Hillary’s ‘American Dream’: Stuck in the Middle With You [Archive]

View Full Version : Hillary’s ‘American Dream’: Stuck in the Middle With You

dissention

07-27-2005, 07:21 PM

Arianna is always good, and I thought this was a particularly good read.

Hillary’s ‘American Dream’: Stuck in the Middle With You
07.27.2005 by Arianna Huffington

So there's a fight brewing in the Democratic Party. And it has nothing to do with John Roberts. Instead, it was prompted by Hillary Clinton assuming her role as head of the DLC’s “American Dream Initiative” and immediately calling for a “ceasefire” in the fight over the direction the party should be taking.

Right. Sure. I believe a little translation is in order. Because in almost every instance where a politician or political group calls for a "ceasefire," or "a stop to the mud-slinging," or "unity," what they’re really saying is: "I'm calling on the other side to stop disagreeing with me, so we can move forward in the only right way. Which is my way."

That’s exactly the tack taken by John Sweeney in trying to keep the AFL-CIO under his sway, calling on workers to maintain “a united labor movement”. But Andy Stern and James Hoffa didn’t take the bait -- and are moving forward with their efforts to remake the labor movement. And does anyone doubt that it will be for the better -- both for working people and for the country -- to have a reinvigorated union movement instead of a united status quo that, over the last 50 years, has gone from representing 35 percent of working people to representing 12.5 percent?

The same holds true for the Democratic Party. What better time to have a battle for the soul of the party than now, when it is faced with the prospect of becoming a permanent minority party -- and still over a year before the 2006 midterms?

According to the DLC, Democrats need to show their willingness to fight terror...by capitulating to the Republicans on pretty much every front. In fact, what the Democrats need is to ignore the siren songs urging them to move toward the victors and, instead, reclaim the Party’s true identity and challenge the GOP head-on on its disastrous pursuit of the war on terror.

It’s hard to have an “American Dream Initiative” headed by someone whose every recent move has been driven by triangulating calculation.

“I have always tried to strike a balance,” Hillary once said. “I think you have to view the world as it is, not as you would wish it to be.” That's a long, long way from RFK’s famous line (quoting Shaw): "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?'"

Remember, Hillary is the one who, before the 2004 election, cited the president as someone “we owe a debt of gratitude” to for capturing Saddam. Which is playing right into the GOP’s hands. The Democrats will never return to power so long as they allow Republicans to present themselves as the party best suited to keep us safe from terror, instead of exposing all the ways in which they have actually left us much more vulnerable and unsafe than before.

The good news is that the DLC’s disingenuous call for unity was a bust… except in the way it united the progressive blogosphere. Because if there's one thing that can bring progressive bloggers together, it's another clueless call by the DLC for capitulation "unity."

Long gone are the days when the DLC was the only game in town. Now the pushback was instant, with bloggers tearing into the DLC, each sounding different notes but together creating a clear chorus of dissent.

Among the highlights:

HuffPoster David Sirota, nailing the fact that following the DLC path hasn’t exactly paid big dividends at the ballot box over the last 10 years.

Pandagon pointing out that Democrats have been "moving to the center" since 1992. And that, as an electoral strategy, it's failed since 1993!

Markos on the disingenuousness of the "ceasefire" language.

Steve Gilliard making the killer point that “a drunk monkey could have made a mockery of the GOP’s claims to any sort of stewardship on national security."

Matthew Yglesias on the lose-lose nature of Hillary. If you're going to get a nominee who's attacked for advocating progressive policies, it'd be nice if she advocated progressive policies.

Oliver Willis dressing down the DLC for playing the blame game while ignoring the major errors of their electoral approach.

Athenae from First-Draft offering the DLC's Will Marshall some loving advice: “What we have to do, Will my love…”

And Chris Bowers at Mydd advising potential Hillary primary opponents that taking her on now means taking on the DLC.

In other words: No, DLC, your call to show how tough we are by capitulating to the Republicans has not gone over well. If the blogs have any say -- and they increasingly do -- we're going to show how tough we really are by being... tough. And progressive.

Ready to rumble?

Posted at 12:16 AM

If she runs in 2008, be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

dissention

07-27-2005, 07:24 PM

Sam Seder is going ape**** tonight on The Majority Report, tune in if you can. :woohoo:

GateandGarden

07-27-2005, 07:30 PM

That's not my dream at all. :shrug:

:laugh:

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 07:32 PM

StevieNicksEO17

07-27-2005, 07:33 PM

That's not my dream at all. :shrug:

I thought of you too when I first read the title!

GateandGarden

07-27-2005, 07:35 PM

I thought of you too when I first read the title!:lol::lol: I wind up doing that every time someone mentions her! :lol: I'm like, Huh? What about me? And then I realize. :lol:

By the way, y'all, I thought High Priestess was banned but he or she is online looking at The Ledge right now! :shrug:

dissention

07-27-2005, 07:36 PM

Much in this proves my point that although W should be impeached for lying about Iraq, the D's NEVER wil do it because in general their hands are as dirty as the R's and they are not about to give up Bill Clinton to rid us of W.

I've agreed on that point for months. The spineless Democrats are just as responsible as the Repugs. Where were they when they should have been fighting this administration tooth and nail?

I am so sick and tired of the Dems running to the middle, more and more every day. The party has changed so much that it's scary. Hillary Clinton, someone that I had a good amount of respect for, has proven herself to be someone who will sell out without batting a single lash. Ceasefire, my arse. Just recently, she said that we should send more troops to Iraq! What is this woman smoking? Her constant pandering to the fundies isn't enough?

There's nothing in the middle of the road but dead armadillos and a yellow goddamned stripe.

GateandGarden

07-27-2005, 07:42 PM

I am so sick and tired of the Dems running to the middle, more and more every day. The party has changed so much that it's scary. Hillary Clinton, someone that I had a good amount of respect for, has proven herself to be someone who will sell out without batting a single lash. Ceasefire, my arse. Just recently, she said that we should send more troops to Iraq! What is this woman smoking? Her pandering to the fundies isn't enough?Yeah, this is very discouraging. People thought there wasn't a good candidate to vote for in the last election. From what I've seen so far, 2008 would be much worse! I imagine I might be hearing even more people saying they're just not voting.

dissention

07-27-2005, 07:45 PM

Yeah, this is very discouraging. People thought there wasn't a good candidate to vote for in the last election. From what I've seen so far, 2008 would be much worse! I imagine I might be hearing even more people saying they're just not voting.

I'm telling you, if she is nominated, I'll claw my eyes out. I hope she loses her Senate seat in a landslide, too. She's insane with all of this DLC garbage and, honestly, never in my day did ever imagine that it would be Hillary Clinton to move the Democratic party to the right. If you had predicted that a few years ago, I would have asked you what you were smoking.

I must say that I'm thankful there isn't any sort of buzz about Obama running (oh, have mercy on us if it happens!), but with our luck, he'll get the VP slot on the Hillary ticket.

GypsySorcerer

07-27-2005, 07:51 PM

I must say that I'm thankful there isn't any sort of buzz about Obama running (oh, have mercy on us if it happens!), but with our luck, he'll get the VP slot on the Hillary ticket.

Truthfully, I think it will happen.

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 07:57 PM

I've agreed on that point for months. The spineless Democrats are just as responsible as the Repugs. Where were they when they should have been fighting this administration tooth and nail?

I am so sick and tired of the Dems running to the middle, more and more every day. The party has changed so much that it's scary. Hillary Clinton, someone that I had a good amount of respect for, has proven herself to be someone who will sell out without batting a single lash. Ceasefire, my arse.

There's nothing in the middle of the road but dead armadillos and a yellow goddamned stripe.

Yep. and I get the theory on playing the middle - I mean Kerry almost won. In fact, I could even respect playing the middle if they were at least consistent in what they say. I and anyone with an ounce of a brain should know the D's hedged on Iraq and they played right into Rove's web by doing so - flip flop flip flop. The D's thought they could stradle the fence and if W's inane plan had worked, they thought they could have basked in that glory :rolleyes:

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 08:01 PM

Much in this proves my point that although W should be impeached for lying about Iraq, the D's NEVER wil do it because in general their hands are as dirty as the R's and they are not about to give up Bill Clinton to rid us of W.
Jason, you're loony~ in that ENTIRE article there wasnt ONE thing that proved any such point you've been propounding, tho you ardently wish it did.

By the way Comparing Bill Clinton's Iraq antics to GW's is like comparing apples and oranges. give it up. You're NOT making the case. Nope :distress:

As for Arianna, she's sure singing a different tune than she sang many years before when she was running. Now, she almost sounds as though shes urging the Dems to fight (and coming across as a closet "roots" Dem herself contrasted with her old position......I must admit, Im a bit surprised at her newfound popularity. Isnt she married to one of the GOP OLD GUARD? or wasnt she?

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 08:02 PM

Jason, you're loony~ in that ENTIRE article there wasnt ONE thing that proved any such point you've been propounding, tho you ardently wish it did.

How about this line:

Remember, Hillary is the one who, before the 2004 election, cited the president as someone “we owe a debt of gratitude” to for capturing Saddam. Which is playing right into the GOP’s hands. The Democrats will never return to power so long as they allow Republicans to present themselves as the party best suited to keep us safe from terror, instead of exposing all the ways in which they have actually left us much more vulnerable and unsafe than before.

Boy - she sure sounds pissed at W and the fact that we went to war with Iraq at all :rolleyes:

By the way Comparing Bill Clinton's Iraq antics to GW's is like comparing apples and oranges. give it up. You're NOT making the case. Nope :distress:

As for Arianna, she's sure singing a different tune than she sang many years before when she was running. Now, she almost sounds as though shes urging the Dems to fight (and coming across as a closet "roots" Dem herself contrasted with her old position......I must admit, Im a bit surprised at her newfound popularity. Isnt she married to one of the GOP OLD GUARD? or wasnt she?

Then why isn't Hillary going for the jugular with W :shrug: Good Luck answering that one :laugh: Instead, she praises W for completing what her husband and the D's continued after Bush I started it. That you in any way defend the D's action in Iraq is blind partisanship.

dissention

07-27-2005, 08:05 PM

As for Arianna, she's sure singing a different tune than she sang many years before when she was running. Now, she almost sounds as though shes urging the Dems to fight (and coming across as a closet "roots" Dem herself contrasted with her old position......I must admit, Im a bit surprised at her newfound popularity. Isnt she married to one of the GOP OLD GUARD? or wasnt she?

Arianna left the Republicans and her husband years ago. :shrug: Go read her book Fanatics and Fools, she calls out the Republicans and the Democrats for the swine that they are. She's one of the few people out there that doesn't have blinders on.

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 08:06 PM

Arianna left the Republicans and her husband years ago. :shrug: Go read her book Fanatics and Fools, she calls out the Republicans and the Democrats for the swine that they are. She's one of the few people out there that doesn't have blinders on.

Well, there's you and me :wavey: BTW - still smoking :eek:

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 08:07 PM

I'm telling you, if she is nominated, I'll claw my eyes out. I hope she loses her Senate seat in a landslide, too. She's insane with all of this DLC garbage and, honestly, never in my day did ever imagine that it would be Hillary Clinton to move the Democratic party to the right. If you had predicted that a few years ago, I would have asked you what you were smoking.

I must say that I'm thankful there isn't any sort of buzz about Obama running (oh, have mercy on us if it happens!), but with our luck, he'll get the VP slot on the Hillary ticket.

I personally dont see Hillary running, but IF she decided to run, you'd see such a furor from the right...they cant STAND a strong intelligent woman in POWER :mad: and she is savvy.....for all you know this current stance is smoke and mirrors to lull the right wingers and everyone else into a false sense of security. Once she attains office, then OFF COME THE GLOVES BABY :blob1: Bush is so transparent, that he couldnt possibly fool anyone. (maybe Jason!)
I for one knew what we were in for because it isnt hard to read the writing on the wall....(WMD anyone?) At any rate, I wish Barbara Boxer were interested in running, she'd kick ASS. She makes me proud to be a Californian. Especially in a state that seems to have a fondness for celebrity mayors/governors....how sad.:distress:

dissention

07-27-2005, 08:08 PM

How about this line:

Remember, Hillary is the one who, before the 2004 election, cited the president as someone “we owe a debt of gratitude” to for capturing Saddam. Which is playing right into the GOP’s hands. The Democrats will never return to power so long as they allow Republicans to present themselves as the party best suited to keep us safe from terror, instead of exposing all the ways in which they have actually left us much more vulnerable and unsafe than before.

Boy - she sure sounds pissed at W and the fact that we went to war with Iraq at all :rolleyes:

Then why isn't Hillary going for the jugular with W :shrug: Good Luck answering that one :laugh: Instead, she praises W for completing what her husband and the D's continued after Bush I started it. That you in any way defend the D's action in Iraq is blind partisanship.

Because she's pandering, wants support from the moderates, and is hoping that all of this insane **** she's spewing will do something for her. But if she keeps it up, she's toast. She'll lose re-election and her prospects at '08 will be even more dire than they already are.

Hillary Clinton is a kiss-ass.

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 08:10 PM

I personally dont see Hillary running, but IF she decided to run, you'd see such a furor from the right...they cant STAND a strong intelligent woman in POWER :mad: and she is savvy.....for all you know this current stance is smoke and mirrors to lull the right wingers and everyone else into a false sense of security. Once she attains office, then OFF COME THE GLOVES BABY :blob1: Bush is so transparent, that he couldnt possibly fool anyone. (maybe Jason!)
I for one knew what we were in for because it isnt hard to read the writing on the wall....(WMD anyone?) At any rate, I wish Barbara Boxer were interested in running, she'd kick ASS. She makes me proud to be a Californian. Especially in a state that seems to have a fondness for celebrity mayors/governors....how sad.:distress:

W has not fooled me - I have repeatedly said I disagree with his lying to go to war in Iraq and his mess afterward. I think he should be impeached for those. I am just saying the D's are right there in the middle of it with him and they cannot get out. Please get your facts correct before asserting them.

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 08:12 PM

Because she's pandering, wants support from the moderates, and is hoping that all of this insane **** she's spewing will do something for her. But if she keeps it up, she's toast. She'll lose re-election and her prospects at '08 will be even more dire than they already are.

Hillary Clinton is a kiss-ass.

I agree except that the nomination as of now is her's if she wants it. Remember she and her husband can raise more money that most other D's combined - and it is the money that talks. Personally, I do not hate Hillary - I just see her for the full of crap person she is. Having said that, her crap is better than most.

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 08:12 PM

Remember, Hillary is the one who, before the 2004 election, cited the president as someone “we owe a debt of gratitude” to for capturing Saddam. Which is playing right into the GOP’s hands. The Democrats will never return to power so long as they allow Republicans to present themselves as the party best suited to keep us safe from terror, instead of exposing all the ways in which they have actually left us much more vulnerable and unsafe than before.

NOWHERE in there do I find anyone saying the Dems are as guilty based on what Clinton did....Give me a break...

Then why isn't Hillary going for the jugular with W Good Luck answering that one Instead, she praises W for completing what her husband and the D's continued after Bush I started it. That you in any way defend the D's action in Iraq is blind partisanship.

As I said: smoke and mirrors, false sense of security....and I DEFY you to show me ANYWHERE where I defended any action in Iraq. All I said was Clinton had faulty info and didnt know it. Much different than Bush KNOWING the info was faulty. PUH LEEZ :shrug:

dissention

07-27-2005, 08:13 PM

I personally dont see Hillary running, but IF she decided to run, you'd see such a furor from the right...they cant STAND a strong intelligent woman in POWER :mad: and she is savvy.....for all you know this current stance is smoke and mirrors to lull the right wingers and everyone else into a false sense of security. Once she attains office, then OFF COME THE GLOVES BABY :blob1: Bush is so transparent, that he couldnt possibly fool anyone. (maybe Jason!)

Oh, dear. You know I love you, but I'm so sick of that "scared-of-strong-women" line of talking that I could ralph. It has nothing to do with her skirt, it has everything to do with losing the office of the presidency and having to put up with such a high profile Democrat.

Sorry, but I'll actively campaign against her if she runs. Her campaign will be the death of the Democratic party. One could argue that it's already dead, but her campaign would finally seal the coffin.

Hillary Clinton is so transparent that she couldn't possibly fool anyone. Her lips are too **** brown from kissing ass for my liking.

I for one knew what we were in for because it isnt hard to read the writing on the wall....(WMD anyone?) At any rate, I wish Barbara Boxer were interested in running, she'd kick ASS. She makes me proud to be a Californian. Especially in a state that seems to have a fondness for celebrity mayors/governors....how sad.:distress:

Barbara Boxer would get my vote in an instant. SHE is a Democrat.

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 08:14 PM

W has not fooled me - I have repeatedly said I disagree with his lying to go to war in Iraq and his mess afterward. I think he should be impeached for those. I am just saying the D's are right there in the middle of it with him and they cannot get out. Please get your facts correct before asserting them.

OH Jason! you originally said there WERE WMD and that we needed to get Saddam before he used them to be on the SAFE side. !!!!! you only admitted you were wrong after the UN inspectors and everyone else said there WERE NO WMD and that the info was faulty! YOU ARE PULLING A JOHN KERRY! :lol: :lol:
I can go find your old post if you want to be humilitated again.........

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 08:16 PM

NOWHERE in there do I find anyone saying the Dems are as guilty based on what Clinton did....Give me a break...

For the last time, hundreds of thousands and by some estimates millions died under the Oil for Food Program. I suppose you are okay with that because Clinton did it - murder is murder. Then he does a missle strike to take the heat off of his impeachment. BTW - I suppose you were okay with those :rolleyes: Your blind faith in him is astounding. But, I really do not want to talk about it anymore because you are too stubborn to admit you are wrong and you most definitely are here. I mean W is a lying ass, but Clinton and the D's were not any better.

As I said: smoke and mirrors, false sense of security....and I DEFY you to show me ANYWHERE where I defended any action in Iraq. All I said was Clinton had faulty info and didnt know it. Much different than Bush KNOWING the info was faulty. PUH LEEZ :shrug: How do you know what Clinton knew? Plus, sending missles during the impeachement - nice and it sure sets him apart from W :rolleyes:

dissention

07-27-2005, 08:16 PM

I agree except that the nomination as of now is her's if she wants it. Remember she and her husband can raise more money that most other D's combined - and it is the money that talks. Personally, I do not hate Hillary - I just see her for the full of crap person she is. Having said that, her crap is better than most.

Of course the nom is hers, but she'll sink faster on Election Day than Say You Will sank on the Billboard charts! Her nomination will spell sudden death at our prospects of ousting the Repugs in three years.

I don't hate her, either, I simply have next to nothing in terms of respect for her. She's a kiss-ass and a sell-out who deserves that sell-out louse of a husband that she's got.

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 08:16 PM

Diss: what do you mean:
it has everything to do with losing the office of the presidency and having to put up with such a high profile Democrat.
She never lost that office? she never ran...whatchoo smokin???? :cool:

BTW: Barbara Boxer IS the BOMB.

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 08:19 PM

OH Jason! you originally said there WERE WMD and that we needed to get Saddam before he used them to be on the SAFE side. !!!!! you only admitted you were wrong after the UN inspectors and everyone else said there WERE NO WMD and that the info was faulty! YOU ARE PULLING A JOHN KERRY! :lol: :lol:
I can go find your old post if you want to be humilitated again.........

I said the world via the UN though there were WMD. I also said SH had WMD because we gave them to him and he used them. Those are factually correct statements unless you live in fantasyland.

I also still think SH is responsible for his downfall because SH refused to comply with the UN until the very bitter end and by then it was too late to trust him - he made it so easy for W and his cronies. I also think SH hid some of the crap he still had and we will never find it. But, we did not find any and that is that. Nice try though :rolleyes:

BTW - Clinton killed probably millions based on the wrong intelligence and he still stands by that - how humiliating for you to support that.

dissention

07-27-2005, 08:19 PM

NOWHERE in there do I find anyone saying the Dems are as guilty based on what Clinton did....Give me a break...

The Dems are as guilty as the Republicans are for Iraq because THEY ENABLED THEM.

Forget Bill Clinton, his Iraq policies were ten times better and 180 degrees different than Bush's. What people are getting at is that the Democrats are spineless cowards who did next to nothing when it came to preventing Iraq and then after we invaded, they praised it to the heavens for the most part. Wasn't it Kerry that said four months before Election Day that knowing what he now knows, he still would have authorized the war? Didn't Hillary Clinton call for more troops in Iraq last week? What a bunch of numbnuts.

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 08:21 PM

For the last time, hundreds of thousands and by some estimates millions died under the Oil for Food Program. I suppose you are okay with that because Clinton did it - murder is murder. Then he does a missle strike to take the heat off of his impeachment. BTW - I suppose you were okay with those :rolleyes: Your blind faith in him is astounding. But, I really do not want to talk about it anymore because you are too stubborn to admit you are wrong and you most definitely are here. I mean W is a lying ass, but Clinton and the D's were not any better.

How do you know what Clinton knew? Plus, sending missles during the impeachement - nice and it sure sets him apart from W :rolleyes:

Clinton wasnt responsible for the Oil for Food scam, Saddam was! he figured out a way to capitalize even during an embargo! Ya gotta hand it to the man, hes crazy like a fox! You cant blame Clinton for that one dear so sad :p

As for his missle strike, I dont for one minute believe it was to divert anyones attention. Nobody paid any attention to that missle strike at the time because sex was a much more compelling topic. And just because YOU say Im wrong doesnt make it so. Get over yerself! All Im pointing out to you is Arianna didnt say word ONE to back your silly impeachment argument. It wasnt even on the radar of her blog. The truth is, its YOUR pet argument and you can HAVE it :shrug:

dissention

07-27-2005, 08:22 PM

Diss: what do you mean:

She never lost that office? she never ran...whatchoo smokin???? :cool:

BTW: Barbara Boxer IS the BOMB.

That isn't the point I was making. My point was that they've tried to assassinate her character for ages because her husband was Clinton and, partly, because in the later stages of his presidency, they knew she was going to run for public office as soon as her louse left office. The prospect of her getting back to the White House pisses them off, not because she's a woman, but because she's a DEMOCRAT and a CLINTON.

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 08:24 PM

The Dems are as guilty as the Republicans are for Iraq because THEY ENABLED THEM.

Forget Bill Clinton, his Iraq policies were ten times better and 180 degrees different than Bush's. What people are getting at is that the Democrats are spineless cowards who did next to nothing when it came to preventing Iraq and then after we invaded, they praised it to the heavens for the most part. Wasn't it Kerry that said four months before Election Day that knowing what he now knows, he still would have authorized the war? Didn't Hillary Clinton call for more troops in Iraq last week? What a bunch of numbnuts.

I think they did worse than enabling - I think they tried to play both sides against the middle and it backfired on them. They were hedging in case W actually easily won over Iraq, which very well could have happened with a little luck and given that much of the Iraqi refused to fight in 1991. They wanted to be able to say "Hey - we were with W" now reelect us. It backfired - pure and simple.

As for Clinton's policies - they were not that much different in that they both have killed in the name of political gain and under the guise of WMD. To be that makes them more alike than apart even though Clinton never advocated a preemptive invasion.

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 08:24 PM

The Dems are as guilty as the Republicans are for Iraq because THEY ENABLED THEM.

Forget Bill Clinton, his Iraq policies were ten times better and 180 degrees different than Bush's. What people are getting at is that the Democrats are spineless cowards who did next to nothing when it came to preventing Iraq and then after we invaded, they praised it to the heavens for the most part. Wasn't it Kerry that said four months before Election Day that knowing what he now knows, he still would have authorized the war? Didn't Hillary Clinton call for more troops in Iraq last week? What a bunch of numbnuts.
Well, Id hardly call it enabling when you're outnumbered? :shrug:

Even if the Dems DID vote for it, apparently they were fooled by the White House Spin machine anyway.......I think this is the first time in our Nation's history that we've actually been fed outright LIES. MANIPULATED by PROPANDA to rival the old USSR!

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 08:25 PM

. . . As for his missle strike, I dont for one minute believe it was to divert anyones attention . . . .

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

There's a bridge in Brooklyn for sale as well :laugh: :laugh:

dissention

07-27-2005, 08:26 PM

YOU ARE PULLING A JOHN KERRY! :lol: :lol:

Ouch, that's below the belt. :laugh:

I'm crossing my fingers that a kick-ass candidate runs against Kerry in the next election, I want that ****er out.

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 08:28 PM

Well, Id hardly call it enabling when you're outnumbered? :shrug:

Even if the Dems DID vote for it, apparently they were fooled by the White House Spin machine anyway.......I think this is the first time in our Nation's history that we've actually been fed outright LIES. MANIPULATED by PROPANDA to rival the old USSR!

Then why are the leaders of that party still doing it :shrug: I guess they are still being manipulated by essentially the same evidence Clinton and they used to bomb Iraq and support the Oil for Food program, which though they killed probably millions, are just radically different than W invading Iraq on the same pretense :rolleyes:

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 08:29 PM

I said the world via the UN though there were WMD. I also said SH had WMD because we gave them to him and he used them. Those are factually correct statements unless you live in fantasyland.

I also still think SH is responsible for his downfall because SH refused to comply with the UN until the very bitter end and by then it was too late to trust him - he made it so easy for W and his cronies. I also think SH hid some of the crap he still had and we will never find it. But, we did not find any and that is that. Nice try though :rolleyes:

BTW - Clinton killed probably millions based on the wrong intelligence and he still stands by that - how humiliating for you to support that.

Where did I ever say I supported the killing of innocents? WHERE?
All I said was Clinton acted on faulty info. There's a WORLD of difference between finding out your info was faulty AFTER the fact and going into a situation already knowing the info was faulty as Bush did.....two completely different things and THAT is what I am saying so stop putting words in my mouth!

dissention

07-27-2005, 08:29 PM

Well, Id hardly call it enabling when you're outnumbered? :shrug:

But they gave up and did nothing. :shrug: I'm sorry, where were the other Ted Kennedy's, screaming about not going into Iraq? They were pushovers and with the exception of a few lovely Dems, they bent over for the current regime.

Even if the Dems DID vote for it, apparently they were fooled by the White House Spin machine anyway.......

BULL**** ALERT.

I think this is the first time in our Nation's history that we've actually been fed outright LIES. MANIPULATED by PROPANDA to rival the old USSR!

Gulf of Tonkin, anyone?

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 08:30 PM

Ouch, that's below the belt. :laugh:

I'm crossing my fingers that a kick-ass candidate runs against Kerry in the next election, I want that ****er out.

and its untrue as well. She can spin it all day long. I never said that. I said the world via the UN thought SH had WMD and that we gave SH WMD and he used them in the, I think, late 80's. Thus, I was making a factual statement, but facts are something she cannot stand when they go against that saint known as Clinton.

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 08:31 PM

Indeed, murder is murder, there's no innocence on Clinton's behalf simply because he has a charm.
nobody said he was innocent. Im only saying he could be forgiven for what he didnt know. PERIOD. Bush on the other hand KNEW.
Again, world of difference.

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 08:31 PM

Where did I ever say I supported the killing of innocents? WHERE?
All I said was Clinton acted on faulty info. There's a WORLD of difference between finding out your info was faulty AFTER the fact and going into a situation already knowing the info was faulty as Bush did.....two completely different things and THAT is what I am saying so stop putting words in my mouth!

Again, Clinton used that info to his political advantage by bombing during his impeachment - that it did not work does not belie his intention. But, blibdly support him you will :rolleyes:

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 08:32 PM

Indeed, murder is murder, there's no innocence on Clinton's behalf simply because he has a charm.

Amen!

By the way, we have been agreeing a lot lately and it is a little scary.

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 08:33 PM

But they gave up and did nothing. :shrug: I'm sorry, where were the other Ted Kennedy's, screaming about not going into Iraq? They were pushovers and with the exception of a few lovely Dems, they bent over for the current regime.

I actually agree with this...Im appalled at what the party has become...

dissention

07-27-2005, 08:33 PM

I actually agree with this...Im appalled at what the party has become...

Which is why I am no longer a Dirty Democrat. :D :laugh:

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 08:34 PM

. . . Gulf of Tonkin, anyone?

Contract With America anyone - and ole Billy Boy signed that one too. I get that it was not war, but I am confident many have died under it.

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 08:35 PM

Then why are the leaders of that party still doing it :shrug: I guess they are still being manipulated by essentially the same evidence Clinton and they used to bomb Iraq and support the Oil for Food program, which though they killed probably millions, are just radically different than W invading Iraq on the same pretense :rolleyes:

We have NO POWER any more. The takeover is virtually complete. All there is LEFT is lone voices. I dont agree with it but I can certainly see it....

I wish there were a voice of reason that would step up, like John McCain or something...this is just depressing....:distress:

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 08:35 PM

nobody said he was innocent. Im only saying he could be forgiven for what he didnt know. PERIOD. Bush on the other hand KNEW.
Again, world of difference.

Bush knew the intelligence Clinton used to kill millions of people was false and Clinton himself did not know it though Clinton essentially gave that intelligence to W. That makes no sense. Surely you see that.

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 08:37 PM

and its untrue as well. She can spin it all day long. I never said that. I said the world via the UN thought SH had WMD and that we gave SH WMD and he used them in the, I think, late 80's. Thus, I was making a factual statement, but facts are something she cannot stand when they go against that saint known as Clinton.

You were one of the only people to support the idea of going in based on WMD and I'll remind you that the UN was the one who said they WERENT THERE! the only spinner here is YOU! Yew must be freakin DIZZY from all yer spinning :]:]:]

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 08:37 PM

We have NO POWER any more. The takeover is virtually complete. All there is LEFT is lone voices. I dont agree with it but I can certainly see it....

I wish there were a voice of reason that would step up, like John McCain or something...this is just depressing....:distress:

I agree and disagree - again, I think Kerry almost won (according the official numbers wrong though they may be) - - I think it was Kerry's to lose and he did so by appearing weak. Had he a spine, he would be in the White House now. So, the D's still have lots of power, they just need to assert it correctly or at least in a more masterful manner than Rove. Until they do so, until they stop reacting and start causing reaction, they will never win.

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 08:41 PM

You were one of the only people to support the idea of going in based on WMD and I'll remind you that the UN was the one who said they WERENT THERE! the only spinner here is YOU! Yew must be freakin DIZZY from all yer spinning :]:]:]

Then explain the UN consistently saying the WMD were there - and they said it for about ten years. Good Luck!

But just to help you out, here is the last UN Res.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution

[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq’s continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

– All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq’s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

– Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Annex

Text of Blix/El-Baradei letter

United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission

The Executive Chairman
International Atomic Energy Agency

The Director General

8 October 2002

Dear General Al-Saadi,

During our recent meeting in Vienna, we discussed practical arrangements that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA. As you recall, at the end of our meeting in Vienna we agreed on a statement which listed some of the principal results achieved, particularly Iraq’s acceptance of all the rights of inspection provided for in all of the relevant Security Council resolutions. This acceptance was stated to be without any conditions attached.

During our 3 October 2002 briefing to the Security Council, members of the Council suggested that we prepare a written document on all of the conclusions we reached in Vienna. This letter lists those conclusions and seeks your confirmation thereof. We shall report accordingly to the Security Council.

In the statement at the end of the meeting, it was clarified that UNMOVIC and the IAEA will be granted immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to sites, including what was termed “sensitive sites” in the past. As we noted, however, eight presidential sites have been the subject of special procedures under a Memorandum of Understanding of 1998. Should these sites be subject, as all other sites, to immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, UNMOVIC and the IAEA would conduct inspections there with the same professionalism.

H.E. General Amir H. Al-Saadi
Advisor
Presidential Office
Baghdad

Iraq

We confirm our understanding that UNMOVIC and the IAEA have the right to determine the number of inspectors required for access to any particular site. This determination will be made on the basis of the size and complexity of the site being inspected. We also confirm that Iraq will be informed of the designation of additional sites, i.e. sites not declared by Iraq or previously inspected by either UNSCOM or the IAEA, through a Notification of Inspection (NIS) provided upon arrival of the inspectors at such sites.

Iraq will ensure that no proscribed material, equipment, records or other relevant items will be destroyed except in the presence of UNMOVIC and/or IAEA inspectors, as appropriate, and at their request.

UNMOVIC and the IAEA may conduct interviews with any person in Iraq whom they believe may have information relevant to their mandate. Iraq will facilitate such interviews. It is for UNMOVIC and the IAEA to choose the mode and location for interviews.

The National Monitoring Directorate (NMD) will, as in the past, serve as the Iraqi counterpart for the inspectors. The Baghdad Ongoing Monitoring and Verification Centre (BOMVIC) will be maintained on the same premises and under the same conditions as was the former Baghdad Monitoring and Verification Centre. The NMD will make available services as before, cost free, for the refurbishment of the premises.

The NMD will provide free of cost: (a) escorts to facilitate access to sites to be inspected and communication with personnel to be interviewed; (b) a hotline for BOMVIC which will be staffed by an English speaking person on a 24 hour a day/seven days a week basis; (c) support in terms of personnel and ground transportation within the country, as requested; and (d) assistance in the movement of materials and equipment at inspectors’ request (construction, excavation equipment, etc.). NMD will also ensure that escorts are available in the event of inspections outside normal working hours, including at night and on holidays.

Regional UNMOVIC/IAEA offices may be established, for example, in Basra and Mosul, for the use of their inspectors. For this purpose, Iraq will provide, without cost, adequate office buildings, staff accommodation, and appropriate escort personnel.

UNMOVIC and the IAEA may use any type of voice or data transmission, including satellite and/or inland networks, with or without encryption capability. UNMOVIC and the IAEA may also install equipment in the field with the capability for transmission of data directly to the BOMVIC, New York and Vienna (e.g. sensors, surveillance cameras). This will be facilitated by Iraq and there will be no interference by Iraq with UNMOVIC or IAEA communications.

Iraq will provide, without cost, physical protection of all surveillance equipment, and construct antennae for remote transmission of data, at the request of UNMOVIC and the IAEA. Upon request by UNMOVIC through the NMD, Iraq will allocate frequencies for communications equipment.

Iraq will provide security for all UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel. Secure and suitable accommodations will be designated at normal rates by Iraq for these personnel. For their part, UNMOVIC and the IAEA will require that their staff not stay at any accommodation other than those identified in consultation with Iraq.

On the use of fixed-wing aircraft for transport of personnel and equipment and for inspection purposes, it was clarified that aircraft used by UNMOVIC and IAEA staff arriving in Baghdad may land at Saddam International Airport. The points of departure of incoming aircraft will be decided by UNMOVIC. The Rasheed airbase will continue to be used for UNMOVIC and IAEA helicopter operations. UNMOVIC and Iraq will establish air liaison offices at the airbase. At both Saddam International Airport and Rasheed airbase, Iraq will provide the necessary support premises and facilities. Aircraft fuel will be provided by Iraq, as before, free of charge.

On the wider issue of air operations in Iraq, both fixed-wing and rotary, Iraq will guarantee the safety of air operations in its air space outside the no-fly zones. With regard to air operations in the no-fly zones, Iraq will take all steps within its control to ensure the safety of such operations.

Helicopter flights may be used, as needed, during inspections and for technical activities, such as gamma detection, without limitation in all parts of Iraq and without any area excluded. Helicopters may also be used for medical evacuation.

On the question of aerial imagery, UNMOVIC may wish to resume the use of U-2 or Mirage overflights. The relevant practical arrangements would be similar to those implemented in the past.

As before, visas for all arriving staff will be issued at the point of entry on the basis of the UN Laissez-Passer or UN Certificate; no other entry or exit formalities will be required. The aircraft passenger manifest will be provided one hour in advance of the arrival of the aircraft in Baghdad. There will be no searching of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or of official or personal baggage. UNMOVIC and the IAEA will ensure that their personnel respect the laws of Iraq restricting the export of certain items, for example, those related to Iraq’s national cultural heritage. UNMOVIC and the IAEA may bring into, and remove from, Iraq all of the items and materials they require, including satellite phones and other equipment. With respect to samples, UNMOVIC and IAEA will, where feasible, split samples so that Iraq may receive a portion while another portion is kept for reference purposes. Where appropriate, the organizations will send the samples to more than one laboratory for analysis.

We would appreciate your confirmation of the above as a correct reflection of our talks in Vienna.

Naturally, we may need other practical arrangements when proceeding with inspections. We would expect in such matters, as with the above, Iraq’s co-operation in all respect.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) (Signed)
Hans Blix Mohamed ElBaradei
Executive Chairman Director General
United Nations Monitoring, International Atomic Energy Agency
Verification and Inspection Commission

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
_____________________________________________________

Boy - sure sounds like the UN though there were no WMD and this was all much to do about nothing :rolleyes:

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 08:41 PM

Bush knew the intelligence Clinton used to kill millions of people was false and Clinton himself did not know it though Clinton essentially gave that intelligence to W. That makes no sense. Surely you see that.

wait a minute here: dissect your sentence:
Bush knew the intelligence Clinton used to kill millions of people was false

Clinton himself did not know it

Do you see that? What is so hard for you to accept that Bush knew Clinton's info was false (DOWNING STREET MEMO ANYONE?) and yet acted anyway?

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 08:42 PM

wait a minute here: dissect your sentence:

Do you see that? What is so hard for you to accept that Bush knew Clinton's info was false (DOWNING STREET MEMO ANYONE?) and yet acted anyway?

have you resorted to taking my statements out of context now :laugh:

Again, you forgice Clinton and blame Bush - that is laughable.

dissention

07-27-2005, 08:43 PM

We have NO POWER any more. The takeover is virtually complete. All there is LEFT is lone voices. I dont agree with it but I can certainly see it....

I wish there were a voice of reason that would step up, like John McCain or something...this is just depressing....:distress:

JOHN MCCAIN?!

The man who claimed to be great friends with Kerry and then, after it was splashed across the papers, he retracted his statement and said he had never even been invited over for dinner at the Kerry household? John McCain can lick my crack. He's got no decency. Besides, he's too busy wasting tax money going after 'roids.

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 08:48 PM

JOHN MCCAIN?!

The man who claimed to be great friends with Kerry and then, after it was splashed across the papers, he retracted his statement and said he had never even been invited over for dinner at the Kerry household? John McCain can lick my crack. He's got no decency. Besides, he's too busy wasting tax money going after 'roids.

Don't forget how he sucked up to W after stabbed him in the back :eek:

dissention

07-27-2005, 08:49 PM

Can I just say that I want to marry Sam Seder? I LOVE HIM. :laugh:

I wish Majority Report was longer...

dissention

07-27-2005, 08:50 PM

Don't forget how he sucked up to W after stabbed him in the back :eek:

Oh my, that was sickening. Those push polls were so incredibly offensive and the attacks on his wife and child were unforgivable, but McCain bent over and took it with no qualms.

gldstwmn

07-27-2005, 09:00 PM

If she runs in 2008, be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

Hilly or Arianna? :lol: You already know Hillary is running. :nod:

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 09:01 PM

Hilly or Arianna? You already know Hillary is running. :nod:

Actually, the two together would not be a bad ticket :eek:

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 09:01 PM

Jason, regarding your UN resolution post, (sorry my browser crashed before I could respond) no one is saying Saddam wasnt guilty of non compliance but it was a UN inspector, Hans Blix that said there was NO WMD. Two different issues. The UN sanctioned Saddam for failure to comply with inspections. Bush insisted there were WMD even tho he knew there werent. You cant keep mixing apples and oranges my dear. just because the UN sanctioned Saddam for failure to comply with inspections doesnt mean they were saying the WMD existed.
The way I see it, if they ever existed, they were either used or they were transported away long since.....or hidden very VERY well. considering all the bombs that have been dropped on that place, the fact that there's been no obvious WMD signature....I'd say they're gone, one way or another.

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 09:02 PM

dissention

07-27-2005, 09:02 PM

Hilly or Arianna? :lol: You already know Hillary is running. :nod:

I would cream myself if Arianna ran!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :blob1:

dissention

07-27-2005, 09:03 PM

Actually, the two together would not be a bad ticket :eek:

Of course it would. Hillary needs to crawl back under her rock.

I call for an Arianna Huffington/Sam Seder ticket. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/iloveyou.gif

:laugh:

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 09:04 PM

I would cream myself if Arianna ran!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :blob1:

I be sure and Fed Ex you a moist towel if it happens :cool:

But, considering she is a little bit of a hypocrite (don't drive an SUV, but I can fly in my provate jet to my huge power burning house) and she failed dismally in Calif., there is no way in hell she running. Please, I think she is not a US citizen.

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 09:05 PM

Of course it would. Hillary needs to crawl back under her rock.

I call for an Arianna Huffington/Sam Seder ticket. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/iloveyou.gif

:laugh:

Why don't ya just through that harpy Rhandi Rhodes in there as well. BTW 0 her name sounds like a porn star :eek: :laugh:

DrummerDeanna

07-27-2005, 09:09 PM

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 09:11 PM

Don't forget how he sucked up to W after stabbed him in the back :eek:

I always thought McCain represented deliberation...and common sense. Im a bit surprised to hear objections to him but then, I'll be the first to admit I dont know all that much about GOP politicians, they are just too foreign to me to comprehend.

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 09:13 PM

I agree and disagree - again, I think Kerry almost won (according the official numbers wrong though they may be) - - I think it was Kerry's to lose and he did so by appearing weak. Had he a spine, he would be in the White House now. So, the D's still have lots of power, they just need to assert it correctly or at least in a more masterful manner than Rove. Until they do so, until they stop reacting and start causing reaction, they will never win.
Ive had to backtrack to see prior posts, but you may have something here...
as for the "official numbers" As far as I am concerned we will never know because the results were RIGGED. by various methods. :shrug:

dissention

07-27-2005, 09:14 PM

Why don't ya just through that harpy Rhandi Rhodes in there as well. BTW 0 her name sounds like a porn star :eek: :laugh:

My love for Randi Rhodes knows no bounds. I adore adore adore adore that woman. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/iloveyou.gif

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 09:16 PM

Ive had to backtrack to see prior posts, but you may have something here...
as for the "official numbers" As far as I am concerned we will never know because the results were RIGGED. by various methods. :shrug:

and by both sides as far as I am concerned - though people concentrate on the R's more.

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 09:18 PM

have you resorted to taking my statements out of context now :laugh:

Again, you forgice Clinton and blame Bush - that is laughable.

LOOK AGAIN! nothing is out of context, all I did was put some space between your sentences. these are YOUR words, and actually your meaning is a bit unclear and fyi, its not uneard of to parse a sentence to decipher its meaning, particularly if the writer (YOU) is unclear.... :sorry:

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 09:18 PM

My love for Randi Rhodes knows no bounds. I adore adore adore adore that woman. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/iloveyou.gif

I am not a fan of how she comes across though I do agree with much of what she says. To me, she is the liberal Sean Hannity in the sense of obnoxious behavior - she is much smarter than Hannity though. In fact, Hannity is the village idiot everyone would hesitate to piss on if he were aflame.

dissention

07-27-2005, 09:18 PM

She isn't going to lose her Senate Seat...

I don't know...the longer she diddles the DLC, the tougher time she's going to have when re-election rolls around. She'll probably win, but I can hope that she doesn't. :laugh:

dissention

07-27-2005, 09:20 PM

I am not a fan of how she comes across though I do agree with much of what she says. To me, she is the liberal Sean Hannity in the sense of obnoxious behavior - she is much smarter than Hannity though. In fact, Hannity is the village idiot everyone would hesitate to piss on if he were aflame.

Put a microphone in my hand and that's what I'd sound like. :laugh:

She makes me laugh so much that it should be a crime and you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who relies on the facts as much as she does.

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 09:21 PM

LOOK AGAIN! nothing is out of context, all I did was put some space between your sentences. these are YOUR words, and actually your meaning is a bit unclear and fyi, its not uneard of to parse a sentence to decipher its meaning, particularly if the writer (YOU) is unclear.... :sorry:

What I said was, if you read it instead of disecting it, is Clinton gave W almost all of the info W used to justify the war. I mean Clinton advocated W's actions and still does. Clinton just now says he would have waited for the inspections to run their course. Clinton still stands behind the WMD info. So, he most certainly is just as guilty. But, you will never admit that.

I mean what happened to make W know, as you assert he did, that that same information was false. And - if W knew it, why didn't Clinton when Clinton is the one who gave it to W and the one who to this day stands behind it?

dissention

07-27-2005, 09:22 PM

Mike Malloy just now:

"Oh my gawd, he's such a dumbass."

:laugh:

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 09:23 PM

Put a microphone in my hand and that's what I'd sound like. :laugh: . . .

Then you are a harpy as well :p :p :p

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 09:23 PM

The UN was there to search for something it thought SH did not have?
it DETERMINED Saddam had no WMD AFTER inspection. But it never insisted there were weapons there...the UN role was to MAKE SURE nothing was there. :shrug:

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 09:24 PM

it DETERMINED Saddam had no WMD AFTER inspection. But it never insisted there were weapons there...the UN role was to MAKE SURE nothing was there. :shrug:

Do you hear what you are saying? Why would they be there in the first place if they thought there was nothing to search for. Thus, the only conclusion is they thought SH had WMD and because he was not complying with either turning those over or proving he or we detroyed them - the entire body of evidence before the UN supports that.

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 09:26 PM

and by both sides as far as I am concerned - though people concentrate on the R's more.

Ive yet to hear ONE word about the Dems rigging ANYTHING! Good Grief!
the reason people concentrate on the R's more is because they are doing it more! They got their feet wet in Bush's first coup and then really perfected it for the second. :eek: :shrug: :eek: :shrug:

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 09:26 PM

dissention

07-27-2005, 09:27 PM

Ive yet to hear ONE word about the Dems rigging ANYTHING! Good Grief!
the reason people concentrate on the R's more is because they are doing it more! They got their feet wet in Bush's first coup and then really perfected it for the second. :eek: :shrug: :eek: :shrug:

Have you learned nothing, dear? :laugh: You know Jason is going to come back at you with the Florida recounts and how Gore only wanted selective recounts.

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 09:29 PM

Do you hear what you are saying? Why would they be there in the first place if they thought there was nothing to search for. Thus, the only conclusion is they thought SH had WMD and because he was not complying with either turning those over or proving he or we detroyed them - the entire body of evidence before the UN supports that.

What I am saying is that the UN expected Saddam to comply way back when, before the Oil for Food fiasco, before Bush, before Clinton! It is BUSH who made the argument that SH had WMD. The UN just wanted to ascertain and confirm or deny. As SH said all along, there were NO WMD. Bush knew that but wanted SH out of the way (what better excuse than non-compliance?) and access to Iraq's oil. Plain and simple. :shrug:

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 09:31 PM

Have you learned nothing, dear? :laugh: You know Jason is going to come back at you with the Florida recounts and how Gore only wanted selective recounts.

Well, he did in the beginning because he refused to look elsewhere to demonstrate that other recounts in less favorable jurisdictions were necessary, which he could have done under the law - but could not be bothered to care about those people in the pan handle.

But, that is not what I am talking about. A little research will demonstrate my point and I ain't doing it.

I will readily admit though that the apparent R fraud was greater. But, fraud is fraus as far as I am concerned.

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 09:33 PM

What I am saying is that the UN expected Saddam to comply way back when, before the Oil for Food fiasco, before Bush, before Clinton! It is BUSH who made the argument that SH had WMD. The UN just wanted to ascertain and confirm or deny. As SH said all along, there were NO WMD. Bush knew that but wanted SH out of the way (what better excuse than non-compliance?) and access to Iraq's oil. Plain and simple. :shrug:

Well, SH said the same thing to Clinton and Clinton didn't believe him. In fact, Clinton didn't believe SH so much that he gave W essentially all of the intelligence on which W relied to go to war. So, the only conclusion is Clinton and W were in bed together on this issue. Again, Clinton to this day stands behind the information he gave W, which you assert W somehow knew was patently false because SH told him so, which Clinton didn't believe either.

That you do not see this is a little scary.

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 09:33 PM

Have you learned nothing, dear? :laugh: You know Jason is going to come back at you with the Florida recounts and how Gore only wanted selective recounts.

Gore wanted recounts in the counties in which he felt the registered Dems were in the majority and the "official" results plainly were at odds with the number of votes one could reasonably expect in Democratic counties. When you read later that people were KEPT from voting via fraudulent means, votes thrown out, votes conveniently "found" later....I mean it all adds up! Except for Jason that is........ :rolleyes:

gldstwmn

07-27-2005, 09:34 PM

Isnt she married to one of the GOP OLD GUARD? or wasnt she?

She divorced Congressman Michael Huffington (old oil money). He ran against Dianne Feinstein and lost. Then he came out of the closet.

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 09:36 PM

Gore wanted recounts in the counties in which he felt the registered Dems were in the majority and the "official" results plainly were at odds with the number of votes one could reasonably expect in Democratic counties. When you read later that people were KEPT from voting via fraudulent means, votes thrown out, votes conveniently "found" later....I mean it all adds up! Except for Jason that is........ :rolleyes:

and the D's have never ever done any of that :rolleyes:

Also and no, there were reports of other discrepencies but Gore did not want to look in those counties. Isn't it amazing he concentrated only on traditionally D counties. I guess that was just a coincidence :rolleyes:

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 09:37 PM

Well, SH said the same thing to Clinton and Clinton didn't believe him. In fact, Clinton didn't believe SH so much that he gave W essentially all of the intelligence on which W relied to go to war. So, the only conclusion is Clinton and W were in bed together on this issue. That you do not see this is a little scary.
There is NO way Clinton and Bush would EVER be "in bed together" on any issue... AGAIN, in words of ONE SYLLABLE: Clin.ton. be.lieved. his. in.tell.i.gence. to be acc.u.rate. Facts proved that he was wrong but Bush did not care. He had an A. GEN. DA.: OIL, and get Sad.dam OUT.

This whole thing is gonna bite Bushybaby in the buttholio you mark my words.

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 09:38 PM

There is NO way Clinton and Bush would EVER be "in bed together" on any issue... AGAIN, in words of ONE SYLLABLE: Clin.ton. be.lieved. his. in.tell.i.gence. to be acc.u.rate. Facts proved that he was wrong but Bush did not care. He had an A. GEN. DA.: OIL, and get Sad.dam OUT.

This whole thing is gonna bite Bushybaby in the buttholio you mark my words.

Then why is Clinton still behind Bush's reliance on that evidence. You talk a good game, but have yet to answer that question.

Also, Clinton and Bush I are fast friends now - isn't that just convenient.

BTW - those are polysyllabic words :rolleyes:

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 09:40 PM

and the D's have never ever done any of that :rolleyes:

Also and no, there were reports of other discrepencies but Gore did not want to look in those counties. Isn't it amazing he concentrated only on traditionally D counties. I guess that was just a coincidence :rolleyes:

No, it isnt a coincidence, it makes perfect sense to look VERY closely at the counties that you expect to have a majority Dem vote, and when they dont, what is wrong with that picture? FRAUD baby FRAUD. pure and simple.

again: when did the Dems ever do any "of that?" WHEN??????

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 09:41 PM

No, it isnt a coincidence, it makes perfect sense to look VERY closely at the counties that you expect to have a majority Dem vote, and when they dont, what is wrong with that picture? FRAUD baby FRAUD. pure and simple.

again: when did the Dems ever do any "of that?" WHEN??????

You need to look that up. It is there - in fact, I just read it a few days ago. But, you never will because you illogically cannot see past your blind hatred for R's. I can and do.

gldstwmn

07-27-2005, 09:41 PM

Actually, the two together would not be a bad ticket :eek:

Yeah, the infamous Dynasty fountain scene with Krystal and Alexis comes to mind.

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 09:42 PM

Yeah, the infamous Dynasty fountain scene with Krystal and Alexis comes to mind.

Didn't we do that scene in Vegas :eek: :laugh: :eek: :laugh:

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 09:43 PM

Then why is Clinton still behind Bush's reliance on that evidence. You talk a good game, but have yet to answer that question.

Also, Clinton and Bush I are fast friends now - isn't that just convenient.

BTW - those are polysyllabic words :rolleyes:

That is easy too: BECAUSE IT fit with Bush's agenda. Why cant you see that?

If I want to promote a bit of propaganda, (and I had no scruples) it wouldnt bother me at ALL to promote faulty info as real, especially if it came from a source that many people believed in the first place....You need a lesson in smoke and mirrors apparently..............

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 09:44 PM

That is easy too: BECAUSE IT fit with Bush's agenda. Why cant you see that?

If I want to promote a bit of propaganda, (and I had no scruples) it wouldnt bother me at ALL to promote faulty info as real, especially if it came from a source that many people believed in the first place....You need a lesson in smoke and mirrors apparently..............

Well, why is Clinton still behind it - does he have the same agenda as W? Why does he still say W properly relied on that information. I am still wating on that answer.

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 09:44 PM

You need to look that up. It is there - in fact, I just read it a few days ago. But, you never will because you illogically cannot see past your blind hatred for R's. I can and do.

Ill thank YOU to back your own statements mister! btw: a lot depends upon who your info is from.....we wouldnt want to rely on bogus info now WOULD WE? :eek:

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 09:46 PM

Ill thank YOU to back your own statements mister! btw: a lot depends upon who your info is from.....we wouldnt want to rely on bogus info now WOULD WE? :eek:

Why should I bother when you cannot back your own.

I mean you just cannot abide the D's ever doing anything wrong and so blindly so, you will not look anything up that might ever go against your wrong views. BTW - I posted it a long time ago, around the time of the elections.

gldstwmn

07-27-2005, 09:46 PM

I would cream myself if Arianna ran!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :blob1:
Wouldn't it be funny if they changed the law for Arnold and Arianna ran against him (again)? That was a hoot.

gldstwmn

07-27-2005, 09:47 PM

I be sure and Fed Ex you a moist towel if it happens :cool:

But, considering she is a little bit of a hypocrite (don't drive an SUV, but I can fly in my provate jet to my huge power burning house) and she failed dismally in Calif., there is no way in hell she running. Please, I think she is not a US citizen.

It doesn't matter if she's a citizen or not. She wasn't born here.

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 09:48 PM

It doesn't matter if hse's a citizen or not. She wasn't born here.

that is what I meant :o :sorry: :o

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 09:48 PM

Well, why is Clinton still behind it - does he have the same agenda as W? Why does he still say W properly relied on that information. I am still wating on that answer.

NO NO and NO. Bush didnt "properly rely" on anything! I believe that when he got that faulty info from Clinton, he was prob jumping with GLEE....because THERE was the mechanism by which he could "legitimately" go into Iraq.......
The agendas were completely different. Bush wanted SH oil and didnt care HOW he got there, whether by hook or by crook. Clinton didnt seek to acquire Iraq's oil OR invad Iraq. Again, as you know, INTENT (let me repeat that) INTENTis a big part of evaluating a person's actions. :nod:

gldstwmn

07-27-2005, 09:48 PM

She isn't going to lose her Senate Seat...

The Democrats in New York are a mess - but the Repoublican? well - everyone's F***ed up in New York :laugh:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

gldstwmn

07-27-2005, 09:49 PM

I always thought McCain represented deliberation...and common sense. Im a bit surprised to hear objections to him but then, I'll be the first to admit I dont know all that much about GOP politicians, they are just too foreign to me to comprehend.

They actually hugged. It was vomit inducing.

gldstwmn

07-27-2005, 09:50 PM

My love for Randi Rhodes knows no bounds. I adore adore adore adore that woman. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/iloveyou.gif

She loves you more. :nod:

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 09:51 PM

NO NO and NO. Bush didnt "properly rely" on anything! I believe that when he got that faulty info from Clinton, he was prob jumping with GLEE....because THERE was the mechanism by which he could "legitimately" go into Iraq.......
The agendas were completely different. Bush wanted SH oil and didnt care HOW he got there, whether by hook or by crook. Clinton didnt seek to acquire Iraq's oil OR invad Iraq. Again, as you know, INTENT (let me repeat that) INTENTis a big part of evaluating a person's actions. :nod:

Then why did Clinton say and still say W did - please answer that question :laugh:

I agree Clinton did not want Iraq's oil, but though W may have wanted it, he doesn't have it. Yes, US companies made lots of $$$ over there, but surely there were easier ways to accomplish that. But, Clinton gave Halliburton no bid contracts as well. Hmmmmm - I am seeing a patter :eek:

gldstwmn

07-27-2005, 09:52 PM

Put a microphone in my hand and that's what I'd sound like. :laugh:

She makes me laugh so much that it should be a crime and you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who relies on the facts as much as she does.

She had me going pretty good this afternoon.

dissention

07-27-2005, 09:52 PM

She loves you more. :nod:

:laugh:

Did you hear her on Friday when that woman called in and they got into a toussle over which site you get when you Google "failure"? I just about peed myself when she said "You're dumb as a rock."

gldstwmn

07-27-2005, 09:53 PM

Mike Malloy just now:

"Oh my gawd, he's such a dumbass."

:laugh:

Sometimes Malloy is just a necessity.

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 09:53 PM

Then why is Clinton still behind Bush's reliance on that evidence. You talk a good game, but have yet to answer that question.

Also, Clinton and Bush I are fast friends now - isn't that just convenient.

BTW - those are polysyllabic words :rolleyes:

I know that, that is why they are split.

Clinton and Bush I fast friends? I hardly think so, although I think maybe they have found some common ground. As for Bush I, I cant really point to any one thing that HE did that was heinous except for being tied to Reagan, who was the genesis of most of our present troubles.

dissention

07-27-2005, 09:54 PM

Sometimes Malloy is just a necessity.

That clip he played a few minutes ago where Bush was praising corn and energy was one that I had never heard before. Christ, that was hysterical.

dissention

07-27-2005, 09:55 PM

She had me going pretty good this afternoon.

Did you watch Left of the Dial when it was on HBO? She is one tough chick.

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 09:56 PM

Why should I bother when you cannot back your own.

I mean you just cannot abide the D's ever doing anything wrong and so blindly so, you will not look anything up that might ever go against your wrong views. BTW - I posted it a long time ago, around the time of the elections.

I look up PLENTY, mister! And I defy you to prove your assertion the Dems rigged ANYTHING. btw: I have no problem backing any of my statements, and taking up space with my PROOF. no problem.

gldstwmn

07-27-2005, 09:57 PM

Have you learned nothing, dear? :laugh: You know Jason is going to come back at you with the Florida recounts and how Gore only wanted selective recounts.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Which was all he could do according the the Florida law at that time. Don't make me get that copy of Vanity Fair out again.http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/kao/otn/pblindfolded.gif

gldstwmn

07-27-2005, 10:00 PM

:laugh:

Did you hear her on Friday when that woman called in and they got into a toussle over which site you get when you Google "failure"? I just about peed myself when she said "You're dumb as a rock."

No I missed that one. :(

estranged4life

07-27-2005, 10:01 PM

I almost posted about Hillary & company wanting the Democrats to head towards the middle 2 days ago after seeing a news story about how the DLC figures they must get the support of the pro-gun folkz (Among others) in order to have any chance of winning in 2008...The story I saw on TV said the DLC needs to move away from liberal side of the Democratic party towards a middle grounds to attract those moderate voters who can be swayed either way to vote.

What was funny outside at the DLC meeting were a group of liberal Democrats protesting this new stance...They were VERY vocal in their dis-pleasure!!!

dissention

07-27-2005, 10:04 PM

No I missed that one. :(

Oh my, it was PRICELESS. Randi said if you Google "failure," Bush's official bio on the White House website will come up. The caller said no, it was whitehouse.org that came up. Randi kept telling her that it was the official site and finally got tired of her, said "You're as dumb as a rock," and hung up. :laugh:

gldstwmn

07-27-2005, 10:05 PM

Oh my, it was PRICELESS. Randi said if you Google "failure," Bush's official bio on the White House website will come up. The caller said no, it was whitehouse.org that came up. Randi kept telling her that it was the official site and finally got tired of her, said "You're as dumb as a rock," and hung up. :laugh:

Gawd, I love her. :laugh:

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 10:06 PM

irishgrl

07-27-2005, 10:11 PM

*sigh* much as I'd like to continue yanking Jason's chain, Ive gotta to watch Rambo with my son.....ahhhhhh the joys of censored television...... :eek:

what a perfect opportunity to show him how the establishment is EVIL! :eek:

estranged4life

07-27-2005, 10:17 PM

I am an Independent...This coming election's mudslinging schenanigans should make the war on terror seem like "Saturday, in the park...I think it was the fourth of July"!!!

I tried helpin' ya Demos this past election (Even though I dont care for the Franken-Kerry monster)...But if Hillary is running I pray an Independent is on the ballot, Cause otherwise I will sit this election out.

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 10:38 PM

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Which was all he could do according the the Florida law at that time. Don't make me get that copy of Vanity Fair out again.http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/kao/otn/pblindfolded.gif

and I will have to point out yet again that nothing in the law prevented Gore from presenting for review other, less favorable districts in which there were discrepencies, however slight. But, Gore could not be bothered. He instead looked only to counties favorable to him. Then Gore insisted on no comsistent standard under the vague Florida law that indicated "intent" was all that was needed.

But, in the end, the USSC ruled and when it did, that was the law and the end of the discussion. Note - I think they ruled unwisely because the case was not ripe for review. But, it does not matter because they ruled.

strandinthewind

07-27-2005, 10:39 PM

irishgrl

07-28-2005, 07:04 AM

You were yanking my chain - I thought you were just babbling incoherently :]

hmmm time to get yer ears cleaned out my dear! you apparently have WAXY YELLOW BUILDUP! :p

irishgrl

07-28-2005, 07:09 AM

What I said was, if you read it instead of disecting it, is Clinton gave W almost all of the info W used to justify the war. I mean Clinton advocated W's actions and still does. Clinton just now says he would have waited for the inspections to run their course. Clinton still stands behind the WMD info. So, he most certainly is just as guilty. But, you will never admit that.

I mean what happened to make W know, as you assert he did, that that same information was false. And - if W knew it, why didn't Clinton when Clinton is the one who gave it to W and the one who to this day stands behind it?

Bush didnt know it when Clinton first gave him the info, (as in when he took office) but he sure as hell knew better before he invaded Iraq. so, NO Clinton ISNT as guilty. He didnt know any better, Bush (by the time he invaded) DID.
Give it up Jason, your horse aint running....:shrug:

irishgrl

07-28-2005, 07:17 AM

Oh, dear. You know I love you, but I'm so sick of that "scared-of-strong-women" line of talking that I could ralph.

Then I suggest you hie yerself over to yer local public library and check out
The Republican War Against Women, by Tanya Meilich AND
Backlash by Susan Faludi

better yet: buy yer own copy.

Its NO accident that the entrenched WHITE MALE w/PROPERTY ethic is doing everything they can to limit women's opportunities. NOSIR. The Good Old Boys know in their shriveled up hearts that Women are fast filling up the power slots and one of the best ways to prevent that is to 1) keep them barefoot and pregnant and 2) keep them out of the classrooms and boardrooms by keeping them barefoot and pregnant. When the playing field is EVEN, women surge ahead. If you dont believe me, you need to look at educational studies that show girls are surging ahead in the classrooms and boys are falling behind.

strandinthewind

07-28-2005, 08:40 AM

Bush didnt know it when Clinton first gave him the info, (as in when he took office) but he sure as hell knew better before he invaded Iraq. so, NO Clinton ISNT as guilty. He didnt know any better, Bush (by the time he invaded) DID.
Give it up Jason, your horse aint running....:shrug:

Well, how did Bush know it. Where and when was his epiphany? You have yet to explain that and instead illogically rely on incorrect blanket statements.

Also and for the last time, please explain why Clinton, his wife, Kerry, and the majority of the D Party still stand behind this evidence not only as factual, but as a justification for W to do what he did, which brings me back to Hillary's 2004 quote in the original post of this thread in which she praised W for getting rid of SH. Why would she praise W for that if she thought he went into Iraq on a ruse. I mean if they all now know that the info. was bogus and that W was so horrible in the way he used it after he somehow found out it was false after the altruistic Clinton gave it to him, then why are the D's still defending its use and truth. Once again, you have no answer for that and instead allude to W somehow finding out it was patently false and then you have no comment on why the Clintons and the majority of the D party stand by its veracity. That you do not concede you are wrong here is astonishing but par for the course.

strandinthewind

07-28-2005, 08:46 AM

Then I suggest you hie yerself over to yer local public library and check out
The Republican War Against Women, by Tanya Meilich AND
Backlash by Susan Faludi

better yet: buy yer own copy.

Its NO accident that the entrenched WHITE MALE w/PROPERTY ethic is doing everything they can to limit women's opportunities. NOSIR. The Good Old Boys know in their shriveled up hearts that Women are fast filling up the power slots and one of the best ways to prevent that is to 1) keep them barefoot and pregnant and 2) keep them out of the classrooms and boardrooms by keeping them barefoot and pregnant. When the playing field is EVEN, women surge ahead. If you dont believe me, you need to look at educational studies that show girls are surging ahead in the classrooms and boys are falling behind.

Ah here is the male bashing again. The poor females, they are meant always to following six feet behind the males and there have been no positive steps to correct that in the last 2000 years :rolleyes: Those bad males :laugh:

Hmmm - who is the Sec. of State - hmmmmm

strandinthewind

07-28-2005, 09:03 AM

LOL - I found this article and while the author is an a$$ - the quotes are accurate - so, I'll post it:

If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People -- Version 3.0
by John Hawkins
Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction...

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

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

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

__________________________________________________________

Boy, those D's sure were not in the same boat as W in the war in Iraq :rolleyes: - should make for an easy impeachment :rolleyes:

Also, I bolded B. Boxer's comments just for grins :cool:

strandinthewind

07-28-2005, 09:11 AM

and here are some more from Pres. Clinton:

Clinton defends successor's push for war

Says Bush 'couldn't responsibly ignore' chance Iraq had WMDs

(CNN) -- Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.

Pressed on whether the Iraq war was worth the cost to the United States, Clinton said he would not have undertaken the war until after U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix "finished his job."

Weapons inspectors led by Blix scoured Iraq for three and a half months before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 but left after President Bush issued an ultimatum to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to leave the country.

"I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn't agree with the timing of the attack," Clinton said.

Clinton blamed the Abu Ghraib prison abuses on poorly trained National Guard personnel and higher-ups in the Bush administration.

The former president said he was not surprised by the abuses committed by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib but that he was surprised by their extent.

"There is no excuse for that," Clinton said.

Clinton blamed the abuses on the higher echelons of the Bush administration.

"The more we learn about it, the more it seems that some people fairly high up, at least, thought that this was the way it ought to be done," he said.

Implying that the United States should lead by example, Clinton said of the abuses, "No. 1, we can't pull stunts like that, and No. 2, when we do, whoever is responsible has to pay."

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq

____________________________________________________________

Boy that Clinton sure is chomping at the bit to impeach W.

dissention

07-28-2005, 12:08 PM

Then I suggest you hie yerself over to yer local public library and check out
The Republican War Against Women, by Tanya Meilich AND
Backlash by Susan Faludi

better yet: buy yer own copy.

I suggest everyone goes to the library and gets out a copy of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank. Might give some of you guys an idea as to why Democrats will never reach those voters, not even by playing to the middle like the whores that they are.

strandinthewind

07-28-2005, 12:27 PM

I suggest everyone goes to the library and gets out a copy of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank. Might give some of you guys an idea as to why Democrats will never reach those voters, not even by playing to the middle like the whores that they are.

I often think playing it to the middle would be okay if they licked on thing asnd stuck to it. I mean the cast majority of the far left voted for Kerry despite his moderate nature. So, he lost no votes there. The problem was the middle, which by definition is far larger than the extremes, didn't buy into what they perceived as his wishy washy nature. They figured sort of and incorrectly IMO "why vote for Bush light when comparatively Bush will do a better job." I think Clinton was a MASTER at playing to the middle and still maintaining integrity with your average voter. The 2006 elections will, though, IMO be the same ole same ole in that Rove will define the issues and the D's will be lead around by the nose. IMO, what the D's need to do is go on the attack with issues like abortion and gay rights, which oddly enough and though mostly irrelevant in the big scheme of things like hunger, health care, education, etc. They need to start with commercials explaining in five words or less that though you as a Christian or whatever may be against gay people and abortions, the US is not run by canon. There is a way to do this and win.

dissention

07-28-2005, 12:49 PM

I often think playing it to the middle would be okay if they licked on thing asnd stuck to it. I mean the cast majority of the far left voted for Kerry despite his moderate nature. So, he lost no votes there. The problem was the middle, which by definition is far larger than the extremes, didn't buy into what they perceived as his wishy washy nature. They figured sort of and incorrectly IMO "why vote for Bush light when comparatively Bush will do a better job." I think Clinton was a MASTER at playing to the middle and still maintaining integrity with your average voter. The 2006 elections will, though, IMO be the same ole same ole in that Rove will define the issues and the D's will be lead around by the nose. IMO, what the D's need to do is go on the attack with issues like abortion and gay rights, which oddly enough and though mostly irrelevant in the big scheme of things like hunger, health care, education, etc. They need to start with commercials explaining in five words or less that though you as a Christian or whatever may be against gay people and abortions, the US is not run by canon. There is a way to do this and win.

Nope, playing to the middle will never work. They end up looking like Republican-lite, which makes people look at them and figure that if it's between those two sides, they might as well go with the actual Republican instead of someone that's as transparent as crystal. The Democrats' run to the middle is seen as desperate and phoney, like they're trying to pull one over on everyone and it creates resentment.

strandinthewind

07-28-2005, 12:53 PM

Nope, playing to the middle will never work. They end up looking like Republican-lite, which makes people look at them and figure that if it's between those two sides, they might as well go with the actual Republican instead of someone that's as transparent as crystal. The Democrats' run to the middle is seen as desperate and phoney, like they're trying to pull one over on everyone and it creates resentment.

Well, they have been in the middle ever since Carter :shrug: Maybe I am confused by what you mean by the left. If you mean completely denounce the war in Iraq and withdraw all troops now, abortion on demand at any mother's age and at anytime, no religion ever at all in politics, etc. - no candidate will ever win on that - moreover, no candidate has ever run on that. Again, the middle is where the votes are - Clinton knew this and won on it twice by sep. himself enough from the conservatives to show he was different.

dissention

07-28-2005, 01:14 PM

Well, they have been in the middle ever since Carter :shrug:

And that was 25+ years ago. We're not in the age of Carter anymore, Jason. After Clinton, that was it. Say goodbye to any attempts of reaching out to those "moderate" voters or getting any real conservatives to look at the Democrats will anything but disgust. The Democrats are a ****ing joke in every sense of the word and every move they make towards the middle (which has been more extreme in recent years, no matter what you or anyone says to the contrary) is viewed as nothing but pandering and acts of desperation to somehow keep their dying party afloat.

Maybe I am confused by what you mean by the left. If you mean completely denounce the war in Iraq and withdraw all troops now, abortion on demand at any mother's age and at anytime, no religion ever at all in politics, etc. - no candidate will ever win on that - moreover, no candidate has ever run on that. Again, the middle is where the votes are - Clinton knew this and won on it twice by sep. himself enough from the conservatives to show he was different.

Yup, Clinton knew it and the times have changed greatly since then.

What do I mean by left? Let's see...not cheerleading every move Bush makes. Not denouncing things Bush has done and then continuing to support them completely. Not promoting yourself as a candidate that is Republican-lite, because by doing that, you give no real distinction to the public between yourself and the Republican candidate. Not jumping on the religious bandwagon to reach out to the people who will never, ever vote for you and in turn alienate your liberal base. Not saying how terrible Iraq was and then two seconds later calling for more troops. Not saying that even after all this stuff about trumped-up intelligence came out, you would still authorize the use of force in Iraq.

I mean, let's be serious for a minute. You can say that "Kerry almost one by playing ot the middle," but the fact is that he didn't. Whether that was by election fraud or the general public just not liking his sorry candidacy, we'll never know. But the man was a joke and even with Bush's steadily declinging popularity, Kerry is still seen as a joke. Most honest liberals and far-left liberals curse the day they supported him and his lousy campaign has alienated a LOT of his base. Couple that will Hillary Clinton's shenanigans in terms of kissing DLC ass and the grassroots base of liberals, not Democrats, that worked so tirelessly for them and other Dems is dwindling. Once that group of people is alienated, don't expect the casual Democrats that vote straight Democrat on each ballot to work their asses off to promote any upcoming candidates. If the Democrats keep jumping further and further to the middle, which they really can't do because the embracing of the DLC completed the transformation into Republican Party #2, they'll lose the moderates that they're trying to snatch votes from due to their transparency and the far-left base that is beginning to view them as insufficient, spineless, and incapable of promoting truly liberal policies and beliefs. The ENTIRE base came out in full-force on Election Day and Kerry still lost. If they keep this bull**** up, they won't draw new voters, the base will be the only ones supporting them, and they'll continue to get crushed by the incredibly powerful party that is the Republican party.

The unfortunate thing is that, to the Democrats, everything has to be a game plan. They think too much and they analyze too much, which weakens everything that they do by making it come across as calculating and unnatural. That will not win votes from the people they need votes from. Find me someone who didn't laugh when they saw Hillary Clinton praising faith-based initiatives so ferociously following the last election. It's all so phoney and people can see it. It doesn't bode well, especially if they nominate someone as lousy as her in '08. That'll be a serious loser ticket right there.

strandinthewind

07-28-2005, 01:36 PM

And that was 25+ years ago. We're not in the age of Carter anymore, Jason. After Clinton, that was it. Say goodbye to any attempts of reaching out to those "moderate" voters or getting any real conservatives to look at the Democrats will anything but disgust. The Democrats are a ****ing joke in every sense of the word and every move they make towards the middle (which has been more extreme in recent years, no matter what you or anyone says to the contrary) is viewed as nothing but pandering and acts of desperation to somehow keep their dying party afloat.

Yup, Clinton knew it and the times have changed greatly since then.

What do I mean by left? Let's see...not cheerleading every move Bush makes. Not denouncing things Bush has done and then continuing to support them completely. Not promoting yourself as a candidate that is Republican-lite, because by doing that, you give no real distinction to the public between yourself and the Republican candidate. Not jumping on the religious bandwagon to reach out to the people who will never, ever vote for you and in turn alienate your liberal base. Not saying how terrible Iraq was and then two seconds later calling for more troops. Not saying that even after all this stuff about trumped-up intelligence came out, you would still authorize the use of force in Iraq.

I mean, let's be serious for a minute. You can say that "Kerry almost one by playing ot the middle," but the fact is that he didn't. Whether that was by election fraud or the general public just not liking his sorry candidacy, we'll never know. But the man was a joke and even with Bush's steadily declinging popularity, Kerry is still seen as a joke. Most honest liberals and far-left liberals curse the day they supported him and his lousy campaign has alienated a LOT of his base. Couple that will Hillary Clinton's shenanigans in terms of kissing DLC ass and the grassroots base of liberals, not Democrats, that worked so tirelessly for them and other Dems is dwindling. Once that group of people is alienated, don't expect the casual Democrats that vote straight Democrat on each ballot to work their asses off to promote any upcoming candidates. If the Democrats keep jumping further and further to the middle, which they really can't do because the embracing of the DLC completed the transformation into Republican Party #2, they'll lose the moderates that they're trying to snatch votes from due to their transparency and the far-left base that is beginning to view them as insufficient, spineless, and incapable of promoting truly liberal policies and beliefs. The ENTIRE base came out in full-force on Election Day and Kerry still lost. If they keep this bull**** up, they won't draw new voters, the base will be the only ones supporting them, and they'll continue to get crushed by the incredibly powerful party that is the Republican party.

The unfortunate thing is that, to the Democrats, everything has to be a game plan. They think too much and they analyze too much, which weakens everything that they do by making it come across as calculating and unnatural. That will not win votes from the people they need votes from. Find me someone who didn't laugh when they saw Hillary Clinton praising faith-based initiatives so ferociously following the last election. It's all so phoney and people can see it. It doesn't bode well, especially if they nominate someone as lousy as her in '08. That'll be a serious loser ticket right there.

I think we are talking about the same thing only phrasing it differently. I, too, think that the D nominee must stand on their own two feet, something Kerry inexplicably refused to do and something Clinton was a master at. So, we agree - BTW, this does not mean I'm going to bed with you. You get only a :xoxo: :angel: :xoxo: :wavey:

dissention

07-28-2005, 01:48 PM

I think we are talking about the same thing only phrasing it differently.

Could be, but you seem to believe that a run-to-the-middle strategy could be a winning one. I beg to differ.

I, too, think that the D nominee must stand on their own two feet, something Kerry inexplicably refused to do and something Clinton was a master at.

Kerry was a nasty piece of work. They sure had him pegged when they called him a flip flopper. They should play "Making Flippy Floppy" by the Talking Heads every time he enters a room.

So, we agree - BTW, this does not mean I'm going to bed with you. You get only a :xoxo: :angel: :xoxo: :wavey:

Since you just admitted to walking with a limp after last weekend, I suppose that's for the best. :xoxo:

strandinthewind

07-28-2005, 01:54 PM

Could be, but you seem to believe that a run-to-the-middle strategy could be a winning one. I beg to differ.

Not really the run to the middle, but they cannot alienate it :cool:

. . . Since you just admitted to walking with a limp after last weekend, I suppose that's for the best. :xoxo:

Hey now - I was referring to the fact that I did squats :cool:

irishgrl

07-28-2005, 06:09 PM

Also and for the last time, please explain why Clinton, his wife, Kerry, and the majority of the D Party still stand behind this evidence not only as factual, but as a justification for W to do what he did, which brings me back to Hillary's 2004 quote in the original post of this thread in which she praised W for getting rid of SH. Why would she praise W for that if she thought he went into Iraq on a ruse. I mean if they all now know that the info. was bogus and that W was so horrible in the way he used it after he somehow found out it was false after the altruistic Clinton gave it to him, then why are the D's still defending its use and truth. Once again, you have no answer for that and instead allude to W somehow finding out it was patently false and then you have no comment on why the Clintons and the majority of the D party stand by its veracity. That you do not concede you are wrong here is astonishing but par for the course.

You are bringing up two different issues: 1) bogus info re: WMD as a justification for invading Iraq and 2) Hillary praising Bush for getting rid of Saddam. the bogus info was revealed as far back as 2002 but its been re-confirmed after every UN inspector has reported there were NO WMD.

As for Hillary praising bush for getting Saddam, that's her opinion and Ive seen no indication that she believed the veracity of the WMD info. YOU are the only person who seems to believe the Dems continue to believe it. Every article I've read indicates otherwise. :shrug:

irishgrl

07-28-2005, 06:13 PM

Ah here is the male bashing again. The poor females, they are meant always to following six feet behind the males and there have been no positive steps to correct that in the last 2000 years :rolleyes: Those bad males :laugh:

Hmmm - who is the Sec. of State - hmmmmm

Im calling it like I see it. and events prove me right as every decade advances. We've seen the end of affirmative action, the continued disparity between male/female wages, the glass ceiling for females in upper management, and the relentless attack on women's rights to THEIR OWN BODIES. Give me a break! It isnt ME who's doing any of this policy making, its the entrenched white male power structure. They are running scared.
I'd suggest you read those books, there is plenty of evidence.

strandinthewind

07-28-2005, 06:16 PM

Im calling it like I see it. and events prove me right as every decade advances. We've seen the end of affirmative action, the continued disparity between male/female wages, the glass ceiling for females in upper management, and the relentless attack on women's rights to THEIR OWN BODIES. Give me a break! It isnt ME who's doing any of this policy making, its the entrenched white male power structure. They are running scared.
I'd suggest you read those books, there is plenty of evidence.

I and most think the end of Affirmative Action is a good thing because it was being abused to death. I also think we will never get away from prejudice until treat everyone the same and AA causes hatred, etc.

I think having a minor child's parents consent to her having an abortion is a good thing - assuming there is a judicial bypass for special cases. I mean she would have to have her parents' consent to take out a kidney :shrug:

I know more females is huge positions of power than I knew five years ago.

So, I think you are mistaken here. But, you will never admit that - so what is the point in arguing, which I shall not do herein anymore - thus, you have the last word.

irishgrl

07-28-2005, 06:19 PM

Well, they have been in the middle ever since Carter :shrug: Maybe I am confused by what you mean by the left. If you mean completely denounce the war in Iraq and withdraw all troops now, abortion on demand at any mother's age and at anytime, no religion ever at all in politics, etc. - no candidate will ever win on that - moreover, no candidate has ever run on that. Again, the middle is where the votes are - Clinton knew this and won on it twice by sep. himself enough from the conservatives to show he was different.

why wouldnt any candidate who believes those things not win? Isnt that EXACTLY what Arianna said to do? Stick to our traditional topics? Go back to our Liberal roots? I hate the Iraq war, I believe in pro-choice, separation of church and state and Im sure Im not alone...........

strandinthewind

07-28-2005, 06:21 PM

You are bringing up two different issues: 1) bogus info re: WMD as a justification for invading Iraq and 2) Hillary praising Bush for getting rid of Saddam. the bogus info was revealed as far back as 2002 but its been re-confirmed after every UN inspector has reported there were NO WMD.

As for Hillary praising bush for getting Saddam, that's her opinion and Ive seen no indication that she believed the veracity of the WMD info. YOU are the only person who seems to believe the Dems continue to believe it. Every article I've read indicates otherwise. :shrug:

How about this one from Pres. Clinton in 2004:

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton and most D's are still saying that Bush did the right thing by going after SH after 9/11. Clinton and most D's are still saying that SH had WMD. Clinton, Bush, and most D's based their initial actions on Iraq on the same evidence Clinton and the D's used to bomb Iraq and starve its children. Thus, Clinton and the D's cannot impeach W on Iraq because they did essentially the same thing.

I agree that W manipulated info. once he realized he could sell his war without it. I think he ought to be impeached for that. But, the D's will never do it because they went along with him and to impeach W they will have to concede there were never any WMD, will make Clinton and the D's apparent murders for their actions in the 90's.

I also readily agree that now people are conceding the WMD evidence was not as strong as they thought and many doubt their existence altogether. However, I am talking about at the time we invaded Iraq and not in hindsight.

Anyway, I longer give a **** about this topic because you cannot argue it
rationally out of your blind hatred for W and blind love for Clinton. So, the last word is your's.

dissention

07-28-2005, 06:21 PM

strandinthewind

07-28-2005, 06:26 PM

why wouldnt any candidate who believes those things not win? Isnt that EXACTLY what Arianna said to do? Stick to our traditional topics? Go back to our Liberal roots? I hate the Iraq war, I believe in pro-choice, separation of church and state and Im sure Im not alone...........

Most Americans also believe in the right to an abortion and the sep. of Church and State. However, the far left goes further than the basic princ. It pushes into areas harder than some 21 year old college student inadvertantly getting knocked up. Very few Americans believe their 12 year old daughter ought to be able to undergo a medical procedure without their consent. I do not blame them. Also, very few Americans see religious symbols as Establishing a state sponsored Church and many times they are correct - at least under the USSC in the latest decisions. It is a little hard to tell a small town of say 500 people in Montana that they cannot put a Christmas tree up. That will never fly.

Politics is all about moderation and the middle elects and does so because that is where most of the population is.

irishgrl

07-28-2005, 07:23 PM

Good luck finding some real Democrats who will fight for you. :thumbsup:

Hillary Clinton certainly won't. Dianne Feinstein certainly won't. Lieberman won't. Gephardt is getting out of dodge. Kerry certainly didn't fight for anyone. Hell, Bill Clinton became a genuine conservative in term #2.

Barbara Boxer Would. NUFF SAID. Gawd, I wish she'd run...

he was a lame duck...but I still think he was head and shoulders above anyone since Kennedy...

irishgrl

07-28-2005, 07:31 PM

So, the last word is your's.

funny, you've said that TWICE now....

even so, Ive yet to read anything except YOUR POSTS that says Dems believed Bush was right about the WMD. As I recall, they agreed that Saddam had to go (a completely different issue ok?) but had their doubts about WMD and wanted to wait (as Clinton said) for the inspection results. Its true some voted to go ahead but others didnt. Posterity wont remember the nay sayers because they were overwhelmed by the GOP hawks. But the nay sayers were right. I was right. there were no WMD.

As for your quote about Clinton saying he's defending Bush, as you are taking it out of context its hard to tell if HE believed there were WMD or not or if he was saying that Saddam had to go...I think most people agreed that Saddam was a cruel dictator who committed crimes against humanity, but again, I cant see where everyone (read DEMS) was convinced the WMD existed, including Clinton. Unless you can link to that article and we can see for ourselves, and if so, I stand corrected.

dissention

07-28-2005, 07:35 PM

Barbara Boxer Would. NUFF SAID. Gawd, I wish she'd run...

Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy are the only ones I can think of with any real balls. Unfortunately, they don't run the party and that wet noodle Hillary Clinton does. The Democratic party is dead and it'll take a ****ing miracle to breathe life back into it. The ridiculously celebrated Barack Obama won't do it.

dissention

07-28-2005, 07:39 PM

he was a lame duck...but I still think he was head and shoulders above anyone since Kennedy...

Tell that to the people affected by his despicable welfare policies. Not to mention the Defense of Marriage Act. He should be ashamed of himself. Why my fellow liberal loonies hold him in such high regard is a mystery to me, he wasn't much of a liberal. I'm beginning to think they say they love the Big Dog just because they know it'll piss off the Republicans.

irishgrl

07-28-2005, 07:40 PM

I and most think the end of Affirmative Action is a good thing because it was being abused to death. I also think we will never get away from prejudice until treat everyone the same and AA causes hatred, etc.

I think having a minor child's parents consent to her having an abortion is a good thing - assuming there is a judicial bypass for special cases. I mean she would have to have her parents' consent to take out a kidney :shrug:

I know more females is huge positions of power than I knew five years ago.

So, I think you are mistaken here. But, you will never admit that - so what is the point in arguing, which I shall not do herein anymore - thus, you have the last word.

as to that:
Affirmative action is always being confused with tokenism. Tokenism is bad, because it insists on including a certain number of each minority merely because it is trying to appear inclusive.

Affirmative action's intent was to make sure the playing field was equal, that equally qualified candidates would be considered irrespective of gender or race. Notwithstanding the Civil Rights amendment (that says we are all supposed to be treated equal regardless of race, creed, color, gender, religion, sex or political affiliation), in practical fact, women and minorities were still discriminated against in the job market, even when they had equal qualifications. As I said, the good old boys dont want to share power. They have gotten very creative in their discrimination and will come up with other "plausible" reasons why a woman or minority wont be hired.

Women are the last group to get the vote and the ONLY group that has to fight to have autonomy over their own bodies for cripes sake. Women face so many hurdles and the opportunities that were fought for in the 60's and 70's are being chipped away at, so that eventually women will be returned to the chattel status of the 19th Century.

irishgrl

07-28-2005, 07:43 PM

Tell that to the people affected by his despicable welfare policies. He should be ashamed of himself.

I remember that well, as I was on welfare at the time. I remember that this was the first big push after the GOP gained control of the Congress, during the middle of his first term...the ambitious Health Care Reform got squashed, and welfare reform was pushed thru by overwhelming majority of GOP votes. And, as I remember, Clinton did his best to temper some of the original proposals put forth by the GOP so that even though it eventually went thru, it was a more humane version than the GOP wanted.

I still think it sucked, and I was very disappointed I admit.

I dont know anything about the Defense of Marriage act so I cant comment.
The fact that Clinton pisses off the GOP amuses me greatly but thats not why I like him....I think he was a hugely compassionate man, very intelligent, very involved, and closer in touch to regular Americans than any President before or since...its weird, but no matter what background they come from, our Presidents seem to get a "God complex" or believe they are royalty or something...and Clinton was closer to "everyman" than any President I can recall...

dissention

07-28-2005, 07:43 PM

Women are the last group to get the vote and the ONLY group that has to fight to have autonomy over their own bodies for cripes sake. Women face so many hurdles and the opportunities that were fought for in the 60's and 70's are being chipped away at, so that eventually women will be returned to the chattel status of the 19th Century.

That's why I loved it when Ellen hosted the Emmy's. Nothing beats a lesbian wearing pants and being surrounded by Jews to piss off the fundies. :D

irishgrl

07-28-2005, 07:48 PM

That's why I loved it when Ellen hosted the Emmy's. Nothing beats a lesbian wearing pants and being surrounded by Jews to piss off the fundies. :D

Now if she woulda had Portia with her..........ooooooooeeeeeeeee! what a spectacle THAT woulda been! so IN YOUR FACE! :eek:

GypsySorcerer

07-28-2005, 07:49 PM

dissention

07-28-2005, 07:49 PM

Now if she woulda had Portia with her..........ooooooooeeeeeeeee! what a spectacle THAT woulda been! so IN YOUR FACE! :eek:

With Anne/Celestia Heche Lafoon on the other arm! Scandalous!

irishgrl

07-28-2005, 07:54 PM

Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy are the only ones I can think of with any real balls. Unfortunately, they don't run the party and that wet noodle Hillary Clinton does. The Democratic party is dead and it'll take a ****ing miracle to breathe life back into it. The ridiculously celebrated Barack Obama won't do it.

Im not sure why you think Hillary is so powerful? I dont get that impression at ALL :shrug: As for Obama, I think he's had his 15 minutes of fame....all the fuss and bother over him seems to have died down as far as I can see....

I dont know WHAT will save the Dems....maybe another generational surge on the order of the Flower Children of the 60's......the pendulum does eventually have to swing back the other way..........

dissention

07-28-2005, 07:55 PM

Yep. The political climate has been shifting right for years now. Even the Republicans were more moderate thirty years ago.

You are 100% spot on. As someone who lives in the "Bible Belt," I can say there is no way in hell most of these people are going to vote for Hillary Clinton, and they didn't vote for John Kerry, no matter how much they say they personally oppose abortion and support faith-based initiatives.

Democrats need to forget about rural America. Forget about the evangelicals. Fire up their urban, liberal base. That's the only way to win.

Preach it! That's precisely what they need to do; concentrate more on getting urban areas to vote in an attempt to replace a large number of the votes that they lose in the South and the mid-West. Instead, they pander to the people who will not vote for them and it alienates the base that would naturally vote for them. All of their efforts to reach out to those people are futile.

Also, why would the evangelicals vote for someone like, say, Hillary Clinton after she praises faith-based initiatives to the heavens when they can just vote for a Republican like Bush, a candidate who "speaks their language" and "understands them"? Her pandering to them isn't enough to lure them into her web and it's just enough to turn her supporters foul.

GypsySorcerer

07-28-2005, 07:56 PM

As for Obama, I think he's had his 15 minutes of fame....all the fuss and bother over him seems to have died down as far as I can see....

I don't think we've seen the last of him. My family is still in IL and I keep up with the news there, and I have never seen anyone get more exposure than he has. More than Braun, more than Durbin, everyone. He is being touted as the person who can unite Democrats and Republicans.

dissention

07-28-2005, 08:01 PM

Im not sure why you think Hillary is so powerful? I dont get that impression at ALL :shrug:

Hillary and Bubba run that party. It's just a shame that they do it so badly.

As for Obama, I think he's had his 15 minutes of fame....all the fuss and bother over him seems to have died down as far as I can see....

No way. The Democrats have been pushing that boy down everyone's throats. I'll never forget that issue of Newsweek that I got with him on the cover, talking about how he'll unite Repubs and Dems. Gag me now, I can't stand that odious windbag. He's a moderate Democrat, not a liberal, and he won't be uniting anyone any time soon. His keynote speech at the DNC last July was emabrrassing to the Democratic party, especially the Godspeak.

I dont know WHAT will save the Dems....maybe another generational surge on the order of the Flower Children of the 60's......the pendulum does eventually have to swing back the other way..........

I'll cross my fingers that something like that happens. :nod:

irishgrl

07-28-2005, 08:02 PM

and they didn't vote for John Kerry, no matter how much they say they personally oppose abortion and support faith-based initiatives.

um, that makes no sense...of course THOSE people wouldnt vote for John Kerry?

Democrats need to forget about rural America. Forget about the evangelicals. Fire up their urban, liberal base. That's the only way to win.

That, and the eventual loss of all the middle class jobs, due to the breakup of Unions and outsourcing, the loss of the American dream (I believe it will become harder and harder for the middle class to own a home, especially if current job prospects continue) The loss of basic rights we used to take for granted....
maybe THEN people will wake up and see the GOP never cared about them, only their big business deep pocket financiers.....

sometimes I think its a good thing I am getting on in years, because in truth, I dont think I'd want to live very long in a world that I see becoming more and more depraved every day....People like me, who grew up in the Golden Age of idealism dont belong in this "me first" society....:distress:

GypsySorcerer

07-28-2005, 08:04 PM

Also, why would the evangelicals vote for someone like, say, Hillary Clinton after she praises faith-based initiatives to the heavens when they can just vote for a Republican like Bush, a candidate who "speaks their language" and "understands them"?

Exactly. They won't. Sure, the evangelicals are making some noise, but that's only because Bush lit a fire under their ass about gay marriage. Then, all of sudden, Democrats are reaching out to them? Ridiculous. Evangelicals are a vocal group, but they're still a minority. Why the Democrats are intent on bringing them into the fold is beyond me.

dissention

07-28-2005, 08:04 PM

um, that makes no sense...of course THOSE people wouldnt vote for John Kerry?

NO, that's what Kerry said, Mary. He said he personally opposed abortion and supported faith-based initiatives. Also said he opposed same-sex marriage and would actively try to prevent it in MA if he got the chance. Just more bull**** that fell out of that mouth of his that wouldn't shut (or open when it should have).

GypsySorcerer

07-28-2005, 08:05 PM

um, that makes no sense...of course THOSE people wouldnt vote for John Kerry?

I was referring to Kerry himself and Hillary.

irishgrl

07-28-2005, 08:05 PM

Diss, Obama isnt on the radar that I can see? :shrug: I think you can calm down about him......

I dont believe the Clintons "run" the Democratic party either, although I DO believe they have the charisma of President and Jackie Kennedy....actually the Democratic party is lucky to have them as they are SUCH a thorn in the GOP side (which makes me exceedingly happy I can tell you!)

AliceLover

07-28-2005, 08:06 PM

dissention

07-28-2005, 08:08 PM

Exactly. They won't. Sure, the evangelicals are making some noise, but that's only because Bush lit a fire under the ass about gay marriage. Then, all of sudden, Democrats are reaching out to them? Ridiculous. Evangelicals are a vocal group, but they're still a minority. Why the Democrats are intent on bringing them into the fold is beyond me.

I think it ties into how the Democrats see everything. To them, everything is a number, a poll, and a game plan. They're aren't people, they're potential votes and they wholeheartedly believe that if they put a certain focus group together and get good marks, then that's the strategy they should employ across the country. Thinking isn't something that enters into the equation, at least from what I've seen. :laugh:

irishgrl

07-28-2005, 08:08 PM

NO, that's what Kerry said, Mary. He said he personally opposed abortion and supported faith-based initiatives. Also said he opposed same-sex marriage and would actively try to prevent it in MA if he got the chance. Just more bull**** that fell out of that mouth of his that wouldn't shut (or open when it should have).

Ok, here's why I dont have a problem with him saying that. He is differentiating between his PERSONAL beliefs as a Catholic, and the fact that as the PRESIDENT, he will abide by the law of the land. Its the same concept as we expect our Judges (particulary Supreme Court Judges) to adhere to....so, I dont have a problem with his statement.

thanks for the clarification btw, it wasnt clear upon first reading :)

GypsySorcerer

07-28-2005, 08:11 PM

Ok, here's why I dont have a problem with him saying that. He is differentiating between his PERSONAL beliefs as a Catholic, and the fact that as the PRESIDENT, he will abide by the law of the land. Its the same concept as we expect our Judges (particulary Supreme Court Judges) to adhere to....so, I dont have a problem with his statement.

thanks for the clarification btw, it wasnt clear upon first reading :)

I don't think he was differentiating his beliefs at all. It was an attempt to say to the evangelicals, "Hey! I'm like you!" Same thing when he showed up in hunting gear in West Virginia. :shrug:

irishgrl

07-28-2005, 08:12 PM

I think it ties into how the Democrats see everything. To them, everything is a number, a poll, and a game plan. They're aren't people, they're potential votes and they wholeheartedly believe that if they put a certain focus group together and get good marks, then that's the strategy they should employ across the country. Thinking isn't something that enters into the equation, at least from what I've seen. :laugh:

or: maybe they're afraid they overlooked an important demographic group? :shrug: Historically the Democratic party REPRESENTED the minorities! if the Evangelicals are a minority, then they fit the bill! Unfortunately, I dont believe they "fit" with the Democratic Liberal ethic....

dissention

07-28-2005, 08:13 PM

Diss, Obama isnt on the radar that I can see? :shrug: I think you can calm down about him......

The Dems had him give the keynote address at the DNC! They're prepping that little boy for higher office, believe you me.

I dont believe the Clintons "run" the Democratic party either, although I DO believe they have the charisma of President and Jackie Kennedy....actually the Democratic party is lucky to have them as they are SUCH a thorn in the GOP side (which makes me exceedingly happy I can tell you!)

Oh gawd, don't compare them to Jackie and John, Mary. :laugh:

irishgrl

07-28-2005, 08:13 PM

I don't think he was differentiating his beliefs at all. It was an attempt to say to the evangelicals, "Hey! I'm like you!" Same thing when he showed up in hunting gear in West Virginia. :shrug:

but thats exactly what it is! he is saying "hey, Im like you, I personally dont believe in such and such, but as the President, I must put my personal beliefs aside"

as for the "hunting gear in West Virginia", I recall Clinton making BIG points by stopping into a fast food joint during a jog (McDonalds wasnt it?) Those little personal touches matter to some people. In Kerry's case, It seemed staged, I'll agree with you, but Clinton actually has a fondness for fast food and it was so natural that people warmed to him (that's the "everyman" appeal Im talking about that he has)

irishgrl

07-28-2005, 08:15 PM

Oh gawd, don't compare them to Jackie and John, Mary. :laugh:

Hey I said the CHARISMA, not the ideals! :laugh:

GypsySorcerer

07-28-2005, 08:15 PM

but thats exactly what it is! he is saying "hey, Im like you, I personally dont believe in such and such, but as the President, I must put my personal beliefs aside"

Except they don't want him to put his personal beliefs aside. That's why it didn't work. :wavey:

dissention

07-28-2005, 08:16 PM

Ok, here's why I dont have a problem with him saying that. He is differentiating between his PERSONAL beliefs as a Catholic, and the fact that as the PRESIDENT, he will abide by the law of the land. Its the same concept as we expect our Judges (particulary Supreme Court Judges) to adhere to....so, I dont have a problem with his statement.

Fech, he was doing it in a sleazy manner. He was pandering to the fundies, while leaving just enough room for him to get enough slack given to him by his base. I know, I gave him some. How stupid I was. It was cheap and showed how incompetent he was and what a loser strategy it was.

thanks for the clarification btw, it wasnt clear upon first reading :)

You're welcome. :)

dissention

07-28-2005, 08:18 PM

Same thing when he showed up in hunting gear in West Virginia. :shrug:

Oh...my.

My mother had heart surgery the day that story was all over the news and I sat in the waiting room with my jaw on the floor. The numbnut tried to show how manly he was by shooting dear...and then having his staff pick up the carcass behind him and hold his guns for him. That was as bad as his visit to NASA, Krista. :laugh:

irishgrl

07-28-2005, 08:19 PM

Except they don't want him to put his personal beliefs aside. That's why it didn't work. :wavey:

well, I'd want a Supreme Court Judge to put HIS personal beliefs aside when it comes to ABORTION.....and preserve precedent! :wavey: back atcha!

seeker007nmss

07-28-2005, 08:20 PM

That's not my dream at all. :shrug:

:laugh:

I was wondering about that! :wavey:

GypsySorcerer

07-28-2005, 08:22 PM

well, I'd want a Supreme Court Judge to put HIS personal beliefs aside when it comes to ABORTION.....and preserve precedent! :wavey: back atcha!

Well, I would too. But ask your average fundamentalist if they do. That was my point about Kerry.

irishgrl

07-28-2005, 08:22 PM

That was as bad as his visit to NASA, Krista. :laugh:

well its not as bad as wearing a flight suit on an aircraft carrier when you've never flown a jet :lol: :p

GypsySorcerer

07-28-2005, 08:23 PM

Oh...my.

My mother had heart surgery the day that story was all over the news and I sat in the waiting room with my jaw on the floor. The numbnut tried to show how manly he was by shooting dear...and then having his staff pick up the carcass behind him and hold his guns for him. That was as bad as his visit to NASA, Krista. :laugh:

I was working at the journalism institute at school last year, and of couse, we covered it pretty heavily. I totally wasn't excpecting him to do that. He ran a bizarre campaign, to say the least.

dissention

07-28-2005, 08:26 PM

well its not as bad as wearing a flight suit on an aircraft carrier when you've never flown a jet :lol: :p

Almost...almost. :laugh:

All those stupid things are just photo-ops and it just shows how stupid our society is when we need photo-ops like jet flying and dear murdering to help us decide who to vote for. I don't give a **** who I'd rather have a beer with, I don't ****ing drink. It's all so...stupid.

irishgrl

07-28-2005, 08:26 PM

Well, I would too. But ask your average fundamentalist if they do. That was my point about Kerry.

But Kerry never claimed to be an "average fundamentalist" to MY knowledge :shrug: ??? Maybe he's in the wrong party???

dissention

07-28-2005, 08:27 PM

I was working at the journalism institute at school last year, and of couse, we covered it pretty heavily. I totally wasn't excpecting him to do that. He ran a bizarre campaign, to say the least.

:nod: :laugh:

He looked like one of the giant condoms from Woody Allen's Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Sex when he went to NASA.

GypsySorcerer

07-28-2005, 08:28 PM

:nod: :laugh:

He looked like one of the giant condoms from Woody Allen's Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Sex when he went to NASA.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

GypsySorcerer

07-28-2005, 08:31 PM

But Kerry never claimed to be an "average fundamentalist" to MY knowledge :shrug: ??? Maybe he's in the wrong party???

My point was, when Kerry said he "personally opposed abortion" and "supported faith-based initiatives," he was attempting to pander to the fundamentalist base. It didn't work, though, because fundatmentalists don't want "personal opposition;" they want religion and politics mixed. They didn't buy it and that's why it was a poor strategy on Kerry's part.

irishgrl

07-28-2005, 08:31 PM

Almost...almost. :laugh:

All those stupid things are just photo-ops and it just shows how stupid our society is when we need photo-ops like jet flying and dear murdering to help us decide who to vote for. I don't give a **** who I'd rather have a beer with, I don't ****ing drink. It's all so...stupid.
true. Clinton didnt do it as a photo op, it was a spontaneous act (to go into McDonalds while jogging) that hit a chord in America and politicians have been trying to copy that formula ever since. Part of the Clinton charm is his naturalness. He's just folks. Sure, hes important but he never forgot his roots and people can tell the difference between a REAL person and a PHOTO OP person.

dissention

07-28-2005, 08:33 PM

But Kerry never claimed to be an "average fundamentalist" to MY knowledge :shrug: ??? Maybe he's in the wrong party???

Honey, it's people like him that give Democrats a bad rap. Phoney, rich white men who try to be everything to everyone. At least the Republicans don't pretend to be what they aren't. They're misguided little souls that **** on this country with their policies, but they don't put on airs about their beliefs or try to soften them to get liberal votes. They want Jesus, they want him now, and they say so.

Democrats, on the other hand, have such a muddled platform that I doubt even they know what they stand for these days.

irishgrl

07-28-2005, 08:35 PM

My point was, when Kerry said he "personally opposed abortion" and "supported faith-based initiatives," he was attempting to pander to the fundamentalist base. It didn't work, though, because fundatmentalists don't want "personal opposition;" they want religion and politics mixed. They didn't buy it and that why it was a poor strategy on Kerry's part.

it was a definite mistake to pander to the evangelicals (and by extension, the GOP moderates) as Kerry is not GOP! That wasnt a smart move strategically speaking I'll agree.

but as a Liberal, I could still understand where he was coming from because I would expect him to separate his personal beliefs from his duty as the President. (as I would expect from any elected (or appointed) official)

Our founding fathers wanted Church and State separate and we are so muddy now, Im sure they are turning over in their graves...its sickening...

irishgrl

07-28-2005, 08:38 PM

Honey, it's people like him that give Democrats a bad rap. Phoney, rich white men who try to be everything to everyone. At least the Republicans don't pretend to be what they aren't. They're misguided little souls that **** on this country with their policies, but they don't put on airs about their beliefs or try to soften them to get liberal votes. They want Jesus, they want him now, and they say so.

Democrats, on the other hand, have such a muddled platform that I doubt even they know what they stand for these days.

Well, I can certainly see why you and others would say that....Im not saying I disagree either....as for the Dems, you're right, we ARE lost as a party....all I know is that I STILL believe in the old traditional Liberal Democratic values of looking out for the little guy, and keeping a lid on the shenanigans of big business. We really need a saviour about now.... :shrug:

dissention

07-28-2005, 08:39 PM

all I know is that I STILL believe in the old traditional Liberal Democratic values of looking out for the little guy, and keeping a lid on the shenanigans of big business. We really need a saviour about now.... :shrug:

Then you should join the Green party and ditch the Democrats...you know, the Democratic party that supports big business wholeheartedly. :D

GypsySorcerer

07-28-2005, 08:40 PM

Our founding fathers wanted Church and State separate and we are so muddy now, Im sure they are turning over in their graves...its sickening...

Very true. :(

irishgrl

07-28-2005, 08:42 PM

Then you should join the Green party and ditch the Democrats...you know, the Democratic party that supports big business wholeheartedly. :D
if they were more viable I would. I'd still like my vote to count (course, nowadays with rigged elections, maybe it doesnt matter any more)
I cant stand Camejo but I do like much of what the Green Party stands for....
hmmmm......something to think about.....

dissention

07-28-2005, 08:45 PM

if they were more viable I would. I'd still like my vote to count (course, nowadays with rigged elections, maybe it doesnt matter any more)

How does your vote count if it goes to a party that isn't going to uphold your beliefs and is instead going to **** on the country just as much as the Republicans? That's what I don't understand.

irishgrl

07-28-2005, 08:51 PM

How does your vote count if it goes to a party that isn't going to uphold your beliefs and is instead going to **** on the country just as much as the Republicans? That's what I don't understand.

The Dems DO represent my core beliefs (legal abortion, separation of church and state, civil rights, environmentalism).....but there is strength in numbers and even if I get upset with the party, I would only interfere with their ability to effect change if I jumped ship......Some Dems are better than others, thats true of people in general. but the "tipping point" hasnt been reached enuff for me to defect to the Greens, as much as I admire them. I admire Ralph Nader too, but not enuff to bleed my party by switching...

I dont like the connections to big business, that makes me sick but how do you compete in todays political climate without financial backing? :confused:

dissention

07-28-2005, 09:28 PM

Mike Malloy is fantastic tonight!

"Scotty sounds like he's at a Scientology meeting."

And then he plays that stupid "Scotty Doesn't Know" song. :laugh:

strandinthewind

07-31-2005, 07:26 PM

well its not as bad as wearing a flight suit on an aircraft carrier when you've never flown a jet :lol: :p

Did you actually just make this glaring error :eek:

Bush was a fighter pilot and has flown jets before as evidenced here http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-02-15-bush-record_x.htm

I get that his record was and is cloudy and he was and is an a$$ - but, he did fly jets.

gldstwmn

07-31-2005, 10:33 PM

strandinthewind

08-01-2005, 08:27 AM

He didn't fly the jet that landed on that aircraft carrier. In fact the limited training he received on the aircraft he flew in TANG insured he would never go to Vietnam. The aircraft he trained on was never used there.

I know he did not land that jet on the aircraft carrier, but he did fly it for a portion of the flight, to wit and emphasis supplied:

Commander in Chief lands on USS Lincoln

ABOARD USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CNN) --President Bush made a landing aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln Thursday, arriving in the co-pilot's seat of a Navy S-3B Viking after making two fly-bys of the carrier.

It was the first time a sitting president has arrived on the deck of an aircraft carrier by plane. The jet made what is known as a "tailhook" landing, with the plane, traveling about 150 mph, hooking onto the last of four steel wires across the flight deck and coming to a complete stop in less than 400 feet.

The exterior of the four-seat Navy S-3B Viking was marked with "Navy 1" in the back and "George W. Bush Commander-in-Chief" just below the cockpit window. On the plane's tail was the insignia of the squadron, the "Blue Wolves."

Moments after the landing, the president, wearing a green flight suit and holding a white helmet, got off the plane, saluted those on the flight deck and shook hands with them. Above him, the tower was adorned with a big sign that read, "Mission Accomplished."

Bush said he did take a turn at piloting the craft.

"Yes, I flew it. Yeah, of course, I liked it," said Bush, who was an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard after graduating from Yale University in 1968.

"Great job," said Bush, a wide smile stretched across his face as he posed for photographs with crew members who gathered to get their pictures with the president. He draped his arms around some, slapped the backs of others and shook hands with many.

To others, the president said, "Thank you," and " 'preciate it."

At one point, he looked up to the observation deck and held up both arms to the roar of hundreds of sailors who had crowded the area.

The landing came just hours before Bush is to tell the nation that major combat operations in Iraq have ended. The speech will be delivered from the carrier's flight deck at 9 p.m. EDT.

The picture-perfect landing, covered live on television, marked the latest effort by the White House to showcase Bush as commander in chief. The president's address about the success in Iraq comes as Bush's domestic agenda is under renewed fire by Democrats, especially by a flock of White House hopefuls.

"The president's going out to an aircraft carrier to give a speech far out at sea ... while countless numbers of Americans are frightened stiff about the economy at home," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, who is seeking his party's presidential nomination.

In his speech to the troops Thursday night Bush will thank the U.S. military for their efforts in Iraq. "Your courage -- your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other -- made this day possible," according to excerpts of the Bush speech released in advance. "The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done."

Bush was taken in by plane because the Lincoln was too far off the California coast for a helicopter to bring him aboard.

His four-seat S-3B Viking has the safest flight record in the Navy's jet fleet. The turbofan jet performs targeting and surveillance functions for naval carrier groups.

The aircraft's pilot, Navy Cmdr. John Lussier of Orlando, Florida, said the president "enjoyed the heck out of" taking the controls and doing a couple of maneuvers.

A second pilot and a Secret Service agent were in the rear seats of the plane when it landed.

"We picked two mature pilots that also are very good landers," Capt. Kevin Albright, commander of the Lincoln's Airwing 14, said Wednesday.

Bush wanted to swoop onto the deck of the Lincoln aboard an F-18 Hornet, but the Secret Service nixed the idea -- they didn't like leaving the president unguarded in a fighter jet that only has space for the president and a pilot.

Bush had left from Naval Air Station North Island (San Diego) after being brought there from Washington via Air Force One. Just before he left for the carrier, Bush was briefed on what he would have to do to eject in case of emergency.

Officials also told CNN that in preparation for the flight, Bush underwent water survival training, which involves sitting in a simulated cockpit that fills up with water, then spins around, while the person inside has to escape and come up for air. To pilots, the training is known as "panic in a can."

White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and White House spokesman Ari Fleischer were also on the flight deck, brought in on planes ahead of the president.

Back in Washington, Vice President Dick Cheney watched from his West Wing office as Bush landed. "He watched with a big smile," a Cheney aide said.

The Lincoln, currently en route to NAS North Island, has been at sea for nearly 10 months, after participating in both the Afghanistan and Iraq war theaters. The president is scheduled to spend the night on the aircraft carrier, which is based in Everett, Washington, but is stopping in San Diego first.

Bush will leave the carrier before it berths at North Island Friday. The ship will return to Everett on May 6.

The S-3B Viking, in service with the Navy since 1974, has logged more than 1.6 million flying hours, with an accident rate of 2.6 mishaps every 100,000 flight hours. The accident rate for a carrier's planes was even lower -- 1.89 per 100,000 flight hours (1990).

A Viking slid off the deck of the USS Constellation on April 1; the plane's two pilots were quickly rescued and the cause of the accident -- an unspecified malfunction, the Navy said -- is under investigation.

The versatile plane, originally an anti-submarine craft, performs a wide range of targeting and surveillance functions -- including tankering for mid-flight refueling -- for Navy carrier groups. Some are cleared to carry AGM-84D Harpoon and AGM-65F Maverick missiles; the Navy plans to install the capability in all its S-3B Vikings.

The S-3B Viking's participation in the Iraq war marked two firsts for the 30-year old plane, the Navy said -- the first time it was sent on an overland strike and the first time it had fired a laser-guided missile in combat.

The Lincoln's flight deck spans 4.5 acres, and the ship can power enough electricity for 100,000 homes. Among the aircraft aboard the carrier is the F/A-18E Super Hornet, the Navy's sophisticated strike fighter.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/bush.carrier.landing

_________________________________________________________

But, back to the point, Mary said "well its not as bad as wearing a flight suit on an aircraft carrier when you've never flown a jet," which indicates she thought W had "never flown a jet," which is untrue.

I get that W flew outdated aircraft and that his bravada on this recent aircraft landing was mostly loathsome, but the fact that he was a fighter pilot does not obviate the latter two points. It kind of amazes me that people seem to think that by admitting W was a fighter pilot, they are somehow lending him credibility or liking him in some way. I do not see it that way. But, to each their own :cool:

irishgrl

08-01-2005, 08:34 AM

Did you actually just make this glaring error :eek:

Bush was a fighter pilot and has flown jets before as evidenced here http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-02-15-bush-record_x.htm

I get that his record was and is cloudy and he was and is an a$$ - but, he did fly jets.

A fighter pilot? well....Gosh! I stand corrected! Looks like Daddy's money bought THAT particular perk for him along with his MBA:

• Bush was accepted into pilot school even though he scored in the 25th percentile on a standardized test. In addition, Bush had two arrests for college pranks and four traffic offenses before applying for pilot training. Former and current military pilots say it was uncommon for an applicant to be approved for training with such a record.

and this is interesting:
Bill Burkett, then a top adviser to the state Guard commander, said he overheard conversations in which superiors discussed "cleansing" the file of damaging information.

(of course, the White House badmouths the allegations. S.O.P.)

Two forms in Bush's publicly released military files — his enlistment application and a background check — contain blacked-out entries in response to questions about arrests or convictions. Bush acknowledged in biographies published in 1999 that he was arrested twice before he enlisted in the Air National Guard: once for stealing a wreath and another time for rowdiness at a Yale-Princeton football game.

The nature of what was blacked out in Bush's records is important because certain legal problems, such as drug or alcohol violations, could have been a basis for denying an applicant entry into the Guard or pilot training. Admission to the Guard and to pilot school was highly competitive at that time, the height of the Vietnam War.

Well, I dont know about you Jason, but this sort of military record doesnt make Monkey Boy a Top Gun in MY book :shrug: Do you suppose his jet had training wheels?

strandinthewind

08-01-2005, 08:36 AM

A fighter pilot? well....Gosh! I stand corrected! Looks like Daddy's money bought THAT particular perk for him along with his MBA:

and this is interesting:

Well, I dont know about you Jason, but this sort of military record doesnt make Monkey Boy a Top Gun in MY book :shrug: Do you suppose his jet had training wheels?

Bless your heart, can't you ever just admit being wrong :laugh: - which you were BTW :wavey:

irishgrl

08-01-2005, 08:45 AM

Bless your heart, can't you ever just admit being wrong :laugh: - which you were BTW :wavey:
I said I stand corrected, (did you conveniently overlook that?) but his stint as a "fighter pilot" is VERY problematic.

I supposed one can say they are a pilot if all they fly is a crop duster....or the goodyear blimp. So, OK. Bush was a fighter pilot. He chose a branch of service that precluded VietNam combat, his daddy bought him entry into a rich boys "flight club" (see your article) and he had 3 years flight experience doing WHAT?
his records are doctored, and his whole stint in the Reserves SMELLS....
After all of that, him showing up in a flight suit aboard an aircraft carrier is an insult to REAL fighter pilots. I think I would wanna burn my flight suit if I were a fighter pilot after Bush did his photo op publicity stunt....

strandinthewind

08-01-2005, 08:49 AM

I said I stand corrected, (did you conveniently overlook that?) but his stint as a "fighter pilot" is VERY problematic.

I supposed one can say they are a pilot if all they fly is a crop duster....or the goodyear blimp. So, OK. Bush was a fighter pilot. He chose a branch of service that precluded VietNam combat, his daddy bought him entry into a rich boys "flight club" (see your article) and he had 3 years flight experience doing WHAT?
his records are doctored, and his whole stint in the Reserves SMELLS....
After all of that, him showing up in a flight suit aboard an aircraft carrier is an insult to REAL fighter pilots. I think I would wanna burn my flight suit if I were a fighter pilot after Bush did his photo op publicity stunt....

No, I got that you said "I said I stand corrected" - my comment "can't you ever just admit being wrong" perhaps should have been "can't you ever just admit being wrong" without trying to justify it with extraneous BS,l which is what I meant.

I just amazes me that people are loathe to admit the fact that W flew planes and fast ones at that. He did. That he did does not make him less of a bad person nor does it make him a good person.

BTW - he, not his father, flew those planes :wavey:

irishgrl

08-01-2005, 08:59 AM

No, I got that you said "I said I stand corrected" - my comment "can't you ever just admit being wrong" perhaps should have been "can't you ever just admit being wrong" without trying to justify it with extraneous BS,l which is what I meant.

I just amazes me that people are loathe to admit the fact that W flew planes and fast ones at that. He did. That he did does not make him less of a bad person nor does it make him a good person.

BTW - he, not his father, flew those planes :wavey:

who said his father flew those planes? I said his father bought him entry into fighter pilot school in spite of his low scores...

Im not justifying anything. I am highlighting it. So, even tho you are correct that Monkey boy can call himself a fighter pilot based on 3 years of flight time in jets, I stand by my statement that his whole service is flawed. There is nothing that any REAL fighter pilot could point to as distinguished in Monkey Boy's stint in the Reserves. Puh LEEZ

strandinthewind

08-01-2005, 09:11 AM

who said his father flew those planes? I said his father bought him entry into fighter pilot school in spite of his low scores...

Im not justifying anything. I am highlighting it. So, even tho you are correct that Monkey boy can call himself a fighter pilot based on 3 years of flight time in jets, I stand by my statement that his whole service is flawed. There is nothing that any REAL fighter pilot could point to as distinguished in Monkey Boy's stint in the Reserves. Puh LEEZ

Yes, his service was flawed - I never said anything to the contrary :cool:

Regarding "here is nothing that any REAL fighter pilot could point to as distinguished in Monkey Boy's stint in the Reserves. Puh LEEZ" - that also is untrue because up until he put in for the transfer to Alabama, he was praised for his service as a pilot - in fact, a 1971 evaluation described him as "an exceptionally fine young officer" - there are more - but the point is he was a good pilot. It just amazes me how the blind haters just cannot give him that - oh well.

irishgrl

08-01-2005, 12:06 PM

Yes, his service was flawed - I never said anything to the contrary :cool:

Regarding "here is nothing that any REAL fighter pilot could point to as distinguished in Monkey Boy's stint in the Reserves. Puh LEEZ" - that also is untrue because up until he put in for the transfer to Alabama, he was praised for his service as a pilot - in fact, a 1971 evaluation described him as "an exceptionally fine young officer" - there are more - but the point is he was a good pilot. It just amazes me how the blind haters just cannot give him that - oh well.

I didnt see any outright praise unless it was post-service lip service. Certainly not anything outstanding at that time....If any evaluation can call him "exceptionally fine" after his mediocre scores and his lackluster career, then it certainly brings down the accomplishments of those that DO deserve it.
I wonder how you factor in his drug usage or his alcohol problems along the way? not MY idea of exceptionally fine by ANY stretch.

strandinthewind

08-01-2005, 12:13 PM

I didnt see any outright praise unless it was post-service lip service. Certainly not anything outstanding at that time....If any evaluation can call him "exceptionally fine" after his mediocre scores and his lackluster career, then it certainly brings down the accomplishments of those that DO deserve it.
I wonder how you factor in his drug usage or his alcohol problems along the way? not MY idea of exceptionally fine by ANY stretch.

Blind hatred is never pretty :laugh:

Why can't you just admit the facts, which are that he was a fighter pilot and received good marks as such. Admitting the truth does not make you a bad person :laugh:

Again and so there is no confusion, I readily admit that after around July 1972, his record becomes sketchy, bad, etc. But, prior to then, he was a good solidier in the Guard :shrug: But, you will never admit that because to do so in your head would somehow validate W, which is just ridiculous.

dissention

08-01-2005, 12:27 PM

strandinthewind

08-01-2005, 12:30 PM

It's a fact that he did solid work in the beginning. All sources say so. But then his performance ratings deteriorated, he skipped his physical, and went AWOL. Those kinds of things tend to overshadow any successful flights that the drunk completed.

I agree, after, say 1972, he was unaccounted for other than payslip receipts, which prove he got paud but that is all. I also think he burned the damning records and probably bought off anyone who knew about them - just like he did for that chick who he paid to abort his child.

But Mary first said W never flew, which was untrue as she not so graciously admitted, and then she went on about how he was unremarkable as a pilot, which was also untrue. In the end, I just like correcting her and them watching her try to squirm out of it in her shell game logic :laugh:

irishgrl

08-01-2005, 12:44 PM

Blind hatred is never pretty :laugh:

Why can't you just admit the facts, which are that he was a fighter pilot and received good marks as such. Admitting the truth does not make you a bad person :laugh:

Again and so there is no confusion, I readily admit that after around July 1972, his record becomes sketchy, bad, etc. But, prior to then, he was a good solidier in the Guard :shrug: But, you will never admit that because to do so in your head would somehow validate W, which is just ridiculous.

he flew a jet. I'd hardly consider him a fighter pilot without combat experience. as for his good marks, they were certainly short lived. 3 years of "good marks" hardly make an exemplary serviceman when the end of the service is marred by sketchy duties, unexplained gaps in the record, questionable substance abuse issues......:shrug:

Jason, you've accused me of blind hatred yet this is NOT so. After 9/11, when Bush addressed the Nation atop the rubble of the towers, I had a hope that he would rise to the occasion and become something greater than I saw him to be. Its been his rabid, singleminded quest to obtain control of Iraq (and its oil) his lies, his backtracking, in short HIS behavior that has made me LOATHE him. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt before and I can see it was a stupid thing to do. What I feel for Bush, he has EARNED.
NUFF SAID.

strandinthewind

08-01-2005, 12:46 PM

Jason, you've accused me of blind hatred yet this is NOT so. After 9/11, when Bush addressed the Nation atop the rubble of the towers, I had a hope that he would rise to the occasion and become something greater than I saw him to be. Its been his rabid, singleminded quest to obtain control of Iraq (and its oil) his lies, his backtracking, in short HIS behavior that has made me LOATHE him. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt before and I can see it was a stupid thing to do. What I feel for Bush, he has EARNED.
NUFF SAID.

You mean like the accolades he earned as a pilot :wavey: Go on - just admit he got those accolades :laugh:

But, I agree, W is, in sum, an idiot.

irishgrl

08-01-2005, 12:48 PM

You mean like the accolades he earned as a pilot :wavey: Go on - just admit he got those accolades :laugh:

But, I agree, W is, in sum, an idiot.

accolades? I guess everyone was astounded when he just showed UP! :p