Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: AE on May 29, 2007, 04:46:44 AM
-
She said her son died "for nothing."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/28/sheehan/index.html
Only Bush victory in last couple of years. Repugs will be revelling. :-\
-
Lead story on CNN.com for two days.
-
Be sure you tell Billary thank you for sending her son to war to die for nothing.
-
Good riddance..........but on the flip side, maybe John Kerry can create another Cindy Sheehan and she can make a complete anti-American idiot of herself as well!
-
Her son died to preserve the American way of life. He died for manageable gas prices. he died for our position against a froggy Rus and Chi.
He also died so some companies could turn a profit. He didn't die saving anyone from WMD.
Both sides should be honest. He might have been snowed by the story line, might not have. but he did choose to enlist, and everyone who enlists KNOWS that they're headed for trigger time - to kill or be killed. It's very sad when they die - but they are doing their job which is to kill until they are killed, or their time of service is complete.
Sheehan suffered a tragedy, but her son knew what he was signing up for. At the same time, anyone "celebrating" her stepping down to be with her family should spend 5 minutes imagining how horrible it would be to attend their own child's funeral, THEN make their joke. It's a sad sitauation that both sides are trying to milk.
-
Her son died to preserve the American way of life. He died for manageable gas prices. he died for our position against a froggy Rus and Chi.
He also died so some companies could turn a profit. He didn't die saving anyone from WMD.
Both sides should be honest. He might have been snowed by the story line, might not have. but he did choose to enlist, and everyone who enlists KNOWS that they're headed for trigger time - to kill or be killed. It's very sad when they die - but they are doing their job which is to kill until they are killed, or their time of service is complete.
Sheehan suffered a tragedy, but her son knew what he was signing up for. At the same time, anyone "celebrating" her stepping down to be with her family should spend 5 minutes imagining how horrible it would be to attend their own child's funeral, THEN make their joke. It's a sad sitauation that both sides are trying to milk.
HE re-enlisted..........fighting for his country, HE was a hero........although I hope I never feel her pain.........SHE is an opportunist who made money from her son's demise and John Kerry is the peice of crap who used HER pain for a political agenda!
-
HE re-enlisted..........fighting for his country, HE was a hero........although I hope I never feel her pain.........SHE is an opportunist who made money from her son's demise and John Kerry is the peice of crap who used HER pain for a political agenda!
He was a hero. He did make the choice. Re-enlisting shows he TOTALLY understood his position.
Kerry should NOT have touched the topic, other than to share his prayers and sit the fck down.
Question tho;
How much money did she make from her son's death? I'm sure there are groups that watch that.
-
Question tho;
How much money did she make from her son's death? I'm sure there are groups that watch that.
I don't know, why don't find out from John Kerry, it's his payroll, she doesn't have a job that I'm aware of, someone's paying her way around the country..........mmmmm, I wonder who, maybe a liberal organization like MOVEON.ORG maybe???
-
EVERYONE OF YOU ARE LIBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
EVERYONE OF YOU ARE LIBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL.......yes ;D!!
-
I don't know, why don't find out from John Kerry, it's his payroll, she doesn't have a job that I'm aware of, someone's paying her way around the country..........mmmmm, I wonder who, maybe a liberal organization like MOVEON.ORG maybe???
Well, I'd like to see the numbers.
"Paying her way around the country" isn't a hugely moral offense. She WORKS. She gives speeches in front of large crowds, and endures very tough interviews. Chris mathews beat her bloody on hardball last year.
If they gave her $5 million a year to bash bush, then yes, that is disgusting.
If they gave her a hotel and a salary to give speeches, you can't criticize that. She has a job she believes in. I am sure you would be a radio guest of Rush for $X a year if he offered - it'd be job you believe in. just liek hers.
I'd love to know how much she made. Would speak a lot on her motivations.
-
Well, I'd like to see the numbers.
"Paying her way around the country" isn't a hugely moral offense. She WORKS. She gives speeches in front of large crowds, and endures very tough interviews. Chris mathews beat her bloody on hardball last year.
If they gave her $5 million a year to bash bush, then yes, that is disgusting.
If they gave her a hotel and a salary to give speeches, you can't criticize that. She has a job she believes in. I am sure you would be a radio guest of Rush for $X a year if he offered - it'd be job you believe in. just liek hers.
I'd love to know how much she made. Would speak a lot on her motivations.
Chris Matthews? I want to see the transcripts, I have a feeling it was a soft interview.
-
LOL.......yes ;D!!
HAHA, it feels good. ;D
-
Chris Matthews? I want to see the transcripts, I have a feeling it was a soft interview.
you can google it. It was anything BUT. Mathews is anti-war, but he beats the shit out of people on both sides equally. I've watched hardball for 5 years, every night. I tape it when I have plans :) I love hardball. mathews was peace corps, a cop, a speechwriter for white house, and in the priesthood - and he believes WMD was a lie - but boy, he destroyed Sheehan.
It might have been 2 years ago. I remember, as I was very pro-Bush at the time, and I was laughing my ass off. She looked dumb, simple, confused, stoned, etc. Mathews was brutal.
-
Lead story on CNN.com for two days.
front page in the "Vacaville Reporter". I live 5 miles from Vacaville ;D
-
you can google it. It was anything BUT. Mathews is anti-war, but he beats the shit out of people on both sides equally. I've watched hardball for 5 years, every night. I tape it when I have plans :) I love hardball. mathews was peace corps, a cop, a speechwriter for white house, and in the priesthood - and he believes WMD was a lie - but boy, he destroyed Sheehan.
It might have been 2 years ago. I remember, as I was very pro-Bush at the time, and I was laughing my ass off. She looked dumb, simple, confused, stoned, etc. Mathews was brutal.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8972348/
.........a day later he recommends her for congress ::)
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20050816.asp
-
This is how matthews interviewed sheehan, who had just lost her son.
MATTHEWS: Can I ask you a tough question? A very tough question.
MATTHEWS: All right. If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling?
MATTHEWS: But Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al Qaeda which is the group that attacked us on 9/11.
MATTHEWS: But that‘s where they were being harbored. That‘s where they were headquartered. Shouldn‘t we go after their headquarters? Doesn‘t that make sense?
MATTHEWS: One of your relatives has given this statement to a conservative radio commentary for distribution. So it seems like you have a division in your family.
MATTHEWS: Were your husband‘s parents and grandparents on your side close to Casey? Why are they going to war with you in public? Why are they issuing a statement for national release through a conservative radio talk show host? You knew Melanie is a bright woman. She was going to get that out. Why would they put out a statement that goes in the face of what you‘re doing in your camp?
-
This is how matthews interviewed sheehan, who had just lost her son.
MATTHEWS: Can I ask you a tough question? A very tough question.
MATTHEWS: All right. If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling?
MATTHEWS: But Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al Qaeda which is the group that attacked us on 9/11.
MATTHEWS: But that‘s where they were being harbored. That‘s where they were headquartered. Shouldn‘t we go after their headquarters? Doesn‘t that make sense?
MATTHEWS: One of your relatives has given this statement to a conservative radio commentary for distribution. So it seems like you have a division in your family.
MATTHEWS: Were your husband‘s parents and grandparents on your side close to Casey? Why are they going to war with you in public? Why are they issuing a statement for national release through a conservative radio talk show host? You knew Melanie is a bright woman. She was going to get that out. Why would they put out a statement that goes in the face of what you‘re doing in your camp?
Means nothing.......post the responses.
-
Means nothing.......post the responses.
I didn't want to bore the reader with 10,000 words - they can click your link.
i said Mathews was hard on her, you disagreed, and I believe that proves it. he's interviewing the mother of a recently dead son, and he's grilling her on family divisions and hypotheticals "What if your kid had died in this other place, would you feel the same". He repeatedly went at her on her family, why they don't back her.
This is a grieving mom, and mathews is being rough on her, without a doubt. no cupcake here.
-
I have a feeling it was a soft interview.
After reading his questions - do you still call that "soft"?
-
I didn't want to bore the reader with 10,000 words - they can click your link.
i said Mathews was hard on her, you disagreed, and I believe that proves it. he's interviewing the mother of a recently dead son, and he's grilling her on family divisions and hypotheticals "What if your kid had died in this other place, would you feel the same". He repeatedly went at her on her family, why they don't back her.
This is a grieving mom, and mathews is being rough on her, without a doubt. no cupcake here.
What proof? The moron recommeded her for congress the next day!
-
What proof? The moron recommeded her for congress the next day!
YOU SAID you bet it was a softball interview.
I didn't konw the thread had changed into "the next day he did this..."
Did ya not like the direction we were going in, and figured throwing this red herring into the blender woudl take our eyes off the original debate?
-
YOU SAID you bet it was a softball interview.
I didn't konw the thread had changed into "the next day he did this..."
Did ya not like the direction we were going in, and figured throwing this red herring into the blender woudl take our eyes off the original debate?
Was the interview hard enough to detur listeners from voting her into office after Matthews recommends her for congress?
-
I feel for this lady, but she is just dead wrong:
MATTHEWS: All right. If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling?
SHEEHAN: I don‘t think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing. We‘re fighting terrorism. Or terrorists, we‘re saying. But they‘re not contained in a country. This is an ideology and not an enemy. And we know that Iraq, Iraq had no terrorism. They were no threat to the United States of America.
-
Was the interview hard enough to detur listeners from voting her into office after Matthews recommends her for congress?
you're changing it AGAIN joe.
NOW, it's about "did mathews do enough to deter voters from voting for her?"
Dude, stop.
You do this a lot.
You change the original debate OVER AND OVER.
Our discussion was 'did matthews give her a softball interview"? - None of the other directions you have tried to skew this. The man drilled her on family divisions and other death scenarios while her son's body was figuratively still warm. If you see that as softball, tell us. But don't change the subject over and over@
-
She lost her son..her marriage and I guess she's broke. She didn't gaina thing by protesting. She was used by the left and when she saw that they could care less either, she attacked them as well and was fried for it. She certainly didn't make any money from this. Sad case all around.
-
HE re-enlisted..........fighting for his country, HE was a hero........although I hope I never feel her pain.........SHE is an opportunist who made money from her son's demise and John Kerry is the peice of crap who used HER pain for a political agenda!
How can you say that?
I would hate to see you in her position.
And please do not bring up some sleazy innuendo about money for her son's death. The republican war machine makes its living on the blood and bones of our nation's finest and they do it all for the dollar. Her son was killed.
You may disagree with her, but attacking her in this manner is bush league.
-
The republican war machine...Decker look at your own party..they could care less about the American soldier. They saw an opportunity with Sheehan and they used her. Once she began to attack them for their in-action they dumped her.
-
How can you say that?
I would hate to see you in her position.
And please do not bring up some sleazy innuendo about money for her son's death. The republican war machine makes its living on the blood and bones of our nation's finest and they do it all for the dollar. Her son was killed.
You may disagree with her, but attacking her in this manner is bush league.
I guess you missed the part where I said "HE was a hero.......although I HOPE I NEVER FEEL HER PAIN"
-
The republican war machine...Decker look at your own party..they could care less about the American soldier. They saw an opportunity with Sheehan and they used her. Once she began to attack them for their in-action they dumped her.
At least they gave her a national venue.
-
I guess you missed the part where I said "HE was a hero.......although I HOPE I NEVER FEEL HER PAIN"
I didn't miss that. Your aversion to emotional pain was noted but I also saw you piling on a woman by dusting off your rightwing crapola about inherent liberal corruption. That is tired and sad.
-
The republican war machine...Decker look at your own party..they could care less about the American soldier. They saw an opportunity with Sheehan and they used her. Once she began to attack them for their in-action they dumped her.
It was the Democratic party that tried to end this fiasco in Iraq but they do not have the power to do it. The republicans are the ones prolonging this horrific error...they feed our nation's best into a foreign shooting gallery while waving the flag and droning patriotic slogans.
You might not like the Democrats, but they have the moral high ground over the republicans in this instance.
-
It was the Democratic party that tried to end this fiasco in Iraq but they do not have the power to do it. The republicans are the ones prolonging this horrific error...they feed our nation's best into a foreign shooting gallery while waving the flag and droning patriotic slogans.
You might not like the Democrats, but they have the moral high ground over the republicans in this instance.
Oh please. Moral high ground? Democrats have their hands all over this war, from telling the American people that Saddam was a threat and had to be removed in the years leading up to the war to endorsing the war after it started. They are a bunch of hypocrites and liars when it comes to the war IMO.
-
Oh please. Moral high ground? Democrats have their hands all over this war, from telling the American people that Saddam was a threat and had to be removed in the years leading up to the war to endorsing the war after it started. They are a bunch of hypocrites and liars when it comes to the war IMO.
Politicians that are hypocrites and liars? Imagine that. Show me the democrats' lies. Hypocrisy is not just a slander but part of the learning dialectic where one progresses from an ignorant position to an informed position. We are all hypocrites in that respect.
I will gladly take the side of a 'hypocrite' finally admitting that the war is illegal and immoral rather than that of the stalwart republicans still supporting Bush b/c if we don't fight them over there we'll have to fight them here.
Which side do you stand on?
-
Show me the democrats' lies.
1. Count Every Vote- This was the mantra of the Al Gore campaign after the 2000 presidential election, when they were hand counting votes in 3 highly Democratic counties, while at the same time trying to disqualify military votes. In effect they were trying to change the rules of the election after the election had taken place, which violated federal election law. A liberal Florida Supreme Court ruled in the favor of the Gore Campaign until the U.S. Supreme Court put a stop to it. To this very day, liberals actually believe George Bush stole the election.
2. There is a vast right wing conspiracy- There is a far right wing in the Republican Party, but it is a small fringe element. However, there is a far left wing in this country and it is a large part of the main stream of the Democratic party. Remember when Hillary Clinton went on the Today Show and responded to the allegation of an affair between her husband (President Clinton) and an intern (Monica Lewinsky) as untrue and blamed it on a Right Wing Conspiracy? Over the past ten years Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Mario Cuomo, Richard Gephardt and Jesse Jackson have been the loudest and most influential voices in the Democratic party. Are any of these people Moderates? Also please note, there is a liberal bias in the media. You might make the argument that there is a vast left wing conspiracy.
3. This is a tax break for the rich- This is class warfare at it's finest. If a person earning $40,000 a year gets a 10% tax reduction and a person earning $1,000,000 per year gets a 1% tax reduction- the person earning $1,000,000 will get a much greater tax break. Tom Daschle and Richard Gephardt once stood next to a car in front of the Capital Building holding up a muffler. They made a statement that a proposed George Bush tax cut would allow the rich to buy a new car and the average American to buy a muffler. This is a strategy Democrats use on every Republican proposed tax cut. They stop everyone from getting a reduction in their taxes by using class warfare. Please note, tax reductions are not an entitlement program.
4. There is no liberal bias in the media- For close to 50 years the news in America was controlled by ABC, NBC and CBS. In the last 20 years CNN came on to the scene. This is pretty much comparable to the BBC in Europe and AL Jazzera in the Arab world today. It was in the last 6 years when Fox News and other cable news networks were born to give a more balanced approach to news analysis. However, if you look at the major networks today, they are still run by the left. Tim Russert, the President of NBC News, at one time worked for Mario Cuomo. The top players at ABC News are Peter Jennings, George Stephanopolous, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts- hardly conservatives. Lets not forget the statement the President of ABC News made after September 11th. CBS News has Dan Rather and Bob Schieffer- more non-conservatives. All you have to say about CNN is that it was created by Ted Turner. In print media there is the Los Angeles Times in California, The New York Times in New York and The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Georgia. These have been the major newspapers in our most populous cities for many years and their reporting has a liberal bias.
5. Republicans want to cut school lunch programs- This was the attack leveled by Democrats against the Republicans during a budget battle in 1995. Democrats proposed a double digit increase in funding for school lunch programs, while Republican proposed a more modest increase. To put this in perspective, you must ask this question. How many people get a double digit increase in their pay each year? Democrats called the Republican proposal a cut and charged they wanted to starve children, because the proposal was less than what Democrats proposed. Please note, the Republican proposal called for an increase in funding. The media printed the story, never challenging it, even though it was not true. This became famous for when does an increase become a cut- only in Washington DC.
6. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky- We all know the truth here. There is nothing to be added- except that it was not a vast right wing conspiracy.
7. Republicans are mean spirited and want to throw the poor out on the street- This was a charge leveled by Democrats against Republicans when they proposed time limits for receiving welfare. Polls show that the majority of Americans believe in time restrictions for welfare recipients. Republicans know that to escape poverty it takes education, hard work and discipline. The greatness of this country rests in its freedom and that within one generation a person can rise from poverty to obtain great wealth. Allowing endless dependency on an entitlement program has trapped many in poverty. Why would Democrats want to keep anyone dependent on an entitlement program like welfare? How many people on welfare vote Republican?
8. I support the military- It has been well documented that when it comes to voting for military funding- liberals would much rather spend money on social programs. First you must understand their rational. Approximately 10% of the population in the United States is poor, which is about 30 million Americans. There are approximately one million Americans serving in the military. If only 1 in 5 of the poor vote, that equals about six million votes as compared to one million votes from the military. There are two relevant questions here. What percent of the poor vote Republican? How close was the 2000 Presidential Election? This leads directly to the answer of why would liberals rather appropriate money to social programs than to the defense of our country. Please note, the defense of our country is a primary, if not the primary responsibility of our government. If we don't protect the country, we may not have a country or our freedom.
9. Privatizing social security is risky. Contribute $300 a month to Social Security and you may get $1,800 a month when you retire. Sound like a good deal? There was a story about Dick Gephardt's mother living on Social Security and having numerous checks she had written returned for insufficient funds. Gephardt politicized the event by stating that this was an example of why Social Security should not be privatized, because if it were not for Social Security his mother would have been much worse off. Please note that the S & P 500 has returned more than 10% over it's lifetime. Therefore- if you invested $300 a month in an S & P 500 mutual fund for 40 years at the end of that time (enter these numbers into any compound interest calculator) you would have approximately 2 million dollars (Please note that these are conservative numbers). This means you could withdraw almost $200,000 or 10 percent a year and never exhaust your money. Break that down and it is $20, 000 a month. Social Security does not sound so good any longer. Please be advised that the key to obtaining wealth is systematically investing for the long term. There is no quick sure fire scheme to getting rich. If Gephardt's mother had been investing in mutual funds her entire life instead of Social Security- she would have been much better off at the present. Also, please be advised that privatizing Social Security helps the poor the more than anyone. The rich invest money in 401K plans. The poor, the clerk at a convenience store or a customer service representative doesn't have excess funds to invest and so their only investment vehicle is Security Security, which in reality is just a bond fund.
10. Trickle down economics does not work- Money in the hands of people stimulates the economy, whether they are rich or poor. The problem- how to you put money in the hands of the poor? Transfer of more wealth from the rich to the poor each year? This would only create greater dependency on entitlements and give lessen the incentive to achieve. Give the poor greater tax cuts? You can only cut the taxes for the poor by so much, because they don't pay much in taxes. When Tom Daschle said that the result of a proposed Bush tax cut would mean that a rich person would be able to buy a new car, without realizing it, he proved the theory of Trickle Down Economics. The person selling that car would generate income that he would otherwise not have had. Please note that if that person sells enough cars, he will gain wealth. If tax rates in this county were at 75% what would happen to the economy? The answer is that no one would have money to spend on anything except housing and food. The result would be that businesses everywhere would fail, because no one would have money to buy clothes, electronics, entertainment, repairs for their homes or cars, go on vacation..... If they did buy such things, they would have to go in to debt to do so. How would this help the working class or the poor? Please note the average taxpayer, pays roughly 50% of their income in taxes. After the attack on September 11th, Hillary Clinton said, "come to New York and spend money." She knew if people stopped coming to New York and spending money, businesses would fail and the economy in New York would suffer a great downturn, which would hurt the average working family. This is interesting considering that liberals are for tax hikes and against tax cuts. The only thing that helps the working class is a strong economy. It gives the average worker more freedom and more bargaining power. When the financial sector was booming from 1987 through 1989, workers were getting bonuses, overtime and stock options. When the financial sector suffered a downturn in 1990, it trickled down. There were no more bonuses, overtime, stock options and their were layoffs.
.........THIS IS JUST A START.
-
........CON'T......
11. This is a Bush recession- Liberals blame George Bush for the weak economy and say his tax cut has only made the economy worse. They point to jobs lost, the level of unemployment, the level of the financial markets and slow growth since he took office. The economy was beginning to turn around leading up to September 11, 2001. After the attack on September 11, everything changed. People did stop flying, hurting the airline industry, which in turn hurt hotels, restaurants, theme parks and tourism. There were some businesses that closed for an entire week and some in New York that never reopened. The financial markets were closed for more than a week and the financial services industry was devastated. September 11th hurt all sectors of the economy, which resulted in tens of thousands of layoffs. So how is George Bush is responsible for the poor economy? Liberals would have you forget that the attack on September 11th took place and we must never forget. George Bush is trying to revive the economy by lowering taxes. The irony here, the liberals who accuse him of hurting the economy oppose his tax cuts.
12. The banning of partial birth abortions is an assault on a woman's privacy and right to choose. A partial birth abortion is the termination of a life as a child is being born; hence the term partial birth abortion. The great divide on this issue rests with the circumstance that this procedure should be allowed. Liberals believe it should be allowed when the mother's health is in danger. Conservatives believe the procedure should only be allowed when the mother's life is in danger. Well established law states that deadly force can only be used to meet deadly force. This means that you can only use deadly force when you believe your life is in danger. If someone with the flu coughs on you, your health is danger. If someone berates you, your mental health may be in danger. If your neighbor doesn't take care of their property, it will cause you great aggravation and stress. However, there is no legal cause to use deadly force in any of these circumstances. However, liberals will allow children as they are being born to have their lives ended for the broad definition of health. Republicans tried to pass a bans on partial birth abortions with the exception of when the mother's life was in danger. However, Bill Clinton vetoed their efforts keeping in place the standard that if the health of the mother was in danger the procedure could take place. Another liberal lie with children's life as the casualty.
13. I am against the death penalty, because an innocent person may be executed. However, I am for paroling convicted felons in order to give them a second chance. Liberals say they are against the death penalty, because they fear that an innocent person may be executed. However, they argue for paroling convicted violent criminals in order to give them a second chance. There has yet to be a case where a person was given the death penalty and later found to be innocent. However- argue with a liberal and they will come up with one case. OK- so give them that one. Please be advised that there are thousands of documented cases of convicted violent criminals that were given numerous chances and then murdered innocent women and children. Cases such as Polly Klaas and most recently Carlie Brucia. Remember the 1988 election and Willie Horton? He was convicted of murder and given a life sentence without parole. However, only eleven years later, he was given a weekend pass from prison via a furlough program supported by then Democratic Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts. In 1976 Governor Dukakis vetoed a bill that would have banned the furloughs for first-degree murderers. On the weekend that Horton was released, he broke into the home of Clifford Barnes. He beat Mr. Barnes, cut him 22 times and then savagely raped his fiancee twice. Call liberals soft on crime, that they care more about criminals rights than victim rights and they will call you a cold hearted right wing extremist. Is this backward thinking? If liberals truly cared about saving lives, they would not be fighting for the parole and early release of convicted violent criminals.
14. The people of New Jersey deserve a choice- This was the mantra of liberals when they replaced New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli on the ballot for Senator with less than 30 days before the 2002 election. New Jersey law bars replacement of candidates less than 51 days before an election, unless for a special circumstance, such as death of a candidate. Torricelli was losing so badly he decided to quit the race and Democrats replaced him on the ballot with Frank Lautenberg just weeks before the election. They stated that the people of New Jersey deserved a choice. The people of New Jersey had a choice and they did not choose Torrecelli.
15. Democrats are for working class families- As Democrats are opposed to every tax reduction this statement is almost ludicrous. The largest obstacle to gaining wealth is taxes. The single biggest issue affecting middle class families on a daily basis is taxes. The middle class taxpayer pays close to 50% of their income in taxes. Please consider the following: federal income tax, state income tax, state sales tax, property tax, gas tax, tolls, taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, utility taxes, automobile registration fees, county surtaxes. Democrats are not for the middle class and break down their support into groups. They get funds and count on votes from women by being pro-choice, minorities for supporting affirmative action, gays for supporting gay rights, unions for not supporting school vouchers, and environmentalists supporting things such as not drilling for oil in Alaska. On the those who don't pay close attention to the issues they use spin- reference the top ten liberal lies!
16. Bill Clinton created millions of jobs- What policy did Bill Clinton implement to create millions of jobs? The majority of jobs that were created under the Clinton Administration were Internet related. The great boom of the Internet led to the creation of millions of jobs, which Clinton had nothing to do with. As a result of so many people working and paying taxes, there were large government surpluses. However, instead of attacking terrorism, Bill Clinton decided to use the Justice Department to attack Microsoft. There is a direct time line link between the decline of the NASDAQ and the ruling to break up Microsoft. As the NASDAQ declined many Internet companies failed or downsized. As a result, millions of jobs were lost and government revenues declined. Bill Clinton was handed a great economy and with his actions only served to undermine it.
17. My opposition to the Bush Administration or America is an act of patriotism because freedom of expression is what America was founded on. Civil discourse and civil disagreement are the founding principals of this country. What many liberals are practicing today is hate speech. I have seen Janeane Garofalo in a speech call Republicans evil, Jessica Lange say that she despises President Bush, Al Sharpton compare President Bush to a gang leader and Ted Kennedy say the war in Iraq was made up in Texas and a fraud. To understand- just switch the word African American with the word Republican or President Bush. What would be the result if someone said that African Americans were evil? Many Liberals name call and make accusations with no factual basis. Some of these individuals would be sued for slander if their statements were made against anyone other than President Bush. Yet- Liberals say their right to speak is being infringed upon by Conservatives. This is spin at its greatest. Hate speech is not civil discourse! Liberals have the right to speak out and express their views(even hate speech)- however- Conservatives have a right to react to that speech.
18. There was a rush to war in Iraq. I would have given diplomacy a chance and created a world coalition. Please note that Iraq violated 16 United Nation resolutions over a period of 10 years. The only reason Saddam Hussein allowed United Nations inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction was due to the fact that the United States had Iraq surrounded by war ships and over 100,000 U.S. troops. He had ordered them out of Iraq and took actions to block them from inspecting sites. Many of the troops had been sitting in the desert and on ships for 6 to 8 months before the war began while diplomacy was given a chance. Military leaders had many factors to consider in the timing of the war in Iraq, such as the time of year (weather conditions) and morale of the troops. They could not invade in the middle of summer or in the middle of winter. They also could not leave our men and women in uniform remaining idle and bored for months or years while we try to negotiate with a dictator as countries like France undercut our efforts. If you really want to lower morale and place troops in great danger- leave them sitting stationed idle in a desert around Iraq for two years before conducting a war. I guess this would have been the plan of the Democratic Party.
19.The Republicans are to blame for companies moving jobs overseas.
I was sitting next to an woman one time who was talking about her company and how they were moving jobs to India. She said, "the reason that all these jobs are going overseas is because the Republicans are in power". I paused for a second and then I told her, "I think you have that backward". I subsequently began to explain to her that the liberals are the ones that impose so many restrictions on business. Democrats are continually wanting to raise the minimum wage, impose excessive environmental legislation, are infamous for raising taxes when in power, are pro union and are generally anti-business. Two examples are California and New York. In California, a person can claim workers compensation for almost any type of issue. As a result, businesses pay almost 10 times the amount of workers compensation insurance per employee as in other states. Many businesses have left California and moved to neighboring Nevada just due to that cost. In New York, when Mario Cuomo was governor, taxes were so high that many business decided to just leave the state. When conditions are not hospitable- business leave and find other locations that are more suitable. Recently this has been a trend with companies moving parts or all of their operations overseas. As previously noted, The Democratic Party has been the party for raising the minimum wage, imposing excessive costly environmental legislation, votes to raise taxes, is pro union and has been anti-business. The Republican Party has always been in favor of deregulation, lowering taxes, letting the economy dictate wages and creating legislation that is pro business Now- you tell me who is to blame for companies moving jobs overseas
20. The Enron Scandal- First Democrats attacked the Bush administration demanding to know the extent they were involved in the Enron collapse. Once Democrats learned that they were not involved- they attacked the Bush Administration demanding to know why they did not help to save the company.
21. We don't need to drill for oil in Alaska, because we could save the same amount of oil by increasing the standards for miles per gallon on cars and SUV's- What liberals are really saying is that they care more about contributions from environmentalists than they do about your family. What they are saying is they care more about the caribou than your children. When you lower the standards of miles per gallon, in effect you lower the safety of cars. Please note, America is about freedom of choice. If someone wants to drive an SUV, so be it. I guess liberals would have us all driving around in a Yugo if they had their choice. It wasn't that long ago when liberals were trying to reduce the speed limits on highways, because they said it would save lives. Do you see a contradiction here? Also please note, no one knows how much oil is in Alaska. I know liberals will charge that Republicans are for drilling in Alaska, because oil companies are a big contributor to their party. I am not even going to go into the National Security implication and benefits of being energy dependent from the Middle East. Lastly, and most importantly, we need to develop affordable alternative sources of energy such as hydrogen fuel cells.
22. The comparison of President Bush to Hitler by liberal extremists such as Moveon.org - Please note that Hitler conducted a war to conquer countries in order to expand his empire. He purposefully enslaved and murdered millions of innocent people. President Bush conducted a war to liberate innocent people and rid the world of a dangerous dictator. A dictator that had started two wars and purposefully murdered his own people. This comparison by liberals would be like comparing a criminal that raided a home for the purpose of murdering its innocent occupants to obtain their possessions and the police raiding a home to capture that criminal.
23. George Bush was not elected by a majority of the American people so he does not have a mandate for his agenda- This was the mantra of Tom Daschle after he became the Senate Majority Leader. Daschle became the Senate majority Leader when Senator Jim Jeffords switched from the Republican Party to the Independent Party, thereby giving the Democrats a one person majority in the Senate. Daschle became Senate Majority Leader not by vote of the American people, but from a Senator switching parties. He used his position to say George Bush did not have a mandate and then blocked straight up or down votes in the Senate by requiring a super majority of 60 votes to pass certain legislation. In effect, Daschle was trying to impose his own agenda on the American people when they did not elect him to do so. As we all know, in the 2002 congressional elections, Democrats lost seats in the Senate and Daschle lost his lost his position as Senate Majority Leader.
24. I am against the death penalty, but for abortion- This is more of an observation on just how backwards liberal thinking really is; however, I felt compelled to add it to the list. How can you support the taking of an innocent life and be opposed to taking the life of someone that has committed acts of evil? Those on death row have hurt innocent people, families, children and society. What acts has an unborn child committed to deserve the fate of being aborted. This is a perfect example of how liberals are on the wrong side of issues. Liberals will claim that abortion is a right to privacy issue - the so called, "it is my body and I can do with it what I wish". Well- a person cannot do whatever they wish with their body if it effects me. You cannot take your fist (which is part of your body) and punch me in the face. A person has the right to privacy in their home, but that does not extend to activities which are illegal. Your rights end where my rights begin. A heart beats at less than 4 weeks. Isn't a heart beat the final determination of death. Why should a heart beat not be the final determination of life?
25. We cannot fight two wars at the same time, there is no link between Iraq and terrorism- This was the liberal mantra on keeping a ruthless brutal dictator in power. Please note that Saddam Hussein was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Mass graves have been found in Iraq and Saddam was a terrorist.
26. It was wrong to fire Linda Ronstadt- she has the right of freedom of speech-
Linda Ronstadt was hired to do a job, she offended the owner's customers and she was fired. Please be advised that a business owner has every right to fire an employee that offends its customers. Linda Ronstadt is not going to jail for her comments and she can speak out all she wants on her own time. Liberals that say it is a matter of free speech are just lying, ignorant or never owned a business. Please note that Michael Moore is asking the owners of the casino to apologize to Ronstadt and bring her back to perform. This is an example of how Moore distorts the truth and reality. If someone working at a job offends 40% of the customers- what do you think might happen? Common sense would dictate that they would not have a job very long. Imagine on the show The Apprentice - if a contestant offended almost one half of their prospective customers? How long do you think it would be before Donald Trump said - you're fired? Would this person's freedom of speech being inhibited because they were fired? Should Trump apologize and ask the contestant back? That is how ridiculous Moore's statement is! Employees are being paid to generate business- not drive it away. Linda Ronstadt is being paid to do a job and she should do it. Her job is not to offend the owner's customers! If you owned a business and you had an employee that was offending customers - you would fire them too!
27.The terror alert was based on dated information that was years old - it was done for political purposes by the Bush Administration.
In August 2004, the Bush Administration released a warning to the public about possible plans by al Qaeda to target financial centers in some large U.S. cities. This information was met with criticism and skepticism by liberal Democrats and the liberal media because the warning was based on information was was a few years old. Please be advised that al Qaeda does not plan major attacks and carry them out the following day. The most destructive terrorist attacks executed by al Qaeda were planned for years. The attack on America on September 11, 2001, was 5 years in the making. Does this mean if that plot was learned 4 1/2 years after it was conceived (6 months before it occurred) that the information should have be dismissed as old and dated? That seems to be the strategy of liberal Democrats and the opinion of liberal media. These are the same liberals that bash President Bush for not doing enough to fight the war on terror.
28. The Swift Boat Veterans that are speaking out against John Kerry are lying- they were not on Kerry's boat.
This is the equivalent of a defense lawyer stating that a witness who saw a murder from across the street is lying, because the witness was not on the actual street corner of the murder. Please note that most of the Swift Boats patrolled in groups. The veterans did not have to actually be on Kerry's boat to witness what took place.
29. The attempt by liberals to stop television stations from airing the Swift Boat veterans ad about John Kerry's military service because they say it contains false and libelous charges.
Liberal organizations run television ads against President Bush based on innuendo, speculation, accusation and distorted truths. Liberals have always run these types of ads. Remember the James Byrd ad that ran in Texas? Moveon.org has even created ads comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler. Julian Bond - the leader of the the NAACP- in speeches has compared the Bush Administration to Nazi Germany. All of this is rhetoric. It is opinion and not based on facts or eyewitness accounts. The Swift Boat Veterans are speaking out based upon their eyewitness accounts. This is just another example of the tactic of liberal spin, which is accusing their opponents of the exact tactic they are using.
30. America is partly to blame for the acts of terrorism that took place on 9/11. The people of Spain, Australia, Iraq, Pakistan, Israel and the children in Russian did nothing to deserve the acts of terror that they have suffered. Terrorists have killed their own people and dictators have killed and watched their own people suffer. Yet- liberals such as Ted Turner believe that America shares part of the blame for the attacks on September 11, 2001.
31. It wasn't rape- what was she doing in his hotel room that late at night?
This is the defense that liberals proposed in reference to the allegations of rape against Mike Tyson and Kobe Bryant. They had no regard or consideration for the facts. Liberals believed that because a woman was in a hotel room late at night if she was raped it was totally appropriate. Do you think they would believe this if it were their daughter? Let me tell you how ridiculous their argument is. If you follow this logic then this must mean that if a woman kisses a man passionately - he has the right to have intercourse with her. The liberal argument would follow that - what was she doing kissing him? If you follow this logic it means that if a woman takes a trip to see a male friend he has the right to have intercourse with her? The liberal argument would be - why was she going all that way to see him? I have been in hotel rooms late at night many times in my life with friends. I guess according to liberals - women do not have the same freedoms as men.
32. Abraham Lincoln, Rudy Guliani, Colin Powell, Schwarzenegger..... are liberals
Liberals will try to claim Republicans to their side by saying that they are really liberals. They will point to one or two issues to make their case. Liberals will argue that Republicans such as Rudy Guliani or Arnold Schwarzenegger are really liberals because they are pro choice. I have heard liberals say that Colin Powell is a liberal, because he is an anti-war general. This would be the equivalent of saying that Joe Lieberman is a conservative because he supported the war in Iraq or that Bill Clinton was a conservative, because he supported welfare reform. You must look at a person and their views as a whole- not just one or two. The above politicians in the title of this section agree with 90% of the conservative cause. Because they do not agree with 100% of the conservative platform- does not make them liberal. This only shows that the Republican Party is an inclusive party that welcomes diverse views and it is the Democratic party is an extreme party. If you are a pro choice Democrat - you will not find a prevalent role in the that Party.
33. President Bush said he was going to change the tone in Washington
This is what liberals are saying in reference to the divisive tone between Republicans and Democrats in Washington DC. The problem is that liberals are creating the divisive tone. Al Gore said President Bush betrayed his country. Al Sharpton compared President Bush to a gang leader. Senator Byrd compared Republicans to Nazis. Senator Kennedy said the war in Iraq was a fraud. Howard Dean suggested that President Bush had prior knowledge of the attacks on September 11, 2001. This is just a small sample of statements made by liberals against conservatives and then they have the nerve to say that the tone in Washington is divisive and say that President Bush was going to change the tone!
HOPE THIS HELPS
-
I googled your source, Joe.
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/007312.html
Still in the 28% believing the Bush Administration. Do you think you're "faithful" enough to be in the final 5%?
-
She's got this chump to thank:
-
I googled your source, Joe.
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/007312.html
Still in the 28% believing the Bush Administration. Do you think you're "faithful" enough to be in the final 5%?
That wasn't my source...........but 28% is still higher than congress'!
-
How can you say that?
I would hate to see you in her position.
And please do not bring up some sleazy innuendo about money for her son's death. The republican war machine makes its living on the blood and bones of our nation's finest and they do it all for the dollar. Her son was killed.
You may disagree with her, but attacking her in this manner is bush league.
Do you really expect anything different from Mr. Hate? He's the single most hate filled and propaganda fueled poster on this board, no one's even close. It doesn't matter who the person is, what they've been through or what they've accomplished, if they have a different opinion than Mr. Hate then he literally hates them with every fiber of his being and in many cases advocates for them to be killed.
-
That wasn't my source...........but 28% is still higher than congress'!
::)
My cement slab is better than your clump of dirt lol
-
::)
My cement slab is better than your clump of dirt lol
LOL!
-
Even if if you and i disagree on just about eveything involving politics maybe we can agree on this:
Both of those approval ratings is a strong indication our nation is sick of our politicians.
-
::)
My cement slab is better than your clump of dirt lol
Bush is the failed father while congress is the bitchas housewife that wont do shit.
-
Both of those approval ratings is a strong indication our nation is sick of our politicians.
Bump for getting some liberals in office to carry out the people's will.
-
Bump for getting some liberals in office to carry out the people's will.
No doubt. But it's it unrealistic to think it would actually happen IMO.
-
1. Count Every Vote- This was the mantra of the Al Gore campaign after the 2000 presidential election, when they were hand counting votes in 3 highly Democratic counties, while at the same time trying to disqualify military votes. In effect they were trying to change the rules of the election after the election had taken place, which violated federal election law. A liberal Florida Supreme Court ruled in the favor of the Gore Campaign until the U.S. Supreme Court put a stop to it. To this very day, liberals actually believe George Bush stole the election.
2. There is a vast right wing conspiracy- There is a far right wing in the Republican Party, but it is a small fringe element. However, there is a far left wing in this country and it is a large part of the main stream of the Democratic party. Remember when Hillary Clinton went on the Today Show and responded to the allegation of an affair between her husband (President Clinton) and an intern (Monica Lewinsky) as untrue and blamed it on a Right Wing Conspiracy? Over the past ten years Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Mario Cuomo, Richard Gephardt and Jesse Jackson have been the loudest and most influential voices in the Democratic party. Are any of these people Moderates? Also please note, there is a liberal bias in the media. You might make the argument that there is a vast left wing conspiracy.
3. This is a tax break for the rich- This is class warfare at it's finest. If a person earning $40,000 a year gets a 10% tax reduction and a person earning $1,000,000 per year gets a 1% tax reduction- the person earning $1,000,000 will get a much greater tax break. Tom Daschle and Richard Gephardt once stood next to a car in front of the Capital Building holding up a muffler. They made a statement that a proposed George Bush tax cut would allow the rich to buy a new car and the average American to buy a muffler. This is a strategy Democrats use on every Republican proposed tax cut. They stop everyone from getting a reduction in their taxes by using class warfare. Please note, tax reductions are not an entitlement program.
4. There is no liberal bias in the media- For close to 50 years the news in America was controlled by ABC, NBC and CBS. In the last 20 years CNN came on to the scene. This is pretty much comparable to the BBC in Europe and AL Jazzera in the Arab world today. It was in the last 6 years when Fox News and other cable news networks were born to give a more balanced approach to news analysis. However, if you look at the major networks today, they are still run by the left. Tim Russert, the President of NBC News, at one time worked for Mario Cuomo. The top players at ABC News are Peter Jennings, George Stephanopolous, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts- hardly conservatives. Lets not forget the statement the President of ABC News made after September 11th. CBS News has Dan Rather and Bob Schieffer- more non-conservatives. All you have to say about CNN is that it was created by Ted Turner. In print media there is the Los Angeles Times in California, The New York Times in New York and The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Georgia. These have been the major newspapers in our most populous cities for many years and their reporting has a liberal bias.
5. Republicans want to cut school lunch programs- This was the attack leveled by Democrats against the Republicans during a budget battle in 1995. Democrats proposed a double digit increase in funding for school lunch programs, while Republican proposed a more modest increase. To put this in perspective, you must ask this question. How many people get a double digit increase in their pay each year? Democrats called the Republican proposal a cut and charged they wanted to starve children, because the proposal was less than what Democrats proposed. Please note, the Republican proposal called for an increase in funding. The media printed the story, never challenging it, even though it was not true. This became famous for when does an increase become a cut- only in Washington DC.
6. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky- We all know the truth here. There is nothing to be added- except that it was not a vast right wing conspiracy.
7. Republicans are mean spirited and want to throw the poor out on the street- This was a charge leveled by Democrats against Republicans when they proposed time limits for receiving welfare. Polls show that the majority of Americans believe in time restrictions for welfare recipients. Republicans know that to escape poverty it takes education, hard work and discipline. The greatness of this country rests in its freedom and that within one generation a person can rise from poverty to obtain great wealth. Allowing endless dependency on an entitlement program has trapped many in poverty. Why would Democrats want to keep anyone dependent on an entitlement program like welfare? How many people on welfare vote Republican?
8. I support the military- It has been well documented that when it comes to voting for military funding- liberals would much rather spend money on social programs. First you must understand their rational. Approximately 10% of the population in the United States is poor, which is about 30 million Americans. There are approximately one million Americans serving in the military. If only 1 in 5 of the poor vote, that equals about six million votes as compared to one million votes from the military. There are two relevant questions here. What percent of the poor vote Republican? How close was the 2000 Presidential Election? This leads directly to the answer of why would liberals rather appropriate money to social programs than to the defense of our country. Please note, the defense of our country is a primary, if not the primary responsibility of our government. If we don't protect the country, we may not have a country or our freedom.
9. Privatizing social security is risky. Contribute $300 a month to Social Security and you may get $1,800 a month when you retire. Sound like a good deal? There was a story about Dick Gephardt's mother living on Social Security and having numerous checks she had written returned for insufficient funds. Gephardt politicized the event by stating that this was an example of why Social Security should not be privatized, because if it were not for Social Security his mother would have been much worse off. Please note that the S & P 500 has returned more than 10% over it's lifetime. Therefore- if you invested $300 a month in an S & P 500 mutual fund for 40 years at the end of that time (enter these numbers into any compound interest calculator) you would have approximately 2 million dollars (Please note that these are conservative numbers). This means you could withdraw almost $200,000 or 10 percent a year and never exhaust your money. Break that down and it is $20, 000 a month. Social Security does not sound so good any longer. Please be advised that the key to obtaining wealth is systematically investing for the long term. There is no quick sure fire scheme to getting rich. If Gephardt's mother had been investing in mutual funds her entire life instead of Social Security- she would have been much better off at the present. Also, please be advised that privatizing Social Security helps the poor the more than anyone. The rich invest money in 401K plans. The poor, the clerk at a convenience store or a customer service representative doesn't have excess funds to invest and so their only investment vehicle is Security Security, which in reality is just a bond fund.
10. Trickle down economics does not work- Money in the hands of people stimulates the economy, whether they are rich or poor. The problem- how to you put money in the hands of the poor? Transfer of more wealth from the rich to the poor each year? This would only create greater dependency on entitlements and give lessen the incentive to achieve. Give the poor greater tax cuts? You can only cut the taxes for the poor by so much, because they don't pay much in taxes. When Tom Daschle said that the result of a proposed Bush tax cut would mean that a rich person would be able to buy a new car, without realizing it, he proved the theory of Trickle Down Economics. The person selling that car would generate income that he would otherwise not have had. Please note that if that person sells enough cars, he will gain wealth. If tax rates in this county were at 75% what would happen to the economy? The answer is that no one would have money to spend on anything except housing and food. The result would be that businesses everywhere would fail, because no one would have money to buy clothes, electronics, entertainment, repairs for their homes or cars, go on vacation..... If they did buy such things, they would have to go in to debt to do so. How would this help the working class or the poor? Please note the average taxpayer, pays roughly 50% of their income in taxes. After the attack on September 11th, Hillary Clinton said, "come to New York and spend money." She knew if people stopped coming to New York and spending money, businesses would fail and the economy in New York would suffer a great downturn, which would hurt the average working family. This is interesting considering that liberals are for tax hikes and against tax cuts. The only thing that helps the working class is a strong economy. It gives the average worker more freedom and more bargaining power. When the financial sector was booming from 1987 through 1989, workers were getting bonuses, overtime and stock options. When the financial sector suffered a downturn in 1990, it trickled down. There were no more bonuses, overtime, stock options and their were layoffs.
.........THIS IS JUST A START.
Whatever it is you just said there bears no relation the topic of the Iraq war.
1. I suggest you look at Florida election laws before you trot out this tired argument.
For what it’s worth, the SCT decision in Bush v. Gore is easily the worst decision in SCT history. I’ve read it several times and I have read Vincent Bugliosi’s criticism of the decision and I stand w/ Mr. Bugliosi: But I personally will stake my prosecutorial reputation, if I have one, on the proposition that within the pages of The Betrayal of America I prove beyond all reasonable doubt that these justices were absolutely up to no good, and they deliberately set out to hand the election to George Bush.
2. There was/is a vast rightwing conspiracy—I suggest you look at Richard Mellon Scaife and the Arkansas project.
3. The Bush tax cut gave a disproportionate amount to the top bracket—they received over 40% of the tax cut but the top marginal rate was only 39%. You’re batting 1000 so far.
4. The media is not liberally biased. It was the Liberla NY Times that ran the bullshit Whitewater stories and the bull shit Iraq WMD Judith Miller stories. You prove nothing. Do you honestly believe that corporate owned media is going to undercut its own bottom line? Look at underreported stories.
5. Lunch Programs? Was this like when Reagan had Ketchup categorized as a vegetable?
6. Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman. You’d know that if you knew what the definition of “is” is.
7. Welfare works. It's that simple. The majority of recipients are on it for a brief time before finding longterm work. Republicans don’t know shit about escaping poverty b/c they are elitists that largely depend on nepotism to succeed, to wit one GW Bush. He ain’t no rugged individual like Clinton was.
8. Opinions about gov. spending are just that. The convoluted argument that follows is just speculative bullshit. Where’s the lie?
9. This is too easy. Privatizing Social Security is not risky, unless you depend on SS for retirement income. Privatization is a boondoggle that would DESTROY the character of SS as social insurance and turn it into a cash cow for Wall Street to the detriment of US workers. Please push me on this one.
10. Trickle down economics don’t work. Reagan had to raise taxes 7 times in his 8 years as president to overcome his ruinous and irresponsible tax cuts.
You mount no credible argument for the Iraq discussion and this other nonsense is food for the Free Republic.
-
Here is a link showing the results for May of reputable opinion polls for Congress.
http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm (http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm)
Here is a link showing the results for May of reputable opinion polls for the President.
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm (http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm)
I don't see where Bush is leading over Congress in the polls as certain neotaints on this board point out from time to time.
In fact if you look at the "Disapproval" ratings on all those polls you'll notice Bush's numbers are significantly higher.
As in most instances just more mis-information from certain neotaints.
Nice job.
BTW, OZMO hit the nail right on the head. Bush and Congress both suck. It's like comparing the stench from two different cesspools.
-
Politicians that are hypocrites and liars? Imagine that. Show me the democrats' lies. Hypocrisy is not just a slander but part of the learning dialectic where one progresses from an ignorant position to an informed position. We are all hypocrites in that respect.
I will gladly take the side of a 'hypocrite' finally admitting that the war is illegal and immoral rather than that of the stalwart republicans still supporting Bush b/c if we don't fight them over there we'll have to fight them here.
Which side do you stand on?
Go back and read what Democrats had to say about Saddam from about 1998 through 2003 (they called him a threat and actually asked Bush to do something about it). Look at the fact they passed at least two resolutions AFTER the war started that endorsed the war. Then look how they ran a one-issue campaign against the war during the last election and when they took control of Congress they didn't do squat. Now their approval ratings are as bad or worse than Dubya.
After leading the American people to believe Saddam was a threat, essentially asking for war, endorsing the war after it started, and then running against the war, they are hypocrites and liars in my book.
Above all, they do not have the moral high ground in this matter. No way.
I support the troops. I support my country. I support the president, regardless of party. That's the side I'm on.
-
I support the president, regardless of party. That's the side I'm on.
Blind allegiance to whoever is in power is nothing to be proud of.
-
Bump for getting some liberals in office to carry out the people's will.
Liberals already have a majority in both houses.
-
Blind allegiance to whoever is in power is nothing to be proud of.
I didn't say anything about "blind allegiance." I don't support what I don't agree with.
-
Liberals already have a majority in both houses.
Democrats, not liberals, have the majority in both houses.
-
Democrats, not liberals, have the majority in both houses.
I don't see a distinction here. :)
-
damn.... policitcs is fvcking boring.
-
I don't see a distinction here. :)
And you moderate a political board. ::)
-
the war, in the eyes of Americans, belongs to the republicans.
and if it didn't before, Bush vetoing that spending bill with withdraw deadlines did the trick.
in 2008, all you're going to hear is guys saying "I TRIED to stop it - bush vetoed it".
That veto is gonna bite your ass and cost you the 2008 election.
-
And you moderate a political board. ::)
Get out. Really?
-
Do you really expect anything different from Mr. Hate? He's the single most hate filled and propaganda fueled poster on this board, no one's even close. It doesn't matter who the person is, what they've been through or what they've accomplished, if they have a different opinion than Mr. Hate then he literally hates them with every fiber of his being and in many cases advocates for them to be killed.
Because I don't agree with YOUR propaganda makes be a hater? Ok dude, whatever :o
-
Even if if you and i disagree on just about eveything involving politics maybe we can agree on this:
Both of those approval ratings is a strong indication our nation is sick of our politicians.
I do agree with this and I also think what Bush might do with immigration would be a disaster, so if any of you think that I agree with him on all issues, think again!
-
Because I don't agree with YOUR propaganda makes be a hater? Ok dude, whatever :o
Excellent post.
Care to point out any propaganda I've posted? No, I didn't think so.
I just posted two links to polls showing approval ratings of Bush and Congress.
Not surprisingly your assertion that Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush is not true and in fact his disapproval rating is much higher.
BTW, how's your "Enigma spammed my board with kiddie porn and he lied about being a doctor and serving in Iraq" investigation working out for you? Any new leads Columbo?
-
Sheehan made another announcement today.
-
Go back and read what Democrats had to say about Saddam from about 1998 through 2003 (they called him a threat and actually asked Bush to do something about it). Look at the fact they passed at least two resolutions AFTER the war started that endorsed the war. Then look how they ran a one-issue campaign against the war during the last election and when they took control of Congress they didn't do squat. Now their approval ratings are as bad or worse than Dubya.
After leading the American people to believe Saddam was a threat, essentially asking for war, endorsing the war after it started, and then running against the war, they are hypocrites and liars in my book.
Above all, they do not have the moral high ground in this matter. No way.
I support the troops. I support my country. I support the president, regardless of party. That's the side I'm on.
Part of being a good human being is acknowledging when mistakes are made and doing something to rectify the error. The democrats that supported Bush at one time now acknowledge that the invasion was a mistake based on Bush's misuse of Congressional authority to use force in seeking Iraq's compliance for WMD inspections.
Frankly Beach Bum, I don't believe it was the democratic party that trotted up to the WhiteHouse to ask the President to do something about that US bound military/terrorist Comet known as Iraq. That looks like revisionism to me.
After the democrats took Congress they tried to do something about the war in Iraq. But they ran into procedural roadblocks put up by the republicans (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020801884_pf.html) and a hearty Veto from the President.
The Democrats DO NOT have a veto-proof majority. They might have a majority but they still lack power to do anything about the war.
If the Democrats do oppose the war, they do have the high moral ground b/c they are looking to save american and iraqi lives. While the republicans stand for nothing but more death and destruction and failure--more of the same.
I don't support our troops. I don't support our president. He's set the US on a course of lawless violence and our troops are being used as muscle for this endeavor
But I do love my country and I support the US Constitution.
-
Frankly Beach Bum, I don't believe it was the democratic party that trotted up to the WhiteHouse to ask the President to do something about that US bound military/terrorist Comet known as Iraq. That looks like revisionism to me.
O Rly?
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We 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. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
-
O Rly?
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We 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. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Yeah really.
Bush was the man that first brought the “evidence” of Iraq’s reconstituted nuclear and biological programs, not the democrats.
Bush was the man that misused Congressional Authority in ordering the illegal invasion.
It was the Bush administration, not the democrats, that constantly tied Al Qaeda with Hussein to the extent that almost 70% of Americans thought that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks.
Bush was the man that leaked 'cherry picked' information from a classified National Intelligence Estimate while excluding any oppositional evidence or opinion. Bush subsequently feigned ignorance of his involvement, keeping the public and the investigators from seeking accountability.
As for your letters from democrats based on cherry picked information, they mean little.
The 1998 letter was a different time. In 1998 Hussein just got done booting the WMD inspectors and some people wanted them back in immediately.
Why don’t we look at Bob Graham’s opinion on the letter excerpt you posted:
...Yes, more than 100 Democrats voted to authorize him to take the nation to war. Most of them, though, like their Republican colleagues, did so in the legitimate belief that the president and his administration were truthful in their statements that Saddam Hussein was a gathering menace -- that if Hussein was not disarmed, the smoking gun would become a mushroom cloud.
I, too, presumed the president was being truthful -- until a series of events undercut that confidence.
At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. …. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared.
His (Tenet’s) people were too committed to other assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein's capabilities and will to use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE.
… it (NIE) contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked.
…Tenet presented a 25-page document titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs." It represented an unqualified case that Hussein possessed them, avoided a discussion of whether he had the will to use them and omitted the dissenting opinions contained in the classified version. Its conclusions, such as "If Baghdad acquired sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year," underscored the White House's claim that exactly such material was being provided from Africa to Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html
Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel
Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents.
Indeed, the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004, according to congressional sources.
… Although the Senate Intelligence Committee and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, commonly known as the 9/11 commission, ...(concluded) that, for the most part, the CIA and other agencies did indeed provide policy makers with accurate information regarding the lack of evidence of ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
But a comparison of public statements by the president, the vice president, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld show that in the days just before a congressional vote authorizing war, they professed to have been given information from U.S. intelligence assessments showing evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link.
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm
I apologize for the verbosity but it is necessary to deflate and explain your response.
-
Yeah really.
Bush was the man that first brought the “evidence” of Iraq’s reconstituted nuclear and biological programs, not the democrats.
Bush was the man that misused Congressional Authority in ordering the illegal invasion.
It was the Bush administration, not the democrats, that constantly tied Al Qaeda with Hussein to the extent that almost 70% of Americans thought that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks.
Bush was the man that leaked 'cherry picked' information from a classified National Intelligence Estimate while excluding any oppositional evidence or opinion. Bush subsequently feigned ignorance of his involvement, keeping the public and the investigators from seeking accountability.
As for your letters from democrats based on cherry picked information, they mean little.
The 1998 letter was a different time. In 1998 Hussein just got done booting the WMD inspectors and some people wanted them back in immediately.
Why don’t we look at Bob Graham’s opinion on the letter excerpt you posted:
...Yes, more than 100 Democrats voted to authorize him to take the nation to war. Most of them, though, like their Republican colleagues, did so in the legitimate belief that the president and his administration were truthful in their statements that Saddam Hussein was a gathering menace -- that if Hussein was not disarmed, the smoking gun would become a mushroom cloud.
I, too, presumed the president was being truthful -- until a series of events undercut that confidence.
At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. …. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared.
His (Tenet’s) people were too committed to other assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein's capabilities and will to use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE.
… it (NIE) contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked.
…Tenet presented a 25-page document titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs." It represented an unqualified case that Hussein possessed them, avoided a discussion of whether he had the will to use them and omitted the dissenting opinions contained in the classified version. Its conclusions, such as "If Baghdad acquired sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year," underscored the White House's claim that exactly such material was being provided from Africa to Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html
Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel
Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents.
Indeed, the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004, according to congressional sources.
… Although the Senate Intelligence Committee and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, commonly known as the 9/11 commission, ...(concluded) that, for the most part, the CIA and other agencies did indeed provide policy makers with accurate information regarding the lack of evidence of ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
But a comparison of public statements by the president, the vice president, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld show that in the days just before a congressional vote authorizing war, they professed to have been given information from U.S. intelligence assessments showing evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link.
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm
I apologize for the verbosity but it is necessary to deflate and explain your response.
I see. So when Democrats were trumpeting the Saddam/WMD threat in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 they were being misled by Bush (even though Clinton was president during part of that time). And when John Kerry says on 23 Jan. 03 that "without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein," he was under some Bush spell. And when they voted to endorse the war after it started, twice, they were still being fooled by Bush. C'mon dude.
There is an unbroken chain of statements and representations by Democrats covering two presidential administrations about the threat that Saddam posed. I don't buy the "Democrats were fooled" argument for one second. They believed what Republicans and much of the world believed. They don't have clean hands at all in this mess.
-
I see. So when Democrats were trumpeting the Saddam/WMD threat in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 they were being misled by Bush (even though Clinton was president during part of that time). And when John Kerry says on 23 Jan. 03 that "without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein," he was under some Bush spell. And when they voted to endorse the war after it started, twice, they were still being fooled by Bush. C'mon dude.
There is an unbroken chain of statements and representations by Democrats covering two presidential administrations about the threat that Saddam posed. I don't buy the "Democrats were fooled" argument for one second. They believed what Republicans and much of the world believed. They don't have clean hands at all in this mess.
Is 2003 prior to 2004? Then Edwards/Kerry did not see the countervailing evidence that Bush buried until 2004. And the war was well under way by then.
Tomorrow I will list more evidence that our president buried from the Congress, b/c the above is just the tip of the iceberg.
Have a great night BeachBum.
-
Is 2003 prior to 2004? Then Edwards/Kerry did not see the countervailing evidence that Bush buried until 2004. And the war was well under way by then.
Tomorrow I will list more evidence that our president buried from the Congress, b/c the above is just the tip of the iceberg.
Have a great night BeachBum.
Kerry's statement was 03. The resolutions supporting the war, if I recall correctly, 04 or 05.
Good talking to you Decker.
-
Was Sen Kerry one of those 6 senators who bothered to read the national intel report on iraq, before voting to destroy their infrastructure and kill thousands?
-
J. Kerry: "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."
-
Whatever it is you just said there bears no relation the topic of the Iraq war.
He didn't say it.
It was a cut and paste.
-Hedge
-
Kerry's statement was 03. The resolutions supporting the war, if I recall correctly, 04 or 05.
Good talking to you Decker.
I'm not trying to absolve all democrats of blame. In fact, it was Bill Clinton that created much of the mess with Iraq in the 1990s. It was Clinton that refused to remove the trade blockade with Iraq back in the late 1990s even though it was agreed that the sanctions would be lifted if Hussein complied with inspections. Hussein did comply and Clinton reneged. That's why Hussein kicked out the inspectors. The US was acting in bad faith under UN resolutions.
But the case for manufacturing/cherry-picking information by the Bush administration is strong:
When Bush met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, both men referred to an apparently "new" report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that had found Mr. Hussein trying to rebuild, as Mr. Blair put it, at his "former nuclear-weapon sites." Mr. Bush elaborated, citing an IAEA report that Iraq was "six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."
The IAEA responded that not only was there no new report, "there's never been a report"… Gen. Colin L. Powell . . . acknowledged . . . that [Iraq's nuclear threat] is not any real threat -- in the short term or even medium term.
Fake Iraq documents 'embarrassing' for U.S.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspectors. ... they were "obvious" fakes. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html
________________________ _______
CLAIM: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." President Bush, 1/28/03
FACT: On 7/8/03, the W. Post reported the Administration admitted the Iraq-Nuclear allegation was false. ?Revelations by officials at the CIA, the State Department, the UN, in Congress and elsewhere? made clear that the White House knew the claim was false before making the allegation [7/20/03]. In fact, ?CIA Director George Tenet successfully intervened with White House officials to have the reference? removed from a Bush speech in Oct. of 2002. [W. Post, 7/13/03]
CLAIM: "We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Vice President Cheney, 3/16/03
FACT: The UN reported on 9/8/03 that Iraq was not capable of pursuing an active nuclear weapons program after 1991. The report said "No indication of post-1991 weaponization activities was uncovered in Iraq.
FACT: Voice of America reported on 9/16/03 that, a senior official in Iraq's new science ministry says the country never revived its nuclear program after inspectors dismantled it in the 1990's. The scientist, now a member of the U.S.-backed administration in Iraq, says Iraqi scientists had no way to re-start the program because the inspectors took away all the necessary resources.
CLAIM: Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. - President Bush, 10/7/02
CLAIM: "[Saddam] is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time."- VP Cheney, 3/24/02
CLAIM: "We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." - VP Cheney, 3/16/03
CLAIM: "We do know that [Saddam] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon."- National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 9/10/02
CLAIM: "Iraqis were actively trying to pursue a nuclear weapons program." - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 7/11/03
FACT: "We have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material."
- Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03
CLAIM: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories."
-President Bush, on locating the mobile biological weapons labs, 5/29/03
CLAIM: "We know where the [WMD] are." - Don Rumsfeld, 3/30/03
CLAIM: "Iraq has at least seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents - equipment mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery." President Bush, 2/8/03
CLAIM: "I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it now." - Colin Powell, 5/4/03
FACT: "We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile biological weapons production effort?Technical limitations would prevent any of these processes from being ideally suited to these trailers."
- Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03
CLAIM: "There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." Colin Powell, 2/5/03
CLAIM: "[Saddam has] amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly smallpox. He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas." --Don Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
CLAIM: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." Vice President Cheney, 8/26/02
CLAIM: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons?And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes." President Bush, 9/26/02
CLAIM: "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." President Bush, 1/28/03
CLAIM: "His regime has large, unaccounted-for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons -- including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas; anthrax, botulism, and possibly smallpox -- and he has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons." Don Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
FACT: "Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991. Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new chemical weapon munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections."
- Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03
http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/priraqclaimfact1029.htm
Wow, talk about speaking with one deceptive voice.
The administration purposefully pushed the threat posed by Iraq even when it contradicted former statements made by the same officials and even when experts objected to the validity of Administration assertions.
The time after 9/11 left a populace ripe for the plucking, what with the shock of the attacks and all. But I cannot forgive the democrats for being complicitous with the Bush Administration. Political expediency is no defense.
Only one man from the democratic side of the aisle stood against Bush at every turn re the run up to war and that was Senator Russ Feingold.