Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

SE,

Here’s what Kerry meant to say at a speech Monday in California: “I can’t overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq.”

Here’s what he actually said: “Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Can’t you Republicans come up with a REAL ISSUE to debate?????

SK,

Wow!! What real issue was Kerry debating when he opened up his mouth, besides calling the Bush Admin names. Really on top of the issues here from “I love the troops” unless I am an anti-vietnam lying before congress to make myself a name, John Kerry

I agree with SE here. Kerry is a loser and a stuffed shirt. Hindsight is indeed 20/20, but I look at him as the guy the Dems put up there in ‘04 and just shake my head. At least Dean would have made a decent fight of it. Kerry sat back through the slander and kept trying to explain himself. You don’t get a chance to explain yourself in this country. Everything you do can boil down to one moment (just ask Dean). It’s our celebrity culture of ADHD.

Any sane informed person would vote against the Republicans if they knew the issues and had an ounce of compassion. As it is, those of us with a brain have to sit back and watch the Dems self-destruct yet again.

Oh, and by the way, even if he meant that our soldiers tended to be amongst the less educated in our society (and he didn’t), he’d be right. That’s an easy one—many soldiers from lower economic strata and education levels enlist for the opportunity to improve their situation. I doubt many expected a backdoor draft, however.

Good luck to you R’s. You’ll no doubt keep the edge you need!

Excuse me.

Is Kerry running for office this election?

Aside from Kerry’s constituents, does anybody really give a rat’s ass what Kerry says?

Kerry could run around naked, with his hair on fire for all I care.
The Republicans screwed the pooch, and Kerry isn’t going to save them this time.

Maybe Kerry is right ;-)

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/11/1/154656.shtml?s=br

Make it http and see photo of spelling problems with troops

If you’re going to call Kerry a dolt, at least spell Karl Rove’s name right.

He apologized for botching his joke and we’re on to the next news cycle.

But Trent, didn’t you hear? He didn’t apologize *enough*!

Make no mistake, as SE is gently implying, the White House is going to milk this for all its worth. And the right-wing media—right-wing in that it doesn’t seem to give a rat’s tuchus about actual issues, the right-wing media will let this really stir.

Sorry, but that’s our reality.

Bush isn’t running for office either Rocky, but yet kerry brought him up. Hoping to scare up votes by comparing all Republicans as being just like Bush.
And now, the Rpublicans are using him to scare up votes by saying Democrats all think the troops are dumb-asses just like kerry does.
Fair is fair I guess.

Wish his handlers wouldn’t have written an apology so soon though.
Its was fun watching the left trying to make excuses for him and then try to defend him (what he said isn’t what he meant to say, lol) and then they tried to ignore it (its not a real issue so it means nothing, lol)

Of course he isn’t going to save them, but come on, his so-called attempt at a “joke” turned out to be good for a few laughs.

DavidL
The left has only one actual issue: Iraq. And negative news about that is the only thing ever shown. Right-wing media? Please.

Besides, the left has already been clobbered in the last two elections by the “actual issues.”
Why else do you think all they ever talk about is Bush?

Kerry is at best a mediocre intellect too stiff to deliver a well-written line.

But, in the interest of common ground, let’s beware of setting a double standard. After all “One has a stronger hand when there’s more people playing your same cards.”

Tying intellectual laziness to the war in Iraq is an easy job (tying the war in Iraq to Oedipus and oil is even easier) but “You know, one of the hardest parts of [President Bush’s] job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.” And that was near impossible. Although, given the number of new terrorists we inspire daily through our occupation, that too is getting easy.

If you don’t know what I’m talking about you can go look it up in “The Google”

I do want to thank the original author of the comment, “Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job”

DavidL,

“Oh, and by the way, even if he meant that our soldiers tended to be amongst the less educated in our society (and he didn’t), he’d be right. That’s an easy one—many soldiers from lower economic strata and education levels enlist for the opportunity to improve their situation.”

ANNNNNNH…wrong answer.

check here

Uh, Sicilian Eagle, my chest-beating, braying friend, it is a documented fact that although some of the troops are enlisting out of a sense of patriotism or loyalty, most of the men and women pulling duty in Iraq made an economic decision based on their lack of perceived options. Kerry is 100% right that lack of options leads to service in Iraq, just as it did in Vietnam. You can crow that his statement is a blunder, but it doesn’t wash as an untruth. You right-wingers have taken the concept of politically correct speech and put it on steroids. If you disagree with the Iraq invasion and occupation you “want the terrorists to win” and if you speak the truth about who goes to Iraq you “insult the military”. You’re worse the the SDS at its most vocal.

Jim T

You do realize that the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank funded by right wingers to promote their point of view, don’t you? If you look closely at their report, they fail to note that there are eligibility criteria for enlistment that exclude people in poor health with low IQ and poor education. When you compare eligible enlistees to the eligible population, you get a different story, but not one the Heritage Foundation is anxious to tell, because it doesn’t serve their ideological end.

Look at the academic studies and you will get a less biased picture, as their funding doesn’t depend upon supporting a particular answer.

Jim T:

I’ll believe the “Heritage Foundation” when you believe the “Communist Workers Daily Gazette.”

Anyways, isn’t it a lot less patriotic to send a military force to another country for a preemptive war whose justification turns out to be on false pretenses? Howsabout sending the force without adequate body armor? Howsabout lowering benefits for soldiers, or closing loopholes allowing them to declare bankruptcy? I’m just going with whatever comes to mind, but the injustices have been frequent and often.

Now *those* are issues. Y’all cons got nothing.

And by the way, kctim, since when are “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” and the “overwhelming” threat of gay marriage issues? That’s what you guys won your election on.

Get him! Quick, write a big speech and pass out transcripts to anyone with a press pass! Go out and demand an apology on the TV! Go on morning radio and say it makes you sick! Put attack ads on TV linking your enemy to Kerry! Dont let up! Beat up the guy that everyone already saw get beat up 2 years back!

[Yawn]

Tonite Kerry issued an apology on his web site. Yesterday he said he wasn’t…that it was a bad joke.

At least the guy is consistent…still a flip-flopper after all these years.

This guy was the Mules’ standard bearer in ‘04 and has been running for ‘08 since then….

He has skewered the president, and I am giggling at his gaff.

Seriously, this guy is self destructive.

PS…Sorry for the typo,but honestly, I was singing when I posted the piece..will fix it…

kctim,

“Bush isn’t running for office either Rocky, but yet kerry brought him up. Hoping to scare up votes by comparing all Republicans as being just like Bush.”

Like it or not, as President, Mr. Bush is the face of the Republican party.
Kerry is just another politician, albeit a loud politician, that lost a Presidential race.

I have to salute the Sicilian Eagle in yet another vain attempt to make ice cream out of horseshit.

Eagle,
“His stick the old foot in the mouth trick is perhaps the biggest political blunder since…well…since Bill got his zipper stuck!”

It’s more like stepping in sh*t and walking around with your nose up in the air. What a complete and utter toolbag this Kerry is. Like I’ve said before, the greatest Americans (ever!) are the “Swift Boat Veterans for truth”; they argued against Kerry for turning on our troops over thirty years ago and they’ve been vindicated (twice in two years) by Kerry’s inane comments about our (current) military. Not to mention they costed Kerry the 2004 Presidency. Thanks Swift Boat Veterans!!! I salute you!!!!

Rocky

Been busy watching the Patriots wup the Vikings this week…but I had to come off the perch over John Boy.

I think it is still nip and tuck on this election though.

Right now the MSM is playing up the “Chaos in Iraq” thing very large….BUT…I think the Repubs have a great grass roots thing 72 hours before the election…..if it’s close by then then may yet bail this thing out.

Or, Kerry…no Dean…can continue speaking…

These are the facts of the case, and they are not in dispute:
1. Hussein violated 13 U.N. resolutions.
2. Hussein violated the ceasefire agreement he signed after the first Gulf War.
3. Hussein used chemical weapons on his own people.
4. Hussein could never show how he destroyed his remaining arsenal of chemical weapons (It’s funny but, unlike garbage, you can’t just put it on the curb in a can and wait for the man in the big truck to come and take it away.)
5. Hussein sent $25,000 checks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
6. Hussein had a nuclear weapons program. It was inactive when we went to war but the IAEA said AFTER the invasion he could have reconstituted it up at any time.

These are the facts of the case, and they are not in dispute:

Honesty:
Your guys voted for the same war, based on the same intelligence that our guys did.

Honesty:
Your president said the same things about Iraq, Hussein and terrorism that our guys did.

Honesty:
Six years later, your guys can’t even say, “I thought it was a good idea at the time, I don’t any more.” They have to say that Bush lied when there is ZERO evidence of that.

Honesty:
Your guys have to say, “Bush lied, soldiers died,” because they can’t admit they were wrong.

Honesty:
After 9/11 we should have focused on border security. Our guys did nothing, neither did your guys.

Honesty:
There is no party that represents the best interests of the American people.

Honesty:
Raising taxes will not stimulate the economy or help us pay our debts
It is a fact that when taxation increases, Government revenues decrease.
People get fired: no payroll taxes from business, fewer income taxes for the Fed.
People spend less money. People require more federal assistance.
****The dotcom Era was a fluke so don’t give me Clinton and tax revenues, blah, blah blah - If Reagan hadn’t invested so much money in Defense, none of the communication’s technology that was declassified and spurred the Internet’s growth would have occured.

Honesty:
What we need to do is cut spending and NEITHER PARTY wants to do that

Honesty:
They love your money.
Honesty:
They think they can spend it better than you.
Honesty:
They think they have the right to spend it.
Honesty:
They don’t care if you’re rich or poor, they just want your tax dollars.
Honesty:
They just want power. They come up with this sh*t – Foley, Strom Thurmond, Drunk Driving Arrests, fake military records, to keep us all pi**ed off at each other.

When you can’t intelligently debate the issues the left must turn to insults. Now the left will then argue that there is plenty of vial from the right so conservatives are just as bad. Not so.

Why is it that we routinely hear insulting remarks as part of speeches by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Howard Dean, etc., etc. but you will be hard pressed to cite any recent examples (past 4 years) of Bill Frist, Dennis Hastert, President Bush throwing sensless personal attacks.

When we do have any of our people get out of hand, they are dealt with (e.g. Trent Lott, Mark Foley, etc). When a Democrat makes an ass of themselves, they are made leaders (see list above)

When a Democratic Congressman in the early 80s took a 17 year old boy page to Europe to have sex with him his liberal constituents re-elected him 5 more times. The same year when a republican congressman had sex with a 17 year old female page his conservative constituents voted him out.

Liberalism is all about emotionalism and insults, conservatism is about principles and values.

Al,
“Liberalism is all about emotionalism and insults, conservatism is about principles and values.”

Amen! I’ve been saying that for years now; liberalism is emotionalism and conservatism is logic and reason. Now, logic and reason can be hard to endure, yet it’s the correct way to go in the long run.

rah, did you read SE’s post? It’s ecstatically gleeful over a bit of nonsense. “Wheee” is a good summation. Meanwhile, the real issues remain.

Do you read the articles in the Red Column? With some exceptions, they consist of wild, over-the-top rhetoric, hardly paradigms of logic and reason. SE is one of the worst offenders.

The Blue Column is often silly, too, of course, but you don’t have much warrant for your silly characterizations of liberalism and conservatism.

Kerry owes no one an apology. This is a scandal and when the truth comes out, it will blow the Republicans sky high. Kerry and the Dems are in secret meetings right now getting the evidence together. Bush is toast. Cheney is toast. Rove will be in prison.

They have proof, iron clad evidence, that Kerry’s remarks were part of a Karl Rove dirty trick. Karl Rove’s operatives were able to get in the room prior to Kerry and the audience. They switched the speaker systems and put their own loop in it. Kerry said one thing, about Bush, and an anti troop smear came out. This could just bring the administration down.

Oh, yeah, the Easter Bunny just dropped my egg shipment off and Santa called and said he will be late this year. He is busy crossing Democratic voters off his list.

Kerry meant what he said, it has been a left wing “thing” for a long time, that US military is manned by uneducated poor people.

George Bush is a Havard MBA (higher degree than Kerry’s Boston College law degree). Plus Bush got better grades at Yale that Kerry did (they overlapped in time there), and Bush and Kerry took the same IQ test and Bush scored higher.

Thus Kerry+Supporters twisted claim that he was refering to Bush having not gone to college is impossible. He meant what he said, it was a slip.

Of course he has refered to American soldiers as murderers, rapists, and torturers on the whole in sworn testimony before the Senate in 70s. So at least Kerry is improving his opinion of American soldiers with this comment.

If the poor dumb ass can’t get a joke right that he is READING from a script, how can he be trusted to get anything right? He is right about getting an education or in his case marrying right on two counts. Why would anyone want to joke about our troops in Iraq who are fighting the war we will soon have brought home to us if the dims get elected?

film at eleven: Wolf Blitzer pull his head out long enough to ask Kerry, ” Why the long face, it ain’t u falt u illiterate, after all u had the best edcation at a pubic skool, didn’t you.”

seriously though I believe besides being a dunce, he just made a slip and spoke how he and the rest of the dims really feel and if elected you can not believe what happens next.

The Dems made a huge mistake choosing Kerry for their candidate. He leaned too far left to be a comfortable choice for 85% of Dems. He had a questionable Viet Nam experience. He had testified under oath as an opponent to the Viet Nam war. He had done nothing significant in the Senate. And his grade point average was lower than Bush’s at the same school. He’s the reason Bush won his second term.

As presidential candidate in ‘04 he is the face of the Dem party. Too bad, isn’t it! Then, he refuses to go away! Here he is, two years later, making a crude joke about Bush which he messes up(Bush doesn’t waste his time making crude jokes about Kerry).

I think most of the Dems are actually glad Kerry didn’t win. Think of it, BENEATH Bush in popularity! (According to many on the left who post here, Bush is ABOUT as low as you can get.) I’m sure the Dems will be glad when they get to choose someone else to represent them.

Don’t forget Kerry’s claim that in the middle of night American soldiers went into homes and did all kind of evil to women and children. He has not appologized for that sensless remark. The pattern has been formed. He is just living out the course he has laid. Of course he does have assistance from Pelosi, Reed, Kennedy, Durbin, Feinstein, Boxer, Conyers, Rangel, Leahy, Clinton, Feingold, et. al.

SE, the dims are as solid as a soup sandwich and not too bright, hence the dims.
Once again he can stand tall and long faced and state unequivocally that he said he would not apologize to anyone about his stupidity before he apologized for not being a good comedian.

film at eleven: John Kerry was last heard to say ” Now I must leave you as I am late and Ted Kennedy said he would give me a ride home. Hey Ted, why do we have to go by Chappaquiddick?”

Trent,
“did you read SE’s post? It’s ecstatically gleeful over a bit of nonsense. “Wheee” is a good summation. Meanwhile, the real issues remain.”

I agree! Kerry’s comments were “nonsense” and down right appalling. And, he (and others) had the audacity to try and defend that crap for as long as they could until they had to “cave” to reality; arrogant, pompous a$$e$!!

Eagle was simply saying that this Kerry comment will rally the conservative base; a base that was silent b/c of the spending and immigration (for starters), now they may actually rally behind the repugs to keep the country from being run by jackasses like Kerry, Murtha, and Pelosi…

Rah,

Ah, ok, just as long as you are not engaging in emotionalism ;)

Given the state of the current educational system, and specifically the institutions of ‘higher learning’, Kerry told more about the liberals than he wanted to.
Basically I see Kerry as saying this, “If you go to one of our screwed up liberal universities and believe exactly what the liberal professors tell you, then you can ponficiate all day long about how the world needs to be changed. However if you miss the chance for us to indoctrinate you and you don’t attend one of our fine institutions of higher learning, then you get stuck in Iraq where you have the opportunity to ACTUALLY change the world.

Al,

I’m piggy-backing off something you’ve already stated so eloquently.

When a conservative goofs, misspeaks, or is misinterpreted, liberals call for apologies, investigations, and resignations.

When a liberal goofs, misspeaks, or is misinterpreted, liberals call for conservatives to “stick to the issues”.

If you work hard, study hard, get good grades, chances are you’ll have more options available to you than those who don’t. It’s good advice. It’s advice I would like my children to receive and heed. It’s advice that most Americans would agree with. That Kerry chose to use our troops as an example of those youngsters who were left with fewer attractive choices in life is unfortunate, but not inaccurate. He was not trying to insult our troops. He was trying to inspire our children. Yet the Republican spin machine, which has very little else to grab onto these days, tries to portray Kerry and the rest of the Democratic Party as troop-haters.

Look for some real issues. This one is pure fluff.

“He was not trying to insult our troops. He was trying to inspire our children.”

And yet he’s doing a mighty fine job of doing the exact opposite, isn’t he?

No Don. He’s irrelevant. If our troops are feeling insulted over those comments, then they really are stupid. What they should feel insulted about is that Bush sent them over there to die based on lies. They should feel insulted that their President considers their lives and their sacrifices meaningless. They should feel insulted that they are dying so that Exxon shareholders can line their already well-lined pockets.

Stan,

Kerry and the Democratic Party do a first-rate job of portraying themselves as troop-haters. They don’t need anyone’s help to accomplish that.

Kutnrun -

“If our troops are feeling insulted…” Who said anything about that? An insult is an insult, not a feeling.

Our troops should be supported. They are doing what must be done. They are no longer dying for anything but freedom and democracy for the people of another nation. We should all be proud of their efforts and sacrifices! WHY we went there is NO LONGER the issue. Now the issue is WHAT they are attempting to accomplish. The significance of finishing the objective could be enormous. They deserve every ounce of support we can muster.

While Kerry spoke to the kids of the rich and well-to-do at college, giving them advice on working hard, studying hard, etc., he apparently forgot all about the boot camp training all those professional soldiers have to endure before getting stuck in Iraq. He must have also forgotten the free college tuition the little eighteen year old heroes are earning in Iraq coupled with veterans hiring preferences for all those who serve in the Armed Forces. It seems to me Kerry was steering those college kids wrong! I’ll bet in ten years those “stupid soldiers” are doing better than any of those skulls full of mush Kerry was talking to! After all, the Vietnam War did wonders for the good “Senator” didn’t it?

Do you really believe it was bad advice to work hard and achieve good grades? Do you really believe it is a wise life choice to go fight in Iraq? If so, you will undoubtedly encourage your children to do just that. Just as Bush and Co. have encouraged their children to do. Yeah, you’re right, Kerry was steering those college kids wrong. We should be encouraging them to go fight in Iraq for…help me with that—what are they dying for?

JD,

“It seems to me Kerry was steering those college kids wrong! I’ll bet in ten years those “stupid soldiers‎ are doing better than any of those skulls full of mush Kerry was talking to!”

Or at least those who don’t come home in a body bag, or with acute schizophenia.

Do you really believe it was bad advice to work hard and achieve good grades? Do you really believe it is a wise life choice to go fight in Iraq? If so, you will undoubtedly encourage your children to do just that. Just as Bush and Co. have encouraged their children to do. Yeah, you’re right, Kerry was steering those college kids wrong. We should be encouraging them to drop out of school. To go fight in Iraq for…help me with that—what are they dying for?

JD,

“While Kerry spoke to the kids of the rich and well-to-do at college…”

I’m trying to get this clear in my head. Do you Republicans like or dislike the spoiled rich kids?

Kutnrun,

Well, I guess I’m stupid to you. I’m in the Army and in Iraq. Even if Kerry didn’t mean to insult Soldiers and it was just a stupid gaffe, its very easy to take it that way, especially considering how he behaved following his time in Vietnam. Beyond this, the idea that Kerry’s service would give him some sort of empathy with the troops is not nesiccarily true. Kerry served at a time when the draft was the law of the land and the low morale etc of Vietnam, coupled with the institutional arrogance that comes from being an Ivy Leager, could very well have given him a negative impression of Americans under arms. As it is, Kerry’s remarks were at least incredibly stupid, and attacking Bush rather than immediately apologizing probably just made things worse.

1LTB:
Kerry may have expressed something he should have kept to himself, but it’s really no different than what most Americans believe. Stay in school. Work hard. Get good grades so you can get into a decent school or get a decent job. The better you do the more you’ll keep your options open. It’s nothing than most parents wouldn’t counsel their kids. Most parents don’t want to see their kids choose Iraq because it offers them the best available alternatives. Most parents, no matter how patriotic they are, worry to death that their child will be shipped off to Iraq or any other war zone.

What is stupid is believing, as the Republican leadership would have us believe, that there is any relevance to John Kerry’s advice to some students. It is not relevant. And he is not particularly relevant. The insult is sending 2800 Americans off to die in an unnecessary war. The insult is hearing the president state that even if everyone in the country except for his wife and dog believed we should get out of Iraq he would still stay there. He is treating you and the rest of our brave troops cavalierly. He does not seem to care about your life or your well-being. Nor does Cheney or Rumsfeld. He cares about oil company profits more than he cares about your life. He reduces veterans benefits, even while our troops are risking their lives every day for his war. There, my friend, is the insult. He insults you with his lies and his blatant disregard for your well-being. John Kerry’s remarks, whether brilliant or stupid, are totally irrelevant.

Kutnrun

Actually the military has been a way (for decades) for the young from all walks oif life to find themselves, I think…like college.

In the militay, (unlike college), most vets have a bankable skill which guides them thru life. Most importantly, I think, is the profound sense of accomplishment…in service to our nation’s country..is what seperates them from the rest.

When vets like Rad, when serving military like heroes like 1LT post here, I am thankful that men like these are around. They are America. That is what Kerry forgot. In his zeal to capture the spotlight, flesh and blood patriots like the two mentioned above were stepped on.

Kerry is a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.

So what do you expect?

Now you know why I am a Conservative Rupublican

Charlie George

Kerry did not do anything wrong, it just said what most Democrats are thinking, and wished that they had said.

Charlie George

Kutnrun,

What you say is partially right. My parents worry about me, as I’m sure all family of servicemembers do. What annoys me is the attitude that is behind remarks like Kerry’s. Its the sort of inbred arrogance that assumes that military service is the result of either bad economic circumstances or a lack of education. I went to college at a school that was rated in the top 10 of colleges academically in the Midwest. Not quite Yale or Harvard, but a good school. I did not have a full ride of scholarships but enough that college there would have been less expensive than if I went to state school in my home state. Plus, I wouldn’ve been able to get a job that would have made what college debt I would’ve had very managable. I chose to accept an ROTC scholarship and join the Army out of a desire to serve. It was also nice to leave with significantly less debt than I would’ve had otherwise, but money was niether my sole, nor my primary motivation.

From my perspective, that same attitude is alive and well in some, and I emphasize some, liberal minds. I have been called a knuckle dragger and a baby murderer by a few very far left individuals. Even with people who are otherwise well informed, I still find an attitude among some that looks on me as a fool who just couldn’t cut it in the “real” world and joined the military because I couldn’t compete. Friends I’ve not seen for years have expressed shock that someone as smart as I am (their words) would “waste my intelligence in the military.” Its an attitude similar to that of some radical feminists to whom housewife is a four letter word and a woman who stays at home to raise children is wasting her life.

I don’t agree with everything that Bush has done. To the contrary, I’m a very disgruntled Republican. The thing that offends me the most is the hypocrisy of Republicans who bash Democrats for not treating this as a war and at the same time continue business as usual pork barrel spending etc. That being said, when I look at the leadership of the Democratic party, people like Kerry, Dean, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy and Rangel, I’m not impressed. Their general attitude seems to me to smack of this same condecension for Soldiers and their families. I don’t want to be insulted for my service by my elected leaders, nor do I think I should be an object of pity. I am proud of the choices I’ve made in my life, and an attitude that says I’m a fool for those same choices is one I’d rather not see in public servants.

Always remember that he was the dims choice in 2004 and they all think like this. Hillary, Dean, Pulosi, and Kerry. All dims think the military is a bunch of dumb kids out to kill. Well they are half right and the kill part is what scares the hell out of all dims. they hate the military, the 2nd amendment and anything else that interferes with their ability for total control of our lives. they want to rule but not at their peril.

John Kerry just said what all dims are, they know not what they do they just do what is their nature to do.

solid as a soup sandwich. chicken noddle!

You can forget about this non-story. All it’s doing is eating news cycles that Republicans could have used to do something constructive for their chances. Now they look like the whiners we know they are. Whatever Kerry said, he’s not running for anything this term.

This election is about Republican rule and how it has been a disaster on every level. What Kerry said changes nothing. Do you really believe that any of this is going to save little Ricky Santorum?

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! How’s that for a destructive message to send to our troops?

This thread has become a feeding frenzy of people who spell “bile” as “vial,” people who subscribe to “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Home Journal” and people who actually believe that the US army was angelic in Vietnam (or that war was started on truthful pretenses).

I’ll look to another thread without quite so many hiding ostriches.

The great irony here is that Republicans are bringing of the failures of Democrats in past Elections, when they’re just about to experience a catastrophic failure of their own. Who are they to criticize us for fielding a bad candidate, given all that their re-elected president and soon to be unelected majority in Congress have screwed up?

Kerry mispeaks from time to time. Well, folks, that’s the end of the world for us. Sorry. But seriously, everybody mispeaks from time to time, and Kerry made a pretty serious gaffe. It’s nothing, however, in comparison to the continual failure that is Republican policy at this point, for all the lies and deceits. You folk on the right point to this as some reason to fear the intentions of the Democrats and Liberals, but what can you do about the constant reality that draws people to be resentful and afraid of your policy? This is just one more partisan game among the many, which Americans are sick of.

So if you want to dwell on this, go ahead. Slander is the opiate of the masses among the Republicans. If it dulls the pain of your defeat, by all means, indulge.

Yes, John Kerry, my friend. A decorated war veteran, vilified by small dirty bought off hacks, who happens to suffer from a mind too fast for a mouth too slow to catch up. Unlike the President, with a mind so slow that the mouth doesn’t have any input as it noises off.

Personally, I think hoopla is just fine. As long of the GOPers and their Fox stooges stupidly blather on about how Kerry didn’t actually insult the troops, Iraq will be in top billing. As long as Iraq is on everyones mind, As we enter the voting booth we will remember that the incompetent cowardly chickenhawks who are this administration are the ones responsible for this grotesque murderous mistake in the first place.

LT said “What annoys me is the attitude that is behind remarks like Kerry’s. Its the sort of inbred arrogance that assumes that military service is the result of either bad economic circumstances or a lack of education.”

Kerrys comment was supposed to be “Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.” Not exactly an insult to service men and women made by a retired and decorated officer who volunteered to serve, is it? What arrogance? It wasn’t directed at or even mentioned the troops. You may not like the Dems, but this is one time where there is really nothing but the GOP trying to blow smoke up our butts.

What Kerry said was a monumental insult and lie. I had a BA in psych with a 5 year practice in Music therapy prior to my entry into the army. I recieved an education in medicine that allowed me to work and travel for nearly 30 years. It also allowed me the time to study history, law, religion and meet people I would not have a chance to otherwise.
The guys (not kids) today have intel far above the average. They have to go on the usual patrols and shoot the usual weapons, the same as any army. But the technology and speed of information absorpsion is beyond belief. I know soldiers who watch 5 to 7 computer screens and control aircraft who “just” finished “highscrul”, which today is not a sign of sucess or intelligence. The skills of the military are real world not the “ivory tower” of irrelevence.
k

One more note. I hear a lot of what Kerry was to say and what he did say. There is a world of difference. In my day it was called a “Freudian slip”. In other words his mouth spoke his real belief over his cover story. Ah but spin, spin all you want - he said what he said and he should be man enough to admit it not offer 5 different versions of the same spin. No words can undo the damage “no mistakes” “no lies” Kerry could do now.
K

What Kerry said was a monumental insult

Yeah. But those Bush jokes about looking for WMD under his chair and desk, those were just “funny.” Amusingly, Kerry didn’t send our sons and daughters to die over the brunt of his “joke.”

All you’re education in “psych” and “Music therapy” didn’t seem to teach you what’s important: Kerry is not respondible for putting our people in harm’s way based on a lie. That’d be your guy: Bush. You know, the guy who makes jokes about THAT after the fact…

All your harping about WMD - read Kerry and other Dims they were yelling about it long before Bush was in office. Then read Bush’s full speach and the resolution sending us to war. After that we might have a basis for discussion.
Body counts are a relitive thing in war. I never heard of body armor. You ducked, you found or dug cover.
WMD - tell me did Clinton’s attack make them go away?!
K

To all supporting Kerry and his ilk.
It’s “vile,” not “vial.”
Next, Kerry was still a commissioned naval officer when he “threw” his medals.
Next, the average grunt in Iraq has passed a series of mental and physical tests to “get stuck in Iraq,” tests the typical high school grad would struggle with.
And lastly, as a 31 year Navy retiree: it is an insult to me personally that Sen. Kerry wore my uniform. He brought great discredit to all of us who served. He swore an oath to not do what he did.

IT CONTINUES TO AMAZE ME THAT ATTACKS BASED ON BUSH’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE IRAQ WAR AND THE SUBSEQUENT PROBLEMS FOLLOWING THE RAPID DEFEAT OF THE HUSSEIN MILITARY AND GOVERNMENT ENTITIES ARE THE DEMOCRAT “ISSUE” NUMBER ONE.
WHO DO THEY (THE DEMOCRATS) THINK ARE KILLING INNOCENT IRAQ CIVILIANS AND U. S. SOLDIERS AND OTHER NATIONS SOLDIERS AND JOURNALISTS FROM AROUND THE WORLD AND IRAQ POLITITIONS AND POLICE AND ARMY PERSONEL.
DO THEY REALY BELIEVE THAT LEAVING THE IRAQ POPULATION TO THE MERCIES OF THOSE THAT ARE DAY IN AND DAY OUT PRACTICING TERRORISM WITHOUT COALITION FORCES TO ASSIST UNTIL THE NEWLY FORMED DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT CAN TAKE ROOT IS GOOD FOR AMERICA.
IF THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IRAQ WILL BE AT RISK OF BECOMING THE BASE OF TERRORISM THAT AFGANISTAN WAS AND THEREFORE THE PLATFORM TO LAUNCH ATTACKS ON THE USA WHAT DO THEY BELIEVE?
EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY WHAT SPECIFIC ACTIONS WOULD DEMOCRATS ADVOCATE BEYOND “WITHDRAWING OUR TROOPS”?
SOMEONE SHOULD LIST ALL OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEADERSHIP STATEMENTS ABOUT POST WITHDRAWAL IRAQ.
DO YOU THINK THERE WILL BE ACTIONS OR RESULTS OR PROJECTIONS THAT WILL MAKE AMERICANS PROUD?
IRAQ OR THE ECONOMY DEMOCRATS ATTACK AND SHOUT THE SKY IS FALLING. SELDOM WILL THEY SAY WHAT THEY WILL DO. WONDER WHY?

Dave1,

If this was all a misunderstanding, why wouldn’t Kerry apologize immediately? I can see where what he actually said was an attempt, albeit a very ambiguous and lame attempt, to make fun of President Bush. However, even he must’ve realized quickly how it sounded and how it could be taken. Had he just said whoops, I misread my script etc, sorry, I don’t think this would be a big deal. His initial response to Bush was forceful and had he shown the slightest trace of that 2 years ago he might have won. Instead, much like the party he represents, when the going got tough he tanged out and gave a half-assed lame and insincere apology and didn’t even have the decency to do it in person. What leadership.

Jeff Seltzer,

Have you ever taken a lesson in Civics? The resolution to go to war in Iraq was supported by every democrat leader in the Senate and most of the House. Hell, Dean is the only one of the 2004 contenders I could respect for actually being consistent. As it is, any member of the Senate might’ve held that resolution up, but none did. This leads me to think that two conclusions are possible. Number 1, the Senators looked at the evidence and came to the honest and sincere belief that Iraq under Saddam represented a real and imminent threat to the US as Bush said, in which case they were just as incompetent as they accuse him of being. Number 2, they looked at the evidence, decided that it was bs, noticed the country was a-jingo, bought into Bush’s lines about a 6 month campaign, and voted for the war anyways, in which case you can add derliction of duty on to the incompetence. Oh, and before you start on the bullshit about how they were given doctored intelligence, the Senate Intelligence Committee gets the same info the President does. Either way, the Democrats positions on the war now are nothing more than political ploys. They have no plan, unless you call redeployment to Guam a plan. Instead, they whine and cry and offer nothing.

“Kerry is not respondible for putting our people in harm’s way based on a lie.”

Funny …. Point of fact - Kerry voted to send our boys over right next to all the others who are now blaiming the President for doing something he does not have the power to do without the approval of the congress and senate!

sicilianeagle,

It’s sad that the GOP apologists are hanging their hats on one stupid statement and not looking at 6 years of bad policy and ineptitude by the GOP and Bush.
Remember Iraq, trade deficit, Soc. Security, Prescription drug plan(Tax givaway for Pharm. co’s.), Torture, illegal wiretapping, failure to capture Bin Laden, Delay, Foley, Plame, Abramoff, Cunningham, Ney, gas prices, oil and energy secret meeting w/ Cheney, wealth disparity, corporate welfare, tax breaks for the wealthy, shrinking middle class, co child left behind etc.
The rest of us do.

Let’s see now, Mr. Kerry, and all you other Dems out there. We’ve been in Iraq transforming that nation torn by war for four years. We’ve lost approximately 3,000 soldiers. I know I’m not very good at math since I didn’t particularly study hard at it, but four years is approximately 1465 days, divided by 3000 troops lost, equals about 2 soldiers per day. We’ve not been attacked on home soil for 5 years. 365 days multiplied by 5 years; that’s 1,825 straight, safe American days. Hmm, that’s quite an accomplishment! I challenge you Dems to name any other war in which we have so successfully protected both the home front, and protected our incredibly cunning, and courageous soldiers on the front lines!

I’m fairly new to this blog, but have noticed a trend in Sicilian Eagles’ posts. He doesn’t seem to spend a lot of time talking about what the GOP is doing right, which isn’t much (agreeing with Andre’s last post). Instead, he seems to get stuck on picayune mistakes the Dems are making as a way to prop up a party I haven’t seen him logically or factually defend.

Maybe it’s just me, as I am new here.

Congress - did you ever hear the word ? The president offers ideas for the party to support in Congress - they vote yea the bill passes. Nea - it dies or is adjusted.
Torture - Definitions here.
Illegal wire taps - who, what and where? Citizens even criminals get a court order. Non-citizens and people with known links to terror forfeit. Have you ever been tapped? I doubt it.
Delay - no court case as of yet. Ever hear of the presumption of innocence until proven by a jury?
Plame - when did you last read anything about the so called case - Only one person was charged with anything (and that was lying to investigators). No White house personnel were involved. It was and open secret in DC and was published by her husband long before Bush came on the scene. And was published by the media.
Abramoff - just as many Dims were paid off as in the GOP - even Ms. Polosie.
Foley - resigned under party pressure before the scandal. And who was that Dim who had sex with under age intern? and what about that Dim who got a blow job in the white House?
Tax breaks for wealthy - hey, if you didn’t like yours give it back! Hpw many Dims are wealthy?? Hummm - Kerry hides his in municipal bonds and other doges. What about Polosie ? She uses shelters to avoid taxes as do many others in this country. I’ll keep my $2000 thank you.

Get your facts straight and avoid distortions and half truths.
K

1LT B, Dennis 40, and Kuzriel
Thanks for your support and comments. They were from a live and truthful perspective.

Dave1-20-09
Kerry did receive medals. He served 90 days and the medals were for some self-inflicted wounds and he went over the head of his superior to get them. He tarnished the title of “decorated war vet”. He proceeded to throw medals over the White House fence. I personally believe he disposed of someone else’s medals. He certainly is not a hero.

The comment Kerry made is widely documented. The addition you said above is not documented. The script has not been released to support it. It was after consultation with aides that Kerry said that is what he meant to say. Tough. What he said was what he meant to say. It was not a botched joke. He screwed up royaly. He posted on his website an alledged apology. It was not an apology for what he said. It was an apology for people misundstanding what he really said. Tough. I saw what hes said and I believe he meant what he said. The Bible says that what a man speaks is what is in his heart.

Don’t be fooled that this was only a gaff.. and that Saigon John “blew the joke”.

This is the new and improved version of Kerry’s supposed joke. We get this version 3 days after he made the stupid comment and his handlers have had time to do damage control. This elitist piece of crap stuck his foot in his mouth and is now back pedaling his sinking swiftboat ass to make up for it. The good thing about all this..at least we won’t have to listen to this deflated version of Ted Kennedy in ‘08.

The resolution to go to war in Iraq was supported by every democrat leader in the Senate and most of the House… As it is, any member of the Senate might’ve held that resolution up, but none did. This leads me to think that two conclusions are possible. Number 1, the Senators looked at the evidence and came to the honest and sincere belief that Iraq under Saddam represented a real and imminent threat to the US as Bush said, in which case they were just as incompetent as they accuse him of being.

This would be true if the administration had not manipulated intelligence to support their preconceived notions.

Number 2, they looked at the evidence, decided that it was bs, noticed the country was a-jingo, bought into Bush’s lines about a 6 month campaign, and voted for the war anyways, in which case you can add derliction of duty on to the incompetence.

Stop projecting the mendacity of your party onto the entire government.

Oh, and before you start on the bullshit

I object to your foul language.

about how they were given doctored intelligence, the Senate Intelligence Committee gets the same info the President does.

That is not true. Stop making things up to support your point of view.

Either way, the Democrats positions on the war now are nothing more than political ploys.

assertion… prove.

They have no plan, unless you call redeployment to Guam a plan. Instead, they whine and cry and offer nothing.

Bush broke the egg, and now you want the other party to come up with a plan to put it back together for him? What, exactly, is the Republican plan? Allow a foreign government to order our troops around? That’s what’s happening now…

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki demanded the removal of American checkpoints from the streets of Baghdad on Tuesday, in what appeared to be his latest and boldest gambit in an increasingly tense struggle for more independence from his American protectors.

Mr. Maliki’s public declaration seemed at first to catch American commanders off guard. But by nightfall, American troops had abandoned all the positions in eastern and central Baghdad that they had set up last week with Iraqi forces as part of a search for a missing American soldier. The checkpoints had snarled traffic and disrupted daily life and commerce throughout the eastern part of the city.

The language of the declaration, which implied that Mr. Maliki had the power to command American forces, seemed to overstep his authority and to be aimed at placating his Shiite constituency.

The withdrawal was greeted with jubilation in the streets of Sadr City, the densely populated Shiite enclave where the Americans have focused their manhunt and where anti-American sentiment runs high. The initial American reaction to the order, which was released by Mr. Maliki’s press office, strongly suggested that the statement had not been issued in concert with the American authorities.

You must be very proud of your fearless leader…

really simple!! If Kerry missed the joke and meant to insult the prez….its his problem…He should’nt have been pissin’ & moaning about Bush…you reap what ya sow, Mr. I love 2nd place

JD-

“I challenge you Dems to name any other war in which we have so successfully protected both the home front, and protected our incredibly cunning, and courageous soldiers on the front lines!”

Are you kidding? That is the most bass ackwards logic ever formulated. What a joke.

We invade Iraq where the total casualties are in excess of 300,000 people and there is still no sign of stability with insurgents running rampent. For that, we have gotten 5 years without a successful attack (not including all of the foiled attempts and attacks on other nations…which is a pretty significant thing to not include). And nevermind the fact that we have also been on high alert with national guard troops stationed all over places like manhattan and airports. I’m sure that played no role at all.

So you cannot show causation. And this is your best justification for using $300 billion of our grandchildren’s money, killing 3000 Americans, perminantly disabling thousands more with PTSD, sacrificing domestic issues for 6 years, and directly causing the expanding of a global terrorist network to record high numbers?

Not to mention all that we systematically dismantled every guarantee that seperates us from the uncivilized world in our treatment of the accused and have still managed to be unsuccessful most of the time in making charges stick. Even yesterday authorities in Britain had to release Umair and Mehran Hussain…the ones Bush mentioned no less than 15 times in his state of the union last year.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/US-bomb-plot-suspects-released/2006/11/02/1162339947390.html

It has been stated over and over agin by experts that our presence in Iraq has created more, not less, security concerns around the world. So please, without resorting to some ridiculous overgeneralization linking the lack of successful terrorist attacks to military action overseas without any ability to prove it in any respect and where the prevailing evidence is against you, why don’t you explain to me the TANGABLE benefits, and then explain to me why it is worth the cost to our future generations? I’ll even let you assume Iraq’s new government will not completely collapse in the near future…but don’t assume it will be a democracy either, as even Bush is careful not to say that anymore.

kevin-

also very simple: read Kerry’s prepared notes for the speech…they clearly made fun of Bush and not the troops. So maybe people should stop being so hard nosed about a legitimate mistake and take it only for what it was worth…close to nothing.

Now had he meant to bash the troops, he gets what he gets. But it is proven now that his intent was otherwise. He apologized for screwing up the line. Done deal. Anyone who wants to hold him to mispoken words is just being a hard ass for no unselfish reason…as if they’d never mispoken before themselves.

Is it only me or does everyone belive Kerry botched a joke. Does anyone really think he said those sentences and expected a laugh. He said what he said and believed it.

Is it only me or does everyone belive Kerry botched a joke. Does anyone really think he said those sentences and expected a laugh. He said what he said and believed it.

Is it only me or does everyone belive Kerry botched a joke. Does anyone really think he said those sentences and expected a laugh. He said what he said and believed it.

Sorry Kevin23.. it doesn’t wash. The Kerry group has refused to release a copy of his “text” and to assume that they have now released some hand written notes is just more damage control. Perhaps they can find that guy that did the Bush National Guard docs in 04…

All you need to see and hear on this issue is right here: Hitchens (an ardent supported of the war) and Sullivan (another ardent supporter of the war) on Kerry’s comments and how Bush has handled the war.

Daddy0f4-

What do you really care? I don’t. We could launch a formal investigation into whether he actually had prepared noted or not, but seriously, he already apologized. He’s not even running.

Seriously, no one cares.

There are much, much bigger fish to fry. Any explaination that makes clear there was no intent to publicly disparage the troops is sufficient. Why? Because the whole thing is meaningless until he’s up for re-election.

… about how they were given doctored intelligence, the Senate Intelligence Committee gets the same info the President does.
… That is not true. Stop making things up to support your point of view.

Jeff - have you ever worked in congress or for a president? I have a dear friend that “carried the football” and he tells me that the only difference in briefings these days is certain operations that are classified, however those are shared with the chairman of the congressional committee. reason?:
The Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980 provides that the heads of intelligence agencies would keep the oversight committees “fully and currently informed‎ of their activities including “any significant anticipated intelligence activity‎ Detailed ground rules were established for reporting covert actions to the Congress, in return for the number of congressional committees receiving notice of covert actions being limited to the two oversight committees.‎ …

… Either way, the Democrats positions on the war now are nothing more than political ploys.
… assertion… prove

Read daily statements prior to this summer’s election cycle. There has never been a positive plan by the Dims beyond “hate Bush” or “incompetence” of the GOP.

By the way - Sadar and the sh’ia do not want anyone in the way of their attempt to “correct” the historical injustice done to them (the actual majority) in Iraq. You do not understand the Sh’ia or Islamic history.
Please don’t A.S.S.u and me. Like your “facts” you base yourself on your feelings of how you feel things should work - we call that arm-chair generalship with 20/20 hindsight.
K

For all those (still) trying to defend Kerry and the left for that matter, Here’s what our troops think about Kerry’s comments

By the way, has anyone see Pelosi, Reid or Dean?!

Kevin23

You bring it up and now claim it’s not important? And his apology is that that his comment was misinterpreted? . Is that how the left defines an apology?

“There are much, much bigger fish to fry.”

Kerry was the democrat’s presidential nominee. Almost 1/2 the country voted for him. Kerry speaks for the party and has been enlisted to campaign for many democratic candidates. Kerry is a leader of his party. He speaks for his party. You don’t get much bigger (and more arrogant) than Kerry.

Kerry clearly expresses the democrat’s dislike and disrespect for the military.

Every Republican candidate should replay commercials of Kerry’s words as a clear example of what democrats stand for.

Kerry is a pompous, arrogant, highly educated buffoon, who cannot speak clearly, because he always has both feet in his mouth. Then, he blames his outrageous statements on everybody else, claiming they misinterpreted his words.

The democrats should be pushing Kerry out front as he represents their views well.

As always the Repubs taking words and putting them in the order that suits them the best. Same ol crap differant election. No one is telling us what they can do, just what they think the other has done wrong. It is about time to vote for the GREEN and take what we get.

If this was all a misunderstanding, why wouldn’t Kerry apologize immediately? …His initial response to Bush was forceful and had he shown the slightest trace of that 2 years ago he might have won. … Posted by: 1LT B at November 2, 2006 10:51 AM

He did, more than an hour before Snow went on TV to bitch at him, only, perhaps, not as strongly as some would have liked. I agree that by going on the offensive immediately, acting more like a Republican, he provided what most conservatives want to see. However, that behavior doesn’t fit him or most Democrats very comfortably. We prefer a rational and reflective response so we know that the respondent recognizes the mistake and learns from it. Unlike, as is repeated often, the Bush admin which simply postures defensively, blames others, and makes the same mistakes second, third, etc…times. BTW; I understood the joke without him having to explain it. Unfortunately, I tell jokes in an even worse manner than him so I won’t quit my day job.

tomh,

Not worth responding to. Thanks for proving the big lie still works on those susceptable to it.

kevin23,

Rove is probably thanking Satan (his lord) for the gaffe. That way he doesn’t have to defend the debt, deficit, Iraq, failure to catch OBL, screwing the middle class, etc… for a few days. But it will still bite him in the ass. The more we talk about Iraq, by next week people will be remembering how much Bushie and his evil GOPer buddies in congress are responsible for the messes instead of a Senator with bad jokes.

It’s good to hear all you neo-cons railing at Kerry’s remark. Let’s analyze issues here:

Democratic Party assertions: The Republicans have gotten us into an unnecessary war. They have intentionally lied to do so. They have mismanaged the war to the point of putting that country into virtual chaos. They have borrowed trillions of dollars to support this pointless war—money our grandchildren will have to pay back with interest. They have exhibited levels of corruption never-before seen in this country. The Republican congress has shown absolutely no backbone by completely rubberstamping the president on everything. Their policies have emboldened our enemy and increased the ranks of the terrorists. They have put politics ahead of everything, including the well-being of our children.

Republican Party Assertions: Some senator who is not even running for office told some school kids to study hard and work hard so they won’t have to get stuck in Iraq.

“It’s good to hear all you neo-cons railing at Kerry’s remark.”

Just like libs rallying around “Mission Accomplished”, huh?!! Notice how much (media) attention that received; yet this didn’t receive the same amount of attention!

All I can say is: Go get him! If you think he meant to disparage troops, then you take that sentiment and go vote him out….oh wait.

What a lame topic. Daddy0f4, I brought it up? No, I merely responded that it was not an intentional comment, and it was retracted. So again, WHO CARES?!?

Jimmy-

You’re so adorable to think that Kerry is vital. Guess what? No one else thinks twice about him. He lost. It’s over. He’s now a senator from Mass. That’s it. Throwing all your eggs in that basket is the same as flushing them down the toilet. I find it funny.

I’m more interested in things like the war, congressional spending, education, medical costs and the people actually running re-election campaigns…you know, the MUCH BIGGER FISH.

The Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980 provides that the heads of intelligence agencies would keep the oversight committees “fully and currently informed” of their activities including “any significant anticipated intelligence activity” Detailed ground rules were established for reporting covert actions to the Congress, in return for the number of congressional committees receiving notice of covert actions being limited to the two oversight committees.

K, How can you say this with a straight face? We know how the administration kept the intelligence committee “informed” about their NSA surveillance programs…

Jeff,

They did keep the intelligence committee informed of them…

How can I say this - read the law that I quote and read the mission statement of the oversight committee - I quoted it.
You see, I read and listen then I think then write or speak.
If you would do half with due diligence you would not dream the way you want a statement to say - like Kerry.
K

We prefer a rational and reflective response so we know that the respondent recognizes the mistake and learns from it.

LOL, That’s why you guys put Howard Dean in charge of the DNC?

Wow, too…many…jokes…

How can I say this - read the law that I quote and read the mission statement of the oversight committee - I quoted it.

I’m not saying that you incorrectly quoted the law. I’m saying that the administration did not obey the law.

You see, I read and listen then I think then write or speak. If you would do half with due diligence you would not dream the way you want a statement to say - like Kerry.

I was not “dreaming” when I read this

Nor was I dreaming when I read this.

You should probably read this before you say that I did not do “due diligence” and “dream the way [I] want a statement to say.”

The administration DID NOT follow the law in the manner in which they “informed” congress of the NSA surveillance program.

Impugning my motives does not change that fact.

Who cares what Rockafeller writes “he is a political hack and pundent who, as the correspondent is - speaks out of their opinionated agendas. Neither is useful. If Bush or anyone has broken the law they would be challenged by more than Dims.

As far as the NSA goes they have followed rules that have existed since the Telephone has been used. Any out of country person can be used. For the most parts the home country monotors the phone call. In most western countries this is done by a computer program that samples the call and if certain key words show up then the conversation is processed. If conversations continue in this manner a live listener will be added to the tapes.
For the most part any open source is used by the NSA. If they have a terrorist on one end they monitor the other person as well. Just like a Mafioso talks to anyone he is taped, after he has proven himself worthy by the law.

If you tell me Bush or his cabinet broke the law - give proof. It like the Plame bit - lies on lies were told and now we know that no one in the Administration did it. It was the news.
K

Who cares what Rockafeller writes “he is a political hack and pundent who, as the correspondent is - speaks out of their opinionated agendas. Neither is useful. If Bush or anyone has broken the law they would be challenged by more than Dims.

As far as the NSA goes they have followed rules that have existed since the Telephone has been used. Any out of country person can be used. For the most parts the home country monotors the phone call. In most western countries this is done by a computer program that samples the call and if certain key words show up then the conversation is processed. If conversations continue in this manner a live listener will be added to the tapes.
For the most part any open source is used by the NSA. If they have a terrorist on one end they monitor the other person as well. Just like a Mafioso talks to anyone he is taped, after he has proven himself worthy by the law.

If you tell me Bush or his cabinet broke the law - give proof. It like the Plame bit - lies on lies were told and now we know that no one in the Administration did it. It was the news.
K

In most western countries this is done by a computer program that samples the call and if certain key words show up then the conversation is processed. If conversations continue in this manner a live listener will be added to the tapes. For the most part any open source is used by the NSA. If they have a terrorist on one end they monitor the other person as well. Just like a Mafioso talks to anyone he is taped, after he has proven himself worthy by the law.

You really do just make stuff up as you go along don’t you…

If you tell me Bush or his cabinet broke the law - give proof. It like the Plame bit - lies on lies were told and now we know that no one in the Administration did it. It was the news.

The Vice President of the United States’ Chief of Staff (who also happens to be a senior advisor to the President) has been indicted for lying to the FBI and to the Grand Jury regarding the outing of a covert CIA agent. This much is fact. From this you take away that “no one in the Administration did it.”

You are not to be taken seriously.

Jeff Seltzer,

I believe kuzriel quoted the rules for Cogressional Oversight, so I don’t much feel the need to respond to your assertions of Bush doctored the intelligence. If this even had any remoteness of truth to it, than Bush must not only have the power to go back in time and alter 10 years of intelligence findings, he must also be alot more popular with foreign leaders than we all think to make them say the same thing.

As far as my “assertion” that the Democrats are playing politics with the war, perhaps you can explain to me how thier opposition mirrored exactly the polls? When 80+% of the nation wanted the Iraq war the Democrats were all on board and went on record saying that Iraq was a threat. When things started going south, the Democrats turned. As far as thier “plans” go, are you kidding me? You have Jack Murtha talking about redploying to Guam, which is only a few thousand miles away and definitely large enough to hold a couple of heavy armored divisions. Did you notice he didn’t mention how to get them there? The ONLY difference between what the Dims say about Iraq and what Bush says as far as withdrawl goes is that the Dims would impose a timetable. This could motivate the Iraqis to take more action, but what if it doesn’t? Will we still withdraw even if the Iraqis can’t handle things on their own?

As far as this whining about the checkpoints go, you further prove my point about not paying attention in civics class. Apparently the concept of sovriegnty means nothing to you. Iraq is a sovriegn nation. You gnash your teeth about how the war is for nothing but oil. I suppose that dictating to or removing by force a democratically elected head of government is the best way to simultaneously show we are hear not for oil but to bring democracy, give the Iraqis confidence in their own government, and encourage the Iraqis to take greater responsibility.

With friends like you and John Kerry the military really doesn’t need any enemies.

As far as this whining about the checkpoints go, you further prove my point about not paying attention in civics class. Apparently the concept of sovriegnty means nothing to you. Iraq is a sovriegn nation.

Iraq was and remains a sovereign nation that we invaded without just cause.

You gnash your teeth about how the war is for nothing but oil.

I have not said that. I have not posited here what I think the cause or aim of the war was/is.

I suppose that dictating to or removing by force a democratically elected head of government is the best way to simultaneously show we are hear not for oil but to bring democracy, give the Iraqis confidence in their own government, and encourage the Iraqis to take greater responsibility.

Why our forces should abandon the search for one of our own based on the orders of another sovereign power escapes me. Who, exactly, is in charge of our forces? Why are we there if we cannot do the job?

These are not the rantings of “the left,” unless you count the Army Times as part of the “left-wing media.”

The concept of sovereignty means a lot to me, thank you. (Certainly enough to try and learn how to spell it.) The concept of the words and actions of this administration mean a lot to me too. How can you justify this? (Oh, sorry… you can justify anything that Bush does…)

Jef you can say I make it up but I have quoted sources, which you pass of as liers and point me to questionable sources. Have you any experience in these areas? No, just talking points. Data mining and covert taps, are governed by law - look at it with information not personal opinion. We have a right to express opinions in our society - but opinions are not worth a hill of beans with out a fact to support.
Libby was charge with lying to a grand jury, not the FBI, he has not been tried - so according to our way of life he is not guilty. No one has been charged with the crime of outing an agent. Infact she was not an agent for years before her husband wrote his first book and long before some newspaper reporters wrote,

LOOK A THE FACTS
k

Libby was charge with lying to a grand jury, not the FBI

WRONG.

According to the ACTUAL INDICTMENT (which you do not appear to have read), Libby was charged with lying to FBI agents and to the grand jury about conversations with reporters (regarding the Plame matter). He was also charged with obstruction of justice.

You are the one who said, “no one in the Administration did it.” That’s simply untrue.

I’ll say it one more time. You make up “facts” to suit your point of view. You are not to be taken seriously.

Iraq was and remains a sovereign nation that we invaded without just cause.:

I Quote:

“Saddam Hussein’s Defiance of United Nations Resolutions
Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated seventeen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002

Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.
States that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999

Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).
Iraq must allow UNMOVIC “immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access” to Iraqi officials and facilities.
Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.
Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998

“Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation” with UN inspectors as “a flagrant violation” of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
Iraq must provide “immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation” with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998

“Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with” UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes “a totally unacceptable contravention” of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the “severest consequences for Iraq.”
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997

“Condemns the continued violations by Iraq” of previous UN resolutions, including its “implicit threat to the safety of” aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.
Reaffirms Iraq’s responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997

“Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access” to UN inspectors, which constitutes a “flagrant violation” of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997

“Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access” to UN inspectors, which constitutes a “clear and flagrant violation” of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996

“Deplores” Iraq’s refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq’s “clear violations” of previous UN resolutions.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996

Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994

“”Condemns” Iraq’s recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.
Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991

“Condemns” Iraq’s “serious violation” of UNSCR 687.
“Further condemns” Iraq’s noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.
Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.
Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991

“Condemns” repression of Iraqi civilian population, “the consequences of which threaten international peace and security.”
Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991

Iraq must “unconditionally accept” the destruction, removal or rendering harmless “under international supervision” of all “chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities.”
Iraq must “unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material” or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
Iraq must “unconditionally accept” the destruction, removal or rendering harmless “under international supervision” of all “ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities.”
Iraq must not “use, develop, construct or acquire” any weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq’s nuclear weapons program.
Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.
Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991

Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq’s illegal invasion of Kuwait) “and all subsequent relevant resolutions.”
Authorizes UN Member States “to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.”
Complete Index of UN Security Council Resolutions

Additional UN Security Council Statements
In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein’s continued violations of UNSCRs. The index for UNSC Presidential Statements is on the UN website. The list of statements includes:

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1991
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 5, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 19, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 28, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 6, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 11, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 12, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, April 10, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 17, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, July 6, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, September 2, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 24, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 8, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 11, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 18, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 8, 1994
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 19, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 14, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, August 23, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 30, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 13, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 29, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 13, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 3, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 22, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 14, 1998

“Excerpt from “Why We Didn’t Remove Saddam” by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in “mission creep,” and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.’s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different—and perhaps barren—outcome.

Pre-War Quotes from Democrats
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

“Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation’s wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them.”
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

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

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

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

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

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

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

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

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

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years …. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime …. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction …. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ….”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Watch thisfor pre-war quotes by several Democrats.

Watch thisfor pre-war quotes by John Kerry.

Iraq and a History of Terrorism
On December 3, 1976, the New York Times reported that radical Palestinians have gathered in Iraq to mount a terrorist campaign against “moderate” arab governments. The group referred to in the article was known as Black June and they were led by the terrorist Abu Nidal. On August 5, 1978, the New York Times reported that this Palestinian group was linked to Iraq’s intelligence service. Abu Nidal was a ruthless terrorist who planned the 1973 assault on an American passenger plane in Rome that resulted in 34 deaths and the 1974 bombing of TWA 841 which resulted in 88 deaths.

On April 24, 1977, the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) was reorgainized under the leadership of the terrorist Abu Abbas. According to an October 13, 1985 article in the New York Times, the group was organized with money and help from the Iraqi government.

In December 1977, Carlos the Jackal (a.k.a. Ilich Ramirez Sanchez) a “terrorist for hire” met with Saddam Hussein. Carlos was openly supported by the Iraqi government.

On July 15, 1978, the LA Times reported that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) had formally asked the government of Iraq to hand over the terrorist Abu Nidal “so he would get what he deserves.” The article reported Iraq had given support to Abu Nidal and even provided him with