Digest is just a bunch of bit items.
My dream job: Sergeant at Arms for the U.S. House of Representatives. You know I have been practicing my "Mr. Speaker..." line for years.
---
All over but the shoutin': I felt very much like my mother's son tonight. I actually had a sarcastic comment (and a few nasty names for GWB) for each of the first few sections of the speech tonight. At one point, I shouted. Then reality set in -- I was sitting alone in my living room eating dinner and actually shouting at the president on TV. Wow. I need to stop that.
---
GWB -- Still against gays: In case anyone had forgotten, the president reiterated his call for a Constitutional amendment to prohibit gays from acquiring the same legal rights as all other Americans and to protect Americans from so-called "activist judges" (he calls it "protecting marriage"). Surprise.
---
Social Insecurity: Here's my answer to the people who want to have private accounts for Social Security (privatizing=screwing the future generations): Stop being selfish. It's not your money! It's your grandma's money. Your grandkids will pay for you when you're old. That's how it works. I have way too many thoughts on this for the digest, so I will formulate a full post soon.
---
Hallmark Hall of Fame moment: The Iraqi woman hugging the dead sergeant's mom in the gallery next to Laura Bush. Guess which picture will be on a couple hundred front pages tomorrow? Check out the Newseum's daily collection of pages to verify.
---
Bloggers-turned-Talking Heads: CNN had two bloggers, Andrew Sullivan and "Wonkette," as "analysts" after the speech. They argued about perspective like pros. Best comment was about the hugging women (see above) and the fact that the soldier's mom, who was holding her son's dog tags, snagged the dog tags on Iraqi woman's cuff/button as everyone in the room watched misty-eyed. Sullivan said the moment was symbolic for how these two women's lives were intertwined. Wonkette quickly quipped it was a metaphor for the U.S. involvement in Iraq -- snagged and unable to easily separate. I like this Wonkette.
---
Democrats respond: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California clearly is a Botox babe. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is impressive. Old opinion: Bumpkin weenie from state that's teenie. New opinion: Hardball Harry -- looks folksy, crushes enemies. Who else does that describe? That's right, GWB.
---
Weird awkward congratulatory moment: GWB spies Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, grabs his hand to shake, places his left hand on the senator's cheeck and pulls him in for a weird hug that was a bit too uncomfortable for the House chamber. I guess since the Democratic senator is practically a Republican it was OK.
Other thoughts about the State of the Union? Post 'em!
-- Wenatchee, Wash.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
GWB seems to only support his own desires in his attempts to "unify" the nation (yeah, right) with his self-claimed mandate.
If you are white, he's for you. If you're wealthy, he's for you. If you vote based on passion rather than reason, he's for you.
If you're straight, he'll fight for you.
If you are an unborn baby, he's pro-life. If you're on death row (or an Iraqi), he's pro-death. How can you be pro-life and support the death penalty !? (or an unprovoked war for that matter)
He wants to revamp social security to support his big business cronies on Wall Street. The money paid into the system now is not yours! It goes to those getting social security now. If, all of a sudden, the social security money stops helping those who need it now, where does the money come from to support them? TAXES!
While you are putting money away for a decreased end-benefit, you will pay more taxes (up to two trillion dollars as a nation of 3 billion people--you do the math for your share) during that time. This will lower your current standard of living and your future one! Way to go, Bushie!
P.S. Don't forget your share of the bill for bringing democracy to Iraq and the next nations we invade to spread our ideologies. Bush just asked for more money for this while cutting education funding, student loans, and medical programs.
Actually, I'm not sure that anyone has a constitutionally guaranteed right to get married, seeing as how marriage by definition is a religious ceremony recognizing the union between a man and a woman. Now, a governmentally recognized civil union that ensures everyone, gay straight or indifferent, the same legal right and benefits is a different story.
Once marriages became a contract used in secular matters (dividing of wealth, tax benefits, etc.) it can not solely be seen as a religious matter any more. Unless that separation is made, the argument can be made that it is constitutionally guaranteed. Besides, a marriage does not have to be conducted by a member of the church; judges can also conduct a wedding ceremony that is legally binding.
It seems that this starts to become a game of semantics. What is the difference between a marriage and a civil union? A name? The look of the contract? Really, it is just who is performing the ceremony and whether the church recognizes it. The benefits will be the same.
Maybe the state should only recognize civil unions and give benefits to those with one (if a difference between marriage and civil unions is distinguished). Then the church can also have its ceremony of marriage with no state/federal benefits and determinations attached.
I ahve come around to the notion that civil unions, as supported by several political candidates, are simply not acceptable as a substitute for gay marriage. Here's why:
-- Marriage is recognized in our society by two institutions: the government and the church.
-- The government recognizes a domestic relationship and gives certain rights to the partners in that relationship (currently just heterosexuals).
-- The government should not discriminate on who receives rights; all citizens deserve equal access and protection under the law.
-- If a proposal is to give the same rights to homosexual couples as heterosexual couples currently enjoy, why would the heterosexual partnership be called a marriage but the homosexual partnership be called something else?
-- In this whole debate, religios conservatives have done an effective job of shifting the argument away from the governmental rights and to an argument of forcing churches to recognize something that is against their teachings.
-- However, no one is asking churches to marry or even recognize homosexual partnerships.
So let's just get the church out of the civil rights argument, and have this debate from a legal standpoint. I think when people step back and look just through a legal lens, they realize that homosexual partners are entitled the same rights. If anything we should have a Constitutional Amendment to affirm that.
-- LHA
"...his attempts to 'unify' the nation (yeah, right)"
If you honestly believe that Kerry would have done a better job unifying the nation, you're delusional. As one of the Senate's most liberal members, Kerry would likely have fared just as poorly in his effort to end partisian politics. He, too, would have wholeheartedly supported his own desires. Of course, you wouldn't have complained about his failure to unify the nation because his agenda would have matched your own more closely.
"If you're straight, he'll fight for you."
Thank you, George, for continuing to fight for and protect the sanctity of marriage and the family. It is the degradation of morality that will ultimately lead to the nation's downfall.
"How can you be pro-life and support the death penalty?"
There's a key difference between an unborn baby and a person on death row. An unborn child is completely innocent. A person on death row, by contrast, has committed a serious crime againt society, often murder. Whether or not we should execute murderers is certainly debatable; however, it is not contradictory to support the life of innocent children while supporting the death of criminals.
"Unprovoked war"
People criticize both the Clinton and Bush administrations for failing to strike preemptively against bin Laden and al Qaeda to prevent September 11. Bush learned from the mistake, and sought to prevent another attack. The intelligence he had regarding Iraq indicated that Saddam Hussein's regime threatened U.S. security. Therefore, he called for U.S. intervention and gained sufficient Congressional support on both sides of the aisle (yes, even democrats such as John Kerry voted for the war). If he had done nothing, and we had been attacked (a possibility; after all, the Taliban had no weapons of mass destruction prior to September 11) Bush would have been criticized for not doing enough to protect our nation.
To say that Bush is pro-death toward Iraqis is ludicrous. Saddam Hussein was pro-death; he killed thousands of his own people simply because he did not agree with their beliefs. Yes, an unfortunate number of Iraqi civilians have been killed in the war. However, once the war is over, the quality of life for Iraqis should significantly improve as a direct result of our efforts.
"Bush just asked for more money for this while cutting education funding..."
Gee, I wonder why this makes you so angry, drpezz. I'm confident it has nothing to do with your salary; your only concerns, I assume, are protecting the learning process and looking out for the children. You kindhearted, generous, noble man.
"If you are white, he's for you. If you're wealthy, he's for you."
You're right. Liberals love minorities so much because they have all these generous programs for them...generous programs that keep them at poverty-level so they can promise more government hand-outs so they can recieve there votes. It's better to be color-blind than to obsess over racial issues such as liberals often do.
You're right. Liberals love small-businesses so much that they don't ever want them to get any bigger than small with their fascist regulations (Gary Locke) and their disgusting taxes. Just because you work hard and make money, why do you deserve to keep less of that?
Albert Einestein once said that compound interest is one of the greatest miracles of mankind. If everyone were to invest the money they were taxed for social security into private accounts accumulating compound interest, the payouts are WAY MORE. It's a better program, it's a safer program, and congress can't spend it on things like the war-on-poverty, or the military for that matter (Reagan and GWB have run defecits because we were taxed too much and the military had been gutted, which is a big no-no, by previous liberal-democrats to pay for programs that did nothing).
P.S. What's wrong with cutting education and medical programs from the federal government? The federal governments job is to provide a military and to protect our country. Wars and defense have always kept our country safe and running strong, but all the frivilous federal social programs (which have increased dramatically since the 1960's) haven't increased our standard of living or kept us safe.
To Anonymous,
I don't believe I identified myself as a supporter of Kerry. In fact, I think neither of the two candidates were men I could fully support. My comment was directed at the hypocritical (or simply untruthful) comment of Bush claiming to be a unifying force. He makes no concessions to anyone, even within in his own party, and has divided this nation as no other in decades.
I think your allusion to the U.S. as a nation like Camelot (that we will essentially self-destruct through immorality) is poor. The make-up of the family unit has degraded beyond recognition. The so-called moral center of the Bible Belt has the highest divorce rates in the nation; supposed Red states have higher divorce rates (and crime rates) than supposed Blue states. The sanctity of marriage has nothing to do with the sexuality of the people but the ability to maintain the promise to one another and to their god (if it was a religious ceremony). So far, staright couples are fairing worse and worse. Maybe gay marriage will up the batting average.
There is no moral high road when advocating the death penalty. It's hypocritical to say it's wrong to kill and then use it as a punishment.
In regards to an unborn child, when is the fetus considered a person? From the moment of conception or are the cells sacred in the male and female prior to? Abortion should not be (in my view) a means of common birth control but that is not my choice to make. That is the woman's choice; it's her body. Bush wants to impose his morality on the nation, which I categorically disagree with. You seem to imply the same view that your morality should be paramount.
The war is unprovoked because Saddam did not and was later proved to be unable to attack the U.S. Bush's own advisors and security people have stated this. The war started out as a prevention of the proliferation and production of WMDs, but when that proved erroneous the reason shifted to liberating the Iraqi people. Nice change of reason mid-stream. Bush was wrong, so he changed his motivation after the fact.
By the way, Kerry did not support the war with that vote. He voted for the President to have the right to go to war with just cause. Those are two entirely different issues.
So how many Iraqis should we kill to give them what we think is the correct form of government. Right now the tally is over 100, 000. That is almost four times the population of Wenatchee (listed as 27,000). I'm sure the quality of life for their families is quite different than before the war. No one asked them to be a sacrifice in the name of American intervention. Who is next? Iran? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? Sudan? Abuses are worse in some of those nations and yet America does nothing. What is this war really about?
Your comments regarding minorities seems to imply some jealousy over the assistance they receive or some latent racism. The largest group of recipients who receive government assistance are in fact white. The assumption that the only people on some sort of assistance are minorities is sterotypical at best and racist at worst.
I also think it's ludicrous to think only someone labeled as "Liberal" must be only looking for votes. The Democratic Party has been known for helping the downtrodden and helpless, unlike their counterparts across the aisle who believe that when the wealthy receive more it will trickle down to the lower classes (which has been shown time and again to be false).
When the rich get richer, they keep the wealth. For example, even though Bill Gates is a billionaire of the highest level, he only pays taxes on $500,000 of his income. The rest is safe in assets of one sort or another. The poor do not have this luxury of income protection. How is this fair? The lower classes pay a higher percentage in taxes than the upper. How is this fair? Thus, assistance is needed.
You should really be mad at large corporations who use tax loop holes and off-shore banking. They harm small businesses more than the "fascist regulations" you obviously know nothing of. These corporations cause your taxes to rise and the costs of small businesses as well. My best friend owns a small business and will tell you the same. No government, Republican or Democrat, truly helps the little man.
Your comment about my salary is petty and uninspired. I came into my profession knowing full well what I will have and will not. The education funding Bush is cutting is aimed at STUDENTS, not teachers. Again, you are uninformed and blatantly wrong. Bush just proposed eliminating more: $12 billion to schools, 25, 000 kids from early learning programs, 1.7 million from after-school programs, took back his promise to raise Pell Grants for college bound students, and froze work study funding. These are all STUDENT programs; none go to my salary. Your vindictive and poorly researched comments are a pitiful attempt at elucidation.
Social security would be fine if the federal government would stop borrowing from the fund and not paying back. Have you actually looked at how each program (Social security and Bush's plan) actually work? The average citizen will earn more with social security.
Your assumptions about the federal deficit show your short-sightedness as well. Neither Reagan or Bush (I or II) understood how to create a balanced budget and you will pay for part of these debts.
In the future, you should have informed opinions and not just broad generalizations that attack without substance.
P.S. When did the term "liberal" become a bad thing? Liberals have fought (and continue to fight) for equal rights, equal wages, environment protection, and support personal freedoms more than any other group. I may be slightly left of center but do feel the label game harms more than hurts both sides of the aisles.
"By the way, Kerry did not support the war with that vote. He voted for the President to have the right to go to war with just cause. Those are two entirely different issues."
According to the Supreme Court, the President has the authority to go to war without Congressional approval. Therefore, Kerry and other Democrats supported the war; why would Congress have held a vote to grant the President a power that he already had under the law? The choice in the vote was clearly for or against intervention in Iraq, not whether or not the President had the authority to go to war with just cause.
"The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the president, as commander-in-chief of the military, does have the authority to recognize a "state of war" initiated against the United States and may in these circumstances unilaterally send U.S. troops into battle."
- Encarta Encyclopedia
For the record, I am the person who wrote the first anonymous comment of the two that you addressed in your responses. I don't know who wrote the second, but I sure enjoyed reading it.
Anonymous,
You correctly found in the encyclopedia the power of the President to authorize troops into action, however, missed the key phrase that precipitated the vote. This only occurs after the U.S. has been attacked, a strike "initiated against the United States."
Bush sought the right for this intervention as you call it (I call it a declaration of war) to send troops into another sovereign land. He received that with the understanding that proof had to be provided. His contention that African nations were sending ores for WMDs fell flat, and his idea that Iraq participated in the 9/11 attacks was shown incorrect (just to name a couple unsuccessfully floated assumptions, conjectures, and outright lies). Kerry agreed that if evidence existed for this, then war could and should be declared.
I apologize if I mixed you with Anonymout the 2nd, but hiding in anonymity only gets you confused with others and their views. Get an on-line name, so you won't be misrepresented.
Anonymous,
You correctly found in the encyclopedia the power of the President to authorize troops into action, however, missed the key phrase that precipitated the vote. This only occurs after the U.S. has been attacked, a strike "initiated against the United States."
Bush sought the right for this intervention as you call it (I call it a declaration of war) to send troops into another sovereign land. He received that with the understanding that proof had to be provided. His contention that African nations were sending ores for WMDs fell flat, and his idea that Iraq participated in the 9/11 attacks was shown incorrect (just to name a couple unsuccessfully floated assumptions, conjectures, and outright lies). Kerry agreed that if evidence existed for this, then war could and should be declared.
I apologize if I mixed you with Anonymous the 2nd, but hiding in anonymity only gets you confused with others and their views. Get an on-line name, so you won't be misrepresented.
call me ADAM! (I'm the second anonymous poster).
When Ronald Reagan cut taxes extremely deep in the 80's, he collected more revenue than any other president in history (adjusted for inflation). Why? You just helped prove my point with Bill Gates. If the rich are taxed too much then it's more profitable to hire a lawyer to find loop-holes and pay almost nothing in taxes. Oh and by the way, I know how much Microsoft employees are paid...sounds like this "trickling down" thing DOES work.
And democrats have been known to help (if you could call it that) the downtrodden and helpless. Just remember, as soon as it's profitable to be "downtrodden" and "helpless" then I don't see anybody turning away from that. You want to talk about ludicrous wars? how about the war on poverty which we've spent god only knows much since the 60's and haven't a DAMN THING to show for it!
As far as funding education? Our country spends more money (state, local, and federal) on school than anywhere in the world with nothing to show for it. If public education sucks, why should they get more money? If Microsoft were to suck they'd LOSE money. That's the sheer BEAUTY of capitalism! We spend much less money 50 years ago on education and we were SMARTER...imagine that...
When Reagan inherits an awful economy and a completely gutted military, he has no choice but to rebuild the military and cut taxes. Not only that, him and Bush Sr. had democrat-run congress.
The world is a better place without Saddam in power. The justifications for going to war were proven false after we started fighting. Bush wasn't in charge of these intelligence sources. MI6, CIA, and the Russian Intelligence came up with it. Sure we could have looked into it more, but if we WERE attacked before we did anything? Impeachable offense, hands down, having that information and doing nothing...
You are definitely "jonesing" for Reagan. Everyone makes excuses for him when all he really did was drive deficit spending, create two major scandals, and forget where he left his missile keys. Granted, he was a good presidential speaker (one of the best in my lifetime), but he also contributed to our current military problems: an armed Saddam and Al Queda (spelling?) and a larger third world.
You forget that he couldn't make his own decisions with the onset of his Alzheimers according to a couple of his cabinet members.
Education is perceived as failing today and worse than fifty years ago because of a changing view. We are still the dominant nation in the world, where the world sends its college students. We no longer kick out undesirables and "trouble" students; we teach them no matter what and try to help them. We no longer segregate either for that matter. Washington state has SAT and ACT scores in the top ten in the nation, the only test we can use to compare students in the nation. All this, despite being 49th in the nation in spending per student. We ain't Arkansas!
50 years ago a high school degree was enough to support large families--no longer. A college degree or technical school is rapidly becoming the norm, but the public perception has not altered. Times have changed. Students today are much more advanced than those of the 1950s. We expect more now and see more now.
Your argument about Iraq is "We went to war for the wrong reasons and that's ok because the ends justify the means." Way to go, Putin! That's what we just accused him of and got angry about.
Anyway, you obviously have a slanted view, Adam, and know little of the history of education or how to justify a war. I won't change your mind logically, so I'm signing off on this topic.
There's a difference between going to war based on false intelligence and going to war based false intelligence that is known to be false. Bush had no choice. No president had a choice, I find it absolutely sickening to find people using that as an attack against the Bush Administration when ANY president would have done the same thing based on the intelligence.
And how am I "jonesing" Reagan? He brought us into 90's from the stagnant 70's. The 80's were a time of change...not instant change, it took a long time. The tax cuts of the 80's fueled silicon valley. The increase spending on defense ended the cold war. To blame a larger 3rd world on the president is pretty lame too.
I really don't believe in obsessing over the complexities of education. It's quite simple, the less we spent, the smarter our students were.
I think we ought to start sending the undesirable and troublesome students to military school. I've been graduated for 2 years, but I can still vividly remember a lot of students who needed to just be out of there and quit wasting time. By the time you're 16, it shouldn't be tax-payer money giving 2nd and 3rd and 4th chances, you should have it figured out.
We armed Iraq and it helped against Iran, gave us cheaper oil, and support for Israel peace negotiations. Then Iraq invades Kuwait...which concerns us and our oil-reliant country.
Adam!
Your lines about education shows all the PezzMan needs to know about you: ignore the complex and look for the black and white, or should I say simple, answer. That's right! Ignore the families kids come from who have no help, no support, no one to look up to. Yes! Ignore the inclusion of today, and ignore the fact that schools today don't just give up on kids like they once did. It's easy to teach only the best. Way to state the obvious! Yippee Skippy!
As someone who actually lived through and remembers the 80s, I can tell you Reagan did not end the Cold War. The Soviets did. They had a filed system and philosophy from the start. Time, plus limited resources and other social factors, doomed their spending. Reagan brought us...da, da, da...Star Wars, a failed and useless missile defense system that Cheney wants Bush to bring back. Oh, the humanity!
Bush ain't compared to Woodrow Wilson for no reason! Look at the parallels! You'll see some surprises. But no, you would rather see the simple rather than the complex. Sorry. Thought you wanted to think! Ha, ha!
Bush knew his intelligence was false. He went after Bin Laden, I mean Saddam, from the start. <-- A slip of the White House got into my head. Finishing Daddy's war. Daddy couldn't kill Saddam so Bush will! Next up, Iran. Then Saudi Arabia. O no, not them. They give Bushie family money! Then the Sudan for genocide. Nope, not there! No oil! No strategic foothold! Off to somewhere else to bomb in, I mean bring in, democracy. Well, only if US troops point guns at them to force them! Let's hear it for BUSH!
So when does the cost of freedom get too high? 2000...2500...3000 troops' lives?100,000...125,000...150,000 Iraqi lives? Saddam killed 350,000-400,000 Iraqis in 26 years? We've got 120,000 in less than two. We'll beat his record easy. Way to go Georgie Boy!
Hey! You used the term undesirable for getting rid of students. That's the same term used in the Salem Witch Trials, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust! If we don't like 'em, let's get rid of 'em. We won't kill them today, Adam, we'll just abandon them! They'll die off eventually. Who needs an educated lower class. Not Adam, the symbol of success!
120,000 is the most riduculous number I've ever heard.
Reagan boosted our defense spending and if he hadn't the Soviets wouldn't have been as quick to make peace.
Star Wars was an idea thrown out there but we never went through with it. It's not a bad idea at all...it's DEFENSE!
Your views on children and education are very simple as well. Who needs an educated lower class? My point is that teenagers aren't trying and they aren't learning but we keep them in schools anyway and they cause problems...THEY ARENT GOING TO BE EDUCATED!
Another simple theory that I believe in? How about this: If it's profitable to be somewhere, then people will be there. If it's okay to not try and be lazy in school because we'll never stop spending money on students or giving up on them, then people will be there. If we teach students they don't get that many chances, they'll realize they have to WORK to survive.
Bush knew his intelligence was false? What a radical statement. That's like believing that Clinton knew about 9/11, etc. And why the big deal about fighting to protect oil reserves? Do you realize how much our country relies on oil? Do American jobs and the global economy mean anything to you?
I didn't think I'd respond again on here, but...
Adam, you scare the hell out of me.
You just admitted the war is for oil--not liberation, not democracy, and not to combat 9/11. If you think profit is a justification for war, I pray you never get in any future position to have an impact on national decisions.
If you really believe Bush thought Saddam had a hand in 9/11 or that Saddam had WMDs or that Saddam was a direct threat to the U.S. you should pledge yourself to the TBMA, Three Blind Mice Alliance. Bush's own collected intelligence reports showed this was false. Advisors warned him. This war is exactly what you think it is: profit, oil, and greed. Bin Laden still roams free, and no one thinks about this. The real culprit is still out there.
Spin it any way you wish, but you're blind. He was proven wrong, his reasons for going to war were proven wrong, and his words of "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists" will live in infamy. He has split this nation in many ways, the worst I've seen it in my life because now neither side with really sit and talk to one another. Every issue now has become one of patriotism and terrorism. It's disgraceful and irresponsible.
I remember watching both sides (Dems and Reps) sitting to discuss issues rather than drawing lines in the sand. This contentious air has to stop or we, the people, will be the ones to suffer. We pay for their mistakes, in lives and money.
A Chinese proverb says that the man who throws the first punch has admitted to having no more answers. This is where we stand.
"Profit!" "Money!"
I'm tired of those words being spouted as if they were somehow evil or something.
And no-I don't think going to war just for profit is meritable, however it could be a deciding factor on where to start. We couln't just keep drawing lines in the sand for Saddam to cross, we had to take action.
Intelligence reports say Iraq has WMD's. Saddam has been a thorn in our side for years. Iraq houses a lot of terrorists. Even if there is a lot of skepticism about WMD's, how can you justify hestitating? It's like somebody calling in a bomb threat at school and having nobody evacuate because "it's probably just a prank and we can't waste precious teaching time".
Russia is a bigger threat. Do you advocate invading Russia?
They sit on the last major (untapped) oil fields and have been indicating major oil trades with China (a nation hell-bent on upsetting the apple cart). Russia also can't seem to keep track of their WMDs. we could really rake in the dough by taking Russia. Maybe China too. How about we throw in Europe? They have some some wealth.
North Korea has WMDs. Why aren't we there?
The Sudan has committed genoicide on a scale unheard of in recent years. When do we invade?
Iran is currently creating nuclear plants. When do we go there?
You advocate killing for money, so why not just go all the way?
Your analogy is a weak attempt to attack schools and has nothing to do with the issue. Weapons inspectors in Iraq already found nothing (before the invasion) and did not expect to. No one listened to the experts. The White House didn't listen to their security advisors either, who have publicly stated their voices were silenced or ignored.
You say profit is a way to start deciding who to invade and kill. You are scary. Rationalize all you want. It was wrong to invade, and the decision has been proven incorrect. You defend the decision by saying it was an economic motivation. That is frightening that you realize the war was without true and honest merit and still back it up.
I think you see the R next to your favorite President and don't care what happens as long as a Republican is in charge. You generalize about Democrats and far-left Liberals (lumping them together no less) and display your bias. There are some very positive, strong, and realistic Republican leaders out there; unfortunately, their voices are drowned out by the far-right morons who shout everyone down (and use Karl Rove to smear them). The more you protest, the more you dig in and show your true (biased) colors.
You make personal attacks and have no substance, just poor analogies and thoughtless generalizations. I will respond to you no longer.
!!!
Are you James Carville's apprentice? Because you are a master at putting a spin on any argument or point I bring up and trying to make me look like an evil man. For that I applaude, but I also must laugh.
Adam,
I wasn't going to respond again, but these are priceless:
“To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability.”
- George Bush (Senior), in A World Transformed, 1998
“ He [Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.”
- Colin Powell in February 2001
“We are able to keep arms from him [Saddam]. His military forces have not been rebuilt.“
- Condoleezza Rice in July 2001
Post a Comment