The Bush Thud
Last week, Public Opinion Watch commented skeptically on reports that Bush’s popularity was enjoying a bounce or rally. Those reports didn’t seem justified when one looked across the range of data available at the time rather than just at the one poll (Gallup) that did show Bush’s approval rating going up.
In the week of October 20–26, four more national polls of adults were released and once again evidence for a Bush bounce seems lacking. Perhaps it’s more of a thud. The Pew Research Center poll, covering October 15–19, has Bush’s approval rating at 50 percent, down five points from their September 17–22 poll. The American Research Group has his approval rating at 47 percent in an October 18–21 poll, no change from their September poll. And, in the Newsweek poll, conducted October 23–24, Bush’s approval rating is now 51 percent, exactly what it was in their last poll on October 9–10.
2. concerned - 10/31/2003 1:20:33 AM
jexster -
You had just better hope that unemployment doesn't drop below 6% by election day.
Muwahahahaha!
3. concerned - 10/31/2003 1:22:28 AM
This is pathetic. When GWB was polling 70-90%, I wasn't posting the results nearly as much as jexster is now, and GWB isn't doing as badly now as the WH Rapist did for his first six years in office.
4. concerned - 10/31/2003 1:39:33 AM
I don't mean this as criticism, however:)
5. jexster - 10/31/2003 3:17:52 AM
6. jexster - 10/31/2003 3:19:23 AM
Don' worry its not...consumer spending - biggest drop in one year and of the 2.7 million jobs Bush lost are gone for good.
7. jexster - 10/31/2003 3:25:50 AM
TD..when will you ever learn, learn to keep your mouth shut about things you know NOTHING about?
GWB isn't doing as badly now as the WH Rapist did for his first six years in office.
Gallup
1997 - five years in office
56 36 8 December 18-21
61 30 9 November 21-23
59 31 10 November 6-9
59 32 9 October 27-29
55 36 9 October 3-5
58 33 9 September 25-28
61 28 11 September 6-7
60 34 6 August 22-25
61 32 7 August 12-13
58 34 8 July 25-27
55 36 9 June 26-29
57 35 8 May 30-June 1
57 35 8 May 6-7
54 37 9 Apr 18-20
59 35 6 Mar 24-26
57 33 10 Feb 24-26
60 31 9 Jan 30-Feb 2
62 31 7 Jan 10-13
58 35 7 Jan 3-5, 1997
1996 - 4 years in office
58 34 8 Dec 9-11
58 35 7 Nov 21-24
54 36 10 Oct 26-29
57 36 7 Oct 2-3
58 34 8 Oct 1-2
60 31 9 Sep 7-9
8. jexster - 10/31/2003 3:26:18 AM
And WJC didn't have one dead body to hide behind
9. jexster - 10/31/2003 3:28:45 AM
Now the flight deck is clear, cleared of pig poop
11. jexster - 10/31/2003 4:28:10 PM
Liars & Incompetents
According to the congressional resolution authorising the use of military force in Iraq, the administration is required to submit to the Congress reports of postwar planning every 60 days. The report, bearing Bush's signature and dated April 14 - previously undisclosed but revealed here - declares: "We are especially concerned that the remnants of the Saddam Hussein regime will continue to use Iraqi civilian populations as a shield for its regular and irregular combat forces or may attack the Iraqi population in an effort to undermine Coalition goals." Moreover, the report goes on: "Coalition planners have prepared for these contingencies, and have designed the military campaign to minimise civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure."
Yet, on August 25, as the violence in postwar Iraq flared, the secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, claimed that this possibility was not foreseen: "Now was - did we - was it possible to anticipate that the battles would take place south of Baghdad and that then there would be a collapse up north, and there would be very little killing and capturing of those folks, because they blended into the countryside and they're still fighting their war?"
"We read their reports," a senate source told me. "Too bad they don't read their own reports."
12. jexster - 10/31/2003 4:41:34 PM
13. jexster - 10/31/2003 5:11:01 PM
A Foreign Policy Emergency - A Forum Discussion
The hallmark of the Bush foreign policy has been a naive radicalism married to an operational incompetence. A small clique with a preconceived blueprint took advantage of a national emergency and a callow president, blowing a containable threat into war while dismissing more ominous menaces. These people are out to remake the world, with little sense of risk, proportion or history. At this writing, the president's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, has seized some authority over the Iraq policy from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who responded with adolescent pique. The long-abused Secretary of State Colin Powell offered new respect for the UN. President Bush even directly contradicted Vice President Dick Cheney's discredited claim of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
In a different administration, these shifts would signal that the chief executive, clearly in control, had recognized the misjudgments and costs of a failed policy, demoted those responsible and shifted authority to others. But Bush seems incapable of that kind of decisiveness or discernment. These are mere skirmishes, indicative of the absence of leadership at the top. Bush is as callow as ever. The man even boasts that he never reads the papers.
By mid-October, the administration was mainly in PR mode, with Cheney insisting that Iraq is on the mend; the latest UN initiative, meanwhile, was extinct, a casualty of U.S. refusal to give the UN authority. The Bush presidency remained a kind of regency, in which the real power reposes with Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neoconservative intellectuals. And American foreign policy remained captive to the same bellicose dreams of unilateralism and hegemony.
The Bush policy is not just arrogant and isolating. It also makes America a less safe place.
14. jexster - 10/31/2003 5:16:37 PM
"Because Bush really believes he is right, he is unlikely to chart a new course abroad for the United States as long as he remains president. The Bush revolution will continue, and continue to inflict substantial damage to America's ability to influence events overseas for the duration of his presidency. " Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay, Brookings
15. Edmund Dantes - 10/31/2003 9:01:33 PM
Sharpton: Dean flipflopped on affirmative action
"Now when somebody starts bringing back his own words, he starts doing the moonwalk," Sharpton said. "We can forgive, pardon, or clarify all the candidates, but we can't allow the candidates to misrepresent history."
16. robertjayb - 10/31/2003 9:07:13 PM
John Dingell writes CEO of CBS on Reagan mini-series...(via The Agonist)
Dear Mr. Moonves:
I write to you with regard to your upcoming mini-series "The Reagans." I share the
concerns expressed by others that it may not present an accurate depiction of the Reagan
administration and America during the 1980s. I trust that CBS will not be a party to a distorted
presentation of American history, and that the mini-series will present a fair and balancedl
portrayal of the Reagans, the 1980s and their legacy.
As someone who served with President Reagan, and in the interest of historical accuracy,
please allow me to share with you some of my recollections of the Reagan years that I hope will
make it into the final cut of the mini-series: $640 Pentagon toilets seats; ketchup as a vegetable;
union busting; firing striking air traffic controllers; Iran-Contra; selling arms to terrorist nations;
trading arms for hostages; retreating from terrorists in Beirut; lying to Congress; financing an
illegal war in Nicaragua; visiting Bitburg cemetery; a cozy relationship with Saddam Hussein;
shredding documents; Ed Meese; Fawn Hall; Oliver North; James Watt; apartheid apologia; the
savings and loan scanunemployment; farm bankruptcies; trade deficits; astrologers in the White House; Star Wars; and
influence peddling.
I hope you find these facts useful in accurately depicting President Reagan's time in
office.
With every good wish,
John D. Dingell (Member of Congress)
17. wonkers2 - 10/31/2003 9:23:40 PM
That's "Iron John!"
18. jexster - 11/1/2003 4:01:34 AM
President Bush got one thing right: The greatest threat to American security is a rogue state providing a terrorist group with a weapon of mass destruction and the means to deliver it in the United States. Unfortunately, almost everything he has done since September 11 has made this problem worse rather than better.
Bush's Failed WOT
19. concerned - 11/1/2003 4:45:39 AM
Re. 11516 -
I think Mr. Moonves ought to take this letter very seriously.
The whole mini-series needs to be reworked, from the ground up, to highlight the items Dingell mentions, and then when it finally does comes out, people will avoid watching it in droves.
20. concerned - 11/1/2003 5:13:01 AM
From the NYT:
Rivals Attack Dean on (Confederate)Flag
New York Times
AVERLY, Iowa, Nov. 1 — Howard Dean's rivals for the Democratic nomination roundly attacked him on Saturday for telling an Iowa newspaper he wanted "to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks" in defending his opposition to some gun-control legislation.
But Dr. Dean retorted that he had said much the same thing in front of largely black audiences months ago and said his opponents were merely flailing away at him in desperation.
The fracas comes as the other contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination — especially Senator John Kerry and Representative Richard A. Gephardt — are struggling to overtake Dr. Dean, who leads in most polls both in Iowa and in New Hampshire.
On Friday, Dr. Dean came under criticism from Mr. Kerry for having opposed an assault weapons ban while seeking the National Rifle Association's endorsement for his bid for governor of Vermont in 1992.
In an interview that was published Saturday in The Des Moines Register, Dr. Dean defended his position on gun control by saying: "I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks. We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross section of Democrats."
Mr. Kerry called Dr. Dean's statement "craven," "pandering" and "the worst kind of politics as usual." He said, "I'd rather be the candidate of the N.A.A.C.P. than the N.R.A., who understands that the Confederate flag belongs in museums."
An aide to Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Craig T. Smith, called the remark "irresponsible and reckless." Mr. Gephardt issued a statement saying he planned to "be the candidate for the guys with American flags in their pickup trucks."
Proving once again that racists vote Democrat.
21. concerned - 11/1/2003 5:33:21 AM
This is a couple of days old, but what the Zell
The lifelong Democrat explained, "The way I see it is that these next five years are going to be crucial in determining the kind of world my grandchildren and great-grandchildren live in.
"And I don't entrust that to any of these folks that are running out there on the Democratic side."
Considering that the 'Rat candidate has not been selected yet, that's quite a slam against the dwarves.
22. jayackroyd - 11/1/2003 10:15:38 AM
Concerned--
Just checking here--you're saying that people who support the display of the confederate flag are racist, right?
23. Magoseph - 11/1/2003 1:30:32 PM
I just heard that Dean make a statement to the effect that he was the candidate who stood with the guys in the pickup trucks with Confederate flags. I didn't catch the exact words but that's the substance of it. Obviously, this was a foolish attempt for a far-North candidate to court the support of the red-neck community in the South. This attempt to gain the support of a group that never would support anyone except Bush, will accomplish nothing in respect to gaining support and will convince many on the sidelines that the man is either reckless or whose judgment doesn't qualify him for high office.
There're still many in this country and I'm one of them who regard the Confederate flag as indistinguishable from the Nazi flag or the flag of any enemy of the United States, even worse than the Nazi flag from this standpoint: The Confederates fired on their own flag and there is no basis whatsoever for a real American to regard this flag as anything but a symbol of the enemy of this or any other republic.
24. judithathome - 11/1/2003 3:04:30 PM
"The way I see it is that these next five years are going to be crucial in determining the kind of world my grandchildren and great-grandchildren live in.
I guess old Zell is rich enough that his grandchildren won't be living in poverty trying to pay off the Republican deficit. I guess all his grandchildren will have their perscriptions paid for by grandpa Zell and will not have any need for jobs...
As for me, I think if good old Zell is that damned stupid, he has no business being in anything BUT the Republican party. You are more than welcome to him and his vote for Bush.
25. judithathome - 11/1/2003 3:06:51 PM
Magos, I didn't hear the Dean statement but I think if people can support Bush after all the misstatements he's made, surely the other candidates are can be given a few missteps along the campaign trail, too.
26. Magoseph - 11/1/2003 3:15:34 PM
Juds, I wish they would ...be given a few missteps along the campaign trail, too. That won't happen, though, and that's why this Dean misstep upset me so much this morning.
27. jayackroyd - 11/1/2003 3:15:38 PM
No, Magos, I think you're wrong here. In some ways this election will still be a battle for what has been called the Reagan democrats--blue collar workers who hold "traditional" values. You could call them Wallace voters if you wanted. They can vote either their social issues or their pocketbooks. Bush has been very bad for this voter segment's pocketbooks.
This is also the demographic group that provides soldiers, both enlisted in the army (actually the children of those voters) and the reserves. The administration has not served soldiers well, either.
Dean may be wrong in thinking that his concern for economic issues of the <$40,000 workers will trump his concern with gay rights, but pointing out that he is aligned with this group on guns is an attempt to reduce the need for a trump card.
Mentioning the stars and bars is an unfortunate mistake. I suspect that when you see the quote or hear the context he is not talking about supporting the display of the flag, but rather talking about the voter segment. Advertisers and pollsters talk about people that way--300 pound Tab drinkers, porch sitting bible readers--etc. (Those two examples are fictional, from Stephen Bury's very funny political novel Interface.
28. Magoseph - 11/1/2003 3:43:10 PM
Yes, Jay and Juds, the points you have taken are quite valid. My experience in the South is that there's a large segment of the population that disowns and distances themselves and is embarrassed by the small minority of tattooed, boisterous, and ignorant Confederate flag-weavers. My point is that they are the silent Southern majority, are the group that vote and by my sense, allying himself with the Confederate flag-weavers gains him nothing (not even to mention the effect on the Black vote).
You point out that most of the Southern voters will be motivated by rationality in respect to their financial condition under Bush, the mistakes in Iraq and so forth. I agree completely that the average Southern voter has no basis for supporting Bush. That is really my point--Dean is foolish and will be be seen as such to make a play for the disgusting elements in the South when he has so much going for himself along legitimate avenues. He has gained nothing and has lost quite a bit, in my opinion.
29. RickNelson - 11/1/2003 4:23:59 PM
mago,
If Dean gave that impression about the old southern con flag, then I would be one who would not vote for him. It's important that the information be confirmed and you don't have that source. I'm not leaning to Dean anyway, but I'll have to see the nominee and if it's him, well then...
30. Edmund Dantes - 11/1/2003 4:31:10 PM
The piece by Senator Miller and the Dean "gaffe" are nicely juxtaposed.
Two sides of the same coin.
31. Edmund Dantes - 11/1/2003 4:31:39 PM
Or should I say two horns of the same dilemma.
32. judithathome - 11/1/2003 4:39:15 PM
.
The only cite on the Dean quote I see upthread is from Concerned and pardon me if I reserve judgement until I see it in complete context. It seems reckless on the face of it but then, telling people who are killing our soldiers to "bring it on" seemed rather reckless to me when Bush proudly said it in front of the world.
33. jexster - 11/1/2003 4:47:03 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - One year before the next presidential election, Americans are evenly divided between President Bush and a Democratic challenger, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll showed Sunday.
Support for Bush has fallen to the point where 48 percent of those surveyed said they would vote for him if the election were held today, while 47 percent said they would vote for the Democratic Party's nominee. Five percent said they did not know.
34. jexster - 11/1/2003 4:48:52 PM
Uniter Not Divider
Nation Polarized Over Bush
35. judithathome - 11/1/2003 4:49:00 PM
Zell Miller is trying to save the Democratic party by voting for Bush. (on Meet The Press today.)
36. Magoseph - 11/1/2003 5:05:26 PM
It's important that the information be confirmed and you don't have that source.
Yes, Rick, that information is not yet confirmed. I'll be glad if it isn't and regretful that I wrote about it without checking its veracity.
37. RickNelson - 11/1/2003 5:07:54 PM
No regret Mago, you qualified it. I'm not rushing to judge. Information is disseminated and watching for clues of bias will help.
38. jexster - 11/1/2003 5:15:06 PM
39. arkymalarky - 11/1/2003 5:51:49 PM
As a Southerner who's in the thick middle of both white Dixie-flag wavers and African-Americans, Jay has it EXACTLY right in Message # 11527. You folks can't see the coalition forming in the South against Far Corporate Right Republican control, and even traditional Republicans who are social conservatives and would never dream of displaying a Rebel flag--US is the ONLY one for them--are abandoning the current Republican Party leadership on both the state and national level.
The rich who are driving the party in its current direction couldn't care less, though, if they can accomplish what they want between now and 2002, and it's possible they will. The determination of Democrats in Senate filibusters has been a big help in slowing their progress to a degree, at least, and it's been successful largely because their state's people aren't hounding them to stop. They don't object to senators blocking the more extreme federal court nominees.
40. arkymalarky - 11/1/2003 5:56:06 PM
That said, frankly the most likely candidate to win against Bush in the general election is Clark. Southerners of the stripe Dean may have been trying to court are working in a much more integrated fashion with African-Americans on similar issues--labor, education, etc--but they won't go so far as to vote for someone like Dean. Blacks in much of the South won't either, for that matter. Southern blacks are socially much more conservative than they're often stereotyped to be, but they also understand the politics of racism and what policies best counter that. And sorry, Con'd, but those policies have consistently come from the Democratic Party since FDR.
41. jexster - 11/1/2003 6:02:47 PM
42. jexster - 11/1/2003 6:21:47 PM
Hiding the Truth?
President Bush's Need-to-Know Democracy
It's been said that the first casualty of war is always truth. But with the Bush administration's war on terrorism, it's hard to know, because even before 9/11 the administration had begun hermetically sealing formerly public sources of government information.
It began when Vice President Dick Cheney refused to provide details of his energy task force meetings with energy companies, particularly top Enron officials. Then, came President George Bush's November 2001 executive order allowing the administration or former presidents to order executive branch documents withheld from the public. At the time, the administration said the new restriction on presidential papers was to protect the privacy of former presidents and those they dealt with while in office.
But, the order also shields from public view documents from President Bush's father's term in office that could be awkward now. The suspicion was that the executive order was designed to protect several current White House officials who served in the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations from embarrassment --specifically, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vice President Dick Cheney, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, and former Budget Director Mitch Daniels, Jr.
43. jexster - 11/1/2003 6:22:39 PM
Both Cheney's refusal to hand over his energy task force documents, and the presidential order shielding past administrations' archived documents caused uproars among open-government advocates, historians and members of Congress. .
Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, an independent public advocacy group, says that the United States, "is moving from a society based on the right to know to one based on the need to know." The breadth and scope of the Bush administration's clamp down on information is the largest such effort to restrict public disclosure since World War II. Because much of these changes have come in little-noticed dribs and drabs since 9/11, many have largely escaped public notice or explanation. In this report we chronicle some of the most significant changes.
Download the Report (PDF)
44. jexster - 11/1/2003 6:24:46 PM
Bush speaks at the dedication of Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship's Youth Education Center in Dallas, Texas, Wednesday, Oct. 29, 2003
45. jexster - 11/1/2003 6:51:51 PM
Christianne Amanpour, just back from Afghanistan, with a disturbing report that terrorists are back.
46. arkymalarky - 11/1/2003 8:09:10 PM
Arkies do not even know what Tab is. Mountain Dew is the non-alcoholic drink of choice around here, and the diet drink is Coke.
And fwiw, the headache remedy of choice is BC Powder.
47. judithathome - 11/1/2003 8:19:55 PM
..take a BC powder and come back strong.
heh.
48. jexster - 11/1/2003 9:52:33 PM
You date yourself JAH
49. robertjayb - 11/1/2003 10:06:48 PM
No, jester. You're the one out of touch from living too long in la-la land.
50. arkymalarky - 11/2/2003 12:27:44 AM
I'm tellin ya. And I thought he called himself Louisianan. The REAL LA.
51. arkymalarky - 11/2/2003 12:29:12 AM
And yes, I know San Francisco is nothing Los Angeles, but in the South it's all just California.
And of course in Arkansas, Houston or D/FW, it's all Texas. ;-)
52. arkymalarky - 11/2/2003 12:29:30 AM
like
53. Magoseph - 11/2/2003 12:54:45 AM
Washington Post: Dean Is Criticized Over Remark on Confederate Flag
...in an interview with the Des Moines Register, Dean mentioned the Confederate flag. "I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," he told the Register. "We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross section of Democrats."
That brought a new series of condemnations yesterday.
54. wonkers2 - 11/2/2003 1:05:15 AM
Not a big deal.
55. jexster - 11/2/2003 2:17:48 AM
700 Election Day workers filled hotel ballroom to SRO this afternoon...
San Francisco Voters Weigh Turn to the Center - NyT
SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 1 — As Willie Brown's era as mayor of this famously liberal city winds down, the candidate with the best chance to succeed him is a young politician who made his name with a tough-minded drive to crack down on the homeless.
The politician, Gavin Newsom, an entrepreneur and member of the city's Board of Supervisors who has been praised and pilloried for trying to sweep panhandlers off the streets, leads by about 20 points in the polls going into Tuesday's election.
The 36-year-old Democrat sponsored a ballot measure last year to reduce the city's generous cash grants for the homeless and instead guarantee them shelter and food.
His "Care Not Cash" measure passed with nearly 60 percent of the vote, and while a judge eventually overturned most of it, Proposition N showed Mr. Newsom to be more in tune with the mood in post-dot-com San Francisco than his critics.
"I think he has struck a chord that people have heard," said Jim Chappell, executive director of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association. "We continue to be a very compassionate city, but people are getting sick and tired of the chaos on the streets."
Mr. Newsom has backing from powerful Democrats, including Mr. Brown, Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, but he has been a lightning rod for the city's hard-core liberals, who scoff at his privileged upbringing and his aristocratic bearing.
56. jexster - 11/2/2003 2:22:00 AM
The General appeared before the World Affairs Council and the SF Bar Assn today blasts Bush bungling...
"Bush has no idea what he is doing. No plan, No leadership, No clue" (KTVU)
The deadly downing of a U.S. military helicopter in Iraq shows the Iraqi resistance is growing in strength as U.S. forces continue their occupation of the country "without a real strategy for success," Democrat Wesley Clark said Sunday.
Clark, a retired four-star Army general pursuing the Democratic nomination for president, countered Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's comments suggesting that the deaths of 15 soldiers in the attack west of Baghdad were a sad but inevitable consequence of war.
Campaigning in San Francisco and speaking with The Associated Press in a morning telephone interview, Clark called the casualties a result of the Bush administration's failure to develop a coherent plan for the war beyond creating "exciting visuals of US forces advancing into and destroying Saddam Hussein's regime."
"The naive optimism of President Bush himself and his administration, that somehow we would be welcomed as liberators, that democracy would blossom overnight, that there would be no resistance, that other states in the region would fall like a string of dominoes under threats of further American action, was just that," Clark said. "It was naive and it was uninformed, and we are paying in American lives and blood for that naivet De."
57. jexster - 11/2/2003 2:35:15 AM
Obit from the New Orleans Times Picayune
10/2/2003.
Word has been received that Gertrude M. Jones, 81,
passed away on August 25, 2003, under the loving care of the nursing aides of Heritage Manor of Mandeville, Louisiana. She was a native of Lebanon, KY. She was a retired Vice President of Georgia International Life
Insurance Company of Atlanta, GA.
Her husband, Warren K. Jones, predeceased her. Two
daughters survive her: Dawn Hunt and her live-in boyfriend, Roland, of Mandeville, LA; and Melba
Kovalak and her husband, Drew Kovalak, of Woodbury,
MN. Three sisters, four grandchildren, and three great
grandchildren also survive her. Funeral services were held in Louisville, KY.
Memorial gifts may be made to any organization that
seeks the removal of President George Bush from office.
58. jexster - 11/2/2003 2:43:51 AM
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - The triumphal post-war glow in which President Bush once taunted Iraqi militants by saying "bring them on" has faded to a grim determination against a resistance growing more deadly.
59. concerned - 11/2/2003 6:09:33 AM
Re. 11522 -
Many (unfortunately for you, not all) of them are racists. They are also Democrats.
60. concerned - 11/2/2003 6:16:41 AM
Re. 11527 -
jay -
It's this simple. Dean is pandering to the Jim Crow Southern racist vote. Which is a Democrat constituency, as Dean implicitly admits.
Do you comprehend?
61. concerned - 11/2/2003 6:23:32 AM
If Jay requires further elucidation of what I'm saying, I'll be glad to oblige. We're not talking first amendment, it's about the fact that racist white boys vote Democrat and Howard Dean is pandering for their support. It's not a 'gaffe' and it's not a 'mistake' on Dean's part.
62. winstonsmith - 11/2/2003 6:45:28 AM
I just sent a second donation to the Clark campaign. I think the election is stacked in Bush's favor and Clark seems like the most electable Democrat. I know Clark has slipped some in the polls but I have been somewhat heartened by his numbers in SC. Bush has a great deal of time and money to craft a favorable election environment and I think that Democrats need to make a pragmatic choice in the primaries. BTW, I don't believe Dean is electable.
63. jexster - 11/2/2003 4:41:44 PM
"When there's a rocket attack on the Rashid Hotel when the deputy Defense [secretary] is there, it is not a sign that we're winning," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), one of the GOP's most frequent critics of the administration. " 'Duhhh,' as my kids say."
64. jexster - 11/2/2003 4:43:57 PM
Good for you Winston!
I am thinking of going to one of the MeetUps after my current campaign ends next month. The City is hugely Dean. There seem to be more Dean signs in windows in some neighborhoods than there are for mayoral candidates. But being contrarian is my nature
65. jexster - 11/2/2003 4:48:16 PM
66. alistairconnor - 11/2/2003 4:55:17 PM
But being contrarian is my nature
Naah. You're a centrist.
67. jexster - 11/2/2003 4:56:53 PM
That's right!
I get to bash two sides for the price of one!
Tommorrow its off to battle the Evil Green Matt Gonzalez
68. jexster - 11/2/2003 4:57:30 PM
69. jexster - 11/2/2003 5:03:10 PM
Months of campaigning drew to a close this weekend as San Francisco's candidates for mayor scrambled to nail down their votes and get their backers to the polls on Tuesday.
For Supervisor Gavin Newsom, the front-runner in the mayor's race, the get-out-the-vote drive follows a well-financed, yearlong campaign effort.
Although Newsom doesn't expect to grab the 50 percent-plus-one-vote he needs to avoid a Dec. 9 runoff election, a big win on Tuesday will give him momentum heading into that head-to-head showdown with the second-place finisher.
Newsom's campaign plans to have about 550 people hitting the streets early on election day to distribute door hangers that will remind people to vote and highlight Newsom's endorsements.
"They'll be there when people walk out their door in the morning,'' said Jim Ross, Newsom's campaign manager.
His precinct captains then will make sure that the more than 60,000 people the campaign identified as Newsom supporters during the past few weeks in a series of checks, double-checks and triple-checks actually vote.
More than 500 of Newsom's precinct captains crowded into a ballroom at the Holiday Inn on Van Ness Avenue on Sunday afternoon for a final pep talk.
"We've got to turn out the vote,'' Newsom told them. "This whole campaign has been designed around the next 48 hours. . . . It doesn't happen on its own.
You've got to make it happen.''
That's me in the purple T shirt to the right of Gorgeous Gavin's hip...yum
70. thoughtful - 11/2/2003 5:04:48 PM
More Wag the Dog: From the Washington Post's Al Kamen:
It happened Tuesday, when Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage was at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee saying that, six months after halting talks with Iran, the Bush administration was now prepared to resume talks with the Iranians over Iraq, Afghanistan and other issues....
But when asked whether this new willingness to talk to Iran after months of refusing to do so amounted to a change in policy, the White House answer was a resounding no.
"I think what secretary Armitage said yesterday in his testimony was reiterating administration policy," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters. "And he -- you know, we -- we have long had existing established channels of communication with Iran. And we will continue to use those channels to raise issues of mutual concern. But our policy towards Iran remains the same."
Say what?
71. judithathome - 11/2/2003 5:06:01 PM
Is that a moustache or are just happy to be there? ;-)
You look great!
72. jexster - 11/2/2003 5:09:51 PM
Both!
"Gavin you lookin good"
"John, I like your t-shirt (NEWSOM front & back)"
True love...Now all I have to do is get rid of that woman, Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom, CNN 360 Legal Correspondent
Gavin Newsom meets with his precinct captains who will make sure that the more than 60,000 people the campaign identified as Newsom supporters in a series of checks will actually vote on election day.
73. jexster - 11/2/2003 5:26:50 PM
74. jexster - 11/2/2003 5:28:09 PM
Gen. Wesley K. Clark told reporters that Mr. Bush's comments were outrageous and added, "I guess the next thing we're going to hear is that the sailors told him to wear the flight suit and prance around on the aircraft carrier."
75. jexster - 11/2/2003 6:38:30 PM
Clark in SF Lambastes Bush Iraq Policy
76. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/2/2003 7:03:58 PM
77. jexster - 11/2/2003 7:15:39 PM
Clark received one of his loudest ovations when he criticized the administration for suggesting that war efforts were hampered by second-guessing in the United States.
"Since when in a democracy is it unpatriotic to ask questions about your country's policies?" he said. "That's what I served 34 years in uniform to protect." Referring to anti-war rallies in San Francisco, he added, "I commend you."
78. jexster - 11/2/2003 7:21:43 PM
No Votes in the Graveyard
Bush Scrubs Coffin Photos to Prevent American Outrage
Helen Thomas writes, "Coffin images during the Vietnam era - along with photos and video of body bags in the field and military officials talking constantly about 'body counts' - had a tremendous impact in prompting antiwar sentiment at home. In a move by the Bush administration to suppress distressing images of war, the Defense Department issued a
directive last March on the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq that declared:
'There will be no arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel returning to or departing from Ramstein (Germany) airbase or Dover (Del.) base, (and) to include interim stops.' There have always been some media restrictions at Dover - the site of the largest Defense Dept. mortuary for the remains of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. But the new rule expands the blackout to all military bases. Under the Pentagon clamp down, American fatalities will be reduced to statistics and the public will see little of the human side of the war."
We did see CIA Agent Spann's coffin....votes there.
79. jexster - 11/2/2003 7:22:33 PM
Not to mention the widely shown, widly popular Uday Qusay Show
80. robertjayb - 11/2/2003 8:46:02 PM
Bob Graham to quit Senate...(NYTimes)
Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who recently ended his bid for the White House, announced today that he would not seek re-election to a fourth term.
The senator's decision, which could have national implications for the Democratic Party, comes less than a month after he abandoned a short-lived bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, after his candidacy failed to catch fire.
81. thoughtful - 11/2/2003 9:14:39 PM
I'm going to see if concerned jumps all over jexster for posting #11578. When I made reference to the same ban he jumped all over me with liar liar pants on fire.
82. concerned - 11/2/2003 9:44:53 PM
re. 11578 -
Since the directive was issued last March, it is neither news or an 'after the fact' attempt at damage control by the Bush Administration.
83. concerned - 11/2/2003 9:48:28 PM
...nor an...
84. jexster - 11/2/2003 9:51:35 PM
BERLIN (Reuters) - The U.S. military said Monday it was sticking to a policy forbidding television camera crews and photographers from filming coffins of soldiers killed in Iraq (news - web sites) at a U.S. air base in southwestern Germany.
Officials at Ramstein, a major U.S. air base which serves as a transfer point, had allowed media access in the past to honor guard ceremonies and transfers of American-flag covered coffins onto U.S.-bound military transport planes. But rules banning coverage were strictly enforced just before the Iraq war began.
While U.S. officials say the policy was created out of respect for relatives, others criticize the lack of media access, arguing its aim is to prevent the public from seeing large numbers of coffins that could turn public opinion against the war.
85. jexster - 11/2/2003 10:03:16 PM
86. concerned - 11/2/2003 10:17:07 PM
Only jexster and other leftover ghouls could pretend that anything engrossing or even newsworthy exists in shots of coffins.
87. jexster - 11/2/2003 10:22:43 PM
That isn't for Bush to determine.
88. jexster - 11/2/2003 10:27:02 PM
Yahoo Reader Ratings....
5. U.S. Military Upholds TV Cover Ban on Iraq Coffins
Reuters -
89. jexster - 11/2/2003 11:49:41 PM
SAN FRANCISCO — To hear progressives tell it, this city's liberal heart is at stake.
San Franciscans vote Tuesday to replace flamboyant Mayor Willie Brown, and they are expected to grant a solid lead to his handpicked successor, a man derided by the progressive left as Republican Lite.
Gavin Newsom is a well-connected millionaire entrepreneur and city supervisor ....
LAT
90. judithathome - 11/3/2003 12:03:27 AM
Only jexster and other leftover ghouls could pretend that anything engrossing or even newsworthy exists in shots of coffins.
It's neither engrossing nor newsworthy...it is more an awknowledgement that the soldiers have given their lives for an American ideal. It is a solemn taking note that a person is being shown last respects with a flag draped coffin being attended to by commrades. There is nothing disrespectful in pictures of this sort being shown to a grateful country and to those the soldier was representing.
What's gruesome is hiding the fact from the people of this country and treating those people as though they can't handle bad news coming from an area where a lot of bad news is coming from. If this were a directive from a Denmocratic president, you'd be screaming bloody murder.
I think Bush should attend every single funeral of every single soldier slain in this war.
And you will notice he finally stirred himself to say something today about the 16 who diedover the weekend. So even he knowsattention must be paid, to quote Arthur Miller.
91. arkymalarky - 11/3/2003 12:15:52 AM
HEY WINSTON!
I agree with you about Clark and Dean.
Great picture, Jex!
92. arkymalarky - 11/3/2003 12:19:10 AM
(why am I wasting time with this when I have important business?)
Con'd--
Racist white boys have been voting Republican since Lyndon Johnson lost them (as he rightly speculated he would).
93. concerned - 11/3/2003 12:23:55 AM
I don't think so. Most people who wave the Confederate flag around necessarily hate Republicans.
94. concerned - 11/3/2003 12:26:17 AM
Party of Lincoln and all that.
95. arkymalarky - 11/3/2003 12:27:54 AM
You need to get out of the '50s, Con'd (that would be the 1950s, though I realize it fits the 1850s about as well). Look at the Southern states--predominately Republican in the most racially backward parts of them. AR has been a more notable exception than most, partly because although we're demographically segregated and have been since people began settling here, we tend to work together racially very well.
96. jexster - 11/3/2003 1:42:38 AM
I am STOKED Arky....gonna work my precinct 7 am - 6 pm then Victory Party.
I read somewhere a quote from one of Clinton's 92 Little Rock gang that retail politiking is one of the most powerful narcotics known to man...
I am so wired with anticipation that I am pacing waiting for the morn...
97. rdbrewer - 11/3/2003 2:03:16 AM
Look at the Southern states--predominately Republican in the most racially backward parts of them.
James Earl Jones once said he would much rather live in the south where there is more practical racial equality out of necessity and where the racism that does exist is out in the open. He preferred this over the more theoretical equality up north, where whites and blacks have little or no interaction and where racism is cloaked. I'll try to find the exact quote.
98. jexster - 11/3/2003 2:05:12 AM
I know that line..and it used to be true...but the New South looks more and more like the Old North...
Too many Yankees now
99. ronski - 11/3/2003 2:11:45 AM
I, to this very day, continue to condemn FDR for not attending the funeral of every American killed in WW2.
Same goes for Truman.
100. jexster - 11/3/2003 2:18:51 AM
Public to Bush - You Are Out of Touch
The new Washington Post poll has another boatload of bad news for the Bushies.
A matchup of Bush with a generic Democrat gives him only a one point lead (48 percent to 47 percent).
But from the standpoint of the Bush administration, the most disturbing approval findings may be these.
- His approval rating on taxes has slipped to a net rating of -12 points (41 percent approval/53 percent approval) from a 48 percent/48 percent split in mid-September.
- And when you look at two other key domestic areas his ratings are beyond the merely bad: 32 percent approval/61 percent disapproval on the federal budget deficit and 28 percent approval/63 percent disapproval on health insurance.
- Turning to the war, the news here,is terrible– At this point, 62 percent say the number of US military casualties in Iraq is unacceptable. That’s up from 28 percent on April 9. And the number opposing the additional $87 billion for Iraq is up to 64 percent, with only 34 percent in favor.
- On the economy, when asked whether most Americans are better off financially than they were in 2001 when Bush became president, just 9 percent (!) say Americans are better off, compared to 49 percent who say they are not as well off and 41 percent who say they are about the same. The comparable figures for 7 percent better off, 48 percent not as well off, 41 percent the same.
-- Finally, Only 40 percent now say that Bush “understands the problems of people like you”, compared to 58 percent who think he does not. Sounds like folks think he’s out of touch. Say, didn’t they think that about some other president not so long ago?
- Donkey Rising
101. jexster - 11/3/2003 2:21:16 AM
Ronski - good to see ya...
Bush hasn't attended a single one. Reagan did. Poppy did. Clinton did.
102. jexster - 11/3/2003 2:21:58 AM
Surely he will correct this situation before the Election next year
103. ronski - 11/3/2003 2:36:01 AM
I'm not sure he will, actually. Reagan fled from Beirut, Clinton from Somalia. Bush is projecting a much tougher personal image than either of them, or that of his father. Bush (or Rove) might see funeral visits as soft.
Of course, it doesn't matter. Were the election held today, as the phrase goes, any of the current Democrat candidates would carry DC, Massachusetts, and, in the case of Dean, Vermont by a catamount's whisker, and that's it.
I frankly don't see too much changing a year from now.
Btw, tomorrow I vote for the Democrats in the local election.
How peculiar.
104. arkymalarky - 11/3/2003 2:46:39 AM
Maybe, Jex, but from my own experience lately, doing it while trying to keep up with a full time job and home is about to kill me.
It goes without saying, though, that I don't have your energy.
I've got a huge area meeting Saturday and a huge statewide meeting--all day--a week from Saturday. In between I've got a "bus tour," over 100 phone calls (well over), and no telling how many meetings, most in Little Rock, an hour and a half drive from my house. I was in one 6.5 hours last Friday, with one 5 minute break.
Didn't mean to start a whinefest, but I do envy you your boundless energy. Fighting for someone instead of against something potentially life-altering may make it better too.
I do know that if this were my fulltime job and I weren't too emotionally attached to the outcome (don't know how possible that is, but this is a big thing for me and most issues aren't as personal) I would love it--except for the phone calls. I like the work, but I don't like contacting people.
I also know I hope we have a huge victory party when this is over, after Christmas.
And on the New South, my part of it is the best for that sort of thing, imo. We do still have some racial issues, but open problems are rare and we do actually work and live shoulder-to-shoulder.
105. arkymalarky - 11/3/2003 2:48:23 AM
Ronski, you're scaring me. ;-)
106. arkymalarky - 11/3/2003 2:49:34 AM
Judith, that's Dad's favorite line from that play.
Attention indeed must be paid to such men.
107. arkymalarky - 11/3/2003 2:51:29 AM
RDB,
That's true for the integrated South, but the segregated South is not the same. And there still is a lot of institutional (as opposed to demographic) segregation in parts of the South.
108. jexster - 11/3/2003 3:15:40 AM
Sounds of Silence
Why is the Bush Admin Trying to Block the 9-1-1 Investigation? (TNR)
109. jexster - 11/3/2003 3:18:39 AM
Surely the White House realizes that the perception of a cover-up is more politically damaging than turning over a few intelligence reports.
Unless, of course, it really does have something scandalous to hide.
110. jexster - 11/3/2003 3:27:52 AM
America's Virtual Empire
Gen. Wesley Clark
U.S. soldiers are great warriors, but unwilling imperial guards. If we want to secure our interests, we must draw on other sources of power.
111. robertjayb - 11/3/2003 6:11:21 AM
Big, Big, Ooops! Diebold voting machine screwup...Don't worry 'bout a thing---Nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong...
SACRAMENTO, California -- (Wired News)-- Uncertified software may have been installed on electronic voting machines used in one California county, according to the secretary of state's office.
Marc Carrel, assistant secretary of state for policy and planning, told attendees Thursday at a panel on voting systems that California was halting the certification process for new voting machines manufactured by Diebold Election Systems.
112. robertjayb - 11/3/2003 6:59:17 AM
Mark Shields: The Dover Test...
WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- At Harvard on January 19, 2000, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Hugh Shelton provided a valuable standard, both to determine whether the United States ought to send the nation's warriors into combat and to enlist "the support of the American people as well as the Congress" needed to sustain that involvement. In Shelton's judgment, such a grave decision :
"(M)ust be subjected to what I call the 'Dover test.' Is the American public prepared for the sight of our most precious resource coming home in flag-draped caskets into Dover Air Force Base in Delaware -- which is a point entry for our Armed Forces?
................................
In the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the Bush administration chose instead to duck Shelton's "Dover test." The scene so familiar to older Americans -- of the military honor guard in white gloves, respectfully accompanying from the aircraft to the waiting loved ones the remains of the fallen warrior in the coffin covered by Old Glory, often with a military band offering an appropriately solemn piece --was simply banned. George W. Bush's war against Iraq could not flunk the Dover test because there would be no Dover test.
113. concerned - 11/3/2003 8:42:33 AM
Re. 11595 -
arky -
You have it backwards. It's the Democrats who are waving Confederate flags that need to get 'out of the 1950's or 1850's'.
114. concerned - 11/3/2003 8:46:09 AM
Since the roots of racism are inextricably tied to the Democrat Party, I fail to see why racists should abandon that party since it is the Republican Party, by far, that has struck the greatest blows against racism.
115. concerned - 11/3/2003 9:11:14 AM
I know how happy we all are that Linda Tripp is finally receiving justice.
From Reuters:
Linda Tripp wins privacy payout
Reuters | 11/04/03
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government will pay Linda Tripp, a central figure in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, $595,000 (354,000 pounds) as part of a settlement of lawsuits in which she accused U.S. officials of violating her privacy, court documents show. Tripp's secret tapes of conversations with Lewinsky fuelled the sex scandal that almost brought down former president Bill Clinton. Tripp transferred to a job at the Pentagon from the White House after news of her tape recordings became public.
Tripp sued the Defense Department and the U.S. government for privacy violations, including a charge that officials leaked information that she was interviewing for a job at a lower rank and salary than her old job.
Under the settlement, Tripp will be paid $595,000 and she will receive a retroactive increase in her pay grade which will be used to re-calculate her retirement benefits.
The Xlowntoon Administration orchestrated this violation of the Privacy Act by Xlowntoon appointee Kevin Bacon in an attempt to destroy Linda Tripp's career and then attempted to cover their role up.
116. ScreamingSin - 11/3/2003 9:52:53 AM
Goddamit. Where are my 7-inch heels. When I trip and fall in them, I oughta be a contender.
117. ScreamingSin - 11/3/2003 10:16:39 AM
Did I just open a door with a smile?
118. ScreamingSin - 11/3/2003 10:36:53 AM
Every form of refuge has its price.
119. arkymalarky - 11/3/2003 12:41:32 PM
Re. 11595 -
arky -
You have it backwards. It's the Democrats who are waving Confederate flags that need to get 'out of the 1950's or 1850's'.
I agree. They're the ones who vote Republican and have since the Democratic Party abandonded their preferred platform in '64 (1964, that is).
120. arkymalarky - 11/3/2003 12:42:54 PM
Poor Linda. She and Paula ought to start a Pitiful Victims Club.
121. alistairconnor - 11/3/2003 12:43:23 PM
And your smile is a thin disguise.
122. alistairconnor - 11/3/2003 12:44:29 PM
(um, with respect to Message # 11618 of course)
123. arkymalarky - 11/3/2003 12:45:54 PM
I had a response all typed up--along the lines of "how could you possibly think I would smile in typing a snotty post about Linda Tripp and Paula Jones." ;-)
124. alistairconnor - 11/3/2003 12:46:56 PM
That Clark piece in the Washington Monthly is a must-read.
Insofar as Bush's people are capable of reading and understanding it, they should fear him.
125. jexster - 11/3/2003 2:46:44 PM
126. jexster - 11/3/2003 2:47:34 PM
Waiting for Godot, but getting Linda. The Pentagon has agreed to pay Linda Tripp $595,000 to settle her claims that the DOD violated her privacy rights.
-- Josh Marshall
127. thoughtful - 11/3/2003 2:55:57 PM
Con'd, Re #11582, "Since the directive was issued last March, it is neither news or [SIC] an 'after the fact' attempt at damage control by the Bush Administration."
1. No, it's a 'before the fact' move at damage control.
2. I never said it was "news", only a fact.
3. You have also just admitted it is a fact that I referred to, not a lie.
Before you make your usual knee-jerk reaction to debase someone's reputation, you really should get your facts straight. Otherwise it's only your own reputation that gets besmirched.
128. jexster - 11/3/2003 3:09:14 PM
"We're stuck in a real no-win situation," says Charles Pena, director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute in Washington.
Welcome back Ronksi
129. jexster - 11/3/2003 3:33:24 PM
Bush Administration "Neo-Cons" Oversold Prewar Intelligence to Justify War in Iraq
Facing increased pressure from ongoing and escalating violence in Iraq, President Bush held a press conference last week to calm critics, saying, "We took action based upon good, solid intelligence."1 But the President's assertion has been challenged by both the House and Senate intelligence communities and interviews with intelligence officers, one of whom said, "There seemed to be an unseemly eagerness to believe any information which would portray the Iraqi threat as being extremely grave and imminent."2
The House and Senate intelligence committees have both concluded that intelligence assessments leading up to the war were, in the words of House Chairman Porter Goss, "not 100 percent on target."3
130. jexster - 11/3/2003 3:33:32 PM
While the intelligence committees look for answers in the quality of informatio gathering, some claim the disparity is less about actual intelligence than about the process by which selective intelligence made its way to the White House. One former National Security Council official, Kenneth Pollack says that the Bush people, "dismantle[d] the existing filtering process that for fifty years had been preventing the policymakers from getting bad information... Their position is that the professional bureaucracy is deliberately and maliciously keeping information from [the top leadership."4
Other evidence suggests that the decision to go to war occurred as early as a year before it actually began. In an unscheduled appearance in March with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Republican and Democratic Senators, Bush cursed Saddam and vowed, "We're taking him out." Weeks later, Vice President Dick Cheney said to a Senate Republican policy lunch that the question of attacking Iraq was not if, but when.5
A new documentary, Truth Uncovered, supports that view through interviews with several former intelligence and defense officials. Chas Freeman, a former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Assistant Secretary of Defense said, "I don't think it's an accident at all that so much of the justification turned out to be fallacious - misleading-deliberately so. These people, the neo-conservatives are very committed advocates of a policy. They apparently were not troubled by distorting the truth in order to sell the policies that they believed in."6
131. concerned - 11/3/2003 4:17:32 PM
Re. 11624 -
Not if he's not the Democrat candidate, Republicans shouldn't.
132. marjoribanks - 11/3/2003 4:37:21 PM
Required reading.
The point about the mining-waste ruling is that it isn't at all exceptional. Instead, it is typical of the Bush administration—in its callousness toward the general welfare, in the brazenness with which special interests were able to buy a decision to their liking, and in the contempt officials showed toward the public and the press.
"We're living in a replay of the Gilded Age, in which robber barons openly bought and sold government officials and their policies. And just as the Gilded Age brought forth a golden age of muckraking, our modern descent into money politics has brought forth a new wave of outraged reporters. "
133. concerned - 11/3/2003 4:47:34 PM
Paul Krugman, unconscionably short on facts and long on adverbs and unsupported accusations, as always, in his wild-eyed partisan hackery. Who can take his ravings seriously?
134. thoughtful - 11/3/2003 4:47:39 PM
Speaking of money politics, get a load of this:
Hidden in plain sight, a federal farm subsidy program is paying nearly $1.7 billion to American agribusiness and manufacturers to buy American cotton that is already one of the most highly subsidized crops in the world, according to figures compiled by the program's critics.
The plan, which is the equivalent of paying Kellogg's to buy American corn...
135. concerned - 11/3/2003 5:09:18 PM
To show just how misleading and manipulative Krugman, Ivins, Conason et al are, here is an excerpt from an article:
Bush Interior Department modifies Clinton mining rules
Interior Department Solicitor William G. Myers III has issued a decision removing controversial language in mining regulations imposed by the Clinton administration in its final day of office.
The Clinton rules added several objectively defined legal hurdles to the mining of gold, copper, lead, and zinc on public lands, but also included language giving the Interior Secretary discretionary authority to veto any mining that could cause "substantial and irreparable harm" to the community.
Myers' October 25 decision retains all of the Clinton rules' objective hurdles, but eliminates the subjective "substantial and irreparable harm" language.
"Our solicitor has just issued a legal opinion that says denial of a mining permit on the grounds of 'substantial and irreparable harm' is not legally supportable," stated Larry Finfer, a spokesperson for the Bureau of Land Management.
Finfer gave three important reasons for the Myers decision.
First, he noted, the Interior Department already has the authority to deny mining permits if the proposed mine does not comply with clean air and water laws. Second, the public was never given the opportunity to comment on the "substantial and irreparable harm" standard. Third, it would not be fair to reject a mining permit according to a subjective and unpredictable standard after a mining company met all its objectively defined obligations in the lengthy permit process.
136. concerned - 11/3/2003 5:09:25 PM
The repeal of the discretionary standard, observed Finfer, eliminates the very real possibility that the Interior Secretary would tell a mining company, "You've cleared all 10 hurdles, but we're saying you lose anyway."
The truth, contrary to Krugman's, Ivin's and Dubose's lies, is that the Bush Administration removed only one relatively minor 'legally unsupportable' requirement from the last second Xlowntoon changes in mining regulation. However, this kind of distortion and selective reporting works with some. To wit, Marjoribanks certainly swallowed Krugman's, et al. lies hook, line and sinker.
137. concerned - 11/3/2003 5:12:34 PM
And the most appropriate reaction to Krugman's purple prose about 'robber barons' and a new 'gilded age' is derisive laughter, I'm afraid.
138. alistairconnor - 11/3/2003 5:32:48 PM
Message # 11634
You realise, Thoughtful, that it is this cotton subsidy question, more than any other single issue, which sunk the Cancun WTO conference?
African cotton farmers got organised and lobbied their governments to press for a level playing field for the cotton market. Supported by NGOs who advocate fair trade, they unexpectedly didn't fold when the US applied pressure...
139. thoughtful - 11/3/2003 5:36:05 PM
Yes, ac.
140. thoughtful - 11/3/2003 6:50:16 PM
Of course, concerned posts a response to Krugman's point about the mining regs change from a most unbiased source...the administration...which makes the change sound unlikely to have any real effect on the mining industry. (This begs the question, then why bother to make the change at all? But nevermind...)
Closer examination reveals the article quoted, published in January 2001 refers to the change made to mining regs in October 2001...not the one that Krugman refers to in October 2003.
Even this article in favor of the change spells out what the regulatory change is. I'll let you make your own judgment as to what that potentially means for the environment and pollution.
In 1997, the Clinton administration decided that federal mining law limited companies working on public lands to a 5-acre mill site for every 20 acres of mine....
On Friday, the Bush administration eliminated that limitation, allowing mining companies to use unlimited amounts of public land to dump their tailings and other mine waste.
141. thoughtful - 11/3/2003 6:56:21 PM
Erratum: the article was published in January 2002 referring to a change in October 2001.
142. thoughtful - 11/3/2003 8:08:13 PM
There go those pesky left-wing lily-livered liberals trashing the bush administration fiscal policy:
...Supporters and critics of the administration are tripping over themselves to blame the deficit on tax cuts, the war, and a slow economy. But the fact is we have mounting deficits because George W. Bush is the most gratuitous big spender to occupy the White House since Jimmy Carter. One could say that he has become the "Mother of All Big Spenders."...
That the nation's budgetary situation continues to deteriorate is because the administration's fiscal policy has been decidedly more about politics than policy....
How else can one explain the administration publishing a glossy report criticizing farm programs and then proceeding to sign a farm bill that expands those same programs? How else can one explain the administration acknowledging that entitlements are going to bankrupt the nation if left unreformed yet pushing the largest historical expansion in Medicare one year before the election? Such blatant political maneuvering can only be described as Clintonian.
But perhaps we are being unfair to former President Clinton. After all, in inflation-adjusted terms, Clinton had overseen a total spending increase of only 3.5 percent at the same point in his administration. More importantly, after his first three years in office, non-defense discretionary spending actually went down by 0.7 percent. This is contrasted by Bush's three-year total spending increase of 15.6 percent and a 20.8 percent explosion in non-defense discretionary spending.
...In fact, what we have now is a president who spends like Carter and panders like Clinton.
Ooops! That was from the conservative Cato Instititute
143. concerned - 11/3/2003 8:50:54 PM
Re. 11640 -
Caught 'thoughtful' lying again. The Heartland Institute, which I cited, is a nonprofit organization which makes it slightly different than the US government.
The book written by Ivins & DuBose obviously could not have included any events occurring after its publication date, something that seems to have escaped 'thoughtful', and since what Krugman was 'supposed' to be writing was a book review, I, perhaps foolishly concentrated on some of the content of the book.
However, since Krugman and now 'thoughtful' bring up this more recent matter, let it be known that all that is involved are differing opinions of how many 5 acre processing sites are allowed per claim of the very same preexisting law that I've seen referred to as the '1872 Mining Law'. The fact is that the Xlowntoon Administration's unique interpretation of this law (whatever its merits or demerits) had depressed U.S. mineral exploration by 57 percent and mine development by 54 percent, according to the Interior Department. Very few people would say that this severe downturn was the intended or an acceptable result. But whackjob 'economists' like Krugman would.
144. concerned - 11/3/2003 9:12:00 PM
'thoughtful''s pretense that every Federal employee has suddenly bcome a partisan liar scheming to help the Bush Administration at any cost although they were mere honest public servants until 2001 is so fundamentally and ludicrously wrong that I mention it only because she herself apparently does not perceive the effect this colossal inconsistency has on her posting.
145. judithathome - 11/3/2003 9:44:50 PM
the effect this colossal inconsistency has on her posting.
Colossal inconsistancy never seems to stop you.
146. thoughtful - 11/3/2003 9:54:57 PM
concerned, are you incapable of reading your own post which quotes Larry Finfer, a spokesperson for the Bureau of Land Management, at length?
This may come as a surprise to you but a book reviewer is asked to review a book specifically because they are able to add some insight and analysis to the topic covered by the book(s). The parroting back of just what the author said is usually left to 8th grade book reports.
But perhaps distinguishing krugman's comments from book excerpts, one regulatory change from another, and who you quote from who posted the article are beyond your meager capabilities.
Perhaps you should consider changing your moniker from "concerned" to "undiscerned". Clearly you are not a man of "distinction".
Yet again you embarrass yourself by calling me a liar. It really is getting most unattractive. Next time, why not just disagree rather than put yourself through that again.
147. thoughtful - 11/3/2003 9:57:01 PM
re #11644, are you so naive as to think a spokesperson for the administration isn't spouting the party line, especially in this administration? If so, then you are really undiscerning.
148. robertjayb - 11/3/2003 9:57:20 PM
E-Voting in Oz...Getting it right down under...
(Wired News)---While critics in the United States grow more concerned each day about the insecurity of electronic voting machines, Australians designed a system two years ago that addressed and eased most of those concerns: They chose to make the software running their system completely open to public scrutiny.
Although a private Australian company designed the system, it was based on specifications set by independent election officials, who posted the code on the Internet for all to see and evaluate. What's more, it was accomplished from concept to product in six months. It went through a trial run in a state election in 2001.
See Message # 11611
149. concerned - 11/3/2003 10:09:21 PM
Re. 11647 -
What Finfer (unlike Krugman) was referring to is not susceptible to the kind of distortion you presume, but is factually specific and thus easily checked. The appearance that you give of not being able to distinguish the difference between specifics and far-flung rhetoric is a fatal flaw in most of the positions you take.
Also, if you really meant anything by your semicoherent rambling, you would be able to point out exactly what Finfer stated incorrectly. I'm thinking you can't, and you know it so you won't even try; you just attempt some weak insinuations regarding him being a spokesperson for the Bureau of Land Management (so what?), which why you do not deserve to be taken seriously on the mater.
150. concerned - 11/3/2003 10:09:44 PM
...matter...
151. concerned - 11/3/2003 10:10:08 PM
Quote from this:
Re. 11647 -
What Finfer (unlike Krugman) was referring to is not susceptible to the kind of distortion you presume, but is factually specific and thus easily checked. The appearance that you give of not being able to distinguish the difference between specifics and far-flung rhetoric is a fatal flaw in most of the positions you take.
Also, if you really meant anything by your semicoherent rambling, you would be able to point out exactly what Finfer stated incorrectly. I'm thinking you can't, and you know it so you won't even try; you just attempt some weak insinuations regarding him being a spokesperson for the Bureau of Land Management (so what?), which why you do not deserve to be taken seriously on the matter.
152. concerned - 11/3/2003 10:16:54 PM
Also, 'thoughtful', The Bureau of Land Management is not 'the administration' but part of the Department of the Interior.
153. concerned - 11/3/2003 10:21:19 PM
According to 'thoughtful's' reasoning, all 2 million or so Federal employees are part of the Bush Administration.
154. thoughtful - 11/3/2003 10:33:36 PM
Also, 'thoughtful', The Bureau of Land Management is not 'the administration' but part of the Department of the Interior.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
Please tell me you aren't that ill-informed!
155. concerned - 11/3/2003 10:38:12 PM
If you can, then, describe exactly how The Bureau of Land Management is equivalent to or nothing but a mouthpiece of the administration, 'thoughtful'. It's not something one can assume, unless she is an idiot.
156. concerned - 11/3/2003 10:38:52 PM
'thoughtful' has lost this one miserably, I'd say.
157. concerned - 11/3/2003 10:40:30 PM
She also corroborates my assessment of her conceptual limitation wrt the Federal Government by not being able to differentiate between the different departments, among other things.
158. thoughtful - 11/3/2003 11:08:34 PM
Egad! He's serious! He is that ill-informed.
Start here: http://www.loc.gov/global/executive/fed.html
and then look up the definition of "spokesperson"
and then see if you can add part of the executive branch with spokesperson plus defending controversial regulatory change impacting the environment and the mining industry and see if you come up with administration mouthpiece.
Extra credit questions:
159. rdbrewer - 11/3/2003 11:23:22 PM
You shifted from "the administration" to "the executive branch," a much more broad category.
160. concerned - 11/4/2003 12:38:43 AM
A standard LW ploy when caught out, btw.
161. arkymalarky - 11/4/2003 1:50:07 AM
Ohfercryinoutloud. The administration is head of the executive branch and they are as responsible for the Department of Interior's actions as they are Defense, State, Justice, and on and on. Who was blamed for James Watt? Congress?
Pyuhleeze.
162. jexster - 11/4/2003 1:11:00 PM
Gavin Newsom 73,635 41.4%
Matt Gonzalez 35,753 20.1%
163. thoughtful - 11/4/2003 2:41:44 PM
Thank you arky. I was really running out of steam with trying to explain the obvious.
Apparently those extra credit questions were beyond RDB and con'd.
Key mystery is why I even bother...there are none so blind as those who will not see.
164. alistairconnor - 11/4/2003 3:12:20 PM
Ha! Your Winsom has already got all the conservative votes, Jex. If the left lines up behind the Green Gonzales, he's cooked...
165. judithathome - 11/4/2003 3:18:03 PM
Gone In The Blink Of An Eye
If every white-collar job that could be easily outsourced to Russia, China and India goes the way of the customer-service call center, 14 million positions will be eliminated in the U.S., according to "The New Wave of Outsourcing," an academic study released in late October.
Researchers Ashok Deo Bardhan and Cynthia A. Kroll at the Fisher Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics at UC-Berkeley's Haas School of Business calculated that some 11 percent of all U.S. occupations are "vulnerable" to outsourcing. Salon spoke with Bardhan on the phone from his office in Berkeley, Calif., about the implications outsourcing has for the U.S. labor market and the world.
This is from Salon and if you aren't a subscriber, you can use the free day pass that is offered to read the entire article.
166. thoughtful - 11/4/2003 3:40:14 PM
Kristof highlights more misspeaks/misinformations/exaggerations from the bushies:
Mr. Cheney has cited a Zogby International poll to back his claim that there is "very positive news" in Iraq. But the pollster, John Zogby, told me, "I was floored to see the spin that was put on it; some of the numbers were not my numbers at all."
Mr. Cheney claimed that Iraqis chose the U.S. as their model for democracy "hands down," and he and other officials say that a majority want American troops to stay at least another year. In fact, Mr. Zogby said, only 23 percent favor the U.S. democratic model, and 65 percent want the U.S. to leave in a year or less.
"I am not willing to say they lied," Mr. Zogby said. "But they used a very tight process of selective screening, and when they didn't get what they wanted they were willing to manufacture some results. . . . There was almost nothing in that poll to give them comfort."
"they were willing to manufacture some results." Sounds like lies to me.
167. alistairconnor - 11/4/2003 4:11:30 PM
Careful selection of the truth.
You know, it looks a lot like the intelligence fiasco over Iraq. You select the factoids that suit your thesis, and you inflate them; the big ugly inconvenient facts just get skipped.
That is sort of standard practice when it comes to cooking up propaganda, as in Rumsfeld talking about the Zogby poll; but as a method of intelligence gathering and analysis, it was a major innovation. They ended up brainwashing themselves.
168. concerned - 11/4/2003 4:39:20 PM
Re. 11661 -
But not every Federal Employee in the Department of the Interior is equivalent to the Secretary, nore are they all appointed by the current administration, which is what I'm pointing out to 'thoughtful'.
Do you comprehend, arky?
169. jexster - 11/4/2003 4:39:58 PM
Taking Out the Green Garbage
Newsom Cruises to Biggest First Primary Win in City History
The real race for mayor starts today, and Gavin Newsom goes into it with a huge head start.
But Supervisor Matt Gonzalez, who didn't jump into the contest until August, is hoping to play tortoise to Newsom's hare after a surprisingly strong run to grab a spot in the Dec. 9 runoff.
Whatever the outcome, it will be a new generation taking charge in San Francisco as the two thirty-something candidates outpolled old-guard candidates like Supervisor Tom Ammiano, city Treasurer Susan Leal and former Supervisor Angela Alioto.
It also will give San Francisco voters a clear-cut choice in December. Newsom, a wealthy 36-year-old businessman, is running as the establishment candidate, with plenty of backing from Democratic leaders, the local business community and the older, more conservative parts of the city. Gonzalez, a 38- year-old former public defender, is a Green Party leader and an unabashed progressive who pulled together a coalition of young voters, renters and the political left.
170. concerned - 11/4/2003 4:39:59 PM
typo
171. concerned - 11/4/2003 4:59:17 PM
Flash!
Barbra Streisand admits that 'The Reagans' is only a dramaization, not a documentary, but only after CBS decided to sell it rather than broadcast it.
172. concerned - 11/4/2003 4:59:47 PM
typo again. I need more coffee.
173. alistairconnor - 11/4/2003 5:15:58 PM
... so who are you going to get the missing 10% from, Jex?
Republicans?
174. judithathome - 11/4/2003 5:22:26 PM
Jeeze, I think almost every person in America realized a Movie Of The Week Miniseries on CBS was not a documentary. But I guess some people have to have their fiction censored so they won't be confused.
175. jexster - 11/4/2003 5:37:47 PM
From a united Cemocratic Machine; Susan Leal's 8%; a good portion of Angela Alioto's Old Lib/Lab base, and some really pissed Ammianists who were skewered by the Evil Green.
The signal vote was on Prop M - banning aggressive panhandling, son of Prop N- Care Not Cash both Newsom initiatives, both strenuously opposed by Gonxalez, both winning 60-40 which should be the minimum margin of a landslide that will create a new Green landfill.
176. jexster - 11/4/2003 5:39:37 PM
KILL ALL GREENS!
177. jexster - 11/4/2003 5:40:53 PM
JAH...you forget that Republican political philosophy is in soap opera genre
178. jexster - 11/4/2003 5:41:36 PM
That's why "we're fucked"
179. jexster - 11/4/2003 5:43:29 PM
AC -
It occured to me yesterday walking my TWO precincts all day long as I ran into Green worker after green worker, why do all of these folks look so fucking frumpy?
Its is a uniform?
Do they train you folks to look like petit bourgeois slakker trash?
180. jexster - 11/4/2003 5:43:45 PM
;)
181. judithathome - 11/4/2003 5:59:32 PM
Why America's Plutocrats Gobble Up $1,500 Hot Dogs
In the view of Kevin Phillips, an economic historian and the author of a history of America's rich, Wealth and Democracy, you have to go back more than 100 years to find an era when big money and government were in such a tight embrace.
"It's the second plutocracy after the gilded age," Mr Phillips said. "Laissez-faire is a pretence. Government power and preferment have been used by the rich, not shunned. As wealth concentration grows, especially near the crest of a drawn-out boom, so has upper-bracket control of politics and its ability to shape its own preferment."
Yet it would be hard to imagine a country less ripe for social upheaval.
Of course, Concerned didn't like this sort of news from Krugman so I doubt he'll believe it here, either.
182. concerned - 11/4/2003 6:05:42 PM
Re. 11674 -
JAH -
I knew that such a miniseries was would almost certainly be less than accurate and previously posted elsewhere that it should include a disclaimer, so bleah on you.
183. concerned - 11/4/2003 6:05:57 PM
...sigh...
184. concerned - 11/4/2003 6:06:14 PM
Re. 11674 -
JAH -
I knew that such a miniseries would almost certainly be less than accurate and previously posted elsewhere that it should include a disclaimer, so bleah on you.
185. judithathome - 11/4/2003 6:18:01 PM
Then why the snark about Barbra Striesand "admitting" it wasn't documentary? No one ever claimed it WAS.
186. judithathome - 11/4/2003 6:20:25 PM
Where's the FLASH that Bill O'Reilly called it like the Brady Bunch? Where is the long awaited opinion from Ann Coulter?
187. jexster - 11/4/2003 6:20:53 PM
Bush Touts Economic Numbers, But Less Rosy Reality Lies Beneath the Surface
President Bush toured a manufacturing plant in Alabama Monday, touting the success of his tax cut policies. "I went to the Congress, not once, but twice, and said, in order for people to be able to find work here in the country, let's pass meaningful, real tax relief."1 But the President's policies have thus far not resulted in jobs--since his first tax cut passed in 2001, the economy has lost a net of 2.75 million jobs.2
The president claimed that his 2003 tax cut, worth $550 billion, would create 1.4 million new jobs over two years.3 The bill which became law, worth $330 billion, was estimated by the President's Council of Economic Advisers to create almost one million jobs over the same period.4 Since passage, the economy has experienced a net loss of jobs every month except September, when the economy added a total of 57,000 jobs, well below the overall targets predicted by the CEA for the second half of the year.5
Even as the administration claimed that the Bush tax cut policies "brought economic activity to a higher level, which increases incomes and living standards for American workers,"6 other economists pointed to figures showing a decline in average hourly earnings as a troubling sign for disposable income.7 Real wage and salary income declined by 1.2% between the start of the last recession and August of 2003, the most pronounced decline 29 months after a recession began since 1959-well below the historical average of 3.5% growth.8
188. jexster - 11/4/2003 6:39:22 PM
Clark Blasts the Poseur-in-chief
partial transcript of a speech by Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark at the San Francisco Bar Association on Nov. 2.
Wesley Clark says Bush "pranced around in a flight suit" with no long-term strategy for Iraq -- and as U.S. soldiers die daily, there's still no plan
189. jexster - 11/4/2003 6:40:46 PM
Since the end of major combat operations, more than 2,000 U.S. soldiers have been injured or wounded in that conflict [in Iraq]. I've been through Walter Reed. I've seen missing limbs; I've looked into mothers' eyes. I've seen it all before. This is where I came in on the picture, in Vietnam. In the case of Iraq, it's a long record of tragedy, deception, miscalculation, misdirection by an administration that had in its heart an intent to go after Saddam Hussein before they ever came to office.
It's an administration that was warned that the greatest threat to American security was not Saddam Hussein, or North Korea, or Iran, but was instead Osama bin Laden. An administration that's ducked its responsibility for the events of 9/11.
Harry Truman said: When you're commander in chief, the buck stops here. What we have today is an administration that likes to take credit, but it won't take responsibility. We all saw our president when he landed on the deck of that aircraft carrier.
Now wait a minute. Now wait a minute. That was a pretty good-looking flight suit, you got to admit. But the thing is, a lot of brave Americans have worn and fought and some of them died in that flight suit.
190. jexster - 11/4/2003 7:29:20 PM
Trying to eliminate Saddam ... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs," wrote George Bush Sr in A World Transformed. "Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ... there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
- Grand Prince Poppy I of River Oaks
191. jexster - 11/4/2003 8:26:11 PM
Basic training: Youth, glitz and glamour may have been the public images --but it was discipline and a basic block-and-tackle field operation that made Gavin Newsom the man to beat in the San Francisco mayor's race.
"I've never seen an operation like this one in all my years,'' said one political consultant who has been on the inside of every mayoral race since Dianne Feinstein left office in the 1980s.
Indeed, in the days leading up to the first mayoral go-round, Newsom had 20 paid staffers overseeing 550 precinct captains who were working with volunteers throughout the city.
"Peoples' Candidate With Panache" Set to Cut Some Greens For Xmas
192. PelleNilsson - 11/4/2003 8:47:32 PM
jexster
The number of US losses stated in your Message # 11689 posted at 6.40 pm (my time) is wildly different from your Message # 12429 in thread 150 posted at 6.02. Did 1000+ US soldiers come to grief in 38 minutes?
Please clarify.
193. robertjayb - 11/4/2003 10:11:28 PM
Judge blocks late-term abortion ban...
LINCOLN, Neb., Nov. 5 — (AP) -- A federal judge in Nebraska blocked implementation of a federal ban on certain late-term abortions Wednesday, less than an hour after President Bush signed the ban into law.
U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf issued a temporary restraining order against the law after a three-hour hearing on a lawsuit in Nebraska brought by abortion-rights supporters.
He said his order would apply only to the four doctors who filed the lawsuit, but the ruling could extend beyond Nebraska because the physicians are licensed to practice in Alabama, Georgia, Iowa, New York, South Carolina and Virginia.
Kopf cited concerns that the law did not contain an exception for preserving the health of the woman seeking the abortion.
194. jexster - 11/4/2003 10:41:20 PM
very observant pelle..
This is the correct figure, not that from Salon's transcript
US troops
359 dead - of which 234 died in combat (119 since end of the war) and 125 in non-combat (102 since end of the war)
I am delighted that you have now seen fit to pay attention to the blood that Bush is spilling so profusely for his lies and delusions
195. jexster - 11/4/2003 10:43:31 PM
And what does America get from the fuckin Swedes?
Not one Krappy Kroner
196. jexster - 11/4/2003 11:12:51 PM
If the left was nervously pondering its future Tuesday, Newsom's camp was celebrating with confidence.
"It appears to be the best showing since 1987 of any first-place finisher," Newsom spokesman John Shanley said of the candidate's strong lead. "But we know it doesn't mean anything because there's a brand new race that starts tomorrow."
State Sen. John Burton (D-San Francisco), who deflected pleas to run for mayor, said that although left-leaning voters might signal their craving for a new start with Gonzalez, he would face a tough fight against Newsom.
"I don't think the city will vote for a Green," Burton said.
Death to Greens
TURN EM BROWN!
197. jexster - 11/5/2003 12:38:08 AM
Republicans Strip Anti-War Profiteering Provisions from $87 Billion Graft & Crony Corruption Bill
Now a blank check Bush can be proud of...
After the Senate passed a version of the $87 billion spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that included provisions to penalize war profiteers who defraud American taxpayers, they were quietly removed in behind-the-scenes negotiations to square the Senate version with that of the House.
"Congress is about to send billions and billions of dollars to a place where there is no functioning government, under a plan with too little accountability and too few financial controls," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). "That's a formula for mischief. We need strong disincentives for those who would defraud taxpayers, and removing this protection is another major blot on this bill."
198. jexster - 11/5/2003 1:10:01 AM
In light of the dreadful news out of Iraq and the recent third quarter GDP report that showed 7.2 percent annualized growth for that quarter, the Bush administration’s political strategy is clearly shifting away from touting its foreign adventures to dwelling on the alleged successes of its economic policy.
What’s next--Karl Rove hanging an “It’s the economy, stupid” sign in the Bush campaign war room? Could be, but maybe Karl better hold off on that sign for awhile. There are a lot of very good reasons to be skeptical that this recent growth spurt will provide the Republicans with their magical re-election elixir.
For the FatBoy from Hope Village
Well, Maybe That Iraq Thing Didn’t Work Out So Well, But the Tax Cuts Did
199. jexster - 11/5/2003 1:13:29 AM
200. jexster - 11/5/2003 2:16:01 AM
ABC NEWS SPECIAL REPORT
U.S. Government Spurned Peace Talks Before the War With Iraq
201. wonkers2 - 11/5/2003 3:27:23 AM
The overture to Richard Perle could be a bombshell! It's consistent with Tariq Aziz's claim that Sadaam Hussein expected somehow to avoid war.
202. jexster - 11/5/2003 3:47:44 AM
"The American people cna take comfort in the fact that their government has done all that it can to avoid war."
Which, to my ears, was comic at the time for it was obvious from the public record that Bush had done all he could to distort the truth; subvert democratic processes, and thwart the UN inspection regime, but if they still want to claim that faced with an imminent threat the US did all that it could, let em
Bring it on
203. jexster - 11/5/2003 3:48:37 AM
The quote from Donald "we-haven't-a-clue-what-we're-doing" Rumsfeld.
204. concerned - 11/5/2003 7:39:25 AM
Democrats' Abuse of Power
This memo shows how thoroughly corrupt the Democrat Party is: their senior member in the Senate Intelligence Committee is in cahoots with a plan to use the Committee as a conduit to obtain classified information in order to politically damage GWB by leaking it, or in other ways.
205. concerned - 11/5/2003 7:41:16 AM
Let's see the Leftists try to rationalize and make excuses for this one.
206. concerned - 11/5/2003 7:43:22 AM
I can see it now: "Oh, compromising national security for partisan reasons is just peachy if one is a Left Winger, so shut up!" "You're another!", and hypocritically so on....
207. concerned - 11/5/2003 7:51:15 AM
Jay Rockefeller should resign from the Senate Select Intelligence Committee because of this and a Congressional investigation should determine who is responsible for this scheme.
208. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/5/2003 8:29:19 AM
Hey connie, go crap in yer cap, you walnut-brained dope—then focus on the real abuse of power going on in this country . . .
209. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/5/2003 8:41:14 AM
210. concerned - 11/5/2003 9:05:45 AM
The WoW apparently sees no problem, no problem whatsoever, with the 'Rat's corrupting the formerly nonpartisan Senate Intelligence Committee into a mere platform to launch political witch hunts and to leak classified information.
That's because he's a moron.
211. concerned - 11/5/2003 9:10:18 AM
Democrat Zell Miller concurs with my opinion. He said, of this memo:
"If this is not treasonous, it's the first cousin of treason."
"This is one of those committees that you should never, ever have anything politicized because you're dealing with the lives of our soldiers and our citizens."
"Heads ought to roll."
212. concerned - 11/5/2003 9:22:08 AM
CBS's decision to sell 'The Reagans' to Showtime has about as much resemblance to censorship as Barbra Streisand's ass does to her elbow.
214. Magoseph - 11/5/2003 2:42:06 PM
Kopf cited concerns that the law did not contain an exception for preserving the health of the woman seeking the abortion.
I believe that Bush created this situation at this time for the purpose of a distraction. The polls indicate that the poor white vote of the South which is a significant part of his base is eroding rapidly due to the unemployment situation amongst that group.
Of course, he knew or was told that without a protect-the-mother clause, the statute was clearly unconstitutional. He could have easily permitted the bill to go through with protection for the mother. However, a court fight is what he wants and he already has it. The court fight will keep the issue before the public's eyes and that is what he's counting on.
It is really a desperate move by a desperate president and if history is any guide, "it's the economy, stupid", that will prevail (JOBS).
215. wonkers2 - 11/5/2003 2:52:53 PM
I agree. Bush made a shrewd political move. It was also based on the fact that most people think late term abortions should be avoided.
216. Edmund Dantes - 11/5/2003 3:01:25 PM
Burgeoning Bush boom picks up steam
Productivity up 8.1 percent and...
In a second report, new applications for jobless benefits last week plummeted by a seasonally adjusted 43,000 to 348,000. That marked the lowest level since the week ending Jan. 20, 2001, and was much better than the 380,000 level that economists forecast.
217. wonkers2 - 11/5/2003 3:07:29 PM
Good news. I hope the new job picture improves.
218. jexster - 11/5/2003 3:37:47 PM
Death Be Not Loud
WASHINGTON
Who can blame poor President Bush? Look at his terrible dilemma.
There are those who say the chief executive should have come out of his Texas ranch house and articulated and assuaged the sorrow and outrage and anxiety the nation was feeling on Sunday after the deadliest day in Iraq in seven months. An attack on a Chinook helicopter had killed 15 American soldiers, 13 men and 2 women, and wounded 21.
There are those who say Mr. Bush should have emulated Rudy Giuliani's empathetic leadership after 9/11, or Dad's in the first gulf war, and attended some of the funerals of the 379 Americans killed in Iraq. Or one.
Maybe the one for Specialist Darryl Dent, the 21-year-old National Guard officer from Washington who died outside Baghdad in late August when a bomb struck his truck while he was delivering mail to troops. His funeral was held at a Baptist church three miles from the White House.
219. jexster - 11/5/2003 3:41:38 PM
In-bedded Reporters Sanitized War
220. jexster - 11/5/2003 3:46:05 PM
Facts in the line of fire
Reporters embedded with the invading forces inevitably sanitised images of the Iraq war, but why did all the TV coverage have a pro-war bias?
221. Wombat - 11/5/2003 3:49:36 PM
Given that the White House politicized the intelligence gathering and analytical process in the run-up to the war, hand have made support for the war a partisan issue, all the harrumphing about Democrat intentions to try and embarass the Republicans on the Intelligence Committee seems rather forced.
As to leaking classified information, I trust that Senator Miller will make sure to go after those staffers in the White House who leaked classified information to Bob Novak.
222. jexster - 11/5/2003 3:50:25 PM
Perhaps the solution to Mr. Bush's quandary is to coordinate his schedule so he can go to cities where he can attend both fund-raisers and funerals.
The law of averages suggests it shouldn't be hard.
223. jexster - 11/5/2003 3:59:02 PM
Little Notice in the NyT Article on the Iraqi Peace Initiative
The story centers on an apparent back channel (or attempted back channel) using a Lebanese-American businessman who had a relationship with an analyst in Doug Feith's shop at the Pentagon, Michael Maloof. (Richard Perle was part of the potential back channel too.)
In aftermath of 9/11, Maloof and David Wurmser were each part of a two-man team tasked by the Pentagon with finding links between Shi'a and Sunni extremist groups as well as between Islamist terrorists and secular Arab regimes. They reported finding lots of evidence. But the folks at the CIA never bought it.
Down deep in the New York Times article, there's this line contained in a parantheses: "In May, Mr. Maloof, who has lost his security clearances, was placed on paid administrative leave by the Pentagon."
There's your ripple.
And that's where I think you'll find a lot of the backstory for why we're hearing now about this business with the last-minute overture.
To start getting a feel for that backstory, see this piece from Knight Ridder's Warren Strobel from August 1st ("U.S. revokes security clearance for Pentagon employee.")
-- Josh Marshall
224. jexster - 11/5/2003 4:16:28 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, forty years ago almost to the day an important Presidential emissary was sent abroad by a beleaguered President of the United States. The United States was facing the prospect of nuclear war. These were the days of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Several emissaries went to our principal allies. One of them was a tough-minded former Secretary of State, Dean Acheson whose mission was to brief President De Gaulle and to solicit French support in what could be a nuclear war involving not just the United States and the Soviet Union but the entire NATO Alliance and the Warsaw Pact.
The former Secretary of State briefed the French President and then said to him at the end of the briefing, I would now like to show you the evidence, the photographs that we have of Soviet missiles armed with nuclear weapons. The French President responded by saying, I do not wish to see the photographs. The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me. Please tell him that France stands with America.
Would any foreign leader today react the same way to an American emissary who would go abroad and say that country X is armed with weapons of mass destruction which threaten the United States?
Zbigniew Brzezinski's remarks from the "New American Strategies for Security and Peace" conference
225. wonkers2 - 11/5/2003 4:30:49 PM
Greenspan just delivered to a banking group an upbeat near term economic forecast but a stern warning about the looming unsustainable deficit which could have s severe destabilizing effect on the economy. He called on lawmakers to do the right thing to close the budget gap before the first cohort of baby boomers reaches retirement age.
226. jexster - 11/5/2003 4:40:04 PM
The excitement that Brzezinski's speech inspired in a roomful of liberal Democrats—the American Prospect's Web site headlines it "A Must-Read Speech"—suggests that the liberal critique of Bush's foreign policy is at one with the conservative critique.
It suggests that, on a basic level, Bush's foreign policy is neither liberal nor conservative but, rather, callow, smug, and reckless. Fred Kaplan, Slate Military Affairs Correspondent
227. jexster - 11/5/2003 4:47:59 PM
Halliburton Contract Extension Cancelled Amid Allegations of Overcharging Taxpayers
The Army Corps of Engineers is "likely" to cancel the no-bid contract extension granted a week ago to Halliburton for delivery of oil-related services amid allegations that Halliburton is overcharging the federal government to import oil into Iraq. The decision to revisit the contract extension comes in part due to the assertions from inside the Pentagon that Halliburton's price for imported gasoline was "at least double what it should be."1
Jeffrey Jones, the Director of the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), told minority staff of the House Government Reform Committee that it costs the DESC $1.08 to $1.19 to buy and import fuel via truck into Iraq - a price that's less than half the $2.65 Halliburton is charging the US government.2
Congress has been critical of the no-bid contract - valued at up to $7 billion, since it was awarded to VP Cheney's former employer, Halliburton. Questioned about the secretive no-bid process in April, then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, "the criteria should be followed by the contracting agencies. The White House does not get involved or dictate to agencies on how to award contracts."3 But President Bush signed an executive order within a month of taking office setting terms for executive agency contracting processes, a process the White House said should strive for "the highest quality at the best price to ensure that government is a responsible steward of the American people's hard-earned tax dollars."4
Scrutiny of the Halliburton contract has become more intense since Congress passed the President's emergency request for $87 billion. Stripped from the final bill, at White House insistence, say Senate Democrats, was a provision to subject those who deliberately defrauded the United States or Iraq to jail terms of up to 20 years and costly fines.5
228. jexster - 11/5/2003 5:01:08 PM
LAT: A New Political Era Dawns in S.F.
Old guard's out as a Democrat and a Green, both in their 30s, face a mayoral runoff.
SAN FRANCISCO — Voters here have ushered in a new generation of political leadership, setting the stage for a mayoral runoff next month between a millionaire entrepreneur who promises to crack down on the homeless and an unapologetically left-wing Green Party member who won an upset over his political mentors.
229. jexster - 11/5/2003 5:02:43 PM
Newsom, a liberal Democrat by the standards of most other cities, has been cast by opponents here as a socialite "Republocrat." He is allied with billionaire Gordon Getty and lives in a multimillion-dollar mansion in Pacific Heights, one of the city's most expensive neighborhoods, with his wife, a prosecutor and CNN commentator who is a former lingerie model.
230. concerned - 11/5/2003 5:15:17 PM
Re. 11721 -
And that justifies corrupting the Senate Intelligence Committee and leaking classified information how.....?
231. concerned - 11/5/2003 5:17:11 PM
jexster just likes posting his picture with his head 'next' to this guy's ass.
232. jexster - 11/5/2003 5:44:15 PM
What am I going to do with a Victoria's Secret model?
233. jexster - 11/5/2003 5:47:06 PM
Besides my 15 minutes of fame account hasn't seen a debit since I met Jimmy Carter and sat next to Gerald and Betty Ford nearly 30 years ago
234. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/5/2003 5:47:36 PM
Well connie, it's better than someone like you—who has his head up his own ass.
235. jexster - 11/5/2003 5:56:47 PM
Bush Re-elect Plunges to 38%, with 44% Definitely Voting AGAINST Him - Newsday
"More than four in 10 voters nationwide say they definitely plan to vote against Bush next year - more than plan to vote for him. The poll, from Marist College, found that 44% of voters surveyed said they planned to definitely vote against the Republican president while 38% said they would vote for his re-election. An April poll from the Poughkeepsie, N.Y.-based pollsters had found that 40% of voters nationwide planned to vote for Bush while 30% said they would vote against him. The latest poll also found a drop in Bush's approval rating, which has been documented by other recent nationwide polls. The Marist poll had the president's approval rating at 53%, down from 70% in its April poll."
Re-Defeat Bush
236. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/5/2003 6:15:53 PM
Bush in Britain — A problematic visit . . .
. . . The British, who know America more intimately than most, instinctively expect better of America's tribunes. And they know, or at least hope, that Mr Bush may soon be replaced by a more truly representative leader who better comprehends and upholds the ideals and aspirations that mark America's greatness. . . .
237. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/5/2003 6:19:31 PM
238. concerned - 11/5/2003 6:24:46 PM
Not hearing all that much complaint, aside from some murmurs of court challenges about the outlawing of 'post partum dilation & extraction'. Guess the Left has finally waken up & is smelling the placenta.
239. Wombat - 11/5/2003 6:36:20 PM
The Democrats correctly believe that the Administration is going to try and evade its obligation to provide information to the committee, and that the Republican majority will be happy to go along with the Administration.
Also, since the Bush administration apparently has no compunction about leaking classified information, complaints from "centrist" lapdogs such as concerned, who have attempted to justify it previously have little value, other than as source of humor.
240. concerned - 11/5/2003 6:44:05 PM
Wombats -
You cannot so cavalierly dismiss my concerns, nor those of Zell Miller.
Now excuse me; your inconsiderate politics uber alles attitude is nauseating me just before lunchtime and, with the Rockefeller memo your party's nick is giving a certain rodent a bad name.
241. jexster - 11/5/2003 6:59:09 PM
You cannot so cavalierly dismiss my concerns, nor those of Zell Miller.
Watch
242. jexster - 11/5/2003 7:02:51 PM
Time to Call The Lying Incompetents to Account
WASHINGTON - About 85,000 U.S. troops have been alerted they will soon be sent to Iraq to relieve forces who have been there for up to a year, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday.
In addition, nearly 47,000 National Guard and Reserve forces are in the process of being notified that they will be activated to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan , Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon news conference. Even more Army soldiers could be alerted soon to add to those deployments, Rumsfeld said
243. rdbrewer - 11/5/2003 7:04:43 PM
Where's the lie, Jex? He's just providing a better rotation schedule.
How 'bout those productivity and jobless benefit claims rates, huh!?
244. rdbrewer - 11/5/2003 7:05:32 PM
Even Chris Matthews was echoing Miller's concerns last night.
245. jexster - 11/5/2003 7:12:47 PM
Look at those re-elect numbers RD
Let me just finish by saying that we should be-as I know you've heard plenty of times here-extremely proud of what our people did out there, what our men and women in uniform did. It kills me when I hear of the continuing casualties and the sacrifice that's being made. It also kills me when I hear someone say that, well, each one of those is a personal tragedy, but in the overall scheme of things, they're insignificant statistically. Never should we let any political leaders utter those words. This is the greatest treasure the United States has, our enlisted men and women. And when we put them into harm's way, it had better count for something. It can't be because some policy wonk back here has a brain fart of an idea of a strategy that isn't thought out.
They should never be put on a battlefield without a strategic plan, not only for the fighting-our generals will take care of that-but for the aftermath and winning that war. Where are we, the American people, if we accept this, if we accept this level of sacrifice without that level of planning?
Maj. Gen Anthony Zinni, USMC (ret)
246. jexster - 11/5/2003 7:16:10 PM
The lie is that these idiots have a strategy, a goal, a plan
The lie was told to the Third Infantry Division, widely reported by the in-beds, that all they had to do was go to Baghdad and they'd be going home..
The lie is that we had to fight this war because US security was at risk.
So prancing around in a flight suit didn't work and the decks of the USS A. Lincoln are clear for take off...
To talk about the economy stupid...
George "Herbert Hoover" Bush
Bring it on
247. jexster - 11/5/2003 7:21:38 PM
It is no accident that Rove shut Snow up with all his talk of 200,000 jobs a month...just another lie nipped in the bud, like the boner that the tax cut would have created 1.3 million jobs by now....
70% of those jobs that Bush lost are gone for good, and a good portion of those "productivity" increases are not decreases in MH/unit but decreases in wages, real wages of real people and real wages now being paid to workers in India.
It will take an increase of about 300,000 jobs a month over the course of the next year just to bring down the unemployment rate by one point.
What ya gonna do now RD, post dancing cowboys with "its the Economy Stupid" cowboy shirts?
248. jexster - 11/5/2003 7:22:23 PM
How about invading Syria?
249. Edmund Dantes - 11/5/2003 7:50:19 PM
Matching that pollin' fool, poll fer poll:
Clark slides, Dean adds to lead.
250. Edmund Dantes - 11/5/2003 7:51:33 PM
And Bush back in tie with generic Demo: "When President Bush is matched against an unnamed (generic) Democratic contender, it’s a dead heat at 41% each. In September polling, Bush would have lost to a generic Democratic, 41% - 45%."
| Date | Bush % | Any Democrat % |
| November 3 – 5, 2003 | 41 | 41 |
| October 15 – 18, 2003 | 43 | 45 |
| September 22-24, 2003 | 41 | 45 |
| September 3-5, 2003 | 40 | 47 |
| August 2003 | 43 | 43 |
| June 2003 | 44 | 37 |
251. robertjayb - 11/5/2003 7:51:50 PM
252. Edmund Dantes - 11/5/2003 7:51:54 PM
Toys?
253. jexster - 11/5/2003 7:56:59 PM
You wanna know the lie di tutti lies RD?
I saw an interview with a woman a few nights back. She';d just lost her son in Iraq.
Roughly,
"I thought and he thought that he was fighting to defend the US from Saddam Hussein.
Now I have no idea what he died for".
254. robertjayb - 11/5/2003 9:40:05 PM
A physician friend is on a tear about an all-male photo-op at the abortion-ban bill signing. She writes:
Can't wait until the bill for the mandatory two finger digital rectal exams
reaches the President's desk.
All of those manly men prostates--one finger just won't do for our dear
republican men. Just be careful when removing those fingers, ladies. You
know that they are FOS.*
255. jexster - 11/5/2003 9:50:29 PM
Can't help myself TD...
Gavin and his Girlie
256. arkymalarky - 11/5/2003 11:35:39 PM
Message # 11716
Nothing like pulling a few hundred thousand reserves out of the job market and into Iraq to boost those seasonal employment figures.
257. rdbrewer - 11/6/2003 1:18:01 AM
The lie is that these idiots have a strategy, a goal, a plan
No, that's just your little feeling. Your limbic system is calling the shots. It's distorting your perception.
The lie was told to the Third Infantry Division, widely reported by the in-beds, that all they had to do was go to Baghdad and they'd be going home..
This is absurd. Grunts don't get to know about strategy or tactics. Grunts don't get to have an opinion. Deals and contracts are not struck with grunts prior to battle. If someone told them that during a pep-talk, fine. If it helped psych them up for battle, I'm glad. Even better. Trying to make that into an example of a "lie"--a word you don't appear to understand--by the Bush administration is to demonstrate an extreme level of limbic-driven subjectivity. For you, one of the perception impaired, possibility is easily confused with probability and opinion with fact, depending upon utility in the moment.
258. rdbrewer - 11/6/2003 1:20:23 AM
The lie is that we had to fight this war because US security was at risk.
FYI, so that you can learn what "lie" means. It says, "The subjective component has two parts: (1) belief that what one represents to be the case is not the case and (2) intention to deceive." Thus, a completely rational person cannot argue that Bush was telling a lie about US security because 1) Bush thought US security was at risk (and thought there were WMDs), and 2) as good as you may think your intuition is, surprise, you cannot actually read his mind. You have no basis upon which to say that Bush was lying--other than your little feelings.
And I would add a third reason: There were WMDs. He used them on Iran. He used them on the Kurds. He never accounted for them. UNSCOM inspectors found anthrax. They filmed their discovery. We have found precursor chemicals and machinery to produce WMDs. And they're probably still there or in Syria anyway. For the congenital subjectivist, however, it's easy to perform that little mental trick where inconvenient facts like this are simply wiped away. "I don't choose to see those facts." Really, Jex, it's time to put this dead horse to rest. It's tiresome to see the same irrational argument (meme, article of faith, whatever) day after day.
So prancing around in a flight suit didn't work and the decks of the USS A. Lincoln are clear for take off...
Yes, I'm picking up on your hate. Loud and clear.
259. rdbrewer - 11/6/2003 1:47:48 AM
Andrew Sullivan is asking what Terry McAuliffe has to do to get fired:
A terrible general election campaign, historically bad mid-term elections, losing three governorships this year already (and a fourth ready to drop) and on and on. Broder piles on today. And TNR gets mad at the Dems for not sticking the boot in.
Please, please keep this ignoramus head of the DNC. I especially liked the way he spent the money at the mid-terms. He's been a great help to the GOP.
260. OhioSTOPAS - 11/6/2003 1:59:55 AM
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
"No doubt"? Hardly. That's a lie, R.D.
261. rdbrewer - 11/6/2003 2:01:30 AM
Well, how about the video of anthrax taken by UNSCOM? That do it for ya?
262. rdbrewer - 11/6/2003 2:33:16 AM
No doubt Democrat statements on WMDs are accurate. If not, does that make me a liar? You see, I'm stating my opinion, not what I claim to be an absolute philosophical certainty, like Bush, like these Democrats:
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.
263. rdbrewer - 11/6/2003 2:34:29 AM
. . .
[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001
(Hey, there are those words again: "No doubt.")
264. rdbrewer - 11/6/2003 2:35:19 AM
. . .
We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I b elieve that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
265. rdbrewer - 11/6/2003 2:35:58 AM
. . .
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
266. rdbrewer - 11/6/2003 2:37:22 AM
. . .
[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Sorry for the multi-post, guys. Just had to put to rest the Bush liar meme. Time to let it go.
267. jexster - 11/6/2003 2:55:01 AM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Wesley Clark said on Thursday the United States should resist pressure for an early exit in Iraq (and laid out steps to build international involvement there and mend relations with Europe.
"First we must end the American monopoly on the occupation and reconstruction. Then we must develop the right force mix to fight and win guerrilla war," he said. "Finally, we must give Iraqis a rising stake in our success."
He called for development of an Iraqi Reconstruction Council to internationalize the occupation, and for an Iraqi interim government and constitution written by Iraqi representatives.
GRADUAL AUTHORITY OVER OIL
He said the interim government should be given gradual authority over oil revenues and other domestic issues to give civilians a stake in stemming the violence.
He also recommended the United States appoint an allied high representative to guide Iraq's reconstruction while shifting the military operation to NATO forces under U.S. command.
"Failure in Iraq will not only be a tragedy for Iraq, it will be a disaster for America and the world," Clark said. "It will give the terrorists of al Qaeda a new base of operations."
268. jexster - 11/6/2003 2:59:10 AM
Clark Proposes Success Strategy for Iraq
General Wesley Clark offered his strategy for success in Iraq Thursday at a speech in Orangeburg, South Carolina. The speech is the fourth in a series outlining his vision for a New American Patriotism.
"Every American should understand, early exit means retreat or defeat," Clark will say. "There can be neither. We need a success strategy, for it is only success that can honor the sacrifice of so many American men and women. It is only success that will allow Iraq to stand on its own. It is only success that will allow our soldiers to come home."
Success in Clark's plan is clearly defined.
Full Text
Any resemblance between the Jexster Plan and the General's policy is purely coincidental.
269. wonkers2 - 11/6/2003 3:03:38 AM
Question: Should Howard Dean (1) not accept Federal campaign funds and limits and fund his own campaign without limits (as Bush has done for his unopposed primary campaign) or (2)accept Federal campaign funds and funding limits (as Bush may or may not do for his Presidential election campaign)?
[Dean is conducting the above poll today among his supporters by phone and internet.]
Any opinions?
270. jexster - 11/6/2003 3:03:48 AM
When running for President, Mr. Bush assured voters he would have strong advisors in national security. But he didn't say what would happen if his advisors disagreed. Now we know. The advisors feud; the policy fractures, and our security suffers. In a Clark Administration, there won't be any question about whether the State Department drives policy, or the Pentagon drives policy, or the national security advisor drives policy. In a Clark Administration, the President will drive the policy
271. jexster - 11/6/2003 3:04:34 AM
I think he oughta dump 'em..Bush has..he can...I so voted in the Dean on line vote
272. jexster - 11/6/2003 3:15:53 AM
For much of our history, America has been the most admired nation in the world. People around the globe admired America's strength - because they saw it was on their side. That reputation took decades to build -but only a few years for George Bush to bring down. We must recover what's been lost.
But we must be a country that listens, and leads again. A country that is respected, not resented....It's what I call a New American Patriotism.
In February of 1970, I was a 25-year old Army captain in Vietnam, commanding a mechanized infantry company. We were on patrol in the jungle, moving on foot in platoon strength, searching for the Viet Cong. The soldier walking point lost his bearings, so I went up and took point. When the hidden enemy saw that, they knew they were looking at the officer, and they opened fire. I was hit, jumped back and took cover, directing a small element from our force to lay down a base of fire while another element maneuvered against the base camp. In a few minutes, we overran their positions. Later, I was evacuated by helicopter.
But I think of the young men my age in Vietnam, who had babies born at home, and they never made it back to see them. Their names are engraved in black granite on our national mall.
When I think of service to country - I know that nothing I've ever done compares with that. All our principles as a country and people come down to this: I'll never commit American forces to combat without a clear and complete plan to win, and the forces necessary to carry it out - and I'll never ask an American soldier or family to take that risk and pay that price except as an absolute last resort. If you elect me President, I pledge to you today that I will return America to that sacred moral standard
273. jexster - 11/6/2003 3:28:00 AM
274. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/6/2003 3:47:31 AM
275. jexster - 11/6/2003 3:49:26 AM
MCCAIN'S VISION: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), in a sharply critical speech to the Council on Foreign Relations essentially called for a new post-war strategy, saying the lack of a plan risks "the most serious American defeat on the global stage since Vietnam." In the speech, he said the rush to put ill-trained, ill-equipped Iraqis in charge of security "cannot be expected to accomplish what U.S. forces have not yet succeeded in doing: defeating the Baathists and international terrorists inside Iraq." In rushing, McCain says, the Administration would "shirk the responsibility that we willingly incurred when we assumed the burden of liberating and transforming their country, for their sake and our own."
276. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/6/2003 3:51:51 AM
From another board . . .
The Republican National Committee announced today the Republican Party is changing its emblem from an Elephant to a condom.
The committee chairman explained that the condom more clearly reflects the party's stance today, because a condom accepts inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of security while you're actually getting screwed.
277. jexster - 11/6/2003 4:07:54 AM
278. robertjayb - 11/6/2003 6:10:43 AM
We know what's best for them wimmens... 
279. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/6/2003 6:40:10 AM
Your pic was retouched, Robert—here's the original . . .
280. jexster - 11/6/2003 4:14:31 PM
The Latest Load in the Emperor's New Underpants
Bush's dream of a democratic Middle East doesn't jibe with the reliance on autocratic allies
281. jexster - 11/6/2003 4:18:42 PM
"His portrayal of what's going on in Arab countries is totally unrealistic," said Marina Ottaway, co-director of the Democracy and Rule of Law Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
"The reality that he is overlooking is that in all these countries that are supposedly making progress, hostility to the United States is at an all-time high," she said. "So the idea that these are countries where progress on democracy is going to make them better allies is certainly not supported by what is going on."
"Unrealistic" - how polite.
Load of crap he dumped to divert attention from the mess he's made...
Let's run Eddie Dantes up the flagpole and see if AlD, RD, and TD salute!
282. jexster - 11/6/2003 4:22:09 PM
DUBAI (Reuters) - President George Bush's calls for democracy rang hollow in the Middle East, where many said on Friday they were appalled Washington was preaching liberty for Arabs while occupying Iraq ).
The war on Iraq and Washington's support for Israel in its bloody conflict with the Palestinians have antagonized many Arabs and Muslims who were already seething at the United States' war on terror, seen by many as a battle against Islam.
And Bush's sweeping foreign policy speech on Thursday, in which he challenged ally Egypt and foes Iran and Syria to adopt democracy, fueled Arab indignation.
"Bush's speech is like a boring, broken record that nobody believes," said Gulf-based political analyst Moghazy al-Badrawy.
"He wants democracy and the U.S. is occupying Iraq and its ally Israel is killing Palestinians? Arabs just don't buy it."
Abdel-Monem Said, director of Egypt's Al-Ahram Center for Political Strategic Studies, said the perceived U.S. dishonesty in justifying the Iraq war had also tarnished its credibility.
"Democracy is all about legalities, rule of law and legitimacy," he said. "There is an issue of double standards."
283. Edmund Dantes - 11/6/2003 4:29:58 PM
Payroll numbers grow again
Post surprisingly large gain in October, third straight month of growth; unemployment falls to 6%....U.S. payrolls grew in October for the third straight month, the government said Friday, trouncing Wall Street expectations, as the labor market accelerated its recovery....
BUSH BOOM!
<smirk>
284. jexster - 11/6/2003 4:33:12 PM
Iraq don't work for ya Eddie
Neither will the economy
285. Edmund Dantes - 11/6/2003 4:36:57 PM
The jobs market has been the weak link in the robust recovery, with the economy growing at a sizzling 7.2 percent in the third quarter. Economists now believe the worst days are over, with significant hiring now occurring.
The improvement could benefit President Bush, who will be up for re-election next November. Democrats had hoped to use the lack of new jobs as a political issue to win back the White House, and indeed the election is still a year away.
"The most likely scenario is, we'll get enough jobs so it won't be the issue Democrats need to oust the president," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com.
Bush mojo working
286. jexster - 11/6/2003 4:38:06 PM
Economists note, however, that job growth is still not strong enough to keep up with the 150,000 or so new entrants to the labor force every month, and few economists expect a significant decline in the unemployment rate in the next year.
Payrolls are still 2.4 million jobs smaller than in March 2001, when the 2001 recession began. Though job growth has come in spurts since then, payrolls are still about 800,000 jobs lower than they were in November 2001, when the recession officially ended.
Should payrolls be even stronger?
If there was anything disappointing about Friday's report, in fact, it's that job growth hasn't been more robust, given the strength of the economy and a wave of fiscal and monetary stimulus from the government and the Federal Reserve.
"To put this in perspective, a couple of years into recovery, we should be seeing 250,000 to 300,000 new jobs per month," said Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of the Economic Cycle Research Institute. "We're not there yet."
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Follow the news that matters to you. Create your own alert to be notified on topics you're interested in.
Or, visit Popular Alerts for suggestions.
Manage alerts | What is this?
What's more, the recovery in the labor market has not yet caught up with wages, critical to the strength of consumer spending, which fuels more than two-thirds of the economy. The Labor Department said average hourly wages rose just a penny, or 0.1 percent, to $15.46 from $15.45 in September, when wages were flat.
About 8.8 million people were unemployed in October, the department said, 2 million of whom have been out of work for 27 weeks or longer. CNN Money
287. jexster - 11/6/2003 4:38:56 PM
Invade Saudi Arabia
288. Edmund Dantes - 11/6/2003 4:48:44 PM
"I think Professor Poostain just tried to touch my mojo."
289. jexster - 11/6/2003 4:53:20 PM
Pooo...nasty!
Yum ...tasty!
Sit on my face and tell me that you love me
290. jexster - 11/6/2003 5:04:49 PM
"Where's the lie?" RD asks.
Government To Call More Troops One Week After Bush Says They're Not Needed
President Bush indicated just last week that additional U.S. troops would not be needed in Iraq, saying, "General Abizaid makes the decision as to whether or not he needs more troops... And he told me he does [have enough troops]."1 But Thursday, the Pentagon announced plans to temporarily increase troop levels by as many as 50,000 in Iraq before reducing total troop size in Iraq to 105,000 by next spring.2
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld echoed the President's assertion on Sunday, saying that troop levels have "come down from 150,000 to 130,000, and I suspect it will continue going down."3 Today's announcement included the news that 20,000 Marines will help fill the gap of departing Army troops, a step not taken since the Vietnam War.4 Senator John McCain said of the current administration strategy, "There does not appear to be a strategy behind our current force levels in Iraq other than to preserve the illusion that we have sufficient force levels in place to meet our objectives."5
The announcement came as the Iraqi Governing Council formally rejected the possibility that Turkey might deploy 10,000 Turkish troops in Iraq, which the Bush administration had hoped could bring relief to U.S. troops.6
In addition to the latest news on troop movements, the Pentagon has been moving in the past several weeks to fill the 16 percent of vacancies on local draft boards. The government last sought to fill all draft board positions in 1981 at a critical moment in the Cold War, shortly after Ronald Reagan took office.7 Secretary Rumsfeld dismissed the idea of reinstating the draft earlier this year, saying, "We're not going to reimplement a draft. There is no need for it at all."8
The draft has not been used since 1973, as the Vietnam War was winding down.
291. jexster - 11/6/2003 5:04:59 PM
Luke 11
9So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 10For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
11"Which of you fathers, if your son asks for[1] a fish, will give him a snake instead?
I don't bite RD..
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
292. jexster - 11/6/2003 5:19:59 PM
As Bodybags Come Home, AWOL Bush, AWOL Again
293. robertjayb - 11/6/2003 5:20:53 PM
Jessica Lynch may or may not have been raped but for sure she was Roved...
PALESTINE, W.Va. (AP) - Former prisoner of war Jessica Lynch said the U.S. military was wrong to manipulate the story of her dramatic rescue and should not have filmed it in the first place.
The 20-year-old private told ABC's Diane Sawyer in a ``Primetime'' interview to air Tuesday that she was bothered by the military's portrayal of her ordeal.
``They used me as a way to symbolize all this stuff,'' she said in an excerpt from the interview, posted Friday on the network's Web site.
``It hurt in a way that people would make up stories that they had no truth about,'' she said.
294. jexster - 11/6/2003 5:25:50 PM
Don't mention the dead
When the body of US soldier Artimus Brassfield was flown to the military mortuary at Dover, Delaware, there were no TV pictures of a flag-covered coffin and hero's salute - the White House has banned media coverage at the base. But can Bush's efforts to hide the body bags quell growing public disquiet over the death toll in Iraq?
Outta here....Now y'all have fun talkin about the lies, incompetence, and mojo of GWB.
Just keep your hands off of Gavin.
295. jexster - 11/6/2003 5:26:29 PM
"lies, incompetence, mojo and cowardice"
296. judithathome - 11/6/2003 5:58:46 PM
Bush White House To Limit Queries From Democrats
The Bush White House, irritated by pesky questions from congressional Democrats about how the administration is using taxpayer money, has developed an efficient solution: It will not entertain any more questions from opposition lawmakers.
The decision -- one that Democrats and scholars said is highly unusual -- was announced in an e-mail sent Wednesday to the staff of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. House committee Democrats had just asked for information about how much the White House spent making and installing the "Mission Accomplished" banner for President Bush's May 1 speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.
The director of the White House Office of Administration, Timothy A. Campen, sent an e-mail titled "congressional questions" to majority and minority staff on the House and Senate Appropriations panels. Expressing "the need to add a bit of structure to the Q&A process," he wrote: "Given the increase in the number and types of requests we are beginning to receive from the House and Senate, and in deference to the various committee chairmen and our desire to better coordinate these requests, I am asking that all requests for information and materials be coordinated through the committee chairmen and be put in writing from the committee."
I wonder if some horrible event is going happen a year from now that will call for Red Alert and the postponing of the national election? Wouldn't surprise me in the least...they are already acting like they aren't going to count Democratic votes, anyhow...after all, they KNOW they are going to win so why bother?
297. robertjayb - 11/6/2003 6:10:49 PM
Have some sympathy, judith. You fail to appreciate the difficulty in keeping all the lies straight. Of course they "need a bit of structure."
298. Edmund Dantes - 11/6/2003 6:35:17 PM
McAuliffe's ass in wringer
Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe is under fire for failing to gain momentum going into the 2004 elections after devastating gubernatorial losses to Republicans in the elections held in 2003.
After electing Republican governors in Mississippi, Kentucky, and California this year, Democrat lawmakers as well as the party faithful believe McAuliffe, who was appointed to his position by former President Bill Clinton, is to blame for not investing enough time in southern states. They say he has not recruited new African-American voters and made a mistake by choosing Boston as the site of the Democrat Party Convention in 2004, according to a report by The Hill.
299. arkymalarky - 11/6/2003 6:41:54 PM
I agree. I think the man should've been gone already, and have since 2002.
300. rdbrewer - 11/6/2003 9:09:54 PM
Re: 11790
"General Abizaid makes the decision as to whether or not he needs more troops... And he told me he does [have enough troops]."1 But Thursday, the Pentagon announced plans to temporarily increase troop levels by as many as 50,000 in Iraq before reducing total troop size in Iraq to 105,000 by next spring.2
Again, where's the lie? Bush said Abazaid makes the decision. Bush did not say, "We will not send more troops." See the difference?
301. rdbrewer - 11/6/2003 9:23:48 PM
Re: 11791
I don't bite RD..
I know, Jexter. I could tell by the way you cut and ran yesterday on the Bush liar issue.
Re: 11793
It was my understanding at the time that there were rumors about Lynch's performance in battle and that the Pentagon did not dispell them. They didn't actually create the rumors. I'll try to find the quote.
302. rdbrewer - 11/6/2003 9:26:58 PM
Re: 11798
Dantes, I quoted Andrew Sullivan yesterday where he said that Broder and TNR were especially critical of McAuliffe. If Broder is getting on the bandwagon, I would imagine he's gone soon.
303. judithathome - 11/6/2003 10:04:57 PM
From Robert's link:
Footage of the rescue was aired repeatedly on television networks reporting how a special forces team bravely fought into and out of the hospital.
``I don't think it happened quite like that,'' Lynch said.
I recall Rumsfeld crowing about her bravery, too, and about the rescue, how the troops risked their lives to save her. It's true, in that they are risking their lives just being in that country every day, but the adminstration definitly played it up mightily at the time it happened.
And since she was abducted and not there afterward and there were no survivors from her group to say otherwise, where did the story come from about her shooting til her last bullet? Did those just spin up out of thin air?
304. rdbrewer - 11/7/2003 4:32:06 AM
Filibusterbuster in the Senate:
WASHINGTON — Weary of Senate Democrats' continued efforts to block President Bush's judicial nominees, Republicans have planned a 30-hour, all-night session Wednesday to force a marathon debate about Democratic stalling tactics that have left several nominations in limbo.
. . .
"One of the reasons you do it at night is you may have a situation where someone doesn’t drink enough coffee and you have the opportunity to put a vote and if we have that opportunity, we're going to take it," Santorum said.
I especially like this part:
Republican leaders have told the minority that they will not be permitted any time to speak during the session.
Anyway, a filibuster of an Article III judge is easily unconstitutional, because the Constitution does not require a super-majority. I think Bush should issue an executive order directing the Senate to vote up or down on these nominees w/o a super-majority requirement. Time for a little Constitutional reckoning.
305. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/7/2003 12:53:50 PM
306. jexster - 11/8/2003 7:32:12 AM
Newsweek poll just out...
Bush Re-defeat Numbers
Yes 44%
No - 50%
307. jexster - 11/8/2003 11:17:23 AM
Private Jessica says President is misusing her 'heroism'
If She'd Been Killed, He Would Have Ignored Her Not Lied About Her
When Private Jessica Lynch was rescued from an Iraqi hospital last April, George Bush's administration and much of the US media was gripped by a dramatic tale of blonde, all-American heroism.
308. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/8/2003 6:13:32 PM
309. judithathome - 11/8/2003 6:19:22 PM
Wiz, I'm not too crazy about that Uncle Arnold poster...it's over the top, maybe not for Arnold but for most women.
310. jexster - 11/8/2003 6:59:50 PM
Block and Tackle - Election Day GOTV With the Best Field Operation in American Politics...
Last Tuesday, election day, a friend and I walked outside our district satellite GOTV headquarters for a smoke when suddenly, I exclaimed, "I love this shit! I really fucking love it."
Retail politics. I love it. For most of my life, I have done it and from my first Election Day, all day, at get this - Nixon Headquarters(!) 1960, through this one, for forty three years now, I have loved it.
I have worked in GOTV field operations at the DNC, in suburban Washington, in Houston, in New Orleans, in California and without fear of contradiction, this is as good as retail politics gets. Gavin Newsom's mayoral campaign has a field operation without peer in the US today.
How is retail politics done when it is done right? What is it like? What does it look like?
Thoughts and observations follow...
311. robertjayb - 11/8/2003 7:47:46 PM
Yes, jexter. It is grand fun when you are winning and you know it. But when you are losing and you know it...it sucks, big-time.
312. robertjayb - 11/8/2003 7:51:43 PM
Gephardt leads Iowa poll...(Des Moines Register)
U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt has overtaken former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean as the Democratic presidential front-runner in a new Des Moines Register poll of Iowans likely to take part in the Jan. 19 caucuses.
However, Gephardt's 7-percentage-point lead over Dean in the Iowa Poll appears a little wobbly. More of Dean's supporters say their minds are made up and they are certain of their participation in the Democratic caucuses, which launch the presidential nominating season for the nation.
The Iowa Poll, taken last week, shows Gephardt is the first choice of 27 percent of Iowans who say they definitely or probably will attend the precinct caucuses. Dean is the favorite of 20 percent. That's a gain of 6 percentage points for Gephardt and a 3-point drop for Dean since late July, when the last Iowa Poll on the race was taken.
313. jexster - 11/8/2003 7:54:21 PM
Working backwards, this is what retail politics done right looks like today...
But when the polls opened last Tuesday, it looked like a computer printout, one for each Supervisorial district in the City. Together, these GOTV field sheets contained with more than 60,000 names of voters identified as "active supporters" over the past year. These voters were not, for the most part, the usual phone bank work product, contacts who said that they would vote for Newsom. The GOTV targets were registered voters who, in addition, had affirmatively expressed their support in at least one campaign event - house party, endorsement card, contribution, attending a rally etc. On Election Day, 550 Precinct captains and 1200 Election Day volunteers focused on that list.
314. jexster - 11/8/2003 7:54:34 PM
I was a captain in two precincts with about 140 targets between them on Election Day. One was "my" precinct, one of two that I had canvassed since August, the other right next door.
About an hour after the polls opened, our District 8 team hit the streets for our first poll check, actually a cross check of the polling place address list against our GOTV work sheets to indentify which targets had voted either during the first hour or absentee. Then we walked. Up hill, down hill, all day long, I walked, knocking on doors, leaving messages on phones, leaving door hanger reminders to the "NC's", noting each attempt and result, returning for poll checks about every 2-3 hours. Tallies of the unvoted remainder were reported to headquarters at roughly the same intervals. Underperforming precincts were given to volunteers in phone banks. Those voting late returned from work to find as many as 5 voice messages.
I had already spent on average about 6-10 hours a week canvassing precincts during the run up to Election Day, that was training, this was the marathon. By mid-afternoon, I was exhausted but stoked. Second wind came. Second wind vanished. Third wind at 6. I fuckin love it.
As I walked into the Election Day gathering later that night, I ran into the current mayor Willie Brown. "Mister Mayor, I was a precinct captain in 1999. I worked GOTV twice and am glad I did"
"Well it looks like you did a damn fine job of it too!" Da Mayor quipped.
From his entourage of yes men "And he walked again today!"
Another "Hell he never stopped walking!"
I love this shit.
315. jexster - 11/8/2003 7:56:39 PM
Naah..fun until you lose...before that, hope springs eternal
316. jexster - 11/8/2003 7:58:37 PM
4,388 votes Robert...
The margin Edwin Edwards beat my man Johnston, governor's race 1972...
I know sucks and I know it big time
317. jexster - 11/8/2003 8:02:13 PM
I should add that San Francisco geography makes this work.
7 x 7 miles, the second most densely populated City in the US...
Don't try this in a large lot zoned Sprawlville USA...
I can hit 20, 30, 50 times more voters per block
318. Edmund Dantes - 11/9/2003 2:02:41 AM
Senator Katherine Harris?
Since Graham's surprise Monday, Harris said, she has been swamped by telephone calls from friends: "It's been a little overwhelming. We're getting phone calls from all over the state, ringing off the hook. Everyone is telling me that I'm the only moderate, electable candidate," she said.
319. wonkers2 - 11/9/2003 2:29:37 AM
Bush has broken all records in getting his judicial nominees approved by the Senate. The Democrats have gone along with all but his most ideologically extreme and unqualified candidates. Clinton fared much worse in getting his mostly middle-of-the-road, highly qualified nominees approved.
320. wonkers2 - 11/9/2003 3:10:53 AM
Although the publicity has focused on the contested Bush court nominees, the fact is that 165 Bush nominees to federal courts have been approved by the senate; three are being filibustered in the Senate; and one, Estrada, withdrew in the face of opposition. The case of Janice Brown, the extreme right-wing black nominee, makes Bush's strategy clear--use the nomination of an extremist, right wing, preferably minority candidate who the Democrats are sure to oppose, to distract attention from slightly less extreme nominees. Thus, the Democrats get credit with their constituents for opposing ridiculously extreme candidates and Bush gets most of his conservative nominees approved. The Washington charade goes on.
321. arkymalarky - 11/9/2003 5:12:27 AM
That tactic is being used in everything. The level of manipulation that's developed among a very few powerful people in the years since Clinton was targeted is scary.
322. concerned - 11/9/2003 5:19:55 AM
Re. 11819 -
Actually, it's the Democrats who insist on injecting politics where they don't belong, into Federal judicial nominations, Robert Bork being a classic case in point. When Democrat nominees have been turned down, it has almost invariably been due to limited or nonexistent qualifications, not ideology.
It's strange that such a high proportion of GWB's nominees that have not even been allowed to come to a Senate vote by cowardly and unprecedented filibuster are not ideologically extreme at all, and are just as likely to be members of minority groups.
323. concerned - 11/9/2003 5:21:54 AM
I guess it's desperately important for the Left to try to keep minorities on their ideological plantation.
324. concerned - 11/9/2003 5:38:17 AM
Using ideology and litmus tests to determine support for Federal judicial appointments is totally inappropriate.
325. wonkers2 - 11/9/2003 5:43:12 AM
Nearly all of Bush's nominees have been confirmed. A much higher percentage than Clinton's.
326. wonkers2 - 11/9/2003 5:44:04 AM
If not ideology, what do you suggest? Eye color or breast size?
327. rdbrewer - 11/9/2003 6:07:57 AM
Re: 11820
The case of Janice Brown, the extreme right-wing black nominee . . . .
Just because the nihilists make this claim does not mean that it is true. (But I can see where other congenital subjectivists would believe it.) In fact, in most cases, that is the entirety of Shumer's and Leahy's bullshit strategy: Declare that they are extreme, and, magically, they are.
328. rdbrewer - 11/9/2003 6:17:35 AM
Traditionally, the Senate has confirmed presidential nominees except for reasons of moral turpitude. The problem now is that dirty socialists in the judicial committee are perfectly aware that the whole bullshit ediface of socialism built over the last 60 years in this country was built with fantastically creative judicial activism (the Rule of Man), and these dirtbag socialists will fight like dogs to keep it in place. They see their end.
329. wonkers2 - 11/9/2003 6:23:03 AM
Just try looking up Janice Brown and read a few of her speeches. She is quite extreme.
Sample: "Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our destiny atrophies. The result is families under siege, war in the streets, unapologetic expropriation of property, the precipitous decline of the rule of law, the rapid rise of corruption, the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit." Just a middle of the road California Supreme Court justice!
She's a worse lawn jockey than Clarence Thomas according to the NAACP.
330. wonkers2 - 11/9/2003 6:25:47 AM
Karl Rove offers a reward to anybody who comes up with a rabidly conservative minority candidate like Brown or Estrada whom he can nominate in order to bait the Democrats and inflame the evangelicals and rednecks.
331. concerned - 11/9/2003 6:29:11 AM
re. 11829 -
When one considers the destruction of the black family structure by Left Wing policies, Janice Brown's statements don't appear out of place.
332. rdbrewer - 11/9/2003 6:34:32 AM
Your buying into their effort to redefine "middle of the road." The the growth of socialism in this country is what is extreme, and it all started with FDR. If Brown or I want to tear down this ugly bulwark, we are not extreme, we are dealing with extremism.
Brown's comments are not in the least extreme. Time to hit the history and con-law books.
333. arkymalarky - 11/9/2003 6:35:55 AM
Robert Bork, the man who thought it was just peachy to help Nixon block a Justice Department investigation of Watergate, was rightly prevented from being on the Supreme Court. Libertarian-leaning Republicans need to thank Democrats who are doing what they can't get people of their view elected to do. The assault on civil liberties of this administration is one that desperately needs what minimal restraint it's getting from a few Senators.
What kills me about all this--over and over--is that Republicans are such whiners when the Democrats use tactics perfectly legitimate for a minority party that they never batted an eye about using themselves. What a bunch of pathetic whiny babies. They have 99.9% control in a purportedly Democratic society and kick and screem about the .1% they don't have.
334. arkymalarky - 11/9/2003 6:37:36 AM
scream
335. concerned - 11/9/2003 6:47:04 AM
Uh, arky...Republicans have never filibustered a Democrat Federal judicial appointee. So much for your assertion re Democrats using the accepted tactics Republicans have.
336. concerned - 11/9/2003 7:01:47 AM
I believe Senators that withhold support for women for Federal judicial positions primarily because of suspicions of their stands on abortion or other issues promoted by the Left demean both the women and the process. The same goes for the LW opposing minority judicial candidates such as blacks and and Hispanics who don't feel inclined to kowtow to fashionable LW idiotology.
337. concerned - 11/9/2003 9:49:25 AM
Here's a more accurate picture of the rate at which Federal judges are being confirmed vs. that of the first two years of previous administrations:
It can be seen that the confirmation rate is lagging particularly dramatically in the case of appeals courts.
338. concerned - 11/9/2003 9:56:55 AM
So, when Wonkers posted:
Bush has broken all records in getting his judicial nominees approved by the Senate.
..he must have meant that the judicial nominee approval rates were at record lows, thanks to Democrat opposition.
339. concerned - 11/9/2003 10:00:21 AM
Re. 11825 -
Not true. See chart above.
340. thoughtful - 11/9/2003 2:57:40 PM
No need to worry...unless you are addicted to breathing.
EPA dropping 50 Clean Air cases
A change in enforcement policy will lead the Environmental Protection Agency to drop investigations into 50 power plants for past violations of the Clean Air Act, lawyers at the agency who were briefed on the decision this week said....
The lawyers said the new rules include exemptions that would make it almost impossible to sustain the investigations into the plants, which are scattered around the country and owned by 10 utilities....
The lawyers said the change grew out of a recommendation by Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force.... "
341. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/9/2003 4:22:28 PM
Democratic Attorneys General to the Rescue, thoughtful!
342. wonkers2 - 11/9/2003 4:57:28 PM
Social security, medicare, unemployment and workers compensation, free collective bargaining, environnmental, securities and drug regulation are hardly socialism. Anybody who says so is the extremist.
343. wonkers2 - 11/9/2003 5:04:46 PM
Concerned, thanks for the chart. You may be correct, but I read something last week that said that Bush's and Clinton's experience was comparable or Bush's confirmation rate was higher. Perhaps it was because it included 2003 data (more time when the GOP had the majority in the Senate). If, in fact, Bush is lagging Clinton, its because of the high number of extremist nominations like Pickering, Owens, Estrada, Brown.
344. thoughtful - 11/9/2003 5:04:57 PM
I wonder if Ralph Nader realizes that by running for pres he did more damage to the environment than if he didn't run...
345. thoughtful - 11/9/2003 5:17:37 PM
wonkers, con'd's chart includes only the first 2 years. Much of the hold up of clinton nominees occurred after that, especially during his 2nd term. Details available here. It includes:
The president noted that there were nearly a hundred vacancies on federal courts, but that the Senate had confirmed only seventeen judges in all of 1996—the lowest election-year confirmation rate in forty years.
and
In his 1997 year-end report to Congress on the federal judiciary, the Chief Justice pointed out that by the end of 1997, one in ten seats on the federal judiciary were vacant, twenty-six of them had been vacant for at least eighteen months, and a third of the seats on the Ninth Circuit were vacant. He rebuked his fellow conservatives for “serious delays in the appointment process,” a tactic that he said was threatening the nation’s “quality of justice.”
and
"As the 106th Congress prepared to adjourn in November 1999, the Senate had confirmed only twenty-five of Clinton’s seventy judicial nominations made that year. "
346. wonkers2 - 11/9/2003 5:24:14 PM
It is as I suspected--168 out of 172 Bush court nominees have been approved by the Senate. The federal court vacancy rate is the lowest in 13 years due to a recent surge of Senate approvals. Concerned's data are out of date. Bush's confirmation rate now far exceeds Clinton's. the Dems have succeeded in blocking only the most off-the-reservation conservative Bush's nominees.
347. robertjayb - 11/9/2003 5:47:36 PM
Kerry replaces campaign manager...
WASHINGTON Nov. 10 — (AP)-- Democratic candidate John Kerry fired his campaign manager Sunday night in an attempt shake up his beleaguered presidential bid, The Associated Press learned.
Two senior campaign officials speaking on condition of anonymity said Monday that Jim Jordan was ousted by the Massachusetts senator and his campaign chair, Jeanne Shaheen, the former governor of New Hampshire.
Jordan will be replaced by longtime Democratic operative Mary Beth Cahill.
Cahill has worked for Emily's List, a lobbying group on behalf of women's political issues and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts.
348. Edmund Dantes - 11/9/2003 9:29:03 PM
No Cronyism in Iraq
There has been a series of allegations and innuendos recently to the effect that government contracts for work in Iraq and Afghanistan are being awarded in an atmosphere redolent with the "stench of political favoritism and cronyism," to use the description in a report put out by the Center for Public Integrity on campaign contributions by companies doing work in those two countries.
One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded -- whether a career civil servant working on procurement or an independent academic expert -- who doesn't regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd.
The premise of the accusations is completely contrary to the way government contracting works, both in theory and in practice. Most contract award decisions are made by career civil servants, with no involvement by political appointees or elected officials. In some agencies, the "source selection official" (final decision-maker) on large contracts may be a political appointee, but such decisions are preceded by such a torrent of evaluation and other backup material prepared by career civil servants that it would be difficult to change a decision from the one indicated by the career employees' evaluation.
349. Edmund Dantes - 11/9/2003 9:29:57 PM
Having served as a senior procurement policymaker in the Clinton administration, I found these charges (for which no direct evidence has been provided) implausible. To assure myself I wasn't being naive, I asked two colleagues, each with 25 years-plus experience as career civil servants in contracting (and both now out of government), whether they ever ran into situations where a political appointee tried to get work awarded to a political supporter or crony. "Never did any senior official put pressure on me to give a contract to a particular firm," answered one. The other said: "This did happen to me once in the early '70s. The net effect, as could be expected, was that this 'friend' lost any chance of winning fair and square. In other words, the system recoiled and prevented this firm from even being considered." Certainly government sometimes makes poor contracting decisions, but they're generally because of sloppiness or other human failings, not political interference.
Many people are also under the impression that contractors take the government to the cleaners. In fact, government keeps a watchful eye on contractor profits -- and government work has low profit margins compared with the commercial work the same companies perform. Look at the annual reports of information technology companies with extensive government and nongovernment business, such as EDS Corp. or Computer Sciences Corp. You will see that margins for their government customers are regularly below those for commercial ones. As for the much-maligned Halliburton, a few days ago the company disclosed, as part of its third-quarter earnings report, operating income from its Iraq contracts of $34 million on revenue of $900 million -- a return on sales of 3.7 percent, hardly the stuff of plunder.
350. PelleNilsson - 11/9/2003 9:59:33 PM
Yes, but being somewhat of a procurement expert myself I think one ought to be a bit worried. From what I understand of what Haliburton (and others) are doing it must be paid for on a cost-plus basis because it is not possible to determine the volume of work in advance. That's probably OK as long as they work for the army. They are sure to have well established auditing procedures. But what about work for the civil administration? What resources do they have? Do they have competent quantity surveyors and supervisors at every site work is being done? I doubt it. 3.7% profit is not high but if part of the revenue represents work charged for but never done the picture changes.
351. robertjayb - 11/9/2003 10:32:46 PM
Little negativity in Louisiana governor's race: "They're not talking about anybody's momma."
Jexster,
What do your coonass connections say about the Blanco-Jindal contest? Is it true that John Breaux is backing Jindal?
352. thoughtful - 11/9/2003 11:27:37 PM
pelle, it's not clear from your response that you realize the material edd posted is a quote from the article, not his own comments. And the $34 million in Q3 revenue does not quite square with the value of the contract as suggested here as over $1.7 billion with a "b". And that excludes the Army Corp of Engineers contract which was capped at $7 billion with a "b".
353. Edmund Dantes - 11/10/2003 3:25:00 AM
Would that the condescending thought-free ever have a clue as to what she is talking about before "explaining" to others.
And the $34 million in Q3 revenue does not quite square with the value of the contract...
You can't read and you can't understand numbers. You demonstrate this over and over again yet claim to be some kind of authority on economics.
As for the much-maligned Halliburton, a few days ago the company disclosed, as part of its third-quarter earnings report, operating income from its Iraq contracts of $34 million on revenue of $900 million -- a return on sales of 3.7 percent, hardly the stuff of plunder.
$34 million of "operating income" on "revenue of $900 million." Do you understand the difference? Are you intentionally lying when you (repeatedly) do this or are you just that stupid?
Drunk perhaps?
Further, the "value of a contract" is different from both the revenue and income brought in for a single quarter. For example, you (I hope) understand that when a baseball player signs a $50 million contract, that doesn't mean he'll be paid $50 million in just three months.
Finally, the source quoted "served from 1993 to 1997 [in the Clinton administration] as administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy."
I think he knows a bit more what he is talking about than a wanker who can't even figure out the difference between revenue and operating income.
354. Edmund Dantes - 11/10/2003 3:29:07 AM
I trust Pelle and everyone other than the previous poster realized that linked text set in a different face and including the words "Having served as a senior procurement policymaker in the Clinton administration..." did not originate with me.
355. Al D - 11/10/2003 8:21:25 AM
Edmond
You are not welcome on the Mote in as much you continue to make fools...well you don't really do the making, just the pointing out, and Moties of a certain flavor find it obnoxious. But being stupid does not make one a bad person.
356. Macnas - 11/10/2003 9:52:50 AM
Pelle has struck the mark with regard to true costs in these situations.
When contractors use what amounts to basic invoicing against time and materials, over long time periods especially, it almost always leads to huge overspend and unforeseen extras.
This is where huge profit is to be made, when work is unspecified and denial of payment impossible. It's also the reason why this payment method is not used by any management organisation worth its salt.
357. PelleNilsson - 11/10/2003 10:20:18 AM
Reply in the Slow Thread.
358. thoughtful - 11/10/2003 2:06:28 PM
Yes, Edd, I made a mistake...i should have said income instead of revenue.
Not drunk or stupid, but doing too many things at once. But of course someone as human and forgiving as you would certainly understand that.
359. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/10/2003 4:27:04 PM
Anal-Retento only gives a pass to Bechtel Boy and his cronies, thoughtful—with everyone else his ass still whistles with ideological flatulence.
360. thoughtful - 11/10/2003 5:33:01 PM
Edd, "linked text set in a different face..."
Not on my screen.
361. jexster - 11/10/2003 7:40:16 PM
What's the deal with this? I've heard hints of this from my Taiwan sources over the last 24 hours and now it's all over the Taiwan press. This from the English-language Taipei Times ...
President Chen Shui-bian yesterday defended himself against accusations by People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong that he paid US$1 million to meet with a family member of US President George W. Bush during his visit to the US earlier this month.
362. jexster - 11/10/2003 7:44:35 PM
Yesterday's absurd conspiracy theory about the Bush administration has a way of turning into today's conventional wisdom. Remember when people were ridiculed for claiming that Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, eager to fight a war, were hyping the threat from Iraq?
Anyway, many analysts now acknowledge that the administration never had any intention of pursuing a conventionally responsible fiscal policy. Rather, its tax cuts were always intended as a way of implementing the radical strategy known as "starve the beast," which views budget deficits as a good thing, a way to squeeze government spending. Did I mention that the administration is planning another long-run tax cut next year?
The Professor: Support the Troops
A government of, by and for the economic elite isn’t overcoming its lack of empathy with the men and women who make up our armed forces.
363. jexster - 11/10/2003 7:46:50 PM
General Wesley Clark announced his policy to fulfill our nation's debt to veterans on Monday after touring a VA Hospital in Tucson, Arizona. Clark's Veterans Security Plan would give our veterans and our servicemen and women the respect and resources they deserve.
364. jexster - 11/10/2003 10:04:54 PM
Last night, I attended the monthly meeting of the Alice B. Toklas Demo Club, the oldest gay political organization in San Francisco
After our mayoral endorsement vote, we heard an hour long presentation by David Binder, the guru of SF polling and public opinion, analyzing last Tuesdsy's election results - Power Point dog and pony of graphs and ArcView precinct map analysis etc.
David's schtick includes a gotcha Q&A where he shows a slide with blanks and asks his audience to guess what fills the blank in.
First up - a line graph with two sharp rises followed by a long steady slide...
There were no labels
"What do you this is a graph of"
Hands went up..."Historical Turnout in Mayor's Race"
"Nope"
Me: "Bush job approval"
"Corretamundo!"
"Notice the two sharp rises..9/11 and March 03...he had better start up another war"
Happy Veteran's Day - Remember Those Who Died So That Bush Could Wag His Dick
365. jexster - 11/10/2003 10:05:16 PM
Died for a lie...
366. robertjayb - 11/10/2003 10:31:18 PM
jexster,
Message # 11851, please.
367. judithathome - 11/10/2003 11:08:34 PM
Drunk perhaps?
Funny how often people use this as an insult and to belittle others' mental capabilities...I've done it myself to Al...and yet, someone like Bush can make the most outrageous statements and no one ever accuses him of being sloshed.
368. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/11/2003 12:14:01 AM
369. arkymalarky - 11/11/2003 12:45:55 AM
That Thoughtful never responds in kind but always directly on point is one of the things that makes her fit her moniker quite well.
370. jexster - 11/11/2003 12:51:28 AM
What about me!
371. jexster - 11/11/2003 12:53:19 AM
In a signed letter to the President, 750 U.S. war veterans declared their belief today that U.S. Iraq policy is headed in the wrong direction. "At present, U.S. soldiers are falling under attack an average of 35 times each day. To date, 394 U.S. soldiers have been killed in the war. Their lives are being lost for a policy that is unclear and an exit strategy that remains unknown."
372. arkymalarky - 11/11/2003 12:54:29 AM
Why of course your moniker fits you, Jexster!! ;-)
373. jexster - 11/11/2003 1:22:38 AM
Now back to the news...
CNN reports that Elian Gonzalez is doing quite well, thank you, flourishing in fact, three years after being taken from his kidnapers and reunited with his dad
God Bless Family Values
God Bless Janet Reno
God Bless Our Flim-Flam Man in Chief, the Lying Incompetent GWB
374. rdbrewer - 11/11/2003 1:28:10 AM
Died for a lie...
What lie?
375. wonkers2 - 11/11/2003 1:50:07 AM
You can tell when Bush is lying--his lips are moving. He has lied about nearly everything. The most recent is his phony Ramadan outreaches to Arab-Americans while the "Justice" Department is trampling their civil liberties.
I assume the lie Jexter was referring to was the reason(s) Bush offered for attacking Iraq. I guess the biggest one was duping the public into believing there was a connection between 9-11 and Sadaam Hussein. Of course we don't know for sure whether he was merely repeating lies and misinformation told to him by the Pentagon and CIA or was knowingly lieing. In either case the Bush administration perpetrated a gigantic lie on the American public.
376. Edmund Dantes - 11/11/2003 3:53:22 AM
Andy Sullivan demolishes the Little General (ret.)
Let's put this kindly: This is Ross Perot-crazy. First off, there obviously was a primary and clear attempt to destroy al Qaeda and its base of operations in Afghanistan. The war against Saddam was not an alternative to going after Al Qaeda. It was a supplement. You can argue whether it is or was necessary; you can argue about how deeply it is or was connected to the war on terror in terms of tactics, philosophy, and strategy. But the notion that the Bush administration decided to go after Saddam instead of Al Qaeda is just contrary to what we know happened.
Not a very nice thing to do to an old soldier on Veterans' Day.
377. jexster - 11/11/2003 7:39:18 AM
God damn Eddie's spamin!
Speaking of crap on the Vets...
Lying Incompetents: Bush's Stated Commitment to Veterans Not Reflected in Budget
President Bush often emphasizes his commitment to veterans, saying in 2001, "My administration understands America's obligations not only go to those who wear the uniform today, but to those who wore the uniform in the past: to our veterans."1
But the 200,000 veterans waiting six months or more for their first appointment at a VA facility would be denied access to VA health care under Bush's plan. Others would be charged $250 annual enrollment fees, doubled prescription costs and increased co-payments.2
The same day the President met with wounded soldiers and said that America "should and must provide the best care for anybody who is willing to put their life in harm's way,"3 the Veterans' Administration explained that it could solve the backlog problem by limiting enrollment. "VA would avoid very significant additional medical benefits costs and begin to bring demand in line with capacity, which will reduce the number of veterans on wait lists."4
The administration would also reduce costs by denying access to "better-off"5 veterans - those who do not have service-related disabilities and with incomes as low as $21,050.6
378. jexster - 11/11/2003 7:39:34 AM
Estimates suggest this would likely more than triple the number of veterans denied health care by FY 2005 to more than half a million7, and the VA anticipates that 55%8 of veterans who already participate in the VA health care plan, numbering 1.25 million, may be unable to continue participation due to the enrollment fee.9
Congress has called for $1.8 billion beyond what the administration requested for FY 2004 funding beyond the White House request.10
While funding for VA 2004 remains unresolved, Congress sought to include $1.3 billion in veterans' health care and extending reservists benefits who have been called up in the $87 billion emergency funding bill. The administration "strongly opposed" the provisions, articulated in a letter from White House Budget Director Joshua Bolten, which were later stripped.11
379. jexster - 11/11/2003 7:39:59 AM
Sources:
Presidential Speech to the VFW, 8/20/01; Presidential Speech to the American Legion, 8/29/01.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/va.html
President Bush Meets with Wounded Soldiers at Medical Center, 1/17/03.
Department of Veterans Affairs, 38 CFR Part 17 Enrollment-Provision of Hospital and Outpatient Care to Veterans Subpriorities of Priority Categories 7 and 8 and Annual Enrollment Level Decision; Final Rule, 1/17/03.
VA Seeks Record Budget, Shuts Health Care to Priority 8 Vets, American Forces Press Service, 1/24/03.
http://www.house.gov/strickland/vetsreport.htm
Department of Veterans Affairs, 38 CFR Part 17 Enrollment-Provision of Hospital and Outpatient Care to Veterans Subpriorities of Priority Categories 7 and 8 and Annual Enrollment Level Decision; Final Rule, 1/17/03.
http://www.house.gov/larson/pr_030523.htm
Etheridge: Budget Cuts Veterans, Rocky Mount Telegram, 4/1/03.
Action Alert, American Legion.
"House vote backs loans as Iraq bill confronts new woes," GovExec.com, 10/22/03.
380. jexster - 11/11/2003 7:44:45 AM
Bush Betrays US Soldiers Who Were Tortured by Saddam
At the very same time as the Busheviks are broadcasting Saddam torture videos to build support for their catastrophic occupation, they are BETRAYING American soldiers who were among Saddam's torture victims. According to the New York Times "The Bush administration is seeking to block a group of American troops who were tortured in Iraqi prisons during the Persian Gulf war in 1991 from collecting any of the hundreds of millions of dollars in frozen Iraqi assets they won last summer in a federal court ruling against the government of Saddam Hussein." "I've always tried to keep in the back of my mind that we were never going to see any of the money," said Colonel Storr, who was held by the Iraqis for 33 days - a period in which he says
his captors beat him with clubs, broke his nose, urinated on him and threatened to cut off his fingers if he did not disclose military secrets. "But it goes beyond frustration when I see our government trying to pretend that this whole case never happened."
Fool us once fuck Bush, fool us twice fuck Eddie
381. jexster - 11/11/2003 8:13:57 AM
It was announced today that if MoveOn.org reaches its fundraising goal of $10 Million George Soros will contribute $5 Million...
382. thoughtful - 11/11/2003 2:31:24 PM
Thank you, arky. What a nice thing to say.
383. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/11/2003 5:30:40 PM
Moreover it's true . . . and you deserve better.
384. judithathome - 11/11/2003 5:51:52 PM
What lie?
Pick one.
385. jexster - 11/11/2003 6:00:04 PM
The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the 21st Century
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman tells how he found his voice, why Bush makes him miss Nixon, and why he insults Fox News whenever he can.
386. thoughtful - 11/11/2003 6:11:22 PM
thanks wiz...{{{SMOOCH}}}
387. thoughtful - 11/11/2003 6:22:36 PM
Interesting letter to the editor in the NY times:
To the Editor:
"Bush Asks Lands in Mideast to Try Democratic Ways" (front page, Nov. 7) reports that in President Bush's speech on Thursday, he "sought to position the American experiment in remaking Iraq alongside the United States' efforts to spread democracy in Asia after World War II." I don't know of any such efforts.
We either supported the defeated colonial powers (Britain, France and the Netherlands) or indigenous militarists and dictators like Chiang Kai-shek, Syngman Rhee, Ngo Dinh Diem, General Suharto and Ferdinand E. Marcos.
In Japan, we created a pro-American single-party regime not so different from the Soviet satellites, and it is still in power. In the few places where genuine popular democracy did develop — the Philippines, South Korea and Taiwan — it was invariably directed from below against American-backed tyrannies.
President Bush may know nothing of these histories, but the people on the receiving end assuredly do.
CHALMERS JOHNSON
President, Japan Policy Research Institute
Cardiff, Calif., Nov. 7, 2003
388. thoughtful - 11/11/2003 6:25:03 PM
Do you think bush's newspaper readers included a summary of that letter for him?
389. jexster - 11/11/2003 6:39:38 PM
Of course not. They tell him what he wants to hear and newspaper don't.
390. Edmund Dantes - 11/11/2003 6:41:25 PM
GOP IS BECOMING AMERICA'S DOMINANT PARTY
While an increasingly angry and alienated Democratic Party spouts gloom and doom, the picture appears bright for conservatives and the GOP. Beginning with Arnold Schwarzeneggers victory in California and following last weeks electoral successes in Kentucky and Mississippi, Republicans are consolidating their hold on state and national political offices.
With President Bushs signature of the partial-birth abortion ban, CBS's decision to drop its politicized hatchet job of Ronald Reagan --one of Americas most beloved presidents -- and the recovering economy spurred by Bushs hefty tax cuts, the American ''right'' seems to be on a roll. Meanwhile, the Democrats seem to be careening further leftward -- and backward -- toward pacifism, pessimism, irrelevance and political suicide.
These are not just short-term GOP gains. While liberal Democrats feverishly try to spin away the reality, the truth is that conservative ideals of entrepreneurship, individual responsibility, smaller government, lower taxes, strong national defense and traditional values have become increasingly mainstream during the past 20 years; the recent GOP successes simply reflect that fact.
391. Edmund Dantes - 11/11/2003 6:42:41 PM
(CONT.)
The GOP future looks good as America's youth also seems to be increasingly conservative. Despite the predominance of left-leaning academics on college campuses, surveys reveal that freshmen are far more traditional than many of their counterculture professors or liberal baby-boomer parents. A national Harvard University poll in October found that 61 percent of college students approved of Bushs job performance.
As the economy improves, Democrats will pin their hopes for success in 2004 on a Bush failure in Iraq. But hurting Bush on Iraq is not good either for Democrats or America. Most Americans -- regardless of party -- are rooting for victory in Iraq. Cynical defeatism in time of war should backfire and hurt Democrats.
Republicans are on the move across America. Democrats need to recognize and adapt to that, or they may find themselves trampled by the stampeding elephants of the GOP.
392. jexster - 11/11/2003 6:42:53 PM
Ever see Blaze....Uncle Earl called them his "yes men"
George just added God to the mix
Democrats + Independents Vs. Republicans = Trouble for Bush
Pew Research Center, The 2004 Political Landscape: Evenly Divided and Increasingly Polarized, November 5, 2003
Public Opinion Watch urges everyone to check out the just-released Pew Research Center study on "The 2004 Political Landscape". While the data have to be reviewed carefully–as Public Opinion Watch shows below–the message that shines through should be profoundly disturbing to the Bush re-election team and the GOP in general.
This is because their data show clearly that the political views of Democrats and independents are converging on one another and pulling away from the Republicans. In other words, it’s not just that Democrats and Republicans are becoming polarized against one another–the conventional wisdom–but that Democrats and independents (two-thirds of the electorate) are becoming polarized against Republicans. For Republicans who are inclined to see anomalous recall elections and victories in Mississippi as harbingers of realignment, this news couldn’t be more discouraging. And, for Democrats everywhere, it’s very good news indeed.
The Pew study shows Democrats and independents converging in their declining support for an assertive national security policy, in their increasingly negative views of their personal financial situation, in their growing worries that a prescription drug benefit for Medicare won’t go far enough and in their increasingly skeptical attitude toward business. In each case, Democrats and independents now hold views much closer to one another than to Republicans, who are off on their own trajectory.
393. jexster - 11/11/2003 6:43:14 PM
"blaise"
394. Edmund Dantes - 11/11/2003 6:55:55 PM
see anomalous recall elections and victories in Mississippi as harbingers of realignment
Hee, hee, hee.
Jest keep tellin yourself that, Jasper.
These are not just short-term GOP gains. While liberal Democrats feverishly try to spin away the reality, the truth is that conservative ideals of entrepreneurship, individual responsibility, smaller government, lower taxes, strong national defense and traditional values have become increasingly mainstream during the past 20 years; the recent GOP successes simply reflect that fact.
In 1983 -- Reagan's third year as president -- Democrats controlled Congress and 23 more state legislatures than did the Republicans. Today the GOP holds both houses of Congress and five more state legislatures than do the Democrats.
That same year, there were 18 more Democrat governors than Republicans; today (after California, Kentucky and Mississippi) there will be 29 GOP governors (five more Republicans than Democrats). Also, the U.S. House had 103 more Democrats than Republicans; today Republicans lead by 24 members.
"Anomalous"? I think not.
395. judithathome - 11/11/2003 6:56:30 PM
Republicans are on the move across America. Democrats need to recognize and adapt to that, or they may find themselves trampled by the stampeding elephants of the GOP.
Bring 'em on.
396. Edmund Dantes - 11/11/2003 6:59:34 PM
Professor Poopstain quotes "Emerging Democratic Majority."
Bwhahaha. Them fellers was saying that right before the 2002 election and got their ears pinned back real nice.
Jest keep ridding your "make me feel good" books, little feller.
Republicans will keep on winning the elections.
397. Edmund Dantes - 11/11/2003 7:02:05 PM
Bring 'em on.
Got everything under control down there in Texas, little lady?
Ready to start branching out, eh?
Seems to me you're already ass-deep in alley-gators without picking fights with the crocodiles.
398. judithathome - 11/11/2003 7:06:13 PM
the truth is that conservative ideals of entrepreneurship, individual responsibility, smaller government, lower taxes, strong national defense and traditional values
Be nice if this is what the party really stood for but unfortunately, they don't. Lower taxes for the rich; indivdual responsibility except when they foul up; increasing government interference in citizens' private lives; national defense except when that means keeping promises to the military and veterans; entrepreneurship for cronies and pals who contribute to the party....and traditional values...whose traditional values? It's not in any tradition of this country that I know of for the president to misinform the public into a war.
399. judithathome - 11/11/2003 7:07:24 PM
I've written off the people of this state...they've already proven they're a lost cause by electing this guy twice.
400. Edmund Dantes - 11/11/2003 7:08:09 PM
Will Democrats still love Dean in the morning?
Both power centers of the Democratic establishment — the Kennedy left and the Clinton middle — are frantic at the prospect of losing control of their party to Howard Dean. They fear a McGovernesque debacle that would hand the G.O.P. a super-majority in the Senate.
Safire is a dope, but there you have it.
401. thoughtful - 11/11/2003 8:04:10 PM
Hahaha, Judithah. I was going to post something similar, but you beat me to it.
I'll just add on the "smaller government" part the following:
"The administration recently released its mid-session
review of the federal budget for fiscal 2004. The new data
reveal that discretionary outlays will rise a stunning 16.9
percent in FY2003, having risen 13.1 percent in FY2002.
Defense outlays have risen rapidly, but so have nondefense
discretionary outlays, with a 12.7 percent increase in
FY2003 and a 12.2 percent increase in FY2002."
Source: those lily-livered lefties at the Cato Institute: http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0308-16.pdf , "On Spending, Bush is no Reagan"
402. thoughtful - 11/11/2003 10:07:55 PM
Or as Matthew Yglesias puts it:
"If I follow this correctly, the president's position is that government spending is bad. Therefore, it should grow at 4 percent per year. Except for entitlement spending which can grow by more than that. And also defense spending can grow by more. And so can homeland security spending. And also one time expenditures don't count against the 4 percent limit. And if we don't meet that "target" it's congress' fault."
403. jexster - 11/12/2003 12:29:12 AM
404. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/12/2003 12:38:18 AM
Jexster!!!!!
Been there; done that.
[How quickly they forget!]
405. jexster - 11/12/2003 12:45:52 AM
I KNEW I'd seen it before....
So many lies, so little time
406. jexster - 11/12/2003 1:14:05 AM
The Uniter Not a Divider Lie: Half of Americans Say Iraq War Not Worth It
"Amid increasing attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq, a growing number of Americans, including men and independent voters, say the war in Iraq was not worthwhile, according to a survey released Monday. Half of Americans, 49 percent, say the war was not worth it, compared to 48 percent who say it was, according to a survey conducted this month by the Annenberg Public Policy Center. That's a change from results in October, when 52 percent of Americans polled nationwide said the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, while 43 percent said it was not. The latest survey was conducted Nov. 1 through Nov. 9, a period when news of U.S. helicopters being shot down in Iraq gained wide attention. Shifts in opinion were seen in most demographic groups, but were strongest among men, independents and political moderates and people with incomes of less than $35,000 per year, the survey found."
407. jexster - 11/12/2003 1:54:07 AM
WASHINGTON - A report by U.N. investigators that they have found no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program "is simply impossible to believe," Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton said Wednesday.
Simply impossible to believe...
408. RickNelson - 11/12/2003 2:46:06 PM
"conservative ideals of entrepreneurship, individual responsibility, smaller government, lower taxes, strong national defense and traditional values have become increasingly mainstream during the past 20 years; the recent GOP successes simply reflect that fact."
Lower taxes? "Read my lips"!
smaller government? War on drugs, and raises that they still give themselves despite deficit governing.
Traditional values? Anti poor, anti environment, anti social programs, anti arts, etc.... Pro rich, pro rich, pro rich, pro military, pro military, pro military, pro huge prison system without social changes to stem the tide of disenfranchised youth headed for it, etc....
entrepreneurship? My ass! There one of the following: rich boys and girls, Daddy helped them get everything, silver spoon tycoons, Wanna-be prove they belong to the upper class junkies, or slimy greed mongers out to stick it to the masses. Like they did in Florida via Jeb Bushes antics to make sure his brother won the state. Low life scum of the earth rich feeders, feeding off the weaker, forcing the lessor parts to become hopelessly bogged down, and making it even harder to get out of their selfish system. Shit-faced bastards!
409. RickNelson - 11/12/2003 2:47:11 PM
God dammit "They're"
410. PelleNilsson - 11/12/2003 3:43:16 PM
You have something against the Bush crowd, Rick?
411. jexster - 11/12/2003 4:45:53 PM
RU British Rick?
Bush Hatred Sweeps Great Britain
LONDON (Reuters) - The British abandoned their stiff upper lips and hugged Americans after 9/11. Now much of that goodwill has evaporated and the blame is being laid firmly at the door of George W. Bush.
412. jexster - 11/12/2003 6:08:18 PM
Just eight months after French Fries were banished from the congressional cafeteria, the newly-launched French Congressional Caucus, already has picked up 25 members, including Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Joe Biden (D-Del.). With cheerful malice, Jarreau writes that the French caucus "is one of the most chic clubs" in Washington. WPost "Comment se dit 'I told you so' en francais?"
413. jexster - 11/12/2003 6:10:03 PM
Died for a lie...
What lie?
- that there were WMD in Iraq
- that Saddam had a nuclear program
- that Iraq was a danger to the region or the US
- that Bush had a plan
- that Bush did not have imperialist plans to take the "Saud" out of Arabia
Just for starters.
414. jexster - 11/12/2003 6:12:39 PM
- that Saddam was trying to evade UN inspectors
- that the UN inspectors were wrong
- that the Bush administration had exhausted all peaceful means of resolution
- that this was a "just" war
- taht it would take fewer troops to keep the peace than to win the war
- that it would not cost US taxpayers over 200 billion
- that Saddam had links to Al Qaeda
415. jexster - 11/12/2003 6:13:33 PM
- that those who opposed this blantantly immoral folly were unpatriotic
416. jexster - 11/12/2003 6:16:37 PM
- that Saddam had reconsituted nuclear weapons
- that Saddam had a reconsituted nuclear weapons program
- that Saddam had the capability to launch WMD on 45 minutes warning
- that Saddam was trying to purchase Yellowcake
- that the Iraqis would welcome us with candy and song
- that Ahmad Chalbi would be the "george washington" of Iraq
- that Bush had the best interests of the Iraqi people at heart
- that Bush wasn't waging war for domestic political advantage
417. jexster - 11/12/2003 6:17:30 PM
- that those who opposed this gravely immoral and patently irresponsible adventure supported Saddam Hussein
418. jexster - 11/12/2003 6:18:16 PM
- that the Regime enjoyed worldwide support
419. jexster - 11/12/2003 6:19:56 PM
- that the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with the war on terrorism
- that the US by invading Iraq would strike a "mighty blow" against terrorism
- that God told Bush to "smite Saddam"
- that the Mission was Accomplished
420. jexster - 11/12/2003 6:21:46 PM
- that Bush had not decided to go to war as early as Jan 2002
- that Bush would only go to war based on "a careful review of intelligence"
421. jexster - 11/12/2003 6:22:40 PM
- that increasing violence in Iraq is a measure of US progress
422. jexster - 11/12/2003 6:23:03 PM
off the top of my head RD
423. jexster - 11/12/2003 7:12:59 PM
Bush Fascism in Action - No Lie, This is Real
While a group of women representing the Hooters restaurant chain were allowed to keep marching, a group of 30 military veterans critical of the war in Iraq who had properly registered were forcibly removed from a Veterans Day parade in Tallahassee. "Honor the Warrior, Not the War," read their banner.
424. jexster - 11/12/2003 7:24:12 PM
Please rise for the singing of
La Marseillaise
Amour sacré de la Patrie
Conduis, soutiens nos bras vengeurs
Liberté, Liberté chérie
Combats avec tes défenseurs!
Sous nos drapeaux, que la victoire
Accoure à tes mâles accents
Que tes ennemis expirants
Voient ton triomphe et notre gloire!
425. thoughtful - 11/12/2003 7:37:27 PM
Nice list jexster.
But of course, none of it matters. So long as there's no illicit sex in the white house!
426. jexster - 11/12/2003 8:25:44 PM
RD asks, RD receives
For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. Luke 11:10
In constant sorrow all through his days
I am the man of constant of sorrow
I've seen trouble all my days
I bid farewell to old Kentucky
The place where I was born and raised
The place where he was born and raised.
For six long years I have been in trouble
No pleasure here on earth I find
For in this world I am bound to ramble
I have no friends to help me now
He has no friends to help him now...
427. jexster - 11/12/2003 8:53:12 PM
Democratic political analyst on CNN commenting on latest polls
- Bush's terrorism teflon is gone (and it ain't comin back)
- Democrats are now at least as strong on security issues
- if Bush wants to talk the economy and other domestic issues -Bring it on
428. jexster - 11/12/2003 8:59:00 PM
429. robertjayb - 11/12/2003 10:43:15 PM
Fox, Frist coordinate senate stunt...
Manuel Miranda, a staffer for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist sent a memo around to Republicans regarding the 30 hour filibuster. Fox News wanted to make sure they started on time, so they could put in on their 'unbiased' show.
They pointed to a memo from Manuel Miranda, a staffer for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), which said:
"It is important to double efforts to get your boss to S-230 on time ... Fox News Channel is really excited about this marathon and Brit Hume at 6 would love to open with all our 51 senators walking onto the floor -- the producer wants to know will we walk in exactly at 6:02 when the show starts so they get it live to open Brit Hume's show? Or if not, can we give them an exact time for the walk-in start?" (via Atrios)
430. OhioSTOPAS - 11/12/2003 11:00:05 PM
Hee hee hee. "Fair and Balanced."
But any measure is appropriate to fight those damn obstructionist Democrats, who have approved only 97.7% of Bush's judicial nominees.
431. thoughtful - 11/12/2003 11:03:02 PM
george will was on imus this a.m. pushing the dems to nominate gephardt. how disingenuous!
432. jexster - 11/13/2003 12:10:25 AM
Episode 2 is here!
See what happens behind the scenes when General Clark appears on Good Morning America and CNN morning show. Watch him take the "F" train in New York and get advice on bagels.
Watch 
now
433. jexster - 11/13/2003 12:26:21 AM
The Limits of Eloquence
Did Bush mean a word of his speech about democracy?
By Michael Kinsley
3 guesses, first two don't count...
434. jexster - 11/13/2003 12:29:03 AM
Hint:
"Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious. I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it's got to be. I think the United States must be humble … in how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course."
435. wonkers2 - 11/13/2003 12:56:57 AM
What is Bush, the hard-nosed realpolitikian candidate scornful of nation-building or the idealistic over-committer of U.S. resources to spreading democracy and freeing the oppressed? Kinsley nailed Bush but good.
436. rdbrewer - 11/13/2003 1:33:52 AM
JexterLogic: Gallup poll reveals about 3/4 of Iraqis welcome the US intervention and are glad we are there. Therefore, in JexterLogic, although Bush never claimed that Iraqis would welcome us with candy and song (an example of JexterTruth), Bush was lying. So Bush was lying when he didn't say that.
I see your laundry list of emotional grievances. Looks like you forgot to lies told by Bush. You did demonstrate, however, your own aversion to truth.
"The subjective component [of a lie] has two parts: (1) belief that what one represents to be the case is not the case and (2) intention to deceive." Thus, a completely rational person cannot argue that Bush was telling a lie about US security because 1) Bush thought US security was at risk (and thought there were WMDs), and 2) as good as you may think your intuition is, surprise, you cannot actually read his mind [and claim otherwise]. You have no basis upon which to say that Bush was lying--other than your little feelings. Message # 11758
And see Message # 11762 et seq. Read them closely this time so that you never again have to bring up this boring, emotional drivel. If you're totally impervious to rational argument, engaging you is a waste of time.
437. RickNelson - 11/13/2003 1:41:47 AM
Pelle,
Yup.
Jex,
No. But, I have English ancestry documented back to about 1100. The first of my English ancestors came over in the later half of the 17th century. I'm pretty sure they settled in Massachusets.
My direct line settled in Rice County, Minnesota around 1860.
There are some burrs up- with regard to Bushism and their ilk.
438. RickNelson - 11/13/2003 1:56:20 AM
Ok what are a few logical ideas for a unitlateral position toward Iraq? Bushism is pyramidic toward the Iraqi issue, he's the lead and the scuttling crabs are running around making do the best they can. I don't think there are overtly bad decisions.
To me that would mean that the decision makers are running around without plans, just wingin' it. That isn't the case, so what decisions are worth trying? Are many of them underway now?
Truly I don't want to concern myself with it, but this Iraqi topic is just everywhere. When there is nothing that I can personally do about it, then it's time to let it go. That's what I've done most of this war, just let it be. I feel for the families of soldiers and the soldiers. I feel for the Iraqi civilians and the land that is being ravaged. I hope, I wait.
Can there be fault with this?
To answer this myself I flatly say 'no'.
With that established, my first questions are thoughts to ponder. I let the decision makers make the decisions and patiently wait for the turn of events. That's all any of us can do.
It's the ideas of men running PACs like the PNAC that burn me. It's these organized PACs that I can see fighting, and think that it's worthwhile. If I disagree with them, then there it is, the fight.
But, watch the blood-pressure.
439. jexster - 11/13/2003 2:20:01 AM
Gallup poll reveals about 3/4 of Iraqis welcome the US intervention and are glad we are there
That is not true and the evidence, the polls including Gallup and the more comprehensive Zogby poll arelinked in the Conflict thread
Moreover, for each and every one of the lies listed it is in fact my contention that (1) belief that what one represents to be the case is not the case and (2) intention to deceive or (3) Bush's statements were made with a reckless disregard for whether they were true or not.
For in fact there was not one justification offered for this war that was true.
440. jexster - 11/13/2003 2:21:14 AM
So if you want to play meaning of is games RD, fine.
But Bush is lying through his teeth and flim flamming the American people
I cannot help it nor do I really much care that you are a sucker of his crap for that is truly your problem not mine
441. jexster - 11/13/2003 2:26:38 AM
Yet more lies...guilding the lily..
WASHINGTON, 22 October 2003 ( James Zogby ) Early in President Bush’s recent public relations campaign to rebuild support for the US war effort in Iraq, Vice President Cheney appeared on “Meet the Press.” Attempting to make the case that the US was winning in Iraq, Cheney made the following observations:
“There was a poll done, just random in the last week, first one I’ve seen carefully done; admittedly, it’s a difficult area to poll in. Zogby International did it with American Enterprise magazine. But that’s got very positive news in it in terms of the numbers it shows with respect to the attitudes to what Americans have done.
“One of the questions it asked is: ‘If you could have any model for the kind of government you’d like to have’ — and they were given five choices — ‘which would it be?’ The US wins hands down. If you want to ask them do they want an Islamic government established, by 2:1 margins they say no, including the Shiite population. If you ask how long they want Americans to stay, over 60 percent of the people polled said they want the US to stay for at least another year. So admittedly there are problems, especially in that area where Saddam Hussein was from, where people have benefited most from his regime and who’ve got the most to lose if we’re successful in our enterprise, and continuing attacks from terror. But to suggest somehow that that’s representative of the country at large or the Iraqi people are opposed to what we’ve done in Iraq or are actively and aggressively trying to undermine it, I just think that’s not true.”
In fact, Zogby International (ZI) in Iraq had conducted the poll, and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) did publish their interpretation of the findings. But the AEI’s “spin” and the vice president’s use of their “spin” created a faulty impression of the poll’s results and, therefore, of the attitudes of the Iraqi people.
442. jexster - 11/13/2003 2:27:45 AM
For example, while Cheney noted that when asked what kind of government they would like, Iraqis chose “the US... hands down,” in fact, the results of the poll are actually quite different. Twenty-three percent of Iraqis say that they would like to model their new government after the US; 17.5 percent would like their model to be Saudi Arabia; 12 percent say Syria, 7 percent say Egypt and 37 percent say “none of the above.” That’s hardly “winning hands down.”
443. jexster - 11/13/2003 2:28:19 AM
When given the choice as to whether they “would like to see the American and British forces leave Iraq in six months, one year, or two years,” 31.5 percent of Iraqis say these forces should leave in six months; 34 percent say a year, and only 25 percent say two or more years.
444. jexster - 11/13/2003 2:28:39 AM
So while technically Cheney might say that “over 60 percent (actually it’s 59 percent) ... want the US to stay at least another year,” an equally correct observation would be that 65.5 percent want the US and Britain to leave in one year or less.
Other numbers found in the poll go further to dampen the vice president’s and the AEI’s rosy interpretations. For example, when asked if “democracy can work well in Iraq,” 51 percent said “no; it is a Western way of doing things and will not work here.”
And attitudes toward the US were not positive. When asked whether over the next five years, they felt that the “US would help or hurt Iraq,” 50 percent said that the US would hurt Iraq, while only 35.5 percent felt the US would help the country. On the other hand, 61 percent of Iraqis felt that Saudi Arabia would help Iraq in the next five years, as opposed to only 7.5 percent, who felt Saudi Arabia would hurt their country. Some 50.5 percent felt that the United Nations would help Iraq, while 18.5 percent felt it would hurt. Iran’s rating was very close to the US’, with 53.5 percent of Iraqis saying Iran would hurt them in the next five years, while only 21.5 percent felt that Iran might help them.
445. jexster - 11/13/2003 2:28:57 AM
It is disturbing that the AEI and the vice president could get it so wrong. Their misuse of the polling numbers to make the point that they wanted to make, resembles the way critics have noted that the administration used “intelligence data” to make their case to justify the war.
The danger, of course, is that painting a rosy picture that doesn’t exist is a recipe for a failed policy. Wishing something to be can’t make it so. At some point, reality intervenes. It’s a hard lesson to learn, but it is dangerous to ignore its importance.
446. jexster - 11/13/2003 2:29:22 AM
For the administration to continue to tell itself and the American people that “all is well,” only means that needed changes in policy will not be made.
Consider some of the other poll findings:
• Over 55 percent give a negative rating to “how the US military is dealing with Iraqi civilians.” Only 20 percent gave the US military a positive rating.
• By a margin of 57 percent to 38.5 percent, Iraqis indicate that they would support “Arab forces” providing security in their country.
• When asked how they would describe the attacks on the US military, 49 percent described them as “resistance operations.” Only 29 percent saw them as attacks by “Baath loyalists.”
• When asked whom they preferred to “provide security and restore order in their country,” only 6.5 percent said the US. Twenty-seven percent said the US and the UN together, 14.5 percent preferred only the UN. And the largest group, 45 percent, said they would prefer the “Iraqi military” to do the job alone.
There are important lessons in all of this. Lessons policy makers ought to heed if they are to help Iraq move forward. What the Iraqi people appear to be telling us is that they have hope for the future, but they want the help of their neighbors more than that of the US.
That may not be what Washington wants to hear, but it ought to listen nevertheless. Because if policy makers continue to bend the data to meet their desired policy, then this hole they are digging will only get deeper
447. jexster - 11/13/2003 2:34:37 AM
Damn RD, you can't even keep your shit straight for one fucking day...
So I will help you...
The Washington Post
November 12, 2003, Wednesday, Final Edition
SECTION: A SECTION; Pg. A18
LENGTH: 675 words
HEADLINE: Skepticism About U.S. Deep, Iraq Poll Shows; Motive for Invasion Is Focus of Doubts
BYLINE: Walter Pincus, Washington Post Staff Writer
More than half of Baghdad's residents said they did not believe the United States would allow the Iraqi people to fashion their political future without the direct influence of Washington, according to a Gallup poll.
With the Bush administration holding consultations on the future of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, recent analyses of the poll data, which were gathered three months ago, highlight the roots within that city's populace of many of the concerns the U.S.-led coalition now faces there.
448. jexster - 11/13/2003 2:34:56 AM
Only 5 percent of those polled said they believed the United States invaded Iraq "to assist the Iraqi people," and only 1 percent believed it was to establish democracy there.
Three-quarters of those polled said they believed the policies and decisions of the Iraqi Governing Council -- whose members were appointed in July by Coalition Provisional Authority Administrator L. Paul Bremer -- were "mostly determined by the coalition's own authorities," and only 16 percent thought the council members were "fairly independent."
449. jexster - 11/13/2003 2:35:16 AM
The poll, funded by Gallup, was conducted through face-to-face interviews with 1,178 Baghdad residents between Aug. 28 and Sept. 4. The initial results were announced in late September, but additional analyses were released to the polling firm's clients in succeeding weeks. Some Gallup analyses have been published on the Coalition Provisional Authority's Web site in the past two days.
450. jexster - 11/13/2003 2:35:37 AM
Although 52 percent of those polled said they thought the United States was serious about establishing a democratic system of government in Iraq, 51 percent said Washington would not allow Iraqis to do that without U.S. pressure and influence. The margin of error in the poll was plus or minus 2.7 percentage points.
In an Oct. 28 analysis, Richard Burkholder, Gallup's director of international polling, noted that most Baghdad residents thought getting rid of Saddam Hussein was worth the hardships they are enduring. But "most are deeply skeptical of the initial rationale the coalition has given for its actions," Burkholder added.
451. jexster - 11/13/2003 2:35:55 AM
The poll showed that doubts about the U.S. motives for invading had led to doubts about Washington's commitment to creating an independent democratic government in Baghdad.
452. jexster - 11/13/2003 2:36:10 AM
Forty-three percent of the respondents said they believed that U.S. and British forces invaded in March primarily "to rob Iraq's oil." While 37 percent believed the United States acted to get rid of the Hussein regime, only 5 percent thought it did so "to assist the Iraq people," the poll found.
An additional 6 percent believed the motive was to "change the Middle East 'map' as the U.S. and Israel want." Four percent believed the purpose was to destroy weapons of mass destruction, the primary reason given by the Bush administration.
At a time when the United States faces a growing security threat, the poll pointed to other possible reasons why coalition forces are being looked upon as occupiers instead of as liberators.
Almost everyone interviewed -- 94 percent -- said Baghdad "now is a more dangerous place than before the invasion," and 86 percent said that for the previous four weeks "they or a member of their household had been afraid to go outside their home at night for safety reasons," Burkholder said in his analysis. He noted that in the two months before the U.S. invasion, only 8 percent said they had experienced a similar fear.
Asked about attacks against U.S. troops, 64 percent said they were not justified; 36 percent said they sometimes were. Burkholder noted that those who believed such attacks were somewhat or completely justified -- 11 percent and 8 percent, respectively -- would translate to 440,000 adults 18 or older among Baghdad's adult population of 2.3 million.
Forty-eight percent of those polled said they did not believe that the United States will "remain in Iraq as long as necessary, but not a day more," as President Bush has said. Thirty-six percent said they believed that the Americans would leave as Bush had promised.
453. jexster - 11/13/2003 2:37:40 AM
THREE MONTH OLD BUSH-SHIT..
I can't help that you are a fool and a sucker RD
Apparently neither can you
454. jexster - 11/13/2003 2:42:22 AM
The CIA just leaked on another Bush lie...
The latest C.I.A. report follows earlier intelligence assessments that warned American commanders in Iraq of increasing resentment among ordinary Iraqis. The picture those reports presented was very different from the public view presented by administration officials. In particular, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has repeatedly spoken of the opponents of the American-led occupation as "dead-enders, foreign terrorists and criminal gangs."
But the Nov. 10 situation report was described by the officials as reflecting a more formal assessment. They said Mr. Bremer's unusual endorsement was intended to give the document added credibility.
A second American official said the grim conclusions were based in part on a classified opinion poll conducted by the State Department's intelligence branch, which found that a majority of Iraqis now regard American troops as occupiers rather than liberators. The concern has been reinforced, another official said, by an increasing consensus among intelligence analysts that appointed Iraqi leaders do not appear to be capable of carrying out the task of governing or working toward elections.
New York Times, 11/12
Come prepared RD or come prepared to be waxed
455. jexster - 11/13/2003 2:57:33 AM
Reckless Disregard for the Truth
Bush Administration "Neo-Cons" Oversold Prewar Intelligence to Justify War in Iraq
Facing increased pressure from ongoing and escalating violence in Iraq, President Bush held a press conference last week to calm critics, saying, "We took action based upon good, solid intelligence."1 But the President's assertion has been challenged by both the House and Senate intelligence communities and interviews with intelligence officers, one of whom said, "There seemed to be an unseemly eagerness to believe any information which would portray the Iraqi threat as being extremely grave and imminent."2
The House and Senate intelligence committees have both concluded that intelligence assessments leading up to the war were, in the words of House Chairman Porter Goss, "not 100 percent on target."3
While the intelligence committees look for answers in the quality of information gathering, some claim the disparity is less about actual intelligence than about the process by which selective intelligence made its way to the White House. One former National Security Council official, Kenneth Pollack says that the Bush people, "dismantle[d] the existing filtering process that for fifty years had been preventing the policymakers from getting bad information... Their position is that the professional bureaucracy is deliberately and maliciously keeping information from [the top leadership."4
Other evidence suggests that the decision to go to war occurred as early as a year before it actually began. In an unscheduled appearance in March with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Republican and Democratic Senators, Bush cursed Saddam and vowed, "We're taking him out." Weeks later, Vice President Dick Cheney said to a Senate Republican policy lunch that the question of attacking Iraq was not if, but when.5
456. jexster - 11/13/2003 2:57:41 AM
A new documentary, Truth Uncovered, supports that view through interviews with several former intelligence and defense officials. Chas Freeman, a former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Assistant Secretary of Defense said, "I don't think it's an accident at all that so much of the justification turned out to be fallacious - misleading-deliberately so. These people, the neo-conservatives are very committed advocates of a policy. They apparently were not troubled by distorting the truth in order to sell the policies that they believed in."6
Sources:
Presidential Press Conference, 10/28/03.
"Turf Wars and the Future of Iraq," PBS, 9/03.
"Intelligence Dispute To Be Aired in Public," Financial Times, p. 4.
"THE STOVEPIPE; How conflicts between the Bush Administration and the intelligence community marred the reporting on Iraq's weapons," The New Yorker, 10/27/03, p. 77.
"We're Taking Him Out," Time.com, 5/5/02.
"Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq War" 11/03.
457. jexster - 11/13/2003 2:59:26 AM
One Year Later, the President's Evidence for Going to War remains Illusory
In the year since President Bush began his public campaign to justify attacking Saddam Hussein, launched in an Ohio speech on October 7th, 2002, he has been unable to corroborate the majority of his arguments for going to war.
On nearly every count, the President's claims about Iraq's weapons program have proven to be unfounded. A lengthy $300 million search by 1,200 U. S.-led inspectors, headed by David Kay, turned up no new evidence that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.1
Nuclear Weapons
President Bush: "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
The Kay report flatly disputes that Iraq was in the process of rebuilding its nuclear program: "We have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material."
Chemical Weapons
President Bush: "We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
Although Iraq did have chemical weapons in the 1980's and early 1990's, "multiple sources" told the Kay team that "Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled CW program after 1991." The report states that "Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections."
Link to Terrorists
President Bush: Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events.
458. jexster - 11/13/2003 2:59:36 AM
The Kay report makes it clear Iraq was not capable of supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists since there is no evidence these weapons exist. However, the U. S. invasion itself has caused a backlash of terrorism, and Iraq now has become a "central front"2 for terrorists, according to the President himself.
----------------------------------------------------
Sources:
President Bush Quotes: Presidential Speech, 10/7/02.
David Kay Quotes: Statement by David Kay on the Interim Progress Report on the Activities of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), Central Intelligence Agency, 10/2/03.
Other sources:
1. "Officials Say Bush Seeks $600 Million to Hunt Iraq Arms," New York Times, 10/2/03.
2. Presidential Speech, 9/7/03.
459. jexster - 11/13/2003 3:31:04 AM
Sen. Biden on McNeil/Lehrer said that the The Philadelphia Inquirer article on the top secret CIA report referred to above was "dead on accurate" based upon knowledge he had from Foreign Relations Committee briefings.
460. jexster - 11/13/2003 3:33:55 AM
"If Bush continues on the same course and does not heed European advice and internationalize the occupation, we will soon have passed the point of no return in Iraq because we are now faced with a grave crisis" Sen Biden
461. jexster - 11/13/2003 4:16:29 AM
462. jexster - 11/13/2003 4:18:30 AM
Ask and you shall receive...
Brave Guardsman Speaks Out Against Bush's WMD Lies
"An Illinois National Guardsman at home on leave blasted the President today on a Rockford area radio show, saying the President lied about his reasons for American military going to Iraq. Sergeant Jessica Macek... has been serving in Iraq for six-months with the National Guard's 333rd MP Company, and while home on leave, during an interview... said she believes that President Bush lied about the reasons for going to war.
'I believe it is in the forefront in the minds of many soldiers that we were lied to about the reasons for going to war,' Macek told the radio audience. The bulk of Macek's criticism comes over what she said was a lack of evidence of weapons of mass destruction. 'We have been there for six months now, and we have not found any weapons,' said Macek. 'If there were weapons it seems we should have found them by now.'" The Illinois Leader
463. concerned - 11/13/2003 7:13:28 AM
....a record?
464. jayackroyd - 11/13/2003 11:01:41 AM
yes, a record.
Jex--
24 consecutive posts persuades nobody. Please drop me an email (jay@ackroyd.org) or give me a call (212-655-5786).
465. thoughtful - 11/13/2003 5:40:09 PM
Apparently record deficits and big tax cuts for the wealthy aren't enough for the bushies. Now they want to help the wealthy shelter all of their unearned income. See http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/14/business/14savings.html
In a speech before the Tax Foundation, a policy group here that advocates lower taxes, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said his staff was preparing "a number of proposals to simplify the tax code" and resurrected the idea of "lifetime savings accounts" that would allow people to put aside large sums of money and pay no tax on the investment income they receive.
What am I talking about? Those savings plans will help everyone, not just the wealthy, right? Well, consider:
"Eighty percent of Americans don't have any savings, and these accounts wouldn't do anything for them," said Edward J. McCaffery, a professor of political science at the University of Southern California and author of books on tax policy.
Where are you going to be when these enormous deficits and the interest owed on the skyrocketing national debt come home to roost?
466. wonkers2 - 11/13/2003 6:00:57 PM
Jay, are you suggesting that we should wait for a reply before posting again? What is your problem with Jexter's posts? Anyone who doesn't feel like reading or responding to them, although they are factual and informative, can feel free to scroll on by. The fact that jexter posts consecutively doesn't prevent anyone else from posting. It just provides additional fact and opinion to the forum. Moreover, jexter is much less inclined to post unprovoked gratuitous insults than several other participants. In my opinion the Mote would benefit from more, not fewer, participants like jexter.
467. jayackroyd - 11/13/2003 6:25:33 PM
No. I'm simply saying that I'd prefer this thread be driven by give and take, and analysis, not by serial cutting and pasting.
Yes, contentless gratutitous insults are also very irritating and distracting, and has shut down what could have been interesting discussions.
468. Edmund Dantes - 11/13/2003 6:29:36 PM
11939: For in fact there was not one justification offered for this war that was true.
What changed between 1998 and 2003?
469. jexster - 11/13/2003 6:31:11 PM
470. Edmund Dantes - 11/13/2003 6:31:36 PM
11941: In fact, Zogby International (ZI) in Iraq had conducted the poll, and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) did publish their interpretation of the findings. But the AEI’s “spin” and the vice president’s use of their “spin” created a faulty impression of the poll’s results and, therefore, of the attitudes of the Iraqi people.
In what way? Since you don't link the article you're citing and your excerpt ends with the above, you present no evidence of the assertion you're making.
471. Edmund Dantes - 11/13/2003 6:34:50 PM
11942: Oops, my bad. Didn't realize this was going to continue for the next...ummm...six posts.
472. Edmund Dantes - 11/13/2003 6:37:05 PM
11943: When given the choice as to whether they “would like to see the American and British forces leave Iraq in six months, one year, or two years,” 31.5 percent of Iraqis say these forces should leave in six months; 34 percent say a year, and only 25 percent say two or more years.
and
11944: So while technically Cheney might say that “over 60 percent (actually it’s 59 percent) ... want the US to stay at least another year,” an equally correct observation would be that 65.5 percent want the US and Britain to leave in one year or less.
"Equally correct," so what's your problem? That he should frame it the way you want him to?
But you're pushing for the US to leave now, and fewer than a third of Iraqis think we should leave within six months.
473. jayackroyd - 11/13/2003 6:38:35 PM
What changed between 1998 and 2003?
As Kay's report makes clear, the weapons of mass destruction were themselves destroyed, either by actions like Desert Fox, by decay or by their elimination by the Itaqis.
474. jayackroyd - 11/13/2003 6:40:41 PM
The point, edd, is not what view one has wrt Iraq policy. The point is that Zogby says that Cheney lied about the poll results.
475. Edmund Dantes - 11/13/2003 6:48:17 PM
When asked whether over the next five years, they felt that the “US would help or hurt Iraq,” 50 percent said that the US would hurt Iraq, while only 35.5 percent felt the US would help the country.
That contradicts the 69.3 percent who think the country will be either somewhat better or much better five years from now--not going to happen if the USA is harming them.
That may not be what Washington wants to hear, but it ought to listen nevertheless. Because if policy makers continue to bend the data to meet their desired policy, then this hole they are digging will only get deeper.
Polling data and its interpretation is spin versus counter spin, which is why you're so fond of it. If you polled Arabs on whether they'd like the US to vanish from the face of the earth, a majority of them might say that, too, but it doesn't mean we let it dictate policy.
When Cheney talks about this polling data on Meet the Press, it's not to shape policy, it's to rebut the media spinners. You and your type look at the glass as half empty; he intends to show where the class isn't so empty after all. He and the administration aren't going to rely on Zogby to decide what to do.
476. KuligintheHooligan - 11/13/2003 6:48:57 PM
Here's a headline from a website I recently found, IronicTimes.com
"Schwarzenegger Hires Private Eye to
Look Into Groping Allegations
Investigator will interview him about charges, then report back to him on what he said."
477. Edmund Dantes - 11/13/2003 6:51:29 PM
11948: Only 5 percent of those polled said they believed the United States invaded Iraq "to assist the Iraqi people," and only 1 percent believed it was to establish democracy there.
Regardless of what those polled believe, we either did or we didn't. That's an objective fact, and their belief is irrelevant to the veracity of that fact.
Certainly we have to follow up with persuasion and actions that will help "win the hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people. The $20 billion in aid that you've been in opposition to, along with increasing self-direction, will help do that.
478. Edmund Dantes - 11/13/2003 6:53:16 PM
11950: Although 52 percent of those polled said they thought the United States was serious about establishing a democratic system of government in Iraq, 51 percent said Washington would not allow Iraqis to do that without U.S. pressure and influence.
Classic evidence of the "glass half empty, glass half full" argument. I think that a majority already believes we're serious is damn good. As to the second, it won't happen without U.S. influence...right?
You think if we pull out today democracy will flower in Iraq?
479. jexster - 11/13/2003 6:53:43 PM
Good idea that.
If only Robert Bennett had been able to investigate and report on Bill's daliances!
480. jexster - 11/13/2003 6:53:53 PM
Sometimes the small stuff distracts from the big. At a recent press conference, George W. Bush suggested the White House had nothing to do with the "Mission Accomplished" banner that was hung on the USS Abraham Lincoln for his triumphant May 1 speech declaring major combat operations over in Iraq. Journalists quickly checked, and it turned out the White House had produced the banner. Bush-bashers decried his remark as a shameless lie that sought to shift blame to crewmembers, and White House defenders dismissed the matter as trivial. But during the same press conference, Bush tossed out other truth-challenged statements that were arguably more important than the banner business. But they have drawn little notice.
Bush claimed that he was the first president to advocate a Palestinian state. No, Bill Clinton had done so.
Bush's Unreliable Intelligence
481. Edmund Dantes - 11/13/2003 6:57:34 PM
11951: The poll showed that doubts about the U.S. motives for invading had led to doubts about Washington's commitment to creating an independent democratic government in Baghdad.
The most serious reasons for Iraqi doubts stem from whether the US will be willing to sustain the attacks from Iraqi and foreign terrorists, especially in the light of domestic defeatists like you.
11952: Almost everyone interviewed -- 94 percent -- said Baghdad "now is a more dangerous place than before the invasion,"
This is a real problem, but Saddam's Baghdad was the security of a prison.
482. jexster - 11/13/2003 6:59:41 PM
Poor Ahnold....this wasn't in the script...
His lines "We'll do an audit and cut waste, not education>"
Terminated.
Welcome to the real world..
SACRAMENTO — Aides to Gov.-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger presented him with a series of budget-balancing choices this week that included cuts in higher education and mental health programs, according to informed sources who spoke on the condition that they not be identified.
The proposals came during five hours of confidential meetings with Schwarzenegger's top fiscal advisors Wednesday, after which the group adjourned with no consensus on how best to begin cutting services to attack the state's multibillion-dollar deficit.
He Won't be back
Now if only Bush would give California that block grant - that's Ahnold's other line, raise our return from Washington from 76 to 85 cents on the dollar..
OOPS - that money is in Baghdad bout now.
483. jexster - 11/13/2003 7:02:15 PM
Somebody forgot to tell Arnold about the "triple flip" problem...
He should have taken
PA 730 (previously 750):
Managing Public Budgets
4 units
Course Description
Course Syllabus
Spring 2002- REVISED-
Spring 2001
Related Internet Resources
Course Handouts
Political Strategies of Budgeting
Highlights of U.S. Federal Budget History
Excel Exercises
Exercise 1: Inputting Text and Numbers
Exercise 2: Working with Worksheets and Ranges
Exercise 3: Formatting and Adding Formulas
Revenues for General Fund Data
Expenditures by Fund Data
Budgeting-Related Web Sites (from Student Exercises)
Budget Surplus Allocations
California Department of Finance
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Management Library
National Budget Simulation
National Debt Awareness Center
Non-Profit Genie
Non-Profit Gateway
Public Agenda-- Info on Federal Budget
Public Debt FAQs (U.S. Treasury Dept)
484. wonkers2 - 11/13/2003 8:10:35 PM
E.D. You think if we stay democracy will flower in Iraq?
485. jayackroyd - 11/13/2003 8:14:38 PM
well, we know for sure that democracy will only flower if islamists aren't elected.
On CNN the other day Peter Beinert pointed out that a constitution, and some institutional checks and balances have to be in place before an election can be held--just because there need to be protection for the minority from a possibly oppressive majority.
Of course, declaring the IGC the rulers and walking away would be a bad idea.
486. alistairConnor - 11/14/2003 1:19:46 AM
well, we know for sure that democracy will only flower if islamists aren't elected.
The evidence with respect to the growth of democracy in Muslim states would seem to suggest that a strong, secular army is required, to counterbalance the islamists (Turkey, arguably Algeria...) Iraq hasn't got one, and presumably will not be allowed to rebuild one.
487. Al D - 11/14/2003 1:44:33 AM
alistair
Iraq hasn't got one, and presumably will not be allowed to rebuild one.
What do you base this opinion on, or to be pedantic, on what do you base this opinion? Just your basic pessimism?
488. wonkers2 - 11/14/2003 2:04:19 AM
Sen. Santorum got really nasty today over the Democratic filibuster of Bush's judicial nominees. He looked like he was about to keel over from apoplexy. What an unpleasant little weenie! Hatch understands that the thing is mostly a big charade and he doesn't really lose it like Santorum did. With a straight face he was castigating Mary Landrieu for being a woman and not supporting Owens, Brown and the other right wing female nominee. Landrieu didn't appreciate his logic that because she is a woman she should support Bush's women nominees.
489. rdbrewer - 11/14/2003 2:10:10 AM
What set him off was a neanderthal calling the rejected nominees neanderthals.
490. jayackroyd - 11/14/2003 3:02:26 AM
Al,
One bit of evidence Alistair may point to is the early disbanding of the Iraqi army.
491. Al D - 11/14/2003 3:36:00 AM
jay
You take that to be proof positive that a secular Iraqi army will be prevented from forming? Are you serious or just being nice making any response?
492. jexster - 11/14/2003 3:47:13 AM
493. jexster - 11/14/2003 3:49:39 AM
494. arkymalarky - 11/14/2003 3:59:54 AM
Presumably is not synonymous with "proof positive." That they disbanded the Iraqi army is certainly a good point to base a presumption such as Alistair's on(on which to base a presumption such as Alistair's--jiminy, I hope we don't start doing this as a rule).
495. Al D - 11/14/2003 4:13:15 AM
That the army was disbanded right after the conclusion of the main fighting is no evidence of future action. Of course the army will be reformed and hopefully it will be secular and the government will be secular. It seems to me that some of you are being needlessly pessimistic, insisting that nothing good is happening in Iraq. Some insist they wish to see positive results, but when the occur they get no recognition. It's a bloody mystery.
496. jayackroyd - 11/14/2003 5:07:34 AM
It seems to me that some of you are being needlessly pessimistic, insisting that nothing good is happening in Iraq. Some insist they wish to see positive results, but when the occur they get no recognition. It's a bloody mystery.
Al, you gotta stop making stuff up. If you're gonna say stuff like this, you need to quote people directly.
I've said, repeatedly, that lots of stuff is going well, especially in the north. But it's also the case that this has happened in the absence of any plan on the part of the administration. They bet the house on current infrastructure and Chalabi as all that was necessary in the aftermath. They were wrong, in the center, and in the south.
We still see no plan. They bounce from pillar to post while soldiers die, and the insurgents become better organized.
497. jayackroyd - 11/14/2003 5:14:51 AM
You take that to be proof positive that a secular Iraqi army will be prevented from forming?
No, Al, I'm saying that the immediate reaction of the occupying state was to disband the army. There is longstanding reason to believe that the US will support a strong military presence in Iraq, as a counter balance to Iran. There is also reason to think that the US would prefer that the military presence will be predominantly American; it is the only plausible justification for the intervention.
Maybe it's time for you to stop sniping, and to start making positive and constuctive comments on what you see the effective direction of the US in Iraq.
498. wonkers2 - 11/14/2003 5:31:14 AM
Well, the rejected nominees are neanderthals. And so is Santorum, a childish and petulant one at that. Was it Kennedy who used the term? Bush (i.e. Rove) hand picked the nominees for the purpose of staging a little charade for the GOP rednecks and evangelicals. And it serves the Democrats' purpose as well. They have been using the specter of Bush appointees to the courts, especially the Supreme Court, as an effective fund raising tool for months. It's a little political charade that ignores the public's interest in the appointment of objective, non-ideological, middle-of-the road judges.
499. rdbrewer - 11/14/2003 5:53:24 AM
for the purpose of staging a little charade for the GOP rednecks and evangelicals.
Wonkers, you're too nice a person to start acting like a bigot.
It's a little political charade that ignores the public's interest in the appointment of objective, non-ideological, middle-of-the road judges.
Coincidentally, Clinton picks past this test, right? Is Ruth Bader Ginsberg middle-of-the-road?
500. rdbrewer - 11/14/2003 6:19:36 AM
12000?
501. arkymalarky - 11/14/2003 6:26:29 AM
Hey, you. I had my eye on that for a nightcap.
502. rdbrewer - 11/14/2003 6:44:40 AM
Ha ha ha!
503. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/14/2003 7:00:38 AM
Sweet dreams America!
504. wonkers2 - 11/14/2003 3:01:18 PM
Peter Hitchins in Harper's July 2003
"Listening to educated, intelligent men regurgitate such expressions as "weapons of mass destruction" and "evil dictator" called to mind George Orwell's essay 'Politics and the English Language,' in which he wrote:
'When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases--bestial atrocities, iron heel, bloodstained tryanny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder--one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy; a feeling which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches the speaker's spectac les and turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind them.'"
And
"There seems to be a new ideology of Americanism in which one is either totally loyal or one is a suspect. (Perhaps this, too, attracts those ex-Marxists.) It is based on an idea of America as a cause rather than on the good and decent nation which actually exists. I am reminded of the terrifying American messianic bore Hector Dexter, in Nancy Mitford's "The Blessing," who tells his English hosts that he wishes to see a bottle of Coca-Cola on every table in every country.
'When I say a bottle of Coca Cola I mean it metaphorically speaking, I mean it as an outward and visible sign of something inward and spiritual, I mean it as if each Coca Cola bottle contained a djinn, and as if that djinn was our great American civilization ready to spring out of each bottle and cover the whole global universe with its great wide wings. That is what I mean.'"
505. wonkers2 - 11/14/2003 3:26:22 PM
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are both closer to the center than any of the six Bush nominees being filibustered by the Democrats.
As someone on TV suggested last night, it was no coincidence that the four most recent filibusterees were all very conservative women. The charade was designed by Rove, Hatch, Santorum, Frist, et al, as an attempt to put the Democrats in a crack by voting against three (4?) women one of whom was black. It was also pointed out that the roll-away beds or cots wheeled in so prominently were not used but merely props in the GOP's show. Few were fooled by this transparent and childish charade.
506. jexster - 11/14/2003 5:47:27 PM
There have been a spate of articles lately on why both parties are having difficulties recruiting quality candidates for congress. The predominant reason cited in most is the grind of fundraising.
The job itself isn't much fun anymore either, and for an answer to that, you need look no further than reports today that House Senate Conferees reached agreement on an Omnibus Energy Bill.
You will note that the agreement was reached by "Republican conferees". Yes there are two parties, but not in this Republican led congress.
I worked in the Senate for 5 years when Democrats held as large as a 60-40 majority, and never lower than 55. An "all Democratic" conference was unknown.
Things began to change when the GOP took over. At first, they played games. They would appoint Democrats but wouldn't tell them the location of the conference committee meetings.
Now they don't even pretend. They just leave minority members out altogether.
Nice.
Nice precedent.
Unprecedented nice precedent.
507. jexster - 11/14/2003 5:48:52 PM
For in fact there was not one justification offered for this war that was true.
What changed between 1998 and 2003?
Donald Rumsfeld was asked that question.
"9/11" and the Great Fraudulent War Scam began that very day.
508. jexster - 11/14/2003 6:36:48 PM
State Expert: Budget Gap Will Outpace Growth
The legislative analyst says reversing the car tax would widen the budget gap. She proposes cutting expenses or increasing taxes first.
We're just delighted that republicans all over the country from Jeb Bush on down have taken such a deep and deeply vested interest in our State's fiscal woes.
Woe...woe is you
"Mr Schwarzenegger, what is your plan for solving the state budget crisis.."
"Vee'll conduck ahn auhdeeet..."
Honeymoon? What honeymoon?
509. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/14/2003 10:40:41 PM
510. rdbrewer - 11/14/2003 11:19:14 PM
Dat's alota hizzle for one mizzle, wizzle.
511. rdbrewer - 11/14/2003 11:21:07 PM
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are both closer to the center than any of the six Bush nominees being filibustered by the Democrats.
And that's alota shizzle, wonkizzle.
512. jexster - 11/15/2003 3:42:00 AM
What Are They Hiding? White House Will Be Able to Edit Reports Sent to 9-11 Commission!
NY Times: "The commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror attacks said on Thursday that its deal with the White House for access to highly classified Oval Office intelligence reports would let the White House edit the documents before they were released to the commission's representatives. The agreement has led to the first public split on the commission. Two Democrats on the 10-member panel say that the commission should have demanded full access to the intelligence summaries... An umbrella group of victims' families joined the criticism, saying the terms of the accord should be public... A Democrat on the panel who has criticized the accord, former Representative Timothy J. Roemer of Indiana (FULL DISCLOSURE - Jex Best friend's bro in law), said in an interview that he believed that the panel had agreed to terms that would let the White House edit the reports to remove the contexts in which the intelligence was presented and to hide any 'smoking guns.'"
513. ronski - 11/15/2003 4:31:40 AM
Blanco is leading Jindal, though just barely. I'm surprised. I thought Jindal would win handily.
514. robertjayb - 11/15/2003 4:46:11 AM
Me too.
515. robertjayb - 11/15/2003 5:13:24 AM
The Times-Picayune is calling Blanco the winner with 51.44% to Jindal's 48.56%. 3,859 of 4,143 precincts reporting.
516. jayackroyd - 11/15/2003 5:16:39 AM
I gotta say that I was rooting for Jindal.
517. robertjayb - 11/15/2003 5:25:43 AM
I'm glad the democrats held the statehouse but I did think Jindal would probably win. Blanco looked just a little too grandmotherly. This gives a slight, very slight, swerve to the bushie southern juggernaut.
518. Neato - 11/15/2003 5:54:10 AM
Wizard's nightmare (12003)reminded me of this Australia one
519. Neato - 11/15/2003 5:55:01 AM
520. robertjayb - 11/15/2003 8:16:21 AM
I'm glad the democrats held the statehouse...
Not true. The present two-term governor of Louisiana, Mike Foster, is a republican. I was misinformed.
521. jexster - 11/15/2003 4:20:39 PM
Governor
3,843 of 4,143 precincts reporting
659,364 52% Kathleen Babineaux Blanco -
617,891 48% "Bobby" Jindal -
522. jexster - 11/15/2003 4:22:22 PM
See Robert there's something that you Texans have never understood....Mary Landrieu proved it & now Blanco...
Do you know what separates a donkey from a jack ass Robert?
The Sabine River
523. jexster - 11/15/2003 4:23:42 PM
Adapted (do you know what separates a coon ass from a jackass)
524. judithathome - 11/15/2003 4:26:58 PM
Have Gun, Will Travel
Home Secretary David Blunkett has refused to grant diplomatic immunity to armed American special agents and snipers travelling to Britain as part of President Bush's entourage this week.
In the case of the accidental shooting of a protester, the Americans in Bush's protection squad will face justice in a British court as would any other visitor, the Home Office has confirmed.
The issue of immunity is one of a series of extraordinary US demands turned down by Ministers and Downing Street during preparations for the Bush visit.
I know the President needs protection but good lord, Tony Blair comes to this country all the time...a country where one president has been killed before...and I don't recall Washington DC being closed down every time he visits.
525. judithathome - 11/15/2003 4:39:35 PM
Wesley Clark on Meet The Press:
"President Bush has called our presence in Iraq the start of democracy in that area. It's not; it's a sideshow."
526. jexster - 11/15/2003 4:56:56 PM
Plan A Falls Apart
For a long time, Bush’s poor job approval ratings on domestic issues were more than counter-balanced by his strong approval ratings on international issues. But that formula for political success is falling apart.
First, it was his poll ratings on handling foreign policy that headed south. Then his ratings on handling the situation in Iraq started tanking. And now the last bastion: his ratings on dealing with the war on terrorism. For the first time, a major public poll (NBC News/Wall Street Journal) has Bush’s approval rating on the war against terror below 60 percent–in this case, an underwhelming 56 percent, not far off his overall rating of 51 percent in the poll. Guess folks are losing the thread connecting the increasingly deadly and expensive Iraq occupation with the war against the folks who crashed planes into the twin towers and the Pentagon.
The other half of their sample was asked specifically whether "removing Saddam Hussein from power" was worth these costs. This elicits a more positive response, as one would expect, but hardly impressive: 50 percent say removing Hussein was worth costs, while 43 percent say it wasn’t. And, interestingly, the NBC News poll has a very similar question asking whether removing Hussein from power was worth the casualties suffered, but also specifically mentions "the financial cost of the war" (emphasis added). The response here is substantially more negative, with more people (46 percent) saying removing Hussein wasn’t worth the cost, than say it was (45 percent).
Sounds like Democrats don’t want to be shy mentioning how much this occupation is costing the American taxpayer.
527. jexster - 11/15/2003 4:57:41 PM
I guess its time to talk about the economy again..
OOOPS my bad...
Consumer spending dropped for the second consecutive month
528. jexster - 11/15/2003 4:59:15 PM
Guess folks are losing the thread connecting the increasingly deadly and expensive Iraq occupation with the war against the folks who crashed planes into the twin towers and the Pentagon.
So what does the Emperor of Flim Flam do?
Al Qaeda at Work in Iraq, Bush Tells BBC
President Suggests Connection Between Terrorist Group and Hussein Government
529. jexster - 11/15/2003 5:00:18 PM
Its all so very, very simple RD...
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything
William of Occam
530. jexster - 11/15/2003 5:05:00 PM
531. jexster - 11/15/2003 5:10:02 PM
Gorgeous Gavin Accepts the Homage of Assemblyman Mark Leno (Gay Political King of SF) and City Treasurer/Defeated contender Susan Leal (His Lesbian Consort) at Headquarters Yesterday. Newly released poll shows Newsom ahead of Green Party Rival 50 to 35
532. RickNelson - 11/15/2003 5:16:05 PM
12030's link is what I am talking about when I foam at the mouth about Republican shit-faced bastards.
Not that they assume to be helping abused children, nor that their is an event to fund AIDS research, but that they use these needs as fronts for pandering insiders.
533. RickNelson - 11/15/2003 5:17:30 PM
I read a article that Nader might consider running again. He mentioned that Dems ought to grow up and stop whinning about his running.
534. RickNelson - 11/15/2003 5:23:10 PM
By the way, I mentioned how the Bush tax cut was going to raise taxes. And that the lack of forsight to keep a balanced budget would also raise taxes. And that the state's will weigh in more or less with the national loss of tax revenue and align with raising taxes from federal shortfalls-
My property taxes went up 25% from 2003 - 2004, which is just the first such increase of a schedule to go up for the next few years.
535. jexster - 11/15/2003 5:23:47 PM
I read an article that important Greens [sic] are against any third party try....
536. RickNelson - 11/15/2003 5:26:14 PM
So, you economic PHD's why would I want Bush or any other Republican after this tax increase? Under the Democratic leadership of the last two decades, from Pres, Gov., Sen, or Rep. the increases were very modest. The budget was improved. The job market stablized and we were looking at efforts toward global bipartisan leadership.
Now we're not. So, why is Bush and the rest of the Republican mess an improvement? Why are you so in favor of this crap? Uh, why?!
537. RickNelson - 11/15/2003 5:27:37 PM
Did the Greens mention why they're against a third party try?
Could it be that the 'important' Greens know that we have to get Bush out? Uh, could that be the reason? It should be!
538. arkymalarky - 11/15/2003 5:55:38 PM
Nader needs to grow up and get real and realize he can't win, but can only help get someone who's damaging to the issues he supposedly supports elected. Why doesn't he use that influence he has to work on a Democratic platform more palatable to him?
He's like Perot, though, but moreso, imo. This time he won't have much if any effect on outcomes.
539. wonkers2 - 11/15/2003 6:25:52 PM
There is a long, interesting, well-written article in the Nov 17 New Yorker By Peter Boyer entitled "General Clark's Battles--The controversial career of a candidate."
The article focuses on Clark's stint as NATO commander and his controversial role in the Kosovo campaign. It details his rocky relationships with his superiors in the Pentagon and the White House. His champions were Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke, General Barry McCaffrey, General Al Haig and his detractors, among others were Powell, General Hugh Shelton and Defense Sec. William Cohen. Basically their problem with Clark was that he refused to follow their party line and continually went around them to others in the Clinton administration more sympathetic to his plan to attack Milosevic with bombs and, if necessary with NATO (mostly American) troops. The battle was between Clark and those advocating active use of U.S. military power against Milosevic, on the one hand, and those opposing is as not in U.S. vital interest. At that time Bush was on the side of the critics of activism and nation-buliding. Now, of course he and Clark have both reversed their positions.
Boyer's article is fair and balanced piece depicting Clark as a highly talented, impatient, ambitious, tightly wound, controversial man. It didn't cause me to hope that he will be president. Although he was a Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas, he's doesn't measure up to Bill Clinton intellectually or in political skills.
540. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/15/2003 7:01:51 PM
Judith, did you see this?
Is Texas America?
541. rdbrewer - 11/15/2003 7:12:20 PM
Ivins is always writing those Franklin-in-Paris type suckuppy pieces that pander to high society stereotypical views of Texas. What a raunchy bore.
542. jexster - 11/15/2003 7:40:03 PM
Molly sure knows her bubba rednecks don't she RD!
So do I.
543. jexster - 11/15/2003 7:40:21 PM
Its that time of year again!
Time for
Miss Nipsy Carville’s Corn Bread Dressin
serves 48
4# lean ground pork
2# gnd beef
12-16 c broth/stock
4 pkg giblets
24 biscuits
16T but/marg
20 c crumbled cornbread
8 med onion chop
4 bunch green onion chop
4 bell pepper chop
2 bunch parsley chop
12 ribs celery chop season mix whatever
20 cloves garlic chop
12 eggs slitely beat
Addl stock if needed
brown pork & beef til crumbly drain. set aside
Prep giblets, however you do, grind, set aside
in heavy dutch over saute vegs, add pork beef & giblets blending well.
cover & cook over low heat <> 45 min. remove from heat set aside add biscuits and c'bread to veg-meat mixture. stir in green onions, seasoning mix to taste & remaining broth. add parsley &gg to dressing & blend well
buttered 3 qt casserole 325 for 1 hr
I find in stores here frozed chop onion celery bell pepper cheaper than
buying the fresh item.
544. jexster - 11/15/2003 7:45:52 PM
Thanks Wiz! Just sent Molly's piece down the road a piece...down yonder to the famuluh, languishin down...down way down
over to
Say RD do you know what separates a coon ass and a jackass?
545. jexster - 11/15/2003 7:48:57 PM
The stars at night - are big and bright
Deep in the heart of Texas.
The prairie sky - is wide and high
Deep in the heart of Texas.
The Sage in bloom - is like perfume
Deep in the heart of Texas.
Reminds me of - the one I love
Deep in the heart of Texas.
The cowboys cry - ki-yip-pie-yi
Deep in the heart of Texas.
The rabbits rush - around the brush
Deep in the heart of Texas.
The coyotes wail - along the trail
Deep in the heart of Texas.
The doggies bawl - and bawl and bawl
Deep in the heart of Texas.
Did you know that those yokels actually sing that thing during the 7th inning stretch at Enron Field?
I thought I would die laughin...
546. jexster - 11/15/2003 7:50:56 PM
Yo RD...don't Luby's roast beef brung tears to your eyes?
547. jexster - 11/15/2003 7:54:07 PM
I>The first real Texan I ever saw on TV was King of the Hill's Boomhauer, the guy who's always drinking beer and you can't understand a word he says
548. rdbrewer - 11/15/2003 8:03:00 PM
See what I mean? Pandering to others' stereotypical views.
549. jexster - 11/15/2003 8:48:38 PM
RD - Makes you proud to be an Okie don't they!
550. jexster - 11/15/2003 8:49:03 PM
Gave Right Leg for Bush Lies
551. jexster - 11/15/2003 8:50:19 PM
You yankees...take from soneone who knows Texas..
Molly ain't lyin
552. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/16/2003 2:47:36 AM
553. jexster - 11/16/2003 3:50:49 AM
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2003/db031116.gif
Damn you Wiz...
I shall call down the Wrath of Viagra on you..
Al D - he's all yours
554. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/16/2003 4:09:51 AM
Smoooch!
555. concerned - 11/16/2003 6:39:43 AM
jexster sort of reminds me of Daschole in this regard.
556. concerned - 11/16/2003 6:47:45 AM
Re. 12037 -
Why do you want to replace Bush with some incompetent partisan bigot, Rick?
557. concerned - 11/16/2003 6:53:43 AM
'Will no Democrat come to save us?'
Hahahaha! It's not for lack of trying.
558. concerned - 11/16/2003 7:47:26 AM
559. concerned - 11/16/2003 8:28:20 AM
Iraqis dying because of Democrat Lies
The memo provides enormous evidence that the Bush team was right all along about Saddam's terrorist ties - despite charges to the contrary by the president's foes, particularly Democrats.
The Saddam-bin Laden collaboration involved "training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda - perhaps even for Mohamed Atta," the chief 9/11 hijacker, Hayes says.
560. jexster - 11/16/2003 10:11:52 AM
That's rright TD...the New York Post ....triple hearsay in a tabloid..can't find any evidence..make it up
Seems you people like tabloids these days...
When Woodrow Wilson came to Britain in 1918 he was excoriated for visiting the "pacifist" Manchester Guardian. Now George Bush has came under similar criticism, but this time for choosing to grant an exclusive interview to a "topless tabloid".
The Washington Post, under the headline "Prez in Topless Tabloid", chided Mr Bush for his appearance in this morning's edition of the Sun.
The Post described the paper as a tabloid "that features daily photographs of nude women and articles akin to those found in our own National Enquirer".
Bush and the Topless Tabloid
What would John Ashcroft say?
561. jexster - 11/16/2003 10:12:46 AM
Look what you did to the margins TD.
Jay, I demand you reprimand the boy
562. jexster - 11/16/2003 10:15:06 AM
You know come to think of it, didn't Bush get his Yellowcake lie from an Italian tablioid?
The plot thickens!
563. jexster - 11/16/2003 10:27:52 AM
564. jexster - 11/16/2003 10:32:14 AM
TD .. four weeks ago Bush told us that there was no Iraq Al Qaeda link...now he is saying there was?
Was he lying then or is he lying now?
565. jayackroyd - 11/16/2003 8:11:15 PM
concerned,
You keep changing your tune on the position the adminstration has taken wrt the three "justifications" for the war--terrorist threats against the US and the world, the possession of chemical and biological weapons and Iraq's nuclear program.
Can you please state what you believe the administration's prewar position was on each of these casi belli? I'd like to have it around for further reference.
566. rdbrewer - 11/16/2003 8:32:35 PM
Can you please state what you believe the administration's prewar position was on each of these casi belli? I'd like to have it around for further reference.
While concerned is getting around to it, why don't you provide yours?
567. judithathome - 11/16/2003 8:43:26 PM
I think Jay has done that, consistently, over and over.
568. concerned - 11/16/2003 9:14:49 PM
Re. 12066 -
Rationality, consistency and fairness are all weak points with jayackroyd. It must really gripe him to admit that GWB was actually underplaying some of the justifications for deposing Saddam, and proving poor ol' Jay & company liars in the process.
569. concerned - 11/16/2003 9:17:41 PM
Re. 12065 -
I could not have contradicted myself in any way of course, since I have not commented on GWB's position in this post.
If it turns out GWB was actually understating some of the justifications for deposing Saddam, so much the worse for you, apparently.
570. rdbrewer - 11/16/2003 9:22:24 PM
Concerned, I love your Freud/Daschle picture.
571. concerned - 11/16/2003 9:27:09 PM
Thanks, rdbrewer. Tiny Little Tommy Daschole would no doubt be deeply saddened to see it, however.
572. wonkers2 - 11/16/2003 9:27:27 PM
Me too! But from a different perspective--the truth it reveals about Bush's sorry-ass performance.
573. concerned - 11/16/2003 9:30:21 PM
It seems to me that minimum levels of fairness require Democrats to hold their fire regarding the administration's justifications for deposing Saddam until Stephen Hayes' report is fully followed up on.
574. judithathome - 11/16/2003 9:40:41 PM
I guess Stephen Kaye can file his own report and somewhere in between the two, we'll see.
575. judithathome - 11/16/2003 9:47:14 PM
Or did you mean the reporter for the Weekly Standard? I apologize for ragging on your spelling, if that is the case. ;-)
Of course, you know how we liberals are....
576. judithathome - 11/16/2003 9:49:23 PM
We should hold our fire, I guess, until this administration DECIDES on what the justifications for the war are.
See, it's so much easier to decide those types of things prior to the wars...I mean, that is how usually it's done.
577. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/16/2003 9:52:42 PM
Call Me a Bush-Hater
By Molly Ivins
578. jexster - 11/16/2003 10:01:48 PM
target=new>CIA: No Evidence Saddam was Trying to Arm Terrorists
Another day, another justification for Bush's bloody w-ar falls apart:
"Inspectors have found no evidence that Saddam Hussein tried to transfer chemical or biological technology or weapons to terrorists, according to a report quoting US military and intelligence experts. This report is according to the Washington Post newspaper. Anthony Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, provided new details about the weapons search and Iraqi insurgency in report released Friday. His report was based on briefings over the past two weeks in Iraq from David Kay, the CIA representative who is directing the search for unconventional weapons in Iraq, US civil administrator in Iraq Paul Bremer, and military officials. 'No evidence of any Iraqi effort to transfer weapons of mass destruction or weapons to terrorists,' Cordesman wrote of Kay's briefing."
579. rdbrewer - 11/16/2003 10:21:22 PM
No e-mail, internet tax. Go to noemailtax.com to help petition Congress to stop dreaming up new ways to tax the internet.
580. judithathome - 11/16/2003 10:23:36 PM
Bush Yanking Britian's Chain re: Jobs
GEORGE Bush's administration has called on US companies in Britain to relocate jobs to America in an astonishing move that could trigger a major trade war.
US-based multinationals have been told they will receive compensation from American trade authorities if they cancel contracts in Britain and take jobs home, according to CBI director-general Digby Jones.
The allegations come only a day before Bush arrives in London for his controversial State visit and escalate the storm of protest he has already caused by slapping big protectionist tariffs on European steel imports.
I'm all for more jobs here in this country but starting a trade war with Britian doesn't seem like a very smart way to accomplish that.
581. thoughtful - 11/16/2003 10:51:06 PM
Take a look at what the DOD has to say about the weekly std report:
News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate.
582. alistairConnor - 11/16/2003 11:31:20 PM
The trade-war business is a real worry. If domestic pork-barrel protectionism is Bush's top priority, it could trigger lasting damage, at a moment when progress on international free trade is on a knife edge.
And you have to wonder about Bush's sense of loyalty to allies... what would have been Britain's lot if Bush hadn't always backed him to the hilt?
583. judithathome - 11/16/2003 11:51:56 PM
Bush's xenophobia is in overdrive....
584. jexster - 11/17/2003 12:35:56 AM
Fox Trumpets Memo 'Proving' Saddam-Osama Link - Written by Bushevik David Feith!M
Its a scientifically established fact that watching Fox News will make you even more ignorant than you already are TD.
585. jexster - 11/17/2003 12:37:46 AM
Dept of Defense Press Release: Feith Memo Does Not Show Saddam-Osama Link
586. jexster - 11/17/2003 12:42:13 AM
I'd unravel ev'ry riddle
For any individ'le
In trouble or in pain
With the thoughts you'd be thinkin'
You could be another Lincoln,
If you only had a brain.
587. RickNelson - 11/17/2003 1:03:51 AM
First 12057 cracks me up concerned.
Second, of course I don't want a incompetent partisan bigot. We've already got one in the White House now, why would I want another?
You asked.
588. jexster - 11/17/2003 1:08:37 AM
Shock and Awe:
America's Closest Ally Loathes Bush
"Imagine the shock [in the US], when [Americans] see surging crowds, burning flags and (unless police step into ban it) a giant effigy of the Great Leader being toppled, a la Saddam, in Trafalgar Square. It is not only Bush the Chicken-hawk warmonger and promoter-in-chief of the great illusion about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction who they will be denouncing. It is also Bush the ignorant, self-righteous Christian warrior, Bush the smirking executioner and Bush the believer in one law for America and another for everyone else. And, of course, Bush the 'Toxic Texan', an image made flesh by the 'ghost ships' bearing down on Hartlepool, whose US-produced contaminants will find a last resting place on Britain's unpolluted isle. No man is ever quite as extreme as his caricature. But Bush comes closer than most, and not only Britons cannot abide him."
589. jexster - 11/17/2003 1:13:44 AM
Well it appears that the Demo nomination contest is all but over.
You knew it had to happen.
Dean administered emergency first aid to a campaign worker in Iowa who had suffered a seizure.
He can mail it in now.
590. jexster - 11/17/2003 2:14:08 AM
Watch the General Lay Down Counterbattery Fire at Fox News
591. jexster - 11/17/2003 2:22:58 AM
The Gropinator's first act as governor....
Run California another 4.2 Billion into debt.
Good work!
592. jayackroyd - 11/17/2003 2:59:15 AM
Rationality, consistency and fairness are all weak points with jayackroyd. It must really gripe him to admit that GWB was actually underplaying some of the justifications for deposing Saddam, and proving poor ol' Jay & company liars in the process.
That's not responsive. We entered into a war, concerned.
You can't say why?
593. jexster - 11/17/2003 3:50:42 AM
Bay Area Film And Book Premiere Gala
On Nov. 19 in San Francisco, join AlterNet authors Christopher Scheer and Lakshmi Chaudhry and filmmaker Robert Greenwald for a screening of the new film, 'Uncovered: The Truth About The War in Iraq,' and a signing of AlterNet's new book, 'The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq.' Food and drink reception precedes the event.
Wednesday, Nov. 19, 6-8pm
San Francisco LGBT Center, 1800 Market St., San Francisco
$25 General seating/$100 Reserved seating includes copy of book and DVD of film (all contributions are tax-deductible and go toward AlterNet's Election Coverage 2004 Fund_
Watch the Trailer - Real Player
594. thoughtful - 11/17/2003 1:49:35 PM
Jex, you missed my #12081...already posted that.
595. jexster - 11/17/2003 1:52:40 PM
SF Chron:
Gavin Newsom has a bright future on the state and national stage, the director of the influential New Democratic Network said at a San Francisco conference Friday.
Of course, there's still that pesky little matter of the Dec. 9 mayor's runoff election to deal with.
Still, Newsom spoke to about 70 people at the Grand Hyatt Hotel and told them that Democrats across the country want action, not talk.
"We need to get this city and this party moving again,'' he said. "We need results.''
Newsom was the only local official endorsed by the NDN, a group that talks about its commitment to new solutions for America's problems and modernization of the Democratic Party.
Part of their job is to identify the leaders of the future, said Simon Rosenberg, the group's founder and president.
"We try to pick out the best Democrats with the biggest potential and help them early in their career,'' he said.
He described Newsom as one of the most impressive young Democrats in the country, saying that his campaign resembles "Bill Clinton meets Howard Dean,'' combining a command of innovative policy issues with an ability "to get regular people involved in his campaign.''
At 36, Newsom's future is in front of him. Providing, of course, he wins the mayor's race.
"Long-term, Gavin could add a lot more value to the Democratic Party than (Los Angeles Mayor) Jimmy Hahn,'' Rosenberg said.
596. jexster - 11/17/2003 1:55:31 PM
It never hurts to teach a wingnut the same lesson twice...or three times...
They're just that dense.
597. jexster - 11/17/2003 6:17:34 PM
Ain't Got Me No Mojo No Mo
Bush Approval at 50%, Tied for Lowest of Presidency
598. jexster - 11/17/2003 6:17:57 PM
Will Lie for War
599. jexster - 11/17/2003 6:20:01 PM
Hey here's a thought...
Why doesn't DeLay impeach him - for the high crime and misdemeanor of starting an agressive war on false pretenses!
Write your congressman.
600. robertjayb - 11/17/2003 7:50:52 PM
Charlie Cook uses the Mississippi governor's race to illustrate the dems' southern problem:
In Mississippi, Republican Haley Barbour won a hard-fought challenge to
Democratic Gov. Ronnie Musgrove. Barbour captured 77 percent of the
white vote, which makes up 65 percent of the state's electorate.
Musgrove won 94 percent of the African-American vote, which represents
33 percent of the state's voters. The split made racial voting patterns
paramount. Data of this kind reinforce the difficulty the Democratic
Party faces in the South and explain why, aside from perhaps Arkansas
and Louisiana, the region is now out of reach for Democratic
presidential candidates in all but the most extreme cases.
601. judithathome - 11/17/2003 8:13:10 PM
I just can't wrap my mind around so many middle and lower class people voting for Republicans.
602. ronski - 11/17/2003 9:14:08 PM
...aside from perhaps Arkansas and Louisiana, the region is now out of reach for Democratic presidential candidates in all but the most extreme cases.
And it's a pretty large region, to which must be added the five plains states, plus several mountain states: Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, and possibly Idaho and Montana. And in the Midwest, Indiana and possibly Ohio.
603. concerned - 11/17/2003 9:18:51 PM
Re. 12092 -
I can and I have done so here. You simply refuse to acknowledge that I have done so.
604. judithathome - 11/17/2003 9:22:57 PM
Concerned, why can't you put a link in to posts to which you are responding? It is a simple matter of courtesy.
605. concerned - 11/17/2003 9:24:23 PM
I'll see about memorizing that html command, JAH.
606. judithathome - 11/17/2003 9:30:10 PM
It's extremely simple....(msg num=1234)...replace the parentheses with carats ot whatever they're called.
607. jexster - 11/17/2003 9:41:03 PM
Remarkable finding in the Gallup Poll....
50/50 split on most important issue econ/natl security...
That is 20% higher for the REPUBLICAN's supposed issue...
The more people believe national security is important, the worse Bush does!
MIA Mojo
608. jexster - 11/17/2003 9:43:30 PM
Robert...did you see the Washington Post op ed "Non Southern Strategy"?
Ruy Teixeira challenges the premise in A Non-Southern Strategy?
Robert,
Do you know why Texans like grits so much?
609. jexster - 11/17/2003 9:44:02 PM
Robert,
Do you know what separates a jackass and a coon ass?
:)
610. thoughtful - 11/17/2003 10:05:07 PM
Me either, except when i think about the religious who would support the GOP, the toughs who are big on defense who would support the GOP, the ill-informed who believed saddam had something to do with 9/11 who would support the GOP, and those with lots of children who enjoyed the tax credit who would support the GOP. Then I think about how inarticulate the dems have been about what's wrong with this administration, and how easy the press has been on this administration, and how well the putdown/entertainment/news format of the likes of fox and rush sell and then it all makes sense. People who are easily swayed by the likes of a turn of phrase or name recognition or a short-term benefit will vote against their own best interest every time.
611. thoughtful - 11/17/2003 10:14:56 PM
That last was in response to Judithah's why so many go GOP
612. judithathome - 11/17/2003 10:17:28 PM
You're right, Thoughtful. After all, I am talking about people who bought Beanie Babies as an investment in the future.
613. concerned - 11/17/2003 10:38:00 PM
Really? I know some guy's mom who bought a boatload of those things a while back.
614. judithathome - 11/17/2003 10:56:47 PM
I'm not at all surprised that you do, Concerned.
I hope she had money to burn because she did just that.
615. ronski - 11/17/2003 11:27:50 PM
I missed this: Did Bush ask the U.S. news pool not to show demonstrators?
As for Red Ken, as awful as his comments are, it's a stretch to suggest he wants to endanger Bush's life, to say the least.
As for blocking off parts of the city, I think there is ample reason to be concerned about Bush's safety.
Last, I would have loved to see Bush deal with Parliament.
616. ronski - 11/17/2003 11:28:32 PM
Sorry, wrong thread.
617. jexster - 11/17/2003 11:32:58 PM
Now when we need a leader who will clean up the mess in Iraq....
Wes Clark's First TV Ad
618. jexster - 11/17/2003 11:34:32 PM
Of course he didn't Ronski...he just doesn't want to have the US pool take his picture with demonstrators in the same frame!
Gosh....you didn't know that?
619. jexster - 11/17/2003 11:51:56 PM
Tampa Tribune
Governing With All The Keen Skill Of Delta House
"You get a sense that things are deteriorating into 'Hail
Freedonia'-like proportions in Iraq when Bush's administration starts talking about using Afghanistan as a role model for democratic reform. Wouldn't that be a bit like looking to Jeffrey Dahmer for home entertainment advice?
Geez, Tampa City Councilman John Dingfelder wields more political clout than Hamid Karzai, who rules firmly - with more body armor than Sir Lancelot, protected by Special Forces, the Sixth Fleet, the Strategic Air Command, Rambo and The Untouchables - over his front porch.
Isn't it amazing, and sad, that the only onsistent voice with any credibility when it comes to Iraq has been 20-year-old Jessica Lynch, the former Army private who has resisted efforts by the Pentagon to turn her into a Sgt. York of the Persian Gulf?
Nearly 400 U.S. body bags later, the White House is only now concluding that it installed Spanky and Our Gang to run Iraq, led by Ahmad Chalabi, the Dennis Kozlowski of the Sunni Triangle?"
620. alistairConnor - 11/18/2003 12:06:25 AM
Message # 12097
That Bush popularity graph is cute, it looks remarkably like a Christmas tree.
I guess the bill arrives in January.
621. jexster - 11/18/2003 12:21:12 AM
War Against Greenery Heats Up in SF
From the Newsom 12:09 Club News ....a weekly volunteer e-letter
TO DO...
§ Some specific to-do’s are below, but folks, we need you in any way, shape or form....around the clock...We’ve got word that from Santa Cruz to Humbolt County to Portland...from anywhere the patchouli is ripe and showers are broken...where money is evil unless it’s being taken from someone who earned it and given to someone who didn’t...1000-plus Greenies are bussing in to work FULL TIME for the last two weeks of the campaign. If YOU give us a Saturday, give us a night of phone banking, give us a precinct walk...we WILL win. If you don’t, we won’t. Gonzalez people will be everywhere. But while they wave signs at 10,000 people and hope for voters, we will be contacting 10,000 people and identifying voters. Our way wins, but we need you to do it. And on a side note, we also suggest you buy air freshener to protect your personal space.
622. jexster - 11/18/2003 12:21:45 AM
I just hope they don't bring the French Greens.
Peeeeeeeeeeeeyew!
623. alistairConnor - 11/18/2003 12:27:07 AM
... if we did come, the voters of San Francisco would fall in love with us and never let us leave.
The women too.
624. jexster - 11/18/2003 1:38:01 AM
Ewww...don't shave armpits..
625. jexster - 11/18/2003 1:40:16 AM
Mojo Mumbo Jumbo:
Public Souring on Bush
The latest Gallup poll documents the increasingly sour mood of the public about President Bush and, critically, many of his personal characteristics.
Start with his overall approval rating: down to 50 percent with 47 percent disapproval–tied with a mid-September poll for the worst of his presidency. Then consider items like whether Bush "is in touch with the problems ordinary Americans face in their daily lives". Only 42 percent say this applies to Bush; 57 percent say it does not.
Or how about whether Bush "generally agrees with you on issues you care about"–right now, just 48 percent say this characteristic applies to Bush, down from 64 percent the last time Gallup asked this, in May of 2002. And the same number, 48 percent, say Bush "can get the economy moving", with 50 percent saying he cannot.
Well, does Bush share their values? An underwhelming 53 percent believe he does, down from 66 percent at the time of last November’s election. And does Bush "care about the needs of people like you"? Uh-uh, says the public, by 50 percent to 49 percent. That’s a 16 point swing from the end of June, when the public believed, by 57 percent to 42 percent, that he did care about the needs of people like them.
How about whether he "is a person you admire"? Right now, it’s a 50 percent to 49 percent split in favor of "admire"–but that’s down from a 54 percent to 45 percent split in June of this year and a 64 percent to 33 percent split in May of last year. And here’s the kicker: the number who believe he is "honest and trustworthy" is down 14 points–from 73 percent to 59 percent–just since early April.
626. jexster - 11/18/2003 1:40:47 AM
smellin worse than a greenie from Humboldt county!
627. jexster - 11/18/2003 2:29:22 AM
Senators Ask Justice to Investigate Feith Memo Leak
TD
I suggest you find yourself an attorney
628. jexster - 11/18/2003 2:48:05 AM
RD...you might look for one too...
ABC News reports that Rush Limbaugh is under investigation for violation of money laundering statutes....
Hillbilly heroin
Boomer Sooner!
629. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/18/2003 5:11:46 AM
630. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/18/2003 5:27:21 AM
631. rdbrewer - 11/18/2003 6:54:45 AM
And:
632. jexster - 11/18/2003 8:06:06 AM
That's not a very nice thing to say about the only real ally America has any more.
633. jexster - 11/18/2003 8:40:12 AM
"Liar, Liar Pants on Fire, Hang Them Over a Telephone Wire"
634. jexster - 11/18/2003 8:41:14 AM
635. Edmund Dantes - 11/18/2003 2:01:01 PM
Sacrificial asses not keen to take stand on homosexual marriage
Gephardt: "It is my hope that we don't get sidetracked by the right wing into a debate over a phony constitutional amendment banning gay marriage....I strongly oppose such an effort as purely political and unnecessarily divisive at the expense of those who already suffer from discrimination."
Is there any issue that's okay to discuss and argue about in a political campaign without making it political? What fucking business are these people in if it's not politics and politicizing issues? I say, "Some groups suffer from discrimination." You say, "no, they don't." Who is politicizing it?
It seems "disagreement with Democratic arguments" equals "politicizing" equals bad.
Unnecessarily divisive? Has Gephardt noticed the rhetoric from the Democratic Party? Read the transcripts of one of the candidates debates. Read the stuff Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd have been saying.
> Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephardt, John Kerry and John Edwards issued statements Tuesday restating their opposition to gay marriage....
> Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, said the decision calls on the legislature in his state "to take action to ensure equal protection for gay couples." He avoided specifying what that action should be, as did most of his presidential opponents.
Obviously, Kerry would vote for a law that threatened homosexual marriage, but not one that allowed it.
636. jexster - 11/18/2003 3:26:04 PM
What sort of law would she vote for?
637. jexster - 11/18/2003 3:34:43 PM
Imagine that. The wildly anti-Semitic article about George Soros ("Satan lives in George Soros") authored by James Hall and published at GOPUSA.com has been taken down off the site. (For the grisly details, see the prior post.) No explanation of why, no apology, just gone --- poof!
I should have known to make a copy before they snatched it from the site.
But that turns out not to be necessary since the author, James Hall, has the piece up on his own website, with the helpful addition of a caricature drawing of Soros sprawling out on a mountain of US currency.
-- Josh Marshall
638. jexster - 11/18/2003 3:36:21 PM
As Brought to You By The Charlatans and Hypocrites - GOPUSA:
No other single person represents the symbol and the substance of Globalism more than this Hungarian-born descendant of Shylock. He is the embodiment of the Merchant from Venice. His public reputation as an astute currency speculator is generous, while his skills as a manipulator and procurer of pain and suffering is shrouded in the footnotes of the financial journals. Claiming to be a philanthropist, his record is literally one of being a patron for indentured enslavement
639. thoughtful - 11/18/2003 6:03:33 PM
Read Bush's speech from this a.m. Seems they are taking a card from the xtian coalition, running a stealth campaign. Other than a few outlandish remarks, (such as, "Who doubts that Afghanistan is a more just society and less dangerous without Mullah Omar playing host to terrorists from around the world?") his speech was very strong and acceptable and moderate. It's a shame the actions his administration have taken don't match his words.
640. jexster - 11/18/2003 6:31:31 PM
Corporate Welfare Packed Into Bush Energy Bill
641. jexster - 11/18/2003 6:58:06 PM
"We cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own backyard," Bush said. "No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient."
Uzebekistan
642. jexster - 11/19/2003 12:04:36 AM
Ohio...figured you might be interested in this
Dear Media Corps member,
A couple weeks ago, we asked you to consider an unprecedented Media Corps effort: full-time monitoring of Fox News for specific instances of media malpractice.
The response was overwhelming! Of more than 5,000 responses we received, 95% of you thought this was a good idea. The majority of you who have cable TV said you were likely to participate.
Based on that response, we've decided to proceed with this novel undertaking. Together, we will monitor every single show on cable's Fox News and carefully document any and all incidents of distortion, bias, or inaccuracy.
To sign up for our new Fox Watch initiative, click here:
643. jexster - 11/19/2003 1:37:10 AM
What Happened to Ahnold's Big Campaign Audit?
Gropinator's Big Idea: CA to Borrow Way Out of Debt
With 15 Billion Bond Issue
Damn, why didn't I think of that!
644. OhioSTOPAS - 11/19/2003 12:07:36 PM
Jex: When talking about Fox, there should always be a (sic) after the word "News".
645. OhioSTOPAS - 11/19/2003 12:11:52 PM
It's great that gay couples in Massachusetts will be able to marry, but (and I know others have made this point) what a boon to the GOP the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision is. The Repubs were already planning to exploit anti-gay prejudice, and this decision plays into their hands.
646. thoughtful - 11/19/2003 2:31:33 PM
So much for the GOP being good for business:
Using this measure, they find that during those 72 years the stock market returned about 11 percent more a year under Democratic presidents and 2 percent more [than the 3 month t-bill] under Republicans - a striking difference.
Full article
647. thoughtful - 11/19/2003 3:31:35 PM
Maureen nailed it this a.m. on the W visit to the UK:
The White House packaged the visit for the viewers at home.
How else to explain the same Bush advance geniuses who brought us the "Mission Accomplished" banner putting up a blue PowerPoint-ish backdrop for the president's speech at Whitehall Palace that stuttered, "United Kingdom," "United Kingdom," "United Kingdom."
The people in the United Kingdom already knew he was in the United Kingdom. And the kingdom isn't very united at the moment.
Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, captured the spirit of the moment when he told NPR that the Republican National Committee should foot the bill for Mr. Bush's extraordinary security, the largest police operation ever in Great Britain. All this, he harrumphed, "just so George Bush can use a few clips of him and the queen in his campaign advertisements for re-election next year."
648. jexster - 11/19/2003 4:44:15 PM
649. jexster - 11/19/2003 5:04:30 PM
650. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/19/2003 5:08:31 PM
GORE VIDAL: Franklin understood the American people better than the other three. Washington and Jefferson were nobles — slaveholders and plantation owners. Alexander Hamilton married into a rich and powerful family and joined the upper classes. Benjamin Franklin was pure middle class. In fact, he may have invented it for Americans. Franklin saw danger everywhere. They all did. Not one of them liked the Constitution. James Madison, known as the father of it, was full of complaints about the power of the presidency. But they were in a hurry to get the country going. Hence the great speech, which I quote at length in the book, that Franklin, old and dying, had someone read for him. He said, I am in favor of this Constitution, as flawed as it is, because we need good government and we need it fast. And this, properly enacted, will give us, for a space of years, such government.
But then, Franklin said, it will fail, as all such constitutions have in the past, because of the essential corruption of the people. He pointed his finger at all the American people. And when the people become so corrupt, he said, we will find it is not a republic that they want but rather despotism — the only form of government suitable for such a people.
Uncensored Gore
The Take-No-Prisoners Social Critic Skewers Bush, Ashcroft and the Whole Damn Lot of Us for Letting Despots Rule
651. jexster - 11/19/2003 5:15:52 PM
Eddie:
Now that Richard Perle has confessed, we can get those anemic approval ratings up with a nice little impeachment.
Write your congressman.
Next to a prediction from you that The Emperor's ratings will continue to plummet, I can't think of anything that is going to help out.
652. jexster - 11/19/2003 6:42:48 PM
Doubts Over Performance and Agenda Cause Voter Split Over Bush
LAT Poll Shows Re-elect Number Plummets
42% Yes
46% No
Behold! I am weary of my wisdom, like the bee that has gathered too much honey; I need hands outstretched to take it from me. I wish to spread it and bestow it, until the wise have once more become joyous in their folly, and the poor happy in their riches.
For that I must descend into the depths....
653. jexster - 11/19/2003 6:57:13 PM
654. jexster - 11/19/2003 7:08:29 PM
A Quiz
Who said....
The socialists and their rulers lost their legitimacy a long time ago and the socialists are infidels regardless of where they are, whether in Baghdad or in Aden
a. Concerned
b. Osama Bin Laden
c. Both
655. thoughtful - 11/19/2003 8:12:40 PM
This just cracks me up.
The GOP have the knickers in a twist because George Soros is spending lots of money to campaign against Bush's reelection. At least he is respecting the results of the election...as bizarrely as that was decided; unlike Richard Mellon Scaife who spent all that money to get a sitting president impeached. Funny the GOP didn't mind Scaife's money or activities at all.
CHRISTINE IVERSON, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE: A couple of points here. First of all, there are no organizations on the conservative side that have been created solely and expressly for the purpose of defeating President George W. Bush, as they have on the liberal side. Secondly...
BLITZER: For supporting George Bush?
IVERSON: Excuse me -- yes.
I thought the GOP was all for free speech and people being able to do what they want with their own money as they wish so long as it's not illegal. Guess not.
IVERSON: Secondly, it would be interesting to note that Howard Dean has taken contributions, as have all of the other major Democratic presidential candidates, from employees of major corporations. Howard Dean has even taken a contribution from a board member of Halliburton.
Oh, so free speech applies only to employees of small businesses, not to employees of major corporations? You don't suppose any of those millions Bush has already raised were donated by employees of major corporations, do you? Of course not!
Sounds a lot to me like all pigs are equal...but some pigs are more equal.
656. wonkers2 - 11/19/2003 8:21:42 PM
Another D.C. charade.
657. jexster - 11/19/2003 8:26:07 PM
Hell they'v even brought out the heavy guns...SATAN and the International Jew Conspiracy!
Satan Lives in George Soros
658. judithathome - 11/19/2003 8:30:18 PM
It must really chap BushCo that Soros gets to take advantage of those tax cuts all of them enjoy...I'll bet when they signed them into law, they weren't thinking about people of the other party having a lot of money, too.
659. jexster - 11/19/2003 8:43:48 PM
660. jexster - 11/19/2003 8:45:07 PM
661. jexster - 11/19/2003 9:17:02 PM
November 5, 2003
I cannot really describe the way I feel now that I know my son is being deployed. It is an "unreal" and terrifying feeling.
My son is a man of Honor and this war is, in my opinion based on the greed for power of a handful of men. One being the major endorser. My son cannot stand the evil in the hearts of these evil devils which are terrorizing our world, but I also know that what he longs to accomplish in his heart is not going to be possible in Iraq. "BRING OUR TROOPS HOME"— this is my cry. If indeed we had a legitimate cause to be there then that would be different. But I still can't see how, for the life of me, Iraq has been a threat to us.
Pardon me Sir, but I trust our own government about as much as I would trust France to be there when we really need them..and especially for these men and women who have given their lives to serve in this horrible war, and are now , as always having to suffer because the United States Govnt. will not help them nor their families as they should be helped. I say leave the Iraqis to themselves and Bring our troops home NOW
A Ranger's Mom
Bring Them Home Soldier's Website
662. jexster - 11/19/2003 9:53:16 PM
General Clark is set to blast Bush foreign policy in a wide ranging speech tonight in New York City
663. thoughtful - 11/19/2003 11:16:44 PM
What was it bush said his campaign theme was going to be? How he's made the world a safer place?
Yeah, right.
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Some members of al Qaeda most likely possess portable surface-to-air missiles and may use them to target military transport planes, a U.N. report says.
The threat was among several findings detailed in the report by the United Nations' al Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions Committee which also cited a shifting of the terror network's strategy, a move towards "softer" targets and a warning the group was working towards a biological or chemical attack.
664. jexster - 11/20/2003 12:51:36 AM
In scenes reminiscent of the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue in Baghdad, protesters in London's Trafalgar Square bring down an effigy of George Bush
665. jexster - 11/20/2003 3:36:45 AM
Dick Cheney: Crackpot
OR How the Iraq War Had NOTHING to Do With US Security
The New Republic
666. Edmund Dantes - 11/20/2003 3:48:24 AM
For that ol poll-luvin' fool:
A new poll shows support for the war in Iraq has slightly risen in the past two weeks, with 56 percent of Americans now saying the situation there was worth going to war over. Fifty-four percent of Americans said that at the beginning of the month.
Similarly, the Gallup poll shows a majority of Americans say the decision to go to war was the right thing to do, compared with 31 percent who disagree. Seventeen percent say it's too soon to tell.
What's more, 48 percent of Americans now say the war in Iraq has made the U.S. safer from terrorism, up from 45 percent last month.
667. jexster - 11/20/2003 4:00:59 AM
Bush's Teflon Terror is Day Before Yesterday's News
Poll Finds Many Fear Bush Has No Clear Plan for Iraq
WASHINGTON -- Americans of every stripe are worried that the U.S. occupation of Iraq could turn into a quagmire, and most are unconvinced that President Bush has a clear plan to handle the problem, a Los Angeles Times Poll has found.
668. Edmund Dantes - 11/20/2003 4:03:34 AM
Economy has already voted for Bush
Almost all recent indicators favor the president's reelection: economic growth, rising at a 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter; jobs, increasing 286,000 since August; productivity, advancing at roughly a 5 percent rate since late 2001. Nariman Behravesh, chief economist for the forecasting firm Global Insight, has one of those equations that predict election results based on the economy and various political factors (incumbency, party affiliation). By the latest reports, Bush wins 56.6 percent of the 2004 vote.
Hoo-yay!
669. jexster - 11/20/2003 4:04:38 AM
Americans Say Iraq Not Worth the Cost _LAT
Eddie do you really love pain or just too fuckin dumb to feel it?
670. Edmund Dantes - 11/20/2003 4:09:29 AM
Eddie do you really love pain or just too fuckin dumb to feel it?
Get back to the ranch with your flirtin', Jasper old boy. I don't swing thataway.
Stick to fucking the Mote up right nice.
I have stood here before in the pouring rain
With the world turning circles running 'round my brain
I guess I'm always hoping that you'll end this reign
But it's my destiny to be the King of Pain.
Whereas, Jasper, old shoe, you're just the King of Pop. Errr...Poopstain.
671. jexster - 11/20/2003 4:10:23 AM
Nariman Behravesh, chief economist for the forecasting firm Global Insight, has one of those equations that predict election results based on the economy and various political factors (incumbency, party affiliation). By the latest reports, Bush wins 56.6 percent of the 2004 vote.
President GORE
672. Edmund Dantes - 11/20/2003 4:12:34 AM
How many electoral votes you think 56 percent of the popular is worth?
I think my man can shellack Dean or whoever better than Pappy did the Duke. What do you think?
Know what?
I'm gonna sit right down and write myself a letter.
And attach a $200 check to it for Bush/Cheney '04.
Good old Niner's having a fundraiser and I'm obligated to make a more meaningful contribution to Republican victory than spanking your ass yet again.
No matter how much you love it, Prof.
673. jexster - 11/20/2003 4:19:05 AM
OOO S/M, Chile molestin, communust, Osama Suckin Saddamite
674. jexster - 11/20/2003 4:20:44 AM
Eddie, I dunno how many EV's your funny money 56% is worth
Why don't you tell me
675. jexster - 11/20/2003 4:24:06 AM
Hell the Idiot Emperor don't need Bagwan's bs regression, he don't need no Electoral Votes, Our Emperor is God's Annointed,...
Look what those fuckin Limey's, our "allies" think of God's Boy
Taint rayght
Taint far
Taint good
676. jexster - 11/20/2003 4:26:06 AM
God Bless ya Eddie...I LOVE it when you and the lil missus Lulabelle get home from the IceHouse and the pigs been slopped and you ready for love...
677. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/20/2003 6:42:10 AM
Damn right we're angry! And that's how we'll win'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Rich Procter
There's nothing I like better than lapping up the patronizing blather of wingnut pundits doling out advice to Democrats about how we "mustn't, oh mercy mercy no!" get angry at President Bush. An "angry Democrat" like Howard Dean will never be accepted by voters, they say.
First of all, I'd like to thank these supercilious blowhards for prying themselves away from their other tasks -- tanking the economy, sending tech jobs to India and manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China, lying us into a Middle East quagmire, handing what's left of the environment over to their rapacious corporate pals, and trying to pile-drive Jefferson Davis-ultra-rightwing whack-job judicial nominees down our throats. Gee! You'd think all this would be a full time job, but nooooooooo - they've still got time to share their precious advice with Democrats! Nice.
Second - just so we know where we stand - I want to summarize their advice. "We're the hammer - you're the nail. We're the offense -you're the defense. We're the hobnail boot - you're the doormat."
"Our job is drown you in the toxic sludge of screaming hate-mongers like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly. Your job is stand in front of this blast-furnace of repugnant vitriol, and remain polite. Remember that awful Wellstone Memorial? Goodness, just because one of your most beloved icons was killed in a plane crash, opening the door for Norm "Empty Suit" Coleman to waltz into the Senate, that's no reason to use the kind of language that -oh, say, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, and several hundred lesser AM screech monkeys use 24/7 demonizing you. Your job is to be good, polite little victims, lay down, and let us beat you to death with a blunt instrument - our wits."
678. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/20/2003 6:44:34 AM
I've had enough. I love Howard Dean. Why? Because he's angry, he's passionate, he's ready to confront the wingnuts who are destroying the country, and he seems to love the battle. He enjoys being provocative. He gives as good as he gets. He's Harry Truman redux. Every time I hear him speak, I yell "GIVE 'EM HELL, HOWARD."
If you're a Democrat, you're not just ALLOWED to be angry - you've got to GET ANGRY, and STAY ANGRY. Why? Because AMERICANS LOVE A FIGHTER. I'm convinced that Michael Dukakis lost the presidency in 1988 NOT because the late, unlamented Lee Atwater "made Willie Horton his running mate." Dukakis lost the presidency because, when Bush I ran that famously slimy ad, Dukakis did nothing. He took the "high road" and ignored it. The American public recognized the smear for what it was - but they judged that Dukakis didn't have the guts to fight back. This is a tough world, friends. We all know it. We need a President how has the guts to fight - who ENJOYS the fight.
We need an angry candidate who can drive home the truth about what the Republicans are doing to this country. THEY LIED US INTO THIS WAR, and every body bag - I'm sorry, "Transfer Tube" belongs right at the door of the Oval Office. We've lost 3 MILLION JOBS. Over 40 MILLION AMERICANS DON'T HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE. 40 YEARS OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGARDS HAVE BEEN TRASHED. THE PRESIDENT HAS GONE TO 113 FUND-RAISERS, AND NO MILITARY FUNERALS.
679. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/20/2003 6:47:05 AM
I've had enough. I love Howard Dean. Why? Because he's angry, he's passionate, he's ready to confront the wingnuts who are destroying the country, and he seems to love the battle. He enjoys being provocative. He gives as good as he gets. He's Harry Truman redux. Every time I hear him speak, I yell "GIVE 'EM HELL, HOWARD."
If you're a Democrat, you're not just ALLOWED to be angry - you've got to GET ANGRY, and STAY ANGRY. Why? Because AMERICANS LOVE A FIGHTER. I'm convinced that Michael Dukakis lost the presidency in 1988 NOT because the late, unlamented Lee Atwater "made Willie Horton his running mate." Dukakis lost the presidency because, when Bush I ran that famously slimy ad, Dukakis did nothing. He took the "high road" and ignored it. The American public recognized the smear for what it was - but they judged that Dukakis didn't have the guts to fight back. This is a tough world, friends. We all know it. We need a President how has the guts to fight - who ENJOYS the fight.
We need an angry candidate who can drive home the truth about what the Republicans are doing to this country. THEY LIED US INTO THIS WAR, and every body bag - I'm sorry, "Transfer Tube" belongs right at the door of the Oval Office. We've lost 3 MILLION JOBS. Over 40 MILLION AMERICANS DON'T HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE. 40 YEARS OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGARDS HAVE BEEN TRASHED. THE PRESIDENT HAS GONE TO 113 FUND-RAISERS, AND NO MILITARY FUNERALS.
680. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/20/2003 6:47:21 AM
We need a candidate who can stand up and say, "Are you better off than you were four years ago? Will your children be better off financing the trillions of dollars in debt we're accumulating so Dick Cheney can buy a seventh vacation home? Are we safer in the world now that we've trashed the United Nations and insulted just about every nation in the world except England? Are you sick of John Ashcroft suspending your rights and harassing terminal cancer patients because they might be toking on a doobie? Aren't you ready for this slow-motion train wreck to end?"
America is sick of the Iraq war. Americans are sick of losing jobs, losing their health insurance, and watching the GOP pigs slop up billions from the "crony capitalism" trough while Veterans are shafted, schools close and government services get slashed. The big question is, WHO IS TOUGH ENOUGH TO FACE THESE ISSUES? The answer is - the candidate who can stand up to a 200 million dollar, scorched earth, take-no-prisoners, do-what-it-takes BushCo advertising blitz that will try to morph whatever candidate the Democrats nominate into some bizarre amalgam of Satan, Saddam Hussein and Benedict Arnold. Every statement will be twisted, every appearance trashed, every move demonized. It's going to take someone who is angry at what's happening to this country, likes fighting, and is ready to stand up to these bullies.
To hell with these Republicans who want a nice, polite Democrat doormat to walk over to victory. We're ANGRY at what the Bushies have done to this magnificent country. No more timid victims, friends -we're a majority of enraged WINNERS.
681. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/20/2003 6:54:59 AM
Sorry for the double, but I've been getting lots of error messages when trying to post.
682. wonkers2 - 11/20/2003 1:33:44 PM
Well said, wiz! Wonkers concurs.
683. thoughtful - 11/20/2003 4:05:42 PM
Wiz, seems kind of obvious, but why on earth would someone take advice from an enemy?
I can hear it now, Lee advising Grant that sticks and stones are far superior to rifles.
684. RickNelson - 11/20/2003 4:58:19 PM
at the risk of continued oblivian from multitudinal posts
Here is a book: "Anti-Americanism"
by Jean-François Revel
This excerpt:
Here are shades of elementary Marxist cant, parroted by the enemies of globalization, according to which the wealthy are eternally accruing more riches at the expense of the poor, who are mired ever more deeply in poverty. Thus Marx believed he could predict that, in the industrialized countries he studied, capital was destined to become increasingly concentrated in the hands of an ever-smaller class of super-rich proprietors, who would be confronted by ever-increasing hordes of impoverished proletarians.
Put to the test, the theory was revealed as incorrect, for class relations within the developed societies simply did not go that way; likewise for the relations between the developed and the so-called developing nations. But inability to explain the facts has never prevented a theory from prospering, provided it is sustained by ideology and shielded by ignorance. As usual, facts are trumped by psychological imperatives."
It follows to presume that this neo-con view, when taken in context with the rest of the introduction provided by the link, takes itself to be wholly reasonable. The author extensively proclaiming that because of his vast contact with all walks of American lifestyle, has the benevolent authority to exude confident proclamations.
685. RickNelson - 11/20/2003 5:01:48 PM
"parroted by the enemies of globalization"
Wholly crap?!
This parrots Rush Limbaugh.
I think they're good buddies, yup that's my take. I have concluded based upon what I examine within the text of this books introduction, that Revel and Limbaugh are best pals.
Therefore, we had best understand the deficiency of the poor man. He undoubtedly suffers from prescription drug addiction, poor soul.
686. wonkers2 - 11/20/2003 5:04:52 PM
Seems to me that even more than in the past the Congress has lost sight of the public interest. The omnibus spending bill is an inflated morass of pork. The energy bill is a give-away to polluters,oil companies and big corporate corn farmers. The Medicare drug bill is designed to undermine Medicare. The House bill to reform mutual funds is a weak slap on the wrist of a severely ethically compromised and sleazy financial services industry.
Maybe the Congress's failures and excesses are why outsiders like Dean and Clark.
687. wonkers2 - 11/20/2003 5:05:19 PM
...have such appeal.
688. RickNelson - 11/20/2003 5:09:51 PM
Governor Pawlenty, Republican, Minnesota:
"Prescription drug pricing is a scam!"
689. concerned - 11/20/2003 5:11:54 PM
Democrat Memos Shows Plan to Rig Affirmative Action Case
The hard evidence of Democrat Party Memogate abuse and corruption of the Senate's Advise and Consent role continues to accumulate. An independent investigation is called for, IMO.
690. RickNelson - 11/20/2003 5:12:39 PM
Gov. Pawlenty claimed he's willing to take on lawsuits to advance Minnesotan's right to purchase cheaper drugs from Canada.
691. Wombat - 11/20/2003 5:13:41 PM
Rick:
Unlike Limbaugh, Revel is actually a thinker. Also, his criticism: "the inability to explain the facts has never prevented a theory from prospering, provided it is sustained by ideology and shielded by ignorance," could just as easily be applied to the Bush Administration's foreign and domestic policies.
692. RickNelson - 11/20/2003 5:16:00 PM
So?
Who cares if Dems hold up judicial nominations? The Reps. did it, Dems do it, hey we all "Do It" ya know, Do it, get it, the pun I mean?
693. RickNelson - 11/20/2003 5:21:47 PM
Thank you Wombat, I'm in a levity kind of mood, therefore my joke.
Revel is indeed thoughtful. Yet he does not himself, within the quick introduction (not), advance his theory with evidence, nor point to it. He proclaims his extensive contact with American's and those abroad, mentioning France, that he draws conclusions with regard to liberals. That they are deficient parrots.
The remarks expressed beforehand sell himself. His actions with a 1970 book and how he came to create it. His connections, his experience and the intellectual pursuit which drew him toward the current analysis.
If he's going to proclaim himself wholly sufficient to expound theory, he's denying source material and demeaning his work to conspicuous consumption.
694. RickNelson - 11/20/2003 5:24:16 PM
Concerned,
I laugh at the article. I admire the disgusting work performed, I applaud its continuation. I say, go for it BOYZ!
695. concerned - 11/20/2003 5:29:59 PM
I see at least three things wrong with what the Democrats are doing, for starters. First, the Democrat Party is acting at the behest of a small fraction of its constituents, so the Party is acting anti-democratically, even with regard to its own constituents. Secondly, short term political calculation is totally inappropriate as a basis for determining the qualifications of a judicial appointee for his position; indeed the two have nothing at all in common. Thirdly, filibustering is a way to obstruct the Constitutional advise and consent role of the Senate, not to mention the basic democratic process inherent in an up or down vote on a candidate.
It adds up to the Democrat Party concertedly using autocratic, non representational ruses in a strategy designed to obstruct a Constitutional function of the Senate, and to blur the Constitutional separation of powers between the judicial and legislative branch.
696. concerned - 11/20/2003 5:31:29 PM
RN -
I know that many in the Left want to destroy the Constitution. I see that you are in sympathy with them.
697. concerned - 11/20/2003 5:50:21 PM
If you take any one of my three objections to what the Democrat Party is doing here alone, you could say 'not that big a deal', but put them all together, and we're talking some pretty serious political corruption.
698. concerned - 11/20/2003 5:51:26 PM
12149 -
Uh, jexster. You forgot that Rush is now 'clean'. Sorta ruins the premise of that cartoon, wouldn't you say?
699. Edmund Dantes - 11/20/2003 5:52:51 PM
LIBERTY'S CHAMPION
"As recent history has shown, we cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own backyard. No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient."
These sentences rank among the most rueful, honest and reflective ever spoken by a Western leader - an acknowledgment that Western nations have not done all they should or could have done to help secure the blessings of liberty for others in the world....
"Why do they hate you, Mr. President?" a British journalist asked yesterday during a press conference. "Why do they hate you in such numbers?"
After listening to Bush's speech and considering the views expressed by the protestors and others, I have one possible answer: They hate him because he calls their values into question.
The Bush-haters are moralistic poseurs. The man they hate is a moral actor. They condemn barbarity. He does something about it. They call him a monster, a villain, a Hitler. In response, he celebrates the fact that they live in societies that permit free speech.
He is a giant.
They are dwarves.
Hoo-yay!
700. concerned - 11/20/2003 5:56:28 PM
I almost wish the GWB had told the person who asked him that that he was not overly upset about people who claim to hate him because those are the same people who would support Hitler or Stalin.
701. concerned - 11/20/2003 5:57:50 PM
Actually, he essentially did say that to the reporter, but much more diplomatically.
702. concerned - 11/20/2003 6:00:16 PM
I haven't been following the London protests, but in the brief audio clip I did hear, sure enough, the crowd was chanting one of the organizers' four 'preapproved' slogans.
703. judithathome - 11/20/2003 6:01:46 PM
know that many in the Left want to destroy the Constitution. I see that you are in sympathy with them.
Oh no, Rick!! You've done it now...you've been branded a Lefty! There's no going back now; everything you post will be filtered through that label by Concerned from here on out.
Face it...you're finished here.J
704. concerned - 11/20/2003 6:01:55 PM
The rise of the ochlicrats in England?
705. concerned - 11/20/2003 6:03:19 PM
JAH-
I only repeated what RN himself proudly asserted in 12194. Something wrong with that?
706. Edmund Dantes - 11/20/2003 6:04:32 PM
Moralistic posing dwarves:
707. thoughtful - 11/20/2003 6:08:06 PM
Revel is indeed thoughtful
Watch it Rick...there's only one thoughtful™ in these threads.
708. concerned - 11/20/2003 6:13:30 PM
Re. 12175 -
Are these Leftists so stupid that they believe GWB rules GB?
709. judithathome - 11/20/2003 6:27:16 PM
Why do you even bother to reference post numbers? Do you think people are going to page back and look up what you are responding to?
LINK to the messages you're responding to, for cripe's sake!
710. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/20/2003 6:27:21 PM
711. thoughtful - 11/20/2003 6:29:07 PM
Wiz! Delphinium blue, no less. How perfect.
712. Edmund Dantes - 11/20/2003 6:31:19 PM
Re 12208 re 12175: Evidently they do.
713. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/20/2003 6:36:10 PM
tre chic, no?;-}
714. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/20/2003 6:37:18 PM
thoughtful—see latest creation in Fine Arts Thread.
715. Edmund Dantes - 11/20/2003 6:39:10 PM
> see latest creation in Fine Arts Thread.
How about a link for Judy?
716. judithathome - 11/20/2003 8:03:00 PM
How about a sense of humor for Ed? Oh wait, wrong thread...that would be Religion, taking a miracle and all.
717. concerned - 11/20/2003 9:14:59 PM
Re. Message # 12209
How's this, JAH?
Re. Message # 12175
Are these Leftists so stupid that they believe GWB rules GB?
Hmmm. Doing this slows me down some.
718. wabbit - 11/20/2003 9:20:29 PM
I'm reducing the size of the big threads to see if they speed up.
719. judithathome - 11/20/2003 9:34:19 PM
Concerned, thanks...that's much better. I know you think I'm picking on you but really, I was just pointing out that your responses will be more easily understood if someone wants to see what you're responding to. Most everyone here does that, when responding to others' posts which are more than 20 or so posts ago.
If you don't like doing it that way, at least copy and paste from the post to which your response is addressed.
And thanks, again.
720. jayackroyd - 11/20/2003 9:57:05 PM
This is gonna be a nasty presidential campaign.
Apparently the RNC will be running ads that include these lines:
"Our war against terror is a contest of will, in which perseverance is power,"
"Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists."
And that there are clips from the state of the union (which you can find in the ME links).
In the Donna Brazile (former Gore campaign manager) and Bay Buchanan (sister and gal Friday to Pat Buchanan) daily interview on CNN, Brazile expressed surprise that they would quote from a speech that was "essentially a sequence of lies," while Buchanan praised the idea. Brazile said that she'd expect to see some other quotes from that speech.
This is gonna be a very polarizing campaign, with the democrats giving as good as they get. Will that boost, or lower turnout?
Will it boost turnout selectively (which seems to be the conventional consultant wisdom these days--"turn out your base")?
721. wonkers2 - 11/20/2003 10:28:39 PM
Nobody should be surprised at the GOP repeating Bush's lies. They can hardly avoid doing so. There are so many to choose from. The only terrorists in Iraq are those we attracted there by our attack. And I don't recall ANYONE criticising Bush for attacking Afghanistan. Support for that operation was near universal. But we are criticizing him for failing to complete the job.
722. robertjayb - 11/20/2003 11:59:26 PM
A paper trail for e-votes...(Wired News)
SAN FRANCISCO -- California will become the first state requiring all electronic voting machines to produce a voter-verifiable paper receipt.
The requirement, which applies to all electronic voting systems already in use as well as those currently being purchased, came from Secretary of State Kevin Shelley. The machines must be retrofitted with printers to produce a receipt by 2006.
723. judithathome - 11/21/2003 12:44:30 AM
What a howl...some RNC guy telling the reporter "We need these ads for the president because if not, the Democratic candidates are going to give him a black he may not recover from..."
Oh yes, it's what they are saying about him that will give people pause; couldn't possibly be anything he himself is DOING or SAYING.
724. judithathome - 11/21/2003 12:48:17 AM
Here's why I cringe when people call Bush our glorious leader; it's not just the grammatical gaffes that are embarrassing:
...The queen gave her toast, noting that, unlike presidents, she was not term-limited. The president smiled, Prince Charles did not. When the queen finished, the president raised his glass, but Her Majesty did not return the gesture, instead waiting for the American national anthem to begin. Hearing the music, Bush put down his glass and placed his hand on his heart, then took it off, then put it on again. "The Star-Spangled Banner" over, he clinked glasses with the queen, then turned to clink glasses with Princess Anne, who was already sipping from hers. The awkwardness continued after Bush's toast, when he again picked up his glass to clink with the queen, who stood motionless, waiting for her own national anthem. Bush put his glass back down and, as the orchestra played "God Save the Queen," winked at somebody in the audience. Finally, the anthem finished, president and queen consummated their clinks.
725. Al D - 11/21/2003 1:02:55 AM
Wonkers2
The only terrorists in Iraq are those we attracted there by our attack
It is really stupid statements like this that should make everyone not take your seriously. And if you can't remember anyone criticising Bush for attacking Afganistan, please go back to read all of WoW's crap.
726. RickNelson - 11/21/2003 1:30:35 AM
In sympathy?
Don't be a ditto-head concerned. Good one, but no more true than my joke about Revel up thread.
your Message # 689 links a poor excuse for whining from Republicans, craving sympathy for their lost nominee.
I have no sympathy for them. I have no sympathy for the idiots who get bashed in riot either. Unless they were innocent bystanders.
There are to many emotionally charged exchanges, as Jay and others have noted.
I am guilty of it, I plan it, I do it, I expect reaction, but not always. That's the kicker, I'm guilty when I rant, I need to rant, we all rant don't we? Well maybe not if you're so damn good you just sit and discuss when someone is spewing lies and neo-con dittoisms at you. Well there's a goodie-goodie for yah. I am happy if there are such. I can be pushed, I don't give very well.
I"m not a bleeding liberal concerned, you know this. I know you're not a right winger, but you are a very hard man. One who has a line and sticks to it, no left no right, it just has to have a reality for you.
I'm more in tune with ethreal reactions to drama. That is, if one can pun, can not take oneself so seriously, then they are open to discourse with open-mindedness. That is, what I am, that is not what I perceive from you.
I wont go along with Bush because he's making dramatically detremental bills signed. Such as this new energy bill. Wonks or Wombat mention it. Describe it well too. It's disgusting concerned, it's vile, evil legislation. Beyond the normal realm of civil political dealing. It's underhanded, to make so many pro oil laws. Why are they allowing so many environmental debacles?
Such as allowing the oil manufacturers leway with regard to rain runoff? So, now they can drill and allow their spew from the well to run into drainage ditches.
727. RickNelson - 11/21/2003 1:30:55 AM
The EPA has been gutted in a way that they will be called to task if they so much as send a memo complaining about the new roads the oil drillers are now allowed to build, wherever they wish, when it's been approved that they can drill. The approval must be in 10 days, and they have 2 years to work on their application. What is all that?
The Forest service is also neutered of authority. They must not complain, no do not even take notice, just wink, just bear it when these roads cut into the public lands they serve. If anyone trys to stop the oil work, that's been approved within those 10 days, well then watch out, there's gonna be a consequence. What that is I've not found, but the idea is set that oil gets its way, and American land gets cut up and destroyed in the name of big business.
So, you and they will counter that we have to depend upon ourselves.
Yup, we do. We need to depend on ourselves to make certain we have natural surroundings. That they are not polluted beyond redemption, or cost billions to reclaim.
What about those issues?
Any concern about them, concerned?
728. concerned - 11/21/2003 3:08:55 AM
Message # 720 Oops
Nasty is right. Brazile really is taking the low road, right from the starting block.
729. concerned - 11/21/2003 3:27:44 AM
Such as allowing the oil manufacturers leway with regard to rain runoff? So, now they can drill and allow their spew from the well to run into drainage ditches.
& etc. regarding 'new oil legislation'.
Where did their 'spew' go before? I don't have enough context to work with here. Can you provide a cite or two?
Wrt forestry 'management', I think none at all is not the way to go unless people want to be held hostage to unpredictable, destructive, polluting forest fires. I remember a dialogue in a horticulture forum where a forestry management professional was at odds with somebody who called him (and me) anti-environmentalist because we weren't opposed to selective cutting. I've even read where a formerly radical environmentalist admitted that after becoming familiar with the subject that he came to believe that limited clearcutting had the advantage of allowing first generation trees to retain a foothold in their natural environments, similar to what wildfires do, without the attendant destruction and pollution.
So, does it make me some kind of hardcase because I don't want to crawl into a cave to live? I don't think so.
730. concerned - 11/21/2003 3:41:50 AM
Wrt the ten forested acres I own: the Forestry Service person who signed me up to the program said that thinning of saplings was needed on my property. His reasoning? Trees with some growing room do better and are healthier than those who are at their last gasp due to competition throughout most or all of their natural lifespans. No harvesting contemplated, of course, one reason being that there are few furniture grade trees on my property and most of the few possible candidates for harvesting have heartrot or are too crooked to be worth much for lumber or veneer anyway.
His plan was arguably 'less natural', but he clearly didn't believe it was the only or even most important criterion.
731. concerned - 11/21/2003 3:53:41 AM
Another thing. I'm pretty sure unrestrained wildfires are greater threats to many endangered species than conscientious forest management. The endangered Hines Emerald Dragonfly has a habitat either on or near my property. Were talking a few areas of a couple dozen acres each in the entire state total. It's no stretch to imagine uncontrolled wildfires wiping out similar endangered species both plant and animal left and right in drier areas. Now, is that the preferred scenario? I don't think so.
732. jexster - 11/21/2003 4:35:25 AM
"Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists."
Is that how it is?
That's the line from a Republican party ad about to go on air in the primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire.
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth we have a batch of unsettling news from the real war on terrorism.
In Turkey, the jewel of the democratic, western-oriented muslim Middle East, two more horrific suicide bombings kill 27 and wound hundreds.
A five-member UN panel says it is "just a matter of time" before al Qaida attempts a chemical or biological attack.
And the Washington Post reports on an ominous process of what we might term 'alqaidogenesis' ...
Leaders of the al Qaeda terrorist network have franchised their organization's brand of synchronized, devastating violence to homegrown terrorist groups across the world, posing a formidable new challenge to counterterrorism forces, ....
It is, it would seem, a process which is proceeding a pace with little connection, for a good or for ill, to anything we are accomplishing or not accomplishing in Iraq.
-- Josh Marshall
. . . .
733. jayackroyd - 11/21/2003 4:40:03 AM
And if you can't remember anyone criticising Bush for attacking Afganistan, please go back to read all of WoW's crap.
Please post one example.
734. Edmund Dantes - 11/21/2003 5:08:31 AM
Note dates in following posts:
12173. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/27/2001 12:24:53 AM
Jen- Whether it's ignorant desperation in the slums of the U.S. or in Afghanistan, we Americans just aren't very aware of our culture's imprinting and conditioning wrt xenophobically evading our obligations to humanity.
Every morning on my treadmill, I watch CSPAN and this morning a guy was frighteningly serious about "nuking Afghanistan, because it will save American lives in the long run -- the same way it did in Japan in WWII."
Then a women called in, complaining that we, the taxpayers, are footing the bills for Afghani welfare and she resented all these dropped food packets there.
[How dare these bastards end our orgy of consumption and cost us money for security and welfare!]
America has been living in a penthouse and it's kind of a shock, I guess, to be mugged by a bunch of filthy street people.
We'll continue to focus on "this act of evil" rather than our international egocentrism or much of the world's resentment of us, our obdurate greed and arrogance.
735. Edmund Dantes - 11/21/2003 5:08:46 AM
12216. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/27/2001 5:17:59 AM
Yes, I know--we're just out to exploit it and fuck anyone who gets in our way
736. Edmund Dantes - 11/21/2003 5:09:07 AM
11581. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/24/2001 4:16:09 PM
Scott- Well I thought I apologized, nevertheless, corporate greed's influence and opportunism in the name of patriotic stimulation during a war with an amorphous enemy is relevant.
737. Edmund Dantes - 11/21/2003 5:09:21 AM
11819. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/25/2001 5:24:31 AM
Sure, keep arguing about how to kill a Mesolithic culture and don't forget to invest in Bayer Pharmaceuticals and IBM.
738. Edmund Dantes - 11/21/2003 5:09:35 AM
9531. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/9/2001 11:44:58 PM
Well, I see the warmongering circle of jerks are still at it . . .
739. Edmund Dantes - 11/21/2003 5:09:46 AM
6971. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/29/2001 2:12:07 AM
Speaking of warmongering assholes like joe & the other little boys who like to play soldier, but don't have the balls to fight on the front lines . .
740. Edmund Dantes - 11/21/2003 5:15:24 AM
Of course most of PisserOfWhimsies old posts from that time were images (he's not the most articulate knicker in the nightstand). And many of those images are broken now, but anyone who wants to see his take on the war on terror pre-Iraq can just go read the thread himself. Then there's Jasper and AnusDoor as well showing the colors.
Al knows what he's talking about, because he had several exchanges with PisserOWhimsies back then.
'croyd is pretty ignorant and misses a lot, but by surrounding himself with the cacophony of fools he manages to obscure his intellectual light-weightedness by a calm demeanor in a raving madhouse of morons.
741. concerned - 11/21/2003 5:17:28 AM
ED has certainly called Jay's bluff here to any sane person's satisfaction.
742. Edmund Dantes - 11/21/2003 5:18:11 AM
While looking through the archives I discovered another pair of margarinebanks prognosticating pearls:
12554. marjoribanks - 10/29/2001 6:14:40 PM
The US cannot and will not pursue a campaign in Afghanistan with a hostile nuclear-armed Pakistan across the border.
It is that simple, and this unfortunate circumstance may come to pass with Musharraf in place now.
And
11855. marjoribanks - 10/25/2001 2:44:35 PM
Excellent information about the US promise to the UN.
Just as I have predicted endlessly from soon after 9/11, this previously mindlessly unilateralist Bush admin is going to be forced to work ever-closer with the United Nations, pony up not only what is owed but hundreds of millions more, and to tailor its foreign policy to international realities and global public opinion. You will not see the US shit on international treaties it helped to negotiate in the near or medium future, and that is a very good thing.
Again, note the dates.
Sweet, sweet memories.
743. Edmund Dantes - 11/21/2003 5:19:41 AM
"Just as I have predicted endlessly...."
Hahaha.
744. jexster - 11/21/2003 5:43:07 AM
Marjie's Law:
Murphy's Law:
The lies and half-truths of the Bush Administration are by now old news. And since so much of what the Administration says publicly is fabricated, it's easy to let certain things go in order to get on with our lives.
Still, certain statements continue to shock and infuriate us, because we can't, for the life of us, figure out where Bush & Co. got the information on which their statements are based.
This was my reaction to the declaration by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in the September 29 issue of the Wall Street Journal that "5,000 small businesses [in Iraq] have opened since liberation on May 1."
On what data, I wondered, did the Secretary base this statement? And what exactly did he mean by "small businesses"?
For a month I tried to get an answer to these questions from the US government, sadly, I must admit, without success.
In Search of Rumsfeld's 5,000 Iraqi Small Businesses
One man's minor quest for truth from the Bush Administration.
745. concerned - 11/21/2003 5:46:08 AM
correction:
The lies and half-truths of about the Bush Administration are by now old news.
746. jexster - 11/21/2003 6:01:15 AM
Eddie:
There's Murphy's Laws:
- Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
.
- If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something.
Murphy's Law of Thermodynamics
Things get worse under pressure.
The Murphy Philosophy
Smile . . . tomorrow will be worse.
And then there's Marjies Laws:
- Things are so fucked up now they're sure to get better
Marjie's faith in Bush's competence is touching isn't it?
747. jexster - 11/21/2003 6:25:48 AM
Then there's Jasper and AnusDoor as well showing the colors
Fraid not Ed...
Try again and you'll find lines like "Who gives a fuck about rebuilding that shithole? If they don't give us AlQ, I say we put the 101 Airborne in and finish what the Russians started" (a paraphrase) One of my more bellicose, genocidal moments which I am not especially proud of but which at least isn't a fabrication. At least, Bush gave them a "Marshall Plan"!
It took Bush about three months to realize that his War on Terror wasn't at all what he thought. Why it wasn't really a war, at least not like the one Poppy fought. No big guns. No 24/7 news coverage. No cruise missiles. No live nightvision from Baghdad. Hell how could he get votes out of a war that no one could see? What kinda war is that!
Georgie got himself a real war just like Poppy.
And Osama?
Osama B Free
Mullah Omar?
Alive well, rebuilding the Talibees.
Marshall Plan? Well he forgot to put anything at all in the FY2003 Budget....and Afghanistan gets 1/2 the aid per capita that Rwanada does.
748. jexster - 11/21/2003 6:28:13 AM
200 Billion and 20,000... a real war yessiree...and Al Qaeda's now franchising!
749. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/21/2003 6:39:11 AM
Eddie Crisco. you're such a sad little wretch, wallowing in your cess pool of resentments. You're made for the Republican Party's Angry-train, Whistle Ass. The empirical proof of your anal-psycho-dysfunction is in your incessant return here to harass and stir things up while you pick your own mental scabs in the process. Get some therapeutic help you poor pathetic soul—you really need it!
750. jexster - 11/21/2003 9:02:05 AM
NO EDDIE DON'T DO IT!
You do not need drugs.
I will help you through behavioral modification.
Something I saw on the discovery channel once - rats, maze, electric shocks....should work fine...let's just stick with it..
Let's just bring it on
751. jexster - 11/21/2003 9:44:36 AM
The following breakouts from the LAT's recent poll are depressing or uplifting as the case may be.
Notice the breakouts for Moderates and Independents..
Q5: Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W.
Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?
ALL LIB MOD CON DEM IND REP MEN WOM
Approve 45 29 38 61 25 47 77 50 39
Disapprove 51 67 56 37 71 50 22 47 56
Don’t know 4 4 6 2 4 3 1 3 5
Q7: Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W.
Bush is handling the economy?
ALL LIB MOD CON DEM IND REP MEN WOM
Approve 44 27 36 62 24 46 75 48 40
Disapprove 50 71 56 32 72 49 19 48 53
Don’t know 6 2 8 6 4 5 6 4 7
Q21: Thinking back over the past three years, do you think
George W. Bush’s economic policies have made the country’s
economy stronger over that period, or have they made the
economy weaker, or have his economic policies not affected
the economy one way or the other?
ALL LIB MOD CON DEM IND REP MEN WOM
No effect 25 22 30 24 16 29 34 27 22
Stronger 24 10 13 40 12 20 45 28 20
Weaker 43 62 48 27 67 41 14 39 47
Don’t know 8 6 9 9 5 10 7 6 11
752. jexster - 11/21/2003 9:44:50 AM
ASKED OF ALL REGISTERED VOTERS)
Q28: Do you think George W. Bush deserves to be elected for
a second term of office, or not?
–––––––– Among Registered Voters ––––––––
RV LIB MOD CON DEM IND REP MEN WOM
Deserves 42 23 30 63 17 35 84 46 38
Not deserve 46 69 55 25 74 48 11 41 51
Don’t know 12 8 15 12 9 17 5 13 11
ASKED OF ALL REGISTERED VOTERS)
Q39: If George W. Bush runs for reelection in 2004, are you
more likely to vote for Bush or more likely to vote for the
Democratic party’s candidate for president?
–––––––– Among Registered Voters ––––––––
RV LIB MOD CON DEM IND REP MEN WOM
Bush 38 16 28 58 9 30 83 44 32
Democrat 42 73 45 21 77 41 8 36 48
Drug Free Therapy....
I call this my FAT EDDIE ASS STICKIN ELECTRIC POLL AND CATTLE PROD MENTAL HEALTH DEVICE...
Now MOO like a cow...
753. RickNelson - 11/21/2003 2:25:39 PM
So I get this call see, and he says he's from Congressman Delay's office, and he wants to give me a leadership award
Me!
A leadership award.
Ahhh, reading the link it's because I'm an entrepreneur, and this qualifies me to be included on Delay's list.
Ha, read the link, you'll get a kick out of it.
Read it.
754. RickNelson - 11/21/2003 2:39:20 PM
Regarding Message # 729
Please read this LCV letter as a starting point I read about it in my local Star-Tribune, here in Minneapolis. It was in the OP-ED page of my paper 11/21/2003.
755. judithathome - 11/21/2003 5:36:50 PM
Rick, I got one of those, too.
756. judithathome - 11/21/2003 5:39:06 PM
I told the idiot they had the wrong list...I was sending all my money to the Democrats and by the way, who was running against DeLay next time around?
They were very nice about saying good bye.
757. Edmund Dantes - 11/21/2003 6:59:02 PM
Re 724:
Real Bush 'At Odds with Media Caricature'
US President George Bush is “totally at odds” with his media image, Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell said today.
Mr Campbell, an opponent of the war with Iraq, spoke out on the ePolitix website about his discussions with the President during the state visit.
He said that they discussed directly issues such as Iraq, the Middle East, Guantanamo Bay, Kyoto and trade sanctions.
“He is personally extremely engaging. He has a well-developed sense of humour, is self-deprecating and when he engages in a discussion with you he is warm and concentrates directly on you.
“He looks you straight in the eye and tells you exactly what he thinks.”
Mr Campbell, stressing that the President was “totally at odds” with his media image, went on: “I was not persuaded by what he said, but I was most certainly surprised at the extent to which the caricature of him was inaccurate.”
Difference is, the Liberal Democrats in England aren't trying to score cheap political points anyway they can.
Like ours do.
<smirk>
758. Edmund Dantes - 11/21/2003 7:00:43 PM
759. arkymalarky - 11/21/2003 8:35:27 PM
The biggest contributer to the Republican by far is Wal-Mart.
760. arkymalarky - 11/21/2003 8:36:02 PM
Party
761. wonkers2 - 11/21/2003 8:36:21 PM
I wonder who Bill Gates is supporting.
762. arkymalarky - 11/21/2003 8:39:49 PM
McDonalds supports Democrats. I've get the impression from the bit I've looked into wrt corporate political spending that Gates has better things to do with his money.
763. arkymalarky - 11/21/2003 8:40:17 PM
gotten
764. Edmund Dantes - 11/21/2003 8:47:58 PM
WalMart is way down the list for 2002 at #40. They give mostly to Republicans, but some to Democrats (83% v. 17%). They weren't in the top 100 in 2000.
Microsoft is #12 and gives about 40:60 Democrat to Republican.
Given the Democrats woes in the last two elections and the disaster they're facing in 2004, they may have trouble drawing money from anyone other than government unions.
<smirk>
The number one giver in the last two cycles has been the American Federation of State/County/Municipal Employees, and they give 99 percent to the Democrats.
765. robertjayb - 11/21/2003 8:53:44 PM
Is it impolite to mention that George Soros was a player in Harken Oil when Harken bailed out Whistle-Ass's crumbling energy venture?
766. Edmund Dantes - 11/21/2003 8:57:00 PM
Soros is quoted as saying he wanted to "buy political influence."
Guess he's sore he didn't get any that way, so now he's shopping the Democrats wares.
Heh-heh.
767. RickNelson - 11/21/2003 9:38:08 PM
Concerned, this link might allow you to read what I read, but you may have to register. The bit I excerpt is part of the important info.
Becky Rom: Passing this energy bill would be a serious mistake Becky Rom, Edina, is chair of the governing council of the Wilderness Society.
"Here is a short list of the energy bill's dangerous public land provisions. It would:
• Prohibit drilling fluids from being considered pollutants of drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act;
• Exempt from the "stormwater" requirements of the Clean Water Act all oil and gas construction activities, including roads, drill pads, compressor stations, "sweetening" plants, even refineries;
• Allow the interior secretary to designate, without public input, utility and pipeline corridors across public lands;
• Give applicants for federal drilling permits up to two years to comply with application requirements but give regulators only 10 days to rule on drilling permit applications;
• Establish a special White House office to expedite permits and completion of energy projects on public lands and to override environmental rules;
• Require the U.S. Geological Survey to identify any "restrictions and impediments," such as inconvenient environmental regulations, to development of federally owned oil and gas deposits;
• Force our public land managers, before "taking any action," to determine whether such actions would have "a significant adverse effect" on energy development, and give the Department of Energy authority to enforce compliance;."
cont.
768. RickNelson - 11/21/2003 9:38:23 PM
"• Allow oil and gas lessees to be compensated, via reduced royalties, for costs they incur for complying with the National Environmental Policy Act;
• Waive existing law to allow accelerated leasing throughout the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska with no regard to wildlife and other environmental concerns, and allow waivers of the royalties due U.S. taxpayers from the exploitation of these resources."
769. RickNelson - 11/21/2003 9:43:45 PM
I'm glad the senate squashed the energy bill.
Unfortunately both Senators Dayton, Dem. and Coleman, Rep. voted in favor of it.
Both wanted the ethenol subsidies to the tune of $500
million. In a way, it's like selling ones soul to the Devil to vote in favor of that bill.
Dayton stated he regretted his vote, but had to make a very tough choice for Minnestoa.
770. jexster - 11/21/2003 10:33:20 PM
Gore to Speak at Great Cities, Great Ideas Forum
Al Gore will be the speaker at Newsom for Mayor’s next Great Cities, Great Ideas Forum on December 2nd.
After a career in public service — as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Senate, and as Vice President of the United States — Gore continues to work for the public benefit. He teaches a new academic discipline at three universities that he helped create, called “Family Centered Community Building”, which trains people to plan communities based on human, rather than purely economic needs. Gore recently made headlines with a speech on domestic security and civil liberties.
At the Great Cities Forum, Gore will be talking about “reinventing government” — ways to make government more effective while still meeting people’s needs.
This Great Cities, Great Ideas Forum will be held at:
Regency Theater
1300 Van Ness Ave. at Sutter Street.
Tuesday, December 2, 2:00 - 3:00 p.m. (doors open at 1:30 p.m.)
Heavy hitters coming to sqush little Green bugs AC...kinda like Green sand fleas.
Gephardt and Kerry have endorsed...Thank you Nancy Pelosi/DiFi
771. jexster - 11/21/2003 10:34:40 PM
What y'all got an ethanol problem in the Ten Thousand Three Fity Frozen Lakes State?
772. RickNelson - 11/21/2003 10:47:23 PM
Heck no, ethanol is huge in the Lakes State.
But, we've been losing jobs left and right.
773. wonkers2 - 11/22/2003 12:36:32 AM
Ethanol subsidies are a fraud on the American taxpayer.
774. Edmund Dantes - 11/22/2003 2:08:22 AM
A RESOUNDING SUCCESS
This past week has been an extraordinary one for the president. His visit to Great Britain, portrayed by the press beforehand as an impending disaster, was instead a resounding success. The spectacle of anti-Bush and anti-American protesters had a predictable effect on a sensible British public. Polls in Britain show rising support for the war in Iraq and a growing appreciation for the role played by the United States in the world. Bush's speech in London won well-deserved praise even from European critics--more so, actually, than from many of his American critics, who have long since abandoned the pretense of objectivity.
Bush struck exactly the right balance in reaching his hand across the Atlantic and seeking cooperation in the war on terrorism, but without pulling back from his own determination to wage that war forcefully. He began to dispel the label of unilateralism that has been unfairly pinned on him, while still asking Europeans to wake up to the realities of a dangerous world they have been trying so hard to ignore.
"Bush has made it clear that the only exit strategy from Iraq is a victory strategy, with victory defined as 'democracy.'"
775. wonkers2 - 11/22/2003 2:19:09 AM
I sincerely hope he meant it (and continues to mean it). Sometimes he seems perfectly sincere about something, but then does just the opposite.
776. jexster - 11/22/2003 2:20:58 AM
Clueless...big bag of hot gas...
And to think only 45% of Brits our best ally our only real ally even wanted to let him in...
Eddie you better watch...take care lest you get a hernia from stretchin so much
777. jexster - 11/22/2003 2:25:01 AM
Honoring Sacrifice
A single appearance by the president, capturing the emotions every American feels, would remind all bereaved families that their fallen men and women were revered as heroes by their countrymen...but Bush don't do funerals...bad for the re-elect numbers
From Stars & Stripes:
In U.S., family seeks sympathy
from commander in chief
Mourning in America: What Reagan Did
778. arkymalarky - 11/22/2003 2:33:13 AM
Message # 764
Well, Mr. Ed, they seem to be pretty far up in 2004:
Wal-Mart on list.
But the interesting information is on Walton contributions (most are THE Waltons; I assume a few are not):
Walton individuals.
Quite a few rich homemakers there.
779. arkymalarky - 11/22/2003 2:36:31 AM
The overall totals of Repubs and Dems are interesting:
Totals for both
780. RickNelson - 11/22/2003 2:37:45 AM
Edmund
I think your a sad piece of work. Are you such a ditto-head that you cannot think for yourself.
If these PNAC Chairmen write an article in a neo-con rag, you just lap it up like a good dog.
Sheesh man, get a reality check.
If you think the neo-con heads can just write all there propaganda to create legitimacy for their cause and rhetoric, you're mistaken.
We are not all dead in the head, unlike your perception of GWB's visit to Britian. What a lie; to affect a strong bilateralism within European nations and the U.S.
781. RickNelson - 11/22/2003 2:39:20 AM
dammit!
your = you're
782. RickNelson - 11/22/2003 2:40:57 AM
Jayzuz this isn't fair, I need edit functions!
there = their
783. RickNelson - 11/22/2003 2:45:13 AM
Even Revel thinks Americans think for themselves. He went so far as to surmise that Americans are unlike many Europeans he's been in contact with. Such that, an American, for good or bad, whether idiotic or reasoned, will at least make an attempt to draw their own conclusion and have an opinion.
Well, not so. There are Edmund's who ditto this and ditto that. Stand gape mouthed and doe eyed for the Commander in Chimp GWB.
784. RickNelson - 11/22/2003 2:49:53 AM
There is no reasoning that a common sense American can give that what GWB and the work of his administration have done anything but revive Reaganistic tactics, defense economy, set backs to progressive environment concerns and deficit government.
So, long live Reagan's voodo economics. There's money out there for this gubment. Show-nuf jess so long as it aint snuffing the rich man's opportunity.
785. RickNelson - 11/22/2003 2:52:54 AM
There's a way out of the economic, social, environmental and global down-turns. The answer is to kick GWB way out of Wash. DC, back to the Texans that spawned him.
We need a damn good democrat. Who's it gonna be, Dean or Kerry. Perhaps Gephardt? I think Kerry has the stuff and Dean is too "out there" for my taste.
786. judithathome - 11/22/2003 2:58:10 AM
back to the Texans that spawned him.
They are not Texans. They are from Connecticut.
787. wonkers2 - 11/22/2003 3:00:59 AM
From Yale, Bones, where they teach them to say "You don't say?" instead of "No shit!"
788. RickNelson - 11/22/2003 3:02:49 AM
truly?
Connecticut?
But, he's a Texan now. So, they're still stuck with him.
789. RickNelson - 11/22/2003 3:05:57 AM
This site is John Kerry's Sign up for Kerry mail or read something more aligned with the truth.
790. jexster - 11/22/2003 3:16:18 AM
US families fret for Iraq troops
The BBC World Service
When President Bush declared major combat operation to be over on 1 May, America was a very different country.
791. jexster - 11/22/2003 3:17:09 AM
Yes I signed up about a year ago...and am on Dean's and Clark's lists as well...
Now that Gephardt has endorsed Gavin...hell no...have to do more than that...
792. rdbrewer - 11/22/2003 3:58:13 AM
Time CNN Poll: Most Voters Would Choose Bush
In a direct run against Bush, Gen. Wesley Clark fares the best among registered voters (Clark 42%, Bush 49%), closely followed by Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (Kerry 41%, Bush 49%).
And Crats don't favor their strongest candidate:
When registered Democrats are asked which Democratic presidential nominee they would vote for, Dean edges out Clark 14 percent to 12 percent, followed Lieberman (11%), Kerry (9%), Gephardt (6%), then Edwards and the Rev. Al Sharpton (5%).
793. jayackroyd - 11/22/2003 5:41:48 AM
Yeah, the economist went on on this in some detail--that the conventional wisdom is that Dean is dead in the general.
Of course, the conventional wisdom was that Dean was dead in the primaries, unable to raise real money.
A Dean Bush campaign would be very interesting. Dean, at least, has a message. Clark may also, but he's muddled it so many times that he may have lost his ability to deliver it. And the DC insiders all sound like Bob Dole.
794. ronski - 11/22/2003 5:52:00 AM
Bush 49 %, Clark 42% means Clark carries the District of Columbia, and that's it.
795. concerned - 11/22/2003 6:40:48 AM
I think Democrats should go with their instincts. Dean in '04.
796. concerned - 11/22/2003 7:04:08 AM
How greens stoked a perfect firestorm within California
Needless to say, I don't agree with these ignorant 'Greens', but they're into ridicule, not reason.
797. RickNelson - 11/22/2003 2:33:57 PM
And some Republican's are into back slapping deceit.
Good boy, (pat,pat).
798. Magoseph - 11/22/2003 3:00:42 PM
799. RickNelson - 11/22/2003 3:18:24 PM
Does anyone know if someone who works with energy, and has political power, is trying to obtain the vaste natural gas resources of Alaska. Specifically I'm referring to the pipe-line that is debated or approved to run from Northern Alaska, across the top of Canada and join with another pipe-line down Canada to the top of the U.S.
I heard that there was debate about this route, and that the Alaskan's in power insisted upon it, though there was a better alternative.
The alternative was a more direct route. We need that natural gas, prices are too high. The prices have sky-rocketed in a decade. Someone may have a graph for the nation, here in Minnesota, I just know it's up about 100%.
So, what provision of the energy bill in debate, concerns itself with this gas?
Who can I write to about getting it done?
Anyone know?
800. RickNelson - 11/22/2003 3:21:00 PM
Any of our AARP Moties have a sinking feeling about the Medicare bill that passed?
Do you consider the back-door privatization of the pharmaceutical business medicare wheels and deals with a conflict, or a boon?
What say you?
801. RickNelson - 11/22/2003 3:27:17 PM
Do you Republican's feel the same as your Washington leaders, that passing these two bills will give GWB the "high ground" toward 2004?
Why do you specifically think so?
When both are dealt with, will the Republican focus in the campaign upon national security and the economy give GWB an edge to victory. That is he is less mired by a range of focus?
1) Why would that be?
2) Will future debates with the Dem. nominee have a range of issues which cause concerns for both Dems and Repubs.? That is wrt to how GWB stands with these and not his two specific focuses?
802. RickNelson - 11/22/2003 3:28:07 PM
Stand up to me Repubs and let 'er rip.
I want to know what you think, not parrot.
803. jexster - 11/22/2003 4:30:58 PM
And Now a Blast from the Past!
Remember Gen. Georgie's WAR ON TERROR?
Take it away Mullah Omar....
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (Reuters) - The supreme leader of the ousted Taliban, Mullah Mohammad Omar, urged Afghans to unite against U.S.-led foreign forces on their soil, a Pakistan-based Afghan news service reported Sunday.
Omar, in his message ahead of Eid-ul Fitr which marks the end of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, said promises of democracy and reconstruction made two years ago in Afghanistan (news - web sites) were yet to be fulfilled, Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) said.
Nothing more pathetic than a failed generalissimo...
804. jexster - 11/22/2003 4:38:56 PM
Anyone Know a Good Chubbie Chasin Man for Eddie D?
Wiz We Gotta Git Him a Husband
BOSTON - Two new polls released Sunday show Massachusetts lawmakers could be bucking public opinion if they try to thwart the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling last week that found the state's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.
Fifty percent of Massachusetts residents surveyed for a Boston Globe/WBZ-TV poll said they agreed with the ruling, while 38 percent opposed it. A separate Boston Sunday Herald poll found 49 percent said they support legalizing gay marriage, while 38 percent oppose it.
Both polls, conducted after Tuesday's ruling, had margins of sampling error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.
"If people want to be together, who cares? Let them," said Bill Luff, 32, a nightclub owner in Worcester.
805. jexster - 11/22/2003 4:42:15 PM
Bush's Geheime Staatspolizei Infiltrates Anti-W-ar Movement
806. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/22/2003 4:57:18 PM
Anyone Know a Good Chubbie Chasin Man for Eddie D? Wiz We Gotta Git Him a Husband
807. jexster - 11/22/2003 4:57:31 PM
Rick...I know you care what our local Republicans think. But Houston we have a leetle problem....Morons can't "think"
The Failed Bush "W-ar" On Terror
Scaring Up Votes
First came the pre-emptive military policy. Now comes the pre-emptive campaign strategy.
Before the president even knows his opponent, his first political ad is blanketing Iowa today.
"It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known," Mr. Bush says, in a State of the Union clip.
Well, that's a comforting message from our commander in chief. Do we really need his cold, clammy hand on our spine at a time when we're already rattled by fresh terror threats at home and abroad?
Just what that Sleazeball Snake Oil Salesman did last year.
Stop him before he lies again....
808. jexster - 11/22/2003 5:09:04 PM
"Fear has been used as a basis for curtailing freedom of expression and for questioning legal rights long taken for granted. It has crept into political discourse and been used to discredit patriotic public servants. Ronald Reagan's favorite image, borrowed from an earlier visionary, of America as `a shining city on a hill' has been unnecessarily dimmed by another image: a nation motivated by fear and ready to lash out at any country it defines as the source of a gathering threat."
Instead of a shining city, we have a dark bunker.
But the only thing we really have to fear is fearmongering itself.
809. Edmund Dantes - 11/22/2003 5:18:22 PM
DEAN GOES NEGATIVE (and not on Bush this time)
In the TV ad, a voice (female, of course) states ominously, "October 2002. Dick Gephardt agrees to coauthor the Iraq war resolution giving George Bush the authority to go to war."
Retorts Dean from a small-town street, "I opposed the war in Iraq."
The ad also notes that Gephardt voted for the recently passed $87 billion appropriation for military and reconstruction costs, with Dean's voice responding, "And I'm against spending another $87 billion there."
Both points are unworthy of a serious presidential candidate.
810. jexster - 11/22/2003 5:22:16 PM
Yea that's right...boy its a fuckin crime to vote against a war of aggression based on lies and then to give 87 billion to Bungling Idiot who didn't have a plan for what to do after US troops took Baghdad and by all indications still doesn't.
What kind of fools do you take us for Eddie?
What kind of fool does Bush take YOU for
811. jexster - 11/22/2003 5:24:09 PM
"The revolution has started,'' Charles Kalish, a volunteer for Gonzalez, said in an e-mail he sent to progressive activists across the country. "If you are an activist . . . If you've ever thought about activism . .. If you live within range of this e-mail, come to San Francisco. Join the revolution.''
Gonzalez's campaign officials say that rumors of busloads of Green activists hitting the road for San Francisco are "a serious inflation,'' but that didn't stop one Newsom campaign worker from suggesting that more than 1, 000 Green Party members will be coming into town to work full-time for Gonzalez.
They'll be coming from Santa Cruz, Humboldt County and Portland, Ryan Chamberlain said in a rev-'em-up e-mail to Newsom's supporters, places "where money is evil unless it's taken from someone who earned it and given to someone who didn't.''
The Green "Revolution" - Burn a Green for Crimmus
AC....to the guillotine!
812. jexster - 11/22/2003 5:25:56 PM
Mo Dowd should have added "fearmongering bungling idiot"
813. Edmund Dantes - 11/22/2003 5:27:13 PM
boy its a fuckin crime to vote against a war of aggression
What are you talking about, Prof. Bedpan?
Dean didn't vote for or against anything. Read the article, boy.
814. Edmund Dantes - 11/22/2003 5:31:02 PM
CLARK: DEAN IS NO CLINTON
Dean staked out a traditional Democratic position that was largely abandoned by Clinton and the new Democrats, who tried to build a coalition of labor and business in the 1990s.
While appealing to the liberal base that he energized with his war opposition and support for civil unions for gays, Dean opened himself to criticism of class warfare from Republican and Democratic rivals.
Clark, who has enlisted several of Clinton's economic advisers for his campaign, said the Democratic Party's hopes of toppling President Bush next year are doomed if they support more regulations.
"I don't think our party can win a general election if we abandon proven policies that have worked, that were the cornerstone of our success," he said....
Clark, who like Clinton hails from Arkansas, said he stands with the former president's economic policies.
Dean 2004: Mondale was right!
815. Edmund Dantes - 11/22/2003 5:31:29 PM
Toys
816. jexster - 11/22/2003 5:34:26 PM
Dean didn't vote for or against anything. Read the article, boy.
Too bad Dean wasnt't in Congress!
Thank you for quoting the precis of the article Ed.
Saves us all a lot of time
817. rdbrewer - 11/22/2003 5:35:22 PM
Something else that is interesting about that TimeCNN poll, Message # 792, is that not only do Crats not favor their strongest candidate, Clark, their second strongest candidate, Kerry, is way down at number four with only 9% of the Cratvote. This is compared to 41% versus Bush (at 49%) among all registered voters. Weird.
818. jexster - 11/22/2003 5:35:39 PM
If "Dean is no Clinton"
What the fuck are you Morons gonna do for four years
819. Edmund Dantes - 11/22/2003 5:38:56 PM
rd: It's because the Democratic Party is dominated by people like our own nutty professor.
820. rdbrewer - 11/22/2003 5:39:05 PM
821. judithathome - 11/22/2003 5:39:51 PM
Both points are unworthy of a serious presidential candidate
But they would be hunky dorey coming from Bush about McCain in the last election.
822. rdbrewer - 11/22/2003 5:40:35 PM
820 is re 818
823. rdbrewer - 11/22/2003 5:44:03 PM
824. Edmund Dantes - 11/22/2003 5:48:33 PM
But they would be hunky dorey coming from Bush about McCain in the last election.
I don't think Judy@theHome has any idea what she's saying.
Cluephone, honeypot: the Iraq war resolution wasn't up for discussion in 2000.
Lay off the kneejerk mouse clicks, my child, until you have something to say that's better than Judy's Magic Eight-ball.
825. jexster - 11/22/2003 5:50:32 PM
You want something "interesting" RD cogitate on these two results from the latest poll...the LAT
would you vote? (CANDIDATE NAMES ROTATED)
—Among Democratic Primary/Caucus Voters—
DPC LIB MOD CON DEM IND * MEN WOM
Howard Dean 12 17 9 12 12 16 13 12
Wesley Clark 11 12 10 10 10 11 14 9
Joe Lieberman 11 11 12 9 11 14 14 9
Dick Gephardt 10 7 14 8 8 14 4 14
John Kerry 7 5 8 9 6 8 10 5
Carol Moseley Braun 4 5 3 2 4 2 2 5
John Edwards 3 3 2 5 3 4 2 4
Al Sharpton 3 5 1 3 5 1 4 2
Dennis Kucinich 1 2 1 – 1 2 1 1
Someone else (Vol.) 1 – – 3 1 – 1 –
Don’t know 37 33 40 39 39 28 35 3
And the re-elect question...Vote for Bush or unnamed Democrat bush got a whopping 36%
Now the significance in case you missed it is that (1)no real leader has emerged (yet) in the Democratic race and as a result name recognition is low...yet even so, Bush can't do better than 36%?
Well, his Teflon Terror is kaput...
Enough!
Assez!
I am bored with flaming Bush Morons...
Fee Fie Fo Fum, I wants me some blood of a FrenchieFried Green Manh....
826. Edmund Dantes - 11/22/2003 5:55:30 PM
Polls again?
BUSH STILL BESTS 2004 DEMOS
Now that the economy is percolating, it's only gonna get worse, Democrats.
827. judithathome - 11/22/2003 6:00:13 PM
Cluephone, honeypot: the Iraq war resolution wasn't up for discussion in 2000.
You really CAN'T be that stupid. I wasn't saying they would have been talking about the frigging Iraq war, you asshat. I was saying Bush saying anything against an opponent wouldn't have had your SMIRK machine cranking out remarks that sound as though you have a piece of limburger stuck up your nostril.
Surely your superior brain power can wrap itself around something like that. Mr. Literal.
828. judithathome - 11/22/2003 6:02:14 PM
You seem to have no problem at all understanding Bush...I'd think that might carry over into everyday life with those of us who don't have the benefit of a Yale degree.
SMIRK
829. rdbrewer - 11/22/2003 6:43:49 PM
You really CAN'T be that stupid. I wasn't saying they would have been talking about the frigging Iraq war, you asshat. . . . limburger stuck up your nostril. . . . And, worst of all, "Mr. Literal."
You're all full of piss and vinegar this am., Judith. Expect an admonition from fair and balanced Jay.
830. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/22/2003 6:51:02 PM
rd- You seem to overlook Asshat's ceaseless provocations?
831. jayackroyd - 11/22/2003 7:02:01 PM
Children, please.
Take it to the inferno.
832. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/22/2003 8:39:43 PM
You take it to the inferno, jay, these are just troublemaiking assholes and your equinimity is unfair and uncalled for.
833. Edmund Dantes - 11/22/2003 8:59:30 PM
I think you mean "equanimity," doodler. Unless you think croyd's horselike.
<smirk>
Speaking of jackasses: GENERAL WESLEY'S DEBACLE
When General Wesley Clark entered the race for the US presidency he was hailed as an all-conquering saviour who could provide the magic ingredients to defeat George Bush and capture the White House for the Democrats.
Not any more. As President George W. Bush arrives home from his state visit to Britain, he will have the satisfaction of seeing Clark's campaign in crisis. It is low on funds, has lost key staff and is fizzling out in key battleground states.
834. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/22/2003 9:40:22 PM
Thanks for the correction Rectal Boy and just so you know, you have the same taste in art as in politics — anal, vulgar and dormant.
835. rdbrewer - 11/22/2003 9:42:29 PM
Wiz, you seem awfully angry.
836. ronski - 11/22/2003 9:49:45 PM
Now that the economy is percolating, it's only gonna get worse, Democrats.
That almost certainly being the case, what, if any, scenario could develop to make a Democrat competitive next year?
Anybody?
837. robertjayb - 11/22/2003 9:57:18 PM
Further adventures of Neil Bush---Maintaining a grand tradition of presidential brothers as tinhorn scroungers...(Rick Casey, Houston Chronicle columnist)
Maybe the president of Taiwan did pay presidential younger brother Neil Bush a million bucks for a recent 30-minute meeting in New York.
I expressed skepticism in a recent column, but that was before I saw Exhibit 24 in the files of Bush's contentious divorce.
I didn't realize Bush's advice was so valuable.
838. rdbrewer - 11/22/2003 10:05:32 PM
Stop running to the left to win primaries. This process--running to the left only to then run to the middle in the main election--sets up the candidate for innumerable campaign shots.
The requirement of running to the left in the primaries sets up a fundamental discordance in the appearance of the candidate's character and handicaps him/her from the start. It makes the Crat look overtly Machiavellian.
Plus, you end up with a Dean instead of a Clark or a Kerry.
839. rdbrewer - 11/22/2003 10:06:11 PM
838 was re 836
840. RickNelson - 11/22/2003 10:11:25 PM
Did anyone else read Krugman wrt to the tax cuts and campaigning?
841. RickNelson - 11/22/2003 10:36:46 PM
It's a New York Times piece, so you'll have to sign in. It's a good article
842. judithathome - 11/22/2003 10:56:59 PM
Robert, that article was very funny. The Bush boys DO seem to get into a lot of things they really don't understand, don't they?
843. ronski - 11/22/2003 10:57:49 PM
I think it may be too late to tack to the center for a win in 2004.
If Dean gets the nomination, though, my guess is he will probably run to right of Bush on something. Maybe even the war; maybe the coziness with the Saudis; maybe guns; maybe tariffs.
I just can't see it making any difference, with the possible exception of what would happen if Bush raised the culture war issues, and started scaring moderates. But that would be very unlike the way Bush has acted in the White House so far.
844. judithathome - 11/22/2003 11:02:46 PM
Bush will win in 2004. I'm almost certain of it.
845. arkymalarky - 11/22/2003 11:06:21 PM
I think if Clark is nominated Bush will lose. The Republicans evidently think so too, which is why they hit him so hard. On the Democratic side, they seem to be wanting to move back leftward, which I agree with in principle, but not in policy--not for such an important presidential election.
846. ronski - 11/23/2003 12:11:45 AM
I think Clark poses a threat to the GOP in the abstract. But he has been sounding goofier than Dean, almost from the day he announced.
847. rdbrewer - 11/23/2003 12:20:01 AM
Plus, Clark looks weird. It looks like fear pouring out of his eyes like he is perpetually surprised. I suspect on some level that will turn a lot of people off.
848. arkymalarky - 11/23/2003 12:41:32 AM
If GWB's perpetual "What, me worry?" somebody-lend-me-a-thought look didn't turn people off, I hardly think Clark's look will.
849. arkymalarky - 11/23/2003 12:42:33 AM
I on the contrary have found Clark to be articulate and clear the few times I've heard him, and they have been few--I don't expect to be keeping up with this until at least January.
850. rdbrewer - 11/23/2003 1:04:33 AM
Bush is Joe Sixpack or as someone else put it, Joe Shoptowel. Part if his game is being constantly underestimated. Clark is harsh looking and weasels on the issues. Gen. Shelton says he has characterological issues. I believe it, the way he has waffled on his support of Bush.
851. arkymalarky - 11/23/2003 1:11:24 AM
When's he going to show his hand with an actual intelligent, unscripted remark? He's had almost three years now. The only thing I can see that's being underestimated about him in general is the extent of his ignorance.
What issues has Clark firmly weaseled on since announcing his candidacy (view-changing over a lifetime doesn't count, and neither does withholding political/policy commentary as a national military leader)? I don't think he's "waffled on his support of Bush." Lots of people who oppose Bush now were willing to give him support going into the Iraqi invasion, and Clark rightly admired the military's function in the initial stages. That the leadership didn't adjust for changes in circumstances has nothing to do with the amazing competence of our forces, which Clark certainly showed high appreciation and admiration for.
852. arkymalarky - 11/23/2003 1:15:15 AM
Clark isn't a perfect candidate, but he's better than who's sitting there now, and I think better than someone as liberal as Dean in the current climate.
My big concerns with a second Bush term have less to do with foreign policy than domestic, especially his (or his operatives') blatant determination to allow corporate domination of the system. I'm frankly amazed Libertarians aren't screaming about some of the things going on domestically. And they are in some circles, just apparently not here.
853. judithathome - 11/23/2003 1:16:00 AM
I suspect on some level that will turn a lot of people off.
I suspect that interview the other night will turn a lot of people ON...his eyes filled with tears as he discussed children dying and that goes a long way with people to whom emotion is not a foreign country.
854. wonkers2 - 11/23/2003 2:04:47 AM
General Shelton is a moron. His only issue with Clark is that when Clark was head of NATO, and on the org chart technically not reporting to Shelton as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs anyway, Clark went to others in the Clinton administration to press his case for mobilizing ground troops for Kosovo. Clinton has since said that Clark was correct because that would have intimidated Milosevic more quickly than telling him ahead of time that ground troops weren't in the picture. Wesley Clark was completely correct in his position. In Shelton's steel trap military mind, Clark's going to Albright and Holbrooke and others rather than going through him and then letting him talk to Cohen and Cohen to Clinton is a "characterological" issue. The truth is Shelton and Cohen (and Clinton) were wrong and Clark and Albright and Holbrooke were right.
855. ronski - 11/23/2003 2:44:38 AM
Okay, and how are the Democrats going to win?
856. alistairConnor - 11/23/2003 2:46:15 AM
Message # 843 Ronski, it strikes me that, in collective tactics, the democrats may well pull one out of the bag. Dean as early front-runner mobilises the activists, and the left, then Clark (or someone else) picks up steam, collects that enthusiasm and makes inroads on the centre.
Where Clark looks like a winner is that he has the experience, and the authority, to tell Bush and co. where they are wrong on foreign policy. None of the other democrat candidates -- whether Washington politicians or provincial politicians -- have the credibility to do that convincingly.
On the other hand, with 100 000 troops still in Iraq as the election comes around, and deaths every week, how can any democrat lose?
857. rdbrewer - 11/23/2003 2:51:42 AM
I'm frankly amazed Libertarians aren't screaming about some of the things going on domestically.
I have been. Bush has this mistaken belief that he can buy off a few lefties with gubmint goodies. As I wrote to Bush, they'll take the goodies and vote against him anyway. Like those stupid steel tariffs. He didn't buy himself jack squat with that, and now he's looking at the inevitable economic fallout.
He has to take a hard line and lead. More people will vote for him for that than will be purchased with handouts.
858. rdbrewer - 11/23/2003 2:55:17 AM
Where Clark looks like a winner is that he has the experience, and the authority, to tell Bush and co. where they are wrong on foreign policy.
Going to military school and leading troops does not make one an expert on foreign policy.
None of the other democrat candidates -- whether Washington politicians or provincial politicians -- have the credibility to do that convincingly.
I would take Kerry over Clark on that one.
859. wonkers2 - 11/23/2003 5:12:56 AM
Bush buying off a few lefties? Maybe he will with his phony Medicare bill. But for three years he's been buying off lots of big industry--steel, oil, mining, power and so forth ad nauseam, and he'll use their money to buy ads to mislead the voters.
860. arkymalarky - 11/23/2003 6:05:55 AM
Uh, actually I was thinking more along the lines of civil liberties and problems with the Patriot Act, etc.
861. concerned - 11/23/2003 7:10:12 AM
Sour note
Music blaring from Fort Benning bothers protesters near post
As protest leaders took to the stage with speeches and music, Fort Benning blared anthems and martial music from loudspeakers positioned just inside its gates, about 50 yards away.
SOA Watch, which conducts the annual protest against the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, called the move a "psychological operation," and said it planned to file suit against the Army.
So, SOA Watch can conduct 'psychological operations' and Fort Benning can't? What happened to this supposed Left Wing tolerance? Now they sound like fascists.
862. judithathome - 11/23/2003 3:13:51 PM
Going to military school and leading troops does not make one an expert on foreign policy
Excuse me? I suppose you're right...that sort of thing doesn't fly nearly as much as owning a baseball team, failing in the oil business, and having an MBA qualifies one as an expert on foreign policy
863. rdbrewer - 11/23/2003 3:18:24 PM
SOA Watch . . . said it planned to file suit against the Army.
Freedom of speech as long as they are doing the talking.
864. jexster - 11/23/2003 3:37:30 PM
Dear Media Corps member,
When we launched Fox Watch, we figured you'd find lots to report on. But we never anticipated that the results would come so quickly or be so outrageous. In the first few days of this initiative, we received word of Fox News media malpractice so egregious, we need you to help us alert the rest of the media today.
We've put together a press release about this incident.
>You can read it and electronically fax it to a news outlet of your choice, then follow up Tuesday with a phone call. Together we can get this incident in the news.
Sincerely,
--Noah T. Winer
MoveOn.org
November 24, 2003
865. concerned - 11/23/2003 4:20:32 PM
Message # 862
And what state was Clark governor of again?
866. jexster - 11/23/2003 4:21:20 PM
Just got this email from a friend...
"What a mind-blow I had this afternoon. Saw a news item about Howard Dean and his brother Charles lost in Laos in 1974, and they mentioned Charles worked for the McGovern campaign in 1972. Then they showed his photo. My mind blew, I WORKED at the McGovern campaign in Wash DC in 1972, and I knew "Charlie" !!!!!!!! Nice guy, real cute too, about my age or a little younger. Isn't it funny you don't put 2 and 2 together like this, til the TV throws it at you.
I didn't know him real closely, we were just acquaintances in the office once in awhile. He didn't work right in there, he came and went. I never knew what happened to him after, so now we know he got killed in a 1974 tour of Laos."
867. jexster - 11/23/2003 4:35:10 PM
40% of Americans Think Bush Should Be Impeached for Iraq Lies
868. judithathome - 11/23/2003 4:52:28 PM
And what state was Clark governor of again?
What has being the governor of Texas have to do with understanding foreign policy? Unless it involves deciphering the idiom spoken by Texans, it simply isn't much preparation.
At least Clark has been to foreign countries, unlike Governor Bush when he assumed the mantle of president.
869. jexster - 11/23/2003 5:03:01 PM
870. concerned - 11/23/2003 5:07:53 PM
Re. 867 -
There are undoubtedly good reasons that this article doesn't describe the leading nature of its worthless poll questions.
871. concerned - 11/23/2003 5:16:01 PM
Dunno, JAH. I think being forced to retire from the military and being accused of being a war criminal because he was so gung-ho on jexstering Serbia doesn't exactly recommend Weasley for the job.
872. judithathome - 11/23/2003 5:17:49 PM
Bush is being called a war criminal, too...all world leaders eventually get that tacked on.
Don't worry, your little twit is going to win again...he's in bed with the people who make the voting machines, after all.
873. judithathome - 11/23/2003 5:19:04 PM
And as for being forced to retire from the military...don't go there. He served in the military and didn't have to go AWOL to get out of it.
874. jexster - 11/23/2003 5:19:54 PM
November 24, 2003 | Daily Mislead Archive
Bush's Monitoring of Protests Belies His Stated Support for Free Speech
President Bush has expressed repeated support for protestors' rights to express themselves, exclaiming to the Australian parliament in October, "I love free speech."1 But federal law enforcement is showing up at political demonstrations, routinely monitoring such protests for the first time since the 1970's.
Last week, the president responded to interviewer David Frost's question about the protestors expected to greet his presence in London, "Freedom is a beautiful thing, I would first say, and aren't you lucky to be in a country that encourages people to speak their mind. And I value going to a country where people are free to say anything they want to say."2
The New York Times reported Sunday, however, that a weekly bulletin published by the FBI and distributed to local law enforcement included information about organizing tactics of anti-war demonstrators in cities such as Washington and San Francisco. One FBI official was quoted as saying, "We're not concerned with individuals who are exercising their constitutional rights. But it's obvious that there are individuals capable of violence at these events."3
But the memo details and analyzes legal activities, such as using the Internet for fundraising, and tactics used by organizations to recruit demonstrators.4
Indeed, the administration has sent mixed signals on free speech after September 11th. Weeks after the attacks, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said that Americans, "need to watch what they say, watch what they do."5 And Attorney General John Ashcroft, came under heavy criticism for saying that critics of the Patriot Act "aid terrorists."6
Reports of the FBI's monitoring have drawn comparisons with Cointelpro when the FBI routinely sent agents to infiltrate organizations protesting the Vietnam War.
875. concerned - 11/23/2003 5:28:39 PM
JAH -
Does that mean you wouldn't support Dean, if 'being in the military' is that all important to you?
876. judithathome - 11/23/2003 6:16:25 PM
No, it means you are foolish to bring up how little being in the military suits Clark in his bid...against BUSH, who never served.
And I plan to vote for the Democratic candidate, period. Yes, that means the party means more to me than the man in this election. It has never been that way before, for me, but it certainly is that way for me now. Thank you, GW Bush.
877. vonKreedon - 11/23/2003 7:04:56 PM
To me Clark has been quite consistent. He opposed the war as being "elective", but was enough of a pragmatist and non-ideologue to recognize that at some point the administration had talked the nation into a corner and we would be strategically worse off if we suddenly called the war off. This is an example of what makes him so attractive to me, that he is realpolitik aware and flexible enough to deal with reality as it exists, a skill missing from both the current administration and Dems like Kucinich (sp?) and Dean.
Regarding his demeanor, what to some looks like fear looks to me like excitment. He seems really excited about the opportunity to be President. He seems to me to always be clear and concise, two attributes that I value greatly.
Regarding policy experience, as SACEUR, and previously as commander of Southern Command, he has been involved in complex diplomacy for quite a while. What is surprising his the level of economic expertise Clark has. His Master's from Oxford is in Political-Economics. At West Point he taught Pol-Econ. As a WH Fellow he worked in the OMB! Since his retirement he had been working as an investment banker.
878. vonKreedon - 11/23/2003 7:08:34 PM
/sarcasm_on
Bush's loves free speech sooo much that he insists that special "Free Speech Zones" be designated whenever he visits a US city!
/sarcasm_off
But seriously, this moving all anti-administration speech to such free speech camps is pretty chilling.
879. judithathome - 11/23/2003 7:09:54 PM
Beats the hell out of being a figurehead for a failed baseball team!
880. vonKreedon - 11/23/2003 7:10:20 PM
Oh, and the deal with Ft. Benning is that the US Military is using US military resources to drown out and harrass the speech of US citizens. This is not the same thing as one group of citizens engaging in a protest battle of the bands and should trouble those who care about free speech.
881. judithathome - 11/23/2003 7:11:24 PM
I think Bush only loves free speech when it is favorable to him. Or when people pay for it, by giving him money...that speaks volumes to him.
882. rdbrewer - 11/23/2003 7:35:45 PM
Come on.
883. jayackroyd - 11/23/2003 7:46:17 PM
Oh no, VK, these soldiers, on duty, spontaneously broke out with the racket. The chain command couldn't have known anything about it. This wasn't really the action of a US government agency--just some crazy kids on a lark.
884. jayackroyd - 11/23/2003 7:53:19 PM
I dunno rdb. Folks have been fired from government agencies for pointing out that language was changed. Protesters aren't allowed near events any more. Ari warned us that we'd better be careful what we say. While the president was talking in London about how the Iraqis could speak out freely now, newspaper runs were being stopped in Iraq.
The central complaint about this president is that he says one thing, and does another. Why should free speech be any different?
885. robertjayb - 11/23/2003 8:05:48 PM
Bush loves free speech so much that when elected governor of Texas he promptly ended a practice in place since forever of allowing demonstrators on sidewalks around the governor's mansion.
886. thoughtful - 11/23/2003 8:09:53 PM
I don't have a dog in this hunt, but it seems to me that "Going to military school and leading troops" understates the international experience Clarke got as allied supreme commander at Nato.
887. thoughtful - 11/23/2003 8:12:41 PM
Sorry vonK, I posted that before I read your much more thorough response.
888. robertjayb - 11/23/2003 8:13:30 PM
Rearming the Colossus of Crawford...(WashPost)
President Bush signed a $401.3 billion defense authorization bill that raises pay for soldiers, lifts a ban on testing of low-yield nuclear devices and exempts military exercises and tests from laws designed to protect animals.
889. judithathome - 11/23/2003 8:27:21 PM
Come on.
Well, it is his party which condoned one of their own, DeLay, using a children's charity as a front for fund raising. His ads for that enterprise promised access to big donors to the "inside circle". So tell me money doesn't talk...it sure as hell does. Just as the Lincoln bedroom did for Clinton and just as any number of politicos have listened to the sound of money for 200 plus years.
Ca Ching. You may chide me with "Come on" all you wish but it's true and for you to act like this guy doesn't do it is disingenuous at best.
890. concerned - 11/23/2003 9:21:28 PM
Re. 880 -
How does playing music drown out or harass the speech of US citizens? The protestors aren't at home watching videos or claiming they can't be heard, and the music is not inciteful nor does it contain any type of discriminatory bias.
I think the military has just as much right to play music as the demonstrators have to demonstrate.
891. concerned - 11/23/2003 9:23:36 PM
Get it right, wingnuts. It's not Bush who is enforcing these security measures. It's the Secret Service. You are not only wrong, but off subject, IMO.
892. concerned - 11/23/2003 9:24:22 PM
Bush loves free speech so much that when elected governor of Texas he promptly ended a practice in place since forever of allowing demonstrators on sidewalks around the governor's mansion.
I'd like either a cite or a retraction.
893. concerned - 11/23/2003 9:39:15 PM
When Xlowntoon was raping and pillaging women in the WH, presidential security was just as tight, if not more so in most cases as it is for GWB.
894. robertjayb - 11/23/2003 9:41:43 PM
concerned, my good friend, on the next warm day you will be cordially invited to kiss my ass.
895. vonKreedon - 11/23/2003 9:48:07 PM
It's not Bush who is enforcing these security measures. It's the Secret Service.
Did you just seriously make this distinction? Are you seriously saying that the SS is enforcing these "security measures" without the administration's knowledge and consent? Are you arguing that the President is safer because those who hold signs opposing him are confined to a "Free Speech Zone", while those holding signs supporting him line his motorcade route?
896. robertjayb - 11/23/2003 9:56:50 PM
Sibilant George is in battle dress and full smirk while addressing soldiers at Fort Carson, Colorado.
897. concerned - 11/23/2003 10:06:07 PM
Re. 895 -
So what should GWB do to satisfy you? Override the Secret Service's best judgment of how to do their jobs? It certainly sounds that way to me.
898. concerned - 11/23/2003 10:10:06 PM
Personally, I find it a little tiresome that Lefties are telling the Secret Service how not to do its job. Where were they when the WH Rapist was keeping protestors half a mile away from his fundraisers? So what if GWB knows what the security arrangements are? Would anybody in their right mind think it's better to pull the wool over his eyes on these matters?
899. judithathome - 11/23/2003 10:16:54 PM
Would anybody in their right mind think it's better to pull the wool over his eyes on these matters?
I don't know why I find this sentence so funny but I do. To begin with, anyone in their right mind would have so much more of a mind than Bush...and then we get to the idea of pulling the wool over eyes that willfully don't see, anyhow...ahhh...it's just a tove of delight, that sentence!
900. judithathome - 11/23/2003 10:17:39 PM
'Scuse me, that's TROVE.
901. rdbrewer - 11/23/2003 10:26:33 PM
I think Bush only loves free speech when it is favorable to him.
And for support . . .
Well, it is his party which condoned one of their own, DeLay, using a children's charity as a front for fund raising. His ads for that enterprise promised access to big donors to the "inside circle".
That's some tight reasoning, Judith.
Come on.
902. judithathome - 11/23/2003 10:31:26 PM
Look, RD, we disagree on Bush. You are free to have your opinions and if you ever have one I agree with, I'll congratulate us both. Until then, just enjoy your guy being where he is while you can...and by that, I mean before the rest of the country wakes up one day and sees what he's done to it. Until then, you're in the catbird seat. Just don't expect me to like the view you have from there.
903. rdbrewer - 11/23/2003 10:34:45 PM
Re: Message # 880
Oh, and the deal with Ft. Benning is that the US Military is using US military resources to drown out and harrass the speech of US citizens. This is not the same thing as one group of citizens engaging in a protest battle of the bands and should trouble those who care about free speech.
Soldiers get free time. They have radios and the like. Maybe they needed training with their psych-op equipment. (Actually, that wouldn't be the case at a paratrooper training ground like Ft. Benning). Regardless, they have speech rights, free time, and/or training needs, and, conversely, there is no law to restrict them from jamming out, man. It's all about freedom 'round here.
Military money is spent and equipment is used all the time for personal needs, btw. Just ask those Navy pilots.
904. judithathome - 11/23/2003 10:36:36 PM
These Ft. Benning guys might even know how to whip up a banner or two.
905. vonKreedon - 11/23/2003 10:39:10 PM
RD - Are you seriously arguing that setting up a large loudspeaker system at the base gate and then playing loud music was simply a bunch of off-duty soldiers having a good time? Do you really believe that or is it just more convenient than dealing with the Military harassing and shouting down protesters?
906. concerned - 11/23/2003 10:59:50 PM
Picky picky picky. My next door neighbor had an outdoor party with dozens of guests and a live band that played until at least 2AM this fall. But, did I complain? Noooo-oooo. Because I'm not a puerile dickweed like these LW protesters are who think they have an exclusive right to cause noise pollution on Ft. Benning's doorstep.
I hope they sue. They'll just be enriching their attorneys while everybody laughs at them.
907. jayackroyd - 11/23/2003 11:00:15 PM
The Secretary of State and the chain of command have made it very clear that soldiers do not have free speech rights.
908. concerned - 11/23/2003 11:01:54 PM
The fact that LWers don't see my point wrt Ft. Benning shows their fascistic tendencies.
909. jayackroyd - 11/23/2003 11:03:32 PM
Sorry, I was thinking of Abazaid who said:
"Central Command's new commander in chief took a stern line toward his soldiers offering "comments" to the press criticizing decisions made by the White House and Pentagon.
"As a professional soldier, one does not have the right to criticize decisions made by the president or the secretary of defense."
Abizaid went on to say that those soldiers who have been found doing so risked "disciplinary" action[.]
910. rdbrewer - 11/23/2003 11:41:04 PM
VK what exactly is wrong with the military playing loud music? And how does this morph into "harassing" in your perception? Do you know the legal definition of harassment?
911. vonKreedon - 11/23/2003 11:52:03 PM
Well it becomes harassment when the loud music is directed out of the base and at the protesters gathered outside of the base. As I understand the situation, this is not two loud protests occurring at the same time; this is one protest outside the gate of Ft. Benning and the Army inside the fort setting up speakers inside the gate facing the protester's stage for the purpose of making it difficult to hear those speaking at the protest. This would be the US military harassing and impeding US citizens free speech.
912. vonKreedon - 11/23/2003 11:53:14 PM
Con - Did your neighbors set up speakers on their property, but facing you and make it difficult for you to hold a political discussion?
913. vonKreedon - 11/24/2003 12:08:03 AM
I hear RD & Con arguing that what occurred at Ft. Benning was simply a party occurring at the same time as the protest. In the scenario that the protest was in the vicinity of GI housing/recreation and some off-duty GIs took it on themselves to set up their personal high-watt stereo and play martial music, then there is no case for Military harassment of free speech. OTOH, in the scenario that on-duty GIs set up military speakers and then play martial music directed at the protester's stage there is a clear attempt by the US Military to harass, disrupt and intimidate US Citizen's exercize of free speech.
Do you disagree with this assessment? If so, how?
914. rdbrewer - 11/24/2003 12:09:47 AM
Was the stage on military property outside the gate?
915. judithathome - 11/24/2003 12:10:30 AM
President Bush, while he was at Fort Carson today, met privately with family members who had lost loved ones in Iraq . Good for him; it's nice to hear he's doing that.
916. rdbrewer - 11/24/2003 12:11:00 AM
Oh, now it's also "intimidation." The morphing continues.
917. rdbrewer - 11/24/2003 12:11:39 AM
Who says the military can't do whatever they damned well please?
918. judithathome - 11/24/2003 12:15:17 AM
From the link:
As protest leaders took to the stage with speeches and music, Fort Benning blared anthems and martial music from loudspeakers positioned just inside its gates, about 50 yards away.
And RD:
Who says the military can't do whatever they damned well please?
No one...at least not in communist countries or those run by militant dictators.
919. vonKreedon - 11/24/2003 12:17:31 AM
I don't know what property the stage was on, reports only say it was outside the gate.
Ok, adding "intimidate" was unnecessary.
Hopefully the Constitution and subsequent laws and court rulings restrain the military. That's the theory at any rate.
Now, do you disagree with the assessment in Message # 913, and if so how?
920. judithathome - 11/24/2003 12:19:20 AM
Half a football field away is probably not military property.
921. rdbrewer - 11/24/2003 12:43:01 AM
I don't know, VK. If the action originated with rank and file soldiers I don't see a problem. If the action was directed by some CO, the issue gets more hairy for me.
922. vonKreedon - 11/24/2003 12:51:52 AM
RD - Yeah, that's my take as well. I suspect that the real difference in our views is that I assume that it was on-duty soldiers under orders and you assume that it was off-duty tomfoolery.
923. jexster - 11/24/2003 12:54:52 AM
924. judithathome - 11/24/2003 1:04:02 AM
Not that anyone cares but it sounds like on-duty soldiers who were on duty at the gate to me...reading the article, that is, convinced me of this. They said the gate was 50 yards from where the demonstrators were and not many off duty soldiers...or indeed, anyone besides duty troops...hang around the gate playing music or joshing around.
925. vonKreedon - 11/24/2003 1:04:55 AM
So, from the Columbus Ledge-Inquirer:
The Army said the music came from a CD made by the wife of a soldier serving with the Fort Benning-based 988th Military Police Company in Iraq. The soldier's wife proposed giving soldiers and post law enforcement working the protest an alternative to music from the demonstration, McDowell said. Fort Benning's new commander, Brig. Gen. Benjamin Freakley, approved the proposal, he said.
Now, taken together with the stage being 50 yards away and reports that the speakers were set up just inside the gate facing the stage it seems more like officially condoned harassment than some guys listening to loud music. Particularly when combined with:
After being approached by SOA Watch leaders, police said they asked the post to stop playing the music. But it continued.
Local police asked the base officials to turn down the music, but they refused.
926. judithathome - 11/24/2003 1:05:45 AM
Especially not when every base in this country is on 100% ID check. That means they want to know who is coming and who is going and they don't act very accomodating to people who dawdle around the gates of bases, believe me.
927. judithathome - 11/24/2003 1:08:31 AM
Of course, I've only spent the last 20 plus years of my life being on bases in this country and abroad so what would I know?
928. jexster - 11/24/2003 1:57:29 AM
929. jexster - 11/24/2003 1:59:29 AM
If the Democrats can't make hay of this, then their candidate might be left like Jon Lovitz as Mike Dukakis in the "SNL" sketch saying of another Bush, "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy."
JEXSTER FOR PRESIDENT 04
930. jexster - 11/24/2003 2:12:08 AM
Alarms Sounded On Cost of GOP Bills
Republicans Increase Spending to Win Votes
931. jexster - 11/24/2003 2:13:49 AM
"The U.S. budget is out of control," the Wall Street investment firm Goldman Sachs & Co. warned Friday in its weekly newsletter to clients.
Hell its been out of control for 2 years. The CBO can't even hold a spending/deficit estimate for more than 2-3 months
932. wonkers2 - 11/24/2003 2:40:49 AM
In recent days Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin and Nobel prize winning economist Joeseph Stiglitz have all sounded alarms about the dangers of the balooning federal deficit. Bush is turning the U.S. into a bannana republic.
933. wonkers2 - 11/24/2003 2:45:00 AM
Add Paul Volcker to the list. How many more need to speak out before Bush and the Congress wise up??
Ron Insana's interview with Bob Rubin in the December Money magazine spells the problem out quite clearly. Enough voodoo economics.
934. wonkers2 - 11/24/2003 3:38:56 AM
None of the Bushies seem to want to defend his tax/budget policies. Where are you ED,RDB,Concerned?
935. rdbrewer - 11/24/2003 4:04:12 AM
The spending is absurd.
936. arkymalarky - 11/24/2003 4:22:26 AM
I've been worried from very early about the crunch it's putting on the states. It's really been hard on AR, and we're under this court order wrt education and having a lot of other problems that go with being the poorest state in the country and home to the richest leeches.
937. jexster - 11/24/2003 4:49:45 AM
The Peoples' Court - You Be The Judge!
Factual Background:
Angela Alioto, multi-millionaire plaintiff's trial lawyer and daughter of the late mayor of SF, spent 1,000,000 (600K of her own money) in an unsuccessful Gen Election bid for mayor. Of the four "Anybody But Gavin" candidates, Angela was the most vicious and most visible in her personal attacks.
Of the wacked "progressively wacked" left extremists who did not make the runoff, one endorsed Newsom, one the Wacko Green, only Angela Alioto remained undecided. Alioto finished third just 1.3% behind the second place finisher, a Green Goober
Saturday November 22 - McCutchen writes letter to Angela Alioto urging Newsom endorsement
Sunday November 23 - Alioto sends 3 emails to McCutchen
Sunday November 23 - Angela claims "Gavin needs help desperately" to which McCutchen replies "then give it up for Gavin girl"
Sunday November 24 - Newsom confides to McCutchen that he was fearful that Alioto would endorse his Green Goof opponent but held out hope that he would be able to "neutralize her"
Monday November 24 - The San Francisco Chron...late breaking news..
"former Supervisor Angela Alioto swallowed hard and opted for fellow Democrat Gavin Newsom after going on the record saying she was torn about which to pick and postponing the public announcement last week.
Newsom's spokeswoman Heather Hiles commented this morning that the front-running candidate was "truly honored'' to receive Alioto's backing.... :
BURN A GREEN FOR CRIMMUS
The Plaintiff rests Your Honor
You be the Judge in the Peoples' Court
bwaahahahaaa
938. jexster - 11/24/2003 5:02:55 AM
Burn Bush, Burn Greens
A special thank you to Edmund Dantes for tiggering my sadistic streak today..
Background: Dist 8, essentially Boys Town, the Castro, in SF will be a major battleground in the mayor's race...Gavin Newsom has launched a major Guliani-lite campaign to address an ever worsening problem of homelessness in SF. SF spends more percapita than any other city in the nation on the problem yet 169 people died on the streets last year in contrast to TWO in Chicago. For this he has received the outrage of SF's progressively lunatic left, led by the Green Party
939. jexster - 11/24/2003 5:04:41 AM
The Newsom Campaign's District 8 coordinator asked that I write the major gay newspaper...
Editor:
If you live in Districts 5, 6 or 8 you've seen them. Posters pasted on public property with grotesque caricatures of Gavin Newsom variously branding him as "LIAR", "ENEMY OF THE WORKING MAN", "RACIST" and on and on goes this campaign vilification, a campaign sponsored and directed on behalf of his opponent, Matt Gonzalez.
In District 8, the Gonzalez claque changes theme portraying Gavin as a mortal enemy of the GLBT&Q community. Well, I know Gavin Newsom. I walked with him last night in the Milk/Moscone Candlelight March. Just behind us, a couple drunk Gonzalez supporters hurled abuse at us. I have had enough and so should the people of San Francisco.
The extreme left is as poisoned with hate for Gavin Newsom and his supporters as was the radical "Christian" right was in its vilification of Bill and Hillary Clinton. These extremists meet on a common ground of demonetization.
Enough is enough. There are enough demons in this world without having to make them up. One hundred and sixty nine homeless persons died on the streets of San Francisco last year. Homelessness is demonic when people die on our streets, not the only man in this race with the courage to tackle the problem and the good grace to stand up for San Francisco in the face of such the wretched political tactics.
940. jexster - 11/24/2003 5:05:38 AM
God damn another typoe...I need a secretary
941. jexster - 11/24/2003 6:32:32 AM
The 9/11 Coverup:
9/11 Families Denounce Bush's Editing of Key Dos
Chairman Kean, Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton, commissioner Jamie Gorelick, and Staff Director Philip Zelikow will review Bush's sensitive PDBs. The extent of secrecy involved is exhibited by the fact that only notes are permitted, and notes taken exclusively by the four will be stored and guarded at the White House...
The other seven commission members without access to Bush's sensitive documents will only be able to read a 'summary for all Commissioners and designated staff. That summary is subject to limited White House review before it is shared with the full Commission. The four epresentatives will have 'wide latitude' in preparing the summary and briefing the full Commission'.
The 9/11 Family Steering Committee said Thursday that 'This Agreement [regarding PDB partial access] is replete with varying levels o 'editing' by the White House. It shows a lack of cooperation by the White House in facilitating this Commission's investigation."
942. jayackroyd - 11/24/2003 7:17:40 AM
If the only way to understand 9/11's prequel is to read the president's daily security brief, then the commission has a problem.
There's gotta be something subtler going on here than the press has produced, because this war makes no sense. While the brief is not nearly as closely held as I had thought (reading what I have about this issue), the daily reading of the intelligence community of what is important would seem to be more of a distraction--more noise than signal-- than a key element of their evaluation.
Are there one or two particular warnings they've heard about that they want to review? Is even that appropriate? Monday morning quarterbacking on that basis seems pretty dicey to me.
943. concerned - 11/24/2003 8:20:19 AM
Message # 925
I want to know what kind of music SOA was playing. Fair's fair.
944. jayackroyd - 11/24/2003 9:33:31 AM
connie,
did you read vk's link? This is apparently an ongoing (14 year) deal, with this the latest skirmish. In that context, while it's not right for the army to be discouraging protest, it's also understandable that there be some conflict over a longstanding protest over an annual event.
vk, is this really that big a deal?
945. vonKreedon - 11/24/2003 4:54:54 PM
Jay - Not a big deal by itself, but when combined with "Free Speech Zones" and other official attempts to diminish the exercize of free speech it starts to become significant.
946. judithathome - 11/24/2003 4:58:12 PM
Every journey begins with a small step, after all.
947. thoughtful - 11/24/2003 4:59:03 PM
Well it's also the hypocrisy...isn't free speech one of those important freedoms are military is supposed to be fighting for, even defending with their lives?
948. jexster - 11/24/2003 5:43:57 PM
After numerous rounds of "We don't even know if Saddam is
still alive", Saddam decided to send George W. a letter in his > own writing to let him know that he is still in the game.
Bush opened the letter and it appeared to contain a coded
message:
370HSSV-0773H
George W. couldn't figure it out so he typed it out and emailed it to Colin Powell. Colin and his aides had no clue either so they sent it to the CIA.
No one could solve it so it went to the NSA and then to MIT and NASA and the Secret Service -- the list got longer and longer.
Eventually they asked Mossad in Israel for help.
Cpt. Moishe Pippick took one look at it and replied:
"Tell the President he is looking at the message upside down!"
949. jexster - 11/24/2003 6:08:07 PM
I am thinking of opening a Lonely Hearts Marriage Brokerage
Alioto backs Newsom -- Gonzalez camp cries foul / Odd bedfellows: Former foe would help on homeless
Gavin Newsom and Angela Alioto make for an odd political pair.
950. jexster - 11/24/2003 6:08:33 PM
My next assignment - bed Al D and Wiz
951. jexster - 11/24/2003 6:22:10 PM
One of the problems with media coverage of this administration," wrote Eric Alterman in The Nation, "is that it requires bad manners."
He's right. There's no nice way to explain how the administration uses cooked numbers to sell its tax cuts, or how its arrogance and gullibility led to the current mess in Iraq.
So it was predictable that the administration and its allies, no longer very successful at claiming that questioning the president is unpatriotic, would use appeals to good manners as a way to silence critics. Not, mind you, that Emily Post has taken over the Republican Party: the same people who denounce liberal incivility continue to impugn the motives of their opponents.
Smart conservatives admit that their own side was a bit rude during the Clinton years. But now, they say, they've learned better, and it's those angry liberals who have a problem. The reality, however, is that they can only convince themselves that liberals have an anger problem by applying a double standard.
When Ann Coulter expresses regret that Timothy McVeigh didn't blow up The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal laughs it off as "tongue-in-cheek agitprop." But when Al Franken writes about lies and lying liars in a funny, but carefully researched book, he's degrading the discourse.
More important, the Bush administration — which likes to portray itself as the inheritor of Reagan-like optimism — actually has a Nixonian habit of demonizing its opponents.
The Uncivil War of the Incomeptent Liars
952. Edmund Dantes - 11/24/2003 6:26:42 PM
"Incomeptent Liars"
Hee-hee-hee.
953. Edmund Dantes - 11/24/2003 6:30:05 PM
954. Edmund Dantes - 11/24/2003 6:35:39 PM
OUR PRESIDENT'S WINNING WAYS
Three events - one minor, one middling and one major - may have sealed the Democrats' political doom in 2004.
The minor event was the new commercial released by the [RNC] in Iowa questioning those who criticize President Bush's actions in the War on Terror. The ad's text reads, in part, "Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists. . . . Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others."
Democrats greeted the ad with screams of outrage. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle demanded that it be retracted. Sen. Ted Kennedy said its intention was to "stifle dissent" in this country.
Please. For six months, the Democratic candidates for president have been going after Bush for his handling of the War on Terror and the war in Iraq. One, the flaky Rep. Dennis Kucinich, opposes the war in Afghanistan that routed al Qaeda and ousted the Taliban. All of them have attacked the USA Patriot Act, the key domestic element of the War on Terror, for its supposedly draconian qualities.
This weekend, Wesley Clark said we could find Osama bin Laden "if we wanted to" - suggesting, in other words, that Bush really didn't want to. John Kerry has said that "a dangerous gap in credibility has developed between President Bush's tough rhetoric and timid policies, which don't do nearly enough to protect Americans."
Evidently, senior Democrats believe they are permitted to say anything they like about the president - but it's illegitimate for Republicans to fire back on the president's behalf. It's such a pathetic line of argument that it's hard to believe they mean it.
Democrats: The Crybaby Party.
Dr. Poopstain: Diapers needed in the US Congress...stat!
955. jexster - 11/24/2003 7:49:43 PM
If the Economy’s Improving, It’s Still Not Helping Bush Much
That's right Eddie a bunch cry baby faggots...too bad can't all be HE-MEN like you isn't it?
956. jexster - 11/24/2003 7:56:02 PM
Moo like a cow Eddie
What's Dr. Bagwan Ragnish's view on this Ed?
If the Economy’s Improving, It’s Still Not Helping Bush Much
Two just-released polls confirm that the recent good economic news hasn’t helped Bush’s standing with the public much. The latest Ipsos/Cook Political Report poll has the right direction/wrong track question at 38 percent right direction/56 percent wrong track, exactly where this measure was in the last half of September and early October.
Bush’s overall approval rating in the Ipsos poll is at 50 percent, the lowest rating they’ve recorded for him since 9/11. Even his approval rating on the economy has snapped back to net negative (46 percent approval/51 percent disapproval) after reaching the break-even point in early November.
The latest Time/CNN poll has a different re-elect question, but also has Bush at a post-9/11 low. Significantly, more people say they would be very unlikely to vote for him (38 percent) than say they would be very likely to support him (32 percent).
This poll also shows how the public’s personal bond with Bush is continuing to erode. Just 44 percent now say he is a leader they can trust (down from 56 percent in March), compared to 54 percent who say they have some doubts and reservations. Note that political independents have an even more jaundiced view: only 38 percent say they can trust him, while 61 percent have doubts.
Smart people those Independents.
Liars and incompetents
Incomptents and liars
You say tomAYto, I say tomAHto
957. jexster - 11/24/2003 9:27:16 PM
Bush's Failed WOT: Despite Bush Boast of Ouster, Taliban is Rebuilding on the Ground in Afghanistan
President Bush yesterday said that we "put the Taliban out of business forever"1 - taking credit for supposedly ridding the world of the terrorist regime. He made these comments just a day after the Taliban launched a rocket attack on Kabul's most prominent hotel2. It was also one day after Reuters reported Mullah Omar, the Taliban's still at-large leader, "urged Afghans to unite against U.S.-led foreign forces on their soil"3 and the same day Afghanistan's Foreign Minister desperately requested more international help in fighting off Taliban guerillas4. All told, the AP calls the Taliban " an increasingly virulent insurgency" while the LA Times reports "nearly two years after the U.S. drove the Taliban from power, remnants of the Islamic extremist group are regrouping and attacking U.S. troops."5
The President's declarations that the challenges in Afghanistan are not only misleading to the American public, but a direct affront to the 10,000 U.S. soldiers at risk there. Just this weekend, five U.S. soldiers were killed in a helicopter crash north of Kabul6. A day earlier, two U.S. soldiers were injured in a Taliban rocket attack7, and a soldier lost his leg in a land mine explosion8, and just last month two CIA officers were killed9. The Taliban problem has gotten so bad that the U.N. is pulling staff out of parts of the country10, and Germany's ambassador recently said it threatens the country's efforts to form a democratic government11.
958. jexster - 11/24/2003 9:27:28 PM
Downplaying the war in Afghanistan also has effects on the ground. In a story headlined "The Forgotten War" the Green Bay Press-Gazette profiles local reservists who are serving in Afghanistan12. As 27-year-old Lt. Michelle Orley said, "Sometimes we feel like we're the forgotten war. Just seeing the things that go on here, we're not out of danger, we're not out of the threat … and there are soldiers risking their lives here every day."
Looks like the Taliban can after all.
959. rdbrewer - 11/24/2003 10:31:17 PM
Jay:
There's gotta be something subtler going on here than the press has produced, because this war makes no sense.
You're begging the question of whether the war makes no sense.
960. rdbrewer - 11/24/2003 10:54:03 PM
On the campaign trail:
961. concerned - 11/24/2003 11:47:07 PM
Ok, adding "intimidate" was unnecessary.
And laughable, considering that the SOA is threatening a lawsuit over some music.
962. concerned - 11/24/2003 11:48:18 PM
Con - Did your neighbors set up speakers on their property, but facing you and make it difficult for you to hold a political discussion?
As I said, it was a live band with sound reinforcement; considerably louder than the Ft. Benning music.
963. concerned - 11/24/2003 11:50:44 PM
did you read vk's link?
Have you?
964. OhioSTOPAS - 11/25/2003 12:06:18 AM
Edmund Dantes, #954:
"Evidently, senior Democrats believe they are permitted to say anything they like about the president - but it's illegitimate for Republicans to fire back on the president's behalf."
Surely, Eddie, you don't think this statement has any basis in reality. Republicans are welcome to "fire back." It's the gross mischaracterization of the Democrats' position - WHO is "attacking the President for attacking the terrorists"??? - that is objectionable.
965. jexster - 11/25/2003 1:06:05 AM
Say Ohio did you get my link on the MoveOn Media Corps' Fox Watch?
UR perfect for the job.
I never bother ....be careful though...the more you watch the dumber you become..scientific fact
966. jexster - 11/25/2003 1:09:23 AM
Why just look what happened to our little fat Eddie.
At Bay
SF Demos Burn Greens for Crimmus -The American Prospect
967. jayackroyd - 11/25/2003 1:11:58 AM
rdb
There's gotta be something subtler going on here than the press has produced, because this war makes no sense.
You're begging the question of whether the war makes no sense.
I meant, by "war," the intense dispute over the release of the daily brief. The commission has to have to access to the elements that make up the brief on any given day, and it would kinda appalling to think that the only source of intelligence the president has is the brief.
So there's something going on that's not being reported. Kean would certainly not collaborate in an attempt to gotcha the president with some clear and present line in some August brief.
So I am wondering what is going on.
968. jexster - 11/25/2003 1:13:48 AM
969. wonkers2 - 11/25/2003 1:39:28 AM
From today's lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal:
The GOP's Spending Spree
The latest news out of Congress is that in order to pass their spendthrift energy and Medicare bills, the Republican leadership is resorting to--still more spending, especially seeetheart projects for members. Does anyone else notice a theme here?
Elected in 1994 as the party of limited govt, Republicans seem to have abandoned any effort to limit spending. Worse the current Republican President has shown no inclination to control it either. At the current pace, Howard Dean may yet find a political opening next year to run as a "fiscal conservative.".....
We realize that spending is what Congress does for a living. But that's all the more reason why a President has to be willing to impose restriant on the Members. President Bush makes a stab at this every year with his own budget proposal in Feb., this year requesting a 3.7% increase. But by the time the actual spending bills come rolling over to the White House, Mr. Bush seems willing to sign just about anything.
The President has refused to veto a single spending request in three years.....
970. rdbrewer - 11/25/2003 1:42:28 AM
It's terrible, wonkers, but it's nice to see Democrats up in arms about spending.
971. jayackroyd - 11/25/2003 2:01:57 AM
Well, it's not surprising coming off an administration that worked with Congress to control spending, and to manage the budget in a fiscally responsible manner.
We've not seen fiscal responsibility from the Republicans--House, Senate, or President, since a short span in the Nixon years.
The smaller govt bit is a shockingly big lie--every single federally elected republican body has supported enormous growth in the size of the government.
972. jexster - 11/25/2003 2:35:31 AM
Bush's WOT Failure
Treason's Greetings
When Republicans introduced this ad, they suggested that Democrats had twisted President Bush's national security record for months and that it was time to even the score. If so, mission accomplished. In 30 seconds, this ad distorts the Democrats' views and impugns their motives more crudely than the Democrats have done to Bush in two years.
973. jexster - 11/25/2003 2:36:45 AM
It's terrible, wonkers, but it's nice to see Democrats up in arms about spending.
Where have you been for the last 10 years RD?
Obviously hot on the trail of cum stains and Vince Foster's murderer
974. jexster - 11/25/2003 2:38:13 AM
From: Jacob Weisberg
To: William Saletan
I thought Bush would do this. I thought he'd run ugly, dishonest ads questioning the patriotism of his Democratic opponents. That's what Republicans do in campaigns (see Saxby Chambliss vs. Max Cleland, 2002). That's what the Bushes do when they're running for President (George H.W. Bush vs. Michael Dukakis, 1988). But I didn't think Bush would run red-baiting ads a year ahead of the election, before a single vote had been cast for any Democratic candidate.
Yes let's talk about Bush' magnificent performance against the turruhrusts
975. jexster - 11/25/2003 2:40:31 AM
Just as Paul Krugman predicted months ago....the more Bush drops in the polls, the more desperate they'll get. The more desperate they get, the uglier they'll be.
But I am with Weisberg...I didn't think that the Bushies felt THAT threatened this early
976. jexster - 11/25/2003 2:50:51 AM
That's what Republicans do in campaigns
But why...
For that we must turn to Professor Poopstain
From The Impact of Negative Advertising
Do Attack Centered Political Campaigns Mobilize or Selectively Demobilize the Electorate?
In Going Negative, Ansolabehere and Iyengar pool their earlier findings with experimental data from experiments they conducted in connection with the 1992 Presidential race between George Bush and Bill Clinton. The pooled quota sample comprised over 2200 respondents. The methods were identical [A&I (1995) 181].
They found that advertising of both types markedly improves participant knowledge of election issues and candidate stands [A&I (1995), 59]. The effect, however, is differential. Some are “mobilized” to a greater degree but this group was already involved. At the same time, others, especially weak partisan Democrats and less active Independents, are “demobilized”. Republicans, on the other hand, respond strongly and “positively” to negative advertising and are more likely to vote when exposed to a negative ad than to a positive one . Because those whose intentions to vote were not reduced by ads were mostly highly partisan, the ultimate net result is a smaller, increasingly polarized electorate [A&I (1995) 96-98].
Ref: Ansolabehere, S. & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going Negative: How Attack Ads Shrink and Polarize the Electorate. New York, NY: The Free Press.
977. jayackroyd - 11/25/2003 2:53:27 AM
Here's the full text of the ad, from the RNC site:
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: "It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."
CHYRON: Strong and Principled Leadership
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: "Our war against terror is a contest of will in which perseverance is power."
CHYRON: Some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"
CHYRON: Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others.
CHYRON: Call Congress Now
CHYRON: Tell them to support the President's policy of preemptive self-defense.
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN ED GILLESPIE: "The Republican National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising."
CHYRON: Ed Gillespie
978. jayackroyd - 11/25/2003 2:54:49 AM
(A Chyron is the TV equivalent of a powerpoint slide--a piece of text.)
979. jexster - 11/25/2003 2:57:16 AM
Aah Jay we've a Vulcan mind meld
It's the chyrons that do the dirty work. The second says, "Some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists."
Bull.
Not one leading Democrat in Congress or in the presidential campaign has criticized Bush for attacking terrorists. They've criticized him for not attacking terrorists. Specifically, they've faulted him for attacking Iraq and pretending that this was a blow against terrorism when the evidence indicates that Saddam Hussein gave no more support to al-Qaida—and in some cases, less support—than other regimes did. Meanwhile, Osama Bin Laden remains at large Saletan
980. jexster - 11/25/2003 2:59:54 AM
And so much for the Uniter Not a Divider Lie
981. jexster - 11/25/2003 3:00:20 AM
Two bush boogers with one kleenex
982. jexster - 11/25/2003 3:13:00 AM
Every salient premise in the ad is false.
- Our national security wasn't in jeopardy.
- Our pre-emptive attack turned out not to be warranted self-defense.
- The regime Bush ousted wasn't particularly supportive of the terrorists who struck us, and leading Democrats who opposed the war did so for reasons precisely contrary to the reasons the ad attributes to them.
Call the White House and the RNC now. Tell them to end the President's policy of lying about Iraq.
So what the fuck else is new, The bastards are lying throught their teeth. They can't stop lying and only mental defectives like EddieD seem to still believe their shit.
Worse, they're hungry for more.
983. jexster - 11/25/2003 3:24:53 AM
The Politics Of War
11/25/03 Defense and the National Interest
By William S. Lind, Campaign for Cultural CONSERVATISM
As I said in an earlier column, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are already lost. Nothing the United States can do can yield an American victory in either place.
The upshot of all of this is that despite Mr. Rove’s belated wakening to political reality, Mr. Bush will go into the 2004 election with one of two albatrosses around his neck: a continuing, losing guerilla war, with ever-increasing American casualties, or an out-and-out American defeat, where we have left Iraq very much the way the Soviets left Afghanistan. Which is, by the way, the way we will also leave Afghanistan itself.
The neo-cons’ parting gift to real American conservatives will be President Hillary Clinton. Thanks a lot, guys.
984. jexster - 11/25/2003 3:26:34 AM
Failure
4. One that fails completely: bust, fiasco, loser, washout. Informal : dud, flop, lemon. Slang : bomb.
985. Edmund Dantes - 11/25/2003 4:02:18 AM
OUR PRESIDENT KICKING JACKASS IN FLORIDA
Florida voters trust President Bush more than any of his Democratic rivals to run the war in Iraq and restore the economy, a poll released Monday indicated.
The Mason-Dixon Florida Poll said Bush's overall approval rating has held steady - although his disapproval numbers have risen since last summer. But in head-to-head matchups with his major Democratic challengers, Bush led by 20 points or more.
Hoo-yay!
986. jexster - 11/25/2003 4:07:17 AM
Amazing...how little it takes to make one happy when the end is near
987. jexster - 11/25/2003 4:12:32 AM
target=new>Vial-Gate! Rove Scrubs Bush Dyslexia from RNC Ad!
"When Bush laid out the potential threat that unconventional weapons posed in Saddam Hussein's hands last year in his SOTU address last year, he became tongue-tied at an inopportune moment. The line read, 'It would take one vial, one canister, one crate, slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.' But Mr. Bush stumbled between the words 'one' and 'vial.' And when at the word vial, he pronounced the 'v' as if it were a 'w.' Yet in a new GOP commercial that borrows excerpts from that speech, Mr. Bush delivers that line as smoothly as any other in the address, without a pause between 'one' and 'vial,' and the v in 'vial' sounds strong and sure. Republican officials acknowledged yesterday that the change was a product of technology. The line, they said, was digitally enhanced in editing 'to ensure the best clarity.'"
Now we know why Rove wants $200 million - to make sock puppet Bush appear human!
988. RickNelson - 11/25/2003 4:12:59 AM
Poll Schmoll, Nothing really matters until the DNC is over. Then a poll can weigh in.
Skewed polls like that are a waste of time.
989. Edmund Dantes - 11/25/2003 4:16:51 AM
If Bush takes Florida, he'll be our president for another four years.
Guaranteed.
990. RickNelson - 11/25/2003 4:17:29 AM
Ok, I'll bite, who is Rove?
991. RickNelson - 11/25/2003 4:19:29 AM
You think so?
What if he loses California and New York?
His little brother did a fine job of fixing the election last time. Florida is a crock state for a presidential eleciton that includes GWB, while his brother is gov.
I again intensely state that a poll at this stage is without merit.
992. Edmund Dantes - 11/25/2003 4:19:51 AM
Karl Rove.
Yipes, you is a certified novice.
993. RickNelson - 11/25/2003 4:21:40 AM
yup. I've said it for over 6 years. I don't care about politics until it matters.
So I play catch-up, so what?
994. Edmund Dantes - 11/25/2003 4:21:52 AM
What if he loses California and New York?
Lost 'em last time and didn't make any difference.
As for Florida, did you happen to see Jeb's margin last time out (i.e., last year)?
That was one Terry McAuliffe guaran-damn-teed a win.
(McAuliffe is DNC chairman.)
995. arkymalarky - 11/25/2003 4:22:01 AM
Mr. Ed makes me miss Jade Gold a whole lot.
Karl Rove--the evil genius behind the Incompetent. Or one of them, anyway.
996. rdbrewer - 11/25/2003 4:24:05 AM
Whatever happened to JadedOld?
997. jayackroyd - 11/25/2003 4:24:25 AM
Well, it is worth deconstructing this.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: "It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."
1) This was hyperbolic at the time--chemical and biological attacks by terrorists have been very infrequent, and such attacks by non-state agencies are very low yield.
2) The RNC now is saying that the threat was real, when we know now it was not. They are repeating two falsehoods in this ad a) that Iraq has such weapons and b) that there are al qaeda links.
CHYRON: Strong and Principled Leadership
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: "Our war against terror is a contest of will in which perseverance is power."
This is unexceptionable--except maybe for the "we're bailing in June" change in plans. Oh, and the "we take Kabul and we're outta here" attitude toward Afghanistan shows some lack of perseverance.
CHYRON: Some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists.
This is flat false. The attacks have been against the president NOT attacking the terrorists, but pursuing other objectives.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"
This pre-emptive doctrine requires finely tuned intelligence--to prevent an attack against a nation that poses no threat, imminent or otherwise. Iraq is a good example. Poor intelligence led to an attack against a state that posed no threat. This claim has turned out to be false and damaging to the nation.
998. jayackroyd - 11/25/2003 4:24:32 AM
CHYRON: Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others.
Oh really? Who has said that? Even the most liberal view of the future of Iraq would have nothing to do with our national security. Iraq represents no threat, not now, and it did not in January.
CHYRON: Call Congress Now
CHYRON: Tell them to support the President's policy of preemptive self-defense.
That policy has been obliterated by events. Without solid intelligence, one cannot engage in pre-emptive action (as I said in January.)
This is an appalling sequence of lies. You can reach the RNC media team supporting this ad at 202-863-8614. Maybe you should call them.
999. arkymalarky - 11/25/2003 4:24:38 AM
Republicans are banking on a Dean win in the Democratic primaries. They seem to like to count chickens. Sometimes it works and sometimes they need a little help from the Supreme Court.
1000. arkymalarky - 11/25/2003 4:24:55 AM
Right?
1001. Edmund Dantes - 11/25/2003 4:25:57 AM
rd: Somebody posting an awful lot like her was at the Perfect World recently.
Major irritant for about a month, then disappeared.
1002. RickNelson - 11/25/2003 4:27:30 AM
Edmund, I wont follow other states. I don't care. Sorry as that may seem to political wizzes, it doesn't disqualify me. I'll respond to the issues from the p.o.v. of the Democratic Presidential nominee. I've followed Kerry.
Kerry and I see things the same way. He's not doing everything the way I would like, but his ideas are right.
1003. rdbrewer - 11/25/2003 4:27:35 AM
What a brawler, she was.
1004. arkymalarky - 11/25/2003 4:28:58 AM
I don't know, RD, but she and quite a few others, from far left to far right to everything in between made the Politics thread very interesting when I first began in the Fray. A lot of them were pretty much already gone by the time the Mote got started.
1005. rdbrewer - 11/25/2003 4:29:09 AM
It's funny that she seemed to annoy lefties too.
1006. RickNelson - 11/25/2003 4:30:04 AM
jay, that's a good deconstruction.
1007. arkymalarky - 11/25/2003 4:30:23 AM
Rick,
That's just being sensible and prioritizing. Unless you have nothing better to do there's not a lot to be gained by trying to follow every nuance at this point, though it's fun to speculate to a degree or no one would declare their candidacy this early.
1008. RickNelson - 11/25/2003 4:31:49 AM
Jex,
Where is Rove getting the 200 million? Bush's coffers?
1009. rdbrewer - 11/25/2003 4:32:08 AM
I remember fights with JadedOld that would carry from one thread to another, pissing people off in the process. It reminded me of old westerns where a couple of fighters would crash from room to room, scattering chairs, tables and glasses in the process.
1010. rdbrewer - 11/25/2003 4:32:26 AM
Sorry, wrong thread.
1011. rdbrewer - 11/25/2003 4:32:56 AM
You guys use "deconstruct" when you mean "analyze."
1012. RickNelson - 11/25/2003 4:33:34 AM
A good speculation is fine by me. Flat out assumption is ridiculous.
1013. arkymalarky - 11/25/2003 4:33:45 AM
The thing about Jade was she backed herself up every time. I don't recall ever seeing anyone politically pin her on anything. I also never recall being once annoyed with her. I might see how a moderator could have been a time or two, but I wasn't one. Most Left Liberals are going to get toasted somewhere down the line, as are the Right Conservatives (and Centrist Concerned), but if it ever happened to her I don't recall it.
1014. arkymalarky - 11/25/2003 4:35:07 AM
Mr. Ed, I would have thought Jade was well before your time. Or was she a TT denizen to a greater degree than I knew? (I liked some of the people there, but I could never get into TT, so Fraygrants who went there I didn't keep up with)
1015. Edmund Dantes - 11/25/2003 4:35:10 AM
This was hyperbolic at the time--chemical and biological attacks by terrorists have been very infrequent, and such attacks by non-state agencies are very low yield.
You are being nonresponsive. The text you cite implies the opposite of what you critique; i.e., the frequency is irrelevant because, "It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."
As for "low yield," , do you consider 6,000 injuries "low yield."
Read a book and you might learn something.
I suggest for starters Germs, by Judith Miller.
Finally, I'll point out that throughout the history of the world there have been exactly two nuclear devices used as warfare. Does that "infrequency" have any relevance to the actual danger of nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists?
No.
1016. Edmund Dantes - 11/25/2003 4:35:51 AM
used as warfare = used in warfare
1017. rdbrewer - 11/25/2003 4:36:39 AM
Yeah, Arky. I don't know why some lefties didn't like her. Maybe its because she wasn't "community oriented" or something.
Maybe we should take this to the Cafe.
1018. arkymalarky - 11/25/2003 4:37:49 AM
I remember fights with JadedOld that would carry from one thread to another, pissing people off in the process. It reminded me of old westerns where a couple of fighters would crash from room to room, scattering chairs, tables and glasses in the process
But that was true of a lot of people back then, RD.
1019. rdbrewer - 11/25/2003 4:38:51 AM
The text you cite implies the opposite of what you critique; i.e., the frequency is irrelevant because, "It would take one vial, . . .
Nice point, ED.
1020. arkymalarky - 11/25/2003 4:39:02 AM
Maybe, but Jade's about as much on the topic of Politics as any one individual can get who's not an actual politician or a political analyst.
1021. Edmund Dantes - 11/25/2003 4:40:20 AM
This [some are attacking Bush for attacking the terrorists] is flat false.
You are a liar: "Democratic presidential candidate Dennis J. Kucinich said yesterday that U.S. military action against Afghanistan in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks was not justified and has proved to be a "disaster" and a 'nightmare.'"
You deserve the appelation because you repeat lies no matter how many times they are rebutted. And you tediously ask for cites that you subsequently ignore.
1022. RickNelson - 11/25/2003 4:40:50 AM
Wonderful that Bush is so attune to the "one vial" threat. Yet why are there repeated instances of security breaches at airports and customs?
With such paranoid presumption, there had better be a strong, responsive action taking place to back up the insinuation of just paranoia.
1023. arkymalarky - 11/25/2003 4:42:21 AM
That whole Chicken Little Mentality is simply a way to control ignorant and fearful people. There must be enough evidence of probability to make action relevant or it's nothing more than fear-mongering.
Terrorism is a real threat. Only an idiot would assert otherwise after 9/11. To stretch that threat to unrealistic conclusions, however,--anything might happen, and if the right thing does we'll call the one who speculated with no hard evidence of it a prophetic genius--is the worst kind of political power-play and degrades the democratic process, as is being seen all too clearly of late.
1024. RickNelson - 11/25/2003 4:43:35 AM
Kucinich is an idiot.
Those comments should be taken in that light, but your correct Ed.
1025. arkymalarky - 11/25/2003 4:46:20 AM
"Some" people say lots of things. Again it's irrelevant. the Democratic leadership doesn't try to tag the entire Republican Party with Ann Coulter's psychotic rantings.
1026. rdbrewer - 11/25/2003 4:46:35 AM
What were the chances of 9/11 before 9/11, Arky? In the modern world, we have to protect against less likely, more catastrophic dangers.
1027. jayackroyd - 11/25/2003 4:47:00 AM
And so I go to the article, and like other articles Eddie posts, his summary is inaccurate:
He said that he had voted for the congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in response to the attacks. "On the philosophical question as to whether it was justified, the answer is yes," Kucinich said. "The record on that is clear. . . . I misspoke."
Kucinich said his disagreement with Bush was over "tactics" and he believes that Bush should have involved "the intelligence agencies of other countries" and the United Nations in the hunt for the terrorist suspects. Asked whether he still considered the outcome of U.S. military action in Afghanistan to be a disaster and a nightmare, he said: "I see the Taliban regaining strength and all these conflicts with warlords. The question is: What have we won? Where's the victory?"
Kucicinch is a nut, but he voted for the invasion, and his attacks on the president are not attacks against fighting terrorism, but against Bush's failed tactics.
In fact, the headline makes the central point:
Kucinich Denounces U.S. Tactics in Afghanistan
He does not denouce the war against terrorism. He denounces how it is being fought.
1028. jayackroyd - 11/25/2003 4:48:51 AM
So I'll expect a retraction of both the liar claim, and the doesn't respond to cites claim.
1029. arkymalarky - 11/25/2003 4:50:05 AM
That's bunk, RD. The chances of 9/11 being as successful as it was were slim before it happened. The chance of an attempt, as Clinton and history have made VERY clear, was extremely high. We were fortunate to have had either minor incidences that didn't go off as planned, or to have thwarted planned attacks up until 9/11. When we should have been going after Al Qaeda was during the Clinton administration. They'd done enough that they could be tied to, and could be considered an organized, world-wide threat that the Taliban was harboring at that point.
1030. rdbrewer - 11/25/2003 4:50:06 AM
Arky sez:
That whole Chicken Little Mentality is simply a way to control ignorant and fearful people.
Rick sez:
Yet why are there repeated instances of security breaches at airports and customs?
The threat is serious, and controlling ignorant and fearful people is the MO of Crat leadership.
1031. RickNelson - 11/25/2003 4:51:04 AM
Sheesh Eddy, what's up with that? If I'm novice with politics, then I expect you to be up with the facts? Is that deliberate misinterpretation? Uh?
1032. arkymalarky - 11/25/2003 4:51:26 AM
How, specifically, does the Democratic leadership control ignorant and fearful people?
1033. jayackroyd - 11/25/2003 4:52:59 AM
1015
In March 1995, the Aum Shinrikyo sect killed 12 people and injured nearly 6,000 by releasing sarin nerve gas in the Tokyo subway system. The attack, while far less deadly than the assaults in the United States, bears chilling parallels
Yes, i consider that low-yield.
It's the only significant chemical attack by terrorists (as opposed to states) in the last 30 years, and it yielded 12 deaths. Al qaeda uses different mechanisms, because those mechanisms are more effective. They kill more people.
Judith Miller has been sufficiently discredited by her work in the NYTimes that I'm not gonna waste my time.
1034. rdbrewer - 11/25/2003 4:53:26 AM
"They're trying to take away your Medicare."
"They're trying to take away your social security."
"They're trying to take milk from school lunches."
etc.
1035. jayackroyd - 11/25/2003 4:53:50 AM
What were the chances of 9/11 before 9/11, Arky? In the modern world, we have to protect against less likely, more catastrophic dangers.
How do we do that, rdb? By invading Iraq?
1036. RickNelson - 11/25/2003 4:55:06 AM
blah, blah, blah rd, that's not a Dem. MO!
If there's media attention toward the security breaches, I only find blurbs on occasion. I have access to the my local papers and network t.v.. Then once in a while I can surf internet news. But, from an average joe viewpoint, aka myself, there is very little being done to address the security breaches.
1037. rdbrewer - 11/25/2003 4:56:03 AM
I just noticed someone is gone and, glory be, we're having a rolling discussion like the old days.
1038. RickNelson - 11/25/2003 4:57:40 AM
I don't see anyone ranting knee-jerk cock-n-bull like Message # 1034 . Why is it so hard to discuss rationally?
1039. rdbrewer - 11/25/2003 4:59:13 AM
Rick, I agree with you on the security breaches. I quoted you because what you are saying directly contradicts Arky. The threat is real; it's not a Little Chicken story.
1040. arkymalarky - 11/25/2003 5:00:46 AM
That's not fear-mongering, RD. It' R-E-A-L-I-T-Y. Ketchup is a vegetable, remember?
It's neat how Republicans are now maneuvering (subtly? not so subtly?) to begin privatizing everything from Medicare to education. Once it's all corporate we can count on the check being in the mail AND the trains running on time, to say nothing of how successful the poorest public school students will become.
Boy, do I feel better now.
1041. RickNelson - 11/25/2003 5:00:50 AM
Funny you would think I directly contradicted Arky,
My perception was that we said the same thing a little bit differently.
Funny, that.
1042. jayackroyd - 11/25/2003 5:02:15 AM
rdb re 1039, can I make a serious side recommendation?
It's worth reading Bruce Scheier's Beyond Fear before talking about this kind of thing. I wrote a review
