2008 Election Resonance

I believe that the “mood of the nation” is indeed one of “change”; a desire for unification after 8 years of Clinton and 8 years of Bush, which has seen deep partisan divides.

That’s, in part, why potential voters see Obama’s charisma and eloquence, and seek no further, for the substance beneath the polish and veneer. They do not see that he is no centrist, when it comes to policy issues. Obama, for them, represents what they all ache for: something different. Something other than the Washington career “status quo” incumbents- the aging baby boomers and Washington establishment. Obama represents the exuberance of youth, and the excitement of change.

The country suffers Bush-fatigue and partisanship-fatigue, after 16 years of it. Bush-Clinton-Bush…???…..I think it may be the end of the dynasty. I could be wrong. I just think Hillary’s time may have passed. In a sense, she’s been campaigned, by the media, for the last 8 years. Obama is fresh. Hillary, stale. It’s not just media hype, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, and driving the mood. I truly sense this desire for “new and different”, in my everyday experience with people. Perhaps this is a media-driven and fabricated fascination, as the people I encounter are mostly casual headline readers and tv news soundbyte absorbers. So they may only be catching Obama fever, because he’s the media darling, with Hillary thrown away like yesterday’s NYTimes. But I’m telling you, people I encounter are buzzing about Obama like he’s the anointed one, who will pull the sword from the stone.

I consider myself a radical center-right extremist. Yet, although I find Obama impressive and “likable” and presidentially eloquent, each time he opens his mouth and speaks ill of the Bush Administration and “the War”, I find myself unable to swallow the notion of living under an Obama presidency. If he truly wished to unite the country, don’t campaign by slamming President Bush, who is not running for re-election. Just don’t bring up the past 8 years. Don’t drum up negativity to make your message sound positive. Not all of us voters think the last 8 years were all bad. Just tell us how you are going to do things these next 4-8 years.

I liked Scott’s original post.

I’m a little confused, change is fine, but what are we advocating changing. Obama isn’t change, he’s samo samo. I want change also, change from Teddy Kennedy, change in the state department, change in the pentagon. I want the shadow government weeded out. I want American politicians to be American, its just that simple.

As you can see plainly not all are quite ready to give up on partisanship. BDS ???
Most Americans STRONGLY disapprove of his leadership. Some still insist that this is indicative of an illness.
The Republicans are the minority party now. Will the minority party help to achieve the goals of the majority of Americans ?
As for the left being worse than the right ?? In 1998 all of the Republicans in the House voted to impeach, the Democrats chose NOT to go down that route. In 1998 when Clinton was impeached his approval rating among all Americans was at 68%.

I share your dislike of the Boomer generation (oddly both my wife and I were born of parents a little too old to be boomers, so no boomers in our family tree). But it’s a little early to write them off – they’ll have electoral clout enough to make sure they get a slice of the pie for many years to come. It’s no coincidence that universal health care is suddenly everyone’s big project at exactly the same time that the boomers are starting to retire – that is, at the point in time when their contributions into the system are dwindling and their claims on the benefits increasing…
Anyway, promoting change just for change’s sake is vacuous – you need to specify what change(s) you have in mind. Paul would probably bring more change than any other candidate, but obviously the nature of the change might not be what a lot of people want.

What a load of crap. People are people regardless of their generation. Human nature is unchanging. We’re not getting better but staying the same. Lift someone from the Middle Ages, fix his teeth and give him a new suit of clothes, briing him up to date on developments since the plague, and you have modern man.

Bush Derangement Syndrome

When a Conservative can say the name “Hillary Clinton” without frothing at the mouth, THEN speak of mental illness among Liberals who state plainlyy that George W. Bush is incompetent.

“BDS” is another FoxNews invented term used to pump up the Republican party Faithful and divert attention on the actual bungling of the Bush Administration.

I do not hate George W. Bush. I’m sure, as Chris Mathews fawningly said, he is a man I’d “like to have a beer with”.

However President Bush has been so singularly inept that an invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in about a month was folowed by so incompetently managed an occupation that American soldiers are now dying in Iraq NOT to bring a “Shining Example of Democracy” to the Middle East, but to undo the blunders of the NeoConservatives in the Bush Administration. The loyal soldiers who died in Iraq this week gave their lievs for nothing more than that.

And that is a disgrace that Conservatives paper over with “mistakes were made” or “we did have our criticism” as though the incompetence of Geroge W. Bush had no real consequences on peoples’ lives.

As long as “Bush Derangement Syndrome” is used as a label by Conservatives to avoid holding George W. Bush accountable for the costs of his laziness, we will not “get past” the rabid partisianship that the original post decried and with which I concurred.

Sen. Obama’s Calls for Unity Are Not What They Seem
By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, January 8, 2008

We are repeatedly told by the news media that there is a deep, almost palpable, yearning among Americans for unity. And Sen. Barack Obama’s repeated and eloquent claims to being able to unite Americans are a major reason for his present, and very possibly eventual, success in his quest for his party’s nomination for president of the United States.

I do not doubt Mr. Obama’s sincerity. The wish that all people be united is an elemental human desire. But there are two major problems with it. First, it is not truly honest. Second, it is childish.

First is its dishonesty. Virtually all calls for unity — whether national, international or religious (as in calls for Christian unity) — do not tell the whole truth.

If those who call for unity told the whole truth, this is what they would say: “I want everyone to unite — behind my values. I want everyone who disagrees with me to change the way they think so that we can all be united. I myself have no plans to change my positions on any important issues in order to achieve this unity. So in order to achieve it, I assume that all of you who differ with me will change your views and values and embrace mine.”

Take any important issue that divides Americans and explain exactly how unity can be achieved without one of the two sides giving up its values and embracing the other side’s values.

Barack Obama wants American troops out of Iraq now. About half of America believes that American troops abandoning Iraq will lead to making that country the world’s center of terror and to the greatest victory thus far for the greatest organized evil in the world today. How, then, will Mr. Obama achieve unity on Iraq?

Mr. Obama believes in repealing the tax cuts enacted by the Bush administration. How will he achieve unity on that? Many of us believe that re-raising taxes will bring on a recession.

And what is the “unity” position on same-sex marriage? Either one supports it or one supports keeping marriage defined as the legal union of a man and a woman. The only way to unite Americans on this issue — and I don’t know what is more seminal to civilization than its definition of marriage — is to convince all, or at least most, Americans to embrace one of the two positions.

It is fascinating how little introspection Sen. Obama’s “unity” supporters engage in — they are usually the very people who most forcefully advocate multiculturalism, who scoff at the idea of an American melting pot and who oppose something as basic to American unity as declaring English the country’s national language.

Their advocacy of multiculturalism and opposition to declaring English the national language are proof that the calls of the left-wing supporters of Barack Obama for American unity are one or more of three things: 1. A call for all Americans to agree with them and become fellow leftists. 2. A nice-sounding cover for their left-wing policies. 3. A way to further their demonizing of the Bush administration as “divisive.”

In case the reader should dismiss these observations about calls for unity as political partisanship, let me make clear that they are equally applicable to calls for religious unity. For example, one regularly hears calls by many Christians for Christian unity. But how exactly will this be achieved? Will Catholics stop believing in their catechism and embrace Protestant theology, or will Protestants begin to regard the pope Christ’s vicar on earth?

Ironically, one reason America became the freest country in the world was thanks to its being founded by disunited Christians — all those Protestant denominations had to figure out a way to live together and make a nation.

Given what Sen. Obama’s calls for unity really mean — let’s all go left — it is no wonder he and his calls for unity are enthusiastically embraced by the liberal media.

For nearly eight years the media and Democrats have labeled President Bush’s policies “divisive” simply because they don’t agree with them. They are not one whit more divisive than Sen. Obama’s positions. A question for Democrats, the media and other Obama supporters: How exactly are Mr. Obama’s left-wing political positions any less “divisive” than President Bush’s right-wing positions?

Second, the craving for unity is frequently childish. As we mature we understand that decent people will differ politically and theologically. The mature yearn for unity only on a handful of fundamental values, such as: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Beyond such basics, we yearn for civil discourse and tolerance, not unity.

The next time Sen. Obama speaks with his usual passion and eloquence about his desire to unite Americans, someone must ask him two questions: Why are your left-wing positions any less divisive than President Bush’s right-wing positions? And if you are so committed to uniting Americans, why did you vote against declaring English our national, i.e., our unifying, language? Without compelling answers, Sen. Obama’s calls for American unity are no more than calls to unite around his politics and him.

Re: “Why are your left-wing positions any less divisive than President Bush’s right-wing positions?”

Why are Liberal comments on the need for change considered rabidly partisian, while Conservative tossing around the word “treason” (a crime that carries the death penalty) considered OK?

Change your friend Ann Coulter on the Conservative side, then tell us Liberals how mean we are.

Re: “Beyond such basics, we yearn for civil discourse and tolerance, not unity.”

Drop “aiding the terrorists” and “treason” from your lexicon every time you disagree with me. Then tell me how evil my comments are.

Re: “incompetent invasion and occupation of Iraq…”

not invasion. Occupation. Bad phrasing.

And the occupation has been incompetently managed. The responsiblity resides directly with the White House that appointed the administrators.

And, to the extent that our military chiefs of staff did not jump up and down with their hair on fire as Donald Rumsfeld presided over this debacle, they are accountable too.

But you still can’t say that the Bush Administration was incompetent, can you?

Nah, I can’t say the Admin is incompetent when it comes to Iraq because I don’t believe they were…I see the problems there differently, with less of an aim at blame, and more of an aim at correction, improvement, etc. Militarily, since the invasion this war has been of absolute unparalleled military success. HOWEVER, if you read my book, Iraq’s Smoking Gun, you can see that I was among the first people in 2003 to call the intelligence failures that led to 911 and Iraq wmd intel shortcomings as inexcusable; ie worse than incompetent imo.

Don’t get me wrong, I have no love of GWB. I just refuse to put on blinders at search for a political scapegoat for anything and everything that people don’t like about a war. There’s plenty to not like about ANY war.

Moreover, I tend to look at the war in Iraq as a long, uninterrupted war from 1990-today. The timeline supports this quite clearly, and history books report the timeline. So when we look at the timeline of the US war with Iraq, we can find lots of problems, lots of bigger problems.

Oh, but I would LOVE to stand at the head of a line to sign my name and say that President Bush’s domestic leadership regarding support for the war has been incompetent, and that his speaking abilities are incompetent, or that his grasp of 30-50% of Americans’ sense of political alienation and frustration is incompetent.

Re: “HOWEVER, if you read my book, Iraq’s Smoking Gun, you can see that I was among the first people in 2003 to call the intelligence failures that led to 911 and Iraq wmd intel shortcomings as inexcusable; ie worse than incompetent imo.”

But they were excused. In fact didn’t George W. Bush hand out a round of Medals of freedom over them?

There is a typo above. The iraqi Foreign Minister turned in 2002, not 2004. Please do not take the usual Conservative tactic of using that as indication of success.

Steve’s ignorance and blind, spoon-fed partisanship is only outpaced by his rabid hatred and ability at projection.

Having been to Iraq, yes there were failures, shortcomings, and missed opportunities in our VERY sharp learning curve. The military has been going over this at every level and learning, as has the Administration. I do not like that they are poor communicators and cannot get a message out to save our lives. I do not like that Bush caves to Democrats on expanding government and amnesty for Illegals. I like that he will stand up for us, but it is poor leadership skills not to stand up for oneself as he refuses to do.

“The invasion of Iraq did NOTHING to protect America from further attacks by al Qaeda, which had NO presence in the country prior to the invasion.”

Wrong on every level. AQ was there before the invasion and had access to the WMDs Saddam sent to Syria. The failed chem attack on Amman, Jordan in 2004 proved this. One does not just “show up” and get their hands one VX and GB nerve gas without A LOT of prior association. Iraqis themselves have stated AQ was in Iraq under Saddam. Even Iraqi Generals stated it. Hell, Taliban thugs were in Baghdad west of the IZ from 2002 till this year. And HOW many times has AQ successfully attacked America since our long overdue invasion?

“Being told that my belief that continued occupation of Iraq by American troops is the greates recruiting poster Osama bin laden cold have prayed for “helps the terrorists” is divisive.”

Some “recruiting poster”: “Join AQ or die and die even if you join”. Unlike you, the Iraqis have realized AQ is a backward, cowardly, losing death cult and even the Saudis are attacking it. So wrong again.

Though, no, YOU saying that is not treason as you have no political power. Democratic leaders saying that is “aiding the enemy” as it is picked up word for word by the islamofascists. Code Pink sending funds to terrorists in Fallujia is treason. We saw this DAILY in Iraq and as soon as some leftist moron would spout it out, the terrorists would scream it across their media. As YOU associate with, spew shouting points and lies of, and adhere to these leftists, that is why you feel slighted when we call the leftists doing this traitors.

Though I think you also missed the part where we speak out against the treason of Stormfront (sometime leftist ally and sometime Libertarian ally), but, as you, incorrectly associate their beliefs with conservatism, you ignore those criticisms.

I met a REAL traitor from the DOS in Iraq as I stated before. I reported him, but nothing will ever be done as he is DOS. Your arrogant manor, moronic spoon-fed leftist hack lies and shouting points, and psychotic projectionism are the exact same.

re: ” AQ was there before the invasion and had access to the WMDs Saddam sent to Syria”

I can back up my statement. Can you?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed
By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration’s main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Hey Wordsmith: Remember your comments to me about “rabid partisanship”.

What about Chris G?

Or des he get the automatic Conservative Free Pass!

Re: “Absolutely.”

You links were:
Circular links to yourself.
References to activities AFTER Bush’s invasion
Unsubstantiated comments from the likes of The Washington Times.
References to shells found in the desert that were not usable as WMD’s (the ones that Rick Santorum once referred to as “Proof” and was rebutted the same day by the Pentagon itself.)

An independent study, the September 11 commission, concluded that there was no substantial relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Had one existed, don’t you believe they would have found it? Or is NewsMax more reliable since it confirms your political preference?

“Circular links to yourself.”

So I should retype the entire thing for you benefit? I think not. You asked my to back up my statements and I did. Excuse me please if I am not backing down from for what I believe in and have actively defended (you did read the last part of my response, yes).

So you did not fully read the article I wrote while IN Iraq and posted originally on SodliersMind.com…? Not surprised. Within that post are dozens of links to the outside sources. I suggest you also click on the ones from Indybay and see what your fellow travelers are up to.

“Unsubstantiated comments from the likes of The Washington Times.”

But The Washington Post is ok for you. I guess the BBC is “unsubstantiated” also about Jordan? Your hate blinds you and you are worthless to debate.

Why bother?

If you want more outside links, comment #14 of “Why Iraq” has them. The second one to the USMA anti-terrorism site is REALLY good and it is a HUGE site.

Already answered that in #43.

Re: “Anyone see a trend?”

Yes.

Conservatives will believe everything they are told by The Washington Times, NewsMax and FoxNews. No matter what.

My God Steve YOU MUST BE KIDDING!!! How can you be so dense? WHERE DID the terrorists say the VX and GB came from??? It came FROM IRAQ as the invasion started!!!!!!!!!! VX does not last long, even stored and Syria had no VX production program.

Therefore, it HAD to be IN Iraq BEFORE the invasion started. Also, WHO gave these terrorists medical treatment after they fled from Afghanistan?

And R400 bombs and spray tanks are ready made for what? Sarin in the WTC 1993 blast came from where?

“Only Right wing fanatics keep declaring it to be true” Yeah, “fanatics” in your projectionist, paranoid fantasy. Fanatics are the ones blowing themselves up for “Allah” or marching “naked for peace” and screaming in Berkeley.

Conservatives have another group saying the same things about Iraq: US Soldiers. You did notice that one of the books cited was written by a USAF Major who was in Iraq recovering these things? I do not know if you have seen the USMA database, also cited in a reply as I mentioned above did you?

There are a lot of links, with links and references themselves from varied sources. Go bother them if you are so assured you are correct in both your assertions and your view that conservatives are out to get you.

One more thing, most every prominent leftist was stating the exact same thing about Iraqi’s WMD program until THEY did a 180 and started making political hay on it in 2004. These included President Clinton when he was in office, and Nanci Pelosi. Were they lying also? If so, were they lying in the 1990s-2003 or afterwards?

And more links. Also, I didn’t see that I linked to Newsmax in Why Iraq. I saw CNN, the UN, the CIA, and others, but no Newsmax or even Fox but do not let that stop your rabid hatred Steve.

http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2006/09/3star_general_reveals_addition/

I respond in kind when told that my belief that George W. Bush is incompetent is treasonous.

[quote]As they do, their children are taking power, and this generation (people in their 20’s and 30’s) has never known … a truly great American President[/quote]

HORSESHAT! I miss Ronald Wilson Reagan

Ignore Steve Chris. He’s a naive simpleton. Not worth your time.

Mike,

Please read the Prager article.

Philly Steve wrote:

The September 11 commission, with the full backing of George W. Bush (the man with the most ot gain from a contrary opinion) declared there was not proof of no substantative link between saddam Hussein and the September 11 attacks. I accept that conclusion.

Scott wrote:

btw, the 911 Commission did not say there was no substantial relationship-they said there was not enough evidence had been gathered, they called for an investigation into the matter, and years later the evidence shows that yes, there was a close relationship.

Steve,
I doubt you’ll take your BDS lenses off for even 3 minutes to read this, but it’s here for the benefit of those who might be “eavesdropping” in on this comment stream.

No Conservative REALLY believes in taking the hate out of politics. Only attempting to pretend that THEY want civility, while they abet those of their friends who believe that political opposition deserve to die.

And that includes you too, Scott.

Steve, please quit projecting “conservative hate” onto all conservatives. You do yourself a disservice. Can you not see your own hatred and incivility reflected in your language? In your tone? In your insistence that your opinions are facts that we should all acknowledge and accept?

Conservatives will believe everything they are told by The Washington Times, NewsMax and FoxNews. No matter what.

Fact and not opinion, right?

The story of the ignored (not “incorrect”) intelligence about WMD’s i Iraq that no Conservative is permitted to acknowledge exists.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11927856/

The non-lefty in me feels the need to point out this part from your link:
Tenet said that the source — meaning Sabri — had said Iraq was stockpiling chemical weapons and that equipment to produce insecticides, under the oil-for-food program, had been diverted to covert chemical weapons production.

As for Drumheller, he’s a lying partisan sack of shit.

His media spin garnered the attention of a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence investigation, which rebuked Drumheller’s misrepresentations.

Read: Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on Postwar Findings about Iraq’s WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare with Prewar Assessments, with Additional Views, pg 141-144

Hey Wordsmith: Remember your comments to me about “rabid partisanship”.

What about Chris G?

Or des he get the automatic Conservative Free Pass!

Way to frame the reality. If I say, “Chris is merely setting you straight on your partisan ‘facts’”, you’d say I’m being partisan; if I say Chris is being rabidly partisan, I’d be lying.

Re: “The Leftists who ally with the islamofascists, however, ARE treasonous, but will never be punished. That is the reality of the left who are not held to any standards. When in power, however, leftists are a whole different animal. You ally with the leftists and spout their “two-minutes hate”. You also sound just like the true traitor I mentioned above as I mentioned before.”

Can you supply thier names? Or is this the calss broad generalization that requires no documentation?

Re: “Steve, please quit projecting “conservative hate” onto all conservatives. You do yourself a disservice. Can you not see your own hatred and incivility reflected in your language? In your tone? In your insistence that your opinions are facts that we should all acknowledge and accept? ”

I asked multiple times if you considered tossing around the Treason charge, a word Conservatives use so often against those who disagree with them on anything that the term is completely devalued, was an incendiary comment. At no time did you, or anyone else here, admit that Conservative overuse of that term has both debased public discourse and cheapened the word when it actually might apply.

It is analogous to Liberals who toss the “bigot” word against Conservatives every chance they get. And Conservatives are quick to take umbrage at being labeled a bigot simply because they disagree with an African-American, they are completely obtuse to the similar effect of the “Treason” word when their allies use the term.

But you refused to see that, and therefore I called you on it, repeatedly. And still you refuse to see the term and refuse to hold one of your own accountable. That is why I spoke of the “one-way” accountability of Conservatives.

And that is why I still maintain that a Conservative will never hold one of his/her own accountable to the standards set for others.

Which makes Conservatives as hypocritical as Liberals.

But then remember, Conservatives consider their political opinions as originating from God, and therefore Holy Writ. In which case hypocricy is a much greater sin for Conservatives than for Liberals.

I agree with all those things you just said Steve, but I don’t think they’re solely conservative. No one WANTS:
the federal government should “borrow and spend” its way to re-election-Democrats ran successfully on this culture of corruption in 2006.

Democrats definitely don’t support worldwide nation building.

Democrats and Republicans have worked in a bi-partisan manner to revise the FISA laws

Democrats and Republicans both oppose grabbing a US citizen on US soi and not giving a speedy trial.

It seems you’ve got a confused perspective of what “modern conservatism” is, and have instead embraced the anti-Republican hype from the left as if it were substantive.

Re: “It seems you’ve got a confused perspective of what “modern conservatism” is, and have instead embraced the anti-Republican hype from the left as if it were substantive.”

No. I recited the agenda of the Bush Administration. While I do not hate George W. Bush, nor do I suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome, I am very alarmed at the degree to which this person has ruined the standards for which America once stood, all in the name of a “War on Terror” that is a catchphase and not an actual war (you cannot fight a war against a tactic, only a personal enemy, group or nation).

However “Conservatives” in the United States, in the name of unconditional support of this man, have protected him from accountability for all of the actions: Both by giving blank checks to the Bush Administration when Republicans ran Congress and fillibustering any action when in the minority.

And, while Conservatives will decry such actions generically on sites such as this, when it comes to actual political actions, they will fall into lockstep with the White House and pretend that the Bush Administration has done none of the above, or that “Democrats are much worse”, and therefore the Bush Administration gets an automatic Free pass.

It is that Free Pass that Conservatives insist on giving to George W. Bush that annyos me to no end. This is especially interesting in that these same Conservatives appear to like Ron Paul, who is much harsher on George W. bush over these topics than I ever am.

While there are plenty of areas in which I part company with Ron Paul, my assesment of the behavior of the Bush Administration pretty much coincides with his.

Add to that Mike Huckabee openly campaigning as the “Christian Candidate” for President, and winning Iowa Republicans handily.

He will likely get the national nomination using that same moniker.

I have responded to Philly Steve’s lies, half truths and distortions countless times already. We have even documented in previous posts how factually incorrect his thinking is.

I won’t bother with him here. He’s just trying to distract people from the content of the post.

Scott, I disagree with some of what you have said.

I would assert that partisanship is not a problem requiring a solution. It is the sole means of advancing a political agenda for any kind of change.

It’s the near even division in this country between the reds and the blues that prevents change.

And frankly, whenever I see anyone talking about ending partisanship, but most of them mean, is that I should give up my principled opposition to their flawed ideology and stop promoting my own solutions.

Oh, and I couldn’t let this from Wordsmith go un-noted: “I consider myself a radical center-right extremist.”

If you are “center” on anything how can you be radical or extreme?

I could teach you lessons about radicalism (not that I am myself).

Ugh! You’ve been spending too much time with the Paulians….

Re: “This is the problem with you. I gave you a response, and a link to a pdf from a Select Senate Committee on Postwar Findings, regarding the need to correct Drumheller’s blatherings. Yet, you willfully ignore what doesn’t fit your narrative.”

Your link was back to your assertions that Saddam was behind the September 11 attacks: A theory that Conservatives keep insisting must be true, despite the conclusions of all study groups because…. they don’t believe the studies completed by the Bush Administration.

I was referring to the fact that the Iraqi Foreign Minister turned in 2002, passing information back to the Bush Administration that Saddam’s WMD program was non-existant. And that the Bush Administration both ignored this informatio and did not share it with Congressional Intelligence Committees. Making the Conservative insistance that “they had the same information Bush had” a lie. Which it is.

Here is the story, from two sources:

www.msnbc.msn.com…

In the period before the Iraq war, the CIA and the Bush administration erroneously believed that Saddam Hussein was hiding major programs for weapons of mass destruction. Now NBC News has learned that for a short time the CIA had contact with a secret source at the highest levels within Saddam Hussein’s government, who gave them information far more accurate than what they believed. It is a spy story that has never been told before, and raises new questions about prewar intelligence.
What makes the story significant is the high rank of the source. His name, officials tell NBC News, was Naji Sabri, Iraq’s foreign minister under Saddam. Although Sabri was in Saddam’s inner circle, his cosmopolitan ways also helped him fit into diplomatic circles.
In September 2002, at a meeting of the U.N.’s General Assembly, Sabri came to New York to represent Saddam. In front of the assembled diplomats, he read a letter from the Iraqi leader. “The United States administration is acting on behalf of Zionism,” he said. He announced that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that the U.S. planned war in Iraq because it wanted the country’s oil.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Salon_Former_CIA_officers_report_Bush_0906.html

Reporting in Salon, Blumenthal writes that according to his sources, two former CIA officers,”Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.”
Blumenthal also adds that the intelligence from that day was left out of the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which definitively stated that Iraq had WMD.
“The president had no interest in the intelligence,” a CIA officer disclosed. “Bush didn’t give a fuck about the intelligence. He had his mind made up.”
“No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq,” Blumenthal writes. “The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.”
Blumenthal’s sources confirm a 2006 interview with the CIA’s chief of clandestine operations for Europe, Tyler Drumheller, who told CBS’s 60 Minutes that his agency had received intelligence from Saddam Hussein’s foreign minister, Naji Sabri, indicating Iraq possessed no WMD.
“[The two former CIA officers] have confirmed Drumheller’s account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it,” Blumenthal reports. “They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri’s intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell.”
Powell would later present US evidence justifying the preemptive invasion of Iraq to the United Nations–without knowledge of the Sabri information.
The former officials instead say that the information was “distorted in a report written to fit the preconception that Saddam did have WMD programs.” That information was in turn passed to British intelligence, who used it in briefing Prime Minister Tony Blair as to validation for going to war.

Re: “If it was a mistake (ie an example of incompetence) as you claim, then she should apologize.”

Can you document where I said that such a vote was “incompetence”.

The fact is I never said that.

I DID say that George W. Bush’s Administration incompetently managed the occupation of Iraq, which resulted in the loss of thousands of lives and for which Americans are dying right now to counter act.

There is a difference, although Conservatives are not permitted to recognize that difference.

Re: “By the way, this should drive you batty: Guess what the President said on December 24th?”

Can you document where I ever said that a reference to any diety by the president was wrong?

My point, throughout most of this thread has been on the cost in American lives that has been paid, and will continue to be paid, to compensate for the incompetent occupation of Iraq by Bush Administration appointees.

In return I have seen nothing but digressions, venomous tirades, hateful comments about Hillary Clinton (but then it is physically impossible for a Conservative to say even one sentence about Senator Clinton without frothing at the mouth and descending into blind-rage hate), and posts on everything but the price that has been, and will be paid for George W. Bush’s incompetence.

The “assumption” that Conservatives are required to make that any Republican office holder is automatically the most competent, wonderful, directly-chosen-by-God has been on full display here for quite a while.

I just disagree, and cite the botched occupation of Iraq as evidence that not only will Conservatives not use competence in their vote for Republicans, they will actively attack anyone who dares to say that a Republican is not competent: Regardless of evidence.

Nothing anyone has said compares to your “frothing at the mouth”, “venomous tirade”, and “blind-rage hate” of George W. Bush.

I actually wouldn’t use those descriptions for the manner in which you’ve expressed yourself here. Just pointing out how “over-the-top” ridiculous and hyperbolic your responses are in describing and pigeon-holing our opinions back at you.

Re: “The rest of the point in my post, is in the notion that you insinuated in a couple of comments that the “religious right” and George Bush are out of control, in religious “extremism”. ”

Can you point to any post of mine speaking about “out of control”?

My point has consistently been:
1. George W. Bush incopetently managed the occupation of Iraq. Given the deterioration in an occupation that was promised by theBush Administration to be about six months.
2. Radically rightwing fundamentalist Christians have a veto power over the Republican Party and the White House Agenda.

That is considerably different from the premise upon which you attacked me.

“a family decision” or murder by an husband in name only, with the approval of a judge who declares that it is legal to with hold even water from a woman for 13 days to cause her death. For the crime of being inconvenient.
Meanwhile, convicted hardened criminals sit on death row for years, because liberals claim that putting them to death is cruel and unusual punishment.

Re: ““a family decision” or murder by an husband in name only, with the approval of a judge who declares that it is legal to with hold even water from a woman for 13 days to cause her death. For the crime of being inconvenient.”

The autopsy proved that her husband was right and James Dobson and the Republicans in Congress and theWhite House were wrong.

Stott: Since you have asked this question about six times in a row, you obviously have some sort of word trap that you will now spring on me for that “yes”. So go ahead, post your canned reply to my “yes” about Clinton’s competency, and crow about it as much as you wish.

It still does not compensate one bit for the American lives that have been lost, and will be lost to make up for George W. Bush’s INcompetence in managing the occupation of Iraq.

“The autopsy proved that her husband was right and James Dobson and the Republicans in Congress and theWhite House were wrong.”

What is it you think was proven right? No one in the US would dare treat any criminal like that woman was treated. No trial-Not guilty of any crime except being inconvenient means one should be starved to death over a period
of days; How does that make any sense at all?

Actually my comment above, instead of saying, “greates president of the twentieth century”, should have read “second greatest president of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries”.

Then we have the complaint of incompetence in Iraq. An operation put into effect after the ranking liberal on the Senate Intelligence Committee stated “SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The — I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I’ll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq — that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.” Article

When did it be come the responsibility of the liberals in Congress to make sure that the enemy got all of our intelligence reports as soon as they were developed? Why do American soldiers have to fight against an enemy that has the advantage of getting our intelligence fed to them as soon as it is developed? An enemy that has been told for years that if they just hold on, the Anti-Americans back in the States will insure that America is not allowed to win in Iraq.

It wasn’t a tirade. It simply stated facts; no one in America could get by with staving a criminal to death for 13 days, yet liberals think it is acceptable for a woman who committed no crime to be treated that way. How does it make any sense?

Re: “It wasn’t a tirade. It simply stated facts; no one in America could get by with staving a criminal to death for 13 days, yet liberals think it is acceptable for a woman who committed no crime to be treated that way. How does it make any sense?”

The body had no brain function, and the higher brain (above the reptilian brain and brain stem) were less than half normal size and had no function. She was dead.

And that item STILL has nothing to do with the demonstrated control the Radical Fundamentalist Christians have over the Republican Party, as demonstrated by james Dobson when, on his orders alone, the Republican party called Congress into session and President Bush cut short a vbacation (gasp!).

“she was dead.”
Why did she have be surrounded by armed guard to prevent her being given food and water
for 13 days if she was dead? What was the fear that she was going to get up and leave? That she was going to continue to be inconvenient?

Re: ““she was dead.” Why did she have be surrounded by armed guard to prevent her being given food and water for 13 days if she was dead? What was the fear that she was going to get up and leave? That she was going to continue to be inconvenient?”

Launching off into this digression does demonstrrate one of my other contentions: That Conservatives, while their rhetoric is always about getting rid of the “Nanny State” are actually all for the government intervening and making decisions on behalf of all Americans for all their decisions… as long as the intervening is to impose their personal agenda on everyone else. The vehemence with which Pager defends that intervention, along with the total absence of any disagreement from any other “Conservative” proves that Conservatives are as much about state control of every aspect of our lives as any “Liberal” is portrayed as being… Just as long as Conservatives are the ones doing the interventions.

And those Conservatives who will be doing that intervention in our personal lives are named James Dobson, Pat Robertson, …

Re: “Too bad Bush hasn’t built those internment camps nuts like Steve are always blathering about. I would say Steve should be placed in one of those facilities for his own good.”

I’m sure you would have me imprisoned for disagreing with you. I take solace you are more merciful than you hero, Ann Coulter, who would have me put to death for that same “crime”.

Re: “Thanks for your help in demonstrating the extremism that I wrote about, and that Americans are seeking to CHANGE and move away from.”

Your comment ending with this statement actually does reflect my personal opinion of extremism. However, while I can admit that Al Sharpton is an extremist, and shame on Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and other Democrats for pandering to him, Conservatives will not hold their own extremists to a similar level of accountability: Note the parallel discussion regarding James Dobson’s control of a Republican Congress and President and a complete defense of that action or absence of any disagreement with that control.

My point being that I acknowledge that there are horses a**’s in the Democratic party, hypocrits and even those who are incompetent.

John Kerry is an example of the first.
Hillary Clinton is an example of the second and jimmy Carter is an example of the third.

And they are all Democratic past (or possibly future) presidential nominees.

Conservatives, as I have been consistently asserting, give Republicans of the same stripe a free pass: Particularly the most egrigious of them: George W. Bush, whos occupation of Iraq has been botched and continues to cost Americans and Iraqis their lives. but Conservatives gloss over blunders that they wold demand impeachment for had they been committed by a Democratic President.

That is, and has been, my point.

And, knowing that it is absolutely impossible for any Conservative, anywhere, any time to admit that Geroge W. Bush botched the occupation, I recommend you close the thread: After, of course, another round of name-calling against me, wishing me ill, and hoping that I die a lingering, painful death with much family suffering.

Re: “See also your inevitable vote for Sen Clinton if she wins the nomination as well as the failure to hold her to account for authorizing the war invasion of Iraq.”

I will hold her accountable for that vote.

Will you hold Geroge W. Bush accountable for the botched occupation?

The discussion started with: “I cite the Right-wing Christian fundamentalists because that group has veto power and control of the Republican Party. This was amply demonstrated when James Dobson wrote one demanding column, and the Republicans immediately called Congress into session and President Bush flew back from vacation (!) to intervene the federal government into a family decision about life support in Florida.”

Any one who had a real interest in justice would have realized the “husband” had a serious conflict of interest beginning years before the woman was starved to death.
Had her parents be given custody, when they should have, no other intervention would have been needed. The “husband” could have been granted a divorce and gotten on with his life with his new family. Everyone would have been happy, but no; for some reason she had to DIE. Starved to death for 13 days, with armed guards to make sure she did not escape her fate.

Meanwhile we are told “I’m sure you would have me imprisoned for disagreing with you. I take solace you are more merciful than you hero, Ann Coulter, who would have me put to death for that same “crime”.

Terri Schiavo was put to death, not for a crime, just because she was inconvenient. She was a real human life and death situation, not some joke.

And, on my parallel track of Rightwing Christian Control of the Republican party, here is why Mike Huckabee is one of the leaders of the pack right now and why I beleive he will get the nomination for President from the Republican Party:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onHkywYc_1M

“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do — to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.”
Mike Huckabee, Republican Presidential Candidate.
Monday, January 14, 2008

Re: “How can you hold her accountable for her vote AND support her”
Because, despite her vote on the authorization, I belive that she could take the necessary actions to get our troops out in an orderly fashion.

Unlike Republicans, she does not have to justify Bush’s botched occupation, which Donald Rumsfeld predicted at six months. And, the Iraqi government, knowing that they will not have Republican openn-ended commitments to provide thier “policing” for them, will have to settle their civil war themselves. As long as Republicans are running the war from the White house, the three sides of the Iraqi civil war know that they can continue to fight and the US will provide a blank check to do all the work for them. I’m sure at this point you will provide fifteen links declaring what a “heckuva job” the Iraqi military is doing and that “more than 100,000″ have been trained (something we’ve heard fro the White House every six months since 2004).

As I’ve said before, The Bush White House has sprinkled too many “Loyal Bushies” in all branches of the executive government, as documented in “Enemy at the Gates”. Of course, no Conservative was permitted to read that book, so I assume you have not even heard of it, or if you have,you learned of it from the FoxNews “rebuttal”.

The occupation of Germany after WW II was a LARGER scale than Iraq, but accomplished much more efficiently.

The occupatin of Japan was accomplished much better. Of course, McAuthor did not disband the military and police forces, then send them home with their weapons and fail to secure a single one of the military supply depost. But then, no Conservative can hold Donald Rumsfeld accountable for those decisions, can they?

The post-US Civil War occupation of the Confederacy ws not accompanied by a “ten-year” war or civil war among the various Confederate States. (not really a good analogy, since there were differences).

But there are three. I’m sure your White House operatives will quickly supply you with lots of nit-picking “differences” that you can post back in defence of George W. Bush. I work alone and have to do my own research, so I apologize for not having paid white House staffers to assist my blogs, as Conservative bloggers do.

regarding killling al Qaeda in Iraq:
As we have read from military analysis, the occupation of Iraq has provided a recruiting poster that has gained more al Qaeda recruits than have been killed in Iraq (the “we’ll lure 100% of the terrorists in the world into iraq and kill them all” excuse that Conservatives trot out every few months).

Of course al Qaeda wold not exist much at all had George W. Bush not let him go at Tora Bora in order to prep for (authorized) invasion of Iraq. Perhaps had he completed the job in Afghanistan, we would not be watching the government of Pakistan teeter on the edge right now.

But then, Conservatives, with their “perfect Bush” requirement, cannot admit that happened either, can they?

Finally, Afghanistan is not a good analogy to use for your ideal results in Ifraq: Considering how the Soviet Union’s ten year occupation of Afghanistan turned out for that the Soviet Union itself. But then, as we heard from your hero Rush Limbaugh, the losses in Iraq are “not material” (unless your are a family member of somone who has died to counter Bush’s failings).

I consider $3 billion a week to be too high a cost in $’s.

I consider 1,000+ American dead a year too high a cost in lives.

I consider 16,000 (and counting) maimed too high a cost on an underfunded VA system (apparently the Bush Administration was “caught unawares” that a war would mean wounded veterans would come back).

You, like all Conservatives, would be just fine if this war went on for 100 years.

Re: “Americans who aid these enemies do.”

Am I an enemy?

And, knowing that it is absolutely impossible for any Conservative, anywhere, any time to admit that Geroge W. Bush botched the occupation,

McCain hasn’t been critical? Romney hasn’t criticized? Pundits haven’t been critical? Pat Buchanan hasn’t been critical? Newt Gingrich hasn’t been critical?

Take the blinders off!

I recommend you close the thread: After, of course, another round of name-calling against me, wishing me ill, and hoping that I die a lingering, painful death with much family suffering.

Oh, you are such the persecuted martyr! Give me a break!

The autopsy proved that her husband was right and James Dobson and the Republicans in Congress and theWhite House were wrong.

You do realize that things don’t always play out like this, right? Sometimes a reasonable decision could later have proven to be the wrong one made; yet, based upon what we might know at any given moment, the decision and conclusions drawn could be justified. And vice versa. (Speaking in general, here).

I don’t want to revisit the whole Terri Schiavo episode, as my feelings on it were mixed. It’s your pet peeve. Not mine. But I do think you are (mis)characterizing the whole affair through your partisan anger.

What was so unreasonable, anyway, in allowing the woman’s family to go on caring for her? In hoping? If she was in fact as brain dead as you say she was, then there’s no harm done. Not to Terri (she’s dead, remember? So you can hardly claim she’s “trapped” in her body). Not to the husband, who had already “moved on” with his life, basically. But it did mean something to those who raised her, and grew up around her.

Something else to consider, and it’s not an isolated happenstance:

Friday June 1, 2007

A Pole who spent 19 years in a coma has woken up and will now have to adapt to a country where the communists are no longer in power, a television station announced Friday.

Railwayman Jan Grzebski fell into a coma after he was hit by a train in 1988, the private channel Polsat said.

In an interview, Grzebski said that he owed his survival to his wife, Gertruda.

“She’s the one who always took care of me. She saved my life,” he said.

Grzebski was a father of four at the time of the accident. He is now making the acquaintance of 11 grandchildren.

Doctors had not expected Grzebski to survive, let alone emerge from the coma.

“I cried a lot, and I prayed a lot. Those who came to see us kept asking: ‘When is he going to die?’ But he’s not dead,” said Getruda.

Poland’s communist regime was still clinging onto power when Grzebski had his accident, only losing its grip the following year, in 1989.

On the brash neon-lit streets of new European Union member Poland, the period seems a distant memory.

“What amazes me today is all these people who walk around with their mobile phones and never stop moaning. I’ve got nothing to complain about,” said Grzebski.

More from Steve:

Can you point to any post of mine speaking about “out of control”?

How about within your same comment:

My point has consistently been:
2. Radically rightwing fundamentalist Christians have a veto power over the Republican Party and the White House Agenda.

“Out of control” were my words. Why don’t you examine your own language, and tell me that it doesn’t describe your belief:

that is how I assert that Conservatives have publicly aligned themselves as the “Party of God” in the United States.

So you believe they are “out of control”?

Because I value competence over blind fanatic ideology. Conservatives, on the other hand, put no value in competence, and base everything on fanatical adherence to every litmust test presented by Radical Fundamentalist Christianity and the Club for Growth.

So…”out of control”?

These aren’t the only instances where you express a paranoia that George Bush and the “religious right” are “out of control”.

Why do you bog yourself down in these small-potato word-mincing? Why not go after the meat?

Probably because that’s all you can do. Just like your criticism of George Bush, wanting validation in your OPINION that he has conducted the post-war operations in Iraq with “incompetence”. Forget about historical context. Forget about confronting Scott’s challenge to you, as if nothing ever went wrong at Normandy and Iwo Jima from poor planning, leave alone for a moment, the fact, that you have a thinking enemy that doesn’t go by the playbook and will not lie down easily.

You take mole-hills and see them as mountains. You love to hyperbolize every misstep and shine the spotlight on every misspeak, because “gotcha” politics is your refuge. Because you refuse to let go, for just one moment, your partisan hatred of George Bush. You don’t care about the truth and reality. You think you do. But all you really want is to seek validation from “right-wingers”, that you aren’t crazy. You need our validation, don’t you, that it isn’t just you and the KosKiddies and DUers who think Bush is incompetent; you need our help to prove to your own mind, that you aren’t losing it. That you aren’t certifiably afflicted with BDS.

Sorry, Charlie.

Unlike Republicans, she does not have to justify Bush’s botched occupation, which Donald Rumsfeld predicted at six months.

That’s because “occupation” was not part of Rumsfeld’s original plan. But it became one, because partisan officials within the State and CIA Dept botched things up, as related in “Shadow Warriors” which “no liberal is permitted to read” (*snicker*), and I am “not surprised you have not even heard of it”, unless it is to read the “rebuttal” at Think Progress (*LMAO*).

Btw, go back and read President Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” carrier speech. Sure doesn’t make it sound like we’d only be in Iraq a short 6 months, to me.

Scott asked of Philly Steve:

Curious, do you ignore these facts or truly not hear the second half of a sentence?

Rofl!

Set BDS-filter to “off”.

And, on my parallel track of Rightwing Christian Control of the Republican party, here is why Mike Huckabee is one of the leaders of the pack right now and why I beleive he will get the nomination for President from the Republican Party:

Don’t tell this to Chuck Norris. You wouldn’t want to make him angry, by minimizing his contribution to the Huckwagon. You wouldn’t like him when he’s angry.

When Bruce Banner gets angry, he turns into the Hulk. When the Hulk gets angry, he turns into Chuck.

According to right-winger partisan shill Michael Medved:

Conventional wisdom says that he swept to victory based on overwhelming support from Evangelicals, but conventional wisdom is flat-out wrong. According to the exit polls used by major news networks, a majority of voters who described themselves as “evangelical” or “born again” Christians actually voted against Huckabee –with 54% splitting their support among Romney, McCain, Thompson and Ron Paul. Yes, Huckabee’s 46% of Evangelicals was a strong showing, but it was directly comparable to his commanding 40% of women, or 40% of all voters under the age of 30, or 41% of those earning less than $30,000 a year. His powerful appeal to females, the young and the poor make him a different kind of Republican, who connects with voting blocs the GOP needs to win back. He’s hardly the one-dimensional religious candidate of media caricature.

It’s also idiotic and dishonest for observers to keep harping on anti-Mormon bigotry as the basis for Mitt Romney’s disappointing showing. Yeah, it’s true that 81% of Evangelicals voted against Romney— but 75% of ALL Iowa Republicans voted against him, so where is the big evidence of “anti-Mormon bigotry”? In other words, there’s only a 6% difference between his general rejection and his Evangelical rejection. There’s no evidence, in other words, that those who described themselves as “born again” or “evangelical” faced an especially tough time voting for a Mormon. Romney, after all, finished second among this group—as he finished second among the electorate in general. Among Evangelicals, Mormon Mitt beat John McCain, Fred Thompson and Ron Paul by a ratio of nearly two-to-one…a bigger, not smaller margin of victory over these other non-Mormon candidates than he managed to achieve in the electorate in general. The message ought to be obvious: the core issue was phoniness, not faith– and the religious and non-religious alike react badly to phoniness.

Meanwhile, 87% of non-Evangelicals voted against Huckabee…. compared to only 66% of all Iowa Republicans…. in other words a 21% gap! Think about this…. THERE’S MORE EVIDENCE IN THE EXIT POLLS OF ANTI-EVANGELICAL PREJUDICE than there is of anti-Mormon prejudice. Huckabee did well across the board with all groups in the exit polls except one: the 40% who said “no” to the question, “Are you a ‘born-again’ or ‘evangelical’ Christian?” He finished fourth among this group, behind Romney, Thompson and McCain.

The evidence is pretty clear, isn’t it? The preferences of Evangelicals mirrored those of Iowans in general. But the preferences of the “non Evangelical” group were distorted by their religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) and led them (as the same prejudices leads angry members of the conservative establishment) to blast, resent and dismiss the Huck.

Massaging the numbers another way —Huckabee got 46% of the Evangelical vote, only 14% of non-Evangelical— a huge 32% difference based on the rejection by these people of a well-known religious identity.

Romney, on the other hand, got 19% of Evangelical vote, and 33% of non Evangelical voters— a vastly less significant 14% difference…

In other words, Non-Evangelicals appear to have been much more influenced by the religious variable in their distaste for Huck, than Evangelicals were influenced by that variable in their distaste for Mitt.

Those who insist, over and over again, that the Iowa Caucuses reflected “Christian identity politics” or a “tidal wave of Evangelical support” are basing their analysis on feelings, not facts; on vapors, not voters. It’s dishonest to say that a guy who just won a crushing state-wide victory, without even winning the majority of his own religious group, displayed a one dimension appeal to Christian zealots only.

Oh man, do I love this. I think I may get it framed:

I work alone and have to do my own research, so I apologize for not having paid white House staffers to assist my blogs, as Conservative bloggers do.

Woops, hold on….getting a call on the bat phone from one of those White House staffers right now!

Hmmmmm, they’re telling me Philly is actually a double agent working with the Rigellians. Kang and Kodos are mighty upset with you blowing your cover Philly!

Re: “I don’t want to revisit the whole Terri Schiavo episode, as my feelings on it were mixed. It’s your pet peeve. Not mine. But I do think you are (mis)characterizing the whole affair through your partisan anger. ”

I am not angry. I was just using it to demonstrate how one person, James Dobson, was able to command the immediate obedience of the Republican Congress and Republican President.

My comment received many angry retorts, trying to justify the action and totally ignoring the aspect of the power it demonstrated on the part of James Dobson. And not one single Conservative here has, or will,, comment on that aspect of the events, since it absolutlely confirms my premise of Radical Fundamentalist Christian control of the Republican Party.

Re: “I mean, do the people that rant and rave about how bad GWB is, or who label everyone who doesn’t follow their dogma a “conservative, or who cut/paste talking points as if from an automated DNC database…do such people realize how pawned they are by their own candidates? Do they realize that the very Bush doctrine they rail against has been embraced by the people they’ll be voting into office?”

It is, obviously, completely impossible for a Conservative to confront the appaling lack of competence on the part of the Bush occupation of Iraq without attempting, every time, to transfe the argument into one about votes in Congress, as though Congress was also the ones who appointed green “Loyal Bushies” to administer the city of iraq, based solely on personal loyalty to George W. Bush rather than competence.

I have never brought up the Congressinoal votes first, Conservatives here have, every time.

My intense belief is that, through arrogance, carelessness and incompetence (not “badness”), the Bush Administration has cost the lives of many thousands of people, and is the reason we are not spending $3 billin a week to try to dig out of the hole they have created in Iraq.

And the worst that most Conservatives can say is that “mistakes happen”, as though they fell from the sky.

I acknowledge that Pat Buchanan has been brutal on the Bush regime, as have a few others.

However, George W. Bush, in my opinion, should personally apologize to America for the harm he has bestowed by his actions.

I do not hate Bush (unlike Conservatives, who have frothing-at-the-mouth hatred of Hillary Clinton, every single one, without exception). But I do believe he has harmed my country badly. And I am angry that Conservatives will never admit that harm,not because they do not believe it, but because they are more loyal to George W. Bush the man than they are to their own conscience.

Conservatives would NEVER excuse the appaling cost of the botched occupation of Iraq from a Democratic President. Never.

Nixon met with the Red Chinese was he guilty too ?

Excellent answer ChrisG,

Duty versus selling out your fellow countrymen during enemy action.

Re: “His own words admit he met with the enemy,”

So did Henry Kissinger. Was he guilty as well?

Oliver North met with, and sold weapons to the Iranian government (one of the Axis of Evil as I recall). Was Oliver North also guilty of treason?

Dick Cheney, when CEO of Haliburton authorized his company to bid on, and accept contracts with the government of Saddam Hussein while they were under sanctions in the 1990’s.

Was Dick Cheney guilty of Treason?

it should be Jose Padilla

Re: “Also, John Kerry was part of the Weather Underground,”

Flat out lie.

John Kerry was a member of “Vietnam Veterans Against the War”. Now shortened to “Vietnam Veterans of America”.

But, as a Conservative, you will believe it anyway.

Re: “They will die because the American left, since before the war even started have been promising the terrorists that the American left will help them defeat America.”

Can you document, with names and dates, when such promises were made by those unnamed “Leftists” with actual power to carry them out?

Or is this, as usual, the FoxNews generalizations that Conservatives use when accountability is too inconvenient.

So let me guess, Jane Fonda was not part of it either. Please prove the “lie” wrong. The FACT is that you cannot and only rely on far left sites to promote your hate and bile. I have used multiple cross referenced sites from all over in the reference post I gave you (way above). You really do prove Scott correct in this thread with every paranoid “the Christians are coming to get us” fantasy you spout. Here is a hint: I do not go to church except for weddings and funerals. That’s it. Yet to you, I seem to be some sort of “evil conservative”(tm) out to get you.

Oh, yes, as a leftist, you will believe anything your masters tell you. Does that make sense either way it is told? At NO time did I ever use a source you despise and demand CENSORED. However, since these sources offend you so, maybe I will start reading them more. It cannot be any worse that watching CNN make up a lie a block away from me while in Iraq. In fact, since it upsets your paranoia so, it must be a good source.

By the way “Vietnam Veterans of America” is in no way associated with “Vietnam Veterans Against the War” or ANY such group. THAT is a flat out lie and disgusting even for you (which is difficult to do). I have been to their sites, met and worked with their members and they would be livid knowing you compared the VVA to VVAW. The shear fact that you even suggested something SO simple to disprove makes me wonder about your hatred and bile even more.

Though I am sure you will spam post again before I am completed with this post.

Re: ” I have been to their sites, met and worked with their members and they would be livid knowing you compared the VVA to VVAW.”

You were right. I ws wrong on that one. I thought that VVAW had, after the war, shifted its focus to serving veterans and changed its name. Sorry.

However John Kerry was still not part of the Weather Underground, as you claimed.

Re: “Who was President of the United States when Haliburton sold civilian use only items (oil drilling equipment cannot be used to make illegal arms) to Iraq fully sanctioned under “Oil for Food”?”

As usual, the “it’s all Clinton’s fault” line comes from Conservatives, as they are required to do in every argument.

I was just posting links to where “good Conservatives’ also had close ties with Saddam, to counter your commenet about John Kerry for his “contacts”.

Everyone “meets” with representatives of countries or governments that later proide grist for attack.

I’m sure you are not proud of the autographed Bible and birthday cake that Saint Ronald Reagan gave to Ayotollah Khomennie, the holder of American hostages, are you?

But then, that would mean applying the same Conservatives standard you use to club me to your own heros. Something that no Conservative will ever do.

Besides, this thread was originally about how meanness is permeating ourpolitical discourse.

I agreed with that premise. Along the way I made a comment about what I believed to be the cost of George W. Bush’s incompetence regarding the occupation of Iraq. In retrospect that was a mistake on my part and I apologize.

Since then I have had the topics of:
Congressional authorization votes
Terry Schiavo
John Kerry’s Vietnam war protests
Bush Derangement Syndrome

And a stream of personal insults trown at me. My only “insult” in return was accusing Conservatives of being subservient to dictates from the Bush White, as delivered through conduits such as FoxNews, Newsmax, or Rush Limbaugh. (apparently hit quite a nerve with that as well). And of accusing the Republican Party of being subservient to James Dobson (with demonstrated proof, also quite a nerve).

Sorry if I offended anyone with my opinions.

I get your point.

The Republican party has been ordained by God as the most talented, enlightened political party to ever grace the face of the Earth.

George W. Bush’s beknighted leadership has ushered the United States into the golden age of peace and prosperity, and his noble presence will be remembered as the most wonderful presidency in the history of the world: All Americans should be on their knees every day, praying that his wisdom and impartiality will be with us forever and immediately abolish Congress and the Courts and make him President-for-Life so we may benefit even more.

All Democrats, on the other hand, were invented by Satan to promulgate his will upon the earth, and should not be permitted to exist in the presence of such holy people as Republicans.

I get this on a daily basis from my Conservative ciurcle (about 90% of my friends and family are Conservative Republicans, who repeat what I said above, almost word-for-word).

Sorry that I introduced comments that were not in line with what is supposed to by on this site.

You win.