divided. They are divided by partisan warfare (i.e. nonsensical name-calling, labeling some as liberal or conservative, etc.), and the irresponsible incumbent politicians that fuel it, and some voters that are all too fond of wallowing in it. Partisan warfare is the distraction of this era. Before, it used to be race, religion, gender, etc. Now it is partisan warfare. It is merely a tool (a detractor) used to divide and distract, so that a majority can never form to oust those that manipulate and use others for their own self-gain.

But, there will come a time when voters grow wise and grow tired of that partisan warfare crap, and start voting irresponsible incumbents out of their cu$hy seats of abused power, regardless of party. We’ll probably see some of that in 2006, but much more in 2008 as grid-lock sets in (i.e. a slightly Democrat congress and an Republicasn executive branch), and irresponsible incumbent politicians let our pressing problems grow in number and severity.

As for the “imminent attack”, many have been saying that for years. “Imminent” implies “soon”. Who knows, since the ports and borders are wide-open, and there is little or nothing to stop terrorists from walking right across the border and setting up shop? How is tapping telephones and spying on American citizens going to prevent that? The hypocrisy is wire-tapping, but allowing wide-open ports and borders is so blatant, it defies logic. Ohhhh … yeah, that’s right. Neither party wants to enforce the existing laws, because they both want votes and cheap labor (an under-paid under-class to exploit). Well, polls show most voters want the existing laws enforced, and hopefully, voters will express their unhappiness about their government ignoring those laws and the voters, when they go to vote in the coming elections in 2006 and 2008.

If you don’t like what your government is doing, don’t be fooled by irresponsible incumbent politicians that want voters to think it is all the fault of only the Republicans or Democrats.

It is both of them.

And continually re-electing the very same irresponsible incumbent politicians that ignore the laws and the voters will only make it worse, and voters will only have themselves to thank for it, since voters have the one simple, common-sense, logical, just, non-partisan, inexpensive, peaceful, and responsible thing right under their very own noses to restore a balance of power (not merely shift it or strip government of all power to accomplish anything): Their vote.

  • Stop Repeat Offenders.
  • Don’t Re-Elect Irresponsible, Bought-and-Paid-for Incumbent Politicians !
Posted by: d.a.n at September 20, 2006 9:23 AM
Comment #182792

Let’s see, you say fifty years of liberalism (what happened to the Nixon, Reagan/Bush years?) has stripped us of our ability to defend ourselves. Our military doesn’t seem to be having a problem with doing its job, but the current administration under mans and under equips them.

Our borders have always been “open” (lots of untrackable wilderness). Yet five years later after a tragic event that shows that we must close the borders, The administration that runs the entire decision making end of the government (executive and congress) has failed to do so.

So… Who is failing to defend the US?

Posted by: GMDuggan at September 20, 2006 10:55 AM
Comment #182794

The solution to dealing with terrorism and terrorist threats, at least for ordinary Americans, is the same as the how we successfully deal with trolls -

ignore them. Just go about your day.

If you live in fear of terrorism, you are:

1) absorbing too much hysterical/fear-mongering media and
2) doing EXACTLY what Osama Bin Laden wants - being terrorized.

The targets of terrorism are not the people who are attacked - they are part of the attack. The targets are the living - those who will forever live in fear of the next attack.

OBL promised to bleed our economy to its ruin - our misadventure in Iraq, claimed by the GOP as part of the war on terror, is helping that along.

If you want to fight terrorism in your own special way:

- think
- use reason
- understand that driving is almost 10,000% more dangerous than terrorism
- remember that their goal is our fear.

And a sarcastic thank you to Canada Free Press for helping to inflict terrorism on us.

Posted by: CPAdams at September 20, 2006 10:58 AM
Comment #182801

I find it funny that the causes of most the problems with this country are evident in all your posts. Unforunately all you can do is argue while the country falls down around your head. It’s the Dems fault; it’s the Reps fault. It’s the Libs fault; it’s the Cons fault. Whine, whine, sob, sob. It’s the SSDD. I’m sure the Dems don’t want to claim that their party is perfect. The same with the Reps. Is anyone genuinely interested in the welfare of this country? Who will do something about it? None of you because all of your time is spent bitching and not doing. You should all be politicians. We should all look deep at the problems with our world, country, states and homes. What are the solutions? I don’t know them all but I do know we better wake up and realize that we do not live in the Beaver Cleaver world of yesterday. Its time to adjust our ways of thinking. Denial of our problems at this point will lead to the certain destruction of all we hold dear. Our constitution was not intended to be a stagnant pool, but an ever flowing dynamic stream thats able to adjust to current situations. Remember, every politician in office screws up and sells out. It doesnt matter to what party one belongs. Lets all attemt to find real solutions to our problems and stop creating new ones. Our future is still in our hands.

Posted by: DrKingJD at September 20, 2006 11:31 AM
Comment #182805

Stephen Daugherty -

You pointed out that liberals were in charge during WWII, which is true enough, but equating the liberalism of FDR with the liberalism of John Kerry or Howard Dean is downright silly. Liberalism has evolved (or devolved) over the years into something FDR wouldn’t recognize.

You implied that if another attack happens, it will be the fault of the Bush Administration for not keeping their collective “eye on the ball.” How can we prevent attacks if democrats in Congress won’t permit surveillance of international phone calls to suspected terrorists and their supporters?

Posted by: Chris at September 20, 2006 11:36 AM
Comment #182806
democrats in Congress won’t permit surveillance of international phone calls to suspected terrorists and their supporters?

Yet another lie from Chris.

The Democratic proposals are not to prevent suveillance of international phone calls to suspected terrorists and their supporters - it’s to do such surveillance within the law. The law exists to allow the President to do what he wants, he just has to allow for some judicial oversight.

Unfortunately, the President thinks that he’s above oversight, and that he should be able to break laws he doesn’t like.

Also unfortunately, people like you have swallowed his spin that the only options are either protecting American exactly how he wants to do it, or not protect America at all. It’s a false choice.

There are many other ways of protecting America besides the way Bush wants. That we as citizens expect our President to care about the law and Constitution does not mean he can’t do anything.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 20, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #182815

I love how this post exposes the true colors of liberals in hi-def. There’s no concern at all that the Canadian Press may have happened on some terrorist intelligence, just Bush-Republican-America bashing.

Oh, and then there’s the occasional “Most of the 2 billion Muslims are moderate, so what’s the worry you fear mongerers?” Nice security strategy!

Classic Liberal “Hate America, Protect Everyone Else”. Yeah, I really want you all in charge of this country.

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 20, 2006 12:12 PM
Comment #182816

David Remer -

You said:

WOW! What a blatant and honest admission from a Republican. You see, many liberals would have said something very similar but, their version would be: “When I hear something that coincides with the evidence, I tend to believe it.”

Evidence like the Bill Burkett letter? Evidence (actually just accusations) that Karl Rove leaked Valerie Plame’s so-called “secret identity” to a journalist? Evidence that ballots were tampered with in Florida during the 2000 election? Evidence that Bush engineered the Katrina disaster to kill as many Black Americans as possible? Evidence that Bush is responsible for global warming? Evidence that Bush invaded Iraq for oil? Is that the kind of evidence you’re talking about, David?

Why are you so angry, David? Why does it fill you with seething rage when someone freely admits to framing his reality on a foundation of certain core beliefs and principles? Don’t get me wrong - I’m no lemming. If a liberal could come up with a solution to a problem - ANY problem - that actually worked, I’d go along with it. But every liberal social engineering experiment foisted upon the American people has been disastrous, resulting in a seemingly endless cycle of dependency and despair.

Besides, it seems to me you’ve already made up your mind about Bush and his Administration. No presentation of evidence would sway your opinion of him or his policies.

Posted by: Chris at September 20, 2006 12:13 PM
Comment #182820

Ken,

What on earth are you talking about?

Known rumormongerers are mongering rumors, and it exposes true colors that liberals point out wht’s happening?

What true colors? That we’re more concerned with real threats than with rumors? That facts and evidence matter to us? What exactly are these colors?

And no one here has argued from the perspective of “Most of the 2 billion Muslims are moderate…”, so what are you talking about?

Once again, you’ve done nothing but invent straw men and slam them down. We’ve said nothing at all like “Hate America, Protect Everyone Else.”

If you have to resort to making up out of thin air reasons not to trust us in leadership, then you have a very, very weak argument indeed.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 20, 2006 12:21 PM
Comment #182826

Tim Crow -

You said:

George Bush is a duplicitous elitist ideologue whose commitment to brush-clearing is greater than his sworn promise to uphold and protect the Constitution.

Yeah… I see what you mean. That does have a ring of authenticity to it.

It appears that you have some preconceived notions about President Bush that may not be based on facts or evidence. This is contrary to what Mr. Remer stated here; namely, that liberals base their conclusions on evidence.

Posted by: Chris at September 20, 2006 12:31 PM
Comment #182827

Just read the transcript from Iranian president’s rants at UN yesterday. Pay particular attention to last couple of paragraphs. He says something about the perfect human appearing (12th immam) within 2 years in Iran. And this jackass is close to getting nukes!

Yikes!!! Something’s gotta be done fast. I’m guessing Israel will do the heavy lifting—but we’ll have their backs 100%

Posted by: nikkolai at September 20, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #182833

nikkolai,

this jackass is close to getting nukes!

Yikes!!! Something’s gotta be done fast. I’m guessing Israel will do the heavy lifting—but we’ll have their backs 100%

I will bet Iran is closer to “get” nukes from sky than from its own nuclear program…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 20, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #182850

Phillippe: I sure hope it doesn’t come to that, either. Taking out the dictatorship would be preferable by non-nuclear means. Too many good people there.

Posted by: nikkolai at September 20, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #182857

Since when did Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Venezuelan Leader Hugo Chavez and the liberal democrats use the same speech writer?

Posted by: william at September 20, 2006 1:59 PM
Comment #182860

They DO sound eerily similar, don’t they. One common bond is their unchecked, howling moonbat-madness-inspired BDS.

Posted by: nikkolai at September 20, 2006 2:02 PM
Comment #182861

They’ve trotted that dog out for the last three election cycles, and it’s getting mangy.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at September 20, 2006 2:03 PM
Comment #182864

Chris

Liberal ideas are at the core of this country. Remember, the original conservatives wanted to stay tied to England and live under a monarchy. The unprecedented, sustained, and widespread prosperity brought about by the New Deal (and currently being dismantled by the present occupants of the Whitehouse and Congress) was a liberal idea. I could go on and on, but there is a reason we are called a liberal democracy. Give me one successful conservative idea that’s stood the test of time (e.g., over a half century like the New Deal).

Posted by: Mental Wimp at September 20, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #182866

DrKingD,

I believe you are correct about that for the most part. There are a very few (not nearly enough) that are doing something, every day to help educate voters, which is what is needed most.

Until enough voters are enlightened, they will keep re-electing corrupt, irresponsible incumbent politicians that care more about their own self-gain and securing their cu$hy, coveted seats of abused power than they care about the nation.

The voters ought to be smart enough to draw the correlation between 90% re-election rates and the nation’s worsening problems.

Notice the graph below.

There’s something odd about it. The Republicans and Democrats have have had almost an even number of seats for the last decade. So, you can’t blame the nation’s problems on one party. Of course, each party wants voters to do exactly that, which is why politicians fuel the partisan warfare. But that merely lets irresponsible incumbent politicians of both parties continue to take turns being the “In-Party” and enjoy a 90% re-election rate.

So, voter education is needed. Voters need to stop being seduced into wallowing in the petty partisan warfare. That is the grand distraction from the fact that politicians are failing miserably.

Voters had better start doing something about it soon too, because the way things are going, if Americans don’t want to vote, there are plenty of illegal aliens that will be happy to vote in their place. With elections as close as some have been, it is no laughing matter, and illegal aliens like the incumbent politicians, because most of them are for giving them amnesty (again), while the American citizens continue to pick up the bill (about $70 billion per year in net losses).

Posted by: d.a.n at September 20, 2006 2:14 PM
Comment #182874

America is Godless. The likes of Michael Newdow, who disregard their child’s religion in order to further their own mindless cause is proof of that. For thos of you who don’t recognize the name Michael Newdow, he is the one suing to get the phrase “under God” removed from the pledge of allegiance, and “in God we trust” removed from our currency. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH US AS AMERICANS TODAT THAT THIS SEEMS ACCEPTABLE??? If this nation being “under God offends you, get the $%#@ out and live somewhere else. I don’t grant the Canada free press credibility as a source, but I do believe that it is possible for America to get hit again. Why? Because limp-wristed liberals can’t stomach torturing these agents of no country for vital information. The geneva convention does not protect terroists. It only protects designated soliders fighting for a designated country. They worry that we might catch a bribe they are taking over the phone with wiretaps, so it’s a violation of privacy, even though the program has been working for some time now. Liberals like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton can’t / won’t make up their mind where they stand on the war on terror. I couldn’t be more proud that Geroge Bush has the cajones to stand up for what he believes in, despite pressure from intellectually stunted liberals. They are so obsessed with hating George Bush, that they would sacrafice the country’s security just to achieve contrived political points.

Posted by: Ryan at September 20, 2006 2:42 PM
Comment #182905

Chris-
I think you idealize the Liberals of old fairly disingenously. You would call their economic policies communism at the drop of a hat. They created the UN, you would destroy that in the blink of an eye if you could. Never mind the big government and entitlements.

You would have likely blamed him for losing Eastern Europe, likely would have said that he caved in to Stalin at Yalta.

In some ways, we’re far more socially liberal than our forebears. I say “we”, including you, because socially speaking, many Conservatives today behave in ways that would have given their forebears conniptions. They would absolutely love how much the Right has been taken over by religious interests and how it’s managed to outspend and outliberal the liberals.

You would have fricking hated them. But you believe, mentioning them, we have to put our hats over our hearts and hesitate to gainsay you on your foreign policy.

The thing you have to understand is that your position is not theirs. FDR did not send America into WW2 pre-emptively. He put pressure on the Japanese, the Japanese made the mistake of attacking us, and he sent us to war in defense of our country. Defense.

As for phonetaps, we have no problem with surveillance of foreign nationals without warrants, nor of American Citizens with them. The thing is, though, if you have enough evidence to consider somebody a possible terrorist, you often have sufficient evidence to get taps on them. The FISA court tends to be very generous on this front. Your concern is built on false premises. We just prefer, oddly enough, a government that can’t spy on Americans without probable cause.

On the subject of the Bill Burkett letter, it was bad, but here’s what you have to understand: it only purported to prove that Bush defied a direct order to skip out on his Physical. Other, authenticated evidence confirmed that he did not attend enough drills, nor make up the ones he missed in a timely fashion.

On the subject of the Florida Ballots, Bush’s aggressive tactics (like having John Bolton walk into the middle of a polling place doing a count and announcing the count was over; and the infamous Brook Brothers Riot, with its high campaign worker quotient) have contributed to the sense that Bush’s election victory was not entirely on the up and up. After all, why would a real winner need such intimidation tactics?

On the subject of Karl Rove? First, Chris Cooper has him leaking the news of Valerie Wilson’s ID to him before it was public. It also states that her identity was both a Classified Secret AND not known before the leak to those who weren’t supposed to know. If you want to dispute the special prosecutor on this, feel welcome to. We were right that the leaker was close to the President, Right that Rove leaked, right that the Administration has been reckless with classified information, while useing it for political benefit, just wrong that Rove was the first leaker, wrong that he was the first to leak it to Novak.

On the Katrina front, we can be quite sure that he screwed things up, and that he took far too long to get people out of that place, once it became clear how bad things had become.

On the Global Warming front, he’s going to have his share of responsibility for not imposing more strict fuel efficiency standards. His administration has fought Global Warming science bitterly on many fronts, and obstructed policy designed to reduce our contribution to it.

It seems there’s very little evidence, no matter how substantial or striking, that could convince you of the problems of this administration are more than just failed PR battles with the Democrats. The time has come to wake up to the lack of good leadership in the White House, and to stop looking for opportunities to deny the very real problems of it.

Ken Strong-
We’re concerned, if its true. Unfortunately, we’re also concerned because we know how far behind Bush has fallen on this job. The 9/11 commission has given this administration uniformly bad grades on Homeland Security. It has not sought to even fix up the holes in security that got us hit the last time.

You somehow believe we have no interest in protecting this country, so you discount anything we say about fighting the terrorists.

Then you claim we don’t care about fighting for this country, against the terrorists, against those who would do it harm.

That is the kind of rhetorical runaround you folks give us while you fail to improve the security situation of this country.

How is it that you guys can ask for extraordinary powers, having not used the already existing ones to their furthest extent?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 20, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #182925

“If I was to extend that logic I would reason like this:Why dont we open a jewelry shop with no security system so we can lure the criminals in so we can arrest them here instead of out in the street?That way we dont have have to go too far to catch them.”

Don’t they already do this by having undercover sting operations?

Posted by: Jay at September 20, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #182932

Ill take the bush/rove playbook over the Clinton/Soros playbook anyday.

The REAL Jeff

Posted by: Jeff at September 20, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #182935

Chris:

“It appears that you have some preconceived notions about President Bush that may not be based on facts or evidence. “

Yeah…along with over sixty percent of other Americans. They didn’t decide about Mr Bush using evidence, behavior, failed policies, signing statements, torture. They just got up one day, looked in the mirror, and said, “You know, I not very keen on George anymore. Alert the media.”

“This is contrary to what Mr. Remer stated here; namely, that liberals base their conclusions on evidence.”

I’m not here to validate Mr. Remer’s statements about liberals, as I’m not a liberal. I’m left of liberal. I am the far left wing of American politics, in short, the Right’s worst nightmare.

Unlike liberals, who think they can work within the ‘system’ using reason, law and their winning personalities to convince the populace to vote for them, I agree with the far Right—do what’s necessary. I think we ought to junk the “feel-good” dialogue, the pretense of government, the charade of laws made by and for the corporatocracy, and get to the serious business of civil war. It won’t necessarily make things any better—but it sure will thin the herd of some of the more unctious ‘patriots’ we’re putting up with now. And if capitalism tanks, so much the better.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 20, 2006 7:18 PM
Comment #182954

A FAR LEFT LIBERAL ADVOCATING CIVIL WAR IN HIS OWN COUNTRY …PART OF THE BLAME AMERICA FIRST / SELF-LOATHING AMERICAN GENERALS IF I EVER HEARD ONE.

Take note liberals, Tim Crow represents the purity of your political state.

(And how will the far left fight a civil war all doped up on anti-depressants anyway?)

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 20, 2006 9:46 PM
Comment #182956

Why can’t we send V.P. Cheney after them? Just put quail targets on them. The President may be the bark, but Cheney is the bite! No disrespect intended.

Posted by: FuhQuToo at September 20, 2006 9:54 PM
Comment #182957

Ken:

“Take note liberals, Tim Crow represents the purity of your political state.”

With the way you pay attention, I don’t think we have anything to worry about from you.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 20, 2006 9:57 PM
Comment #182965
Ryan wrote: If this nation being under God offends you, get the $%#@ out and live somewhere else.
That statement reveals an intolerance that is repugnant to most Americans. Most Americans understand the wisdom of the 1st amendment. Sadly, some just don’t get it. If you don’t believe the same as them, they want you to leave the country you were born in. How revealing.
  • Posted by: d.a.n at September 20, 2006 10:24 PM
    Comment #182970

    d.a.n

    I concur to the fullest.

    Posted by: john doe at September 20, 2006 10:40 PM
    Comment #183005

    You Libs have no inkling that you will be the first group the Islamofacists come for. You are entirely too much like them for you be allowed to exist in an Islamic America.

    Posted by: Longstreet at September 21, 2006 9:26 AM
    Comment #183010

    Good one FuhQuToo!

    Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 21, 2006 9:53 AM
    Comment #183014

    Attacks are going to happen at seven sites in OUR country, my friends. Osama will have another video broadcast and two weeks after that, B-O-O-M, 10 million people gone!

    Posted by: Geri at September 21, 2006 10:25 AM
    Comment #183018

    Geri, are you Nostradamus?
    Otherwise, may I urge you to contact ASAP your nearest FBI office?

    Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 21, 2006 10:50 AM
    Comment #183022

    DrKingJD,

    I couldn’t have said it better myself! There is so much bickering between the two parties that the truth is lost in the fight. This is what I think that Chris meant when he was talking about what it would take to unite us. We are divided, and it is both sides that continue to nurse the rift. I don’t know the solution but it does not involve pure name-calling and slander. Let’s grow up! Democrats and Republicans will always have different views on policy but rather than trash talking we need to propose solutions. If Dems feel they could do a much better job than they need to get together and formulate a plan for the next election. I am a conservative but I do feel that whatever is best for this country is the answer, not this who’s right who’s wrong b.s.

    Posted by: Becky at September 21, 2006 11:47 AM
    Comment #183024

    My comments to “…get the &%$# out…” were meant to convey that this nation was founded on the premise of there being a God, and that he ought to play a part in the decision making regarding what’s best for this country. I have no problem with those who disagree w/ me socially or politically, but I do have a problem when they take it upon themselves to remove all references to God whatsoever from government. Don’t try and change our country because you disagree with how it was founded. Move. You have that right, so please exercise it. Polls show that 79% of Americans believe in God, so why should the majority opionion cow-tow to a few? If you ask me, this is a very ballsy form of intolerance. This country was founded on the will of the people, and majority rule within reason. Historically, America has always supported Israel, which are God’s chosen people. America has reaped the benefits from being a country that stands by Israel. Why is it that the entire middle east is an armpit? In large part, because they are in direct conflict with God’s chosen people. Liberals want to sit down and “reason” with these Islamo-fascist terrorists. Guess what! They don’t want to “reason!” They want to kill all Americans and Israelis, and all others who espouse Western ideology, regardless of political or social leanings. I have no problem with Islam, but like in a lot of religions, there are a faction that are perverting the teachings foir their own personal gain. These people only stand death. They want the entire world to convert to Islam. Yet Liberals claim Conservatives are intolerant. As for the U.N., I think that stands for UN-ethical, to say the least. Oil-for-Food bribes ring a bell? As far as I’m concerned, I think we ought to kick the U.N. out of the U.S. They are inept and unefective, perhaps they should re-locate to France. And let’s not remember, that if not for America’s will and effort, the official language of Europe might be Russian, German, or Italian. Another thing while I’m going here. Why are we so ready to listen to what other countries have to say about our internal happenings in this country? The Supreme Court has actually cited law from other countries in justifying their decisions! What the hell is up with that? Since when did other countries have a say in what happens in our court system? If everyone hates the U.S. so bad, why do they keep coming here? I’ll tell you why. This is the greatest damn country on the face of the planet, thats why! Why is it that ultra-rich liberals can’t stand their own country? Where did the sense of pride and patriotism go? What the heck has happened to people in this country? There’s a reason they call the W.W. II the greatest generation. In case some of you are wondering, I’m only 26.

    Posted by: Ryan D. at September 21, 2006 12:12 PM
    Comment #183064

    What a logical and well-reasoned argument Ryan.

    I like the format, too.

    Posted by: beijing rob at September 21, 2006 3:03 PM
    Comment #183113

    Ken Strong:

    “(And how will the far left fight a civil war all doped up on anti-depressants anyway?)”

    This statement has been buzzing around in my head all day—and I think it deserves some comment.

    It’s a snide and hurtful throw-away remark that is legion in some conservative thinking—a lowest common denominator dismissal of a real and prevelant problem in this country today. Millions suffer from clinical depression (including this writer). It is often called the common cold of mental illness. It destroys lives and cripples real people—both conservatives and liberals.

    It is a growing problem. And it is typical of a conservative thinker such as yourself that you, no doubt, think depression is a sign of weakness and a sure sign of the decline of the country—a typical liberal crutch to deny standing on one’s own feet. A denial of a sort of mental pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, to go along with economic self-sufficiency and other ‘tough-love’ nostrums.

    It takes more courage to realize the problem and face it than I think you’re aware, given the thoughtlessness of your comment. And your attitude condemns millions to unspeakable pain because they think themselves ‘weak’.

    I have come to the conclusion that if you aren’t depressed in this country, with what has been masquerading as democracy and justice and fair play, that if you think everything’s peachy and the economy is cruising, and Bush is not perfect but courageous (‘cuz he knows his own mind and believes in his ‘principles’), and democracy in Iraq is busting out all over—and all the other idiocies the Right has been selling these past few years— the crazy ones aren’t the ones on anti-depressants.

    In fact, I think it’s the normal ones, the human ones, the ones that believe in integrity and common decency and the truth, that look around them and see this lunacy and lying passing itself off as a democracy, that are really the sane ones. They know something is very badly wrong, and assume, incorrectly, it must be them. In a society awash in the insanity of greed, power run amuck, murder and mayhem under the guise of ‘spreading freedom’, the sane ones definitely seem crazy.


    There is a story about the Buddha that seems to fit.

    The Buddha walked into a village alone—his demeanor and quietude exhuded something none of the villiagers had ever witnessed. It disturbed them, and after a time of silent awkwardness, several men from the village approached him, and one asked,”Who are you? Are you a saint?”

    The Buddha said, “No.”

    Another asked, “Well, are you a god?”

    The Buddha again answered, “No.”

    There was a silence, then a man stepped forward and asked simply, “Well then, what are you?”

    The Buddha replied, “I am awake.”

    I suspect craziness these days is much like being awake, and witnessing the pain of human suffering.

    Posted by: Tim Crow at September 21, 2006 7:04 PM
    Comment #183123

    Tim Crow … excellent !

    You seem to have a rare gift for seeing reality.

    It is very refreshing !

    Undoubtedly, you have influenced and inspired others. Good for you !

    Posted by: d.a.n at September 21, 2006 7:42 PM
    Comment #183135

    50 years of liberalism? Which fifty, the Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, George, or George years..? All press is liberal too, especially talk radio…


    They’re coming to take him away ha ha he he ho ho…

    Posted by: Art at September 21, 2006 8:08 PM
    Comment #183139

    The purpose of the original post was to find out whether another massive 9/11-style attack would finally unite us against our common enemy. I was criticized and mocked for being an alarmist, which is really puzzling to me. How can you people be so sanguine about this? Bin Laden doesn’t make idle threats. The president of Iran has described in great detail what he intends to do to Israel and the entire Western world. The speeches made by Ahmadinejad and Chavez at the U.N. yesterday leave no doubt as to their ambitions. Chavez referred to the President of the United States as “…the devil himself.” And what do Democrats have to say about it? Well, Congressman William D. Delahunt called Chavez “an excellent friend” and then blamed Bush for Chavez’s remarks.

    There was a time when such vehement anti-America rhetoric would have been loudly denouced by all Americans. But Ahmadinejad and Chavez haven’t said anything about President Bush that the liberals in Congress haven’t already said. In fact, some of the things that liberals have said are far worse. American liberals have paved the way for Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Bin Laden, and the rest of the America haters. They get their talking points from CNN and the Democrat National Committee. Chavez was greeted with open arms by residents of Harlem today, and Ahmadinejad has been invited to speak at Columbia University!

    The attitude of many liberals today is reminicent of the attitude of many Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe when told that they were simply being transported to “relocation centers.” Even though the evidence was all around them, most Jews meekly cooperated and walked into the “showers” where they were gassed. Liberals are whistling past their own graves.

    “BOO!” wrote one of the respondents here. “I’ll bet he never leaves his bomb shelter.” How clever and witty! So here we are, trading epithets and trying to out-clever each other, arguing about nonsense like whether the liberalism of FDR is the same as the liberalism of Howard Dean. Did Bill Burkett forge the document that forced Dan Rather into early retirement, or not? Did Bush send John Bolton to intimidate ballot counters in Florida in 2000? How many liberals can dance on the head of a pin? WHO CARES?

    The evidence is all around us, and if liberals who post here are a representative sample, any reasonable person would conclude that liberals are simply divorced from reality. Their seething hatred of President Bush has made them blind and deaf to the threat posed by these two lunatics. God help us if the libs win in November.

    And you know what’s really ironic? The same Bush-hating, America-bashing liberals who enable and embolden the two lunatics Chavez and Ahmadinejad will be the first ones rounded up by the Islamofascists should we lose. You need to see us the way they see us. Islamofascists see the filth pouring out of Hollywood and are disgusted. They see the Gay Pride parades and the rallies for gay marriage and are aghast. Muslims consider us decadent and beneath contempt. They refuse to allow Hollywood and liberal America to turn their women into jezebels and their sons into homosexuals.

    And before you accuse me of homophobia, I didn’t say I agreed with the Islamofascists’ attitude toward homosexuals. I don’t care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. But homosexuality is a capital crime in Iran.

    Well, I have the answer to the question I posed. A liberal is a liberal first and foremost. Another 9/11 won’t change that fact.

    Posted by: Chris at September 21, 2006 8:31 PM
    Comment #183143
    How can you people be so sanguine about this? Bin Laden doesn’t make idle threats.

    We weren’t questioning Bin Laden’s dangerousness or seriousness. We were questioning the validity of the report coming from disreputable uncorroborated source.

    The attitude of many liberals today is reminicent of the attitude of many Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe when told that they were simply being transported to “relocation centers.”

    Complete BS. You’ve already invoked Godwin’s Law once. That means you’ve already lost the debate. Why bring it up again?

    Well, I have the answer to the question I posed. A liberal is a liberal first and foremost.

    No. We liberals are Americans first and foremost, just as you are. That we don’t respond well to insults based on bad rumors is hardly proof of your thesis, no more than your original post is proof that in light of an impreding disaster you care more about insulting Liberals than you care about America.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at September 21, 2006 8:43 PM
    Comment #183146

    Chris-
    You’re laboring under the mistaken impression that we need a major change in attitude to become concerned about a terrorist attack in this country. We’ve never stopped being concerned, even as this President, a Republican, and this Congress, also Republican, gloried in the false sense of security born of that monstrous piece of rhetorical spin called the Flypaper Strategy- as in, fight them there, so we don’t have to fight them here?

    We Democrats have been kindly pointing out to you that we have to fight them on both fronts. We pushed for an independent 9/11 Commission, pushed for reforms, and in fact are making such reforms a cornerstone of our campaigns. Meanwhile, in a follow up, the 9/11 commission’s giving this Administration, this Republican administration D’s and F’s in terms of dealing with the security problems that lead to 9/11.

    Did you ever consider that this is part of why The Path to 9/11 pissed us off so badly? Have you ever considered that this is what made Against All Enemies and books like it so damaging? Have you ever considered that this was why so many Democrats like myself considere the intelligence failures created by the carelessness and dishonesty of the White House so greivous, the denials of the connections that the White House implied and stated such frustrating lies?

    In short, have you considered that maybe it’s your side of the political spectrum that has fallen short, not ours, and that we are not the naive coddlers of terrorists you wish to believe we are?

    I could care less what stupid crap comes out of the Iranian President’s mouth. Chavez, too. I want intelligence agencies getting an accurate picture of them, and the president acting to defend us from threats, if it comes to that, but I don’t want a repeat of the distracting, unjustified nonsense that we’ve spent three years mired in.

    It’s your people who have been divorced from reality, and it’s cost this country dearly. You’ve indulged one unadvisable excess after another, convinced that willpower and zealotry could replace oversight, accountability, planning, restraint, and other virtues of good government.

    You’ve been warned again and again, and all of a sudden, you think to warn us of that which we have been warning you for quite some time. Well, pardon me if I’m not grateful. Pardon me if I don’t just jump up and think to myself that maybe the failure-ridden approaches of the last five years are going to work, if I just clap and believe in Islamofascism like you folks do.

    The reason that Bastard Ahmedinejad can strut like he has is that we took out his rival without a true equal to pit against him. We undermined the one power that could stand up to him on his border, and then let Iraq fall into lawlessness and anarchy, which he’s been fostering through his puppet Moqtada al-Sadr.

    You see, this theory of Islamofascism doesn’t properly deal with the rivalries of the Middle East, and wading into those particular conflict without understanding or acknowledging that will make it difficult to employ a strategy that won’t tip the balance to our enemies.

    You pose and you bluff and you bluster, but you people are dealing with the Middle East through the gauze of this fantasy of remaking it like we remade Europe after WWII. The sad fact is, you folks don’t prepare like the liberals of old that some of you compare yourselves to. No Marshall Plans, no long, detailed and thorough occupations, no trust in international law or institutions. You want to remake the triumph of WWII minus the scale, minus the monolithic enemies, minus the planning, minus the troops, but not minus some technological hubris that the world has changed so we can win wars without really thinking them out.

    So tell me, what good are the Republicans for in foreign policy any more? What entitles them to anything more than the claim of being paper tigers? How long before they make America the sick man of the global community, debt-ridden, a pariah, militarily weakened by an administration that abused the system to its own political advantage?

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 21, 2006 9:17 PM
    Comment #183147

    LawnBoy -

    I’m not debating you. I’m presenting a point of view: Mine. This is my opinion. And if the attitude of many liberals today reminds me of something I read about (Jews meekly walking into the gas chambers), I’m going to mention it.

    I stated several times that the source of the article didn’t matter to me. I was trying to find out whether … oh, never mind.

    If it makes you feel good to claim victory in a debate that never was, more power to you. Give youself a big pat on the back. I’ve stated my piece, and I’ll let readers make their own conclusions. I’m not naive enough to believe that anything I state here will have the slightest impact on any of the “regulars” here. The same dozen or so people post here again and again, and most are dyed-in-the-wool liberals, like yourself.

    Yes, liberals are Americans, just like the members of the Nazi Bundt were Americans and members of the Ku Klux Klan are Americans. Lots of different kinds of Americans. I’ll bet your average KKK member considers himself a good American. But I wouldn’t agree with him.

    And, no, I’m not making the claim that liberals are as bad as Nazis and the KKK. I’m just making the point that you can be a member of a group, call yourself an American, and still behave in a manner that undermines our government’s ability to protect us and also emboldens and empowers our enemies.

    Since when is referring to a liberal as a liberal insulting? What word should I use - Marxist? Leftist? Maoist? Leninist?

    Posted by: Chris at September 21, 2006 9:18 PM
    Comment #183149
    If it makes you feel good to claim victory in a debate that never was, more power to you.

    I would say the same to you.

    And, no, I’m not making the claim that liberals are as bad as Nazis and the KKK.

    Well that’s a relief, you’re only talking about us in the same way.

    I’m just making the point that you can be a member of a group, call yourself an American, and still behave in a manner that undermines our government’s ability to protect us and also emboldens and empowers our enemies.

    And I believe that Bush’s actions have undermined our government’s ability to protect us (by bogging our military down in a bad war, making us less capable of responding to the rest of the world) and embolded and empowered our enemies (after all, getting rid of Saddam was one of the top goals for both bin Laden and the Iranian mullahs).

    So, by your logic, can I question Bush’s Americanism? Since I disagree with him, do I get to call him less of an American?

    No, I don’t, and neither do you.

    Since when is referring to a liberal as a liberal insulting?

    The insult to which I’m referring is in the original post. If you can’t see it, then you’re further gone than I thought.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at September 21, 2006 9:30 PM
    Comment #183153

    Stephen -

    I have stated this before, but I really respect and appreciate your thoughtful responses. Reading your posts is like a cool drink of water on a hot day. We’re about as far apart on the issues as two people can get, but I do enjoy reading your posts.

    You say that you never stopped being concerned, but when I hear what comes out of Nancy Pelosi’s mouth … and it’s not just Pelosi. It’s Dean, and Kerry, and Carter. As far as I can tell, it’s the whole democrat party. Democrats spend all their time vilifying Bush. When was the last time a democrat posed a solution to a problem we face today?

    Hindsight is 20/20, and laying the blame for our troubles in Iraq at the feet of President Bush is intellectually dishonest and disingenuous. Bush isn’t responsible for the wave of Islamic extremism sweeping the globe. The Islamic extremists themselves are the ones responsible.

    You’re so reasonable that you think everyone around you can be reasoned with. But it’s not true. Do you think anyone can talk the lunatic in Iran out of his anti-Semitism? Do you think that anything you say could make Chavez like us?

    Do I think this Administration has made its share of mistakes? Yes.

    Do I think any Administration (democrat or republican) would have done any better? No, especially in light of the political climate, the never-ending assault on Bush and every ranking member of his Administration.

    Do I wish we were not in Iraq? Of course I wish we were not in Iraq, but we went on the best intelligence available at the time and have to stay until Iraq is stable, so what are we arguing about?

    Do I think that Bush squandered anything? Yes, I think he tried to curry favor with democrats by throwing money at new entitlement programs. It didn’t work.

    Posted by: Chris at September 21, 2006 9:57 PM
    Comment #183154

    Stephen:

    Your 9:17 post is excellent and concise—thank you.

    Posted by: Tim Crow at September 21, 2006 10:06 PM
    Comment #183156

    What amazes me is that one of the wrong wing’s biggest boasts has been that the Bush administration has prevented another attack in the five years since 9-11. So, if there IS another attack, will that cause all the wrong wingers to stop crowing about what a great success the Bush League has been? I doubt it. What I predict will happen will be an ever-increasing wrong-wing demand for ethnic ideological cleansing in this country.

    To some extent it’s already started. On Monday, the President of the United States started a sentence about Colin Powell with these four words:

    IT’S UNACCEPTABLE TO THINK
    Read ‘em and weep. The President of the United States says that independent thought is unacceptable.

    1984 may be late, but it looks like it’s on its way.

    Posted by: ElliottBay at September 21, 2006 11:21 PM
    Comment #183165
    On Monday, the President of the United States started a sentence about Colin Powell with these four words: IT’S UNACCEPTABLE TO THINK

    Don’t blame Bush junior but his parents who forced this motto on him.

    Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 22, 2006 5:59 AM
    Comment #183166

    My Name Is Roger:

    Stephen said concerning the possibility of us being attaced again [ IF THEY HAVE DECIDED TO DIRECT NEW ATTACKS HERE, THEN WE ARE TRULY IN A BAD WAY ].

    He is correct…. I am suprized that it has not already happened.

    I think right now…. out there somewhere…. there are Muslim terrorits makeing plans to do just that.

    I hope I am wrong, but I think that if they realy want to, and I think they realy do want to, it will happen.

    I do not think that it would have… or that it will make any differance…. whom the president was, or will be.

    I also think it will not make any differance whom the Democrats run for President, in the next election…. the Democrats will win!

    I think that the Democrats could run Forrest Gump, and they would win. And I am sure that there are Democrats who feel that Forrest Gump would have done a better job then President Bush.

    I know that he would have done a better job then President Clinton, and he would not have been having sex with Jennie in the Ovel Office.

    ROGER A Conservative Christian Rupublican.

    Posted by: ROGER at September 22, 2006 6:59 AM
    Comment #183167

    Chris wrote: “Do I wish we were not in Iraq? Of course I wish we were not in Iraq, but we went on the best intelligence available at the time and have to stay until Iraq is stable, so what are we arguing about?”

    No we didn’t. This administration didn’t listen to the the experts and has not listened to the experts (in the field) ever since. THAT is why Iraq and our global image has deteriorated beyond control. To call it “unstable” would be candidate for understatement of the year. Their “government” can only be seen as wilfull negligence causing immeasurable harm to the U.S. and the American people.

    Posted by: Josh at September 22, 2006 7:08 AM
    Comment #183168

    Chris-
    It’s become reflexive for you folks to say we make no plans. Care to read the transcripts from the 2004 Presidential Debates, or Kerry’s speech at the convention? I do believe Kerry said he would follow the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and that takes up a good part of 400+ page book. Those sources alone should dispel the notion.

    Plus, you’re looking in the wrong direction to find where the true direction of the party is being taken. Dean’s success is based on his recognition of where the average party member was heading, and how much different that was from where the conventional wisdom had it.

    Hindsight is not the issue. He has been warned time and again of the consequences of his actions. Time and again, he has disregarded evidence that comes back to haunt him. Bush’s problem is that he doesn’t trust the foresight of those who don’t side with him completely.

    He simply doesn’t listen, so all lessons become 20/20 hindsight. unfortunately, if you don’t learn to listen to people, 20/20 turns to 9/11.

    The Terrorists are benefiting from Bush’s stubborn insistence on doing things his way. They are benefiting from his sticking to a policy that makes it very hard to uproot them. They are benefiting from a president who shameless, even enthusiastically fulfills the worst stereotypes of westerners. They count on being able to goad their enemies into tossing aside restraints. That’s how they kicked the French out of Algeria, that’s how Ho Chi Minh kicked them and us out of Vietnam.

    It’s all about who gets perceived as being the source of folk’s troubles, and who is seen as saving them from the troubles.

    Again, as with us, you look from the wrong direction. The person to reason with is not the politician, but the citizen. A common strategy of mine, for example, is to argue past my opponent, to the spectators of the event. You bypass Ahmedinejad until he is willing to talk on an even keel.

    On the subject of best intelligence in Iraq, I think that’s hardly the truth. In fact best evidence wasn’t their threshold at all. They were looking for anything, however unlikely, that confirmed their suspicions. This was their “not waiting for the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud over one of our cities.”

    Problem is, when your threshold for belief that something has been confirmed is so low, you are bound to find evidence for anything you suspect, and you’ll find reason to believe that you’re on the right track until the facts hit you hard enough that you can’t ignore the anymore.

    The Bush administration is working off the premise that any threat, if we can demonstrate it to be even remotely likely, is to be treated as if it is a certainty, and reacted to accordingly. By this logic, they believe they can get in front of surprises like 9/11. Unfortunately, in a world full of information, much of it out of context, fragmentary and misleading, there are a world of ways to be wrong about what you believe is true.

    They see the old-fashioned analysis as too slow, too painstaking. In their fear driven world, where they believe 9/11 was a surprise brought on by a lack of immediate information, too much thinking can get you killed, and too much of what they see as formal restraint from acting until evidence can be found to indicate things makes us too slow.

    And there we have it: low thresholds for both belief and action. In the real world, though, we have a great capacity for being wrong, especially if we don’t know what we’re doing.

    Many White House and Pentagon staff under Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld believed they could crack intelligences just as good as the analysts. They would often filter and pick out what they wanted to believe, what confirmed what they believed. Some of them had done this before, doing estimates on the Soviets in the 70’s, estimates that would turn out to be equally erroneous.

    This amateur hour detective work often put them at odds with the professionals, who had years of experience in dealing with the various liars, manipulators, and self-interested twerps that sent in information, as well as the expertise to know what they were looking at when they investigated things. They had higher thresholds, but most importantly, thresholds based on the ability to shoot down bad theories.

    Many of the sources the Bush Administration insisted on relying upon where people who had burned the CIA on things before (like the infamous Curveball), or gave information that other information could discount (like Mohammed Atta being in Central Europe rather than parts of the US.) Without the skepticism of the professionals, the Bush administration was digging it’s own grave on the matter. Once it acted on that, it dragged a whole bunch of people into real ones for the conclusions it looked for.

    It’s a bitter pill for many CIA analysts to swallow to be blamed for the Administration’s recklessness in seeking to build a case that favored its policy. These people often warned this administration of the truth far ahead of time, and for their honesty, many of these people were branded political enemies, or traitors. The fortunate ones were simply ignored, their theories dismissed because of the strength of the Bush administrations faith in its own beliefs.

    Many administrations are unkind to those who contradict them, but this administration is downright brutal and nasty about it to an extent shocking to even jaded insiders.

    I believe what makes this administration worthy of contempt is not merely that they make mistakes, but the manner of their error, and their refusal to deal with them. To them, admitting to being wrong is tantamount to losing. They don’t see that you can lose a battle if you remain wrong long enough in your perceptions.

    As for Bush’s spending? I think it’s pretty simple. Bush knew he didn’t have the money to cover tax cuts or Medicare out of the budget, nor the expensive war. He should have tightened his belt and said no. Instead, knowing what he knew, he continued to spend, spend, and spend. He had that veto pen. Why didn’t he use it?

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 22, 2006 7:22 AM
    Comment #183401

    My first instinct was: “this is not very credible”. Less credible than even the daily propaganda barage coming from liberals.

    I think you could have attached the same conlcusions to more believable material and had a very differnt discussion here. As it is, I don’t think your source gets much credit.

    This nation is in the middle of a cultural war. The likes of Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi are waging a radical, dishonest, propaganda war to take down what they view as “Christian Capitialist” America nd replace it with an amoral socialism. Or “political correctness” if you will. Its on the backs of this anti america politically correct movement that we see the likes of Chavez, Castro, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the Insurgants in Iraq find propaganda support and brothers in propagand against the US…inside the very left wing of the democratic party.

    Chavez recently embarrassed the left wing nuts though by coming to the US just before the elections and spouting their propaganda…offending the voters. Now we see a parade of the dishonest left trying to distance themselves from the would be dictator they were gleefully and smugly embrassing from a distance.

    I think rather than using the kind of dubious material the libs use for propaganda you could have taken your very real issues and attached them to more credible material.

    Posted by: Stephen at September 23, 2006 4:12 AM
    Comment #183636

    Stephen-
    Gleefully and smugly embracing from a distance.

    I tell you what: those that like Chavez like him, those that don’t do not. How much have you heard People like Pelosi, Kerry, or Kennedy lionizing him. I’ve hardly heard anything of the sort.

    You have to consider that if these representatives and senators are in solidly Democratic states and district are seeing fit to need to disclaim themselves of association with Chavez, then it follows that most Democrats do not in fact support Chavez.

    That to this point, the embrace has been mainly on the far left, with already socialist-friendly folks, should indicate to you that there is no such cultural conflict here that the Republicans and Right-Wingers aren’t bringing themselves.

    What offends me about Chavez is his hypocrisy. Or put more clearly, it take one to know one. Chavez would not have been such a martyr, or have such a high profile if Bush hadn’t chosen to back the leaders of the coup. So what is Chavez’s response? Fearmonger, militarize, create ad hoc alliances, etc.

    An American saying these things has a right to say them, having suffered the consequences of their leader’s action. Chavez’s interests, though, run counter to the interests that motivate our dissent. He may be spouting the same words we use, but he’s saying something far different. We’re Americans, my dear namesake. When the chips are down, our loyalties remain with this country, no matter how many fights you pick with us concerning our problems with what is done in our names.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 24, 2006 1:15 PM
    Comment #183843

    HAHAHAHHAHAHA

    I’m sorry to laugh at you, but come on, can you be serious?

    Yes, I agree with you on some of your points about American culture (it is vapid, hollow and painful to live with), but this is the result of MONEY not political ideology. Succesful wealthy nations fall into consumerism, we’re just the latest victim. This has nothing to do with God or any other religious constructs. Your superstition isn’t based on facts, it is an irrational belief in a father figure that controls the world around you. The world is a random horrific painful place and all life is suffering. God is not looking out for anyone because God as an omnipotent figure does not exist.

    The truth is inside, God is a name for the truth, which is something beyond our comprehension.

    Posted by: iandanger at September 25, 2006 10:42 PM
    Comment #183913

    Ryan D.,

    I think we ought to kick the U.N. out of the U.S. They are inept and unefective, perhaps they should re-locate to France.

    More probably Switzerland, where many international agencies are already installed.
    But thanks for the free french-bashing, I really hope you enjoye the ride, hating a whole nation, afterall, is a great and mature attitude.

    And let’s not remember, that if not for America’s will and effort, the official language of Europe might be Russian, German, or Italian.

    Let’s not remember that if not for some of Europe’s will and effort, every White House speeches might ends by “God Save The Queen”.

    What’s the point about giving freedom to a nation if you’re expecting them to behave as vassals? Just be a man and colonize them, as every empire did/does. Otherwise, you should be happy that people your country freed in the past are exercizing their freedom while they openly disagree with your country foreign policy.

    Why are we so ready to listen to what other countries have to say about our internal happenings in this country?

    Iraq War is not internal to US. Neither is the so-called Global War On Terror. Neither is the next-next Bush war against Iran. Neither is Afghanistan war. Neither is the Middle East crisis. Neither is the world trade markets.

    Wake up, never hear the expression “in the today globalized world”?

    The Supreme Court has actually cited law from other countries in justifying their decisions! What the hell is up with that? Since when did other countries have a say in what happens in our court system?

    They don’t. The Supreme Court judges do. Ask them.

    If everyone hates the U.S. so bad, why do they keep coming here?

    Money?

    I’ll tell you why. This is the greatest damn country on the face of the planet, thats why! Why is it that ultra-rich liberals can’t stand their own country?

    To compensate hypocritally the ultra-rich conservatives who stand that their own country legalize torture, forge smoke screen to attack a vital energy spot in Iraq and cut taxes for the wealthier (them included, go figure!) during wartime?

    Where did the sense of pride and patriotism go?

    In the AirForce bombs. In the White Phosphorous. In Gitmo. In lies. In Katrina’s FEMA cronism. In 9/11 political usage. In fear political usage. In Kyoto rejection. In Global Warming rejection. In mini-nukes classification as tactical, not detterence, weapons. In the militaro-industrial complex.

    No, I’m kidding. It’s still in the US flag. And in last Oliver Stone movie. Hopefully in the Constitution, too.

    What the heck has happened to people in this country? There’s a reason they call the W.W. II the greatest generation.

    Believe me, most of the rest of the world ask themselve the same question.

    In case some of you are wondering, I’m only 26.

    It show.

    Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 26, 2006 8:53 AM
    Comment #184255

    We already had the event that united America: 9/11. And unfortunately this Administration squandered it.

    Posted by: Fred at September 27, 2006 12:38 AM
    Comment #193572

    yoo-hoo….classic case of imbecillic denial…
    -get off this blog and go look…the think tanks, research, intelligenc sources, and academic world all point to a high probability of occurrence….
    Mike

    Posted by: Mike at November 6, 2006 10:58 AM
    Comment #201727

    More on Al Qaeda’s nuclear weapons programme

    http://www.crusade-media.com/news1.html

    Consider the religious fatwa titled “A Treatise on the Legal Status of Using Weapons of Mass Destruction Against Infidels” that Osama bin Laden secured from Shaykh Nasir bin Hamd al-Fahd, a young and prominent Saudi cleric justifying the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against Americans, in May 2003 - Why would Bin Ladan look for such a fatwa?

    Posted by: Alan at January 6, 2007 10:51 AM
    Post a comment