"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries
in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons
inspection process." -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Is there no end to the Democrats hyprocisy?
When will partisans, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, will smarten up and realize that the enemy is not the other "side." The enemy is the folks whose job it is to paper over the truth and say whatever it takes to get elected. Anybody who fails to see this, who picks one team and points the finger at the other, is cheating themself out of the opportunity to see the truth.
-- Modified on 2/12/2004 10:49:00 AM
Many years ago, a freshman liberal congressman went to his leadership and made a comment about the conservative members of congress and called them "the enemy"
His leader replied "no, they're the OPPOSITION. The ENEMY is the SENATE!"
These days, it seems, our represetatives feel they have two enemies
1) Anyone who doesn't agree with them
2) The voting public.
VERY GOOD!
You show much wisdom.
We need to start term limits.
sorry - did I miss the parts of the quotes where they say "and we need to attack that country to rid us of this imminent threat"?
We are talking degrees here. I am pro-war- but I do think it was fought on false premises for most americans. I just like to mess with Arab dictators. But I never really felt threatened by Hussein in a specific way.
Certainly didn't feel it was worth trashing alliances for...
You make a valid point.
You just left out the part where an attack happens and we find that Saddam did in fact support the terrorists who made the attack and you make posts about "the stupid, do-nothing President who knew or should have known it was coming and act before hand because after all isn't that what he's there for?"
No ... wait ... that would have been Hillary's job.
Nevermind.
Actually I usually come down on the "Americans are the biggest pussies in the world- let's all stop freakin' out and realise that AMERICANS ARE GONNA DIE IN TERRORIST ATTACKS -shit happens and we all need to stop thinking that they are totally preventable."side of things. We're just gonna have to take casualties and move on.
Like the rest of the world realised in the late 70s.
When i see the cops of Boston and SF rounded up and put in Guantanamo for their support of the IRA for all those years- i will BEGIN to think that the US is getting real about terrorism.
Just because I am progressive and have read a book or two does not make me a bleeding heart...
-- Modified on 2/12/2004 11:24:19 AM
If the Republicans say there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11 enough times, it MUST be true. And I won't come in your mouth!
Seems like the same false pretenses were, as late as last January (2 months before the war started) with Mr. Kerry , seen by both parties!
House Minority Leader
Past Vice President & Democrat Nominee for President 2000, inventor of the internet...
Aging Drunk Senior Senator, Brother of Past President, generally accepted moron & Democratic Party Leader
Junior Senator, Past First Lady, Presidential Hopeful 2008 & Stock Trader in the mold of Martha Stewart
Junior Senator, Presidential hopeful 2004
Those are not just some freshman congressmen from Idaho! They are the leaders of the Democratic Party.
Most Americans were not privy to the information that these people were and they all AGREED with President Bush. I doubt very seriously that you got up with fear on 9/11/01 either.
Now that they find it politically expedient to claim ignorance to any threat. At the very least, what they are saying now is just bullshit! Or were they lying then?
The Congress is brief by the Executive branh. You may remember O. North quiting the marines because he wanted to be free say what had happened
Thank you for brining out those quotes!! Just goes to show that when it came to backing up Clinton's policy at the time all the Democrats were using in some cases the same words Bush used before the war.
They are all hypocrites and liars. Bet most Democrats don't know that Ken Lay gave more money to Clinton in 98 then he did to Bush in the 2000 election.
Bet not a SINGLE Democrat knows that in 98 Clinton allow leaders of the Taliban to fly into this country to meet with executives of Unocal energy. Unocal wanted to build a gas pipeline through Afghanistan and said would pay the Taliban leaders a hefty sum for letting them do so. Thats right Bill Cliton took more money from Ken Lay than Bush, he allowed the Taliban to fly into the US to meet with oil execs, and most of the Democrats were using the same language in 98 that Bush was using in 02 before the war.
You only get in life what you command and respect for yourself. Which is why most of you get liars and corrupt crooks for politicians as your leaders. Most of you don't have the courage to demand any better for yourselves and your country.
John F. kerry, a brave soldier in Vietnam no doubt, knew exactly what he was voting for before the the war and knew exactly what he was voting for in the patriot act. And if he didn't then he doesn't deserve to be a leader in any capacity.
If any of you think that the Democrat are more hypocritical than the Republicans, you're all gullible.
The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt too.
The thing that really bothers me about the Bush administration is the redistribution of wealth to the rich. The tax burden on the middle class has increased and the rich are paying less than ever. Who cares what they say, look at what they DO.
...is running rampant. This tactic of screaming at your opposition is known as "the best defense is a good offense." I don't see in any of those quotes where the speaker is advocating invasion of a sovereign nation.
To all you conservative Republicans out there: Don't be pissed at the democrats. Be pissed at your President. This man ran as a veteran who was a principled, truth-telling, rock-ribbed fiscal conservative. However, evidence shows that he is not what he represented himself to be. Just look at the budget deficit and the national debt. Insofar as his service in the National Guard, the pay tables which he allowed to be released show a 5 month gap. Looks AWOL to me.
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe for a moment that Saddam Hussein was a nice fellow or not a danger to the U.S. and it's interests. However, there are many other regimes in this world which are a threat of greater magnitude (i.e. North Korea).
Intelligence gathering (FBI, CIA, NSA) is a function of the Executive Branch. It is the White House (Executive Branch) who provides intelligence to the Legislative Branch (Congress). The senators and congressmen who Bribite quotes are merely echoing the contents of the intelligence which the White House chose to provide to the Congress.
At best, the White House was disingenuous about the reasons for this military action. It really wasn't a war. With the exception of 2 or 3 serious firefights, the Iraqi army put down their weapons and retreated at a speed akin to that of an olympic sprinter. IMHO, George W Bush chose to invade Iraq as revenge for Saddam's attempt to assassinate George H.W. Bush.
Good enough reason for me. But at least be truthful about it.
Want my vote in November, Mr. President?? Tell me the real reason we invaded Iraq or show me the w.m.d.
The intelligence gathering is controlled by the Executive branch, but FUNDED by the Congress, although funded less and less every year for the last 16 years. And we're ceratin that no Congresman got a briefing directly FROM an Inteligence agency, are we? The same agency that will be looking to that same congressman next year for funding?
**** News Flash *****
Every ranking member of Defence Oversight, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and a few others has almost unfettered access to reports and even in some cases raw data from any Agency they fund, to the point where, for example, for almost all CIA documents, each individual PAGE distributed is unique and contains small typographical errors or trace marks so that the Agency can tell where the leak came from.
Not one of those Intelligence Guys, having been in Washington for that many years, figured that the secret may slip out and that the eventual hearings (there's always hearings) might end up by proving that he lied to Congress? Not ONE intel decided "My Country is more important than my President"?
I don't get it ... HOW can Bush be as dumb as y'all say he is and yet be SO diabolically clever as to fool THAT MANY Washington career politicians (the ones that have been there and funding intelligence for the last 15 years and will be funding them long after Bush leave office?
Or ... how can THAT MANY Career politicians who have managed to survive for so many years in a world where the wind changes every 4 or 8 years be SO abjectly STUPID as to be hoodwinked so easily?
All this, because someone tried to assasinate his father? Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and EVERY SINGLE ONE of the JCS got fooled by this? Or they ALL went along? Not ONE decided "well, hell, today might be as good a day to resign as any other day and this man is so evil that I think I'll ring the bell before I go"?
They're ALL that evil? They're ALL that stupid? Or Bush IS that clever?
Captain Queeg is rolling his ball bearings saying "they're disloyal officers, every one of 'em ...."
you wrote:
---Not one of those Intelligence Guys, having been in Washington for that many years, figured that the secret may slip out and that the eventual hearings (there's always hearings) might end up by proving that he lied to Congress? Not ONE intel decided "My Country is more important than my President"?
---
Yes many did. In fact Tenet told them there was no imminent danger from Iraq. Yeah I know, you're gonna quibble about the semantics used but there are way too many quotes from the Bush Regime to deny they implicitly or explicitly said there was imminent danger. Amb Joe Wilson, who I met at the Iraq Intelligence Forum in Seattle in August 2003, directly said the Niger doc was a forgery and the uranium cliam was bogus. And for that, the WH or Cheney through Scoooter Libby or Karl Rove exposed Wilson's wife as a covert agent. Thus yes they did decide the country was more important than Bush and his cabal of PNAC advisors.
Yes, and a number of Bush REgime defectors have resigned. John Dilulio, head of Bush's Faith based intitiative program resigned calling the Bush REgime a bunch of "Mayberry Machiavellis.....O'Neill was forced out then revealed the Iraq invasion was planned from day one and then was himself intimidated by the right wing pundits.
The rest of your questions are mostly gratuitous assertions on straw man arguments and aren't worth replying or answring.
Yes, this kind of Bush enthrallmnet, apolologism, and sympathizing by you does indicate a right wing extremism that is pathological.
Answer me this. do you favor the so called Medical Malpractice Tort Reform advocated by such sociolpathic kitten vivisectionists as Bill Frist? You know the Senate Majority leader who dissected kittens alive, and is now under invesigation for stealing Democratic emails?
Warm regards,
TET
TET
I really would like to know who in the administration committed TREASON on behalf of the Iraq war campaign of deception. A Crime which, incidentally, is punishable by the Death Penalty. The rumours and leaks seem to indicate that it might well have been done under orders from Dick Cheney himself. While I certainly have no proof of this, we DO know that the act itself happened, we just don't know WHO in the administration perpetrated it. It would really be quite a spectacle to see the former V.P. of the United States executed for Treason, wouldn't it?
Any suspect in the PlameGate outing would be pardoned by Bush before he left office, if he loses, or would be pardoned regardless if he wins.
remember Poindexter and MacFarland in Dec 1992 were pardoned by daddykins Bush!
TET
-- Modified on 2/13/2004 2:51:49 PM
But, I agree with you that Bush will pardon this traitor if he has the opportunity to do so, after the election, of course.
Nixon was pardoned without being charged.
The fact is, there would be a high political price to be paid for that Pardon. And if nobody has yet been charged or publicly identified as the suspect, prior to Bush leaving office, it very well might NOT happen. OTOH, I do agree that if anyone in particular is identified as a lead suspect, Bush will pardon them on his last day in office. And it will be the last political act of his career.
If Tenet told them ... and Wilson told them .....
Why didn't everyone from the opposition believe THEM instead of this man they seem to despise????? As far as your assertion that my "straw man arguments" are not worth of response, could it also be possible that you don't HAVE answers to these basic questions? They're valid questions, aren't they?
How does a man so inherently EVIL co-opt and virtually overthrow an entire government and bend it to his desire while at the same time be as stupid as you all make him out to be?
MY answer is ... I don't know! Based on the probablility that the American public is in possession of perhaps 2% of all the relevant facts, akin to having 20 pieces of a 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, I'm willing to A) Admit that I don't have the answers and B) Stand in utter disbelief with jaw agape at those of you that DO have the arrogance to conclude beyond question that you DO have the answers.
Good question on why they didn't believe them. As you say, maybe they didn't have that same info. The Wilson info though was widely avaliable, and the UN said the Niger docs were poor foregries the day after they were revealed. My answer is, I dn;t know.
Straw man arguments are not meant to be ansered by the me or others, but are meant to already be answered by the questioner and thus are a type of logical fallacy and are invalid in debates.
you wrote:
---
How does a man so inherently EVIL co-opt and virtually overthrow an entire government and bend it to his desire while at the same time be as stupid as you all make him out to be?
---
Well, I don't think or call Bush stupid or moronic. He is ignorant. many despots and authoritarians are ignorant and become very powerful, BECAUSE they are ignorant. Hitler for exampled ignored his genral's advice about attacking the Eastern Front in WW2 because os supply line problems and the Luftwaffe inability to strike deep into Russian terroritory to destroy the military industrial complexes that bult the Russian defense.
Dictators or leaders who exhibit the megalomania of despots have shown amply the power of ignorance.
I don't claim to have all the answers, like you I believe it is mostly a grey world and not binary or black and white. But the greyness of the causa belli for the Bush War on Iraq was beyond a doubt, and like you I am not such an reactionary to believe invasion of a nation based on grey data makes the Policy of Pre-Emption valid.
BTW, I stand corrected. you are not an extrem right wing reactionary. Maybe closer to being a little closer to radical...
This is of course using classic French assembly definitions.
Maybe we CAN bring back retroactive abortions. I see many politicos wh0 would make perfect candidates to make the gulliotine blade run red. (Required disclaimer: This is a joke and is not meant to be taken serious by any federal, state or local agency.) How many smileys do I need?
Warm regards,
TET
-- Modified on 2/13/2004 12:05:31 PM
You throw out these subject lines and then back it up with
END OF MESSAGE
Brilliant, the translation of your continuing subject line pap is...Doh!
Facts are like daylight to a vampire for democrats.
In particular, the entire revisionist explanation for the Iraq war, which has radically shifted after our failure to uncover any WMDs. And at the same time, claiming that we based our decisions on "intelligence failures" when in fact, our intelligence with respect to Saddam's Nuclear program was actually extremely accurate.
Also, the non-stop speechifying about Liberals who spend too much while generating the largest government deficit in our history
The claims of being responsible for the safety of all Americans, while continuing to imply that 9/11 was the fault of the Clinton Administration's policies on terrorism, which in fact, Bush continued unchanged until post 9/11
I could go on, but you're not paying attention anyways
1. Rumsfeld-- "We know exactly where the WMD's are." To this day I have not heard of a single intelligence report given to Rumsfeld or any official that would back up such a solid and specific claim. Now think about this for a moment and you will realize how much of a bold faced lie that above statement really is without seeing any intelligence.
When Rumsfeld made that statement, UN inspectors were in Iraq complaining the US wasn't giving them good intel. If WMD's were truly a threat to the US then why didn't Rumsfeld immediately give the UN and the US military the precise location so they could go in there right away and prove to the world that look we are right. Saddam has these here WMD and he has been lying all along to everyone. I bet you not a single country in the world would have opposed the US if Rumsfeld would have given the exact location and exposed those WMD's he said he knew the exact locations of. It was a big lie to instill fear...
2. Bush said, "Saddam has infact reconstituted his nookulur weapons program." Not a single shred of intelligence existed before the war that would allow WMD Bush to go to the public and state beyond any doubt and uncertainty that Saddam had indeed started to rebuild his nookulur program. It was a bold faced lie meant to garner support for the war and instill fear in the public after 9-11
Those are just 2 of the many bold faced lies told by WMD Bush and other before the war. Im not saying Democrats are not hypocrites for statements they made in the past. The fact is they both get up there, piss on me and tell me its not piss, its milk and honey from heaven.
"the entire revisionist explanation for the Iraq war" ? Are you unable to remember reading the first post in this thread? We know you have a retention problem, but you might read those quotes 10 to 20 times and then repost, possibly some of it might sink in.
I have agreed that I don't like the entitlement spending Bush has put into effect. But it hardly shows his hypocrisy, he always said he was a "compassionate conservative", most likely this spending is what he meant.
You have never heard Bush blame Clinton for 9/11. Or Chenney for that matter. This is an outright lie! Something you are developing quite a reputation for.
I have no doubt that you could go on and on lying. When you have so rarely made a valid point as to Bush's record, I have agreed. What sets you and most democrats appart is that you cannot hold yourself or your candidates to the same scrutity.
For example, President Bush admitted to having a drinking problem some 25 years ago and did something about it.
On the other hand one of your political gods, Ted Kennedy is most likely shitfaced as I write this.
In any case, if you don't think much of me, feel free to ignore my posts in the future, as I've been starting to do with some of yours. All I can say is, You can't POSSIBLY have a lower opinion of me than I have of you at this stage. Because it is quite obvious to me that you never INTEND to give a fair hearing to opposing viewpoints, which, as I said, makes you a hypocrite. As well as not the sharpest knife in the drawer either.
Personally, I didn't start out on the Democratic side of this debate, as I am a Libertarian. However, Bush's willingness to polarize this country on religious grounds, and then to lead us to a war on false pretenses, as well as his general ineptitude on fiscal issues, makes him, in my mind, the 2nd largest threat to our nation's future after Osama himself right now. Although I could be persuaded that Kim Jong-Il might slide into 2nd ahead of Dumbya as a threat to our future, based on both intent and actual capability to do harm to us. In any case, Saddam, left to his own devices busy malevolently exploiting HIS own people was pretty far down the list, and certainly of LESS concern to me as an American than George Dumbya Bush was and is, in threatening our safety through sheer incompetence and inability to make critical decisions when they matter, in the position where that capability matters MOST. And, his unwise foreign policy aside, ANYONE who actively supports the agenda of the Religious Right is, to my mind, a GENUINE THREAT to this nation from the inside out.
And, BTW, Ted Kennedy is no hero of mine EITHER, for EXACTLY the same reason Dumbya is not: A lack of personal character and courage. I am VERY willing to hold people on BOTH sides of the aisle to the same standard. You obviously are not. Which, need I add, is the very definition of hypocrisy.
-- Modified on 2/12/2004 1:13:43 PM
SD .. here's the deal and you don't seem willing to grasp this:
Your posts leave NO ROOM for the possibility that people who don't see things your way could POSSIBLY be right, or even smart.
You don't leave room for the possibility that the opposition may be right, which is fine. You don't leave room for the possibility that the people in power, from Bush on down, could POSSIBLY have possession of facts that you don't possess that might impact how, why and when things are done and that's fine, too.
But you seem to imply that NO ONE connected with the current administration, or any of their support staffs has the sense to come in out of the rain ... and then lump everyone who even ALLOWS for those possibilities in the same group.
OTOH, bribite has shown me none of that so far.
I DO agree that Bush has information that I don't have. OF COURSE he does. But he has already given me all the evidence that I need that he doesn't trust the American people to make an informed decision without shading it and manipulating it and falsifying it. And there can be NO DOUBT that John Ashcroft's agenda is dangerous to EVERYTHING at the core of my belief structure. And Bush empowered him, and fully supports him, which is Prima Facia evidence that Bush is STUPID, and cares not a whit for personal liberties.
And quite the contrary to your other assertion, I see people who's integrity I DID trust, like Colin Powell, so OBVIOUSLY uncomfortable with the compromising positions that they are being forced to take on a partisan basis, that it sickens me. I also trust Paul O'Neill, who had no dog in the show at this stage, who specifically made it clear how important the Iraq adventure was to Bush / Cheney WELL in advance of 9/11, and post 9/11, the plans remained the same, only the justification for the Iraq invasion and Bush's ability to sell it to the American populace changed.
-- Modified on 2/12/2004 1:38:04 PM
I think Bush POSSIBLY has facts or intelligence data we the public don't have. However, from Bush's lifetime track record of ignorance and using Occam's Razor, it is MORE reasonable to conclude that Bush IGNORES any fact or data that does not fit a previously held conclusion.
Like the mythological monster Procrustes, who torture his victims on a table in his dungeon, if the victim did not fit the table, he would cut their legs off or put them on the rack till they fit. Bush does the same thing with his facts or data.....He deletes what doesn't fit his conclusion.
Thus we end up with bad foreign policy, like his Policy of Pre-Emption or his Iraq Reconstruction Plan using the DoD instead of the State Dept. Can you say quagmire?
And one last note, today another high ranking american was ambushed in Iraq, that makes Bremer, Wolfowitz and now Gen Abizaid targets of Iraqi opposition. It appears iraqi intelligence data is better than US intelligence gathering. Or maybe the Iraqi opposition just doesn't ignore SOME data so it fits their conclusions.
Stay safe and protected megapig!
TET
Now the problem with Bush is his Christian world view. He has not been a hyprocrite on that issue. He was before and is now. That you feel Religious Right is a "Genuine Threat" to our nation is quite understandable. All the killing and maiming those wiley Christians continue to do. LOL
If you could or would come up with any facts to back up your incessant theroies, and on at least one occasion you have and I agreed, I would listen.
You claim that Bush lead us into war under false pretenses, but I give you a factual quote from your candidate John Fonda Kerry:
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F.
Kerry (D-MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Make no mistake, Kerry was privy to the same information as Bush and you have nothing to say about it! Kerry made this comment less that 40 days before the war started, we already had thousands of troops on Iraq's border.
I am PROUD that Jane Fonda is a patriotic American. She helped to save many thousands of lives with her protests in the Vietnam era. I would stack her patriotism during that era VERY HIGH above that of George W. Bush or Dick Cheney.
And yes, the Christian Right is the most insideous threat to freedom that this nation faces. I agree that Bush's beliefs with respect to that are not hypocritical, merely scary, wrong, and in need of defeat at all costs.
Many millions of people have been killed over the centuries in the name of Christendom. Our nation was founded be people who were fleeing from exactly the type of persecution that is at the root of the religious right. And I for one would prefer NOT to see the maiming of the Constitution in it's name.
-- Modified on 2/12/2004 1:59:05 PM
Jane Fonda a heroe? Ask the POW's who were at the Hanoi Hilton about that. When one of the prisioners tried to pass her a coded message about the conditions in the prision, Jane, your heroe, turned it over to the prision commandant. The POW who begged her help was beaten to near death for trusting your heroe.
Your'e a sick fuck!
And if being militantly against the Vietnam War makes me a sick fuck, then I am a sick fuck. But you are an embittered person who needs to get help.
I am certainly willing to acknowledge that Fonda may well have made mistakes, even serious ones, in the course of her anti-war protests. The most noteworthy of this is that it certainly caused anguish to veterans such as yourself. But I would STILL stack the result of what she helped do, which was to end the war earlier, and the THOUSANDS of lives that were saved as a result, against those mistakes, and come out with a very large net positive for this country.
I take it that now you DO hate me. Well BFD! I am very willing to stand up for my beliefs on this score. And I DO hope that you get some counseling to help you come to grips with the pain you obviously still feel from those days 30 years ago.
-- Modified on 2/12/2004 2:14:20 PM
I think with Janes help and your vote, it will be maybe the largest landslide in American Political History. We'll know in November.
PS I'm still at the pity stage!
You right wing ideologues all miss the point:
Everyone already KNOWS Kerry was a leader in the Anti-War movement in the '70s. The fact is, his courageous service in battle gives his protests LEGITIMACY and RIGHTEOUSNESS that people without such distinguished service, such as Bush and Cheney, don't have when making the life and death war decisions.
With Bush, It comes across TO THE ENTIRE WORLD as some chickenshit kid playing dress up as a Fighter Pilot/Commander in Chief, without any concept of the consequences of his actions.
probably a landslide like those of McGovern and Dukakis.
i take the time to enter this fray, as i sense that you know not what you talk about.
in 1968, I was a Conscientious Objector (raised in the Society of Friends - Quakers). That got me a front row seat as a medical corpsman assigned to the 8th Cavalry (air) in Vietnam. Later, in the fall of 1969, I joined the antiwar march on D.C. with other VVAW.
my personal opinion is that Fonda and Hayden did not help end our interference in their war of independence. it was Cronkite, the draft of middle class white youth and daily body counts.
i hold nothing against anyone who did whatever they could to avoid going, whether it be connections for national guard duty or going to canada. from your comments about kerry and the war, its evident that you know nothing about what he /we went through in the nam, nor anything about his anti-war leadership. he sensed the changing tide like many others. he was a rising star politician who knew which wave to ride.
i understand that the medals he was awarded were not thrown over the fence as reported. he threw someone else's. his are still prominently displayed (as they should be) in his senatorial office.
if i am mistaken, then i apologize. if not, please hold the vietnam opinions to yourself.
OK, you are mistaken, so I'll go on exercising my right of free speech on this subject. You are certainly correct that it was the Media, such as Walter Cronkite, who focused our attention on the evil of the Vietnam War in a way that eventually caused us to pull out. However, Jane Fonda was ahead of the curve on this. You can't credit the media with turning the tide on the war without acknowledging her role as a famous celebrity who did outrageous things on behalf of the movement in drawing the Media's attention to the consequences of the war. Whatever else you think of it, her trip to Hanoi was certainly a publicity stunt, and as such, it was an undeniably successful one, in terms of putting the rightness or wrongness of the war into the thick of the public debate. There is simply no way to comprehensively describe the Anti-war movement in this country in the late '60s and early '70s without acknowledging both Jane Fonda and John Kerry's roles in that movement, as they were both instrumental players. In that sense, it is actually valid for the right wing to link the two of them together. Although, unlike the reaction that they hope for, I personally would acknowledge it for the compliment that it actually is. Kerry's position as a returning WAR HERO who led the protest against it actually did a tremendous amount to legitimize the movement itself.
One of my democrat friends just threw out for the hell of it, he thinks its a real probability.
William Jefferson and Hillary Clinton will not let any democrat win in 2004, they will want to save the spot until GWB leaves office in 2008 for Hillary. If Kerry (or anybody else) would win, she wouldn't be able to jump in until 2012.
If the best fund raiser the dems have drags his feet, the dem nominee in 2004 won't have a chance.
Bribite no I don't check under my bed before going to sleep, it requires too much effort
I don't have an active imagination, I have a deep and active understanding of history and the reality of corrupt politics. You see the reason Im so passionate about politics and distrustful of politicians is because I value this nation, our freedoms, and believe deeply in the greatness and noble purpose of our founding.
History has proven time and time again that when a public becomes complacent and power goes unchecked for too long, a society and the world pays for it with the blood of innocent lives.
Hitler was democratically elected, but an entire society and world let his power go unchecked and paid for it with 50 million lives. The British ruled the world until a few courageous visionaries here and around the world rose up against that status quo. Nero fiddled while his empire burned to the ground. An entire race of people were enslaved for the color of their skin and traded like worthless goods. There are 1000's of those stories throughout history and all have one thing in common. Whether internally or externally corrupt leader's powers were unchecked. Some required wars for change such as WW2 and some required a conscience and will of the society and saying we will not tolerate slavery anymore.
I believe in this nation and refuse to sit silently when liars and cowards start taking over the great halls of freedom known as the White House and Congress. Im not stupid enough to blindly entrust the freedom of this nation to people who don't have the conviction to stand in front of the people and speak the truth. Im also not stupid enough to believe that people with too much unchecked power will lie, deceive, oppress, and kill in the name of preserving power.
Look you seem like a pretty alright guy to me. But this is not Germany in the 1930's, or Nero's Rome. It is the United State of America where we have a balance of power.
Bush asked congress for the OK to take action in regards to regime change in Iraq. He got their approval, with Mr. Kerry, Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Clintons votes.
I didn't elect him to come to the people every time he makes a decision, it doesn't work that way. We elected him to make decisions, difficult decisions. He has done what he thought was best for our country. You may disagree with it, that is OK, you can voice that opinion as loud as you want, that OK. But to pound sand with the dumb, AWOL, coward, liar, diatribes is not only asinine, but unfair , unfounded and stupid.
Our great country will be fine, like I said before I believe we could even withstand Hillary for 8 years. The pessimism of the left is pathetic.
This country has survived crooked, self centered and self interested politicians for over 200 years and we will continue to! I suggest that you find some like minded people, raise some money and run for office. Start at your city council, then mayor, then take a shot at the congress or state legislature. But if you run on the doom and gloom platform, don't quit your day job.
only 45% of the American public ever did vote for him. And MORE of us wanted AL GORE making these decisions. Yet Dumbya acts as though he has some sort of OVERWHELMING MANDATE to radically alter the standing foreign policy of the nation for the past CENTURY.
THAT'S the damn problem.
Yeah, actually, we did.
You just don't like the outcome and the BEST you can seem to come up with is "Dumya"?
Says FAR more about you than it does about him.
About taking the slimmest and most dubious (would you prefer Dubia?) victories, when he specifically stated that he would take as a message to UNIFY the nation. Instead, he has gone out of the way to polarize it, and drive the most extremist ideological agenda ever as close to fruition as he could. That is NOT leadership, and it shows his lack of qualification for the job he holds. Fortunately, we'll get to take him out this year.
BTW, I never called him "Dumya". It's Dumbya. Learn to spell.
-- Modified on 2/12/2004 4:41:53 PM
Megapig,
You know by reading my posts that I have no party affilitaion and despise most Democrats and Republicans equally. I probably hated Gore more than anyone on this board. Why?? There is a little known secret about his 91 Gulf War vote that Democrats never want coming out.
In 91 Gore was going to be a deciding vote for the war. What does the a@#$%^& do?? He says to the Republicans that he will vote for the war not on the floor but only if he gets to announce it on air later that evening on the 6 o'clock news. Or else he said he would not vote for the war. He based the decision on sending kids to their deaths based on how much air time he would get on TV. What a f@#$%^& p@#$% and coward to make such a grave decision about peoples lives based on air time.
Back to the point. Regardless of Florida, Gore did get 800,000 more popular votes than Bush. I know how our system works, but in this case 800,000 more Americans wanted Gore than did Bush. Bush did win the electoral votes but more Amecians wanted Gore. Thats just the facts Mega. Bush won the electorals but you cant argue more people wanted Gore. And I wanted neither.
Oh and Democrats don't go around counting Nader votes for Gore. Nader voters didn't want Gore or Bush. BTW Im not a Green party member eithe...
Claim: Fonda betrayed POWs by turning over slips of paper they gave her to their captors. POWs were beaten and died as a result.
Status: FALSE.
"It's a figment of somebody's imagination," says Ret. Col. Larry Carrigan, whom I reached by phone at his home in Arizona. Carrigan, who was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967, says he has no idea why this story was attributed to him. "I never met Jane Fonda," he told me. It goes without saying he never handed her a secret message.
He said he did see Jane Fonda once while he was a POW – on film. The occasion was a night when Carrigan and the other 80 or so men he was interned with were called out into the prison courtyard – "the first time we'd been outside under the stars in 5 or 6 years." As the men stood there wondering what was in store for them, a movie projector began whirring behind them. Their captors were showing them footage of Fonda's 1972 visit to Hanoi.
If you two can't play nice and I have to pull this car over, SOMEONE is going to be sorry!!!!!
I didn't start this thread. In fact, I have not started ANY of these threads. Every single post I have made on this topic has been in response to someone ELSE'S spouting of Right Wing propaganda in support of the path our Nation is being led down. When that happens, I choose to excercise my right of dissent.
And I think that it was HIGH TIME that the right wing ideologes get the message that if they want to start calling everyone who disagrees with them Jane Fonda this and Jane Fonda that, BRING IT ON - we will take it as the compliment that it is. She's a heroic American citizen who helped to end a war. Ending a war is MESSY BUSINESS, and it can't be done withour colateral damage. In this case, it's apparent that this colateral damage was to the psyches of veterans who served our nation, which is unfortunate. But not NEARLY as much of that damage can rightfully be attributed by her, as to the leadership that PUT those veterans in harm's way without a righteous cause. The SAME thing is happenning in Iraq, and if the same nasty medicine is required to cure us of the cancer that is Bush's Iraqi misadventure, so be it. We will administer that medicine, because, make no mistake, the ailment is worse than the cure.
-- Modified on 2/12/2004 2:50:13 PM
Isn't there a BDSM forum? (grin)
TET
-- Modified on 2/12/2004 12:18:42 PM
Well, if nothing else, the Democrat party ought to have a lock on the moron vote.
I love how the far Left changes the subject when the facts belie their arguments. You make a post demonstrating how the far Left agreed that Iraq had WMDs (even the UN did), and therefore cannot legitimately call Bush a "liar" (as so many want to do), so they start complaining about preemption.
We can have a legitimate argument about preemption. But the far Left wants to call Bush a "liar." Too bad that, if he's one, so are they.