Is White House Whistleblower Ready to Bring Down the President? »

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 282

• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  berkeley

  Dec. 3, 2006, 1:12 p.m.

  its obvious that the leak was from high up and not from a bush ally. once again, the editorial pages did not pick this up. bush is being pushed.

  1 Reply

  • 
    Avg rating: (+3/-0 3)

    m-simon

    Dec. 3, 2006, 5:32 p.m.

    I expect the truth to come out within 24 business hours.
• 
  Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)

  lvl99miner

  Dec. 3, 2006, 2:59 p.m.

  Such hog wash!!! When is the media going to stop with the garbage?!

  3 Replies

  • 
    Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)

    jeffery1

    Dec. 3, 2006, 5:34 p.m.

    Yeah. How dare anyone in the Fourth Estae do their job? What nerve. What the hell does the press think its job is? Providing the American people with information must stop or the U.S. will be destroyed!

    1 Reply

    • 
      Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

      lvl99miner

      Dec. 3, 2006, 6:52 p.m.

      When the press isn't accurate with it's stories, it's HOG WASH, HOG WASH, HOG WASH!!
  • 

    lovermanComment has been removed: User banned.
• 
  Avg rating: (+4/-1 3)

  Virginia

  Dec. 3, 2006, 3:38 p.m.

  This article is a tease.

  1 Reply

  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    lfergie812

    Dec. 3, 2006, 6:45 p.m.

    With a little satire.
• 
  Avg rating: (+6/-0 6)

  freeman

  Dec. 3, 2006, 3:50 p.m.

  If our government is nothing but garbage, we have to thank those who sanitize the country. Anybody in the world who did things Bush did, would have been murderer and enemy #1 to our country. This guy needs to be impeached and jailed not simply because he is bad. This should be a lesson for future presidents. Both Nixon and Clinton are angels to compare to this vampire.

  76 Replies

  • 
    Avg rating: (+3/-0 3)

    lvl99miner

    Dec. 3, 2006, 5:35 p.m.

    Freeman, who said our government was garbage? I hope you aren't refering to my comment, if so, read it again!! Anyway, Clinton an angel?? Plz!! He had ******in the OVAL OFFICE with a girl just a little older than HIS DAUGHTER, lied under oath, told the WORLD via tv and radio that he did not have sex(oops, what is oral sex? it's sex!! hello?)with "that woman". What a GREAT role model to all people especially the younger!! Nixon I know nothing about(and don't care to)except he may have been nuts!!

    p.s. As I recall, the majority of Americans were behind Bush and his desire to go to war with Iraq! What's his face(Bruce Springstien??) even wrote a song about kicking tail ... in Iraq. Finally, (HELLO PEOPLE) the president clearly said the war would be COSTLY and LONG!!! We're in it for the long haul so get a grip!!

    66 Replies

    • 
      Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)

      lfergie812

      Dec. 3, 2006, 6:51 p.m.

      freeman never said Clinton was an angel, he just said COMPARED to Bush, he was an angel and I noticed you didn't mention how bad Nixon was and I don't believe you know nothing about him.

      28 Replies

      • 
        Avg rating: (+12/-0 12)

        lvl99miner

        Dec. 3, 2006, 6:56 p.m.

        WOW, great come back!! You must be a liberal democrat!
      • 
        Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)

        farmerman

        Dec. 3, 2006, 9:49 p.m.

        You folks amaze me. You take a guy who was impeached, disbarred and found guilty of lying to a Federal Grand Jury and he is an angel compared to Bush. Well, Bush has had zero Federal or State charges against him. Has not been found guilty of lying. Oh, I know, you Libs have repeated the "he lied about WMDs" enough that you even believe it. And he sure won't be impeached.

        While Nixon could have been impeached, there was enough love of America, by leading Republicans to go to him and ask him to resign. Clinton sure didn't have to worry about that from leading Democrats, no love of Country there. Just an insane drive to hold on to power.

        18 Replies

        • 
          Avg rating: (+8/-0 8)

          ybdogsct

          Dec. 3, 2006, 10:54 p.m.

          "Oh, I know, you Libs have repeated the "he lied about WMDs" enough that you even believe it."

          The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found that Bush mischaracterized (lied) intelligence regarding Iraq's alleged WMD program, Iraq's WMD delivery capability, and Saddam's Al Qaeda connections.

          http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

          Dick Cheney is also a liar, and prompted officials at BP, Chevron, Exxon, Conoco, and Enron to lie about involvement in an Energy Task Force.

          http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020415/nichols

          "While Nixon could have been impeached, there was enough love of America, by leading Republicans to go to him and ask him to resign."

          Nixon resigned for "love of America"? Where was this "love for America" when Republicans allowed Nixon to evade taxes, accepte illicit campaign contributions, order secret bombings, and harass opponents with wiretaps and break-ins? He had to resign or face impeachment.

          5 Replies

          • 
            Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)

            m-simon

            Dec. 4, 2006, 3:51 a.m.

            John Kerry is also a liar.

            He believed Saddam had WMDs.

            As did Mrs. Clinton and a whole raft of Dems.

            4 Replies

            • 
              Avg rating: (+4/-0 4)

              ybdogsct

              Dec. 4, 2006, 7:59 a.m.

              "John Kerry is also a liar..."

              The Democrats simply believed the intelligence summaries passed on to them by the Bush Administration after Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld exaggerated the certainty of the intelligence, gave undue credbility to intelligence from specious sources like "Curveball," and suppressed dissenting views within the intelligence community.

              Let's not forget that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell were the ones primarily responsible for making the case for war. It was they who presented faulty intelligence as fact to Congress and to the UN. It was they who went to war on this faulty intelligence.

              The Democrats didn't lead us into a preemptive, unilateral war. Many of them only voted for war after Bush presented them with faulty intelligence. Many have said that if they knew Iraq had no WMDs and no bin Laden connections, then they wouldn't have authorized war. Meanwhile Bush continues to claim the war is still justified.

              3 Replies

              • 
                Avg rating: (+16/-1 15)

                Acetyll

                Dec. 4, 2006, 9:15 a.m.

                OMG...notthis rubbish again. If I recall (and I do) the prior administration (that would be Clinton) said Saddam had WMD's. So, whose lying?

                Oh, and by the way, in case you forgot, Saddam did gas (classified as weapons of mass destruction) the Kurds. I know the facts about Saddam are hard for the anti-Bush folks to believe especially when you keep telling yourself the same ole lies.

                So ask yourself the following questions...

                Did the Clinton administration and fellow Democrats say Saddam had (during Clinton's administration) a WMD program?

                YES

                Did Saddam use WMD's on the Kurds?

                YES

                Can someone please tell me what is so confusing for the Liberals about this subject? Wait, other than it is Bush, not Clinton, that actually did something about it....

                Acetyll

                2 Replies

                • 
                  Avg rating: (+11/-0 11)

                  ybdogsct

                  Dec. 4, 2006, 9:30 p.m.

                  "I know the facts about Saddam are hard for the anti-Bush folks to believe especially when you keep telling yourself the same ole lies."

                  Clearly you didn't even bother to read this report prepared by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which was chaired by a Republican senator and enjoyed a Republican majority.

                  http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

                  "If I recall (and I do) the prior administration (that would be Clinton) said Saddam had WMD's."

                  Read my previous post again. Maybe a little slower this time.

                  " Did the Clinton administration and fellow Democrats say Saddam had (during Clinton's administration) a WMD program?"

                  Did the Clinton recognize that the intelligence on Iraq was imperfect? YES. This is why Clinton chose not to lead the U.S. into a unilateral, preemptive war against Iraq. While his intelligence officers concluded the same, Clinton realized the uncertainties in the intelligence were too great.
                • 
                  Avg rating: (+3/-1 2)

                  ybdogsct

                  Dec. 4, 2006, 9:39 p.m.

                  "Did Saddam use WMD's on the Kurds?"

                  Sure, Saddam had leftover mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses given to him by the Germans; Saddam had a nuclear power plant given to him by the French; Saddam had plutonium given to him from the Italians; and finally, Saddam had anthrax, West Nile virus, botulism, Brucella melitensis "some of [which] were used for Iraq's biological weapons research program" given to him by a Republican president (Reagan). I'm not discounting that Saddam once had WMD, but that's not Bush's justification for war. Bush claimed in 2003 that Iraq had an ongoing, active WMD program, which was not true. Iraq's WMD program was destroyed in the early 1990s.

                  " Can someone please tell me what is so confusing for the Liberals about this subject?"

                  Can you tell me why you keep avoiding this report? Are you afraid of what you'll find? Read it and educate yourself.

                  http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
        • 
          Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

          kedirian

          Dec. 4, 2006, 12:05 a.m.

          Of course! With a rubberstamp Republican Congress he will probably canonized.....
        • 
          Avg rating: (+8/-2 6)

          Lurch

          Dec. 4, 2006, 3:02 a.m.

          >Well, Bush has had zero Federal or State charges against him.

          And that`s why the Republicans were trashed in the last elections.

          They let Bush and his ilk get away with lies, murder, corruption and aiding the enemy without a peep.

          Remember, Bush tried to block, divert, and then hijack the 9/11 commission. When he finally couldn`t avoid it any longer, he agreed to testify but only OFF the record, out of the public eye, and ONLY with Cheney holding his hand. Real f`in brave man that.

          Imagine what a $50M, six year witch hunt could turn up investigating the Bush admin!

          What you cons cling to is the difference between a lie under oath and all other lies. Get real, a lie is a lie. Wait til the investigations start though...

          10 Replies

          • 
            Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

            ybdogsct

            Dec. 4, 2006, 8:07 a.m.

            "Maybe a list of all the Stuff that the Clintons stole from the White House and the American People before they left."

            If that were true, then the Republicans would have already found this "stuff." Regardless, it is nothing compared to the billions of tax dollars that have gone unaccounted for in Iraq.

            It is nothing compared to the billions of dollars awarded to companies like Haliburton in no-bid contracts.

            It is nothing compared to the billions of dollars that companies like Haliburton have overcharged the American government.

            It is nothing compared to the billions of dollars that Enron, Exxon, Chevron, BP, Conoco, etc. made by forming a secret energy task force that formed the national energy policy.

            http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020415/nichols

            The unchecked corruption in this Administration is unparalleled in the history of the American government. No wonder a majority of historians rank Bush as the worst or near-worst president the U.S. has ever had.
          • 
            Avg rating: (+7/-2 5)

            ybdogsct

            Dec. 4, 2006, 8:16 a.m.

            "Do you comprehend the nature of this difference?"

            Sure, as I see it the differences are these:

            1) Clinton screwed one girl. Bush screwed 350 million Americans and millions of Iraqis.

            2) Clinton's lie killed no one. Bush's lie has killed over 3000 Americans, has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, has ostracized the U.S. from our traditional allies, has diminished our credibility within the international community, has distracted us from fighting against the real perpetrators of 9/11 (Al Qaeda), has limited our capability to deal with other threats like North Korea and Iran, has helped spawn Al Qaeda in Iraq when under Saddam Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq, and continues to be a "cause celebre" that swells the ranks of Al Qaeda recruits as dissatisfaction and disillusionment with the U.S. festers.

            http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE

            Exactly what differences do you see?

            7 Replies

            • 
              Avg rating: (+4/-1 3)

              Acetyll

              Dec. 4, 2006, 9:23 a.m.

              If the newly elected Congress feels that Bush lied they should proceede with impeachment. What will it tell you Liberals if they do not proceede with impeachment?

              It should tell you that EVERYONE in Congress (not just Bush) is responsible for Iraq and all that has happened. This is all political posturing as impeachment would only show that Democrats are just as responsible as are Republicans.

              Especially interesting is that many Dems (getting ready for 08 Pres election) have said Saddam had WMD's prior to 2000 are the same ones saying Saddam doesn't have WMD's now.

              Isn't that interesting......

              Acetyll

              6 Replies

              • 
                Avg rating: (+14/-0 14)

                cushi

                Dec. 4, 2006, 10:51 a.m.

                I'm not affiliated with either party, but here's what it tells me: (1) They are reluctant to eliminate one evil only to be stuck with an even viler one = Cheney; (2) They feel it would be in the best interests of the country to deal with the critical issues that have been left to languish under this corrupt administration, i.e., social security, health care, skyrocketing gas prices, depressed real estate industry, global warming, re-building trust and repairing damaged relationships with many of our allies who also feel lied to and betrayed by this current administration; (3) coming up with a real strategy to extricate our wonderful fighting men and women from the deathtrap that is Iraq; (4) coming up with a strategy to undo, as quickly as possible, the montrous national debt that threatens to bankrupt America and impoverish our antecedants for decades to come!

                I'd love to see Bush and buddies criminally charged, but they are low priority compared to these pressing issues.
              • 
                Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

                IanFraigun

                Dec. 4, 2006, 11:03 a.m.

                What that will tell you is that they understand it takes 2/3 vote to convict in the senate and they won't waste the time and effort with almost 50% of that chamber still ready to rubberstamp everything Bush does. Rather than waste the time and money, like the republicans did with clinton, they would rather get to work and fix the problems. At least the new congress can put politics aside for a bit to work on the problems of the country not political one-upsmanship.

                4 Replies

                • 
                  Avg rating: (+0/-1 -1)

                  Acetyll

                  Dec. 4, 2006, 11:22 a.m.

                  Lots of stuff on the plate. Do you think that any meaningful legislation will come out of the next Congress? I'll wager it will be more of the same ole politics as usual.

                  I can still hope something actually gets done....

                  Acetyl

                  1 Reply

                  • 
                    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

                    cushi

                    Dec. 4, 2006, 11:47 a.m.

                    It would require the cooperation of an embittered, mean-spirited party that is no longer in total control, but still holds enough of the reigns to make futile any efforts toward change,so that they can then turn around and say, "see, we told you not to put those do-nothings in office!" That how liars and deceivers work!
                • 
                  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

                  Acetyll

                  Dec. 4, 2006, 11:24 a.m.

                  I wonder then, why do we still here this pie in the sky dream to impeach? I'd rather see meaning legislation that actually helps the country.

                  1 Reply

                  • 
                    Avg rating: (+10/-4 6)

                    cushi

                    Dec. 4, 2006, 11:44 a.m.

                    Make no mistake, plenty of people would like VERY, VERY MUCH to see him impeached for his huge laundry list of wrongdoings, the fact that it is not practical to make it a priority at this time, does not mean that there is no desire to do it.
          • 
            Avg rating: (+4/-0 4)

            Christalline

            Dec. 4, 2006, 10:38 a.m.

            Ok, get the facts straight here....trashed no, the races were so close that most of them would have went into recount. The Republicans just had grace enough left after all the hogwash elections to just go ahead and pitch in the towel. Do not think that the shift of power in Congress is some huge "win" or "lose" for either "party", because to be frank, the vast majority of Americans are fed up with both of the self serving parties and did not vote.
      • 
        Avg rating: (+2/-5 -3)

        Illuminate

        Dec. 3, 2006, 11:46 p.m.

        Clinton was and Angel compare to Bush 'cuz Clinton was always golfing, sitting at McD's or trying to lay and Ugly Elephant

        1 Reply

        • 
          Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)

          Lurch

          Dec. 4, 2006, 3:04 a.m.

          you are definitely confused.

          Bush was the one famously caught working on his swing while our troops were under fire.

          You like most cons, are completely out of touch with reality.
      • 
        Avg rating: (+6/-0 6)

        Maui

        Dec. 4, 2006, 1:45 a.m.

        if nixon didn't resign he would've been impeached, but bush makes nixon look like just another pink panther wanna be.

        impeach that bastard bush asap!

        1 Reply

        • 
          Avg rating: (+7/-2 5)

          lfergie812

          Dec. 4, 2006, 11:08 a.m.

          Don't forget Bush's Daddy G. H. W. Bush for selling our enemy Iran weapons for money to fund another war in middle America. Him, Reagan, and North broke the law of congress big time but the democrats didn't push that issue. But you can only see the republican side just like your avatar idol, the idiotic Rush.
      • 
        Avg rating: (+6/-0 6)

        Christalline

        Dec. 4, 2006, 10:32 a.m.

        Nixon was many things, but at least he had scruples enough left in him to step down when they voted for his impeachment.

        If you recall, Clinton got to the exact same point in the impeachment process in congress, and he said he was staying no matter what. Well, in his shoes I would have too. Had he went out with impeachment, he would have been tried for the Whitewater scandals, as it stands, he stayed on, pardoning himself and everyone else involved in that, including his beloved wife (HELLO REAL REASON THEY MOVED TO NEW YORK, and not back to Arkansas) on his way out the office. This man had no morales whatsoever, and is not even in the same ballpark as Nixon. Nixon eventually accepted the consequences of his actions, something William and Hillary Clinton will never do.

        3 Replies

        • 
          Avg rating: (+2/-4 -2)

          lfergie812

          Dec. 4, 2006, 11:21 a.m.

          You are wrong on most everything you have stated. Whitewater was investigated at great expense to the American people for the republicans vendetta to bring down the democrat president and all they could find was a little lie about his sex act. Let's put Bush under oath and see how much he forgets about wire taping, WMD papers, uranium yellowcakes, and orders for torture. All criminal felonies consisting of falsifying government documents.

          If you weren't so ignorant, you would know that a president cannot pardon himself. LMAO

          2 Replies

          • 
            Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)

            Christalline

            Dec. 4, 2006, 12:45 p.m.

            I think maybe somewhere along the way, you might want to go back and look at that one dear angry soul. He most definetly DID pardon all involved, and he was let off himself as a gesture of good will by the incoming President. Go back to the day Bush took office, look at the facts, and know that as it was investigated, and they wanted to prosecute him, it can not be done as long as a President holds office. It is you that is ignorant in this case, ignorant of the law that is. Impeachment processes are often claused in order to be able to try Presidents due to that law. As far as the Mrs. went, although her hands were filthy with it as well, it does not hold well to prosecute the President's spouse in the World eye. I will not get into this with you, you are obviously a radical party line spaz, and I have no desire to have a "war of words" with someone who borderlines the mentality of a conspiracy theorists, but good luck to you in life, and I wish you well.

            1 Reply

            • 
              Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

              ybdogsct

              Dec. 4, 2006, 10:07 p.m.

              "Go back to the day Bush took office, look at the facts, and know that as it was investigated, and they wanted to prosecute him, it can not be done as long as a President holds office. It is you that is ignorant in this case..."

              Did you read the report? The report states "In the Independent Counsel's judgment, insufficient evidence exists to establish criminal conduct beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury's satisfact. No indictments have been or will be sought in this matter. Thus, this Report fully and completely discharges William David Watkins and Hillary Rodham Clinton from all criminal liability..."

              http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2422/13may20041

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_(controver

              I don't know how much clearer Robert Ray could have explained it. What reliable, nonpartisan documentation do you have that proves the Clintons' guilt?
    • 
      Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

      jeffery1

      Dec. 3, 2006, 6:52 p.m.

      Wow. Let's see: Clinton had an affair and lied about it and Bush lied about the threat Saddam posed to the U.S., refused to treat al Qaeda as a threat until they did what Bush was warned about, let Bin Laden go because he needed troop strength for invading Iraq for no good reason, still hasn't completed the job in Afghanistan as it ebbs into Taliban control again, refused to open dialog with Iran because he saw more benefit in verbally attacking it.

      Yeah. I see your point about Clinton = Bush.

      Also, the fact that any American were behind Bush in attacking a contained Iraq is not something to crow about because it just shows how uncritical, ideological, and gullible we are. So stop it.

      22 Replies

      • 
        Avg rating: (+3/-0 3)

        lvl99miner

        Dec. 3, 2006, 6:55 p.m.

        So, you think you can do better than Bush? Go for it or be quiet!

        2 Replies

        • 
          Avg rating: (+10/-2 8)

          Lurch

          Dec. 4, 2006, 3:06 a.m.

          Bush has done more to aid al queda than america.

          You bet I could beat that record. Somehow though I wasn`t born into Americans most corrupt and connected political family, otherwise I would be there doing a hell of a lot better job right now.

          1 Reply

          • 
            Avg rating: (+8/-2 6)

            Skeptic

            Dec. 4, 2006, 10:48 a.m.

            The Kennedy's?
      • 
        Avg rating: (+7/-1 6)

        lvl99miner

        Dec. 3, 2006, 7:18 p.m.

        Prove that Bush lied! Hmmm, didn't Clinton know about alQaeda during the time he attempted to be President? Yes he did(was it a 1993 attempt to blow the towers in NY up?), and what did he do about it? He was busy getting his noodle wet by a girl 30 years younger than himself to care about you or me!! He never did catch Bin Laden but he got caught!! rofl! Clinton did a good job in preparing the way for the twin towers to be blown up and the mess that followed and continues to haunt us! Thank you former president Clinton for making such a HUGH MESS of our country!! I'll take Bush over Clinton in a heart beat!!

        5 Replies

        • 
          Avg rating: (+16/-2 14)

          ybdogsct

          Dec. 3, 2006, 11:23 p.m.

          "Prove that Bush lied!"

          Here is a report prepared by a Senate Select Commmittee on Intelligence (with a Republican chairman and a Republican majority) that concludes that Iraq did not have an active WMD program and that Saddam (a Sunni) never collaborated with Osama bin Laden (a Shiite). It further suggests that Bush downplayed dissenting views within the intelligence community, gave too much weight to unreliable sources like "Curveball," and that Bush ignored a warning left behind by the Clinton Administration entitled "Osama Bin Laden Determined To Strike Within the U.S."

          http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
        • 
          Avg rating: (+4/-0 4)

          ybdogsct

          Dec. 3, 2006, 11:29 p.m.

          "Hmmm, didn't Clinton know about alQaeda...?"

          It was a Republican president (Reagan), who armed bin Laden in the 80s to fight the Russians in Afghanistan:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_laden#Jihad

          "Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida...were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."

          Although to be fair, Peter Gergen submits a conflicting report.

          "The story...that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden -- is simply a folk myth...the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him."

          If this is true, it's no wonder Clinton didn't do anything in 1993 and refused a 1995 Sudan offer to hand over bin Laden.

          3 Replies

          • 
            Avg rating: (+7/-4 3)

            Lurch

            Dec. 4, 2006, 3:11 a.m.

            Clinton has stated that there was no offer of handing over OBL.

            In fact that occurred in 2001 during Bush`s admin after our intelligence sources identified OBL as being behind the USS Cole.

            Of course Bush, rather than actually arrest the son of family friends, gave $43M of our dollars to the Taliban in March 2001 (truth) to help pay for AQ parties there (editor`s comment).

            Yes, Bush is a real hero of the people and of America.
          • 
            Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

            Acetyll

            Dec. 4, 2006, 9:26 a.m.

            Anyone that uses wikipedia as a reference is a joke.

            Sorry bro... use a reliable source to make your point.

            Acetyl

            1 Reply

            • 
              Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

              ybdogsct

              Dec. 4, 2006, 10:11 p.m.

              "Sorry bro" I already posted links directly from a government website, which you obviously didn't take the time to read. Here it is again.

              http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

              Where are your documented references "bro"? After all of the lies detailed in that report, you still support Bush and Cheney? Looks like the joke is on you.
      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        farmerman

        Dec. 3, 2006, 10:19 p.m.

        First, Bush did not lie about the threat that Saddam posed. Not unless most all of your Lib leaders, President Clinton, the major intelligents agency in world and etc. Go back and look up what the Clintons, Kerry, Reid were saying in 99 through 2000 were saying. They were more strident than Bush was or is. So you go ahead and spout the Lib line, but it is you who are lying about Bush.

        Are you saying we can't fight two small fronts at one time. If that is true, then we are screwed. We probably don't have 200,000 troops in both countries. That is nothing. We had 500,000 in Viet Nam alone. But I forgot after years of Democratic control you have gutted our military.

        Your problem is you hate America. What you want is a pacifist Lib President. Supported by a pacifist Lib congress. I pray for my children and grandchildren that you and your ilk are never successful and turning our Country into a Spain, Canada or France.

        5 Replies

        • 
          Avg rating: (+6/-0 6)

          ybdogsct

          Dec. 3, 2006, 11:07 p.m.

          "First, Bush did not lie about the threat that Saddam posed."

          The difference between Bush and Clinton, Kerry, and Reid is two-fold. First, Clinton, Kerry, and Reid recognized that there were holes in our intelligence regarding Iraq's alleged WMD program and Saddam's alleged links to Al Qaeda. Bush not only downplayed dissenting views within the intelligence community to make it appear as if the existence of Iraq's alleged WMD program and Al Qaeda links were irrefutable, he also embellished the rumors from specious sources to win public suport for the war.

          Rumsfeld: "We know exactly where the WMDs in Iraq are."

          http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

          "But I forgot after years of Democratic control you have gutted our military."

          The Iraq war is unjustified. If Bush hadn't misled us into war in Iraq, we would have plenty of troops to deal with Iran and North Korea.

          2 Replies

          • 
            Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)

            ybdogsct

            Dec. 4, 2006, 1:03 a.m.

            Secondly, while it has been longstanding policy for the U.S. to seek a regime change in Iraq, Clinton's strategy involved promoting internal revolution through economic sanctions, international diplomatic pressure, a no-fly zone, and UN inspections which effectively prohibited Iraq from restarting a WMD program. Bush's heavy-handed strategy forced Saddam from power with preemptive, unilateral war whose primary justifications (Iraq's alleged active WMD program and Saddam's ties to Osama bin Laden) were exaggerated, based on unreliable sources like "Curveball," and were later demonstrated to be fallacious. Not only has the war in Iraq distracted us from Al Qaeda--the group truly responsible for the 9/11 attacks--but instead of eliminating enemies through military force, Bush has actually succeeded in swelling the ranks of our enemies (Iraq = "cause celebre") and alienating our traditional allies.

            http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE
          • 
            Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)

            Acetyll

            Dec. 4, 2006, 9:38 a.m.

            The country does not have the stomach to battle either of those countries. We tried the jungle war and lost (of course we won the battles).

            The country (Liberals and war haters) couldn't take the thousands of casualities it would take to deal with Iran. A war with Iran would pull every fundamentalist within a thousand miles into that conflict (war)....thus, the only way to win that war would be to nuke. And don't be mistaken....Iran won't be a pushover. For that, the world doesn't have the will power to deal. Perhaps, I am underestimating. I doubt it.

            We have seen the country's unwillingness (unlike WW1 or 2) to do what it takes to actually do battle on a mass scale. In otherwords...let the military do what it does best...KILL the enemy unhindered...not all the political nonsense we have seen in Vietnam and Iraq. I wonder if we had today's idea's on how a war should be waged during WW 1 or 2...how dfferently that outcome would have been.
        • 
          Avg rating: (+8/-0 8)

          ybdogsct

          Dec. 3, 2006, 11:12 p.m.

          "I pray for my children and grandchildren that you and your ilk are never successful and turning our Country into a Spain, Canada or France."

          I pray for my children and grandchildren that you and your ilk are never successful in turning our country into Iran and North Korea by granting unprecedented executive powers to the president, by eroding the Constitutional freedoms upon which this country was founded, by reneging on international agreements, international convections, international allies, and international diploacy, and by demanding absolute blind faith to government and military officials.

          If you are so ready to abrogate your freedoms, then maybe you would be more comfortable living in Iran or North Korea, but don't ask me to give up mine.
        • 
          Avg rating: (+8/-0 8)

          tdash

          Dec. 4, 2006, 10:12 a.m.

          "Your problem is you hate America."

          Since when does expressing disapproval of the president equate to hating America? I guess you must have really hated America during the Clinton years.

          Blindly following a failed administration shows more contempt for America than speaking out against the president.
      • 
        Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)

        Christalline

        Dec. 4, 2006, 10:51 a.m.

        Long after we are all dead and gone, and our descendents are looking back on these years, the removal of Sadaam will go into American History, and World History, as a good thing, not a bad one. He will be likened to the likes of Hitler, and the fact that America had the brass to remove him will be a positive outlook to the future. As far as the here and now? Who will ever remember your (or mine for that matter) bickering and moaning about politics? Bush they will remember because it is what happens when an American President has the balls to try and stand up to evil incarnate....He throws the world into a tailspin because were we all like to complain about everything, very few of us actually want to get our hands dirty. Leave it to someone else to fix our problems, we have better things to do, like sit on our rears in a chair and whine to the world about how smart we are, and how stupid they are...Romper room rings a bell.

        6 Replies

        • 
          Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)

          cushi

          Dec. 4, 2006, 1:08 p.m.

          Please, for goodness' sake, TAKE YOUR BLINDERS OFF!! IN many ways, Bush demonstrates evil incarnate as does many of his policies! You sound like one of those Jim Jones or David Karesh followers...sheesh!! It's getting harder and harder to sympathize with people who remain blind by choice.

          5 Replies

          • 
            Avg rating: (+5/-0 5)

            Christalline

            Dec. 4, 2006, 5:50 p.m.

            lol the "evil incarnate" is from his opinion and the world eye view on the matter (mostly the Kurds Sadaam slaughtered), I assure you I have no blinders on, nor do I pretend to believe that Bush is a sterling President. Do I like the man, yes, do I agree with everything he has done, no. BUT he is the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces of the greatest country on the planet, and I will leave judgement of his actions until we are out of Iraq and it is a stabalized (somewhat as it will never be totally so) and our troops have moved on to greener pastures and out of the kitty litter box.

            Our troops defend this country with their very lives, the least I can do is show a little respect for their Command structure, and I also see that it serves no purpose to bash the man in a public manner, except to embolden the very same people we are hoping to defeat, as they pay more attention to what "We the People" are saying than do our politicians. =

            4 Replies

            • 
              Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)

              ybdogsct

              Dec. 4, 2006, 10:18 p.m.

              "Bush they will remember because it is what happens when an American President has the balls to try and stand up to evil incarnate...."

              Actually, according to several polls of historians, lawyers, and pundits, Bush will likely be remembered as one of the worst--if not THE worst--president in American history. He will also be known as the president whose unpopularity handed BOTH the House and the Senate back to the Democrats after 12 years of Republican control.

              http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/artic

              http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0729-06.ht

              http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic

              "I will leave judgement of his actions until we are out of Iraq."

              Refusal to hold elected officials accountable for their actions is tantamount to absolute blind in them. Democracy demands that we let our elected officials hear our voices.
            • 
              Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)

              ybdogsct

              Dec. 4, 2006, 10:23 p.m.

              "The least I can do is show a little respect for [our troops'] Command structure."

              After the debacle in Iraq, even many of our servicemen don't support him. That's why the Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times, and Marine Times declared no confidence in Rumsfeld's (and by extension, Bush's) policy in Iraq and called for Rumsfeld's resignation:

              http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/artic

              http://politics.netscape.com/story/2006/11/04/army

              Maybe we should listen to our servicemen, who are tired of being stranded in Iraq without a concret strategy to end sectarian violence, who were trained to attack not parole, and who find themselves and their supply lines as sitting ducks to RPG and IED attacks. Maybe Bush should have listened to our servicemen when General Shinseki testified that it would take hundreds of thousands of troops to stabilize Iraq after Saddam's fall.

              2 Replies

              • 
                Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

                Christalline

                Dec. 5, 2006, 12:21 a.m.

                The Army Times in not a military news periodical. It is merely another magazine geared to soldiers, and just like any, has it's own voice. We suscribed to it all the way up until it published that issue. Afterwards we called and cancelled, I do not feel something we read for news should be political in nature. News is news, politics is for the people. They need to stick to reporting straight facts and let people make up their own minds on issues, otherwise we will run into the problem of being no more than mere drones to the media.

                1 Reply

                • 
                  Avg rating: (+5/-8 -3)

                  Christalline

                  Dec. 5, 2006, 12:26 a.m.

                  As far as listening to their voices,I assure you, I have yet to meet one soldier who would disrespect his or her Commander and Chief in a public forum..Not saying they are not out there, and not saying that soldiers and their families agree with every little thing the President's do, just that it is a respect and honor factor, both of which are HIGHLY prized attributes by the vast majority of soldiers. As far as leaving judgement until after we are out of there, my husband and those who serve with him see the need for them to be there, and far be it from me to tell them who are actually in the areas they should doubt their mission. My attitude is more lax on passing judgement, and more in "lets get it done", because it is a personal issue to me. I am more focused on not losing my husband, hence I do not move in a fashion in my life that would cause them to second guess themselves, or their mission, without knowing all the facts first. Judgement I leave to God for now.
    • 
      Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

      RedstateLib

      Dec. 3, 2006, 7:48 p.m.

      I believe you have confused Bruce with Toby Keith. I have never heard Bruce support this war. Though he did support the Dixie Chicks when they opposed the Presidents plan to invade Iraq. There has never been overwhelming support for this war a modest majority in the beginning and that quickly began to crumble when the public began to realise that this President had no plan just a bunch of slogans, Kinda like a Cheerleader, Pushem Back, Pushem Back, Rah Rah, Go Team Win.

      4 Replies

      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-1 -1)

        lvl99miner

        Dec. 3, 2006, 8:08 p.m.

        Thank you for Bruce correction! I'm bummed that you brought the Dixie Chicks up as I have no respect for them, and I don't like their music either. Regarding Mr. Bush, as I remember, the majority of the country was in shock and supported the president's desire to go after the criminals. The support did start to diminish quickly though. Did Mr. Bush have a plan? Of course he did! Was it a good plan? I'm sure he and many others thought so at the time(many didn't too). Does he question failure? I bet more than we realize!! Does he wish for a better way? I bet more than we realize!! Does he wish it never happened? I bet more than we realize!

        2 Replies

        • 
          Avg rating: (+6/-0 6)

          RedstateLib

          Dec. 3, 2006, 8:35 p.m.

          Yes and the road to hello is paved with good intentions. I would have respected him more if the generals who told him this was a bad idea had not been forced out so that he could retain their counsel if we weren't greeted with flowers and candy.

          1 Reply

          • 
            Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

            lvl99miner

            Dec. 3, 2006, 8:38 p.m.

            You may be right.
      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        farmerman

        Dec. 3, 2006, 10:33 p.m.

        Bruce is a big Socialist whiner like Mellencamp. I doubt either would have supported WW2.
    • 
      Avg rating: (+19/-0 19)

      torrent29

      Dec. 3, 2006, 7:47 p.m.

      Somehow in the republicans mind having sex with a woman of the age of consent is = to lying to the public about the reasons for invading iraq, stripping away the rights of individuals and bending the law wherever he feels like it.

      Sadly though this is the state of Wingnuttia, little in the way of actual facts, much in the way of kicking and screaming and carrying on like a child.

      6 Replies

      • 
        Avg rating: (+9/-0 9)

        lvl99miner

        Dec. 3, 2006, 8:19 p.m.

        We don't know if Bush is "lied" about the reasons for invading Iraq...we may have our opinions but we don't know if he lied or not BUT we do know that Clinton lied to the public. Lying is wrong and so is adultery. Is one worse than the other or are they both just wrong?

        Stripping away the rights of individuals? Could you give specific examples?

        Bending the law...again could you give specific examples?

        4 Replies

        • 
          Avg rating: (+1/-7 -6)

          farmerman

          Dec. 3, 2006, 10:23 p.m.

          So what. How many of these cases are there? Not many. We are at war. Try to get that through your head. There are going to be mistakes. There are going to be civilian casualities. Get used to it.

          3 Replies

          • 
            Avg rating: (+9/-1 8)

            rockmama

            Dec. 4, 2006, 12:47 a.m.

            "We are at war."

            It's obvious we are at war, but why exactly are we at war? Are we fighting terrorists or giving them a platform to recruit?

            Are we liberating Iraqi's? If so, when did they ask for our help? and why won't they step up on their own behalf?

            The President keeps saying we won't leave until we reach our objective, but years into this war, are we really sure of what the objective is? Besides 'winning', what are my nephews risking their lives for?

            The reasons seem to keep changing and I for one find the lack of clarity in the mission frustrating.

            I refuse to get used to war or the mistakes made in it's name.
          • 
            Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

            Lurch

            Dec. 4, 2006, 3:18 a.m.

            >We are at war. Try to get that through your head.

            Oh, that explains the tax cuts for the rich and the cons making more effort to make the tax cuts permanent than to supply our military with enough border armor.

            1 Reply

            • 
              Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

              deathray

              Dec. 4, 2006, 5:58 a.m.

              In fact, you are the one who is spinning. The rate at which the national debt is increasing is down this year, but the OMB an the CBO and the Treasury Deartment all agree that this is a blip in an otherwise increasing trend.

              The Bush Administration have added over 1.5 TRILLION USD to the national debt in 6 short years. Bad monetary policy is undermining the currency; the balance of payments hasn now shifted from positive to negative, and here you are crowing about a one year decrease in the annual defcit.

              If you knew anything about economics at all, you would have remained silent on the issue.
      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        kedirian

        Dec. 4, 2006, 12:12 a.m.

        Once the Republican "mind" has run out of arguments in support of its viewpoints, it starts whining about (im)morality, usually the one below the belt! But to even question the (im)morality of the mind (e.g. corporate shenanigans), oh no!
    • 

      lovermanComment has been removed: User banned.

      1 Replies

      • 

        lovermanComment has been removed: User banned.
  • 
    Avg rating: (+4/-0 4)

    m-simon

    Dec. 3, 2006, 5:42 p.m.

    I pretty much vote Republican these days, but I got to tell you I still hate Nixon.

    Hunter Thompson had him down. Inherently evil.

    Bush is bush league compared to Nixon.

    Nixon's VP - Spiro Agnew was a crook and 10X as vicious as Cheney.

    7 Replies

    • 
      Avg rating: (+4/-0 4)

      jeffery1

      Dec. 3, 2006, 6:45 p.m.

      Nixon will be seen as greater than your current freak. At least he knew diplomacy, as seen by how he handled China. This Republican government hasn't done one thing right, starting with operating a balanced government. the only reason you think Nixon is a crook is because the Democrats held Congress and provided leverage and questioned Nixon's constitutional and legal appropriateness, something the Republicans refuse to do.

      The Republicans have proven that they cannot be trusted with total power in specific and that a balance of parties is required in general. The experiment in total power has proven that absolute power corrupts.

      Cheney is nothing but a dick, pure an simple, as was Agnew. Thugs in power should be in jail.

      5 Replies

      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        lvl99miner

        Dec. 3, 2006, 7:22 p.m.

        I do agree that NO party should have complete power! lol, that's about all I agree with you on!!!

        4 Replies

        • 
          Avg rating: (+3/-0 3)

          farmerman

          Dec. 3, 2006, 9:28 p.m.

          So we shouldn't have elections? Afterall, it was the voters who voted Republicans in total control.

          3 Replies

          • 
            Avg rating: (+13/-4 9)

            mr-sir

            Dec. 4, 2006, 12:23 a.m.

            Jolly good comment there, that man Farmer!!

            I vote you 1 "good".
          • 
            Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)

            Lurch

            Dec. 4, 2006, 3:19 a.m.

            looks they learned from that huge mistake.
          • 
            Avg rating: (+7/-8 -1)

            cushi

            Dec. 4, 2006, 12:39 p.m.

            But it was also elections that voted them OUT of total control! Elections are a necessary evil. lol
    • 
      Avg rating: (+8/-4 4)

      Lurch

      Dec. 4, 2006, 3:12 a.m.

      Cheney and Bush just haven`t been investigated and/or caught yet, but they are still compared poorly to Nixon.

      Wait til after the investigations.
  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-5 -5)

    shredder

    Dec. 4, 2006, 11:34 a.m.

    $250 Billion!! That's how much has been spent on this so far!? What have been the fruits? Do you know what a president with even half a brain cell could do for his country, who has been through devastating hurricanes and severe poverty and homelessness, with $250 billion? Really, how has this war enriched any Americans' lives? Why did it start? 9/11? Don't feed me that garbage. Weapons of mass destruction? They haven't found any, so what are people dying over there for, innocent or not?

    What are supporters of this war supporting? Do they even know? None of this makes sense to me. What exactly is the goal? The desired outcome? If the soldiers pulled out now, what would happen exactly? Pardon my ignorance I just don't see the point, so much money being spent when there is such a need for it in your own back yard.

    Lastly, admit it or not, the only thing that has really come from this war is more raciscm. Muslim seems to be the new black and listening to people talk is disgusting.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  slate

  Dec. 3, 2006, 4:03 p.m.

  He Vants your Blood!
• 
  Avg rating: (+3/-19 -16)

  Spadecaller

  Dec. 3, 2006, 4:37 p.m.

  Goes to show you ... Fox's Tony Snow, Rummy Rumsfeld, The Great Decider, Cheney, Rove, ... who could figure where the leak is coming from; there is no integrity or credibility left in this administration. Instead of three coconut shells to look for the missing pea, we have a long table of them. Where did the leak come from? How about from the levies in New Orleans? Too many leaks, too many crooks.

  Try and guess who said this one:

  (One clue: he's a blogger on this thread.)

  "Hmmmm if Bush is Hitler then he needs to fire up the furnaces,,,, seems to be lots of cord wood around LOL."

  1 Reply

  • 
    Avg rating: (+8/-2 6)

    tdash

    Dec. 4, 2006, 10:21 a.m.

    "Hmmmm if Bush is Hitler then he needs to fire up the furnaces,,,, seems to be lots of cord wood around LOL."

    Come on now, Bush is no Hitler. At least Hitler could give a good speach.
• 
  Avg rating: (+4/-1 3)

  royal-m

  Dec. 3, 2006, 5:07 p.m.

  You can only bully and lie people into silence for so long before someones temper and pride and or ego gets the better of them. Somebody had obviously had enough and with the second and last of Bush's terms in the white house beginning to wind down there is nothing he can really do about it short of "getting medieval" when he really needs the appearence of reason

  There was a reason for the amendment that limits the length of time a president may serve
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  slate

  Dec. 3, 2006, 6:14 p.m.

  Heal SPADE now sit,,, roll over
• 
  Avg rating: (+16/-1 15)

  lfergie812

  Dec. 3, 2006, 6:59 p.m.

  They couldn't find who leaked the Plame information so how will they find this leak. But wait, they didn't want to find the Plame leak, did they??

  2 Replies

  • 
    Avg rating: (+4/-5 -1)

    farmerman

    Dec. 3, 2006, 9:33 p.m.

    They know who leaked it. It was that disgruntled Colin Powell assistant. I can't think of his name. But, I don't get your point? The Plame fiasco was a media attempt to get Rove and maybe Cheney. As it turned out the leak, not illegal, was by neither of these guys and wouldn't have made any difference legally, if they had done it.

    1 Reply

    • 
      Avg rating: (+3/-2 1)

      Lurch

      Dec. 4, 2006, 3:22 a.m.

      The Plame Fiasco was a cowardly right-wing attempt to silence admin critics at the cost of a CIA investigation into Iranian nuclear program.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  B737Tech

  Dec. 3, 2006, 7:32 p.m.

  lvl99miner,

  Yeah, Clinton was well aware of al Queda. In fact, Clinton had Richard Clark prepare a plan to go after OBL & al Queda but it was too late in his administration. Richard Clark & Geroge Tenet tried to get Rice, Cheney & Bush interested but they didn't believe that al Queda had the capability to cause much damage even when planes were mentioned in intercepts.

  Chek the link & the date.

  http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/inde
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  jere

  Dec. 3, 2006, 7:45 p.m.

  think Bush will be on tv tonite...or is it tommorrow nite to tell the world we will not leave Iraq till we finish the job...

  22 Replies

  • 
    Avg rating: (+4/-1 3)

    RedstateLib

    Dec. 3, 2006, 7:51 p.m.

    First he must define the job so we can tell when it is finished.

    21 Replies

    • 
      Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

      farmerman

      Dec. 3, 2006, 9:42 p.m.

      Don't you understand English? He has explained the end game so many times, I would think even a Lib. would get it.

      So let the poor old farmer try. The Mission is accomplished when the Iraq's are able to provide their own security and when they have established an Iraqi determined democracy.

      Now, you can argue that these things are not possible. You may be right. But don't play the stupid card, of we don't know what the end game is.

      19 Replies

      • 
        Avg rating: (+3/-0 3)

        RedstateLib

        Dec. 3, 2006, 9:56 p.m.

        Define provide their own security,and stable democracy. Does that mean there is no civil unrest, no shiites and sunni friction. No waring faction killing each other. Or is it the number of Iraq security forces trained, we now have more than double the Iraq forces than U.S. Forces. Or is derfined by the number of civilian deaths each day or the number of attacks each week. What exactly is victory in this war because I sure do see aclear definition just a vague goal.

        18 Replies

        • 
          Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

          farmerman

          Dec. 3, 2006, 10:31 p.m.

          Look how many people we have killed by gangs, robbers, punks and etc. but we consider that we have a stable society. Of course there is going to be ongoing fighting between the Muslims. They are Muslims.

          But a stable society is just that. By your concerns we should have the military in New Orleans, oh I forgot they are. Look at the killing in Ireland and Israel, but people were able to function. Over much of the country in Iraq, people are functioning well, it is just a few of the major cities that must be brought under control and militias disbanded.

          13 Replies

          • 
            Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

            RedstateLib

            Dec. 3, 2006, 11:04 p.m.

            That is my point exactly. How do you define the goal that lets us know we are victorious. According to your example we have already attained victory and the troops can come home and leave it to the Iraqi forces. So tell me what is the definition of victory. Since I am just a dumb former soldier who is used to clear objectives to define victory, I would like to know when can I say, we have won. WMD's if we find them do we win. Saddam removed from power,do we win.Democratic elections in Iraq do we win. We keep moving the goalpost on what this wars objective is how do we define victory if we change the objective every month.

            10 Replies

            • 
              Avg rating: (+16/-2 14)

              Virginia

              Dec. 3, 2006, 11:24 p.m.

              The troops come home when Laura Bush and Barney, the dog, say they will.

              9 Replies

              • 
                Avg rating: (+3/-0 3)

                RedstateLib

                Dec. 3, 2006, 11:37 p.m.

                I am beginning to fear you are correct and that would be tragic for the people we have left stranded there with no clear objective. U.S. Soldiers are in a foriegn country fighting a war they do not understand what victory is wondering what they need to accomplish so they can come home. That is a strategy for victory?

                8 Replies

                • 
                  Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)

                  Illuminate

                  Dec. 3, 2006, 11:50 p.m.

                  Our troops understand? What are you talking about

                  Check out the Support our Troops websites and see there comments or write a soldier a letter

                  How can U use a blanket statemnet like that

                  My boys and I know exactly whay we went to Iraq to look for WMD, remove a dick-tator, remove terrroists and secure the country for democracy (wether Bush was right in his sending us is another story)

                  but we damn sure knew why we were there!!! We didnt shirk our education and end up in Iraq

                  7 Replies

                  • 
                    Avg rating: (+4/-0 4)

                    RedstateLib

                    Dec. 4, 2006, 12:11 a.m.

                    Okay so there are no WMD's, The dictator has been removed, They had democratic elections, Why are you still there and how close are you to achieving the goals as defined and how are you expected to achieve them.
                  • 
                    Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)

                    RedstateLib

                    Dec. 4, 2006, 12:22 a.m.

                    Failure on the part of leadership is no reflection on the people who are trying to accomplish the mission.
                  • 
                    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

                    RedstateLib

                    Dec. 4, 2006, 12:28 a.m.

                    My nephews are there and have been there as well. I support them for their service. I only question whether they have been given what is required to succeed. A clear objective. A plan for obtaining that objective. A definition of what victory is in this battle.
                  • 
                    Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)

                    RedstateLib

                    Dec. 4, 2006, 12:34 a.m.

                    Perhaps you have this info. Could you share it with us.
                  • 
                    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

                    RedstateLib

                    Dec. 4, 2006, 12:42 a.m.

                    When I was in leadership training in the Army these were the basic requirements for a successful mission. If those under your command could not answer those questions then the failure of a mission was the leadership.
                  • 
                    Avg rating: (+12/-2 10)

                    RedstateLib

                    Dec. 4, 2006, 2:38 a.m.

                    How do you define victory?
                  • 
                    Avg rating: (+4/-3 1)

                    RedstateLib

                    Dec. 4, 2006, 2:44 a.m.

                    Come on I am on your side. I am former Army. I want to know have you been given all the info need to complete your mission and do you have a full understanding of what is expected in that mission. IF so recite it to me now and I will rejoice.
          • 
            Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)

            Lurch

            Dec. 4, 2006, 3:25 a.m.

            Just answer the freakin question.

            What is the definition, exactly, of a win? No con has defined it or has a plan to actually achieve it.

            1 Reply

            • 
              Avg rating: (+6/-0 6)

              RedstateLib

              Dec. 4, 2006, 1:10 p.m.

              Wishful thinking of the Admin got us into this mess. So I 'll turn your question back at you:

              Can you loser come up with a constructive plan other than wishful thinking? LOL
        • 
          Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

          RedstateLib

          Dec. 4, 2006, 2:19 a.m.

          Then we have acheived our goal. Can we bring the troops home.
        • 
          Avg rating: (+16/-1 15)

          RedstateLib

          Dec. 4, 2006, 2:35 a.m.

          MURDER PER

          STATE

          PER 100,000

          (1) Louisiana 13.0

          (2) Maryland 9.5

          (3) Mississippi 9.3

          (4) Nevada 8.8

          (5) Arizona 7.9

          (6) Georgia 7.6

          (7) South Carolina 7.2

          (8) California 6.8

          (9) Tennessee 6.8

          (10) Alabama 6.6

          Sorry Detroit does not even rank per capita
        • 
          Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)

          RedstateLib

          Dec. 4, 2006, 2:53 a.m.

          I could care less about the murder rate in Detroit. What I want to know is have the members of the U.S> military been given a clear mission and have they been directed how to complete the mission. All of the other BS is just that BS.
        • 
          Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

          RedstateLib

          Dec. 4, 2006, 3:15 a.m.

          Spoken like someone who has no clue. Thanks for playing.
    • 
      Avg rating: (+4/-0 4)

      Lurch

      Dec. 4, 2006, 3:23 a.m.

      >First he must define the job so we can tell when it is finished.

      He`ll never do that. It would make it too hard to flip-flop on a weekly basis.
• 
  Avg rating: (+11/-0 11)

  dobaci

  Dec. 3, 2006, 7:59 p.m.

  More conspiracy theory nut jobs and wishful thinking...God, get a grip idiots...
• 
  Avg rating: (+7/-0 7)

  Illuminate

  Dec. 3, 2006, 8:02 p.m.

  Americans and the Irai bashers that were for are just weak... A little adversity and the American public and those in charge that wont stay on board, "Well I told him this and that" Please all these people jumpng ship of a supposed sinking ship... GET off and go dunk your head in some Shiite or where the Sunni dont shine!!!!!!

  All this crap is giving me a headache... maybe we should round up all the dissentors and liberals and ship there @#$ to Iraq or Afganistan put them on the front lines

  If Democracy fails in Iraq we are in deep Shiite

  11 Replies

  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    RedstateLib

    Dec. 3, 2006, 8:25 p.m.

    Yes thats the answer send those of us that did not support the invasion to clean up the "shite", so the cheerleaders can walk away from the mess they created. How bout you cheerleaders go over and clean up you own mess instead of standing on the sideline yelling GO TEAM GO.

    Reguards

    From a former member of the U.S. Army who knew the invasion was a bad Idea.
  • 
    Avg rating: (+9/-0 9)

    Illuminate

    Dec. 3, 2006, 8:31 p.m.

    2 Tours and now I cant be redeployed over there due to injuries or I'd still be there or volunteer again

    No invasion is ever a good idea

    8 Replies

    • 
      Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)

      RedstateLib

      Dec. 3, 2006, 9:08 p.m.

      Then you see my point. A lot of cheerleaders who wouldn't have a clue what the game is really like, I am to old and no I would not volunteer for a war that I new was going to be a disaster before we started. After active duty I worked DOD in DC during the first gulf war. I fully understood the reasons for not going to in then and I could find no evidence that the predicted results would not still come true. You know what the predictions made during the first war have come true for us. It really is a shame.
    • 
      Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

      farmerman

      Dec. 3, 2006, 9:36 p.m.

      No invasion is ever a good idea

      So we should not have invaded Italy, France, Germany and etc. I think you are wrong on that statement

      6 Replies

      • 
        Avg rating: (+5/-0 5)

        Illuminate

        Dec. 3, 2006, 10:14 p.m.

        We almost didnt make it off the beaches of Normandy- No invasion is a good idea- this one just happened to be needed and luckily worked

        Not a good idea and not needed - are 2 different things

        2 Replies

        • 
          Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)

          farmerman

          Dec. 3, 2006, 10:40 p.m.

          You are trying to waffle after making a general statement that was unsupportable.

          But so be it. I respect you service to this Nation. You had the courage to risk your life for this Country. Someday you will see that this war is only now beginning and that you played a role in protecting this Country. Thank you again.

          1 Reply

          • 
            Avg rating: (+3/-1 2)

            Illuminate

            Dec. 3, 2006, 11:45 p.m.

            Death to Terrorists

            Hows that then we dont have to invade ;)

            It was not my intent to waffle

            Invasion is not a good idea but needed (up for deabate in Iraq)

            Hows that? Better?
      • 
        Avg rating: (+3/-1 2)

        RedstateLib

        Dec. 3, 2006, 10:15 p.m.

        We invaded France to liberate them because the were invaded by Germany. We invaded Italy and Germany because they were invading the rest of Europe in order to end their aggression. Who was it that Iraq invaded that we had not already defeated them and driven them out of. 10 years earlier?

        2 Replies

        • 
          Avg rating: (+12/-0 12)

          farmerman

          Dec. 3, 2006, 10:37 p.m.

          Duh, I was responding to the post that " no invasion is ever a good idea" not comparing those invasions to Iraq. You definitely have a problem comprehending the English language.

          You are so mad about Iraq and Bush, that you are ready to attack anything or anyone who might be defending our invasion or Mr. Bush.

          1 Reply

          • 
            Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

            RedstateLib

            Dec. 3, 2006, 11:15 p.m.

            No sir,

            You injected your comment into a disscussion about the invasion of Iraq as though it was relavent to that discussion. Since my father participated in the European invasions I thought that your invoking them in the discussion was a challange to defend them I chose to do so on his behalf.
  • 
    Avg rating: (+13/-2 11)

    kedirian

    Dec. 4, 2006, 12:18 a.m.

    More than 3000 dead soldiers..."a little adversity"?

    I don't think so!
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  evolute50

  Dec. 3, 2006, 8:12 p.m.

  This article was a bit opaque for my tastes. But so is so much of what passes for media commentary these days. Is anyone else frustrated by Time and Newsweek stories that promise big meat topical relevance only to find out their cover stories like "Is There A God?" ask more questions than they answer. The media, and this guy is a good example, seems to have lost its ability to cut to the chase.

  What we could discern from this is that staff at the White House are fed up. Well, some of us were fed up from the moment this administration took office. Nothing but forceful obfuscating since they day they stole the right to govern. So what do we expect? Glad these so-called loyalists have come to their senses.
• 
  Avg rating: (+4/-2 2)

  1-2-Oscar

  Dec. 3, 2006, 8:16 p.m.

  Whether you live on the right or the left, of one thing you can be sure--no one who knows anything will "leak" to Arianna Huffington or to anyone associated with her.

  One thing, however, does surprise me--no one here has yet suggested that Bush himself authorized the "leak," coming (as it did) just before his scheduled meeting with Maliki.

  1 Reply

  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    psydoc

    Dec. 3, 2006, 9:54 p.m.

    Look down...I did not see your post...great minds and all that.
• 
  Avg rating: (+11/-0 11)

  psydoc

  Dec. 3, 2006, 8:54 p.m.

  Hi all. Has anyone considered that this was not a "true" leak? Just maybe it helped both bush and maliki. There has been a lot of criticism of maliki lately, calling him a puppet, or saying he was not independent enough. This helped both bush and malaki. Gave bush credit for questioning malaki, and gave maliki distance from bush...best of both worlds for both of them.
• 
  Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)

  yobimmbo

  Dec. 3, 2006, 8:56 p.m.

  LOLROF! Holding my sides they hurt so much from laughter. Oh my God people....these are all POLITICIANS.....you are speaking of. What's another word for politician? Anybody? Skunk? Sneak? Slime? Vermine? These guys are all power hungry for the most part. And crooked to boot. Hey, show me a leader an I'll show you too much testosterone. It kinda goes with the territory. It cracks me up, the leaders of the world, hmmmmm. And we follow and follow. Sadly they are a neccessary evil, cuz the nice people don't want the job. No matter what party, they are all pretty crooked and underhanded. They all do their fair share to screw-up and the successes are accidental, so it seems. Religion and politics......I say give me sex, drugs and rocks and roll. LOLROF

  1 Reply

  • 
    Avg rating: (+7/-2 5)

    mr-sir

    Dec. 4, 2006, 12:29 a.m.

    Well! I guess we all know what YOU think of politicians now! I'm trying to think of something more constructive to say, but I'm sort of lost for words.

    (But I DO like the sex part, though)!
• 
  Avg rating: (+5/-1 4)

  psydoc

  Dec. 3, 2006, 8:58 p.m.

  [I say give me sex, drugs and rocks and roll.]

  Second! All in favor?
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Illuminate

  Dec. 3, 2006, 9:01 p.m.

  2nd

  4 Replies

  • 
    Avg rating: (+17/-0 17)

    psydoc

    Dec. 3, 2006, 9:04 p.m.

    Lay off the drugs for a while...we have already started voting...lol.

    3 Replies

    • 
      Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)

      Illuminate

      Dec. 3, 2006, 11 p.m.

      damn- gotta go reread RRO (Roberts Rules of Order)

      2 Replies

      • 
        Avg rating: (+14/-0 14)

        RedstateLib

        Dec. 3, 2006, 11:48 p.m.

        Nice debating with you.
      • 
        Avg rating: (+7/-0 7)

        psydoc

        Dec. 4, 2006, 12:14 p.m.

        That's ok, wing it...lol
• 
  Avg rating: (+9/-0 9)

  Ts-rose

  Dec. 3, 2006, 9:10 p.m.

  There are no such things as "leaks." This is the same old political manipulation of using the media to sell the political agenda of this stagnant USA political status quo.

  Even "Woodward and Bernstein" of the Nixon saga was politically orchestrated. Although I can no longer remember what it was that Nixon was supposed to have done that was so terrible he had to resign -- when compared to this present Bush as President in office.

  16 Replies

  • 
    Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)

    psydoc

    Dec. 3, 2006, 9:23 p.m.

    Ts-rose, Nixon was far to faithful to the group of people who orchestrated the breakin at the watergate complex.

    All he would have had to do was go on tv soon after the breakin and say, "Some over zealous people in my re-election committee broke into the offices of the DNC. I will thoughly investigate this and those responsible will be punished." He would have been a hero.

    15 Replies

    • 
      Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)

      farmerman

      Dec. 3, 2006, 9:54 p.m.

      And he loved his Country enough not to want it put through the impeachment process. Something old Slick never let get in his way to hold onto power. And I was not a Nixon supporter. But he was a Saint, compared to Slick.

      14 Replies

      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        psydoc

        Dec. 3, 2006, 9:57 p.m.

        You have a good point. I was not a Nixon supporter...he cost me my political career (we won't go into that, he probably did me a favour).

        Like Carter, Nixon was terrible domestically. Remember wage and price controls? Nixon was however a very insightful judge of how international actions affected the rest of the world.

        3 Replies

        • 
          Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

          psydoc

          Dec. 3, 2006, 10:01 p.m.

          Oh yeah, I forgot...Carter was just terrible. Very good man; very bad prez.

          2 Replies

          • 
            Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

            berbles

            Dec. 3, 2006, 10:04 p.m.

            There's been worse. Much worse.

            1 Reply

            • 
              Avg rating: (+5/-0 5)

              psydoc

              Dec. 3, 2006, 10:09 p.m.

              Would you care to expand on that?
      • 
        Avg rating: (+4/-3 1)

        RedstateLib

        Dec. 3, 2006, 10:19 p.m.

        He loved himself enough no to want to go down in history as being impeached.

        8 Replies

        • 
          Avg rating: (+9/-0 9)

          psydoc

          Dec. 3, 2006, 10:21 p.m.

          Who loved himself enough? Nixon?

          1 Reply

          • 
            Avg rating: (+7/-0 7)

            RedstateLib

            Dec. 3, 2006, 11:19 p.m.

            Yes. He fought it till there was no point fighting anymore.
        • 
          Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

          farmerman

          Dec. 3, 2006, 10:47 p.m.

          You don't know much about history do you? It was not until a group of senior Republicans, lead by Goldwater, I believe, went and met with Nixon that he decided to resign.

          Old Slick never had to worry about any group of Libs worrying about the damage to the Country, that would ask him to resign.

          5 Replies

          • 
            Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

            not2needy

            Dec. 3, 2006, 11:24 p.m.

            farmerman:

            Exactly what damage did Clinton do to the country besides having sex?? He left Dubya with a huge surplus that has been squandered, there were so many jobs there were barely enough people to fill them, of course there are always people who don't want to work!

            Clinton wasn't the first and he won't be the last president to have an affair, people have just never been so obsessed with any president's sex life before Clinton. Republicans were investigating his sex life before he was elected his first term, they were obsessed with it long before he became president, and the Whitewater issue wasn't proven so it couldn't keep him from being elected either. People were tired of republicans then and they are tired of them now.

            How is it that you all can forgive any republican pres anything, but there is no forgiveness in you for a democrat? Seems to me that if you all were the Good God Fearing People you credit yourselves to be, forgiveness would be paramount with you.

            4 Replies

            • 
              Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

              RedstateLib

              Dec. 3, 2006, 11:31 p.m.

              While Tricky Dick tried to cover up a break in at the DNC in order to steal an election and dinied it until the very end when he was forced to resign. Lets see cheat on your wife or steal an election. Yep Nixion was a much better American, NOT.

              1 Reply

              • 
                Avg rating: (+6/-3 3)

                Lurch

                Dec. 4, 2006, 3:41 a.m.

                That`s the same John Dean who finds the Bush admin to be illegal and doing despicable harm to our country.

                When one of Nixon`s inside men claims Bush is doing irrevocable harm to our nation and our constitution, time to wake up.
            • 
              Avg rating: (+19/-1 18)

              mr-sir

              Dec. 4, 2006, 12:31 a.m.

              ((Exactly what damage did Clinton do to the country besides having sex?? ))

              Hmmm... I dare not comment on that one!
            • 
              Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

              Lurch

              Dec. 4, 2006, 3:48 a.m.

              LMAO.

              Did you make that crap up yourself, or did you have help?

              Nobody accused Clinton of anything til the right-wing media went on the attack. Two years after the supposed incident, suddenly a "victim" is flooded with free legal advice from the Clinton-haters and decides to claim she was harrassed.

              BTW, nobody with any type of credibility whatsoever claimed rape against Clinton.

              Waco was 1/10,000th of the size of the iraq mistake.

              Now, how about Bush dodging the draft using daddy`s connections. Then after wasting $200K of military training during war, he goes AWOL right before his physical just after the military starts drug testing. Makes you go hmm. Bush did drugs much worse than marijuana up til his "youthful 40`s".

              Bush also gave away nuclearu tech to the whole world including the terrorists. Plus he gave them life when they were about to be wiped off the planet.
      • 
        Avg rating: (+3/-3 0)

        Lurch

        Dec. 4, 2006, 3:37 a.m.

        LOL.

        Too bad the cons didn`t love this country enough to not drag the office of the president through the mud for seven years. When Reagan was accused of similar things, the SC said a sitting president could not be sued over something that happened before he became president. Reagan had alzheimers by the time he left and nobody cared what he did beforehand. Come Clinton, the same Conservative SC flip-flopped and said ok. The right-wing media went after WhiteWater (Clinton et al lost money) with a greater fervor than Iran/Contra (exec branch defied laws of this nation to arm terrorists).

        How about when the cons gutted Clinton`s anti-terror law in 1996?

        No, too bad the cons love power more than they love our country. Otherwise, Whitewater, 9/11, and iraq most likely would have never happened.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Matteu00

  Dec. 3, 2006, 10:09 p.m.

  Smells like Rumsfeld was cleaning out the Homo-Erotic Iraqi Porn from his desk after the election and decided he wanted a Medal of Freedom too. Nice job Rummy!
• 
  Avg rating: (+4/-0 4)

  psydoc

  Dec. 3, 2006, 10:19 p.m.

  I'm still waiting for someone to reply to, "Has anyone considered that this was not a "true" leak? Just maybe it helped both bush and maliki. There has been a lot of criticism of maliki lately, calling him a puppet, or saying he was not independent enough. This helped both bush and malaki. Gave bush credit for questioning malaki, and gave maliki distance from bush...best of both worlds for both of them."
• 
  Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)

  Matteu00

  Dec. 3, 2006, 10:34 p.m.

  Nothing would surprise with this gang. I believe that is one of Rove's favorite tactics.
• 
  Avg rating: (+6/-0 6)

  psydoc

  Dec. 3, 2006, 10:37 p.m.

  Matteu, I am not sure who may have concocted this, but it is actually brilliant from a strategic perspective. This gives Bush an excuse to start a phased withdrawal. This is the best situation in which we could find ourselves at this time. It won't be a defeat for America because we have always said we will stay until they do not want us. If we screw up this opportunity we are dumber than anyone ever thought. At least that is my opinion.

  1 Reply

  • 
    Avg rating: (+8/-0 8)

    Lurch

    Dec. 4, 2006, 3:51 a.m.

    You`re close.

    The Bushies don`t give a shiite about Iraq, the iraqis, or our troops. They care more about their own reputations and trying to find a way to claim "we won" than about losing another 1,000 GIs or 100,000 innocent iraqis.
• 
  Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)

  greenmac

  Dec. 3, 2006, 10:43 p.m.

  Hi Doc...I agree it would be a good time to wind this war down and start worrying about your own counties problems.

  1 Reply

  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    psydoc

    Dec. 3, 2006, 10:46 p.m.

    We have sooo many. I do believe it is time to start cleaning house here. Thanks for the perspective greenmac.

The first 166 comments are shown. Show all 282 comments »