You (And George Bush) Should Read This

[charlie,nj]

“I'm fascinated by rap and by hip-hop. I think there's a lot of poetry in it. There's a lot of anger, a lot of social energy in it. And I think you'd better listen to it pretty carefully, 'cause it's important.”

-John Kerry 03/2004 MTV



word up!!



.

 

[dennis99ss]

So, the fact is that we're doing the best in Iraq to provide a government where the citizens have a say amd no one has to worry about being thrown into mass graves after being tortured or having weapons of mass destruction (chemicals) used on you and your neighbors simply because of your religion or political affiliation.

Hm.....you are right, today in Iraq there are no religious groups that are being targeted by others. and, if it is good enough for Iraq, why don't we bring our new empire building, country saving, whatever you would like to call our actions, to other parts of the world, like Korea, or China, or nations in Africa, who, I do believe, all engage in methods of national mass destruction, either in the form of limiting children to families, in limiting speech and thought and religion with state oppresion and force, etc. Is being thrown in jail as much an oppression as beinmg killed for your religion. Is being killed in Africa for being of a different ethnicity or region the same as what happened in Iraq. Is the fact that some in Africa horde food while others die of starvation not the same as genocide?

Tell me conservative guru, and flag waving american, why is it ok that we go into Iraq, and kill so as to "save lives" while we turn a blind eye to others around the world who, unlike Iraq, are actually dying now, and not in the past. Why is Iraq of such importance while countries in Africa are not? Are the africans not worth as much?

There is more behind the "Mission Accomplished" statement that you may realize. Before the restart of the war (remember, we never stopped being at war with Iraq after they invaded Kuwait. Saddam, after being made numerous offers to comply, remained in violation of FOURTEEN UN regulations) many countries promised financial support as well as ground troops for the rebuilding of Iraq at the end of "major conflict" (or major fighting... I forget the actual, proper phrase). That is the reason there was so much hoopla surrounding the "Mission Accomplished" and the "end of major conflict." We were signaling to those "allies" (France, Germany, Russia) that it was time for them to help us rebuild Iraq. This is one of those things that, as mentioned above, you plan for, but war doesn't always follow the plan.

So, are you saying that these other countries needed to see W on an aircraft carrier with a sigbn saying Mission Accomplished to know that their help was requested.....Are these the same countries you claim had better intelligence than we did in preping for the war? Why would they need to wait to see W on a carrier. I guess since W angered all of them, he couldn't get them to take his calls, so this must have been his subliminal message.

War is never an easy choice. We did not decide to go to war in Iraq. Saddam Hussein decided for us to go to war when he refused to comply with the terms of the cease fire. 14 terms. Many times. What was the world to do, let him continue to ignore the rules? That would have just sent the message that the rules don't matter and that there are no consequences for breaking them.

Yes, rules are very important. I am glad you agree with that statement, since you made it. So, how about rules here in this counttry. Are they as important. Rules like telling the tructh to the American People. Not holding the tructh back. Not twisting the facts so it sounds like the truth. Following through with the threat that if anybody leaked, they are fired....opps, it was W, so, he makes it no leak. uh huh. What about following the rules with wire taps, with prisoners, with torture?

What about following the rules with other countries. Is an Iran invasion next? How about Korea, they didn't follow the rules? What about China, they don't follow all of the trade rul;es, wto, etc. Should we go teach all of these countries a lesson as well.

You selectively single out Iraq, but, your logic is actually illogical, because, if your attempt to justify Iraq is logical, then it should logically apply to other like circumstances, which it does not. As a result, the real reason behind Iraq must be something else. Of course, when your arguments do not make sense when looked at objectively, the reasons behind the decisions are placed under more scrutiny, which is exactly what is happening now, and, the scrutiny is showing the the American People do not believe the reasons you have set out.

 

[dennis99ss]

Does anyone else find it amazing, I am guilty of beiong sucked into it as well as seen above, that this post was about words spoken by Kerry. Not on his past, not on the election, etc. Not on the merit's of the war, but on the philosophical issue of the rights of the American people, and, those people who support the guy who seems to have no respect for the rights of the American people immediately attack the speaker, and do nothing to attack the contents of the speech.

I do this all the time. If I do not like what someone says, I attack his credibility, etc. It does not mean that what he is saying is not true. It sim[ply means I have no way of attacking what he says, so, I go to the next best thing, I attack him.

 

[bsnyder]

I couldn't agree more bsnyder. Just because I oppose Bush doesn't mean I'm a Democrat though. It pains me terribly to go against my party in this regard.

But as a practical conservative I have to be willing to accept obvious truths. And one of those truths is that our current President is doing horrible job. It doesn't matter what party he supposedly represents, the thing that matters to us hard-headed types is that he is incompetent and we have to find a way to minimize the damage he is wreaking upon our country.

I'm a conservative before I'm a Republican. I'm loyal to the ideals, not the party that is supposed to represent those ideals. If Republicans cannot adhere to conservative values, then I will find other political representatives who can.

MossMan, if you had your pick of anyone (regardless of whether they've said they're running or not, or their viability as a national candidate), which politician would you like to see in the White House right now, instead of George Bush?

 

[rayelias]

Well, here's one thought. Instead of just "letting him ignore the rules", would could have taken a number of steps. Send in the UN to dismantle all his WMD programs.

We did. He refused them admission.

Put in place sanctions.

We did. He traded (black market) through France, Germany & Russia.

Set up no fly zones.

We did. He shot at our planes that were enforcing the no-fly zone. He also flew Iraqi planes in the no-fly zone.

That sort of thing. That way, we could get rid of the threat Saddam posed to his neighbors and the rest of the world, as well as greatly reduce the harm Saddam could do to his own people.

We did. We got rid of Saddam

 

[dennis99ss]

John Edwards

 

[salmoneous]

If I do not like what someone says, I attack his credibility, etc.

The thing is, I think most people agree with what Kerry said in this quote (does anyone really disagree) so all that is left is to attack the man personally.

 

[MossMan]

MossMan, if you had your pick of anyone (regardless of whether they've said they're running or not, or their viability as a national candidate), which politician would you like to see in the White House right now, instead of George Bush?

John McCain

 

[eclectics]

Does anyone else find it amazing, I am guilty of beiong sucked into it as well as seen above, that this post was about words spoken by Kerry. Not on his past, not on the election, etc. Not on the merit's of the war, but on the philosophical issue of the rights of the American people, and, those people who support the guy who seems to have no respect for the rights of the American people immediately attack the speaker, and do nothing to attack the contents of the speech.

I do this all the time. If I do not like what someone says, I attack his credibility, etc. It does not mean that what he is saying is not true. It sim[ply means I have no way of attacking what he says, so, I go to the next best thing, I attack him.

It seems to be the norm here. If the quote can't be ridiculed, a different quote by the same person is inserted that can be made fun of. If no quotes are available, a previous President of the same party is dragged through the mud.

 

[salmoneous]

We did. He refused them admission.

Just to remind you of History - (1) UN inspectors and teams did dismantle Saddam's WMD's and programs, (2) in 2003, when we went to war, Iraq was full of inspectors who were unconcoving the evidence that the WMD were gone and that the US intelligence was faulty. George Bush kicked the inspectors out of Iraq.

Bottom line - the inspections worked

We did. He traded (black market) through France, Germany & Russia.

The fact that they weren't 100% airtight doesn't change the fact that the sanctions worked. Along with the other steps, they removed the thread Saddam posed.

We did. He shot at our planes that were enforcing the no-fly zone. He also flew Iraqi planes in the no-fly zone.

Which doesn't change the fact that the no-fly zones worked. They were there to keep Saddam from using his airforce against his own people - and they did.

We did. We got rid of Saddam

At what cost? Way too high in my book, especially when we know there were ways to get rid of Saddam's threat to us without that cost.

 

[ashjohnson80]

I am proud to say I voted for John Kerry. At first, I was one of those "Anybody But Bush" Democrats and felt lukewarm towards Kerry. But as the 2004 campaign went on and the more I saw of him, the happier I was to vote for him. I am very sorry he's not our president right now.

I feel exactly the same way.

 

[DawnCt1]

Then there's the other John Kerry, the one that was on "This Week" with George Stephanapoulos this weekend. GS asked him about the CIA leak, and whether a CIA officer should get to decide what should be released, and what should not.

Kerry repliedHe's opposed to what happened, he's OK with what happened, and everything in between. That's the Kerry that ran for president in 2004.

Yup, whatever side of the issue you're on, He's there! And did you know that he was in Viet Nam?

 

[MossMan]

There are plenty of things I'm unhappy with the Bush Administration about. But I don't think he's incompetent. And there's simply no way you can reduce that to a "truth", it's a subjective value.

The "damage" you speak of is mostly made up of the hysterical hyperbole that we're inundated with on a daily basis by the MSM as they carry water for the out-of-power party.

I just can’t tell how tired I am of this argument. MSN is not the cause of our problems. If you can’t see that, then you aren’t being very practical. In fact, I don’t think you’re being very conservative either.

Hard-headed, practical, Reagan-loving, Goldwater-worshiping conservatives are sick to their stomach at how much money this government has spent in the last 6 years on non-military discretionary spending. Bush is the worst spender this country had ever known. There is no so called liberal out there who can hold a candle to Bush in this regard. Add to this the boondoggle prescription drug plan (the biggest expansion of the welfare state since the 1960’s) and what is a conservative supposed to think? If a liberal had so carelessly spent this much money, we conservatives would be frothing at the mouth with anger and disgust. A Republican does it and we meekly give him a pass.

Oh, and about us winning the cold war and all. We opposed and overcame the evil (read Soviet) empire under Reagan because under his leadership we stayed true to our principles. But after a few years of Bush and all of a sudden it’s supposed to be OK to torture our enemies and illegally spy on our citizens?

Name one successful policy that the Bush administration has either implemented or carried through with. This administration is not only a failure, it is a failure at a level this country hasn’t seen in a century.

I agree with those who argue that Kerry would have made a terrible President. The sad thing is, though, a terrible President would be a huge improvement on what we have now.

And still some people think the problem is some news outlet.

 

[DawnCt1]

I feel exactly the same way.

Then you should enjoy Howie Carr's Kerry Korner, dedicated to Live Shot Kerry himself. You are safe as long as you don't stand between him and a camera.
www.wrko.com/listingsEntry.asp?ID=177492&PT

 

[MossMan]

Then you should enjoy Howie Carr's Kerry Korner, dedicated to Live Shot Kerry himself. You are safe as long as you don't stand between him and a camera.
www.wrko.com/listingsEntry.asp?ID=177492&PT

I know what I wrote before, but after reading this I’m starting to change my mind. I think Dawn and this Howie Carr guy maybe on to something.

Veterans do not deserve our respect. People who went to war in defense of our country deserve ridicule for their accomplishments. Contempt for the men and women who have served in our Armed Forces has always been an important foundation of the Republican party. So it shouldn’t come as any surprise that Republicans reject everything Kerry has to say because he was once awarded the Silver Star. Only a partisan dupe would think otherwise.

If someone says something that upsets your blindly held assumptions, try to find out if that guy is a decorated war hero. If he is, attack him for it. It is far better to discredit someone in this manner than to actually engage in the ideas that are being debated.

 

[eclectics]

I just can’t tell how tired I am of this argument. MSN is not the cause of our problems. If you can’t see that, then you aren’t being very practical. In fact, I don’t think you’re being very conservative either.

Hard-headed, practical, Reagan-loving, Goldwater-worshiping conservatives are sick to their stomach at how much money this government has spent in the last 6 years on non-military discretionary spending. Bush is the worst spender this country had ever known. There is no so called liberal out there who can hold a candle to Bush in this regard. Add to this the boondoggle prescription drug plan (the biggest expansion of the welfare state since the 1960’s) and what is a conservative supposed to think? If a liberal had so carelessly spent this much money, we conservatives would be frothing at the mouth with anger and disgust. A Republican does it and we meekly give him a pass.

Oh, and about us winning the cold war and all. We opposed and overcame the evil (read Soviet) empire under Reagan because under his leadership we stayed true to our principles. But after a few years of Bush and all of a sudden it’s supposed to be OK to torture our enemies and illegally spy on our citizens?

Name one successful policy that the Bush administration has either implemented or carried through with. This administration is not only a failure, it is a failure at a level this country hasn’t seen in a century.

I agree with those who argue that Kerry would have made a terrible President. The sad thing is, though, a terrible President would be a huge improvement on what we have now.

And still some people think the problem is some news outlet.

Very well said Moss Man. Just imagine the indignant outrage if the deficit was run up the way it has under a Democrat's watch instead of Bush. No one ever seems to want to talk about how much we owe, and that the bulk of the surplus we had in the 90's was spent or spoken for before 9/11. As for "the MSM is the root of all evil" argument, just what exactly is Fox News, a bootleg cable access channel? Fox is in the big boys club along with all the others. If you want to blame the MSM, you have to lump Fox in there too.

 

[bsnyder]

I just can’t tell how tired I am of this argument. MSN is not the cause of our problems. If you can’t see that, then you aren’t being very practical. In fact, I don’t think you’re being very conservative either.

Hard-headed, practical, Reagan-loving, Goldwater-worshiping conservatives are sick to their stomach at how much money this government has spent in the last 6 years on non-military discretionary spending. Bush is the worst spender this country had ever known. There is no so called liberal out there who can hold a candle to Bush in this regard. Add to this the boondoggle prescription drug plan (the biggest expansion of the welfare state since the 1960’s) and what is a conservative supposed to think? If a liberal had so carelessly spent this much money, we conservatives would be frothing at the mouth with anger and disgust. A Republican does it and we meekly give him a pass.

Oh, and about us winning the cold war and all. We opposed and overcame the evil (read Soviet) empire under Reagan because under his leadership we stayed true to our principles. But after a few years of Bush and all of a sudden it’s supposed to be OK to torture our enemies and illegally spy on our citizens?

Name one successful policy that the Bush administration has either implemented or carried through with. This administration is not only a failure, it is a failure at a level this country hasn’t seen in a century.

I agree with those who argue that Kerry would have made a terrible President. The sad thing is, though, a terrible President would be a huge improvement on what we have now.

And still some people think the problem is some news outlet.

I'm being practical. I don't think you are willing to face reality.

I think Congress (both parties) shares a great deal of the spending blame, and I'm not happy about any of it. But, if you think there's a single Democrat out there who, once in the Oval Office, would have spent less than Bush has in the last 5 years, you're completely deluded.

And yes, I do think the news media plays a part in it. You're hysterical over the spending spree and I'm merely annoyed by it. Why the difference? Because I haven't bought into the media hype that George Bush has utterly destroyed our country. That's simply absurd when you look at the big picture, rather than recite a laundry list of talking points supplied by the increasingly desparate out-of-power party.

As far as successful policies, I'm quite happy that he has so far managed to stick to his guns on tax cuts. I'm also quite happy with both of our new Supreme Court justices. And many of the lower court appointments. The economy is doing very well, unless you only get your news from the New York Times, in which case you think we're in the midst of the second Great Depression. And we haven't had a domestic terrorist attack in 4 1/2 years. I guess I can understand why you wouldn't give Bush all the credit for that, but why doesn't he get any? If, God forbid, we do have another 9/11, he'll certainly get ALL the blame, so why not some of the credit for these 4 1/2 years?

 

[sodaseller]

Very well said Moss Man. Just imagine the indignant outrage if the deficit was run up the way it has under a Democrat's watch instead of Bush. No one ever seems to want to talk about how much we owe, and that the bulk of the surplus we had in the 90's was spent or spoken for before 9/11. As for "the MSM is the root of all evil" argument, just what exactly is Fox News, a bootleg cable access channel? Fox is in the big boys club along with all the others. If you want to blame the MSM, you have to lump Fox in there too.

Word is that Tony Snow is taking the job as White House Press secretary. Makes sense financially - he should be entitled to years of back pay.

 

[bsnyder]

Just imagine the indignant outrage if the deficit was run up the way it has under a Democrat's watch instead of Bush.

We've been there and done that. The Republicans were outraged. The Democrats and the media weren't.

 

[charlie,nj]

Just to remind you of History - (1) UN inspectors and teams did dismantle Saddam's WMD's and programs, (2) in 2003, when we went to war, Iraq was full of inspectors who were unconcoving the evidence that the WMD were gone and that the US intelligence was faulty. George Bush kicked the inspectors out of Iraq.
.

Blix Says Nix on Iraqi Disarmament Cooperation

By Kathleen T. Rhem
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Jan. 27, 2003 -- After 60 days of inspections by U.N. officials, Iraq appears not to be cooperating with Security Council Resolution 1441.
"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace," chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix told Security Council members this morning.

Security Council members unanimously approved Resolution 1441 on Nov. 8, 2002. The resolution lays out requirements for Iraq to declare its weapons and weapons programs and to assist inspectors in their verification of the declaration.

Iraq is failing in several specific areas, Blix explained today. The country has refused to guarantee the safety of missions by a U-2 aerial reconnaissance plane at the inspectors' disposal. Iraq has also failed to account for 6,500 chemical bombs and an unknown quantity of VX gas, a chemical nerve agent, some of which may have been weaponized.

Blix referred to the highly publicized discovery Jan. 16 of 12 empty chemical warheads and Iraq's subsequent disclosure of four more a few days later. He said the 12 discovered by inspectors were in a "relatively new" bunker.
"The rockets must have been moved (there) in the past two years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions," he said. Iraqi government officials claimed the warheads had simply been missed in accounting. "They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg," Blix said.
]
Investigators also have found small quantities of a mustard gas precursor and evidence that the country produced significantly more anthrax than it disclosed.

To date, inspectors have carried out roughly 300 inspections at about 230 different sites. Eleven scientists have declined to be interviewed without Iraqi government "minders" being present. Blix said this might be because they don't want government security officials to think they've disclosed anything.

He disclosed that inspectors found 3,000 pages of classified documents regarding enriching uranium in an Iraqi scientist's home. He said this supports a long-held concern that Iraq is hiding sensitive documents in the homes of private citizens.

He also expressed concern over a few acts of civil unrest that have occurred near the inspectors' offices in Baghdad and at inspection sites. "Demonstrations and outbursts of this kind are unlikely to occur in Iraq without initiative or encouragement from the authorities," Blix said. "We must ask ourselves what the motives may be for these events."

In an impromptu press conference after the meeting, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte said nothing he heard today gives him hope Iraq intends to comply with Resolution 1441.

"What we have seen over the past 80 days is that, in spite of the urgency introduced in Resolution 1441, Iraq is back to business as usual," he said. He urged the Security Council members to face their responsibilities in disarming Iraq.

"It benefits no one to let Saddam think he can wear us down into business as usual as he has practiced it over the past 12 years," Negroponte said.
American officials in recent days have taken a hard stand that time is running out for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to disarm and that the United States isn't afraid to move ahead alone if need be. But White House spokesman Ari Fleischer today said President Bush still feels it's important to consult with world leaders on the issue.

"The president will continue, as I said, to consult and to talk to our allies," Fleischer said at the White House. "But I think it's important for the world to know what the president has said -- that time is running out."





.