Bush is tearing the Republican Party apart

Richard Hobbs's picture

An excellent read by Peggy Noonan, former speech writer for President Reagan from the Wall Street Journal.

Too Bad
President Bush has torn the conservative coalition asunder.

Friday, June 1, 2007 12:00 a.m. EDT

What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical marker--"At this point the break became final." That's not what's happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future.

The White House doesn't need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don't even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.

For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.

But on immigration it has changed from "Too bad" to "You're bad."

The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism."

Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens? And often, though not exclusively, concerned conservatives? It is odd, but it is of a piece with, or a variation on, the "Too bad" governing style. And it is one that has, day by day for at least the past three years, been tearing apart the conservative movement.
I suspect the White House and its allies have turned to name calling because they're defensive, and they're defensive because they know they have produced a big and indecipherable mess of a bill--one that is literally bigger than the Bible, though as someone noted last week, at least we actually had a few years to read the Bible. The White House and its supporters seem to be marshalling not facts but only sentiments, and self-aggrandizing ones at that. They make a call to emotions--this is, always and on every issue, the administration's default position--but not, I think, to seriously influence the debate.

They are trying to lay down markers for history. Having lost the support of most of the country, they are looking to another horizon. The story they would like written in the future is this: Faced with the gathering forces of ethnocentric darkness, a hardy and heroic crew stood firm and held high a candle in the wind. It will make a good chapter. Would that it were true!

If they'd really wanted to help, as opposed to braying about their own wonderfulness, they would have created not one big bill but a series of smaller bills, each of which would do one big clear thing, the first being to close the border. Once that was done--actually and believably done--the country could relax in the knowledge that the situation was finally not day by day getting worse. They could feel some confidence. And in that confidence real progress could begin.

The beginning of my own sense of separation from the Bush administration came in January 2005, when the president declared that it is now the policy of the United States to eradicate tyranny in the world, and that the survival of American liberty is dependent on the liberty of every other nation. This was at once so utopian and so aggressive that it shocked me. For others the beginning of distance might have been Katrina and the incompetence it revealed, or the depth of the mishandling and misjudgments of Iraq.
What I came in time to believe is that the great shortcoming of this White House, the great thing it is missing, is simple wisdom. Just wisdom--a sense that they did not invent history, that this moment is not all there is, that man has lived a long time and there are things that are true of him, that maturity is not the same thing as cowardice, that personal loyalty is not a good enough reason to put anyone in charge of anything, that the way it works in politics is a friend becomes a loyalist becomes a hack, and actually at this point in history we don't need hacks.

One of the things I have come to think the past few years is that the Bushes, father and son, though different in many ways, are great wasters of political inheritance. They throw it away as if they'd earned it and could do with it what they liked. Bush senior inherited a vibrant country and a party at peace with itself. He won the leadership of a party that had finally, at great cost, by 1980, fought itself through to unity and come together on shared principles. Mr. Bush won in 1988 by saying he would govern as Reagan had. Yet he did not understand he'd been elected to Reagan's third term. He thought he'd been elected because they liked him. And so he raised taxes, sundered a hard-won coalition, and found himself shocked to lose his party the presidency, and for eight long and consequential years. He had many virtues, but he wasted his inheritance.
Bush the younger came forward, presented himself as a conservative, garnered all the frustrated hopes of his party, turned them into victory, and not nine months later was handed a historical trauma that left his country rallied around him, lifting him, and his party bonded to him. He was disciplined and often daring, but in time he sundered the party that rallied to him, and broke his coalition into pieces. He threw away his inheritance. I do not understand such squandering.

Now conservatives and Republicans are going to have to win back their party. They are going to have to break from those who have already broken from them. This will require courage, serious thinking and an ability to do what psychologists used to call letting go. This will be painful, but it's time. It's more than time.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father" (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on OpinionJournal.com.

Richard Hobbs's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Enigma's picture
Submitted by Enigma on Sun, 06/03/2007 - 8:01am.

What America needs, and what we have long needed, is a good conservative.

Bush is not now, nor has he ever been, a conservative. He, like his father, is a centrist, moderate, placater. Luke warm baby.

Why do you think that when the Republicans controlled congress and chaired the committees Bush spent all his time negotiating with Democrats? Bush has been wrong on Mexican immigration for years.

Bush is why Vicente Fox has the audacity to complain about our border agents and send his Army troops in to Texas.

Take America Back.
Gingrich/Thompson in 2008.

_______________________________________________________________________
Ground Zero - What Radical Islam Wants for You and Your Family


Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Sun, 06/03/2007 - 2:20pm.

"Bush is not now, nor has he ever been, a conservative. He, like his father, is a centrist, moderate, placater. Luke warm baby."

It's still a mystery to me why Dems HATE the man so. Why?

He panders to Ted Kennedy; doesn't put in strong Attorney Generals who will prosecute the crimes of the Clintons, Sandy Berger (who just got a mild reprimand, in my opinion), & others; expands federal government . . . .

Why does Carter hate Bush so? They are both appeasers, wanting to be liked above all else. (Bush has a backbone -- he just uses it to stand up to members of his own party.) Bush does seem like a more pleasant person, though, if you don't try too hard to pull him away from the mushy middle.

__________________________

Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both sides. ~ Margaret Thatcher

__________________________

There are still people in my party who believe in consensus politics. I regard them as Quislings, as traitors....To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects. ~ Margaret Thatcher

__________________________

I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air. ~ Margaret Thatcher

__________________________

If you just set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing. ~ Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady


Submitted by too bad on Sun, 06/03/2007 - 9:06pm.

people don't want Bush because he has been a horrible president. Katrian people were never helped, FEMA's head was a polit apointee, he knew nothing, but was rewarded because he was a Bush buddy, people died because of it. It has nothing todo with what you are talking about...it has everything to do with how the people who pay the taxes have been treated...they WILL NOT VOTE FOR ...ANYTHING..REP..it you don't know that ...you have been under a rock for a long time. Trying to sell your view of Bush is like trying to put lipstick on a whore with rotten teeth...it just aint gonna work...people see what has been done..and they will do everything in their power not to make another mistake like Bush.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sun, 06/03/2007 - 5:50pm.

You claim it is hate but I contend it is political differences. Labeling it hatred of George Bush allows you to dismiss it as misplaced emotion instead of having to confront the stark radicalism of this administration.

Here is a short list:

Torture, abrogation of the Geneva Convention, suspension of habeas corpus, extraordinary rendition, human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, preemptive war, Katrina, politics of fear and diversion of the military from hunting down Osama bin Laden.

Your Thatcher quotes show that you, like she, do not have a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.


Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Sun, 06/03/2007 - 6:52pm.

"misplaced emotion" -- My extremely logical mind is truly offended. Laughing out loud

From what I've seen from the Dems who speak the loudest (and your dad does come in that category sometimes), hatred does seem to be the most accurate description. They do not express their opinions as civilly as you do (well, most of the time).

I could find 100s (1000s?) of links to their unbridled emotion, if you like. And I'm sure there are others here willing to help.

"stark radicalism" -- How can I keep a straight face?

Perhaps there has been an over-reaching of federal power. (I've read Judge Andrew Napolitano's The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land.) I'm a conservative and want LESS federal government. However, in times of war, other presidents have acted in similar manner (Democrat FDR's internment of Americans of Japanese descent and Republican Lincoln's broad expansion of executive powers -- just to name two examples). Notice how "fair and balanced" I am! Laughing out loud

As far as torture, read here for an accurate assessment.

"do not have a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" --

Like your "decent respect" shown here?

And here?

BTW, I've followed your advice to "study Richard Hobbs' blogs" and his replies. Didn't he mention something about your dad and Castro recently? Eye-wink

You do not seem to have respect for my OPINIONS (which do not affect national policy or how the world perceives our country), a lesbian commentator, or a female Prime Minister. Is the only respect due to opinions that agree with yours?

What do you have against articulate women expressing political opinion? Smiling


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sun, 06/03/2007 - 8:20pm.

It is silly to accuse me of not showing decent respect to my political opponents here. Your first post about me was: “Jeff Carter - Son of President of Peanut”, in which you didn’t really refute anything I said. Then after I posted about Plame, you came back with, “Plame - Libby Fiasco -- What makes Jeff Carter an Expert?.” After I pointed out the screwiness of your misunderstanding of the whole affair and suggested you actually acquaint yourself with the trial, your pithy response was: “..read the transcript of the trial.-- Just don't have the time since I'm not retired and work long hours.”

Then you posted the most silly, “Jimmy Carter's Erroneous Memory,” in which you had the temerity to actually quote Alan Dershowitz, much to my delight! When I skewered you on that you replied, “Sorry, but I could not possibly read everything about every subject. Just thought that Dershowitz's comments deserved to be posted for others' consideration.”

Translation: I don’t know what I’m talking about so I’m posting someone else’s thoughts and I don’t know what they are talking about either.

Then Hack called you on the Plame affair and you responded with, “AF A-10 Hack, you don’t have enough intellect to waste!” in which you again admitted your profound ignorance of what you were blogging about with:

“At least I’m HONEST enough to say that I don’t have time to read everything about every subject.”

“That's why I can't know all of the minute details about every political debate.”

And again confessed your lack of original thought processes with: “I confess that the term "President Peanut" came from Dick Yarbrough.”

And then you say, “You do not seem to have respect for my OPINIONS” and again accuse me of, “What do you have against articulate women expressing political opinion?” as if I have something against women!

No!

My comment that you do not, “have a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" was a response to the stupid stuff Thatcher was spouting and you were posting. I thought it was appropriate because you were propping up the views of a Tory English politician and I was refuting it by quoting John Hancock in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence! I am not surprised you did not recognize it. You have your heroes and I have mine I guess.

Yes, I saw Richard’s cute comment about Castro. Richard goads me and I goad him back. The difference, and the reason I suggested that you review his blogs, is that Richard seems to be able to uphold his end of an argument with some semblance of factual analysis (Richard, if you read this I am going to deny I ever said it.)

Now you are showing yourself to be again, almost completely clueless, posting a link to some right-wing gas bag apologists for torture claiming they were made to wear panties on their head. And you throw it up to me as “an accurate assessment” of torture condoned by you and the Bush administration???

You want to know what is real in the world? Read this:

U.S. Recruits a Rough Ally to Be a Jailer

You want to see the pictures of people boiled alive by the people you support, look at this:

Our Presidents New Best Friend Boils People Alive

That’s what is real about torture. That is an “accurate assessment.”

Quit hiding behind the fact you’re a woman. Nobody cares. Think for yourself. And try to know something about what your talking about when you attack me.


Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Sun, 06/03/2007 - 10:09pm.

"silly"

"screwiness"

"most silly"

"temerity" = Foolhardy disregard of danger; recklessness

"profound ignorance"

"lack of original thought processes" -- My thought processes work quite well, but thank you for your concern. Laughing out loud

"stupid stuff"

"I am not surprised you did not recognize it." -- A little arrogant there, aren't you?

"almost completely clueless" -- Well, at least you qualified it. Laughing out loud

"right-wing gas bag" -- Sounding like Bas/MAV here!

"Nobody cares." Sad

"Think for yourself." -- I do and don't need your advice.

"And try to know something about what your [sic] talking about" -- Oh, I do!

Denise.. my apologies

JeffC - Thanks for the apology!

Cool down. My post was to Enigma, not you.


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sun, 06/03/2007 - 11:56pm.

"silly"

"screwiness"

"most silly"

"temerity" = Foolhardy disregard of danger; recklessness

We are in 100% agreement!

"profound ignorance"

Again, we are in 100% agreement.

"I am not surprised you did not recognize it." -- A little arrogant there, aren't you?

So you recognized it? Uh... No...

"right-wing gas bag" Yes, absolutely! Did you see the pictures of the person who was boiled? A little different from that claptrap "panties on the head" you were posting. Huh?

"Nobody cares." No. No one does. In fact I have reviewed the blogs and you were the only one who ever refered to the fact that you were a woman and that somehow that mattered. Although you have drug out that fact several times.

"Think for yourself." -- I do and don't need your advice.

Great! Then I don't have to endure your posting other people's comments and thoughts which you can't back up?

"And try to know something about what your [sic] talking about"

You got me there. Sorry, "you're". I know better and my English teacher will rightly be appalled.

"Cool down. My post was to Enigma, not you."

My fault I guess. When you title your post: "Jeff C -- "Political Differences" ????" I just assume its to me not Enigma.


Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 10:16pm.

Disclaimer: I am trying to be calm and rational in my response in an attempt to clear up what I perceive to be a misunderstanding or due to someone’s bad day. Smiling

* Just to clarify a few comments since there seems to be significant miscommunication here *

Jeff: My fault I guess. When you title your post: "Jeff C -- "Political Differences" ????" I just assume its [sic] to me not Enigma.

I first posted a question to Enigma (Why do Dems [I named your dad as an example] hate Bush?) in response Enigma's comment “Bush is not now, nor has he ever been, a conservative. He, like his father, is a centrist, moderate, placater.”

You responded to this post about 3 hours later (Denise.. the short list), with charges of “stark radicalism” and torture, etc. You also said, “Your Thatcher quotes show that you, like she, do not have a decent respect to the opinions of mankind” (which I took to be a personally derogatory comment).

Mixer commented on your post: “Jeff, What has happened to you? When did you become so emotive and angry, And toward Denise no less. "...you, like she, do not have a decent respect to the opinions of mankind." Come on man- pull it together!”

Then I posted my response to “Short List” with "Jeff C -- 'Political Differences' ????" (before reading Mixer’s comments, or any others, if there were any).

_____________________

Here is a response similar to one that I would have expected you to say to my comment about your dad.

Jeff: I don’t think that my dad hates Bush. [He doesn’t have a voodoo doll or anything such thing Eye-wink ] Isn’t that a harsh word? Here are some examples of why I think that their differences have not become personal.

Denise: You’re right. Hate is an emotion, not a fact, and cannot be proven. I should have said that your dad’s body language and words communicate to me (and perhaps to others) that he has more than dislike for Bush. I do not recall [I’ve been around a few lawyers in my life Smiling ] hearing your dad actually say that he hates Bush. Of course, someone can pretend to be a friend and end up stabbing the “friend” in the back ("Et tu, Brute?”) or selling out the “friend” for 30 pieces of silver ("Greetings, Rabbi!" with a kiss -- Matthew 26:14).

Tone of voice, body language, and word choice could be revealing about a person’s inner feelings, though. But any analysis of such actions would be strictly opinion. Smiling

Since neither of us can judge the “thoughts and intents” of your dad’s heart (Hebrews 4:12), we perhaps should restrict ourselves to tangible matters: words and actions (which can both be subject to interpretation). Here are some reasons that I think that differences have become personal for your dad . . . . If you can refer me to any comments that Bush has made against your dad that could be judged personal in nature, I’d like to see them also. If Bush has made such comments, then both men need to focus on the issues.

_____________________

Jeff: So you recognized it? Uh... No...

This is in reference to your comment in “Short List”: “Your Thatcher quotes show that you, like she, do not have a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.”

You added these comments in “Denise ... Please”: “My comment . . . was a response to the stupid stuff Thatcher was spouting and you were posting” (another comment that I took to be personally derogatory because of the words that I italicized).

Then you explained your Tory-Hancock allusion (a little obscure, in my opinion).

If you had put the words in quotation marks [as your English teacher would require of you in order to avoid plagiarism and misunderstanding Eye-wink ], perhaps I might have realized that the words came from the Declaration. “Stupid” me, but I didn’t know that we were playing “Find the Hidden Quote.” Calling someone disrespectful and indecent tends to bring up emotions that can interfere with reasoning. Also, I GREATLY depend on my computer for my memory! Laughing out loud

I do, however, recognize “when in the course . . . “ and “we hold these truths . . . .” Smiling

Jeff: “You have your heroes and I have mine [John Hancock?] I guess” (which I took to be a personally derogatory comment).

BTW, in what way is Margaret Thatcher “stupid” (if you care to explain sometime)?

_____________________

Jeff: "Now you are showing yourself to be again, almost completely clueless, posting a link to some right-wing gas bag.”

Is that showing “decent respect” for an opposing opinion, or would it be considered inflammatory rhetoric?

“almost completely clueless” and your numerous other personally derogatory comments –- Aren’t you making a judgment about me without even knowing me except for the posts that I’ve made in the last 3 months? I would rank those comments equal to any that I’ve made about your dad and worse than I’ve made about you, in my opinion, of course.

Actually, I perceive these comments to be more out-of-line (inappropriate) since your dad is a public political figure and says and does things that are open to comment by the ones who are paying his pension. And, as I do not have the privilege of working for the Carter Center and studying politics all day (as I seem to recall, but correct me if I’m mistaken), I might not be as fully informed as you are (or some other bloggers here), but I am more informed than you give me credit for and am willing to consider any comments and links that you and others give.

Also, the context was comparing U.S. and al Qaida interrogation methods (at least that was my frame of reference). The link was not just for you since this is not a private conversation.

Perhaps I should have said, instead of “an accurate assessment,” “another opinion.”

_____________________

“Improving Communication from the Federal Government to the Public”

Rule #31: Use youre spell chekker to avoid mispeling and to catch typograhpical errers.

Rule #34: Use the apostrophe in it's proper place and omit it when its not needed.

I was just trying to keep the “New blogging rules” (which are so ingrained in me that I have a hard time not noticing mistakes)! Laughing out loud

_____________________

Perhaps we can try to clear up other statements in subsequent posts.

To quote your hero (and one of mine as well): “A decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation [or into disagreement].”

“I find that sometimes I can let emotion and passion take over, and sometimes a bit of frivolity, and makes me pen some ignorant comment that should have just stayed in my head” (Richard Hobbs). Good words to ponder.

There can be “the propensity of respondents to curse each other, denigrate each other, dismiss, excoriate, and sling mud.” But then there can also be civil disagreements.

"Talkbacks"


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Tue, 06/05/2007 - 11:48am.

To answer a few of your points:

Margaret Thatcher says, “There are still people in my party who believe in consensus politics. I regard them as Quislings, as traitors....”

It is my personal opinion that this statement is stupid. Our country is founded on the Constitution which set up a government based in consensus politics which led me to use a quote from the Declaration of Independence to oppose the words of another English politician.

You objected, “Your Thatcher quotes show that you, like she, do not have a decent respect to the opinions of mankind” (which I took to be a personally derogatory comment).”

I believe that regarding those who support our system of consensus politics “as Quislings, as traitors” shows that people who hold that opinion “do not have a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.” I cannot help it if you find me quoting the Declaration of Independence to be “personally derogatory” to you.

As to referring to the link you posted as being from some “right-wing gas bag,” you have to remember that this is a family blog. You posting it as an “accurate assessment” is typical of Republicans who either outright support torture or claim, as the article you linked did, that it is a “panties on the head” kind of thing. No big deal. In fact, it has been decried by the top military officials in the US and banned by the military. It has done incalculable damage to the reputation of the United States. Justifying it by saying, “well al-Qaeda does it” is particularly odious to me because I believe America’s values should be better than savage barbarians and that their values are not something we should strive to emulate.

I’m afraid we will just have to disagree on this.


Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Fri, 06/08/2007 - 4:00am.

When I linked to "Comparative Torture 101" by Mac Johnson (who is a medical researcher and a regular contributor to HUMAN EVENTS), I was responding to your adding torture to the discussion. I'd remembered briefly seeing the "graphic how-to guide to torture, published by Al Qaeda for the training of its operatives" on TV but couldn't find it online very easily. Then tonight I find out why.

"NINE DAYS AFTER PHOTOS RELEASED, NETS AND TOP PAPERS SILENT OVER AL-QAEDA TORTURE HOUSE"

"To their credit, CNN and Fox News Channel ran stories on the declassified material. Yet nine days since the material was released, neither ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times nor The Washington Post has run a story with the photos of this shocking evidence of al-Qaeda’s barbarism."

Yet most of the liberal media are deliberately silent. This is the same self-righteous liberal media that ran more than 6,000 stories and countless photos of Abu Ghraib and the abuse of prisoners there by several U.S. soldiers. Where are they now? Why will they not show the American people what al-Qaeda is actually doing in Iraq right now? Whose side are they on?

“Al-Qaeda’s crimes are a thousand-fold more brutal than anything done by any derelict U.S. soldier. Yet it’s obvious now that the liberal media want to focus on U.S. misdeeds, and alleged misdeeds, and theoretical misdeeds instead of giving the truth to the American people.”

___________________________________

My posting a link to a current news story does not equate to my "condoning" torture. Linking to an article does not necessarily endorse all that the writer says. I've never commented on torture one way or another on this blog. I certainly do not support boiling people alive or anything close to it, and I doubt President Bush does either, IMHO. It was a gross misrepresentation to say that I do.

Although I've not experienced it personally, I really doubt that being boiled alive is much more horrible than being dragged to death behind a car. Both methods seem extremely painful and cruel to me. I don't know from which method a person would die sooner. Being burned with a blow torch or any of the other torture methods described are all inhumane and sadistic. But so is beheading someone.

(Do you have evidence of boiling people alive occurring in U.S. military prisons? I certainly would condemn such behavior by anyone. That is also why I don't agree with be "overly friendly" with dictators, such as Castro, or with Putin with his KGB ties.)

I realize that there is a lot of controversy on this subject, and I'm willing to listen to both sides (John McCain, for example). I think that, if you've read any of my other posts, you'd know that I find the sexual nature of the abuse to be degrading and very wrong.

___________________________________

In response to the allegations about Abu Ghraib, "the U.S. Department of Defense removed seventeen soldiers and officers from duty, and seven soldiers were charged with dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault, and battery. Between May 2004 and September 2005, seven soldiers were convicted in court martials, sentenced to federal prison time, and dishonorably discharged from service. Two soldiers, Specialist Charles Graner [who was charged with conspiracy to maltreat detainees, failing to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty, and maltreatment, assault, indecency, adultery, and obstruction of justice], and his former fiancée, Lynndie England, were sentenced to ten years and three years in prison, respectively."

[England's charges being reduced and her conviction on only four counts of maltreating detainees and one count of committing an indecent act -- what happened to "assault consummated by battery"? -- disgusts me. She only served 521 days. As a civilian Graner had worked as a guard at a prison where abuse allegations had become common, and his wife charged him with abuse. All the charges against him were dropped, except for conspiracy to maltreat detainees, assault and committing indecent acts. (Dereliction of duty for willfully failing to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty and maltreatment; obstruction of justice; and maltreatment of detainees were dropped.) He was not held accountable for a prisoner who died a blood clot from trauma. Such leniency, whether in the military or in criminal trials, also disgusts me.]

Donald Rumsfeld: "These events occurred on my watch. As secretary of defense, I am accountable for them. I take full responsibility. It is my obligation to evaluate what happened, to make sure those who have committed wrongdoing are brought to justice, and to make changes as needed to see that it doesn't happen again. I feel terrible about what happened to these Iraqi detainees. They are human beings. They were in U.S. custody. Our country had an obligation to treat them right. We didn't do that. That was wrong. To those Iraqis who were mistreated by members of U.S. armed forces, I offer my deepest apology. It was un-American. And it was inconsistent with the values of our nation."

Have there been subsequent charges of such abuse?
___________________________________

"a family blog" -- So, why did you post the pictures of the tortured man? My post was less graphic, I believe. I believe that adults are the main readers here; not too many children (or adults either, especially females, from what I've observed) are willing to follow (read) political debate/discussion. Smiling

I in no way want to limit graphics that support your position, nor do I expect you to agree with "right-wing gas bags" such as Brent Bozell (whose articles I often agree with) or Mac Johnson. But I doubt that you'd catch me using such a phrase for any liberal journalist [except for Rosie who thinks she's an expert journalist Eye-wink ].

Again, the consensus that I was referring to (the context) was Bush's expecting all Republicans to go along with his and Ted Kennedy's immigration "reform." (There was also the Harriet Miers faux pas that once again had him at odds with a significant part of his base.) Consensus in these situations means "Shut up and go along with it." Bush seems more conciliatory to members of the opposite party than to the members of his own party who hold to their principles (see the M. Thatcher quote), which tends to rile some of us. Smiling

I'm in no way against debate, if that's how you took the M. Thatcher quotes. Why else would I respond to you (and to some others here who are less than civil)? Smiling I do have the historical perspective of what happened to Poland and of Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement (who also laid many of the foundations of the welfare state in Britain) and the world looking the other way while millions of Jews and others were killed and later doing the same thing while millions died under Stalin and other communist dictators. That is the kind of appeasement that I'm against.


Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Fri, 06/08/2007 - 10:46am.

You note that Al Queda also tortures people and wonder why it's not given more exposure in the news?

Are you really that dense, Denise? (hmmmm, come to think of it..."Denise" is an anagram for "I Dense"!)

People are NOT surprised that a band of murderous religious fanatics utilize torture to promote their terrorist policies.

People ARE surprised when GOVERNMENTS, as a matter of STATE POLICY, utilize torture to promote their own policies.

Your unspoken conflation that we should be able to torture people because (wait for it...*drumroll) the other side does it tooooooo is indicative of a lack of maturity in your mindset.

______________________________________________
The 12 Warning Signs of Fascism


Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Fri, 06/08/2007 - 1:13pm.

Even torture is condoned and covered up by conservatives, for conservatives! They will go to any extreme to protect their candidates. They haven't got the sense God gave a goose to select the bad stuff and say so.

Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Fri, 06/08/2007 - 10:32am.

As usual, you have dismantled the house of straw men that Jeff has constructed and fought off all of those red herrings he keeps releasing on you.
____________________________________________________________________
I am sure by now you have learned the tactics liberals employ:

Give partial information and use information out of context

Accuse you of condoning things you do not

Utilize spurious correlations

Quote poorly conducted 'Push Polls'

Discount any argument, or statement of fact, as 'political motivated and unreliable' while using same (i.e. can use CNN but not Fox News)

Call documents 'fake' when used to impeach statements

Pretend only Republicans are partisan

Quote liberal Republicans as 'Republicans'

Claim you support ALL conservative views (talk show hosts, etc.)

Change the subject (dodge)

Answer one portion of one question while ignoring the others

Point out resignations of conservatives for misconduct as proof of corruption while ignoring the refusal to resign and the re-election of liberals who are guilty (hypocrisy)
____________________________________________________________________

Regardless, you have mastered the ability to disassemble the emotive and accusatory diatribe of the left and your blogs are a pleasure to read.

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Fri, 06/08/2007 - 1:51pm.

I assume calling documents “fake” refers to my calling the IDR document you referred to as fake. Of course, this totally disregards the fact that I referenced three sources from the CIA saying it was faked. Seemed like a legitimate challenge to me.

However, that is not why I’m blogging back for you. I saw where you wrote: “Quote liberal Republicans as “Republicans.” I loved the quotes! They are not real Republicans. This follows along with the “Bush is not a conservative” theme which is now flowing through the right-wing noise machine by these people:

Peggy Noonan in The Wall St. Journal in 2004: “Mr. Bush is the triumph of the seemingly average American man. He's normal. He thinks in a sort of common-sense way. He speaks the language of business and sports and politics. He's responsible. He's not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world.”

Rich Lowry, Editor National Review, October 2004, “In his bid for reelection, George W. Bush deserves the support of conservatives. . . . Bush has shown evidence of being able to learn from his mistakes. We have made political strides in Iraq. . . . Bush deserves conservative support, as well, on domestic issues. . . It has been a long and difficult four years, largely as a result of events not of Bush's making. For conservatives, however, backing Bush's reelection should be an easy decision.”

Bob Novak, March 2003, “[Bush is] a president who may be more basically conservative than Ronald Reagan.”

Rush Limbaugh, July 2004, “Reagan was right just as George W. Bush is today, and I really believe that if Reagan had been able he would have put his hand on Bush's shoulder and say to him, "Stay the course, George." I really believe that.”

Jonah Goldberb, November 2003, “But it is now clear that Bush's own son takes far more after his father's old boss than he does his own father, at least politically speaking. From tax cuts (and deficits, alas), to his personal conviction on abortion, to aligning America with the historical tide of liberty in the world, George W. Bush has proved that he's a Reaganite, not a "Bushie." He may not be a natural heir to Reagan, but that's the point. The party is all Reaganite now. What better sign that this is now truly and totally the Gipper's Party than the obvious conversion of George Bush's own son?”

Frank J. Gaffney Jr in a National Review editorial 2004, “President Bush not only memorializes Ronald Reagan's moral compass and strategic vision but emulates them…”

Dinesh D'Souza, “Bush has Reagan's moral clarity.”

John Podhoretz from the first page of his book: Bush Country: How George W. Bush Became the First Great Leader of the 21st Century---While Driving Liberals Insane”

“One might conclude, from his conduct over the past three years, that George Bush was put on this earth to do two things: First, to lead the United States into the third millennium, with all its terrifying challenges and wondrous opportunities. And second to drive liberals insane. He’s succeeding brilliantly at both. In thirty-six months, George W. Bush has led this nation’s military into two wars – innovative engagements that will serve as the blueprint for martial conflict for the foreseeable future."

Gosh, don’t you know Podhoretz has got to be embarrassed by that gushing mush now!


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Fri, 06/08/2007 - 2:23pm.

Jeff - you can argue with someone else about this. As a lifelong conservative, I know one when I see one and George Bush is NOT a conservative.

If you think Bush is a conservative, I can only pray to God that Tancredo, Gingrich or Thompson get elected so you can see what a real conservative looks like.

Big spending, big government, failure to cut government programs, compromises with liberals, pork spending, failing to secure the borders, failing to use political pardons, I digress.

I have heard some ridiculous statements from you before Jeff but that takes the cake.

Neither Bush (1 or 2) comes close to being a conservative.

The last conservative President was Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Being pro-life doesn't make you a conservative any more than being pro-choice makes you a liberal.

Ugh.

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Fri, 06/08/2007 - 3:11pm.

You wrote: “I have heard some ridiculous statements from you before Jeff but that takes the cake.”

Please re-read my post. I didn’t say Bush was conservative. I was just quoting what Peggy Noonan, Rich Lowry, Bob Novak, Rush Limbaugh, Jonah Goldberb, Frank J. Gaffney Jr., Dinesh D'Souza and John Podhoretz said.

You’d think that those people, for sure for sure, could spot a conservative!

As to the race, what do you think about Thompson against Hillary? Law and Order vs. Cold Case.


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Fri, 06/08/2007 - 4:04pm.

I have six brain cells left. Four of them are under the influence of a strong narcotic. I am in pain from surgery and will be back in for more on Monday. Oh boy.

I am not smart enough to entertain you today. Besides, I just finished the most boring blogs with bas I have ever written. I'm sure they made no sense.

I'll catch you when I get my already limited IQ back. Keep writing - I need to read - I just need a substitute to write for me until I get well.

Ugh.

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Fri, 06/08/2007 - 7:26pm.

You rest and recover. We will try to entertain ou until you get back. I hope you get well soon.


pentapenguin's picture
Submitted by pentapenguin on Fri, 06/08/2007 - 5:47pm.

I'll catch you when I get my already limited IQ back. Keep writing - I need to read - I just need a substitute to write for me until I get well.
My mixer, even with two brain cells you can still run rings around the libs! Maybe you should cut back to one to be more fair. Eye-wink

Get well brother! Smiling

------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Get Firefox for a better, safer, and more enjoyable web browsing experience!


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Fri, 06/08/2007 - 5:52pm.

It is always a pleasure to read your blogs. I know you and Denise can keep things rolling along until I am back in the 'mix' Eye-wink

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed


Gump's picture
Submitted by Gump on Tue, 06/05/2007 - 9:53am.

Denise,
I always seem to be replying to your comments directed towards Jeff, but here goes, anyway. You made some excellent points, especially the last couple of paragraphs. I really appreciate the "Talkbacks" link, and wish everybody on this website would take the time to read it. (You too, Dollar) I really hate it when discussions descend into "us vs. them" spear throwing. Some of us are critical of the Bush administration and the war in Iraq, and others support the war. I believe the war in Iraq was an ill-advised diversion from the war on terror, but that's my opinion. You and I appear to be on opposite sides of that fence, but at least you are willing to discuss it in a calm, rational tone, and I appreciate that. You will certainly convince more people with your approach than by the name-calling that goes on so often on this site. Thanks!


Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Tue, 06/05/2007 - 9:28am.

I just couldn't get past the first 50 paragraphs and lookups. No real sense there either--repeating others messages! Sorry.

Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Tue, 06/05/2007 - 8:37am.

We all get a little frustrated sometimes and say things we shouldn't. Your blog is excellent. I have sensed an increased level of frustration in Jeff recently. I believe he is a good man, I disagree with his politics, but I think he is sincere.

You are a very intelligent and excellent writer with a broad base of knowledge. The one thing I have learned that frustrates (angers) a liberal the most is whenever a conservative is not some "mouth breathing, knuckle dragging, inbred, sloth" as they are taught to believe.

If you refuse to get in the gutter with them, and have a non- emotional discussion, and you stay focused on facts, logic and issues, it makes them angry (you will win the argument).

Keep doing what you are doing but realize that, as a female conservative (like Condi Rice, Rachel Hunter, Phyllis Schlafly, Michelle Malkin, Bo Derek, Ann Coulter, Elizabeth Dole, Kay Bailey Hutchison, etc.) you are going to be treated in the same manner as minority conservatives who don't tow the line and parrot the liberal mantra ( like Don King, Clarance Thomas, Michael Steele, Herman Cain, etc.). You will not fit their stereotype and will therefore suffer the consequences (wrath) of their frustration and misplaced anger.

Before Bush took office, no minority had occupied any of the four highest-profile Cabinet positions—attorney general and the secretaries of the Defense, State and Treasury departments. Now, Alberto R. Gonzales, a Hispanic, is attorney general. Condoleezza Rice is the first African American woman to be secretary of state; her predecessor, Colin L. Powell, was the first African American named to that post. Look what the left has done to these fine people.

74 men, women and children were murdered in the inferno at Waco on April 19, 1993 under the presidency of Bill Clinton, with Janet Reno and Wesley Clark in supporting roles.

Elian Gonzalez, was rescued off the coast of Florida after his mother and stepfather drowned when their powerboat capsized on Thanksgiving, 1999 trying to get him here. Elian's relatives in Miami did not want the boy sent back, saying that he would not be free in Castro's Cuba; Reno (and Clinton) sent him back while millions of illegals flooded across the Mexican border.

After being on the job only 11 days, Attorney General Janet Reno had the Justice Department moving and shaking. She fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys around the country "to build a team" that represents "my views" and those of the President.

Janet Reno went on to serve 9 years as the Attorney General. This is how liberals reward those who tow the line Denise.

Alberto Gonzalez had 8 prosecutors fired. he didn't kill any Americans like Janet Reno. He didn't fire all 98 like Janet Reno. He didn't sentence a child to a life of communism by sending him back to Cuba like Janet Reno. As a result, he had to face congressional hearings, libelous slander, and defamation of character and has been asked to resign by the left (and some pseudo-conservatives).

That's what happens when a minority doesn't tow the line Denise.

Wear you persecution with honor Denise and keep on thinking for yourself. Kudos!

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed


Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 3:19am.

Jeff, playing the misogyny card is a perfectly acceptable debate technique. It must be, becoz Denise is a master debater...she'll tell you so herself!

You do realize you're now subjecting yourself to Denise's endless barrage of cut-and-paste non-sequiturs, mindless grammatical proofreading and her telling you what you MEANT to say. All this for having the temerity to disagree with her!

And besides, an opinion is just like a fact if you pray hard enough. That's why many of Denise's links are to hotair.com and townhall.com. Having an arsenal of soundbites sure beats thinking for yourself! (Denise, this is usually where you bring up "DemocraticUnderground.com"....a website I've never been to, btw)


Submitted by skyspy on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 5:07am.

Bring back the old avatar. That was by far the best picture of w yet. It made him look a little more intelligent than he is.

Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Sun, 06/03/2007 - 7:27pm.

Denise, I don't think you'll have much luck convincing people that Jeff Carter of all people is a misogynist.

He's simply pointing out the established fact that you have no respect for opinions other than your own.


Submitted by skyspy on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 5:21pm.

This avatar is funny too.

Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Sun, 06/03/2007 - 9:04pm.

Back to name-calling again . . . . Laughing out loud

I just simply quote Jeff's words and let the "facts" speak for themselves. I suspect that he only respects liberal Democrat women, and I do have a right to my opinion and my vote.

"the established fact" -- You really must practice your logic skills so that you can distinguish between facts and opinions. Laughing out loud

"no respect for opinions other than your own" -- That's why I quote so many opinions of others, I suppose, but then you Dems accuse me of not having one original thought. Laughing out loud

By "pecksniff" are you referring to the “highly respected British perfumery [that] has long been renowned for its bespoke fragrances” where one can buy Mood Therapy products, or are you calling me a drunk?

And which character are you?

Tom Pinch, who is kind, simple, and honest in everything he does and carries in his heart an undying love and adoration for Mr. Pecksniff

Young Martin Chuzzlewit, the protagonist of the story, who, by the end of the story, becomes a reformed character, realizing and repenting of the selfishness of his previous actions

I do love to read Dickens. Laughing out loud
________________________

Out! Out! You demons of stupidity!


Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Sun, 06/03/2007 - 9:19pm.

You continually quote people out of context, plus ascribe "Meanings" and motives to what you feel you thought they were trying to say.

I imagine you were the debate champion of your home school!

I think it's instructive how Jeff had you dead to rights on your lack of truthiness, and you still lacked the class to admit you were wrong. Nope, you had to take a swipe at Jeff's father. Classy one, you are.

I shudder to think of the example you are setting for your children.

By the way, HERE is an interesting read on today's evangelical being much less confrontational and intolerant than the Jerry Falwells and Denise Connors of a generation ago. Seems your "alway complain, never explain" belligerent brand of Christianist/Republican Jesus theology is losing it's cachet amongst real Christians.

Wow, they can keep their faith and still respect a differing opinion. How totally unlike you! Smiling


hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 11:32am.

I think it is funny how you can castigate someone for being intolerant when you have to be at least as intolerant as Denise, and I really loved your phrase "you still lacked the class to admit you were wrong". You have no class at all, and you have never admitted to being wrong on this site. You ascribe your meanings to everything even if you have to take something wrong to avoid the real topic, as I said once before you don't wear your self- rightousness well, but you do wear it.

I yam what I yam...Popeye


Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 12:42pm.

goodness you are grumpy today!

Your situational outrage is wearing a tad thin. I always apologize when I am in the wrong. For example, I criticized the commencement speaker's slurred words at the MHS graduation 2 weeks ago. When I was informed she had a speech defect, I immediately came on here and apologized.

I will NOT apologize, under ANY circumstances, for having an opinion. Furthermore, I also do NOT apologize for my intolerance of other people's (*coughDenisecough*) intolerance.

Now why don't you must up as much "class" as you can and apologize to me for stating I "never" apologize? Laughing out loud
______________________________________________
The 12 Warning Signs of Fascism


Enigma's picture
Submitted by Enigma on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 1:10pm.

Your guest speaker does not have a physical malformation or a speech impediment. She is lousy at public speaking and could not handle the stadium effects. Apparently, she is also rude, a know-it-all and widely disliked for her anti-white and anti-male perspective. She pawrt of da nue Fayeete Cowntee move-ment - you bettu recognize boy. You can put me in the group of those that doesn't like your avatar by the way.

________________________________________________________________________
Ground Zero - What Radical Islam Wants for You and Your Family


hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 1:02pm.

I could care less what you say to Denise, or the penguin for that matter, I'm talking about your little disgusting ditty about Tug, who you said attacked you personally, when all she did was disagree with you. No, you'll get no more apologies from me, I used to give you the benefit of the doubt, but no more, you always demand from others what you yourself won't give.

I yam what I yam...Popeye


Tug13's picture
Submitted by Tug13 on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 4:13pm.

Smiling


hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 4:40pm.

Thanks

I yam what I yam...Popeye


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 8:04am.

Not good bas - really hurts your cause. It's also deeply offense to Jews, moderates and Bush supporters. Considering I am two of the three of those - IMO of course.

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 4:20pm.

You anarchist you. You're still my favorite liberal.

(Thanks for losing Hitler though ... seriously.)

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed


Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 12:19pm.

Basmati has every right to stand behind President George W Bush and mock him. 1st Amendment. Smiling Remember... in this country even terrorist and hate-mongers have a right to spew their hatred.

So from now on it should be Mr. Basnazi Gollum to you. Heil Basnazi! Sticking out tongue

________

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 12:47pm.

Bas is absolutely entitled to use whatever avatar he wishes. Every 'Yin' has a 'Yang' bas and I are the 'Yin' and 'Yang'. Eye-wink

I was simply voicing my opinion on the 'Hitler' avatar - bas has been doing so good lately!

Stop stirring the pot you naughty kitty!

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Sun, 06/03/2007 - 6:41pm.

Jeff, What has happened to you? When did you become so emotive and angry, And toward Denise no less. "...you, like she, do not have a decent respect to the opinions of mankind." Come on man- pull it together!

((((Torture, abrogation of the Geneva Convention, suspension of habeas corpus, extraordinary rendition, human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo,))))) All one complaint. You Hate him don't you?

(((((preemptive war, politics of fear and diversion of the military from hunting down Osama bin Laden.))))) Second Complaint. You REALLY hate him don't you?

(((((Katrina)))))??? Democrat Governor, Senator, and Mayor. Act of God. You blame Bush. Hate is about right Jeff.

You actually did forget a few important things like, Saddam Hussein, Fort Dix Six, JFK Bomb plot, liberating 21 million people, free elections, full employment, record high stock market, increased national performance in public schools.

Heck - I’m not sure Denise, but I have been told that Bush did all this stuff in his first five years:

Signed two income tax cuts, one of which was the largest dollar-value tax cut in world history.

Supports permanent elimination of the death tax.

Turned around an inherited economy that was in recession, and deeply shocked as a result of the 9/11 attacks.

Is seeking legislation to amend the Constitution to give the president line-item veto authority.

In process of permanently eliminating IRS marriage penalty.

Increased small business incentives to expand and to hire new people.

Initiated discussion on privatizing Social Security and individual investment accounts.

Killed Clinton's "ergonomic" rules that OSHA was about to implement; rules would have shut down every home business in America.

Passed tough new laws to hold corporate criminals to account as a result of corporate scandals.

Reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains.

Signed trade promotion authority.

Reduced and is working to ultimately eliminate the estate tax for family farms and ranches.

Fight Europe's ban on importing biotech crops from the United States.

Exempt food from unilateral trade sanctions and embargoes.

Provided $20 million to states to help people with disabilities work from home.

Created a fund to encourage technologies that help the disabled.
Increased the annual contribution limit on Education IRA's from $500 to $2,000 per child.

Make permanent the $5,000 adoption tax credit and provide $1 billion over five years to increase the credit to $10,000.

Grant a complete tax exemption for prepaid or college tuition savings plans.

Reduced H1B visas from a high of 195,000 per year to 66,000 per year.

Signed the No Child Left Behind Act, delivering the most dramatic education reforms in a generation (challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations). ((The very liberal California Teachers union is currently running radio ads against the accountability provisions of this Act.))

Announced "Jobs for the 21st Century," a comprehensive plan to better prepare workers for jobs in the new millennium by strengthening post-secondary education and job training, and by improving high school education.

Is working to provide vouchers to low-income students in persistently failing schools to help with costs of attending private schools. (Blocked in the Senate.)

Requires annual reading and math tests in grades three through eight.

Requires states to participate in the National Assessment of Education Progress, or an equivalent program, to establish a national benchmark for academic performance.

Requires school-by-school accountability report cards.

Established a $2.4 billion fund to help states implement teacher accountability systems.

Increased funding for the Troops-to-Teachers program, which recruits former military personnel to become teachers.

Successfully executed two wars in the aftermath of 9/11/01: Afghanistan and Iraq. 50 million people who had lived under tyrannical regimes now live in freedom.

Saddam Hussein is now dead. His two murderous sons are dead. All but a handful of the regime's senior members were killed or captured.

Leader by leader and member by member, al Qaida is being hunted down in dozens of countries around the world.

Of the senior al Qaida leaders, operational managers, and key facilitators the U.S. Government has been tracking, nearly two-thirds have been taken into custody or killed.

The detentions or deaths of senior al Qaida leaders, including Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, the mastermind of 9/11, and Muhammad Atef, Osama bin Laden's second-in-command until his death in late 2001, have been important in the War on Terror.

Disarmed Libya of its chemical, nuclear and biological WMD's without bribes or bloodshed.

Continues to execute the War On Terror, getting worldwide cooperation to track funds/terrorists.

Has cut off much of the terrorists' funding, and captured or killed many key leaders of the al Qaeda network.

Initiated a comprehensive review of our military, which was completed just prior to 9/11/01, and which accurately reported that ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE capabilities were critical in the 21st Century.

Killed the old US/Soviet Union ABM Treaty that was preventing the U.S. from deploying our ABM defenses.

Has been one of the strongest, if not THE strongest friend Israel has ever hand in the U.S. presidency.

Part of the coalition for an Israeli/Palestinian "Roadmap to Peace," along with Great Britain, Russia and the EU.

Pushed through THREE raises for our military. Increased military pay by more than $1 billion a year.

Signed the LARGEST nuclear arms reduction in world history with Russia.

Started withdrawing our troops from Bosnia, and has announced withdrawal of our troops from Germany and the Korean DMZ.

Prohibited putting U.S. troops under U.N. command.

Paid back UN dues only in return for reforms and reduction of U.S. share of the costs.

Earmarked at least 20 percent of the Defense procurement budget for next-generation weaponry.

Increased defense research and development spending by at least $20 billion from fiscal 2002 to 2006.

Ordered a comprehensive review of military weapons and strategy.

Ordered a review of overseas deployments.

Ordered renovation of military housing. The military has already upgraded about 10 percent of its inventory and expects to modernize 76,000 additional homes by the end of this year.

Is working to tighten restrictions on military-technology exports.

Brought back our EP-3 intel plane and crew from China without any bribes or bloodshed.

Challenged the United Nations to live up to their responsibilities and not become another League of Nations (in other words, showed the UN to be completely irrelevant).

Killed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court.

Told the United Nations we weren't interested in their plans for gun control (i.e., the International Ban on Small Arms Trafficking Treaty).*

The only President since the founding of the UN to essentially tell that organization it is irrelevant. He said: "The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of UN demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" We all know the outcome and the answer.

Told the Congress and the world, "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country."

Improved government efficiency by putting hundreds of thousands of jobs put up for bid. This weakens public-sector unions and cuts undeserved pay raises.

Initiated review of all federal agencies with the goal of eliminating federal jobs (completed September 2003) in an effort to reduce the size of the federal government while increasing private sector jobs.

Led the most extensive reorganization the Federal bureaucracy in over 50 years: After 9/11, condensed 20+ overlapping agencies and their intelligence sectors into one agency, the Department of Homeland Security.

Ordered each agency to draft a five-year plan to restructure itself, with fewer managers.

Converted federal service contracts to performance-based contracts wherever possible so that the contractor has measurable performance goals.

Strengthened the National Health Service Corps to put more physicians in the neediest areas, and make its scholarship funds tax-free.

Doubled the research budget of the National Institutes of Health.

Signed Medicare Reform, which includes:
A 10-year privatization option.
Prescription drug benefits: Prior to this reform, Medicare paid for extended hospital stays for ulcer surgery, for example, at a cost of about $28,000 per patient. Yet Medicare would not pay for the drugs that eliminate the cause of most ulcers, drugs that cost about $500 a year. Now, drug coverage under Medicare will allow seniors to replace more expensive surgeries and hospitalizations with less expensive prescription medicine.

More health care choices: As President Bush stated, "…when seniors have the ability to make choices, health care plans within Medicare will have to compete for their business by offering higher quality service [at lower cost]. For the seniors of America, more choices and more control will mean better health care. These are the kinds of health care options we give to the members of Congress and federal employees. What's good for members of Congress is also good for seniors.

New Health Savings Accounts: Effective January 1, 2004, Americans can set aside up to $4,500 every year, tax free, to save for medical expenses. Depending on your tax bracket, that means you'll save between 10 to 35 percent on any costs covered by money in your account. Every year, the money not spent would stay in the account and gain interest tax-free, just like an IRA. These accounts will be good for small business owners, and employees. More businesses can focus on covering workers for major medical problems, such as hospitalization for an injury or illness. At the same time, employees and their families will use these accounts to cover doctors visits, or lab tests, or other smaller costs. Some employers will contribute to employee health accounts. This will help more American families get the health care they need at the price they can afford.

Has CONSTRUCTION in process on the first 10 ABM silos in Alaska so that America will have a defense against North Korean nukes.

Has ordered national and theater ballistic missile defenses to be deployed by 2004.

Announced a 9.7% increase in government-wide homeland security funding in his FY 2005 budget, nearly tripling the FY 2001 levels (excluding the Department of Defense and Project BioShield).
Before DHS was created, there were inspectors from three different agencies of the Federal Government and Border Patrol officers protecting our borders. Through DHS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) now consolidates all border activities into a single agency to create "one face at the border." This not only better secures the borders of the United States, but it also eliminates many of the inefficiencies that occurred under the old system. With over 18,000 CBP inspectors and 11,000 Border Patrol agents, CBP has 29,000 uniformed officers on our borders.

The Border Patrol is continuing installation of monitoring devices along the borders to detect illegal activity.

Launched Operation Tarmac to investigate businesses and workers in the secure areas of domestic airports and ensure immigration law compliance. Since 9/11, DHS has audited 3,640 businesses, examined 259,037 employee records, arrested 1,030 unauthorized workers, and participated in the criminal indictment of 774 individuals.

Since September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard has conducted more than 124,000 port security patrols, 13,000 air patrols, boarded more than 92,000 vessels, interdicted over 14,000 individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally, and created and maintained more than 90 Maritime Security Zones.

Announced the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), an internet-based system that is improving America's ability to track and monitor foreign students and exchange visitors.

Over 870,000 students are registered in SEVIS. Of 285 completed field investigations, 71 aliens were arrested.

The US-VISIT program began to digitally collect biometric identifiers to record the entry and exit of aliens who travel into the U.S on a visa. Together with the standard information, this new program will confirm compliance with visa and immigration policies.

Eliminated INS bureaucratic redundancies and lack of accountability.

Split the Immigration and Naturalization Service into two agencies: one to protect the border and interior, the other to deal with naturalization.

Signed the workplace verification bill to prevent hiring of illegal aliens.

Established a six-month deadline for processing immigration applications.

Information regarding nearly 100% of all containerized cargo is carefully screened by DHS before it arrives in the United States. Higher risk shipments are physically inspected for terrorist weapons and contraband prior to being released from the port of entry.

Advanced technologies are being deployed to identify warning signs of chemical, biological, or radiological attacks. Since September 11, 2001, hundreds of thousands of first responders across America have been trained to recognize and respond to the effects of a WMD attack.

Is urging federal liability reform to eliminate frivolous lawsuits.

Killed the liberal ABA's unconstitutional role in vetting federal judges. The Senate is supposed to advise and consent, not the ABA.

Is nominating strong, conservative judges to the judiciary.

Supports class action reform bill which limits lawyer fees so that more settlement money goes to victims.

Signed an EO enforcing the Supreme Court's Beck decision regarding union dues being used for political campaigns against individual's wishes.

Ordered Attorney General Ashcroft to formally notify the Supreme Court that the OFFICIAL U.S. government position on the 2nd Amendment is that it supports INDIVIDUAL rights to own firearms, and is NOT a Leftist-imagined "collective" right.

Signed TWO bills into law that arm our pilots with handguns in the cockpit.

Currently pushing for full immunity from lawsuits for our national gun manufacturers.

Endorses and promotes "The Responsibility Era." President Bush often speaks of the necessity of personal responsibility and civic volunteerism. He said, "In a compassionate society, people respect one another and take responsibility for the decisions they make in life. My hope is to change the culture from one that has said, if it feels good, do it; if you've got a problem, blame somebody else — to one in which every single American understands that he or she is responsible for the decisions that you make; you're responsible for loving your children with all your heart and all your soul; you're responsible for being involved with the quality of the education of your children; you're responsible for making sure the community in which you live is safe; you're responsible for loving your neighbor, just like you would like to be loved yourself."

Started the USA Freedom Corps, the most comprehensive clearinghouse of volunteer opportunities ever offered. For the first time in history, Americans can enter geographic information about where they want to get involved, such as state or zip code, as well as areas of interest ranging from education to the environment, and they can access volunteer opportunities offered by more than 50,000 organizations across the country and around the world.

Established the The White House Office and the Centers for the Faith-Based and Community Initiative — located in seven Federal agencies. The faith-based initiative supports the essential work of these important organizations. The goal is to make sure that grassroots leaders can compete on an equal footing for federal dollars, receive greater private support, and face fewer bureaucratic barriers. Work focuses on at-risk youth, ex-offenders, the homeless and hungry, substance abusers, those with HIV/AIDS, and welfare-to-work families. The White House released a guidebook fully describing the Administration's belief that faith-based groups have a Constitutionally-protected right to maintain their religious identity through hiring — even when Federal funds are involved.

Issued an EO implementing the Supreme Court's Olmstead ruling, which requires moving disabled people from institutions to community-based facilities when possible.

Increased funding for low-interest loan programs to help people with disabilities purchase devices to assist them.

Revised the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8 rent subsidies to disabled people, permitting them to use up to a year's worth of vouchers to finance down payments on homes. HUD has started pilot programs in 11 states.

Committed US funds to purchase medicine for millions of men, women and children now suffering with AIDS in Africa.

Heeding the words of our own Declaration of Independence, the president laid out the non-negotiable demands of human dignity for all people everywhere. On January 29, 2002, he said, "No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. We have no intention of imposing our culture. But America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity." As stated by the President, they are a virtual manifesto of conservative principles:
Equal Justice
Freedom of Speech
Limited Government Power
Private Property Rights
Religious Tolerance
Respect for Women
Rule of Law

Wow, no wonder you liberals hate the man! But heck, I'll let Denise respond- she's a lot smarter than I am!
____________________________________________________________________

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed


Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Tue, 06/05/2007 - 10:58am.

Klaatu is coming! Gort will help him!
Electricity will disappear. Computers won't work in anything with no juice.
Farming will become our primary industry again out of necessity, by hand, and whale oil at night.
Autos into plowshares.
Horses valuable.
Stock traders now farmhands.
Bankers now pin hookers.
Airline employees now gypsies.
Hospitals now in tents using ether.
Vigilantes enforcing the law---former hip-hoppers.
All water from springs and wells--very scarce. No car washing however.
Correspondence by written word and pony express.
Democratic administration finally makes electricity with corn liquor generators for one light per room use.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 12:07am.

I'll admit I threw in Katrina on the short list as a lark. But "Signed trade promotion authority?" When people fifty years from now talk about the Bush administration they ain't going to be discussing "signed trade promotion authority." I think my short list covered the main points they will be discussing pretty well.

And Mixer, I assume you threw in, "Limited Government Power" as a joke right?

As for "conservative principles," do you really want to go there?


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 8:31am.

Basmati's Avatar of comparing Bush and Hitler, the 'Katrina Lark' and the many and frequent little things like that keep me from being able to move toward becoming even a moderate democrat. I try to place blame squarely where it belongs. I try not to take the 'all or nothing' mentality. That combined with my view on economics makes me a 'moderate' 'conservative'. I have voted for a few Democrats along the way but by a wide margin I have voted Republican.

By the way, I voted for your father in '76 and Reagan in '80. I was in the Air Force during those years - as you know.

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed


Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Sun, 06/03/2007 - 9:39pm.

You definitely are well-informed. Enjoyed reading your post.

When I think of an emotive Dem, Howard Dean comes to mind but Rosie is a close second. Laughing out loud

The Scream Video

Emotional Rosie

"Psychologist Thinks Political Preference Is Half Genetic"

People who are more conscientious and prefer order, structure and closure in their lives tend to be more conservative, whereas creative people who are open to new experiences tend to be more politically liberal.

Liberals seem to be drawn to chaos and novelty [i.e., weirdness] — for instance, they tend to support social change — whereas conservatives prefer reassurance and structure, and thus like to maintain the status quo.

[The] findings, detailed in American Psychologist, suggest that environmental factors, or the types of situations people encounter in their lives, determine approximately half of their political preferences.

For example, when people fear death or terrorism, or are in a state of uncertainty, they tend to become more conservative, he said.

Laughing out loud


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 8:09am.

You are correct- your definitions will hold up in any psychological publication or paper you submit.

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed


Gump's picture
Submitted by Gump on Sun, 06/03/2007 - 8:47pm.

You make him sound like the best thing since George Washington! The problem is that all these "accomplishments" are about as accurate as his "Mission Accomplished" speech on the aircraft carrier. I'm not doubting your accuracy in quoting them, and I'm certainly not going to take the time to fact-check all that. That's what Jeff is good at. My point is that we are decidedly NOT better off than when "W" took over. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that our military is strained to the breaking point, while the radical Islamic fundamentalists are on the rise, and have more recruits than ever. Sure, we are killing a few of them every day, but for every one we kill or capture, two or three more join their cause. That's not winning, that's just killing. Our national debt has steadily climbed during the Bush administration. It was declining during the Clinton years. This is fiscal conservativism?

I'm not saying that Bush has not done anything positive at all. For example, I thought he did a good job leading the nation in responding to 9/11. I'm just saying that the net effect of his administration has been an overall decline in our national strengths. I don't hate him, but I detest the arrogance and short-sightedness that got him into this mess that he has put our nation into.

Mixer--are you saying that you really believe we are better off now than we were seven years ago?


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 8:03am.

The question isn't whether we are better off now than we were 7 years ago (like the largest attack on American soil in history, 9/11/2001, was a good thing and Katrina, the largest most expensive natural disaster in the Nations History was a joyful experience).

Think about what we have just gone through as a nation Gump. NONE of which was chosen or decided by any anyone- including Bush. Indeed, what we are in the beginning of - whether you we want to be or not.

Do you seriously blame George Bush for the Cat 5 Hurricane and the worldwide attacks and rise of the Islamic Fundamentalists that has been building sine the 70's (unchecked)? Do you need a list of attacks preceding his administration- including those on the World Trade centers?

The question is:

Are we better off now, under Bush's Presidency, than we would have been under Kerry and Edwards or Gore and Lieberman's. (Considering 25% of those guys are no longer Democrats because Lieberman was rejected due to the intolerance of the DNC and liberal democrats in general), I can comfortably say 'YES', I think we were very fortunate to have had Bush as opposed to Gore-Kerry or Edwards during this, perhaps the most difficult and critical time in the nation's history. I know you will disagree, but we are not in a quagmire Gump, we are in the BEGINNING of a world wide war that will last until there is a clear victor. Which of those guys do you think would have done a better job with the hand we have been dealt and why Gump?

Of course, all I can do is speculate- just like you.

I am no fan of Bush Gump. I am also no defender of Bush; however, he is OUR President and I will support him while we are at war. As you may have noticed, my Avatar is a criticism of yet another policy I do not support that Bush does. Regardless, on national security I support him. I think he is a moderate at best, a big government spender, and has some loyalties that have clouded his judgment. As I have said here many times- he is the lesser of two evils.

You tell me who you think which Democrat that is running for President would have done a better job righting the economy after two of the largest disasters in the nation's history and how. While you are at it, tell me which Democrat you support that would have handled the worldwide war on terror better than Bush has.

Personally, my finances have never been better. I feel safe despite the nation being at war and the economy is enjoying full employment. Tell me again, why is the country so bad off?

By the way, you need to look at the history of the National Debt as a part of the GNP (especially during war time) and make a decision as to whether the growth of the economy and the increase in revenue will, once again, reduce the debt over time. If you will look, you will see that the national debt has been much higher and I would be willing to bet your personal debt is a greater percentage of your income than the national debt is of the GNP.

I loved what the republican congress did during the Clinton years, it was a great start and a good way to take advantage of the "peace dividend" since the first Iraq war was so short and so well defined. I hate that we didn't dismantle a host of government programs though. I am for cutting spending and taxes and reducing government. I have yet to see a man who has the same stance as I do but mine is an educated position that I have held for many years. I am a supply side economist.

I do not want a President that stains the dresses of his interns and National Defense is the number one most important issue followed closely by getting the government off the backs of small business. I do not think the government has any business in the abortion decision so I disagree with many (but not all) Republicans. When I check all of my issues, I consistently end up voting for Republicans because they come the closest to representing my views.

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed


Xaymaca's picture
Submitted by Xaymaca on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 7:40pm.


I know you will disagree, but we are not in a quagmire Gump, we are in the BEGINNING of a world wide war that will last until there is a clear victor.

Hey, c'mon!

Please, please stop trying to equate this "War on Terror" with World War II. This is not World War II. This is not World War III. You are not the Greatest Generation(tm). This is not the End Of Days. Is the fight against Islamic Terrorism important? Yes. Is it the end of the world? No. So have a beer and relax. We (Americans) are a lot tougher than we look.

-reserved for something more clever to say


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 8:31pm.

With all do respect Jamaica, YOU are not exactly the world's foremost authority on terrorism. I didn't spend twenty years in the military to leave my kids to deal with this mess.

It appears to me, and to the CIA, FBI, and the OHS and al qaeda that we are in the middle of something .... but maybe you would prefer we just whistle past the terror attacks like Clinton did. This started in the 70s and has escalated consistently since.

In November 1979, a militant Islamic mob took over the U.S. embassy in Tehran, the Iranian capital, and held 52 Americans hostage for the next 444 days.

The rescue team sent to free those hostages in April 1980 suffered eight fatalities, (5 were cohorts of mine) making them the first of militant Islam's many American casualties.

Others included:

April 1983: 17 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut.

October 1983: 241 dead at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.

December 1983: five dead at the U.S. embassy in Kuwait.

January 1984: the president of the American University of Beirut killed.

April 1984: 18 dead near a U.S. airbase in Spain.

September 1984: 16 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut (again).

December 1984: Two dead on a plane hijacked to Tehran.

June 1985: One dead on a plane hijacked to Beirut.

After a brief reprieve, the attacks then restarted:

Five and 19 dead in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996,

224 dead at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998

17 dead on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.

Simultaneously, the murderous assault of militant Islam also took place on U.S. soil:

July 1980: an Iranian dissident killed in the Washington, D.C. area.

August 1983: a leader of the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam killed in Canton, Mich.

August 1984: three Indians killed in a suburb of Tacoma, Wash.

September 1986: a doctor killed in Augusta, Ga.

January 1990: an Egyptian freethinker killed in Tucson, Ariz.

November 1990: a Jewish leader killed in New York.

February 1991: an Egyptian Islamist killed in New York.

January 1993: two CIA staff killed outside agency headquarters in Langley, Va.

February 1993: Six people killed at the World Trade Center.

March 1994: an Orthodox Jewish boy killed on the Brooklyn Bridge.

February 1997: a Danish tourist killed on the Empire State building.

October 1999: 217 passengers killed on an EgyptAir flight near New York City.

In all, 800 persons lost their lives in the course of attacks by militant Islam on Americans before September 2001 - more than killed by any other enemy since the Vietnam War. (Further, this listing does not include the dozens more Americans in Israel killed by militant Islamic terrorists.)

Of course we have had 9-11-2001 with nearly 3000 killed

We have also lost 3,500 killed in Afghanistan and Iraq

We have foiled over 70 attacks including at Fort Dix and the JFK Airport.

So, Jamaica, if you do not recognize the importance of what is going on, and you obviously don't, you are truly ignorant in every sense of the word.

Perhaps you are angry because a few of your island brothers were caught plotting to blow up JFK?

Perhaps you are related to the Fort Dix Six?

Maybe you just don't think the World Trade Centers were actually attacked. Are you a Rosie Fan Jamaica?

Maybe you should just roll a great big Bob Marley joint and it will all just go away.

As for me- I'll fight for this country and your casual island ignorance will not deter my patriotism or commitment.

By the way, in case you are having trouble with our language:
I never said:

"...equate(d) this "War on Terror" with World War II(no one ever said it was) . This is not World War II(no one ever said it was) . This is not World War III(no one ever said it was) . You are not the Greatest Generation(tm)(no one ever said we were) . This is not the End Of Days.(no one ever said it was) "

Your avatar and moniker tell me where your loyalty and identity are based. As for me, I am tired of fighting on their terms and willing to take the battle to wherever they are concentrated.

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed


Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Tue, 06/05/2007 - 12:04pm.

Perhaps you are related to the Fort Dix Six?

Equating someone to terrorists because you disagree with their political opinions is unworthy of you. Don't lower yourself to the level of bottom-feeding scum like Denise or Taliban Trey Hoffman.

You owe Xamayca an apology. That's MY opinion.

______________________________________________
The 12 Warning Signs of Fascism


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Tue, 06/05/2007 - 12:17pm.

When and how did I equate someone with a terrorist??

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed


Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Tue, 06/05/2007 - 2:09pm.

Read the first line of my post above where I quoted you.

There was no need for a cheap shot like that. We have enough cheap shots around here from bottom feeding scum like Denise. Don't lower yourself to her level.
______________________________________________
The 12 Warning Signs of Fascism


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Tue, 06/05/2007 - 2:35pm.

Equating someone to terrorists" and asking if they are related to a terrorist are not the same thing at all. Sheesh. She even asked me if was related to Timothy McVeigh. I suppose I am since we are both a couple of white guys. I figure she is mad because a couple of islander dudes were nabbed. I have a uncle that was/is a somewhat famous pro baseball player, but I never played beyond High School. "Related" and "equated" - nope - sorry.

Anyway, for a minute I thought I had actually said she was a terrorist! Whew! Don't scare me like that man!

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed


Xaymaca's picture
Submitted by Xaymaca on Tue, 06/05/2007 - 11:58am.

Re: relations.

The Fort Dix Six are "four ethnic Albanians from the former Yugoslavia, one is from Jordan and one is from Turkey."
So no, I'm not related to them or any other terrorist.
Are you related to Timothy McVie or the Unibomber?
A silly question deserves one in return.

Re: my avatar.
I've changed my avatar 3 times, this is just the latest.
If you look closer you will see it's an American flag
and a Jamaican Flag. I am an American citizen , my parents are also naturalized citizens that have been here since the early 60s. I work, cut the grass and pay my taxes. That doesn't mean I can't show some appreciation for my ancestry. You are right that Jamaica can represent an "Island Mentality" of calm waters and relaxation for a lot of people. I'd still prefer to represent that idea than what I've seen on the license tags of some my neighbors. Also, I don't smoke.

Re: The War
Saving it for another day.

-reserved for something more clever to say


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Tue, 06/05/2007 - 12:56pm.

McVeigh was sent to the Persian Gulf as a soldier. We share that.

In the Gulf, he won praise and respect from those around him and earned both the Combat Infantry Badge and Bronze Star. We share that too (AFCM and CM).

He won a commendation for his action in shooting an Iraqi tank commander from more than a mile away. We share something very similar to that too.

So, yes, I guess he was my "fraternity" brother.

I suppose his service to the United States Military put him over the edge. You wouldn't know about that though 'General'.

In the end, he was just a mass murdering idiot, but yea, we were related.

I guess he could be counted as yet another casualty of war. The very initial actions to precipitate the one you have discounted. You can also count the hundreds of innocent men, women and children he massacred as war casualties I suppose.

So, why did your mom and dad leave the 'island'? Too many al qaeda terrorists stealing bauxite and bananas?

You never said if you were related to the 'island' brothers arrested for the plot to blow up JFK. Should I assume you are not even though you are black, are from New York, and have relatives in the islands, and oppose the 'war on terror' too?

As for your car tag, I have seen your car tag in person at the Pavilion, I don't need to look 'closer'. I think it's trashy but I'm sure you love it. It really stands out. I don't like it, I think it's ugly. Also, you need some body work if you still have the silver Mitsubishi with the rusty under panels. Of course, it could be another Jamaica/America tag on a similar but raggedy car that I have seen.

So, do you speak Arawakan? Are you Taíno? If not, why do you claim the name Xaymaca?

Perhaps you speak Jamaican Creole?

Do you have any access to discount alumina, bauxite, sugar, bananas, rum, coffee, or yams? Those are your top exports listed by quantity and value.

You realize that Colin Powell's parents were from Jamaica- right?

I doubt he has a tag like yours though.

Thanks for your input on whether the 'war on terror' is a serious problem. Perhaps you can notify the families of the 3,500 dead soldiers or 3,000 dead civilians from September 11 that it's really 'not all that'.

"Have a nice day mon".

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed


Xaymaca's picture
Submitted by Xaymaca on Tue, 06/05/2007 - 6:07pm.

Re: JFK
No, I'm not related to the JFK idiots nor am I upset that they got caught. Terrorists are terrorists, what do I care what their nationality is?
Of course I know about Powell, we both grew up in the Bronx.
I speak English, like he does. Mixer, I don't want to get into a p***ing contest with you. Let's say yours is bigger and call it a day if that's what you need to sleep at night.

Re: 9/11
I actually know relatives that where in the vicinity of ground zero when it happened. Including an uncle that worked in one of the towers and a brother-in-law that worked in a nearby building. Fortunately, they were able to evacuate in time. But please, please let me make this clear: New York is the city I grew up in so I take what happened on 9/11 very personally. My dad, who lives near the airport called me that morning telling me he saw one of the twin towers on fire. It was when I turned on the news that I learned the awful truth. And when I saw the towers collapse? Man, I can't even describe what went through my mind at that moment. I have never experienced such loss or sorrow in my entire life. So, Mixer, please don't assume that anyone that disagrees with the Iraq "strategy" is unpatriotic. This is still America, right?

Re: My car.
You can knock my car all you want (if you actually did see it)
but it's paid for. Smiling You are entitled to your opinion as much as I am.

Re: Parents

They came here for a better life like most people who have come to these shores, and they found it. I'm assuming the same is true for your ancestors?


Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 12:06pm.

Mixer... that line was actually pretty good. You left us all wondering if you hurled an backhanded insult at Gump. LOL

I think I speak for a lot of folks that feel Bush was less an idiot and bed wetter than Gore and then Kerry. I wish we had a different Prez myself but once again the voters were left with pulling the lever for the least of the worst.

I am thankful, however, for some of his economic leadership. Particularly in the early years.

________

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY


Gump's picture
Submitted by Gump on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 9:24am.

Mixer,
First of all, let me thank you for responding in a reasonable, logical way, rather than spear-throwing as some other bloggers would have done.

I don't blame Bush for 9/11, and as previously mentioned, I think he actually did a good job of responding to that crisis. Our going to war in Afghanistan was the correct decision, and Bush acted decisively in tightening up homeland security as well. There's still room for improvement in homeland security, but at least there's progress. I don't blame Bush for hurricane Katrina, but his administration's response to that disaster was woefully inadequate, and continues to be inadequate to this day. His political appointment of an unqualified crony as head of FEMA is iconic of his poor management as president.

Bush apparently values loyalty over competence. I think that loyalty is important, but that competence is more important. There have been several other Bush appointments that were more about loyalty than competence. Our Attorney General comes to mind. Appointing John Bolton as our representative at the United Nations, when Bolton is obviously no diplomat. A president cannot afford to surround himself with yes men and cronies. Once you are president, you must lead the entire country, not just your own political party. The "outing" of Ms. Plame as a CIA agent is an example of putting political loyalty ahead of the laws and needs of the country. Bush's excessive loyalty to Donald Rumsfeld was evident when it became obvious that Rumsfeld's strategy in Iraq was (and is) failing. Bush insisted on "stay the course" long after it became apparent that the original course was a mistake.

You mentioned not wanting a President that stains the dresses of his interns, but Bill Clinton was a far better president than Bush. For that matter, Bush Sr. was a far better president as well. Looking at the current crop of presidential candidates, I personally like Guliani, but I'm sure he has stained a dress or two. I also like McCain, but he is probably too honest to get elected. If he was, I think he would be an Eisenhower-type president, not a bad thing. I also think that Hillary has the intellect and competence to be a good president, but her politics tends to alienate people, and as already mentioned, you have to be the president of all the people, not just the ones who elected you. Obama is still too young and inexperienced to be president, and Edwards doesn't impress me much, so you have a point about the Democratic candidates being less than perfect. However, Bush has been a dismal failure, and let's not whitewash that fact. This is my main point of contention with what you posted previously.

You mentioned the history of the National Debt. Here is a graph of the national debt as a percent of the GDP (gross domestic product).

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html (sorry, I still haven't mastered doing links)
I was surprised to see that the national debt was decreasing during the Vietnam war. As you said, it was much higher in the post-WWII era than it is now, but that is to be expected. WWII was a fight to the death, and money was no object. That should not have been true of the war in Iraq. Our national debt went up during the Reagan years, but at least we got our money's worth--an unbeatable military, and the economic death of the Soviet Union. (How ironic that it was a lack of capital that brought down communism!)

Finally, let me say that I'm glad to hear that you are not just blindly loyal to the Republican right wing. Blind loyalty is what got this administration in so much trouble in the first place. Picking a president is about picking an effective leader, not just someone with the right political viewpoints.


Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Tue, 06/05/2007 - 5:06pm.

Git Real told me (THANKS!).

See the "Formatting guidelines" below your post. You can go to the option "More information about formatting options" for instructions.

I find it easiest to keep the formatting in a Word document so that I can just copy & paste. Smiling

I tried to put in the code using the symbols but got a jumbled link instead. You'd think that the computer would be smart enough to know that I'm just describing links, not making one. Laughing out loud

So, here's my approximation in words:

Less than sign (points to the left), a (the letter), put in a space (not the word), href (the letters), = (equals), " (quotation mark) -- no spaces between the last 3 & no commas -- goes before the web address (correct terminology?) -- Easiest just to copy & paste to avoid mistyping.

", greater than sign, less than sign, strong (the word), greater than sign -- goes after it -- Don't put in the dashes, commas, or spaces! Smiling

Then you type in (or copy & paste) the words that describe the link.

Less than sign, forward slash, strong (the word), greater than sign, less than sign, forward slash, a (the letter), greater than sign -- goes after the description

See here for what it looks like (except there's no bold emphasis), but don't put in the paragraph formatting.

I thought to look for this after I typed out the above. Well, at least I've practices giving directions without the use of pictures. Laughing out loud

Just ignore this if I've done a poor job. Pictures do help. Smiling

Hope you can understand this. Smiling

Another tip -- Copy the entire code or you'll be pulling your hair out, wondering why it won't work. Each little > & / & " & = is important! Laughing out loud

I've just deleted my efforts and started all over rather than keep trying to find the one little character that I didn't copy. Smiling

You can put a
less than sign, strong (the word), greater than sign (but no commas or spaces)
before a word (other than links) that you want in bold &
less than sign, forward slash, strong, greater than sign
after it, too.

I just remembered this post Tips for Fellow Bloggers by Pentapenguin for suggestions.


Gump's picture
Submitted by Gump on Tue, 06/05/2007 - 5:21pm.

By coincidence, I had just emailed the webmaster to ask for instructions. (again!Sad ) She commented that "they" are going to add link instructions to the website. That's a great idea for people like me who have adult-onset memory problems.

Meanwhile, I appreciate the time you took to help me out.
Here's a link to a classic Sam Kinison clip on married life. Git Real should find this particularly relevant. Married Life (my fingers are crossed as I post this)

---------------------------------------------------------
Ridicule is the last resort for a bankrupt point of view.


pentapenguin's picture
Submitted by pentapenguin on Thu, 06/07/2007 - 1:15am.

making links, bold, italic, etc. just ask. Eye-wink We're here to help. Smiling

------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Get Firefox for a better, safer, and more enjoyable web browsing experience!


Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Wed, 06/06/2007 - 4:04am.

Sorry again that my explanation wasn't more clear. I almost deleted the whole thing whenever it kept formatting (?) instead of just showing the symbols.

It's really not hard, once you learn (like most things).

"adult-onset memory problems" -- I know exactly what you're talking about -- my memory wasn't that great in my youth either! Laughing out loud

"Ridicule is the last resort for a bankrupt point of view." -- I'll try to remember that!

Enjoy your grandchild (more than 1?) and vacation! Smiling


Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Tue, 06/05/2007 - 6:53pm.

Who did the one on the toilet seat? Remember when George Carlin described the cat and dog running into the patio door?

________

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY


Enigma's picture
Submitted by Enigma on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 7:39pm.

"You mentioned not wanting a President that stains the dresses of his interns, but Bill Clinton was a far better president than Bush. For that matter, Bush Sr. was a far better president as well."

Did you have any facts to back any of this up or is this just your opinion? So, would you let your daughter intern for Bill Clinton?

The "outing" of Ms. Plame as a CIA agent is an example of putting political loyalty ahead of the laws and needs of the country. Who was the head of the CIA and who appointed him Gump?

Do you know something that Fitzgerald doesn't know or do you always accuse the President of treason without any facts?

Or, perhaps you think the anti-war maggot Armitage is simply not telling the truth when he confesses?

Perhaps you should go back and read Mixer's blogs about the Plame affair. You could learn a lot from him about the Plame affair and a multitude of other topics.

And finally: Before you call a man on his service, know who you are calling out.

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

SunTzu: The Art of War

________________________________________________________________________
Ground Zero - What Radical Islam Wants for You and Your Family


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Tue, 06/05/2007 - 1:21pm.

Enigma- you won't get facts. Just a confused personal opinion without any facts to back it up. Nice try though.

((Don't you love how he compares Clinton (a two term President) to the a former congressman (Newt)).

I guess we get to compare George Bush to Rosie 'fire can't melt steel' O'bama if we use his same logic.

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed


Gump's picture
Submitted by Gump on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 8:01pm.

Enigma,
I answered Mixer already. I'm not interested in flame wars with you.

Both Bush Sr. and Clinton were better presidents, because they got far better results, as anybody could see who didn't have an ax to grind. When you put partisan politics ahead of your country, you have no right to cloak yourself in patriotism, yet that is what has been going on.

My daughter is not a tramp and she can take care of herself. If she had interned for Clinton, nothing would have happened because she would not have encouraged it or allowed it. Clinton took advantage of what was offered to him, and that was to his discredit. The same discredit goes to all adulterers, including Newt Gingrich. Why don't you mention that?

As I already pointed out, I did not call Mixer out on his service, he called me out. I answered that. If there is anything more that needs to be said, I think Mixer can speak for himself.

That's really all I have to say to you.


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 12:42pm.


Here is the information in a graph that does not take the effects of WWII out of the model.

(Trivia fact: There have actually been years where the National Debt was greater than the Gross Domestic Product (over 100%))

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed


Gump's picture
Submitted by Gump on Sun, 06/03/2007 - 3:38pm.

Speaking as a "liberal", let me answer that. This is just one person's opinion, but the difference between Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. is that the first Bush had some humility and actually listened to other people and other points of view, not just his inner circle. His choices of Colin Powell and Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf to lead our military were brilliant choices, and the results speak for themselves. He took the trouble to build a real multi-national coalition before starting the war, not as an afterthought. He HAD A PLAN!!

What the current Bush had was "hubris", which can be defined as "overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance." His Secretary of Defense did not listen to his own general officers. Bush's entire cabinet brushed aside any opinions other than their own. If you have ever studied Greek mythology, many of their plot lines show how pride inevitably leads to a fall--it's probably the most common moral point of those tragedies. This administration certainly is playing out like a Greek tragedy! You'll notice that I said Bush "had" hubris--he seems to have lost his arrogance these last few months, right about when the last elections took place. Suddenly, he is looking very old and tired.

Too bad that the first Bush wasn't re-elected. If he had been, and "W" had stayed in Texas where he belonged, the Republicans would still be in power today and we would still be leading a coalition of the majority of the free world.


Submitted by tonto707 on Sun, 06/03/2007 - 8:29am.

THOMPSON/GINGRICH, but never Gingrich/Thompson, it ain't in the cards.

It would make a tremendous team, Thompson/Gingrich, with the charisma and brains, in that order.

Submitted by swmbo on Sun, 06/03/2007 - 8:59am.

It would make a tremendous team, Thompson/Gingrich, with the charisma and brains, in that order.

Please tell me you're joking. The philanderer and the actor/part-time public servant is a non-winning ticket in any order.

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

Enigma's picture
Submitted by Enigma on Sun, 06/03/2007 - 9:29am.

Both are experienced, well educated, and extremely bright. Both scare the hell out of the Democrats and both have more experience than the two Democratic front runners. (Hiderbeast and Hussein)

swmbo - why do you care - you wouldn't vote for ANY conservative. You have made that clear in your blogs.

So tell us- Who are you supporting? What Democrat is running that you think would be a good President of the United States?

________________________________________________________________________
Ground Zero - What Radical Islam Wants for You and Your Family


Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 2:16pm.

If Thompson is elected it will be the first time in my life the First Lady is younger than me.

...of course, she's younger than Thompson's oldest son by five years too.

Quick show of hands: would YOU marry someone five years younger than your oldest child?

Sticking out tongue

______________________________________________
The 12 Warning Signs of Fascism


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 3:44pm.

Would I marry someone 5 years younger than Thompson's oldest child?

The answer is - YES - if I wasn't lucky enough to already be married to someone so wonderful that is 9 years younger than that. Fred Thompson's second wife is 40. Fred has a child that is 45.

By the way, "Thompson said his former wife, Sarah, indicated she would campaign for Thompson if he did run for president."

I doubt my ex-wife would even vote for me, much less campaign for me! Yikes!

I guess for being the son of a used car salesman, who never took an acting lesson, old Fred has turned out pretty good.

Do you think the death of his daughter affected him in a negative or positive way. I think it marked the end of his 'first life' and the beginning of his 'second'. I don't think I could handle that (God forbid).

He was single from 1985 to 2002 and dated some real dolls like country music star Lori Morgan (you talk about a good looking and talented lady!).

It's interesting that him and his ex-wife have such a good relationship and that she still speaks so highly of him considering she helped to pay his way through law school but they eventually divorced after 38 years of marriage.

A lot of women would be bitter.

This guy is very very interesting and I bet he scares the crap out of the Democrats Eye-wink

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed


Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 3:54pm.

I'll tell you what scares me about Thompson, Mixer....the head of the American Conservative Union, a guy who LIKES Thompson, said Thompson was and is one of the laziest politicians he's ever met. This was echoed by a Republican campaign director (who admittedly was working for some other guy). Evidently, Thompson was notorious in the Senate for just not showing up...plus he's never run a difficult campaign in his life (he was a shoo-in as a Tennessee senator).

That rings an alarm bell with me...after 6+ years of President Decider, I think America deserves a President who is capable of paying attention.

Oh well, it's not like I'm gonna vote for a Republican anyway. I happen to love my children, and you can't convince me that you love your children if you vote Republican.

Laughing out loud Laughing out loud Laughing out loud

______________________________________________
The 12 Warning Signs of Fascism


pentapenguin's picture
Submitted by pentapenguin on Thu, 06/07/2007 - 1:12am.

Oh well, it's not like I'm gonna vote for a Republican anyway. I happen to love my children, and you can't convince me that you love your children if you vote Republican.

Bas, one of the core Democratic/liberal beliefs is the "right to choose [abortion]." One of the core Republican/conservative beliefs is the right to life. Well of course there are notable exceptions on both sides (Giuliani on the right and Zell Miller on the left) but basically Dems believe abortion is a holy sacrament that men and women must perform to become one with Mother Earth (okay, maybe that's a slight exaggeration Eye-wink ) while Repubs consider it murder or at least wrong.

Now, let's see...if you won't vote Republican, you must be voting Democrat based on all your screeds. Democrats want to kill kids before they are even born. So logically, if you really love your kids, you'd at least allow them to be born like conservatives do (and want). Eye-wink

------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Get Firefox for a better, safer, and more enjoyable web browsing experience!


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 4:16pm.

I have heard that he (Fred Thompson) is lazy too ... unless it's something that motivates him like his acting career. I admire the way he got through law school though. I heard that he was 'lazy' in the Senate because he thought it was boring. I have no idea. I think we will see during the campaign though - it's hard work, or so I hear.

I love your saying that "I happen to love my children, and you can't convince me that you love your children if you vote Republican."

I don't know whether you have stopped to think this through or not but it is indeed correct for you and tells me (and should tell you) plenty.

You see, if you believe that voting Republican (or Conservative) is bad for your children and you do it, you do not love them indeed.

Just as me voting for a liberal would prove the same. You see bas, if I vote for a liberal while not believing that is what is best for my children then I honestly cannot love my children either.

Now what you should know from that is that my heart is sincere just as I know your heart is sincere since we both love our children and vote in opposite ways (assuming of course that you love your children, which I assume is true). I even attempt to model a 'conservative' lifestyle.

The reason I don't drink or smoke, honestly, is for exactly the same reasons. I would most definitely drink at least occasionally, and probably smoke, if I did not believe it was wrong and didn't want my kids to do it. Although it may not prevent them, it may and it will certainly set the example that I expect them to follow. (I keep telling myself that once they are grown I can start smoking and drinking but I never seriously think I can, otherwise, they will do the same when they get older and I wouldn't want them to do that. Drats!)

Oh well, I guess we model the life we want for our children whether it's conservatism or liberalism.

Have a good one bas-

(I)Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed


Submitted by swmbo on Sun, 06/03/2007 - 8:08pm.

Both are experienced, well educated, and extremely bright. Both scare the hell out of the Democrats and both have more experience than the two Democratic front runners. (Hiderbeast and Hussein)

Experienced? Yes, I'll give them that credit although I'm interested to find out more precise information about Thompson's "experience" on the Watergate Committee following his 3-year (rather brief) stint as an Assistant US Attorney. (Was this a pre-cursor to the current Gonzalez style of politically-based prosecution staffing by minimally-experienced employees? Hmmmmm.) Well educated? Thompson is, hands down, well educated. Newt? He is, well . . . educated but not impressively so. Extremely bright? As a politician, Thompson hasn't done much to impress. He hasn't sponsored any ground-breaking legislation or come up with any new strategy for anything in his brief service as an elected representative. (briefly this . . . briefly that . . . I see a pattern, here.) Newt has done enough idiotic stuff as a politician that he strikes me as extremely dumb. Trust me. The Dems aren't scared of a Hollywood actor; they're pretty familiar with that type. And the Grinch Who Sold Out The Party For A Smut Scandal shouldn't give them a moment's pause for concern.

swmbo - why do you care - you wouldn't vote for ANY conservative. You have made that clear in your blogs.

Enigma, I haven't heard Republicans (yourself included) refrain from commenting on Dems or any other flavor of political persuasion. So, you'll forgive me if I accord Reps the same level of respect.

You have me all wrong. I would vote for a conservative. My first choice, Dwight D. Eisenhower, is unfortunately deceased, though I suppose you would be interested in a more recent choice. As a matter of fact, I would have voted for McCain but for the fact that, after The Shrub had the marbles to question his patriotism, McCain main lined the Kool Aid and went out to stump for him in 2004. I would have had more respect for him as a real man of principle had he simply sat it out without comment. What I think of him now is, frankly, unprintable. There is not a word that comes out of his mouth that I will ever believe again. So, you can, again, thank Bush for losing votes for the party if McCain gets the nomination.

So tell us- Who are you supporting? What Democrat is running that you think would be a good President of the United States?

I'm not dodging the question but I don't really like any of them, either. It is, frankly, very frustrating because I know that, once again, I'm going to have to go to the polls in '08, hold my nose and pick between a snake and a rat. Not voting is not a choice but, I am sick and tired of having to pick between the lesser of two evils. The end result is still evil.

Look, my gripe with the Republican party is that they keep saying that they are conservatives but then they make fiscally liberal moves. Not only has government grown but, Bush conservative policies have made that larger government less efficient (e.g. food safety compromised, dysfunctional emergency management, veterans' medical care run asunder, etc.). I'm all for responsible spending but Bush conservatives cannot claim the moral or fiscal high ground as long as the Halliburton, KBR, Novation, etc., contracts are not investigated and audited. Worse yet, the failure to fire Gonzalez for what was clearly illegal, the failure to at least censure Pete Domenici (if not, indict him), the failure to prosecute Jerry Lewis (R-Cal., who is alleged to have engaged in some corrupt activity in conjunction with lobbyists) . . . makes Republicans even less appealing. Right this minute, I think if I voted for a Republican, I'd have to take a shower immediately afterward to wash off the stench. (I'd feel the same way about voting for Hillary, if it makes you feel any better.)

So, you tell me -- as a conservative -- based upon the last 12 years of a Republican majority, why should I trust any Republican to lead us out of the domestic and international mess they made? And, please, spare me the 9-11 drivel. Sell me on something other than fear.

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

Submitted by too bad on Sun, 06/03/2007 - 5:23am.

Before we get more immigrants...or spend billions more on the Middle East, can't we first take care of our own? The current US citizens seem to take a back seat to everyone and everything else. It was appauling the way Mississipi and Louisana reidents were/are treated after Katrina. That area has never been rebuilt and the residence are in a hopeless fix. Case in point, I talked to a cousin who was
saving up for another house down there. My comment was, "you have money from your old house, what are you talking about?" It seems that if you don't pay CASH for a house, the insurance down there, any place down there, will eat you alive and with a house note you must have insurance. Bush and the government has let the insurance companies get away with not paying on many claims and then charging in some cases, as much for insurance as the house notes.
The way they got out of paying a lot of people was to say they had water damage that they wouldn't cover, however, most would have to agree, the water would have stayed in the Gulf if the WIND hadn't pushed it in. Most had wind damage coverage, but the insurance co used the water deal and got away with it. Our gov won't help its own but will spend billions on the Middle East and new illegal immigrants. The people, who for years have paid those tax dollars Bush is throwing around, seem invisable. I think all would agree now, not that the Democrats don't have their faults too, which Democrat will we elect? Bush has left a lot of POed voters that will never vote for the Rep party again. You can never gloss over how they did the Katrina people and too many of us have relatives or friends that were victims. Each has a seperate nighmare they lived.

Submitted by swmbo on Sat, 06/02/2007 - 7:02pm.

It began with the candidacy of George I-never-met-a-business-I-couldn't-bankrupt Bush. Republicans should have chosen McCain back then. Things would have turned out entirely differently, of that much I am sure. But, somehow, a whisper campaign about a fictitious black baby won the day for outright incompetence. Talk about being hoisted by your own pitard!

No, I don't understand why anyone -- especially a staunch conservative -- is surprised that he has run the party into the sceptic tank. How do you have a party platform of personal responsibility with a guy who never met a denial he didn't love as the poster child? I would even have given the party a pass for the first administration but to elect him again was sheer lunacy.

(Can't wait to see how the "caging list" scandal affects the party.) Evil

Richard, I am really sorry to see so many people (some of whom I respected even though I did not agree with them) find themselves holding the dirty end of the stick. But, there is no credibility to be gained from doing as Dubbya does and denying that you willingly followed a bad leader. Simply, take ownership (after all, your goal is an ownership society) and gracefully take the "medicine" that comes with it.

You have made your beds; have a nice 6-year nap.

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Sat, 06/02/2007 - 4:14pm.

Audio: "Laura Ingraham unleashes on the amnesty bill"

Audio: "Michelle debates the immigration bill with Tamar Jacoby on Laura Ingraham’s show"

Audio: "Laura Ingraham vs. Linda Chavez"

Linda Chavez appeared on the Laura Ingraham Show this morning to justify smearing fellow conservatives over the immigration shamnesty bill. Laura didn’t let her get away with it.

"Really Stupid Americans Like George Bush"

"'Hypocrisy' at the Top"


Submitted by too bad on Sun, 06/03/2007 - 10:03am.

that is just what we need, more, go to the DEA web site and look at their most wanted. They have their pictures and names. There are one or two whites, a few more blacks, but the lions share are from South of the border. Click on any state on the DEA map, it is the same ratio for any area of this county, regardles of the population. Where is the payoff for good people who immigrated legaly when you are letting hoards of problem people in for the rest of us to take care of? Where is the payback for all the people who's families have been here since the 1600/1700/1800 and fought and died for this country and paid taxes? We are pushed to the back. I don't want more drug dealers here selling to our kids and sending the money south of the boarder...Bush is an idiot!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.