Hey all you Carl Rove haters:

[Mark Ingram]

Turns out he didn't expose Valerie Plame after all.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723718/

I wonder if any of you have the guts to admit you were wrong...

[Enzo]

Gee, of all the items on his list of sins, you found one he didn't commit.

Unlike the conservatives who like to label all liberals as traitors or at least as "hating America," we on the other side of the aisle are perfectly willing to admit that while these people are lacking in ethics, and are not above the most dastardly tricks, they do not act in criminal fashion 100% of the time. Doesn't take any guts to state that.

Karl Rove is smart and dedicated. He is an excellent strategist, at least in terms of results. He is totally committed to "winning" at any cost, whatever winning might mean to him at the time. If that cost happens to be his integrity, he is more than willing to pay it. And we as a nation are the poorer for it.

Rove learned from the master, Lee Atwater. And before he died, even Lee said he regretted many of the things he had done in the name of politics. One wonders whether Rove has any such concerns for his fellow man.

Do you have the "guts" to acknowledge ANY accomplishments or even mere positive qualities in Bill CLinton? Or is he just some sort of comic book villain of the sort you seem to think we look upon Karl Rove as? Can't bring yourself to laud CLinton? OK, pick some other Democrat.

[Earl Norton]

I bet he liked George Wallace!!!

[casey73]

Earl,

What does George Wallace have to do with anything in 2006? How about this. Earl, I bet you liked Joseph Stalin. That is as relavent as your remark. Could you elaborate a little, please?

[markbul]

So you think there is a shortage of political pissing contests on the internet? How very sad.

[jaysg]

I finally read the blurb...facinating. I wish I had photo-copied an old New Yorker cartoon I saw eons ago. Two cigar smoking suits are talking. One says to the other, "What's the point of having power if you don't abuse it every now and then?"

[casey73]

[QUOTE=markbul;4437]So you think there is a shortage of political pissing contests on the internet? How very sad.[/QUOTE

I'm way late in responding, but I'm responding none the less. There are too many "pissing contests" on the internet? I try to engage in informed debate on some of the blogs, and it's pretty much a contest of who can deliver the most creative and clever insult against someone who's view one disagrees with. The debate gets lost in the name calling and profanity.

My specific reponse to the "I bet he likes George Wallace" comment was just to point out the sophomoric nature of, as you put it, pissing contests.

There are plenty of pissing contests. The old AMPAGE OT/BS section was rife with them. I just don't want to see the "your mother wears combat boots" silliness start up here.

If you find it sad that there is a shortage of name calling and insults instead of substantive discussion about political disagreements, well, I don't really know how to respond to that.

[Enzo]

Regardless of who it was aimed at, I believe the comment was that it was sad that someone believed there were not enough pissing contests, NOT that he was sad because he felt there were not enough.

Before you go ballistic, are you sure the comment was aimed at you?

But let us assume it was. WHy bother to take someone to task over their bait by throwing more bait in the water?

[casey73]

Ya, but!!! Point well taken Enzo. I stand corrected.

[Mark Ingram]

Regardless of who it was aimed at, I believe the comment was that it was sad that someone believed there were not enough pissing contests, NOT that he was sad because he felt there were not enough.

Before you go ballistic, are you sure the comment was aimed at you?

But let us assume it was. WHy bother to take someone to task over their bait by throwing more bait in the water?

The original point of this thread was not to engage in competitive urination. It was to see whether any of those who had would have the bravery to admit his mistake. Apparently not.

For the record, I have no doubt that Carl Rove and I would not be friends if we ever met. That goes for any other career liar, I mean politician that you could name.

[Enzo]

Just as you lack the "bravery" to complement the other sode for anything.

[Mark Ingram]

Just as you lack the "bravery" to complement the other sode for anything.Regardless of my opinions concerning the other 'sode', lack of praise is *not* the same as the vicious attacks launched at Carl Rove concerning Valerie Plame. I'm really sorry that distinction was lost on you. It must make it hard for anyone to have a conversation with you.

[Enzo]

Yep, darn difficult. Clearly anyone who doesn't accept your argument bait must be unable to make any distictions and cannot converse.

Regardless of my opinions concerning the other 'sode'

You didn't express any, they were not at issue, so there was no distinction of the sort to be made. If you have made political statements in other threads, I don't have them handy. Nothing personal, but I don't keep track of the poilitical rants in these OT sections. In the old AMpage, there were a few dozen anons and a few others who changed their handle thread to thread. WHo bothers to try and keep track? SO I honestly have no idea what other political rants you may have been involved in.

Your opening salvo made it sound as though you were on the opposing side to those disliking Rove. Take whatever side you like. One could then reasonably assume you were FOR Rove.

Most of us who despise Rove do not do so on the basis of the Plame affair. That was just one more in a long list of offenses.

Makes me think of a bank robber who was accused of stealing the pen from the counter. Turns out he didn't do it. He's still a bank robber. If Rove only did a third of the things of which he is accused, he still would be reprehensible.

If he didn't do the PLame thing, he didn't do it. At that point, anyone continuing to trumpet that he did would be wrong to do so.

[casey73]

Enzo said,"If Rove only did a third of the things of which he is accused, he still would be reprehensible."

Accused is the key word here. Accusations are easy. Anyone can make them and there need not be any proof, just suspicion. In some circles a groundless accusation can get you sued, but in politics it's just part of the game.

The thing that continues to baffle me about those so certain of rampant corruption in the Bush administration is this. If there were any real evidence to convict all these reprehensible folks, why hasn't it happened? It is common knowledge that the vast majority of the press corp and mainstream news programming leans to the left in their politics and they have been gunnin for Bush since 2000. They all want to be Woodward and Bernstein, and most would like nothing better than to see Bush and his administration crumble in humiliation, ala Watergate, only worse. I find it very hard to believe that the collective efforts of Bush camp enemies has not been able to dig up enough evidence to sink Rove, or Cheney or Rumsfeld, etc., etc, etc..

[Enzo]

The simple truth is that as of now the GOP is running the congress, they head all the committees as the majority party, they set ALL the agendas. This is not blaming them for anything, this is how Washington works. Until a Republican committee chair decides to bring a congressional investigation to bear, it won't happen. The Democrats have no vehicle to do it. Once something starts, the Dems can chime in with their concerns, but until the matter is called for discussion, all they can do is flap for the cameras.

Just as during the CLinton administration, the Republican congress set Ken Starr in Clinton to investigate the CLinton investment in Whitewater. It was this investigation into an investment Clinton made long before he was president that morphed onto investigations of various other things culminating in a congressional investigation of Bill's daliance with Monica Lewinski.

I am not defending CLinton in the slightest. I am pointing out that for far less, he was investigated a great deal more. The charges made against the Bush team are of a much worse nature IF TRUE than anything CLinton was accused of. Yet there is no investigation. You can bet your lunch money for the next year that if the Democrats retake control of the congress, the investigations into Bush and company will start the next day.

Accusations are easy. Anyone can make them

THat is true. But that doesn't make the accusations groundless.

[casey73]

Yes, everything you said about republicans controlling the house, senate, committees, etc., is true. However, that does not prevent the press corp from finding facts, if there are any to find. They somehow manage to get access to classified information and have no qualms about releasing it to the public regardless of what damage to national security it may cause. Am I to believe that the republicans have a choke hold on the media too?

As for Clinton being investigated much more for far less. The Lewinski scandal had less to do with violating the law than it had to do with Clinton's lack of scruples. His recent outburst during his interview with Chris Wallace was an embarrassing reminder of that. When he starts wagging that finger, you know you've hit a nerve. If Clinton had any character, he would have resigned after the Lewinsky scandal, just as Mark Foley did when his deviant behavior was exposed (in October before an election, what a coincidence). However, Clinton did lie under oath resulting in him being disbarred. He and Hillary pillaged the White House when they left. There is a long list of things that the Clintons did that could have been pursued under the law. To have done so may have made a few conservatives feel like justice was served, but I don't think it would have moved the country forward. I believe that is why the many dubious issues that followed the Clintons around during and after his presidency were left for history to judge.

"You can bet your lunch money for the next year that if the Democrats retake control of the congress, the investigations into Bush and company will start the next day"

I think you are correct on that count. If I thought such investigations were driven by a genuine desire to make the U.S. a safer and more desireable country to live in, I'd would throw my support behind them. But, IMO, the democrats have lost touch with mainstream America. They are driven only by a desire the recapture the control they lost in 94, and have lost sight of everything else. At the end of the day, any movement driven by a vendetta will self destruct. As for any hypothetical investigations that might occur under democratic control congress, I think they would come up empty handed.

[Enzo]

But, IMO, the democrats have lost touch with mainstream America. They are driven only by a desire the recapture the control they lost in 94

I think you missed the point. I don't think the Dems are out of touch so much as the other guys are currently just the guys with the ball. I don't think their motives are any less pure than the GOP, nor any more pure. If the GOP loses the congress, regaining it will become their MAIN focus, just as holding it is now. That is why there is such outrage across the country that the current crop of Republicans seems to place incumbency above ethics. We will hide our sins until after the election at which time THEN we might look into it.

They somehow manage to get access to classified information

The only way to get the classified information is that someone gives it to you. if you misplace your keys, look hard enough and you will find them. FInding classified stuff out is not quite the same, it is not sitting on a park bench all by itself. Not unless someone put it there for you to find. If it doesn't suit someone's agenda to tell you something underhanded that some politician did, you don't find out.

The Lewinski scandal had less to do with violating the law than it had to do with Clinton's lack of scruples.

Scandal maybe, investigation no. The whole thing started as the WHitewater investigation. No one knew about Monica. They spent millions trying to get some dirt on CLinton for an investment scheme he was allegedly involved in long before he was elected president. In the end, even Ken Starr had to admit there was nothing to the charges. In the process they uncoverd the Monica affair and so on. But that was not the point of the investigation, Whitewater was.

President Bush acknowledges he was a drunk until age 40, that he had tried cocaine in his youth. We all have done things in the past we might rather have not, I am not picking on George for it. But we could easily have sent our own Ken Starr type out to look into it. To me, that would have been more or less equivalent to the WHitewater thing. Look into sins committed long ago.

I think the CLinton investigations - regardless of what it turned into - were completely motivated by politics. As would be Democrat investigations into Bush. And in fact the only reason there are no investigations now is that the GOP is in control.

He and Hillary pillaged the White House when they left.

Nonsense, that is a myth promulgated by talk radio. Though it was a cute story, the whole "all the W keys were removed from WHitehouse keyboards" story was completely made up. AS were the rest of the tales.

As for any hypothetical investigations that might occur under democratic control congress, I think they would come up empty handed.

I wish I had such optimism. I think the current administration is the most corrupt since Nixon. I think there is malfeasance at every level.

[Earl Norton]

I too find it hard to believe.

[hasserl]

I find it hard to believe that intelligent, educated people could align themselves with either party. Face it, politics suck! And so do politicians, some worse than others.

I find the consipiracy theories laughable. The current administration is somehow more corrupt or inept than the previous? An emotional perspective more than a logical one perhaps?

You can bet your lunch money for the next year that if the Democrats retake control of the congress, the investigations into Bush and company will start the next day.

As bad as Frist and Hastert may be, I think a Reid / Pelosi Congress would be like going from the frying pan into the fire. I too believe that the #1 agenda of a Democrat controlled Congress will be a Bush/Cheney witch hunt. I expect Bush will be impeached and probably removed from office. Payback is a bitch. While the Republican Senate didn't have the balls to convict Clinton and remove him from office, I don't see the Dem's having any such difficulty (I do believe Hillary has bigger balls than Frist). In fact, they will likely do it while popping champaign corks on the Senate floor.

As dissapointed as I am with the current Congress, the thought of this spectacle sends shivers down my spine. Voting for a Democrat must be the most nonsensical thing a person could do. Voting for a Republican would be the second. I'll take the second.

[Mark Ingram]

Voting for a Democrat must be the most nonsensical thing a person could do. Voting for a Republican would be the second. I'll take the second.

ROTFLMA!

[casey73]

Not sure I missed the point, but you did manage not to address the fact that the media (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, NPR, NY Times, LA Times, et. al.) are indisputably in bed with the democrats and have been for a very long time. If they wanted all these alleged scandals to bring down the Bush administation, they could just keep beating the drum. But they don't. They keep coming up with new stuff when the old stories lose traction. They still have to sell papers (and that's not going so well lately) and ad time. Yes, republicans control key positions, but if there were overwhelming truth behind the allegations and the media was headlining it (and if they had it they would), even republicans would cave to save themselves.

"The only way to get the classified information is that someone gives it to you."

You are correct. And who do you think is giving that information out? And, why aren't they being convicted of treason? Here's a morbid scenario I came up that would make a good political cartoon, that drives the point home. Two guys are watching the second plane plow into the WTC, body parts flying, flames spewing, people screaming, basically hell on earth (my apologies to those offended by the religious implications of hell). One guy, proudly displaying his ACLU button on his chest, says to the other guy, "Now that's a damn shame, but at least our phones aren't being tapped".


RE: The Lewinsky scandal. " In the process they uncoverd the Monica affair and so on. But that was not the point of the investigation, Whitewater was".

I'll give you that. But for me (I know, I'm an old fashioned and out of sync with the mainstream) if a guy can't be trusted to not screw around on his wife, he can't be trusted to run the country. Nothing too complicated about that. If Hillary is a bitch, he should have dumped her. Then he'd be free to chase all the jailbait he wanted and nobody could say a thing. The bottom line is, Clinton's administration does not have much of a legacy to brag about. He displayed weakness and those who hate America saw that and took advantage of it.

Regarding the Clinton's pilaging the White House when then left: "... that is a myth promulgated by talk radio. "

Read Barbard Olson's book. The Clintons have never refuted it. I listen to talk radio now and then and never heard it mentioned there. That doesn't mean it wasn't. But I did read the book, which deals with other things besides taking furniture, such as the dubious pardons Clinton rushed through in the last hours of his presidency. On a side note, I used to tune into Air America also, but can't find them anymore.

"I think the current administration is the most corrupt since Nixon. I think there is malfeasance at every level".

Well of course you do. I'd be disappointed if you didn't think that way. All republicans are corrupt, untrustworthy, racist, greedy and hateful. And we all know this because Al Franken and Michael Moore and Jimmy Carter said so. I'm a republican and can confirm that :)

I'm not sure we are getting anywhere with this particular thread other than tit for tat. So I'll conclude my participation in it with a parting commentary and prediction for the upcoming week and the potential aftermath. If I'm wrong I'll come back and say so.

The house and senate are too close to call, but not the slam dunk the democrats are predicting. If the democrats get control, it will be by a very slim margin. In any case, they will declare that the American people have spoken and we are free of the tyranny of one party control. If the republican's maintain control, democrats will do what they've done in the last two elections. Make charges of election fraud and demand recount after recount. It will be the catalyst for a whole new serious of conspiracy theories and books to back them up.

On a more serious note. If democrats win the day, it could hasten the end of America as we know it. Under democrat control, we'll pull out of Iraq, scale back defense and intelligence budgets. Iran will step up production of their nukes, North Korea will declare a national holiday and celebrate it by detonating one of their nukes. There will begin a move to open the U.S. borders. Taxes will skyrocket. Interest rates will rise dramatically, unemployment will rise and business will feel the crunch. After two years of investigations into alleged Bush administration wrongdoings, the U.S. will be hit by another major terrorist attack, bigger and better than 9-11. Democrats will blame the Bush adminstration and begin negotiations with the terrorists, as terrorist attacks become worldwide throughout non-muslim countries. If democrats win the white house in 2008, we'll see the U.N. become the center of U. S. foreign policy. Need a preview on prime time? Watch "Jericho". Part of me is chuckling, but the other part of me is thinking about making sure our house in the mountains is in tip top shape.

BTW, I already voted.......twice!!

[Enzo]

OK, let's just beat it to death, shall we?

the media (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, NPR, NY Times, LA Times, et. al.) are indisputably in bed with the democrats and have been for a very long time.

Well, there you go, it is indisputable, how can I possibly dispute it then? I have to assume that everything they say is a lie. Glad we got that solved. I'll have to rely on Fox news, the Washington TImes, and, oh pick three, talk radio's daily right wing hogwash.

You are correct. And who do you think is giving that information out? And, why aren't they being convicted of treason?

I don't know, it is Mr. Bush's administration, so ask him.

Oh that is right, when he gets caught, he just declassifies the material ex post facto. Pretty slick.

if a guy can't be trusted to not screw around on his wife, he can't be trusted to run the country. Nothing too complicated about that. If Hillary is a bitch, he should have dumped her. Then he'd be free to chase all the jailbait he wanted and nobody could say a thing.

Interesting outlook. DO you want someone who can run things well, or do you want someone you want to sit next to in church. Whatever personal moral failings Mr. CLinton has really do NOT determine his abiility to manage the country. We can just as easily look a GW Bush and say a guy who took cocaine and was an admitted drunk until he was 40 can't be trusted to run the country. (And no, aside from my loathing for Bush, I don't actually hold that over his head, other than to point out that none of these guys are clean, and to point at one is to point at them all)

The jailbait line is gratuitous. Monica was an adult, a consenting adult. Bill ought to have left her alone, but she was of age. DOn't slander the victim.

But what is shocking from you here is the line about "dumping" Hillary if she were a bitch. Oh? SO much for the family values crowd if that is the case. DOn't like the wife? Just get rid of her. Apparently marriage vows are sacred when it comes to blow jobs, but not if the wife's a bitch.

Read Barbard Olson's book. The Clintons have never refuted it.

So what? They didn't deny taking the Lindberg baby either. WHy don't you accuse me of being a child molesting bank robber? I won't bother to deny it, your claim wouldn't matter to me. The claims of WHite House thefts and vandalisms have been so thoroughly debinked as to make further claims ludicrous.

Yes, presidential pardons are an easy target. It is easy to forget that they ALL do it. And they all do it the last day of office. Here is a link to a graphic history by the numbers:

http://www.rvc.cc.il.us/faclink/pruckman/pardoncharts/all_files/image002.gif

Yes, Air America failed as a viable business. Of course it would be tough at this point to break into widespread distribution since, how did that go...?
The talk radio broadcasters..

are indisputably in bed with the [Republicans] and have been for a very long time.

Well of course you do. I'd be disappointed if you didn't think that way. All republicans are corrupt, untrustworthy, racist, greedy and hateful. And we all know this because Al Franken and Michael Moore and Jimmy Carter said so. I'm a republican and can confirm that

If I felt that way, I would not have bothered to go back as far as Nixon. If you think the current administration is pure as the driven snow more power to you. To quote the Beatles, "Living is easy with eyes closed."

As to predictions, I wouldn't bother. I know of no democrats calling it a slam dunk, but right wing radio like to accuse them of it. The dire outcomes are silly. The forces of terrorism are looking for ways to attack us now - without Democrats being in charge. I assume the huge tax hikes will be about the same as the huge ones we had under CLinton? North Korea will detonate another nuke? Like the one it did while a republican was in charge? Interest rates and unemployment will rise... just like under CLinton? And the business crunch? Again as under CLinton? What else? Oh yes, that awful UN taking over. The same UN that makes the resolutions against Iraq and Iran that the current admin loves to point out when it suits its needs. Last time we had a democrat the UN was in our streets wasn't it?

Y'see, the last time we had Democrat in the WHite House, I just don't recall all these horrible things happening.

[Slobrain]

Right On Enzo....

Lets face facts that Repubs are two-faced untrustworthy assholes that want everything their way or nothing at all. They are the rich arrogant white fat jerks that think everyone are beneath them accept other rich white asshole repubs! Do as I say but not as I do attitude.

BTW, I'm white too but not a sorry repub!

Clinton was a good prez, better than Butthead that we have now.

I sure don't remember things being this bad in America when Bill was running things.

Also look at all the tax money wasted when the Repubs were trying to get Bill into hot water, then is anything said when our current prez lies to the whole country about Iraq and lies about wire taps and many other things.
It comes down to the rich trying to control the country by keeping us all down with lies and deceit
Keep a poor man down and he will make a good slave is what I feel they (the Repubs) are out to achieve.


BTW, Watch a movie called (Long kiss goodnight) with Geena Davis in it, The plot in the end sorta makes me think what the Repubs will do to the country if Hillary or another Dem becomes Prez, the Repubs will maybe do some type of terrorist plot on us, then say the Dems can't handle keeping us safe. I sure wouldn't put this low under handed type of plot past the Repubs either just to get control again.

Of course this is... my feelings about this matter so if you want to flame back, go right ahead, it won't change my thoughts on this subject.

Also I feel Carl Rove is a dishonest jerk-off as well that should be sent to prison for the leaks on the CIA that he was behind too.

SLO

[spiffpeters]

... and most would like nothing better than to see Bush and his administration crumble in humiliation, ala Watergate, only worse. I find it very hard to believe that the collective efforts of Bush camp enemies has not been able to dig up enough evidence to sink Rove, or Cheney or Rumsfeld, etc., etc, etc..

When you stack the courts and justice department with cronies, friends of cronies or others that are otherwise beholden in some manner, AND held a majority in congress, Bush Inc. is pretty much able to work free and clear of oversight or transparency.

Now that the opposing party controls congress and subsequently have subpoena power, I would expect to see thorough and aggressive oversight on the taxpayers behalf.

This administration has redefined paranoia and it will take a generation or two to return to a level where our government can be trusted again.

Do you trust our government? Will you trust two years from now when Hillary is in the oval office? Will you trust it when Hillary is stacking the supreme court with ex-lovers (both hers and bills)? Will you trust it when Janet Reno's daughter becomes the AG?

I don't really see all that much difference between BC and W, in terms of integrity. Clinton lied about a consesual adult affair. Bush just simply lies and then when he gets caught we get to see the spin machine go into high gear to re-write history.

Truely amazing that there is roughly 30% of this nation that approves of the disaster this man has brought upon this nation. Truely amazing.

[casey73]

"Truely amazing that there is roughly 30% of this nation that approves of the disaster this man has brought upon this nation. Truely amazing."

Sounds like you are in the know, like you have the inside scoop that the rest of us common folk don't have access to. So, specifically what has Bush lied about? And, what specific "disaster" as you call it, has he brought? It must be pretty bad if it is so amazing.

Rest assured with the democrats in control, they'll expose all the many many lies you speak of and I have no doubt that Bush and each one of his cronie scoundrels will be brought to justice. So please, don't leave us in suspense. Share the real facts with us so we can all be in on it too. Then we too can be "amazed";)

Oh, and give us an update on how many terrorists attacks have occured on American soil since 9-11. I'm sure they are lying about that too.

[Mark Lavelle]

Oh, and give us an update on how many terrorists attacks have occured on American soil since 9-11. I'm sure they are lying about that too.
Do you honestly believe that Bush has done anything extraordinary (i.e., beyond what anyone else would have done) to prevent terrorist attacks in the U.S.?

[spiffpeters]

"Oh, and give us an update on how many terrorists attacks have occured on American soil since 9-11."

The only number that really matters is how many occurred on Bush's watch. How many American civilians were killed under Bush's watch? Roughly 3,000 last I heard.

I seem to recall hearing Bush say the government isn't wiretapping anyone. He went to great pains to make it clear that it required a court order.

I seem to recall him saying Sadam had WMD.

Like I said, his admin and the Right Wing Talking Machine have re-written the debate that surrounded the premise of the war so that no one is accountable for the fiasco that is known as Iraq. According to Bush Inc., he was given bad info. Yet even after it became apparent that there were no WMD, he went on to award George Tenet the Medal of Freedom, the highest award that can be bestowed upon a civilian.

He claimed that the levies breaking in NO and the ensuing chaos was a complete surprise, even though video was released of him being briefed in Crawford of just such a calamity by FEMA in the days preceeding Katrina.

And his reaction/response was to go off to a fund raiser or two afterward. Hundreds of thousands of American citizens were affected by this disaster and he couldn't even be bothered go on TV and rally the nations attention to the unfolding disaster.

In stark contrast, he WAS able to fire up Air Force One in the dead of night and fly back to Washington to sign a bill that was designed specifically for Terry Schiavo's situation.

This man has demonstrated time and again such poor decision making that he makes Bill Frist's Senate chamber diagnosis of Terry Schiavo look like Marcus Welby.

That 30% of this nation (according to recent polls) continues to find little to no fault in this man is indeed amazing. Apparently we have so diminished the definition of incompetent that the word no longer possesses any practical application.

And as for Bush lying, look around you. What he said and continues to say is in direct conflict with reality.

If you're looking for specific quotes, it is a rather rudimentary practice to drag up countless instances over the last six years where he was very obviously telling half truths or outright lies. Telling the good facts and leaving out the bad facts are not the hallmarks of a great leader.

I know he wants success in Iraq, as we all do, but his refusal to be honest about the state of the conflict in Iraq with the American people is stunning. He has painted us into a corner and as usual with Bush, someone else will have to come in and clean up his mess.

[casey73]

I quit reading when I got to your New Orleans rant. It sounds to me like you are just another conspiracy follower. Conspiracy is what people fall back on when they lack facts. Believing in a conspiracy is much easier than using common sense and thinking on your own. Years ago most conspiracies were fueled by extreme right wingers. Since the democrats lost power in 94, they've taken ownership of most of the new conspiracy theories. When I was young and gullible, I too was sucked into some of the popular conspiracy theorys floating around. Then I grew up, and also became much more familiar with history.

Relax. The liberals are in power now (at least for the next 2 years) and I suspect that many of the conspiracies they hold so dear will fade into obscurity, until power shifts back to conservatives. I predict that if democrats take the white house in 08, exciting new conspiracies will start circulating among the extreme right wingers.

[casey73]

Yes, I do honestly believe that Bush's response to the attacks on 9-11 was more expedient and decisive than what we could have expected from Kerry or Gore. Do I think he has done everything right since then? No. There are many things about Bush's administration that I'm unhappy about, and I'm pretty conservative. But, I don't believe that Bush is guilty of deliberately misleading people for personal gain. His penchant for sticking to his guns in the face of growing criticism, even from former supporters, is indicative of his moral character. And it is what enrages his liberal critics who prefer someone who's policy is dictate by polls.

[spiffpeters]

"I quit reading when I got to your New Orleans rant."

I'm not how remarks about NO qualifies as a rant.

Your standards for succesful administrations are surprisingly low.

Most everything this man has said must have an asteric next to it.

If the intelligence community failed so miserably, then why did he reward Tenet with the Presidential medal of Freedom?

No one has been held to account for any of the failures that has led this nation to our current state.

All throughout 2006 Bush continued to tell the American people how well we were doing in Iraq. Now, in the matter of days and weeks, he has revised, rewritten our efforts in 2006. And despite the opinions of the military, ex-military and the American citizens, he is escalating the conflict even further.

Perhaps had he not deserted his post and actually served in Viet Nam he would have a greater appreciation for the armed services. I don't get the impression that he possesses any empathy whatsoever.

I'm sure his daughters aren't signing up to join the guard.

No matter how you slice it, Bush has been a divider and a war lord.

How's things working out in Afgahnistan these days?

[casey73]

Geez, i just can't quit you spiff !! I tell myself I'm not going to reply to your cliche "commentary", but I just can't help myself. I just glance at it and pick out references to President Bush's daughters, the National Guard (where is Dan Rather anyway?) "miserable failure", etc.,etc.. It sounds like I'm listening to Air America (can't find them on the dial anymore either).

I'm going to leave a parting shot, and you can haul out the entire list of DNC talking points in response if you like.

The democrats have a window of opportunity to stop anything President Bush attempts to move on, prove that all of the allegations that have been made about him and the vast right wing conspiracy that he and his VP command are true, have them all impeached and imprisoned and return the U.S. to the great, democrat controlled paradise it was under the Clinton administration. They have the opportunity to pull our troops out of the middle east, and if they do, I'm sure you and liberals everywhere (except Joe Lieberman) will be dancing in the streets. Will the democrats succeed in taking advantage of the opportunities they have before they consume each other in a cannibalistic orgy as they climb over each other for power positions in the democratic camp? I don't know the answer to that, but it will be interesting to watch.

I can't read the future, but based on history, I will take a crack at making a prediction. If we pull out of Iraq as so many on the liberal left are demanding that we do, so we can "negotiate" with terrorists, it may be quiet for a while, and there will be lots of atta boys and back slapping among peace loving leftys. But I can pretty much guarantee we will all live to regret it. Life in some small town in the middle of nowhere is looking better every day. Duck and cover :)

[Enzo]

Arch-partisan rhetoric is stupid no matter which end of the spectrum it comes from.

No one on either side of the aisle is suggesting we just up and leave, no one. SOme on one side want to ramp up and stay, while some on the other side want to define the goal and plan for our not being there for 50 years or more. We have been in Korea that long. SO there is no day in the works where the Iraqis wake up and say to themselves, "where'd they go?"

No one suggests we should negotiate with terrorists. That is a rhetorical construction - a strw man - for the conservative pundits to throw at the left.

Sticking to your guns in the face of challenge may well be a sign of charater. Sticking to your guns NO MATTER WHAT, is just lunacy. Sticking to your guns when the guns you have been waving prove ineffective is lunacy.

I am not going to bother to call the president a "draft dodger," it is irrelevant. ANyone here under the age of 45 or so really has no idea what draft dodger even means. What bothers many of us lefties is not that George avoided the war, it is more about him going into the air guard, becoming a pilot - OK so far - receiving a major investment in training, and then asking to be let out of his duties so he could transfer to another state to work on a political campaign. That cost him his flight status, and all of us the investment into him. The problem? He valued his political future over his commitment to the service that he pledged under oath to fulfil when he joined. Try that today: join the national guard, then three years into it, ask to be transferred so you can work on a friend's political campaign.

WHat we would like on the left, is for the original mission to be accomplished: Where's Osama? Bush declared a war on terror, then attacked Iraq instead. Afghanistan sort of evaporated...

[spiffpeters]

The dems do have some control over matters. But the CIC is in charge of the troops, and while congress could cut funding to the war in Iraq, doing so would be greatly irresponsible.

They only persons I hear talking about cutting-n-running and negotiating with terrorists are the extremists on the right.

At what point can we tell are military that their mission is over and come home? This is a pretty simple question, but over the last four years we've seen the stated objective and mission evolve.

Bush wants to send more troops to Iraq. Aside from Cheney and McCain, I haven't heard anyone else agree with this tactic. Who exactly is Bush listening to? The same folks that misinformed him about everything else?

For myself, Bush's credibility is null and void. He has betrayed my trust (we're not wiring tapping anyone. That requires a court order.), he has been wrong on Iraq and Afgahnistan. Iran and NK have only grown into bigger threats. The US debt has ballooned to over $8.5 trillion. Bush has borrowed more money from foreign nations that all the previous presidents combined.

The man could not be bothered to address the nation the day after Katrina devasted NO, but he could jump on Air Force 1 and fly from Crawford back to DC to sign Terry's law in the middle of the night.

Bush is such a failure on so many policy issues. The prosection of the war only magnifies his inadequacies.

This is the best man the strongest nation in the world can find to be its leader?

[Slobrain]

Spiff wrote,
Bush is such a failure on so many policy issues.
This is the best man the strongest nation in the world can find to be its leader?

Yeah, kinda scary isn't it! What gets me is people talk about Gore not being a good Prez if he would have gotten elected but damn, he sure is trying to get the message to the world about global warming. This is a major issue we all need to think about. I heard on the Discovery channel the other day that the polar caps are melting so damn fast that the next ten years could be disastrous to the world. Just think about the movie (Water World) Fiction may become reality!

I bet when Bush is out of office he will be back into the oil deals again with the Bin Laddens like before and not give a rat’s ass about anything else except counting the dollars in his bank account. Global warming who cares...

Yet we have Iraq crap to deal with... God help us as we dearly need help these days. The Iraq problem was Dubya's way to say look Dad I'm trying to finish the mess you started!

Lets hope the Dems start the impeachment process and get Dubya out and into prison as he has clearly broken many laws that other presidents would have went to jail for if they had done the same.

I hope you all seen Senator Jim Webb speak after the state of the union the other night as he summed up what I think lots of Americans feel about the current PIP and the major problems they have brought on to this country.

We are a hated Nation due to Dubya and the republican congress. I'm not sure anyone can get us out of this BIG mess too. It looks grim these days for us all and its damn scary to think about the future when all the other nations hate us American folk.
Not sure if Hillary or Obama can due much if elected but lets hope and prey that they maybe someone can do something to put us back to a better status in this world, otherwise prepare for the possible Armageddon to come.:eek:

SLO