More Bounce..Bounce..Bounce...

According to this morning’s Reuter’s-Zogby poll, President Bush and the Republican Party continue to close the gap heading into the mid-term elections in six weeks.

That’s called momentum. Of course as more voters realize that a humming economy, historic lows in unemployment, a housing market that didn’t bust out and a tax cut that is working is responsible for much of this, then the remaining deficit by the Republicans will be made up pronto!

The Mighty Eagle can confidently predict now that the Republicans will retain control of both Houses.

Not only that, but the Mighty Eagle can also predict that our friend Joe Lieberman will carry the day in the fair state of Connecticut as more voters there wake up from their intellectual brain lock and realize that this is a guy who actually ran against the president not once but twice in a national election and gives his party some badly needed moderate balance.

The key is continued hard work by the rank and file, however. As always, voter mobilization and grass roots efforts carry the day, and we can't rest on our laurels just yet.

The fifth intelligence leak in four years of a classified report once again shows that there are elements out there that will compromise our nation's security in an effort to diminish the accomplishments of this administration.

Six more weeks.

Keep your head down and keep working at it.

Where I come from, you don't count your chips until the game is over, and it ain't over .....yet.

Posted by Sicilian Eagle at September 28, 2006 2:34 PM
Comments
Comment #184770

lol, again! Thanks SE.

“There are none so blind as he who would not see”
It ain’t me, I have my glasses on.
Joe will be out. The GOP will be a minority and will be marginalized; as they deserve for their diservice to America during the last 5 1/2 years.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 28, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #184776

dave;

when you wake up, please pass the coolaid.

Posted by: califrep at September 28, 2006 3:05 PM
Comment #184777

Anything can still happen in 5 weeks, good or bad. But I hope you’re right SE.

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 28, 2006 3:06 PM
Comment #184779

Here’s the poll and article you are talking about:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1174

The poll’s results are hardly as rosy as you claim. In fact, Zogby says that Democrats still have the lead. But then that’s how you Republicans report your information, from a one-sided perspective that doesn’t take into account any shades of gray while managing to completely miss the main point: the poll you are talking about predicts Democrats will win.

“Democrats remain in the lead is the “generic” congressional election contest, where respondents are asked whether they intend to vote for the Republican or the Democrat in their local congressional election on Nov. 7. Their 42% to 33% edge has held steady despite Bush’s improvement in job approval…. Democrats appear to be more energized to support their own party’s candidate – 82% said they would vote Democratic, compared to 75% of Republicans who said they plan to vote for the GOP congressional candidate this fall.

Another alarming factor for the GOP – the reliably conservative weekly WalMart shoppers favor their local Democratic congressional candidate by a 42% to 39% edge.

Posted by: Max at September 28, 2006 3:11 PM
Comment #184780

So what day in October does the white house announce that OBL has been captured/killed? With leaders of both Pakistan and Afghanistan here visiting it would seem deals have been cut and a lot of money will be trading hands soon. Anything to win the election right?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 28, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #184781

I do believe the Republicans will maintain the House and the Senate. I predict Republicans might loose one seat in the Senate and possibly 4 seats in the House. Nancy P. makes a much better minority leader than she would as a majority leader as far as our guy Reid the minority leader in the Senate He looks well in that position. Im from Michigan I beleive we have a shot at dumping Stabinaw. I have a question. If Leiberman wins as a Independent does that not take a seat away from the Dems?

Posted by: Thomas at September 28, 2006 3:18 PM
Comment #184782

SE;

i think the economy and low unemployment are deffinitely going to give us an edge, hpoefully enough of an edge.

leiberman lost the dem primary by a small margin. i’m no big leiberman fan, but i think the reps know a vote for thier canidate will be a wasted vote. i think they’ll take what they consider the lessor of two evils, and vote for leiberman.

what waits to be seen is when he wins, if he caves in, and changes his party affiliation back in order to give the dems that seat. to retain his commitee position i believe he might.

Posted by: califrep at September 28, 2006 3:20 PM
Comment #184785

Come on, all you Republicans have got to see right through this very obvious attempt to shift the blaim for 9/11 away from Bush. Bush was warned by the outgoing Clinton administration that they had been watching bin Laden and considered him the top most security threat at that time. The Bush administration would not take the warning and chose to ignore it entirely. The incomming Bush administration was showing the very arrogance that it exhibits even to this day by pretending that they did not have to listen to the outgoing “liberals.” It is Bush alone who must stand up and take the blaim for 9/11.

Now Bush acts as though bin Laden and Al Quada are simply old news now that we have “taken the war to the terrorists.” This is a ridiculous claim as the terrorists are taking the war to Iraq and unfortunately, they are winning. It will not be much longer that the Bush administration can hide behind their tough talk. Bush is all bark and when he does bite, he gets the wrong dog.

Posted by: CDP at September 28, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #184789

Come on, all you Republicans have got to see right through this very obvious attempt to shift the blaim for 9/11 away from Bush. Bush was warned by the outgoing Clinton administration that they had been watching bin Laden and considered him the top most security threat at that time. The Bush administration would not take the warning and chose to ignore it entirely. The incomming Bush administration was showing the very arrogance that it exhibits even to this day by pretending that they did not have to listen to the outgoing “liberals.” It is Bush alone who must stand up and take the blaim for 9/11.

Now Bush acts as though bin Laden and Al Quada are simply old news now that we have “taken the war to the terrorists.” This is a ridiculous claim as the terrorists are taking the war to Iraq and unfortunately, they are winning. It will not be much longer that the Bush administration can hide behind their tough talk. Bush is all bark and when he does bite, he gets the wrong dog.

Posted by: CDP at September 28, 2006 3:29 PM
Comment #184790

Let me ask a question. When the White House leaked Val Plame to the press, putting numerous agents who were actually fighting terror at risk of losing thier lives, it was OK. Now when a leak that shows if Bush and freinds aren’t lying, they are just plain incompetent, and “Stay the course” is failing, it is treason? Does anyne see the hypocrisy here. What has happened to our great nation. Why did we let Bush give it away? When are we going to demand it back? America belongs to the people, and the President should serve those people. We are not here to serve him. Allowing torture, taking HUMAN rights away from anyone, bulling the press, and the people, these things do not serve the people. These things are far scarier than the terrorist. I have nothing to fear but Bush himself.

Posted by: Grattan at September 28, 2006 3:30 PM
Comment #184791

CDP,

I think Rudy got it right about who’s fault 9/11 was.

It was NOT Bush’s fault.
It was NOT Clinton’s fault.

What we have forgotten in the partisan talking points both Rep and Dem is that it was the TERRORISTS who rammed planes into the twin towers. It was the TERRORISTS who rammed a plane into the Pentagon.

It was the fault of Islamic Terrorists…and no one else.

Not Clinton…Not Bush. It was the Islamic Terrorists.

Go RUDY!!!

Posted by: Jim T at September 28, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #184792

CDP;

what does that have to do with the original posting. just looks like more desperate finger pointing.

Posted by: califrep at September 28, 2006 3:36 PM
Comment #184794

grattan;

“Let me ask a question. When the White House leaked Val Plame to the press, putting numerous agents who were actually fighting terror at risk of losing thier lives, it was OK.”

white house didn’t leak her name. the state department did.

Posted by: califrep at September 28, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #184795

Grattan,

“Let me ask a question. When the White House leaked Val Plame to the press, putting numerous agents who were actually fighting terror at risk of losing thier lives, it was OK.”

You mean…except for the proven fact that the White House DIDN’T leak Plame’s name? Is that what you mean?

Oh, that’s right. I forgot. It’s Bush’s fault.

And, by the way, thank you GWB, for calling all your oil company buddies (including the Venezuelan owned Citgo…which you have TOTAL control over) and telling them to lower the gas prices to below $2 so the Reps could win this election.

Feeling left out? Then go to my website www.democratic-tinfoilhats.com.

Posted by: Jim T at September 28, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #184796

Grattan,

Try to keep up with the news, please.

Plame was outted by an old windbag in the State Dept. that should have been ousted when Bush took office, not by the White House! Armitage is a diplomat with State Dept. blinders permanently welded on.

Also, only 2 sentences from the security paper were leaked, the ones that were potentially damaging to the administration. The larger context of the document shows it is a standard political CYA document that really reaches no conclusion at all, but can be used to say “see I told you so” no matter what happens. Of course anyone with any sense knows that when you whack a hornets nest, you’re going to see a LOT of hornets. But that’s better than leaving the nest alone!

My son is currently in Iraq fighting for your freedom to disagree. I say let’s not “stay the course”. I say let’s step up and keep whacking the hornets until they’re all gone or too afraid to come out and play.

Posted by: Martian at September 28, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #184798

Sicilian Eagle:

“The Mighty Eagle can confidently predict that the Republicans will retain control of both Houses.”

Somehow, I clearly see the rubble around the Reichstag, the desperate hand-to-hand fighting, the legions of Russian shock troops streaming down the Kaiser Wilhelm Strasse, perched on their T-34s…oh, wait, that’s the other movie script.

I can confidently predict (after carefully gauging the performances of both parties over the last two years), that when the battle for Washington is over, only the American people will have lost. The corporate gravy train will choo-choo to any party’s tune; you don’t have to be in Chattanooga to pay-to-play.:-)

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 28, 2006 3:51 PM
Comment #184799

Grattan Grattan Gratton you are right about one thing the government is for the people but we dont want the world owes me a living folks. We dont need socialists. Socialism doent work.

Posted by: Thomas at September 28, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #184800

CAl and Jim T,

Your right State Dept. But fact is it doesn’t change my point. The state Dept was lead by a Bush croony. If you believe the White House (Rove most likely) didn’t know the leak was happening, you are probably as gulliable as Bush hopes you are. The point is we are doing the things I was always taught we are better than. Like secret prisons, we might as well send them to Siberia. It’s just not what Americans do. We don’t allow that. WE ARE BETTER THAN THAT. It is a sad time for our nation, we are weaker than ever before. The worst part is we can’t blame anyone but ourselves for letting BUSH take away all that is good and right about AMERICA. I want to be proud of my country again, not ashamed. I am ashamed, I am angry, and I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!!

G

Posted by: Grattan at September 28, 2006 3:56 PM
Comment #184801

I think the Mighty Eagle is right. Dems are so wrapped up in cospiracy theories that they lose sight of reason. nearly every sentence or npress conference starts with “Bush is(insert here) or lied about (insert here).” Wake up.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #184802

“I say let’s not “stay the course”. I say let’s step up and keep whacking the hornets until they’re all gone or too afraid to come out and play.”

I agree whole heartedly.

Tell your son THANK YOU for me. Some of us still appreciate his sacrafice.

Posted by: Tom D. at September 28, 2006 3:59 PM
Comment #184803

GRATTAN

What is your specific plan for fixing “what’s wrong” with America? How, specifically, would you deal with the situation in Iraq? What, specifically, would have been your exact response to the 9/11 situation? Please tell us specifically not only what you think to be wrong, but also, specifically, what you would do to fix it. Thanks.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 4:01 PM
Comment #184804

“The fifth intelligence leak in four years of a classified report once again shows that there are elements out there that will compromise our nation’s security in an effort to diminish the accomplishments of this administration.”

So…. Bush compromised our security by declassifying the rest of it for what reason?

Here is a perfect example of what this administration calls “secret”

http://www.thememoryhole.org/feds/justice_redaction.htm

Posted by: 037 at September 28, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #184805

Please. How rude of me. Also tell your son we could not be more proud of your son and his fellow brothers in arms, despite what Kerry, Dean and others say to disparage them. I say we drop the kid gloves and start kicking ass and takiing names later. The statue of Liberty used to say, “give me your sick, your tired, your poor, your hungry…” Now she holding a baseball bat and yelling, “YOU WANT A PIECE OF ME?!!” Like toby Kieth says, “We’ll put a boot in your ass, it’s the American way!”

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #184806

tim;

you guys just love the old tired comparisons. the the reichstag, hitler. surely you can do better than that.

i would agree though, that both parties share the blame, when it comes to corruption in politics. what we need to do is take away thier cushy pensions, and make them pay into soc. sec. like the rest of us. maybe then being a career politition wouldn’t seem so alluring.

Posted by: califrep at September 28, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #184807

I think the Mighty Eagle is right. Dems are so wrapped up in cospiracy theories that they lose sight of reason. nearly every sentence or npress conference starts with “Bush is(insert here) or lied about (insert here).” Wake up.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 03:58 PM

And he’s NOT EVEN RUNNING IN 06 OR 08.


Eagle Eagle Eagle
You do this on purpose don’t you.
LOL!

Posted by: kctim at September 28, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #184814

Just goes to show you can fool enough of the people enough of the time, over and over again, to keep your power. We are not safer, quite the opposite; lots of low-paying jobs with stagnant at best pay rates, iced off by divide and conquer moral issues.

I lose my confidence and respect for my fellow citizens more and more each day. Put a D instead of an R in front of the current administration and have them do the same thing, do you really doubt who’d be screaming then?

Posted by: Zebster at September 28, 2006 4:26 PM
Comment #184815

All

Good give and take thus far and in non-combative manner.

Earlier today, the Big Board broak into a historic high before retreating slightly. Unlike the late 90’s when we had that tech bubble, this time the growth is sustainable…all sectors have advanced and inflation is in check. PLUS, a portion of this performance was done with high gas prices. The market is going to continue to do well,and corporate profits (geez, sometimes I think that’s a dirty word..to me it means the opposite of the dole) are doing well.

Bush’s economy is bullet proof this election, period.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at September 28, 2006 4:34 PM
Comment #184816

SE-

As for all the other stuff that actually and admittedly occupies the vast majority of his time, he is disturbingly fragile.

Posted by: kevin23 at September 28, 2006 4:41 PM
Comment #184817

Zeb
“I lose my confidence and respect for my fellow citizens more and more each day.”

So do I. Have for about 12 years or so.

“Put a D instead of an R in front of the current administration and have them do the same thing, do you really doubt who’d be screaming then?”

And do you really doubt who would be the ones all quiet with that warm and fuzzy feeling, again?

Posted by: kctim at September 28, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #184820

I agree with the Eagle. But, the Bible is full of examples where God told the Israelites to open up a can on someone for their wicked ways. And like it or not, The Israelis are God’s chosen people. God said, “I will bless them that bless thee, [the U.S.] and I will curse them that curse thee [most of the extremist middle-eastern nations].” This was a promise made to Abraham around the same time that God told Abraham that out of his seed would rise a great nation. Like it or not folks, the Bible is true, and God cannot, will not, and has never lied. Some may view this as polarizing, but the course of history shows it to be true. And for those of you who think us Repubs are mindless puppets, I will remind you than in previous blogs I have taken my conservative bretheren and elected officials to task when I have disagreed wsith them. Have a GREAT DAY everyone!

Posted by: Ryan daugherty at September 28, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #184821

Zebster,
It is a bizarre situation. Both Democrats and Republicans declare they care the most about security. It is hysteria, that is all it is, hysteria.

How many Iraqis have ever launched a terrorist attack in the US, or even tried?

The answer:

Zero.

Yet the son of one poster, Martian, is in Iraq risking life and limb for… what? As near as I can tell, the only security at stake is the political security of the Republican Party. Certainly national security is not even remotely threatened by events in Iraq. Not. Even. Close.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: the War on Terror ended in 2003. The only significant attacks since then have been home-grown affairs, inspired by resentment over the situation in Iraq.

Police actions & international cooperation remain necessary when it comes to terrorists, and always will be needed. However, the rest is not even enough of a threat to warrant our focus.

Sheer hysteria. We will all look back upon these days and hang our heads in shame.

Posted by: phx8 at September 28, 2006 4:48 PM
Comment #184826

To fix what is wrong takes steps,

step one - STOP IGNORING THE CONSTITUTION. If you want to spy on a citizen, get a warrent. Don’t deny habeous corpus to anyone, for any reason. Don’t ease the rules on torture, make them stricter. Risking another G-BAY, or Abu whatever its called is stupid. Give prisoners the same rights as citizens, it may suprise you as to what happens when you practice what you preach. The way to show 1/3 of the world we are right is by being right.

Step two - Stop pretending that Military force in the Middle East will sway any Islamic person from terrorism. For every innocent person who dies in Iraq, we leave a mother, father, brother, sister, husband, wife, child/children, and countless friends to hate us. In short for every terrorist killed, MANY MANY more are created. Terrorist are fueled by hate, why add hate.

Step three - Get away from Middle Eastern OIL. How do you think the terrorist get their money. Every time you fill up that gas guzzling SUV you pay those who want to kill you. No money, no terror camp.

step four - this one Bush will never do. Show respect and understanding of their religion. This will do more good at preventing future terrorist than every bomb in the US miliary.

In short we need to take a long term view. This is a situation that needs someone willing to actually think first, not just shoot. Might does not make right.

Posted by: Grattan at September 28, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #184827

SE-
There was a guy in the book The Best and the Brightest who would perpetually claim, even as the rest of America caught up to the sad truth about Vietnam, that the Enemy was two weeks away from collapse.

We see what we want to see, if we don’t rely on the data. So polling data improves a bit. So what? Look where it is right now!

If anything has dropped Republican fortunes in the toilet, it’s this remarkable ability to define success downwards while things continue to go wrong, and while others continue to expect better of their government.

You want my advice? Start focusing on policy, rather than obsessing about your party’s image. If the Republicans come back and start showing results, they might recoup gains in 2008. Americans want people who know what they’re doing. They’re sick of people who just pay lip service to the needs and concerns of the country.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 28, 2006 4:57 PM
Comment #184830

How many Iraquis participated in the rape rooms, as well as the torturing of innocent little girls while their fathers and mothers were made to watch, as punishment for some imagined offense against Saddam? Who can say, but many would probably be correct. How many Iraquis were buried in mass graves at the hands of a tortuous bloodthirsty dictator named Saddam Hussein? Again, Many. How many Iraqis (Kurds) were killed when Saddam hit them with WMDs? Again, Many. The war in Iraq wasn’t necessary because the Iraquis are all bad people. It was necessary because the regime was ruthless, bloodthirsty, and without regard for human life. It also granted safe haven and training facilities for Al-Quaida and their ilk. My best friend has done 2 tours in Iraq, and told me he has burned literally tons, (as a unit of weight measurement) of Al-Quaida propaganda and paraphenailia By the way, the U.S. was justified in going to Iraq, because Iraq was violating the U.N. resolution that had been passed when Bush I was in office. That resolution made provisions for unilateral military action if the resolution were to be breached. I wonder what in God’s holy name has happened to this country? There’s a reason the W.W.II generation is referred to as the greatest generation. I wish I had been honored enought ot have been alive during that time.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 5:02 PM
Comment #184833

PHX8,
How right you are! I just love those solemn, self righteous neocons saying ” we’re AT WAR, that justifies curtailing our freedoms and heck, while we’re at it, let’s us by god torture some deserving terrorists!!

But, isn’t this war a war of our own choosing?!? Yes, yes, we WERE attacked on 9/11. Just not by Iraq. If we hadn’t so foolishly invaded Iraq, could we then say that this was “wartime”?

Had we stayed in Afganistan, IN FORCE, and dealt with o.b.l., would we have to worry about thousands (yes, THOUSANDS) of our young people dying, so the “war president” could say we were at war?

We ALL want to find and kill bin laden, ALL AMERICANS want to destroy terrorists. Are we doing that in a country that didn’t attack us on 9/11?

Martian’ son is in Iraq. There is great honor and sacrifice in serving. I served from age seventeen, with my parent’s consent. I would like to think that our young people are fighting and dying for freedom. But I don’t believe that they are. As they fight and die in Iraq, our government is telling us it is necessary to have less freedom. To endure the possibility of electronic eavesdropping with no warrants, no oversight. That we should treat prisoners with standards which do not approach being legal. We are told, if we question the absolute right of our “leadership”, to do pretty much as they like whether or not is legal or constitutional, that we are ” for the terrorists”, or that we are “blaming America”. That we will suspend the prisoner’s right of habeus corpus, part of common law for several hundred years.

If this is freedom, it’s not the kind I was brought up knowing.

As a small boy, I remember going into Manhattan with my father, an operating engineer. Dad fought in Iwo Jima with the fourth Marines. He told me, “You see that flag Stevie? That’s the flag of the greatest country in the world. Our country. America. We have liberty here that most of the world never will have. You can’t be jailed for no reason, nobody can take what’s yours. You can do whatever you want, as long as you follow the rules. Never forget that, son”

That was forty years ago.I never have forgotten what he said that day. I think that in this country there are some who HAVE forgotten, if they ever knew it in the first place.

Posted by: Steve Miller at September 28, 2006 5:19 PM
Comment #184834

grattan;

“step one - STOP IGNORING THE CONSTITUTION”

you dems should practice what you preach. in the case of the left, it is the 2nd amendment that comes to mind. stop tying to disarm law abidding citizens.

Posted by: califrep at September 28, 2006 5:21 PM
Comment #184835

Both Republicans and Democrats may be in for a surprise.

I sure the [explicative] hope so, because this former Republican is truly sick and tired of this [explicative]ing petty partisan warfare, and irresponsibility of BOTH parties, and most (if not all) irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians

Some over here in the Rose-colored column, with their Rose-colored glasses, always trying to paint a Rosy picture, Regardless of Reality, is Really nothing new. Every “In Party” does it. And, perhaps some of it is understandable, since the “Out Party” is trying to blow problems out of proportion. Ironically, it is increasingly unnecessary to blow problems out of proportion, since some truly pressing problems facing the nation really do not need to be inflated … sticking to the facts is sufficient. But look at how they both pick their battles. Neither party really cares about the nation. Irresponsible incumbent politicians only care about gettin’ theirs, gettin’ re-elected, and securing their cu$hy, coveted seats of power.

The humble Mighthy Sicilian Eagle speaks of low unemployment, but omits to tell you many of those jobs that were created are within an already severely bloated government, and median incomes have fallen since 1999.

The Mighthy Sicilian Eagle speaks of tax cuts. Whooo Hoooo!. How many of you saw your taxes reduced any significant amount? The Mighthy Sicilian Eagle fails to tell you that the wealthy got the biggest break, and the National Debt has skyrocketed to truly ridiculous levels, and the general, overall fiscal condition of the federal government is pathetic. And how many times have interest rates been raised in the last year? Oh right … they are still below historical norms. What a crock of [explicative]? And, we all know the tax-code is already ridiculously perverted, and full of tax loop-holes for the wealthy. Politicians won’t change it. They like it just the way they have perverted it.

The Mighty Sicilian Eagle states that a housing market that didn’t bust, but fails to tell you it just started, and it will last for many months (maybe a year or more). He also fails to tell you that foreclosures (nation-wide) have been rising for over a year.

The Mighty Sicilian Eagle fails to tell you about a good many things, because a few cherry-picked pieces of data is all that he has to work with.

The Mighty Sicilian Eagle does not want you to look at the nations’ pressing probelms, because that would be disastrous if you ever drew the correlation between the “In-Party” and some many ignored problems, growing in number and severity. The truth is, both the “In Party” and “Out Party” are almost equally irresponsible. Both prefer to fuel the petty partisan warfare to distract you from truly substantive issues, than actually do the hard work required to resolve the problems. Like now; Congress is doing little (or nothing) just prior to elections, because they don’t like making tough decisions, regardless of the fact that politicians were elected to do just that. No wonder they call it the “do-nothing congress”. It’s funny how congress can vote themselves a raise or some cu$hy perks, but can never pass any of the most common-sense, no-brainer reforms that voters have been demanding for years and decades.

The Mighty Sicilian Eagle calls it momentum, and says that the voters will soon “realize that a humming economy” are all a result of the Republicans excellent management of the economy, and that the “deficit” will soon be made up by the Republicans “pronto!

Ha Ha ha … never mind that taxpayers are the ones that will have to make up the deficits. Never mind that it is easy (at the moment) to look prosperous while maxing out all your credit cards, and running up astronomical debt. And those deficits and debt are staggering, indeed. But, they are below historical norms, if you include the worst debt ever during World War II. But don’t worry. They will just print some more money. Of course, that won’t help inflation will it ? Inflation is more insidious than many realize. It is largely what causes the damaging bubbles in the stock-markets and real-estate. Those bubbles are created by people trying to stay ahead of inflation. So, the ever present inflation is destabilizing, and the Federal Reserve and the government are no better than counterfieters. The amount of massive borrowing and money-printing is a perilous path. Even Republicans know that, but they want to down-play it.

Year:___M3-Money___$Increase_
1988: $3,928.80 $242.30
1989: $4,077.10 $148.30
1990: $4,154.70 $77.60
1991: $4,210.30 $55.60
1992: $4,222.60 $12.30
1993: $4,285.60 $63.00
1994: $4,369.80 $84.20
1995: $4,636.30 $266.50
1996: $4,985.50 $349.20
1997: $5,460.90 $475.40
1998: $6,051.90 $591.00
1999: $6,551.50 $499.60
2000: $7,117.60 $566.10
2001: $8,035.40 $917.80
2002: $8,568.00 $532.60
2003: $8,872.30 $304.30
2004: $9,433.00 $560.70
2005: $10,154.00 $721.00

The petty partisan motivations are all too clear, and Americans may be wising up to it. The sooner, the better. I surely hope so, because you know what happens when you go too long wearing blinders (rose-colored blinders at that)?

Even if the voters don’t do much this election, 2008 will be different. Why? Because the voters’ own irresponsibility to stop re-electing irresponsible incumbents (who enjoy a 90% re-election rate) will let our pressing problems continue to grow in number and severity, and the voters’ misery index will grow worse by 2008. It’s easy (at the moment) to look prosperous while maxing out all your credit cards (nation-wide debt is over $42 trillion; $22 trillion is federal debt), but there will eventually be consequences for so much debt, borrowing, spending, money-printing, and, in general, total fiscal and moral bankruptcy (of voters and government). Pain and misery is a good teacher.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 28, 2006 5:23 PM
Comment #184836

Well said Califrep!
That alone would pretty much guarantee them victory if the elections keep being so close.

But then again, don’t expect them to “practice what they preach.” Ignoring the Constitution is ok if its done in ways they agree with.

Posted by: kctim at September 28, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #184837

SE:

“Bush’s economy is bullet proof this election, period.”

I don’t doubt his personal economy is—it’s everybody else’s economy that’s a little dicey.:-)

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 28, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #184838

Ryan Daugherty-
You know, I thought adolescence was something to grow out of, not to aspire to. Fact of the matter is, if we’re winning, the victories will speak for themselves, and a bunch of half-baked cliched rhetoric will be utterly unnecessary.

When America smashed through the Taliban like a Mack truck, there wasn’t any doubt in people’s minds that somebody had made a pretty serious error in judgment by attacking us. When we plowed through Iraq like their defenses were butter, Shock and Awe seemed genuinely awesome in its force.

When we bogged down continuously in a useless strategy against a country that it turns out we had no real reason to attack, things change. We told you to get more people in there, to get control of things, not to wait six months to reclaim Fallujah and Najaf, not flip through all these nominal milestones without making sure of security. We kept on telling to get your act together, but you folks couldn’t be bothered.

As for what the bible says? Yes, the Israelis are God’s chosen people. A chosen people that got invaded, kicked out, put back in, and kicked back out multiple times, which is often portrayed, warts and all, fallibilities obvious to the world. Did you know that many Orthodox Jews opposed Zionism on the grounds that restoring Israel would be a repudiation of God’s judgment on them?

The truth is, the legacy of the nation of Israel is about more than just land. It’s about a set of traditions that indeed dominate the world today. The promise has been fulfilled, and is still being fulfilled. But to reduce all that to a one-sided approach to policy concerning the political nation of Israel is foolhardy. Like God says, do not put me to the test.

The world of Judges, Exodus, and Joshua was a considerably harsher and more violent place. I’m not one of those people who judges the actions of those times in the modern context, but neither do I condone having the Israelis of 2006 acting like those of 1206 B.C. That world has moved on. Israel will never be safe so long as folks try to apply the bloody warlike tendencies of the Bronze age to the world of the Information age.

The greatest barrier to enemy action is the decision on their part not to fight. We can encourage that through diplomacy and the proper application of force better than we can do so through force alone.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 28, 2006 5:26 PM
Comment #184839

I question the justification for giving non-citizens the same rights as citizens. These people aren’t just rounded up because the look funny. They’re either enemy combatants, or very suspicious. It sounds as though some people are saying that our military is just rounding up everyone in Iraq for the hell of it. That is not the case. These people are not granted due process under the law, because they are not given protection under the constitution. Active-duty military members are governed by the UCMJ, which is more stringent that the “rule of law”. Enemy combatants without a coountry are not granted protection under the Geneva Convention either. As far as I’m concerned, torture the hell out of them. they’ve done no less to american citizens, and other in Iraq and elsewhere. If torture is what is necessary to obtain information to prevent further attacks on this great nation, then do so with my blessing. I’m not afraid of losing my freedom through wire-tapping etc., because I have nothing to hide. The only reason the Dem representatives have a problem with it, is because now if they negotiate a bribe over the phone, they could get caught. What about Clinton having FBI files for his personal reading pleasure? Was that not a violation of privacy? yet I don’t recall anyone on the left screaming about that. the hypocracy astounds me. Personally, I hope he read mine, because it probably put him right to sleep because it was so boring.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #184840

Califrep,

When was the 2nd amend part of this discussion? I want a legit debate on a legit topic. Has anyone answered how “stay the course” helpes our country in any way. WHY ARE WE THERE? If there is no point in being there, WHY STAY?

Posted by: Grattan at September 28, 2006 5:30 PM
Comment #184841

Staying the course helps our country by taking away the safe haven for terrorists. It takes the war to them, instead of letting them bring it over here. In case you forgot, GWB said we would come after the terrorists, and those countries that harbor them. To pull out now (as Clinton did in Kosovo), would show a huge sign of weakness, and we would probably be attacked again shortly thereafter. We destroyed the country while toppling Saddam’s regime, now, we are being responsible in helping re-build what we destroyed. Yet now is when many people want to leave. Starnge indeed.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #184842

And just which terrorists was Iraq harboring? You might want to take a look at the 9/11 comission report. The one that states categorically that there is no relationship between 9/11 and Iraq

Posted by: Steve Miller at September 28, 2006 5:36 PM
Comment #184843

steve;

we can argue over iraq all day long. the fact of the matter is going in to afganistan pissed off the radicals just as much as going into iraq did, maybe even more. remember the taliban was in charge. there was strict islamic rule. for a fundamentalist this was a paradise. we came in and destroyed that. don’t get me wrong i think it needed to be done. one would think that would give even more reason to hate us then going into iraq did.

also even though i disagree with you. i still appreciate your service to this country.

Posted by: califrep at September 28, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #184846

STEVE

Then why has my best friend, who has done 2 tours in Iraq, told me he burned, literally, tons of al-quaida material? The 9/11 commission is not the end-all, be-all authoritative commentary on what happend pre- 9/11. If it were, it would’ve been much harsher on Clinton for his inaction. GWB had 8 months to do something, I know. Does anyone realize how long it takes to fill in a cabinet, get them confirmed, get all of the new offices acquainted, etc.? Clinton did say we would hunt down those responsible for the Khobar towers, WTC among a host of other terrorist attacks against Americans, but impotently did nothing. But conveniently, those on the left want to focus not on what Clinto said he would do and did not, or the 8 YEARS he had to do something about OBL, but rather on the first 7-8 months of GWB’s presidency.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #184847

grattan;

i don’t remember staying the course as being part of the original post either. it would seem that it is you who have gotten off topic.

as far as the constitution.

you brought up the constitution not me. i just replied to your remark. it would seem i’ve struck a nerve.

Posted by: califrep at September 28, 2006 5:46 PM
Comment #184848

It is part of the discussion Grattan. You mention “ignore the Constitution” because you “want your country back!”

You want a “legit debate?” Then quit avoiding the issue.
How do you expect to get your country back, if you are willing to “ignore the Constitution” to suit your beliefs?

And, the last I checked, the 2nd Amendment IS part of our Constitution. The fact that the left has supported the violation of that right and has paid for it at election time, does not mean it is not a “legit topic.”

Ignoring the Constitution when you feel it is convienent and then screaming about how others ignore the Constitution is nothing but partisan BS.

Posted by: kctim at September 28, 2006 5:47 PM
Comment #184849

I agree with califrep

Posted by: ryan daugherty at September 28, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #184850

Ryan,

What terrorist are we taking it to? Iraqis?
Let me make this clear, we invaded them without provication. It looks to me that they are defending their home from an outside enemy, same as I would. That does not make them a terrorist. However there probably will be terrorist now who want revenge for what we did. I can see why they hate us now. I would hate them if they invaded us. We look alot more like terrorist than the people we are fighting in Iraq. Like I said earlier, it is a sad time for our country.

G

Posted by: grattan at September 28, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #184852

Ryan Daugherty-
The WMDs and violations of the past were of little consequence, because that’s not the justification Bush gave to us and the world. I’m sure you’re aware that a pre-emptive war requires an imminent threat, a gun to our head if you will, for justification. We have to have no choice but to attack to protect ourselves.

So with Iraq, the legitimate question is: protect ourselves from what? There was no major al-Qaeda presence in Iraq. There’s no evidence whatsoever that Iraq collaborated with al-Qaeda. Recall that Zarqawi had to petition mid-war to become part of al-Qaeda, and that Ansar al-Islam operated out of the mostly autonomous region in Kurdish territory. Saddam did use terrorist groups, but they were local Chickenshit outfits that didn’t amount to much of a threat to us, even if you left al-Qaeda out of the comparison.

Worse yet, there were no functional stockpiles, no working programs. That, at least, we could have used to justify our circumvention of the UN. That we could have presented to them to shame them over their hesitation. As it is, we vindicated their caution by failing to find the weapons.

So what was the threat that we were facing? Ancient history which we overlooked at the time we were friends? All the resolutions that the current ones superceded? Why the hell did we take our eye off the ball with Bin Laden and Central Asia?

The current al-Qaeda presence in Iraq owes itself to a failure of strategy in our war, to the expectation by our leaders that they could simply decapitate the current regime and replace it without bothering with an occupation. They didn’t want to hear any “defeatist” talk about not being able to pull things off like they expected to. That’s the arrogance that not only sent us into Iraq on poor pretexts, but has kept us there mired in unnecessary chaos.

If there is anything I would call defeatist, it would be so quickly losing faith in our fellow Americans, believing that we have to win the whole war ourselves, or not at all. Talk about fighting with one arm tied behind your back.

I am honored to be alive now, to be speaking of these things now. There’s no point in pining after a bygone age, however ideal, while we aren’t doing our best now. I think we can do better than what this president has done to this point, and I think having a full, robust discussion about these matters will not weaken American one little bit. We gather our strength from support willingly given rather than support that is forced from our citizens.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 28, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #184853

AND KCTIM

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 5:50 PM
Comment #184854

On the one hand, you say that the iraquis are defending their homeland. a few sentences later you concede to an al-quaida presence in iraq. Does that then mean that we can logically link Al-Quaida to Iraq? Are the Al-Quaida Iraqi citicizens the ones defending their homeland? Is that the point you are trying to make? If so, you debunk your own theory that there was/is no definitive connection between Iraq and Al-Quaida. Steven Daugherty, Thank You to you and your family for it’s military service. You are all honorable people.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 5:55 PM
Comment #184855

I am not willing to ignore the constitution. But if youy want a 2nd admend fight, you have to choose someone else, not me. I never said anything about it. I don’t avoid issues, but I don’t care about that one. I don’t see it as part of the problem either way. I won’t stand by and give up rights I do care about, like freedom of speech, or press, becuase Bush says I should.

Posted by: Grattan at September 28, 2006 5:57 PM
Comment #184856

grattan;

there were terrorists that want to kill us for what we did in afganistan. should we have stayed out of there for the same reason. don’t want to piss anyone off.

Posted by: califrep at September 28, 2006 5:59 PM
Comment #184857

califrep:

“…you guys just love the old tired comparisons. the the reichstag, hitler. surely you can do better than that. “

You’re absolutely right—the whole Nazi thing is a totally overused image. It was mental laziness on my part.

The “you guys” label—who are they?

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 28, 2006 5:59 PM
Comment #184858

grattan;

the 2nd amendment is part of the constitution, the bill of rights.

you then say you don’t care about the 2nd anendment. you just made kctims point. you only care about the constitution when it suits your purpose. if you care about it you should care abuot all of it . after all it is the 2nd amendment that puts the teeth behind all the other rights you seem to be so concerned about.

Posted by: califrep at September 28, 2006 6:09 PM
Comment #184859

ryan daugherty
said
“If torture is what is necessary to obtain information to prevent further attacks on this great nation, then do so with my blessing.

Sadamm’s thinking exactly.

How about our other friends who torture?
http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/us-and-uz.htm

Oh and as far as the bible being conservative…

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-bibleconservative.htm

Posted by: 037 at September 28, 2006 6:10 PM
Comment #184861

STEVE MILLER

I’m very sorry. I totally apologize. When I said thank you to you and your family for your service, I meant it toward you, not Stephen Daugherty. Please accept my apologies. Stephen Daugherty, if you or anyone from your family has served, then I am greatful for their service as well. My apologies everyone. I meant no disrespect.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 6:12 PM
Comment #184862

califrep

Who said anything about Afghanistan?? I and everyone was for that invasion. To bad we didn’t send enough troops.

Posted by: 037 at September 28, 2006 6:13 PM
Comment #184863

tim;

sorry

let me clarify that. that would be the blame america first crowd. at least as long as it not thier party running the country.

BTW if this is the fourth reich, you better watch out the gustapo will be coming for you soon.

Posted by: califrep at September 28, 2006 6:15 PM
Comment #184864

a GOOD POSTING WOULD BE TO MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT, THEN PROVIDE THE ALLEGED RESOURCE TO BACK IT UP, NOT ASK US TO DO YOUR WORK FOR YOU. AND I NEVER SAID THE BIBLE WAS CONSERVATIVE. BY THE WAY, YOU DO REALIZE SADDAM TORTURED HIS OWN PEOPLE, NOT ENEMY COMBATATNTS, RIGHT? YOU DO REALIZE SADDAM TOOK HIS RAGE OUT ON INNOCENT CHILDREN, FORCING THE PARENTS TO WATCH AS THEIR CHILDREN WERE PHYSICALLY, SEXUALLY, AND EMOTIONALLY ASSAULTED, RIGHT?

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 6:15 PM
Comment #184865

Grattan
Get over the Valerie Plame thing. She had an “undercover’ name of Valerie Plame. Hubby Joe outed her and there were no threats to agents anywhere for this fiasco of Joes. Move on.

Posted by: tomh at September 28, 2006 6:16 PM
Comment #184866

sorry for the all caps everyone.

Posted by: ryan daugherty at September 28, 2006 6:17 PM
Comment #184868

nicely put, henry c

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #184869
Earlier today, the Big Board broak into a historic high before retreating slightly. Unlike the late 90’s when we had that tech bubble, this time the growth is sustainable…all sectors have advanced and inflation is in check. PLUS, a portion of this performance was done with high gas prices.

And then our debts were called in…. Pretty easy to amp the economy when you borrow trillions. Not that Bush’s performance compares to most, but c’mon, you borrow trillions and award companies huge contracts the government pays for you raise tax revenues.

Posted by: Max at September 28, 2006 6:22 PM
Comment #184870

037;

this was grattans statement with regaurd to the iraq invasion.

“However there probably will be terrorist now who want revenge for what we did. I can see why they hate us now.”

my mention of afganistan was a comparison. enough said.

Posted by: califrep at September 28, 2006 6:22 PM
Comment #184871

ryan
If you are speaking to me, I apologize that clicking on the link I provided is to cumbersome. If you do manage, you will find the second link makes the point that the Bible cannot be used to justify any political ideology.
Personally I prefer not to lower my self to Sadamm’s level when it comes to tourture.

Posted by: 037 at September 28, 2006 6:23 PM
Comment #184872

So in other words, Bush is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn’t. Tha seems to be the concensus. The Libs should see if they can all lay down at the same time and have a synchronized shouting and pounding of the fists and kicking of the feet. perhaps they will feel better. By the way, while I have mentioned murder ealier, did everyone forget that Ted Kennedy should be in prison on murder charges right now?

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 6:24 PM
Comment #184873

Yes 037

We all know. You would rather sit them down and have tea and crumpets, with perhaps a latte afterwards.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #184875

Pehaps if we talk to the Muslim Extremists, they will just like America more. No! No More killing the bad guys! Stop being mean to my Jihadist buddies!

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 6:27 PM
Comment #184877

I shouldn’t have to post this, but just to clarify, that’s called sarcasm.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 6:30 PM
Comment #184880

Grattan
Be exact. Which parts of the Constitution do you support. List all the Articles and The Bill of Rights that you support. Like piecemeal.

Posted by: tomh at September 28, 2006 6:36 PM
Comment #184882

Dems whine and scream and pitch a fit over everything Bush wants to do, and hold things up. then they turn around and criticize Bush for not doing anything.

Posted by: Ryan daugherty at September 28, 2006 6:41 PM
Comment #184885

ryan
I know it was sarcasm. I wrote it. Oh and I am not a “Lib” or even a “dem”. But your argument is still week.

Oh and torture is up in Iraq by the way.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060921/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq_torture;_ylt=AgIHLGljteRTq.ENKus72cGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b3JuZGZhBHNlYwM3MjE-

Posted by: 037 at September 28, 2006 6:54 PM
Comment #184886

oops weak

Posted by: 037 at September 28, 2006 6:55 PM
Comment #184887

Henry C

Right on my man. I couldn’t have said it better. And you will notice that the report was written by the AP, and references the U.N. a lot. Not exactly credible sources. Show me rape rooms, mass graves, and American soliders kidnapping people and beheading them, and forcing fathers watch as they rape their daughter’s and I might be willing to consider your otherwise ascinine allegation.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 6:58 PM
Comment #184888

The second half of my previous posting was pointed toward 037

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #184889

037

The supposed “representative” has not even been to Iraq. And when he said torture is up, his statement indicated worldwide, targeting specifically terrorist groups, and militias. Nowhere did it mention U.S. troops, or even Iraqi troops. Nice try though.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 7:05 PM
Comment #184890

037

Perhaps you would be interested in some REAL journalism;

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216417,00.html

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #184891

At least Bush was governor of Texas, a fairly
complicated state to run.

So I don’t know why you dems think you’re ever
right. You all voted for Kerry, a 22 year
Senator whose greatest accomplishment seems to
be blocking someone who would actually do something from becoming senator in MA.

A large sack of potatoes would have the same
effect.

Posted by: Henry C at September 28, 2006 06:49 PM

———-
Henry,
You must not live in Texas. I do, and was here for George’s tenure as gov. First of all the governor of Texas is an extremely weak governor. Very little constitutional power. The Lt. Gov. is the power base and when GWB was here, Bob Bullock was Lt. Gov (a Democrat) for the majority of GWB’s term. The only thing Bush excelled at was executing prisoners on death row. He was ineffective and sophomoric as governor.

Kerry not done much as a Senator to be sure, but a significant achievement was the investigation and gathering of information which led to the Iran-Contra hearings and exposure of Oliver North’s clandestine (and illegal) gun running and money laundering for the Contras.


Posted by: Dennis at September 28, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #184892

ryan
Sorry, Ill try harder (sarcasm)
Try these sources

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5368360.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2368770,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1878099,00.html

Posted by: 037 at September 28, 2006 7:13 PM
Comment #184893

Henry C,
“The Iraq war ended 3 years ago.”

That statement summarizes why we are losing in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

Forget the traditional concept of conventional warfare. WWII type conflicts no longer apply because that kind of Third Generation Warfare does not work for a committed, yet less technologically developed foe. Instead, the less technologically developed enemy relies on Fourth Generation Warfare, asymmetrical warfare.

The war never stopped. We call it an occupation, which is accurate. But the fight itself never ended. The enemy merely refused to fight by our rules. If you think about it, when it comes to warfare, that is actually pretty smart.

If you are interested in this kind of thing, there are numerous books in the library, including “The Sling and the Stone” by Hammes.

The tactics we are using to “stay the course” are just about guaranteed to make us lose. Truthfully, it is too late to change. To paraphrase General Abizaid, “given infinite time and infinite resources, we will win.”

We need to withdraw immediately from Iraq, and decide whether we really want to re-commit to winning in Afghanistan. We cannot do both, and realistically, the threat from Afghanistan seems bigger than anything from Iraq.

There was a time when making enormous investments of blood and treasure might have salvaged the situation in Afghanistan. Now it has reverted once again to a failed state. The government contols Kabul, but nothing more. Warlords control the rest of the country, drug exports have resumed with a vengeance… oh, I could go on and on, but it is a waste of time.

Posted by: phx8 at September 28, 2006 7:15 PM
Comment #184894

ryan
Fox news real journalism? I didn’t realize you had a funny side (more sarcasm)

and speaking of cut and run

http://cutandrunnow.com/

Posted by: 037 at September 28, 2006 7:18 PM
Comment #184896

Ryan Daugherty-
Do you believe that the barbaric tactics of our enemies somehow bestow advantages on them we have to match? Are we somehow weaker for the fact that we don’t cut off heads, and that we have a cultural distaste for the use of torture and other inhumane means? Does our system of checks and balances somehow cripple us in the face of those who act according to tyrannical whim?

Saddam can be all the bastard he wants to be, but I want to confront the people who actually have a good chance of doing harm to America first. We don’t have infinite resources to waste on wars that don’t protect America, which only satisfy vague geopolitical objectives which have no guarantee of working their intended effect. As bad as that would have been for the Iraqis, we could just as easily have done some good for other people in this world as compensation. Are the citizens of Afghanistan any less deserving of freedom from warlords, Taliban, and al-Qaeda than the Iraqis are from Saddam Hussein? The danger in playing God with the map of the world is that we do not have the resources to fight every noble fight that could be fought.

But now that we are in the position of dealing with terrorism and war in Iraq, we should not shirk on our commitment to restore Iraq to some kind of peace and stability. This, in case you’re curious, has been the majority position of most American in the Democratic party since the war began. Although the vocal proponents of immediate Withdrawal have grown in numbers, it bears consideration that frustration over the war’s progress and character bears much of the blame for that.

Even so, most Democrats measure the time for withdrawal in years and not months. Still, we need to win, and in order to win, we must leave. That’s right. At some point, we have to walk away and let Iraq support itself. If we never make any progress towards taking the first steps of withdrawal, there will never be true incentive on the part of Iraqis to shake off their dependence on us, and take up the burden of their own security themselves. We do not need to create a repeat of the mistakes we made with the ARVN forces in Vietnam, taking up so much of the slack that the forces never had the incentive to stand and fight.

We will not win this war by bluster and bluff. We must devote the necessary resources and change in strategy to the problem of Iraq, or else expect to be defeated and cut our losses. I don’t want to do the latter. Even when its a war I never felt we should have fought, I still do not want to see America lose.

Henry C-
We invaded Iraq to confront a threat. At least that’s what we were led to believe. We were led to believe that invading Iraq would cut short the threat of a nuclear weapon going off in one of our cities. That was the language and the message of Bush’s case for war. What we found when we got there discredited the very purposes for which we invaded, leaving only the side benefit of having freed Iraq from Saddam. However, we screwed that up by not approaching the problem of post-war Iraq in terms of an occupation. We were supposed to begin our withdrawal in August three years back. Unfortunately, the anarchy we let loose by failing to fully take control of the country, by failing to saturate the population centers with the presence of our soldiers, ultimately made that unrealistic. Unfortunately, more realistic options were never allowed on the table, on the grounds that considering them would be defeatist. Fail to prepare, prepare to fail.

Saddam was hardly an Islamic Extremists. Hell, Bin Laden didn’t even think he was a real Muslim. He’s a Baathist, an Arab Socialist, and Socialists by definition are secular, maybe giving lip service to religion, but mostly focusing on interior programs and economic controls. This is one of the reasons why I find the term Islamofascist to be such an annoying turn of phrase. It fails utterly to make the distinction between rivals and enemies within the Middle East, just for the sake of artificially creating a mass menace like Nazism or Communism. Trick is, those things were real, had real organizations that identified themselves in a real tradition of politics. Islamofascism is just a grab bag for all kinds of different groups, sects, parties and other factions in the Middle East that folks are too lazy to research for what they are.

As for the Democrats tying Bush’s hands, answer me these questions: Who runs the military, who runs congress, and how the hell have we been in the way? You overestimate us here, as much as you underestimate us elsewhere.

We have no intention of running away. We have every intention of changing things on the ground for the better.

On the subject of stabilization and reconstruction, I’m sorry to tell you that so far, we’ve not succeeded. We can’t afford to wait the interminable time it will take for an insurgency to calm down during an occupation in its home territory. They can sit on their asses indefinitely if we choose to do that, and simply wait until we can no longer afford to continue the fight.

Your party can’t afford to wait for everybody else to stop raining on their parade, because the fact is, things remain screwed up, and your strategy in all this is not doing much to help. If you don’t like the idea of Democrats being in control, then you shouldn’t have made such a poor showing of achieve the objectives of the mission that you folks told the rest of us you would accomplish better than any of your rivals.

Get a fire under the ass of your party and get things moving, or you will see them moving back home on election day.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 28, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #184897

“BTW if this is the fourth reich, you better watch out the gustapo will be coming for you soon.”

Uh…thanks for the warning.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 28, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #184899

Ryan writes - “Dems are so wrapped up in cospiracy theories that they lose sight of reason. nearly every sentence or npress conference starts with “Bush is(insert here) or lied about (insert here).””

Um…is it a quiz Ryan? Let’s make it multiple choice at least. For the first “insert here,” choose one or more:

1. incompetent
2. a liar
3. not very smart

and for the second “insert here:”

1. stockpiles of WMDs
2. Saddam supporting al Quaeda
3. Mission Accomplished
4. having a court or-der for wire taps
5. catching bin Laden
6. speaking with God
7. Niger uranium
8. Social Security being bancrupt by 2042
9. his military service
10. torture
11. choose from many not on the list
12. all of the above.

Posted by: Boomer at September 28, 2006 7:24 PM
Comment #184904

tim;

your welcome

Posted by: califrep at September 28, 2006 7:31 PM
Comment #184905

Ryan Daugherty-
Tell me something: is it real journalism to report the president is once again making the strategic error of dividing the homefront in order to raise support for the war?

All this rhetoric has done is entrench opposition to his policies. America cannot be forced to consensus by one man or one political party. It cannot be intimidated into quiet submission. We’re too damn bullheaded as a people. The president has failed to either adequately sell his controversial policies, or present policies that could be agreed upon without much controversy.

Democracies fight wars based on the consent of the people. It’s not merely something that’s nice to have. It’s a strategical necessity. Where Bush didn’t alienate folks by calling their devotion to their country into question, he did so by selling them a war on shoddy evidence, and sending our troops to die for a cause we never fully saw realized in the sands of that place. It will be greatly ironic if our starting a war in Iraq to prevent the next 9/11 on false pretenses leads us to sow the seeds for the next catastrophic attack. I’d just as soon not see that go on, and that’s why I want the Republican majorities out of office. Good as their intentions are, their actions have served the enemy better than us.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 28, 2006 7:32 PM
Comment #184907

SE, where I come from the chips you are counting are the chips that smell and I stay away from.

Thomas as far as Stabenow, I don’t see her leaving at all. I haven’t seen a single ad from her challenger. Now as far as governor, both are mudsling and I was for Devos until the info came out about cutting jobs and building a plant in China, I might have to rethink how I am going to vote on the gov’s race.

My prediction is Republicans will keep the senate, Dem’s the House. Can’t wait for the 08 season to start then the real fun begins, and we can send bush the worse to pasture in crawford, texassss

Posted by: KT at September 28, 2006 7:35 PM
Comment #184909

Grattan said:

“Terrorist are fueled by hate, why add hate.”

Please explain the hate that caused the terrorists to attack us during the Clinton administration.

Posted by: Jimmy at September 28, 2006 7:46 PM
Comment #184912

kt;

i disagree. i think if one was to turn over it’s more likely the senate. i say the reps keep the house, maybe the senate too, but i noticed your the only one to actually adress the original posting. nice job following instrustions! really i mean it!

Posted by: califrep at September 28, 2006 7:48 PM
Comment #184913

Tomh said

“Get over the Valerie Plame thing. She had an “undercover’ name of Valerie Plame.”

Um….Aldrich Aimes the Soviet spook in the CIA for 30 years had an undercover name too….Aldrich Aimes.

Posted by: 037 at September 28, 2006 7:50 PM
Comment #184915

SE,

You need to read more carefully. You’re only half right, and the part you’re right about is irrelevant.

It is true that President Bush’s approval rating has been approving, but this is of no direct relevance. He isn’t on the ballot, and he won’t be again.

The part that IS relevant to the 2006 elections is the so-called generic Congressional ballot. The key sentences are right here:

Democrats remain in the lead is the “generic” congressional election contest, where respondents are asked whether they intend to vote for the Republican or the Democrat in their local congressional election on Nov. 7. Their 42% to 33% edge has held steady despite Bush’s improvement in job approval.

It’s not just this poll either. If you look at all of the generic ballot polls, there is NOT a significant trend favoring the Republicans.

But if it please you to think so, go ahead.

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 28, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #184918

Grattan
“I am not willing to ignore the constitution. But if youy want a 2nd admend fight, you have to choose someone else, not me. I never said anything about it.”

This is not about being a 2nd Amendment fight or not. You mentioned you wanted your “country back” because Bush ignored the Constitution. You were then given an example of how the liberals ignore the Constitution. Why is it ok for the liberals but wrong for others?

“I don’t avoid issues, but I don’t care about that one.”

Then you do not care about the Constitution and complaining about others not caring or ignoring it is hypocritical.

“I don’t see it as part of the problem either way.”

Losing individual rights and freedoms isn’t part of the problem you were refering to in your rants about how you wanted your country back?

“I won’t stand by and give up rights I do care about, like freedom of speech, or press, becuase Bush says I should.”

That is the whole problem with our country and the cause of all this division.
You think its ok to give away rights YOU don’t agree with or care about and others think it is ok to give away rights THEY don’t agree with or care about.
The left sat on their asses while our rights were being stripped from us. They didn’t care about them dumb redneck rights. They ignored, defended and made excuses in order to justify their party staying in power.
So, let me ask you this: How does it feel now that the shoe is on the other foot?

Posted by: kctim at September 28, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #184919

ok back on topic
SE
You mention approval. What about dissaproval polls? Bush is going up.. up.. up.. with his Bounce.. Bounce.. Bounce. Actually he does remind me of Tigger. (Sorry that was a cheap shot)

http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/50StateBushApproval060919Net.htm

Posted by: 037 at September 28, 2006 7:57 PM
Comment #184925

All

Excellent thread!

KT

Great line about the chips…I nominate that crack for the Mighty Sicilian Awards

Stephen Daughtry

My friend. My collegue. The brilliant West Texas intellect. Sigh…..

How I wish you were over on this side. With the Mighty Eagle at your side fending off the liberal barbs thown at us, we’d me a mighty team indeed.

However, I disagree with most of what you posted. :)

First let me remind you and everyone of a very very significant number: ZERO

That is how many attacks since 9/11 that have taken place on US soil. So say what you want, something is working, and I won’t hear that “yes but they take 5 years to do something” malarky.

Because 8 is a significant number. That is how many terror plots were destroyed by US intelligence since 9/11

A significant fraction is 2/3. That is the percentage of OBL’s leadership rotting in graves.Don’t give me the whack a moley routine either. The replacements are less skilled, experienced and their numbers FINITE not INFINITE as you folks on the left seem to believe. Kill enough of the most rabid, and sooner or later they all die. See the 3,000,000 dead Nazi’s rotting in their graves, not the 4,000 or so foriegn insurgents killed ther so far.

Some one has to say it, so I will: We need to kill more bad guys. A lot more. Sooner or later, they will disappear. This is World War III, so deal with it. :)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at September 28, 2006 8:11 PM
Comment #184931

That is how many attacks since 9/11 that have taken place on US soil. So say what you want, something is working, and I won’t hear that “yes but they take 5 years to do something” malarky.

Because 8 is a significant number. That is how many terror plots were destroyed by US intelligence since 9/11
—————————-
Do the Anthrax attacks later in 2001 not count as terrorist attacks? People died as a result. We don’t know yet who did this, but it seems to me that is a terrorist attack, no matter how small.

Posted by: Dennis at September 28, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #184933

woody;

generic polls tend to be less of an indicator of out come. i tend to put more creedence in polls when a specific name is plugged in. when that is done the #s tend to change.

Posted by: califrep at September 28, 2006 8:34 PM
Comment #184934

SE
7- the nuber of years between the 1st and second attack on the WTC. When Clinton did nothing according to the right. What makes you think it is not the life time gov’t people who are really keeping us safe? What proof do you have that it is an actual Bush/Republican policy that is making the difference? After all that, by your own admission from earlier post,this administration has screwed up why should they be kept in office? What happened to accountability?
I hear the Dems talking about port security, enlisting other countries, securing nuclear material, investing money in actual security not a war with no purpose. Why Should we keep republicans in office? What have they got besides stay the course?

Posted by: 037 at September 28, 2006 8:36 PM
Comment #184946

califrep,

I actually agree with you. The generic ballot is questionable for the reason you said — it doesn’t ask about an actual candidate. I only brought it up because it was the part of SE’s link that is relevant to his claims about the upcoming elections.

I have been keeping tracking of individual Senate races and it looks the the Dems have a good chance of taking over the Senate. The House is harder to read because there are so many districts to consider.

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 28, 2006 9:01 PM
Comment #184949

Califrep,
I agree with you that our invading Afghanistan pissed off the radicals. But I don’t think it comes within a country mile of how the Iraq invasion has inflamed the MODERATE islamists. I think it has turned a whole bunch of them into extremists. World opinion was totally in our favor when we (very rightly) went into Afghanistan. Remember the shitstorm of protest when we started down the path to invading Iraq? B.T.W., in no way do I advocate worrying too much about what the world thinks, or changing what we need to do because some people don’t like it. But you have to admit, most of the world was amazed and aghast when we decided to invade Iraq.

Ryan,
The literature, like al qaeda itself, was in evidence in Iraq BECAUSE we were there. The notion that the leaked information from N.I.E. is classified is certainly hilarious. A child could see that invading an arab (by which I mean mid-east) country on a flimsy pretext would be a great rallying point for extremists. Osama bin laden himself said he would rather have Bush elected than Kerry, for that same reason.

Posted by: Steve Miller at September 28, 2006 9:10 PM
Comment #184950

Oh, yeah
Iraq was a SECULAR country!! It wasn’t even a radical islamist nation. Not for much longer, I’m afraid.

Posted by: Steve Miller at September 28, 2006 9:15 PM
Comment #184952

Did anybody else see the irony of Ted Kennedy standing on the floor of the senate floor talking about somebody having water thrown on them.

Posted by: Keith at September 28, 2006 9:54 PM
Comment #184954

Sorry I was unclear, when I said I didn’t care about that one, I meant issue, not admend, or part of the US Constit. I would like to know who is attacking the 2nd Amend. I don’t see that fight on the news with causualties every night. I don’t see our troops DYING over a 2nd amend battle. I think that fight can take a backburner to somethimg more immediate. Why are we letting our troops die to defend a lie. Leaving sooner rather than later does not equal another attack, and in the long run may prevent one. Why not have an honest discussion about how to fix the disaster that BUSH made.

Posted by: Grattan at September 28, 2006 9:59 PM
Comment #184955

Bush’s approval ratings look bad when seen by themselves. But actually I rather be in his shoes that Congress.

http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm

Posted by: Keith at September 28, 2006 10:02 PM
Comment #184957

“Leaving sooner rather than later does not equal another attack, and in the long run may prevent one.”

Posted by: Grattan at September 28, 2006 09:59 PM

Yeah, that worked real well when we tucked our tail and ran from Somalia.

Posted by: Duane-o at September 28, 2006 10:04 PM
Comment #184958

SE

I agree with you that the Repulican loses will be minimal. But do not assume or delude yourself that it is a reflection of how good the Republicans are doing.

The mere fact that they will win demonstrates how broken the process is and how bad the democrates are politically.

Elections are becoming more and more a formality when the real power is in washington and who controls the media, the message and money. We are becoming specatators to the political process. We are getting less democracy.

The Republcian party is a well organized well machined political organization. They communicate their message well and make people feel good, patriotic and safe. It is not and never is about issues. It is never about reality, It is about who makes you feel good.

Posted by: Stefano at September 28, 2006 10:07 PM
Comment #184960

You gotta admit, the momentum seems to have swung back to the Reps the last few weeks, which is the reason behind Bubba’s meltdown on FOXNEWS. It was clearly a planned tirade designed to stop the bleeding and switch the momentum back to the Dems. Whether it was a brilliant move or a shot in the foot still remains to be seen.

Posted by: Duane-o at September 28, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #184967

grattan;

charles schumer, diane finstein,ted kennedy, the list gos on. thats not to say that there are not dems who are supporters, because there are. but the majority tend to try and undermine that right. you won’t see much about it on the news as it tends to be a losing issue for the dems to run on.

our troops fight to defend the constitution, all of it. they also fight to help spread the freedoms we all enjoy here, and often take foregranted. the const. should always be protected as a whole. i don’t believe any one part is more important than another, but if you allow one part to be undermined or taken away, then entire thing is at risk.

anyway gotta go i’ll come back and play some other time. sorry for getting off topic. take care guys. see ya

Posted by: califrep at September 28, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #184970

Duane-oo
If you read any of the Republican Party material you will see they are scared as hell! They have admitted that they are willing to bankrupt their treasury to stay in power.

Posted by: 037 at September 28, 2006 10:36 PM
Comment #184974

“This is World War III, so deal with it.”

Thanks for at least coming out and saying what you think. I disagree, and I’m scared that anyone would so easily relegate us to such an unnecessary and avoidable global catastrophe. But we’ve been on the offensive for years now, and I’m getting used to reading between the lines…reading exactly what “the mighty eagle” just wrote in plain words.

To hear the hawks in here speak sorta reminds me of myself as a kid during the cold war…always thinking about global affairs as one big game of “Risk”. It gets much more complicated when you have people to protect, and you care a great deal about things. We seem to be living in a brazen and reckless time. I just hope that people stop, take a step back, and look at things every now and again. Instead we’re stepping on the gas and closing our eyes as we drive into some delusion of the future where everyone accepts, loves and respects American world domination.

The image may be warm and fuzzy, but it isn’t going to happen…ever, so deal with it.

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 28, 2006 10:54 PM
Comment #184988

Americans are so arrogant,

You think that the world revolves around you.

One can only pray that another 9/11 happens, and hopefully worse.

Such gluttons for your own punishment.

Leave the world alone!

Posted by: imam at September 28, 2006 11:57 PM
Comment #185003

IMAM

Leave America the @&%* alone and go blow up some innocent school children or something, nasty terroist

Posted by: Ryan D at September 29, 2006 12:47 AM
Comment #185015

SE,

The fifth intelligence leak in four years of a classified report once again shows that there are elements out there that will compromise our nation’s security in an effort to diminish the accomplishments of this administration.

Yeah, and among these classified reports, the last one, partially released by Bush (what an intelligence leaker!) shows, indeed!, that there are elements out there that *are* compromising your nation’s security in a effort to diminish the accomplishments of this administration, its famous War On Terror. And these elements are:

Bush’s gonads.
No, wait! I mean: US troops present in Iraq.

Their presence and their innability to secure the occupied country compromise since day one more US nation’s security, by boosting terrorists ranks everywhere.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 29, 2006 5:57 AM
Comment #185016

SE,

First let me remind you and everyone of a very very significant number: ZERO

That is how many attacks since 9/11 that have taken place on US soil.

Ironically, that’s also how many attacks since 9/11 that have taken place on many nations opposing the Bush policy against terrorism.
Doesn’t mean that they’ll never be. As for US.

Meanwhile, 2974 US soldiers, several britishs and an uncounted but 10-20 times more iraqis died.
And americans don’t feel secure enough, otherwise they’ll not anymore be driven by politicians security overfocused speeches.

Hell, more than 40% of americans believe Saddam Hussein did 9/11!!! What a disgrace.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 29, 2006 6:18 AM
Comment #185019

Phillipe Hudon

Don’t bombings in Spain and England post 9/11 count? Bali? Hmm…..

Imam
Quick…name the five pillars of Islam without a google search…then I will be more than happy to discuss with you your religious philosophy….

Posted by: scilianeagle at September 29, 2006 6:50 AM
Comment #185022

Ryan,

But conveniently, those on the left want to focus not on what Clinto said he would do and did not, or the 8 YEARS he had to do something about OBL, but rather on the first 7-8 months of GWB’s presidency.

In 2008, both Bush and Clinton will have 8 years each to do something about OBL. Does it mean, then, it could be compared fairly?
It’s not about the Bush pre-9/11 months failure to catch/stop OBL, it’s about the Bush 6 years failure, after the 8 years Clinton’s failure, to catch OBL.

Clinton tried to catch OBL during 8 years. And failed. And recognized it.

Bush was warned about OBL 6 years ago when he take office, and promised he will catch OBL 5 years ago after 9/11. And failed, so far. And recognized he don’t care anymore about OBL (and about keeping his promise to catch him). And closed the OBL hunting US cell.
So, do you think Bush will keep trying to catch OBL in the next 2 years, or do you think he bet on typhoid “hunting cell” instead?

What, then, kind of score could you predict after 8 years both side?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 29, 2006 7:21 AM
Comment #185024

SE,

Ironically, that’s also how many attacks since 9/11 that have taken place on many nations opposing the Bush policy against terrorism. Doesn’t mean that they’ll never be. As for US.

Don’t bombings in Spain and England post 9/11 count?

Sure they count. Just, *not* in attacks against nations who opposed US war against Iraq. Both Spain and England supported Iraq War. Sorry.

Bali? Hmm…..

Bali’s 2002 terrorit attack was targetting Australian tourists. Australia support Iraq War.
It count but not as an attack against a nation opposed to Iraq War.

But, please, prove me wrong and show me that the number of attacks since 9/11 against nations who opposed Bush policy against terrorism is not ZERO.
Be my guest.

I really think this “zero attack since” argument is very weak. It’s like someone repeating “so far, not bad” while falling from a building.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 29, 2006 7:34 AM
Comment #185025

“Of course as more voters realize that a humming economy, historic lows in unemployment, a housing market that didn’t bust out and a tax cut that is working is responsible for much of this, then the remaining deficit by the Republicans will be made up pronto!”

————————————————————————-
Nice try spinmaster, but the facts speak for themselves:

- Most workers make less money after correcting for inflation than five or even twenty years ago. That is inflation caused by the Fed having to print money like never before to finance the huge deficits this administration keeps on racking up.

- The cost of living has gone up exponentially the last couple of years. Housing affordability is currently at an historical low, as are medical services, as is food, etc.

- The housing market is only just starting to bust out, and you already declare a bottom? Try telling that to people trying to sell their houses significantly below their perceived “value”. Historically house prices have increased 7 % per annum. To return to these kind of figures - after years of returns leading up to the current housing bubble and inventory overhang - it would imply several years of NEGATIVE returns. Yes, cfr. the “negative budget surplus”. Busts tend to be as severe as the booms that preceded them. Just don’t tell you weren’t warned.

- There is no proof that our economy would be worse off without the tax cuts. Their is proof, however, that our economy would be much worse off if this administration had not actively engulfed our nation in debt. Yes, this economy is built on debt that has to be paid off someday. The problem is it now takes 7 dollars of new debt to create one new dollar of GDP, a record. Once the economy starts slowing down (e.g. because consumers can not take any more equity out of their houses - or even sell them because they can’t make their mortgage payments anymore) tax revenues will drop like a stone. This administration is the only one in history to have - foolishly - lowered taxes while waging wars. To compensate this they have engaged in deficit spending causing huge inflationary pressures: more money printed and loaned out to create less goods increases the amount of money in circulation per amount of goods. THAT’S INFLATION. Our Dollar bills are SHRINKING everyday thanks to this administration’s policies. The next generation/administrations will have to pay the price.

- …

Posted by: Josh at September 29, 2006 7:56 AM
Comment #185026
You gotta admit, the momentum seems to have swung back to the Reps the last few weeks,

I don’t admit that. It is true that Bush’s popularity has rebounded a bit since the spring. In terms of Republicans who are actually running gaining momentum, nope, I don’t see that.

First let me remind you and everyone of a very very significant number: ZERO

That is how many attacks since 9/11 that have taken place on US soil.

You’re wrong. Aside from the anthrax, you have apparently forgotten this:

(from Wikipedia) On July 4, 2002, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet shot six Israelis at El Al’s ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). Two of the victims died. Although the gunman was not linked to any terrorist group, Hadayet, an Egyptian, espoused anti-Israeli views and was opposed to U.S. policy in the Middle East. This led the FBI to classify the shooting as a terrorist act, one of the few on U.S. soil since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

It is ironic that conservatives, who claim to be attuned to every bad thing that happens to the Jewish people, completely forget about this incident.

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 29, 2006 8:02 AM
Comment #185034

Josh,

Good points about the spin (I made many of those same points above; inflation and the M3 Money Supply, debt, pressing problems, housing market, etc.).

However, that sort of logic (sound as it is) falls on deaf ears over here in the Rose-colored column, where the “In Party” proponents, with their Rose-colored glasses, are mostly only interested in trying to paint a Rosy picture, Regardless of Reality, hoping the people don’t ever Really see through the spin.

This former Repulican sees through it.

Did anyone notice the same, very few, cherry-picked statistics (quoted above by the humble Mighty Sicilian Eagle) are vastly out-numbered and over-shadowed by a long list of pressing problems, growing in number and severity, because those very few cherry-picked statisitics are all he has to work with.

Have you noticed how they say “it is within historical norms” ?

Sure, the $8.5 trillion National debt is within historical norms, if you include the worst levels since the debt left over from WWII. And, why do they fail to mention the $12.8 trillion of Social Security Debt? Or the $450 billion of PBGC pension debt? Or the hundreds of billions of unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Medicaid? You know where they will get the money? Borrow it, print it, run up more debt, and perpetuate the ever present, insidious, destabilizing inflation.

The Rose-colored spin is truly Ridiculous, and it’s what the “In Party” always does. I have a Really hard time believing that even the humble Might Sicilian Eagle even believes the spin he writes. It appears he does it to merely whip everyone up into a frenzy, and the only ones buyin’ it are the truly, hard-core self-deluded. Not even this former wallow-in-the-partisan-warfare, spin-master Republican is buyin’ it. Not at all. Not even remotely close.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 29, 2006 9:44 AM
Comment #185036

Ryan,

I say we drop the kid gloves and start kicking ass and takiing names later. The statue of Liberty used to say, “give me your sick, your tired, your poor, your hungry…” Now she holding a baseball bat and yelling, “YOU WANT A PIECE OF ME?!!” Like toby Kieth says, “We’ll put a boot in your ass, it’s the American way!”

Quick, change the statue of Liberty to say your “Yeah-ah” better motto. I’m sure reading “We’ll put a boot in your ass, it’s the American way!” will make a very impressive impact on the tourists visiting the statue.

PS: Too bad, more and more asses to kick are queued by this administration, while boots are starting to look tired, dirty and over-used.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 29, 2006 9:58 AM
Comment #185039

Henry C,

Look past the bureaucratic BS and think about the real threat IRAQ posed. Saddam’s sons were out of control. They ran their own portion of the government and even Saddam was not entirely aware of what they were doing. Iraq was fueling hatred and extremism. There is no document available to prove that fact.

Then that’s not a fact, just your claim.

It’s obvious to anyone who can think.

Still not a fact, just an opinion anyone who can think can share. Or not. Like me.

What are you talking about that Saddam was not an extremist. He invaded Kuwait, a peaceful neighbor. He was at war with Iran.

If being a nation at war with or invading a foreign nation is enough to be called extremist, then Bush is too.

He funded islamic terrorists. How is this not extreme.

You fund islamic terrorists every time you buy gaz for your car. How is this not extreme!?
Oh, btw, I guess there is again no document to prove that Saddam funded islamic terrorists but it’s obvious to anyone who can think, right? Get it.

He defied the world and glorified his defiance. Terrorists and extremists looked up to him because he defied the world and the US and he lived to tell about it.

Are you still talking about Saddam or do you switch without notice to Bush here? Because without explicit evidence, it’s hard to tell. Except for the “US” reference, maybe…

I know exactly who our enemies are.

Great! Could you pleace ASAP contact the nearest… White House, please?


Moderate muslims
from all over the world contribute to
these causes, knowingly or not. I don’t
think they even care.

Moderate people from all over the world who happened in their way of life to rely heavily on oil to keep it confortable and cheap enough contribute too. And westerners are, in average, healthier than moderate muslims, which means most probably they “contribute” way more in funding international terrorism.

Before 9/11, one could argue it was not knowingly. It’s not anymore. And I’ll bet both you and me are to include in the contributors list, right?

Anyway, nice koolaid flavored post.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 29, 2006 10:18 AM
Comment #185041

Phillipe,

Clinton tried to catch OBL during 8 years. And failed. And recognized it.

Trying means you actually pulled the trigger when you had him in your sites.

Posted by: MAW at September 29, 2006 10:31 AM
Comment #185042
Our party may be far from perfect, but we are not nearly the failures that the dems are and will continue to be.

Henry C,

What can I say? Hook, line, and sinker?

Saddam was NOT the threat he was trumped up to be, since there were NO WMD, and no evidence that it was moved elsewhere. Also, the U.S. was also putting money into the “Oil for Food” program. If we knew it was compromised, we could have merely stop funding it.

Invading Iraq on flawed intelligence was a massive error in judgement. The intelligence was extremely irresponsible and/or inflated. It was N_O_T worth the lives of 2708 (and growing) U.S. Troops, 19,945 wounded U.S. troops, and 43,546 Iraqi deaths.

And if that were not bad enough, the invasion of Iraq was followed by other massive blunders.

Fortunately, most Americans are starting to figure this out. They are finally seeing the truth of these blunders. They understand that regardless of whether we were misled due to incompetence or purposefully misled, it was a blunder.

Take your pick.

Both are bad.

Either way, it was a _M_A_S_S_I_V_E_ blunder.

And, the war in Iraq is NOT making us safer. It is a failed administration trying to save face. They painted themselves into a corner, and now they can’t admit their blunder.

And, now both Afghanistan and Iraq may be slipping away due to more incompetence (i.e. trying to wage a war on the cheap to limit costs, without regard for the costs of trying to wage a war on the cheap). And what is truly disgusting is to see some blaming the “Out Party” for the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it is disgusting to see Bush running around (just before an election) trying to use fear and terrorism to drum up votes. Very sad, and disgusting. He can never admit these many blunders. Unfortunately for him, most Americans now see the truth.

Lastly, it is NOT just a Republican problem.
Democrats are just as guilty.
And so are WE the people, the voters, who keep re-electing the same irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians, over-and-over, empowering them to be irresponsible, forever securing their cu$hy, coveted seats of abused power.

That’s the real truth.

And, I think voters are wising up to it, and will give both parties (both containing far too many irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, lazy, do-nothing, corrupt, incumbent politicians) a big surprise in 2006 and 2008.

But, they will have to take off their partisan blinders, stop pulling the party-lever, and stop wallowing in the partisan warfare, and just do the one simple, common-sense, no-brainer, non-partisan, responsible thing voters were supposed to be doing all along, always.

  • Stop Repeat Offenders.

  • Don’t Re-elect irresponsible incumbent politicians!

Here’s what we need.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 29, 2006 10:32 AM
Comment #185043

d.a.n.

This former Repulican sees through it.

So, you’re the one!

Posted by: MAW at September 29, 2006 10:35 AM
Comment #185045

MAW,
Guilty as charged.
But no more.
Better late than never.
That last 6 years have been eye-opening.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 29, 2006 10:43 AM
Comment #185049

Republicans will win the house and senate that is for certain! Thanks to all you left wing democats! lol

Posted by: Michael C Bonacci at September 29, 2006 10:51 AM
Comment #185052
Henry C wrote: d.a.n people like you are the problem.

Look again Henry.
You are looking in the mirror.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 29, 2006 10:58 AM
Comment #185058

Tax Reform

Henry, if you don’t like taxes, why haven’t your “In Party” fixed it? They have the majority. I’ll tell you why. Because irresponsible incumbents of both parties like it just the way they have perverted it.

Do you have any solutions?
Or do you just have the same old, tired, cliches about the Democrats? (BTW, I’m not a Democrat).

Posted by: d.a.n at September 29, 2006 11:04 AM
Comment #185062
Henry C wrote: At least Republicans fight taxes and budget increases.

Are you serious?
What planet have you been living on for the last six year?
Take a gander at this, and explain how Republicans have been fighting budget increases.
Many of your statements, aside from being false, are quite revealing (and entertaining).
In your mind, everything is someone else’s fault. Not the “In Party” that has a majority in both houses.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 29, 2006 11:10 AM
Comment #185066

Henry C (or should I say, “No See”),
I’m not a Democrat, or Republican, or a member of any party.
Not that there is anything wrong with parties.
They are not the problem.
The problem is what each party consists of.
Each have far too many irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, incompetent, FOR-SALE incumbent politicians.
Tenure corrupts.
Voters are slowly figuring it out.
Both parties may be in for a surprise.
I hope so, because the truth is, both parties have far too many irresponsible incumbents.

That’s the real truth, whether you like it or not. Blind partisanship and party loyalty is the real problem. We have to do what is right, regardless of what party we belong to.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 29, 2006 11:22 AM
Comment #185067

MAW,

Clinton tried to catch OBL during 8 years. And failed. And recognized it.

Trying means you actually pulled the trigger when you had him in your sites.

Hence my (and his) “And failed” and, in Bush case, “And failed, so far”. Could we agree on this?

I’m not sure how much close OBL ever was in their respective sight, though.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 29, 2006 11:23 AM
Comment #185069

Califrep

“charles schumer, diane finstein,ted kennedy, the list gos on. thats not to say that there are not dems who are supporters, because there are. but the majority tend to try and undermine that right. you won’t see much about it on the news as it tends to be a losing issue for the dems to run on.”

Thats what I mean, if its a losing issue to run on, they don’t have any support. It is in fact a non issue, a straw man, a distraction from what matters. I don’t care about it. I don’t care about other distractions in the news, like the Ramsey girl, or the Murder case of the day, or whatever is getting todays attention.

I just read a article where Karen Hughes says it will take decades to fix our “image problem”. Well if she wants to fix it, she should make that idiot in office stop creating what everyone else sees. Its not image, its reality, and the party in power has worsened the problems. Everyday in Iraq is a problem. If the war ended 3 years ago, and its reconstruction now, whats with the violence. It sure as hell looks like war to me, and to the rest of the world. A BULLSHIT war over lies, that is what the world sees. That is a huge part of the problem.

Posted by: Grattan at September 29, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #185070
Henry C wrote: Name one dem that has fought taxes and increases . There hasn’t been one for 30 years. not a one.
Henry, You’re not understanding. I’m not a Democrat, and have no intentions of defending that party. Not at all.

I’m past all that, and now after real solutions and the real root causes, and it is all too clear that BOTH parties have a problem.

Can you name 10, 20, 50, 100, or even 268 (half of 535) in congress that are responsible and accountable?

Posted by: d.a.n at September 29, 2006 11:29 AM
Comment #185072
Henry C wrote: I’ll tell you exactly who’s fault it is. . lawyers, teachers, nurses, unions, socialists, blacks, and half the poor. . These are primarily democratic groups who get the vote out for the dems. and then expect support in return when its time to line their pocketbooks and put laws in place to help their financial status.

Henry C,
How revealing. Your very own statements (an obvious trend) have just proved what type of person you are, and nothing more you have to say even remotely dignifies a response.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 29, 2006 11:32 AM
Comment #185073

Henry C,
What do you have against blacks, teachers, and poor people?

Posted by: d.a.n at September 29, 2006 11:34 AM
Comment #185076

Henry C,

The media isn’t out there everyday announcing the casualties from CA for the last 3 years. That’s because that doesn’t make Bush look bad. It would only make a democratic state look bad. The leadership of CA during peacetime is doing the same quality work as Bush during wartime. Where’s the fairness. California is busy promoting itself as a wonderful place to live. Hah!

Isn’t the current CA’s governor, Arnold “Terminator” Schwarzenegger, a republican?
Anyway, let’s attack California to bring them freedom and democracy… sorry, neoconcy. Don’t wait any minute more.

Oh yeah and as bad a place that Iraq might be to live, You get to keep 95 % of what you earn.

not 50 % like CA.

Sure, 95% of near nothing is way better than 50% of one of the best average wage in the World. Math, anyone?
Oh… wait… Math should banned too, that’s too much scientific to be trusted. Afterall, isn’t crazy scientists against ID and “promoting” Global Warming conspiracy!?

solution : move to a red state

Oh no, please, Henry, don’t move to Iraq!
Hum? What? Your “red state” is not to take literally?
Oh. My bad.

Where is my koolaid glasse, BTW…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 29, 2006 11:39 AM
Comment #185078

Philippe

Saddam was funding terrorists.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/04/16/saddam.htm

Posted by: Keith at September 29, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #185079

Sorry heres the link again

Sadam funds Terror

Posted by: Keith at September 29, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #185083

Henry C,

If California is a dangerous as Iraq, why don’t we bring the troops home so they be redeployed to protect California from all of that carnage in the streets?

The answer to my rhetorical question is that California is NOT as dangerous as Iraq. Not by a longshot. It is estimated that about 100,000 civilians have died because of the Iraq War. If people were dying at the rate in California, believe me it would be on the news!

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 29, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #185087
Henry “No” C wrote:
  • I’ll tell you exactly who’s fault it is.
  • lawyers, teachers, nurses, unions, socialists, blacks, and half the poor.
  • These are primarily democratic groups who get the vote out for the dems. and then expect support in return when its time to line their pocketbooks and put laws in place to help their financial status.

Only half the poor?
Fascinating.
Are you sure you didn’t leave something out?

Posted by: d.a.n at September 29, 2006 12:00 PM
Comment #185096
I only know when I lived in Southern CA, 120 people were murdered in one year in a city of only 130,000.

And at one time NYC’s annual murder rate was about a 1000.

Care to share here how much murder was by gun?
Care to elaborate how much 1000 death per year rate is comparable to ~100 *per DAY* death rate in Iraq?

Also take into account that Iraq is close to being a third- world country.

No other third-world country have the current Iraq daily casualties rate, thanks.

So if the NYC or LA police force cannot keep their cities “safe” what can be expected of the Iraqis after a war.

What can be expected after a war is a) the occupying force secure the country, as required by Geneva Convention or b) leave the country.

The c), doing nothing except at laughing about “Ali Baba” looters rip the country you just attack is not a real option. d), fired the army is a worse option even.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 29, 2006 12:44 PM
Comment #185097

grattan;

since when is undermining any part of the const., regaurdless of its popularity, merely a distraction?

is undermining of the 1st amendment, freedom of speech and association, only a distraction? is the 4th amendment, the right of the people to be secure in thier persons, houses, and effects, against unreasonable searches. is this also a distraction? you compare the news story of the day, or distraction as you call it, to a part of our bill of rights. one is is an occurence, the other is part of our founding documents. i hardly see the comparison.

BTW, don’t think no one is trying undermine the others. everytime some new campaign finance reform law is passed, it limits free speech in one form or another. how about the kelo decission allowing the government to sieze private property through eminent domain, for just about any reason. bye bye private property rights.

my point is you focus on one issue, you hate george bush, but ignore the big picture. your rights are being attacked from both sides of the aisle. you need to wake up, and take off the blinders.

Posted by: califrep at September 29, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #185098

Keith,

Sorry heres the link again

Sadam funds Terror

Who funds Saddam?
Don’t worry, US was not alone. Pretty much all big oil-oolic nations were.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 29, 2006 12:49 PM
Comment #185102

Philippe,

I’m not sure how much close OBL ever was in their respective sight, though.

He was, and he was several times. This has been well documented. And your rally cry of GWB not getting OBL either is a feckless argument.

What good does it do to get HIM now when all the the training and planning was done under Clinton’s administration? The damage has been done. Pandora’s box has been opened. Too late. Getting OBL will solve nothing.


Besides, all Clinton had to do was pull out of Saudi Arabia and do whatever it took to appease him. Since you are the proponent of appeasement, this should suit your fancy. So in essence, leaving our troops in Saudi Arabia was what angered OBL. Clinton did that. Not GWB.

Posted by: MAW at September 29, 2006 1:09 PM
Comment #185103

d.a.n.

Guilty as charged. But no more. Better late than never. That last 6 years have been eye-opening.

I gather you would rather err on the side of giving terrorists constitutional rights, hanging up when someone from Al Qaeda calls someone in the US or not tracing money being used to finance terrorist operations? This is your current plan?

My eyes have been opened as well. I definitely fear Democrats getting power back. Because of all the reasons stated. But you can feel warm and fuzzy again because you will have saved and protected our American values of protecting the rights of terrorists.

Posted by: MAW at September 29, 2006 1:16 PM
Comment #185106

Philippe,

Who funds Saddam? Don’t worry, US was not alone. Pretty much all big oil-oolic nations were.

Ancient history. Who doesn’t know we were supporting Saddam when he was fighting Iran? Is this a big revelation?

Posted by: MAW at September 29, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #185111
MAW wrote: d.a.n. I gather you would rather err on the side of giving terrorists constitutional rights
MAW, Where did you ever come up with such a moronic idea as that?
MAW wrote: … hanging up when someone from Al Qaeda calls someone in the US

MAW,
Again, where do you get these moronic ideas?
Where did I ever say anything remotely like that?
Of course I am for wire-tapping, if necessary, within the law.

MAW wrote: … or not tracing money being used to finance terrorist operations? This is your current plan?
MAW, Again, I don’t know how you arrived at such moronic conclusions? Where did I ever say that was my plan? Please point out from my vast writings on watchblog where I ever said such a stupid thing.
MAW wrote: My eyes have been opened as well.
MAW, No, you are still blinded with the distracting petty partisan warfare, and BOTH parties have far too many irresponsible incumbent politicians. When you finally see that, you will finally see the truth. The politicians of both parties are just takin’ turns, and they love to fuel the petty partisan warfare, and some people love to wallow in it.
MAW wrote: I definitely fear Democrats getting power back. Because of all the reasons stated.
Nonsense. Look at the vast similarities.

Also, can you name 10, 20, 50, 100, or even 268 (half of 535) in congress that are responsible and accountable? Give me some names, and I’ll be more than happy to show you their pork-barrel, waste, irresponsible votes, pandering, broken promises, graft, trolling for big-money, ignoring pressing problems, corruption, and “looking the other way”. You are so afraid of Democrats, when what you really need to be afraid of is corruption in BOTH parties, through-and-through.

MAW wrote: But you can feel warm and fuzzy again because you will have saved and protected our American values of protecting the rights of terrorists.

MAW,
That statement is very revealing.
I challenge you to find anything I have ever written that even remotely sounds like it is promoting protection for terrorists?

It’s like you have tunnel vision, and you can’t see anything but what you want to see. It is very stereotypical, and can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen that same old, tired rhetoric. Heck, I used to do the same thing at one time, but eventually grew out of it.

MAW,
Take your partisan blinders off, and start taking a closer look at what incumbent politicians in BOTH parties are doing, and you will finally see the root of the problem, which is this:

Government is irresponsible, but voters keep lazily re-electing the very same irresponsible incumbent politicians, over and over, giving them a re-election rate of over 90% .

So, WE The People, ALL of us are the problem, and that is the inescapable truth.
Not just Democrats.
Not just Republicans.
Not just Voters.
ALL of us.

  • Stop Repeat Offenders.
  • Don’t Re-Elect Irresponsible, Bought-and-Paid-for Incumbent Politicians !
Posted by: d.a.n at September 29, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #185115

SE:

How do you square this:

“The Mighty Eagle can confidently predict now that the Republicans will retain control of both Houses.

with this:

“Where I come from, you don’t count your chips until the game is over, and it ain’t over …..yet.”

Posted by: Paul Siegel at September 29, 2006 2:21 PM
Comment #185119

SE-
Let me relate to you a significant number of my own: zero. That’s the number of foreign terrorist attacks that terrorists managed to score after that Truck Bomb blew in 1993 During Clinton’s administration.

How many lives did that save on 9/11? Another significant number: zero. They took 8 years to get around to 9/11. So what? They accomplished their mission. Don’t tell me five years is a long wait when a longer period of security ended with such devastation.

Number of terrorist plots foiled by U.S. Intelligence? Irrelevant. Even if all of them are real plots, we have no way of determining how many other irons are in the fire.

Fraction of Leadership killed? Leaders can be replaced. Replacements aren’t necessarily less skilled, and the leaders who remain alive are often much better than those who slip up and get killed or captured.

al-Qaeda has only thousands of people in it, where the middle east has tens of millions. I’m sure finding more recruits is not a problem for them, especially in light of their increase in force from maybe 10,000, to more like 25,000, as detailed in the NIE.

Additionally, this notion of operating a war on terror by attrition is foolish. The best way to destroy the terrorist forces is to cripple their ability to recruit and act, and suffocate them by forcing inaction.

Calling this WWIII is marketing, not description. This is not a massive conventional war. The War on Terrorism is global in scope, but in terms of the actual engagements, if they’re military at all, they’re rather small scale. You can tell that by the fact that more people got killed at Normandy than in all of this war. Folks on the right call this WWIII because they want an excuse to invade Iran and continue Iraq indefinitely. They want to make out like this is some fight for Civilization when what it really constitutes is a battle to return stability and peace to a country we never properly got under control.

Look at Iraq. Look where its situated. Without adequate security and law enforcement, it is a cheap place for our opponent to recruit more troops. Given their tactics, they have raised their troop levels 2.5 times. If we wait for the last terrorist to die, we will lose this war because they can keep on creating terrorists longer than we can keep our soldiers in place. We’re already having problems maintaining troop levels. This won’t work. We need to admit that and go to a plan which has a better chance of working.

Henry C-
Bureaucratic BS? Look at the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, and get back to me on whether it was important we find terrorists and WMDs.

Or maybe just take my word for it: It’s written into the law that gives the president the legal authority to fight this war.

There was no al-Qaeda presence in Iraq until we destroyed the Nations ability to keep itself secure. If our leaders had known what they were doing, they would have had troops and administrators, resources and materials available to step in and restore that security before anybody got bright ideas. They didn’t know what they were doing, unfortunately.

They cover for this, and have folks like you cover for them by saying that it’s all the media’s fault, that the Democrats are obstructing you. Appearances on the media would be to no avail if your folks were getting results. Obstruction from our side is mostly meaningless without the cooperation of folks from your side, which we don’t normally get. Time after time, on armor, on increasing troops, on many other policy items, you folks have been tripping over yourselves, using ideological reasons to deny yourselves solutions and and consensus on the war. You folks have the majority. At worst, we are a speed-bump.

The time has come to admit that the failures here are your own, to end this pathetic repeat of the whole Nattering Nabobs of Negativity line from Vietnam.

If this war is lost for political reasons, it will be for the weakness of the Republican Party in providing material support and properly interpreting intelligence from abroad.

On the subject of how many people have died in Baghdad, Let me put it to you this way: in one week, more Iraqis will be murdered in Baghdad than Americans were killed last year in America’s largest city, New York. The two cities are about the same size.

Check the murder stats in LA. Same thing. Baghdad is far deadlier per month than any city in America is per year.

The time has come to get out of this state of denial. Nobody can win a war with their eyes closed.

MAW-
Actually, the NIE whose conclusions were just published says that Killing or capturing the top leaders of al-Qaeda in rapid succession would splinter their whole movement.

As for giving Terrorists constitutional rights? Well, ask the criminals stuck in jail what constitutional rights amount to for the guilty. A man who murders somebody might get off on a technicality if they’re lucky and have a good lawyer. However, it is more likely that they end up caught and convicted.

The actual beneficiaries are terrorism suspects who are innocent and we Americans. The terrorism suspects get to have the evidence against them brought to bear, rather than waiting indeterminately to be tortured into confessing to what they didn’t do.

It benefits us to extend rights to our enemies in our custody, because it demonstrates that America stands for justices, not barbaric behavior. It deflates the positions of our critics and forces them to rely on lies instead, which are a far less secure foundation for attacks.

Personally, I would be happy with a system that gives them moderate rights and appeals to our legal system, but which satisfies the need for greater intelligence. We don’t have to extend rights to foreign nationals, since they aren’t citizens. It’s just something that will keep us out of trouble in the long term, ensuring we have fewer skeletons in our closet.

Note that the most contentious debates about things like wiretaps and terrorists are concerned deal with the involvement of American citizens. There, it becomes a question of whether we start building dangerous exceptions to our most cherished freedoms, for next to no benefit in security. The extremity of our actions does not guarantee their effectiveness.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 29, 2006 2:31 PM
Comment #185121

The reason the budget is out of control is because of the war on terror. Dems refuse to approve funding for it unless they can attach a pork project to the funding bill. And BTW, Clinton had OBL in his sights several times, but did nothing. Bush has actually had to do the work of finding him. As soon as that happens, without a doubt he will die. Dems vote to fund qwar, then hold a press conference about how we need to cut and run, so tell me who the real hypocrites are here.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 29, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #185122

Paul

Hey….just like the leak,,,,out of context….

Posted by: sicilianeagle at September 29, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #185131

“The reason the budget is out of control is because of the war on terror. Dems refuse to approve funding for it unless they can attach a pork project to the funding bill. And BTW, Clinton had OBL in his sights several times, but did nothing. Bush has actually had to do the work of finding him. As soon as that happens, without a doubt he will die. Dems vote to fund qwar, then hold a press conference about how we need to cut and run, so tell me who the real hypocrites are here.”

Say what?

The reason we’re going broke at 90mph is because the War on Terror? I thought it was because of the war in Iraq. And this is the DEMs fault? Seriously…

Clinton had intel on OBL and launched missles at him - which the REPs got their panities in a wad over…

Bush gave the Taliban $128 million in 2001 - including $43 million in May of 2001… just 3 months prior to 9/11… and 6 months after we knew for sure that Al Queda had attcked the USS COLE.

btw - CUT AND RUN is out of date - check to make sure you have the most recent talking points…

Posted by: tony at September 29, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #185162

As a Dem I to care deeply about the troops Thats why I want them out of Iraq. And toby keith is an as##ole I will no longer listen to country music because of his rants.

Posted by: Jeff at September 29, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #185164
The reason the budget is out of control is because of the war on terror. Dems refuse to approve funding for it unless they can attach a pork project to the funding bill.

HA Ha ha ha ha …

Ryan Daugherty,
What a hoot!
You really haven’t a clue, do you? (NOTE: that’s a question).

If you think Republicans don’t vote for pork-barrel, then you are sadly mistaken. Just take a look all the pork-barrel by Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) (the all time biggest porker award winner of 2005), Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi), Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), Robert Bennett (R-Utah), Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire), Jerry Lewis (R-CA), etc. etc. etc.

Democrats vote on a lot of pork too, but one Republican (Ted Stevens) is worse than any of them. Just take a look for yourself. Most (if not all) are irresponsible and unaccountable. Most (if not all) vote irresponsibly on pork-barrel, bribes, graft, waste, corporate welfare, and waste .

That’s why votes should do the one simple, logical, non-partisan, peaceful, logical thing that voters were supposed to be doing all along, always:

  • Stop Repeat Offenders.
  • Don’t Re-Elect Irresponsible, Bought-and-Paid-for Incumbent Politicians !
Posted by: d.a.n at September 29, 2006 5:02 PM
Comment #185178

MAW,

Ancient history. Who doesn’t know we were supporting Saddam when he was fighting Iran? Is this a big revelation?

Neither is a big revelation Saddam was an monstruous dictator. Didn’t make him the brain behind 9/11. Afterall, Syria funds terrorists too. Saudi Arabia do, in a far bigger amount too.
Saudi Arabia dictatorship and the US troops presence in this country have many more thing to do with 9/11 than a Baath’ist dictator hate for the US.
Yet, Iraq was chosen… There countless of White House speeches during 2001-2003 where Iraq or Saddam was put in the same sentence than 9/11 or islamic terrorism. Each time with great care to NOT imply Iraq is connected to 9/11, but the rethoric spin did work fine.

More than 40% of americans still think Saddam Hussein did 9/11.
And such massive spin machine propaganda is not the Clinton’s government one, mind you!

What good does it do to get HIM now when all the the training and planning was done under Clinton’s administration? The damage has been done. Pandora’s box has been opened. Too late. Getting OBL will solve nothing.

It will show terrorist leaders, everyone, one after one, will effectively be killed or captured. Each time.
It will eventually delay the time before another leader will step to take Al Qaida leadership.
It will show US is the power she brag she is.
It will show that, indeed, terrorism leader should not mess with the US.

It will also show Bush can actually stay the course on OBL, the leader behind 9/11, and not staying the course only in his pet Iraq War.

So in essence, leaving our troops in Saudi Arabia was what angered OBL. Clinton did that. Not GWB.

Bush 41 did it. He was the president when Gulf War ended in spring 1991. Clinton did nothing to change Bush 41 decision to leave them there, agreed. And, then, Bush Junior move them from Saudi Arabia to Iraq, attacking on forged threats of deadly WMDs, “nukular” ones included, another arab sovereign nation, without an international legitimity, which angered millions of MODERATE muslims and make beyond their best hope a gift to islamic terrorists recruiters worldwide.

But keepd drinking your “Clinton did it, Bush did not” beverage. I can’t ever stand its flavor.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 29, 2006 5:47 PM
Comment #185179

MAW

Clinton tried to catch OBL during 8 years. And failed. And recognized it.

“Trying means you actually pulled the trigger when you had him in your sites.”

umm …I think it was a cruise missle. Do they have triggers??

Posted by: 037 at September 29, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #185182

Ryan,

Clinton had OBL in his sights several times, but did nothing. Bush has actually had to do the work of finding him. As soon as that happens, without a doubt he will die.

Since CIA closed its OBL hunting unit since last year, it could take a little extra time even.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 29, 2006 5:59 PM
Comment #185188

Philippe,

Neither is a big revelation Saddam was an monstruous dictator.

There was no discussion about him being a monstrous dictator. Your implication was that he was funded by the US. Stay on topic. It is not a news bulletin that he was a monster. I am not sure what your statement about Syria or Saudi Arabia funding him has to do with anything. So I am not going down that rabbit hole either.

More than 40% of americans still think Saddam Hussein did 9/11.

And this translates to Bush lied? Americans believe the WTC was taken down by a conspiracy. Most Americans can’t tell you the name of the Vice President or Secretary of State or Defense. And this proves what? Americans are stupid?

And such massive spin machine propaganda is not the Clinton’s government one, mind you!

Is this the part you tell me that Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman? Or perhaps when you tell me that Hilary was not spinning on the Today Show with that Vast Right Wing Conspiracy statement. No spin there…..

It will show terrorist leaders, everyone, one after one, will effectively be killed or captured. Each time.

Maybe you haven’t been reading or watching the news. They have been captured and killed. One after one!

Bush 41 did it. He was the president when Gulf War ended in spring 1991. Clinton did nothing to change Bush 41 decision to leave them there, agreed.

OBL did not declare war on the US until the Clinton Administration. That is when Al Qaeda was being formed and in its heyday. Under Clinton not Bush 41 or 43. I believe you left that part out.

BTW, I can’t get any Kool Aid. Looks like the Clinton people have bought up all the stock.

Posted by: MAW at September 29, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #185190

Philippe,

Since CIA closed its OBL hunting unit since last year, it could take a little extra time even.

Oh, so now you believe the CIA? Interesting. Is this called selective believing?

Posted by: MAW at September 29, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment #185191

Ryan Daugherty-
Porkbarrel is bipartisan problem, but the plain truth is that that there are three major reasons for our deficits: Not enough tax revenues, an expensive war ongoing, and finally the added expense of the Medicare Drug Benefit. Simple as that.

On the subject of getting Bin Laden, read the 9/11 Commission Report There were no such opportunities, like those portrayed in Path to 9/11.

As for Bush finding Bin Laden, he already did. Tora Bora, if you do not recall. We had him there, and we could have prevented his escape with a few choice placements of soldiers.

The trick here is finding him again, and the big problem here is that he has a nice little safe haven now. Tell me though: who are the hypocrites?

Democrats support giving the soldiers the funds, the manpower, and supplies they need. Even Kerry’s negative vote on one funding bill, understood in context fits this view; he rejected the spending bill because of its deficit spending. His version, which he had put to a vote, would have done all the same things, but pay for it now with a reduction in tax breaks for the rich.

The majority of Democrats do not support what you call cutting and running. We generally support a multi-year withdrawal, each step conditional on success of an objective.

Our goal is to create a self-sufficient Democracy. If we stay there indefinitely, we risk making the peace of the nation inherently dependent on our presence, which we cannot economically sustain forever. We have got to get our act together now. In the end, we have no victory without a successful withdrawal. Does Bush even have a plan, or is it stay and play?

As for hypocrisy? Who screams at the top of their lungs that they support the troops, but won’t give them the body armor, strategies and manpower to succeed in their mission? Who berated Democrats for years about entitlements we couldn’t afford, deficit spending, and a war lost under our leadership, then turn around and manage to make those same mistakes?

It’s not hypocrisy to keep the money flowing to maintain a war, not after we’ve insisted so many times that the war’s outlook must improve. Our appeals to your party, which is running and pushing this war on ideological grounds, have always said as much.

What’s hypocrisy is getting cheap about a war you push as utter necessity. What’s hypocrisy is avoiding starting a draft when every visible sign of its necessity is out there, and when you’ve shouted to the heavens about the necessity to win this war.

We are losing this war because your people can’t possibly believe you’re getting it wrong. You won’t let the American people see the situation for themselves and make their own decisions from there. Do that long enough, and the only thing we will be able to do, or worse willing to do, will be to withdraw in haste. We don’t need that. America does not need to be defeated because its leaders couldn’t be straight with the American people about the costs and the manpower necessary for the war.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 29, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment #185194

037,

umm …I think it was a cruise missle. Do they have triggers??

Worse yet. A million dollar cruise missile and he still couldn’t get him. Or maybe he just didn’t want to. Too much political pressure. Not his forte. But trying only gets you trying.

Last time I tried to do anything it simply meant I was not able, ready or willing to get it done.

Posted by: MAW at September 29, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #185198

MAW, and here Democrats have been saying for years that Bush has not even been trying to get OBL, especially after Bush said, he doesn’t think much about OBL.

You made your trap point, exceedingly well. Bravo!

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2006 6:58 PM
Comment #185203

MAW,

I am not sure what your statement about Syria or Saudi Arabia funding him [Saddam? OBL?] has to do with anything.

I wrote they fund terrorists, not Saddam. Read again:

Afterall, Syria funds terrorists too. Saudi Arabia do, in a far bigger amount too.
Saudi Arabia dictatorship and the US troops presence in this country have many more thing to do with 9/11 than a Baath’ist dictator hate for the US.

Where do you see I’m saying Syria / Saudi Arabia funded Saddam???
I’m saying Iraq was not the main arab nations funding terrorist, very far from it.
OBL’s Al Qaida in particular, who did 9/11, was mostly funded by Saudi Arabia.
Not Iraq. But Iraq was the neocons easy target. Who care it’s the wrong one…

It’s funny that as soon as someone put “Iraq” or “Saddam” in the same paragraph than 9/11, one will always read it wrong. Karl Rove, you’re an evil spin master.

Americans believe the WTC was taken down by a conspiracy. Most Americans can’t tell you the name of the Vice President or Secretary of State or Defense. And this proves what? Americans are stupid?

Nope. Ignorant. Uninformed. Or misinformed. Sometimes on purpose. Most of the time because they’re too lazy to care about checking the facts, outsourcing this task to FOX News…

Maybe you haven’t been reading or watching the news. They have been captured and killed. One after one!

Except the #1, mythical and rallying highest leader of all them. And that’s telling.


OBL did not declare war on the US until the Clinton Administration. That is when Al Qaeda was being formed and in its heyday. Under Clinton not Bush 41 or 43. I believe you left that part out.

Could you reply on what I said for once, instead of your “path to 9/11” docudrama copy’n’paste lines?

US troops was kept in Saudi Arabia after Gulf War ends in april 1991. Bush 41 could have then ordered the troops to leave out Saudi Arabia. But he did not. He was then US president.
That’s facts.
Check it.
That the point I was making.
The point you’re trying to avoid replying.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 29, 2006 7:07 PM
Comment #185204

MAW-

D.A.N. said:

“Also, can you name 10, 20, 50, 100, or even 268 (half of 535) in congress that are responsible and accountable? Give me some names…”

This really cuts to the heart of the matter doesn’t it? Who cares about all the general partisan talk about republicans being more consistent on security but heartless on social issues, or democrats being more socially progressive but wasteful…whatever stereotypes you pull out and examples you use to support whatever conclusions you draw (which in humans tends to be more based on emotion than anything else regardless of your saying otherwise publicly), they are worthless without a clear picture of who is doing what in Washington (reality in other words).

Can you give 5 names of great and noble republicans CURRENTLY serving?

I can’t even from both parties combined…I really can’t. So I’m dying to hear the names of those who provide the action behind the partisan philosophy you so wholeheartedly defend.

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 29, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #185205

MAW, you debate against preserving our rights all you want, but, the bottom line is, our troops are dying to protect and defend those rights you are so willing to toss away out of fear.

Guess that is why they are there, and so many who are so willing to give up our liberties and freedoms from government intrustion and authoritarian rule (politicians who make up their rules as they go along for their own benefit), remain here at home damning those who would protect and defend those liberties and freedoms with speech and blood.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2006 7:22 PM
Comment #185209

David -

Being American should be for flags, not people… right???

Posted by: tony at September 29, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #185212

David- you debate against preserving our rights all you want, but, the bottom line is, our troops are dying to protect and defend those rights you are so willing to toss away out of fear.

Tony- Being American should be for flags, not people… right???

haha…this is just a perfect example of sacrificing integrity for the sake of attack. Tony, what’s the motive behind your question?

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 29, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #185220

MAW-
There’s an important fact you should be made aware of. Cruise Missiles, before they are launched, require a period of several hours to spin up their internal navigational gyroscopes before they are launched.

Meaning, if you want to catch Bin Laden with a Cruise missile, you have to be very certain he would stay put for the next several hours. If you couldn’t be certain, you were just wasting millions of taxpayer dollars to no effect. That’s why the Hellfire missiles mounted on the Predator UAVs are such a godsend.

I would not disagree with anybody sending one of them after Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 29, 2006 8:32 PM
Comment #185222

You Dems are hilarious. Keep it up. Here is a campaign slogan for you.

TOUGH ON BUSH
SOFT ON TERROR

VOTE DEMOCRAT IN 06


Posted by: gnee at September 29, 2006 8:39 PM
Comment #185224

“Tony, what’s the motive behind your question?”

Well, if you read David’s post again (it seems by your response you might’ve misread it)… the questions is rhetorical and fairly obvious.

Posted by: tony at September 29, 2006 8:40 PM
Comment #185225

Philippe,

US troops was kept in Saudi Arabia after Gulf War ends in april 1991. Bush 41 could have then ordered the troops to leave out Saudi Arabia. But he did not. He was then US president. That’s facts. Check it. That the point I was making. The point you’re trying to avoid replying.

I will try to make it simple for you. OBL declared war on the US during the Clinton Administration in no small part because US troops were in Saudi Arabia. He did not declare war on the US during the Bush 41 or the Bush 43 Administration. And why were we there? To protect the Saudis from Saddam. Again, why didn’t Clinton remove our troops from Saudi Arabia, as any good appeaser would do?

Americans are not as stupid or misinformed as you think.

It just can’t get any simpler than that. If I could make it even simpler for you to understand I would. It seems I tried and failed. But at least I tried. Hmmmm. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?


Posted by: MAW at September 29, 2006 8:42 PM
Comment #185229

Stephen,

There’s an important fact you should be made aware of. Cruise Missiles, before they are launched, require a period of several hours to spin up their internal navigational gyroscopes before they are launched.

Precisely, Clinton did not have the stomach to put boots on the ground or even Special Forces for that matter. Launching a cruise missile is like sending up an atom bomb to kill a fly. If he really truly wanted to get OBL he would have. He would have done whatever it took to get him. And taken the heat for it. But he had no stomach to do anything that would interfere with his narcissistic idea of himself or his legacy.

As much or as many that dislike President Bush there are just as many that dislike President Clinton. And neither side can understand the reasons for those feelings.

Whatever the case, there were plenty of Republicans that supported his cruise missile launches and stated so publicly. He got support from both sides. Yes, there were those that claimed the wag the dog theory. But whose fault is that. He got himself in that situation.

Posted by: MAW at September 29, 2006 8:56 PM
Comment #185233

MAW -

Bush 41 put US troops into Saudi Arabia for staging Desert Storm… 1991. So, what’s your point about OBL declaring war on the US on Clinton’s watch? There wasn’t enough time for OBL to declare his war before Bush Sr. left office.

The troops were kept in Saudi - mostly to help stabilize the country and it’s oil - not to guard against Saddam. I don’t think 5-10k troops would do much against an aggressive country.

Clinton didn’t have the guts to put boots on the ground…??? So, you feel that Afg. or Pakistan would allow US military soldiers into their countries during that period of time? The option was for a surgical strike, and it only failed by the slightest margin.

What has Bush done to capture or kill OBL?

“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

Sound familiar?

Posted by: tony at September 29, 2006 9:12 PM
Comment #185237

David,

you debate against preserving our rights all you want, but, the bottom line is, our troops are dying to protect and defend those rights you are so willing to toss away out of fear.

I am not debating against preserving our rights. I am debating against preserving the rights of those that are engaged on the battlefield with our troops that are dying to protect and defend those rights.

How we fight this war on terrorism depends greatly on how we treat those that want to kill us and our way of life. The very ability to sit in our home/offices without fear of retribution is at stake here. I hold dearly those rights and freedoms. But I will be damned if I will support those in office that want to defend those that want to take it away from me.

Those that criticize the intelligence that led up to the war seem vehemently opposed to enacting any legislation that would support or give guidance to the CIA when questioning those Jihadist and terrorists. My head is spinning with the hipocrosy of it all.

Please explain to me how giving more rights to those that want to cut off our heads will make us more of a “moral leader”. Please explain to this simple person how being nice to terrorists that blow up innocent people and children that they will be nicer to one of ours if they get captured. Please, please explain. Because I have not heard anything close to an explanation from anyone on the left.

Please tell me how we get back stabbed by France and Russia in that Oil for Food scam and we are the bad guys. Please tell me how tying the hands of the CIA when a terrorist is captured makes me less of a person that values our freedom. Please tell me why we have a President that doesn’t want to sit around and wait for something to happen to us before taking any action makes him a liar.

But what is the use. The dislike for President Bush will go on and history will be the judge. Not you or me.


Guess that is why they are there, and so many who are so willing to give up our liberties and freedoms from government intrustion and authoritarian rule (politicians who make up their rules as they go along for their own benefit)

Isn’t this the part where you call the President a dictator?

Maybe you didn’t get the bulletin. We have never fought a war like this before. Everything, anything is new territory. What are those freedoms that are being denied these terrorists? A military trial or a civil trial, the right to shop for a judge perhaps? You are on the wrong side of this one.

Posted by: MAW at September 29, 2006 9:33 PM
Comment #185239

Tony,

Bush 41 put US troops into Saudi Arabia for staging Desert Storm… 1991. So, what’s your point about OBL declaring war on the US on Clinton’s watch? There wasn’t enough time for OBL to declare his war before Bush Sr. left office.

All the strikes against the US during the Clinton Administration plus a declaration of war! That was not enough reason to put boots on the ground, but launching a cruise missile into a sovereign nation was OK? My point again, is that Clinton did not have what it takes to take him out. He only made feeble attempts at it. Yes, feeble feckless attempts. And for that I am angry.

Posted by: MAW at September 29, 2006 9:51 PM
Comment #185241

MAW,
You’re missing the point.
Clinton was irresponsible too.
Forget all that.
Look at now.
Government is corrupt.
Both parties.
You want to be partisan.
That’s the problem.
Try thinking out of the partisan box.
Party is irrelevant.
Both parties are irresponsible.
That is the real truth.
Voters are figuring that out.
The sooner the better.
Later is not better.
But, either way, pain and misery is a good teacher.
And that is the way it should be.
Voters should suffer the consequences of their own complacency and apathy.
Give it time.
2006 may not prove much, but that negligence and apathy in 2006 (which is highly likely) will only amplify the discontent in 2008. So watch. Voter discontent, historically, always leads to more anti-incumbent voting.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 29, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #185243

d.a.n.

Government is corrupt. Both parties. You want to be partisan. That’s the problem.

An anti-incumbent vote gets me NOTHING.

So pardon me but I will not vote for those that are interested in protecting the rights of terrorists,

nor will I vote for those concerned with not giving the intelligence community the guidance needed to protect us.

I haven’t met a Democrat yet that thought for one minute that I can spend my money better than he/she could.

Nor have I met one yet that is more concerned with me and my right to work hard and earn money than those that don’t.

Nor have I met one that was not complaining about the glass being half empty rather than half full.

Nor have I met one that thinks that I shouldn’t have to pay for the education of someone 1000 miles away in another state to go to college. While their own parents have more money than me.

Nor have I met one that believes that I have a right to send my child to a school that is better than the one he/she is subjected to.

Nor have I met one that thinks it is not fair for me to pay taxes to support those that have multiple children out of wedlock.

Nor will I vote for those that think we should follow some moral code in the belief that monsters will somehow become good guys.

But mostly, I have not met one yet that is more concerned about protecting me than being in power, or out of power as is the case now.

Posted by: MAW at September 29, 2006 10:52 PM
Comment #185254

d.a.n.

Government is corrupt. Both parties. You want to be partisan. That’s the problem.

An anti-incumbent vote gets me NOTHING.

So pardon me but I will not vote for those that are interested in protecting the rights of terrorists,

nor will I vote for those concerned with not giving the intelligence community the guidance needed to protect us.

I haven’t met a Democrat yet that thought for one minute that I can spend my money better than he/she could.

Nor have I met one yet that is more concerned with me and my right to work hard and earn money than those that don’t.

Nor have I met one that was not complaining about the glass being half empty rather than half full.

Nor have I met one that thinks that I shouldn’t have to pay for the education of someone 1000 miles away in another state to go to college. While their own parents have more money than me.

Nor have I met one that believes that I have a right to send my child to a school that is better than the one he/she is subjected to.

Nor have I met one that thinks it is not fair for me to pay taxes to support those that have multiple children out of wedlock.

Nor will I vote for those that think we should follow some moral code in the belief that monsters will somehow become good guys.

But mostly, I have not met one yet that is more concerned about protecting me than worrying about being in power, or out of power as is the case now.

Posted by: MAW at September 29, 2006 11:48 PM
Comment #185257

MAW-
First, Bush wasn’t even willing to throw cruise missiles his way, much less putting boots on the ground. So please, do not suggest the current leadership is bolder on the subject.

Second, It’s easy now, after 9/11 to talk about boots on the ground. Before, though, it would not have been an easy sell for the American people.

Third, if you know the names and the quotes of those Republicans who supported them, I’d like to see them.

Fourth, I think it is you who doesn’t understand the nature of this battle. The shock of 9/11 has jarred many into a state of terror. Many are reacting out of fear. Fear that plays into our opponents hands.

They want this reaction of going to the darkside. They want us desperate. They want us getting dirty and showing the rest of the world how pathetically uncivilized we can get. They want the Muslims of this world to become our enemies, and by our actions have them become ours. This is a classic tactic of terrorism.

The only way to truly face them without fear is to acknowledge that there’s no perfect defense, no guaranteed approach. The “get tough’ tactics the Right supports may seem seductively forceful, but that’s force that has not destroyed our enemies, but vindicated their lies.

We can only win this war by starving the support for al-Qaeda and groups like it that comes from the Arabs and Muslims of the world. This does not mean bein sitting ducks for their attacks. No, quite the opposite. We should zero in painstakingly on the guilty and we stop them cold, quickly and brutally.

You assume that just because people like me are Just being quibblers, or worse, traitors. A person might call that assumption egocentric. We got a healthy sense of self preservation. Al-Qaeda would have no mercy with such as us. We just don’t believe that torture and bigotry, misunderstanding and complacency are of any help.

I protect the rights of suspected terrorists because we’re not perfect; many suspects have turned out to have no connection to al-Qaeda whatsoever. Their information is of little value, their torture a crime against the innocent. Even those not innocent, become hazards to our intelligence picture as the pain and suffering we subject them to makes them willing to spout off whatever it is they sense we want to hear, regardless of its truth.

The Guidance we give should be towards an aggressiveness of imagination in terms of interrogation. We learn to manipulate them into giving us what we need to know, rather than beat them into a submission that may end up feeding our own preconceived notions about what’s going on back to us.

This is not about being nice to the terrorists. Its insulting that you portray things that way. This about being smarter than the terrorists. We can’t afford to always be more ruthless. However, many Muslims and Arabs hate that ruthlessness, that disrespect for those who don’t believe like they do. We can either encourage them to focus more on that dislike, or we can make ourselves look like the worse threat. Which do you think does us the most good?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 30, 2006 12:09 AM
Comment #185258

Stephen


“I protect the rights of suspected terrorists because we’re not perfect; many suspects have turned out to have no connection to al-Qaeda whatsoever. Their information is of little value, their torture a crime against the innocent. Even those not innocent, become hazards to our intelligence picture as the pain and suffering we subject them to makes them willing to spout off whatever it is they sense we want to hear, regardless of its truth.”

Can you name the many people we have tortured who turned out to be innocent?

Posted by: Keith at September 30, 2006 12:16 AM
Comment #185267

Stephen,

First, Bush wasn’t even willing to throw cruise missiles his way, much less putting boots on the ground. So please, do not suggest the current leadership is bolder on the subject.

First-We had not been attacked on Bush’s watch until 9/11. So are you suggesting he was to clean up the mess Clinton left after the Cole was attacked before 9/11? Are you suggesting that this is the reason he did nothing? Weak argument.

Second, It’s easy now, after 9/11 to talk about boots on the ground. Before, though, it would not have been an easy sell for the American people.

If we had gone into Afghanistan before 9/11 and taken him out then, your ilk would have been bashing him and screaming then too. So what am I to glean from this statement. Being proactive on terror is something the left wants us to do. Make up your mind. My head is spinning with the hipocrosy.

Third, if you know the names and the quotes of those Republicans who supported them, I’d like to see them.

Dick Army, Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich…. all made statements supporting the cruise missile attacks. Do your own research…

Fourth, I think it is you who doesn’t understand the nature of this battle. The shock of 9/11 has jarred many into a state of terror. Many are reacting out of fear. Fear that plays into our opponents hands.

Are you suggesting we should go back to the pre 9/11 mindset? I’m not as smart as you but in my mind 9/11 was an act of terror. And no, I am not acting out of fear. I am acting out of self preservation for myself, my family and my country.

The only way to truly face them without fear is to acknowledge that there’s no perfect defense, no guaranteed approach. The “get tough’ tactics the Right supports may seem seductively forceful, but that’s force that has not destroyed our enemies, but vindicated their lies.

This is your plan? No perfect defense. Just sit and wait for another attack? That approach worked real well during the 90’s especially with all the attacks on the US that led up to 9/11. Is this is your plan to deal with terrorism? God help us if the Democrats get back into power.

We can only win this war by starving the support for al-Qaeda and groups like it that comes from the Arabs and Muslims of the world. This does not mean bein sitting ducks for their attacks. No, quite the opposite. We should zero in painstakingly on the guilty and we stop them cold, quickly and brutally.

You want to zero in do you? You don’t even want to track phone calls or banking records without filing a briefcase full of papers and crying because we have our rights stolen. Tell that to those that jumped out of the buildings on 9/11. Do you think they were concerned about rights not given to terrorists?

So how exactly are you going to “starve this support” or zero in on them? I missed that part. Again, more words with no plan.

Maybe the guilty will just stand up and tell us where they are so we can stop them cold, quickly and brutally… did you say brutally? Sounds like torture to me. Did you say support from Arabs and Muslims. Sounds racism to me. Maybe you do support profiling…. I’m confused.

This is not about being nice to the terrorists. Its insulting that you portray things that way. This about being smarter than the terrorists. We can’t afford to always be more ruthless. However, many Muslims and Arabs hate that ruthlessness, that disrespect for those who don’t believe like they do. We can either encourage them to focus more on that dislike, or we can make ourselves look like the worse threat. Which do you think does us the most good?

You want to outsmart people that blow up women and children, cut off people’s heads in full view. You want to do that when I hear no outcry from good and decent Muslims. I only see them demonstrating and burning the Pope in effigy. This plan of yours, the outsmarting part? Got some specifics? I’m listening. All ears.

You want to give people that don’t wear uniforms international rights! Give them an attorney and the right to shop for judges and make appeal after appeal? This is your plan? Give people that push cripples in wheelchairs off of ships in the Mediterranean Nobel Peace Prizes. No wonder we are where we are when there are people that suggest we are to blame because we are not liked by terrorists! Unbelievable.

No sir. It is you that doesn’t understand the enemy. In fact no one does. I never claimed to. But you sit in judgment and throw stones at those that try to do something. And I am one American that is tired of it and believes things are backwards. We live in a world that blames America first while other countries sit and praise the likes of Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And yes, give Yasser Arafat a Nobel Peace Prize. Unbelievable.

Posted by: MAW at September 30, 2006 1:40 AM
Comment #185280

MAW -

So, how do you explain the benefits of the Iraq war?

Is it the central war of terror? The why was it not until we invaded Iraq that the terrorists were there?

Is it because Saddam was a bad guy? So, do you feel that Saddam was far worse on human rights than the Saudi Royals?

Maybe you feel that we’re there allowing our soldiers to fight and die for the freedoms of Muslims? It seems as though you have no respect at all for Muslims…

Posted by: tony at September 30, 2006 7:34 AM
Comment #185337

Stephen

Number of terrorist plots foiled by U.S. Intelligence? Irrelevant. Even if all of them are real plots, we have no way of determining how many other irons are in the fire.

What an idiotic attitude. I guess we should just stop trying because we can’t stop them all.

Why don’t you tell that to the passengers on United 93. How many lives did they save by fighting back?

Posted by: Keith at September 30, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #185338

Tony,

You came to a decision that I have no respect for Muslims why, exactly?

The capture of OBL will most likely amount to the same as the killing of Zawaqari. Which appears to be nothing.

I have a particular distaste for those that were in favor of going after Saddam when it was politically convenient to do so. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi come to mind here and with a little research I could come up with a host of others. I think these types are the lowest of the low. They are also known as Democrats. With the exception of Lieberman and even Hilary Clinton, I have no respect for them at all.

So Tony, it is not Muslims I disrespect. It is these types. Political whores would be another word for them and they prey on the American people solely to get their power back. And with no plan. Except for the leader of your party, Howard Dean who is the only Democrat that I have heard articulate one. Ready? Here it is. WE CAN DO BETTER! Now that’s a plan.

To answer your question about the benefits of the Iraq War. First let me state that I never felt that we went to Iraq because we knew he had WMDs. This is subtle but very powerful. Pay attention. We went there because we did not know if he had them or not. And we could never be sure at any time if he had them. Much the same as Ahmadinejad. We just don’t know what he is up to either. So don’t count on the Useless Nations to do anything about it.

Secondly, we would never have known how corrupt the UN was. Neither would we have known how corrupt France and Russia were and complicit in bolstering Saddam. France was about ready to move to have sanctions lifted. What then? Unless you have a crystal ball you could not predict the future. And France and Russia are our friends? France who we fought and died for and our soldiers are buried there?

So yes, now the central battle of the war on terror is in Iraq. And yes we made that happen. How lucky for us. They can occupy their time fighting us there, using our military to do the fighting, which they were trained to do, rather than blowing up innocent people here in the US that did nothing wrong except to show up to work to make a living for their family.

So if Iraq is the central war on terror then that is a benefit. Leaving Iraq is the surely the single most thing we can do to lose this war. Democrats know this but they use the Blame Bush game to get back in power. So be afraid, very afraid if they get back in power.

Posted by: MAW at September 30, 2006 12:00 PM
Comment #185353

Maw,
So, using your litmus test, not knowing whether or not a country has WMD’s, would subject about 90 percent of the planet to the neocon concept of pre-emptive warfare. And you don’t think that we can do better than this? How do you sleep at night?

Posted by: Steve Miller at September 30, 2006 12:31 PM
Comment #185354
MAW wrote: d.a.n. An anti-incumbent vote gets me NOTHING. So pardon me but I will not vote for those that are interested in protecting the rights of terrorists,
Are you sure?

Have you really looked at the potential benefits?

Have you not yet drawn the correlation between 90% re-election rates and our pressing problems growing in number and severity?

MAW wrote: So pardon me but I will not vote for those that are interested in protecting the rights of terrorists,

Are you sure? With that sort of circular logic, anything should be possible, eh? For example:

  • (anti-irresponsible-incumbent) = (protecting terrorists)

Fascinating. Resistance is futile, eh?

MAW wrote: Nor will I vote for those concerned with not giving the intelligence community the guidance needed to protect us.
Few are wanting to take away those tools. They just want it done within the law (with warrants). There is a very good reason for that. Check your history.
MAW wrote: I haven’t met a Democrat yet that thought for one minute that I can spend my money better than he/she could. Nor have I met one yet that is more concerned with me and my right to work hard and earn money than those that don’t. Nor have I met one that was not complaining about the glass being half empty rather than half full.
Hmmmmmm … I can’t argue with that much, except that it applies equally to Republicans and Democrats. Don’t look at only what they say. Look at what they do (how they vote). Have you really looked closely at congress persons voting records? You may be very surprised. After all, you do want to make an educated decision, don’t you?

The fact is, the U.S. can be, and should be doing much better. Or have you not noticed the following ?

MAW wrote: Nor have I met one that thinks that I shouldn’t have to pay for the education of someone 1000 miles away in another state to go to college. While their own parents have more money than me.
MAW, have you seen what both parties have been up to? They are letting illegal aliens go to our colleges (on our tax dollars). Both want to let illegal aliens in by the tens of millions, because both parties want cheap labor (an under-paid, under-class to exploit) and votes. To hell with what U.S. citizens want, or the $70 billion per year in net losses due to burdesn on schools, hospitals, prisons, law enforcement, healthcare systems, CDC, insurance, Medicaid, welfare, and our voting systems (voting fraud).
MAW wrote: Nor have I met one that believes that I have a right to send my child to a school that is better than the one he/she is subjected to.
Hmmmmmm … I can’t argue with that much, except that it applies equally to BOTH Republicans and Democrats. Both are undermining public education.
MAW wrote: Nor have I met one that thinks it is not fair for me to pay taxes to support those that have multiple children out of wedlock.
Hmmmmmm … I can’t argue with that much, except that it applies equally to BOTH Republicans and Democrats. That’s how they buy votes. Want to discuss Medicare and the drug-prescription plan?
MAW wrote: But mostly, I have not met one yet that is more concerned about protecting me than worrying about being in power, or out of power as is the case now.
Hmmmmmm … I can’t argue with that much, except that it applies equally to BOTH Republicans and Democrats. Take a close look at the facts with an open-mind, and you will see that is the real truth, and those that fuel the distracting, petty partisan warfare don’t really care about the welfare of the nation or its citizens. Most (if not all) Republican incumbent politicians don’t give a damn about you, and they prove it by the way they vote. Their handiwork is all around you. The “IN Party” still refuses to pass common-sense, no-brainer reforms, and the “OUT Party” drags their feet. It doesn’t matter which is which. They are BOTH irresponsible. That is the real truth, and no amount of rhetoric or brainwashing will change it.

But, I understand the powerful effectiveness of the distracting, petty partisan warfare, and why the politicians love to fuel it. Sometime, try to take and objective look at it, and see which ones fuel the partisan warfare. Then look at how they vote. Go to OnTheIssues.org and look at voting records. Better yet, take a look at this web-page. You may be surprised at what you find.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 30, 2006 12:35 PM
Comment #185355

P.S.
Be way more afraid if the republicans remain in power. If bush was blameless, well, we wouldn’t be blaming him. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting the result to be different.

Posted by: Steve Miller at September 30, 2006 12:36 PM
Comment #185366

MAW-

Your constantly searching for contradiction instead of presenting solid ideas. Critisism is going to exist no matter what policy is adhered to. Hypocracy exists in both parties. Finding doesn’t earn you a gold star unless it is specific enough and dangerous enough to create a backlash…this hardly ever hapens because the second people do publicly critisize someone for a legitimate reason, people like you immediately jump out of the partisam bushes and pointing out all the bad things the opposing party has ever done. Who cares? Is it relevent? Usually not. So why be so defensive as to not even be able to focus on an issue. Politics is a dirty game, and should never be taken so seriously that one feels compelled to defend one of the worst congresses in history because they dislike certain voices in the other party more. Most of your responses to Stephen’s post were just argumentative and did not address his point at all. It was simply about throwing written bombs for the sake of throwing bombs. Much like our decision to invade Iraq, it is short-sighted, brave and pointless.

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 30, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #185369
Steve Miller wrote: One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting the result to be different.

Yes, but Bush is just one person, and it’s not just Republicans or Democrats.

A majority of Congress went along.
Therefore, voters should see the obvious correlation between a 90% re-election rate (98% in the House of Representatives), and this nation’s pressing problems, and Congress’ refusal to do anything about them. In fact, most (if not all) politicians prefer to avoid tough issues and problems, rather than do the hard work to resolve them. They are more concerned with their opportunities for self-gain, votin’ themselves raises and cu$hy perks, carryin’ the water for their big-money-donor puppeteers, dolin’ out pork-barrel, graft, bribes, and special favors.

Look at the massive mismanagement of fiscal matters (massive borrowing, spending, running up debt, and non-stop money-printing).

To exacerbate an already bad situation, they bought votes with the prescription drug plan (despite the lack of funding for it), and gave out tax cuts, that mostly benefited the wealthy (rather than fix the ridiculously complex, perverted tax system), while median wages continued to fall for the past six years, and foreclosures have been rising fast for over a year.

The evidence is indisputable.

I am not the only former Republican that can no longer go along with such massive irresponsible government (from both Republicans and Democrats).

Even the more conservative media (still delinguent as usual) is even starting to reflect some reality of the nations problems that are being ignored, year after year.

That is why there is so much dissatisfaction.
Democrats are fed-up with their wimpy, do-nothing politicians too.

Voters are getting sick-and-tired of irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians of BOTH parties.

Both parties may be in for a surprise this election.

But, 2008 will be even more dangerous for incumbents, because little (if anything) will be solved between 2006 and 2008 with grid-lock due to a slightly Democrat Congress and a Republican executive branch. Voters will be even more dissaffected by 2008, because do-nothing congress will continue to spend, borrow, print-money, run up debt, and blunder as usual.

Americans could immediately implement instant term-limits for a good many in congress now. But, that’s not likely yet. Far too many voters still need more motivation, and those voters’ are right-on course to ensure they learn the hard way. Like Steve Miller wrote above:

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing (keep re-electing the same irresponsible incumbents) over and over again, expecting the result to be different.

The problem is that too many voters seem to think that THEIR Senators and Representative are OK, when most don’t have the slightest idea, and are not even aware of their voting records, or some that are often absent and don’t even show up to vote much of the time. The don’t want to know, because they would then have to admit they have been voting for years for an irresponsible incumbent politician, actually empowering the very same person that is using and abusing the voters. I admit to having done it. No more. The evidence of irresponsible and corrupt government is staggering. Education is the key. People need to just take a few minutes to see what THEIR two Senators and Representative has done. Go LOOK at their voting records, and pork-barrel, waste, corporate welfare, fueling the petty partisan warfare, etc., etc., etc.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 30, 2006 1:54 PM
Comment #185374

Steve,

So, using your litmus test, not knowing whether or not a country has WMD’s, would subject about 90 percent of the planet to the neocon concept of pre-emptive warfare. And you don’t think that we can do better than this? How do you sleep at night?

Your response indicates that I am just a neocon that likes the concept of invading countries for any reason. Any country. Give me a break. Surely you could come up with a better response than that.

No Steve, years of ignoring UN resolutions and blocking inspectors, playing cat and mouse games and defying the Useless Nations would do that. Not to mention all the Intelligence that supported the fact that he had them and that he USED them. I just love the selective memory of Democrats. How convenient! It must be nice to forget these facts. Is this why they call it revisionist history?

Posted by: MAW at September 30, 2006 2:16 PM
Comment #185379

Kevin23,

Your constantly searching for contradiction instead of presenting solid ideas.
And your solid idea is what> You left that part out.
critisize someone for a legitimate reason,

And this legitimate reason is what? You left that part out.

people like you immediately jump out of the partisam bushes and pointing out all the bad things the opposing party has ever done.

And what exactly do you call the people that jump out of the partisan bushes when things don’t go perfect. You left that part out too.

So what is the point of your post Kevin23. Oh, you left that part out too.

Posted by: MAW at September 30, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #185386

“You left that part out”

No, you just failed to read and comprehend. It’s all there…point, purpose, and idea.

Point: you’re pointing out unrelated past faults of dems in response to current valid critisism of repubs is “argumentative and [does] not address his point at all…short-sighted, brave and pointless”.

Purpose: to get you to respond to the issues without unnecessary attack. Or to at least acknoledge that you really give the impression your just about stirring the pot more than giving valid insight.

Idea: Re-read your posts and Stephen’s post. I think he says it all, and I also think you conveniently ignored the vast majority of it.

Another idea: respond to D.A.N.’s simple question like I originally asked. THEN we’ll talk about REAL issues of the day.

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 30, 2006 3:39 PM
Comment #185415

d.a.n.

Can’t argue with most of your post with the exception of the whole idea in general and by just simply voting anti-incumbent seems to me to be a wasted vote.

I agree that both parties are reckless and don’t have my best interest at heart. But all politics are local. So I can only vote for those representatives in my area that I feel align with my beliefs or at least as close as humanly possible to my beliefs.

And given my beliefs voting for a Democrat just doesn’t cut it. Nice try though. I will keep it in mind the next time I vote.

Posted by: MAW at September 30, 2006 5:19 PM
Comment #185423

MAW
Your quote,
“we went there because WE DID NOT KNOW if he had them or not” YOUR QUOTE.
Using that rationale, 90 percent of the globe would qualify for invasion.

Also, there’s a big difference between jumping out of bushes when things don’t go perfect, and standing up and shouting loud when our country is being bungled into the toilet and down the drain by short-sighted ideologues.

Posted by: Steve Miller at September 30, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #185432
MAW, And given my beliefs voting for a Democrat just doesn’t cut it. Nice try though. I will keep it in mind the next time I vote.

Thanks!
That’s a good start.
Because we want everyone that votes to make an informed vote. If you must absolutely vote along party lines (which politicians love), perhaps consider challengers too (if there are any in the same party), and remember that there is a connection between a 90% re-election rate and an increasingly corrupt Congress.

The funny thing about the federal government is that all this would NOT be such a big deal if the Federal government did not have such a stranglehold on the economy, the military, the biggest part of our taxation, huge social programs, bribing us with our own money, and growing ever larger and more bloated, to truly nightmarish proportions, rampant with pork-barrel, waste, and corruption.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 30, 2006 6:34 PM
Comment #185436

Kevin23

Idea: Re-read your posts and Stephen’s post. I think he says it all, and I also think you conveniently ignored the vast majority of it.

You must have me confused with someone else. I went back and read my post and Stephen’s post. I answered each point.
ALL FOUR OF THEM.

No, you just failed to read and comprehend. It’s all there…point, purpose, and idea.


And because I don’t agree with his opinions somehow that translates into: I did not read or comprehend it? Strange concept. But consistent with a leftist point of view.

Another idea: respond to D.A.N.’s simple question like I originally asked. THEN we’ll talk about REAL issues of the day.

I did respond to d.a.n.’s post. I’ll state it again. Using my vote to vote out incumbents will not solve anything. People get drunk with power once in office, and will spend my money like it is their own regardless of whether they were incumbents or not. It won’t change a thing.

All politics are local and I will vote for the representative that is closely aligned with my values. Sorry if you are not smitten with my opinion. But it is the only one I have.

Posted by: MAW at September 30, 2006 6:44 PM
Comment #185476

MAW-

A few serious issues:

All politics are not local. Almost everything has implications that go across local and state lines. Voting out incumbants is, as the framers intended, exactly the kind of statement that solves problems in a democracy. Your opinion sounds exactly like that of fox news pundits. You did manage to point out a few unrelated critisisms in your “response” to Stephen, but you failed to address his points or the issues they related to. You’re right, I’m not smitten with your “ideas” because they are not productive, nor are they original. I’m from the true school of conservatism. The kind where accountability exists and waste is frowned upon. You seem to be from the new school, where saving face is the ultimate goal. I’m sorry that is the only opinion you have. I truly am.

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 30, 2006 9:39 PM
Comment #185477

MAW said: “People get drunk with power once in office, and will spend my money like it is their own regardless of whether they were incumbents or not.”

NOT TRUE! If voters vote out incumbents and make reelection depend on positive results and solutions to our nation’s problems, politicians will work to get reelected by producing positive results. That is how the Constitution was designed to give the voters the power OVER their elected leaders, instead of becoming pawns under their thumb. We only have to exercise the power to make incumbency a merit badge instead of welfare handout to our elected politicians at our expense.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 30, 2006 10:05 PM
Comment #185561

Kevin and David,

I applaud your lofty goals. Unfortunately, in my opinion, they are simply unrealistic. I would however back any effort toward term limits. It would seem to me that would be a more realistic goal.

Of course there are downsides to every issue. And this one certainly has them, but in the long run it may be a more workable solution.

At this point and until I personally see a better solution, I will vote for those that are more closely aligned with my position and values. Mainly because I would feel my vote would be wasted.

Posted by: MAW at October 1, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #185619

MAW,
Good. If you want to help get term limits, go here (to TenureCorrupts.com ).
I used to be against term limits, but am starting to believe it might be a good thing.
Like Nelson Lee Walker says, tenure corrupts.
There appear to be a good many PROs versus CONs.
Nelson makes a convincing, well thought-out presentation of the PROs and CONs.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 1, 2006 9:46 PM
Comment #185620

MAW,
However, there is one little Catch-22.
You’ll never get Term-Limits without first voting OUT enough irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, incumbent politicians so that the newcomers to Congress are NOT always vastly out-numbered by incumbents that will NEVER allow any common-sense, no-brainer, responsible reforms that may even remotely reduce the incumbents’ power, opportunities for self-gain, or the security of their cu$hy, coveted seats of power. Power corrupts. Tenure corrupts. Think about it.
Also, if your curious, check out your senators and Representative. You may be surprised at what you find.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 1, 2006 9:54 PM
Comment #185651

d.a.n

Thanks for the links. I will check them out.

Posted by: MAW at October 2, 2006 3:04 AM
Comment #185660

Keith,

Why don’t you tell that to the passengers on United 93. How many lives did they save by fighting back?

Nobody could know.

We can only make some projections. Maybe they saved none and the plane was simply shoot down by a F-16. Maybe they indeed crashed the plane all by themselves. Maybe if the plane didn’t crash, whatever the cause, the terrorists will have made huge damage somewhere. Maybe they’ll have failed for some other reason and the crash will have made zero non-passengers victims.

Nobody could know about any of these possibilities for sure.

Except for the F-16 track, but if it’s what really happened, then I guess someones don’t want to tell it openly on purpose. If it’s not, then all this is just conjectural.

What is sure and a verifiable fact is that all passengers of United 93 die.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 2, 2006 7:55 AM
Comment #185667


MAW,

I will try to make it simple for you. OBL declared war on the US during the Clinton Administration in no small part because US troops were in Saudi Arabia.

I’m glad you agree that OBL justifying his jihad on US troops presence in Saudi Arabia.
Trying to keep our counter-argumenting simple, could we, at least, both agree about these known facts:

- US troops moved in Saudi Arabia as part of the Operation Desert Storm operation in August 1990, before the Gulf War.
- US troops were kept in Saudi Arabia after Gulf War ends in april 1991.
- In August 1990, US’s president was Bush 41.
- In April 1991, US’s president was Bush 41.
- From 1992 to 2000 (inclusive) Clinto was president of the US.
- Since 2001, Bush 43 is president of the US.
- Any of the above US presidents, using its Commander In Chief power, could have ordered the US troops in Saudi Arabia to enter or leave this country.
- None of them (Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43) give the pull out order before 9/11.
- Only in mid-2003 these US troops were moved out of Saudi Arabia, not before 9/11, not before the Afghanistan War, not before the Iraq War.
- Bush 43 give this “pull out” order.

My point here is you can blame all you want on Clinton, but in doing it you blame every presidents who do nothing about these US troops, from the one who move them in the first place (Bush 41) to the ones who didn’t remove them before 9/11 (Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43).

Indeed, OBL declaration of war and the importance of US troops presence in Saudi Arabia became a known fact during Clinton. And Clinton didn’t remove them before 9/11.
But Bush 43 knows as well since 1992 exactly the same. And he, too, do nothing about before 9/11.
They all do it wrong. One should have not move them in the first place, or at least removed them right after Gulf War ends. The two others didn’t remove them before 9/11. Blame them all. Or none.

But blaming only one is being just plain partisan.
Or showing its Clinton/dems phobia. Which is quite the same.

It just can’t get any simpler than that. If I could make it even simpler for you to understand I would. It seems I tried and failed. But at least I tried. Hmmmm. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?

Same here. I tried to make my point about that, during the US troops presence in Saudi Arabia, 3 US presidents could have remove them before 9/11, not only one. Among them, 2 have the knowledge a guy named OBL use this presence as a justification for his jihad call against US. None of the two removed the troops before 9/11.

I’m sure all of these presidents had their good reasons for moving them in the first place, for keeping them after Gulf War and until mid-2003. Fact remains that none remove them before 9/11. Period.

Prove me I’m wrong about this fact. Please.

So far, I tried to get a reply about this. And failed. And I recognize my failure at stopping you to avoid proving me wrong about my point but instead pushing your “Clinton’s all fault” point.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 2, 2006 8:45 AM
Comment #185694

Philippe,

I only made the point about removing troops from Saudi Arabia in part to illustrate how ridiculous OBL’s demands were. And how impossible it would have been to comply with them. And further to draw the point that there were a myriad of items that could have been done prior to 9/11 to remove the threat of an attack. So to write a thesis on why or who was to blame for not taking OBL seriously is simply silly.

If you want to dig up ancient history, I could start with the genesis of modern day problems in the middle east by putting the blame squarely on the shoulders of Jimmy Carter. By not backing the Shah of Iran, not being tough on those that held our Embassy hostage, cutting and running from Somalia…..

This is a quote from Michael Schueur, former high ranking CIA analyst in the Bin Laden Unit . also the author of the best-selling book, “Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror,” on CNN with Wolf Blitzer.

“The president seems to be able, the former president seems to be able to deny facts with impugnity. Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger, and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That’s the bottom line. And every time he says what he said to Chris Wallace on Fox, he defames the CIA especially, and the men and women who risk their lives to give his administration repeated chances to kill bin Laden.

Yes, troops were in Saudi when Bush 41 left office. But OBL had not come to be a threat yet. He was nourished, and allowed to blossom all under the Clinton Administration and as usual he left that undone, along with his pants, when he left office.

Many of us here in the US do not share the blind sycophantic adulation for Mr. Clinton that you do.

Oh, and surely you haven’t forgotten all those pardons that he was busy with the last week of his Presidency. Now that was a noble cause. He could have done something truly worthwhile instead. Like killing OBL.

FYI. I can blame one person if I choose to. But I don’t. I blame the one most responsible. Guess who that might be?

Posted by: MAW at October 2, 2006 10:58 AM
Comment #185707

Philippe,

- Only in mid-2003 these US troops were moved out of Saudi Arabia, not before 9/11, not before the Afghanistan War, not before the Iraq War. - Bush 43 give this “pull out” order.

Yes, of course he gave this “pull out” order. They weren’t needed anymore because of regime change in Iraq.

I know the chronological order of troops in Saudi Arabia… I am a little older than 17..

Posted by: MAW at October 2, 2006 12:23 PM
Comment #185709

Philippe,

- Only in mid-2003 these US troops were moved out of Saudi Arabia, not before 9/11, not before the Afghanistan War, not before the Iraq War. - Bush 43 give this “pull out” order.

Yes, of course he gave this “pull out” order. They weren’t needed anymore because of regime change in Iraq.

I know the chronological order of troops in Saudi Arabia… I am a little older than 17..

Posted by: MAW at October 2, 2006 12:25 PM
Comment #185860

MAW,

I only made the point about removing troops from Saudi Arabia in part to illustrate how ridiculous OBL’s demands were. And how impossible it would have been to comply with them. And further to draw the point that there were a myriad of items that could have been done prior to 9/11 to remove the threat of an attack. So to write a thesis on why or who was to blame for not taking OBL seriously is simply silly.

Agreed. So why do you try to do it?
Why do you agree to blame Clinton for not taking OBL seriously but refuse to do it about Bush 43, when clearly both of them had a) knowledge of OBL declaration of war against US, b) enough time before 9/11 to do a myriad of things to remove his threat and c) many reasons to refuse complying with OBL’s demands?
Isn’t this silly too?

This is a quote from Michael Schueur, former high ranking CIA analyst in the Bin Laden Unit . also the author of the best-selling book, “Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror,” on CNN with Wolf Blitzer.

“The president seems to be able, the former president seems to be able to deny facts with impugnity. Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger, and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That’s the bottom line. And every time he says what he said to Chris Wallace on Fox, he defames the CIA especially, and the men and women who risk their lives to give his administration repeated chances to kill bin Laden.

This former high-ranking CIA analyst who worked for the now closed CIA Bin Laden Hunt Unit, who tried, no doubt, but failed to hunt him so far BTW, blame only Clinton for not taking OBL seriously enough. By you own definition, that’s a silly position, isn’t it?

Yes, troops were in Saudi when Bush 41 left office. But OBL had not come to be a threat yet. He was nourished, and allowed to blossom all under the Clinton Administration and as usual he left that undone, along with his pants, when he left office.

Agreed, minus the clintophobia jokes in bold.
But, again, what did Bush 43 more during the 9 month before 9/11? He did know about OBL threat, right? WTC 93 attack, Cole attack, he can’t have ignored them. CIA memos warmed him.
But, no, he can’t be blamed, only Clinton can. Only the most responsible could, all other “less” responsable are not just “less” but NOT responsable at all!?

Hello, sharing responsabilities???

Yeah, that’s silly, I agree with you.
But you keep doing it.

Many of us here in the US do not share the blind sycophantic adulation for Mr. Clinton that you do.

Oh, and surely you haven’t forgotten all those pardons that he was busy with the last week of his Presidency. Now that was a noble cause. He could have done something truly worthwhile instead. Like killing OBL.

First, how one could be sycophant about someone who have no more power?
Second, I’m french. I don’t care that much about US presidents. But I care about their policies, foreign policies in particular. I care about the Iraq War damage on US image and, how ironic, by domino effect, on western nations. I care about US negation of human rights to terrorists. I care about US negation of its share of world polution responsability. I care about americans political polarization.
Third, I didn’t know Clinton was that busy asking for pardons in his presidency end. But I do remember well the Monica’s scandal and the Empeach-This-Perverted-Liar-President hysteria which then followed. I can easily believe such events could have kept Clinton quite busy, indeed. From France, all this was looking very hypocrital puritanism… of no importance order, except the political loss or gain.

FYI. I can blame one person if I choose to. But I don’t. I blame the one most responsible.

I can blame ONE person if I choose to.
But I DON’T. I blame the ONE most responsible

LOL.
Thanks, this make my day.

Guess who that might be?

The 9/11’s 19 terrorists? 15 of them were saudians. Must be a bad coincidence.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 3, 2006 9:03 AM
Comment #186338

Philippe,

You are so passionate about American politics. Why are you not so passionate about your corrupt government?

The US would never have gone to war with Iraq if your pompous President Chirac and his UN flunkie had the balls to do the right thing. But their continued support of Saddam only was revealed after the war began with the stealing of money from dying women and children. That seems to be perfectly fine with you. Where is the outrage for that?

It seems the only time you side with the US is when there are goose stepping Nazis marching down the Champs-Elysees.

If you want to be outraged, be outraged about that. None of this, none of this, absolutely none of this would have happened had not your corrupt government done the right thing and supported the US instead of sneaking around in the background stealing money.

Everyone knows that Saddam had counted on France’s veto. Chirac must have choked on his fromage when he found out that his tomfoolery wasn’t working and he was going to found out. I would have loved to have seen that!

I have traveled all through France starting at Cap DAil.and ending in Calais and stopping in Renage to stay with friends. And I am looking forward to visiting next year but I just simply do not understand how such a beautiful country can tolerate such a corrupt government. Open your eyes.

OBL’s terrorist camps trained thousands of jihadist and this was all done under Clinton’s watch. By the time Bush took office after that debacle in Florida there were no attacks. He had no real reason, like Clinton did to go after him. If I tell you that Michael Schueur said Clinton did nothing you dismiss it. If Bush had gone into Afghanistan unprovoked. What do you think the left would be yelling about then? But Clinton had opportunity. Not Bush. I know you don’t get it but that is fact!

You have much displaced anger. Such a shame. And living in such a beautiful country.


Posted by: MAW at October 4, 2006 8:11 PM
Post a comment