Post #32
… or Libertarian….
OK, this post is tongue-in-cheek, but, really, I find more to agree with Loretta Nall who is running for Governor of Alabama – “Vote Nall Y'all ... It's Just Common Sense,” http://www.nallforgovernor.com/ -- than almost anybody else. Read her platform… and look at her boobs!
Loretta says, “This article is from Brand Week Magazine a national marketing firm which names my ads the ‘Most Honest of the Political Season:’”
* * *
Political Ads Gone Wild
October 30, 2006
Yet, the most honest ad belongs to Loretta Nall, the Libertarian candidate for governor of Alabama. Nall's Web site features a cartoon picture of the candidate; when people donate money to the campaign it is pushed into her décolletage. The more you donate, the more you get to see. For enough money, she removes her blouse to reveal a tank top with a picture of her opponents on it and the words: "The biggest boobs in Alabama politics." Nall e-mailed: "I think the ads and the T-shirts have been so effective because it bares [sic] all the markings of mocking the authorities. It brings humor to an otherwise dull, boring, same old, same old political season . . . People love an underdog." And boobs!
* * *
If Loretta runs for the White House in 2008, she’s got my support… with both hands!
* * *
As governor of Alabama I would have no real power to influence the Iraq war policy, but I feel that you have the right to know exactly how I feel on that issue and on the concept of war in general.
As a Libertarian I'm not a pacifist. I believe that only defense is legitimate.
I like to believe that no one wants or likes war. Under the current US administration I am having something of a hard time holding onto that belief.
Having said that, I support our troops but I do not support the Iraq war.
In the beginning and in the aftermath of 9/11 I did support it. I, like millions of other Americans, believed our president when he said there were WMD's and that Iraq was somehow tied to the terrorist attacks that befell our nation. I understood our mission there to be the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.
That mission was accomplished in three days and our brave troops did one hell of a job. They should have been applauded, commended and given the highest amount of respect for carrying out their objective. And then they should have been brought home to their families.
But, they are still there and no one seems to be able to say with any degree of certainty just exactly what they are fighting for or how long this war will last or how many more will have to die.
Alabama did not choose to send her sons and daughters off to fight this illegal war. That choice was made for us.
That choice has cost the lives of 43 Alabama soldiers. 24 of that 43 were under the age of 30 and 17 of those were 25 years old or younger.
These are just kids, our kids, only a few years out of high school. Many of them likely signed up for the GI bill because they came from impoverished families and had few options for acquiring a college degree. They had their whole life ahead of them.
Now they are dead.
I support the immediate withdrawal of all our troops from Iraq. As Governor of Alabama I will call for the immediate withdrawal of our National Guard troops and I believe Alabama should hereafter retain sovereignty over her state militia.
* * *
States’ rights. Did ya hear that?
* * *
Our elected officials say the terrorists hate us for our freedom. Apparently our elected officials have decided to remedy that situation by taking away all of our freedoms so the terrorists won't hate us anymore.
The willingness of our elected officials both here at home and in Washington, D.C. to participate in the obliteration of our constitutional rights and civil liberties is disgusting and revealing….
* * *
What a political candidate… and a woman!
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Friday, October 27, 2006
Post #31
Why vote for Democrats? Security.
Perhaps Democrats can stop the policies of the George W. Bush administration which are making us less secure. There’s too much at stake.
Look, according to members of Bush’s own administration as shown by the National Intelligence Estimate, we are creating more jihadists in Iraq -- something that’s been said for years and years by Democrats and nutty bloggers.
But who are these jihadists? Well, they are NOT Iranian nuclear scientists or North Korean goose-steppers or British citizens – all of which require different approaches. These jihadists are the foot-soldiers for terrorism – these are the suicide bombers and suicide pilots.
We don’t have anything to worry about from these jihadists, the foot-soldiers. Oh, sure, the Saudis need to be worried, and the Israelis, as always, need to be worried, and our embassies in Africa and our warships in Middle Eastern ports. But our worry is the Osama Bin Ladens who are inspired by our presence in Iraq – nuts who are capable of organizing a terrorist networks capable of hitting us here in America.
Let’s say, as purely a guess, we are inspiring one additional Osama every year we are in Iraq. Doesn’t it make sense to withdraw now from Iraq after three years and the inspiration of three Osamas than to wait two more years and two more Osamas? For Gawd’s sake, let’s not wait 30 years as Condi wants or build permanent basis.
We are less secure under the leadership – or lack thereof – of Bush. Let’s hope the Democrats can make us more secure. Check http://planforiraq.com/ , the plan of * cough, Democrat, cough * Senator Joe Biden and Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations:
“Sectarian violence among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds is now the major impediment to stability and progress in Iraq. No number of troops can solve that problem. The only way to hold Iraq together and create the conditions for our armed forces to responsibly withdraw is to give Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds incentives to pursue their interests peacefully. That requires a sustainable political settlement, which is the primary objective of our plan.
“The plan would maintain a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis breathing room in their own regions - as provided for in the Iraqi constitution. The central government would be responsible for common interests, like border security and the distribution of oil revenues. We would secure support from the Sunnis - who have no oil -- by guaranteeing them a proportionate share (about 20 percent) of oil revenues. We would increase economic aid, ask the oil-rich Arab Gulf states to fund it and tie all assistance to the protection of minority rights and the creation of a jobs program. We would convene a regional conference to enlist the support of Iraq's neighbors and create a Contact Group of the major powers to enforce their commitments. And we would ask our military to draw up plans to responsibly withdraw most U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2007 - enough time for the political settlement to take hold.
“The course we're on has no end in sight. This plan can allow us to achieve the two objectives most American share: to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind.”
I don’t know if it will work, but it’s better than the nonsense coming out of Bush. Maj. Gen. John Batiste told Mark Benjamin at Salon.com that he thinks the country might still be successfully carved up among the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds. President Bush does not have a strategy for victory in Iraq. His strategy is to prevent defeat and to hand the problem off to his successor. As a result, more and more Americans want to bring our troops home immediately, even at the risk of trading a dictator for chaos and a civil war that could become a regional war. Both are bad alternatives. Batiste hopes that a Democratic-controlled Congress can push back more forcefully against President Bush, who continues to argue in favor of establishing democracy in Iraq, and against partitioning the country along sectarian lines.
Bush is making the mistake of defining “victory” as “a democracy that’s an ally in the War on Terror.” Unfortunately, Bush does not seem to realize that a democracy will not necessarily be an ally in the War on Terror – can ya say Lebanon? -- or that an ally in the War on Terror will not necessarily be a democracy – can ya say Saudi Arabia? The course we're on has no end in sight. Joe Biden’s plan can allow us to achieve the two objectives most American share: to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind. And make us more secure.
Why vote for Democrats? Security.
Perhaps Democrats can stop the policies of the George W. Bush administration which are making us less secure. There’s too much at stake.
Look, according to members of Bush’s own administration as shown by the National Intelligence Estimate, we are creating more jihadists in Iraq -- something that’s been said for years and years by Democrats and nutty bloggers.
But who are these jihadists? Well, they are NOT Iranian nuclear scientists or North Korean goose-steppers or British citizens – all of which require different approaches. These jihadists are the foot-soldiers for terrorism – these are the suicide bombers and suicide pilots.
We don’t have anything to worry about from these jihadists, the foot-soldiers. Oh, sure, the Saudis need to be worried, and the Israelis, as always, need to be worried, and our embassies in Africa and our warships in Middle Eastern ports. But our worry is the Osama Bin Ladens who are inspired by our presence in Iraq – nuts who are capable of organizing a terrorist networks capable of hitting us here in America.
Let’s say, as purely a guess, we are inspiring one additional Osama every year we are in Iraq. Doesn’t it make sense to withdraw now from Iraq after three years and the inspiration of three Osamas than to wait two more years and two more Osamas? For Gawd’s sake, let’s not wait 30 years as Condi wants or build permanent basis.
We are less secure under the leadership – or lack thereof – of Bush. Let’s hope the Democrats can make us more secure. Check http://planforiraq.com/ , the plan of * cough, Democrat, cough * Senator Joe Biden and Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations:
“Sectarian violence among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds is now the major impediment to stability and progress in Iraq. No number of troops can solve that problem. The only way to hold Iraq together and create the conditions for our armed forces to responsibly withdraw is to give Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds incentives to pursue their interests peacefully. That requires a sustainable political settlement, which is the primary objective of our plan.
“The plan would maintain a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis breathing room in their own regions - as provided for in the Iraqi constitution. The central government would be responsible for common interests, like border security and the distribution of oil revenues. We would secure support from the Sunnis - who have no oil -- by guaranteeing them a proportionate share (about 20 percent) of oil revenues. We would increase economic aid, ask the oil-rich Arab Gulf states to fund it and tie all assistance to the protection of minority rights and the creation of a jobs program. We would convene a regional conference to enlist the support of Iraq's neighbors and create a Contact Group of the major powers to enforce their commitments. And we would ask our military to draw up plans to responsibly withdraw most U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2007 - enough time for the political settlement to take hold.
“The course we're on has no end in sight. This plan can allow us to achieve the two objectives most American share: to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind.”
I don’t know if it will work, but it’s better than the nonsense coming out of Bush. Maj. Gen. John Batiste told Mark Benjamin at Salon.com that he thinks the country might still be successfully carved up among the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds. President Bush does not have a strategy for victory in Iraq. His strategy is to prevent defeat and to hand the problem off to his successor. As a result, more and more Americans want to bring our troops home immediately, even at the risk of trading a dictator for chaos and a civil war that could become a regional war. Both are bad alternatives. Batiste hopes that a Democratic-controlled Congress can push back more forcefully against President Bush, who continues to argue in favor of establishing democracy in Iraq, and against partitioning the country along sectarian lines.
Bush is making the mistake of defining “victory” as “a democracy that’s an ally in the War on Terror.” Unfortunately, Bush does not seem to realize that a democracy will not necessarily be an ally in the War on Terror – can ya say Lebanon? -- or that an ally in the War on Terror will not necessarily be a democracy – can ya say Saudi Arabia? The course we're on has no end in sight. Joe Biden’s plan can allow us to achieve the two objectives most American share: to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind. And make us more secure.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Post #30
Subject: Finally, Iraq Explained...
The War in Iraq Is Going Either Very Well or Very Poorly... Or So-So... I Think
An Editorial by Frank J.
After listening to the numerous opinions on the Iraq War, it has become quite obvious that something is happening in that country. The current state of affairs will most certainly be detrimental to the Middle East's future unless it is beneficial or of no effect whatsoever. This goes doubly for Iraqis themselves. And I can say that with great certainty as it the opinion of the numerous pundits who have been to Iraq or read a book on Iraq or saw numerous news stories on Iraq as well as the numerous pundits who have listened to those pundits. While some (or many) may argue that some (or many) of those opinions are based more on biases than facts, it is important to remember that that doesn't mean those opinions are wrong. Unless they are wrong... but they may not be. So keep that in mind.
So how did Iraq end up it's current state? This is quite directly attributable to the success or failure of the Bush Administration... unless of course things happened that were completely out of their hands. The consensus of opinion, though, is that the blame lies somewhere unless it was no one's fault. It's hard to argue with that... but some will anyway. Obviously, Rumsfeld underestimated the number of troops needed unless he got the number right or possibly sent too many. This caused the Iraq War to be a front or distraction to the War on Terror, which we all agree is an important fight or a blunder that never should have been started. According to those in the know, and those not in the know, and those who don't know what they know, this should all have some or no effect on the future.
So, is it worth the cost in the lives of our soldiers? This is a good question unless it's missing the point. According to some and many and some of those many, the current number of American lives lost in the war is unacceptably high or very low or about what's expected. This is quite obvious if you look to other American wars which are good measures or misleading, as the battles in them were quite similar to today except for the differences. All agree, though, that the sacrifice of our soldiers should or should not be respected as they are dying for our freedom or for no reason whatsoever. Certainly no one would celebrate those deaths other than those who do. And that's a good/bad thing (or vice versa).
And what about the Iraqis who died? This is important to consider unless it is irrelevant. Everyone agrees that tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands have died as a result or regardless of this war... except for those who put the number in the millions or much less. Obviously, this is a number different or the same as those who would have died under Saddam... though those number could have been exaggerated or underestimated. But life is certainly better or worse for Iraqis now if you discount those for who things have remained the same. That's why many Iraqis are angry or happy or ambivalent, and can expect a bright or bitter future or more of the same. What experts and expert-sounding people do agree on (for the most part) is that there will be a future of some sort.
What is important or pointless is establishing a stable democracy in Iraq. This easily attainable to impossible, but requires us to stay the course or do a completely different strategy… unless it's more prudent to just give up. What everyone agrees on, though, is that a stable democracy is what will bring peace to region unless a friendly dictator would be more practical or we should just get out of there and not care either way.
The Iraq War certainly is something. All agree that there is an Iraq and that stuff is happening there. Also, it is quite certain that some sort of action/inaction is required by the U.S. Less certain is whether out of the thousands of people commenting on Iraq, if any of them actually know anything. What I do know for sure, though, is that I'm hungry... unless I'm misinterpreting a feeling of nausea, that is.
-----
Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "Victorious Quagmire: Yet Another Book About Iraq from Someone Clamining to Know What's He's Talking About" and "Bacon Calms the Mind: A Look at the Root Causes of Islamic Terror".
http://www.imao.us/archives/006418.html
Subject: Finally, Iraq Explained...
The War in Iraq Is Going Either Very Well or Very Poorly... Or So-So... I Think
An Editorial by Frank J.
After listening to the numerous opinions on the Iraq War, it has become quite obvious that something is happening in that country. The current state of affairs will most certainly be detrimental to the Middle East's future unless it is beneficial or of no effect whatsoever. This goes doubly for Iraqis themselves. And I can say that with great certainty as it the opinion of the numerous pundits who have been to Iraq or read a book on Iraq or saw numerous news stories on Iraq as well as the numerous pundits who have listened to those pundits. While some (or many) may argue that some (or many) of those opinions are based more on biases than facts, it is important to remember that that doesn't mean those opinions are wrong. Unless they are wrong... but they may not be. So keep that in mind.
So how did Iraq end up it's current state? This is quite directly attributable to the success or failure of the Bush Administration... unless of course things happened that were completely out of their hands. The consensus of opinion, though, is that the blame lies somewhere unless it was no one's fault. It's hard to argue with that... but some will anyway. Obviously, Rumsfeld underestimated the number of troops needed unless he got the number right or possibly sent too many. This caused the Iraq War to be a front or distraction to the War on Terror, which we all agree is an important fight or a blunder that never should have been started. According to those in the know, and those not in the know, and those who don't know what they know, this should all have some or no effect on the future.
So, is it worth the cost in the lives of our soldiers? This is a good question unless it's missing the point. According to some and many and some of those many, the current number of American lives lost in the war is unacceptably high or very low or about what's expected. This is quite obvious if you look to other American wars which are good measures or misleading, as the battles in them were quite similar to today except for the differences. All agree, though, that the sacrifice of our soldiers should or should not be respected as they are dying for our freedom or for no reason whatsoever. Certainly no one would celebrate those deaths other than those who do. And that's a good/bad thing (or vice versa).
And what about the Iraqis who died? This is important to consider unless it is irrelevant. Everyone agrees that tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands have died as a result or regardless of this war... except for those who put the number in the millions or much less. Obviously, this is a number different or the same as those who would have died under Saddam... though those number could have been exaggerated or underestimated. But life is certainly better or worse for Iraqis now if you discount those for who things have remained the same. That's why many Iraqis are angry or happy or ambivalent, and can expect a bright or bitter future or more of the same. What experts and expert-sounding people do agree on (for the most part) is that there will be a future of some sort.
What is important or pointless is establishing a stable democracy in Iraq. This easily attainable to impossible, but requires us to stay the course or do a completely different strategy… unless it's more prudent to just give up. What everyone agrees on, though, is that a stable democracy is what will bring peace to region unless a friendly dictator would be more practical or we should just get out of there and not care either way.
The Iraq War certainly is something. All agree that there is an Iraq and that stuff is happening there. Also, it is quite certain that some sort of action/inaction is required by the U.S. Less certain is whether out of the thousands of people commenting on Iraq, if any of them actually know anything. What I do know for sure, though, is that I'm hungry... unless I'm misinterpreting a feeling of nausea, that is.
-----
Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "Victorious Quagmire: Yet Another Book About Iraq from Someone Clamining to Know What's He's Talking About" and "Bacon Calms the Mind: A Look at the Root Causes of Islamic Terror".
http://www.imao.us/archives/006418.html
Friday, October 20, 2006
Post #29
Subject: We are Rome….
It’s all over, people. The American grand experiment with democracy is finished. I refer of course to George W. Bush being able to name as enemy combatants whoever he chooses. The President is The State.
The other day, 10/17, the President signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006 – this Act does away with habeas corpus, the right of anybody to know why they have been imprisoned, if the President does not think it should apply to you and declares you an enemy combatant.
On Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC show this past Tuesday night, he talked with Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University:
“OLBERMANN: I want to start by asking you about a specific part of this act that lists one of the definitions of an unlawful enemy combatant as, quote, “a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a combatant status review tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense.”
“Does that not basically mean that if Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld say so, anybody in this country, citizen or not, innocent or not, can end up being an unlawful enemy combatant?”
“TURLEY: It certainly does. In fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the president deems connected to one of these groups, you too can be an enemy combatant.”
Hillary Clinton, Bob Woodward, John McCain, Jerry Falwell, you, me – we could all disappear tomorrow. Dissent, it’s what enemy combatants do. The First Amendment is null and void. Criticism of the President is permitted only with the President’s consent.
Farfetched? Consider: The new Democratic majority in Congress begins Impeachment against this President – Treason, failing to support and defend the constitutional separation of powers. Yes, setting up his own kangaroo courts is Treason. Nancy Pelosi will be gone.
“OLBERMANN: Does this mean that under this law, ultimately the only thing keeping you, I, or the viewer out of Gitmo is the sanity and honesty of the president of the United States?
“TURLEY: It does. And it‘s a huge sea change for our democracy. The framers created a system where we did not have to rely on the good graces or good mood of the president. In fact, Madison said that he created a system essentially to be run by devils, where they could not do harm, because we didn‘t rely on their good motivations.
“Now we must. And people have no idea how significant this is. What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values.
"It couldn‘t be more significant. … The Congress just gave the president despotic powers….”
We are Rome. Oh, sure, the façade of democracy will remain… for a while. But the true heartbeat of a democracy, the marketplace of ideas, has been silenced. History will long debate as to why the greatest nation in the world so willing betrayed its own ideals and values – why we went out with a whimper… not a bang.
“TURLEY: Well, this is going to go down in history as one of our greatest self-inflicted wounds. And I think you can feel the judgment of history. It won‘t be kind to President Bush.
“But frankly, I don‘t think that it will be kind to the rest of us. I think that history will ask, Where were you? What did you do when this thing was signed into law? … But we are strangely silent in this national yawn as our rights evaporate.”
And the terrorists have won. No, the stated objective of Osama Bin Laden has not been achieved – we have not left the Middle East. But the terrorists have won a victory that they could not even have dreamed of – we have committed national suicide.
Subject: We are Rome….
It’s all over, people. The American grand experiment with democracy is finished. I refer of course to George W. Bush being able to name as enemy combatants whoever he chooses. The President is The State.
The other day, 10/17, the President signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006 – this Act does away with habeas corpus, the right of anybody to know why they have been imprisoned, if the President does not think it should apply to you and declares you an enemy combatant.
On Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC show this past Tuesday night, he talked with Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University:
“OLBERMANN: I want to start by asking you about a specific part of this act that lists one of the definitions of an unlawful enemy combatant as, quote, “a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a combatant status review tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense.”
“Does that not basically mean that if Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld say so, anybody in this country, citizen or not, innocent or not, can end up being an unlawful enemy combatant?”
“TURLEY: It certainly does. In fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the president deems connected to one of these groups, you too can be an enemy combatant.”
Hillary Clinton, Bob Woodward, John McCain, Jerry Falwell, you, me – we could all disappear tomorrow. Dissent, it’s what enemy combatants do. The First Amendment is null and void. Criticism of the President is permitted only with the President’s consent.
Farfetched? Consider: The new Democratic majority in Congress begins Impeachment against this President – Treason, failing to support and defend the constitutional separation of powers. Yes, setting up his own kangaroo courts is Treason. Nancy Pelosi will be gone.
“OLBERMANN: Does this mean that under this law, ultimately the only thing keeping you, I, or the viewer out of Gitmo is the sanity and honesty of the president of the United States?
“TURLEY: It does. And it‘s a huge sea change for our democracy. The framers created a system where we did not have to rely on the good graces or good mood of the president. In fact, Madison said that he created a system essentially to be run by devils, where they could not do harm, because we didn‘t rely on their good motivations.
“Now we must. And people have no idea how significant this is. What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values.
"It couldn‘t be more significant. … The Congress just gave the president despotic powers….”
We are Rome. Oh, sure, the façade of democracy will remain… for a while. But the true heartbeat of a democracy, the marketplace of ideas, has been silenced. History will long debate as to why the greatest nation in the world so willing betrayed its own ideals and values – why we went out with a whimper… not a bang.
“TURLEY: Well, this is going to go down in history as one of our greatest self-inflicted wounds. And I think you can feel the judgment of history. It won‘t be kind to President Bush.
“But frankly, I don‘t think that it will be kind to the rest of us. I think that history will ask, Where were you? What did you do when this thing was signed into law? … But we are strangely silent in this national yawn as our rights evaporate.”
And the terrorists have won. No, the stated objective of Osama Bin Laden has not been achieved – we have not left the Middle East. But the terrorists have won a victory that they could not even have dreamed of – we have committed national suicide.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Post #28
Subject: more hypocritical politicians stuff
“Once again we get to see a politician playing the Janus-faced game; by this time I'm sure you have heard or read about that fool from Florida, Mark Foley…. I've seen this sort of thing happen over and over in the decades that I've been watching politics. Another incident that I particularly remember was about twenty years ago, when a just-elected district attorney for some county up in Texas' bible belt in east Texas, who ran on a platform of cleaning up his county and ridding it of vice, got caught in one of them adult bookstore peep-show rooms giving some biker a blowjob…. And of course, all the times that I've read about from the past, when cops would raid some red-light district bordello and among the customers would usually be some of the local politicians and/or other pillars of the community like lawyers, preachers, cops, etc. After all, them is usually the people who could afford to spend the $$ for leisure activities, lol.”
The above comes from an exasperated e-pal. I too have seen this type of hypocrisy often enough that, when I hear somebody campaign on “family values,” I’ll vote for his opponent, figuring “Mr. Family Values” is banging his daughter!
I quote from the column “Mark Foley's and Moral Clarity” by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , from October 10, 2006:
“As of today, this is a Republican scandal. A GOP congressman was responsible for the sordid messages to pages. The House GOP leadership failed to investigate rigorously. And some GOP staff and members may have lied and may have covered up. Any Republican who is proven to have done so should be removed from any position of power.”
Chris Matthews paid Pat Buchanan the highest compliment the other day when he said that Pat had rather be right than be elected. But Pat blew it with his next paragraph of the same column:
“But to have the party of gay rights, many of whose leaders have marched in gay pride parades alongside the pedophiles of NAMBLA, acting "shocked, shocked" at GOP torpor in outing and ousting its flaming gay member is, to put it mildly, unconvincing.”
I saw a grown Congressman whining on TV the other day that the real story was “What did the Democrats know, and when did they know it?” Good Lord. If Hillary herself knew in July, how does that lesson the Republican’s lack-of-accountability?
Subject: more hypocritical politicians stuff
“Once again we get to see a politician playing the Janus-faced game; by this time I'm sure you have heard or read about that fool from Florida, Mark Foley…. I've seen this sort of thing happen over and over in the decades that I've been watching politics. Another incident that I particularly remember was about twenty years ago, when a just-elected district attorney for some county up in Texas' bible belt in east Texas, who ran on a platform of cleaning up his county and ridding it of vice, got caught in one of them adult bookstore peep-show rooms giving some biker a blowjob…. And of course, all the times that I've read about from the past, when cops would raid some red-light district bordello and among the customers would usually be some of the local politicians and/or other pillars of the community like lawyers, preachers, cops, etc. After all, them is usually the people who could afford to spend the $$ for leisure activities, lol.”
The above comes from an exasperated e-pal. I too have seen this type of hypocrisy often enough that, when I hear somebody campaign on “family values,” I’ll vote for his opponent, figuring “Mr. Family Values” is banging his daughter!
I quote from the column “Mark Foley's and Moral Clarity” by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , from October 10, 2006:
“As of today, this is a Republican scandal. A GOP congressman was responsible for the sordid messages to pages. The House GOP leadership failed to investigate rigorously. And some GOP staff and members may have lied and may have covered up. Any Republican who is proven to have done so should be removed from any position of power.”
Chris Matthews paid Pat Buchanan the highest compliment the other day when he said that Pat had rather be right than be elected. But Pat blew it with his next paragraph of the same column:
“But to have the party of gay rights, many of whose leaders have marched in gay pride parades alongside the pedophiles of NAMBLA, acting "shocked, shocked" at GOP torpor in outing and ousting its flaming gay member is, to put it mildly, unconvincing.”
I saw a grown Congressman whining on TV the other day that the real story was “What did the Democrats know, and when did they know it?” Good Lord. If Hillary herself knew in July, how does that lesson the Republican’s lack-of-accountability?
Friday, October 06, 2006
Post #27
Three options concerning Iraq, more thoughts:
As always, the question is “Where do we go from here?” In post #1 and repeated in other posts, I said three options – my additions in [brackets]….
1. Win the war. I opposed the diversion into Iraq to begin with, but it is/was winnable. Bush has lost it and probably cannot win it at this point.
[Ummm, well, why did I oppose the diversion into Iraq to begin with? We hadn’t finished in Afghanistan, and, as I feared, resources for our Afghanistan mission were diverted. I consider our mission in Afghanistan to be justifiable, an appropriate use of our military force. “To make no distinction between terrorists organization and the governments that harbor them.” – yes! Iraq was a mistake. There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq… until our invasion. The idea of “pre-emptive war” – well, in Bob Woodward’s State of Denial, reading the account of General ‘Spider’ Marks and his inability to get a straight answer as to what to look for in the way of WMD, makes it clear that Washington did not really buy the WMD argument itself. So, it comes down to getting rid of Saddam and hoping something positive would bloom – in other words, spreading democracy at gunpoint. That has never worked – why did they think it would now? Iraq is not winnable.]
2. Stay the course. More lying, more dying as Bush prays for a miracle.
[Iraq is not winnable. I know I’ve recently been infatuated with more troops and greater effort. But I’m now thinking Iraq is not winnable –– no matter how much money, no matter how many lives, no matter how many years, we will leave… as occupiers, not democracy’s champion.]
3. Withdrawal. I personally favor #1, but, as that option gets farther and farther away, I favor #3. I find #2 to be morally reprehensible.
[I saw on TV the other day a “talking head” ask somebody who was in favor of an immediate withdrawal – forget whom [blush] – about the potential problems of withdrawal. He said “We’ll see.” In other words, it is better to leave now and face the consequences now than to leave in, say, 10 years and face what definitely will be even worse consequences. And, yes, we will be leaving at some point.]
Well, #1 is wrong – a false choice #2 is morally reprehensible. #3 – let’s just declare victory and come home….
Three options concerning Iraq, more thoughts:
As always, the question is “Where do we go from here?” In post #1 and repeated in other posts, I said three options – my additions in [brackets]….
1. Win the war. I opposed the diversion into Iraq to begin with, but it is/was winnable. Bush has lost it and probably cannot win it at this point.
[Ummm, well, why did I oppose the diversion into Iraq to begin with? We hadn’t finished in Afghanistan, and, as I feared, resources for our Afghanistan mission were diverted. I consider our mission in Afghanistan to be justifiable, an appropriate use of our military force. “To make no distinction between terrorists organization and the governments that harbor them.” – yes! Iraq was a mistake. There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq… until our invasion. The idea of “pre-emptive war” – well, in Bob Woodward’s State of Denial, reading the account of General ‘Spider’ Marks and his inability to get a straight answer as to what to look for in the way of WMD, makes it clear that Washington did not really buy the WMD argument itself. So, it comes down to getting rid of Saddam and hoping something positive would bloom – in other words, spreading democracy at gunpoint. That has never worked – why did they think it would now? Iraq is not winnable.]
2. Stay the course. More lying, more dying as Bush prays for a miracle.
[Iraq is not winnable. I know I’ve recently been infatuated with more troops and greater effort. But I’m now thinking Iraq is not winnable –– no matter how much money, no matter how many lives, no matter how many years, we will leave… as occupiers, not democracy’s champion.]
3. Withdrawal. I personally favor #1, but, as that option gets farther and farther away, I favor #3. I find #2 to be morally reprehensible.
[I saw on TV the other day a “talking head” ask somebody who was in favor of an immediate withdrawal – forget whom [blush] – about the potential problems of withdrawal. He said “We’ll see.” In other words, it is better to leave now and face the consequences now than to leave in, say, 10 years and face what definitely will be even worse consequences. And, yes, we will be leaving at some point.]
Well, #1 is wrong – a false choice #2 is morally reprehensible. #3 – let’s just declare victory and come home….
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Post #26
Subject: Party like it's 1969!
Congress ready to celebrate end-of-war party
Politicians have $20 million set aside, despite poor news out of Iraq
WASHINGTON - The military’s top generals have warned Iraq is on the cusp of a civil war and that U.S. troops must remain in large numbers until at least next spring. But if the winds suddenly blow a different direction, Congress is ready to celebrate with a $20 million victory party.
Lawmakers included language in this year’s defense spending bill, approved last week, allowing them to spend the money. The funds for “commemoration of success” in Iraq and Afghanistan were originally tucked into last year’s defense measure, but went unspent amid an uptick in violence in both countries that forced the Pentagon to extend tours of duty for thousands of troops.
* * *
I originally found the above article – of which there is more – at http://www.msnbc.com and wanted to get a few good quotes from the discussion on their message boards, but the posts were being added faster than I could read. But I did get one:
“Ghoulish, nothing short of ghoulish. Only delusional fools like those running this country today would celebrate such a calamity as this has been. And doing so, under these circumstances, disgraces every life lost their. We should not be celebrating, we should be mourning the needless loss of American lives, the betrayal of the American people by its leadership, and the irreparable harm done to American, its image and its values that will stain and burden us for decades to come. Now it is time to mourn, not to celebrate...the only celebrating to be done is when these people are put out of office and, for the first time in our history, criminally prosecuted for treason and fraud. Then, when that is done we can truly say as Americans, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"!!!!”
Four Americans died today, and, as always, the question is “Where do we go from here?” In post #1, I said “three options
1. Win the war. I opposed the diversion into Iraq to begin with, but it is/was winnable. Bush has lost it and probably cannot win it at this point.
2. Stay the course. More lying, more dying as Bush prays for a miracle.
3. Withdrawal. I personally favor #1, but, as that option gets farther and farther away, I favor #3. I find #2 to be morally reprehensible.”
Well, #1 is getting farther and farther away – let’s declare victory and come home. Let Bush have his victory dance – just stop the killing! I hope the next President can do a better job with the War on Terror….
Subject: Party like it's 1969!
Congress ready to celebrate end-of-war party
Politicians have $20 million set aside, despite poor news out of Iraq
WASHINGTON - The military’s top generals have warned Iraq is on the cusp of a civil war and that U.S. troops must remain in large numbers until at least next spring. But if the winds suddenly blow a different direction, Congress is ready to celebrate with a $20 million victory party.
Lawmakers included language in this year’s defense spending bill, approved last week, allowing them to spend the money. The funds for “commemoration of success” in Iraq and Afghanistan were originally tucked into last year’s defense measure, but went unspent amid an uptick in violence in both countries that forced the Pentagon to extend tours of duty for thousands of troops.
* * *
I originally found the above article – of which there is more – at http://www.msnbc.com and wanted to get a few good quotes from the discussion on their message boards, but the posts were being added faster than I could read. But I did get one:
“Ghoulish, nothing short of ghoulish. Only delusional fools like those running this country today would celebrate such a calamity as this has been. And doing so, under these circumstances, disgraces every life lost their. We should not be celebrating, we should be mourning the needless loss of American lives, the betrayal of the American people by its leadership, and the irreparable harm done to American, its image and its values that will stain and burden us for decades to come. Now it is time to mourn, not to celebrate...the only celebrating to be done is when these people are put out of office and, for the first time in our history, criminally prosecuted for treason and fraud. Then, when that is done we can truly say as Americans, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"!!!!”
Four Americans died today, and, as always, the question is “Where do we go from here?” In post #1, I said “three options
1. Win the war. I opposed the diversion into Iraq to begin with, but it is/was winnable. Bush has lost it and probably cannot win it at this point.
2. Stay the course. More lying, more dying as Bush prays for a miracle.
3. Withdrawal. I personally favor #1, but, as that option gets farther and farther away, I favor #3. I find #2 to be morally reprehensible.”
Well, #1 is getting farther and farther away – let’s declare victory and come home. Let Bush have his victory dance – just stop the killing! I hope the next President can do a better job with the War on Terror….
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)