I am sick of Carville, Kerry, other Dem politicos insulting my intelligenc

[DemLikr]

I caught James Carville on Meet the Press telling Russert that "President Bush did a great job on terror for the 16 months following 9/11."

I've heard JFK in interviews "concede" the "great leadership" of George W. Bush on and following 9/11.

I listened with disgust to a Dem politician from Florida tell Tweety last night on HardBalls that GWB's leadership on 9/11 "rallied the country."

WHAT UTTER BULLSHIT IS THIS?

Please, someone tell me why influential Dems who know better than I do that George Bush disappeared on 9/11 and was not heard from for many hours, continue to say otherwise. When we finally saw the little Shrub that day, he was ON TAPE and perched behind a desk in some fake office set, quivering with discombobulation. Looking at his pathetic, frightened visage, it was easy to believe he had spent the lost hours of 9/11 weeping in his blankie.

For a brief moment on that horrible day I even wished that Karen Hughes, that testily testicular Amazon bitch, was our president. At least she was able to stand behind a microphone and pretend our government was still functioning.

Has the Dem machinery at the highest levels decided to concede the myth of GWB's great leadership for some reason I cannot divine? If I have to listen to this crap from our national leaders furing this campaign, while the Bushies are flinging lies and mud our way, I at least want to know WHY.

Please help me. Thank you.

[ComerPerro]

1. Believe me, it pisses me off and confuses the hell out of me

I just don't think we should perpetuate that myth of Bush's "leadership".

He is at very best a spineless coward who ignored the terror warning and put us in more danger than we could possibly imagine.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

2. Agreed. He did run and hide like a little bitch.

[hippiechick]

3. JFK ?

JFK died in '63.
The 'assumed Democratic nominee' for 2004 is John Kerry.
As Lloyd Bentsen said to Dan Quayle, 'You're no John Kennedy'.


Thank you for making the distinction.


:hippie:

[JNelson6563]

67. meme planting

it's all the rage these days. ;-)

Julie

[SheilaT]

4. I'm also with you.

Among the reasons Kerry is going to face a steep uphill battle in this campaign is that (unlike some of the other potential candidates) he's not willing to make clear Bush's utter lack of leadership in the immediate aftermath of the events of 9/11, his cowardly flight from fictitious danger, and his continued lies ever since.

Another myth that needs to be dealt with is that this country is safer because of Bush's leadership. And that not letting me bring my embroidery scissors or nail clippers along with me when I fly somehow prevents hijackings.

Of course, our entire Democratic "leadership" demonstrated nothing but cowardice themselves ever since Bush was illegally installed as president.

I'm coming around to thinking that in the long run the best thing would be for Bush to stay in power (whether he's "re-elected" or the election is simply cancelled for security reasons) because things need to get much worse than they are for the revolution to happen. And it's a revolution that's badly needed.

[bryant69]

10. Yeah

I agree I think it's better that the American people suffer through another four years.

I think it's better if we have continuing high unemployment

I think it's better if we invade Syria or Iran

I think it's better if we draft thousands of inner city blacks and send them into the desert to die

I think it's better if corporate corruption continues unabated, and probably increases

I think it's better that we allow the Christian Right Wing to set up a theocracy.

Yep. That way we can have a "revolution" so that far left wing nitwits can play out their revolutionary fantasies.

Sorry--I just get a little testy with the argument that it's better if the poeple suffer more so that they can revolt--It's such a bourgeoise thing to say. In other words, and I could be wrong, but most poeple who are happy to see things going poorly for the poor and underpriveleged in America aren't poor themselves.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[DennisReveni]

12. "Yeah"

bryant69

Sorry to say but nearly everything you claim will happen under a Democratic administration as well. I posted a bit of the Pilger article.
Read it.

[bryant69]

18. And you should read the . . .

Secret Madagascar Files that I posted. Cross reference those with Purple Turtle Protocols, and the Smoking Dog Article from Red Monsters with Horns magazine. It distinctly proves whatever my point is.

If you want me to look at an article print a link to it. Or make your argument.

But I remained convinced that most of what I wrote will not happen under a Kerry Administration--the one possible one is the continuing unemployement--I believe that Kerry will make better economic decisions; but the economy is not entirely under the President's control.

Bryant

[BillZBubb]

21. Baloney!

Few to none of those things will happen if Kerry gets elected.

I'm getting sick of people, like Pilger and YOU, claiming there will be no difference between a Democratic and Republican administration.

Haven't you guys learned one damn thing after 2000, when fools were running around saying the same crap? Apparently not.

[FredrickDouglass]

14. You're Wrong

The underlying assumptions to what you're saying is that the Democrats will be different, better. And that is where you, and millions of Americans are confused. I was a Democrat for years. I've always known that the Republicans had it wrong but if you look at what the Dems do, not what they say, you'll see that both parties are only competing factions of the political party controlling them both, and the country, the Business Party.

Dems don't attack Bush on his handling of 9/11 and the year afterward, not because as some suggest, its only bad strategy, but because they agree.

Ever think of that?

They agree. And would have done it similiarly. They try to act partisan now but look at the votes. They all voted for a baseless war in the first place. But of course they put on this partisan ruse for the people, after the fact. This is what the Dems always do. They vote one way then say they were tricked or some other BS to explain voting against their supposed "principles".

Fred

[bryant69]

17. First of all

What baseless war are you talking about? If Afghanistan than, I agree with the President and the Democrats that that was far from a baseless war. While I regret the loss of Afghani lives, that was a necessary and a just war.

If you are talking about Iraq, than I agree that Kerry's vote on the IWR was, in retrospect, the wrong thing to do. But Hindsight is always twenty twenty--for a whiel there it looked like President Bush was actually following a strategy to get Inspectors back into Iraq--we know now that the strategy was just to invade no matter what, but I didn't then.

As for the rest of your little speech, it's the same old Nader-esque canard that the two parties are exactly the same. I bought this in 2000, and voted for Nader. If there's one thing the last four years have taught me it's that there is a hell of a lot of difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Bryant

[PVnRT]

22. You know what?

Take your right-wing talking point "far left wing nitwit" horseshit and shove it.

There is not ONE FUCKING PERSON HERE who is "happy" to see things going bad for the poor and underprivileged in this country. NOT ONE. But you moderates who are just oh so fucking happy to sell out everything you believe in for another vote would love to believe that wouldn't you?

I'm sure you would just love an America where you get to dictate to everyone exactly how they will think so that no one agrees with you and hurts your poor widdle feelings, but tough shit.

Let me guess - you probably think free trade is just wonderful, that Bush was a FANTASTIC leader after 9/11, and that Nader, not a massive voter fraud conspiracy in Florida, cost Gore the election. Grow up.

[bryant69]

25. What a well reasoned response

But let's take a look at what i am responding to.

"I'm coming around to thinking that in the long run the best thing would be for Bush to stay in power (whether he's "re-elected" or the election is simply cancelled for security reasons) because things need to get much worse than they are for the revolution to happen."

What does that sound like to you?

To me it sounds like he wants things to get worse. I mean he says that doesn't he?

And when things get worse in America who do they get worse for the most? Is it the Rich? Nope--they usally do ok. It's the Middle Class, particularly the lower middle class and the poor. In fact, it seems like when times are tough, the poorer you are the tougher they are.

There is a difference between being happy to see people poor and suffering and thinking it is necessary to bring about some illusiary "revolution" that will fix everything. But, in my opinion, both are pretty reprehensible.

I haven't sold out anything I believe in. I believe in moderate liberalism. I never believed in extreme liberalism. You might disagree with me, but rest assured my political beliefs are as deeply held as yours are.

I am in favor of a regulated free trade; better regulated than the one we've got anyway, I think that Bush was a Mediocre leader after 9/11 (but that America's collective desire to believe in him made him look a lot better than he actually was), and I think Nader was one of many factors that cost Gore the election.

One of those areas where both sides like to simplify. Some on your "side" like to pretend Nader wasn't a factor when he clearly was, and some on my side like to pretend he was the only factor. Both sides are clearly dishing out crap to protect their own opinions.

But once again let me compliment you on your well reasoned writing. I particularly liked how you tried to get on my good side so that I would consider your arguments carefully.

[PVnRT]

30. I really don't care if I'm on your good side

People like me will never be on your good side, because we're just a bunch of extremist nitwits, right?

[bryant69]

31. I don't really know what your opinions are

It's likely we would agree in a lot of areas; we are both here after all.

You didn't answer any of my questions; which is, I suppose, an answer of sorts.

[PVnRT]

32. Then why is it

You insist on using right-wing terms like "left-wing nitwits" to describe anyone to the left of you? Hmmmmm?

To answer the only question in your post, yes, when things get worse, it is the poor who suffers. It is you who are assuming that anyone who doesn't just unquestioningly follow whatever the Democratic Party's opinion of the day happens to be is a "left-wing nitwit" and "wants the poor to suffer."

As for Nader, who I did not and would not vote for, how about thousands and thousands of Dems in Florida who voted for Bush? Or the purging of the voter lists of thousands of likely Democratic voters? Et cetera, et cetera. Nader was a small factor in that equation.

[bryant69]

33. OK

Let me make things simple for you.

1. Do you think that the initial poster believes that things in America should get worse so that we can have a revolution?

2. Do you personally think that things should get worse in America so that we can have a revolution?

Nitwit is not a term I'm willing to give to the Right Wing; I use it all the time. Often to describe right wing commentators, such as David Brock (who I used it on pretty recently). But to be more clear I don't think anybody to the left of me is a nit wit.

I think that people who want life to be tougher in America so that we can have a revolution are Nitwits. Do you understand the distinction? And frankly, Nitwit is a pretty mild term for how I feel towards people that favor the suffering of the poor and disadvantage because of some long term political gain.

But if a person is to the left of me and does not favor things getting worse for the poor, well, than he may or may not be a nitwit, same as any other group of people.

I disagree with your assessment of Nader; he was a significant factor. If he had not been in the race, I believe Gore would have won (I saw this with a little shame since I voted for him). He certainly wasn't the only factor; the other factors you mentioned are important too.

[Carolina]

38. sad to say

but sometimes I think you're right. So many people don't care, didn't know who was running in the primaries before they devolved into Kerryfests, didn't take the time or make the effort to read independently, bought and continue to buy the media spin ... the list goes on.

Unfortunately, sometimes it takes cataclysmic events for people to WAKE up and if the past 3 years have not been enough, then maybe 4 more will do it. I agree, a 'tea party' may be on order.

I cannot fathom the support for Bush from soldiers, everyday working people, gays, minorities, etc. But it's there. We laud polls showing Kerry ahead but look at the margins. 49-44 doesn't inspire confidence and it's just under 8 months 'til the November election. Lotta time for repukes to spend a lotta money.

The DNC/DLC took us down in 2002 and actually didn't put up a fight in 2000. Can you imagine what the RNC would have done if Bush had won the popular vote (a scenario they were already geared up for, BTW). Now the DNC has brought us to this point and with each passing day, I feel more anxious about about GE.

[bryant69]

5. I think attacking Bush's Leadership on 9/11 is a losing strategy

I think attacking President Bush for what he did in that period would make it harder to vote President Bush out of office, for the following two reasons.

1. During that period of time, American's identified with President Bush. They wanted to believe in his leadership, and their belief has endowed that period with kind of a halo.

2. It seems mean; September 11th was a horrible day for everyone, including President Bush.

Both of these points are more relient on emotion than logic, and I'm sure you can all poke big holes in them. That's the way emotional ideas are. But turn now to our goal; getting President Bush out of office and back in Crawford. If attacking President Bush for what he did on September 11th and shortly there after will help us accomplish this goal, lets do it. But I think it will hurt us mor than it will help us.

Besides, it's not like there's a shortage of other areas on which to attack President Bush, is there? What about his economic policy? Or the way he's trashed our reputation abroad? The outing of Valerie Plame? The deceptiosn that led to Iraq?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[K-W]

7. Exactly

They would look petty to a large number of Americans. Americans arent ready to have democrats waging all out war on how they percieve the world.

[KC21304]

13. I agree with you. It is unnecessary and a losing issue for us.

There is so much else in 9/11 to use such as the unheeded warnings before and the coverup now. Bringing the images of Bush at ground zero to the public's mind is counter productive for us.

[RobinA]

42. I Agree

Some things you can't change. EVERYbody thinks Bush did a great job "rallying the country" after 9/11. No matter that *I* could have done a great job "rallying the country" by standing on a pile of rubble with a microphone and yelling, "Let's go get the *ers who did this and bomb them back to the Stone Age," it's what people chose to believe. Better to fight battles we can win than trying to beat back a cherished myth that people need to believe.

[FredrickDouglass]

19. If You're Going To Compromise Your Principles, Go All Out

You call telling the truth, "attacking Bush". If you have no principles on the matter and are only strategizing, which is what the Dems say about one issue or another, EVERY ELECTION, then go ahead and become a Republican. Actually, Democrat is close enough.

Carville and those guys don't tell the truth about Bush and his "leadership" because they don't have a problem with it. These guys are essentially all cut from the same cloth. And this leaves people like the thread starter here, sufficiently perplexed as to why the "opposition" doesn't hold Bush accountable. The "opposition" agrees. Don't buy that?

Dont'listen to what they say.
Look at what they do?

Fred

[bryant69]

26. Yeah

What a bad idea. Trying to figure out which attacks will hurt President Bush the most. Kerry should just let attacks flow from his mouth like a river constant and steady. He should put no thought into figuring out which attacks will be effective; spending any time thinking about that is "selling out."

[Carolina]

41. exactly

they didn't attack then. They let the dust settle literally, let Bush have has way legislatively, lauded his misleadership and now are stuck.

Why didn't they challenge why 9/11 happened earlier... what were those 8/6/2001 warnings, where was Bush, what was the connection to the secret energy policy. And why oh why didn't they say repeatedly at the time, and thereafter, especially during Bush's buildup to war, that:

15 out of the 19 hijackers were from SAUDI ARABIA
2 out of the 19 hijackers were from Egypt
1 out of the 19 hijackers was from Yemen
1 out of the 19 hijackers was from United Arab Emirates

This needed to be said ad nauseum rather than the bland 'no connection between Iraq and Al-Quaeda.' How much more clear could it have been that this Iraqmire was and is wrong. Yours and the thread starters posts are the very reason I have big problems with the Party, its few media mouthpieces and the presumed nominee!

[sangh0]

60. John Kerry Criticizes Bush on 9/11 Response

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_1207a.html

John Kerry Criticizes Bush on 9/11 Response

Unveils Homeland Security Initiatives and Plan to Reimburse Military Families for Body Armor

December 07, 2003

For Immediate Release
San Diego, CA -

Democratic candidate for President John Kerry today stood up to the Bush Administration for their response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th and for failing to provide U.S. soldiers in Iraq with the proper protective body armor.

"After the attack on Pearl Harbor sixty-two years ago, President Roosevelt responded quickly and decisively, not just to go to war with our attackers but also to find answers for what had gone wrong in order to prevent such a tragedy from happening again," said John Kerry. "After the attacks of September 11th, George W. Bush has done the opposite. Where Roosevelt sought answers, Bush has sought to avoid blame by stonewalling the 9/11 commission and congressional inquiries into intelligence failures."

In San Diego today, John Kerry and two of his swift boat crewmates commemorated the sacrifice of those who died in the attack on Pearl Harbor by placing a wreath at the swift boat memorial at the Coronado Naval Amphibious Base where Kerry trained for his service in Vietnam. John Kerry also unveiled details of his plan to improve intelligence gathering, protect U.S. ports, and reimburse military families for body armor purchases. John Kerry's plan:

Enhanced Intelligence Capabilities: 1) Fix the information flow between the intelligence and law enforcement communities; 2) Reform domestic intelligence capabilities so that the Director of the CIA is the true director of domestic intelligence with authority and power; and 3) increase the number of linguists in critical languages in our intelligence agencies.

Improved Port Security: 1) Develop standards for security at ports for containers and ensure that facilities can meet basic standards; 2) Accelerating timetable for the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico "smart border" accords; 3) implement security measures for cross-border bridges; 4) pursue moderate safety standards for privately held infrastructure; and 5) develop and fund a system of container security that includes tracking devices.

Reimbursements for Body Armor Purchase: One-fourth of the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq are still waiting for the latest body armor. In the meantime, family members and friends are paying hundreds of dollars for the updated armor themselves and shipping it to Iraq. On Tuesday Kerry will introduce legislation to reimburse family members who paid money out of their own pockets to provide the personal body armor that the government failed to deliver.

"In the rush to war, this administration failed to adequately outfit military personnel shipping off to Iraq. As a result, many of our fighting men and women do not have the latest technology for body armor. It's a disgrace that their families had to use their own funds to buy the body armor and ship it to Iraq. My legislation will reimburse those families," said John Kerry.

Kerry also noted that the Bush Administration has done very little to improve port security.

"With 95 percent of shipping containers coming in through U.S. ports, we need a President with a real plan to protect our ports from dangerous materials hidden in these containers, not one who continues to ignore real imminent threats to our security. My plan would put in place an affordable technology to track containers and their contents and improve security at U.S. ports," said Kerry.

[sangh0]

61. Kerry Spokesperson Stephanie Cutter on Bush’s Unsteady Leadership

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0303b.html

Statement from Kerry Spokesperson Stephanie Cutter on Bush’s Unsteady Leadership


March 03, 2004

For Immediate Release
Washington, DC –

Kerry Campaign Spokesperson Stephanie Cutter issued the following statement on George Bush’s unsteady leadership.

“George Bush talks about steady leadership in his new multi-million dollar, revisionist history ad campaign, but unfortunately you can’t provide ‘steady leadership’ without credibility. And George Bush has lost credibility with the American people. He said he would create 3.9 million jobs, but 3 million more people have lost their jobs. He said he would make health care more affordable, but 2.8 million more have lost their health insurance. He said he would cut the federal debt by $1 trillion, but his policies have added $1 trillion more, leaving the federal debt at over $7 trillion. Most astonishing, George Bush’s ad features a shot of the wreckage of that tragic September day almost 3 years ago, and the firefighters who so bravely worked to save lives. What he doesn’t tell you is that only 10 percent of fire departments across the nation have personnel and equipment to respond to a building collapse, only enough radios to equip half the firefighters on a shift, and breathing apparatus for only one-third. The only thing steady about this President is his steadily leading our country in the wrong direction. It’s time for a change in America, and time to get things back on track.”

BUSH’S CREDIBILITY GAP: “UNSTEADY LEADERSHIP”

Bush says the economic conditions are out of his control. But since he took office, he and his administration have PROMISED millions of new jobs and better lives for working Americans. Instead 3 million more people have lost jobs, millions have lost health insurance, and Bush continues to only provide empty rhetoric.

“They had their moment. They have not led. We will. Now they come asking for another chance, another shot. Our answer? Not this time. Not this year. This is not a time for third chances; it is a time for new beginnings." – George W. Bush running in 2000.

[DemLikr]

68. No mention here of Shrub's behavior and disappearance on 9/11 n/t

please respond to something, anything I actually addressed in my original post.

Thanks.

[DemLikr]

66. No mention here of Shrub's 9/11 behavior and disappearance n/t

[LibDemAlways]

6. Perhaps some letters to Kerry's campaign are in order,

suggesting that DUers will become bigger contributors when we start hearing our Dem candidate tell the truth about the chimp on 9-11. I believe that there was so much horror and confusion that day that the public never really "got" what a little chickenshit * was. Of course the corporate media was pretty quick to cover it up and create the myth of the heroic chimp.

Had Clinton behaved that way in the face of such a calamity, he'd have been impeached the next day for treason.

[seabeyond]

8. they are still afraid

I caught James Carville on Meet the Press telling Russert that "President Bush did a great job on terror for the 16 months following 9/11."



i agree i too have seen it and they are atill in the mode of where we cant go after bush for this, and they just have to have to be able to shift from this. and they have to hear from the people they will be supported and why. i dont think they have heard why, i think they are conditioned like everyone they have to shrug it off. heard from kennedy same thing in not going after them in all their failure with terrorism.

yes they have to see this differently and start putting out. someone jsut has to get to them reality and where they can go with this. bush sucked them in this

[deutsey]

9. On the one hand, I agree with what you say

On the other, however, I can see why the Democrats don't want to come off as shrill attackers of a dimwit who did get a lot of frightened support in the days after the trauma of 9/11.

I think they want to tread carefully around that, but you'd think there could be a way of raising honest concerns and outrage over Bush's shortcomings, screwups, and worse while not appearing like they just ate a bowl of sour grapes.

I'm as confused as you are about why they go out of their way to legitimize this usurper.

People have observed before that Democrats see politics as kind of a hockey game where they gear up and take to the ice ready to play rough to reach the goal.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are waiting for the Democrats out there on the ice armed with machineguns.

[DennisReveni]

11. "I am sick of Carville, Kerry, other Dem politicos"

Look at how they handled McKinney and Dean.
This might put it all into perspective.
http://antiwar.com/orig/pilger.php?articleid=2089
"While the rise to power of the Bush gang, the neoconservatives, belatedly preoccupied the American media, the message of their equivalents in the Democratic Party has been of little interest. Yet the similarities are compelling. Shortly before Bush's "election" in 2000, the Project for the New American Century, the neoconservative pressure group, published an ideological blueprint for "maintaining global US preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests." Every one of its recommendations for aggression and conquest was adopted by the administration.

One year later, the Progressive Policy Institute, an arm of the Democratic Leadership Council, published a 19-page manifesto for the "New Democrats," who include all the principal Democratic Party candidates, and especially John Kerry. This called for "the bold exercise of American power" at the heart of "a new Democratic strategy, grounded in the party's tradition of muscular internationalism." Such a strategy would "keep Americans safer than the Republicans' go-it-alone policy, which has alienated our natural allies and overstretched our resources. We aim to rebuild the moral foundation of US global leadership . . ."

What is the difference from the vainglorious claptrap of Bush? Apart from euphemisms, there is none. All the leading Democratic presidential candidates supported the invasion of Iraq, bar one: Howard Dean. Kerry not only voted for the invasion, but expressed his disappointment that it had not gone according to plan. He told Rolling Stone magazine: "Did I expect George Bush to f*** it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did." Neither Kerry nor any of the other candidates has called for an end to the bloody and illegal occupation; on the contrary, all of them have demanded more troops for Iraq. Kerry has called for another "40,000 active service troops." He has supported Bush's continuing bloody assault on Afghanistan, and the administration's plans to "return Latin America to American leadership" by subverting democracy in Venezuela.

Above all, he has not in any way challenged the notion of American military supremacy throughout the world that has pushed the number of US bases to more than 750. Nor has he alluded to the Pentagon's coup d'etat in Washington and its stated goal of "full spectrum dominance." As for Bush's "preemptive" policy of attacking other countries, that's fine, too. Even the most liberal of the Democratic bunch, Howard Dean, said he was prepared to use "our brave and remarkable armed forces" against any "imminent threat." That's how Bush himself put it.

What the New Democrats object to is the Bush gang's outspokenness – its crude honesty, if you like – in stating its plans openly, and not from behind the usual veil or in the usual specious code of imperial liberalism and its "moral authority." New Democrats of Kerry's sort are all for the American empire; understandably, they would prefer that those words remained unsaid. "Progressive internationalism" is far more acceptable."

.......
"The truth is that Clinton was little different from Bush, a crypto-fascist. During the Clinton years, the principal welfare safety nets were taken away and poverty in America increased sharply; a multibillion-dollar missile "defense" system known as Star Wars II was instigated; the biggest war and arms budget in history was approved; biological weapons verification was rejected, along with a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, the establishment of an international criminal court and a worldwide ban on landmines. Contrary to a myth that places the blame on Bush, the Clinton administration in effect destroyed the movement to combat global warming.

In addition, Haiti and Afghanistan were invaded, the illegal blockade of Cuba was reinforced and Iraq was subjected to a medieval siege that claimed up to a million lives while the country was being attacked, on average, every third day: the longest Anglo-American bombing campaign in history. In the 1999 Clinton-led attack on Serbia, a "moral crusade," public transport, nonmilitary factories, food processing plants, hospitals, schools, museums, churches, heritage-listed monasteries and farms were bombed. "They ran out of military targets in the first couple of weeks," said James Bissett, the Canadian former ambassador to Yugoslavia. "It was common knowledge that NATO went to stage three: civilian targets." In their cruise missile attack on Sudan, Clinton's generals targeted and destroyed a factory producing most of sub-Saharan Africa's pharmaceutical supplies. The German ambassador to Sudan reported: "It is difficult to assess how many people in this poor country died as a consequence . . . but several tens of thousands seems a reasonable guess."

Covered in euphemisms, such as "democracy-building" and "peacekeeping," "humanitarian intervention" and "liberal intervention," the Clintonites can boast a far more successful imperial record than Bush's neocons, largely because Washington granted the Europeans a ceremonial role, and because NATO was "onside." In a league table of death and destruction, Clinton beats Bush hands down.

A question that New Democrats like to ask is: "What would Al Gore have done if he had not been cheated of the presidency by Bush?" Gore's top adviser was the arch-hawk Leon Fuerth, who said the US should "destroy the Iraqi regime, root and branch." Joseph Lieberman, Gore's running mate in 2000, helped to get Bush's war resolution on Iraq through Congress. In 2002, Gore himself declared that an invasion of Iraq "was not essential in the short term" but "nevertheless, all Americans should acknowledge that Iraq does, indeed, pose a serious threat." Like Blair, what Gore wanted was an "international coalition" to cover long-laid plans for the takeover of the Middle East. His complaint against Bush was that, by going it alone, Washington could "weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century."

Collusion between the Bush and Gore camps was common. During the 2000 election, Richard Holbrooke, who probably would have become Gore's secretary of state, conspired with Paul Wolfowitz to ensure their respective candidates said nothing about US policy towards Indonesia's blood-soaked role in southeast Asia. "Paul and I have been in frequent touch," said Holbrooke, "to make sure we keep out of the presidential campaign, where it would do no good to American or Indonesian interests." The same can be said of Israel's ruthless, illegal expansion, of which not a word was and is said: it is a crime with the full support of both Republicans and Democrats.

John Kerry supported the removal of millions of poor Americans from welfare rolls and backed extending the death penalty. The "hero" of a war that is documented as an atrocity launched his presidential campaign in front of a moored aircraft carrier. He has attacked Bush for not providing sufficient funding to the National Endowment for Democracy, which, wrote the historian William Blum, "was set up by the CIA, literally, and for 20 years has been destabilizing governments, progressive movements, labour unions and anyone else on Washington's hit list." Like Bush – and all those who prepared the way for Bush, from Woodrow Wilson to Bill Clinton – Kerry promotes the mystical "values of American power" and what the writer Ariel Dorfman has called "the plague of victimhood . . . Nothing more dangerous: a giant who is afraid.""

That should scare everyone sufficiently. Now you know the Democrats are proposing a draft, and it isn't about class fairness.

[swinney]

23. Reveni gone into outer space.

Come back, come back Reveni wherever you are!

You post so much garbage I have trouble starting or ending.

1.Clinton removed principle safety nets and poverty increased?
Eitc increased dramatically. Poverty declined significantly under Clinton.

2.Clinton instigated Star Wars? He cut rate of spending on it and only funded R &D. Only.

3.Biggest arms and war budget in history? You forget Reagan?

4.Biological Weapons inspections rejected? You never hear of Trent Lott and Republican Senate? They did it.

5. CTBT--such stupidity? Gop Senate killed it so a great great president would not have another great notch of success in his belt.

6.World Ban on Landmines? Clinton approved elimination of all but anti-tank in Korea.

No need to continue. You are in outer space.

[dennis4868]

15. The media, some dems and repubs

keep telling us how heroic Bush was on 911 and the days that followed. They say he showed great leadership and brought the country together. What they do not tell you are specifics, facts and anything that proves their point. What did Bush do that was so special? I am an objective person and if Bush was heroic that day I would freely admit it. But for the life of me I do not see anything he did that day and the days that followed that was so special. He went into a classroom knowing our country was under attack and sat there laughing with the kids, then was informed of another attack and other hostage situations and still stays in the classroom reading with the kids when NORAD and other defense forces were desperate to know what to do from the pResident. WHAT KIND OF LEADERSHIP IS THIS? Then after he leaves the classroom he flies around the country for HIS safety, and there NEVER was a threat to AF1. WHAT KIND OF LEADERSHIP IS THAT? Then Bush waits 3 days to go to ground zero when the air was clean for him (while his EPA lied to the people of NY that the air was just fine and dandy the day after 911). WHAT KIND OF LEADERSHIP IS THAT? I could go one, but you got my point. Bush did nothing that day and the days that followed that brought the country together. It's a myth that the media is stuffing down out throat. Everytime I hear this from the so-called "liberal" media it makes me sick!

[Malva Zebrina]

39. He did not do a thing but pose for photos ops

all t hat is being said is the manufacturing of an urban legend. Most of what we see in George Bush and in his rather dull wife, is a manufactured urban legend. Everything about Bush and Laura, is a manufactured, Potemkin village reality.

That's it plain and simple. No one refutes it. Why--they even go to great lenghts to promote it. They make a good salary--why should they put that at risk for the sake of writing truth. It's not their job.

[seabeyond]

16. they can do in grace

and i see it more in conversation, not attack and not in anger

i can see them saying, k so bush is running on 9/11 that is where he wants to go. we gave him a pass on this cause we werent going to politicize but this si where he wants to go. after we unanimously (sp) supported bush, and kept mouth shut and looked for a leader. this is what we know now. and this is why we are no longer going with premise that he is good leader. and on ad he specifically says this is what makes him a good leader.

i dont see discussing it in anger or attack that wont work. it has to be discussed in town meeting type sitting back looking at things objectively, not attached to agenda. truth can be heard in that. and there is so much information, we can sit in this in truth and peace.

and to start all democrats quit saying he was good leader, change their talking points thruout democratic party.

[RichM]

20. Submissiveness is an intrinsic part of the Democratic Party's function.

Here's how it works:

Republicans = direct servants of ruling class, overt & blatant
Democrats = indirect servants of ruling class. Function by falsely pretending to "represent average working Americans."
2-party duopoly = political instrument of ruling class, which is skillfully used to maintain illusion of "democracy." Functions as safety valve for social tensions.

Each party has a distinct role in the system, but they work together. The overall system is designed to maintain stable class rule. Both parties serve the same master, though in somewhat different ways.

The reason Carville went to his knees on MTP is the same as the reason the Democrats didn't really fight against a blatantly stolen election, & why (among a million examples) 60% of Dem senators voted for the IWR. They are not serious opponents of Republicans; they are merely a complementary faction of the same political instrument. Together, the 2 parties control the nation's entire political dialogue; agreeing entirely on which subjects should be discussed & which should be ignored.

[sangh0]

24. “Fighting a Comprehensive War on Terrorism”

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0227.html

“Fighting a Comprehensive War on Terrorism”

...Day in and day out, George W. Bush reminds us that he is a war President and that he wants to make national security the central issue of this election. I am ready to have this debate. I welcome it.

I am convinced that we can prove to the American people that we know how to make them safer and more secure – with a stronger, more comprehensive, and more effective strategy for winning the War on Terror than the Bush Administration has ever envisioned.

As we speak, night has settled on the mountains of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. If Osama bin Laden is sleeping, it is the restless slumber of someone who knows his days are numbered. I don’t know if the latest reports – saying that he is surrounded – are true or not. We’ve heard this news before.

We had him in our grasp more than two years ago at Tora Bora but George Bush held U.S. forces back and instead, called on Afghan warlords with no loyalty to our cause to finish the job. We all hope the outcome will be different this time and we all know America cannot rest until Osama bin Laden is captured or killed.

And when that day comes, it will be a great step forward but we will still have far more to do. It will be a victory in the War on Terror, but it will not be the end of the War on Terror.

This war isn’t just a manhunt – a checklist of names from a deck of cards. In it, we do not face just one man or one terrorist group. We face a global jihadist movement of many groups, from different sources, with separate agendas, but all committed to assaulting the United States and free and open societies around the globe.

As CIA Director George Tenet recently testified: “They are not all creatures of bin Laden, and so their fate is not tied to his. They have autonomous leadership, they pick their own targets, they plan their own attacks.”

At the core of this conflict is a fundamental struggle of ideas. Of democracy and tolerance against those who would use any means and attack any target to impose their narrow views.

The War on Terror is not a clash of civilizations. It is a clash of civilization against chaos; of the best hopes of humanity against dogmatic fears of progress and the future.

Like all Americans, I responded to President Bush’s reassuring words in the days after September 11th. But since then, his actions have fallen short.

I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the War on Terror; I believe he’s done too little.

Where he’s acted, his doctrine of unilateral preemption has driven away our allies and cost us the support of other nations. Iraq is in disarray, with American troops still bogged down in a deadly guerrilla war with no exit in sight. In Afghanistan, the area outside Kabul is sliding back into the hands of a resurgent Taliban and emboldened warlords.

In other areas, the Administration has done nothing or been too little and too late. The Mideast Peace process disdained for 14 months by the Bush Administration is paralyzed. North Korea and Iran continue their quest for nuclear weapons – weapons which one day could land in the hands of terrorists. And as Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld has admitted, the Administration is still searching for an effective plan to drain the swamps of terrorist recruitment. The President’s budget for the National Endowment for Democracy’s efforts around the world, including the entire Islamic world, is less than three percent of what this Administration gives Halliburton – hardly a way to win the contest of ideas.

Finally, by virtually every measure, we still have a homeland security strategy that falls far short of the vulnerabilities we have and the threats we face.

George Bush has no comprehensive strategy for victory in the War on Terror – only an ad hoc strategy to keep our enemies at bay. If I am Commander-in-Chief, I would wage that war by putting in place a strategy to win it.

We cannot win the War on Terror through military power alone. If I am President, I will be prepared to use military force to protect our security, our people, and our vital interests.

But the fight requires us to use every tool at our disposal. Not only a strong military – but renewed alliances, vigorous law enforcement, reliable intelligence, and unremitting effort to shut down the flow of terrorist funds.

To do all this, and to do our best, demands that we work with other countries instead of walking alone. For today the agents of terrorism work and lurk in the shadows of 60 nations on every continent. In this entangled world, we need to build real and enduring alliances.

Allies give us more hands in the struggle, but no President would ever let them tie our hands and prevent us from doing what must be done. As President, I will not wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake. But I will not push away those who can and should share the burden.

Working with other countries in the War on Terror is something we do for our sake – not theirs. We can’t wipe out terrorist cells in places like Sweden, Canada, Spain, the Philippines, or Italy just by dropping in Green Berets.

It was local law enforcement working with our intelligence services which caught Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramsi Bin al Shibh in Pakistan and the murderer known as Hambali in Thailand. Joining with local police forces didn’t mean serving these terrorists with legal papers; it meant throwing them behind bars. None of the progress we have made would have been possible without cooperation – and much more would be possible if we had a President who didn’t alienate long-time friends and fuel anti-American anger around the world.

We need a comprehensive approach for prevailing against terror – an approach that recognizes the many facets of this mortal challenge and relies on all the tools at our disposal to do it....

[DemLikr]

28. I appreciate Kerry's words on this, BUT Shrub has made his 9/11 actions

a central theme of this campaign already...the REpukes have DARED the Dems to call a spade a spade, and so far the Dems are silent.

Shrub was out of sight and this country was without even its unelected Dauphin for several hours on 9/11. Kerry doesn't have to attack viciously; he needs merely state facts of the 9/11 timeline and ask Shrub where he was and what was going on.

Likewise, Kerry should be calmly asking Shrub why he went on an extended vacation in August 2001, knowing of the CIA warnings of imminent terrorist attacks. Along with about 2500 other unasked questions about this president's* behavior and actions.

It is often the task of a true leader to EDUCATE the electorate; just because most of the Murican people aren't currently aware that Shrub is a raving coward doesn't mean they can't learn same to be true.

Shrub is already calling Kerry names; he's already questioned his integrity and steadfastness; he's given him the opening he needs to state the obvious. Yet Kerry dances around the facts...

[sangh0]

34. I disagree

Bush* is using his 9/11 ads, and the the Dems have attacked him for it. Not only that, but the attacks are sticking to Bush* because he is now perceived as exploiting terrorism for political gain

Kerry has also attacked Bush* on his ignoring CIA warnings. Kerry is already questioning Bush*'s credibility and steadfastness so I don't know why you think that is "dancing around the facts:

[dennis4868]

43. Kerry only attacks...

Bush regarding 911 and WMD on his website....not out in public in front of cameras!

[Carolina]

46. and a website ain't crap

when the campaign is waged on TV!

[sangh0]

49. ridiculous arguments

One complains about how Kerry isn't attacking Bush* on 9/11 in response to my post that reports on how Kerry has attaxked Bush* on 9/11.

The other complains it's not on TV, when Kerry has been on the news saying that Bush* is exploiting images of 9/11 for political gain

[Q]

72. Here he is again...the kneejerk defender of the faith...

...who visits every thread questioning Democrats and their policies to make sure no one can express an opinion different from his without harassment and belittlement.

- The fact is many in the Democratic party have been kissing Bush's* ass for a very long time. Daschle gave him a big smooch just a week or so ago when he praised Bush's* great work in Iraq. And he is only one in a series of Dems who give Bush* undue credit on 9-11 and Iraq. Only a few Dems are really speaking out and confronting Bush* on these issues...Kennedy and Byrd among them.

- You're making it sound as if no one should complain about how the Democratic party leadership defers to Bush* on so many issues. The corporate media paints Bush* as one of the 'greatest leaders' in modern history. Why should any Democrat contribute to this grand lie?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

74. Have you ever given any thought to the idea that most people...

...are afraid of crossing Junior in a public forum? Junior is a ruthless vengeful sociopath that will stop at nothing to eliminate, one way or another, those that cross his path. Look also at the madmen that surround Junior...they really are capable of just about anything, including 911.

Think about the anthrax attacks that targeted Democrats only. Think about Paul Wellstone being killed in an air crash under questionable conditions.

Those things do tend to make people think before they open their mouths...

[saltara]

27. see what Kerry has said about 9/11

On the johnkerry.com website, you can read his response to this (I found this quote under Civil Rights - 'End the Era of Ashcroft' - so it's hard to find and needs to be moved to a 9/11 section - still:)

"The Bush administration has refused to release critical information to the 9/11 Commission. In fact, the Commission even issued a subpoena to Secretary Rumsfeld because of his unwillingness to share information that will help the nation learn how to prevent another terrorist attack. The Bush Administration also requested that the Republican leadership stand-down the Intelligence Committee's investigation of 9/11 over trivial disputes."

He also wants "regular reporting on anti-terrorism activities" where "Ashcroft has refused to provide information to Congress or to the public about his use of the Patriot Act, his manipulation of the immigration laws, and his use of the enemy combatant status."

I am a Kucinich supporter, but was heartened by reading some of Kerry's "End the Era of Ashcroft" points on the website. Check it out.

[DemLikr]

29. Kerry needs to aggressively SPEAK of these issues on the stump

The languid Washington press will not pursue these well-made points unless they are offered some melodrama in the form of well-delivered, aggressive speeches.

Our lazy journalists like to quote one side against the other...they are not going to go looking for actual FACTS on a website.

[sangh0]

36. Which is it?

In a prior post you claimed that Kerry is dancing around the facts, and not attacking. In this post you say it's the press. You criticize Kerry for not ofference "well-delivered, aggressive speeches" even though we have posted parts of his aggressive speeches.

You also said that Kerry should EDUCATE the public about the facts, but now you say the media "are not going to go looking for actual FACTS on a website". Kerry says the same things in speeches as he says on his website.

[DemLikr]

52. It's Kerry AND the press. In what speech did JK talk about Shrub's 9/11

flight into the rabbit hole?

Kerry must educate the public out in the public arena of the unfortunate, but default, 24 hour news cycle. Posting on web sites is cute, but doesn't accomplish much to turn the substance and tone of the public debate.

Believe me, if JK takes GWB to task about his cowardice and poor performance on 9/11 it's going to show up on the news.

[Carolina]

47. exactly!!!

thousands of words on a website don't amount to shit when the real war for the WH is on TV!

[sangh0]

50. Are you confused by what you say?

One poster says Kerry should put it in his speeches, and you say "you're right! It *should* be on TV!"

[DemLikr]

53. Seems u r being purposely obtuse.

JK needs to say in speeches things which will then be telecast in those speeches on TV...see? :)

[sangh0]

62. One problem

Kerry doesn't get to say what the networks put on TV. Kerry *IS* giving the speeches.

You want to blame Kerry for what the media does, and you call me "purposely obtuse"

[Kanary]

35. UhHUH, the support for Bushwa comes from onhigh Dems

YEt, if we dare, here on DU, to question Kerry, or dare to be unhappy with Kerry's stances, we're accused of being Bush supporters.

Funny how that works, eh?

Kanary

Another Delusional Diehard for Dennis!!

Kucinich 2004!

[sangh0]

40. It must be so easy to accuse unnamed others

of attacks while ignoring one's own part. Everybody's doing it.

[Cleita]

37. I agree with you a hundred percent.

I'm ready for some housecleaning in Congress. We need to get some real Democrats in there to represent us.

[blm]

44. UNTRUE assertion. Kerry was the first Dem to challenge Bush's leadership

in Afghanistan and his military strategy. He also was the first to say that Bush squandered every bit of good will after 9-11.

Joe Conason wrote about it in the NY Observer Aug. 2002 and Joe Klein did the same in his Dec. 2002 New Yorker piece.

It was Howard Dean who who refused to back up Kerry's comments against Bush back then on MTP, instead siding with Bush.

So....just what the heck are YOU talking about?

Kerry Shows Courage In Challenging Bush
Thursday, August 8, 2002 By: Joe Conason

New York Observer
>>>>>>>>
But it was John Kerry who delivered the most interesting, substantive and challenging message. His subject was George W. Bush's shortcomings as a world leader.

The New York Times reported that Mr. Kerry "offered a long attack on Mr. Bush's foreign policy," although the paper gave short shrift to the details in the Senator''s speech. What he began to articulate was a Democratic critique of this administration''s blunt and myopic unilateralism, and a vision that restores international alliances to the center of American diplomacy.

He agrees with the objective of removing Saddam Hussein, but objected to the vague plans for what will replace the Iraqi dictatorship. He called the latest arms treaty with Russia a "cosmetic" one that inadequately safeguards decommissioned weapons. He denounced the "Cold War" approach to North Korea that has undone the progress achieved by the Clinton administration. He expressed scorn for the administration''s disengagement from the Middle East crisis before Sept. 11.

>>>>>>>>
He is, however, no naïïve internationalist who abhors military force. As he has done before, Mr. Kerry wondered aloud why the President didn't muster sufficient firepower in Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda''s army when the chance arose at Tora Bora.
>>>>>>>
Mr. Kerry is staking out a politically perilous position at a time when conventional wisdom declares foreign and military issues to be the exclusive province of the President. >>>>
>>>>>>>>
Whether Mr. Kerry can engage the electorate in a discussion of America''s global responsibilities is far from certain. His own dispassionate style may hinder him. Yet he deserves great credit for reclaiming international leadership for his party when others cannot or will not.

____________________________________________________________

 MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the military operation in Afghanistan has been successful?
       
       GOV. DEAN: Yes, I do, and I support the president in that military operation.
       
       MR. RUSSERT: The battle of Tora Bora was successful?
       
       GOV. DEAN: I’ve seen others criticize the president. I think it’s very easy to second-guess the
       commander-in-chief at a time of war. I don’t choose to engage in doing that.

[Carolina]

48. whoop dee doo

what happened to Kerry after August 8th and specifically between August 8, 2002 and March 19, 2003?

Votes count more than speeches. Kinda like actions versus words.

[sangh0]

51. Ahh, now that's why I call progressivism

Obsessing over the past.

[JNelson6563]

70. In reply to a past recalled

This post is closer to real time than the one from a Kerry supporter that was being answered.

It always swings both ways. If the post you now address qualifies as "obsessing over the past" then so too does the one it answers.

Julie

[DemLikr]

55. You'll surely be voting for JK, however? n/t

[blm]

58. Don't blame Kerry because YOU wouldn't listen to him.

You and others who would only credit the candidate the media gave the stage.

[JNelson6563]

71. haha This is one of my favorites!

You and others who would only credit the candidate the media gave the stage.

<snarf>

I remember many healthy servings of this whine some months ago. "Dean's the frontrunner cause the media loves him! They're picking our candidate!!" *sobbing* *wailing* (Conveniently disregarding the indisputable fact Dean possesed the quality that so completely eludes Kerry, the ability to incite passion~~very newsworthy in the Democratic camp indeed!) Then Geppy threw his votes to Kerry in Iowa, Dean screamed and the media played it many hundreds of times in the next several days while singing Kerry's praises. It was all so whirlwind but I do clearly recall the Dean supporters discussing the media hatchet job on Dean and sudden, mysterious fawning over Kerry only to be heartily scoffed at by Kerry supporters. Oh no~~the media's favorable coverage (almost exclusively reserved for BFEE/PNAC members) was simply a reflection of the overwhelming love and adoration shown by the masses (out of nowhere~it's like a miracle! <snarf> ) .

hahaaa!!!! *siiiiiiiighhh* I always get such a kick out of that! *chuckle* :toast:

Julie

[DemLikr]

54. hmmm...NOTHING about Shrub's 9/11 disappearing act

which is what I am specifically asking about in the original post of this thread.

Listen, I'll vote for JK because GWB must be gotten rid of. However, I do not appreciate his brand of timid politics, which also led him to tell Dems still upset about the 2000 election theft they needed to "get over it."

Nothing like doing Karl's work for him.

[sangh0]

56. I'm not running for 'Secretary of State of Florida!'

"Kerry said: " I'm often asked how it feels to run for the highest office "I don't have a clue. I'm not running for 'Secretary of State of Florida!' " John Kerry replied.

And Florida Democrat's and anti-Bush voters "roared" at the reminder of former Florida Secretary of State, KKKatherine Harris, role in the 2000' presidential coup d'etat.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/auto/epaper/editions/today/news_04d4e4290587121e005c.html

[blm]

59. Nothing like believing an internet legend.

Kerry never said "get over it" in the context claimed by internet message board criers who spread that lie.

[sangh0]

63. What do you expect from posters who blame Kerry for what the media does?

Above, this same poster blames Kerry because they media isn't broadcasting Kerry's speeches.

[DemLikr]

65. Um...most of your posts don't make sense on this thread.

Media can't broadcast statements which are never made in the first place.

Kerry has yet to call into question Shrub's whereabouts and behavior on 9/11. If you don't have a decipherable response, please...skip it.

Thanks

[DemLikr]

64. care to share the alleged "context?"

As I recall, in sum, he said Dems need to get over Florida and focus on the future or some such general bullshit.

More makey nicey-nice with the Bushies.

Please share your take on the context you allege. Thanks

[Tactical Progressive]

45. Mark Shields went on for almost a year

talking about what a "magnificent" job George W. Bush had done.

Nothing infuriates me more. Can you imagine Kate O'Beirne saying what a "magnificent" job Clinton or Gore was doing, regardless of the circumstance? Try it and see if you can. I still wish Shields would retire and can barely stand to listen to his mealy-mouth toadying even now from that.

It would be bad if it were true, but it's disgusting in that it's not. Bush is anything but a national security hero. Above all else that's why I liked Clark; he was saying what all the public Dems are too afraid to say, and that's why the Republicans hated him with a passion.

If 9-11 had happened under Clinton or Gore the right-wing echo chamber of the mainstream media would have tagged them within days with possible if not probable negligence as the conventional wisdom if they had done what Bush had done. There wouldn't have been anybody talking about what a "magnificent" job Gore had done. Polls would have been asking questions like 'Do you feel that the removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan make up for the Gore administration's not stopping the 9-11 attack? Y/N'. That's how the media does fair and balanced on Dems vs Repubs.

All of that Democratic pundit cowardice adds up to hurt the Democratic candidate, just like it did when everybody expected Gore to shoulder the entire burden of lies against him. Now Kerry has to stand up alone to attack Bush's national security failures posed as national security strength, with Democratic pundits having given Bush a national security blanket. I'm guessing Kerry won't even try, which isn't good. Thanks Mark Shields.

[LandOLincoln]

57. Clark is STILL attacking Bush on 9/11 and other NS matters, which

he can do with more credibility than any other Dem out there, including Kerry.

And once he's officially the VP nominee, he'll really start blasting away. :evilgrin:

[Tactical Progressive]

75. I'm beginning to hope for that

Though I think Clark would be better suited to Secretary of State, this election consideration has been wearing on me since last week's unfocused and defensive Democratic response to the Bush 9-11 ad.

I keep coming back to Clark on the VP campaign trail and what a good thing that would be.

[Q]

69. To many politicians...the war on terrorism=9-11=war in Iraq...

- (Many) Democrats and Bushie Republicans alike can't admit that the Iraq invasion is illegal and a failure. Because many Democrats voted WITH BUSH* on his preemptive war doctine and helped him cover up 9-11...calling attention to HIS poor leadership also draws attention to theirs. Look past the politics and you'll see Dems don't have much more to brag about than Bush* when it comes to leadership.

[Ksec]

73. Trying to look reasonable.

or fair. Doesnt work because we all know b* hid when the shit hit the fan.

He stood on a pile of rubble and became a great warrior. WTF is that?