The Femi-Nazis are at it Again!
Once again operating on the assumption that the definition of women's politics revolve around how quickly one can have an abortion, Sen. Feinstein has threatened to filibuster if Judge Alito gives the appearance of threatening the Holy Grail of liberal politics: Roe vs Wade.
It's enough to make your head explode.
Dianne Feinstein Urges Alito Filibuster
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Sunday that she will support a Democratic filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito if it becomes clear he'll vote to overturn Roe vs Wade.
Asked if she would consider it "filibuster material" if she finds out that Alito intends to vote against Roe, Feinstein told "Fox News Sunday": "If I believe that he was going to go in there and overthrow Roe, the question is, most likely, yes."
The California Democrat, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that any High Court nominee who thought Roe had been "improperly decided" was outside the judicial mainstream.
"Precedent has been established," Feinstein insisted. "Women all over America have come to depend on it. Because of the lapse of time, more than 30 years, because of the precedential values attached to it, I think it would be, for many of us, a very difficult thing to see somebody who you knew was going to overthrow Roe [added to the Court]."
Asked if opposition to Roe qualified as an "extraordinary circumstance" that would warrant a filibuster, the Judiciary Committee Democrat said tersely, "Yes."
Appearing on the same program, Sen. Lindsey Graham blasted Feinstein for her comments.
"That's a very dangerous thing to say," Graham complained. "If you have to come to the [Judiciary] Committee and say that under no circumstances will I entertain to look at Roe v Wade anew, I think that's very unfair."
Speaking as a member of the gang of 14, which was formed last year in a bid to avert judicial filibusters, Graham said he would vote in invoke to so-called nuclear option.
"I would consider [opposition to Roe] not only not an extraordinary circumstance, [it's] a threat to the independence of the judiciary," he told Fox. "And I would stop it in its tracks with my vote."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/8/111038.shtml
It's enough to make your head explode.
Dianne Feinstein Urges Alito Filibuster
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Sunday that she will support a Democratic filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito if it becomes clear he'll vote to overturn Roe vs Wade.
Asked if she would consider it "filibuster material" if she finds out that Alito intends to vote against Roe, Feinstein told "Fox News Sunday": "If I believe that he was going to go in there and overthrow Roe, the question is, most likely, yes."
The California Democrat, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that any High Court nominee who thought Roe had been "improperly decided" was outside the judicial mainstream.
"Precedent has been established," Feinstein insisted. "Women all over America have come to depend on it. Because of the lapse of time, more than 30 years, because of the precedential values attached to it, I think it would be, for many of us, a very difficult thing to see somebody who you knew was going to overthrow Roe [added to the Court]."
Asked if opposition to Roe qualified as an "extraordinary circumstance" that would warrant a filibuster, the Judiciary Committee Democrat said tersely, "Yes."
Appearing on the same program, Sen. Lindsey Graham blasted Feinstein for her comments.
"That's a very dangerous thing to say," Graham complained. "If you have to come to the [Judiciary] Committee and say that under no circumstances will I entertain to look at Roe v Wade anew, I think that's very unfair."
Speaking as a member of the gang of 14, which was formed last year in a bid to avert judicial filibusters, Graham said he would vote in invoke to so-called nuclear option.
"I would consider [opposition to Roe] not only not an extraordinary circumstance, [it's] a threat to the independence of the judiciary," he told Fox. "And I would stop it in its tracks with my vote."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/8/111038.shtml
I guess she hasn't spoken to Ginsberg or Tripe (sp?). They both agree the decision was based out of whole cloth, and it has no constitutional merit.
I guess if you're a Leftist, though, the only life that matters is when you are about to lose you own for murder. It is a shameful position to hold. Shameful.
Comment by Simple One— 2006/01/23 @ 12:35 AM — (Reply)
Get a grip!
Comment by Jess— 2006/02/23 @ 07:33 PM — (Reply)
Comment by fuck bush and all conservatiive......— 2006/01/26 @ 07:06 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/01/26 @ 08:56 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/05 @ 07:42 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/01/26 @ 08:56 AM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/01/27 @ 06:58 AM — (Reply)
How ironic!
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/01/27 @ 07:00 AM — (Reply)
This country is being destroyed by the concertives, religious nuts,
and as long as they control the House, Senate and the WH this country is going to go down the tubes. Republicans are selfish bastards, I'm sick of all of you and I hope that you all are voted out of office this year.
Comment by Louise— 2006/01/27 @ 07:23 AM — (Reply)
This country is being destroyed by the concertives, religious nuts,
and as long as they control the House, Senate and the WH this country is going to go down the tubes. Republicans are selfish bastards, I'm sick of all of you and I hope that you all are voted out of office this year.
Comment by Louise— 2006/01/27 @ 07:25 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/27 @ 07:25 AM — (Reply)
The ISSUE is, GEORGE W. BUSH is a complete idiot, an embarrasment. If you have any brains at all, you and the rest of the conservative right, you should be ashamed. If you really thought about Bush, you'd recognize just how stupid he really is.
Comment by Louise— 2006/01/27 @ 07:33 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Anyone can point out problems, it takes a person of intelligence to come up with a solution.— 2006/01/27 @ 08:04 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/27 @ 08:06 AM — (Reply)
Don't bother responding, I'm 61 years old and I've lived long enough to know what's important, and ABORTION JUST AIN'T IT!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Louise — 2006/01/27 @ 12:36 PM — (Reply)
Louise your spelling is embarrassing.
AND WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT THAN AN INNOCENT CHILD!
So what is more important, your social security, your medicare benefits? School lunches? all those senior citizen entitlements? (you mentioned your age because somehow you think that makes you wiser?)
What you liberal gutless wonders don't understand is all this is bigger than George Bush, Bill Clinton and the whole lot of politicians. This is about our way of life, the radical Islamists want to destroy you or make you somebody's third wife. So either you get in the fight or you get fitted for a hijab.
What size do you wear?
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/01/27 @ 02:37 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/27 @ 03:11 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/27 @ 03:32 PM — (Reply)
Firstly, Cat, do NOT call me “honey,” I am not your “honey,” and it is presumptuous for you to refer to me by that term.
Now, I was not going to respond anymore, but I can’t help it, you people make me so “darn” (is that word okay with you?) angy!!!
You don’t like my language … well I’m sure you’ve used some choice words on occasion yourself. And to say you never do, baloney
Now, as for Mr. Bush, your president; I think that his administration is leading our country away from our core values of honesty, compassion, community and patriotism.
I think this country needs a president who heals conflicts with diplomacy and cooperation, not by bullying.
Your president is gambling away our savings on tax cuts for the wealthy, spending our tax money on an unjustified war which I am afraid is going to saddle my children and grandchildren with an enormous deficit. If you have children is that what you want???? I’d like a president who manages a budget that leaves no child, hungry, uneducated and impoverished.
We need a president who believes all Americans deserve equal access to quality healthcare.
T
I do not believe this president cares one iota about the environment. His devotion is the Almighty Dollar and oil. I will not protect our natural resources so that my children and grandchildren will inherit a healthy planet. Do you not care, you look like a young person, what kind of world do you want to live in? Hey, both I, and Mr. Bush will be dead when the affects of his policies comes home to roost.
And yes I WANT A PRESENT WHO RESPECTS MY CIVIL RIGHTS , AND EVERY AMERMICAN (EVEN YOU) AND TO ALLOW INDIVIDUALS MAKE THEIR OWN PERSONAL CHOICES AS TO GOD, AND MARRIAGE AND, YES, A WOMEN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
Am I liberal, you bet I am, and proud of it. I believe I’m my brother’s keeper, are you, does the “Right” believe that, hmm?
One more thing, this president will not get away with the “crap” his presently getting away with, he’s going to get caught, and he will go down as the worst president in history.
Comment by Louise (the mean old lady)— 2006/01/27 @ 05:15 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2006/08/24 @ 09:33 PM — (Reply)
You are right, my use of sarcasm and condescension is reprehensible! You have shown by your ability to address the issues, head on, your age and your expressive ability that you deserve oh so much more respect than that.
You entered this post hate mongering, reread what you have written.
You assume you know my politics and my morality. I have only addressed two issues on this post - litmus tests and hate mongering.
Clairvoyance run in the family, there Louise?
If you know anything it is from linking to my blog. Even then you don't know much about me because I don't tow a party line or fall easily into any category, political or otherwise but I'll tell you this - I have not yet begun to wield my keyboard.
Also notice that I don't hit and run - my thoughts, url amd picture are there for all to see. No hiding behind MY computer screen. Where's your blog? You email?
So again I ask you, Louise, do you or do you not believe that it is proper for senators to maintain an ideological litmus test for political appointments? That is THE ISSUE OF THIS PAGE!
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/27 @ 05:52 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/27 @ 05:57 PM — (Reply)
I've had enough of youu, think what you want of me, I really don't give hoot.
Oh, by the way, I don't need to have my photo pasted here I'm not so full of myself, that I need people to see my image. Oh, and I am a size 6, if you want to buy me some Iraqi clothing.
Comment by Granny— 2006/01/27 @ 06:02 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/27 @ 06:20 PM — (Reply)
Sorry to get so caught up with Louise. I didn't mean to derail your post. It is infuriating when people post and don't address the issue at hand.
FYI, I think litmus tests are wrong no matter which side of the aisle uses them. It just doesn't seem to fit with Article II. and the executive appointment power. I think that the Senate has taken it's responsibility to "advice and consent" (that is the spelling in the actual document) way too far. Appointment is one of the few executive powers that is enumerated and to infringe on it for ideological and partisan reasons is wrong. Only fitness for the job matters. Has the candidate the neccessary skills, experience abilities, etc. for the job. Just me and my honest opinion.
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/27 @ 06:29 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/01/27 @ 07:45 PM — (Reply)
Cate, you are a gem! Say whatever you want on this blog, trolls be damned!
Oh, and Louise, or Granny, or whatever you like to call yourself(reference to that first funky post), Cate did not ask your burqa size, EB did.
I would think that if you did not care about what we 'evil' conservatives thought, you would not get so hot under the collar!I would think that a woman of your years and wisdom would support a woman's right to choose responsibility for her actions, not the drive-through 'fix it' of abortion.Also, in reference to the thread, the Holy Grail end all and be all of left wing politics these days in lieu of the judiciary seems to be Roe V Wade. The dems in Senate are so worried about filibustering that they do not see how frantic and desperate over an issue that isn't going to change the moment Judge Alito assumes the bench of the Supreme Court.(Although if it did, I wouldn't lose any sleep!)
The fact is that there is a warm wind blowing in from the DNC, and it would do them more service to offer real opinions and solutions than the usual blame and defame, cut and run politics that have become their modus operandi.The democratic party is no longer the party of FDR or even that of Pres.Kennedy. Indeed, the republicans of today ARE that party of the past! Today the dems are socialists wolves in sheeps clothing, more worried about the next election cycle than keeping the American people safe.
Well, at the risk of sounding too much like AlwaysLastWordMillard,End Rant.
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/01/27 @ 07:50 PM — (Reply)
I see you are not very well educated on our enemy.
We can get you your hijab (a muslim form of dress, not just Iraqi) in two very lovely non revealing colors:
Red - every liberal/progressives favorite color, from Kruschev on up
and
Code Pink - an even less revealing color guaranteed to send your favorite Jihadi into an all out tizzy
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/01/27 @ 10:35 PM — (Reply)
I am not posing, or pretending to be anything that I am not. I am truly a 61 year old grandmother, with 4 grandchildren and another on the way, married 39 years to a great guy.
No, for me, life is good, I don't want for anything. I own my own home, don't worry when I have to buy prescription medicine, was able to put two sons through college, etc., God has been good to me and my whole family.
It's other Americans in this country who have not had so easy. So, if I sound grumpy, or mean, that's too bad, I happen to feel this country and the Bush administration just doesn't get it, doesn't understand the struggles the average American has to deal with.
Look, I support my country, I support our troops in Iraq, they are doing a great job, but that's what they are there to do. I tip my hat off to them. So, I support them, but can't stand behind Bush.
I stood tall behind Bush (which is hard for me, I'm only 5 feet) after 9/11. I stood behind him to go after the people who attackied us. I do not stand behind him in this war, especially from a man who never put his life out there, likes these young soldiers. Sure, send everyone else, but he never had to go, nor did his children. So, that's where I stand.
I love my country, I love the troops who are fighting, but sorry, I have a great hate and distaste for a man who does not realize he is single-handedly ruining this country.
Comment by Louise— 2006/01/28 @ 07:29 AM — (Reply)
thanks for supporting the troops, Louise I canonly speak for myself but now we must win. navel gazing might mean the end of us.
I care about those less fortunate. However I chose to give through charities rather through taxes. Besides have you ever seen government funded housing?
If you'd like I can provide you with some organizations that help the troops?
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/01/28 @ 07:56 AM — (Reply)
Thank you, elmer's brother, I have already given to various organization to help the troops, as well as donated 75 thousand frequent-flyer miles to the troops. I appreciate your offer.
Comment by louise— 2006/01/28 @ 08:06 AM — (Reply)
I don't have everything. I grew up wanting for a lot in my life. I have been without health care (as a young adult) and my kids will go to college, probably the same way I did. Working for minimum wage after classes and eating a while lot of 10 cent pasta (Ramen). I watched my parents work 3 and 4 jobs between and still never somehow get any taxes back.
I have been inside government housing (not just military) and seen how people who are being fed by my tax dollars somehow have enough to own a satellite t.v. I've seen how they can manage money well enough to by heroin and sports cars but not pay for medicine.
I know there are people out there with real needs and we have yet to turn in anything but itemized tax forms because our charitable giving is so much more than the "allowable" amount.
I find caring for others and helping the poor a truly noble venture - but I also find it a moral one. You can't legislate heart. I have lived in third world nations and ingested water that I would urinate in this country. But the simple truth is that when a person becomes a slave to a government - either because he is forced to support it (as working class and rich Americans are) or because he doesn't know how to make a way without it (as so many underpriveleged people in this country don't) there is a problem.
I'd like to see people getting a hand up not a hand out and I'd love to see a return of the culture where people felt a little embarrassed about not being employed (because that is a great motivater to work) rather than just furious that their EFT cards aren't working fast enough. I'd like to see young people who are responsible adults and don't expect life to be easy - who know that the choices we make come with real and lasting consequences, instead of quick fixes. I'd like to see criminals prosecuted and their victims helped , not the other way around.
I'd like to see people engage in civil discourse - not hateful rhetoric. Thank you for posting this morning - now I can really appreciate who you are and why you may feel the way you do.
Now that we have identified some of the problems - how about laying some solutions on the table. What have you got for welfare reform? Pushing an energy conscious agenda? Tax reform? The health care crisis?
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/28 @ 08:09 AM — (Reply)
Louise like Cate said now that the dialogue can be civil we might actually come to a better understanding of each other. One thing I have learned since I started blogging is that it's not always about trying to "win" an argument, some of us will just have to respectfully disagree, but our understanding of each other is better.
Now back on topic. If Roe v. Wade were overturned I don't believe abortions would stop. I think then it would be up to individual states, which is right where it should be. Let the people decide by voting. When the Supreme court legislated from the bench they took our right to either
1. hold anyone accountable for a decision such as this
2. allow for the changing mores and values of the American people
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/01/28 @ 08:32 AM — (Reply)
And the real disgrace in Feinstein's comment (accidentally called her Pelosi yesterday) is that they find the mere possibility of a man disagreeing with them on this issue worth shutting down the whole process. Even if he launched a personal crusade, it would still require the majority of the sitting justices siding with him.
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/28 @ 08:57 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/01/28 @ 09:18 AM — (Reply)
Speaking of welfare reform, ect., during my second pregnancy, my husband was laid off.Our insurance was through him. Although I was employed at the time, I was far enough along to be considered a 'pre-existing' condition by my insurance. He found work very quickly, but wouldn't be eligable for health care for 90 days; in time for the baby to be covered once he was born, but not to cover any of the pregnancy.There was no way we could've afforded COBRA, so not knowing what else to do, I went to Job and Family Services, hoping that I could have temporary help with prenatal care and the delivery.
I was told that because I was part-time and my pregnancy was uncoverable with my company's insurance, that I qualified for help. Phew!
In situations like that, I don't mind helping others out. Crap happens, and sometimes people just can't help it. The professional moochers are what sucks, and here's how they are born.
During the process of setting up the prenatal care, I was informed that because the time of my husband's last day of work to first paycheck was three and a half weeks, that we 'qualified' for one month of food benefits. I was so embarassed! I told the worker no, that I wasn't here for all of that, that I was only worried about the health care, and only that because I was pregnant. She told me that it was automatic, I qualified, and the card would be issued, period. I could use it or throw it away. She seemed really surprised that I was embarrassed and didn't want it!
Then, when our son was born, he was a NICU baby for one week. I was happy he was getting all the right care, but really worried about how big of a copay bill we would be getting. Guess what? We NEVER got a bill. Not one. My third baby is six months old and we've payed about half of what wasn't covered.
Then, when we went to the pediatrician's office for all those vaccinations, we were told that the state insurance covered the baby for a year. I gave them our new (through work) insurance, and they wouldn't use it.REFUSED TO. They said the state would pay them more and not argue about it.
It is no wonder that we can't get spongeres off the system. I wanted out ASAP and had a hard time. (I had to threaten to leave the ped's practice if they didn't use what insurance I dictated.) I'm sure it doesn't take much convincing for someone who'd rather not work anyway to keep soaking up free tax dollars. The B.S. about people slipping through the cracks is just that. It should be up to us to use charity, because the system doesn't work.
Sorry for being off topic, but I just can't stand when I hear, "what about the poor people?"
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/01/28 @ 10:28 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/01/28 @ 10:31 AM — (Reply)
Okay - off on C-Mom's tangent, I go...
I have a plan for welfare reform.
For people who are "practically unemployable", (I mean those who can't subsist or support their families without some sort of government aid - the working poor) guaranteed student LOANS to a university or trade school and assistance while in school full-time
For temporary assistance - 6 months or less we'll lend you credit with a rock bottom interest rate (again you repay it slowly when on your feet)
For those who hit month 6 and are still unemployed, government aid is conditional - you must first show cancellation statements for your cable, satellite, internet, long distance phone services, etc. I say this because if you want long term aid, we should be supporting your life, not your lifestyle! You ought to be doing everything humanly possible not to be a leach. And that means doing what middle class working people do when they hit hard times: cutting back on the extras.
For the disabled, those who are truly unable to care for themselves, we simply take care of them. They are our responsibility as a "Christian" (or for any secularists out there, an "Enlightened") Nation.
My plan needs some work, I'm sure, but I really believe that people need to feel the empowerment of self-reliance. They need to know how good it feels and how liberating, to go to sleep at night knowing you have earned an honest wage.
What do you think?
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/28 @ 05:06 PM — (Reply)
QUESTION:
Why don't terrorists go after other free-thinking countries, but go after us, and why, because of Bush's foreign policy and HIS war in Iraq.
So, far no one has explained to me why we're really in Iraq, why we really went after Sadam ... other than Sadam once threaten Bush's daddy.
But, what does it matter what I think, people who believe and back Bush, will never find that he's run this country into the ground, that he and his administration, if you were really admit it, would realize it was Bush who caused 911, either on purpose, or because he was too stupid to read and understand the warnings.
Enjoy your listen to president tonight, because he will only speak another pack of lies ... ahem, if you want to call what he does, speaking.
Comment by lzeitlin— 2006/01/31 @ 12:00 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2006/08/24 @ 09:50 PM — (Reply)
Saying that we caused 9/11 is like saying a rape victim was raped because of the way she dressed... it just doesn't work, and it shows just how cold-hearted you are.
Terrorists DO go after other free thinking countries...just ask Spain and England.
The war in Iraq is being fought for a multitude of reasons. Saddam was a major human rights violator. If you doubt it, just look at the reports of mass graves or ask the Kurdish people.
Yes, he did try to have Pres. Bush 41 assasinated. THAT alone is enogh to go to war over.
Saddam was a destabilizing factor.
Saddam did have chemical weapons, as evidenced by the footage of him testing them out on dogs. Again, you can ask the Kurds about that.
Saddam was paying a stipend to families of Palestinian homicide bombers, yet another way he was causing chaos.
Spreading democracy in Iraq.
I'm sure there are probably more reasons; this was just off the cuff. You could always try using your computer for things like research; I suggest starting at the White House.
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/01/31 @ 12:38 PM — (Reply)
Enough about whether I can spell or not ... that's not the issue.
I do have one interesting statistic. Bush's approval rating is down just below 40 per cent as I sit here. What's that all about? Could it be the public is FINALLY getting smart to the fact that Bush is a lousy president.
He is arrogant, he's hated around the world, and I don't see how his policies make us safe. And are you aware that even his father is not happy his son took us into Iraq. Yes, there WERE WMDs, but that was long ago. I give you that. Sadam is no better than Hitler, but he did not pose a threat to us. Osama poses a threat. What happened with him, has the president forgot about him?
The numbers are rising that most Amercans do not like this war, he dosn't know how to get us out. I have four grandson, and it scares the hell out of me that one day, thanks to this president's foreign policies, when they grow up there will be a drafted, and they will go to war one day.
You know it's easy to be for a war, when war doesn't touch us personally. I wonder how most of the families who lost sons and daughters in this useless war feel.
We are not any safer now, thanks to the Iraq war. Don't you guys get it. Are you like lemmings who migrate to a president or a policy that makes no sense, just because he's the president Can you not think for yourselves, are you all so blind, or just as stupid as your president!
Bush once stated he was a "uniter" (which by the way is not even a word) "not a devider." It seems to me his policies have divided this country right down the middle.
WAKE UP, CONSERVATIVES, WAKE UP AND SMELL YOUR PRESIDENT ... HE STINKS!!!!
Comment by lzeitlin— 2006/01/31 @ 02:57 PM — (Reply)
You assume much to say we are not personally affected.
Where is it written that beyond America live lesser people?
People too weak to defend themselves, let them die?
Is the law of America the law of the world? NO.
There are laws that enslave men and laws that set them free. Either what we hold to be right and good and true IS right and good and true,for ALL mankind, under God, or we're just another dictatorship.
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/01/31 @ 05:01 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/01/31 @ 05:15 PM — (Reply)
Not that it's any of your business sir. I have two children, 3 grandchildren, and two more on the way this year. Is that so hard to believe? (And I've been married 39 years to the same man.)
I worry ... what kind of country is Bush going to leave my children once he's out of office. Thank, God he'll be out of here in, approximately, 1000 days. Yeah, you bet I'm counting!!!
And FYI, I do not hate Republicans, some of my best freinds are Republican, and certainly don't agree with everything Democrats say or do, and I did not hate his father, or Reagan, or Ford. At least I could agree with them sometimes, at least they showes some intelligence.
This president is being lead by the nose by our unelected "faux" president, that slime, Dick Chaney.
And as for Ms. C-mom, if my grammar doesn't suit you, that's too bad. You should concern yourself more with the state of our nation. Bush pretends to care about this country. Heaven only knows what drivel he's spouting out in his address to the nation this evening, which I would not waste my time watching. I predict that this year will go down for Bush, as badly as 2005 went for him.
Comment by Lzeitlin— 2006/01/31 @ 06:53 PM — (Reply)
You want to know why there is no civil discourse in Washington? Because it is populated entirely with people LIKE YOU! I ask you direct questions, you conintue to evade and spew hateful rhetoric. It takes two to tango and it takes two to make a peace. Show me the money - WHERE ARE YOUR SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS?
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/31 @ 07:27 PM — (Reply)
No, you tell me what solutions are needed, you guys are supposed to know it all.
Comment by lzeitlin— 2006/01/31 @ 07:32 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/31 @ 08:01 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/31 @ 08:02 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/31 @ 08:03 PM — (Reply)
Saying,"some of my best friends are republcans," is like a racist saying, some of my best friends are black. Its laughable.
Oh, and the President DID offer solutions in the SoUA (Which you didn't watch, so you wouldn't know...) last night; democrats booed and sat like sullen, spoiled children the whole time. They have proven that they have no answers, but answers from the other side of the aisle won't do either.They don't care about solving problems, only that their side wins. That, madame, is a sorry party to belong to.
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/02/01 @ 06:23 AM — (Reply)
FYI, I would not watch this president, but I did read the STOU transcript in the Washington Times, a very conservative paper, by the way, so I don’t just read liberal newspapers.
There are very likely hundreds of constitutional violations being committed by the Bush administration, but they somehow manage to make the claim that whatever they do is done in the name of national security and so it all goes away, and we never hear anymore about it.
Conservatives and Republicans oppose the idea of torture and spying and a number of other constitutional violations, but they adopt an attitude that wrong is only wrong if you get caught doing it and toss it off that it’s all done in the legitimate interest of national security. Baloney!! This administration will lie and lie, until one day the American public wakes up and impeaches him.
Comment by lzeitlin— 2006/02/01 @ 07:14 PM — (Reply)
sounds like sour grapes over the election to me.
Comment by — 2006/02/01 @ 09:27 PM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/02/02 @ 06:16 AM — (Reply)
where were you when Bill and Hillary were in office? I was at a parade in Chicago once that they attended and they had a couple arrested for wearing t-shirts calling for Bill's impeachment. That couple was held in jail for several days (local legend has it that this was a personal demand of the Clintons). Talk about an invasion of rights - the police didn't even give them a warning.
If every president respected all of the freedoms garaunteed in the constitution, the southern half of this country would be a separate nation. From the minute Lincoln removed the right of secession from the governed, this country has been experiencing a continual makeover WRT personal liberty. It doesn't just end where your neighbor's personal liberty begins, it ends at the door of the common good.
You hard line liberals want to have unfettered personal freedom while regulating the hell out of corporations. What gives? You only believe in freedom if it is yours! You want the freedom to take my excess tax money and give it to people who don't even pay into the system, you want the freedom the raise my children for me by allowing my thirteen year old daughter to have sex and an abortion without even talking to me about it, you want the freedom to shout ugly epithets at wounded soldiers from outside their hospital room windows. You fight to protect the rights of the pornographer and the criminal. You appeal to the courts to reinforce liberties that even the animal kingdom would reject.
Alexis De Tocqueville in Democracy in America said that America was a good nation because people were restrained by morality from doing all the things that true liberty by its very nature allows. Freedom, true personal freedom allows for just about anything - when this nation began many of the social ills we see today were less prevalent because a majority of people accepted a majority of judeo-christian ethics. Now we have people like you fighting to allow all of the most degrading and despicable behaviors imaginable.
Look at yourselves. You are an ugly and offensive lot.
Comment by passing thru— 2006/02/02 @ 07:06 AM — (Reply)
When are you guys going to get over the Clintons? This country was in far better shape when Mr. Clinton was in office. And if there is impeachment, it should be for the laws Mr. Bush is presently committing. Here we are six years later, and you're still on the Clintons ... get over it!!
And yes, I want freedom, that's what this country is about. And I sure as hell don't want religious fanatics to tell me what I can or cannot do, morally. As long as I don't hurt anyone, leave me alone.
I happen to live a moral life. I grew up a Catholic, and went to Catholic school, so I think I know a little about "morality.
I've raised good God-fearing, honest young men, who are now excellent fathers and husbands. I don't deny you your freedom; do whatever you want, it's not my business. And that's the point, what others do is not your business. Why are you so threatened?
And if you raise your 13year old in the right way, sex, pregnancy and abortion should not ever be an issue ... see, I've raised teenagers, you're do not have lock on raising kids. I know how hard it is. When your daughter grows up I pray that you are as lucky as I've been. It's what they are taught at home.
If you have a good relationship, she will talk to you. Do you need the government to help you with that ... shame on you.
Yes, I do fight to protect the speech of anyone, even if I don't like what it is they are saying, whether it pornography, or otherwise. You are sick if you think I agree with animal behavior for human beings; I never would ever think of such things ... seems that you have. That makes me wonder.
Don't tell me about morality, you have no right to impose on me your morality ... that's why I'm so disgusted with people like you. I don't want you, or the government to tell me how to live my life either morally, or otherwise.
And excuse me if I think we should know what our government is up to.
We are so busy, sticking our noses where it does not belong in the name of promoting democracy in other countries, that in the process we could very well be losing our own.
We don’t know what our executive branch is doing, and neither does Congress. Secrecy is not a part of a democracy, in my book. And I feel I have the right to speak up, because those of us who really want to know what our elected officials are doing need to protest, and we will continue to do so until we get answers.
The secrecy of the Bush administration is frightening to me, is it not for you? Or do you just follow blindly behind whatever he says.
I find it interesting how President Bush, Sr., seems to have embraced President Clinton. Could it be that Bush, Sr., recognizes the intelligence of Bill Clinton, and doesn’t agree how Bush, Jr. is running this country. Isn’t it interesting that Bush, Jr. looks Bill Clinton to discuss various issues. Yeah, it's true, it's well known that he's talked to Clinton about foreign policy.
So, enough already … this country is going to the dogs. Face it and live with it. It’s people like you who put this man in the White House. I’m counting down the days until he’s out of office.
Comment by lzeitlin— 2006/02/02 @ 04:21 PM — (Reply)
I'm guessing we'll get over bill and hill when you guys remove the Kerry-Edwards bumper stickers from your cars
And for the record I meant animalistic behaviors as in not enlightened but degrading (like porn - which you defend) what were YOU thinking?
Comment by — 2006/02/02 @ 04:58 PM — (Reply)
YEAH, you get it, we have not gotten over the election, and I won't until the next one.
Well, I have now posted my last message ... you won't change my mind; I won't change yours, it's ashame, because in the end the truth will come out about Bush!
So, have a good year! I've had enough of Republican conservatives.
Comment by lzeitlin— 2006/02/02 @ 05:13 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/02/02 @ 05:24 PM — (Reply)
WELL GOOD RIDDANCE TO ALL OF YOU, TOO, you all deserve what comes your way with your president.
Comment by lzeitlin— 2006/02/03 @ 06:02 PM — (Reply)
Probably when you get over GW. Thanks for signing off and for the traffic.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/02/03 @ 07:00 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/02/03 @ 07:32 PM — (Reply)
Comment by No More millard— 2006/02/03 @ 07:42 PM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/02/04 @ 05:40 AM — (Reply)
Comment by lzeitlin— 2006/02/04 @ 08:27 PM — (Reply)
So, your friend in the WH wants to outsource our ports to his Arabian friends … oh, boy, he really is totally nuts! Good move? Giving our security to away to foreigners?
The issue seems to be, if there is a profit to be gained, the hell with our security, they’re willing to sell us down the river … all the way!!!!
This is the most corrupt and inept administration in the history of this country. And if you can’t see this, if you don’t understand what’s going on, you are all more stupid than it’s possible to believe.
This administration lies, and lies, as evidenced by what Chaney was trying to get away with last week.
Comment by LM— 2006/02/21 @ 01:25 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/02/21 @ 02:22 PM — (Reply)
Who the hell cares what the former president said at a funeral ... that's not worth a moment's thought. This bothers you more than selling out to the Arabs? Are you kidding me. Do you live near a port? I do! It scares me to death that a dirty bomb could end up in one of those containers.
Interesting, that there's opposition by some Republicans, but yet, you concern yourself with what was said at a funeral. Geeze ... I just don't get you people.
Are you totally dense? What do you have to say for yourself? Or you just don't care, whatever Bush says, is okay by you ... follow like sheep, I guess!
So, this is more important than selling off our ports to an Arab nation? A speech, a lousy speech at a funeral, you concern yourself with, hmm, interesting.
BUSH IS A BIG SPENDER, by the way, not very Republican like.
Comment by LM— 2006/02/21 @ 05:02 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/02/21 @ 05:17 PM — (Reply)
I merely pointed out that it wasn't a partisan issue - and that charges of corruption and ineptitude go both ways.
That's all - but thanks for showing your intelligence again by making ASSumptions.
Furthermore, people like you falsely interred Japanese during WWII, refused to share your drinking fountains with blacks and depicted Germans as monstrous mr. hyde's when it suited your needs. "The Arabs" you call them, the company that owns P&O Port Works. Very racist. Arab doesn't equal muslim, terrorist, or even anti-American.
Has it ever occurred to your pea-brained mind that to outright deny the contract after having it outsourced to a British company would be seen as a complete alliance breaking insult with UAE. You liberals always calling for us to play nice with other countries and then when the rubber meets the road, where are you?
You want to see a real war with the Arab/Muslim world? Show outright, unwarranted discrimination after a business has gone through the contracting process and proven themselves trustworthy and qualified. The you'll only validate the jihad that is already occurring and give further reason to hate and attack the US. Ever think of that.
I'm still not in favor but I can see beyond my own backyard and into the international ramifications if we refuse to do business simply based on race/nationality.
Comment by Cate— 2006/02/21 @ 05:30 PM — (Reply)
That's the long and short of it. Even if the Prez wanted to cave to the knee-jerk reaction the port story is getting, he couldn't very well do it without screwing what good relations we have with the UAE.
I'm going to sit back and watch this one for a while, untill there is enough information out there to form a cogent opinion. I would suggest, LM, that you do the same.
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/02/21 @ 06:15 PM — (Reply)
First of all the P&O Port, I believe, is owned works by the UK.
So, are you now calling me a racist? Talk about ASSumptions, guess, you're one, too.
I come from a multi-racial family, with members of my family, i.e., grandparents, cousins, and other members who who were killed in German camps. Discrimination is not ever in my vocabulary. But, that was then, this is now, I have no animosity with the German people. Interesting that Germany certainly didn't stand with George
W. Bush and the Iraq war.
And so, you want this country to be bullied by the Arabs, and do whatever they want. And I speak not of American Arabs, but those nuts in the Middle East. Did you forget who gave us 9-11? Did you forget where the highjackers came from.
No, I would not say all Arabs our terrorists, but to sell out to a group who are trying to kill us, no, I don't agree at all.
The only prejudice I guess I do have is to people who follow like sheep!
Comment by LMZ— 2006/02/21 @ 06:16 PM — (Reply)
Civil war in Iraq, selling our ports to Dubai ... wow! Sounds like Bush is in big trouble, and the world will suffer for it all. IMPEACH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by lmz— 2006/02/23 @ 05:01 PM — (Reply)
And if I'm an ass I'm an honest one - I call them as I see them not as a political party tells me I should - you referred to a business (a for profit corporation run by people of many ethnicities and nationalities) as "the Arabs" - If I'd said that, you'd have given the ACLU my phone number.
And just so you don't continue to look foolish - people who aren't racist don't feel the need to enumerate a litany of proofs to the contrary.
Comment by Cate— 2006/02/23 @ 06:14 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/02/23 @ 06:19 PM — (Reply)
I agree with the "pig" as you call this person. What does that make you calling someone names?
Comment by rose— 2006/02/23 @ 06:33 PM — (Reply)
I'm curious, is anyone who reads this forum aware of the fact that one of the 9-11 hijackers was from the UAE, that they traveled through Dubai, and used financial resources there.
Dibai was also reported to be a major transfer point for smuggled nuclear components. So should there be concern that Dubai ports could be infiltrated by extremists and/or terrorists all that farfetched? Come on, folks, wake up and look at what this govenment is doing.
Bush and "his" government, as he was heard to say "his," government should never have approved this -- and if, as Bush claims, didn't know about this situation, well, why not, why didn't he know. Why isn't he top of this kind of thing.
I can only hope that this focuses attention on what this nation is doing, which is precious little so far, which is to protect "our" country from the next atrocity to hit this country through a sealed container on a cargo ship.
Comment by Rose— 2006/02/23 @ 06:55 PM — (Reply)
OH we're aware, but I thought the libs considered this all to be racial profiling...what used to be a big no no...?????????????
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/02/23 @ 07:03 PM — (Reply)
You presume too much, sir. I never claimed to be a lib ... I just say it as I see it. I don't agree with what the Dems say and do, but the Republicans are the ones running the show, so they need to take full responsibility for their ineptness!! And they are inept, you have got to see that, right?
Comment by Rose— 2006/02/23 @ 07:16 PM — (Reply)
You go, Rose!
Comment by lmz— 2006/02/23 @ 07:17 PM — (Reply)
You need to back off ladies, even the liberals are now admitting this ports deal is a non-issue
Comment by SM— 2006/02/23 @ 07:37 PM — (Reply)
Check out my blog for the real scoop
Comment by SM— 2006/02/23 @ 07:39 PM — (Reply)
who said I was talking to you?
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/02/23 @ 09:11 PM — (Reply)
Wrong, I think we do need to profile at airports. If a person with red hair committed a terrible crime, wouldn't we look for all persons with red air? Yes, absolutely profile. And, my, my did I hit a sore spot?
Comment by Rose— 2006/02/24 @ 06:39 AM — (Reply)
Rose, I think that you're overreacting to Cate's comment about "wrestling with the pig."
Its a metaphor for futility; she wasn't calling anyone a pig.
I DO think its pretty funny that we aren't supposed to 'profile' when conducting security at airports, yet we can't let 'those arabs' have our ports.
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/02/24 @ 06:02 AM — (Reply)
You know, a lot of the cargo that comes in to the U.S. comes in containers that probably never gets checked, or are largely neglected … that is until now, and many experts have been complaining about this situation for years, years. Mr. Bush are you listening?
And don’t give me crap about what Clinton or Bush, Sr., did, or didn’t do. Bush, Jr. is supposed to our protector, he was supposed to keep us safe, that’s why you guys voted for him ... well, what say you, now? He’s got to be the dumbest president in history. And don’t go telling me, well, he’s better than Clinton because of Clintons shenanigans. We probably would be better off if Bush messed around, then he’d not have time to get our country in so much trouble. Now, we’ll have civil war in Iraq … oh, smart move going to war.
So, I digress!
The Bush administration has made a colossal mistake selling out to the State of Debai. Thanks to this government’s foolishness, and all the brouhaha over it, now everyone knows how vulnerable we are at our ports.
Our sneaky government, without informing anyone, decided to approve the purchase of the British Company to a Gulf-oil sheikdom, the UAE, which means all operations will fall to Dubai control.
I find this troubling, don’t you? I live near one of these ports and our state officials were not put on notice of the deal. WHAT?
According to federal officials the UAE is pro-American. How interesting, considering the fact that one of the 911 hijackers was from the UAE, and other hijackers traveled through this country and was reported to be a major transfer point for smuggled nuclear material. It was also reported that a Pakistani scientist was involved in dispatching this nuclear material through Iran, and who knows through what other countries.
So, shouldn’t we worry that Dubai Ports could be infiltrated by extremists and/or terrorists? I think so. Is this too farfetched for you pinheads to understand? Probably!!!
As far as I can tell, the government never should have allowed this, and the nerve to have done so without consultation with the states involved or to further investigate this company, to be sure they can be trusted.
Profiling, when it comes to the safety of my country? Yep!! I don’t think foreign companies should be operating any U.S. facility which have major security concerns. What’s next sell our airports to these foreign companies, whether from the Middle East or anywhere else? No, I don’t think so.
The one good thing is the big stink that has now been made, so Bush has to now back down ... wow, could it be he admits he made a mistake, holy cow, maybe I’m smoking something!!
Attention has now been focused on what Bush and this government is up to, which is precious little -- so far in preventing the next terrorist attack to this country by way of a sealed container on a cargo ship heading in to a port near me!!!
And, by the way, UAE, stand for UNITED ARAB EMIRATES,
Comment by Rose— 2006/02/25 @ 07:47 AM — (Reply)
Why wast your time explaining anything to these nuts. They just follow blindly whatever Bush, Chaney, et al want to do. Maybe these religous nuts think religion and God will protect them. But, God helps thouse who help themselves, and we are not helping ourselves with these kinds of actions with terrorists.
Comment by lz— 2006/02/25 @ 07:54 AM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/02/25 @ 08:04 AM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/02/25 @ 08:35 AM — (Reply)
Who cares what you think, Mr. Conservative Realist. I KNOW that, eventually, you will realize the many mistakes that this government has been making.
Do you think outright civil war is a good thing. Do you think selling our country off to the AEI is correct ... I don't know why I waste my time here, I really don't. I can certainly understand lz's frustration, because you folks just will never get it.
Comment by rose— 2006/02/25 @ 06:09 PM — (Reply)
Comment by lz— 2006/02/25 @ 07:09 PM — (Reply)
Well, it looks like Bush is in the celler of approval ratings, especially with regard to the ports. Do we really want to see a foreign flag from this country flying over our ports, and not the old red, white and blue? Does the coast guard want to take it's orders from a foreign country. Bad, bad, bad!!
This man has lost his mind. I do not trust this man with our security ... it's time to impeach.
Comment by lmz— 2006/02/28 @ 02:22 PM — (Reply)
You got that right, lmz, this man has totally lost his mind. It's down right scary. Dubai taking over all these ports, this is how we handle the "war on terror."
This man better start staying up later at night, listen to what the people in this country are saying.
I just now heard that Chaney's approval ratings are in the teens, and Bush's approval numbers are down below 35%! Could it be that the American public is finally getting smart as to the stupidity of this president. You're right IMPEACH, IMPEACH, IMPEACH -- for the sake of this country.
Comment by Rose— 2006/02/28 @ 02:30 PM — (Reply)
Just because you dems don't like him doesn't mean you can impeach him. Unlike Pres. 'lay and lie' Clinton, he didn't do anything illegal.
But, just so you don't FEEL bad: Haliburton, Haliburton, Haliburton! Who, BTW, is one American company who could handle managing our ports...
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/01 @ 05:07 AM — (Reply)
Are you aware that Dubai is already in violation as to ports, that they are banning anything going into or from Israel.
Haliburton, Haliburton, Haliburton! How nice for Dick Chaney, another reason he wanted us to go to war ... MONEY, MONEY, MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! To bad his friend didn't shoot him!!!!!!!!!
Clinton lied about sex that's all. Not a good thing I agree. But, it is a personal matter, and he did his job for this country. A PERSONAL MATTER, THAT ONLY HE AND HIS FAMILY NEEDED TO DEAL WITH. How many people in this country, including some very high-ranking Republicans had affairs. A personal matter, or are you interested in what goes on in someone else's personal life.
No matter, he continued to work extremely hard for this country. Something this president knows absolutely nothing aobut.
How many vacations did he take away from the WH. He took even more vacations than Reagan and his dear old dad. And I've got news for you, his father is not happy about this war in Iraq. He stayed away from going to Bagdad because he knew a civil war would ensue. And guess what HE WAS RIGHT!
So, grow up, at least others in this party of Republicans are beginning to see the light and tune this asshole out!
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/01 @ 07:53 AM — (Reply)
You're right - Clinton worked his country hard.
He worked incerdibly hard for the Chinese as well, selling them nuclear technology.
Also worked wonderfully hard for Mark Rich - payoff pardon.
Worked hard for the safety of New Yorkers by chasing Al-Quaida when they bombed the WTC in 1993 - and then authorizing the dropping of a token bomb just in time to divert newscasters from Monica's recall to the grand jury (Can you say wag the dog?)
He certainly protected American soldiers who were being shot at routinely in the Iraqi no fly zones - not.
And being the great international leader that he is, he saved countles Rwandans from genocide - oh, wait, no he didn't he voted to pull UN peacekeepers out and to leave those people to the hands of sharpened machetes.
Also on the international scene he created a war in Kosovo and invented massacres that didn't exist - UN and international investigators never found a single mass grave - not even evidence of any sort of genocide whatsoever. Actual death toll was less than 2000 all dead from various causes (including some perfectly natural)
But all that doesn't matter because it's the economy, stupid. That's right, the economy that was already turning sharply upward in 1991 before he took office, thanks to the policies of Congress under George Bush Sr.
You know, considering all he did for health care though he really ought to be lauded - oops, that's right, slick Willie couldn't get that passed either.
Just what did he do in office? (aside from the interns)
He played a mean saxophone - okay, not really but I hate to be all negative.
Just a suggestion - but you'd better clean the windows of that glass house you're living in before you throw any more stones - especially if you are going to prop Clinton up as your party's poster boy.
Comment by — 2006/03/01 @ 10:22 AM — (Reply)
Did I forget to mention that HE LET BIN LADEN GO?
Comment by — 2006/03/01 @ 10:22 AM — (Reply)
Too bad his friend didn't shoot him? How sadly hateful.
As long as we're growing here, try forming a sense of humor!
Haliburton, Haliburton, Haliburton!!!
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/01 @ 08:36 AM — (Reply)
QUOTE FROM YOUR PRESIDENT: “ FREE NATIONS DON'T ATTACK EACH OTHER. FREE NATIONS DON'T DEVELOP WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.”
This statement from a man who is turning the U.S. into a country that believes in preemptively attacking any country that he and his neo-con advisors think may possibly, somehow, maybe, someday in the future, might just possibly attack us? And we are a country that has nukes (as does Israel, India, Pakistan, France etc, etc.) and still has chemical weapons.
What is he talking about, and what is he thinking??? What are his speech writers thinking? Unless, and this is almost too horrible to contemplate ... we, the United States, are no longer a free country.
Comment by Guess who?— 2006/03/02 @ 04:34 PM — (Reply)
It looks like the American people are finally getting regarding the war in Iraq, and why we are there.
For you on the right, who don’t know why we are in Iraq, I’ll tell you.
Bush’s war was intended from the time we ran for president, when he had already decided if he became president we would go to war with Iraq.
Bush’s goal, and his advisors, i.e., Chaney was to amerce this country, The United States of American as a full-fledged global world empire. He wanted the United States take on the role of global policeman. This plan as been in the works since the last Gulf war, the war where “daddy” decided the worse thing we could do is bring the war to Baghdad which would certainly lead to civil war!! Hello, get it?
Bush, Sr., did not want to go into all out war over there. Bush, Jr. believes that the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination even if it means that we become American Imperialists. Isn’t that what we have been accused being by our enemies.
He’s leading this country and the world down a dangerous path.
But, I am actually feeling quite optimistic in the fact that America is waking up, and the 2006 election will be one in both houses by the Democrats. Good for the American people. I always knew they would wake up out of the trance the Bush has put them, the wool has been pulled of the American people for too long. It's all over Bush and the Republicans!
Comment by GMM— 2006/03/02 @ 04:59 PM — (Reply)
Don't you know that we are the only country who goes to war and then gives the land back to its inhabitants? Name one American colony abroad that has been taken by conquest. Explain why, when we liberated France and most of Europe in WWII why we gave it back instead of planting our 'imperialist' flag on their weak soil. Explain why our southern and northern boarders are not covered in razor wire with illegal crossers being shot on site.
Make no mistake: If we were in Iraq to conquer it, the land would have been signed , sealed and delivered.(And we'd be paying a heck of a lot less for gasoline!)
You live in the nation repleate with opportunity, and all you can do is spew your vitriolic hatred.
I really do pity you.
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/03 @ 04:49 AM — (Reply)
True we did give those countries back, but that was when Bush was not president. When Bush ran for office he spoke about "nation building." That we are not trying to nation build. Well, it sure looks like that's what he would like to do in Iraq, he said he didn't want regime change, yet it sure looks like that to me.
Why do we need to ram down the throats of other countries, what we think they should do, and what they should be. How many other countries does he want to go to war with.
Who are we to force democracy on other countries, if they don't want democracy.
Face facts, the Iraqi people are worse off today than they were before this war. They have no water, they have no electricity, or if they do, it comes and goes.
Face facts, that until we went to Iraq it was not being overrun by insurgents as it is today.
Please tell me how this war is helping them. Please tell me how many more civilians need to die in Bush's war. Please tell me how many sons and daughters have to die in this "no win" war. Please tell me how many civilians have to die for Bush's cause. Please tell me why there were no WMDs found. Please tell me why the American people are turning on Bush's war. Please tell me why his approval ratings as the man who will protect us is down below 39%? Please tell me why his own party is turning on him?
Please tell me why you don't see that this man, is not suitable to be president. Please tell me why you stand behind him even though everyone else seems to be running for the hills?
Comment by GMM— 2006/03/03 @ 05:38 AM — (Reply)
You are truly ignorant.Realize that with the US's military might, we could own most of this planet if we so desired. History will show this war to be a victory for humanity, and you will go the way of the dodo.News polls are notoriously slanted in the wording of their questions, reflecting whatever the poll taker's agenda is. The suggestion that the US has conquered Iraq and Afghanistan is ridiculous, and it shows just how much you hate democracy and this country. I would suggest that you move to Iraq under Saddam's reign, where he won elections with 100% of the population voting for him, or under the Taliban of Afghanistan, where women are forbidden from learning how to read, or so much as stepping one foot outside of their homes without walking behind their husbands. Try your political dissention there, and not only would you be put to a painful death, but your entire family with you!
Wake up and realize that you live in one of the greatest nations on earth! If that statement makes me a jingoist, then so be it!
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/03 @ 06:20 AM — (Reply)
Never mind the fact that polls judge PERCEPTION not reality.
Are you seriously suggestiong that a nation of people who can name more American Idols than U.S. Senators knows the absolute truth about the war on terror?
Basing your argument against George Bush on 'everybody's doing it' style logic begs the question... are you 15? If you're suggesting we define American foreign policy based on the results of twenty questions or a popularity contest, may I recommend that you take your expertise to a career better suited to you - perhaps as the campaign manager for a high school homecoming queen.
If you have real issues with the war in Iraq then let's hear them. But no regurgitation of Farenheit 9/11 propaganda or deceptive political rhetoric.
Tell me when you have spoken to Iraqis on the ground. Or soldiers on the ground - not the 6 at Abu Graib who lost us the PR war or the dozen hiding in Canada - but the 250000 who are working hard to rebuild a nation where institutionalized terror encouraged putting dissenters feet first through a wood chipper and dropping political opponents from the roof of a 3 story building with their hands and feet tied AS A MATTER OF ROUTINE AND STATE SANCTIONED PRACTICE.
As for insurgents, most are Iraqi baathists trying to regain power - the number of outside terrorists is much smaller.
If you are interested in information from someone who actually was in Iraq for 14 months, try reading My Year in Iraq by Paul Bremer.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/03 @ 09:10 AM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/03 @ 09:23 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/03 @ 09:51 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Susan— 2006/03/03 @ 11:39 AM — (Reply)
I hear Omaha beach was a hell hole, too. At least the neighbor boys you claim to be talking to are back home safe.
You're right, I am not in Iraq. Instead I get to support my husband (who been deployed to the Middle East 3 times in our marriage), raise our children and put up with spoiled American liberals who've never tasted oppression complain about how the military is filled with baby killers.
But you just keep assuming that you know the people you're slandering and we'll just keep forgiving your ignorance.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/03 @ 02:59 PM — (Reply)
This was a reply to GMM below- I accidently hit reply under your post.
Thanks for the kind words, btw, I'll contact you in another forum - this one has gotten too hostile for posting my personal email.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/03 @ 03:25 PM — (Reply)
I believe that America should be committed to a foreign policy that holds dear our nation’s highest values.
I disagree with the militarization of foreign policy and the effects it has here at home and abroad. That's obvious by the hatred I saw when I was abroad recently. They hate this government, and the president. Folks that spoke with me actually said they are afraid of the Bush policies, that he's a danger to peace in the world.
I also believe in the commitment to fighting terrorism, and the proliferation of weapons, but do not agree with the policy of -- and read this -- UNILATERAL MILITARY PREEMPTION. No other president has ever used the word "preemption," except this administration. I'm not sure he even knows what the word means.
I believe we should work for international cooperation and attempt to enforce laws which will provide this country and the world the greatest chance for a free, healthy, safe and just society.
With this president in office, that will never happen. He's a war monger, this from a man who never served in the military.
Comment by A liberal for peace— 2006/03/03 @ 12:12 PM — (Reply)
The wheels are coming off this administratrion, the people are beginning to see the light. He is mired in the lowest poll ratings thus fa. The American people are feeling nothing bu pessimissim in how this man is running the country and HIS war.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/03 @ 12:16 PM — (Reply)
Must be the weakend everyone seems to be weighing in.
To CAT -- I happen to live in an area where a lot of our young men have gone to Iraq. Some I know personally, and what they've told me is that they follow the company line while they are there. They will not say anything negative until they are out of the military.
However, when they come home and are asked what it's like there, they say it's hell. The people are scared and miserable, and almost feel they were better off before we set foot on Iraqi soil.
They didn't ask us to go over there. We forced ourselves on them not to help them but for our own agenda.
No, I don't know everything, but these young men said it's a hell hole, and it's absolutely NOT getting better.
I don't see you running over there to help these people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by GMM— 2006/03/03 @ 12:34 PM — (Reply)
I hear Omaha beach was a hell hole, too. At least the neighbor boys you claim to be talking to are back home safe.
You're right, I am not in Iraq. Instead I get to support my husband (who been deployed to the Middle East 3 times in our marriage), raise our children and put up with spoiled American liberals who've never tasted oppression complain about how the military is filled with baby killers.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/03 @ 03:14 PM — (Reply)
Well, aren't we special and know it all!!
Comment by gmm— 2006/03/03 @ 04:55 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/03 @ 07:03 PM — (Reply)
Tell me, because I'd love to know why you think the sacrifices my family makes are trivial enough to be laughed at. I'd really like to know where you come off making light of what I and so many others like me willingly give up so that you can sleep safely and so that people in Indonesia get food airlifted after earthquakes. What part of someone else;s blood being on the line for your sorry ass do you find amusing?
You must be the most lovely person to have for a friend.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/03 @ 07:16 PM — (Reply)
Poor old Bushie and wife had to sneek into Pakistan ... geeze!!!!
Comment by rose— 2006/03/03 @ 05:16 PM — (Reply)
I do support the troops in Iraq. I’ve given up over 60,000 frequent-flyer miles to soldiers in Iraq so some they can come home on R&R … if that’s what they call it these day. I’ve sent care packages, I have even bought donated funds so that they can call home I’ve donated money to help buy better vests for our soldiers to help protect them, something our government has failed to do.
So, now, can I ask why Bush wants us to suppor the troops, yet he was trying to gut military pay of U.S. troops? Can you give me the rationale for cutting troop pay????
Comment by gmm— 2006/03/03 @ 05:50 PM — (Reply)
FYI, our pay has increased every year and while the projected increase for 2007 has slowed, the pay raises continue - in fact, there have been targeted pay raises for most mid grade enlisted and officer ranks.
I cash those pay checks - you don't know what you're talking about.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/03 @ 07:02 PM — (Reply)
After 20 years in the military, you can be sure we know who supports our troops. We've seen the Democrats and we are not impressed. One significant pay raise under Clinton - when? 2000, when he was laying the groundwork for a Democratic successor and trying to buy the military off.
You may not like the war in Iraq or this president but don't show your ignorance by assuming the Democrats have been watching the backs of the men in uniform. It just ain't so.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/03 @ 07:23 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/03 @ 06:25 PM — (Reply)
BTW, President Bush DID serve in the military; in the Guard. You may be thinking of Clinton, who did not serve and protested our military in the 70's, and gutted the military.
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/03 @ 07:00 PM — (Reply)
I'm making too much sense so they're just calling me names again - wrestle, wrestle, wrestle...
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/03 @ 07:07 PM — (Reply)
The guard, are you kidding me. What combat did he see. He was in the guard because of daddy-kins. What's your problem. Kerry went to war, Kerry fought, what did bush do, hide where at the time. And don't give me crap about thowing away medals. If anyone had the right it's somone who actual fought in a war. What did Bush, but take the easy way out.
As for Clinton, no he didn't go to war, nor did Chaney, or Bush... you guys are so full of crap it totally makes me sick.
The more I read what you have to say the more I believe you're all full of SH*T!!
Comment by — 2006/03/03 @ 07:59 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/08 @ 08:07 PM — (Reply)
Hey, remember this one? Out of the mouth of your brilliant president?
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
Ah, what a guy!
Comment by lmz— 2006/03/03 @ 08:28 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Susan— 2006/03/03 @ 09:02 PM — (Reply)
Susan the segue is never there and it's all starts to sound the same after awhile.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/05 @ 07:45 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Susan— 2006/03/05 @ 08:11 PM — (Reply)
I was thinking that when Bush ran for office in 2000, you know the election he didn’t win? Well, I was thinking about what he said about being a “uniter, not a divider.” And I think this is one time that I believe him and I think he is just that. True we have been a divided country … until now !!!
As I see it, the American people are coming together BECAUSE of Bush. I think the American people no matter what party they belong to are uniting against the president. And his poll numbers prove that. He’s a lame-duck president, before most presidents become lame ducks.
What has happened to his base, they’re all running from him.
On his trip to India, both Muslims and Hindus united against Bush. For heaven’s sake, he had to sneak in to the damn country. Oh, yeah, he’s a uniter (not a word, by the way) all right.
And does he care what his own base thinks, that they don’t stand with him anymore? Doesn’t look like it to me. He doesn’t care what anyone says about him, or thinks about him.
A Hindu politician told a crowd in India, "Whether Hindu or Muslim, the people of India have gathered here to show our anger. We have only one message — killer Bush go home."
I want to thank Bush for being a uniter … he’s united both parties against him. But, there are a few who stand with him no matter what he does.
He’s a lame duck now, well before most other second-term presidents become lame ducks. Unfortunately, we’re stuck with him for three more years, unless he’s impeached. And that is a good possibility.
Besides the disaster he brought upon the country and the world with his war in Iraq, we have people in our own country suffering from that flood, because his inability to know what to do, or didn’t care to do. I think even more than the war, Katrina will be what really alienates the rest of the country. If he were to run again, he would lose for sure.
Bush is stupid, he’s a liar, and he runs the government in secret.
I don’t understand how you guys can still stand behind him.
I have a friend who feels the general public is stupid. I didn’t want to believe him, but have reading how you all stand behind this man, maybe he’s right.
Oh, by the way I reard him today refer to India and Muslin country. What???????
Comment by lmz— 2006/03/03 @ 09:17 PM — (Reply)
Vietnam was a bad war, we should never have been there ... but, we sent our boys, friends of mine who were killed, because that was the war we had to suffer with, and guess what they came back in shame. And these guys were poor young men, and they were treated like crap.
That won't happen to our military now, despite the fact this war is just as bad.
I will honor those who are in Iraq. I do believe they are brave young men and women, and they have my respect.]
But, don't tell me about the Vietnam war you were not around I'm certain.
Comment by rmn— 2006/03/03 @ 09:33 PM — (Reply)
I dare you to walk up to any Guardsman and tell him his is not real service, and that he never sees combat. Guardsmen get the same training as active military and a good chunk of the men abroad are activated reservists/guard.
You can't have it both ways. You cannot say that you support the troops out of one side of your mouth while disrespecting them out of the other.
The bottom line is that you hate republicans, period. It is irrelevant WHO is in charge, and the only argument you are capable of is, republicans bad, democrats good. Its really quite sad.
Hey, Susan. I've got the bluberry pie, if you'll bring the bananna cream!
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/04 @ 06:52 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Susan— 2006/03/04 @ 08:01 PM — (Reply)
To all you "Walmart" type commentaries-especially the non-americans they sell disinfectant at WALMART you better hurry to a store near you. Those in glass houses on foreign land as visitors, should not be throwing bricks from their computer screen.
Comment by Proud American— 2006/03/04 @ 10:07 AM — (Reply)
I'll be back!!
Comment by rose— 2006/03/05 @ 07:40 PM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/05 @ 07:40 PM — (Reply)
Bush continues to use rhetoric to define his national defense policy. IT’S NOT WORKING!! The president has defended his position saying “ we will continue to lead.” This does not fix the damage that has been done by his failed policies. We need the facts “just the facts,” behind this statement.
He is so fixated with spreading democracy, and his policies will not bring stability to the region. But, he wil notl listen to anyone. Bush knows it all!!
Democaracy? Is the world safer with the gains made by Hamas? Is Iraq or the region more stable as a result of our military intervention in Iraq? What proof do we have that the President's policies are working?
The world, the region, will be safer, and more stable when we leave Iraq and put our resources to work where they belong.
I believe Bush's war in Iraq has sidetracked attention away from fighting global terrorism and because of that, Bush has depleted the required resources needed to wage an effective war. Where the hell is Osama … when Bush said “I hear you,” after 911, I was all the way behind him. I didn’t vote for him, but I was ready to stand tall with “our” president! I believed him. He’s lied to the global community and he’s lied to us. I can not stand behind an incompentent president!!
How many more men and women and civilians have to die because of this man's policies that are not working, how many more will die when civil war breaks out. HOW MANY???????????
Comment by rrm— 2006/03/07 @ 03:35 PM — (Reply)
Well, I'm here again, and I reread the comments on this blog. One, of course, was my poor spelling, or poor grammar. Well, when I get angry with stupid people my typying goes faster than it should, and I lose all sense of proper grammar.
However, after reading the following comment from GWs statement after Katrina where he said the following:
"At any rate, we look forward to working with you. Let me put it another way: We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job. That's what I'm telling you."
Spoken after Katrina by Bush
I think that's a reall hoot! Now, come on, this man is the president of the United States, doesn't it embarrass you what comes out of his mouth? This is just one of sooooooo many Bushisms.
Comment by louise— 2006/03/07 @ 04:29 PM — (Reply)
“Duck and Cover” Am I reliving my youth of the 50s and 60s? We were in the middle of a nuclear-arms race. But, then someone said the nuclear arms race was over!!
Now, we are probably embarking on a new arms race thanks to George W. Bush who has decided that the world needs another arms race so by going to India and signing a new agreement with India.
This flies in the face of five decades of a successful Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which India has refused to sign.
Is he crazy, and will my grandchildren soon be hearing “duck and cover? Sure scares the s--t out of me!!!!
Comment by rose— 2006/03/07 @ 04:41 PM — (Reply)
That must be one big scare lady cause I'd say from your what you've posted here that you are full of it.
Comment by Ed— 2006/03/07 @ 04:51 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/07 @ 05:19 PM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/07 @ 05:58 PM — (Reply)
Boy, oh boy, you guys just don''t want to face the truth do you. It amazes me how thickheaded you all are.
If Bush is doing a great job then why, please tell me, is his numbers so in the tank with the Armerican people. They've lost all confidence in him ... but, you guys just live in a fantasy world.
Comment by Louise— 2006/03/08 @ 08:52 AM — (Reply)
THAT'S why the polls reflect what they do. Because the questions can be phrased in such a way as to make the answer reflect the opinions of the poll taker.
Hey, it's nice of you to give us yet another example of liberal name-calling and insulting attitudes. You prove my point without my saying a word. Thanks!
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/08 @ 09:39 AM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/08 @ 12:03 PM — (Reply)
Whatever you say ... poll numbers, I guess they're right if they fall on your side!!!!!!!
Comment by Louise— 2006/03/08 @ 06:23 PM — (Reply)
Of course I'm right, are you kidding me? Look, he said "mission accomplished," oh, really? Then why have so many people died, why, why, why. Why? Because he didn't do it right going over there in the first place, is why. Once again, he lied.
Comment by louise— 2006/03/08 @ 06:29 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/08 @ 08:04 PM — (Reply)
The time has come to set things in motion to impeach Bush, and here's why.
President Bush should be impeached and charged with war crimes. His war with Iraq has been nothing short of criminal.
He violated international law as well as our own laws causing the death of many people, and undermining the Constitution while trampling upon the rights of the citizens of this nation.
President Bush defends these actions against Iraq by wrapping himself in the flag and claiming that his actions are necessary.
It''s time to impeach, and the wheels are in motion.
He defends his illegal activities in this country by simply claiming necessity and privilege. What a liar.
Comment by newhouse— 2006/03/08 @ 07:18 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/08 @ 07:21 PM — (Reply)
I know exactly what the Patriot Act is, it gives the federal government the power to violate the Bill of Rights. And if you don’t believe that, that’s because no one in the media will talk about it.
Comment by louise— 2006/03/08 @ 07:36 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/08 @ 08:09 PM — (Reply)
Well, hooray, hooray, Americans spoke, because of the American mistrust of this misdeeds of Bush helped shoot down the port deal to Dibaii.
Our ports should not be in the hands of another country, but in our hands. No foreign entity should own and operate our ports, not now, not ever. To have our ports in the hands of other courtries is an invitation to disaster. And I'll tell you why, one minute a country can be our friend, and the next our foe, we can't take that chance when it comes to national security.
The consequence of our ports coming under control of another country makes no sense at all.
Comment by rmn— 2006/03/09 @ 02:15 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/09 @ 06:43 PM — (Reply)
This what I think about the Bush Administration:
The war in Iraq is worse than ever, and our leader, George W. Bush, has squandered every opportunity to gain favor with the Iraqi people!
We have a deficit that is mind blowing, with tax cuts going to 1 percent of the people. I say repeal all tax cuts for the rich! These tax cuts are not helping the average American in this country.
The Katrina relief effort was appalling and an embarrassment, with hundreds of our American citizens suffering and/or dying. We look like a third-world country to others around the world, who can’t even help our own people in a disaster. What happens if there’s another terrorist attack, GOD HELP US!
GW Bush’s prescription-drug program is a total failure. This administration seems to protect the drug companies instead of helping to protect older Americans.
Famous words from our president:
“I’m coming back to Washington to take charge of relief efforts.”
“Good job, Brownie.”
“I have full faith in Donald Rumsfeld”
I will restore faith in our government.”
And this is my favorite:
“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”
“Freedom is on the march.”
It seems to me that the march is by Bush’s friends and supporters right into the nearest bank.
The President is eroding civil liberties and is silencing the media by not allowing access. This is Nixon all over again!!
With Bush’s approval rating hovering at 39 percent, it appears that the American people, whether they are Republicans or Democrats they are all seeing a president who is incompetent, morally bankrupt, and probably the worse president in the history of or nation.
I’m am depressed, and I am scared. Yeah, I am scared as is others on this forum.
The only good news, once again, is that we are seeing this president for who and what he is, a man who is destroying our country, and making us less safe than before 911.
It’s the truth and history will prove me right on this. That’s provided we live through this president’s huge mistakes, and can one day look back at his presidency. Thank goodness, it now looks like most Republicans are running scared from this president in droves.
Comment by John — 2006/03/10 @ 02:59 PM — (Reply)
Boy, you really hit the nail on the head. Thank you.
Comment by Louise— 2006/03/10 @ 03:33 PM — (Reply)
The House next week will vote on the ports deal! Great!!!!
For once the Republicans are doing the right thing, I stand right behind them for once. Congratulations to the Republicans ... a no-confidence vote against the president.
This country is waking up to our national security issues, and we don''t have to look to the president anymore for keeping us safe. Now, Bush has to look at other issues, what they possibly could be, we'll have to wait and see. He'll have to find something to take our minds off the ports deal and Iraq.
The polls on the issue of this war is extremely low, what does that tell you. This man still will not face the facts that this country [Iraq] is already in a civil war over there. When will he face the music and when will he wake up?
LAME DUCK PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe he can't do us too much arm in the next two and a half years.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/10 @ 03:46 PM — (Reply)
The House next week will vote on the ports deal! Great!!!!
For once the Republicans are doing the right thing, I stand right behind them for once. Congratulations to the Republicans ... a no-confidence vote against the president.
This country is waking up to our national security issues, and we don''t have to look to the president anymore for keeping us safe. Now, Bush has to look at other issues, what they possibly could be, we'll have to wait and see. He'll have to find something to take our minds off the ports deal and Iraq.
The polls on the issue of this war is extremely low, what does that tell you. This man still will not face the facts that this country [Iraq] is already in a civil war over there. When will he face the music and when will he wake up?
LAME DUCK PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe he can't do us too much arm in the next two and a half years.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/10 @ 03:47 PM — (Reply)
My, my things have been quiet here ... wonder why?
Comment by rose— 2006/03/11 @ 07:35 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/11 @ 08:11 PM — (Reply)
Uh, don't you mean,"duh?" Hmm, have to wonder about you, Mr. Conservative
Or may you meant "doh?"
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/12 @ 04:55 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/12 @ 05:50 PM — (Reply)
I'M NOT YOUR "HON." You are presumptuous, sir.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/12 @ 05:56 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Blasting left wingers— 2006/03/12 @ 05:59 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/12 @ 06:25 PM — (Reply)
I wouldn't let you take me for a spin if you were that last Democrat on earth!
But, I am very lovely.
I wouldn't let you take me for a spin if you were the last Democrat on earth.
Comment by rose— 2006/03/12 @ 07:13 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/12 @ 07:18 PM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/13 @ 05:07 AM — (Reply)
C-mom, are you gay?
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/13 @ 06:51 AM — (Reply)
Do you like to make fun of fat people, C-mom? That's not very "Christian" of you!!!
You dislike when I make fun of Bush, saying he's stupid, but yet you can make fun of overweight people .... that's really terrible, and sad. You're not very enlightened.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/13 @ 06:54 AM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/13 @ 08:28 AM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/13 @ 08:29 AM — (Reply)
Interesting-Rose not even a U.S.citizen able to vote-So whY is she debating Bush on the site? She's a Canadian?
Her info says she lives in Belleville Ontario-Canada-according to her web site at www.todays-women.net site. Her government is in plenty of trouble why not debate in Cabada?
Comment by Jenna— 2006/03/13 @ 08:47 AM — (Reply)
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
i am not Canadian, where you got that is beyond me.
I'm U. S. Citizen just like you.
Comment by rose— 2006/03/13 @ 01:59 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/13 @ 05:03 PM — (Reply)
What are you totally nuts, you want me to post online here for everyone to see my Social Security Card ... I don't think so. Fore-getta-about it!!!!
Comment by rose— 2006/03/14 @ 06:32 AM — (Reply)
I also might add, that you are very crude as well. Why don't you go and put it where the sun don't shine.
Comment by rose— 2006/03/14 @ 06:34 AM — (Reply)
Just found this forum quite interesting. What looked like it was about forBush vs. against Bush, seems to have become personal!
Rose, I understand where you're coming from, but you need to be more knowledgeable about the facts as you state them. Because, the conservatives can never see the the mistakes, and lies Bush makes. You need to be able to support your facts better.
Comment by lmz— 2006/03/14 @ 02:41 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/14 @ 04:02 PM — (Reply)
Heres the blog address: for Rose ("the American") http://rosedesrochers.blogspot.com/
Comment by Jenna— 2006/03/14 @ 04:14 PM — (Reply)
READ MY LIPS -- I AM NOT FRENCH CANADIAN, I DO NOT HAVE A URL. However, I did check out my so-called blog that Jenna sent ... very nice blog, but, once again, IT AIN'T MY BLOG!!!!!
Get it, I am a first-generation "proud" American citizen but ashamed of the man who claims to be our president!!!
He makes us all like like fools over here thankis to the idots who voted for him!!
Comment by rose— 2006/03/14 @ 04:36 PM — (Reply)
HEY, CAN YOU REPUBLICANS HEAR ME? George Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president at this point in his second term, according to Gallup polls going back to World War II. He presently stands at 36% approval rating/60% disaproval rating. And he's not looking too good with his Republican base.
Now, tell me, do all you conservative on this forum still back him. As the Iraq was looks more, and more like a disaster, so does the Bush presidency. WAKE UP, WAKE UP!!!:
Comment by LOUISE— 2006/03/14 @ 04:48 PM — (Reply)
BUSH, CHANEY, AND RUMSFELD "ASSES OF EVIL"
Comment by rOSE— 2006/03/14 @ 05:03 PM — (Reply)
Come on now millardo....everyone is onto your louise routine...try something NEW for a change.
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/14 @ 05:29 PM — (Reply)
Boy-oh-boy have I got you going, Really, this is so funny
Really, it's quite amusing
Comment by millardo— 2006/03/14 @ 06:27 PM — (Reply)
Boy-oh-boy have I got you going. Really, this is so funny
Really, it's quite amusing
Comment by millardo— 2006/03/14 @ 06:28 PM — (Reply)
Bush is not qualified for the job he stole. We must impeach Bush and remove him from office to save America and restore our republic.
The publicans stole the election by cheating, lying us into war, and other crimes Bush, Cheney and others committed demand that good Americans oppose the Bush Occupation and work for its removal. The time has come, face it, Bush is not a good man, he's far from bright, and he has surrounded himself with people just as bad, or worse than he is.
Comment by — 2006/03/14 @ 06:32 PM — (Reply)
Bush says the economy is great, Iraq is great, everything is great. He's delusional.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/14 @ 06:34 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/14 @ 06:41 PM — (Reply)
Now, you really make me mad. How can you say things are beautiful here? How, how??? Sure for all you rich folk things are beatiful, but what about those people who are not as fortunate. Bush, has not made this country beautifull for a lot of people. There are too many in this country who don't have it all so beautiful or so easy. Who struggle to pay their bills, have no health care, who have to decide if they should put food on the table, or spend the money on their medications.
Bush cares little for the environment, and little for the average American in this country. Not everyone is some rich "dude" like yourself!!
Yes, people like you make me angry, because as long as you have it all, the hell with the rest.
Comment by rose— 2006/03/14 @ 06:49 PM — (Reply)
A suggestion to liberals....there will be no redo of the 2000 election....get over it.
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/14 @ 06:54 PM — (Reply)
I can't get over the 2000 election, because with Bush stealing it, this country has suffered for it.
So, I ask when are you all going to face the facts.
This president deserves to be impeached.
Comment by rose— 2006/03/15 @ 06:34 AM — (Reply)
And another thing, he lies ... he lies, and he lies.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/15 @ 06:47 AM — (Reply)
He is the ultimate in pride and that will be his ruin, and if not stopped, the end of the world as we know it.
His insane ideas about the "willingness" to use nuclear weapons and walk away from all of the progress of the past 20 years is a sin of unspeakable magnitude, and an indication he has no clue about morality.
Comment by — 2006/03/15 @ 07:38 AM — (Reply)
Barry, you seem to have gotten a certain someone hot under the collar!
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/15 @ 07:48 AM — (Reply)
Secondly, it is more than disingenious for the liberal left in this country, who manipulate the judiciary with the ferocity of an abusive lover, to call the 2000 election stolen. The same black robes who've been feeding the left's lunacy and caving in to ludicrous liberal causes ruled on the election - and suddenly the lefties have got their panties in a bunch? In the moral community that's what we refer to as HYPOCRISY.
And finally, your poor, poor me diatribe about Americans suffering is a load of rubbish. To the pain of real conservatives, the government under GWB has spent more than ever on social programs like health care and unemployment. Americans are sitting around accepting the redistribution of my hard earned middle class income in droves under this administration and there is historic growth in federal aid. If you are upset about not getting your handout, Rose, perhaps you should consider abolishing presidential term limits and reelecting Bush. After all, he has become the new sugar daddy, in spite of what your liberal friends are telling you.
That's an issue that would have lost him some support in the last election but dems couldn't really point at Bush and say, "Don't reelect him, he spends like us."
All in all, it's a win for your side - you should just shut up and enjoy spending our money before we elect a true conservative.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/15 @ 07:51 AM — (Reply)
As usual, your cogent points will be shot down by another round of nuh-uh!
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/15 @ 07:54 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/15 @ 08:19 AM — (Reply)
YOU KNOW WHAT "F" all of you ... lying about sex is on thing ... lying about things important to the American people is another. So, again, "F" all of you!
The day will come when you stupid idiots realize what's really going on in this country. This whole administration sucks and are a bunch lying rotten people. They care about one thing and one thing only themselves ... thank God we have less than 1000 days left of Bush. If father must be turning in his bed at night, wondering what next his idiot son will do next.
Bush can't hold a candle to his father. In fact he can't hold a candle to the lowest insect on this earth.
Comment by rose— 2006/03/15 @ 12:04 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/15 @ 12:27 PM — (Reply)
To Rose , or should I say" Dear Canadian", why are you so angry? I haPPEN TO KNOW FOR A FACT you are not an American Citizen so why are you jumping up and down? A rose by another name who is not an american, for shame and
Calling us names we are not the ones to Blame.
Comment by Jenna— 2006/03/15 @ 12:51 PM — (Reply)
CAT -- FYI, you can believe or not, but I am not looking for any handouts. I far from need it as we can probably put ourselves in the upper middle class. And, yes, probably make more than you.
My husband and I worked hard to get where are, we, saved to put our boys through college, donate to about every charity we can. I am ready willing an able to share the wealth with those not so fortunate.
I am not complaining that I don't get anything out of the government. In fact, I think Bush should increase taxes, min and yours. Cutting taxes is a farce that is perpetrated by Republicans that it helps the economy. What a bunch of crap.
I don't need handouts from anyone. I'm not asking anything from you or anyone else.
Comment by rOSE— 2006/03/15 @ 01:48 PM — (Reply)
The fact that you think Bush should incerase my taxes shows clearly that you don't know anything about economics. Raising taxes only produces more working poor. If you have it to give, good on you - you are richly blessed. But don't assume that everyone is in that position.
Most Americans are working like crazy and living in debt - you'd raise our taxes??? Most Americans drive used cars and shop at Wal-Mart because that's the only way to afforably feed and clothe a family. And you'd take more of their money to offer benefits to people who don't bother to get a job?
Yesterday's government spending report showed that people collecting unemployment stay out of work an average of 20 weeks while those who don't get unemployment checks tend to find work within 8 weeks. Take a good look at those numbers. It means people are getting over and collecting our money for twice as long as they need to.
And the Dems want to take more from us - yeah - sounds reasonable.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/15 @ 03:20 PM — (Reply)
Jen, I am an American and have been for my whole life, I was born here and have every right to say my whatever I please ... that's called "freedom of speech," the last time I looked that was still my right as an American, although as long as Bush is in office that could soon will disappear and you won't be able to speak your mind either.
Make no mistake, I am an American and I've voted in every presidential election since the early 1970s! Oh, and by the way, I have voted for a Republican, not often, but I have. I am foremost a Democrat and damn proud of it, too.
I also worked on the Kerry campaign in the 2004 election.
And make no mistake I love this country, my father fought in WWII and fought for this country, and he was a nationaized citizen from Europe.
Think I'm Canadian knock yourself out. If I were a Canadian I would not get so upset over Bush ... ya' think?
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/15 @ 04:00 PM — (Reply)
Hey, Rose, have you seen the latest poll numbers for Bush's job approval is down to 36% Can it be that the American public is finally seeing the light.
The don't like what he's doing with the war, they don't believe him, and his number are falling, falling, but yet, the nutcases on this forum, still stand behind him. Give me a break.
Comment by Louise— 2006/03/15 @ 04:04 PM — (Reply)
Three words that identify Bush are, incompetent, liar and idiot.
Comment by Guess who— 2006/03/15 @ 04:14 PM — (Reply)
To the rest of you tools: Please show up here for the party!
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/15 @ 04:40 PM — (Reply)
Okay, one more time:
The stupider someone is, the less likely he is to offer compromise, to open his mind to other options, to admit a misjudgment, no matter how slight -- because, then, wouldn't people see how unqualified that someone is?
But his willingness to admit a mistake is the sign of a confident person, an intelligent person -- a big person. And once again he’s humiliated himself and our nation by demonstrating how small he truly is … a very small man, indeed..
The proportion of people who strongly approve of him has fallen to 20%, its lowest ever. The proportion who strongly disapprove has risen to 44%, the highest ever.
More people disapprove than approve of Bush in every single category of job performance, from Iraq to the health care to the environment to the so-called "war on terror." Every single category, including honesty and trustworthiness -- except one.
52 to 47 percent of the American people seem to think he's "a strong and decisive leader." I guess, that’s because he makes rash decisions, and then defends them strongly when the facts come out. He will never admit he’s made a mistake.
Facts like the absence of Saddam's WMDs, for which we attacked a sovereign nation, killing tens of thousands of their people and ours. Facts like the illegality of his torture policies and domestic spying. Facts like his being amply warned of the damage Katrina would do.
But he's not really strong and decisive, is he. If he were, anyone involved in leaking the name of a covert CIA agent -- namely Karl Rove -- would be gone, as he promised. We would have captured Osama "dead or alive," as he promised. And Iraq's oil revenues would be paying for Iraq's reconstruction, instead of our tax dollars. As he so strongly and decisively promised.
Americans can no longer deny it (and for the most part, they don't) -- the man they (sort of) elected president is a moron. Someone who lies and belligerently defies the will of the vast majority of Congress and the people who (sort of) elected him, because he fears his incompetence will become all too obvious.
It's sad, really. And embarrassing to watch. I almost feel sorry for George Bush, this man I hate. And I definitely feel sorry for the country I love. Because it's being irreparably damaged by a smirking, jackass-stubborn simpleton.
Comment by rrm— 2006/03/15 @ 04:44 PM — (Reply)
Censure, censure ... Andrew Jackson was censured in 1834 for refusing to hand over papers to Congress and assuming power not granted by the Constitution. With his stonewalling of the investigation and by ignoring FISA, this is exactly what President Bush has done, and he should also be censured accordingly.
Comment by — 2006/03/15 @ 05:27 PM — (Reply)
Good for you, keep 'em coming ... I'm trully enjoying this!
Comment by Louise— 2006/03/15 @ 05:28 PM — (Reply)
And, another thing, the President admitted he did not brief the full intelligence committees. This is against the law
Comment by — 2006/03/15 @ 05:32 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/15 @ 05:39 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/15 @ 05:46 PM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/15 @ 05:48 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/15 @ 06:04 PM — (Reply)
Oh, Mr. Realist, are you a Walmart employe? Well, how nice for you. Well, I will not step foot in Walmart because of their treatment of Walmart employees.
PEW POLL FOR BUSH IS @ 33% DISAPROVAL.
Comment by — 2006/03/15 @ 07:02 PM — (Reply)
I feel sorry for Rose's family members. Nag,Nah,Nag, Nah, Nag.
You should consider volunteering your time at a hearing impaired facility.
Comment by Jenna— 2006/03/15 @ 08:53 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/16 @ 04:42 AM — (Reply)
Wal-Mart treats their employees fairly enough. If you want to be a cashier all of your life, you've got to settle for low pay and drudgery. If you want more, go to school on one of those fat, taxpayer funded aid programs and get a better job!
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/16 @ 04:51 AM — (Reply)
So, I guess you consider the GI-Bill as an aid bill?
The GI Bill is what enabled my father to go to art school and become a successful artist, which he was until the day he died. He was able to support our family because of this education. Had he not received this help, we would have had a very difficult life, since both my parents being from another country had no education. My mother also worked all my life, while growin up, to help support us, while dad went to school. No, we were not rich at all, but because of the government, dad was able to finish his education, and go out and make a successfull living. But, even with that my mother continued to work.
Both he, and my mother, were able to afford their first house thanks to the government's help. And both he and my mother both had no problem paying taxes because they felt that by paying taxes, they were repaying the government for what the help they got to get them on their feet. Thiis is what most Americans did after the war.
My parents received social security when they retired thanks to Roosevelt ... a "tax fat-funded aid program," as you call it. It was NOT a Republican that gave us social security was it?
No, with Republicans it's I've got mine, the hell with the rest of people.
You see, we believe in being our brothers keeper, and are always willing to help those less fortunate ... sometihing you guys know nothing about, or care!!!
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/16 @ 05:28 AM — (Reply)
At comment 199, you suggest raising taxes on everyone - since you are, as you freely advertise, doing so well, you've got yours. The heck with the rest of us working class joes & janes, huh?
The GI Bill is a job benefit (which is a pittance compared to what civilian federal employees get as benefits for a safe 9-5). As for SS, well, social security is financed irresponsibility - whole generations now rely on it instead planning for their future. If you are poor as an aged person then you should qualify for welfare - you shouldn't collect a check just for having a birthday.
Listen to yourself - do you believe that being born means being entitled to maintenance for life? Do you really believe that the best way to live is by forking over all our money to the state and then letting them take care of us? That, my friend, is what we call communism. And it results in really long lines at grocery stores with really empty shelves. No one gets taken care of well when we give away our right and responsibility to be self-reliant.
You are purposefully confusing the argument by suggesting that conservatives would not care for their neighbors. We are more charitable, by far, than those liberals sipping mocha at Starbucks. But we give our money freely to organizations with a much better track record of helping the poor, the sick and the hungry than the ridiculous beauracracy driven beast of a government we now have.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/16 @ 06:44 AM — (Reply)
I think I should keep that money, and spend it charitably on the cause/person that I SEE FIT. I should have the CHOICE.
I should look out for myself to take care of myself.
Have some pride in yourself!
Comment by Blasting left wingers— 2006/03/16 @ 06:11 AM — (Reply)
SO THE HELL WITH EVERYONE ELSE WHO IS DOWN AND OUT -- that's so very Christian of you
How selfish of you ... but, should you get in to some sort of trouble, you'll be the first to look for the handout.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/16 @ 06:30 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/27 @ 11:22 AM — (Reply)
See, Rose, the way these Republicans handle things is they take out a gun and shoot anyone who doesn't agree with them, (see this rightwinger's link). They grab a gun fill it with bullets and shoot ... just like Chaney did. He proably shot his buddy because his buddy killed more quail than he did!!!
Comment by louise— 2006/03/16 @ 07:30 AM — (Reply)
The problem with the down and out is that once sugar daddy big government comes along with his free ride, there is NO incentive to take care of onesself. Why should you, when you are getting something for nothing?
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/16 @ 09:44 AM — (Reply)
give a man a fish feed him for a day;
teach a man to fish feed him for a lifetime; teach a man to teach to fish and feed a whole village....
Programs that empower are not programs that require nothing more than receiving aid. They are programs that require effort.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/16 @ 10:10 AM — (Reply)
People like Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld, et al have no personal experience with war and what’s at stake, they have no clue, nothing.
These people are the result of a privileged upbringing and are in no way capable of understanding the pain and suffering, their war has brought the families, the and the soldiers of the Iraq war. It’s so easy to send others to war, as long as they, or members of their families don’t have to go and fight this disgusting war.
Comment by — 2006/03/16 @ 02:36 PM — (Reply)
Let me know if any of these help.
Your friend, Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/16 @ 04:56 PM — (Reply)
Barry, you look like an old guy, you know what the Bill of Right is, but the rest of the wet-nose generation that I assume is reading this forum, this if for them, the smartasses!
The GI Bill of Rights was signed into law President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, at the end of WWII.
It made possible billions of dollars in education, training, housing, and small business investments for millions of veteran, which brought about huge change in our society, for folks like my parents.
This helped bring a change in that people who would have been poor, down and out, and uneducated, allowed them the education needed to help improve income opportunities, which in turn brought the poor into middle class. More Americans were able to own a home, improve their standard of living and raise their children, my generation, in a comfortable and happy environment, and allow them to achieve a higher education, which in turn gave us a better country.
But, oh, no, once again, you prove to be selfish, once again you probably see that as a handout. But, without this program, this country would not have made the strides it did in the early 50s and 60's.
But, your generation, just don't want to help anyone, shame on you, shame!!!!
was a dramatically changed society. The GI Bill was responsiblethe American middle class. Education, income opportunities, and home ownership combined to improve the standard of living for many Americans. More families were able to raise their children in comfortable environments and provide higher education for their children.
Comment by It's me!!!!— 2006/03/16 @ 05:10 PM — (Reply)
No one here knocked the GI Bill. In fact, I referred to it as a job benefit - that's hardly a handout. People earned that benefit. People who willingly put their lives on the line to free opressed Europeans from a tyrannical killer. People who fought for justice against the Japanese empire that struck Pearl Harbor.
And yet the people on the left in this country think this is what America is about.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/16 @ 05:27 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/16 @ 05:51 PM — (Reply)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you know it all.
Comment by — 2006/03/16 @ 06:07 PM — (Reply)
I just love yanking your chains!!!
Comment by — 2006/03/16 @ 06:08 PM — (Reply)
Okay, Cate I'll respond to one of your comments "babe" Are you gay?
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/16 @ 06:11 PM — (Reply)
Trust me, I'm not your type.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/16 @ 06:47 PM — (Reply)
Well, I a newby here and just a brief comment, is anyone here aware of the fact that in violation of international law when he advocates preemptive war? The U.N. Charter, Geneva, Nuremberg. We violate international law when we advocate attacking a country that did not attack us.
Comment by Howard— 2006/03/16 @ 06:29 PM — (Reply)
Well, then stop calling me, "babe," Cate!!!
And I'm not interested in links you give me, you're not interested in anything I have to say ... you're in the right, and I'm not!! So be it!
Comment by rose— 2006/03/16 @ 07:25 PM — (Reply)
I repeat: Read the comments instead of listening to the voices in your head.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/16 @ 08:21 PM — (Reply)
FYI -- I do support the troops, I want them to come home asap. I don't want to see anymore young people die; I saw enough of that during the Vietnam War, a war by the way where, unfortunately, people didn't support our fighting men, who were sent then through a draft, and not because they wanted to go there. Young men who were mostly poor, with little education, while the rich managed to keep their sons home, like your president.
I will always stand byhind the men and women who fight.
What I can't stand behind is a coward such as GW Bush, who other than probably shooting quail with his VP, never saw combat of any kind, none, nada, yet, he's comfortable sending young people to war into a country that never attacked us in the first place.
Oh, yeah, Clinton didn't go either, so don't hand me that one; however, Kerry did serve in the Vietnam war, and if anyone had a right to speak on war, and the reasons to go war or not got to war it's kerry. This man was a war hero. Bush is not a war hero, he's a war monger!!!
Comment by rose— 2006/03/16 @ 07:36 PM — (Reply)
Wow, you guys are really hot under the collar ... interesting.
Comment by Howard— 2006/03/16 @ 07:44 PM — (Reply)
Uh Rose...driving airplanes is inherently dangerous...care to discuss that one? Or that Bush met or exceeded the requirements every year he was in the guard? I can hand you the Clinton comparison if you are gonna hand me the Kerry one. I can speak from experience..20 year Navy retiree and Iraqi Freedom combat veteran. Are you just as angry that Clinton never had an exit strategy from Kosovo? Or that we are still there fighting and dying and getting wounded?
Comment by Elmers brother— 2006/03/16 @ 11:13 PM — (Reply)
Y'know, Cate, so far Rose has inquired as to both our sexual orientations, even though the post and our comments have nothing to do with sexual subject matter.
I think someones a little preocupied, ya' get?
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/17 @ 04:05 AM — (Reply)
And now Bush is wagging the dog with large attack in Iraq, three years since he started this sinful war, and after claiming 'MISSION IMPOSSIBLE" on a Navy ship!
What's that all about? Could it be that people in this country don't believe or trust him. His numbers are in the tank ... come on get with the program.
And as for you who was in the Navy, don't you think the fact that Kerry went to war that you could support him?
Comment by — 2006/03/17 @ 04:36 AM — (Reply)
Flying planes is dangerous, but flying planes in practice certainly is not as dangerous as flying planes in a war. It's not the same thing ... and you can't tell me he flew planes in the Vietnam war.
And tell me when we became a country to have a "first strike policy." This is not what our country is all about. So, thanks to this policy, any county that wants to can do the same to us. This opens up all kinds of problems.
Look, I backed the president after 911. You could say I was even proud of the moxy he showed. But, since then he's lead us in to a war without the proper planning or a exit policy.
So, now when his popularity has sank to the lowest levels of any president, what does he do, he goes back out and does another attack, come on, this man is looney tunes.
Comment by — 2006/03/17 @ 05:11 AM — (Reply)
I don't support people simply based on the fact that he was in the Navy, that's ludicrous. I respect his service to the country despite the fact that he is a war hero in North Vietnam and met with our enemies in Paris before the war was over.
I will reiterate for the less literate that Navy ships often put signs like "mission accomplished" after a long deployment, ...another e.g. a broom for a clean sweep..it's often done whether at war or not.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/17 @ 06:52 AM — (Reply)
Here is the caption that follows that photo.
Photograph of John Kerry meeting with Comrade Do Muoi, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, in Vietnam. Photo displayed in the War Remnants Museum (formerly the “War Crimes Museum”) in Saigon. The June 2, 2003 edition of the “Viet Nam News” is held beside the Kerry photograph to confirm the date the photo was taken. English-language placard below the photograph reads: “Mr. Do Muoi, Secretary General of the Vietnam Communist Party met with Congressmen and Veterans Delegation in Vietnam (July 15-18, 1993).
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/17 @ 06:53 AM — (Reply)
Apparently concerned about influencing the U.S. presidential campaign, Vietnamese communist officials ordered a war museum in Ho Chi Minh City to remove a photograph of John Kerry from a display that was highlighted in "Unfit for Command," the best-seller challenging the senator's version of his military service and his antiwar activities.
Vietnam veteran Bob Paris at a Ho Chi Minh City war museum Friday with a photograph formerly on display. At right is a copy of "Unfit for Command." (Courtesy: Bob Paris)
"Unfit for Command" described the photo as "part of an exhibit honoring heroes who had helped the Vietnamese communists win the war against the United States."
An angered American veteran of the Vietnam War who learned of the photograph through the book, traveled last week to the former Saigon to see it for himself.
But Bob Paris, an ex-Army helicopter pilot who now lives in Hawaii, said he discovered Thursday that the museum manager removed the picture from the display about one month ago and stuffed it in a desk drawer.
Saturday, however, Paris returned to the museum to find the picture had been put back on the wall – this time in a display clearly designed to emphasize Kerry's diplomatic efforts as a senator rather than his more controversial antiwar activities.
"Unfit for Command" co-author Jerome Corsi believes the removal and recasting of the photo is indication Vietnamese officials don't want to embarrass Kerry.
"The communists don't want to do anything that would be detrimental to him being elected," Corsi told WND. "If he wants foreign leaders to support him, he can certainly count on Vietnam's communist regime."
As WND reported in June, the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum – formerly known as the "War Crimes Museum" – displayed the picture in a hall that, according to a plaque, honored activists around the world for their "wholehearted support and strong encouragement to our people's patriotic resistance against the U.S. for national salvation."
The photograph shows Sen. Kerry meeting communist officials in 1993 as a member of a U.S. delegation.
The English placard below the photo read: "Mr. Do Muoi, Secretary General of the Vietnamese Communist Party met with Congressman and Veterans Delegation in Vietnam (July 15-18, 1993)."
In an e-mail obtained by WND, Paris said that when he arrived Thursday, he couldn't find the photo and began searching the grounds.
He found the manager and asked about it.
"This is when I witnessed [the manager] take the picture out of his desk drawer, and I was told that he had been directed to remove the picture a month earlier," Paris said.
The veteran said he was able to get permission to have himself photographed with the Kerry picture Friday afternoon.
Vietnam veteran Bill Lupetti took this photograph of a display at a Ho Chi Minh City museum honoring war protesters.
The first documentation of the picture was acquired by Vietnam veteran Bill Lupetti and publicized by Vietnam Vets for the Truth, a group that held a rally against Kerry's candidacy in Washington in September.
The group said the photograph's "unquestionable significance" lies in its placement in the American protesters' section of the museum.
"The Vietnamese communists clearly recognize John Kerry's contributions to their victory," group spokesman Jeff Epstein said in June.
Now, according to a report from Paris yesterday, "There was a new display of pictures and the hard communist war rhetoric that was present in the old display is now been changed. Kerry is no longer featured as a North Vietnamese war hero, but as a visiting American diplomat."
Corsi believes Vietnamese officials' attempt to modify the display reinforces a major point made in "Unfit for Command."
"The Vietnamese communists have always seen John Kerry as their go-to guy," he said.
Here he met with them in Paris as a matter of congressional record.
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE WAR IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1971
UNITED STATES SENATE;
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 a.m., in Room 4221, New Senate Office Building, Senator J. W. Fulbright (Chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Fulbright, Symington, Pell, Aiken, Case, and Javits.
Thank you. [Applause]
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kerry, it is quite evident from that demonstration that you are speaking not only for yourself but for all your associates, as you properly said in the beginning.
COMMENDATION OF WITNESS
You said you wished to communicate. I can't imagine anyone communicating more eloquently than you did. I think it is extremely helpful and beneficial to the committee and the country to have you make such a statement.
You said you had been awake all night. I can see that you spent that time very well indeed. [Laughter.]
Perhaps that was the better part, better that you should be awake than otherwise.
PROPOSALS BEFORE COMMITTEES
You have said that the question before this committee and the Congress is really how to end the war. The resolutions about which we have been hearing testimony during the past several days, the sponsors of which are some members of this committee, are seeking the most practical way that we can find and, I believe, to do it at the earliest opportunity that we can. That is the purpose of these hearings and that is why you were brought here.
You have been very eloquent about the reasons why we should proceed as quickly as possible. Are you familiar With some of the proposals before this committee?
Mr. KERRY. Yes, I am, Senator.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you support or do you have any particular views about any one of them you wish to give the committee?
Mr. KERRY. My feeling, Senator, is undoubtedly this Congress, and I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I do not believe that this Congress will, in fact, end the war as we would like to, which is immediately and unilaterally and, therefore, if I were to speak I would say we would set a date and the date obviously would be the earliest possible date. But I would like to say, in answering that, that I do not believe it is necessary to stall any longer. I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.
I think this negates very clearly the argument of the President that we have to maintain a presence in Vietnam, to use as a negotiating block for the return of those prisoners. The setting of a date will accomplish that.
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Testimony
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/17 @ 07:02 AM — (Reply)
The election is over, Kerry lost, I have to accept that, enough already with lies, and more lies.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/18 @ 06:45 PM — (Reply)
And another thing I might add: George Bush is no better than Richard “Dick” Nixon when Nixon was fighting the Vietnam War. Like Nixon, Bush seems to feel bolstered by the circumstances of 911 and the this present war to believe that he is above the law and can do whatever he wants, when he wants, no matter what the American people say or think.
He continues to act unilaterally, which is a very dangerous thing for a president to do. But, he’s so full of himself, he just can’t see it. He’s right, and even if people say he isn’t that he’s making serious mistakes, he does whatever he wants, and to hell with what anyone else has to say about it.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/18 @ 06:47 PM — (Reply)
Why I hate Bush: Do I hate this president because he is a Republican, a Texan, and white male? No!
I hate George W. Bush and all of his people because they have done an incredible amount of damage to this nation I hold so dear. I hate them because they are professional liars, thieves, who live their lives without conscience. I hate them, fully and completely, and I am not ashamed to say it.
Comment by Mothers against Bush— 2006/03/18 @ 07:05 PM — (Reply)
We hate Bush for his policies!!!
I look at the State of the Union today, and I hardly recognize my country anymore!
The Republicans have done an incredible amount of damage to our government, to our country, and to the American populace as a whole.
Comment by SMillard— 2006/03/18 @ 07:18 PM — (Reply)
The Party of Unmitigated Hate, and right from your own mouths! Its sad, really, that you blindly hate everyone else on the other side of the isle, whereas I can point to democrats that I do like and agree with.
While I expect this kind of nonesense from the trolls on this post, I'm surprised at this kind of attitute coming from you, Millard, a minority who has had to face blind hatred and sterotype judgments every day.
What a great example of hypocracy. So much for truth to power!
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/19 @ 05:16 AM — (Reply)
Hey, we learned from the hatred that came out of the right wing Republicans, all those years Clinton was in office. Every right-wing radio show with folks like Bill O'Riley, or Rush, any of them, from the time we got into office all I ever heard was nasty, mean, false statements, and this long before the Monica ordeal.
When Clinton was in office, at least we had the respect of countries around the world. When I traveled abroad during those years, I was never ashamed to say I was an American. Now, however, we are hated all over the world. No president before this Bush were we hated so much. His father had more respect from people all over the world. I may not have agreed with Bush, Sr. but I had respect for this man, and I was behind him during the first Gulf War.
So, if we show so much hate it' s because we learned from the best YOU REPUBLICANS.
Comment by lmz— 2006/03/19 @ 08:27 AM — (Reply)
Then please explain the Cole, the first bombing of the WTC, the marine barracks that were bombed...all under the *ahem* respectable Bill Clinton.
We won't even get into the shame of him being a philanderer here.
It's sad really that you are so full of vitriolic, mindless hatred. If we are to take examples of it from the other side of the isle, we have on the left Al Franken, Celine Dion, Jane Fonda, Randi Rhodes, Bill Maher, Barbara Striesand, Micheal Moore, George Clooney, Janeane Garofalo, Martain Sheen, Alec Baldwin.... and the list goes on and on!
I, for one, am grateful to not be so easily influenced by celebrity personalities.
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/19 @ 07:26 PM — (Reply)
Senator Murther laid out another heavy dose of truth regarding Iraq yesterday on Meet The Press. Dick Cheney, on the other hand, did his best to distort it on Face The Nation.
Now the U.S. is accused of executing civilians including a 75-year-old women and a 6-month-old baby...and are willing to sign their names to the report.
Operation Swarmer...just another photo-op. Sick, sick, sick!!
Comment by Howard— 2006/03/20 @ 02:54 PM — (Reply)
the same fellow suggested to Clinton that we pull out of Somalia and all it did was embolden Bin Laden...no don't think I'll be going to him for advice
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/20 @ 04:09 PM — (Reply)
Thank you, Mr. Bush. I heard to that at this time aach man, woman and child now owes $30,000 on the average for the US National Debt. It is now $9 trillion. Most of it is owed to Communist China. Thanks, Bush, and the Republicans.
It won't only be my children and grandchildren paying off the debt, but great granchildren, too. How very say ... but, this is okay with all of you? I just don't get it.
Comment by Louise— 2006/03/20 @ 03:18 PM — (Reply)
Who exactly is it that is accusing us of executing babies and elderly people? WHO is willing to sign their name to that.
How can you possibly support our soldiers while accusing them of such nonsense?
Shame on you!
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/20 @ 03:20 PM — (Reply)
C-Mom you are a real stupid woman. Bush has been in office now for almost 5 years, and you really think he's doing a good job. Really????????????? Do you care about the future of this country, that what Bush has done will take years, and years to undo, that it will take 'till after your probably dead, and me, too???
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/20 @ 03:22 PM — (Reply)
DO YOU STAY UP ON THE LATEST NEWS, IF NOT READ THE FOLLOWING:
Knight Ridder: Iraqi Police Claim U.S. Soldiers Executed 11 Civilians Last Week
By E&P Staff
Published: March 20, 2006 10:05 AM ET
NEW YORK Matthew Schofield, a Knight Ridder reporter in Baghdad, has obtained an Iraqi police report which, he reveals today, accuses American troops of executing 11 people, including a 75-year-old woman and a 6-month-old infant, in the aftermath of a raid last Wednesday on a house about 60 miles north of Baghdad.
The villagers were killed after American troops herded them into a single room of the house, according to the police. Then the soldiers burned three vehicles, killed the villagers' animals and blew
Comment by howard— 2006/03/20 @ 03:28 PM — (Reply)
The facts are in dispute on this Knight Ridder report and undoubtedly a huge investigation will ensue. Either way, I know from personal experience that behavior like this and like what happened in Abu Ghraib is not institutionally sanctioned. - This ain't Denzel Washington in Man on Fire. It really just doesn't work that way.
I've been on the other end of the phone when my husband calls to explain that he has "night court" and is working late because they have to kick someone out of the military. To use incidents like this one (which, I can't imagine to be true - having shared my dinner table with hundreds of military men and women) as an example of administrative or institutional corruption is akin to blaming the entire police force for a few bad cops. And in the case of the military - there is such a gap between the "institution" or the civilian leadership and the boots on the ground in Baghdad, that to link any outrageous acts there to Washington requires a conspiracy theory that wouldn't even hold water on the X-Files.
What is completely unbelievable to me is that some Americans are so willing to believe the worst (and thanks to pvt. Lindy, her loser lover at Abu Ghraib and the other four pervs who lost us the PR war, doubters are somewhat justified) about people in uniform when in reality there are more murders in Detroit on any given day than in Iraq.
As to the actual events of the report - it fails the rationality test. These guys would all have to be willing to face UCMJ punishment, which civilian courts can't hold a candle to. Military justice, as we saw in the Abu Ghraib case - is swift and soldiers are held to a much higher standard of responsibility than in civilian trials. You won't find soldiers or sailors languishing in prison awaiting a trial date. Soldiers are trained in the UCMJ from the minute they enter service because they are accountable to it from the minute they take the oath.
The whole Rambo commando Hollywood genre, while containing some truth is highly exaggerated - it's fiction - the SF guys who do covert ops are still liable to the UCMJ and held accountable for murder. Not even an order from the President himself can suspend that - just like any law enacted by Congress - soldiers are bound to uphold it and are thrown in jail, booted from service, fined, punished, whatever when in violation.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/20 @ 04:32 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/27 @ 11:00 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/27 @ 11:04 AM — (Reply)
Don't you support our troops?
Comment by Howard— 2006/03/20 @ 03:32 PM — (Reply)
I do stay up on current events, and probably do a better job of it than you do. However, I try to get my news from reputable sources. Knight Ridder's front page is nothing more than an advertisement for their stockholders.
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/20 @ 03:32 PM — (Reply)
To C-Mom -- You are right, madam, I have hate spilling out of me because of idiots like you who will belive and follow whatever Bush says ... how many people must die before you wake up to this miserable, useless war?
The report of the killing of innocent people was signed byThe report was signed by Col. Fadhil Muhammed Khalaf, who was described in the document as the assistant chief of the Joint Coordination Center.
Comment by howard— 2006/03/20 @ 03:39 PM — (Reply)
Do you know that fifty or sixty people are being killed every day ... and Bush just keeps believing his policy is right. This war is out of control. This is a very dangerous man sitting in the oval office. I hope the momentum for impeachment keeps growing.
No matter what happens, I believe that the Republicans will be voted out of office in droves, thanks to their president.
Comment by Howard— 2006/03/20 @ 03:47 PM — (Reply)
Bush's overall approval now stands at below 35%, the lowest rating of his presidency.
Bush's personal image has weakened and is reflected in people's one-word description of the president.
Honesty was … WAS the single trait most closely associated with Bush, but in a recent survey "incompetent" was the word used now to describe him and his administration.
Three years into this war, and what have we got to show for it, more dead Americans and civilians, women and children, and now a civil war. The sectarian violence is continuing. This war will bring the president down.
When are you going to admit this war is a wrong, it will never be a “right” war. Sadam had nothing to do with 911, there were no WMDs. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld want to go to war with Iraq, for their own greedy reasons, and innocent people continue to die.
Comment by lmz— 2006/03/20 @ 03:50 PM — (Reply)
President Bush has utterly failed in his responsibility as Commander-in-Chief. He sent our troops to war without the proper equipment, based on flawed, inaccurate intelligence and no plan for success. Too many lives are being lost and too little progress is being made because of this President’s failures as costs continue to escalate and Iraq becomes the international training ground of choice for terrorists. Our troops, our allies and the American people deserve better.
The President can’t make up for the mistakes that led us to war in Iraq. But he can stop ignoring the facts, ignoring the experts and ignoring the legitimate concerns of the American people.
He needs to answer the question that every American is struggling to answer: What is our plan to succeed in Iraq and at what point can our troops begin to return home? And he needs to do that sooner rather than later, because our troops aren’t getting what they deserve from this Administration.
Comment by rmn— 2006/03/20 @ 04:07 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/20 @ 04:45 PM — (Reply)
Who the hell is Milardo?????
Comment by rmn— 2006/03/20 @ 04:53 PM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/20 @ 05:19 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/20 @ 05:37 PM — (Reply)
Defend this
This is what Bush said today! He should keep track of what he says, when he said it, and where he said it, because he sounds like a liar.
He said today, and I quote: "First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein."
FALSE: Three years ago this is what he said verbatim! Tell me I’m wrong.
"The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." [President George W. Bush, Letter to Congress, 3/21/03]
Typical of Bush et al. Ignore the reality on the ground, cover up past failures and distortions, and attack the patriotism of anyone who demands accountability
Comment by Howard— 2006/03/20 @ 06:13 PM — (Reply)
It unfortunate that Bush can’t make up for the mistakes that led us to war in Iraq, and that so many lives have been lost. But, can admit he made this mistake and stop ignoring the facts, ignoring the experts and ignoring the legitimate concerns of the American people. If he did that, I might have some respect for the man.
Comment by — 2006/03/20 @ 06:24 PM — (Reply)
What's the matter no answer to Bush's lies? Can't answer my question about his contradicting himself?
Comment by Howard— 2006/03/20 @ 06:34 PM — (Reply)
Wait, wait. I know this one....
"I did not have sex with that woman."
Comment by Politicians Suck— 2006/03/20 @ 06:40 PM — (Reply)
Men and women are being killed on a daily basis in Iraq, and all you can think about is Clinton's sex-capades. F-YOU!! That shows where your head is at, and I assume you're a male, so your head is between your legs. Could you be jealous???
Comment by — 2006/03/20 @ 06:47 PM — (Reply)
by the media's standards of 50 killed a day in Iraq we are having a civil war here in the US also...average body count due to murder in the US........47
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/21 @ 05:33 PM — (Reply)
U.S. Rep. John P. Murtha has dedicated his life to serving his country both in the military and in the halls of Congress. He had a long and distinguished 37-year career in the U.S. Marine Corps, retiring from the Marine Corps Reserve as a colonel in 1990.
Yet, it doesn't seem to matter, you show no respect for a man who has spent his life serving his country.
Bush, on the other hand, may have flown planes at some time, but never in a combat situation. Once again, he send young people to fight, and he's never fought in any war at any time. Face the facts, he's a Bush, he got out of the war in Vietname.
Comment by Fed up American— 2006/03/20 @ 07:01 PM — (Reply)
What bothers me the most is how this American president has no respect for individual rights. Not like the last one.
Comment by Elian Gonzalez— 2006/03/20 @ 07:19 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/25 @ 08:19 PM — (Reply)
Who are you kidding?
Comment by Fed up ...— 2006/03/20 @ 07:47 PM — (Reply)
Guess, this so-called fake "Elian," thinks we don't remember the name. They can only bring up the past, but not look to the future of what Bush is bringing this country.
Notice how these folks haven't responded to the last couple of comments made against Bush. See, they have no good argument for what's he's been doing and saying ... his contradictions, etc.
There are so many right wing conservatives, who have up until now supported Bush, like William F. Buckly or George Will, even they don't understand what the hell Bush is doing, or saying.
This war is a bad war, and Bush can't get himself out of it, meanwhile people are dying every day while he tries to figure it out ... what a shame, and what a sin. I feel sorry for Bush when his time comes to meet his maker.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/20 @ 07:56 PM — (Reply)
Anyone remember how Bill said American forces would only be in Bosnia for 5 years?
Tick tock. We're at year 11 now.
Comment by Slobodan— 2006/03/20 @ 08:18 PM — (Reply)
President Bush just continues to feed the American people, and the world a steady stream of propaganda. First he declares "Mission Accomplished", then his vice president describes the insurgency to be in its "last throes" while Iraq descends into civil war. What has he be smoking?
Comment by Louise— 2006/03/21 @ 08:21 AM — (Reply)
We have a theocracy because Bush went into Iraq and that's what the apocolyptic crazy Christian nuts want him to do
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/21 @ 08:31 AM — (Reply)
Apocolyptic crazy Chrisitian nuts? Why, that sounds like hate-speech! So much for the party of tolerance.
Oh, BTW, Howard, I have better things to do than wait next to my computer with baited breath for the next ignorant rant you will go on...I have better things to do, like watch 24!
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/21 @ 08:41 AM — (Reply)
the·oc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-kr-s)
n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies
A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
Since when did any religion sanction George Bush - they are all just as divided as the secularists about his presidency.
Comment by Mr. Webster— 2006/03/21 @ 09:15 AM — (Reply)
This country is not to be ruled by a religion, not your, not mine.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/21 @ 12:22 PM — (Reply)
Rose as a Canadian Citizen isn't there some worthy cause you can take up besides beating a bush? I mean come on the jig is up you reside in Canada not the United States. I know your really busy these days doing your charity check writing and all but your not even a member of bloghi and you don't have a voters card, girl not in America, anyway. Go back to blogspot and write yout tea columns.
Comment by Rose is Canadian— 2006/03/21 @ 12:36 PM — (Reply)
Rose is Canadian? Then why is she debating American Presidents on a Blog? She should create her own Blog-she's so talented and outspoken maybe others want to hear politics on America From a Canadian- NOT
Comment by E.T— 2006/03/21 @ 12:46 PM — (Reply)
HELLO OUT THERE!! I am not, nor have I ever been a citizen of the Canada. If I were, then I wouldn't give a rats ass about Bush. No, sir, I am 100% American and until Bush came in to office, I was a PROUD American ... HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!! Wake up folks. A Canadian may not like Bush, but would he care on iota about what is happening in THIS country? HELLO??
Comment by ROSE— 2006/03/21 @ 01:56 PM — (Reply)
Rose is Canadian? No worry guys, I'm on it...
Comment by Dana Scully - INS— 2006/03/21 @ 02:00 PM — (Reply)
Nope Rose-you are the founder of todayswoman.net based in Canada-the information was posted some time ago as you recall. You are a writer, mother and wife. I can't disclose any more details otherwise you'll figure this out. You and I talked and you told me about the site and how upset you were at the comments. YOU ARE A CANADIAN-GO AWAY
Comment by Jenna— 2006/03/21 @ 02:33 PM — (Reply)
Well, I don't know where you get my information, this is a real hoot. I can't believe it, guess I'll have to check out "this" site you're speaking about. In info is all wrong, I'm not who you seem to think I am, nor have I spoken to anyone that's been on this forum. I just came on here to tweak some of you, and I'm having an absolute ball, thank you very much.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/21 @ 03:10 PM — (Reply)
And "we" are: Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Liberals, Conservatives, and Greens. We are Americans, and we hate Bush. Why? Read on:
1. Bush and his buddies sabotaged American democracy so they could pillage taxpayer resources.
2. Bush and his henchmen lied to the American people about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and they continue to obscure the truth while their companies cash in, Iraqis suffer and American soldiers die.
3. Bush is bad for business and the economy. He is only interested in enriching himself and his friends.
4. Bush is bad for the future. He is compromising the prosperity of tomorrow's America by shortchanging today's children.
5. Bush is bad for the environment.
6. The Bush Administration has manipulated the media to the point of undermining the Constitutional guarantees of a Free Press.
7. Bush has tried to undermine the United Nations, a democratic institution created in large measure by Presidents Eisenhower and Truman. Without even understanding what the UN does, Bush has called it "irrelevant" when it fails to fall in line with his dictates.
8. Bush is inarticulate and projects a stereotype abroad of Americans being ignorant and myopic.
9. Bush torpedoes global agreements on everything from racism and global warming to biological weapons and land mines, and then expects the world to line up behind him.
10. Bush took positive patriotism and global support in the wake of 9/11 and forced it behind his own narrow self-interests in Iraq. He hijacked 9/11 for his own benefit.
11. Bush stands against everything America stands for.
Comment by Howard— 2006/03/21 @ 04:20 PM — (Reply)
I can't help it, I have to weigh in here: There's a lot of folks hot under the collar, but -- and you'll all hate this, but I stand with Howard and Rose when it comes to Bush, and I, by the way did, in fact, vote for Bush the first time, but not the second time. This president doesn't ever want to admit when he's made a mistake, he just marches on doing whatever he wishes, no matter what the public or the polls say about him. Here're are further thoughts on this issue.
Republicans are screwing with the American people when they threaten and scare us and when they accuse us of being unAmerican, not supporting the troops, not wanting to keep us safe.
But, they are the ones who let us get attacked by ignoring warnings. This isn't about any wacky conspiracy theory or wild speculation. On 9/11, the Bush people failed to keep American safe worse than anyone ever has in our history. They can argue all about that, but these are the facts, folks, read it and weep!
Cheney refused to meet with the Anti-Terror task force. Why? too busy meeting with Enron, perhaps?
Rice claimed it wasn't her job to worry about terrorists inside the US.
Rumsfeld opposed Congress' plans to move money from :Star Wars: to anti-terrorism.
Bush ignored a memo entitled "bin Laden Determined to Attack inside the US." He saw in August - in time to prevent the 9/11/01 attacks - but went jogging and played golf instead of calling an all-out effort to catch the al Qaeda terrorists.
Please understand, I am in no accusing Bush of planning 9/11 only that he foolish, lazy or worse to do anything to prevent it. He should have done something. He did nothing.
The what does he do, he attacks the wrong people afterward. Bush attacked Iraq, a country that did nothing to us - and he and nearly his entire administration lied to us before and afterward. They're still lying about it.
And just today he said something to the effect, this whole mess will go to the next president, [not verbatim]. How nice, so he already admits, this war will not be over while he’s in office.
Comment by DBZ— 2006/03/21 @ 04:36 PM — (Reply)
You are conveniently forgetting that these conditions all existed under the Clinton administration as well and that when given the opportunity to take Bin Laden into custody - HE REFUSED. Even knowing that OBL was behind previous al-quaida attacks on Americans.
Furthermore, Clinton left us with Bosnia and Kosovo. We are still in Korea and Germany. War isn't a mini-series that's pre-planned to end in 7 days. It is a dangerous conflict that has no start date or end date - only end conditions.
There is a serious short-sightedness that is afflicting so many in this country with respect to the war. And that is dangerous.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/21 @ 04:55 PM — (Reply)
Hey, I listened to Bush today, and even he's lost optimism about the end of this war when he says troops will still be there after he leaves office. WOW! The other thing is that despite this comment during his speech and/or new conference, he was very upbeat. How can he be so upbeat when so many people are being killed every day.
Iraq is in a civil war and he's upbeat, what the devil is this man thinking?
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/21 @ 04:51 PM — (Reply)
Wow this despite all the progress in the Kurdish part of Iraq, the southern part of Iraq. Hey imagine if Lincoln had quit when there were 50 deaths a day. We might have two countries instead of one. By the media's standards there is a civil war here also. The US averages 47 murders a day.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/21 @ 05:53 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/21 @ 05:50 PM — (Reply)
we could get back to the abortion issue any time....
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/21 @ 05:55 PM — (Reply)
BTW, no has invited me to join the anti-shalana cult.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/21 @ 05:58 PM — (Reply)
consider the invitation made and here's to C-mom and the 300th
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/21 @ 06:11 PM — (Reply)
oh and I guess I owe barry $20
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/21 @ 06:12 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/21 @ 06:15 PM — (Reply)
such a worthy cause...your benevolence has touched me Barry
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/21 @ 06:20 PM — (Reply)
47 murders a day! So what, that doesn't mean we have to go out of way through the government and bring about killing in another country. The fact that there are murders here, makes it okay to go over and kill people ... WHAT? What "f" stupid comment !!!
Comment by — 2006/03/22 @ 05:50 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/25 @ 08:18 PM — (Reply)
BELIEVE IT OR NOT!
Our Patriot Act at work … nuns could be terrorists! Oh my God!!!
The nuns of the Holy Name Monastery say they have been swept into the net cast by the nation's antiterrorism laws.
Their bank account was suddenly frozen, [because they suddenly had extra money in the account0 with no notice to these nuns, there accounts were frozen, and their checks to charities, etc. were bouncing like rubber balls.
So, apparently, someone must have thought that these nuns were members of a dangerous religious cult known as "Christians, and that they are led by a radical subversive named Jesus.
Well, I for one am so glad that our government is protecting us from these types of people. Even though the government has not provided any reasons for doing what they did, I am sure that they had good reasons and that is good enough for me. Thank you G. W. Bush
Comment by ROSE— 2006/03/22 @ 11:38 AM — (Reply)
How can one tell Bush and Chaney are liars, when they move their lips.
Comment by — 2006/03/22 @ 03:01 PM — (Reply)
Catee, Cate, Cate ... my dear, whatever Clinton did, or didn't do, is not the issue anymore. He's gone, okay. Like like him or not [of course you don't like him, that's fine] but he's gone. Okay? Get over him, already!!!!
Bush is president now and he's continued to lie to the American people. The war was going to be a "slam dunk, people will be welcoming us with opened arms, throwing flowers at us," but what are they doing their throwing bombs at our young soldiers. Killing our young soldiers every single day, EVERY SINGLE DAY, with no sign of it ending any time soon!
Bush has single handedly put this country in jeopardy, more so than any president before him. This war, according to, "shoot 'em" up Chaney and Bush said this war would be brief.
Now, we're beginning the fourth year. How many people have to die, how many?
We're not any safer now than before 911. And Bush said he'd go after those people who attacked us. When is it going to get through your stubborn head, that Iraq did not attack the WTC.
How can you believe such a lying SOB!
Comment by DBZ— 2006/03/22 @ 07:01 PM — (Reply)
I never said I believed that Iraq attacked the WTC - you apparently think people can't read the comments and don't realize when you're putting words in my mouth?
My point is and remains that it is hypocritical to get hysterical over Iraq. We've gone to war for lots, lots less.
C-Mom, Your turn to wrestle.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/22 @ 07:55 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/22 @ 07:57 PM — (Reply)
Sincerely,your friend,
Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/23 @ 02:55 AM — (Reply)
Liberals today are of the drive-through mentality, my way right away. Instant gratification is the sign of a spoiled, bratty and immature person.
As my father says, if you're going to rush through and half-@ss a job, better to not do it at all.
My suggestion to the liberal trolls on this site: Move out of your parent's basements (trope) and start living in the real world. Bad things happen, and adults do not stick their heads in the sand and refuse to accept reality.We deal with the situation as best as we can.
Comment by Brooke— 2006/03/23 @ 05:22 AM — (Reply)
No, we can't cut and run NOW! The problem is there's no strategy for getting out of there, and that's probably because Bush et al did not look beyond the attack, they didn't think about how to get out, or when ... they had no clue that we may be stuck in a quagmire.
Comment by — 2006/03/23 @ 06:02 AM — (Reply)
George Bush is just about the only person in Washington these days who doesn't know that the United States has lost the war in Iraq.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/23 @ 06:08 AM — (Reply)
If you want to know everything sitting on the President's desk, perhaps you should consider running for the job.
There's just nothing worse than an armchair quarterback!
Comment by Brooke— 2006/03/23 @ 07:44 AM — (Reply)
#311 et al. You DO NOT have a need to know. I worked in a HQ for plans and I assure you there were, are and had been plans for contingencies before, during and after major combat in Iraq and elsewhere. Without revealing more than necessary, read: Every Man A Tiger, by General Horner. It describes what I just alluded to above. Sadam lost that war, signed a cease fire agreement, renegged on it which has led to our present circumstances.
Comment by Chief RZ— 2006/03/23 @ 08:18 AM — (Reply)
I thought the exit strategy was clear - remove Saddam, set up a democratic government, train Iraqis to run it, leave when they can function with a reasonable level of independence.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/23 @ 08:54 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/03/23 @ 09:07 AM — (Reply)
Oh, you people just never learn. You're all so smart, aren't you. But, we still have a stupid man in office. You just can't get yourself to admit that.
HE HAS NO EXIT STRATEGY, THAT'S IT ... !! We will never know what this man has in mind, because he's so damn secretive.
Comment by — 2006/03/23 @ 01:12 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/03/23 @ 07:03 PM — (Reply)
Hey, when you've got the money, a monkey can get into any university .. hence Bush got into Harvard ... he himself admitted he was a lousy student, when he said to a graduating class, in so many words, "hey, look at me, I got to be president and I was only a C student, so follow in my footsteps.
Don't you think it would be nice to have someone who is president to have graduated at the top his class.
There are companies in this country that would never higher someone with his scholastic grades to work for them. Face it, daddy and mommy got Bush into Harvard, it was not because he was some braniac, because obviously that's one thing we know he is not!!!
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/23 @ 07:13 PM — (Reply)
Hey, when you've got the money, a monkey can get into any university .. hence Bush got into Harvard ... he himself admitted he was a lousy student, when he said to a graduating class, in so many words, "hey, look at me, I got to be president and I was only a C student, so follow in my footsteps." Would you ask your children to aspire to be ONLY a C student. I don't think so, but that's what he was telling these young people ... you don't have to work so hard to get to where I am. Good advice, very good advice.
It's also well known how he ran a couple of business in to the ground, what does that tell you.
There are companies in this country that would never higher someone with his scholastic grades to work for them. Face it, daddy and mommy got Bush into Harvard, it was not because he was some braniac, because obviously that's one thing we know he is not!!! If he worked for a private company, he would have been fired for all the mistakes he's made over the last five years ... FIRED!!
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/23 @ 07:17 PM — (Reply)
And I quote, verbatim right out of the mouth GW Bush,
"Some in this class are graduating with honors, and I congratulate all of you on an achievement that took a lot of discipline. Others may have spent a little less time in the library -- a little more time keeping the stools warm down at The Chimes. But you earned your degree, and you, too, can leave today with high hopes. I speak with some authority here -- I've seen how things can work out pretty well for a C student.
Ha, ha, isn't he funny ... telling kids, you don't have to work hard look where it got him. Yeah, now look where it got our country!
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/23 @ 07:29 PM — (Reply)
he had a higher GPA than Kerry and he got a masters
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/23 @ 09:19 PM — (Reply)
And Rose Dear, what University Did You Attend? Can you say University of Ottawa, Canada that is. For shame. If one reads the words on your comments you be a trying a litle too hard to sound American.
Comment by Angel Boy— 2006/03/23 @ 10:20 PM — (Reply)
Sincerely, your friend,
Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/24 @ 02:52 AM — (Reply)
So, let me get this straight...when a democrat goes to a 'upper crust' school, he is respectable and intellegent, yet when a repubilcan attends, he just bought his way in? Just more of the wacko left double-standard.
So let's recap: So far you have invalidated a Harvard education with a masters and a better GPA than Kerry achieved(Thanks EB), and disrespected National Guardsmen/Airmen by saying that their service isn't real military time...
Its a good thing that you are so shameless, because you would have died of self-embarrassment by now.
Comment by Brooke— 2006/03/24 @ 04:14 AM — (Reply)
Republicans in the White House and Congress have a three-part political strategy on Iraq: ignore the reality on the ground, cover up past failures and distortions, and attack the patriotism of anyone who demands accountability. None of that will solve anything in Iraq, and none of it will make America safer.
Comment by DBZ— 2006/03/24 @ 03:18 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/24 @ 06:35 PM — (Reply)
The President can’t make up for the mistakes that led us to war in Iraq. But he can stop ignoring the facts, ignoring the experts and ignoring the legitimate concerns of the American people.
He needs to answer the question that every American is struggling to answer: What is our plan to succeed in Iraq and at what point can our troops begin to return home? And he needs to do that sooner rather than later, because our troops aren’t getting what they deserve from this Administration.
Comment by LIBERAL THINKER— 2006/03/24 @ 03:27 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/24 @ 04:33 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/24 @ 04:36 PM — (Reply)
After skimming the comments of our liberal friends the last week or so about Iraq, I am pretty clear that they do not care for the current situation. What I am not clear about is what any of our liberal friends has as a plan for what to do from here. I am curious what our liberal friends have in mind since they are not satisfied with the status quo. I pledge to carefully consider and thoughtfully comments about, if appropriate, all plans going forward with Iraq that I read written by our liberal friends.
Sincerely,your friend,
Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/24 @ 04:39 PM — (Reply)
After skimming the comments of our liberal friends the last week or so about Iraq, I am pretty clear that they do not care for the current situation. What I am not clear about is what any of our liberal friends has as a plan for what to do from here. I am curious what our liberal friends have in mind since they are not satisfied with the status quo. I pledge to carefully consider and thoughtfully comments about, if appropriate, all plans going forward with Iraq that I read written by our liberal friends.
Sincerely,your friend,
Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/24 @ 04:39 PM — (Reply)
Hey, if I had all the answers, I would be running for office; however, I don't, so I am not running.
You guys voted for this president because, you felt he had the answers. Well????
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/24 @ 05:32 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/24 @ 08:39 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/24 @ 06:59 PM — (Reply)
In monitoring Fox New Live from 12 noon to 1 p.m. we got a dose of Happy Iraq stories from Bill Hemmer who was reporting from Camp Fallujah. He spoke with Major General Richard Zilmer about all of the progress that's being made in Iraq and how great the morale of the troops was.
However, the segment was cut short by President Bush's speech in Cleveland at the City Club of Cleveland. His speech was filled with the wonderful story of the city of Tal Afar. But that wasn't telling. What was telling was how President Bush, during the question and answer session, either didn't choose to answer or didn't understand the question. I caught one of the questions at the end of my monitoring time. The question was surprising, the answer was shocking. The President completely didn't understand or chose not to answer the question and instead started to ramble about 9/11 and the war on terror.
The first question came from a woman in the audience and her question was: "Thank you for coming to Cleveland, Mr. President and the Cleveland Club. My question is that author and former Nixon administration official, Kevin (it sounded like 'Captain', thanks to reader Max for the correction) Phillips ,in his latest book, American Theocracy, discusses what has been called radical Christianity and it's growing involvement into government and politics. He makes the point that members of your administration have reached out to prophetic Christians who see the war in Iraq and the rise in terrorism as signs of the apocalypse. Do you believe this? That the war in Iraq and the rise in terrorism are signs of the apocalypse. And, if not, why not?"
President Bush: Um..uh...er...(laughter from audience and Bush)...um..uh... I....the answer is...I haven't really thought of it that way (heh, heh) (crowd laughs). Here's how I think of it. Um...first, I've heard of that by the way. I..uh.. the...uh..I, I guess...um...I'm more of a practical fellow. I vowed after September 11th that I would do everything I could to protect the American people. And...uh...my attitude, of course, was affected by the attacks.
I knew we were at a war. I knew that the enemy obviously had to be sophisticated and lethal to fly hijacked airplanes...uh...into facilities of people, innocent people doing nothing, just sitting there going to work. I also knew this about this war on terror that...uh..that uh....the farther we got away from September 11th the more likely that people would, you know, seek comfort and not think about this global war on terror as a global war on terror. And, that's good, by the way.
It's hard to take risks if you're a small business owner, for example, if you're worried that the next attack is going to come tomorrow. (heh) I understand that. (Comment: Excuse me, but what the hell is he talking about and why mention small business owners all of the time?)
But I also understand that my most important job, the most important job of any president today and I predict, down the road, is to protect America. And so..uh..I...uh..told the American people that we would..um...find the terrorists and bring them to justice. And we needed to defeat them overseas so we wouldn't have to face them here at home.
I also understood that the war on terror required some clear doctrine. And one of the doctrines that I laid out was that if you harbor a terrorist you're equally as guilty as the terrorist. (Comment: Unless you're Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, or.......) And...and..uh...and...so...uh..the first time that doctrine was really challenged was in Afghanistan. Now, I guess the Taliban didn't believe us, or me. And so we acted. 25 million people now are free. And Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for the terrorists. (Comment: Taliban factions are still in Afghanistan and heroin production has gone up from 74 metric tons under the Taliban to now, under U.S. control, 3600 metric tons, an amount that is equal to 90 percent of the world's supply)
And the other doctrine that's really important and it's a change of attitude. It's going to require a change of attitude for a while in that when you see a threat you've got to deal with it before it hurts you. (heh-heh) (Comment: What's with the nervous laugh all of the time?)
Foreign policy used to be dictated by the fact that we had two oceans to protect us. Even if we saw a threat (we) could deal with it if we needed to, or not. But we would be safe. My most important job is to protect you. It's to protect the American people. Therefore when we see threats given the lesson of September 11th, we've got to deal with them. That does not mean militarily (pause) necessarily.
Obviously the first job of a president has got to be diplomacy. That's what you're watching in Iran right now. I see a threat in Iran. I'm kinda getting off subject here, not because I don't want to answer your question (Comment: Does he even know or understand the question?) but I guess that's what happens in Washington. We get a little long winded. (Comment: Or maybe you don't understand or want to answer the question?) (laughter from audience)
But, now that I'm on Iran (more laughter from audience, smiling smirk from the president). The threat to Iran, of course (heh from President, laughter from the audience). The threat of Iran, of course, their stated objective is to destroy our strong ally, Israel. That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace. It's a threat, in essence, to..to..a long alliance. I made it clear and I'll make it clear again that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel.
And, um...(applause) at any rate, our objective is to solve this issue diplomatically and so our message must b a united message. A message not only from the United States, but from Great Britain and France and Germany as well as Russia, hopefully, and China.
In order to say to Iran loud and clearly that, this is unacceptable behavior. Your desire to have a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.
And so, to answer your question, (Comment: finally) I take a practical view of doing the job that you want me to do which is how do we defeat an enemy that still wants to hurt us. And how do we deal with threats before they fully materialize? What do we do to protect us (pause) from harm? That's my job. and that job came home on September the 11th for me. Loud and clear.
And I think about my job of protecting you everyday. Every single day of the presidency. I'm concerned about the safety of the American people.
Comments: The next question was in regard to WMD's, Iraqi and 9/11 ties and Iraq trying to find uranium in Niger as all found out as false and why should the American people trust the intelligence now. President Bush said, 'I don't think I ever said there was a direct link to 9/11 and Iraq." But, I'll let the News Hound who covers our 1 to 2 p.m. coverage tell you about that.
My point was this was a 'happy Iraqi' segment. But, I had to share the question that came at the end of my monitoring duties to show you how the president not only didn't answer the question but started rambling about 9/11 and protecting the American people. Maybe someone can explain how he could take a question like that and answer it in the manner that he did -- I'm at a loss. And if he said one more time about 'my job is protecting Americans' I think I was going to lose it. He just never answers the questions.
Comment by Donna— 2006/03/24 @ 07:05 PM — (Reply)
WOW, Donna, good job!!!! Kudos to you. Let's see them handle your comment
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/24 @ 07:21 PM — (Reply)
Part 2 of comment 306 contains a simple question for my liberal friends that so far none of them has even attempted to answer. Putting on your thinking caps, liberal friends and give it a shot. To repeat:
After skimming the comments of our liberal friends the last week or so about Iraq, I am pretty clear that they do not care for the current situation. What I am not clear about is what any of our liberal friends has as a plan for what to do from here. I am curious what our liberal friends have in mind since they are not satisfied with the status quo. I pledge to carefully consider and thoughtfully comments about, if appropriate, all plans going forward with Iraq that I read written by our liberal friends.
Sincerely,your friend,
Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/24 @ 08:24 PM — (Reply)
They all say stupid stuff. Here's some from Al Gore and Bill Clinton.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/24 @ 08:37 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/24 @ 08:50 PM — (Reply)
Keep thinking I'm Canadian, what do care. Once again, if I were would I hate Bush this much?
Comment by rose— 2006/03/24 @ 09:06 PM — (Reply)
Are you a red neck, Elmer's Brother? You loook like one!
Comment by — 2006/03/24 @ 09:13 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/25 @ 08:12 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/24 @ 09:21 PM — (Reply)
Can you blame the President for not having a good answer to someone asking if he started the apocolypse? For Pete's sake... If that's the best you libs can come up with, it just shows how pathetic you really are.
#342...Or, by the writing style, should I say millardo, is that a racist epitaph you are making?
The bottom line is that these liberal trolls have no plan for our future other than: Republican=bad, Democrat=good.
Give us ONE suggestion on how to effectively deal with terrorism. Just ONE. I'm not even asking for a solution from you trolls. Just a method.
And, after 344 comments that have NOTHING to do with abortion, I'm still waiting...
Comment by Brooke— 2006/03/25 @ 05:50 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/03/25 @ 05:52 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/25 @ 06:27 AM — (Reply)
Okay, you need to talk about abortion. This is how I feel and think, but what does it matter, anyway. We will not agree on the issue of abortion, but you asked for it, so here it goes.
The coat hanger and the back alley abortions were moving arguments which originally convinced many to work for legalized abortion.
Prior to becoming legal, dangerous methods of do-it-yourself abortions were attempted using instruments, or also using herbal methods such as combining pennyroyal with black cohosh or blue cohosh.
If abortion was again forbidden we would see a return to these back alley abortions, resulting in thousands of women dying. How many women used to die from illegal abortions? Anyone who gives you a figure on the total number of illegal abortions can provide, at best, a MINIMUM number. By definition, illegal abortions are not recorded. They are matters of secrecy. The only way to estimate the number of illegal abortions is to first determine how many women died from abortions, and compare those numbers for times and locations where abortion was legal and compare it with when it was criminalized.
When abortion is legal, we do have good numbers for deaths resulting from abortion; when abortion is criminalized, many of the deaths are chalked up to other causes, so any numbers we do have are an absolute minimum. The actual numbers will necessarily be much higher.
So, bottom line we know the effects of prohibiting abortions. It is an industry because there is demand. Make that industry illegal and its practice will be carried out by the untrained in 'back alleys' and other unsanitary settings and lives will be unnecessarily ruined or wasted.
And one more thing, if abortion becomes illegal, the women who will die will be mostly low-come women, who have too many children, and can't afford to care for this new baby when it comes in to the world. So, she will go to some back-alley doctor, and have it performed, and not only with the "fetus" die, but quite possibly the mother.
While the low-income women will have to resort to "quacks" in order to get an abortion, the RICH women, upper-middle income women will be able to fly to some far away country, and get their abortion, anyway. Abortion will not stop because you make it illegal!!!
Making abortion illegal WILL NOT STOP abortions. But, the religious right want to stick their noses in other people's business.
I really wonder what would happen if George Bush's daughters became pregnant through rape, what they would do. Do you think he, they, would have the daughter keep the baby, would she want to keep the baby. What if it's incest, does the woman or young girl who was forced to have sex with a relative, should she keep the child?
Come on folks, grow up!
Comment by Donna— 2006/03/25 @ 11:46 AM — (Reply)
And if it is number you want, try this one on for size...
"Pro-choicers continue to use the old lie that illegal abortions killed 5,000 to 10,000 women every year.
Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League, said, "I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the ‘morality' of the revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics. The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason which had to be done was permissible."
Abortion guru Christopher Tietze called the 10,000 number "unmitigated nonsense."
Planned Parenthood's medical director, Mary Calderone, put the number at under 300 a year.
Granted, even one death is one too many. But you have to question the logic of people who would look at a criminal activity, observe that it kills women, and declare that the activity should be legalized"
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/25 @ 01:44 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/25 @ 08:16 PM — (Reply)
George Bush's daughter? Not likely since the secret service is with them 24-7. Poor example. Your coat hanger excuse is really outdated. Your arguments/views very week. The problem with your last comment Grow Up would directly point to you and your computer keyboard.
Comment by Jenna— 2006/03/25 @ 12:33 PM — (Reply)
You're all against abortion, but having the death penalty is okay. Isn't that a life, too, that you'd be taking. Doesn't sound very Christian to me.
As for Bush's daughters, I am well aware they are protected night and day. The fact is, if they WERE just normal everyday run-of-the-mill young women and they were raped by a sick evil person, and not of the social strata of the Bush family, what do you think they would do? Keep the child? I doubt it.
You people want to climb up in to MY vagina, live in my uterus, and take over and my body! Because, honey, legal or not, abortions will never go away, and the only way you can stop them is to take over my body!!!
Comment by Brenda— 2006/03/25 @ 07:24 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/26 @ 04:02 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/26 @ 04:03 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Susan— 2006/03/25 @ 07:40 PM — (Reply)
The question is not whether abortion is right or wrong, but, Who decides? The individual woman, or the government? If you're opposed to abortion, don't have one, but don't try to impose your morality on others. Abortion is a personal choice between a woman and her doctor.
Comment by Howard— 2006/03/25 @ 07:51 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/25 @ 08:41 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/25 @ 08:43 PM — (Reply)
Listen Honey the last thing I want to do is to get up in your uterus but I do want to prevent an innocetn unborn child from dying.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/25 @ 08:11 PM — (Reply)
No, I'm NOT a Christian, not all of us are. I am of a different faith, and I observe that faith diligently.
I have my own beliefs, just as you do, the difference is, I don't feel it's necessary to impose them on anyone else, as the Christian rights seems to want to do on everyone else.
Comment by Howard— 2006/03/25 @ 08:29 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/25 @ 08:41 PM — (Reply)
So how about laws that tell people what they can and can't do with their bodies for example:
if you have AIDS you can't give blood
can't rape a woman just cuz you feel like it
or
the law that tells a man he has to wait a month and have his WIFE approve before he can have a vasectomy?
is this what you are talking about?
Comment by Blasting left wingers— 2006/03/25 @ 10:22 PM — (Reply)
In this day and age, if a woman doesn't want a baby, she can easily prevent it.
Comment by Brooke— 2006/03/26 @ 05:35 AM — (Reply)
You guys are beginning to disappoint me. Where are the intellectual theories you "support' with fervor?
Part 2 of comment 306 contains a simple question for my liberal friends that so far none of them has even attempted to answer. Putting on your thinking caps, liberal friends and give it a shot. To repeat:
After skimming the comments of my liberal friends the last week or so about Iraq, I am pretty clear that they do not care for the current situation. What I am not clear about is what any of my liberal friends has as a plan for what to do from here. I am curious what my liberal friends have in mind since they are not satisfied with the status quo. I pledge to carefully consider and thoughtfully comments about, if appropriate, all plans going forward with Iraq that I read written by my liberal friends.
Sincerely,your friend,
Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/26 @ 07:25 AM — (Reply)
Comment by — 2006/03/26 @ 08:44 AM — (Reply)
Your friend, Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/26 @ 08:57 AM — (Reply)
Barry, logic and reason are not in their vocabulary. Just vitriol and cussing...by now you should be used to it. Now if you ask them how they FEEL about it you might get an answer.
Your compadre,
Elmers Brother
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/26 @ 10:10 AM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/26 @ 10:34 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/03/27 @ 05:21 AM — (Reply)
Actually, I have better things to do. But, I take offense that you think anyone who is not a conservative has no values. That's really a crock, and now I'll say it out right "it's a crock of shit!!?" So, you'll be pleased to hear, I am quite sure, that I no longer will post on your forum. I really don't care what you all think, any longer, I've really had enough.
FYI I happen to have very many friends who are conservative. I live in a state with a large military population, and tends to be conservative and we get along fine. We agree to disagree. And though they do not agree with me, never have they said or gave me the impression they thought I had no values. Why do YOU people think you have a lock on values. Why do you think that if one is not a Christian, they have no values? Why do you think if someone doesn't practice the Christian faith, they have no values?
I am a proud American, I live a good decent, and honest life. I care about my fellow man
I fly my flag every single day of the year, without fail, and have done so since the first Gulf War. I tear up when I hear our Anthem. I am proud to live in this country, and I have every right, as a person who's voted since the late 60s in every election. Oh, and believe it or not, I have voted Republican on a occasion ... Iwill vote for the person who I believe will do the best job. Unfortunately, in most cases, I don't believe the Republicans have the average guy in mind when they make decisions.
So, you all can continue to preach your drivel. I really don't care anymore. But, as I've done in the past, I will work harder in the coming mid-term elections to get rid of the Republicans presently in office, as well as some Democrats I feel aren't working for us. I will work in '08, to make sure we don't have another disaster like Bush. But, then again, no one can be as bad as Bush. He's the worst president in the history of this country, and the dumbest. I just hope this country and the world can survive until he's out of office.
I will pray for that -- yep, believe it or not, I pray!!!
GOOD-BYE!!
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/27 @ 07:05 AM — (Reply)
Check wikipedia Carter is almost dead last as far as president's go. # 39 i think.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/27 @ 10:34 AM — (Reply)
c-mom didn't mention christian values rose she said conservative values
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/27 @ 10:35 AM — (Reply)
Immediately thereafter, you draw a line in the sand regarding the president and terming everything as "his" and "your" - if you want to be civil then why not respect that fact that in this republican democracy, we can disagree, we can have disgust for policies, we can not be supportive of actions or legislation but when it comes down to it we are all Americans and any president like it or not is "ours" - ALL of ours. If things need changing you work to change them - you don't call names.
Furthermore, you handle hostility by calling people gay and accuse them of calling you "babe" when you don't even bother to read their coments.
That is why you are pegged as being without values - because one highly prized value when people are voicing their opinions is RESPECT. It's a value we all need more of and a value that largely left this post at comment 3. Others, like yourself, who entered later, didn't even bother to enter the discussion with any.
Other values sadly lacking in our public discourse:
the MATURITY to accept dissent
the INTELLIGENCE to attack issues and not attack people
the COURAGE to say without guile, "I just plain disagree." and the NOBILITY to grant others the same option
So go, Rose, go and work for the next elections - if you are truly the embodiment of the values that you say you have, we will all be better for your efforts.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/27 @ 10:40 AM — (Reply)
You guys are beginning to disappoint me. Where are the intellectual theories you "support' with fervor? Yet another day has gone by without an Iraq plan being advanced by my liberal friends.
To repeat:
After skimming the comments of my liberal friends the last several weeks criticizing President Bush about Iraq, I am pretty clear that my liberal friends do not care for the current situation. What I am not clear about is what any of my liberal friends has as a plan for what to do from here. I am curious what my liberal friends have in mind since they are not satisfied with the status quo. I pledge to carefully consider and thoughtfully comments about, if appropriate, all plans going forward with Iraq that I read written by my liberal friends.
Sincerely,your friend,
Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/27 @ 05:16 PM — (Reply)
Sorry, Barry, but frankly, I'll have to agree with Rose, enough is enough. I'm tired, and family commitments preclude me the luxury of sparring with you on the above-mentioned matters. I feel the same about our differences and we'll never come to any semblance of agreement on these matters.
I wish I could express myself better than I have, but I spoke with a real passion on this forum of how and what I believe ... so much so, when I read the posts answering mine, I get so angry I want to throw something, because I’ll never understand any of you.
Thanks to this administration we look like bullies, we look like ... "do it our way, or no way." We say we don't believe in regime change, but that's exactly what we are doing in Iraq, no other reason, THERE WERE NO WMDs.
The worst thing of all is. unlike all the other administrations before him, Bush believes in preemption. We'll attack before they attack. Well, what's to stop them from doing the same thing to us … I’m sure there are countries worried that we will attack at any moment. Might they not decide to attack, first … “preemption?”
As for the abortion issue, I am pro-choice, that’s it!!! It’s a personal decision, you have not right to decide for me, or anyone else.
So, like rose, enough, already, I really don't care what you all think of me, one way or the other. And I don’t care much about you, either.
I know what I feel and believe and I will fight to the death my right as a citizen to do so, despite the fact that this administration seems to want to take away my right to say it, especially if I say anything against them.
So, I too will leave this forum, I will continue to work, as Rose will, to get this country back to where it was before YOUR president totally destroys it. And I promise you with every fiber of my being that one day you will come to see how right I am. One day you will wake up and realize this country is worse off today than before Bush came in to office.
Comment by — 2006/03/27 @ 05:55 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/27 @ 08:27 PM — (Reply)
Sounds like someone could use a little anger managment therapy.
Gee, I guess I'll be bereft and lonely now that Rose and her buddies are gone...Adieu.
To everyone else:You've been fantastic!Thank You!
Comment by Brooke— 2006/03/28 @ 05:22 AM — (Reply)
Boo
Comment by — 2006/03/28 @ 12:14 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/28 @ 04:13 PM — (Reply)
The difference between conservatives and liberals as I see it.
Conservatives choose beliefs based on what someone else has told them and stick to those beliefs, even if they are proven to be 100% wrong. Liberals study various sources of information, come up with their beliefs based on the best available evidence and revise those beliefs when new evidence warrants such a change.
Conservatives know that what they believe is right. Liberals know that evidence and facts have no ideology or political party and that the evidence has to be examined, not the ideology.
Conservatives base their facts on their own opinions. Liberals base their opinions on objective, verifiable facts.
Conservatives are pessimistic about the future and about human nature. Liberals know that the present is better than the past and the future will be better than the present. Liberals know that human beings are basically good at heart and with some help, almost anyone can become a productive member of society.
Conservatives claim to oppose big government. Liberals know that conservatives really want small federal government and big local government, where they can exert more control. Liberals know that the federal government was at its smallest size in the last 50 years during the Clinton and Kennedy administrations and that the current Republican leadership loves big government.
Conservatives champion states rights at the expense of the federal government. Liberals know this divides the country, increases opportunities for fraud and government waste and allow states and communities to deny the rights of American citizens who do not fit in with the majority.
Conservatives believe that money is free speech. Liberals know that money allows the rich elites to silence the free speech and eliminate other freedoms of the masses.
Conservatives feel that it is okay to censor ideas or art they disagree with or find offensive and voices that disagree with them. Liberals know that censorship is the biggest threat to democracy.
Conservatives believe that there is a liberal media bias. Liberals know that the evidence strongly shows no such bias. Liberals know that the media is owned by corporations and that the media is pro-business and pro-establishment (meaning pro-conservative).
Conservatives are likely to see conspiracies in government, foreign countries, the media and parties that disagree with them. Liberals know that real conspiracies rarely work because people are usually not competent enough to pull them off and people have little resistance to money, so that any conspiracy can be sold out by just one member.
AMERICAN VALUES
Comment by Donna— 2006/03/29 @ 05:38 PM — (Reply)
A conservative would type exactly what you typed merely reversely where the terms liberal and conservative are used.
Right now as the party out of power seeking to be in power the reality is that what you typed presently applies to liberal, has applied to conservatives in the past and will apply to both at different times in the future.
Both liberals and conservatives are Americans and the next two elections will sort things out.
I like a lot of things about my liberal friends and often their ideas are very good. Not all of them. Same thing for my conservative friends.
Your friend,
Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/29 @ 05:54 PM — (Reply)
Thank you
Comment by Donna— 2006/03/29 @ 06:04 PM — (Reply)
To be a Liberal is to defend the freedom - the Liberty - of all people who make up our great nation. To be a Liberal is to trust individuals and families TO RUN THEIR OWN LIVES: as they see fit. To be a Liberal is to create a nation where anyone can excel if they are willing to do the work.
Comment by Howard S— 2006/03/30 @ 06:46 PM — (Reply)
Trusting people to run their own lives??? Like forcing AIDS education on 5 year olds and withholding choice through vouchers. Maybe you're referring to forcing morally opposed people to subsidize abortions and demanding that Wal-Mart, a private business, carry emergency contraception. Could you be talking about trusting child molesters not to repeat offend by fighting Jessica's law?
I don't know what it's like down there in the fantasy land you're living in but here in America, being a liberal is all about demanding that people live according to Nancy Pelosi's convictions rather than their own. It's about having your right to protect your children undermined to protect the fair treatment of pedophiles (thank you ACLU) and it's about being trusted enough to take care of yourself that with days of warning, you still expect the POTUS to pull up in front of your house and drive you out of town before a hurricane hits.
I know you're having fun trying to rile the conservatives bloggers up - but geez, even Goebbels wouldn't try a lie that big.
Comment by R U pathological, dude?— 2006/03/30 @ 09:08 PM — (Reply)
You sound more like a conservative Howard, I thought liberals wanted the government to run our lives by raising taxes and providing programs because we can't take care of ourselves. Welcome to the fold.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/30 @ 06:56 PM — (Reply)
Realizing that Reagan was shot 25 years ago got me thinking ...
In looking back over my lifetime of watching presidents, I thought Reagan was one of the worst presidents in history. But Bush 43 lapped him so long ago, the race is over and the judges have gone home.
President Reagan at the very least DID in fact unite the country, for the most part. He did actually find a strategy that advanced the US's foreign position. What has Bush done to advance our position around the world???? And by and large, Reagan governed in the way that he said he was going to when he was elected. None of these can be said for Bush.
Reagan as you might guess was not my favorite president, but I could respect the man. He never had that "cowpoke" attitude that Bush 43 seems to have, you know "the swagger?" Respect for Reagan, yes, Bush, no!
Comment by — 2006/03/30 @ 07:02 PM — (Reply)
You should read this. GWB doesn't come close to being last and he beats Jimmy Carter out by about 20 presidents.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/30 @ 07:33 PM — (Reply)
I agree Carter was not a good president, by a long shot. I believe he was really not comfortable as president. But, as a former president, he never sat on his laurels. To this day he's out there working and helping people. Lousy president, yeah, good former president, absolutely.
This is a man who's earn respect all over the country. But, Bush, I suspect when he's out of office for a number of years, he will probably be rated even lower than Bush ...
Comment by dbz— 2006/03/31 @ 05:43 AM — (Reply)
I wouldn't call Carter's support of Hamas endearing, but I do like his work with Habitat for Humanity.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/31 @ 05:55 AM — (Reply)
Bush should read what President Theodore Roosevelt said in a letter to the American Defense Society all the way back in 1919.
"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
--Theodore Roosevelt, 1919
Comment by Howard S.— 2006/03/31 @ 06:48 PM — (Reply)
I'd like to hear [read] what all you conservatives think of Bush's proposal of amnesty for illegal immigrants.
I truly believe that he wants to to further a horrid system where indebted, low-paid Mexican citizens come here to work their asses off for our corporations, the rich, for less than a living wage to better aid them in reaching a highly profitable bottom line that helps further drive the nail into the coffin of our middle class here; nothing more, nothing less. Good thinking, Mr. Bush. What say the rest of you on this forum.
Comment by DBZ— 2006/03/31 @ 06:59 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/31 @ 08:02 PM — (Reply)
The problem with the lion's share of illegal immigrants is that they DON'T assimilate. They won't learn the language, pay taxes, and the Mexican flag waving in California proves it.
This is a big strike for President Bush. He's only going to alienate (no pun intended) his loyal base.
Personally, I don't care how much money one makes; there is always opportunity in this country to get a better job. But saying that we need these folks to do the work that Americans won't do? Let Americans who think they're too good to do a job starve! Anyone who thinks that a certain kind of work is beneath them deserves it! And saying we need a class of people to perform labor that American's won't do smacks of saying that we need a slave class, or at the very least, a caste of menial people who serve the needs of pompous people who are too good to take care of their own basic needs...
No matter which way you try to slice it, it just doesn't sound good, and I don't like it.
Besides, are we missing the fact that these folks are ILLEGAL! Why would we want a bunch of lawbreakers here in the first place? It costs upwards of 65 billion a year to take care of these folks through social programs, medical care and warehousing them in prisons. In California, over 60% of inmates are estimated to be illegal.
Don't you think that for 65 Billion dollars, the cost of illegals to this country for just one year, we could afford to protect our boarder? Mexico has military force on their southern boarder, because they don't want the even poorer Central Americans coming up. Yet they threaten us for wanting the same?
To quote Earl Pitts, Wake up, America!
Comment by Brooke— 2006/04/01 @ 05:59 AM — (Reply)
If you want to know my take go here
I do think Bush is wrong on this issue but so are a lot of our politicians on both side of the issue, all of them are just pandering.
and there is always what Margaret Thatcher said:
"Consensus is the lack of leadership"
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/01 @ 01:36 PM — (Reply)
Oh, my God, I have to agree with Brook on this illegal immigrant situation.
As a first-generation American, whose husband was not born in this country, I have no problem with anyone at all comeing in to this country, I welcome everyone with opened arms ... PROVIDED they come in legally, and are willing to learn the language of this country, assimilate, and if they fly any flag, it should be The American Flag ... (they can fly the flag of their country, but below the flag of this nation!)
My folks came over here in the late 30's, my husband came over here with his family in the late 40s, and in both instances, when they had children they were taught to learn the English language, while still being able to speak the native language at home.
My parents insisted on assimilating, they loved being in this country, and were proud to become American citizens and worked for the American dream, as did my husband's family.
My father fought in WW II, and was proud of it. He believed he owed that to this country, to keep us a free nation. My father thought this was the greatest country in the world.
Lady Liberty welcomes everyone into this country, but if people want to come here, then they should become Americans, legally, and learn our language to live here.
I have huge resentment towards people who come here, illegally, want to make a living, live the American dream, but don't go through the normal channels to come here legally, while other people in other countries are sitting back waiting to get in to the U.S.A. the right way.
If my parents, my husband's parents, and my husband could come here, legally, learn to speak English, so should every other person (Mexicans or whomever) who wishes to live in our great country.
Though I may disagree with the majority of the people on this forum on a lot of subjects, we are all, under our skin, proud to be Americans. And for the record, I do not hate people who are Replicans, I just disagree big time!!
So, come one, come all, but come LEGALLY!!! I don't like Bush's plan at all. What is he thinking, anyway??
Comment by — 2006/04/01 @ 06:01 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Blasting left wingers— 2006/04/02 @ 11:45 AM — (Reply)
Re the Valery Plame situation, a quote from Bush: "There's leaks at the executive branch, there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is."
Well, well, after learning what Skooter Libby had to say today, Bush had better look to himself as the leak..ee! Shameful, absolutely shameful. Lies, lies, and more lies keep coming out of this administration.
Sooner or later, all these lies from Bush and his administration are going to come back and bit him in his Presidential ass!!!!!
Comment by RWM— 2006/04/06 @ 02:44 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/04/06 @ 06:17 PM — (Reply)
So ... what IS the topic? And why stick to one topic.
Oh, by the way I am not, nor have I ever been a liberal. I can swing both ways depending on the better man, or woman, running for office.
Just like a conservative, you want to curtail any free speech that derides any negativity regarding Bush.
Come on, folks, get with the program. Bush is a liar!
Comment by RWM— 2006/04/06 @ 06:54 PM — (Reply)
is that why millardo keeps deleting my comments? the topic WAS abortion
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/06 @ 10:48 PM — (Reply)
Politics and crime what's the difference - Don Corleone Godfather III
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/06 @ 10:49 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/04/06 @ 07:08 PM — (Reply)
I agree with you, most presidents have probably lied during their time in office. In fact, most people lie about something, at some point their lives.
The reason I point out that Bush is a liar, is the fact that when he was he was running for office the first time we heard, in so many words, from him that this was going to be a different administration. That he would bring respect back to the WH. Well? A lie by a president, who proposes to be a born-again Christian, a man with "morals" is not living up to his promises. So, he not only lies but breaks his promises. Do you understand what I'm saying.
All politicans lie, unfortunately, no doubt about it, and you don't know who to believe anymore, but pretending to be holier than thou, is disingenuous to say the least.
Comment by RWM— 2006/04/06 @ 07:29 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/04/06 @ 07:31 PM — (Reply)
One more comment.
The Skooter Libby situation only suggests to me that this administration was looking to release this classified information by Bush and the vice president in their attempt to make their case case for the invasion of Iraq. Unbelieveable!!
Comment by RWM— 2006/04/06 @ 07:34 PM — (Reply)
Your friend,
Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/04/06 @ 07:46 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/04/06 @ 11:40 PM — (Reply)
'anyone but Bush'?
Comment by Brooke— 2006/04/07 @ 12:23 PM — (Reply)
Yep, you got it anybody BUT Bush. And 63 percent of the public disapprove of Bush ... oops, and now look, he's been caught with his pants down. As the weeks and months go by, you will learn and hear how this man has mislead the American public. Get reardy, it's coming.
And after learning he's been pulling the wool over YOUR eyes, I want to know what you have to say about him, then.
Comment by RWM— 2006/04/07 @ 04:23 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/04/07 @ 04:29 PM — (Reply)
And who is running congress???????
Comment by — 2006/04/07 @ 04:31 PM — (Reply)
i don't care who is running congress. all of them regardless of party are pandering for votes and ignoring those who put them in office. honestly I never put much faith in any of them and I know that politics will not solve our problems, regardless of party. The Republicans aren't listening and the Dems have no ideas.
Comment by elmer's brother— 2006/04/10 @ 06:36 AM — (Reply)
By the way aren't you ELMER's brother?
Comment by — 2006/04/07 @ 04:32 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/04/07 @ 04:33 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/04/07 @ 05:22 PM — (Reply)
Barry, EB, Cate and Susan can choose whatever cabinet positions they would like.
How's that suit 'ya?
Comment by Brooke— 2006/04/07 @ 05:26 PM — (Reply)
I'll take DOD. You can expect cruise missile strikes every 28 days wherever the heck I please. Look out Iran. You, too, France - I hate yer stinky cheese and crusty bread. And Mr. North Korea had better keep his filthy paws off the little Japanese girls or I'm gonna start juggling nuclear warheads.
Barry, EB, Susan, Ya'll all clear on foreign policy?
Comment by Cate— 2006/04/07 @ 05:39 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/04/07 @ 06:06 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Susan— 2006/04/07 @ 08:37 PM — (Reply)
You got it, folks, anyone but Bush ... I'd vote for Mickey Mouse. Anyone has got to be better
Comment by Howard— 2006/04/08 @ 06:45 PM — (Reply)
Hey, it's me, "Millardo" Where do you do come in on this poll? Maybe there ARE some Republicans out there who are getting smart?
Six in 10 Republicans said they disapproved of the GOP-led Congress.
Comment by — 2006/04/08 @ 08:08 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/04/08 @ 08:18 PM — (Reply)
I want the job of booting Bush out of office, via impeachment.
Comment by millardo— 2006/04/09 @ 12:29 PM — (Reply)
I'd like be the Sec. of the Navy!
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/09 @ 01:07 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/04/09 @ 01:59 PM — (Reply)
Hey, I'm curious. Whereas, I am now using the name, "Millardo," it really isn't my name, I use it because you insist that's my name.
Why on earth do you think my name is "Millardo?" I'm funn'n with you by using it, but you really think you know who I am?
Comment by Millardo— 2006/04/10 @ 05:39 AM — (Reply)
you seem to have us down regardless of whether we say certain things or not, stereotyping and marginalizing is your forte and Millardo is simply, as I have said before a euphemism for any liberal, progressive lefty.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/10 @ 06:33 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/04/10 @ 10:32 AM — (Reply)
So, are all you folks anxiously waiting for us to nuke Iran? And if we do, what do you expect to happen? Oh, and I know Bush is denying this is even on his agenda, but I seem to remember him saying that when he denied we were not planning attack Iraq, and ... do you think our military can handle TWO wars? Oh, wait, there won't be TWO wars, it will just turn in to one great big Middle Eastern war between us and them.
And do you realize that we would go this all one alone? No UK, no smaller countries will stand with us in another attack of another country; no other country is going to be sucker punched in going along with this possible attack by Bush and his henchmen.
Do you not see that this man is probably the most dangerous man in the world right now.
I was thinking that back during the Cuban Missile
Crisis, which I lived through, and was scared to death at the time, that had Bush been president, we would have had WW III, and we and Bush would not be here to start another war that would include nuclear weapons.
Maybe one of those countries ought to attack us, first, before we attack them ... that's what I would do, if I were them.
And now I understand there are some commanders in the military that would leave if Bush decides to go this route.
Your president is crazy dangerous ... but, that's okay stick by him ... he is single-handly making American the most hated country in the world. Go ahead stick by him ... your all f'n idiots.
Comment by — 2006/04/10 @ 02:12 PM — (Reply)
Europe actually does seem willing to help us. Have you heard anything Ahmanedijad has said? If you spent half your time educating yourself on our enemy you would undoubtedly be more upset with him then with Bush. I don't agree with a lot of what Bush does, but the radical Muslims want to destroy you. How does a nice burka sound to you? Perhaps you would like ot be wife #3 or 4? Which is it? I for one do not believe it will come to nuclear weapons. Although a conventional war seems unlikely it is more plausible. No doubt some left wing liberal will convince us all that it's a criminal matter. That worked didn't it? Perhaps you should educate yourself on our enemy. The 30+ countries that were with us in Iraq (3 of which I served with) appreciate your insults and the people of Iraq appreciate your liberal compassion.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/10 @ 02:21 PM — (Reply)
No, I don't agree with you .. your man in the WH is God damn cowboys and he and he alone will bring us to WW III all by himself.
!!!!
You have no idea what it was like to live with the threats during the cold war, maybe if you had, you might use some common sense in your stupid comments.
Thank you for service to your country, I will always stand behind men and women in the military, but I will not ever, ever, ever, ever believe that Bush knows what the hell he's doing. Again, he's a F'n idiot! Talk about evil
Comment by — 2006/04/10 @ 02:38 PM — (Reply)
I do remember and I served during the Cold War as well as in Iraq. Imagine if we had left Germany and Japan after WWII?
Your attacks on Bush are understandable given that you are liberal, but he's not the anti-christ that you think he is. The same things were said about Reagan, Lincoln, FDR and Truman. What I think you are really upset about is a bunch of hanging chads.
Tell me what do you know of radical Islam? Do you know what a dhimmi is? Do you know what the jizya tax is? Do you know what a caliphate is? Believe me the threat we face today is a lot like the cold war. The radical Muslims wish to set up a worldwide theocracy and unless you wake up you will end up someone's third wife. This will last longer than GWB's tenure and if you want a yellow bellied liberal to protect us you just have to convince at least 51% of those voters that you're right.
Comment by — 2006/04/10 @ 02:49 PM — (Reply)
last comment by elmer's brother
Comment by elmer's brother— 2006/04/10 @ 02:50 PM — (Reply)
I might agree with you to some extent, and if it was anyone else than this idiot I'd sure as hell feel a lot better, or at least different. I don't care if it was another Republican president. Because, over the years, I've lived through both Democratic and Republican president. No, I didn't like having a Republican as president, but every one of them, at least I could feel that they knew what they were doing. I at least could believe they had some brains in their heads. But Bush? Oh, my God ... he scares the living hell out of me.
Remember Goldwater, he scared a lot of us in those days when he was running for president, but I never believed he would really start WW III!
We have, and again, I'll say it, a total idiot in the WH. You can give me all kinds of examples and comments, experience, but you'll never convince me he knows what he's doing ... he is stupid, STUIPD!!! I don't care about chads, that's over. 9/11 I stood behind Bush. I gave him the benifit of the doubt, then! No more.
He is so stupid, he's an embarssment. HE MAKING A MESS OF EVERYTHING!!! Maybe to feel like a man he ought to do a Clinton and get laid.
Comment by Bush hater— 2006/04/10 @ 03:09 PM — (Reply)
Why are so many people in the government, by the way, calling for Rumsfelt to resign. Hmm???
Bush says there's no truth of attacking Iran; didn't he do that about Iraq 3 plus years ago.
Comment by Bush hater— 2006/04/10 @ 03:28 PM — (Reply)
I asked you what you knew of radical Islam? I know you hate bush you have said that.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/10 @ 03:43 PM — (Reply)
I know about radical Islam, you'd have to have your head in the sand not to know who, or what they're all about. They scary, very scary people. So, what! What does Bush know, other than what his people tell him.
Look, he's had an agenda since before he took office. We know they hates us, but running over there and attacking another country isn't going to help the situation. Ah, what's the point ????
Comment by Bush hater— 2006/04/10 @ 03:50 PM — (Reply)
It has everything to do with it. You should be directing you disgust at those who cut Nicholas Berg's head off while pig sounds were being played in the background or the 3 terrorists who dressed like women in traditional Islamic dress and blew up 70+ people at a Mosque the other day or the writer of this blog.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/10 @ 03:58 PM — (Reply)
Maybe if we weren't over there in a war, we wouldn't have any Americans trying follow this war, and getting their heads chopped off.
When you go in and attack a country, what you would expect, we'd be welcome with applause and flowers? Give me a break. They hated us already, and they hate us even more for going in there in the first place. Sorry, your arguments doesn't work for me.
Comment by Hater— 2006/04/10 @ 04:06 PM — (Reply)
What about the Khobar towers, our embassies, the USS Cole etc.....yea we created the terrorists I know...do you realize that this is like saying women who wear skimpy clothes deserve to be raped? It's the same argument.
Comment by — 2006/04/10 @ 04:24 PM — (Reply)
think about it this wasy BS, I mean BH
1. No body count on American soil.
2. Radical Islam is the enemy, take the war to them.
3. Create a scenario that is emminently winnable, in a pariah state(Iraq).
4. Secure and protect allies (Israel) through heightened Military presence.
5. Draw every mad, crazed murderous Islamofascist Jihadii son-of-a-bitch to the honeypot.
6. Kill them.
They came in droves. They are still coming.
Seems the scenario has permutations….and the Sunni/Shiite centuries old fracas is also an ally of the cause. Whatever, I cannot weep, or even summon up much concern, as the true sons of Allah “work out” their salvation. Get it on, boys! Welcome to the honeypot.
Comment by — 2006/04/10 @ 04:29 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/04/10 @ 04:50 PM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/04/11 @ 07:13 AM — (Reply)
You do not need to explain anything to me, thank you, very much.
I'm curious, however, I don't read much ranting or raving over Bush's immigration plan. What say you all?
Comment by Hater— 2006/04/11 @ 04:56 PM — (Reply)
changed the subject eh?
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/25 @ 02:34 PM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/04/11 @ 05:35 PM — (Reply)
Your friend, Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/04/11 @ 05:39 PM — (Reply)
Well, how about that, I can actually say to you, I agree with you 100%. See, we liberal can agree with you once in a while. Yipee!!
Comment by Hater— 2006/04/11 @ 07:10 PM — (Reply)
Well let's start first with the real Nutter in Chief the president of Iran who says that he will be able to bring about the return of the Mahdi (Islam's Messiah) within the next two years. How does he propose to do that? By bringing about the apocalypse. Shall we wait to see if he means it? I'll elucidate on the rest in a bit.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/11 @ 07:26 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/04/11 @ 07:43 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Blasting left wingers— 2006/04/11 @ 07:47 PM — (Reply)
You are all as mad as Bush ... ready to nuke another country. And what do you suppose a pre-emptive strike will do in that part of the world. I think all you nutcases are looking for more trouble than we can handle. Are you all going over there to fight another war with Iran. You scare the bejeeses out of me.
Comment by Hater— 2006/04/12 @ 07:54 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/04/12 @ 07:58 PM — (Reply)
Dear BH,
A sense of humor is require here. The comment about nukes was tongue in cheek.
Comment by blasting left wingers— 2006/04/12 @ 08:57 PM — (Reply)
Sorry, I don't think talking of potential attack on another country is particularly funny. Those of you who are pro-life should be more sensitive to people who will die in a war that we start.
Comment by BH— 2006/04/14 @ 04:30 PM — (Reply)
so did you hear crazy mahmood today? He wants to annhilate Israel. What should we do BH?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/04/14 @ 05:47 PM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/04/14 @ 06:02 PM — (Reply)
The Bush administration thinks world military
dominance will protect the U.S., all this does is
scare other nations into building opposing alliances.
Our so-called Iraq “coalition” is ridiculous, a joke –
most Iraqis want us out of their county, and only the
UK has provided more than a token contribution. The
British people are against this war, too.
But, old Mr. Bush has fallen into Osama ‘s trap, with
the war making us “the enemy” to much of the Islamic
world. For every dead Iraqi, there’s and extended
family who only sees us as intruders and murderers.
Therefore, we breed more suicide bombers.
Bush says we’re helping to spread democracy. Well,
you only have to look to Hamas winning legally and
Iran democratically electing an extremist hard-liner,
rather than a reformer.
Bush’s claim (and Chaney’s) claim of WMDs was an out,
and out lie. We’ve had years of looking for them, and
found nothing.
It’s important, it’s urgent that we need to change our
foreign policy, because Bush could start a war with
Iran, a country with three times the population of
Iraq. An attack on Iran or an all-out civil war could
plunge the Middle East into war, turning off the oil
spigot, and collapse our entire economy.
Bush keeps saying over, and over, and over, that the
9-11 attack requires that we accept the 2,300
soldiers’ lives lost thus far, the torture of
prisoners and losing our civil liberties at home,
while at home we watched Katrina drown New Orleans!
Nothing could be further from the truth. We should
have been focusing our attention on building new
alliances all over the world, and go after and finish
off al-Qaida in Afghanistan.
But, instead, what do we have? We have a world that
now sees us as a pariah. Our credibility is in the
toilet, destroyed by the man that you put in the
White House, because of war that he didn’t give enough
though to, and it’s possible consequences, and exit
strategy if we did go to war with Iraq.
This war needs to be ended as soon as possible and all
those responsible for this war removed, impeached,
whatever it takes, from power.
And all of you should be ashamed for being fooled by
this man.
Comment by Howard— 2006/04/14 @ 06:31 PM — (Reply)
Uh Howard there were over thirty countries in Iraq when I was there. I served with the British, the Australian, the Spanish and the Nepalese. How long were you there? The Iraqi's I met were damn glad we were there. We gave them food and water, money out of our own pockets.
Again the left offers no answers only complaints. Unless you call running away an answer.
Comment by — 2006/04/14 @ 06:48 PM — (Reply)
So, what. His father had a better and stronger coalistion than Bushie, Jr. Give me a break, you want to count on these countries when we go to a bigger war, with such small armies. Come on, get real.
Comment by Howard— 2006/04/14 @ 08:03 PM — (Reply)
Your friend, Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/04/14 @ 09:07 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/04/14 @ 09:13 PM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/04/15 @ 05:05 AM — (Reply)
PS: Libraries are closed on Easter dude.
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/04/15 @ 03:09 PM — (Reply)
"I'm the decider?"
Is that even a word? What a nut job. Maybe a comic book could come out with Bush wearing a mask and cape with a BIG "D" on it!
Paul Rummy, being attacked. Frankly, I think Rummy should stay. I decided Bush should go with his press secretary.
NUT JOB!!!!!!!!!
Comment by BH— 2006/04/20 @ 11:02 AM — (Reply)
Retired AND serving (through Rep. John Murtha) generals alike are revolting and for damn good reason. The unnecessary corporate war in Iraq is an unequivocal bloody disaster, Bush & Co. has gutted and sadistically abused the military and our veterans, and the Brass must now work to prevent these madmen from starting a NUCLEAR WAR! Wake up everyone and stop this insanity, that mean you crazy f...'n' Republicans.
Comment by RR— 2006/04/24 @ 02:52 PM — (Reply)
who cares Murtha was the one who had Clinton appease Bin laden in Somalia
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/25 @ 02:36 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/04/24 @ 04:28 PM — (Reply)
I hate liberals. Abortion is murder!
Comment by cheeseburger— 2006/04/24 @ 04:50 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/04/24 @ 05:37 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/04/24 @ 05:48 PM — (Reply)
Trying to make a rational comment here is pointless since all you see in GWB is a hero, a GREAT PRESIDENT! Even giving a good argument, you'll still disagree with it.
Well, my friends, you are now in the minority, as your "hero" is not looked upon kindly by most of the American people. His ratings are down to 32% ... ouch! So, how smart are you?
He and his cronies are a bunch of lying, dispicable men, who could very well put us in to a WW III whatever number we're at now.
I don't know about you people but that scares the SHIT out of me. Single handedly he's going to bring about a war, because he needs to get our minds off the disaster in Iraq. And by nuking Iran, he thinks he will be looked upon as a hero. No way, Jose!!
You see, even I can see the shortcomings of past "Democratic" presidents, certainly they didn't do all the right things and indeed made mistakes. But this man makes mistakes, and people die, or will die. But you guys just go chugging along "standing by your man." Get over him ... he's damn idiot. Even Tony Blair won't stand behind him in the next attack. No one with a half a brain would stand by this president!
He's a war monger, and he's no better than Hitler by wanting to go into these countries. NO BETTER!!!!
Oh, EXCUSE ME, you guys will ... so you are all half-brains, too, I guess.
Comment by — 2006/04/25 @ 05:39 AM — (