Sound Politics fans read The Declaration of Independence.
Peggy Noonan: A Day at the Beach.
we should remember two truths about America. First, the United States remains the most free and affluent country in the history of civilization. Second, almost all our problems are lapses of complacency, remain relatively easily correctable, and pale in comparison to past crises.Danny Westneat:
As celebrations go, though, this one feels strained. Forced. It comes at a time when a lot of people are wondering: Do we even believe in America anymore?Right. It was easier to pursue happiness in the days before gasoline and refrigeration, when we traveled by horse, raised and hunted all of our own meat, and before there were any recalls to protect us from foodborne illness.I don't mean the founding idea -- the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness part. That seems strong, if newly challenged by recalled meat and $100 gas fill-ups.
Sheesh.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 04, 2008 07:55 PM | Email ThisVictor Davis Hansen is a great historian, but the above quote will be severely tested if Obama wins and the Democrats control Congress. Obama and Dems in Congress will redistribute income with his tax increases, try and install Universal Health Care that will not be easily undone, make us more vulnerable to Radical Islamist attacks, Red China, Russia and other rogue nations with reductions in the military. Oil drilling in the US will not be permitted as a part of the environmentalist grandiose scheme to socially engineer society - get us out of our cars and force us into riding mass transit, buses, trains, etc. As a result, our economy will go in the tank and he will be a one-term president if he is elected (God forbid) because of his progressive and collectivist policies. There will be a lot of damage to undo after that. There is damage right now, but we ain't seen nothing yet - if Barack Hussein Obama gets elected.
Westneat is naive and biased as so many journalists are today and are doing a disservice to misinform readers to fit their agenda - objective reporting is becoming a lost craft.
Posted by: KS on July 4, 2008 09:11 PMMaking tax policy that is more fair. Fine with me.
Universal Health Care. You mean if someone gets sick they don't lose their house? Fine with me.
More vulnerable to attacks? Bullshit. If anyone has made us more vulnerable it is they lying chimp in hundreds of different ways. Obama may do something other than handing 1/2 my paycheck to defense contractors and never checking what we get for the money.
Changing our economy, and energy policy to one that works to the benefit of Americans, and the environment, instead of just China, Exxon and their friends. Fine with me.
And KS wants to talk about damage to our economy, but ignores the damage the insane occupation of Iraq for false pretenses, and 5 trillion in new debt has already done, and continue to do. Christ we are still paying $180,000,000,000 (billion)a year in interest on the money REAGAN BORROWED!
KS. Obama's turds would make a better president than McCain. I heard on the radio today Norman Goldman reading the short list of McCain's flip flops. There were 27. And you don't trust Barack????? What a joke.
Obama doesn't scare me.
What scares me is the ignorant people that don't want to accept the fact that one more Republiconvict president, and America will be finished for good.
We declared independence from England.
Now we can be tortured. It apparently is legal. Wiretapped without a warrant, or a court's approval. Ever. We can be locked up forever with no contact with the Red Cross, or our family, or a lawyer. Our house can be searched secretly without a warrant or any court oversight.
Knowing our constitution has been shredded, just because our "commander in chief", and his cronies ignored a hundred direct warnings, and allowed an attack on our soil in 2001. You know. The president that was warned repeatedly by the administration before his that defending America from Al Queda should be his number one priority. You know. The Al Queda his cronies COMPLETELY ignored.
Knowing my constitution is now toilet paper really makes me want to go celebrate!!! Our country's downfall.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on July 4, 2008 09:49 PMAh, yes.....hope, change....just one more bong hit and Obama will make everything right....then I'll never need to get a job....and if I get sick those other people will pay my medical bills....and big bad Bush will go away...and, and, those awful rich people will finally pay their fair share so I can have a house and a car and a big screen TV and a vacation in Cabo. I'll never have to grow up!
Posted by: Saltherring on July 4, 2008 09:56 PMMcCain even admits he doesn't know crap about economics. All he does know how to do is say "I was a POW" over and over. You can't even mention the fact that he has flip flopped on every issue from abortion to torture, and tax cuts for the rich to gay marriage. And of course 23 plus more issues.
Republiconvicts, with their regressive policies, and fear mongering, need to be removed from government. Completely. Let the adults take over...... You know. The ones that believe in SCIENCE!!!!!
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on July 4, 2008 10:14 PMHow can anyone in their right mind trust Obama when he changes positions as frequently as he does ? Gay marriage, the second amendment, war in Iraq, securing the border, the fairness Doctrine and Public vs. Private financing of campaigns or said he never heard Jeremiah Wright spew his Black Liberation theology hate speech in the 20 years he attended - a lie (the last point was brought out as its another reason why I don't trust him). You may be able to because you don't care - you just can't vote for Republicans. I doubt if you have ever voted for another party outside of Democrat in your life, even if the better candidate was of another party. I voted for Adam Smith for Congress twice and will vote for him again, but they have to earn my vote, which Obama clearly doesn't.
Oh you mean the junk science that fuels Global warming hysteria ? What its all about is trying to control people through irresponsible Government policies - this world is going to burn in hell if that ever happens, but it won't because truth will prevail and the carbon offsets and that type of fraud will hopefully not see the light of day. There needs to be a responsible solultion - government incentives, talking about nuclear power, electric battery operated cars that remove dependency on foreign oil.
One more nail in the coffin that your are bigoted toward Republicans - rather fascistic also. You are a spoiled child who has had been stoned too often and is incapable of having a reasoned debate. Progressives are too irresponsible to have a position of responsibility, without FUBAR to everything around.
Posted by: KS on July 4, 2008 10:32 PMYou wanna end the war on terror? Infiltrate Al Quada. Duhhhh. A lot cheaper than occupying countries where THEY WERE NOT OPERATING IN.
Do we really need to spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined? Really?
Only with arrogant liars as president.
Allies, hell who need allies attituded.
I will go half way with you on health care KS. We already spend more than any country per citizen. It goes to profits, waste, and fraud, and millions get no coverage. Even the covered citizens may go bankrupt if they ever get sick.
Health care, and drugs (up to 10 times as costly as other countries pay for the same drugs) are just rip offs of us taxpayers. All so we can be 26th worldwide in total health care.
So KS. Obama says we need change. Do you agree, or do you want more of the same?
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on July 4, 2008 10:33 PMI have heard about some of the changes he intends to make and do not like them - I do not like Socialism and redistribution of income, larger government and eradication of traditional values which has deteriorated our culture. However, we need reform and it is better done if there is a balance of power with McCain as President working with the Democrat congress, which he has proven he can effectively do it.
McCain has made some gaffes like with the Sunni/Shia in Iraq and Obama said there were 58 states and never bothered to come back and correct it - ridiculous. So, if you want to read your Democrat talking points fine, I'll rebut them and go by what I read, which I either read or hear discussed from Dennis Miller - the talk show I listen to most of the time.
Posted by: KS on July 4, 2008 10:42 PMThe only thing McCain will do is increase the flow of the tax dollars you, and I pay to the ruling class. Obama, on the other hand, we truly don't know. What we do know is he has spent his life helping people instead of corporations, even though helping corporations pays better. Maybe that is why he does not take campaign contributions from corporate America, or Pacs.
I would rather gamble on an unknown, with intelligence, and a history of getting things done, than on a chameleon that changes his stance on an hourly basis, in the pocket of the outsourcers, energy companies, and defense contractors.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on July 5, 2008 07:03 AM1. objectively considering the long-term consequences of enacting such policies.
2. having experienced enough of life to gain the wisdom to decide who to believe.
The Al Gore/George Soros/Barack Obama contingent have an agenda, which is to force individuals to become dependent on big government. They will tax and regulate the citizenry into compliance, with their ultimate goal being total control of the masses. The "rich" will always have their "freedom", through acquired wealth, but average citizens will suffer the loss of personal liberty and entrepreneurial opportunity. Our economy will suffer mightily from regressive taxation and lack of innovation. Wake up, America, before we lose all we've gained.
Posted by: Saltherring on July 5, 2008 07:28 AMThe media you are referring to appears to only be distracting us, so we don't rise up and take back our government.
By the way, I am a self made millionaire, not a welfare queen. Didn't even go to college. A waste of time.
What I understand and you don't is "your" party is nothing but a criminal organization, bent on fooling the ignorant into believing their policies that only benefit the powerful are good for the rest of Americans. They do this with the help of the conservative owned press, talk radio, and news channels. Not to mention the Faux Republicon Propaganda Channel.
All you can do is claim my friends and I want to turn America into Cuba. More scare tactics. All you got. Anything to cover for the crimes and lies of the slime now infesting the White House, and leading "your" party.
Found them WMD's yet? Nuclear Program? Al Qaeda ties? Yeah right. Bush only appears to be looking for Bin Laden under his desk.
There are two types of Americans. One type supports liars, and frauds, basically common criminals. The other type wants to throw the crooks, and their powerful friends out of Washington, and have a government that does something other than steal my tax dollars to give them to their supporters.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on July 5, 2008 07:49 AMYou remind me of an old girlfriend who used to complain about the fact that her aunt Sarah would take a nip of brandy with the ladies after church on Sunday. She thought that was just terrible. All the while her dad was passed out on the couch, crocked on the two quarts of Old Overcoat he drank every day.
You say Obama wants to redistribute wealth. No, he wants slow down the redistribution of wealth that has taken place over the last eight years. Those of us that really do objectively consider the long term consequences of enacting such policies realize that we cannot continue down the path we are currently on.
You say they want to make us all dependant on big government. No, he wants government to perform useful functions like helping our own citizens become a part of the economy. And for government to stop performing destructive functions like the war in Iraq. Those of use who really are experienced enough in life to have gained wisdom know that spending trillions of dollars in pointless wars is insanity that will destroy the country. And spending a few hundred billion to solve real problems at home is a far more useful thing for government to be doing.
It's a hard rain that's gonna fall.
I have heard all of this crap from progressive talking points before and they are from Daily Kos, Media Matters. The problem is that you are a useful idiot, putting out propaganda and are either afraid or not curious enough to check out the truth. You sound like you want global governance and that is nothing more than Marxism on a global scale. I challenge you to check out the following on snopes.com
1. Socialism? I don't think so. (You are a liar) Redistribution of income? You mean having government serve people instead of only billionaires and the fortune 500 ? You prefer socialism over the current system. Redistribution of income means - taxing the rich more and give to the poor - that Socialism, dude !!
2. Outsourcing and economic ignorance/incompetence is already doing that. The reform McCain wants is more of the same, but only worse. (Liar ! The Democrats and Republicans are both responsible for doing this and Democrats are more involved. If you incriminate McCain here, you are incriminating most Democrats including Obama)
3. The only thing McCain will do is increase the flow of the tax dollars you, and I pay to the ruling class. Obama, on the other hand, we truly don't know. What we do know is he has spent his life helping people instead of corporations, even though helping corporations pays better. (Prove it. Sen. Obama has helped funnel money to extremist groups like his church which has ties with Muslim groups and he has an association with William Ayers, formerly of the Weathermen underground).
4. I challenge you to differentiate that Obama won't do the same as McCain. By the way, it is Congress that appropriates the money and McCain wants a line item veto, which Obama doesn't.
You say:" There are two types of Americans. One type supports liars, and frauds, basically common criminals. The other type wants to throw the crooks, and their powerful friends out of Washington, and have a government that does something other than steal my tax dollars to give them to their supporters."
Newsflash - they all do it - you are living in a utopia bubble, like bubble boy if you believe that the progressives will do right. You are either very naive or you take us for idiots if you expect anyone with a lick of sense to believe this garbage that you offer.
"Found them WMD's yet? Nuclear Program? Al Qaeda ties? Yeah right."
Bush screwed up there - noone denies that. Are you denying that there is not a threat from Radical Islam (Al Qaeda, Wahabbe) ? This is a war not a police action. Get your head out of where the sun don't shine and you are wasting everyone's time in spouting your ignorant lies and progressive talking points. Show us credible evidence next time (The Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, Air America and Media Matters and other progressive rags are suspected as faux evidence and don't qualify).
It's easier to look over there and make up conspiracies than it is to face the truth about what is actually happening around you. Islamists want you dead or in a hefty bag. Anything else is socialist propaganda. And no, they're not scare tactics, not by half that global warming and the health care crisis and drilling in ANWR, and the rest of the ills the left uses, to deflect, in the name of PC and communism.
Marijuana and drugs are ruining this country. We have reared a generation of idiots.
Posted by: dan on July 5, 2008 09:18 AMWhere on earth did you get those numbers? They are wildly inaccurate.
While I couldn't stomach reading much of their blather, maybe I passed over the part where they attack Oliar for his biggest flip of all... the one that caused the most morons to vote for him: His Iraq gymnastics.
Obviously, for the fringe left whackers like Wiz and No Facts, their ability to be introspective and hold Barry Oliar to the same standard as McCain or anyone else to the right of Lenin is non-existent. Their sickening hypocrisy is what causes the most revulsion.
And All the facts DO support that.
Posted by: hinton on July 5, 2008 09:58 AMWhat we do know is that those who post from library computers don't pay much, if anything, in taxes. Right, Wiz?
Posted by: hinton on July 5, 2008 10:00 AMgo to the IRS website and decipher what you read there. Please tell me if I'm way off base.
Posted by: dan on July 5, 2008 10:33 AM#2 KS has nailed it. Westneat is bemoaning a 'malaise' among the citizens, and is so swaddled in his urban-intellectual cocoon that he can't see to realize his own participation in the cause of it. To wit, the desperate daily striving by mainstream media to paint America in general, and the Bush administration in particular, as misguided, misled and failing on all fronts.
Yes, the educational system gets a good share of the blame for its reduction of American history to a series of dastardly acts committed by born-in-sin honkies against poor suffering minorities, and greedy capitalists who are motivated to provide goods and services by evil profits.
But the leaders of MSM, all veterans of the 60s movement which called itself 'antiwar' but only protested American military acts ('armed struggles' elsewhere were cool and groovy and screeched for 'justice'), have a practical monopoly on the daily news by which our citizens form their impressions. And the corrosive effect on said citizens by decades of bathing in such viciously biased partial information, supplied without perspective, has mounted steadily to form the impressions that Mr. Westneat cynically describes.
And in reaction against this false picture the media encourages massive change, scrupulously avoiding any clear description of concrete goals or policies, other than screeching for fairness, justice, equality, diplomacy and universal health care. Never mind who's to provide it, or how it's to be achieved, or what freedoms are to be given up to attain the lofty goals. Maybe the next Administration will codify political correctness into the next ten Constitutional amendments. It's a tough job, but surely (yes we can!) the contradictions can be overcome - at the cost of Someone Else.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on July 5, 2008 10:45 AMThe left never quotes facts, as facts interfere with their agenda-driven tripe.
And dan, you are absolutely correct. European-style confiscatory, redistributive taxation will stifle economic growth and entrepreneurial enterprise. Investors will sit on their money and job growth will stagnate.
Some things will never change, however. Old money will still be old money and the indolent will still have money for cigarettes, alcohol, drugs and casinos.
Posted by: Saltherring on July 5, 2008 10:47 AMYep, you're way off base. The top 5% pay about half of the total personal income tax revenue. But that is by no means half of the total tax revenue.
Just for fun though, I would be curious to know where you got your numbers.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on July 5, 2008 11:38 AMYou have a lot of nerve saying YOU would 'rather GAMBLE'... especially in light of the fact you attempt to claim FACTS.
We grown-ups HAVE tried that plan...it was called the Carter administration... hmm let's see, our 1st mortgage was under Carter... a finance rate of over 20% if I remember correctly... today our mortgage is a mere 5%.
Iran totally humiliated that inept fool... today they rattle with words rather than American citizens.... you do remember the hostages the inept fool nearly got killed, don't you?
The inept fool told us to wear sweaters and nannily reduced highway speeds to 55... has that been asked of you lately... ever? Have you been on the roads much? Seen restaurant and mall parking lots? How about Costco or Home Depot... tried to find a place to park there lately?
"So what happens when the top 5% (who give to the government, through taxation, 75% of the gvmnt's income)" Where on earth did you get those numbers? They are wildly inaccurate. -Posted by Unkl Witz at July 5, 2008 09:50 AM
86% of ALL federal income taxes are paid by the TOP 25% of income earners... UP from 84% in 2000.
The top 50% (that's me and you in the brain farts that pass between liberal ears) pay 97% of ALL income taxes.
The top 1 % pay 39%, up 2% from 2000 (when your collective ...and oh, how you love that word!) BDS took hold)
Taxes and Income December 17, 2007
Last week the Congressional Budget Office joined the IRS in releasing tax numbers for 2005, and part of the news is that the richest 1% paid about 39% of all income taxes that year. The richest 5% paid a tad less than 60%, and the richest 10% paid 70%. These tax shares are all up substantially since 1990, and even somewhat since 2000. Meanwhile, Americans with an income below the median -- half of all households -- paid a mere 3% of all income taxes in 2005. The richest 1.3 million tax-filers -- those Americans with adjusted gross incomes of more than $365,000 in 2005 -- paid more income tax than all of the 66 million American tax filers below the median in income. Ten times more.
In 1980 (Inept fool year!), when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share.
THOSE, kiddies, are FACTS which inconveniently DON'T support your position... which I'm pretty sure you tried to adapt to your brain from the Kama Sutra...
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 5, 2008 11:38 AMWhat?
Can you actually name one single thing HE'S gotten done?
More likely you will attempt to list attendance at this, 'present' at that, not making waves at everything else.
America doesn't need an affirmative action Presidential trainee... or a Marxist.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 5, 2008 11:46 AMSo Rags, you got to ask yourself; do you think the other 94% of the population is open to the idea that someone can get by on at least $150k per year? I think they might be. Guess we'll find out this November.
What's the operative word there Witz?
EARN.
Not given, not taken, not stolen, EARNED.
What people "get by on' is entirely within their own hands... not the pockets of others.
Robin Hood was just a THIEF, generous with other folks EARNINGS.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 5, 2008 12:06 PMINCOME and the ability to EARN it is not a zero sum game... one guy making millions does NOT limit you to making minimum wage. It's an ugly twisted lie that liberals like to perpetuate in their class warfare.
Are you saying they somehow work harder than those that earn less? Harder than say the housekeeper at the hotel you stay in who only makes one-tenth that amount? Do they work ten times harder than her?
Posted by: Unkl Witz on July 5, 2008 12:14 PMShould you be able to buy a Rolls Royce for the price of a VW? A diamond for the price of a lump of coal? A Kobe steak for the price of a Costco polish dog?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 5, 2008 12:19 PMAnswer - typical arrogant liberal doublespeak.
Posted by: dan on July 5, 2008 12:25 PMWarren Buffet
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/19/warren-buffet-backs-obama_n_102451.html
So instead of calling me names, why don't you tell me why Warren Buffet supports Obama. Warren supports turning America into Cuba too?
One more thing. I love it how the righties cry Wright / Ayers every chance they get. If I was to list every slimeball McCain associated with it would take me past November. This isn't even counting the maggots the lobbyists running his campaign took cash from.
It is amazing how cheating on his first wife, calling his current wife a "c-t", and the Keating 5 rarely get mentioned.
When Warren Buffet says our tax system is broken, and he pays a lower rate than his accountant, I gotta go with Warren......
As far as taxing the super rich, better read this....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robyn-blumner/the-vanishing-middle-clas_b_110193.html
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on July 5, 2008 12:33 PMThese aren't fellas that act in and for the moment. Clearly by supporting him they expect a benefit you can't perceive. That should worry you.
Furthermore, their "income", their wealth is so protected that NO one person or economic fluctuation will radically change anything for them.
Cui bono... or better yet, HOW?... hmm, POWER over the little people?
And, using HuffPo as a source? Puhlease! What color is your koolaid?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 5, 2008 12:53 PMThanks for conceding the arguement.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 5, 2008 12:58 PMAs far as maggots. I am talking about the brutal dictators, and others slimeballs that McCain's lobbying team, who is running his campaign were representing.
And for KS. He said "Bush screwed up there - noone denies that." No actually Bush, and his fellow criminals committed treason, by lying about threats to our nation, to take us into a war for only sickening reasons. And of course I understand there are people that want to kill us. Can you blame them? I know there are a lot more of them, and they have a lot more power than they did before 9-11, according to the CIA....
I guess when you invade a non threatening muslim country, kill or maim a million (innocent) men women and children, and lie about the reasons their arms and legs are being blown off, then someone besides myself may have a problem with that.
The neo-con's fantasy corporate utopia in Iraq is more than backfiring. It is bankrupting. What you gonna do about it KS, Ragnar? Nothing right? That is because you are part of the problem.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on July 5, 2008 01:12 PM1. Impugning his character doesn't "support your position", it confirms your lack of confidence in them.
2. FACT: his 1st wife has publicly said they were both the cause of their divorce, that neither were strong enough to weather the time and distance.
3. You keep changing the subject, moving the goal post...hmm, I wonder WHY hat is?
4. Did personal failings trouble you with Clinton?
Do personal failings trump lack of experiance, questionable associations and public history?
5. Whay haven't/can't/won't you answer the question clearly posed at 32?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 5, 2008 01:38 PMHe will do the same to McCain, regardless how much the press covers for Jonnie 2 step. Obama is even ahead in Montana. My god man.
Nothing personal. I don't hate McCain. He is just a regular old every day corporate owned politician, like many others on both sides of the aisle.
McCain fit to be president? He doesn't know the difference between insurgents, and Al Qaeda, and constantly gets Iraq, and Iran confused. Dangerous if you ask me. Well, at least he can complete a sentence.....
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on July 5, 2008 01:58 PMI guess if you didn't read about it on Hopuff, it didn't really happen, huh?
Facts are useless to people like all facts.
Like most youngsters, they only hear what they want to hear. Pass the kool-aid, please.
co-sponsored.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 5, 2008 02:26 PMStill lying to try to justify the war?
Posted by: demo kid on July 5, 2008 02:44 PMHe led men both in and out of captivity.
He maintained his dignity and his absolute loyalty to his country with courage under torture for over 5 years.
He honors his sons by not exploiting their service.
He raised those honorable young men.
He's proven his value to Arizona by repeated re-election in different offices... without bribing them with pork
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 5, 2008 02:53 PMDoes co-sponsoring a bill rate an accomplishment these days? I do not think this bill has gone anywhere, so like the scores of bills created each year that never get anywhere, I think it is less than satisfactory to the question. This bill being purely sponsored by Democrats also speaks to Obama's "across the aisle" rhetoric.
Unkl Witz says: Can you name a single thing McCain has gotten done??
Since 1993, McCain has sponsored (not NOT CO-sponsored) 537 bills. 31 became enacted (described as "Exceedingly Good, relative to peers" by GovTracks.us). He has also co-sponsored 1224 bills, many of which were co-sponsored by democrats which makes McCain the "across the aisle" candidate rather than Obama.
The problem is that Obama's Curriculum Vitae is lacking compared to his rhetoric. If you like him, it's seems likely that it is due to his promises rather than his demonstrated ability.
Posted by: Eyago on July 5, 2008 03:00 PMThey all worked with and believed the information they were given at the time. It's time to deal with the reality that IS... not what you choose to invent.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 5, 2008 03:01 PMPardon me if you're actually on the inside track and Saddam discussed his intentions regarding this material with you.
Posted by: dan on July 5, 2008 03:24 PMSo do you propose stringing all of the neo-cons up and executing them to remedy the problem ? You are both morons and have not supplied any credible evidence or constructive solutions yet. If a Democrat had started the war in Iraq, I'd like to hear what you'd say then. Your double standards and spoiled attitude are a big part of why this country is falling apart.
Posted by: KS on July 5, 2008 05:11 PMMcCain is a fraud.
Wake up and smell the suffering.....
The fact that he has been in the Senate for years, working dirty deals does not mean he would make a good president. It is obvious he flip flops every time he sees an opportunity to garner a little support, and then what, claims he never said something that is on tape?
Every single Republiconvict Senator needs to be replaced by folks that think the fate of non-rich Americans matters. They are crooks. Frist is being investigagted, and resigned. Lott's brother in law is a crook, and Lott may also be in on it. Stevens is being investigated, and is guilty as hell. Any fool can see the work on his house he never had to pay for. The list goes on. I just can't wait until McCain is investigated for helping his buddy Rick Renzi do his dirty land deals. Another thing the MSM is covering for McCain on.
I think they should all just plead guilty.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on July 5, 2008 05:16 PMHere's some writing's from Barack Hussein Obama. He is an extremist and not to be trusted. The MSM is covering for him on this though. He is racist and is the Manchurian candidate, but is being marketed as all things to all people by progressive shills like you. In reality, he is coming off as a flip-flopper in the mold of John Kerry.
Below are a few lines from Obama's books; In his words!
From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'
From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'
From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'
From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'
From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'
And FINALLY the Most Damming one of ALL of them!!!
From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'
One more thing, #59 - The allegations that you have on McCain are overblown and exaggerated. Would you mind divulging the source of those allegations ?
Posted by: KS on July 5, 2008 05:40 PM
You prove some of the charges against you. Someone asked if you to show what Obama has done, you bring up a point that I rebut. Your reply...?
So the candidate that has been working to hasten the decline of America's place in the world is who you support?
Is that the best debate tactic you have? You make no effort to prove your original assertion, you make no effort to rebut my counter-point. Instead you fall back on baseless attacks. In logic and debate this is called: Ignoratio Elenchi.
You also appear to make the false assumption that because I countered your point with facts that I must be a McCain supporter.
What this demonstrates is that you do not have facts.
What this demonstrates is that you have no ability to engage in debate.
What this demonstrates is that your positions in politics are not based in studied consideration of the facts at hand but are built from emotion and ideology.
What this demonstrates is that you aren't interested in truth.
If you want to come to this site and actually make a point you should consider the fine art of logic, learn how to frame and support an argument, and you should know your facts, or know how to find them. Of course, there is the unspoken need to know what a fact IS.
What you have done is the bloggosphere's equivalent of entering the room, dropping your trousers and bending low at the hips. It might make you feel good inside, but it does nothing to advance your cause or to make anyone take notice of your intellect.
You follow up points of McCain in the senate "making dirty deals" fails the test as well. No facts are there, just your opinion that he is dirty. This is called: Ad Hominem.
Finally, you use guilt by association and hasty generalization when you talk about a handful of politicians who have been investigated for various criminal acts.
Now on a final note, if you feel that McCain is culpable in the Renzi issue and is grounds for dismissing him as a candidate for President, how do you answer the like charge against Obama and his connections with Rezko and Ayers?
I await another opportunity to engage in a clinic on Logical Fallacies.
I await your response.
Posted by: Eyago on July 5, 2008 06:08 PMThey all worked with and believed the information they were given at the time. It's time to deal with the reality that IS... not what you choose to invent.
Damn you're stupid, even for a poster on this board. Dan referred to a recent report about yellowcake being removed from Iraq... uranium which is relatively inert and had been sitting around for the better part of two decades.
Sorry... you lose that one.
Posted by: demo kid on July 5, 2008 06:21 PMLet me give you some quotes:
"[The] President... is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home."
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
"You can support the troops but not the president."
Who said them? Raging liberals? Hardly. Rick Santorum, Sean Hannity, George Bush, and Tom Delay, speaking about the conflict in Bosnia in 1999.
So before you tell me that I have a "double standard" and a "spoiled attitude", try to explain that away. Intervention specifically to prevent genocide (against Muslims, in fact!) versus starting a war with no clear objectives, no clear end, and no clear cost, based on false pretenses. It is you, sir, that has the double standard, and a dangerous one at that.
Constructive solutions?
Well, I'm less sanguine about the idea of a pullout than other liberals, but any option is not a good one. Personally, I'd devote as many resources as possible to infrastructure improvements in the country, and hold just enough troops in the region to eliminate any serious threats, fewer numbers than what is in the region right now. Our bed is made, and we screwed up. To throw good money (and bodies) after bad is nonsensical.
Posted by: demo kid on July 5, 2008 07:01 PMHow about these priceless quotes from Sidney?
"I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."
"At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt."
"I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."
"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should. I've got Greenspan's book."
"[C]ertainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to undergo illegal and dangerous operations."
Doesn't sound a principled moderate Republican or reasonable candidate for president to me!
And the fact that you're dissecting and twisting Obama's discussions about his own racial identity is pretty damn troubling. Are you just insecure around African Americans or something?
Posted by: demo kid on July 5, 2008 07:12 PM"Stuck in 2003"? The discussion was about yellowcake in Iraq that was taken out of the country. Catch up.
And that proposal above is the best I can come up with. It is better, of course, than, "Let's stay in Iraq getting shot at for the next decade."
Posted by: demo kid on July 5, 2008 07:15 PMIt must suck being a right wing blogger. Defending corrupt lying traitors hell bent on giving more away to the top 1% and corporations, and saddling our children with even more debt.
Let them explain how Bush is losing 3 wars simultaneously, and how they can still support him, and his idiotic policies.
So wingnuts. How many trillion should we burn occupying Iraq? Why should health care be out of reach for 1 in 6 Americans? Why should HMO's decide who lives, and who dies because of their profits?
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on July 5, 2008 07:26 PM
Be easy on them. LOL
Can you say Viet Nam!
It was YOUR game and you guys blew it.... Then the best part of all. You yell at Nixon for not getting us out fast enough. Well he did and then you guys let 100.000 plus die because YOU said (in for writing) that you would support the South. But you didn't
Hey you two fools. Look up the 1914 I think that is the right year and Rocka feller.. Yeah I spelled it wrong. Talk about union busting. Try 41 + dead. Women & childern.
LOL. Now you wish to speak of Bush. Go ahead!
Let's go.
Since Bush is a Republicon like yourself, it is ok for him to lie, and twist intelligence to start a war, and commit any crime he wants, and you will still support him right army dude?
I am one of them funny Americans. I want all criminals prosecuted. From Bush all the way down. Corrupt Dems and Republicons. Every last one.
If Bush doesn't have to follow the law, why should anyone. Why should I? You give him a pass on all them "mushroom cloud" statements even though there was not one shred of evidence that Saddam had any sort of nuclear weapons program?
Sorry my president committed treason, and it just doesn't sit right with me. I know, I know. It's not as bad (lying to start a war with 1,000,000 casualties) as a blow job right?
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on July 5, 2008 07:48 PM@68: Which president didn't aid the South Vietnamese in 1975? Who was president during the Fall of Saigon? I'll give you a hint... he's conservative, and he looked a bit like Homer Simpson.
And if you're going way back to 1914 to dredge up something to attack Democrats with... that's pretty amusing.
Posted by: demo kid on July 5, 2008 07:53 PMJust as I figured, you have no proposal. I ignored your comment about yellowcake because it is irrelevant to everyone except you. You and AFSMP don't cite your sources because they are your progressive/leftwing talking points and cannot stand up to our scrutiny. Until I see evidence to the contrary to show the truth, I won't take your comments seriously.
So sad.
"When they run out of talking points, they start lying, and calling people names."
Demo Kid wrote: So many wingnuts, not enough time. Look in the mirror - As you just did there ? Start lying ? The truth should be taken seriously, while you have been telling half truths all along in an attempt to score points only in your own mind.
Shrug - I really don't care for Bush, but half of what you say about him is unproven claptrap. George Soros should do a better job in verifying facts better on the blogs that he funds so minions like you won't look so foolish in parroting them.
Posted by: KS on July 5, 2008 08:22 PMNever mind the fact that regime change in Iraq was official US policy ... established by CLINTON.
Never mind the fact that the damned liberals were knocking each other down to get to microphones:
Madeleine Albright, February 1st, 1998:
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998:
"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
Sandy Berger February 18th, 1998:
"He''ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."
Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry -- all Democrats October 9th, 1999
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Nancy Pelosi December 16th, 1998:
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Madeleine Albright November 10th, 1999:
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Senator Carl Levin September 19th, 2002:
"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002:
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore September 23rd, 2002:
"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Ted Kennedy September 27th, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Robert Byrd October 3rd, 2002:
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
John Kerry October 9th, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 2002:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Jay Rockefeller October 10th, 2002
"There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Senator Bob Graham December 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
John Kerry, January 23rd, 2003:
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."
The only question remaining is whether our little liberal friends have glaringly short memories or are willfully ignorant.
There you go again - Where did you dig up those quotes ? Unless you can cite the sources, I have a hard time believing they are accurate. Some of the alleged quotes may have been crude, but they are not as troubling as Barack Obama's.
"And the fact that you're dissecting and twisting Obama's discussions about his own racial identity is pretty damn troubling. Are you just insecure around African Americans or something?"
Those are quotes from Obama's books - look them up and see for yourself before shooting off your mouth and being drunk on the Obama kool aid. Yes, what he wrote is troubling and has a racist overtone. To answer your last question - if African-Americans are like Jeremiah Wright (his spiritual mentor), then I have a problem with them.
Posted by: KS on July 5, 2008 08:38 PMPosted by: KS on July 5, 2008 10:16 PM
Read the thread, moron. From @48:
meantime, as we speak about all the lies, we are delivering 550 tons of yellowcake uranium found in Iraq to Canada to be processed into fuel for power plants. Could this be the same yellowcake the liar Joe Wilson said Saddam wasn't buying? (that would be the liar Valerie Plame's husband)
From http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-cake6-2008jul06,0,4296828.story:
Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Hussein's nuclear efforts. U.N. inspectors had documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Persian Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the senior U.S. official said.
Posted by: demo kid on July 6, 2008 01:44 AM"Willfully ignorant"? I didn't quite see a quote in there about occupying the entire country! There's a difference between destroying a country's ability to make war and completely taking over the country itself.
Face it... your guy in the Oval Office did a remarkably poor job.
Posted by: demo kid on July 6, 2008 01:49 AMIt is all you right wingers can do, deflect, deflect, deflect.
Bush, and his fellow criminals said matter of fact that Saddam has WMD's. I even heard Cheney say Saddam could have a nuke within as little as 6 months.
It doesn't matter what anyone else said. They did not order an attack with no proof.
Bush had a hard on to invade Iraq for years, and said whatever it took to scare Americans into supporting his plan.
None of those mistaken, or cautious politicians above ordered an invasion, regardless what they thought.
Bush lied, Bush invaded, and Bush committed treason.
Reality sucks when you are on the wrong side of history Ragnar.
So Ragnar. How do you feel about our country losing 3 wars at the same time now?
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on July 6, 2008 08:51 AMDid you read the quotes?
It seems to me there were lots of comments about regime change and removing Saddam and all that. Once you put into lay the removal of an entire regime, you can't just walk out and leave the power vacuum that would ensue, you would be responsible for the civil war or the taking over of the country by another (eg Iran).
The issue at hand was not the WMD so much as who was the person wielding such. To have deposed Saddam and then walk away would have been far more irresponsible.
And taking over the country? We stayed to insure that the civilian government was able to assume control. Hardly rates as "taking over" as you suggest.
Hyperbole simply lessens any credibility you might have in the argument.
Posted by: Eyago on July 6, 2008 08:58 AMWhen a president lies to me straight faced, in order to take my country to war, I call that treason.
None of those other people ordered "Shock and Awe". I doubt most of them saw any of the CIA evidence that Saddam did not have any WMD's either.
"When one of Drumheller's colleagues pressed the matter, he was told, "It's time you learned it's not about intelligence anymore. It's about regime change.""
http://harpers.org/archive/2006/11/sb-on-the-brink-tyler-drumheller-1162499334
Bush didn't say we invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam. That would have been the truth.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on July 6, 2008 09:12 AMThe clinic is now open.
The quotes are supporting evidence, facts as it were, to support the argument AGAINST the claim that Bush lied us into the war. To lie, one must know something is true but tell you something different. These quotes are used to demonstrate that others believed the same thing that Bush did. The point is that people in the know, BELIEVED THE SAME THING.
You claim that Bush lied "straight faced". Yet you offer the scantest proof that he was lying. You offer nothing that shows he KNEW there was no threat from Iraq. Our intelligence agencies believed it, our politicians, including prominent Democrats believed it, foreign intelligence agencies believed it, and foreign governments believed it.
What you are claiming is that everyone BUT BUSH believed it and ONLY BUSH knew the truth and so he lied to invade Iraq.
For you to establish that he lied, you have to establish that he knew something but said something else. Your reference from Harper's is laughable. It is not a quote, it is a paraphrase, and it is not attributed to any person. It has no context beyond an impression that the reporter got from whomever he was talking to. He very easily could have inserted his own bias into the conversation and summed up what he thought the person was trying to "hide". Nor is the idea of regime change a new one since Clinton also had regime change as his official goal for Iraq. The fact some staffer parrots that does not negate the validity of the stated causes of the war from the official channels, especially since we do not know the staffer's position within the administration and his access to the decision making as a whole.
Come back with something more substantial if you are going to accuse your president of treason.
Europe is discarding it's socialist leaders, most of the G8 have already tossed them.
Obama thinks this is Canada, it is not, it is the USA.
I'm voting for McCain, because the alternative is the most liberal socialist member of the Senate.
No Thanks!
Posted by: GS on July 6, 2008 10:45 AM
Bush did not lie based on the facts presented at the time, as everyone else saw it the same way as shown by the quotes from Eyago. However, I will say that Bush used poor judgment and believe that his administration was predispositioned to seeing that we went to Iraq that was justified by the intelligence at the time, which turned out to be suspect later on. All that the Democrats in Congress could do was to make up excuses afterwards like they didn't know that a use of force meant invading - they were being disingenuous. Why didn't the Democrats in congress insist on passing a declaration of war before troops went in ? Because they weren't doing their job. The Republicans in Congress weren't doing their job either, which had to do with why they lost the majority in 2006.
Bush also mismanaged the first 3-1/2 years of the war under Rumsfield and did not have an exit strategy - which was unexcusable. That is when I turned against his war. The surge over the past year has worked pretty well and the framework of an exit strategy has been formulated. John McCain was one of the architects of the surge and believe that he can and will close the deal and bring home the troops, but look for bases to be established there. The public can be more sympathetic to a war we are winning now, which has improved over a year ago and the media is not reporting on it as much - because their motto is when it bleeds, it leads - that's another story for another time.
The progressives have wanted us to cut and run, which is equivalent to losing the war or just outright lose for a long time and many of them still do - because they want Bush and the Republicans to look bad and to hell with America's stature. That is why I say that if you feel that way - there is no way that you support the troops. They are also be negligent and ignorant of the enemies in the middle east, who would like to kill us if they had the opportunity. If a Democrat President has got us into a similar war, the rhetoric from the left would be quite different.
Posted by: KS on July 6, 2008 10:58 AMExpect apoplexy from the libs... and lies of omission when B-HO visits. They want and need Americans to believe they are miserable so they can present themselves as the rescuers... when in fact they are little different than serial abusers, sick, selfish purveyors of Munchausen by Proxy.
"I think we're at the irreversible point."
It has been a long hard fight but the troops on the ground in Iraq, both Iraqi and American are expressing optimism and seeing the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel.In the Mosul bastion, al-Qaedas remaining force made what is being called "a last stand" and they lost.
A huge operation to crush the 1,200 fighters who remained from a terrorist force once estimated at more than 12,000 began on May 10.Operation Lion's Roar, in which the Iraqi army combined forces with the Americans' 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, has already resulted in the death of Abu Khalaf, the Al-Qaeda leader, and the capture of more than 1,000 suspects.
Al-Qaeda is driven from Mosul bastion after bloody last stand
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 6, 2008 11:37 AMYou may wish to read a little more.
Congress shut off all fund to South Viet Nam gov. Even though the peace accords said we would support them. "oops"
PS and the person who spear headed the funds to be stopped. (Teddy Kennedy)
And one more demo... JFK changed the misson in Nam from helping to fighting. I know. I was there.
Stop watching PBS and learn a little.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on July 6, 2008 12:04 PMLying straight faced is not poor judgement. You can defend our lying president all you want. It doesn't make his lies true.
You like being lied to don't you?
You have to support Bush. It is part of your disease.
You need therapy. Living in a state of total denial can not be healthy.
By the way KS. How many trillion should we spend in Iraq? 5 trillion? 10 trillion? All the money we could actually be using to infiltrate, and take down Al Qaeda.
The only person "winning" in Iraq is Osama Bin Laden.
Face it.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on July 6, 2008 01:20 PMOh really? Well
"Iraqis lead final purge of Al-Qaeda" The UK is reporting what great progress the Iraqi forces and our troops are having driving Al-Qaeda out of Iraq.
You fail in your diatribe to realize that the success of the surge has been real.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4276486.ece
Why don't you read these facts!
Posted by: gs on July 6, 2008 01:32 PMBribing Sunni tribal leaders with weapons, cash, and training has helped to stabilize Al Anbar Province, and since they really don't like Al Qaeda, they have been helping us kick them out. The cease fire negotiated with Al Sadr also helped.
In fact not one single American Soldier was reported to have died this week in Iraq which is cause for celebration. (6 died on Afghanistan though)
Now for the bad news. Iraq will not be stable for many years, if ever. We are damned if we stay, because we can't afford to stay, and we are damned if we leave, because they may start killing each other without us stuck in the middle. Their government appears to be interested in only one thing. Looting ever penny they can. After years, they are not making the political moves it will take to bring their country together. Even though this was to be the reason for the surge, to buy them time for reconciliation as we were told. So much for what we were told right?
Our children will be saddled with trillions of debt, since Republicons would never ever agree to raise taxes, even to pay for something (even a needless war) they agreed we needed. Their only strategy is to borrow, borrow, and borrow some more. Screw the next generation or two or three.
Now, "driving Al Qaeda out of Iraq" statement? Al Qaeda was not in Iraq till we destabilized the country, only to help them train thousands of new terrorists. Way to go Bush. We can't have a war on terror if we can't create enough enemies to carry it on right Bush?
Since you love needless wars so much, why don't you go enlist.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on July 6, 2008 02:39 PMYeah, that is utter bullshit. I work in Federal law enforcement and the last time I checked, I had to go before a US Magistrate or district judge to obtain an arrest warrant for a crime against the US. Same with search warrants. A clear and concise affidavit outlining the probable cause, investigation, and the premises to be searched- and that's after the case has been accepted by the US Attorney's Office. Even if you are arrested through a complaint, such as the process I outlined above, you still must be indicted by a grand jury- a jury of your peers, as per the US Constitution- the one you claim is shredded. Take a stroll down to the US Courthouse on the 700 block of Stewart St in Seattle and ask an assistant US Attorney about your concerns. Be prepared for unchecked laughter and possible mockery.
Squirrel
Posted by: Secret Squirrel on July 6, 2008 03:12 PM
Can you prove that Bush lied ? Answer: No, you can only allege that he lied about WMD's. Otherwise, you are blowing smoke up you rear end. Can you read ? Bush was predispositioned to going into Iraq and part of the reason of him going in was for oil. Bill Clinton did not tell you the truth about terrorism - so would you call him a liar or just naive ? What part of the truth do you think Bush did not tell and I don't mean about the WMD's ?
"Lying straight faced is not poor judgement. You can defend our lying president all you want. It doesn't make his lies true.
You have to support Bush. It is part of your disease."
I am not defending him - just stating the facts and until someone proves otherwise, those are the facts. You are making stuff up and whether it is about someone I support or not - doesn't matter/ either prove it, call it an allegation or try another argument. However, for the recond - Bush did lie in 2000 in his campaign when he said that would not engage in nation building, which is what what he has done in Iraq. You have Bush Derangement syndrome - there's only 7 more months left of him. I believe that Bush is incompetent and that is not support. If you still think so, you are dumber than I thought. Bush was not curious and seemed to be dumb. Furthermore, he did a half-assed job of fighting the war on terror as he did not enforce protection of the Mexican Border. he did not vote for Bush in 2004, nor did I vote for Kerry.
"Again, do you not understand what I wrote ?"
No, because you are babbling incoherently - pure flatulence !!
"You need therapy. Living in a state of total denial can not be healthy."
Liberalism is a mental disorder and you have it bad ! Denial about what ? You are the one who can't handle the truth when you can't handle the fact that the Dems in Congress are incompetent. The approval rating of Congress is under 20%, worse than Bush. I don't have much confidence in the Republicans in the war on terror but less confidence in the Democrats, especially under Obama. If the Democrats would mobilize against the enemy on the outside who is capable of causing us real harm instead of be the enemy within, even though we have a bad president - I would have more respect for them.
"By the way KS. How many trillion should we spend in Iraq? 5 trillion? 10 trillion? All the money we could actually be using to infiltrate, and take down Al Qaeda."
You tell me how much we have spent. So, should we retreat and appease the enemy because we have spent too much ? I believe that is what the Democrats might do - if they are in control - which would be dangerous.
The only thing I can concur on is that Osama Bin Laden is sitting pretty somewhere in Pakistan, where this war on terrorism has hiked oil prices up to $144/barrel - as he hoped for 8 years ago. His goal is to cause our economy to be decimated and we have not dealt effectively with it. Bin Laden should be dead and we need to continue the hunt for him. Finally, Afghanistan needs to be secured. (Note: Some Bush supporters may not like what I wrote, but if they can't handle this, then they are the ones in denial)
Posted by: KS on July 6, 2008 08:29 PMBin Laden has already won in Iraq. Ain't gonna be no victory.
We still need to deal with the people that want to kill us without making more people join them.
A tough act for a president that does not really seem to care about anything except helping his rich friends. Gonna be real tough for Barack too. I hope he has it in 'em. I'm not gloating about November, but McCain's attempts of running his campaign are as bad as Bush running our country. Gotta admit that!
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on July 6, 2008 09:52 PMThe headline should be "Danny Westneat has extremely poor memory." Vietnam? Watergate? Stagflation? Anyone who thinks what is going on now is even CLOSE to as bad as those things is on crack.
Hm. Maybe the headline should be "Danny Westneat is on crack."
@97: you (typically) know nothing about what is going on in Iraq, and I guarantee you that Obama disagrees -- or soon will disagree -- with you, as does almost everyone who has been over there.