US mid-term elections

[Feanor]

Americans, do yourselves and the world a favor and boot out as many Repubicans as possible on Tuesday (think it is).

It's hardly necessary to dwell on the security failures of the current Washington administration. The world and the US itself are far more dangerous to day than 5 years ago. The war in Iraq (more even than Afganistan) has been:

Ill-conceived, (WMD? yeah, right)
Poorly-prosecuted
Counter-productive.And Muslims throughout the world have be alienated and the extremism among them fostered so that terrorism is increasing likely everywhere including the US. This was predictable and was predicted by people as lowly-placed as myself.

The real threats to the US, (and various other "first world" nations but none more so), today are:

The widening gulf between rich and poor (and the unattainability of the American dream)
Gobal warming, polution, and the practical scarcity of natural resources
Alienation of the rest of the world as result of the misuse of power, and resulting in terrorism and nuclear arms proliferation.The Republican Party needs to be view in terms of these issues, especially No.1. The cardinal error of American "middle-class" is that that party represents their interests in any way. Americans accept a very broad definition of "middle class", (basically anyone with a full-time job), and that's fine with me. But I'm specifically not talking (only) about the working poor, rather about the professionals, corporate middle managers, and small to medium entrepreneurs. You folks, get rid of the notion that what happens to the destitute and the working poor isn't your problem, their impoverishment will eventually -- and sooner rather than later -- result in your own. The Repulicans' only true constituency is the gobal corporations and the super-rich who believe they ignore the welfare of the nation to further their own, misanthropic, self-interests.

Social conservatives?? The Republican Party pays lip service to the American Dream and Christian values, but it's only that. Republican leaders serve mammon and they do not serve God. So social conservatives too are deceived by Republicans. Consider yourself "Christian Right"?? Then you are self-deceived as well. The term is an oxymoron: the Christian Right are neither right, (small "r"), nor truly Christians -- rather they are Pharisees.

In short there are really only two kinds of Republican voter:

The greed rich, and
The stupid.

[trollgirl]

I agree with you entirely. I just have one question: Given the questionable results of the last two national elections, can we expect that the Neocons are going to play by the rules, or cheat any way they can to hold onto power?? Are they going to use Diebold to win, or declare Marital Law if the election goes against them?? Okay, that's two questions...

Laz

[JoeE SP9]

Anyone who thinks tax cuts for the rich benefit the middle class and poor is a myopic idiot. Check your financial records and you will find that the middle class does better when Democrats run the government.:ihih:

[bobsticks]

My prediction is that the American electorate in its infinite wisdom will overwhelmingly respond to elect a Democratic Congress and, later, turn tail and elect another Republican as President.Why, you ask? Well, they have a history of doing just that.
The next Republican nominee will go so far as to distance himself from GB that you'll be hard pressed to remember they're in the same party. The conservative nominee's ultimate goal will be to say nothing and ride the middle of the road between te neocons and the religious right (who are these people anyway, and where is the massive population of people that just want to work and keep a bit of their money and be left alone, and why can't anyone harness that constituency?).
The Dems will do what they always do, nominate the most fecklessly meandering twerp imaginable. I swear to God, I have never seen a party so hell-bent on cyclical self-destruction. Mondale-geek, Dukakis-bushy-browed uber wuss, Gore-easily confused greenie wimp, Kerry-vascillating troll...
...and let's not kid ourselves, a Hillary Rodham Clinton nomination would secure a victory for the Republican Party faster than anything imaginable.

Jesus, maybe I should have learned Icelandic when I had the chance...

[jeskibuff]

Americans, do yourselves and the world a favor and boot out as many Repubicans as possible on Tuesday (think it is).A favor? Democrats CLEARLY DON'T HAVE A CLUE, and yet you think they'll do the world better?? Why?? Because they're SO clueless??


It's hardly necessary to dwell on the security failures of the current Washington administration. The world and the US itself are far more dangerous to day than 5 years ago. The war in Iraq (more even than Afganistan) has been:

Ill-conceived, (WMD? yeah, right)
Poorly-prosecuted
Counter-productive.And Muslims throughout the world have be alienated and the extremism among them fostered so that terrorism is increasing likely everywhere including the US. This was predictable and was predicted by people as lowly-placed as myself.Clearly, you have no concept of the enemy we face. You have no clue as to their goals and the threat they pose. Your pitiful little brain conceives the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan to be a total failure rather than a difficult struggle to achieve a better world. You are of the pea-brained mindset who believes that you can negotiate with truly evil people; people who would shake your hand one minute and cut your head off the next.

Bush is NOT responsible for the bloodshed in Iraq; the Islamofascists are. And that's what you and millions of stupid Democrats just DON'T UNDERSTAND and REFUSE TO UNDERSTAND, no matter how many times intelligent people attempt to get it to penetrate past your thick skulls and into some brain tissue. You think that because the enemy is capable of fighting back that there's some flaw in the battle plan; that the war was ill-conceived. You evidently missed the class where you were supposed to learn that a war involves reacting to and adjusting to the enemy's strategies. There will be victories and defeats. But you cut-and-run Dumbocrats want to turn tail when things get rough. There, you clearly don't understand the stakes at hand. Sadly, it appears to be more of a "let's blame Bush" strategy instead of a "how do we win this battle?" strategy. What a shame!


The real threats to the US, (and various other "first world" nations but none more so), today are:

The widening gulf between rich and poor (and the unattainability of the American dream)
Gobal warming, polution, and the practical scarcity of natural resources
OMIGOD! You're living in such a state of denial! We're living in a golden age at the moment! The possibilities in the U.S. are phenomenal. The unemployment level is rock bottom again, the economy is doing well (as opposed to the gloom-and-doom scenario forecasted by you Dumbocrats a few years ago) and the luxuries we all enjoy are at our fingertips. Practically everyone has TVs, if not widescreen, plasma, etc. Cellphones are everywhere...the only ones who seem to be complaining are those that are overly dependent on others to take care of them: welfare-loving Democrats! To see these things as threats and to ignore the Islamofascist agenda is clearly RIDICULOUSLY myopic.


Alienation of the rest of the world as result of the misuse of power, and resulting in terrorism and nuclear arms proliferation.First, I really don't care what the rest of the world thinks. It doesn't matter what their opinion is; the important thing is that we do the RIGHT thing, and the right thing is prosecuting the war on terror. If we don't pursue beating these thugs into pulp we can kiss the rest of the things we enjoy goodbye. I suppose you'd be happy living under Taliban-like rule as long as you're satisfied that some Frenchman likes you? That's some ridiculously stupid thinking on your part. Secondly, you have to believe these reports that "the rest of the world doesn't like us". The mainstream media has proven itself to be unreliable and tools of the left-wing liberals. There's an agenda behind what they say and they're not to be trusted.


The Republican Party needs to be view in terms of these issues, especially No.1. The cardinal error of American "middle-class" is that that party represents their interests in any way. Americans accept a very broad definition of "middle class", (basically anyone with a full-time job), and that's fine with me. But I'm specifically not talking (only) about the working poor, rather about the professionals, corporate middle managers, and small to medium entrepreneurs. You folks, get rid of the notion that what happens to the destitute and the working poor isn't your problem, their impoverishment will eventually -- and sooner rather than later -- result in your own. The Repulicans' only true constituency is the gobal corporations and the super-rich who believe they ignore the welfare of the nation to further their own, misanthropic, self-interests.Blah, blah, blah. Ask yourself: why is it that most of the super-rich are Dumbocrats? John Kerry? Warren Buffett? The Kennedys? Ted Turner? Somehow, Dumbocrats have the idea that taxing businesses to death is doing "Robin Hood" good deeds. The "big corporations" make the money, so why not inflict penalties on them and distribute that money to the poor? Well, the BIG FLAW in that INCREDIBLY STUPID idea is that the corporations will pick up and move elsewhere where they don't get taxed to death and where they can maintain their competitive edge. Along with those moves, the jobs disappear. Or if they can't stay competitive and don't move, they can't afford to stay in business and the jobs disappear when they shut down. So, because of the Democrats' misguided ideological bent, they cause more poverty with their screwed-up policies. Conversely, Republicans try to attract businesses by lowering taxes, allowing corporations to prosper. When corporations prosper, the people supporting those corporations prosper. It's a simple concept, but apparently too simple for Democrats to understand.


Social conservatives?? The Republican Party pays lip service to the American Dream and Christian values, but it's only that. Republican leaders serve mammon and they do not serve God. So social conservatives too are deceived by Republicans. Consider yourself "Christian Right"?? Then you are self-deceived as well. The term is an oxymoron: the Christian Right are neither right, (small "r"), nor truly Christians -- rather they are Pharisees.No one is perfect, for sure. There may be Republicans in power who pay lip service, as you say. But there are a great number who are sincere and can be trusted. One thing for certain is that the Democratic Party is thoroughly saturated with amoral, lying scum. I can think of only one Democrat who I would trust: Zell Miller. Why he still considers himself a Democrat, I don't know. I might halfway trust Jimmy Carter. I think he's basically a good man with a sincere heart, but he's just too stupid for words to describe. Good GOD! He thinks that Hugo Chavez is someone good! When did his brain atrophy so much??

Liars, liars, liars. The Democratic Party is SATURATED with liars! Pelosi, both Clintons, Kerry, Rather, Mooron, Schumer, Sheehan, Gore, Biden, Dean even Lieberman who I once thought was halfway okay before he associated himself with Gore! How can ANYONE trust a party that has such difficulty with truth?


In short there are really only two kinds of Republican voter:
[LIST=1]
The greed rich, and
The stupid.There is only one kind of Democrat voter: the total idiot who has to project his inadequacies on others in order to get his agenda satisfied. Time and time again, conservatives try to debate with liberals, but the liberals can't seem to support their arguments with facts. They come out with all sorts of stupid conspiracy theories, but once those theories are easily shot down with reason and fact, they either scamper back into their hiding places to come up with more hair-brained theories or try to breathe life back into the thing that was just shot full of holes. They never learn, do they? Yet, they want everybody else to believe that they have all the answers. They only can criticize: they offer no solutions.


I agree with you entirely. I just have one question: Given the questionable results of the last two national elections, can we expect that the Neocons are going to play by the rules, or cheat any way they can to hold onto power??Oh yeah. The same old lame-brained "if we don't win, they cheated" argument. When will you learn that you can slant the news media fully to the left, you can tweak the opinion polls to make it look like people think like you do, but when it comes down to voting, your fiction just doesn't match up to reality?? The vast majority of voting fraud that's been uncovered has been perpetrated by Democrats. Again, it's just another stupid conspiracy theory that you employ to avoid facing the hard facts: no matter how you attempt to get others to buy into your flawed perceptions, they see your idiocy and run in the other direction. You Dumbocrats have made voting MUCH easier for me than ever before! If I see a (D) after someone's name, I immediately associate them with stupidity. I don't have to put a lot of research into how they stand on the issues. You've REALLY got to be a total idiot to be a Democrat (sorry, Zell...just change your party, OK?)


Are they going to use Diebold to win, or declare Marital Law if the election goes against them?? Okay, that's two questions...One question for you Laz...when are you going to get a grip on reality?


Anyone who thinks tax cuts for the rich benefit the middle class and poor is a myopic idiot. Check your financial records and you will find that the middle class does better when Democrats run the government.:ihih:Yeah, like Carter's wonderful economy, eh? We had 16% home loan finance rates under his administration. Everything was in the toilet. Fortunately, we had 8 years of Reagan to put things back together again. Clinton was lucky to ride the dot com wave. Of course, the economy collapsed at the end of his term, proving that he wasn't responsible for the boom to begin with. Actually, the false prosperity created during the Clinton administration had a huge negative impact for MANY YEARS beyond that, causing many people to lose their life's savings. Great going, nimrod!


My prediction is that the American electorate in its infinite wisdom will overwhelmingly respond to elect a Democratic Congress and, later, turn tail and elect another Republican as President.Why, you ask? Well, they have a history of doing just that.Are you calling Americans stupid? Your real name isn't John Kerry, is it? Isn't it WONDERFUL that America didn't elect that lying traitor in 2004? Everything we warned about him was true. He's a pompous idiot, more concerned with his status than with the direction this country NEEDS to go in. I hope he runs again in 2008!


The next Republican nominee will go so far as to distance himself from GB that you'll be hard pressed to remember they're in the same party.Why would they do that unless they really believe in these tainted polls? GWB has proven to be a great President, and history will verify that. He stuck to his guns concerning the tax breaks. The stupid Democrats cried that he would destroy the economy, but the economy rebounded nicely. Democrats WRONG, GWB right! The same thing goes for Iraq: years from now we'll clearly see that he was on the right track and that Democrats were wrong. Without a doubt, Democrats don't have any viable options. But most of all, Democrats are SORELY wrong in their assessment of who really is the enemy. In their vitriolic passionate hatred for ANYTHING Republican, they ignore the threat of Islamofascism which is very real (despite Mikey Mooron's protests) and very deadly.


The Dems will do what they always do, nominate the most fecklessly meandering twerp imaginable. I swear to God, I have never seen a party so hell-bent on cyclical self-destruction. Mondale-geek, Dukakis-bushy-browed uber wuss, Gore-easily confused greenie wimp, Kerry-vascillating troll...Well, I'll agree with you there. But what choice do they have? The only good Democrat is Zell Miller who is hated by most of the left-wing lunatics. When you can only pick from a pool of fools, you're likely to pick a fool, aren't you?


and let's not kid ourselves, a Hillary Rodham Clinton nomination would secure a victory for the Republican Party faster than anything imaginable.Run, Hillary, run! Run Kerry, run! Run, Dean, Run! Pick one! Pick ANY one! They're ALL fools, some just bigger idiots than the rest! Pick Cindy Sheehan for President, or perhaps Cynthia McKinney or John Conyers! My GOD, there must be an inverse IQ-quota requirement to get into the Democratic Party! "Your IQ is over 40? You're not welcome in THIS big tent, buddy!"

[Feanor]

Thanks for your long and ... uhmm ... thoughtful reply. You're right: I'm sure there are stupid Democrates too. :cornut:

[JSE]

Jeskibuff,

Damn, I sure miss the days when you were around here more! Good to see you popped in to smack some Demo arse. :biggrin5:

I have been mostly keeping out of politics of late but I have to comment on this.

I keep hearing democrats saying "we need a new direction in Irag, we need change, we need a fresh look, etc, etc."

What I have not heard, is what this new direction/change/look/etc. will be. Not from one democrat. They keep saying how bad Bush and the Republicans have been and how nothing is working but they have yet to say "HOW THEY" are going to make it work or even what their proposed plan is. Why is that? Oh yeah, they don't have a clue.

JSE

[Feanor]

Jeskibuff,

Damn, I sure miss the days when you were around here more! Good to see you popped in to smack some Demo arse. :biggrin5:

I have been mostly keeping out of politics of late but I have to comment on this.

I keep hearing democrats saying "we need a new direction in Irag, we need change, we need a fresh look, etc, etc."

What I have not heard, is what this new direction/change/look/etc. will be. Not from one democrat. They keep saying how bad Bush and the Republicans have been and how nothing is working but they have yet to say "HOW THEY" are going to make it work or even what their proposed plan is. Why is that? Oh yeah, they don't have a clue.

JSE

... is better than a really, really bad one.

[JSE]

... is better than a really, really bad one.


Did you just say that? So "no plan" for Iraq is better than what we are doing now? OK???


I guess we just need to get the darts out and start throwing them at the wall and see what sticks, eh? Yeah, that will work well. You think it's bad now?

JSE

[SRO]

In January 2001, the national debt was roughly $6 TRILLION. Next spring, it is expected to top $9 TRILLION. Your share went from $20,000 to what will be $30,000. I make a decent salary, and with the tax cuts I bring home about $24 a year additional. With the tax cuts that Republicans like to crow about I can cover $120 of my additional $10,000.

Who is fiscally responsible?

Jeskibuff - Who has "vitriolic passionate hatred"? Please re-read your post before replying.

Anyone who would not vote for some one just because of the letter at the end of there name seems short-sighted.

[Feanor]

Did you just say that? So "no plan" for Iraq is better than what we are doing now? OK???

I guess we just need to get the darts out and start throwing them at the wall and see what sticks, eh? Yeah, that will work well. You think it's bad now?

JSE

... being worse than GWB's. Certainly American ought to ask Democrate leaders what their plan is -- although they have actually got at least a year to work out the details, i.e. in time for the Presidential race.

But, hey, listen! I don't believe the US should "cut and run" any more than GWB does. My concern is not so much for American service people (or taxpayers) but for the Iraqi people who would be left in the lurch if the US were to just quit. The US owes a huge debt to them, given the damage done.

On the other hand Iraqis need to yank on their bootstraps a little harder. If Iraqis don't do their part, the US obligation will eventually expire.

[Feanor]

In January 2001, the national debt was roughly $6 TRILLION. Next spring, it is expected to top $9 TRILLION. Your share went from $20,000 to what will be $30,000. I make a decent salary, and with the tax cuts I bring home about $24 a year additional. With the tax cuts that Republicans like to crow about I can cover $120 of my additional $10,000.
...

I guess you could say your share will really be $30,120. :eek:

By the way, whose picking up that debt? Isn't a lot of it being financed by the PRC, (People's Republic of China)? Suppose they can that debt? Talk about strategic interests!!!

[SRO]

I haven't heard any plan on Iraq from Bush, other than "stay the course". Even this is no longer the plan. If he doesn't have to tell then why should the Dems?

Of course, a few Dems have brought up a phased withdrawal of troops only to be labeled as cut and runners. Recently I have heard a few Reps use a term ( which currently escapes me ) which means the same thing. Do Republicans also want to cut and run?

[dean_martin]

Things are going "remarkably well" for the Iraqis according to VP Cheney as of Oct.16, 2006:
CHENEY: Well, I think there’s some natural level of concern out there because in fact, you know, it wasn’t over instantaneously. It’s been a little over three years now since we went into Iraq, so I don’t think it’s surprising that people are concerned.

On the other hand, this government has only been in office about five months, five or six months now. They’re off to a good start. It is difficult, no question about it, but we’ve now got over 300,000 Iraqis trained and equipped as part of their security forces. They’ve had three national elections with higher turnout than we have here in the United States. If you look at the general overall situation, they’re doing remarkably well.

It’s still very, very difficult, very tough. Nobody should underestimate the extent to which we’re engaged there with this sort of, at present, the “major front” of the war on terror. That’s what Osama bin Laden says, and he’s right.

Here's what Cheney said over a year ago: “I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.” [Larry King Live, 6/20/05]

Although James Baker won't tip his hand completely before tomrrow (election day), he is suggesting that a more modest goal in Iraq may be all we can achieve:

WASHINGTON — A commission formed to assess the Iraq war and recommend a new course has ruled out the prospect of victory for America, according to draft policy options shared with The New York Sun by commission officials.

Currently, the 10-member commission — headed by a secretary of state for President George H.W. Bush, James Baker — is considering two option papers, "Stability First" and "Redeploy and Contain," both of which rule out any prospect of making Iraq a stable democracy in the near term.

More telling, however, is the ruling out of two options last month. One advocated minor fixes to the current war plan but kept intact the long-term vision of democracy in Iraq with regular elections. The second proposed that coalition forces focus their attacks only on Al Qaeda and not the wider insurgency.

Instead, the commission is headed toward presenting President Bush with two clear policy choices that contradict his rhetoric of establishing democracy in Iraq. The more palatable of the two choices for the White House, "Stability First," argues that the military should focus on stabilizing Baghdad while the American Embassy should work toward political accommodation with insurgents. The goal of nurturing a democracy in Iraq is dropped.

The option papers, which sources inside the commission have stressed are still being amended and revised as the panel wraps up its work, give a clearer picture of what Mr. Baker meant in recent interviews when he called for a course adjustment.

They also shed light on what is at stake in the coming 2 1/2 months for the Iraqi government. The "Redeploy and Contain" option calls for the phased withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq, though the working groups have yet to say when and where those troops will go. The document, read over the telephone to the Sun, says America should "make clear to allies and others that U.S. redeployment does not reduce determination to attack terrorists wherever they are." It also says America's top priority should be minimizing American casualties in Iraq.

Both Mr. Baker and his Democratic co-commissioner, Lee Hamilton, have said for nearly a month that the coming weeks and months are crucial for the elected body in Baghdad. More recently, Mr. Baker has said he is leaning against counseling the president to withdraw from Iraq.

Mr. Bush yesterday spoke approvingly of his father's old campaign manager and top diplomat, saying he looked forward to seeing "what Jimmy Baker and Lee Hamilton have to say about getting the job done."

The president also said he was not averse to changing tactics. But he repeated that the strategic goal in Iraq is to build "a country which can defend itself, sustain itself, and govern itself." He added, "The strategic goal is to help this young democracy succeed in a world in which extremists are trying to intimidate rational people in order to topple moderate governments and to extend the caliphate."

But the president's strategic goal is at odds with the opinion of Mr. Baker's expert working groups, which dismiss the notion of victory in Iraq. The "Stability First" paper says, "The United States should aim for stability particularly in Baghdad and political accommodation in Iraq rather than victory."

Mr. Baker in recent days has subtly been sounding out this theme with interviewers. On PBS's "Charlie Rose Show," Mr. Baker was careful to say he believed the jury was still out on whether Iraq was a success or a failure. But he also hastened to distinguish between a Middle East that was "democratic" and one that was merely "representative."

"If we are able to promote representative, representative government, not necessarily democracy, in a number of nations in the Middle East and bring more freedom to the people of that part of the world, it will have been a success," he said.

That distinction is crucial, according to one member of the expert working groups. "Baker wants to believe that Sunni dictators in Sunni majority states are representative," the group member, who requested anonymity, said.

Both option papers would compel America to open dialogue with Syria and Iran, two rogue states that Iraqi leaders and American military commanders say are providing arms and funds to Iraq's insurgents. "Stabilizing Iraq will be impossible without greater cooperation from Iran and Syria," the "Stability First" paper says.

The option also calls on America to solicit aid and support from the European Union and the United Nations, though both bodies in the past have spurned requests for significant aid for Iraq.

Because of the politically explosive topic of the Baker commission, the panel has agreed not to release its findings until after the November 7 elections. The commission, formally known as the Iraq Study Group, was created by Congress in legislation sponsored by Rep. Frank Wolf, a Republican of Virginia and close confidant of Mr. Bush's. Mr. Baker has said he will likely present the panel's findings in December.

Tax cuts: Sorry I don't have a link for this, but it's my understanding that Congress "cut and ran" home to defend their seats before approving the extension of certain tax cuts on which both Democrats and Republicans agreed. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist would not allow the extensions to come to a vote unless the proposals included ending the estate tax. These tax breaks, including credits for college tuition, have now expired. The tax forms, booklets, etc. for '06 returns must be printed by Nov. 7th. This of course is before Congress reconvenes for its last session. Although Congress could do something to reinstate the cuts, it is believed that reinstatement after forms and booklets are already printed is not a viable option. So there you have it. I have one kid who just started college and one who will start next fall. If I can't take credits on my taxes for tuition because some joker had to get back to his home state to save his "job", I'm gonna...

Let's not forget that Bush just signed an overhaul to our only law that prevents comingling of the military and police in domestic situations.

[daviethek]

Our president is a windbag cought in the middle of a struggle way over his C average.
The war is being conducted with no regard for the future of of Iraq. If we cared at all about the country, we would seal off the borders, put the proper number of troops in there to do a Real Occuption and give those people the time necessary to learn what the hell to do. Instead we continue on some hap-hazard damage control path. We simply can't win this war. Time and resources are on the side of the enemy. Somebody should have thought about this 5 years ago. Isn't this what we pay the CIA for?

Sure Dems are not offering any suggestions at this point. They are labeled as cut and run traitors if they voice the least amount of verbal opposition. Bush promotes democracy abroad whitch is good but does not tolerate the least amount of dissent at home.Someone else did his civics homework for him.

One things for sure, when things go bad, the Republicans will find someone for us to hate.
They are working on a plan right now that clearly indicates gay marriage is directly responsible for the terrorist threat and impending immigrant imvasion from Mexico. The only way out of danger is to repeal Roe and stop immediately all stem cell research before they create another chicken virus with it. Thanks for the entertainment George.

[jeskibuff]

Thanks for your long and ... uhmm ... thoughtful reply. You're right: I'm sure there are stupid Democrates too.Yes, my posts are usually long because I like to address each point I disagree with. And yes, they are thoughtful, incorporating logic and reason. And despite your sarcasm, if you had read a little closer, I wasn't saying there are just a FEW stupid Democrats. I was basically saying that roughly 98% of Democrats are too stupid to know what's good for them and this country! The evidence overwhelmingly proves it!

Jeskibuff,

Damn, I sure miss the days when you were around here more! Good to see you popped in to smack some Demo arse. :biggrin5:Thanks, JSE! Priorities change and times change. I miss some of the old days too, but I just don't have the time anymore to frequent the message boards.


I have been mostly keeping out of politics of late but I have to comment on this.

I keep hearing democrats saying "we need a new direction in Irag, we need change, we need a fresh look, etc, etc."

What I have not heard, is what this new direction/change/look/etc. will be. Not from one democrat. They keep saying how bad Bush and the Republicans have been and how nothing is working but they have yet to say "HOW THEY" are going to make it work or even what their proposed plan is. Why is that? Oh yeah, they don't have a clue.
You've got that right. Why it's not obvious to more people is beyond my ability to comprehend. Some people just cling tenaciously to their beliefs no matter how many holes get shot in their weak platforms. Oh, and have you seen this this little gem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7h3GPc_yMCE) from David Zucker (of Airplane/Naked Gun movie fame)?? It should be mandatory viewing before people vote tomorrow!

Sometimes NO plan ... ... is better than a really, really bad one.Okay...here's progress. At least you admit the Dumbocrats have no plans. That's the first step towards recovery. As far as your implication that Bush's plan is bad, you're dead wrong. Given the things we know, his plan is the absolutely best track for America, like it or not. The evidence proves it. You evidently just don't have the capacity to grasp it.


In January 2001, the national debt was roughly $6 TRILLION. Next spring, it is expected to top $9 TRILLION. Your share went from $20,000 to what will be $30,000. I make a decent salary, and with the tax cuts I bring home about $24 a year additional. With the tax cuts that Republicans like to crow about I can cover $120 of my additional $10,000.

Who is fiscally responsible?Wars are expensive. No one really likes them, but the alternative is far worse. Democrats have absolutely no concept of what that alternative is. They have no concept of the nature of our enemies. Quite simply, they are fools not worthy of a single vote.


Jeskibuff - Who has "vitriolic passionate hatred"? Please re-read your post before replying.I usually read my posts several times before I submit them. I check for spelling and grammar, but most importantly the to make sure my message is communicated loud and clear. I really don't hate Dumbocrats. I just have an extremely low tolerance for stupidity. The liberals I know get along with me fine. We have entertaining conversations and many have called me the best Republican they've ever met.

We've just gone through several years that should have clearly exposed the seedy and unsavory nature of the Democratic Party. We had a President that lied in every other word that came out of his mouth. It finally took some DNA proof to corner him into telling the truth. The next Democratic nominee wasn't so adept at lying, thinking he could get away with taking both sides on every issue. Almost half the population voted for the pompous traitor!

We had the obvious media attempt to smear a good President, if nothing but to retaliate for exposing the lying Clintons for who they were. We had Mikey Mooron make his moronic Fahrenheit film while Dan Rather peddled his fake "authentic" memos. We had book after book of Bush-hating rhetoric published, yet the accusers all get exposed as the liars. Bush got blamed for everything from the WTC collapse to hurricane Katrina. Yet, with this huge mountain of evidence showing Dumbocrats to be liars, traitors and frauds, we STILL have millions of clueless people still supporting the Dumbocratic Party! WHAT DOES IT TAKE to get it through their thick skulls???


Anyone who would not vote for some one just because of the letter at the end of there name seems short-sighted.To reiterate, anyone who has seen what has gone on the last several years and still votes the (D)s has the vision problem. They obviously are totally blind.


It's hard to imagine any other plan ...being worse than GWB's. Certainly American ought to ask Democrate leaders what their plan is -- although they have actually got at least a year to work out the details, i.e. in time for the Presidential race.Good luck on getting anything out of a Dimocrat leader. And as I stated before, GWB's plan is solid and sensible.


But, hey, listen! I don't believe the US should "cut and run" any more than GWB does. My concern is not so much for American service people (or taxpayers) but for the Iraqi people who would be left in the lurch if the US were to just quit. The US owes a huge debt to them, given the damage done.You obviously infer the damage was done by the U.S. What you fail to realize is that the damage was done by Saddam and is currently being perpetrated by terrorists. But it's comforting to know that you have a tad bit more ethical backbone than the bulk of Democrats have.


On the other hand Iraqis need to yank on their bootstraps a little harder. If Iraqis don't do their part, the US obligation will eventually expire.Agreed. Unfortunately, the good ones are being slaughtered by the bad ones. The terrorists have demonstrated their capacity to infiltrate the Iraqi police force and inflict enormous damage. Those who don't value life have a great deal of persuasion (via fear) over people who do.


I haven't heard any plan on Iraq from Bush, other than "stay the course". Even this is no longer the plan. If he doesn't have to tell then why should the Dems?The plan has been on the table all along: build up the Iraqi troops so they can take over. Unfortunately, the blood-thirsty terrorists have a counterplan that is working very well: slaughter as many of the good Iraqis that they can. The intricacies of our plan aren't on display and shouldn't be. That involves our use of technology and methods in identifying and exterminating the vermin. The methods are being adjusted and new tactics must be used, but the overall plan is the same: stay the course. We also have to fight Dumbocrats who want to restrict our tactics in this war. Those who believe that plans are foolproof are just idiots - the enemy has the capability of reacting to our strategy. If we stuck to the same methodology, we'd be the fools, but we've been changing. Democratic fools just want to declare a victory by saying "Bush has failed, let's pack up and stop the killing!" Good thing these pansies weren't in command when storming Normandy beach! Dean_Martin's post has a good example of the Bush plan: "The strategic goal is to help this young democracy succeed in a world in which extremists are trying to intimidate rational people in order to topple moderate governments and to extend the caliphate." It doesn't begin to describe that caliphate, but think "Taliban".


Of course, a few Dems have brought up a phased withdrawal of troops only to be labeled as cut and runners. Recently I have heard a few Reps use a term ( which currently escapes me ) which means the same thing. Do Republicans also want to cut and run?There are cowardly Republicans too, afraid that they may not get elected if they associate themselves with Bush. They deserve to lose, but to replace even a cowardly Republican with a wishy-washy fool of a Democrat is a much worse thing.


bush is an embarrasment Our president is a windbag cought in the middle of a struggle way over his C average.With all this hot air coming out of windbags like you, tell me why is it so easy to use logic and reason to defend the strategies of GWB and shoot holes in your flimsy arguments? Who's the real "C average" student in this scenario? Here's a hint: it's not GWB! You need to study harder!


The war is being conducted with no regard for the future of of Iraq.What a load of bull! It is entirely focused on the future of Iraq. We could "win" it in a second if we dropped a nuke on Baghdad, but we value innocent lives so we put our own flesh and blood on the line so they can have a future!


If we cared at all about the country, we would seal off the borders, put the proper number of troops in there to do a Real Occuption and give those people the time necessary to learn what the hell to do. Instead we continue on some hap-hazard damage control path. We simply can't win this war. Time and resources are on the side of the enemy. Somebody should have thought about this 5 years ago. Isn't this what we pay the CIA for?Spoken like a true armchair quarterback! Do you have any idea what kind of manpower alone is necessary to seal off the borders of a country the size of California? I realize you look at a map and see a country the size of a postage stamp, but that's really just a picture. The real Iraq is MUCH bigger!


Sure Dems are not offering any suggestions at this point. They are labeled as cut and run traitors if they voice the least amount of verbal opposition.Simply because they only offer criticism and their selfish motives are clear as day. Never have they come up with alternatives. Dumb Kerry said he had a plan, but I guess he's keeping it all to himself because he lost, isn't he? GET A CLUE! That dolt doesn't have the slightest idea what he would do!


Bush promotes democracy abroad whitch is good but does not tolerate the least amount of dissent at home.Well, I guess this will be the last we hear from you then. Good luck in the concentration camps.

Idiot.

[daviethek]

none of your remarks constitute a rebuttal. I wasn't mentioning Kerry. He actually is considered a windbag among the dems I know. there is little argument there. Monday morning quarterbacking is a charge that is appropriate if the event is recent and the conclusion obviously bad, but we have been watching this thing unfold for a long time now. My bigest fear is that you will be making the same childish personally insulting and defensive statements about the war 4 years from now. You are taking this way too personal. Being from Chicago, you learn to trust no politicians......ever. dk

[jeskibuff]

none of your remarks constitute a rebuttal. None of your remarks warranted a rebuttal. You suggested that GWB is an idiot, yet your own remarks suggest that you're projecting. We've heard this same screed over and over again from Dumbocrats and it's just not worth the effort to try to enlighten those who insist on remaining in the dark. Fortunately, the last few elections have indicated that there are enough people who understand the insanity of liberals and are fighting hard to keep them out of power. Hopefully, tomorrow will be a repeat, despite all the media's dire predictions for Republicans.

I do hold out hope though. For instance, the maker of that video (David Zucker) used to be a Democrat. Here it is again, in case you missed it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7h3GPc_yMCE

Of course, David exhibited great intellect by creating some of the most hilarious movies ever made. It's only natural that someone with such intelligence should abandon the party of fools.

[FLZapped]

Anyone who thinks tax cuts for the rich benefit the middle class and poor is a myopic idiot. Check your financial records and you will find that the middle class does better when Democrats run the government.:ihih:


Funny, I'm middle class. Checked my records and guess what, I received a nice refund check and more money every paycheck.....

-Bruce

[Feanor]

Funny, I'm middle class. Checked my records and guess what, I received a nice refund check and more money every paycheck.....

-Bruce

There is more to tax cuts than the reduction in your taxes. Irresponsible tax cuts means reduction in vital public services and increase in public debt.

The consumate stupidity of the middle class that so many believe that they derive less benefit from public spending than what it cost them in taxes. To be sure, we can all point to programs that we consider a waste of money; problem is no two of us will have the same list of what ought to be cut.

[GMichael]

WOW! You guys play rough. But I like it. You could get more info reading this thread than you could watching a billion of their idiot commercials. And I think that's how many I've seen in the last week.

[dean_martin]

The main problem with Bush's "plan" for Iraq is that he and his administration are not flexible enough to deal with unexpected contingencies. We ARE fighting enemies of ours in Iraq, but that's not the only fighting going on. The Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence between the Sunnis and Shiites is more bloody and widespread than I think anyone expected. Establishing a democratic form of government based on US principles may not be the answer. But Bush insists on "Democracy" for Iraq. I think if you equate "strategy" with "goals" then the Bush plan for Iraq is failing. If you think of "tactics" in the context of fighting then our military is in a sense "hamstrung" if you consider that much of the current violence is Iraqi-on-Iraqi. The obvious conclusion is to re-work the goal (or, overall strategy) to something more easily achieved, like some form of representative national government combined with a loose confederation of states within Iraq. Those states would require more autonomy than is preferred and some form of monitoring would be required to prevent or warn of terrorists setting up shop. For example, Musharraf in Pakistan has very little control over what goes on in the northern region of his country, however, he knows exactly what is going on.

I think it's very clear that our goal of democracy, as we know it, in Iraq should be modified. The real questions, however, relate to "tactics" (battle operations) and choices on the ground as we're fighting terrorists, and Iraqis are fighting each other. We hear very little about "tactics" which is not surprising because of what the enemy will learn. From what we do see and hear though it appears that our "tactics" need to be questioned as well at some level within our military.

Our current adminstration lost its credibility with the American people by its rhetoric. We will be welcomed as liberators? Oil and gas production will pay for stabilization? The insurgency is in its last throes? We will stay the course? I never said we will stay the course? Amazingly, none of this rhetoric has anything to do with the "mistaken" reasons for going into Iraq in the first place. Since we're there now, I won't even go into that.

[SRO]

Jeskibuff,

My comment on your post has nothing to do with grammar. I was referring to your obvious hatred of Democrats ( sorry, Dumbocrats ). It must be the respect you show by the capital D. Oh yeah, you mentioned the " some of my best friends are... " argument as well. What is the saying about people who live in glass houses?

The war has cost roughly $400 million, where has the other $2.6 trillion gone? You personally can not lower your income and increase your spending without some consequences. 43 has already borrowed more $$$$ form foreign banks than 1 through 42 COMBINED!! Who do you want in charge of your tax money?

W has lied about nation building. In the 2000 campaign, he stated that he would not be involved in it. Seems like what we are doing in Iraq. Is this a flip flop?

Where is Osama? He was a priority for a while, dead or alive we were going to find him. Then W doesn't think about him too much. Is this a flip flop? Seems we took our eye off the ball.

Hope the following doesn't bust one of your stereotypes, but I am off to work.

[JSE]

W has lied about nation building. In the 2000 campaign, he stated that he would not be involved in it. Seems like what we are doing in Iraq. Is this a flip flop?


Lied? I think that's a stretch. In 2000 he probably had no intentions of nation buidling. I think it's reasonable to assume 9/11 probably changed his mind, rightly or wrongly. The world was a different place after this event. You and other democrats keep saying W is too bull headed and unwilling to change course in Iraq but then you also call him out for a change of course in your above statement. So do you want someone unwaivering or someone who can adapt and change course when needed? I'm confused.:confused:

[GMichael]

Lied? I think that's a stretch. In 2000 he probably had no intentions of nation buidling. I think it's reasonable to assume 9/11 probably changed his mind, rightly or wrongly. The world was a different place after this event. You and other democrats keep saying W is too bull headed and unwilling to change course in Iraq but then you also call him out for a change of course in your above statement. So do you want someone unwaivering or someone who can adapt and change course when needed? I'm confused.:confused:

They want someone who is not a republican. The arguments will change as needed.

[SRO]

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. It has only become a terrorist target/training ground since we went in. Why are we there? I understand that we should now help rebuild what we helped destroy. What is wrong with a timetable? We need to send a message that we are there to help, not police. The quicker they understand that they need to take over operations, and that we will not be there forever the better.

In 2004, when Kerry changed his mind he was a flip flopper. That was my point. Bush is a liar or a flip flopper, you decide.

By the way, I am not a Democrat. I do not belong to any party. The party system has gotten out of control. Too many people plegde blind allegiance to their party, and this drops America from the top of the list.

[GMichael]

When we went after Bin-Baby, the anti-Bushers ranted about how Bin was not the real problem and that we should go after Iraq. Then when we went into Iraq those same anti-Bushers ranted about how we should be after Bin instead. Could you guys get your story straight, please?
Don't get me wrong, Bush has done plenty of screwing up. But a lot of people jump on him just for the sake of jumping.

And I agree 100% about the party separation. I don't vote for a party. I vote for a person. But even then, you can almost count on the person you put in there to vote for a party instead of an issue. It's a system that needs at least a little tweaking. At most, a complete overhaul.

[basite]

Are you calling Americans stupid? Your real name isn't John Kerry, is it? Isn't it WONDERFUL that America didn't elect that lying traitor in 2004? Everything we warned about him was true. He's a pompous idiot, more concerned with his status than with the direction this country NEEDS to go in. I hope he runs again in 2008!
"

sorry to interrupt your moment of glory, even i'm not from america, i'm still going to say something,

Jeskibuff, you do know that George Bush is considered to be one of the most stupid people in the world.
name me, what went better since the war in Iraq started, there still isn't democracy in those countries, in fact, the only thing that happened is that they started to nuke eachother even more, the dollar didn't rise too, eh? and the poor people in america are even more poor,
Bush should be ashamed, the only reason why he was elected was that they didn't explain how the election thing worked,
some more things he should be ashamed about: the hurricane katrina, where at first, he didn't actually send real help too the people there, all he did was sending a few army guys over there to let them build a lousy barrier to hold the water, for the rest, he didn't do anything, at least not at the moment, until the whole world knew that, then he sent some more help eh?
and then, 'war against terrorism', man, that has to be the most stupid excuse i ever heard, i hope you're not forgetting that he IS in the oil business, why do you think that he started the war in the first place? for those poor people in iraq, that are discriminated and forgotten, could be, but more likely would be to gain control over the oil fields, yup, oil fields, to make the rich even more rich then they are now, and you know what? he failed, really hard, because the only thing that happened is that the oil price has DOUBLED!!
really, elect that guy, and then you are officially part of the worlds dumbasses,
and in the meanwhile, let him build some more secret cia prisons in europe eh?
i'm not saying that politics are only bad in america, really, most of the countries suck in it,
america is just a fine example for the rest of the world, like a guide 'how to mess with the rest of us', think about it, politics seem to be wrong everywhere, and if you make Bush president and Arnold Schwarzenegger for governor, your on a bad way, i mean ARNOLD SWHARZENEGGER for gods sake, he knows as much about politics as my cats right toe!!! he can't even pronounce the word republican.

note that this is my PERSONAL opinion, this is what i think about bush, and not saying that others will be better, but it's more likely that it will be...

that felt fine too.
ow, one more thing,
MY CAT FOR GOVERNOR!
it's more likely to think twice before saying something stupid and ti can probably speak better english then arnold.

[JSE]

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

I never said it did. I implied that something like 9/11 could change a person's course of action or perspective of the world around him. It could have changed his idea about Nation Building. So again, HOW DID HE LIE?


What is wrong with a timetable?.

Nothing is wrong with a timetable. But it has to be flexible. The problem the democrats have right now is a lot of the country believe they are hell bent on pulling troops out of Iraq by a specific time reagardless of what happens in the meantime. Timetables should be fluid. The democrats are viewed by many as wanting to make it a "hard" deadline.


We need to send a message that we are there to help, not police. The quicker they understand that they need to take over operations, and that we will not be there forever the better. .

Well, if you or the democrats know how to convince Iraq of this and make it happen sooner than later, I'm all ears. But that's the problem, democrats can't even begin to tell us how they will do this. They don't have a clue and have no interest in coming up with a plan. They just want seats. They hope that enough people will "assume" they must have a plan. I am not that happy about being in Iraq these days but I am really afraid that a democratic controlled house, senate and maybe even presidency would put Iraq on the back burner. This would be a huge mistake.


In 2004, when Kerry changed his mind he was a flip flopper. That was my point. Bush is a liar or a flip flopper, you decide.

Bush appears to have "flip-flopped" on this issue (nation building) due to a significant world event. Kerry seems to flip-flop due to any slight directional wind change. Kerry's biggest problem with the "flip-flop" issue was there were so many flip-flops. He seemed to say whatever his audience wanted to hear. And that bit him in the ass. In today's internet world, a person's words can and will come back to haunt them. In Kerry's case, over and over and over again.


By the way, I am not a Democrat. I do not belong to any party.

Nor do I but I am more conservative in my political views. I have said for years, I will vote for ANY candidate that will erect a huge wall/fence along the Mexican border to keep illegals out. A big electric fence! Illegal imigration is a far larger problem here in the US than terrorism. Unfortunately, Republicans and Democrats are too busy trying to find potential voters to do anything real about it.

JSE

[Feanor]

You view of GWB is pretty much the world's view outside of the US. And inside the US too, expect for die-hard Republican paritsans.

As I explained, Repulicans are either ultra-rich selfish b*st*rds who don't give a pooh about their own country or fellow citizens, or idiots who don't understand where their real interest lies. (These categories aren't mutually exclusive: GWB might fit the former too whereas he certainly fits the latter.)

[jeskibuff]

The main problem with Bush's "plan" for Iraq is that he and his administration are not flexible enough to deal with unexpected contingencies.By NOT micromanaging this war, giving the commanders in Iraq the ability to direct the effort, GWB is providing EXTREME flexibility. It's just really tough to fight an enemy who blends into the crowd and doesn't care about their life nor anyone else's.


We ARE fighting enemies of ours in Iraq, but that's not the only fighting going on. The Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence between the Sunnis and Shiites is more bloody and widespread than I think anyone expected.Very true, but understand that that fighting is being spurred on by terrorists. They know they can't defeat us on the battlefield, but they can make a gore-fest out of Iraq by giving Shiite and Sunni enough reason to go after each other. Kill a bunch of Sunnis today, then some Shiites tomorrow. Get them to think the other side did it and you successfully polarize and destabilize the country. When everyone's sick of the bloodshed, the coalition forces pull out and the terrorists easily take over. Nice plan. It works especially well when you've got people in the U.S. working for your cause (i.e.,Democrats).


Establishing a democratic form of government based on US principles may not be the answer. But Bush insists on "Democracy" for Iraq. I think if you equate "strategy" with "goals" then the Bush plan for Iraq is failing. If you think of "tactics" in the context of fighting then our military is in a sense "hamstrung" if you consider that much of the current violence is Iraqi-on-Iraqi. The obvious conclusion is to re-work the goal (or, overall strategy) to something more easily achieved, like some form of representative national government combined with a loose confederation of states within Iraq. Those states would require more autonomy than is preferred and some form of monitoring would be required to prevent or warn of terrorists setting up shop. For example, Musharraf in Pakistan has very little control over what goes on in the northern region of his country, however, he knows exactly what is going on.Whatever form of government is chosen, it will be unacceptable to the terrorists. Nothing but an Islamic state will satisfy them. What NEEDS to be done is probably already being done, but it's a tough row to hoe. It takes time to develop a good spy network - people who can be trusted and are willing to infiltrate and identify the bad guys. We can't do that overnight, especially when we don't speak their language. As long as we can't identify them, they're free to attack at will. But we DO know some bad guys, like al-Sadr and other clerics who incite their followers into violence. A "stray" bullet into the foreheads of such scum might accomplish a lot. The propaganda war is essential too, and I have no idea how well we're doing in that department...probably not very good, although al-Jazeera has been banned by the Iraqi government, and that's a good sign.

Also, consider the source of all this news we get. Take this article (http://www.moveamericaforward.org/index.php/MAF/FullNewsItem/iraqi_kurd_pm_slams_medias_coverage_of_iraq_war/) for instance. In it, the Kurdish Prime Minister is appalled at the coverage of American news of Iraq. Then there are many things like this, from post #13 in http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum/showthread.php?t=86649 "most Iraqis are very happy...don't believe the media. They're trying to make it look like the Sunnis are displeased."


I think it's very clear that our goal of democracy, as we know it, in Iraq should be modified.I disagree. It's good to have that goal...we just need to adapt to changing tactics, which we are doing. It's tough when your enemies have no values. Like Israel says: "the fighting will stop when they love their children more than they hate us".


Our current adminstration lost its credibility with the American people by its rhetoric. We will be welcomed as liberators?We were, by MANY Iraqis! There are thousands of pictures with Iraqis with purple-stained digits and smiles on their faces. They just never realized (and probably still don't) that their worst enemies are their fellow Muslims.


Oil and gas production will pay for stabilization?The expectation was that the Iraqis would be more help than they are. There were a few problems with that expectation: the underestimation of the pure evil nature of Islamic fundamentalists, the hope that the good would rat out the evil, the hope that Iraqis who were brutalized for so long would pick up the baton and run with it. The main problem is the stranglehold that Islam has on people who have been indoctrinated with it for so long. It doesn't take much to persuade someone who has been taught from birth that Jews and people who support Jews are the enemy. The promise of paradise to anyone who will blow themselves up in order to kill as many people as they can is also pure evil. We just don't have much of a concept of that kind of evil in America. Our evil is on a much smaller scale (Columbine, Son of Sam, etc.). Certainly, we underestimated the evil of Islamic fundamentalists and the power of that evil.


My comment on your post has nothing to do with grammar.Follow the bouncing ball, please. I was saying that I was WELL AWARE of what I had written and didn't need to read my post again to understand what I wrote. The spelling, grammar and content checks were the reasons I had read it multiple times.


I was referring to your obvious hatred of Democrats ( sorry, Dumbocrats ).I don't HATE Democrats. I hate stupidity. I would like nothing better than for Democrats to develop some smarts and common sense. Until then, I'll ridicule them for being stupid because they don't seem to respond to any other positive impetus.


It must be the respect you show by the capital D.Nope. I just used that notation because it is what most people are familiar with. If you think I respect Democrats, you're more clueless than I first thought!


Oh yeah, you mentioned the " some of my best friends are... " argument as well.I didn't say "my best friends", now did I? I said liberals that I have interacted with in person. If you need an example, here's one who gets politely taken to the cleaners: http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum/showthread.php?t=72180


Where is Osama? He was a priority for a while, dead or alive we were going to find him. Then W doesn't think about him too much. Is this a flip flop? Seems we took our eye off the ball.No flip flop. There are terrorists galore who are just as dangerous as Osama. There are lots of vermin to be exterminated. It makes no sense to expend valuable resources in the search for one man (who has to be EXTREMELY wary of his visibility) when there are Osama wannabes all over the world, just as deserving of an accelerated encounter with "Allah"!


They want someone who is not a republican. The arguments will change as needed.Precisely. If McCain or another Republican had won the primary and defeated Gore and Kerry, they'd be doing the same song and dance routine. It isn't as much as hating GWB as it is getting back for the "wrongs" done to their idol Slick Willie. The Clintons are proven liars, so they have to accuse GWB of lying. Too bad they get caught in lies while fabricating their accusations! The Clintons were corrupt, so they feel they have to pin the "corrupt" label on GWB. There was nearly a scandal a day during Clinton's terms. There's no doubt that Democrats have tried to paint everything in the world a Republican scandal, while they conveniently ignore items like Sandy Berger stashing documents in his pants! It's really quite obvious: they're simply avenging Clinton, although the simpleton mindset of the Democrat MUST resort to hatred, for they have no other ammunition they can use in their attacks!


In 2004, when Kerry changed his mind he was a flip flopper. That was my point. Bush is a liar or a flip flopper, you decide.Neither. A flip-flopper will lie in order to try to please multiple parties. Kerry wore that label like no one ever has before. After 9/11, given all the available knowledge, the best option was to remove the threat that Saddam posed and once that occurred, the only "out" was to rebuild Iraq. GWB hadn't anticipated 9/11, but he had to follow the best path in the interest of America's security. So, he's neither a liar nor a flip-flopper. He had to apply the best solution under the circumstances.


Jeskibuff, you do know that George Bush is considered to be one of the most stupid people in the world.Do you think that bothers me? The people who say such things are the most stupid people in the world, so why should I give them any credence? These are the same idiots who cited a poll that claimed that Bush was less "popular" than Saddam. That kind of mentality just boggles my mind. It was intended to get people to believe that Bush was incredibly hated, but it backfired because it further exposed the lefty lunatic mindset.


name me, what went better since the war in Iraq startedThe Iraqis are no longer subject to a brutal dictator and have the opportunity to control their own destinies. What?? You don't think that's a good thing? You expected it to be an easy transition?? Remember the USSR's transition many years back?? It had a lot of rough spots, but it's now much better there than it used to be!


there still isn't democracy in those countries, in fact, the only thing that happened is that they started to nuke eachother even moreNukes? Gee, I must be behind in the news!


the dollar didn't rise too, eh? and the poor people in america are even more poorSorry, but your "facts" don't mesh very well with reality. America's doing quite well, thank you! We pulled out of Clinton's recession and the 9/11 repercussions and our economy is chugging along good and strong! Again, thank you George W. Bush, for being a REAL leader and not listening to DUmbocrats about those tax cuts! If you had been a coward like Clinton, you would have taken an opinion poll instead!


Bush should be ashamed, the only reason why he was elected was that they didn't explain how the election thing worked,Huh? I thought the reason he was elected was that too many Dumbocrats didn't have a clue how to punch the proper hole in a paper card. Who is "they" and who didn't explain "how the election thing worked"? It's really pretty simple. You go to a designated place, punch a card or pencil in a block, drop your ballot in a box and your vote gets counted! Why should Bush be ashamed that Democrats were too stupid to follow such a simple procedure?


some more things he should be ashamed about: the hurricane katrina, where at first, he didn't actually send real help too the people there, all he did was sending a few army guys over there to let them build a lousy barrier to hold the water, for the rest, he didn't do anything, at least not at the moment, until the whole world knew that, then he sent some more help eh?Oh my! Such brilliance you have. It's amazing how disasters get handled in this good ol' USA. The first responders are the locals, then the state, THEN the Feds. Nagin bungled the local. Blanco bungled the state. But your blame conveniently ignores those fools and targets the national. Typical liberal ignoramus, only with a French accent!


and then, 'war against terrorism', man, that has to be the most stupid excuse i ever heardYeah, say that when one of your dear Muslim friends has a dull knife at your throat. It happened to Theo Van Gogh and it can happen to you. You obviously have no clue who the real enemy is. You think a few weeks of riots in Paris was just a fluke?? Get ready for the ride of your life! It'll be worse than Hitler's occupation. Europe has been infiltrated nicely and everyone knows that they haven't assimilated into your cultures very well!


i hope you're not forgetting that he IS in the oil business, why do you think that he started the war in the first place?Do you have any kind of proof for your accusations or have you just watched too many Mikey Mooron films?


really, elect that guy, and then you are officially part of the worlds dumbassesComing from you, that's a compliment! Your world is totally backwards and given that most any conservative can run rings around you intellectually, it's somewhat entertaining. Someday you may realize that, but I imagine that it won't be for a LOOOONG time.


i mean ARNOLD SWHARZENEGGER for gods sake, he knows as much about politics as my cats right toe!!! he can't even pronounce the word republican.Whatever he may be, he's light-years better than Gray Davis was. And is it a requirement to pronounce Republican in order to be one? I didn't think so. I might also point out that most of us conservatives don't consider Arnie to be much of a conservative. Hanging out with his whacked-out liberal in-laws SURELY has had a detrimental affect on his intellect!


note that this is my PERSONAL opinion, this is what i think about bushDuly noted. Just beware, because Bush doesn't tolerate dissent and soon you'll be carted off to join DavieThek in Gitmo. http://www.MaconUltimate.com/Emoticons/rofl.gif


one more thing,
MY CAT FOR GOVERNOR!
it's more likely to think twice before saying something stupid and ti can probably speak better english then arnold.It probably can type better than you can, too! Go on...put it on the keyboard. I'm dying to talk with someone who has a bit more intelligence!


You view of GWB is pretty much the world's view outside of the US. And inside the US too, expect for die-hard Republican paritsans.Oh my! It looks like Feanor has been ALL OVER THE WORLD and can speak for the world's view with authority! Feanor, DON'T believe everything you read.


As I explained, Repulicans are either ultra-rich selfish b*st*rds who don't give a pooh about their own country or fellow citizens, or idiots who don't understand where their real interest lies. (These categories aren't mutually exclusive: GWB might fit the former too whereas he certainly fits the latter.)There's that projection again. You guys are pretty good at that!

[jrhymeammo]

I smell a DingDong.

[jeskibuff]

I smell a DingDong.Sorry about that!

I had four of them for dessert tonight and they always tend to give me gas!

[Feanor]

...
Oh my! It looks like Feanor has been ALL OVER THE WORLD and can speak for the world's view with authority! Feanor, DON'T believe everything you read....

It's not hard to be well informed if you get your head out of your back end. :ciappa:

[basite]

Yeah, say that when one of your dear Muslim friends has a dull knife at your throat. It happened to Theo Van Gogh and it can happen to you. You obviously have no clue who the real enemy is. You think a few weeks of riots in Paris was just a fluke?? Get ready for the ride of your life! It'll be worse than Hitler's occupation. Europe has been infiltrated nicely and everyone knows that they haven't assimilated into your cultures very well!


First of all, I don't have any "dear Muslim friends"

Second: Go to London (UK), and see the true meaning of multicultural, people live together there instead of desperatly trying to be the best, i've seen all kinds of people there, and they were all doing their thing, and after work, all those people went out TOGETHER.
That would be something you obviously don't know, eh.

when i read your 'reply' i assume that you think that all the muslims are bad,
by this i assume that you are kind of a racist,
now that's not good eh? i also think that the only thing you know about other people not living in your neighbourhood is that what you see on tv, and that, of course will be only bad news,
seriously, not all muslims are bad,
Yes, they are a little bit to obsessed with their religion,
yes, the extremists are evil,
but so are other extremists, that's racism: hating other people,
but the majority of people are not extremists.


ow yeah, and before i forget, Who won the election, eh?
yup, that's right, the democrats,

[basite]

It probably can type better than you can, too! Go on...put it on the keyboard. I'm dying to talk with someone who has a bit more intelligence!


BREMOSLAKY

hmm, that was my cat, i'm pretty sure i can hear the word democracy in it, with a bit of imagination,

I know i do make some spelling faults, but what the heck, you could read it eh, didn't you.
i've never been a pro in languages, but, at least i'm trying to learn them, which is very hard, when you learn 4 languages at school (dutch, french, english and german) and oh god, i want to see you learn them, then we will talk again about languages.

tot ziens, au revoir, see you again, Auf wiedersehen.
Basite.

[basite]

i just don't watch the FOX news


i think i read something about that, or was it abc (weird channel name, looks like it's trying to learn the alphabet) anyways, they spend like 20 seconds a day on foreign news!! that's just time enough to say "one guy shot another". then there are commercials.

[SRO]

When we went after Bin-Baby, the anti-Bushers ranted about how Bin was not the real problem and that we should go after Iraq. Then when we went into Iraq those same anti-Bushers ranted about how we should be after Bin instead. Could you guys get your story straight, please?
Don't get me wrong, Bush has done plenty of screwing up. But a lot of people jump on him just for the sake of jumping.

And I agree 100% about the party separation. I don't vote for a party. I vote for a person. But even then, you can almost count on the person you put in there to vote for a party instead of an issue. It's a system that needs at least a little tweaking. At most, a complete overhaul.
GMichael,

I am not sure who you might be talking about. After 9/11, the country was more united than it has been in my 35 years. I know of no one who suggested we go to Iraq rather than after Osama. The story couldn't be straighter. There will alway be fringe wackos, but it occurs on the right as well as the left.

[SRO]

OK, he didn't lie or flip flop. He changed his mind. If it takes a national tragedy to change his mind, he's thicker than I thought.

If we set a timetable ( even a fluid one ) then the Iraqi government will have to step up the training of their own police and military forces. This is what is claimed to need to happen to get our troops out of there. It is only the Republican party and it's fawning right wing media that claims the Democrats want to cut and run. To their followers, I say turn off Rush and Foxnews and join the real world.

[GMichael]

GMichael,

I am not sure who you might be talking about. After 9/11, the country was more united than it has been in my 35 years. I know of no one who suggested we go to Iraq rather than after Osama. The story couldn't be straighter. There will alway be fringe wackos, but it occurs on the right as well as the left.

More united than in my 46 years too. But there were plenty of nay-sayers a few months later when we were in after Bin. The papers were filled with editorials about how we should be after Sadam instead. That was just the beginning of the slide. Bush went from some 90+% approval to 60 something in about a year. But when it looked like it would cost him the election, he kept on the same path as he promised he would. Seems to me that if he wanted to cinch the election he would have flip-flopped as is normally the case with most politicians. So now he's still on coarse with the same agenda. Right or wrong (most likely wrong) he's at least doing what he said he would. And I don't agree with almost all of his choices, here and on other fronts as well. He makes a lot of mistakes. But I'd rather have him in there than Bill or Kerry or Hilary or, .......

Wackos in the middle too. Don't leave us out.

[SRO]

As you seem to want to get in to semantics, you in fact did not say "my best friends". But you also did not say "that I interact with" either. You may want to re-read your post.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the only way a Democrat can be smart is to think like a Republican in your view. If we all think the same way, we are not a Democacy. It tends to become more communist or fascist. Is this the America that you want?

[SRO]

GMichael,

I have to say that I do not remember the editorials. I will accept that they were there, but are you sure they from anti-Bushies. Could it have been the Neo-cons already building the non-existant threat of Iraq.

[FLZapped]

You view of GWB is pretty much the world's view outside of the US. And inside the US too, expect for die-hard Republican paritsans.

As I explained, Repulicans are either ultra-rich selfish b*st*rds who don't give a pooh about their own country or fellow citizens, or idiots who don't understand where their real interest lies. (These categories aren't mutually exclusive: GWB might fit the former too whereas he certainly fits the latter.)


Oh, well, there is always John Kerry.

[Resident Loser]

...don't have a clue...Dubya was the only unifying issue they could come up with..."Vote for me! I don't like George Bush and my opponent does!"...it's all BS...Now there are folks who bought into all the Bush/Iraq cr@pola and are waiting for the next term to start, expecting daily flights from the middle east to start bringing the troops home...SURPRISE, ain't gonna' happen...All this is going to do is cause political grid-lock on a major scale...And...and if we do ultimately cut-and-run, all those who said we don't have the guts for a protracted military action will have been proven right, which will only embolden them...

jimHJJ(...and yes Martha, history does repeat itself...)

[nobody]

Bush supporters just have to face facts...they were shown in a very big way that the American people do not agree with the neo-con agenda and the administration's insistence on following this path has put them outside the mainstream of the political mood of the country.

For better or worse, the good thing about the US is that our system generally does give us a government fairly reflective of the people. Right now, that means a turn away from a poorly-conceived, pre-emptive war and corporate infiltration and coruption of our governmental officials...the main reasons people have given for voting against the republicans...and yes, I surely admit that the votes were much more anti-Republican than pro-Democrat. Hell, I'm more anti-Republican than pro-Democrat...as are many Democrats.

I still don't see too much to give the Democrats a real shot at getting back the White House, because Hilary is a sure-fire loser...as is Obama...and they don't exactly seem to be able to come up with any inspiring choices. So, we may truly be looking at many years of gridlock with a Republican President or two and a Democratic Congress. But, to be honest, I much prefer gridlock and the status quo over watching the country get run into the ground as has been the case lately...and I think that represents the view of more Americans than the neo-con Republicans care to believe.

[nobody]

When we went after Bin-Baby, the anti-Bushers ranted about how Bin was not the real problem and that we should go after Iraq. Then when we went into Iraq those same anti-Bushers ranted about how we should be after Bin instead. Could you guys get your story straight, please?


This confuses me. The Neo-Con agenda had Iraq ion the table before 9-11 and kept it there. It was not the anti-Bush crowd saying he should ease up on Bin-Laden and go after Iraq, it was his inner circle that had been pushing the Iraq agenda all along.

We had near universal support both at home and abroad going after Bin-Laden, it wasn't until Bush and his crew decided to go into Iraq instead that the tide started to shift.

[dean_martin]

...don't have a clue...Dubya was the only unifying issue they could come up with..."Vote for me! I don't like George Bush and my opponent does!"...it's all BS...Now there are folks who bought into all the Bush/Iraq cr@pola and are waiting for the next term to start, expecting daily flights from the middle east to start bringing the troops home...SURPRISE, ain't gonna' happen...All this is going to do is cause political grid-lock on a major scale...And...and if we do ultimately cut-and-run, all those who said we don't have the guts for a protracted military action will have been proven right, which will only embolden them...

jimHJJ(...and yes Martha, history does repeat itself...)

Grid-lock ain't a bad thing. Without grid-lock, laws get passed. We have too many damn laws now. The mid-90's, which all you Clinton haters should remember, was a wonderful time because Clinton couldn't get his agenda through Congress and Congress couldn't get its agenda past Clinton's "veto" stamp. I don't cry over grid-lock, I'm thankful for it. I'm more wary of the crap they do push through than I am of the crap that fails.

Just who are "all those who said we don't have the guts for a protracted military action"? I don't remember that being the argument in support of staying the course. The argument dealt with the consequences of pulling out before stabilization. IOW, the argument had more to do with our brains than our guts, didn't it? Are you talking about terrorists accusing us of being gutless?

[SlumpBuster]

Grid-lock ain't a bad thing. Without grid-lock, laws get passed. We have too many damn laws now. The mid-90's, which all you Clinton haters should remember, was a wonderful time because Clinton couldn't get his agenda through Congress and Congress couldn't get its agenda past Clinton's "veto" stamp. I don't cry over grid-lock, I'm thankful for it. I'm more wary of the crap they do push through than I am of the crap that fails.

Just who are "all those who said we don't have the guts for a protracted military action"? I don't remember that being the argument in support of staying the course. The argument dealt with the consequences of pulling out before stabilization. IOW, the argument had more to do with our brains than our guts, didn't it? Are you talking about terrorists accusing us of being gutless?


Hear! Hear! One man's "gridlock" is another man's "checks and balances."

For those that want to bag on the "broken" two party system, I say go back to a civics class. If you're a Dem and can't see value in the GOP platform then your a fool. Similarly so if you're a GOP and can't see value in the Dem party. Yin and yang, my friends.

If anyone is so intent on getting an efficient, one-party system, where the legislature is never challenged by internal dissent and the President never uses his veto power, then I got a one way ticket to Havana for you.

Oh, wait. Bush doesn't use his veto power. Well that's gonna change in a hurry.

"Freedom's on the march!" Ya right.