MURRIETA OPEN FORUM - Get it said, get it read, communications for the community.: National Politics

Sunday, December 11, 2005

National Politics

162 Comments:

I'm interested in K. Seyarto's method of presiding at council meetings. Anyone care to comment?

By J. L. Kunkle, at Sunday, December 11, 2005 6:18:00 PM
JLK - wouldn't your request to discuss Seyarto be better suited for the Murrieta string ?

By Anonymous, at Sunday, December 11, 2005 7:38:00 PM
Oops. I better take it where it belongs, —Thanks.

By J. L. Kunkle, at Sunday, December 11, 2005 9:13:00 PM
I watch as the far-right evangical wing puts dollars and efforts into what a company says in their slogans, be it "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays". I a Christian all my life, find it unbelieveable as I don't see any less people shopping, no less lights on homes, no less Santas walking the streets as to why this is a problem. Christianity is not under attack. It is reverse. The far-right is attacking anything said different then what they want to require us all to say. Instead of putting all this money into that effort, how about giving to those less fortunate. I ask, instead of bad-mouthing, picketing, lets find the military families in our neighborhoods who's family member is risking their lives today, and give them something back. Let's find people who's children will not have gifts under the tree and give to them. Let's find a homeless person and make sure they have something to eat. Emulating Jesus, which is our requirement, would not be picketing WalMart, but would be giving, especially if it is truely in our hearts to be like him. Enough said.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Sunday, December 18, 2005 7:47:00 AM
A DIFFERENT CHRISTMAS POEM

The embers glowed softly, and in their dim light,

I gazed round the room and I cherished the sight.

My wife was asleep, her head on my chest,

My daughter beside me, angelic in rest.

Outside the snow fell, a blanket of white,

Transforming the yard to a winter delight.

The sparkling lights in the tree I believe,

Completed the magic that was Christmas Eve.

My eyelids were heavy, my breathing was deep,

Secure and surrounded by love I would sleep.

In perfect contentment, or so it would seem,

So I slumbered, perhaps I started to dream.

The sound wasn't loud, and it wasn't too near,

But I opened my eyes when it tickled my ear.

Perhaps just a cough, I didn't quite know,

Then the sure sound of footsteps outside in the snow.

My soul gave a tremble, I struggled to hear,

And I crept to the door just to see who was near.

Standing out in the cold and the dark of the night,

A lone figure stood, his face weary and tight.

A soldier, I puzzled, some twenty years old,

Perhaps a Marine, huddled here in the cold.

Alone in the dark, he looked up and smiled,

Standing watch over me, and my wife and my child.

"What are you doing?" I asked without fear,

"Come in this moment, it's freezing out here!

Put down your pack, brush the snow from your sleeve,

You should be at home on a cold Christmas Eve!"

For barely a moment I saw his eyes shift,

Away from the cold and the snow blown in drifts…

To the window that danced with a warm fire's light

Then he sighed and he said "Its really all right,"

"I'm out here by choice. I'm here every night."

"It's my duty to stand at the front of the line,

That separates you from the darkest of times.

No one had to ask or beg or implore me,

I'm proud to stand here like my fathers before me.

My Gramps died at Pearl on a day in December, "

Then he sighed, "That's a Christmas 'Gram always remembers."

My dad stood his watch in the jungles of 'Nam',

And now it is my turn and so, here I am.

I've not seen my own son in more than a while,

But my wife sends me pictures; he's sure got her smile.

Then he bent and he carefully pulled from his bag,

The red, white, and blue…an American flag.

"I can live through the cold and the being alone,

Away from my family, my house and my home.

I can stand at my post through the rain and the sleet;

I can sleep in a foxhole with little to eat.

I can carry the weight of killing another,

Or lay down my life with my sister and brother..

Who stand at the front against any and all,

To ensure for all time that this flag will not fall."

"So go back inside," he said, "harbor no fright,

Your family is waiting and I'll be all right."

"But isn't there something I can do, at the least,

"Give you money," I asked, "or prepare you a feast?

Seems all too little for all that you've done,

For being away from your wife and your son."

Then his eye welled a tear that held no regret, "

Just tell us you love us, and never forget.

To fight for our rights back at home while we're gone,

To stand your own watch, no matter how long.

For when we come home, either standing or dead,

To know you remember we fought and we bled.

Is payment enough, and with that we will trust,

That we mattered to you as you mattered to us."

LET'S BE SURE AND KEEP ALL OF OUR SOLDIERS IN OUR PRAYERS THIS HOLIDAY SEASON

By Anonymous, at Thursday, December 22, 2005 4:49:00 PM
George W. Bush is an utter and complete failure. He, and his band of policy makers, are presiding over the demise of America as it has been known. The failures are coming home to roost. Afganistan, a failure. Iraq, a failure. Jobs for Americans, a failure. Deficits are running us out of red ink. Americans are in debt with no savings. Thirty seven million Americans live in poverty. We have no national health system. We have failed public schools. Our borders are unprotected and we are being invaded daily.

To paraphrase Bush's stupid comment to Brown on his handling of FEMA's response to Katrina - "Good job Bushie."

The democrats are also a total failure. They have not been the loyal opposition.

It is time for Americans to gather at the center and reject both the religious lunatic right and the bleeding heart liberal left.

Support individual freedoms, our Constitutional rights. But demand fiscal conservatism. No more corporate welfare. Invest in Americans. Stop funding the war machine. It's killing all of us.

Let everyone of us both exhibit personal integrity and demand it from others. We can heal this country, but not with the current band of political hacks.

Totally Disgusted

By Anonymous, at Friday, February 03, 2006 12:17:00 AM
Totally Disgusted, I totaly agree. Although we did expell the Taliban in Afghanistan. But we do need to meet at the middle, using ethical reasoning for America to move forward.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, February 03, 2006 5:44:00 AM
So Mr. Rholmgren, whoever you are, you are probably a sports fan. You sound like some colleigate frat member cheering for the home team.

The center is not indecisive, it is comprised of many intelligent decisive people who see that the political landscape has been hijacked by yahoos and airheads.

Who wound you up so tightly? Where did you come up with the notion of dismantling our military? There's a big difference between funding a war machine and having a sound military.

I couldn't help but notice that in the last two days, the republicans announced cutting the budget by 39 billion dollars and today Bush is asking for another 120 billion for Iraq and Afganistan. He's also asking to increase the pentagon budget by 50 billion. What's the point? Well, we have the money, but we are spending it foolishly. Doesn't Haliburton have enough?

And what is this about tearing down the current leadership? The current national leadership is tearing itself down. Are you blind? Do you think it is wrong to speak up?

Frankly, you sound like a red-neck bullfrog.

Totally Disgusted

By Anonymous, at Friday, February 03, 2006 10:17:00 AM
Totally Disgusted, I couldn't have said it better myself. How much can we spend on new weapons? We can already destroy any ARMY in the world ten times over.

But that just stirs Roy's fears. He is part of the outside tenacles of the far right. He is the one that believes everything they do and say is TRUE.

We will soon enough find that this war is impossible to complete as a conventional war would be. Where is it we say we win? When the Iraqi military and police can police their own country? When will that be. Bush has no timetable and no clue and if I could guess I'd say NEVER. Terror is here to stay especially in the Middle East. It has always been and will always be. If you have these extremists religious zealots, you will have terror. Like I've said, they can't fight us with conventional warfare, who today can? They will hit and run attack forever, and it will hurt.

So soon we will leave Iraq. There will be no mass exodus of Iraqi insurgents, booking plane tickets to come here. They will continue to damage the government we leave and will never fly here. So that will shoot Bush's misleading fear tactics to rest and further expose him as a fraud.

We will have trouble remaining and getting the precious oil that we are addicted to as the new democratic government will reject us and cozy up to Iran.

So that is why I have said it has and will be a waste, except that we rid the world of Hussian. But that could have been done with alot less loss of life and a lot less money.

Whats really amazing is that conservatives don't see any of this. They believe we should stay, as the President told them that we need to fight them there to keep them there. They are convinced that the WMD's did exist, even when experts have said no. I guess they see things better 10,000 miles away just by listening to their radical, crazied talk show hosts. Do you know how many times Sean Hannity said the phrase WMD in a 30 day period? Over one thousand times and in the last year total 61 times. Thats the taught propaganda that they have swilled in the heads of these poor addicted people. Instead of listening to the mainstream media, they listen to Fox News and read News Max to give them all the conservative talking points. It borders on insanity when a mature group can go on and on every night about whether a Corporation can say Merry Christmas or not. I thought Christmas was about Jesus' birth, but to them its about money. These are the religious leaders of our country mind you, stirring this trouble. The same religious leaders are tied in with the conservative Congressional Leaders and right into the White House. This is a White House where our President got on a plane back to DC because one brain dead woman was rightly getting her medical assistance turned off. But, when the post tragic event in our countries history occurs he can't leave. You'd think he'd have set up a new White House in New Orleans and help direct the rebuilding of one of our great cities. All he could spare them was one sentence the other night.

These are the conservatives, the ones that boast conservative spending yet are so unethical that our Nations tax money goes into every sleaze ball's pocket whether it is here or in Iraq. Then there only excuse is.....BILL CLINTON DID........how incredibly stupid. These are educated people. Now you can see how the Dictators of the 1930's could sway so many to believe what was so wrong....by FEAR.

This is the most unethical, disfunctional government of all time. All you have to do is say you are against Abortion or Gay rights and you can be Secretary of Anything you want.

Roy and Murrieta T, have not come on here and told me anything that this administration has accomplished. Are they proud of the failed "No child left behind". Or is it no rich white kid left behind? Are they proud of this administrations Social Security agenda? LOL. I mean it goes on and on. Everyday is another failure in ethics, money failures, job failures.

What we have is Cheny and Rove pulling the puppet strings and GW just keeps lying and misleading as the puppet. You'd think that they would have looked at every word of the speech the other night to protect ANY MISLEADING comments. LOL. Its like a joke. He wraps himself up in the flag and keeps saying support the troops and everyone stands and claps. He wraps himself in the same 5 promises he made in the last SOU addresses, before to eliminate foreign oil,as his buddies at Exxon clear another tens of billions of dollars at our expense.

This is our nightmare. He then breaks Constitutional checks and balances to push his own agenda.

What we need to do is plan to leave Iraq as soon as possible and concentrate all our efforts on Al Queda. We need to keep the infrastructure money in the US and end the tens of thousands in the US who die for lack of our own infrastructure failure. And I don't want free giveaway money to welfare people. I believe new enforcement, new programs to get them work. Stopping programs that promote them to stay on welfare. A complete overhaul of the programs.

We need to secure our borders and crack down first on the Corporations hiring illegals and then develop worker programs for those that need to stay and fill jobs Americans won't do, or force the welfare recipiants to step up.

We need to take tax breaks away from the rich and promote spending of the middle income citizens as they are still the bulk of the tax money.

We need a prepared military with modest buildup, BUT HOW MANY TIMES CAN WE BLOW UP THE WORLD?

But what we have is a country afraid of another airliner attack. So afraid that it doesn't see the tearing of our nation apart by fear. All it has is a President hiding behind a slogan to support the troops by supporting this war. Yet he sent them into a war unprepared. Is that supporting our troops?? Is taking benefits away from the wounded and returning veterans supporting the troops? Where is the armor that should have been on every vehical and every soldier's body?

He hides behind the religious leaders who he pays with promises to rid the country of abortion and gay rights. They pay him back by allowing program cuts for the poor and sick, allowing killing in Iraq of innocent women and children by turning their backs on these humans. What would Jesus do? LOL

I don't know what the normal everyday conservative gets. It's not him getting wealthier, it's the Corporations. He doesn't get more benefits. He doesn't get anymore security then if a Democratic President was in office. What they do get to do is be totally afraid of everything.
They get to sit and defend all of the lies and unethical behavior of the whole Republican party. They get to call for the hate of those questioning. All they have is that. Hate the messenger, because they are so afraid of losing in the upcoming elections. I just don't understand why THEY would want to wake up every morning and look in the paper to find another major unethical problem.

Totally Disgusted, Roy is wrong that we are unhappy. We want more from our country and have the guts to stand up and demand it, instead of standing in the corner wrapped in the flag holding the bible calling everyone names.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, February 03, 2006 7:19:00 PM
Roy, I have to laugh. Here is a guy who believes that if you are not a conservative Republican you think the military is evil? LOL. That sums how much you've been brainwashed. Thats the point Ive made all along with you. Stop wrapping yourself in the flag and telling me how patriotic you are and thinking people in the middle are not as patriotic if not more then you.

MT, I agree to a point that we can not just cut and run, but we have to start forcing the issues and laying down a timetable. If we stay until insurgency ends in Iraq we will never be able to leave.

I have to ask a question here. I know you saw what freedom and liberties did in a Middle Eastern area such as Palestine and Lebonon. Do we call for these people to have such liberties and if terrorists are elected by the people for the people, do we call down hate on them? The election results are in from the Iraq election, do you see Bush rejoicing and you know it should have been a big media event but wasnt. No...why do you think. The elected officials are almost 70% Iran leaning religious radicals. Chalabi...the White Houses main man got almost nothing and then was given some outer post. These people, when we leave will most likely let democracy fall back into a Saddam like world, or like in Iran, a religious dictatorship again. Thats all they know. When you have a religious society based in fundamental teachings that's what you'll get in the end, thus my reasoning that it was all a waste. Democracy in Iraq, Palestine, anywhere in these Middle Eastern countries will never be like America or Britian or even Israel. They hate Israel as a whole and they hate the West. Over 50% of the people, which has to include many many of the voting public, believe it's ok to kill American soldiers. We are a military who has come in and killed their people, their husbands and sons, their women and children. We are occupying their world. Even if the family members were just in the Iraqi military when the war started. We killed them. Do you think that family is rejoicing now because Saddam is gone, or do you think they hate who killed their son or husband? Even if the government stays on an even keel and we leave, do you think they will think back and adore the US for what we have done? They will hate us, whenever we leave and blame us for the destruction that "shock and awe" left as we can never rebuild all of it. They will hate us for the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi people, no matter why they are dead.

Like I said to your point. Iraq will always hate us and we can never conquer all the insurgents.

I really have to compare the thinking to what I saw in Vietnam. The same strategy that we could cure the ills of the country by weeding out the Viet Cong. It's laugable because we didn't learn a lesson. You go in and capture or most of the time killed them, but in the process you killed a couple of innocent bystanders. Everyone, that had no bias when entering a village, now hated Americans. They hated us for killing the people, for having to witness the killing, for us being there on there land, killing there woman, children and animals. The exact same is true in Iraq. For every insurgent we kill it affects the lives of all the relatives who now have a hatred and it grows and grows and enlists more insurgents who want payback. The cycle is endless. It was a mistake and it will be a waste, just as Vietnam was a waste. What did we achieve in the end? Nothing.

But it is the same fear that was placed upon us in the 50's, 60's and 70's when I was growing up. Be afraid, if Vietnam falls, Communism will fall upon us. It will keep growing and overtake us. Fear....what a terrible terrible device that politicians use on us. Today it is the same fear. It's just that you've fallen into it's grip. Don't fall there. If we leave Iraq, it will not be the end of the world. It will not be leaving Iraq that will be our black eye, it will be attacking it in the first place.

Getting back to Roy. You will never end the welfare or Medicaid programs. What I said I wanted is strong enforcement of these programs. I want to push these people back to work. I want to cut spending on fraud. Thats where the waste is.

Roy, I know one thing and it runs my beliefs. That we should emulate Jesus in our lives. It means emulate him in all things, not just the ones we want and sell out the others. His MAIN Purpose was for us to provide for the poor, the sick, the needy. He said nothing of separating out Gays, nor did he say killing anyone is OK. He didn't say that we should kill our enemies. He didn't promote the activist Jews in his day to overthrow the occupying forces of Rome. He said to give Ceasar his things and God his. He didn't take a side with religious leaders nor with politicians as he said his Kingdom was not of this world. Those are my beliefs. So when you take a side to cut helping and developing the poor, when you take a side where killing should be for pride of country. When you say killing is OK because we are helping the poor in only OIL RICH places, I say you have a misguided sense of being. You cannot give up a value to acheive another value. If our politicians and religious leaders today had these real values and emulated Jesus, the headlines today would not be about war and killing, they would not be about greed and corruption, but about programs to enrich the lives of our needy, our sick and our aging.

I have experienced extremes in my live and as a child, in war, I did and saw horrifying things. I know the same is happening in Iraq. We watch on TV and we see a video game playing out. We see a news clip of a soldier, out of hate and fear shoot an wounded insurgent. We think, oh this is isolated. I promise it isn't. We see torture and say this is just isolated....it isn't I promise. We see murder by our soldiers over captives and we think this is isolated. We see random bombing and we think this is isolated....it isnt. I am not blaming the soldiers as they are afraid and they have been taught only one thing...that is how to kill. I know that the Al Queda and the insurgents are doing terrible things in this war to our boys. I know the hate and fear that are inside them. I have felt it and when I tell you that you don't know about war, thats what I mean. We, in my opinion, should only fight wars that we need to protect ourselves or others. This was not the case here. The first Iraq war was right. The Afghanistan war that is waging now is right against Al Queda. But to strike a country that was not a threat to strike us I find hard to swallow.

So Roy, keep cutting programs, keep building more military might, let those Corporations keep making more and more and there will be no end to the problems we face. Keep giving up one single right that we have fought and died for in the name of FEAR and we will never get them back. This war on terror will go on forever. Do we say we are at war forever?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, February 04, 2006 5:17:00 AM
I don't know what y'all think, but I have to LOL ( at least smirk a little), that Europe ( especially Denmark) feels the fury of the Muslim world, especially when these socialist countries have gone overboard to accommodate them. But the story is the same, the Muslims, incl. the ones that are peaceful and law abiding, do not mix and adapt to the societies they live in, they stay among themselves and because of that they are not well accepted by the Europeans. The Muslems set themselves up all over the world, which is causing problems. The far left liberal media has gone too far, a small country like Denmark that is surrounded by bigger European policy makers has to struggle hard to maintain individuality and national pride. One way to do that, is to make fun of others. Their ( and other countries) liberal media knows no shame and has managed to greatly upset the apple cart and now have death threats against them. I am sure L.A. Times and N.Y. Times along with others, are glad they are not involved.
In any case, the Europeans are getting a feel for being hated and being a possible target for the extremists. They also managed to offend peaceful Muslems by making fun of Muhammad,their holiest religious figure. We have taken the brunt many times by the European media and their attitude against us. I think it is time the Europeans have to deal with the Muslims. France had their riots last year and now it has spread to many European countries. I hope it gets all resolved, I do not have any ill will towards Europe, but I do believe a little lesson is to be learned here.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, February 04, 2006 12:39:00 PM
12:39, why would you be laughing at an embassy on fire? Or the risk of lost lives? Socialist countries because they aren't conservative? I don't understand any of your reasonings. You sound like Roy. So because the European media has attacked been liberal the countries their need to be in conflict with the Muslim world? Very confusing and scary.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, February 04, 2006 2:16:00 PM
Gottorun, so it is payback you seek. Or justice? They didn't support our war effort in Iraq they deserve to have troubles? I just didn't understand the GLOW from your post? Would it then be fair to be happy, I mean, how distressful, if you were the far left, and they were happy churches were burning because the religious right was against their mainstay, abortion and gay rights? Would it be tongue and cheek for me to giggle at the violence or be disgusted that violence is happening anywhere? It seemed at least to me that there was a little of that glow in each of Roy's, MT's and your comments. Am I wrong to think that all three of you kind of "got a kick" out of Europe facing tough times with the Muslims? All three seemed, again, to imply that they DESERVED this?? Am I "twisting" or maybe its gone over my head?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Sunday, February 05, 2006 6:39:00 AM
I don't follow what Germany thinks nor France, nor Russia. so it is of little consequence to normal Americans. I could care less of what they think of us. I care how our governments can support each other in times of need as it is more powerful when we attack problems as a team.

But I don't want to have anyone learn lessons from destruction from hate. We have little to boost about when it comes to hate and prejudice here. How many churches were burned this last week. We have our own internal problems. These hate crimes here don't come from people not speaking the same language. They come from people being of different races, different political persuations, different sexual inclinations. I don't often hear that a Spanish speaking Catholic Church was burned for that reason. So not being able to drive in a country would also apply to US citizens travelling or working in other countries correct? Meaning that any American, say living and working in Iraq would have to speak the Muslim dialect to be able to be legally able to drive there? Or is it just Foreigners in the US you want to put limits on?

Roy I just don't understand how one political party can be the scurge of our society with you. Why do you have this need to be better then any other country, culture, society, political party? Who cares?? We have enough problems in this country for a lifetime, as not to worry about other countries. Be it Europe, the Middle East or the Far East. Who should these areas humble themselves to? With the things you say and feel, maybe they should bow before us, or better yet become colonies of ours. I have never, in my life heard someone with such an inferiority complex about other Countries, politics, war and businesses. Arrogance my friend is someone that thinks they are better and the way you write, everything that your ideology wants and believes is right and perfect. The left in this country has no agenda, nor a plan to fix things as a group. But I do see they have an opening you could drive a truck through if they can figure it out.

I have a question for you and MT. Where would Jesus fit on the political scale, the left or the right? When I view your posts and if I was to desire to have the feelings you have, how could I have compassion for anyone that wasn't exactly like me, felt the exact same way I did, and almost hate anyone that had opposing opinions. How could I go to church and read Jesus' words in the Bible and then want to cut aid to the poor and sick and the aging in this country in order for the money to go to say a military buildup. How could I want to dominate the world militarily to a point I could destroy it a hundred times over? How could I love my enemy as I love myself? How could I be for the profits of Corporation at the expense of a man's family? How could I approve of killing of any person and look the other way, or say dying is OK if I have pride doing it? I am completely saddened by what I see. Especially the resentment and dislike for anyone that thinks opposite of what you think.

Animals that are afraid use the tactic to puff up their chests and scream as loud as they can. It's what I picture you all doing. You're so fearful, of everything, feeling so inferior that everything that challenges your way of thinking makes you want to attack and be resentful.

Like I've said, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat and if I evenly spread my beliefs it would come out in the middle, leaning far left when it comes to helping the poor and sickly. I don't believe they should just be handed everything freely as Roy has said, I believe the crooks of the system should be weeded out and punished. I believe that those that can work should be made to work. I believe that this world is a tough place but that it should be full of compassion to those that are weaker then us. I believe that instead of tax breaks for Corporations like Exxon, they should share the monies that they overcharge us for and the monies be spread to help all survive this life. It is a tough life and we all don't come into it on equal footing. I know Roy that you have said you have had to work hard for everything you earn. If you had a disability of any kind and could not find a high paying job, why should you not have the basics of life. If you want to be better then Europe, then why not the way we care for our sick and aging? Instead of who's gun is bigger or who talks the loudest? In the end what will you do with a bigger gun? Kill more?

The aging in our country are some of the greatest men and women that have ever lived. Why should some live without honor? Why should they ever be hungry or without medication. Is that mean I'm a bleeding heart, a coward or a traitor??? Well, maybe it is, but it helps me survive knowing that my heart, that at one time was filled with hatred for others is full of wanting to share what I have. I want better for my kids. I want the world a better place. I want to live without fear that those who govern us aren't taking advantage and lying and misleading and stealing my trust. To me, I really don't care about Corporations the way you all do. Like Exxon, the don't really care about society or the world itself, they eat up all around and spit out anything that gets in the way of profits. Exxon made all that profit and doesn't want to pay the penalties owed for it's enviormental damage to the earth. Who protects use from them? Where are the checks and balances when the government wants to cut them and free up those things?

I hated Bill Clinton for lying to us, to our faces. It wasn't what he did, although I hate infidelity, but that a man who holds my life in his hand would boldface lie to all of us. You all know, whether you are truthful to yourselves or not, when you open you minds that Bush has misled us for his agenda, your own personal political agendas to the hurt of the American people. It's the same misleading I see with KS, DM and JVH and others who pocket money or power or whatever, from my money and family. That is why I post on here and talk about ethics. I hate unethical people and have the life experience, being in my 50's to reasonably judge, to me, for me about their actions. When I post, it is not to change those who believe differently for I can't, but to share my thoughts with others who may not have an understanding or have buried their heads to it. I have nothing ever, personally against any posters. Not even Roy, who has taken care of his family and at the least provided what is visible, a nice place to live for them.

So, when I press on people who live by agenda alone and who are so driven that all of their decisions and thoughts surround that agenda no matter what, I fight back. Again not to belittle nor to change, but to open the window to others to judge for themsleves and use their own logic and reason. I sometimes try to be sarcastic, maybe a lot, but it's my way of trying to pry that window open.

Well, a little rambling but its how I feel.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Sunday, February 05, 2006 8:14:00 PM
You know Jeff, I hear what you are saying loud and clear. The recent U.S. history has shown that change is upon us exponentially. Remember when we all looked forward to Life magazine, or the Saturday Evening Post? Remember when we had basically three choices for TV shows? When the big three Auto makers held our attention when it announced the new cars? Remember when we all watched the 6:00 news on one of the three networks? It’s all gone.

What happened? Incredible diversity has replaced all these old ways getting information and other things. Yet we still have the republican and democratic parties as our only two choices. The press talks about red and blue States, as if time has passed over our political scene, and Americans have diversified in every way except their political affiliations.

Is it not reasonable to assume that the two party system is going to go the way of all institutions which cannot provide for the enormous diversity of political opinion?

Significant numbers of Americans do not participate in the political process at all. I can’t fault them, because I find no comfort in either of the dominant parties.

The republican party has included in their base, what seems to me to be a reactionary religious element and one I cannot support. This aspect of the republican party is particularly fearful. Thus, the republican party has come to stand for a roll-back in individual freedoms as many freedoms are seen as violative of certain religious teachings. On the other hand, the repubs claimed to be the party of fiscal responsibility, smaller government and less taxes. Now the career republican politicians have been fully exposed as even more profligate than the democrats.

The democratic party does support individual freedoms, but has never claimed to be fiscally conservative. Its left-leaning base uses shame to justify redistributing other peoples wealth. But it is difficult to find any democratic center which commands my respect.

Take your pick, if you like a “fear” basis for designing your beliefs, choose republican. If you like a “shame” basis, choose democratic.

Thus, I’m a man “without a country” because I don’t accept the republican or democratic formulations. I’ve declared myself independent. And this is kinda funny because both the republicans and democrats say that in order to win an election, they have to sway sufficient independent voters. So, in effect, I belong to a swing voting segment.

But I have no voice in deciding an independent party platform, selecting candidates, etc. I simply have to take potluck with what ever the career pols from the two dominant parties put up. I find their fare unpalatable and usually hold my nose when voting. You know, the lesser of two evils.

But I would suggest that just as our old institutions have been replaced by a multitude of choices, so has the two party system has already crumbled. What keeps the appearance of two strong parties are only the unfair rules restricting the people from voicing their opinions through other political parties. But, the demise of the current system is assured by the spread of information which is uncontrollable by the corporate powers – the internet.

Recently, I stumbled onto a web site that included a very short test – 10 questions – for determining where you fit on the political scale. The web address is http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html.

The beauty of this little test and how its scored is that the political continuum does not divide people into only two camps - red and blue. I found that my political centers are very strong on individual freedoms and very committed to fiscal conservatism – libertarian! I’d bet that a huge number of persons claiming to be republicans are actually closer to libertarian.

Now adding complexity to the political landscape should help reduce the issues you have with Rholmgren, for instance. He has, in the past, criticized the current Bush administration for its runaway spending. Aha, he’s more like a libertarian in that regard. I pointed that out to him some months ago, and he responded that he might be in the libertarian camp.

But why does he defend the republican party with such vehemence? I would suggest that its because he would have no other party to align with. Certainly not the dems! Rholmgren needs a more complex political party landscape as do most of us. And I would also bet that he supports a lot of the individual freedoms which characterize the libertarian viewpoint.

I suspect that you, as well, would be far more comfortable with libertarian doctrines. I think we should do all we can to hasten the demise of the two party system. Its not working for most Americans anyway. We all need to take that political test mentioned above and then align ourselves with an appropriate party to give collective voice to our political beliefs.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Sunday, February 05, 2006 10:03:00 PM
Good morning Gottorun and thanks for your comments.

When our Supreme Court took up the question of the "right of association" it was argued that there was no such right mentioned in the Constitution. Nevertheless, the Court found such a "right" inherent in the First Amendment's free speech clause.

The Court said that free speech, in a large and complex society, means very little unless one can associate with others who support the particular idea(s) being espoused. The cost of getting one's positions into the "marketplace of ideas" is simply too great for an individual to bear. Hence, the right to associate with others must inherently be recognized.

This right is particularly important in a society which also recognizes that corporations also have the right to political speech. Corporations have so much more money to spend getting their ideas into the idea marketplace that individuals are simply priced out of the idea business.

Our common societal problem, at the moment, appears to be that individual Americans are unable to get organized ideas about running our country into circulation.

Part of that problem is the monopoly which the governments impose on political parties. You mentioned Larry Elder and his libertarian views. You also said that he left the libertarian party because it could not gain enough support.

That's my point exactly. Elder did not leave the Libertarian Party because he disagreed with its platform. He left because the rules governing party membership create an unlevel playing field favoring the two major partys.

There appears to be a huge appetite for more political party choices. Ross Perot's efforts showed that.

In many ways, both the repubs and dems also confirm as much because they both appeal their bases which are essentially single issue segments of the electorate, fearful persons on the right and shame based persons on the left.

But both parties say to run from either the right or left and then govern from the middle. The problem is that the middle has been ignored when governing. I think it's time for the middle to assert itself and the availability of internet-based information is making that feasible.

Incidentally, you mentioned the Clinton health care program. Fortunately it did not get adopted. But, unfortunately, the Bush drug program did get adopted. It's a nightmare. How could our representatives have allowed such a terribly flawed program to be put in place?

Finally, you said that as swing voters we need to educate ourselves and that's true. However, just like the Murrieta City Council situation where Rescue Murrieta had to go and locate good candidates, e.g. Rick Gibbs, we need to associate together to bring new leadership choices besides what the corporate bottom-liners have been giving us.

Edward Faunce

PS In California, notice that the two partys ignore us because both put us in the "blue" State category. Consequently, the State which has 10% of the American population is simply left out of the National discussion. That's wrong.

By Anonymous, at Monday, February 06, 2006 7:52:00 AM
Hi again Gottorun, yes I also read Ray Haynes' commentary.

Y'know, after his performance in the recall, especially his ill-informed personal attacks on yours truly, I have an especially difficult time taking anything he says seriously. (Of course what else would a UCLA Law Grad expect from a USC Law Grad. VBG)

To me, he seems more like a cheerleader than a responsible leader. Always leading the cheers against the "socialists" and "liberals." But he's so like the preacher lecturing the choir.

He seems more dedicated to his own political career than anything else. He takes positions which he knows endears himself to his republican base. Not that such is wrong, but he exudes a certain unsavory acceptance of the republican bad with the good.

However, having said all that, I don't disagree with his positions today.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Monday, February 06, 2006 11:21:00 AM
Purple, hmmmm, maybe that's how they came up with the color for voting Iraqui's fingers! Just kidding.

On the current drug problem, as I understand the situation, the congress allowed the drug companies to write the law. How stupid. That's a direct result of both democrats and republicans being on the corporate lobbyist dole.

Recently I saw a web site of a group that is trying to get legislation sponsored that would require every member of congress to declare that they actually read the bills before voting. What a novel idea.

The scary thing is that this is also true at nearly every level of government. The legislators really don't read closely or study legislation before voting. They rely on lobbyists and staff. I know this first hand from talking to legislators at the State, County and City levels over the years.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Monday, February 06, 2006 2:49:00 PM
Roy, I don't want taxes for the poor cut. I don't want programs and services to be cut by 5% and tax breaks going to companies like Exxon that made 20 Billion dollars. I don't know why in the world that doesn't make sense? Why should I get a few hundred dollars extra back? I would rather we as a country add to the support of the poor. I again don't mean the ones that take advantage, so some of the money has to be spent on protecting the system from fraud and abuse. I see it in my neighbors where they are not married and the lady is unemployed and they have 3 kids and she gets State support and he's a plumber getting paid cash making $120,000 a year. Thats abusing the system. If we could save that abuse and fraud we could do much more. But first it has to be regulated and enforced.

Why should we spend more on our military when its the strongest in the world? Why not just spend it correctly? Why are we losing billions in Iraq through fraud.

So there is your jeffism. Protect the weak by taking away the tax breaks for Corporations that are making excesses today beyond what they actually should be on resources that we need to manage our lives.

Ed, I am in your boat too. Its hard to support a party of failure or a party of dishonesty. Where do we go except to examine each case one at a time. Anyone that pulls the lever for all one party is a lemming in essence.

Jeff

By Anonymous, at Monday, February 06, 2006 5:05:00 PM
I don't want this to get into a religious discussion, but there is not a time on earth that Jesus ever talked of war, except speaking of the war that is kingdom would wage against the nations of the world in Revelation. He constantly said his kingdom was not of this world. The wars you talk of were when Israel was his chosen and only people. Now all peoples are encouraged to love and take him into their hearts. But maybe you feel America is his chosen people. I don't. So I disagree wholeheartedly with the notion that Jesus is OK with war. If he was OK with war he would have taken sides when his Countrymen were enslaved against the Romans. He didn't, because God has no country chosen people anymore. Nor did he cozy up to any religious or political leaders.

I repeated many times that the funds for welfare, medicare and other programs should have a much tougher law enforcement as most of these programs are abused. But as you see our President wants to keep in place the tax cuts which highly benefit those that don't need more money and are cutting these needed programs. Would you not scarifice the few hundredd dollars more you get so kids have more food, women get heathcare????? I saw today where many Republicans are up in arms about his budget proposal. I guess they'll shutup when he scares the daylights out of them by saying the scared theme word 9-11. Then he'll say support the troops and all will be well in Republican land.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 07, 2006 7:11:00 AM
Gottorun,
Where in my posts did I say that a Democrat is more inclinded to give? When you state that Republicans are very generous and then say for example all the churches Ive been work very hard to give. Please don't link Republicans as the only church goers. Then you preface youre statement, with well Im sure both reps and dems give.

I think all people give. But I don't think if we just gave to charities that the money would be able to each all the hands in need. The Red Cross and Salvation Army are excellent organizations, but in time of need they are very very limited as seen by the Katrina disaster. We need government backed programs, that support the needs of the people. Again, their is so much abuse, that we need to spend money to protect from the abuse. However, Red Cross doesn't supply people with the services such as Medicare nor do charities offer doctors service or medication. They supply the clothing and some of the food stuffs.

So to Roy's point I totally disagree that ALL of our money should go to support charities as they don't service nearly every need of the poor and aged.

Now, Gottorun, I thought I clearified the old testament when God's people were encouraged and helped survive persecution by fighting back. Clearly visible that the purpose was for him to protect his CHOSEN people. He didn't however instruct them to attack surrounding peoples because they needed their resources, nor to change their governments. He wanted them to freely worship him without enslavement as he let them be enslaved by Egypt to punish them. But when that covenant was broken, Jesus on earth NEVER sanctioned war. The Crusades and other religious wars were misguided men not Jesus instructing from above. So to think that God would somehow OK our attack on anyone country, bombing it's people in the name of us proteecting it's people is nothing that God has sanctioned. Unless you all think this is a religious war where the Christians are fighting the Islamic people????? And Jesus has his battle gear on and is commanding through our GREAT commander and chief, which is what Bush thinks to get that OIL!!!!

So I cannot follow the teachings of the Prince of Peace where he instructed us 600 times to help the poor, sickly and aged and NOT ONCE did he talk of war, if I stand up for killings anywhere. But the religious right has sold itself out, for politicians to embrace policies against Gays, which are mentioned twice in the Bible versus 600 times for charity? If the religious leaders of today were truly emulating him, would they not be at least 300 times louder about charity and giving rather then screaming loudly about Gays and sanctioning killing? Think about it when men like Dobson and Perkins talk about family values as they go to Capital Hill and speak with all those ethical men discussing which Supreme Court Justice they DEMAND by installed. But I guess Jesus would be doing that too right?? Or would he be asking us all to give in whatever way we could today.

But maybe Roy, he would have his own lobbyists on Capitol Hill representing his Corporation on earth that only Republicans could use. Oh, no that was Jack Abramoff with the restaurant that his bought and paid Republican buds used for free.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 07, 2006 10:27:00 AM
Murrieta T,
I wasn't separating the Old Testament from the New, but God had a covenant with Israel, they were his chosen people. When he opened his bond to include everyone, he no longer needed wars to protect his nation, he no longer had a NATION and war wasn't a need to defend them. Jesus talked to the people and said that the old laws of an eye for an eye were no longer to be used.But he does talk of a war, but not one of nation vs nation but God vs. this system of things. So his teaching apply to all of us.

You now think this war is about protecting our fellow man? If that was the case why isn't Bush invading Darfur? Iran? North Korea? Many African countries where people are being slaughtered at a much higher rate and with greater loss of life. Are you that taken in?? It's only about oil and power.

Take Dafur. We could in a week go in and stop the bloodshed. In a day with our military power. But we don't, do we? Do you hear Bush speaking on helping the oppressed around the world. You would think if he goes to war over that it would be his constant topic in his speeches. If a nation attacks another nation for that reason it would be our calling card. It only became our calling card as an excuse for no WMD's. And then we dropped it at the door. If your defense of this administration was justified, instead of a state of the union address on the things he said, he would have been talking about helping the needy, rebuilding New Orleans, saving people that are being killed in other countries. But what did he talk about. Not things you say led to our invading another country, but about OIL, SUPPORTING THE TROOPS, BEING AFRAID OF AN ATTACK, PASSING HIS BUDGET CUTS FOR THE DISADVANTAGED. These are what he is about. Like I have said. If George Bush was this man who was for the disadvantaged, he would have set up shop in New Orleans and would be heavily involved with the reconstruction of an American City. Looking to the hardships of the people. LOL.
You cannot defend his performance so far. You from being a stay at home Mom can't know more then the Governor and Mayor of that state who are screaming for support. They are screaming because they are not getting it.

The Red Cross only comes in dire situations, we are talking about everyday life. Weekly needs, checks, doctor visits. Do you know where your closest Red Cross office is? Of course not.

Yes a serious overhaul does need to happen, but instead a trillion.....does that number mean something, will be spent on Iraq in the first ten years. We are already at 400 billion and some has disappeared.....was Jack Abramoff over there too...that boy is everywhere. We could have taken that trillion, and overhauled everything in this country, improved education, healthcare, roads, social security. Its almost worth crying about. The budget is cutting 9 billion in farm aid this year, well we lost that the first three months in Iraq in one bulk amount to theft. So I think that our military infrastructure is in far worst shape and management then say welfare. But we don't talk about it as more spending loot is heisted daily. We don't talk of military mismanagement, or torture or not having proper equipment, because that would be unpatriotic and not supporting the troops. They might feel bad. Well, they dont care what you and I think, they care about one thing. Staying alive. Trust me, I know. Dissent was FAR GREATER IN 68 and 69 and I didn't care at all. I cared if I would ever see my family again. Supporting the troops would be to provide a game plan that works, and I don't mean the easy ones like shock and awe. I mean how to rebuild a country and train its citizens. To have enough protective armor. Rumsfeld needs to be hung, dont take that literally, for the job he's done.

Iraq is a bottemless hole. To say we went there to help stop the torture and killings would be OK , if we had not killed and tortured trying to fix the problem. We have killed in excess of 100,000 civilians in our attacks. More then twice what Saddum Hussian killed in the years since the Gulf War. Twice the amount. What lives are we saving? What will be the end result, another government like Iran? Freedoms...LOL. So how can you defend this and say we did anything worthwhile except to, set our boys up on a mound for insurgents and terrorists to take pot shots at, and throw away billions for nothing. In three years we don't have 75% of the electricity working that we destroyed. To tell me we are following Bible principles would not be a true statement. To stand here and tell me it was for the Iraq people would be a bold face untruth. But MT, you are just listening to the spin of the White House. Look at the facts, the numbers, not Fox News. We have done nothing. We got them to vote...but Palestine voted too didnt they? What were the results of the Iraqi vote....not good because Ken Mehlmen and Karl Rove would have ole GW speaking about it all over America, telling how all the good guys got voted in......he's not is he. They didn't get the guys they want.

I have talked about Katrina and if this government cared they would be following up on promises and rebuilding......doing everything it takes. Thats the promise Bush made isn't it. If I promise to rebuild your house after a storm MT, what would you say about me if I didn't.....that I lied to you. We can't care for our own sick, poor and abused. Why would we turn to Iraq to help them.

Yes, MT, Bush gave you a few extra dollars a week, but his buddies in the oil companies stole it back. What have you made in those tax cuts that the price of gas didnt take back and then some. You are no better off then before the tax cuts. You are far worse off. But the price of oil is at the highest its ever been and still Exxon made the highest profits in the history of the US last year. So who is your real enemy??? Bush handing you a dollar or two, while they hand bushel baskets of tax breaks to companies like Exxon? And all I ask is that we not cut programs aiding the poor. That the religious right is heard screaming that programs will be cut. That all Americans are standing and protesting these cuts. But they won't. They will stand up and tell us about Merry Christmas not being said in the right way. So you ask why I attack the conservative movement in this country. Do I have to say more. Or should I have said Merry Christmas, I'm not sure.

Using your reasoning ability, who is the real threat to your bottomline?? If you want the "extras" in life, it will not come from this White House.
I appreciate what your husband does for a living. He has our backbone protecting and teaching our chidren and if I had a say, teachers would be the highest paid employees of our city and they would receive the highest pension of all.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 07, 2006 1:19:00 PM
It is often said that if you want to know what a governmental entity values, you need look no further than its budget. Why? Because no matter what the retoric is, the budget displays, in hard numbers, what is important to the leaders. Seen in that light, talk is cheap.

So we now have a 2.8 trillion dollar federal budget. And what does it value?

I read both the Californian and the PE everyday, so I can't tell you which paper had the article. But, several economists are reporting that the Iraqui was will cost us 2 trillion dollars.

Here's what Paul Craig Roberts said: [He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review.]

"Americans have forgotten what it takes to remain free. Instead, every ideology, every group is determined to use government to advance its agenda. As the government's power grows, the people are eclipsed.

We have reached a point where the Bush administration is determined to totally eclipse the people. Bewitched by neoconservatives and lustful for power, the Bush administration and the Republican Party are aligning themselves firmly against the American people. Their first victims, of course, were the true conservatives. Having eliminated internal opposition, the Bush administration is now using blackmail obtained through illegal spying on American citizens to silence the media and the opposition party.

Before flinching at my assertion of blackmail, ask yourself why President Bush refuses to obey the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The purpose of the FISA court is to ensure that administrations do not spy for partisan political reasons. The warrant requirement is to ensure that a panel of independent federal judges hears a legitimate reason for the spying, thus protecting a president from the temptation to abuse the powers of government. The only reason for the Bush administration to evade the court is that the Bush administration had no legitimate reasons for its spying. This should be obvious even to a naif.

The United States is undergoing a coup against the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, civil liberties, and democracy itself. The "liberal press" has been co-opted. As everyone must know by now, the New York Times has totally failed its First Amendment obligations, allowing Judith Miller to make war propaganda for the Bush administration, suppressing for an entire year the news that the Bush administration was illegally spying on American citizens, and denying coverage to Al Gore's speech that challenged the criminal deeds of the Bush administration.

The TV networks mimic Fox News' faux patriotism. Anyone who depends on print, TV, or right-wing talk radio media is totally misinformed. The Bush administration has achieved a de facto Ministry of Propaganda.

The years of illegal spying have given the Bush administration power over the media and the opposition. Journalists and Democratic politicians don't want to have their adulterous affairs broadcast over television or to see their favorite online porn sites revealed in headlines in the local press with their names attached. Only people willing to risk such disclosures can stand up for the country.

Homeland Security and the Patriot Act are not our protectors. They undermine our protection by trashing the Constitution and the civil liberties it guarantees. Those with a tyrannical turn of mind have always used fear and hysteria to overcome obstacles to their power and to gain new means of silencing opposition."

And Paul Craig Roberts summed up saying:

"Americans need to understand that many interests are using the "war on terror" to achieve their agendas. The Federalist Society is using the "war on terror" to achieve its agenda of concentrating power in the executive and packing the Supreme Court to this effect. The neocons are using the war to achieve their agenda of Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. Police agencies are using the war to remove constraints on their powers and to make themselves less accountable. Republicans are using the war to achieve one-party rule--theirs. The Bush administration is using the war to avoid accountability and evade constraints on executive powers. Arms industries, or what President Eisenhower called the "military-industrial complex," are using the war to fatten profits. Terrorism experts are using the war to gain visibility. Security firms are using it to gain customers. Readers can add to this list at will. The lack of debate gives carte blanche to these agendas.

One certainty prevails. Bush is committing America to a path of violence and coercion, and he is getting away with it."

I see the truth in what Paul Craig Roberts says, and have a heavy heart. Oh America, what you could have been even after 9/11 if you weren't so fear based.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 07, 2006 2:03:00 PM
Ed,
it has been obvious to me all along that you are no fan of Bush and his administration. For the sake of arguement and fair balance, can you produce a counter arguement and quote a noted political insider that supports Bush and the administration and gives us a totally different perspective? I hate to see you only present something that supports your biased view. Remember, there usually are two sides to the story. Just wondering.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 07, 2006 2:49:00 PM
2:49, why ask Ed, why don't you give us your views? Why ask Ed to give a Counter point?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 07, 2006 3:49:00 PM
Ed, I just don't write as well as you or as eloquently but I'm sitting here laughing my butt off. You are going to make Roy and MT so mad at you. They see this as a liberal view and it is true liberals agree with this view however, it's the Center, us, that should be the worries of this Administration going into November. These are now the views of the Independants. I voted for Bush this last time. I thought we needed to end this war quickly even though I disagreed with him, he got my vote. But it seemed as soon as November ended, everything bad hidden in the closet burst out and whats shocking to me it keeps right on coming. Everyday, more scandal, more abuse, more terrible revelations. Torture, illegal spying, lobbyist payoffs, corruption, giving out CIA covers, Intelligence so wrong we went to war, incompetance at every level, the religious right thumbs up and down on who can be a Supreme Court Justice. Amazing.

The excuses used for this illegal spying are would you rather have them catch someone before they strike us? My comment back is how far do we let the government go? If they can catch someone doing something that is a threat should they be able to do a search without a warrant of his home, maybe of your home or mine? If we overlook this, what will be this administrations next excuse for abusing our civil liberties? Maybe Rumsfeld and Cheney with dog collars and electric probes torturing in the White House basement? A President that leans toward torture.....somethings i NEVER ever believed in my lifetime. All for what?? FEAR!!!

They always say that the President is the most powerful man in the world, but he's not. Anyone that can cause so many millions of people to be so afraid they would give up the civil liberties and excuse government corruption and failures that so many Americans died to protect. MT, that is what the American servceman fights for. So I guess Osama Bin Laden must be the most powerful man in the world seeing that he can cause this.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 07, 2006 4:18:00 PM
Anon 2:49, said: “it has been obvious to me all along that you are no fan of Bush and his administration.” And I was no fan of the prior administration either.

And Anon also said: “I hate to see you only present something that supports your biased view.”

But what I see are Government policies that have caused me to say over and over, “I can’t believe what is happening, it’s as if the Government intends to harm the American people.”

Facts are facts.
* The US budget is completely out of control.
* The surplus is gone and the pork barrel has reached beyond comprehension.
* The Gov’t is willing to spend untold sums of money on the “war on drugs” which has failed.
* The Gov’t allowed drug companies to draft legislation to transfer billions to their pockets while seniors are unable to even understand what the regulations mean.
* The Gov’t refuses to stop the illegal immigration which is bankrupting California.
* etc., etc., etc.

Anon also said: “there usually are two sides to the story.”

Just like “red states vs blue states?” But life is more complicated that just two sides. That’s why I complained about the current state of political choices. Look around America today and it’s obvious that diversity is winning out over simpler times. I refuse to accept that there is only a “red” view and a “blue” view.

Jeff above, and also MT, commented on the centrist position. If you would go to the website I cited and check out the political test results, you will find that out of three million test takers 30.1% scored Centrist, 34.9% Libertarian, 19% Liberal, 7.4% Conservative, and 8.6% Statist.
So there are at least five points of view which gained traction.

May I also say that I do not desire to make anyone mad. I know MT personally. I also think I know who Gottorun is and, if I’m right, I also know that person very well. I consider both to be friends.

I thought that the Paul Craig Roberts’ comments identified our situation on the ground. He may or may not be right about the motivations he described, but he clearly identified the problems that we can all observe.

So, it’s not that I’m against Bush’s administration. I’m against our government not working for average Americans no matter which of the two political parties are in power. Therefore, I must respectfully reject the argument that I’m biased against Bush’s administration and should provide a counter argument.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 07, 2006 9:14:00 PM
Roy, you know more then so many Constitutional scholars who have said its illegal and laws have been violated. The Attorney General said yesterday that he could not promise that no normal citizen was spied on. Spector said he finds Bush's excuses poor at best. I just repeated what I read and Ed above gave the same logic. Why would Bush bypass the laws that are setup unless he had something to hide. He has 72 hours AFTER....REPEAT AFTER he wiretaps someone to get a warrant. 3 days to get a warrant, and less then 1% have been turned down. Wait....it's Hilary's and Bill's fault. They did it. No wait Carter did it. No, Kennedy did it when he drove that girl home. It is a broken record. It goes on and on. Bush is great.....do you dance around the yard saying that? Bush is great, Bush is great. Well he's not. He in the end may be one of the worst Presidents of all time. All you can do is attack Democrats, it's just amazing that they, in your mind have never done anything right, yet most people (polls again) don't trust Bush, they think he misled us. But here is Roy, from his home saying all the world is wrong. But Roy, you have the Hannity and Limbaugh talking points down pat.

Here is what you don't know and cannot speak to. You have never risked your life for your country. You don't know how precious the civil liberties are to men and women who have. I will never give up my Constitutional rights for a President such as George Bush. He has downright misled this country and I don't believe anything that comes out of his mouth. I have stated his repeated lies and misleading statements and there is no one that can counter them. Conservatives just blame everyone else but they don't EVER address his lies. You don't mind lies if they protect your ideology. Since I don't have one I hate any lies told to me. It seems you are OK with giving civil liberties away. I am not. You continue to attack others to distract the extreme failures of your ideology. It doesn't work except to other ideolouges that pat each other on the back as they listen to Michael Savage and Ann Coulter spew garbage and Hannity and O'Reily out and out lie to the public. But they all have the propaganda tactics down correctly. Repeat, Repeat, Repeat and the fear seems to be true. John Kerry is a traitor and all his metals were lies?? Do you really think thats true?? If you do, then you need to get some street smarts. Because it was the old repeat, repeat, repeat. Only they are repeating lies, not truths.

Roy if you had been alive in 69, playing in a football game. Would you remember what the left side linebacker was doing in a crucial game....of course not, But these Swift Boat boys sat up and said, oh yes, I know exactly what Kerry was doing in the middle of (not a football game) but a firefight. You have never been in one but its about a hundred times more intense then the last seconds of a Super Bowl. The only difference is you dont have instant replay. So keep repeating Rush and Sean's lies. Has Rush Limbaugh EVER said a Republican was wrong?? LOL LOL....So how can a man like that have any credibility??? Unless it's true, Bush and company are being led by God and he has made them perfect and they have never made mistakes. It is literally impossible that they have lied. LOL. "I will do whatever it takes to rebuild New Orleans". "Iraq has parking lots full of WMD's even with Murrieta written on the sides". "Brownie is doing a great job". "I believe Delay will be innocent of these charges". "Scooter is a great American and has served this country well". "This government folows the law and gets warrants when wiretapping". So many lies, so few truths and I don't know why. After 9-11 he had the whole country behind him. Oh what power can do to people.

Roy take your love it or leave it philosophy back to the 60's where it died. The losing position is yours....the one of FEAR. Who said...we have nothing to fear but fear itself....was that Ronald Reagan??? Oh wait he was selling weapons to the Contras with his pal....that Fox News expert...Ollie North. No it was Roosevelt and oh how it rings true today. Roy knows how to do it so well.....watch the tactic. If you stand up against the Conservative administration in any way you are an Al Queda supporter or loyalist. Murtha is an Al Queda loyalist. A traitor!!! Anyone that would possibly complain about the Presidents failures is against the troops and against Jesus. Be afraid America. Don't complain America. Just take up your backside for this President. Or is it Karl Rove? Or Dick Cheney? I can't tell, they all look the same.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 07, 2006 10:22:00 PM
Hi MT. I read an article in the Los Angeles Daily Journal (the largest legal newspaper in California) within the last week which published an article by some law professor who had analyzed America's wars. He concluded that the only wars that turned out "good" for America were those were the body politic was threatened.

He concluded that the Iraqi war did not fit the profile of a "good" war. I'll see if I can find the article and post it here for discussion.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 07, 2006 11:52:00 PM
You know Roy I find it strange that anyone, even if he is thinking rational like Spector did, is unstable to you if he challenges anything Bush does? Is that true for all conservatives MT? Do you also think Spector is a fool? How about the other four Republicans that have asked and stated questions of the legality of what Bush did?

Here is what was reported today by the NYT.
"The lawmaker, Representative Heather A. Wilson of New Mexico, chairwoman of the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, said in an interview that she had "serious concerns" about the surveillance program. By withholding information about its operations from many lawmakers, she said, the administration has deepened her apprehension about whom the agency is monitoring and why." She is calling for a full and complete investigation!!!

But Roy, you know best right? Or is it Sean and you are his mouthpiece each day? You sit from your real estate office and know more about these charges then anyone, even the lawmakers. You don't question, you state as facts. All I do is ask question and ask them to investigate. I ask we reasonably and logically look at these things. Turn your radio up a little louder, Rush is saying something. MT do you agree that the whistle blower should be called a traitor and HUNG!!? Do you think that will happen Roy?? I guess it will if you are right, but what if it is your boy that gets hung with this around his neck?? Should the people blowing whistles about Watergate have been hung? They were exposing classifed info?? LOL. Should the people who outted Valerie Plame be hung??? They risked American lives? I just want to get a feel for how connected you guys really are. What War are you talking about Roy, the one on terror or the one with Iraq? The one on terror will never end so you might as well write laws that forever hold up. And just go through life with them intact. There is also a never ending war on drugs. We can't go forward declaring war so we can change the rules to suit our purpose.

So what you really are saying is any US citizen that places a international call is a suspect and should be spied on? Or only the ones we suspect? But how do we suspect them if we havent spied on them in the first place. It makes no sense. And why can't you get a warrant after the fact. You have three days to do that. Why are you against that? MT are you against getting a warrant 3 days afterwards? If you are why??? So if we are at war with Iraq, with terrorists, on drugs, with crime.....who do we not spy on without warrants? Or why don't we just follow the laws as they are written. We have laws for many things, do we say we don't need them by declaring war and then doing whatever? Roy and MT, do you think by breaking and entering without a warrant into suspected peoples homes you couldn't find things that would save lives?????? Is that OK too? Please answer, I'd like to know your feelings? And Roy and MT, tell me how you are positive that we are not spying on others that our truthful President hasn't decided are his enemies???? The Attorney General stated he's not sure, how could you be? So please take a minute or two and answer each question because I truly want to know what goes through the mind of a conservative man and woman. Roy, it's so much fun for me because everyday, your ideology falls deeper into the dumpster. Everyday the ethics and lies that support it crumble. You never get on here and say WHAT A WONDERFUL JOB GEORGE BUSH HAS DONE IN THE LAST 6 YEARS. Do you? When do either of you tell me what a great job and explain why you feel that way?

By the way Roy, Im having a garage sale in the next few weeks, I could try and sell that stroller for you. And at the same time I could show you my foot locker that sits in my garage that I brought home. I could show you what I know about lollipops, if your ever interested in seeing some sacrifices I made defending your rights. LOL. It might put some hair on your chest.
Jeff

PS- No MT I saw some of it on the web cast. I had to leave my office before the vote on the domain issue. I did write a letter that you asked me to and saw that they have offered a settlement in that case in NJ.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 08, 2006 12:24:00 PM
Hey Roy, Republicans don't have to amend the Constitution, they can bypass any law they want. We're at war remember? We don't need no stinkin badges!!

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 08, 2006 12:28:00 PM
Murrieta T, first you have it wrong. They can do the wiretap IMMEDIATELY, then, have up to three days to ask for a warrant? This is the main issue here, aren't you following this? They have up to three days after.....not before to get a warrant. Then I have to ask why you think it is needed to not get this warrant three days later?? According to AG Gonzalez they have only found a handful (less then a hundred) out of tens of thousands of wiretaps that have had any information. There have been no arrests according to Sen Frist. What 9/11 terrorist has gotten off? None have been arrested from this program. So please review the program and learn the process before you give a defense on civil liberty violations. You defend it out of hand just because this conservative President said it's right? Look at the reasoning one more time. You can do your spying first, as quickly as possible, then up to three days later you can stroll over and ask for a warrant. The only reason a warrant wouldnt be given is if they are spying illegally. Less then 1 % of warrants that were asked for were turned down in the history of the court. I'd say a very liberal court. Now truthfully read your defending statements and tell me if they are credible.

In one way you say it is imperative to get these terrorists before they strike us, spying on the phone is OK, but breaking and entering isn't? Now do you really feel that their is a difference? The Republican chairwoman of the sponsoring committee thinks the process of not obtaining a warrant is questionable, why wouldn't you??

The reason I'm coming down is to prove a point here. First I hold my 4th Amendment Rights so precious because I risked my life to keep them alive and second, I'm attempting, although it won't work, to show you that just giving carte blanche acceptance to anything a conservative says is very non-credible....is that a word?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 08, 2006 7:56:00 PM
Roy and MT, I thought one of the main reasons here is also to keep terrorists, you know the ones that you guys are terrified of, from crossing. What about the Canadian Border? You better order more wire.
Ah, thats OK, we can just eliminate welfare and stack the bodies of the starved poor people up. Then you dont have to have wire!! I knew I could figure it out for you Roy.
Jeff
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 08, 2006 7:59:00 PM
NOT CHENEY TOO!!!!
Guys, I mean come on here. Dick is close to being fingered by Scooter. If that happens, Bush would have known the whole time who was behind the outing of a CIA agent. I guess he figures he can sacrifice a life or two to discredit those telling the truth about how we went to war, can't he??

Roy, will you be calling for Bush to step down too, I mean it does fit the pattern of embarrassement, ethics issues, scandal that you referred to on our very small level here. Except he's the President.....isn't he, or is Rove the President. I just can't tell. Here's the article. I'd be so proud to be a Republican right now....damn, where do I sign up.

"Court papers released last week show that Libby was authorized to disclose classified information to news reporters by "his superiors," in an effort to counteract diplomat Joe Wilson's charge that the Bush administration twisted intelligence on Iraq's nuclear weapons to justify the 2003 invasion.

The National Journal, a U.S. weekly magazine, citing attorneys familiar with the matter, reported that Cheney was among those superiors referred to in a letter from prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to Libby's lawyers."
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Thursday, February 09, 2006 5:42:00 PM
Roy said "Jeff get a clue that CIA agent was out long before anything you are talking about. How can you out someone who was never in?"

Well Roy, your conservative power blitz is more like lying, cheating and stealing by wrapping yourselves in the flag holding the bible. You just proved it, because you told an out and out lie, which is being spread by Rush and Sean on a daily basis. Below is what the a Federal Judge concluded TODAY and below is his written statement.

"Valerie Plame was a covert intelligence officer covered by the Intelligence Officer's Identity Protection Act, and Lewis "Scooter" Libby lied to the grand jury. These two truths emerge from the opinion written by Judge Tatel, of the U.S. Court of Appeals, and released in February 2005. Thanks to a FOIA request by the Wall Street Journal we now have a more complete record, although key parts of his decision are still blacked out. Perhaps most of the media will now realize that they have been fed a pack of lies by the likes of Ken Mehlman, Victoria Toensing, Cliff May and others.

Tatel's opinion also is relevant to the current furor over "domestic spying" and whether reporters will have any ability to protect their sources. It certainly appears that Tatel would uphold the right of the reporters to protect sources who told them about illegal spying. Tatel's concludes his opinion that Judy Miller and Matt Cooper had to testify before the grand jury with the following:

In sum, based on an exhaustive investigation, the special counsel has established the need for Miller's and Cooper's testimony. Thus, considering the gravity of the suspected crime and the low value of the leaked information, no privilege bars the subpoenas … Here, two reporters and a news magazine, informants to the public, seek to keep a grand jury uninformed. Representing two equally fundamental principles -- rule of law and free speech -- the special counsel and the reporters both aim to facilitate fully informed and accurate decision-making by those they serve: the grand jury and the electorate. To this court falls the task of balancing the two sides concerns ...
... Were the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security or more vital to public debate, or had the special counsel failed to demonstrate the grand jurys need for the reporters evidence, I might have supported the motion to quash. Because identifying appellants sources instead appears essential to remedying a serious breach of public trust, I join in affirming the district court's orders compelling their testimony.

Tatel's incisive opinion makes he clear that he understands the difference between someone who leaks information designed to hurt U.S. intelligence assets, as happened in Valerie's case, and someone who leaks information about government malfeasance, as happened with the leak to James Risen that the Bush administration was spying on Americans. The key issue for Tatel was "harm" to the United States versus the public's right to know.

Speaking to the harm caused by the leak, Judge Tatel wrote:

As to the leaks harmfulness, although the record omits specifics about Plame's work, it appears to confirm, as alleged in the public record and reported in the press, that she worked for the CIA in some unusual capacity relating to counterproliferation. Addressing deficiencies of proof regarding the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the special counsel refers to Plame as "a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last five years -- representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support. (8/27/04 Aff. at 28 n.15.)
d "

Roy you consistently try to mislead and in the last two days have out and out lied. You are as slimy and non-credible in your distinct bias when stating Rush Limbaugh's opinion. You clearly don't have your own. You don't have the reasoning ability to see past your ideology prejudice. The bad thing is that when youre proved wrong, you just go on saying nothing, and have no ability to say your wrong. I'll say it for you....your wrong and on top of that you try to mislead others!!!
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:20:00 PM
Speaking of lying, Bush now claims that his administration saved LA from a terroist attack. Mayor Villaraigosa asks why didn't someone inform the City officials?

So here's the question: Does anybody belive Bush's claim? He has given no evidence, just his word. And, isn't that the problem -- Bush's word. It's worthless.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Friday, February 10, 2006 8:01:00 AM
Ed, really good point. Bush is dislusional. I think Karl Rove has him thinking these things and he himself believes them. No man in his right mind could lie and mislead so many times.

Bush's word is not believed and slowly but surely Republicans are moving away from him. Look at New Orleans Brownie today, telling the real truths about what happened.

This is a President that 30% of the way into his first term, he let 9-11 happen on his watch. He had warnings but didn't react. He then had a country as one, together for the first time, and his agendas and policies sent it into a divided nation, red and blue.

His only real policy changes were taking away civil liberties and giving more tax cuts to the rich and Corporations.

Ethics violations by the Republican party are the worst in the history of our nation. Every high ranking member of this Republican government have either been investigated or are being investigated or on their way to being indicted for a crime or ethics problems. Power corrupts and we are seeing it in vivid action.

A natural disaster hits a city and Bush's administration again is a complete failure, as seen by Brown's information again today. Bush couldn't leave his vacation that day to save the people of New Orleans but if Farwell, Dobson and Perkins call he can leave in the middle of the night to sign ILLEGAL legislation to interfere in a families medical issues.

He has done everything possible from lying, misleading, misinterrupting to who knows what we'll find tomorrow on the War in Iraq. He has cost thousands and thousands of humna lives.

He continues to push agendas that hurt normal citizens and profit only large institutional Corporations.

He has taken steps, be it torture, be it human rights, or be it our precious civil liberties away from us.

He is undoubtedly the worst President of all time. He makes Jimmy Carter look like George Washington Jr.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, February 10, 2006 9:38:00 AM
Gottorun,
Yes youre right that we have an enemy within our borders. And here is a story right off the wire to prove it. Do you think any of us want this country to fail? I for one say no.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East during the Iraq invasion accused the White House of misusing prewar intelligence to justify its case for war.

"Paul Pillar, who was national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, also said the Senate intelligence committee and a presidential commission overlooked evidence that the Bush administration politicized the intelligence process to support White House policymakers.

"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar said in an article written for the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs and posted on the magazine's Web site on Friday.

"If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication, it was to avoid war -- or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath," he said.

Pillar was not immediately available for comment. A CIA spokesman said Pillar was expressing his own personal point of view and not the official views of the spy agency.

The CIA and other agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community have been widely criticized for prewar Iraq intelligence including the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which was a main justification for the war. No such weapons have been found.

'CHERRY-PICKING' INTELLIGENCE

But Pillar, a widely respected intelligence analyst who spent 28 years at the CIA, said it has become clear since the 2003 invasion that the White House did not use official intelligence analysis in making even the most significant national security decisions.

Policymakers instead employed a "cherry-picking" approach that selected pieces of raw intelligence that seemed most favorable to its WMD claims and the charge of a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

The White House ignored intelligence reports that said Iraq was not fertile ground for democracy and warned of a long, difficult turbulent post-invasion period that would require a Marshall Plan-type effort to restore the country's economy despite its abundant oil reserves.

Reports also predicted an occupying force would be a target of resentment and attacks including guerrilla warfare.

Pillar said the Bush administration politicized Iraq intelligence by repeatedly calling for more material that would contribute to its case for war, a tactic that he said skewed intelligence resources toward topics favoring the White House.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the WMD commission have both concluded in official reports that there was no evidence of White House political pressure.

"But the method of investigation used by the panels -- essentially, asking analysts whether their arms had been twisted -- would have caught only the crudest attempts at politicization," Pillar wrote

You know it's you that think we shouldn't speak that are the real villians. It's you that say like it or leave it. Patriots are the words that ask the questions, look for answers, question our government.

Doesn't it hurt to find a new issue with this conservative, Rebuplican government every morning gottorun? One lie leads to another. One act of corruption leads to ten more. They get found out and here is the proof. Yesterday Cheney, two days ago Frist, Three days ago DeLay....your nightmare of having this overall power just goes on and on. There is no where to hide except to challenge them. Why are normal conservatives so blind and why can't they question as they did Bill Clinton? I suppose you are all just weak in the end.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, February 10, 2006 10:44:00 AM
For the record, the mayors office was told Bush was going to make the statement.
This is not new news. This was reported with the 9/11 commissions report, it is not something Bush made up. It was originally planned with the 9/11 attacks, then bin laden scaled it down and planned on doing it later. It was foiled again in 2003.
The people working in the building had knowledge of the threat too.
Why is it that people cannot accept anything that comes out of the mouth of Bush.

Nice post on the Plame thing, anon Jeff. But after all the garbage you give Rholmgren about Sean and Rush, you could have had a better source than

http://www.alternet.org/story/31881

Although I dig the sexy dating service the site offers

DEMOCRATIC DATES!

Yes -- liberals really ARE sexy, dammit.

ActForLove.org - the dating site for Democrats, liberals, and activists.

Search ActForLove.org personals now!

> Women seeking men

> Men seeking women

> Men seeking men

> Women seeking women

> Obey Butterstick

By Anonymous, at Friday, February 10, 2006 11:09:00 AM
Gottorun, in no way do I think that any.....now read that very slowly....any party wears white hats. I do believe that one party has simply run wild.....are way out of line and need to be slapped down and reeled in. They are costing both of us our civil liberties, our friends and neighbors their sons and daughters lives, us money, our futures. This is not to say that liberals are all hunky dory. They have ethics issues too. But they aren't running the country, the conservatives are. Thats why conservatives cant attack liberals, except to invoke the Bill Clinton remarks. Thats the basis for any defense they have.

I am not personally attacking you, although if you label yourself a conservative you may feel the sting. I don't know you to personally attack anyone. My hatred and disdain is for liars, cheats, dishonesty and corruption. I hate the agendas of those that adhere, comply, aliegn or sign up to this agenda. Now that doesn't mean that I hate all conservatism. I am for many issues that serves it, just as I do some liberal ideas and I guess anyone who has an idea that works and most if not all benefit from it. Paul Pillar is one of many who are coming forward, some because of indictments like Libby and Abramoff and some who may have a vendetta for Bush, and telling the real truth, something our President can't do. This guy worked for the CIA for 28 years and maybe he loves his country more then any ideology. Thank about it, how long were you at a single job?

So gottorun, I'd break bread with you anytime. We are just debating and I wish you absolutely no ill will.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, February 10, 2006 3:47:00 PM
Katrina response called a "National Failure". My President promised to do "whatever it takes". Where has he been? An American city was almost wiped from the map. This is the security he promised? This is the trust we need to give this man. Every day more failures and corruption. It never ends. The Republicans want to blame everyone else. The conservatives sit here and blame Bill Clinton for everything. Will they do that next year and the next? Yes, because they have nothing to hang there hats on.

I asked Roy and MT what great things this President has done and all I get back is talking points from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Just list for me the legacy of this President if it was written today? For anything positive there are ten things that are worse. Ten more that have been distorted and ten more that are out and out untrue. OK, gottorun, since those two won't answer me, list me ten accomplishments that make this President just average?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Monday, February 13, 2006 2:51:00 PM
Is that all you two have??? Is that what conservatives sit home worrying about....a terrorist attack. LOL....and the 4th amendment hasn't been broken either thank God. Oh it has...well, who cares, at least we haven't been hit by another plane Bush let 3 hit ON HIS WATCH. So three is enough on his watch. It averages to 1 plane every two years.

Wow, I thought you guys were going to come on here with a list. Roy, if you had something you'd be right on here screaming, but you've got nothing. Youre boy Sean wants us to strike Iran. Wouldn't that be wonderful. Anyways MT, the 9-11 report came out and said just how pourous our borders and ports are, oh yea I forgot you don't agree with those bi-patisian reports....you know the ones that said there never were any WMD's nor any connection between Al Queda and Iraq. It's become clear that you both are so blinded by the idea of standing behind an ideology, you don't see it. That's the reason you answer in tandem, and then you just say.....you're not worth answering Jeff. I wouldn't want to answer me either if I was in your ideology. I'd just shut up and hope Hilary gets voted in then you can attack her. Won't that be a relief.

Tell me what Bush has done specifically that has protected us. What drastic measure did he put in place? Oh thats right, he's protecting the borders now differently. Oh no, thats not it, its our Ports and Nuclear Plants he's locked down. Oh no, that can't be it. It's Homeland Security, ummmm......but thats not what Brownie said last week. Oh thats right, he's fighting them over there......but Bin Laden's still producing DVD's and 2500 died boys and now almost 22,000 wounded of the 200,000 committed to the fighting. Over 10% MT??? Would his protection be the same thing he did after Katrina hit.....and you won't believe that bi-partisan report coming on Wednesday either, will you. It's Bill Clinton's fault that butt head.

So how is it you rationalize the countless failures everyday of an ideology that is in tatters? What do you feed on? Wait till next year? No, that ones saved for the Chicago Cubs? But Karl Rove won't mind stealing it, he takes everything else.

The AP reported now that there were 23 meetings between Rove and Abramoff in the White House over the last two years.....but Rove and Bush and McClellen don't remember. What do they remember?? Valerie Plame.....no. New Orleans....no. Bush said he doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about Bin Laden. But he did remember that New Orleans is somewhere....down there.

This is the most crooked bunch of incompetance in the history of this country. Everyday some other scandel hits. Every day....now do you'all praise these guys to the kids? WOW. Can you sell my wife on that Lexus I want?

No goodness sakes MT, I hope you are proud of "your" man because fewer and fewer everyday think he is "the man", more like a cartoon liar pinochicco.

Don't you find it totally irratating that you have nothing to glorify this President about and defend him to me? If only you could say something he's done great. He did do a nice job on cleaning up his property while Katrina was blowing down the leeves.....yes let's give him a "your the man Georgie". Do you think the people of New Orleans want to join you? MT, you could write the lead in to his legacy biography.

So you feel safe when bi-partisan reports have come out and said contrary. That's right they just hate GW don't they??

Do you feel safe about an earthquake hitting us tomorrow and took your house and injured your family, that Bush would be here to help?? The likely hood is higher that we'd have that happen then a 747 crash here, or a bomb hitting. Better think hard about it, we only have only one example. No I guess two, he blew the heck out of Iraq and after three years it's in a Civil War.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Monday, February 13, 2006 8:22:00 PM
Washington (CNSNews.com) -- Amid cheers, whistles and two standing ovations, U.S. Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Tex.) took fellow Congressman John Murtha (D-Pa.) and the U.S. media behind the proverbial woodshed for a verbal walloping.

"Most of you know, at the end of last year, a liberal congressman from Pennsylvania insisted we immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq," Johnson told the Conservative Political Action Conference on Thursday. "When I heard this, it made my blood boil."

Johnson was referring to Murtha, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, who has been quoted as saying that the U.S. Army is "broken, worn out" and may not be able to meet future military threats to the nation.

"It hurt to think what the men and women in harm's way would believe when they heard the news that someone in Congress was not behind America's mission," Johnson said. "It hurt to think what the military families here at home would believe when they learned that people in Washington did not support the troops. And it hurt me to think that some people would just give up on our men and women in uniform.

"What would Iraq be like if the United States pulled out?" Johnson asked. "What would Iraq be like if we left and allowed dangerous people like the head of al Qaeda, (Abu Musab al-)Zarqawi, to run the country?"

Johnson, without naming Murtha, compared criticism of the war and demands for withdrawal with his own experience during the Vietnam War. A 29-year Air Force veteran and highly decorated pilot, Johnson fought in both the Koran and Vietnam wars. After being shot down over North Vietnam, Johnson spent nearly seven years as a prisoner of war in Hanoi, half of that in solitary confinement.

"I do know what it's like to be far from home, serving your country, risking your life and hearing that America doesn't care about you," Johnson said, choking back tears.

"[Hearing] your Congress doesn't care about you. Your Congress just cut off all funding for your war. They're packing up and going home and leaving you." Johnson added he was "scared to death" by such talk because years ago, he was afraid he would be left in Vietnam "forever."

"I know what it does to the mission," said Johnson, "and so help me God, I will never, ever let our nation make those mistakes again."

Johnson told the packed hall that Congress needs to give U.S. troops "the tools for ultimate success," including "the best armored trucks they can drive, the best weapons they can fire, and the best ammunition they can use."

The troops need something else though, Johnson said -- "[F]ull faith that a few naysayers in Washington won't cut and run and leave them high and dry." Knowing they are fully supported by Congress, is "mandatory for mission success and troop morale," Johnson argued.
"Any talk, even so much as a murmur, of leaving now or political timelines just emboldens the enemy and weakens the resolve of our troops in the field."

Johnson accused the U.S. media of predicting "gloom and doom" and ignoring or giving inadequate coverage to successes in Iraq. "What makes me angry at the critics is that we are making great progress in Iraq," said Johnson. He listed last January's election in Iraq and the December vote on the Iraqi Constitution.

"Remember the December vote on the constitution," Johnson asked, "when people came out in droves to make their voice heard? You wouldn't have known about it because there was so little mention of it here in the American press."

War on terror

Johnson also connected the Iraq mission to both 9/11 and the wider war on terror. "We were attacked. We are at war against terrorists. We need to stay there for as long as it takes if we want democracy to take root in tyranny's back yard."

The Republican congressman picked up an earlier theme from President Bush's second presidential campaign: "We must fight the bad guys over there, not over here."

Johnson told the crowd that there are confirmed reports of al Qaeda cells "plotting here on U.S. soil."

"What part of al Qaeda do you want operating here in America?" he asked.

Insisting withdrawal was not an option, Johnson called criticism of the war "Democratic nonsense" and compared it to the "peaceniks and people in Congress and America" who "started saying bad things about what was going on [in Vietnam].

"The people of Iraq are thirsting for something more. They are risking their lives in the name of a new government. We must stay the course if we want to foster a stable Iraq and create hope for millions in the Middle East," Johnson said.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 14, 2006 12:12:00 PM
Long winded? MT when you have grown into middle age and experienced life you will finally understand that saying rah rah sis boom bah to every conservative comment just shows a lack of knowledge, an active search for the truth, or an open mind. All I've seen you do is get on here and cheerlead the conservative opinion. Most honest posters here see your friend Roy as bigoted, and a bully, but I suppose that doesn't matter as long as they are conservative. Wow, I'm glad the opinions and judgments of the people I agree with are not bases on Ideology they hold. Timothy McVie was conservative too, does that mean.....never mind you were just a child then too. It must be nice to have others make an opinion for you and you just follow it. I'm glad I think for myself and my opinions are formed not given to me. How's the PTA doing these days?

You're right the loss of life caused by us being in a war that we can't win hurts me far deeper then it will ever hurt you. These are boys and men I consider brothers as some actually served during my time. You have no understanding, but may, if eventually one of your children has to be involved. But I forgot how proud you would be when they come home in a body bag so we could free the Iraqi people. But thats not what this is about anymore as you stated. The WMD program was just a ploy by Bush to knock out Hussian and draw Al Queda figthers in so we can keep them there instead of flying here. Maybe the next made up reasoning will be when you tell me we were there to help them with their oil so they could prosper. But then again, maybe you would be proud of all this, to sacrifice the life of your family member, as BAIT, to draw a terrorist bombs. How about your neighbors kid? Them too.

You bet I'm long-winded when it comes to fighting corrpution and mismanagement. When you finally grow and become someone that sees things besides whats said on Mews Max and Fox News and start seeing the realisn thats out there, then maybe anything you say about US politics will be credible. You'd be perfect for one of Bushs set-up press conferences. Ra Ra sis boom bah........go Republicans.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 14, 2006 12:32:00 PM
Gottorun, Yes Bush signed bills proposed by the Republican Congress. This is a Presidents job to do. Bugs Bunny would sign Bills, especially is Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd wrote them. Better yet, if Warner Brothers wrote them and handed them to Daffy and Elmer. Does that analogy make sense or do I have to be long-winded and explain it?

Next after signing these bills you have to create a budget that funds these bills correct?

Tell me a executive order for national secruity that Bugs Bunny would not have created and signed after 9-11 that Bush did? Yet, this Republican led Congress thinks the Presidents Patriot Act is so stressful on our Civil Liberties it will only agree to a month to month extention.....lets talk about that.

But now you have to look at the SUCCESS of these bills and orders. Signing them and implementing them are two different animals.

He's failed across the board. Look at the intelligence bills, the education bills, medicare drug bills. Are you going to tell me these are successes? MT this is where you go rah rah sis boom bah. His administration signed into law the Flood Control bill which included funding for the New Orleans leeves.....want to know what happened to that funding? Or would you like pictures.....MT...RAH RAH.....

No child left behind......want to talk about this bill?
or
the Bankruptcy bill written by Visa
or
the prescription drug bill?

How about the tax credits vs the Corporate profits of the Energy companies? I complain about the borders and MT says.....it doesn't matter we're tying them down in Iraq....unbelieveable statements.

Establishing the safeguards on American civil rights is when our President stood before us and said and I quote" there will be no wiretapping without following the law and obtaining a warrant" end quote. So you can say he signed this and talked about that.....but show me results. There are little if any.

Have you read the 9-11 commission? The report on National security? The Port commission report? How about the commission's report that comes out tomorrow? You said he signed bills to improve and make laws concerning these areas. All failures....grade...F.
And each one of these comes from a Republican majority and led committee not those anti-American, Gay, abortionist, liberals.

With Johnson in the above post. He states proved lies. The 9-11 commission stated that there was NO CONNECTION between Al Queda and Iraq, yet, he states there is. He said we have to stay there in their backyard. It isn't their backyard....a conservative lie.....as the commission stated. Also a Presidential lie. Again, I believe a bi-partisan task force over a VERY PARTISAN CONSERVATIVE..as he does takes sides. That makes him not credible. Give me a commission of 6 men and women, from both sides and not a swift boat member. So this post about this one vet is worthless.

I didn't talk about corruption MT, if I go their your ideology is what it is. But, you must be proud at your Republican Women's group.....again....rah rah sis boom bah....horray White House....and then bend over because they have something for you to take and talk about.

If you guys were true Americans, ones that cared more about America, I'd see truths, and complaining and questioning. You'd be appauled by whats happening in our government. You'd hate any untruths, any deception. You'd be the ones saying Delay and other corrupted Congressmen should step down, that the Conressional laws concerning lobbyists should be changed today? That we should investigate anyone who has reason to be, but instead you defend them. But you don't want to complain out loud. You can't put a post on here complaining. Conservatives like Roy would call you traitors, cowards. Roy is typical. Complain and you should like it or leave it. Complain and you are scum, UNLESS, UNLESS it's about a liberal. LOL.

My point in another post, proved to MT, she was uninformed yet, yet...she still took a side she had no information about..the FISA court, repeating the misleadings of conservative talk shows. Of course with that said, she didn't get back on here and say,...wow, I didn't know that, now I understand why you question this Jeff. She just said nothing. Learn to be wrong. Learn that if someone questions, it is a good thing, not a bad thing. It isn't about whether we are Independants, Conservatives or Liberals. Testing our government, questioning it can only make it stronger. The only way it becomes weaker is if it has something to hide. And this government hides things every day. Everyday another lie. Everyday another unacceptable scandal. You have to live with this corruption, but I want to find out why, so It doesn't cost me or my neighbors and one less boy can come home.

There will always be terror in the world. When do you stop fearing it and learn that the best we can do is make ourselves safe at home, learn to find domestic resources, learn to communicate with our worldwide friends and not seperate from them.

How could I say that NOTHING Bush has done is good? I couldn't. Many things he has done are good. You can't be a President and not fix some things, make some things better. But he has an agenda, that doesn't help our Country. It's a selfish agenda focussed on Corporations not the American people. It's an agenda of do anything to the American people as long as the agenda doesn't get touched and to do that you lie, steal, hurt and betray America. If you want to see the proof read the news everyday. Not opinion....but news.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:20:00 PM
MT, I think you have all the right in the world to state facts as you see them. To believe what you want. I ask that you look at logic not ideology thats all. I'm not quoting Michael Moore or any left wing person. I want your opinion. Not the same opinion Gottorun and Roy have, but that's all I get. How could it be possible all three of you have the same opinion????? Doesn't that seem unreasonable to you. Instead of patting gottorun on the back, why not ask him if you see something he says is different then you think. It is illogical that you agree with each of his points. Do you all like the same food too and have the same taste in fashion? Of course not.

So it is your opinion that whatever political war we get involved in, no matter the reasons, as long as a President sends your son, you would be proud of him to die even if it was not about defending his country but to defend big time oil companies? What a waste of something you've created to defend Exxon's bank account. I find that unreasonable. Again, it's your opinion, but its not mine. My opinion comes from not watching a couple of family members come home from war, but from a thousand NOT come home from a war that meant nothing to the defense of our country. Thats what I talked about when I talked about experience. I was proud of each soldier, and what they did for each other, BUT not proud of this country's policies and fears for putting them in that situation to die. The same pride I have today is for the teamwork and belief in each other BUT not for this unethical administration for putting them in harms way for a financial and political agenda.

You pray that God keeps them alive, question off the subject, but does God chose for some to die and some to live or is it the same chance of getting cancer, life's chances? What would be the reasoning by God to protect one and not another?

I DID agree that Bush has done some good, and repeat, Roy would do some good if President, but it doesn't make him average because he signed bills he didnt fund nor support the bills and off the top I attempted to show you a few.

I could go through each line item and prove my points, I thought I picked out ones you would logically see to be failures but I guess that wasn't enough. In my opinion this administration are the villians and more people everyday think the same. Over 50% of this country thinks it's going in the wrong direction and don't trust this President? So I'm not making up storie. You are in the minority. Republicans politicians are pulling away for fear they will go down with the ship. A President who misleads or lies is a fool and a villian to me and should be to you. As a citizen he is my President and I can challenge him in any fashion I so desire. I attack unethical people. I would have no ammunition, but these are todays HEADLINES, not made up by me. These are the top news stories, everyday....don't you see that? So if questioning the government makes then to appear to be demons and villians, if Im partially right, you would be in support of those demons and villains.

I gave you a detailed statement over your response to the wiretapping and you ignored it, why detail anything that you wont respond to when you are blatantly wrong? I state facts that have been reported and your response isnt to the facts I presented, stating opposite facts but that I should just stop. I didn't hear you come back and counter anything. Why would that be? Maybe there are no counters except to say stop the attack dog mentality, in other words.....shut up jeff because I dont have a reasonable answer.

So here is Jeff, saying yes MT, I did agree Bush has done some good as I try to be reasonable and fair minded. I disagree that there are just some problems. What happens when Cheney is indicted, or Rove or any of these high ranking ideolouges? Does MT come back on here and admit....wow Jeff you were right? Not likely. I make my points using logic and reasoning, not a conspiracy Ive read or seen. If they are PROVEN wrong, I hope they are. But what of I'm right....what does that make your ideology? What if the intelligence to go to war was twisted? What if outing a CIA agent to defend the twisting happened from the very top on down? What if Bush is guilty of violating civil rights by doing wiretapping that you made fun of? It showed a disregard of the civil liberties I fought to last forever. These are ALL being questioned by not only Democrats but high ranking Republicans and Judges and Constitutional scholars. I certainly didn't make this stuff up, Im not that smart.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 14, 2006 5:34:00 PM
MT, I guessed about the PTA and you being on a Republican Woman's club. I had no real idea as I don't think you have ever mentioned either in the past. It just fit your posts. I'm sorry if that appears to pigeon hole the type of person you seem to be. As I say, I try to use logic in reading people. You can see, I did read a part of you.

I don't know how I was mean spirited? I would like to know what was said, except that I challenged you to think past your ideology and be an individual. To think for yourself. I apologize if you think I believe your opinion isn't worth something. If I didn't I wouldn't answer nor challenge you. I think youre better then most but are being bombarded by constant propaganda, thus my talking about the Republican woman's group...it just made sense to me. I realize that you have experienced a family and the tough ways of the world, but there are things missing, again, my opinion. I tried to give you another side to the bombardment you've gotten.

I don't know you, but even with a handful of posts, you have to see, I know a little. I am just a person with an opinion, when Im right, Im right, when Im proved wrong I have learned a lesson I needed to learn and easily admit it. It stimulates me to be challenged and to challenge as I am not hung up on and defensive of a certain belief. It would be very very hard for me to grow and be open minded if I pigeon holed myself and became tunnel visioned. I try very hard not to become that way.

You just challenged me to see I overstepped blogging with you. I can see some things, but because we are not face to face I can't see if I challenge too harshly. Again, I'm just a guy wanting more for my family and my neighbors. Im a man, who did something I am proud of yet, can't find forgiveness from himself for what he did in the name of patriotism. A little insight into me. So now my challenge to myself is to hold people in the power of my life to a much higher standard, so I can now help your sons not be put into my position. Is that too deep. Maybe....but thats my reasoning for wanting the government be it the local level or the Federal government to be at it's best, to perform above and beyond, just as I did for it. I don't think asking for honesty, ethics and responsibility is too much for me to ask. I am not seeing this in some members at all levels and I want it changed. Again, it's my duty to be an attack dog, when as an American citizen I see this. When someone wraps themselves in the blindness and Pied Piper mentality of a specific ideology, defending things I view as unethical or corrupt I question them, I ask for answers. If that is too much, then I overstepped with you. But there is no line when challenging those accepting public service. Their responsibility is to answer my challenge and cutting edge.

I didn't argue facts of Bush signing bills. I admitted he did so, it comes with the job and seeing that it is a Republican Congress it would be political suicide for him not to. I challenged Gottorun with, yes he did his duty signing bills, but did he really believe in these bills. To believe you support and fund the new laws in your budget. So in my mind, maybe Im just stupid, if you sign a bill and you dont fund or support it, it isnt an accomplishment. Gottorun could have said his attendance record is perfect but it wouldn't be an above average accomplishment. Does that not make sense? Yes the facts are he took a pen and signed a bill....nothing more.

I see and hear your fear of a terrorist bombing a city. But if that is such a fear for you and Roy, why are you not screaming at this government to rebuild an American City? Why wouldn't both of you be screaming at this President.....where are you??? If youre this worried about a bomb blowing up a city? Is that not a reasonable question?

My other question is about this leaker. Did he leak the information to hurt this country? or was it to say he thinks laws are being broken...major laws, the 4th Amendment of the Constitution??? If his purpose was to hurt this country he should be arrested and tried for treason. But if it was to stop the most powerful man in the world from taking his and my Constitutional rights away, then he should not be arrested. In the same token, I challenge you back. If this man should be drawn and quartered as just an employee of the government, what should a leaker of National Security information get if say he is the Vice President or the President...any less? Now you both know that we have Libby saying to the grand jury that he was told by Cheney and others in the administration to leak information about an undercover CIA agent to protect the war agenda. Is this leaking OK, because it was done by a Republican?? I would think, since your ideology is something you cherish, you'd be up in arms over this as it would damage the purity of your beliefs being that it is based on the goodness of people? Your call, but what is an outsider to your beliefs to think? That you want to hurt those that damage the credibility of what you believe yet protect those within that are more sinful?

The last thing you said was you werent following the wiretapping story closely yet you would think that taking away your civil liberties would be of the utmost priority to Republicans. I would think that is what you would think our men and women are in Iraq fighting for. Maybe thats a misstatement about your beliefs, I dont know. You seemed very concerned about some things John Kerry said a few months ago, that in my opinion were very trivial compared to this. It seemed to me, an outsider, that you were more focussed on making light of the people that are up in arms about the protection of the Constitution.

Roy wants to kill people, butcher them, hang them, roll them over for his beliefs. He enjoys power, manliness, over the needs of everyone....again, my take from his posts. Thats why it is easy for him to call people traitors and cowards.

So, I do say things I believe and try to use logical insight into the news reports. Again, I read everything, not what I need to bolster what I believe. I said that the whisle blower has information on some of the innocent domestic calls that were taped including two Democratic Senators. This was reported by Reuters a week or so ago. I am not privy but I add two and two and get why Bush did illegal wiretaps, It just makes sense. Could I be wrong...of course, but there will have to be a reason to break laws. Something is hidden. I just ask why??
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 14, 2006 10:00:00 PM
PS- Roy, why worry about the could of's and should of's. Could we get hit by a nuclear bomb, yes, but seeing that an American like Timothy McVie could create something in a van, what can we really do. Your next door neighbor may be building one right now. Its almost like worrying about the 8.0 earthquake. You can only worry so much and then you just have to be prepared for the thing to happen. Stopping it is almost impossible.

Why not worry about how to rebuild an American city that did blow up right before our eyes. Its more productive and would give America more credibility in the world when it protects it own.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 14, 2006 10:06:00 PM
I am a member of the PTA too, what is wrong with that? It costs what.... 10 bucks that goes to field trips and fun stuff for the kids. Your wife probably signs you up for the PTA every year.

We are rebuilding that american city. But is is overrun with crooks who are stealing from the american people and the government. We saw destruction and thought - what can we do to help? They saw destruciton and thought - how can I profit from this?

Your connections are stupid and you are a *jerk*.
You ask MT how you were "mean spirited?" Re read your 12:32 and 1:20 posts. If you still cannot figure it out, you have less class and intelligence then she has in her toe.

MT - If someone talked to me like that, and told me to bend over and take it... I'd do a lot more then call that person "a mean-spirited bully."

Jeff - You need to take some time off. The chlorine fumes seem to have a negative affect on your personality and powers of reason.

But first, do tell us why Rholmgren is a bigot. I am oh-so curious to see your shriveled, paranoid little brain at work again.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 15, 2006 9:26:00 AM
No, please, no more posts from Jeff. He is so in love with himself. Notice how his posts are filled with analyses and explainations of himself, it is his favorite subject. He does not see how stupid and offensive he comes across. Rholmgen, gottorun and MT, do not waste your time and take his bait. Jeff does not want to know the truth, the facts. He wants to spin them, attack and pump himself up by rambling on an on with dumb assertions and offensive accusations. He doesn't even notice it, like his wording "if you were real Americans"...(indicating you are not, of course!)etc.,etc. Why do you guys respond to someone you cannot have a reasonable conversation with? He really has a huge chip on his shoulder or other huge big problems. Too bad he takes up so much space on this blog with his stupid chatter.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 15, 2006 10:12:00 AM
Theres nothing wrong with the PTA, I am a member. I was being sarcastic when I said that to MT not demeaning. LOL.

Show me what I said that was a bully......Kelly.

Heres the Webster's definition of bigot..."One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Thats a bigot. Roy wants reporters and a whistle blower killed for outing the President violating the Constitution. Isn't that what his post above says???

But, in contrast, Cheney had Scooter Libby out a CIA agent in time of war, that's OK. And if youre educated enough to add one plus one, you know that Karl Rove was also involved and if he was so was our President. But Roy doesn't want to hang Republicans, just people that OUT his politics. Thats what you call a bigot.

So now go look it up and come back and report.

I think that youre bothered by the truth and can't stand to hear it. Shut up, don't say things against Republicans.

Full of myself....go back and read what I say about myself. Just a guy with an opinion. If you don't like the opinion challenge it, I didn't see a challenge to it, but I will call out corruption.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 15, 2006 10:38:00 AM
9:26 AND 10:12, as a matter of fact all your posts did were to attack me the person. It's not about me really is it, Im not a politician. It's about the White House. You HATE anyone calling them out and fear that people will see the other side of Fox News. I didn't see either of you come back on here and challenge anything I have said about this Administration. I know it's so hard to do. No, it's impossible to do. So I challenge you conservatives....tell me how my facts are wrong? LOL Lets see what you got? Don't come on and say Bush signed some bills. Counter what I said about Iraq, Katrina, the economics, wirte tapping, corruption, education, immigration,
outing a CIA agent....it goes on and on and on doesn't it?????? What a great ideology......where can I run to join.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 15, 2006 10:51:00 AM
Jeff is right asking and questioning this administration.

He is not asking questions that many reporters and politicians are asking from the Left and Right. I didn’t read one of his questions that haven’t been asked many times before either in news articles and on television. I too ask the same questions? So should the rest of you if you really are concerned about his questions. Yes, it’s not the proper manner to ask if you and I are real Americans, but he is making sense when not becoming personal.

I too, didn’t see any answers in gottorun’s response. I saw most of his response being a listing of bills that President Bush has signed, not the benefit’s that have been realized from those bills. Wouldn’t that be a real counter to Jeff’s question?

I feel that is what he is looking for. He has offered to change his mind, change his view of this administration if you proved him wrong with successes not just a list of signed bills. If you have all these Bush successes, tell him. Right now, to me, he has proved his point. I too would like to see you attack his points, not him.

Who is he anyways? He’s just some blogger. But he’s kicking all your butts.

And he did have the foresight to call the one lady on her membership in the Woman's Republican Group. That was kind of funny.
Waiting for answers

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 15, 2006 11:13:00 AM
Jeff needs to be hung up and shot for attacking George Bush. President Bush is the greatest President we have ever seen. He should imprison anyone that stands in the way of putting Democracy in the Middle East, anyone that stands in his way of getting these terrorists and should do whatever it takes to get these people and even if he doesn't have a warrant he can wiretap or invade a home. Getting terrorists that are going to kill us is far more important then my personal rights. The Executive wing of the Government would not do anything to hurt our rights. Anyone in a time of war, like Jeff, complaining, making fun of conservatives, should be imprisoned. We need the oil in Iraq and we have the right to take it since we risked our military to take out a Dictator. Jeff you're a nut. Theres an answer to your questions waiting for answers.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 15, 2006 12:42:00 PM
OK....I'm going to be as respectful as I can here. I realize who Sherry Gossett is. To those who don't know she is a Right Wing conservative biased writer and her articles are picked up and printed on many conservative internet sites. That's the articles you are quoting here.

With that said, and you looking for conservative bias to your arguments, would it be fair for me to quote opposite opinions by liberals or independants and consider them unbiased. When I have quoted someone, it is the person involved, not a biased writer trying to spread propaganda concerning there side. I quoted a CIA agent Paul Pillar who worked for the CIA 28 years and has direct involvment, not Michael Moore.

The 9-11 commission was populated and led by Republican Congressmen and Democratic Congressmen. It came to a conclusion that is inconsistent with the above conservative writer. I think, that if proof could be generated by this White House that could be manipulated, to prove an Al Queda connection, Karl Rover would jump on it so quick it would make all our heads spin. This would be a major News story picked up by all Major oulets and Fox News would be touting it every five minutes as a News Alert. Neil Caveto, Sean Hannity, Brett Hume would have every Republican that can still walk interviewed.

So, in the end, when giving an opinion that you want to support with facts, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, Ann Coulter, Sherry Gossett are all biased just as Al Franken, Jeannie Garafalio, Michael Moore and the rest on the Left are. There comments are all to promote their side. They are not fair, but twisted facts. They quote Right or Left leaning interviews just as I stated in an above post by another blogger.

So MT be somewhat fair in your comments. If you say George Bush is saying these facts, then we have something to discuss. If not, these are just written to put doubt into what I am quoting off published reports from Major media outlets and newspapers.

Maybe Chartoff and Brownie can get her to write an article on how Michael Moore was standing on a corner, misdirecting ALL of the federal aid to New Orleans. It would have been on time then.

Again, this isn't a disrespect, but maybe if you read somewhat impartial and unbiased internet sites you may find that your opinions are less biased and your thinking would come back to the center or norm.

I can show you sites that have Cheney drunk, with a woman he is fooling around with when he shot this guy hunting. They all are left leaning, totally biased sites. They have the same type of quoting of officials, but twist the statements the same way. Would it be logical for me to even think those articles are true or have questions that our Vice President is now a drunk hunter hanging out with his floozie, even if they sound somewhat logical?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 15, 2006 2:11:00 PM
Wow,...12:42, is this what conservatives think??? I think we are in much bigger trouble then we really know. LOL. LOL.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 15, 2006 2:14:00 PM
Roy, you fit my definition which is right out of the dictionary. You are a bigot as concerns anyone who has a different opinion then yours. Because I take a different side then you concerning every political issue, you have called me names. You have no tolerance for anyone that sides against you and want Americans using free speech to be hung. Very strong words from someone who is not a bigot.

I will not ever challenge your family beliefs, actions or anything personal. Just as I would never label you a coward or a traitor for political beliefs you hold. Do you not think calling me a coward or traitor does not affect my family?? Read the dictionary and start understanding the words that you use and the ones some others say about you.

As far as I am concerned you are a good man and have a good family. I don't question that, just your prejudice towards those who disagree with you.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 15, 2006 2:22:00 PM
Blogs are for opinions!!!! If I want only facts, then I read the AP or Reuters wires? Yes, we all have bias created by life. Your opinions come from your bias. Its easy to go back and show you each time you made an opinion that was not based on known fact.

You are not forced to answer my biased opinion ever. I just asked questions and wanted to hear your reasoning for disputing it. One of the major points I tried to get across was your opinion and bias came from your believeing in an ideology and not from personal reasoning. I don't belong to a conservative or liberal group. If I was bombarded by a certain group my opinion would be tilted that way. Just as my going to church does versus talking with an atheist.

But it is not true that everything you post is fact, some is conjecture and guess. The reference to my DEMANDING answers would be conjecture and a might be, because I have never demanded anything from you as to what you post. I asked questions.

So, in the future, since you are only interested in facts and not anyones opinion, then I respect that and will not ask for yours as facts are all researchable.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 15, 2006 3:30:00 PM
I'm still really confused. I looked back to see where I was rude or offensive toward you personally and for the life of me, I don't see it. I don't see where you were ever mocked. I don't see where you were belittled. I may have questioned your opinion. I may have been scarcastic. But it's not me to belittle.

If you are offended by someone questioning your belief in an ideology, then I would be at fault. I may have questioned your reasoning.

However, what I don't understand, is that you patted Roy on the back and defended him when he belittled others. That just doesnt make sense.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:08:00 PM
Stop being a sap Jeff. This woman was the first to defend rholmgren when he belittled your wire tapping comments. You were right, she's a republican, evangelical right wing pundit. You proved her wrong and you hurt her little far right world. She needs to go to her little woman's church group and woman's republican group and bake her cookies and bow down to bush each night. She is such a republican stooge, everytime that incredibly irrogant rholmgren opened his mouth she would encourage him, but left to herself she reads her conservative blog sites and comments and then tries to say that was her purpose. These conservatives are so embarrassed by whats happening in government today and have no response that they are claiming let you are too much a bully. After rholmgren's comments, where has this lady been. Tough for them. It's their world falling apart and you just spoke the truth. Good for you, and her arrogant comments about losing her post, she said nothing because she was completely wrong and had no response. She has no answers to any questions you posed. It's typical. Conservative woman's group, do they have pictures of cheney and bush hanging off the wall next to jesus. Keep posting you have the best sarcastic remarks ive read. She had the nerve to tell you to stop posting, and this after she made a snide remark about your opinion.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 15, 2006 6:02:00 PM
First off 6:02 your comments are uncalled for, off the wall and I have no reason to want your support. Your ideas don't match mine and the way you talked to this woman are uncalled for and ignorant. Find a Michael Moore film and watch it for a few hundred hours. You owe this woman an apology for your incredibly stupid and senseless mouth.

Roy, what I said about you being a bigot is well documented. Just read back over the last year of what you call your harsh tone toward those that have a different political opinion then you.

Running scared? Of what? Trust me, challenging you is fun and really easy.

You know where I live. Run into me anytime.

See, MT, are Roy's comments belittling, rude, offensive? Do they compare to me comparing your style to that of a cheerleader. I think there is a major difference between a cheerleader for a cause and how Roy described me. According to the english language Roy is a definte bigot.

MT, I will respond tomorrow, but I do want to address something you said. I'm tired and have to head home. 6am to 8pm is a long day.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 15, 2006 8:09:00 PM
I thought this might be pertinent, Edward Faunce

__________________________________

A House Divided
By Mortimer B. Zuckerman , 2/20/06, U.S. News and World Report

Our national conversation has become too shrill, too polarized, too inflamed, too predictable, too divisive, and altogether too inimical to our national interest. On the larger canvas of our political culture wars, the stinging exchange of letters between John McCain and Barack Obama over ways to root out lobbying corruption on Capitol Hill is no more than a mere skirmish. It was all the more depressing, however, because these two senators represent the best hope for a real revival of centrism, the rational bipartisan consensus that expresses the nation's will with force and eloquence an d that has served America so well in its worst crises.

It is not just that President Bush is one of the most polarizing presidents in recent history. Conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans both are endangered species today, the ideological gap between the parties is growing, and the once large overlap between centrist Democrats and Republicans has virtually disappeared. And this polarization is not confined to the beltway. It has seeped out into the public at large, which now believes that the differences reflect fundamental views about who we are as Americans.

What is going on? Several currents are driving the tide. Party primaries, with low turnout, have come to be dominated by ideologues supported by special-interest groups that fund negative advertising. Winning elections has turned more on getting out the base vote--Karl Rove's winning strategy in 2004. Turnout is stimulated by wedge issues, which inflame the activists and often leave moderate voters unhappy at their choices. American opinion is less polarized than the parties' positions on highly charged social issues like abortion, gay marriage, and school prayer.

Then there are the media. When TV broadcasting first hit its stride, Walter Cronkite on CBS and his counterparts on ABC and NBC created a kind of town hall meeting, a trusted consensus of values for the mediation of issues. Today, only 50 percent of Americans say they are very or fairly confident of the accuracy of the major media. The roots of the big change seem to me to lie in the way cable and radio have developed. In the old days, broadcasters were restrained by the "fairness doctrine," which more or less confined media to the middle of the ideological spectrum. That doctrine was effectively repealed with the advent of the cable news channels, which built audience by presenting programs with sharp partisan viewpoints, with opinion and invective served up as news. On-air conflict is described as "good TV," presumably trumping relevance, accuracy, and fairness. CNN's perceptive former anchor, Aaron Brown, put it well: "The fact is it's easier to cover the extremes; they make the most noise."

Talk radio aggravated the trend. It is listened to by about one sixth of the adult public and is overwhelmingly conservative, somewhat balanced by the liberal rationalism of National Public Radio. The Internet that ha s become such an important source of information for college students and graduates is largely polarized, too, coagulating on specific news blogs that thrive on gossip, speculation, and polemics. The cumulative result has been a decline in democracy toward a fragmented populism. People mobilize around smaller special interests and remove themselves from the search for the common good.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, February 16, 2006 11:03:00 AM
My reference to people of an ideology wanting to believe so hard and so bad in what they perceive as the truth is born out above. Gottorun believes that the column you copied to SHOW me is fact, yet you yourself admit to the bias in the writers viewpoint and compared it to my conspiracies.

I re-read my posts and I assume that you felt bullied and mocked by my calling you a cheerleader. But aren't WE ALL cheerleaders in some form or fashion for the causes we believe in? Was that mocking you? My point, just as you made a point was to show that everytime a conservative on here posts something, the three of you, meaning Roy, Gottorun and You appauld one another, no matter the information. (See Gottorun's post above. He took that article as fact). And the cheerleader reference had nothing to do with you being a woman as I cheerlead my causes too. It's the fact that occassionaly the three of you might have opposing opinions of your ideology but you don't. Thats the part that scares me as an independent about our country.

Ok, I said you were a cheerleader for a cause. But in the post you wrote above those two noted posts of mine, you called me long-winded and told Gottorun what I would use as baseless theory, didn't you? How different is that then what I did? It was as mocking towards me as the cheerleader stuff I said. I was not out to mock you, bully you or belittle you.

I don't believe in some of the things you do, I like to prove my points, I try to use facts and add my spin or some would say my logic to what I percieve is happening, but truly until anything is proven as fact, neither of us is right, we are trying to make educated guesses. You have to admit that? Roy is out here saying that the 9-11 commission is all wrong, but how does he know? He is trying to make an educated guess but the only facts we have IS the 9-11 commission. They are supposed experts gathering information and we are citizens blogging.

I try to put my words down and why I believe it, but I'm not right about everything I believe, but much of the time I have leanrned to trust my feelings and logic and I have survived quite well. But it doesn't mean in the least that you don't have the right to believe everything you do either.

What you really don't see is I don't think it's you that is wrong about our country, it's that I believe the educators of your ideology are wrong and they will do anything they can to make you believe what they want including taking away your liberties, lying and misleading.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Thursday, February 16, 2006 12:51:00 PM
Gottorun, I respect your opinions but totally disagree and I think that the actual facts, brought out by the experts show the complete opposite of what you say. Weapons inspectors before the war said there were no weapons and after three years, interviewing thousands of Iraqi government officials, our government has stated there are no WMD's after spending millions more to locate them. Bush, to keep his pride went to all limits before giving up.

Yes, Hussian had WMD's and they came from the US. We supplied them to him during the Iran/Iraq war. Again this is a historical fact. It wasn't Hussian manufacturing these weapons. If you question this, there is a photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussian agreeing on the weapons deal.

Before our attack, Hussian's conventional weapons, including his tanks and artillery and airforce was almost non-existent, because our bloackade of 8 years prevented spare parts from reaching his army, most of his tanks were immobile, I think they found under ten active missles, so it would have almost been impossible for him to be building these weapons you assume he had. Again, these are not my opinions here.....but they are our governments written position. Al Franken isn't saying these things but all of our govenment agencies have come to this conclusion including the CIA and FBI.

One reason that the US supported Hussian in the late 80's and early 90's is that as an Dictator of an Islamic country, the US didn't fear he would allow religious terrorists in use his lands to lead attacks on other countries. It worked for a while and then fell apart when he turned and became aggressive against Kuwait. Again, no matter what the conservative talk show hosts and columnists say, the US government, including the CIA and FBI found no link between Al Queda and Hussian. Yes, they found he paid Palestian terrorists a bounty to kill Jews. That was the only thing that was found. As MT stated, US intelligence has pooh poohed the report she printed just as it did reports from Chalabi and other pro-US Iraqis pushing us to attack.

So those are the facts and it is the official intelligence stance of the United States. That's hard to argue with from your home in Murrieta, again respectfully.

When we attacked Afganistan there was NO national or world outcry or criticism? Why was that? Because EVERYONE knew it was the right thing to do. We needed to hit Al Queda and Bin Laden with everything we have. We did. The world stood behind us.

So why would there be harsh and brutal criticism now for a pre-emtive strike against a country that we thought was a risk? Think about the logic of this. We went after Afganistan and no one said a word right? Now they are. Why???

Well, we now know why if you put some reasoning into it. We have found that there are no WMD's, if you deny this as fact, how can anyone reason with you? Our CIA says there are none. So conservatives cannot make them up. Fox News had alerts every ten mintues during the actual battles stating and hoping we had found stockpiles but they turned out to be anything from fertilizer to drums of contaminated drinking water.

So if you cant get that, then all I have said about your ideology is correct. This President and White House could say the sky is yellow and you would swear to me it is. Thats hard to argue with but easy to mock and disprove.

The threats were non-existint to our security or our friends. Hussian didnt have a weapons program except in his mind...thats a fact. His army was weak, his equipment antiquated, the morale very very low. He had no air force or navy. What risk to us, as Ive stated the facts above did he pose.

Yes, he was a threat to the humnaity of his own people. But many countries are far worse. Far worse. There are African countries that are enduring mass genocide. Hussian was just torturing people. Again, these are facts. If that was the reasoning and Bush was so intent on saving lifes of people in those types of situations he would have struck, easier and much more critical countries or he'd be doing it today. Why not???

Now things that are assumptions. Bush massaged intelligence so we would attack no matter what. Why would people be coming out of the woodwork saying this is true, the Downing street report, memos, the outing of a CIA agent to discredit her husband who reported against the intelligence. Can this all be made up liberal fairy tales??? Well, you go back to things like the photos that Colin Powell took to the UN. Mistakes, or a smoke screen? So much is out there to discredit Bush, if just 5% is true, he really failed. Only history and the future will tell us, correct?

Republican Senators attacked Condi Rice yesterday over the facts and stated point blank that we are failing in Iraq. These are conservatives talking here. The story can be looked up on the AP wire yesterday. And this isnt an editorial, its factual news.

Our President made major mistakes, he didnt have a plan for insurgency, again, the Military has stated they warned Donald Rumsfeld that more preparation and planning and troops were needed, but he didnt take the advice. That again is a fact, again an AP story around Christmas quoting the Pentagon officials.

I disagree that this President rose to any occasion. We have a country in Civil War or very close, they're infrastructure is 70% of pre-war. Again, this isnt my opinion but that of the Republican Senators who grilled Condi Rice. Our military didn't have protective armor causing hundreds of US deaths. Again a fact, not my opinion. Hundreds of millions of dollars that could be used to fund our infrastructure, being used to rebuild what we blew up. Again thats a fact. So you're idea of Bush rising to the occasion is the cost of 2200 US soldiers, 22,000 wounded, over 100,000 Iraq soldiers and 100,000 Iraqi civilians and possibly a trillion US tax dollars and a country in a possible civil war, US solders still dying and Iraqis being blown up when in the past this was not occuring at anywhere near this. All we did was rid the world of a Dictator and set in place a religious democracy resembling Iran's. Again, this is not MY opinion. This is whats being reported...by who....our government.

So I don't get how you seem so proud of this President and this White House. About 60% of Americans believe he intentionally misled us and the above facts support that. About 60% of Americans think we are mishandling US policy in Iraq. Can this majority be wrong, according to the above facts, not my opinion but facts established by the government itself??? I could see if you had facts, news stories, not Ann Coulter, and our government confirming those reports.

I know about freedom. I know about death during war. I am sorry you have had loss in your life because of war, it's a very terrible thing.

From what I know as fact, I believe we are in Iraq for financial matters, conservative agendas to establish democracy where experts say it will never take hold, at least the way we view it. If they were there on a humanity mission, well, I find that unreasonable the way they put our poor and weak on the bottom of the list here.

I am proud to have fought for your freedoms, and fighting the abuses of our government today, I believe I am still fighting with my words for your ultimate freedom. Gottorun, again, if you discount all that US bi-partisan reports have come out with concerning Iraq and want to have an opinion that you believe that is only supported by far-right talk show hosts I will never prove anything to you. But if you use a little reasoning, and take a step away for your love of your ideology, maybe you will see some of the facts as true.

Criticizing, questioning and protesting against misuse of our Federal Government is the ultimate way of showing patriotism. I have quoted many famous Republican Presidents stating just this. To allude that I am not as proud of being an American, we could compare our sacrifices any day and you would be on the short side.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Thursday, February 16, 2006 7:23:00 PM
If you arrest and deport an illegal immigrent they will be back within days or at most weeks. If you cut the lifeline, the Corporations hiring them, by arresting the hiring management for breaking Federal laws, you stop immigration. Without jobs they won't come and can't stay.
They come to work, if they can't work, they won't come again and again.
Jeff.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, February 16, 2006 9:07:00 PM
Roy, its all you have because the actions of this White House are so inept, corrupt and unethical is to call on liberals who were just as bad. Stay in 2006 and defend your boy. It's sad that you all believe so hard in this conservative stuff, that you make up WMD's in your head, you make up connections between Iraq and Al Queda in your Murrieta homes so you don't have to deal with knowing it was all lies. Is the sky yellow Roy?? Karl said it was!!

I would be absolutely ashamed if these were the people that represented me as my ideology. Pride in our country was shown the days after 9-11 when ideologies took a backseat, then Rove got back involved and this country split in two. This White House and its administration have created a political civil war here like none since 1860. I throw out actual facts and you throw out Bill Clinton AGAIN!! Yes, Roy, the 9-11 commission is a lie, I guess everything is a lie when it shows this President in a bad light. Now do you all get a ring put into your noses or what? See MT, here is Roy's priority. Lying to cover an affair is really terrible but how about lying to cover the deaths of 2200 of our soldiers. Or lying to spy on us without a warrant. Oh I forgot, this President is so above board, he would never lie or mislead for an agenda. When is New Orleans gonna get some help?????

What grade did you all graduate??? Show me where anyone OK'd lying. State facts Roy. You can't. I don't know what to say to someone who reasons like this. Youre so shook up by Bush's inept failures that it's immediately....BILL CLINTON DID IT!!!
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, February 17, 2006 1:35:00 AM
MT, this is the balance of the man you agree with all the time. I pointed out just the facts to gottorun. If you all want to turn and say any government documents like the Katrina and 9-11 reports are false and say you know differently, how can anyone argue with you. It's living in a fantasyland and not the real world.

But Roy is off the deep end, someone and anyone patting him on the back is as luny as he, sorry but thats also a fact. When this boy is painted into a corner you get his 9:08 post. WOW. See by being fearful of calling conservatives like this wayward son crazy, you line yourself up with him instead. How silly, it is to be pigeoned holed like that. Any normal person would have to consider him a nut case.

Hey Ed, the next time you try and have a conversation with Roy, remember, this is whats in his head. He probably wants you in jail for exposing the vanHaaster gang.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, February 17, 2006 10:05:00 AM
Why are you beating your head against the wall and apologizing to these conservative hacks Jeff. They aren’t going to lower themselves and apologize to you when they are wrong. These people would side with GW if he took their firstborns. Stop trying. They only see one side of things and you can see they aren’t reading Reuters and the AP wire for information. They read far-right conservative propaganda and confirm it by listening to Faux News 24/7. Ask the Murrieta woman what's on her TV right now?

I think calling Rholmgren a bigot is way too conservatively light on him. He’s a bigot who not only disagrees but hates people who think differently. The same goes for the other two. The one woman is so into protecting her thinking, she ignored your request to side with you when Rholmgren went off on a Rush Limbaugh tantrum and said things that come out of the mouths of people who are so absorbed in hating and just don’t care about our country as a whole, just the conservative beliefs they have. I see them as thinking they are all that there is in this country. Gottorun, alleged in my unpinion that by calling out Bush you hate this country. I think it proves you love it more then a person. I hear you asking them for factual information and they ignore it. You gave them the facts and they chose to ignore or dismiss them. It’s like you are talking to a conservative talk show host who when pushed into a corner only knows two words, Bill Clinton.

Get over trying to change them, you can’t. I don’t think any of them have ever said they were wrong in their whole lives. That’s the morals of the conservative party; they are deceitful and never wrong. They have no morals and you will never get them to feel guilty about what it’s done. You have many supporters on both the National and Local levels, and you don’t have to preach to the choir. You can see they are all locked into their own little closed off worlds and have no comprehension of anything outside that world.
Waiting on Answers

By Anonymous, at Friday, February 17, 2006 4:16:00 PM
Waiting on Answers -
This is your SEIU brother. FYI and change of agenda. From now on we support President Bush. The culture of corruption is leaving the party open for infiltration.

So - be nice to the republicans. It's our only hope for the big time.

Okay? Roll over.

Good boy.

By Anonymous, at Friday, February 17, 2006 5:04:00 PM
You nailed it on the head, all true patriotic Americans hate politicians who are described as "committing perjury, deceitful, deceptive, delusive, delusory, dissembling, dissimulating, double-crossing, double-dealing, equivocating, false, falsifying, fibbing, guileful, inventing, knavish, mendacious, misleading, misrepresenting, misstating, perfidious, prevaricating, roguish, shifty, treacherous, tricky, two-faced, two-timing, unreliable, untruthful or liars". We hate people like that. Get the picture. Do any of these traits attach themselves to any politician you know. Any conservative politicians you know. Seems funny there is a monkeyfaced one in DC that is daily refered to by these traits. But you must be right and they all hate him because he's such a righteous and good man. It's rholmgren that you should talk to about hate, but you are blinded by him since he's a conservative redneck. So the second you treat him the way you talk to me about hate, then I will believe that anything coming out of your biased posting is with honesty and sincerity.
Waiting for Answers

By Anonymous, at Friday, February 17, 2006 9:08:00 PM
The loud little handful will shout for war. The pulpit will warily and cautiously protest at first…The great mass of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes, and will try to make out why there should be a war, and they will say earnestly and indignantly: ‘It is unjust and dishonorable and there is no need for war.’ Then the few will shout even louder…Before long you will see a curious thing: anti-war speakers will be stoned from the platform, and free speech will be strangled by hordes of furious men who still agree with the speakers but dare not admit it...Next, statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.”
— Mark Twain
“The citizen who sees his society’s democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry it out, is not a patriot, but a traitor.”
— Mark Twain
“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.”
— Thomas Paine
“When a whole nation is roaring Patriotism at the top of its voice, I am fain to explore the cleanness of its hands and the purity of its heart.”
— Ralph Waldo Emerson
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men." -- Abraham Lincoln

By Anonymous, at Friday, February 17, 2006 9:38:00 PM
MT, read what the definition of being biased means:

A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.

Can anyone be honest when they remian biased? Is being unfair honest? No, because if you know you're being unfair, then you lose sight of the truth. When you are sincere, you are genuine, without hypocrisy. Can you say comments to Waiting for Answers or Myself have been honest or fair or without hypocrisy? I'm not talking about your conservative beliefs. I'm talking about your statements such as WFA had hate ozing from him, when your counterpart Roy is probably the most hate driven person I have ever seen post. Or when you said I mocked you, yet it is OK for you to mock me, calling me long winded? Or for you to support Roy as he has bullied everyone on here at one time or other? Yet, because he shares your conservative views you look the other way when he dishes his hate and bigotry. I would think most people would not view that as honest nor sincere. It has nothing to do with you conservative views except that those biased views cause you to turn away from common sense concerning Roy.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, February 18, 2006 6:07:00 AM
Well it is about her beliefs too Jeff. When a person, in this case the three on here, can be so one sided all the time and not take a second to see someone elses point of view it is useless to argue. These three will never be open minded, and will always be right. But only among themselves. That's why thye have to gather in conservative clubs, because there are too many people, like you and I saying the truth. This one goes to her club and then reads her conservative blogs and internet sites. How can she ever hear what is really happening, its all distorted first. The funniest thing is if a Democratic President gets in, they will be the ones complaining daily non-stop. The War on Terror will be going on forever, so does their patriotic phrase of it's wrong to protest a President during war hold true then? Of course not, Jeff, you and I know they will be the first ones screaming about every little thing. They hide behind it today, tomorrow they will be using their freedom of speech.
Waiting on Answers

By Anonymous, at Saturday, February 18, 2006 11:47:00 AM
Gottorun, your views are somewhat correct yet they are totally one sided. What else is new here.

I don't think either side thinks more intellectually then the other. They are both full of intellects. They are both emotional in their beliefs. Can you say truthfully that right wing conservative talk shows and hosts are not hysterical in thier beliefs and emotional driving home points. You would think that they hate Democrats. Literally hate them, as Roy shows in each of his posts. If that is the case, then these people hate half of America at the least. They portray their views, as you just did as hysterical, unrealistic and above everything else, unpatriotic and unchristian. How can anyone belief they are a true American yet hate the beliefs of half of this country? Do you believe that to be realistic or patriotic or Christian to feel that way?

Let's take a look at the way you posed your talking points.
THE PATRIOT ACT
The Republican Congress could have passed this bill by itself, without Democrats anytime it had wished. It didn't. Why? So many of it's restriction came from the instant reaction after 9-11. The fear! You know good and well this is the fear that re-elected Bush. Well, now some members of Congress have renegotiated a deal to reduce some of the restrictions on civil liberties and the bill looks ready to pass. So it must be that some of the Republican members of Congree looked past their conservative beliefs to what was really good for this country and brought us a bill that would better serve us all. Don't ya think?

THE WAR ON IRAQ
60% of Americans believe this war was a mistake and today's policy on Iraq is not effective. If the far left base is about 35%, that means both Independants and moderate Republicans also believe this. As for Bush misleading and lying, the same percentage polled believes this. Would you say that 60% of this nation after 3 years of war proves hysteria? I don't. Your example of hysteria during Katrina was news reports of 10,000 dead. Was the talk for the six months prior and one month into the Iraq war of WMD's not hysterical??? Or if it was not, what does Gottorun call it. I'm trying to show balance here, not my beliefs which I have already stated. If you look beyond your bias, you will see I am correct that the WMD talk was far more hysterical then any this country has known for years and years.

RISK TO HEALTH:
I think that all people should desire to keep America healthy. I really don't care how restrictions effect Corporate America. I fear health risks a thousand times more then a terrorist attack. I want truths from our government organizaions such as the FDA concerning health risks. Why would an American citizen care more about the financial risks for Corporate America more then health risks of our citizens? I don't see hysteria here, I see an ideology protecting it's agenda of financial freedom for Corporate America. Tell me why I should care about Corporate America's financial risks?

ENVIORMENT:
Drilling in ANWAR could have been passed by this Republican Congress without any support from the Left. Again, this was a bill that some moderate Republicans weighed the risk to our country over the needs of oil. Hopefully the information that was given them far exceeded what you have and they made a choice that reflected the best interest of America.
Global Warming again is something that the whole world sees as a major crisis. The Bush administration is the only world government that doesn't agree. The only reason again that it is a conservative agenda is it might cost it's Corporate interest money. Other then that, what if, what if it really is changing this earth, would it not be better to be safe then sorry. Isn't that the same issue with the Patriot Act, lets be safe not sorry to tighten things that have been so loose for years? What difference to the normal American citizen is it to tight pollution regulations on Corporations, except it's violation to the conservative agenda of Capitalism, if it reverses some of the things we as a human race have done to society?

Animal Rights:
No to compare an animal to a human is not a fair comparison. Animals have certain god-given rights. Theyare again something he has entrusted the human race to care for. Again, I think the difference in thinking here is what is it going to cost Corporate America to treat animals ethically? Why is it that we even worry what it costs the Corporate world. Do the profits they are raking in not show there is much more they can put back into what the take?

Racism:
I have lived through the 60's and 70's and seen racism has no political boundries. I believe racism is a terrible cultural tool and should be shouted down by every people no matter what its agenda. Again, in what ways do affirmative action effect me the citizen. Without these types of causes we would still be in the 60's. We need some regulations because without them abuses would overrun us. They same goes for things like sexual harrassement, which I have literally seen abound in the workplace. Is it hysteria to regulate these issues with laws to protect the weaker of us?

Christianity:
You have a wrong perception I think of what others that are not conservative believe. I am a Christian and am not a conservative. That means I can dislike the current administration, call them liars and still love my God Jesus. It also means I can support the right for those who challenge the Pledge and "under god". I believe in the Pledge and I believe in the right to have "under God" on our money. But I also believe in the Bill of Rights and the right for anyone to challenge those things. Why wouldn't I believe in these rights. We are free. This isn't a one religion nation. I don't want my countries government directed by religion as it is today. It should be run by politicians, using their own judgment that keeps us free.

America does at time neglect it's poor, the proof being stavation and death and homelessness. I stayed under Christianity on this to state a fact. Jesus didn't stress in the Bible issues concerning homosexuality, but two times. But he did go overboard on what he felt the most important issues being taking care of the poor and not killing. When on earth, his parables surrounded being pasive until his Kingdom comes. He didn't promote violence but turning the other cheek. After he broke his bond with Israel, he stopped protecting one nation over another with violence. Today's evangilical right stresses the weaker of Jesus's commands, that of Gay's. So how is it, this religious right can make Gay rights its major talking point along with abortion. Instead of everyones worldwide right to life. Killing for any reason, according to Jesus was a sin. Would he have been proud of the Crusades or otherr Islamic/Christian wars? So above all I hope all Americans are hysterical in their belief of helping the poor, supporting woman's rights, saving this world's enviorment, our children's education and the right of every person's civil liberties above and beyond race, creed or religion.

In the end Gottorun, I find all you say here is that the left of our country wantsto do isscream at the top of their lungs about people's, the earth's and ethical right's over that of anything else.
I would think that if that is your ascertion, they would have right on their side to a point. But I don't think that those things are limited to only the left. I truly think all people want those things, It's just that political agendas, especially those supporting Corporations and their financial gain, get in the way.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, February 18, 2006 3:26:00 PM
Great points Jeff!!! Gottorun, when explaining your side you have to be fair but all you lay out is everything liberals you hate about liberals. I'm a liberal and proud of it!!! What I truly find amazing is you and this rholmgren idiot don't even believe a Republican ruled Congress and their findings on issues concerning things like 9-11 and Katrina. From your homes in Murrieta you know more?? From your homes you know that this monkeyfaced and brained President is telling you the truth on everything. You know that he is just the figure head for Cheney and Rove. It shows how brainwashed you are. Totally brainwashed when you don't even take the reports authorized, researched and layed out as the truth by Congress. "I don't believe that stuff", you allude, I believe what I make up at home. Conservatives can't say one sentence without lying their butts off. These conservatives mislead and lie at every turn to force there agenda. Cheney has outed a CIA agent and that's OK with you all. Rumsfeld is such a poor leader he's tried to quit three times from the pressure and failure of his office. Rove doesn't want to rid this country of his blind leading, where would he find another liar.
You got this rholmgren bigot, talking such nonesense like, "oh polls don't matter when they show how ineffective conservatives are". But if they talk about the Clintons "did you see what that poll said". Rholmgren go poach some deer. Rholmgren is a master at everything, he'll do a fair poll. He doesnt have a fair bone in his body. He is the typical far-right conservative, "oh I'm a Reagan conservative". If he was he'd be blasting this White House everyday, because they are about as fiscally conservative as that crook Cunningham. He is so full of hate for all the emptiness and embarrassement this conservative administration has puked out. No make that lied about. No make that lied and cheated us out of. Rholmgren, you have made one sound argument yet. Thanks Gottorun you say, thanks Murrieta T, because all you have to say is hate liberals, I hate liberals. You are about as stupid and red neck as I have ever read. Where do you park your pickup, or I'll find it with the deer laying across the hood. Think up some more I hate liberal sayings, and pour them into that beer thats sitting next to your keyboard, then try to come on here and say anything that matters to anyone but you red neck hunters. I went back and read your ignorant posts and all I get is how much you hate the Left, or 50% of this country. I guess where you come from it's a patriot that hates half our country. Jeff, your right, this guy is a bigoted nut.
Jeff, one thing you didn't bring up when Gottorun talked about this President as an Evangical Christian. He's for torture of our prisoners. Jesus is so proud of him, they must talk each night.
Waiting on Answers

By Anonymous, at Saturday, February 18, 2006 7:15:00 PM
OK Rholmgren, remember Ann Wright? She is a retired Army Colonel who resigned from the Foreign Service, her resignation letter was posted on the Internet, the day the Bush Administration commenced Operation Iraqi Freedom because she said that the case for war had not been made.

Recently she was asked to give her assessment of the State of the Union. What she said is quoted below and eloquently speaks for an enormous segment of America.

"What's your take about the state of our union?

AW: I'm very concerned about it. I think we are in serious trouble. We have a president and an administration that think that bullets and bombs, not words and peaceful actions, are what make America safer. I think we are faced with a critical budget crisis. This administration is mortgaging the future of at least one if not two generations by its incredible stupidity--cutting taxes for the rich and spending it all on corporate greed associated with the great war machine. We have outsourced the jobs of America. I don't know what future high school and college graduates have now. We've got to bring back jobs to America, start taxing people who can afford to pay so we can have services for the people of America. I am distraught about our image in the world because we are known as warmongers. We're known as arrogant, rude killers who don't care about the rest of the world. Environmentally, we are in the biggest doghouse in the world. I am not pleased at all with the state of the union."

Don't you think its time to stop blathering about republicans and conservatives vs liberals and democrats. Wake up man, your country is being flushed and you are stuck in a sophomoric discussion of which team is winning. We are all losing!

Utterly Disgusted

By Anonymous, at Saturday, February 18, 2006 11:29:00 PM
Utterly Disgusted, Your right. Being in the middle, I too want whats best for every American, not liberal nor conservative. Gottorun above states that I and Waiting for Answers hate Bush. I can only answer for myself. I hate being lied to and misled. Get on TV and tell me the truth. I don't want to hear conservative wish wash. I want the straight truth. I don't believe the Democrats have a plan. I think the Republicans are so power crazy they would destroy the freedoms we hold dear to hold office and lying becomes easy. I really don't know who to turn to for answers. But I'm glad I'm not stuck to either side and I don't have to defend either side. MT and Gottorun are so hurt when discussing national politics because when they are pushed to think about what they really believe in, they have no defense and they are smart enough to just fade out. There is basically no logic to a cause that has turned corrupt. You can argue talking points on theory but they can't argue when you dig into the facts because they all lead to corruption, be it power or financial. So to say I hate Bush, I don't know him. I hate the Republican lies and the power that has led to this corruption.

Gottrun is worried about Israel being blown up. Israel has shown they can take care of themselves without us attacking countries for them. We didn't attack Iraq to protect Israel. If that was the case we would have attacked Palestine many years ago and taken out Arafat. Gottorun has this pipe dream that Iraq is this new America and that the only thing stopping them from being the 51st state is Al Queda terrorists that have infiltrated. But you see what happens when Middle Eastern countries are allowed to vote, Hamas type governments can and will be set up. Al Sadr has taken a power stake in Iraq and he hates the US. The US isn't jumping for joy, over this new Iraqi government. Or Bush would be giving speeches everyday telling people what a glorious thing he has done. What has happened is that, yes, we got rid of Hussian, but in it's place we have set up a Democratic Theocracy similar to Iran, that is like Iran, which puts Iran at the top of the Middle Eastern heap. Hussian hated Iran, he was the counter balance to Iran. Now we've given Iran a satelitte state with a powerful religious base. Thanks George for sorting this all out for us.

You're also right. Where we have now spread ourselves thin militarily, and we have hurt our own infrastructure as billions of dollars head to Iraq to rebuild what we blew up. We have no plan. It's taken our military three years to train a very small army in Iraq that is barely loyal to anyone, when it takes us here 6 months to train our forces. We didn't have a plan. We were unprepared to manage Iraq after we won "shock and awe". It takes more then that to win. This administration failed Iraq and failed the American people. Then at home they have failed by misleading and lying about the causes. Who should I hate for that? Clinton? Kennedy? Pelosi? No we have to find the misleaders and liars? They are living and working in the White House.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Sunday, February 19, 2006 10:02:00 AM
People who only see one side and can't look at life and politics from all sides limit themselves to so much. I had to laugh at seeing the conservatives on here reject the reports Jeff was talking about and say, yes but I know there are WMDS and I know everything George Bush says is truthful, having just wound themselves up to fail. How can they suppose to know more then these studies and reports lay out. It's not an opinion but researched by experts in our government from both sides of the aisle. They are funny people. And as an Independant voter, they think that I would go along with such short-sightedness.
Looking for Answers

By Anonymous, at Sunday, February 19, 2006 11:30:00 AM
Finally some voices to bring us back to the center...THANK YOU!!!!

By Anonymous, at Sunday, February 19, 2006 1:23:00 PM
Rholmgren, it's amazing. Given the chance to say that both major parties are no longer relevent to governing America, you continue to hang onto your pipe dream. Yes, yes, yes the democrats have been captrued by the lunatic fringe. OK, but look who has captured the republicans. The lunatic religious right fringe.

If you could only hear how silly your 12:41 post sounds. Starve the beast???? You should be abandoing the republican party as fast as you can run. They are feeding the beast everything in sight.

You eschew being called a bigot, but what's actually worse is to be wrong and lose our Country.

Stop calling other concerned persons names like "goons." What do you accomplish? Only labeling yourself.

This country needs people like you who will speak up against the insanity that is overtaking us daily. Add your voice to the chorus that is saying to Washington that we are mad as hell and aren't going to take it any more. Say no to all incumbents. Support those who seek office, but not permanently.

You asked "How can any of us tolerate so much waste?"

We can't. Join the chorus.

Utterly Disgusted

By Anonymous, at Sunday, February 19, 2006 1:47:00 PM
The vice president shoots you in the heart and in the face. Then you apologize for all the trouble it's caused him. That's what it means to be a Republican.

Despite almost hysterical warnings the president stays asleep at the wheel. He does nothing about terrorism and 9/11 happens. He responds by running away to Nebraska.

Three days later he makes a supposedly impromptu speech with a bull horn on the rubble of the World Trade Center. He is universally cheered as a hero. That's what it means to be a Republican. The president puts together false claims to go to war with the wrong country. His party universally supports him. That's what it means to be a Republican.

The administration mismanages the war in Iraq so that it creates chaos, a breeding ground for terrorists and political opportunities for Islamic fundamentalists. Along the way, the reasons for going to war are exposed as false. The president runs on national security as his main issue. He is re-elected. That's what it means to be a Republican.

The president cheerfully gives away the surplus to the richest people in the country. Then he runs up record debts, just to throw more money their way. He claims it has helped America's economy. People act like they believe him. That's what it means to be a Republican.

The administration continues it's magnificent tradition of going to sleep when it is warned of disaster. It does nothing when Katrina is coming. It continues its record of doing nothing when disaster arrives. As New Orleans was lost, just as when the World Trade Center was lost, the president got as far away as possible. But he can't be blamed for what nature did. That's what it means to be a Republican.

The president orders wiretaps without warrants, a straightforward violation of the constitution. When the Attorney General is called to testify, the head of the Judiciary Committee insists that his testimony not be under oath. The head of the intelligence committee suggests that the law be changed, now, to make it legal after the fact. That's what it means to be a Republican.

Alberto Gonzales helped come up with the program that rejected the Geneva Conventions, that permits torture, that says that the president is above the law and that "I was only following orders" should be a defense against a charge of war crimes. Ah, if only the Nazi war criminals who were hung at Nuremberg had Gonzales there to defend them. The president nominates Gonzales to be his new Attorney General. He is confirmed with little debate and no outrage. That's what it means to be a Republican.

This needs to be understood.

What it implies is that Republicans can't be dealt with as if reason and facts will sway them. Because it wont. It's hard for reality based people, regular Democrats and Liberals to understand that.

What it let's us know is that reality based people, Democrats, Liberals, real Conservatives, old-fashioned Republicans and non-profit Christians have to take more vigorous and rigorous stands. Or reality and real American values and the American landscape will disappear, not just temporarily, but forever.
Waiting for Answers

By Anonymous, at Sunday, February 19, 2006 4:20:00 PM
ROY HAS SPOKEN, DO NOT RANT IN HIS PRESENCE!!!

From Roy's posts you can see it isn't about the infrastructure within our country. It's not about protecting our civil liberties. It's not about helping the poor and aged. It's surely not about the right's of anyone else but Corporate America. It's all about funneling American dollars into the people that know how to invest our money....right? Enron? Arthur Anderson, Tyco, World Com and Halliburton to name just a very few. Yes, let's trust Corporate America with OUR money. LOL.

In his posts, the name Clinton pops up every few posts. The name Reagon pops up as a God, yet Nancy ran the country most of the time. Oh yes....Ronnie sold guns to Iran so he could support the Contras....way to go Ronnie!!! How about those guns? Could they be the ones crossing into Iraq and killing our boys?

Roy hasn't read about the briefings that Bush ignored about terrorist plans to use airlines as weapons. We saw his rush to action while in a grade school after an airliner popped the side of a building in downtown NYC. He was in office 18 months prior to the attacks. 35% of a normal Presidency. He had time to be the great protector he portrays himself as. The same protector that has "done all he can" for New Orleans.

No to Roy, it's all about the money. It's the same with his local politics. Who does he defend....the money the Corporations might lose. He doesn't care about the people. To hell with the people. If your weak, uneducated and poor, move out of the way.....or lets hire them as slaves. You want health care, do the work us Americans don't want to do, pick cotton and strawberries and oranges. Be our slaves and will give you a bandaid. I just figured out Hilary's comment about plantations.....she was talking about you, Roy and all your conservative friends.

Here's another friend of Roy's and Corporate America...Jack Abramoff. Give to Jack. Jack will pay someone off. You want to talk about horse thieves that need a hanging Roy, start with your boys in Congress. Delay, Frist, Ney and Cunningham for a start. This is what happens when you mix Congress and Coporations. There was an initial cry by Republicans to fix lobbyist, until they found out that it would affect free trips and free lunches....now they aren't talking about it are they.

Iraq, its all about the money isnt it Roy. You don't give a hoot or holler about Iraqis. You told me so, I have your post here from 6 months ago. It's all about the control of their oil.

Civil liberties? Yes we should take them away from people during war he says. When will the war on terror EVER END? Never!!! So give them these rights, the ones Franklin and Jefferson wrote of. The ones they fought for, the ones i fought for. Of course Roy didn't fight, He has been at home telling you to send your kids to war, so his Corporations grow richer. Chickenhawks like Bush, Cheney and Rove send your sons to war. So Roy, you take my 4th amendment rights away. What stops you from breaking down my front door without a warrant? What stops you from taking me out of my home and imprisoning me for whatever length of time you want, without a warrant? What stops you from torturing me without a warrant? These are all practices Bush has fought to keep when dealing with prisnors of war? Why not Americans he thinks, but doesnt know, are his enemies?

Tax cuts....they go to Roy's favorite place....Corporations....Exxon gets them. They made more profit last year then any other Corporation in the history of America. Any tax cut the normal American citizen got was eaten up in the higher price of fuel. What spending does that encourage Roy??? None, because Roy is misleading you. We got it up our backside. Bush should have just sent our checks directly to Exxon and saved postage.

Roy you are the biggest loser in the world, because you believe Rush and Sean. And they have helped blind you into the bigot you are. Bigot is not a name, it is a description and it fits you to a tee. Bigots tell people to shut up, that their posts shouldn't be posted. LOL. You are also a fool....look it up.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Sunday, February 19, 2006 6:18:00 PM
Sorry Jeffy boy,
Points for Rholmgren..... 25

Points for Utterly Disgusted... 2

Points for Jeff.......... -5

Waiting on Answers is disqualified by reason of delusional insanity.

By Anonymous, at Monday, February 20, 2006 12:00:00 AM
Oh yeah, and Jeff - it was 9 months in office not 18.
The rest of what you say is just about as accurate.

By Anonymous, at Monday, February 20, 2006 12:20:00 AM
Great posts Jeff and Waiting on Answers!!! Someone finally has knocked that rholmgren down to size. Finally some real men standing up for our freedoms!

By Anonymous, at Monday, February 20, 2006 3:38:00 AM
Roy, LOL, anything you say! Do I have to shut up too!! LOL.
Your posts have never included any word about the aging and poor when it comes to our government. Not once. They have said how wonderful Corporations are and I mentioned a few and you just didn't respond. I wonder why?

And how would less money spent reform systems such as the welfare system? They don't have money now to set in place a watchdog system? Welfare reform is something I am for 100%. Oh, maybe we could have taken some of the 400 billion dollars we sent to Iraq to do but I guess not. That money is in suitcases paying halliburton off.

Civil rights violations? Let me think? Oh, maybe the 300,000 cases where American citizens had their phone calls wire tapped without a warrant? No, that can't be it. Because in a time of war, our President should be able to bypass Constitutional law and do whatever he wants. This is the same President who has said, just trust me. Or, if we are talking about a person's civil rights, lets take a prime example. Valerie Plame. Because her husband told the truth about tainted intellegence that the Bush White House was lying about to prove their reasoning for war, the VICE PRESIDENT had her CIA position outed according to Scooter Libby. What a wonderful thing it must be to be in the Bush White House, you can out CIA agents, declassify any information that suits your actions, shot people and not say anything to the authorities for 18 hours. What wonderful liberties they enjoy, but us, we lose all of ours.

Heres your statement: "Spending cuts do not necessarily mean less help to those that truly need it.ending cuts do not necessarily mean less help to those that truly need it." Yes, it does or you wouldn't have stated it that way. It's a bold face lie.

Yes, an admitted mistake on the 18 months. 9 months is correct, or 20% of a normal Presidency. It happened on his watch. How come your not talking about the warnings he had prior about terrorists using airliners as weapons. It's funny how you skipped answering most of my points.

Oil companies unprofittable? Yea, I see them filing bankruptcy almost every year. They are just hanging by a thread. Called before the Senate, not one took an oath. They lied directly to that Senate committee. Just as Enron took advantage, so have the oil companies, but only during Bush's reign of terror.

The vast majority of Americans support their troops period!! They should as patriotic Americans question the lunacy of a White House that sends them to their deaths. Everyone knows Bush now has put us in a pickle. We can't cut and run today and I haven't seen anyone advocating that. I have seen them ask for a plan to leave. That's what we should have. But we don't even have a plan for what to do today. Bush doesn't know if he's coming or going. No plan. No nothing. What do you know about his plan of action? Nothing. What is winning the War in Iraq? Answer that Roy, what will it mean to win in Iraq? Does it mean we give them a Democratic Theocracy and leave? We will never stop the insurgency as long as we are there? So what does it mean to win in Iraq? We can never win until we leave. The same was true in Vietnam. We couldn't win until we left. The longer we stay, the more bodies and money we spend. If we leave, like Vietnam, it will cure itself. But that's not good enough for all you Corporate lovers is it. What are we financially gonna get is your slogan isn't it. Until you get that, you don't want to "cut and run". Well we sure aren't shock and awing them anymore are we. I guess that would be the other way around. Traitors Roy, are the ones that sent us to Iraq for no reason. Traitors are ones who lied, misled, massaged data, and still to this day don't do the right things. Traitors are politicians that sent too few men, not enough equipment to back a sub-standard plan. Those are the politicians who don't support the troops. Those are the people who are traitors. The ones that thought it would be a cake walk, in and out and oil pumping back through our US veins. Didn't work out that way did it, Roy? Last throes....is what 29% approval Cheney told the world. Rep Senator Hagel said last week that Iraq is getting worse not better when questioning Condi. Is he a traitor and coward too Roy? You are the coward, beating your chest and using the "support the troops" line. Yes, support our troops and get them out of harms way. That is the only support we can give them. But you want Syria and Iran first. Yes let's hit Iran with an air strike and see how safe our troops in Iraq become. Let's see what happens when a country three times the size of Iraq is hit. We are stretched too thin today. Let's move on and make the whole world conservative Democracies. LOL. Its terrible to laugh, because are boys die daily.

Falsehoods? I apologize for the 18 months when it was actually 9. But that was just a math error, not an out and out lie. I exposed yours.

As to the meeting on the street Roy. Heres a person who throws out the words coward and traitor without reason and when proven that he fits the description bigot cannot tolerate it. A coward Roy is "One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain." I'm not afraid, nor am I in danger. A coward would be one that is so fearful of terrorists attacking us that he would give up his civil liberties out of that fear. A traitor is "One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason." According to Teddy Roosevelt it is my duty during war to question the actions of my leader. It is true patriotism. It is those who want to hide exposing his failures for political gain that are the traitors. It is those who lie for his failures that are the true betrayers of our country. I don't even come close to being either. Now....go back and read the description of bigot and tell me where you don't fit the word.

MT would be all over here defending you but she can't. You call everybody names for their stance. How can anyone protect a name caller, when the word you are called is you.

You told Waiting for Answers to spare you his rants, or like you pal Bill O'Reily says....shut up!
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Monday, February 20, 2006 5:48:00 AM
Whether it is an attempt at comity, or political ineptness, the Republican Party is failing to act as a majority party. They have majorities in both chambers of Congress, and the presidency—yet they fail to act on promised reforms and have beaten many a retreat at even the suggestion of opposition.

They have abandoned the most appealing and important aspects of the Contract with America—term limits for Congress and fiscal responsibility. Since the Republicans have come into control we have seen more and more earmarks from politicians of both parties, as the Washington elite buy their way into office and reward family and friends.

The promise of social security and tax reform now seems like a cheap come on. President Bush ran on a platform of radical tax reform, yet all we've gotten are tax breaks and a proposal for tweaks to the tax code. To be sure, they are welcome tax breaks and good tweaks, but radical they are not—and hardly assured to be lasting. With a Republican majority government, the failure to even get Social Security tabled for serious discussion is a major failure.

When President Bush signed the Prescription Drug Benefit into law, he grew the size of the deficit well beyond what any foreign military adventure could. The growth of entitlements add more and more to our debt, a debt that no amount of taxation will do away with until we learn that there is no free lunch—the bill always comes due.

Campaign finance reform has done little, if anything, to get the money out of politics and attempts have even been made to apply the rules to internet activities of private citizens—a move that, were it ever to come to pass, would seriously shackle free speech. I blame this on the Republicans, for it was passed while under their leadership.

As illegal immigrants continue to flout our laws, there has still been no serious move to tighten our border security, to crack down on companies breaking the law by hiring illegal immigrants, or to reform the incredibly Byzantine immigration laws that makes immigration so difficult to do legally. For a party that has given so much lip service to national security, this lapse is inexcusable.

The Republican Party is truly fortunate to have an opponent in the Democratic Party—for were the democrats to ever advance a platform that was more assertive in foreign affairs, more serious about immigration enforcement, and more restrained about fiscal policy, there would be a great swath of votes that could swing from center right to center left.

By Anonymous, at Monday, February 20, 2006 7:56:00 AM
Roy all you worry about is who you can label to what ideology. That way you can hate the one and love the other.

I agree with EVERYTHING in 7:56 because I copied it and pasted it from an article I read.

These are the conservative value failures of Bush. So all you really have left is his other failures like Iraq, Katrina, his budget and these "little" failures.

Oh I forgot....he did sign some bills that he didn't fund.

So thanks for the compliment, I'm honored. See what happens when your hatred doesn't get in the way.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Monday, February 20, 2006 9:47:00 AM
Good lesson for you Jeff,
From now on copy and paste articles of substance instead of ranting your irrational and emotional theories.
As a republican, I also agree with the article you posted at 7:56.

You however, are off the deep end.

By Anonymous, at Monday, February 20, 2006 10:33:00 AM
Deep end for the radical right.....but not for main stream Americans. Its moving to the center...away from corruption and unethical behavior

So we agree what an incredibly terrible job Bush has done yet you defend things you think are irrational....tell me what is irrational? We should all be emotional when it comes to boys dying for no reason and the loss of our rights.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Monday, February 20, 2006 10:56:00 AM
Keep going Jeff, we have a voice in the valley that is finally speaking the truth instead of the constant lies we have gotten. THANKS.

By Anonymous, at Monday, February 20, 2006 12:41:00 PM
Rholmgren said:"The Prescription drug benefit was a mistake and it truly surprised me that a Republican would start a new entitlement after we Republicans have been critical of entitlements in general for so long."

You may have missed the main sticking point. It's not that the drug bill was a new entitlement that offends so many. It's that the bill was written in a way that simply transfers tax dollars from the average American to the pharmaceutical industry.

Are you aware that the bill forbids the US from using its negotiating power to seek a better price? Are you aware that it forbids obtaining drugs from other countries?

You also said that the republican party exhibits intellectual honesty. Are you delusional? What is honest about stealing billions of dollars from needed programs and funneling it into the pockets of fabulously rich corporate donors. You think they just might kick back a few $$ to keep the pork barrel primed.

Sure the republican administration is in favor of global trade, except when it comes to forcing American people to buy overpriced prescription drugs.

Rholmgren, your positions are not intellectual they are dishonest and inconsistent.

And another thing, even before the fiasco drug bill, this administration allowed the drug companies to require every person to visit the pharmacy once a month. What an outrage. What an inconvenience.

But I take it, you don't mind the added cost and the inconveniences.

Every direction one looks, there are governmental agencies looting taxpayers and wasting money.

I saw a sign posted on a business window in Fallbrook recently which said:

"Our forefathers objected to taxation without representation, they should see it with representation."

That's the problem. Both republicans and democrats have failed. Your continued comparing the repubs to the dems only compares one failure to another.

What should common ordinary hardworking Americans do when they see no hope in either party? Continue with the most profligate anti civil rights administration in the County's history? I don't think so.

If anything, we need to insure that the congress and the presidency do not come from the same party. Grid lock may be our only hope.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Monday, February 20, 2006 1:04:00 PM
Jeff, stop confusing these conservatives. You said yourself they don't think for themselves and I heard that Fox News won't answer calls propaganda. They won't be answering your irrational but true points anytime soon. All Republicans do is cost us money.

By Anonymous, at Monday, February 20, 2006 2:02:00 PM
Oh and our freedoms

By Anonymous, at Monday, February 20, 2006 2:02:00 PM
Rholmgren, dems may be stuck in the past, but repubs are stuck either in the corporate pocketbook or off in some evangelical world view.

You say not to lump you in with such republicans, but those are the ones who are in control. Who cares what kind of republican you are. You don't really count.

The corporations provide the money to keep the republican PR machine going and the evangelicals provide the bodies to respond to their single issue moral issues and keep the career republican pols in office.

So while you are claiming to be a Ginrich and/or Regan repub, you've been run over and sold out just like everyone else.

I don't take any comfort in your position that your brand or republicanism is better than democrats. Neither one is in power and the country is going you know where in the proverbial handbasket.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Monday, February 20, 2006 7:44:00 PM
But see your reasoning is you are satisfied with Bush and won't call him what he is, a failure for fear that people will turn to the only thing left for them, the Democrats. Thats how this all works Roy.

But I don't read left or right wing sites, just the AP and Rueters and Time and Newsweek. I also follow the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. So to portray me as a left wing radical would be correct on some issues, but on others I am far to the right as with welfare reform, the death penalty. I don't have to stay in any area like you do. You can swing as far right or to the middle as you want but don't you dare cross. You are stuck with Bush. I am not. I wanted Clinton run out of office on a pole for lying to me, it was not what he did, but the fact he lied point blank. Well a true Democrat would defend him, I don't. But you have to live with the loser and failure we have in there now and it must kill you daily to read the next mess thats happening because it drags your ideology through the mud and you yourself come out dirty and stinking. Sorry for the play on words, but its true. If you are unhappy with Bush and are unsatisfied, say it. Don't defend him. You know, many things I say, especially about Iraq and Katrina are undefendable. They just are. Defending them makes you so less credible.

Roy, everyone doesnt have to be like you and declare a side. Sides cost you your own ethics. Not declaring an ideology I am allowed to demand the best from every politician, the best for what my family needs. It gives me a far better perspective on my future.

Its really hard to have an agenda on Iraq for Democrats. We are there but not there because of the Democrats. They have no plan because it's a real mess. There isn't much we can do but say we won and get out. It seems that they are so busy just keeping up with the daily ethics, corruption and laws that are violated, they have little time for an agenda. The only way they can fight because they are the minority everywhere is to show the deficancies and failures and try to force public opinion to sway politicians to go the opposite direction. It has worked very well as Bush has not pushed across a major agendas such as Social Security reform because this tactic has worked. The closer we move to November the more it will work as Republicans pull away from Bush and distance him and his failures.

Roy, if only you were a nice guy, no one would care if you were a Republican or Democrat. You act like you are doing your friends favors by accepting them as a Democrat. I don't think I know what anyone of the people I work with is as to political views. It just isnt that big a deal to me. But to you, a friend must have to pass a test to be your friend. You hate, and I mean hate anyone that doesn't agree with the White House on this War in Iraq. You call it being a traitor. Thats why you represent the name Ive used. I support the military far more then you do, I go to the Veterens Hospital, do you even know where its at? But with that said, I can hate the policies layed out to put our troops in harms way. I do hate them because I see the failure written on the wall today. Who do I go to later, when we leave and Iraq falls apart? You won't talk about it, but will claim we did the right thing. No, it will be the military that will own the nightmares. The 22000 plus injured, the families without dads amd moms. You will move on to some Corporate fight. But the families can't.
Think about it.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Monday, February 20, 2006 9:15:00 PM
Jeff, as a balance to N.Y. Times, which is very left, why don't you consider the Weekly Standard instead of the Washington Post? Just thinking

By Anonymous, at Monday, February 20, 2006 9:31:00 PM
The party of new ideas? I guess so.

Lets throw the 4th amendment away and make up a new law, all on our own. Let's declare a war that can never end and we can collaspe every civil right whenever we want. Lets spy on Americans witout a warrant. Very new and progressive accomplishment.

Lets promote conservatives into positions they dont qualify for, just because they are conservative. Too many examples here. LOL

Lets give as much money back to the rich and take as much away from the poor as we can. Revolutionary!!!

Let's scare the world and put fear into the hearts of every mother concerning terror, while at the same time we'll allow Corporations to hire illegals and not secure our borders. Better yet, why don't we have Conservative minute men stand just over the border, holding cash and when the hispanics cross the line, shoot them with assault weapons. It would rid us of illegals, we then could stack them and build a wall and we could have a use for having AK-47'S in our closets.

But wait, thats not progressive enough.....hold on we have a new idea. Lets allow Saudi Arabia to come in and buy control of our Ports in major American cities. You know the same country where most of the 9-11 bombers came from and a country who's been known to financially support terrorists. That way by paying them for port services, they can funnel the money back to terrorists to attack us. So it's like we are paying to blow ourselves up!!!!!

No, it's also a good idea to out a CIA agent or two just because we think its ok.

Lets promise to protect every American and when a whole city is hit by a natural disaster, we can leave it drown and burn for days, say what a great job we are doing, promise to rebuild it and then......wait this is the best plan....complain louder that Walmart isn't saying Merry Christmas when we buy things. Thats so progressive. But listen to this. We take the people living in poverty and spread them around, bulldoze the houses, build super suburban housing and sell the property off to the rich and wealthy. Its going to be a popular way of ridding big city ghettos. Karl Rove is developing a new man made monster tornado.

If not that, lets tell and MAKE every American do exactly what we think they should concerning their bodies and how they are allowed to die!

Lets drive away every ally we have made over the last 50 years, drive a wedge in and call them names and laugh at them.

Lets try to take as much as we can out of this earth, destroying habitat, wildlife and the ecology as fast as we can, we don't care....Im on a roll here...LOL.

Lets let the Corporations control most of the money because they know whats good for us and how to use it. Lets also let Corporate CEO salaries triple and take as many health benefits as we can away from the workers.

Lets sign as many bills as we can, and then laugh and not fund them.

Lets change laws so indicted Congressmen don't have to step down just for one guy, but now that half of the Republican Congress is indicted or will be indicted we all can stay on. Heck, lets make it so we can legislate from prison.

And lets make some noise about lobbyist reform and then not say another word and it will just disappear and....hey is Jack's restaurant still open for free lunches?

No lets say we want to be like Reagan and let our wives take over while we sit on our porches and OK arm sales to Middle Eastern countries and when we are caught, lie about it. I see the progression here.

Lets be like every conservative President for the last 25 years and let the defict grow to where we have no fiscal future.

One of my favorite of the new ideas is selling out to evangelical men, not pastors, but men like Perkins and Dobson, multi-millionaires who scare the living daylights out of people about the gay movement, that all of their kids will turn and marriage as we know it will be destroyed and cats and dogs marrying each other....and .....and.....let them be the ones giving the up or down vote on our lifetime judges. I thought Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world. I guess that meant except the US.

So reasonable, Roy, so progressive. The party of theives, liars, ethic violators, self-righteous, power hungry, manipulators, chicken hawks and many other thing politicians.

Yes give people more tax cuts, let Corporations run rough shod over the common people and take their civil liberties.

Can I join this progressive party, or do you have to torture me first, out my wife, and hold me in prison without a reason? I so want to be loved around the world by so many nations because I'm so good and righteous.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Monday, February 20, 2006 9:55:00 PM
I try to get ideas and thoughts from more then just the Times and Post, I listen to Fox News almost exclusively when getting TV news. Is that not slanted the other way enough. I do read the standard and watch the cable stations covering congress directly.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Monday, February 20, 2006 9:58:00 PM
Jeff, in that case, I am amazed that your views are not more balanced. Isn't it weird that we are still the envy in the free world, that we are looked upon as their protector and expected to come to their aid in times of trouble? Isn't it weird that all the young generations want to dress, eat, sing, shop like Americans and adopt our pop culture? Isn't it weird that we are better off economicially than all our alllies and have the lowest unemployment? And all that, while we had to build up our Military financially in the last few years while fighting an enemy such as we have never had to fight before? Isn't it weird that many opponents of our Iraq invasion had to be exposed for their own selfish reasons why they did oppose a trusted ally like the U.S.?
Isn't it weird that that they are now very concerned and finally understand the threat of the terrorists and want to "work " with us again?
Congress has a lot to do with passing new bills, modifying, denying or approving them, but all of the perceived or real negatives are blamed on Bush, all the good stuff gets credited to the democrats, isn't that weird. But I suppose it is the job of the party that is not in power to work very hard to oust and discredit the ones that are in control! That is weird, that we are less concerned protecting what we love and are proud of, namely being Americans, and have no problem bad mouthing, hating and berating everything the party does that is in power. How sad. In the eyes of the world, we lose credibility and a lot more. Whatever happened to the noble idea of standing by your country, praising it and change what you don't like at the ballot box.
That is hopefully, how most of us act with our family and friends. Praise in public, critize in private!
It is weird that you bicker and complain about dems and reps, when we are facing international terror and the spreading of the deadly bird flu virus!

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:29:00 AM
Hey 9:26 -
You know what else is weird? Gov Blanco FINALLY outlined a plan to rebuild Lousianna. Took long enough eh?
Isn't it also weird that the entire time we have been waiting for this plan.... Jeff has been blaming the delay on the Bush administration? Well actually that is not weird at all. He does that with everything.
You know what totally brilliant idea Blanco included in her plan? She says that under her new plan... the people who want to live in the flood plain, they have to get *ta-da* flood insurance!!!! Wow. I am in awe of the intelligence of the democratic gov. Problem is, that would make some lower income individuals unable to afford the homes there. So probably, the other dems will get rid of that stipulation because it is not fair to the lower income types to require flood insurance. Being nice is much more important to dems than being reasonable. After all, if they lost everything again, us taxpayers would bail them out again anyway.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 21, 2006 10:34:00 AM
Its really funny Roy, you call me telling you the facts a "low blow"? It isn't a low blow to you personally. The low blow is to the country. See the things I'm saying have nothing to do with you or I, who cares. They have to do with how conservatives are destroying this country, day by day. Today Frist, came out and said we should re-think selling these ports out to a Middle Eastern company. Of course this company has close ties to the White House. But Bush said no, he would block any Congressional efforts to stop this transaction. This is OUR white house. Our Imperial President that does whatever Karl Rove wants.

But again, you don't attack my points and tell me why all those things I said are signs of what you called a "forward thinking ideology". Tell me the signs Roy? Is it economic? With the deficit at an alltime high and growing. What. For once, look at each point I listed and without saying anything about Jeff, tell me how each point shows what a progressive ideology you have bound your heart with?

9:29, because someone complains about the ways this White House does things, that means I am against or hate or dislike America??? Why do people who defend this President use that type of thinking? Do you like a certain sports team? When you do, sometimes you yell and complain about the way they play. You want the coach fired, because his game plan is all wrong. Well I want our coach fired.

Bush didn't create our pop culture, nor did he promote it. Economically we are not better off then our allies. Look at the trade deficit. We can only buy and bring it in. As a matter of fact, all those toys we use for our pop culture are made in other countries by foreign owned companies. IPOD!!

Our trusted allies were on our side during the first gulf war. They lines up beside us. Canada had one of the largest representations during that war, however they sided against us this time around. What they all knew is that going into a premptive strike, the first in US history against a country that it was not a war on terrorism. Turn Fox News and Neil Cavuto off for five minutes. It was a War on Iraq. Al Queda was not there when we attacked. Germany, France and all our Allies have always sided against terrorism. That has never changed. They didn't side with us attacking IRAQ!!! Now because they can take pot shots at US troops there are Al Queda involved in Iraq. But they had to cross the border to do so. Why is this not clear!!! Our Congress, Republican led Congress, put out a report stating this. Since, that report has not been challenged, even by the White House. It said.....Al Queda was not involved in Iraq nor sanctioned by Iraq. Are you all blinded by watching Fox News?

What I was talking about in Bush signing bills, and your right, Congress sometimes )sometimes lobbyists do to)writes and passes the laws, the President then signs the bills and decides how much money to fund each one through his budget. I dont know what you are talking about when you say the Democrats get credited for anything. This is a Republican controlled Congress. The best the Democrats can do is make enough stink, like the Social Security thing, to embarrasse enough Republicans into not voting or associating with these farces.

Youre totally right, it is not a good way to do things when the only thing the minority party can do is discredit the other. It does not benefit the people. It is not in our favor. But, it was the same whether it was a Republican or Democratic President. So standing by your country doesn't happen often enough. It's more like Roy, he stands by his ideology before his country. So do these politicians.

But, did our forefathers critisize in private? Is that what patriotism means to you. Don't complain. Is that what Jefferson and Adams did? LOL.

Theres the fear again, its eating you up. Terrorists are not lining up to blow you up. They jail a thousand times more people a day in the State of California that want to kill you and steal your money and they are your neighbors, then are trying to hurt you through terror. The deadly bird flu is bad, but what about something the whole world is talking about, the damage to our world that we are doing, the global warming? Thats right, conservatives don't believe in it. Funny the whole rest of the world does. I guess if it wasn't going to cost them Corporation contributions they would too.

10:34, I guess the same would be true for people who live in earthquake zones. How much earthquake insurance do you have??? None....how come? How much do you think it costs to get flood insurance in a flood plain. For one you probably cant get it.

No, too conservatives, it is never about spending tax dollars to rebuild a city where low income citizens live. They would rather have fun blowing some up and then rebuilding them. Thats where I want my tax dollars going. Straight to Bagdad in a suitcase in cash, rather then help American citizens. Thats true conservatism.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 21, 2006 2:48:00 PM
You're right Jeff, criticize in private would never have led to the expression "Put your JOHN HANCOCK" on this document.

If my memory is correct, John Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence in a large enough hand that "King George will be able to read it without his spectacles!"

Now we've got to get rid of another King George and it won't be done with private criticism.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 21, 2006 3:44:00 PM
you are right that it is going to be next to impossible to get flood insurance in a flood plain. It is idiotic to even rebuild in the flood plain. hence - more stupidity and greed for the LA government. Why don't they give nature back her wetlands. National Geographics was doing stories on the vanishing natural hurricane and flood protection in N.O. since 1999. But no, Gov Blanco and the Mayor of "chocolate city" would never disappoint the greedy developers or the masses. Instead they wait for disaster then point at FEMA and Bush. "Who's on first?" comedy parade of dems in Louisianna.

Are you kidding me? You dont have earthquake insurance?

And the reason France did not join us in Iraq was that they were on the Sadaam oil for food payroll. Not because they were morally offended by our war.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 21, 2006 4:00:00 PM
Ed and Jeff -
Dudes - pack your bags and move to Europe where you belong.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 21, 2006 4:02:00 PM
The Democrats are great when it comes to sending out a unified message. In this case, when it comes to lobbyists and influence peddling, they love to point fingers at Republicans and talk about the “culture of corruption.” However, once again, the left is big on talk, but short on facts. There may indeed be a culture of corruption in Washington, but it’s a trough from which the Democrats are more than happy to drink.

If one were to listen to the Democrats or left-wing political pundits, the image that would be painted is one of widespread corruption among Republican legislators and saintly virtue among the Democrat counterparts. But as the Washington Times points out, lobbyists have actually given more money to the Democrats over the last 15 years than to Republicans.

Since the 1990 election cycle, Democrats have accepted more than $53 million from lobbyists while Republicans have taken more than $48 million for their election campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

What’s interesting to note is that according to the story, in the early 1990s when the Democrats controlled Congress, “they consistently hauled in more than 70 percent of the town’s lobbyist money.” Lobby money flowed into the pockets of Democrats who, at the time, did not control 70% of the seats. Conversely, last year, “Republicans took in 55 percent of the lobbyist money, which roughly corresponds to their majority share in Congress.”

“When the Democrats were in charge, they were getting an incredibly higher amount of lobbyist money compared to Republicans,” said Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “Now that the tables are turned there is parity between the two parties.”

What’s laughable in the story is that the response from Democrats, who do not dispute the data, is to accuse Republicans of “operating at the behest of the lobbyists who fund their campaigns.” Hmmm… so what do the Democrats do with their lobby money? Go off and do humanitarian service and ignore the requests of the lobbyists giving them money? I don’t think so.

The lobbying business is definitely booming. As the Washington Times notes, the number of lobbyists has doubled in the past 5 years, and “the amount of money that lobbyists spend on campaign contributions has skyrocketed to more than $26 million in the 2004 election cycle from about $3 million in the 1990 election cycle.” However, as the statistics show, the overall rise in money flowing out from lobbyists has touched both Democrats and Republicans.

In the last cycle alone, lawyers gave Democrats with $134 million in campaign contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which does not include lawyer money in the same category as lobbyists. During that same time period, Republicans drew $45 million from lawyers.

The Democrats may be talking about a “culture of corruption”, but they are doing it from behind a billboard bought and paid for by left-wing lobby interests. Washington needs to be cleaned up to be sure, but the Democrats have their own culture of corruption, and it’s one that needs to be addressed before they can ever be taken seriously with the American people."

Culture of Corruption?

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 21, 2006 4:04:00 PM
Of course the Democrats are guilty here too. But look what you just said "The lobbying business is definitely booming. As the Washington Times notes, the number of lobbyists has doubled in the past 5 years, and “the amount of money that lobbyists spend on campaign contributions has skyrocketed to more than $26 million in the 2004 election cycle from about $3 million in the 1990 election cycle.”

Who has allowed the doubling in five years? A Democratic controlled Congress? Lets talk about the "K" street project. During most of the George W. Bush administration, the Republican party had majority control of both houses of Congress, in addition to control of the White House. DeLay of the House, Rick Santorum of the Senate, and Grover Norquist took this opportunity to expand the K Street Project by pressuring major lobbying firms to hire only Republicans in any new or open positions. This is also according to the Washington Times.

So, who do you think has closer ties TODAY, NOT 1990, BUT TODAY, to lobbyists? Who has the closet ties to the very conservative Republican Abramoff? Who are the majority of Congressmen being looked at or on their way to indictments. Yes, you can take a historical period of time and say it's even. I would agree that over that historical period that it leaned more toward Democrats.

But heres the rest of the information on contributions:
Pharmaceuticals: 66% REP, 34% DEMS; Gas & Oil: 80% REP, 20% DEM; Tobacco: 74% REP, 26% DEM; Banks: 64% REP, 36% DEM; Healthcare: 62% REP, 38% DEM; Casinos: 58% REP, 42% DEM; Insurance 68% REP, 32% DEM; Accounting 64% REP, 35% DEM.

The only Corporate money besides Law firms were of course Education: 78% DEMS, 22% REP and Computers and Movie/Music Industry.

Now what do we think this says about Corporate money and the buying pressure of lobbyists on Congress???????

Who today in this Congress do we think is acting unethically if we use our brain? The first fall guy is Cunningham. Delay is not far behind and Ney will follow. Soon Hastert and Frist will be indicted for their unethical behavior. These are not the small Congressmen. These are the majority leaders in both houses. These are the conservative voices. The ones that pressure voting, that install earmarks in bills as Frist did with the Pharmaceutical earmark. And of course his family benefits as they own a Pharmaceutical company.

Being that the Republican party is the majority party they control the committees and the ethics committee tried to change the rules regarding if a Congressmen is indicted specifically to allow Delay to stay as majority leader. They had to withdraw the rule, because it was so damn unethical.

Talking Congressional ethics, I'd be totally embarrassed by the conservative ideology.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 21, 2006 5:04:00 PM
Roy, you still cant tell us how the conservative ideology is the one that is taking our country to new levels and has such progressive ways? Why would that be?

You haven't come and talked about all the points I listed and countered them? You argue points like a first grader. Call names and when you start to lose run home with your ball crying. From what I heard today all the conservatives were crying about the White Houses plans for homeland Security by selling it to Bin Laden and friends. LOL. Way to go GW!!!! Does the Bush family get an automatic kickback from this country? Or do they have to go through Jackie A? Everday it gets worse for conservatives does it? I'd be ashamed.

No Roy, we think that by stepping up and calling out the unethical and crooked, power hungry politicians that call themselves conservatives, we make our GREAT country better. Do you hate this country because you hate the portion that is Democratic. You should take your bunch and move to Texas, where you can join Delay and the Bush family.

I had never heard the term low brow, maybe its only known by those who have been called it?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 21, 2006 7:50:00 PM
Jeff, thank you for all those talking points. rholmgren, I feel sorry for you too. Ed Faunce and Jeff are the only ones talking any sense at all. This, if you complain then you hate America stuff is so standard for these losers. rholmgrens hysterical praise of a man who couldn't reconize his wife in his last term. The defecit grew as much as in Carter's Presidency. I guess he didn't get much money for the Contra guns. MurrietaT and Audrey should join you here rholmgren, but they are so ashamed of Republicans they know they can't argue anything. Hey rholmgren, what do you think of the Presidents Port deal? The company buying the port is going to rename the bay Abu Ghraib Bay.
Bush said as long as they give to the Republican coffers he doesn't care what they call it.
Waiting on Answers

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 21, 2006 8:29:00 PM
Rholmgren, (6:21) you say that I’m predicting a gloomy future, yet America has grown up to have the best political and economic system in the world. OK, but those in charge of maintaining those systems have failed. Can you understand that we’ve been sold out to corporate interests? There is little debate left on that score. I would say that the majority of Americans with an ability to think would agree.

But the gloomy future is already here. I’m not predicting anything. I’m describing what I see.

We have a president who is clearly a puppet of corporate power. He is not a leader. He is a divider, contrary to his speech writer’s chant.

At least one of Bush’s former college teachers described him as a liar – unable to tell the truth. Kinda has a familiar ring doesn’t it.

But the perfect storm is gathering. America is now the greatest debtor nation – ever. Not a good thing. America’s job are being outsourced to other countries. We produce very little and export even less. There goes the favorable trade balance.

We have the biggest military budget ever. But any economist will tell you that a dollar spent on the military demolition derby produces very little pop in the regular economy. But a dollar invested on the civil side, will generate 9 dollars chasing it – that’s not a pop but a boom.

The American middle class is declining and those that are left are poaching the equity in their homes to keep consuming.

Global warming is upon us, but the most knowlegeable scientists complain that Bush’s administration tells them to be quiet.

What’s really embarrassing is not that such an incompetent is our president, but that he was picked by the power brokers for that job and they pulled it off.

You say that you choose to work within a party and that independents are political outsiders. That’s a completely inaccurate statement. It is the independents which garner the attention of the candidates. Once you announce your party affiliation, neither party wants to spend anytime talking to you. But the independents, ah now that’s were elections are won. It is the swing voters that cause candidates to modify their positions.

Incidentally, before you deride independents too much, consider this that the number of registered independents is approaching 3 million in California. That’s a sizeable group – big enough to be a party all by itself.

So, in fact, it is you, the dependable republican voter who will vote the party ticket no matter what, who is impotent. And that’s what I meant when I said “your brand of republican doesn’t count.” Your party has abandoned your principles. But staying in the party and bleating like hurt sheep won’t change a thing. You don’t have enough money to compete with the corporate donors. So you will just bitch and moan about how Bush has abandoned the “true” party principles, but in the end you’ll be there for him. Seems to me that you are the one who needs a dose of – what did you call it? – oh yeah, “political viagra.”

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 22, 2006 12:01:00 AM
Who wouldn't need political viagra being married to that ugly ideology?

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 22, 2006 4:39:00 AM
Another, SITUATION for you Roy. America's ports!! First they were and are not safe to begin with, but that's a whole other story in itself. And this all coming from America's great Commander-in-Chief.

He didn't even know about this deal with the UAE. Who in the White House handles this type of major deal? KARL ROVE!! But then our President stands up and says the whole nation is wrong that it might be a security risk and his White House is right. So he doesn't know about the deal prior to it being complete and then defends it as our President. Does this man do anything right? Does he even think for himself or are Rove and Cheney doing everything? Is Dick Cheney the real President?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 22, 2006 11:04:00 AM
From the Californian today:
"Area Republican lawmakers received low grades again Tuesday for their records on the environment from a conservation group that released its 32nd annual report card for voting on 2005 environmental legislation.

Sen. Bill Morrow, R-Oceanside, led the local pack with his grade of 4 out of 100, according to the grading system used by the California League of Conservation Voters.
The league handed out zeroes to Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth, R-Murrieta; Assemblymen George Plescia, R-La Jolla, Ray Haynes, R-Murrieta, and Mark Wyland, R-Escondido; and Assemblywoman Mimi Walters, R-Oceanside. In most cases, the scores mirrored ones from the year before. In Morrow's case, he improved.

The scores meant those legislators voted for bills the group considered vital for the environment 4 percent or none of the time.

As a result, league officials said, key bills were blocked from reaching the governor's desk last year. Examples included legislation to spur construction of solar-powered homes, increase use of alternative non-petroleum fuels and reduce pollution at sea ports.

"The most important environmental bills never got out of the Legislature," Mastrodonato said.

Of the bills that did reach Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk, he put his signature on 58 percent. That landed him an environmental-voting grade of 58, the group said.

This Roy is your advance thinking, progressive Republican party. If it's going to cost Corportations a dollar of profit, not one of these jokers will vote for it. Conservation!!!!! What's that????
Do I get a free lunch with that?

Thanks Haynes!!!! Exxon doesn't need to clean up the waters. There too busy lobbying you.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 22, 2006 12:03:00 PM
Isn't it great the dem's are not in charge of the ports? Look at the union strike that cost the US economy a billion dollar a day, for 2 months. Not to mention the danger it posed for the American people. But we don't talk about that, do we? Fact is, Lawyers and Unions have bought the democratic party.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 22, 2006 12:48:00 PM
Youre right up how can we attack the Democrats, theyre not in charge. The ones who are, are the ones screwing it up. Do you want to blame Clinton too??? It's the same thing everyday. You make a statement about the CURRENT FAILURES of the Republican Party, and they can't come back and say, no youre wrong and this is why!! There only defense is to say....do you remember in 1998 when Clinton did this ir that? OR.....Love it or leave it!! The phrase that was used during Vietnam. It's amazing and so sad that you have absolutely no answers nor excuses for this President and his administration. You all are exactly like Scott McClellan. You don't have any reasonable thought out answers.

I'm saying the Democrats are any better, they just aren't doing anything wrong and the only things they are able to do is on a daily basis fight the next failure of Bush. It's a never ending trail. How can you create a plan to fix things when youre patching the dyke all day long. I want some other entity to step up and say enough is enough!

We have the greatest country in the world, but I'm afraid the more Bush touches the more we sink deeper and deeper into debt, sorrow and pain.

So do Lawyers and Unions own the Democratic Party, YES!! But look at the statistics above about who owns the Republicans. Who's money do you want? Oil and Pharmaceuticals or Unions?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 22, 2006 1:26:00 PM
MT, my percentages were from the same site that the other poster got his.

I agree with you that Democrats pull in more money, I think their stock pill is bigger today.

However, you want to bring John Kerry's money in but you didn't mention our Presidents personal wealth nor that of Dick Cheney or Bill Frist.

With what you said about Lawyers and wealthy actors and producers funding democrats, you forgot the unions. But at the end of the day, what bill can be passed that helps all lawyers? What bill can be passed that supports the profits of hollywood? What advantage do they get ffrom their politician of choice? Now lets turn that around and see what advantage that Bush can have when signing bills that directly affect the profit and loss line of the Oil and Pharmaceutical companies. And when you mention individuals, how much do the power executives of these industries give personally? Do you think that the CEO of Exxon gives less then Steven Spielberg?

So you say they are the party of the very rich and the very poor....however....the middle class is not overly Republican. The midwest and south are not the rich and the middle class. They are however the bible belt. And of course thats where Republicans cater to. If the Religious Right wanted Oprah to be the next Supreme Court Justice, she'd be there today.

Again you state that the Dems are out of touch, but that is not what the polls are saying. Of course I realize that when they are going south, Republicans don't read or believe polls, just like they don't believe Congressional reports and investigations.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:03:00 PM
This is a great article from the Miami Herald. It shows the failure, and I think what should have been the expectations of our government when trying to produce Democracy in an Islamic Country. It will end up being just that. An Islamic Theocracy.

"This week, in a truly astonishing one-two punch to any remaining notion of Iraqi sovereignty, first the U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad publicly lectured (and warned) the Iraqi government on what might be an acceptable make-up of that government to the U.S., and second Jack Straw, British FM, flew in to Baghdad to publicly express his public disapproval of Shia attempts to dominate Iraqi politics.

It's humiliating enough for the Iraqis that they're under foreign occupation; imagine how humiliating it is for them to hear foreign ambassadors and ministers telling their government what to do. The U.S.-U.K. occupation of Iraq has managed to alienate the Sunnis to the point of supporting the insurgency; now it seems that the occupiers are out to alienate the Shias too. Well, I guess we'll always have the Kurds.

Jack Straw's statements that "We had the elections on Dec. 15," and "We've now had the final accredited results. What they show is that no party, no ethnic or religious grouping, can dominate government in Iraq" (emphasis mine, but Iraqis will notice the "we") betray the true nature of the U.S. (and U.K.)-Iraqi relationship as one of masters-servant. I'm sorry, Mr. Straw, you did not have elections, and neither did the British public. Iraqis did, and a majority (who happen to be Shia) voted for Shia candidates, and they seem to think that means that they can dominate the government. (Isn't that what the purpose of a national election is? To see who people want to form their government?) Sorry you and Khalilzad aren't happy with their choices, but despite Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn" analogy, I'm afraid you don't own Iraq, even though you did liberate it from the clutches of a monster and then broke it. Had you and your American masters given one moment of thought to a post-Saddam Iraq, you might have considered that a free Iraq means a Shia Iraq.

Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, angry at both U.S. and British interference in the Iraqi political process, responded to the pressure by saying, "We think that sovereignty means no one interferes in our affairs." I guess that means he's going to pick his own ministers. (Quite oblivious to any irony, Ambassador Khalilzad this week also accused Iran of "interference" in Iraq. )

Foreign governments insisting that the Iraqi Shia parties have to include opposition members in their government (after they've won a free election) is akin to a foreign government insisting that President Bush, after winning either of his elections, include opposition democrats in cabinet positions because the elections in the U.S. showed, certainly as much as the Iraqi elections (and perhaps even more) that, to use Mr. Straw's words, "no party can dominate" government in the U.S. On second thought, maybe that would have been a good suggestion."
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:09:00 PM
MT, again your post shows improvement from the last few months or from 2001 or within the time frame Bush has been President. What are those same statistics from the day in 2001 that he received the handoff? How much improvement? Would to show us those? Gas Prices then and now? You can't compare it over a few weeks since its risen from $1.25 in 2001 to double today and then say it went down 7 cents. Where's the logic in that? The economy, he deficit have all tanked since 2001.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:13:00 PM
9-11 report that stated that there was no Iraq-Al Queda connection and that there were no WMD's. I've heard both statements as unbelieveable on here. There are two wars going on. The War in Iraq, which is different from the War on Terror. We are not winning either.

Also the information coming out of the Katrina report. The information that was made out of the Homeland Security report that after 3 years gave Bush a D-. These reports are key to the types of failures that Bush has brought to our great Nation. Being the President, getting out of bed in the morning, youre bound to do something good, but on most and all key issues he is a failure. Bin Laden did more to unite this country with his 9-11 attacks. Bush has since, divided it, made it far less secure, wasted billions of dollars, committed our troops to an unwinable war which cost close to 25000 casualties, spied on us without warrants, and undermined our great nations economy to give the wealthy more money, while enabling the energy companies loopholes to steal it back from the middle class. At the same time doubled the deficit. Not a very capable dude. But Republicans only know how to say.....way to go Brownie, I mean Georgie!!!" They both were about the same in job capabilities.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:55:00 PM
An interesting article today in the Wall Street Journal.

"In case you missed it: Ports of Politics"

So far, none of the critics (Bush administration's deal to allow UAE company to manage 6 US ports)have provided any evidence that the Administration has'nt done its due diligence. The deal has been blessed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US, a multiagency panel that includes representatives from the department of Treasure, Defense and Homeland Security.

Yes, some of the hijackers were UAE citizens.But then, the London subway bombings last year were perpetrated by citizens of Britain, home to the company P&O that currently manages the prts that Dubai Ports World would take over. Which tells us....this work is already being outsourced to a "foreign based company". Discriminating against a Mideast company offers no security guarantees because attacks are sometimes homegrown....

Besides, the notion that the Bush admin is farming out port security to hostile Arab nations is alarmist nonsense. Dubai Ports World would be managing the commericial activities of these US ports, not securing them. There is a difference. Port security falls to the Coast Guard and US Custom officials. "Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract," Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said yesterday " the Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation.

Critics also forget, or conveniently ignore, that the UAE government has been among the most helpful Arab countries in the war on terror. It was one of the first countries to join the US container security initiative, which seeks to inspect cargo in foreign ports. The UAE has assisted in training security forces in Iraq, and at home it has worked hard to stem terrorist financing and WMD proliferation.

As for the Democrats, Chuck Schumer said allowing the Arab company to manage ports is a homeland security accident waiting to happen. H. Clinton is also along for this political ride.
(Of course, one has to realize many members in the Senate and Congress are up for re-election this year)

So the same Democrats who lecture that war on terror is really a battle for "hearts and minds" now apparently favor bald discrimination against even friendly Arabs investing in the US? Guantanamo must be closed because it is terrible PR, wiretapping al Qaeda in the US is illegal, and the US needs to withdraw from Iraq, but these democtratic superhawks simply will not allow Arabs to be put in charge of American longshoremen....

Yesterday, Mr. Bush defended his decision to allow the investment to go ahead, and he threatened what would be his first veto if Congress tries to block it. We hope this time he means it!

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:58:00 PM
Murrieta T was right, according to an article dated 9/6/04 in the Wall Street Journal, a major change in the dynamics of the two major political parties took place.
It was written by Zinsmeister, editor-in-chief for the American Enterprise.

" The stereotype Democrats: the party of the little guy Republicans: the party of the wealthy absolutely holds no truth. Major shifts took place, whole blocs of little guys from all walks of life moved to the republican, more traditional party. And big chuncks of America's elite..financiers, academics, heiresses, media barons, software millionaires, entertainers, drifted into the Democratic party.
Illustration by research from the Ipsos-Reid polling firm that compared counties that voted strongly for G.W. Bush to those that voted strongle for Al Gore in the 2000 election.
The real data showed in that research, in pro Bush counties, only 7% of voters earned at least 100,000. while 38% had household incomes below 30,000. In the pro Gore counties, 14% pulled in 100,000. plus while 29% earned less than 30,000.

Daniel Henninger noted, it is becoming harder day by day to take the Democrats seriously as the party of the common man.
The finacial pillars for the Democrats are now Super rich TRIAL LAWYERS, HOLLYWOOD EXECUTIVES and megabuck FINACIERS.
Both parties have their fat cats, obviously, but the Federal Election Commission Data show that many of the very wealthiest political players are now in the Democtratic column.

TODAYS MOST AGGRESSIVE ELECTION DONORS BY FAR ARE LAWYERS.
AS OF JULY, LAW PARTNERS HAD DONATED $ 112 million to 2004 political candidates. By comparism, the ENTIRE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY DONATED ONLY $ 15 million. These are facts. Wealthy lawyers now tilt strongly democratic: 71% of their money goes to Democrats, only 29% goes to Republicans.
WALL STREET, traditionally thought of as a GOP bastion, is no longer any such thing. Ultra income brokers and bankers give heavily to the party of Andrew Jackson. Six of the 15 contributions to democratic nominee John Kerry came from partners at firms like Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and J.P. Morgan.

Migration of the rich and powerful to the Democrats has been so pronounced, John Kerry has actually pulled in much more money than Pres Bush. Mr. Kerry's monthly fundraising totals have routinely doubled or even tripled Bush's sums. While Mr. Bush has heavily relied on flocks of small donors, the money on Kerry's side came from well heeled individuals like the Hamptons beach-house owners who handed him $ 3 million in one day at the end of August.

So, which is the party of the people now? We are in an interesting new era. The right has become a thinking party, with rich intellectual resources, that is dead set against political elitism and cultural snobbery. Conservatism has laid claim to America's quiet but mltitudineous middle class. And during the same period, the left has come to dominate among the overclass and underclass that bracket the coservative middle.

As a result, the old way of thinking about US politics- little guy dems vs wealthy reps- is about as accurate and relevant today as a 1930 weather forecast. New fronts have moved in, expect some major squalls ahead."

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 22, 2006 3:39:00 PM
The right a thinking party? Give an example? Against elitism and cultural snobbery? LOL Give examples? Conservatism has laid claim to the middle class. Again show us facts. And Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman all support conservatism too!!!

Bush's approval rating-40% wow, he's won over the middle class. 51% gave him a negative job approval.

Cheney's approval rating- 28% another Republican winner there.

Congress approval rating- 29% a Republican controlled Congress....the middle class has really shunk. This is compared to 44% in 2004

Bush a clear plan for Katrina cleanup- NO 75%.

But these numbers are just lies right? The media hates Bush and conservatives. Roy will be on here in a second....polls lie!!! No Roy lies.

Anyone can quote an opinion. Where are the facts. Even FOX NEWS has his job approval at 43%.

The only ones that are flocking to conservativism is the Religious Right fearing that their children are going to turn GAY! Fear baby, FEAR!!! Thats the key talking point of conservatism. Ask Ken Mehlman. Or Rush Limbaugh. Or Sean Hannity. They repeat the same phrase over and over and over. Its not WMDS anymore, now its war on terror!!! The war on Christmas!!! Are you shaking yet.

What they have really done is caused a war between Americans!
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 22, 2006 5:10:00 PM
Jeff, all you do is lash ouit, attack Bush and his administration and then resent it when the dems get attacked. What a double standard.
Where is your information coming from? You proudly cite and article from the Californian this morning, but claim the editors of the much more acclaimed Wall Street journal are not factual? LOL, you better learn how to really take in all the information in the posts today instead of being Johnny on the spot attacking immediately. Take time to think, open your heart and mind before you respond. You must think that every single blog is addressed to you and about you. Sometimes I think you do not have a life, or a very empty one. Yes fear baby, fear!! It is the dems right now (Schumer, H.Clinton) that proclaim fear of an attack in our ports, it is not our staunch terrorist fighter Bush!

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 22, 2006 5:22:00 PM
I agree, I stepped back. Reading your post I find that I dont think the dynamics of who the wealthy within the groups you chose contribute to. They contribute to Democrats from within those groups. And from the Republican strongholds which I posted, money flows into the Republican war chests.

As to the counties that vote strongly for Bush in the bible belt. The religious right has a strangle hold here and I don't think the salary levels are high in the midwestern and southern bible belts. Wouldn't you say that was a true statement and would reflect the data you presented. Although the data doesnt say how many counties were used for it. Daniel Henninger is a very conservative editor from the right leaning Wall Street Journal, although I do respect the things he says for the most part.

So what you have stated is in Daniel Henninger's opinion, not by overall poll of middle class political bias. That the middle class is now Republican. I came back with facts about the national polls showing what the country thinks of Bush/Cheney and Congress. I don't think the poor and rich make up 60% of the country, even if all rich and all poor were Democratic, does that make sense.

OK....now, lol, the use of fear is to change things or use premptive strikes by this administration. Example: IRAQ, terrorism, gay marriage, social security, it goes on and on. Republicans use it to get votes, to abuse laws, to gain additional power. The Democrats are not the only ones against the selling of city ports to a company controlled by the UAE. As many Republicans are standing up against this. This is probably the most bi-partisan stance Ive seen in a long time. So I fight your comment that makes it as if Clinton and Schumer are the only ones that are speaking out. That would be untrue. Rebuplican quotes:

"I will fight harder than ever for this legislation, and if it is vetoed I will fight as hard as I can to override it," said Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., chairman of the Homeland Security Committee"

"The decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold until the administration conducts a more extensive review of this matter," said Bill Frist. "If the administration cannot delay this process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review."

Frist's move comes a day after two Republican governors, New York's George Pataki and Maryland's Robert Ehrlich, voiced doubts about the acquisition of a British company that has been running six U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates.

Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina said on Fox News Sunday that the administration approval was "unbelievably tone deaf politically," and at least one Senate oversight hearing was planned for later this month.

As you can see, you tried to mislead with the information you gave as if it was a Democratics scream of FEAR. Not so.

As for me lashing out, only against misleading of people.You have all the right in the world to your opinion and I to mine. I don't hold any of this personal. We can't do anything about this.

As for Bush being a staunch terrorist fighter. Read the polls. Where is Bin Laden anyway? What a great terrorist fighter. Too bad Cheney didn't invite Bin Laden to have a few beers and go hunting.

I believe you should be the one opening your horizon. As a matter of fact, this morning I listened to Glenn Beck go off the deep end about selling control of our ports to the UAE. To think that I listened to a racist.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 22, 2006 7:43:00 PM
Rholmgren 7:51 -- OK, you say that everything is just fine and dandy. My analysis is that some real shocks are on the way.

But, I'm not going to debate this any further. We'll all just have to see what's coming in the next 12 to 18 months.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 22, 2006 9:57:00 PM
I would like to comment on the 3 Muslims that were arrested yesterday in Toledo, Ohio for planning to kill US Military, both in the US and abroad, kill the President and wage a " holy war" against the US. All 3 men communicated with individuals in the Middle East, sharing information on attacks, weapons and targets.
This is not a joke. Indictment says all 3 men were living in the Toledo area, 2 of them citizens of the U.S. and 1 a legal permanent resident.
As a liberal, you would probably say this is just more of the scare tactic of Bush and his secret imperialistic government that means to control your every move through the evil patriot act.
Do you not see that there really is war on terror going on to save our lives? The patriot act at work to protect us!

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 22, 2006 10:16:00 PM
MT, ok, several points here. I looked up the accruacy of the ABC, CBS and Gallup polls and found that the accuracy has been in the last ten years within there stated variance 96% of the time. They the not biased as they take a sampling of the entire country in all demographics. Questions as I stated about, are not biased. "Do you think President Bush has a plan to win the War in Iraq, Yes or No?" It actually favors Bush, because most uninformed people trust any President. 42% said yes he has a plan. Even with a 3% error rate, not very good because the 3% can go either way. Why am I defending opinion polls??? Gallup is a Fortune 500 company. Someone is spending money for their opinion polls.

MT, I have to really question who you call a FAIR syndicated columnist. Terence P. Jeffrey is a very conservative colmnist. Here are titles to some of his columns: Did Hillary Lie America into War?, Al Qaeda calling, American doesn't need an investigation of the war, Tell Harvard: A deals a deal, take federal money and you get military recruiters. Now, as a fair human being, do we take what this guy writes in his opinion as credible? Each paper you quote is always a very biased source. News Max, The Washington Times. You might as well quote Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove. If I backed my opinion up with Michael Moore's or Al Franken's opinion would you find that a balanced opinion. I would think that you could look outside of conservatism when arguing a point.

So, no one EVER says we shouldn't have a Patriot Act, no one says that questioning of prisoners be done with tea and sympathy, no one is saying that wire tapping shouldn't be used to protect our country. What we are saying is we in NO WAY should circumvent our laws to do the above. Do you want the Federal government to have access to your medical, bank, library, financial, education records without your permission? Do you think it's OK to torture prisoners? Do you think it's OK to wire tap anyone with no judicial oversite? And this answers your question 10:16, why not have oversite, a watchdog group? This is an administration, that for political gain outed a CIA agent to get back at her husband, also took us to war for the first time with a premptive strike. They then said sorry, we had the wrong information. This is a administration that wire tapped Ameican Citizens and then bypassed the watchdog law that had been set up for the very purpose of protecting our rights. This is an administration that has been criticized countless times for it's secret deals and moves. Can you acciedently shoot someone and then wait 18 hours to tell the police? I don't think so.

So do I agree with the Patriot Act? Not in it's original rush to enact form just as it couldn't pass a Republican controlled Congress. Now the White House has had to change the wording and delete certain parts and now it is acceptable and something we need.

But for George Bush to say, TRUST ME, is plain stupid. He violated the Constitution's 4th amendment. He violated a court, that gives him 3 days AFTER wiretapping to get a warrant. You think what he is doing is right? As I asked before, whats then to stop him from busting down doors, throwing people in prison without warrants in the name of fighting terror? There are laws, but maybe he doesn't like and respect those laws either. Where in what I have just said do I call the Patriot Act Evil. I'd bet my house 10:16 you have no clue what is in the Patriot Act, now do you?

But 10:16, don't you see the fear in your post. You say "3 Muslims" and "holy war". Youre afraid, period!! They have you scared. Now in the paper does it describe ANYMORE if a murderer was a black man or if he was a Christian? But maybe you would want to know that too. The only thing we should fear is fear itself. Who said that Roy?

The D- that Bush got was in his improvements from the recomendations in the 9-11 report, not the Katrina report. So there is your terrorist fighter for you. But I guess he knew that Howdy Doody was in charge of Homeland Security and we have nothing to worry about.

In a major disaster, FEMA is responsible for ALL levels of government reaction. Here is the description from the FEMA web site: "The Federal Emergency Management Agency or FEMA is a government agency in the United States which is organized under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate. The agency is charged with what it defines as four domains of emergency management: mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. Mainly, FEMA responds to any disaster that occurs in the United States that is declared a federal disaster area by the President of the United States.

FEMA coordinates the work of federal, state, and local agencies in responding to floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, and other natural disasters. FEMA provides financial assistance to individuals and governments to rebuild homes, businesses, and public facilities; trains firefighters and emergency medical professionals; and funds emergency preparedness throughout the United States and its territories."

The complaints are that FEMA didn't react until days after Katrina. The local governments submit to FEMA. So, MT try as you will to blame the Democraic Govenor and Mayor, who should take some blame, but the fault lies squarely on FEMA, but Bush said, "Brownies doing a heck of a job".

Isn't it terrible that there is so little you can use to defend these damn Republicans. They would do better to just sit in their chairs and do nothing.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Thursday, February 23, 2006 6:17:00 AM
MT, you said "Okay, do you see now why I say it was primarily a state failure." Wow, could you call the White House please and ask Bush why today a report laying out the failures of FEMA and other Federal agencies came out. And the one from Congress a couple of weeks ago that has a different viewpoint then yours. No, not liberal websites but right off CNN and the AP wire. Maybe you can ease America's mind that we shouldn't be blaming the poor White House with all they have to do with a Civil War sparking in Iraq. Just blame it on the Democrats in Louisiana.....or better yet....where was Bill Clinton anyway? Was he over at George Sr's again playing golf?

Today from the AP----"The 228-page report by White House homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend urges changes in 11 key areas — mainly in better disaster relief coordination among federal agencies — before the next hurricane season begins June 1. The White House study took a softer approach than a scathing House report issued last week, focusing on proposals to fix problems without singling out any individuals for blame.

"We will learn from the lessons of the past to better protect the American people," President Bush said Thursday at the end of a Cabinet meeting where the report was released.

"I wasn't satisfied with the federal response," Bush said."

Now that of course was just the White House report today, which is biased at the least.

On February 14th Congress gave out it's report. Here's exerps from CNN-----"Our investigation revealed that Katrina was a national failure, an abdication of the most solemn obligation to provide for the common welfare," the report said. "At every level -- individual, corporate, philanthropic and governmental -- we failed to meet the challenge that was Katrina. In this cautionary tale, all the little pigs built houses of straw."

CNN obtained advance excerpts from a draft of the lengthy report titled "Failure of Initiative," which gives 90 recommendations for changes in the wake of the Katrina disaster.

The report is the result of a Republican 11-member House select committee that investigated the response to Katrina at the local, state and federal levels.

U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays, a Republican of Connecticut and committee member, said Monday that the report is "very tough on the president, it's very tough on the Department of Homeland Security. It's a blistering report. But I think it's fair."

The panel found that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was "detached" and that then-Federal Emergency Management Agency Director Michael Brown was "clueless," Shays said.

In one of the excerpts, Chertoff was chided for executing critical responsibilities "late, ineffectively or not at all."

The House committee's report noted widespread failures among government agencies to share critical information in the wake of Katrina and equally widespread confusion over issues of responsibility.

But it also looked at the government's failure to respond to a catastrophe that had long been predicted.

The investigation produced 90 findings and 13 areas of failure that were praised as comprehensive by Democrats, who declined to participate, predicting a GOP whitewash. But they said it made few specific recommendations, such as removing Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and did not explore key White House and Pentagon decisions."

Now I don't excuse State and Local officials who were overwhelmed and added to the failure. But to say this was a primarily a state failure, would be untrue as these two reports state as fact. Meaning no disrespect, but I think your opinion from your home would be a little less credible then these two reports, both produced by Republicans alone. As stated the Democrats didn't participate in the Congressional report.

So if I'm President, and the buck stops here. I'm ultimately responsible for appointing morons, for not ending his vacation and setting up camp in New Orleans. Wouldn't it have been great to see our President directing operations in New Orleans with his shirt sleeves rolled up. But he's too worried about wiretapping.

Now listen to this statement.

I do not condone sticking our heads in the sand concerning terrorism. It is an issue that needs to be dealt with. However, we caught three people. How many murderers, rapists, thieves, arsonists and other crazies do we have running loose and you make it more critical in catching three terrorists planning to blow something up, if thats what was going to happen? You think that is enough to make the top ten of the natural problems we have daily in America????? MT, come on. There are thousands of criminals, every day to worry about. Thousands of people dying here from starvation. From our lack of infrastructure and you are worried about these guys. I thought you all had it covered fighting them over there? And the wiretapping, which has produced what hundreds of arrests?? No!! One???? No...whats going on? Would all that money spent save the lives of hundreds here on other problems and crime?

See, what I want is balance, not fear. Reasonable thinking, not constant terror. But, if we aren't scared and running around worried, then all of a sudden fighting terror isn't at the top of the list. Bush built his campaign on the fact that he was this terror fighter. But truth is, he can't handle much of anything, as witnessed by his actions during Katrina. Yah, he did set up some lights in Jackson Square and promise to "do everything possible" to rebuild that great American city. But then when he got home Cheney spanked him for promising all that money to rebuild New Orleans that Halliburton wasn't going to get and sent hom to his room. Bush said one sentence about it in the State of the Union. One sentence about an American city needing to be rebuilt. Guess Cheney used the belt.

Oh, on the fighting them over there issue, it looks like Iraq is in Civil War and Al Queda doesn't need to hang around for that. It's religious infighting that our boys are smack dab in the middle of now. These are not terrorists blowing each other up, but angry hateful Iraqis. Aren't you glad we toppled Hussian, all he did was torture and kill a few, but he did have them under control. Heck we tortured and killed a few too. Now hundreds a week die. Our boys are dying and injured. Why did you say we are there?

If you think that I'm being sarcastic, it's because every day when an American soldier dies, we should all feel that pain. Everytime one loses an arm or a leg we should feel the pain of the family, who's Dad can never work and who's family gets a couple of hundred thousand. That's why I'm sarcastic, because it's so damn stupid.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Thursday, February 23, 2006 2:17:00 PM
OK...point taken, I misstated. Yes the police were notified but were not allowed to interview or talk to him until the next day. The veriations of stories that came out. He admitted to drinking a beer at lunch. What time were they hunting 6PM? It may be a legitmate accident, put from the history of these guys? But are you and I allowed till the next day to give our statements to police. Are we allowed to not take a blood test after shooting someone.....come on?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Thursday, February 23, 2006 2:21:00 PM
FEMA, is not the first responder, as police and fire officials on the ground are, however, in this type of emergency they are quickly overwhelmed. Being that this has already been declared a national diaster prior to the hurricane making landfall, the Federal government was on site and was ready for landfall. But what my point was that when the Federal government stepped in, at that point the Katrina situation became their responsibility, it was a complete and utter failure to respond, activate or motivate, If Bush, as you say accepted respomsibility, he is an utted failure in acting responsibly in a disaster situation. The federal government is who is set up for us to look to when local and state officials are overwhelmed and that was the case. This was partially local and state failure, but for the White House administration this was a complete failure for an administation that has promise Homeland security.

"The media and those on the left cannot engage in political grandstanding when the nation is battling an enemy bent on wiping us off the face of the earth". Is the comment you made in your last post. See the fear?? Do you think it's possible to why the American culture, people and our military off the face of the earth? So was that your way of being a reasonable thinker, or a fearful one? I have never doubted that we have a war on terror to fight? We do....however, is the war on drugs more of a realistic war. One that affects many many Americans? What if the funds and resources had been spent to battle that war? Would we be in better shape as a country if they had focused the monies and resources there rather then on Hussian??? If you want to show me some reason, that tell me.

Again, listen to what I say, so you can't misconstrue what my point is. I want to put the war on terror, which is seperate from the war in Iraq in its right and true perspective. We shouldn't be running around more worried about a terrorist attack then we are of the attack of something like drugs on our society. BUT WE ARE!! Rove and Bush see the fear and thats how they got elected. It wasn't that he is a good drug fighter, but rather that he is the ultimate terror fighter. So heres this ultimate terror fighter with all the resources and military might of our country and he can't kill or capture Bin Laden, a 6-6" guy on dialysis. Its like Superman against Paulee Shore. And Superman isn't winning.

Once in a while you hear about an Al Queda fighter or leader caught or killed. And don't infere that he is getting them in Iraq, they are few and far between. The Iraq war was against the Iraqi Army, the one today we are retraining. The current fighting involving us is between the insurgency, made up mostly of sectarian factions of the Iraqi people. Al Queda is involved but a very small percentage. Bush's reasoning, one he used in a speech today, was we are fighting them over there. No we are not. We are not keeping them locked in Iraq. They come and go as they please. If they wanted to cross the border at Otay Mesa they could, along with 8 old mexican ladies. It's not that hard.

Your comment is "You know why we are over there, we are fighting the war on terror and freeing a country from a tyrannical leader." This is not true. We are fighting a war against the insurgency not terror!! There was never a terrorist government in Iraq. The insurgents we are fighting now make up 93% of the people fighting. The other 7% are Islamic terrorists from all forms and ways. You are twisting what it actually is we are doing. Bin Laden and the Taliben was a war on Terror. You ask for reason, well so do i. It would be like saying that in WWII we were fighting a War against Austria. Well they were part of the Axis.

OK, yes, we rid the world of a " tyrannical leader", but we have no right to attack countries with tyrannical leaders now do we. If we do, we arent you knocking on doors asking people to attack countries like Dafar?? Other African nations. There is ten times, please read that again, ten times the number of deaths in these small countries then ever in Iraq, so there is little logic in that reasoning. And you said "And he did not torture and kill a few, but tens of thousands". How many Iraqi soldiers, civilians do you think that the US military has killed since the first shots of this war. We bombed for days before we attacked and not many tanks of their army survived. Shock and Awe. 200,000 people. Well that would have been a few years worth for Hussian, so we really didnt stop the killing did we. We just did it in a different way didnt we. So how much better is it that we did it "OUR way", then him his? At the end of the day, no matter how terrible, you still have dead Iraqi's. But today, because of the war you have dead Iraqi's plus less infrastructure. And now you have them in or at least on the brink of civil war, and who knows how many more Iraqis will be dead. Not to mention the US military right in the mddle, 9 more died this week, with no improvement or end in sight. Worth getting rid of Hussian huh? Do you ever think, truthfully that Iraq will be a safe place with a Democratic government? Was the 25,000 casulaties and billions and billions of dollars, that could have been spent on Katrina and the War on Drugs, worth it?

So you say, well, after we stired this big pot, and the recipe sucks, we need to leave. What I ask is why did we let our President and his staff of Cheneys, Rumsfelds, Rices, Libbys, Roves, Chertoffs, Wolfowicz ever get us into a mess without a plan. Without guidance. Did we ever think a people as radical religious as the Middle Eastern people are, would just fall over and hold up the American flag and say can we be like you? We had only shock and awe. We had nothing else and it is now a black mark on our foreheads. A black hole we can dump our money and the lives of our young into.

In your last post, you don't realize that Bush had oversight, he had a way to use the court easily, but chose not to. We are the most secure and liberated country in the world bar none. We dont need debates on the difference between the two, thats for the courts to watch and judge. But they can't if we take it out of their hands and do whatever we want. Doing it without a watchdog group makes us far less secure, far less free. Both sides lose.

They both lose when you know that the man in charge, who has asked us to "trust him", has failed horribly in Iraq and Katrina and the resulting aftermaths. If he worked for me, I'd have fired him when he said his information was wrong going into Iraq. What would I have done to him if he came to me with these other failures?

Is political grandstanding by I assume Democrats wrong? Is it wrong to say look how terrible a job youve done? We would you do this? Why is our money going here? Again, our past great politicans have said that it is the most patriotic thing we can do during a time of war, to question the ethics of the things are President does. Would our founding Fathers be sitting back with arms folded watching? Do you think that they did when Washington was fighting the British? Better read up a little if you do.

MT, the reason Republicans want the complaining, asking for answers to stop is because the fear of the up coming 2006 elections. And they have a lot to be afraid of.

I wont even go into the 9-11 wire tapping because I believe you are dead wrong. Ive stated my reasoning. Gonzalez was the guy who endorsed torture.....who said torture doesnt represent Americans. Bush was going to vetoe McCains bill?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, February 24, 2006 1:27:00 PM
A week or so ago I was challenged to read the National Review and today I did. Here is a column by conservative writer, William F Buckley.....kind of makes some sense. "I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes — it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."

One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. The same edition of the paper quotes a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Reuel Marc Gerecht backed the American intervention. He now speaks of the bombing of the especially sacred Shiite mosque in Samara and what that has precipitated in the way of revenge. He concludes that “The bombing has completely demolished” what was being attempted — to bring Sunnis into the defense and interior ministries.

Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols.

The Iraqis we hear about are first indignant, and then infuriated, that Americans aren't on the scene to protect them and to punish the aggressors. And so they join the clothing merchant who says that everything is the fault of the Americans.

The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, elucidates on the complaint against Americans. It is not only that the invaders are American, it is that they are "Zionists." It would not be surprising to learn from an anonymously cited American soldier that he can understand why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the Sunnis and the Shiites from each others' throats.

A problem for American policymakers — for President Bush, ultimately — is to cope with the postulates and decide how to proceed.

One of these postulates, from the beginning, was that the Iraqi people, whatever their tribal differences, would suspend internal divisions in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom.

The accompanying postulate was that the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymkers to cope with insurgents bent on violence.

This last did not happen. And the administration has, now, to cope with failure. It can defend itself historically, standing by the inherent reasonableness of the postulates. After all, they govern our policies in Latin America, in Africa, and in much of Asia. The failure in Iraq does not force us to generalize that violence and antidemocratic movements always prevail. It does call on us to adjust to the question, What do we do when we see that the postulates do not prevail — in the absence of interventionist measures (we used these against Hirohito and Hitler) which we simply are not prepared to take? It is healthier for the disillusioned American to concede that in one theater in the Mideast, the postulates didn't work. The alternative would be to abandon the postulates. To do that would be to register a kind of philosophical despair. The killer insurgents are not entitled to blow up the shrine of American idealism.

Mr. Bush has a very difficult internal problem here because to make the kind of concession that is strategically appropriate requires a mitigation of policies he has several times affirmed in high-flown pronouncements. His challenge is to persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy.

He will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies.

Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat."

This will be hard for conservatives to swallow that everything they have defended, everything they have said about supporting the troops and cutting and running. About not having a plan, or having the right mission from the start. It will go against what MT said about the pride of the troops. It will be a waste of all that money and a waste of so many lives. We will pay for this war for the next fifty years with health and insurance benefits to the hurt and wounded who forever are marked by mistakes. But its the right thing to do. Mr. Bush, isn't it more important to save lives rather then worry that Cindy Sheehan was right about bringing the troops home now? That Senator Murtha really does know the truth?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, February 24, 2006 4:38:00 PM
To All:

The debate needs to focus on what's really wrong with America. We have met the problem and "It's Us!"

Our Government has failed the dreams of the American people. More and more, we feel that the Government is our adversary. Why?

I challenge every one reading this blog to go to the following Article:

Bill Moyers | Restoring the Public Trust at http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022406A.shtml

If we don't fight for our dreams, they will be finished in a very short while.

What Bill Moyers identifies as the National problem has become the template for State and local politics as well. That's why we see people like Dan Stephenson and his rich cronies thinking that its alright to just buy our City Council.

Read Bill Moyers' - but don't just weep - get into the real fight. It's no longer republicans vs democrats, its money, power and privelege vs the American dream.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Saturday, February 25, 2006 9:09:00 AM
To All, I can't resist. When I first heard about Cheney's hunting incident, my first reaction was "Oh my god, Cheney was hunting quail? What's a man who has faced death with his heart condition doing taking the lives of little birds?"

Frankly, I thought that Cheney hunting quail was a perfect description of his unevolved nature. And Whittington, who could feel sorry for him? After all, he was participating in the killing of those little creatures as well.

Then I read the following this morning. Yes, yes that's exactly how I feel. We've got the worst kind of people running our government. They have no reverence for life.

Edward Faunce
______________________

Bobwhite Family Values
Quail in War and Peace
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

"Levitan the painter and I went out to the woodcock mating yesterday evening. He fired at a woodcock and the bird, wounded in the wing, fell in a puddle. I picked it up. It had a long beak, large black eyes, and magnificent plumage. It looked at us in wonder. What were we to do with it? Levitan closed his eyes and begged me, "Please, smash its head in with the rifle." I said I couldn't. Levitan kept twitching his head and begging me. And the woodcock kept looking on in wonder. I had to obey Levitan and kill it. And then two idiots went home and sat down to dinner leaving one less beautiful, adored creature in the world."

Anton Chekhov in a Letter to his friend Suvorin, April 8, 1892.

Perhaps Cheney should have whacked Whittington's skull in as the wounded lawyer looked up at him in wonder, while the covey of bobwhite quail rejoiced at the happy chance of Mr Whittington's head and upper chest intercepting the vice president's salvo from his 28-gauge shotgun.

Even so, the bobwhite and scaled quail have little to cheer about these days. Quality-of-life indicators for the bird have been on a steady downward tangent ever since the late nineteenth century.

When the early settlers came, quail were abundant, flourishing where natural grasslands were interspersed with forests. Indian burn policies helped too. By the mid nineteenth century you could buy a dozen quail for 25 cents. A single hunter could kill a hundred, even two hundred in a day, sometimes in a single haul if he used nets.

Fields in those days weren't "clean farmed", and the topsoil was so rich that quail could forage from an extravagant menu of weeds, grasses and crops. Progress, as so often, spelled doom for creatures caught in its path, not least the quail which require very specific habitat in which to flourish, or even survive: nesting and screening cover, bushy overhead to stop the hawks, yet open at ground level for spotting terrestial marauders. Quail literally live on the edge, where different kinds of cover come together. As Frank Edminster puts it in his `1954 classic American Game Birds of Field and Forest,this relationship of convenience in types of cover is absolutely necessary, "for the quail must feed, rest, roost, dust-bathe, nest, court, escape enemies and avoid heat, cold and wind to a considerable extent concurrently."

Cheney is never far from his ambulance and in similar style the quail follows the so-called Huggins 50:50 Rule which, in the words of the Texas-based Quail Technical Support Committee "provides guidance on the proper amount and distribution of woody cover: 'A bobwhite should never be more than 50 yards from a clump of brush 50 feet in diameter.'" Another rule of thumb, advises Quail Tech Support, "holds that you should be able to throw a softball from one covert to the next."

The rest of this article can be viewed at http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn02252006.html

By Anonymous, at Saturday, February 25, 2006 10:10:00 AM
MT, Bush is mentioned in both reports to his failures. If Brown failed, guess who appointed him into a position he wasn't qualified for? Well, why is it you from your home know more then the Congressional reports which state the the Federal Government and including all in the White House failed. Bush failed this country. He's STILL failing. You'd think he'd be talking about New Orleans everyday, but he has more important things on his mind everyday.

Again, how do I make a point and then you twist. YES MT, THERE IS A WAR ON TERROR! However, it isn't the WAR IN IRAQ. Two different animals, that are only mixed up because we went into Iraq and have become stationary targets for terrorists to shoot at.

War on terror is America's war against groups like Al Queda. When we went into Afgainistan, we went after a group (Al Queda) and a government (Taliban) and quickly ousted the terror supporting government. But we let Al Queda and Bin Laden escape. Then we dropped the ball and decided, since we are over there we might as well take out Hussian. We have some reasons we can hype and attack.

The War on Iraq was NOT against terrorists. Why don't you seem to get this. The Republican Army was not a terrorist organization!! Hussian was a government leader. We attacked a country. Our War continues against a divided religiously segmented people. Insurgents, not terrorists. YES, terrorists and others have crossed the border after the "shock and awe" ended. There was no plan. Bush had nothing but shock and awe. He told us the sale of Oil would support this war and it would cost us nothing. He lied. Anyone with any type of history knowledge would have known that this fundalmentalist religious country would never succuum to the US. I've been writing how wrong this was for 8 months on here. Saying we were wrong and we need to get out. Roy, called me a traitor and a coward. Hey but look. Look, many, many Republicans, conservative columists and now saying...oppps we may have made a mistake and maybe we better head for the door. Traitors? Cowards? No, to conservatives, they can flip flop all day long. But I've been right from the beginning. The people who insist we stay for pride, for honor, for whatever excuse to cover the mistakes of this President are the real scapgoats. All just sit in their homes at night and listen to Fox News pat any conservative on the back and belittle ever independant and liberal. You are truly brainwashed as they take the Rove propaganda and spoon feed you. Then you go online and read conservative columns that also say the same exact phrases over and over and over until you are reciting them in your sleep. Thats where you got the information to blame the Democratic Mayor and Govenour of Louisiana. No other news services have come close to saying that the State and Local governments are the main failures. The Federal government is the one that failed after the State and Local governments were overcome. This country 5 years after 9-11 is not prepared fro a disaster. That's this Presidents fault.

As for fear. The conservatives are pushing the fear of terrorism to be elected. It's hyped to make the US citizens afraid, to give up liberties, to vote conservative, to ok monies for wars. Fear of drugs can be seen daily here in the US. Fear of criminals is a valid fear. It happens daily in our town. Fear of thingsthat we see everyday are good fearsthat help keep us on the alert. I would think sitting in your home you should be more afraid of someone hacking your computer and doing identity fraud, rather then sitting by your window with your handgun waiting for terrorists to walk up the drive. Thats not how people listening to Fox News and other conservative talk shows feel. They are thinking terrorists are turning into their driveways.

As to calling Bin Laden my friend, I'll chalk it up to your fear. But Bin Laden is out there still because Bush didn't put everything he had into destroying him. My point that flew past you was that we are a very powerful nation and he is not as powerful as we fear. Bush decided to use the military and intelligence and financial powers of the US invade Iraq instead. Now, look, we have Bin Laden still on the run, and Iraq worse off then ever in a civil war, and more American military dying daily. I wanted us out months ago and said we had already failed, MT, you want us to stay for the pride of the soldiers. Who would you say is lacking quickness of perception and intellect, or being obtuse. Oh thats right, your last post said, better yet maybe we should think about leaving as quickly as possible. To ever say I am friends with an enemy of America would be wrong. The people wanting our troops to stay in such a place that they are sitting ducks, FOR NO REASON, is NOT supporting the troops. Iraq can't be won and it can't be fixed. We were wrong to invade it, unless we found that they had WMD's. The weapon inspectors said they didn't, still Bush attacked. To support the troops MT, your Republican Woman's group should be nightly sending letters to Bush and Rumsfeld asking that the troops be getting more flak jackets and armor. But your all too busy talking about a pride you think these boys have that you have no clue about. Get them out of harms way. Right now your rhetoric is keeping the troops there and getting them killed. The ribbons on your SUV should say "Support our failed ideology" because thats all your supporting.

Again you owe me an apology for saying that I am a friend of any terrorist. I consider that calling me a traitor and a coward. It takes a strong person to stand here for 8 months and say things that aren't popular and see them happening and coming true. The bad thing is it doesn't make me happy to say I told you so. Two more Americns died yesterday!
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Sunday, February 26, 2006 12:34:00 PM
MT, youre using a quote that Mrs. Clinton gave before the invasion of Iraq and is as absurd as using her husband's "I didn't have sex with that woman" quote. Most of the facts in that quote were facts that the Bush administration handed Congress. We know most of that information to be wrong, if not out and out lies. We have many, not just one or two, intelligence people coming forward saying most of that information was massaged if not total lies, before being fed to Congress and the American people. The 9-11 commission states that there is NO CREDIBLE link to terrorists. If you understand what Hussian was, you will find that no Dictator can allow terrorists into his path. They need total control and terrorists are not loyal to any politicians. I cannot stress how important it is to either believe Congressional reporting, again done years after the quote you listed, or just saying from your home that you know better. It just shows that you are out of touch with the reality of politics and tend to believe what gathered members of your ideology want and need to believe to continue to support this failed Presidency.

Today in a CBS Poll Bush's approval ratings fell to 34%. Nixon was just a point or two below this when he left office. Even if you think polls are inaccurate, it shows we have MAJOR problems here. If the polls are off 10%, still most of the country is not happy with the job the White House is doing. Even 22% of Republicans polled feel this way. More and more Republican politicians will jump ship as elections approach. True colors will start to show.

You have stated just a few weeks ago that you think Bush is a great Commander in Chief. Iraq has turned into a major mess. One we are stuck with for a long time. Our foreign policy is absolutely dismal. Bolton is in the UN, badmouthing everyone. We are not in a good situation here.

Domestically he has failed. Nothing he has proposed has worked. Yes he gave us tax cuts in a time of war and a major disaster. You'd think that we sitting at home, as patriotic as we say we are, would give back that tax cut, so we can take care of our military families and veterans returning wounded. That would be the right thing to do. That would be the American thing to do. I don't think American CEO's need any tax breaks, but I do know families who's member is in Iraq or other places do need the money. So why not have your Women's group stand up and say, here's my two hundred dollars. It's easy sending other families sons and daughters but the real thing we should do is give back in time of war.

So I again whole heartedly disagree that the war in Iraq is against terrorism. It is proven not to be. It was a war to eliminate Hussian and his WMD's. Then it was a war to save the Iraqi people from him. Now it is a war on terror, that we created by attacking and drawing them in. But what it really has become, is a war that kills Americans, takes billions a month to support and does nothing to make the US safer. Just more hatred around the world. Everything I state becomes true sooner or later. Months ago I said the same thing. Months ago I saw civil war coming to Iraq and wrote about it. Now, its full-blown. Who's side do we take as newly elected Iraqii politicians have a side? Or do we sit back, take our continuing casualties and watch. You tell me. It's you who back this President and his ideology. I don't know what to do. You have to see that Iraq in this state is much worse then when we totally dominated Hussians government from a distance with a no-fly zone and sanctions. Weapons inspectors on the ground saying....President...they have no WMD's. But Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rove wanted this war, now what will we do? I guess they will keep trying to scare people like you, into fighting them over there. But its got old. Most Americans now believe they were misled and have been lied to. Check out the CBS poll. Tell me ALL polls are wrong. Conservatism is NOT the mainstream anymore. Liberlism doesnt have a plan. But we as a country need to find a middle to come to and rid this White House that lives off of power and corruption and secrets.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 28, 2006 5:01:00 AM
The Iraqui war is not part of the war on terror, it was the youngest Bush child reacting to "they tried to kill my daddy."

It is no longer debatable that Bush intended to attack Iraq even before 9/11.

Bush has created more terror in this world by his incompetence than Bin Laden has on purpose.

Americans supporting Bush are writing our demise. He should be impeached.

Utterly Disgusted

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 28, 2006 6:34:00 AM
MT, your 10:37 post is inaccurate and I don't know where you got your information. Certainly is you google 9-11 report you will see many, many stories about there being NO CONNECTION between Iraq and Al Queda or any other terrorists. These allegations were made repeatedly by Bush but Cheney is the one that stated that the connection is massive or words to that affect. We of course know now that this was an utter exaggeration if not an out and out lie.

Here is a June 16th, 2004 as it appeared when the 9-11 report was released.

MSNBC- June 16, 2004
WASHINGTON - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found “no credible evidence” of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States.
In a report based on research and interviews by the commission staff, the panel said that bin Laden made overtures to toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein for assistance, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere as he sought to build an Islamic army.
The report said that bin Laden explored possible cooperation with Saddam at the urging of allies in Sudan eager to protect their own ties to Iraq, even though the al-Qaida leader had previously provided support for “anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.”
Bin Laden ceased that support in the early 1990s, opening the way for a meeting between the al-Qaida leader and a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in 1994 in Sudan, the report said. At the meeting, bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps in Iraq as well as Iraqi assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded, the staff report said.
No ‘collaborative relationship’ seen
It said that reports of subsequent contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan “do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,” and added that two unidentified senior bin Laden associates "have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq."
The report, the 15th released by the commission staff, concluded, “We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States.”

This report as it states is from MSNBC. The White House prior to going to war never linked Iraq with any other terrorists. The War on Iraq was NOT on terrorism but on a country and a dictator for supposedly having close ties to Al Queda and for allegedly having WMD's. Both were exaggerated and false. Yes, we all agree, after the attack Al Queda crossed the borders and have set up camp.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 28, 2006 4:13:00 PM
Your 12:24 post I don't understand. Is this an attack on all of Islam? Is this a fear of every Muslim? It sounds that we have sat back and let Islam grown around us and should raise up and slap them down. I understand the fear, but do we think every Muslim hates America? Do we say we don't tolerate any Muslim? I didn't get it. Is the post saying that just in attacking Iraq, because they are primarily Islamic we are attacking terrorists? Clue me in here? If that is what you are saying....wow.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 28, 2006 4:17:00 PM
MT -
I thought this article would interest you!

"There's a certain consistent pattern regarding the worldwide Left's assessment of culpability for Muslim terror. It is the fault of the murdered.
The most recent example is the blaming of Denmark, or at least the Danish newspaper, for publishing cartoons of Muhammad. From Kofi Annan to The New York Times -- and the other American newspapers that declared respect for religious symbols a new journalistic virtue -- liberal and leftist opinion always condemns violent Muslim demonstrations, but always with a "but." The "but" is that in the final analysis, it was the Danish and other European papers' faults for insulting the Muslim prophet.

This is only the latest example of finding the victims of Islamic violence responsible for that violence.

For a decade or more, it has been a given on the Left that Israel is to blame for terror committed against Israelis by Palestinian Muslims (Palestinian Christians don't engage in suicide terror). What else are the Palestinians supposed to do? If they had Apache helicopters, the argument goes, they would use them. But they don't, so they use the poor man's nuclear weapon -- suicide terror.

The same argument is given to explain 9-11. Three thousand innocent Americans were incinerated by Islamic terrorists because America has been meddling in the Middle East so long. This was bound to happen. And, anyway, don't we support Israel?

And when Muslim terrorists blew up Madrid trains, killing 191 people and injuring 1,500 others, the Left in Spain and elsewhere blamed Spanish foreign policy. After all, the Spanish government had sent troops into Iraq.

When largely Muslim rioters burned and looted for a month in France, who was blamed? France, of course -- France doesn't know how to assimilate immigrants, and, as the BBC reported on Nov. 5, 2005, "[Interior Minister Nicolas] Sarkozy's much-quoted description of urban vandals as 'rabble' a few days before the riots began is said by many to have already created tension." Calling rabble "rabble" causes them to act like to rabble.

If you wish to test the thesis that the Left blames those blown up for being blown up by Muslim terrorists, have your son or daughter at college ask some liberal arts professors who is to blame for 9-11 or Muslim suicide bombers in Israel, etc.

In fact, one way to describe the moral divide between conservatives and liberals is whom they blame for acts of evil committed against innocent people, especially when committed by non-whites and non-Westerners. Conservatives blame the perpetrators, and liberals blame either the victims' group or the circumstances.

We Americans are used to this. For decades, liberals have blamed violent crime in America on racism and poverty, i.e., on American society far more than on the murderers, rapists, arsonists and muggers themselves. Conservatives blame the criminals.

During the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, black mobs murdered innocent Korean shopkeepers and burned sections of the city. The liberal response in America was virtually universal: We must understand the anger of these people at American racism. The daily special section on the riots in the major local newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, was titled, "Understanding the Rage."

Though Thomas Friedman, the New York Times foreign affairs correspondent, has been among the few prominent liberals to support the Iraq War, he regularly blames Islamic terror on unemployment in the Arab world.

Since examples of liberals refusing to blame criminals and terrorists for their behavior are legion, let's try to figure out why this moral inversion is so common.

Here are three hypotheses:

One is that liberals tend to blame outside forces for evil. This emanates from the secular humanistic view of people as basically good -- and therefore human evil must come not from the bad choices and bad values of the evildoer, but from the unfortunate socioeconomic and other circumstances of the person's life.

The second explanation is that as you go further left on the political spectrum, it becomes increasingly difficult to blame the "weak" for any atrocities they commit. The Left does not divide the world between good and evil nearly as much as it does between rich and poor, and between strong and weak. Israel is stronger and richer, so Palestinian terror is excused. White America is stronger and richer than black America, so black violence is excused. The West is stronger and richer than the Muslim world, so Muslim violence is explained accordingly.

And third, liberals tend to be afraid of the truly evil. That's why the liberal newspapers of America refused to publish the Danish cartoons, probably the most newsworthy cartoons ever drawn, but have never had any hesitance about showing cartoons and photos that mock Jewish and Christian symbols. Christians and Jews don't kill editors.

We don't know who will be the next target of Islamic or other murderers from poor or non-Western or non-white groups. All we can know is that liberal and leftist thought will find reasons to hold the targeted group largely responsible."

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 28, 2006 7:02:00 PM
Anybody read the book "Saddam's Secrets" by George Sada?
Sada was Saddams top military advisor abd General for many years. He was valued by Saddam as the one who would tell him the truth, even if Saddam did not want to hear it.
When you read this book, written by someone "in the know" about Saddams regime, you will realize how silly our blabber on this blog is {referring to utterly disgusted 6:34 am today).
According to the story, WMD were moved to Syria before our invasion, with the help of Russia and France. In that case, Bush would not want to implicate Russia and France, he has to rely on their support in the war on terror in the future.
How can you not link Saddam to terrorists? An affiliate group of Al Queda operated out of Iran, produced ricin, took it to London with the intent to poison their water system, were caught, put on trial and are in prison. You also remember Saddam had a deal with the family members of "Successful" suicide bombers. Families were paid 25,000. as a reward/incentive to carry out the attacks.
Remember Saddam used biological WMD on his own people, killing thousands of them? Remember the terrorist training camps we located in Iraq? How can anybody claim there is no Saddam connection to terrorism which targeted Americans for many years.
Al Queda just happened to be the big name recognized terrorist group, but there are many others. The purpose for their existence is the same. Rid the world of the infidels!
Bush is focused on the long term success on terror and will not seek to justify his decision to go after Iraq. Bush and his trusted friends are also "in the know". But we are not, and neither are most Senators and Congress men, which is very good, we don't need to know everything during war times. Too many leaks have already occured that have hampered our intelligence gathering. History will show wether or not Georges Sada is telling the truth.

Bush is also in the know what the UAE ( the port deal) has done for us and will do for us in the future, again, Bush has knowledge, we have speculation. That is why it is important to trust our President in war times, because he makes decisions based on information and data that we know nothing about.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 28, 2006 7:15:00 PM
So we are in Iraq because we are in a war on terrorism? Then why not EVERY Middle Eastern country? They all harbor Islamic extremists and terrorists. Why not attack them all. Even UAE has funded and tolerated terrorists. Saudi Arabia also funded terrorists including the 9-11 terrorists.

Yes, I agree Hussian funded 25K pay outs against Israel. But every Islamic country hates and funds terror against Israel. Because we support Israel they hate us!

Cheney said this June 14th 2004:

Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that Saddam Hussein had “long-established ties” with al-Qaida, an assertion that has been repeatedly challenged by some policy experts and lawmakers.

The vice president offered no details backing up his claim of a link between Saddam and al-Qaida.

“He was a patron of terrorism,” Cheney said of Hussein during a speech before The James Madison Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Florida. “He had long established ties with al-Qaida.”

In making the case for war in Iraq, Bush administration officials frequently cited what they said were Saddam’s decade-long contacts with al-Qaida operatives. They stopped short of claiming that Iraq was directly involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, but critics say Bush officials left that impression with the American public.

Cheney listed what he described as the accomplishments of the Bush administration in the war on terror, including fledgling democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq; and the decision by Libya’s leader, Moammar Gadhafi, to abandon his nuclear ambitions.

Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., countered that the Bush administration had “a sorry record in the war on terror.” Graham, former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, spoke Sunday in a conference call arranged by John Kerry’s presidential campaign in anticipation of Cheney’s speech.

The State Department said last week it was wrong in stating that terrorism declined worldwide last year in a report that the Bush administration initially cited as evidence it was succeeding against terrorism, Graham noted. Both the number of incidents and the toll in victims increased sharply, the department acknowledged.

So you see the lies that continued even during and after the 9-11 report, there was NEVER ANY CONNECTION between Iraq and Al Queda, at any time, not only about 9-11. That is a fact, no matter what you want to make up, unless you know more then Congress. I guess you feel you do.

I can copy mainstream articles, congressional reports and you still bypass it. If you really think about it, what country trained these terrorists to fly planes to attack the World Trade Center...think about it?

I see and hear hatred, only semi-hatred by you MT. But what right do we have to attack those talking hate toward America unless they do something about it and attack us? If that was the case would it be OK for the US to be attacked by Iran because we call them Evil. Let's face it, they are. But because we using it as propganda doesn't mean they have the right to attack and kill those saying it.

Your fear is so strong youre willing to classify a third of Americans as traitors, thinking they make excuses for terrorists and Islamic clerics. I hate those that harm us. I don't think that unless it is Al Queda we have any right to attack. Hamas is a terrorist group yet we have never attacked them? Why? We never interfered with Arafat? Why? Because he didn't attack us.

I'm really blown away at the fear you all have. Do you find that 2/3 of the country as traitors and stupid and terrorist supporters? Thats the realization of your statements. 2/3 believe Bush is a failure and he is not a good President but a bad one.

Your hatred goes beyond terrorists to your constant hatred of the liberals in this country. It's clear in the articles you post. That Liberals somehow hate this country, God and the Military. This now includes most independants like me.

Conservatives are not my enemy. They are the other half of this country and hopefully give a balanced opinion to draw the other side to the middle.

Thats not whats happening today. Conservatives hate others of opposing views. The hate Gays, Liberals, Hollywood, Unions, Abortionists, women;s rights groups to name a few. They have no tolerance for opinion.

7:15 or Gottorun, if thats you.....
Bush didnt even know about the UAE deal till after it was a done deal as he admitted. There was no stategic planning on his part. Secondly Cheney and Rove make the decisons and Jr. just walks around in a stuper. So Bush had NO knowledge at all. Wrong again.

You see who trusts our President. Only a third of the country. Go on trusting him. It is good for the people that don't, as your ideology sinks lower and lower and your faithful abandons ship.

Bush and his "trusted friends"?, right there you state the conservative opinion. Who cares about laws, procedures, Congress, courts. The trusted friends make up whatever laws suit them, or break them and claim we are at war. Well this war WILL NEVER END!! We will never win this war, it has always been and will always be. Thats history.

I'm really shocked by your opinions, I really am. I can't believe we have gone so far into fear that it has affected all this country stands for. Our new slogan is: Do it our way or we'll shock and awe you to death, praise Jesus!
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 28, 2006 8:15:00 PM
Sorry rholmgren but your name calling can't cover what all "thinking" and "rational" people know. Bush and his neocons launched the US into a war for personal reasons. His legacy will be nothing but disgrace and disgust.

But Murrieta T what political capitol does Bush have left? He's down to bedrock - 34% - only people like rholmgren are left in his camp. Even William Buckley abandoned Bush this last weekend.

Bush lacks credibility to the point that his port defense is laughable.

Utterly Disgusted

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, March 01, 2006 1:42:00 PM
Yes UD, Bush's poll numbers are slipping. There is a serious communication problem between the Bush administration congress and the American people. I can see why people are turning against him. With the main stream media running with headlines like "Arab's to take over US Ports" what do you expect? The non-thinking, irrational types freak out. Oh my gosh, we are letting terrorist take over our port security!!!
More details are sure to come out, but the UAE has been a help since 9/11, we need them to continue the fight on terrorism, especially if some future action needs to be taken with Iran. They were quick to agree to new and enhanced security measures. But the most important issue is that they are not "taking over" anything. US will still control the ports. The more important issue, is how are we going to secure our ports and borders, now if we should stop a company from doing business just because they are Arabs. Like I said, I am waiting for more details. I am concerned about their agreement with the Isreal boycott.
Hopefully, the Bush administration will decide to just fess up and talk frankly. People forgive when things get laid out like that. Think Kennedy, Regan, even Clinton.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, March 01, 2006 6:37:00 PM
rholmgren why would anyone think you were calling names by saying I was a "Lefty nonthinking propagandist" you rightwing extremist ignorant mouthpiece (REIM!

You know that the Zogby poll leans right. It was a zogby poll that found that 72% of the troops in Iraq think they should all be gone in 2006. 20% think they should leave immediately. And that's what a right leaning pollster found you rediculous REIM.

And MT, Bush's problem is not "fessing up" and talking "frankly." His problem is that he's been exposed, found out, and now he's lost any ability to be taken seriously except by Mr. REIM.

Utterly Disgusted

By the way read the following about the effect of "our" support for the troops is having on the troops. If after reading this, you don't question Bush's staying the course, I just don't know . . . .

'I Trusted My Country' By Garett Reppenhagen

Written testimony of Garett Reppenhagen, returned Iraq War Veteran; submitted to the House Appropriations Subcommittee for Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on issues concerning Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs. I joined the Army in August of 2001 and became a Cavalry/Scout at Ft. Knox, Kentucky. I was indoctrinated into a military that I was proud of and had the courage to serve because I trusted that the government of the United States would use me in a responsible and necessary manner.

I was on leave from a deployment in Kosovo when the Iraq War began. I watched in dread, waiting for a layover flight at Dallas/Ft. Worth airport, when the ultimatum for Saddam and his sons to surrender ran out. Bradleys crossed the line into Iraq, and Baghdad was exploding on the televisions. Surrounding me were a crowd of people cheering like the Cowboys just won the Super Bowl. I started to feel like the reality of war and the policies of the administration were not as honest as they appeared.

In February of 2004, it was my turn to go to war. I was with 2-63 AR 1st Infantry Division stationed in Baquba, Iraq, as a Sniper in a six-man team. During my year there, I saw a lack of effort by our government to provide the US Soldier with the ability to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. As events unfolded, like Abu Ghraib and the battles in Fallujah, a growing resentment of the Iraqi people swelled the support for the insurgency. Our mission there became impossible.

We turned all our missions into surviving Iraq for a year. Missions like counter ambush, counter mortar, road clearing and house raids. No longer were we able to attempt reconstruction operations. The alienation of the people we were supposed to be trying to hand democracy to increased and the Improvised Explosive Devices, Rocket Propelled Grenade Ambushes and mortar attacks increased.

I left Iraq, eventually was honorably discharged after a ten month involuntary extension, and returned home to begin working for veteran advocacy. I have a growing network of friends who are veterans and deal with all the major veteran organizations. I frequently visit Walter Reed and speak to a dozen veterans struggling with PTSD and other forms of mental illness. It is a constant frustration to see these men and women treated without proper care and respect. And the problem is only growing.

These soldiers are returning and overcoming the most unimaginable physical and mental disabilities. But the question they all eventually begin to ask is "Why?" With the growing public opinion being that war was not only wrong, but also based on lies, the soldier who was sent to fight has a conflict with the fact that his sacrifice had no meaning. The lack of meaning ultimately creates a breakdown of character that is fundamental in a soldier's degradation of mental health. Because the war is so "wrong," it can create not just a guilt of the traumatic experience in Iraq, it also makes the soldiers shameful of the people they have become.

These soldiers return home to ticker tape parades and "thank you's," when the soldier many times feels like a criminal. Most hold on to the ideal that it was a noble cause, to protect their character from the damaging truth. However eventually, over time, that protective bubble will pop. If it is years down the road, the buildup of stress will be more harmful. Whether conscious of it or not, because these soldiers are never punished by society and their leaders are not being held accountable, the veteran takes on self-destructive habits and sometimes commits suicide. We hold ourselves accountable, and sometimes cannot live with the pain.

The longer we continue the conflict in Iraq, the worse the injuries to our soldiers will become. We need to remove our military from a war it should have never been involved in. Without the use of our military in honest operations, the psychological impact on our service members will be unavoidable. Trauma from war is another injury of combat and is a natural reaction to being in a violent environment. Added with the loss of meaning, it can be severe. The only way to put an end to it is to withdraw troops immediately from Iraq and bring them home now.

The following is a piece of the last letter SPC Douglas Barber, an Iraq War Veteran, wrote before taking his own life in January 2006:

All is not okay or right for those of us who return home alive and supposedly well. What looks like normalcy and readjustment is only an illusion to be revealed by time and torment. Some soldiers come home missing limbs and other parts of their bodies. Still others will live with permanent scars from horrific events that no one other than those who served will ever understand.

We come home from war trying to put our lives back together but some cannot stand the memories and decide that death is better. They kill themselves because they are so haunted by seeing children killed and whole families wiped out.

They ask themselves how you put a price tag on someone else's life. The question goes unanswered as they become another casualty of the war. Heroes become another statistic to America and they are another little article relegated to the back of a newspaper.

Still others come home to nothing. Families have abandoned them: husbands and wives have left these soldiers, and so have parents as well. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder has become the norm amongst these soldiers because they don't know how to cope with returning to a society that will never understand what they have had to endure to liberate another country.

SPC. Douglas Barber

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, March 01, 2006 9:04:00 PM
Mr. REIM rholmgren, you are truly pathetic. You clearly are possessed of an ignorance of monumental proportions. Occurs to a few? You ignorant jerk, try visiting the VA facility in San Bernardino and discover for your unenlightened self just how many thousands of PTSD vets are being treated. You silly stuffed T-shirt, you would allow this to happen for a president who is a liar of the greatest order. You may never regret your positions because you do not possess the intelligence to see what is happening to the troops. Sleep well in your blissful ignorance Mr. REIM.

Utterly Disgusted

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, March 01, 2006 11:44:00 PM
REIM rholmgren is a sissy. He hides behind others misfortunes and claims he knows the truth.

The country is going to hell because of numbskulls like him.

He's like the hordes that supported Hitler, he can only rely on violence. And why not? He's bereft of any brain power.

So long sucker.

Utterly Disgusted

By Anonymous, at Thursday, March 02, 2006 7:41:00 PM
Utterly disgusted,
You are lowering the quality of discussions on this blog with your insults and stupid comments. I am utterly disgusted reading them. Any chance you find annother blog site to vent you frustrations?

By Anonymous, at Thursday, March 02, 2006 8:38:00 PM
So anon, you think I'm lowering the level of discussion? You've got to be kidding.

You can't see that I'm just mimicking rholmgren. He needs to see what his constant barrage of name calling, insults etc. looks like. It's not a pretty picture is it?

But that's precisely the level of discussion on this topic from rholmgren. Why don't you get on his case?

Do you think rholmgren gets the point?

I doubt it.

Utterly Disgusted

By Anonymous, at Thursday, March 02, 2006 8:53:00 PM
REIMy rholmgren, take a hike. Go read your own posts to see the constant name calling, derision and other equally disgusting tactics.

You don't debate anything you just berate everyone with whom you disagree.

You're nuts.

Utterly Disgusted

By Anonymous, at Friday, March 03, 2006 7:38:00 AM
OK, Rholmgren and UD,
Please bring back some good thoughts, fair arguments and facts to support your beliefs. Lets keep the personal assaults and attacks out of the debates and lets act a little more "professional".
Thanks!

By Anonymous, at Friday, March 03, 2006 11:48:00 AM
MT there were no real questions from REIM rholmgren. Sorry, I've read enough of rholmgren's questions to know that he's just a bag of wind.

Consider his last response. First, he claims that he took literally the suggestion that he take a hike. Nuances escape him. Hey REIM'y take a hike on a short pier. Get it?

Then he claims that I'm "wound to tight." How would he know? He would have to be prescient. But that's clearly wrong, he's barely able to communciate at an elementary school level.

Finally, he pretends, falsely, toughness. He can take any criticism with a laugh. No matter how stinging it is, he just "whistles past the graveyard."

Hey REIM'y you're the current poster boy for "Nero fiddled while Rome burned."

Utterly Disgusted

By Anonymous, at Friday, March 03, 2006 11:13:00 PM
And how many posters to this blog do you think take rholmgren seriously?

So please illustrate how one would answer a question with "nuance." Here's a question you can use.

How much is the Iragi war costing the American taxpayers?

Utterly Disgusted

By Anonymous, at Saturday, March 04, 2006 8:21:00 PM
UD,
Freedom doesn't come cheap, there is no price tag on National Security or Freedom. Why don't YOU tell us how much the Iraqi war is costing us and then look at the cost of 9/11 and the price tag for preventing another terror attack?
Furthermore, check the price tag for not doing anything. Also, be sure to check the cost to the US taxpayers in regards to the 9/11 terror attack.
Then answer this simple question:
Do you believe Al Qaeda or Saddam would have stopped their desire to eliminate the U.S. and Israel had we done nothing???? Would they have stopped bombing our airplanes, embassies, ships and night clubs if we had continued to do nothing, as in previous administrations?
What do you think would have happened if the U.S. would have chosen to not get involved in World War 2, there were certainly pacifists such as yourself advising and protesting against that war as well.
I have read a lot of good posts, filled with good research, articles and food for thought, on both sides of the argument. I don't think you read them or retain the information and facts presented in them. Or you don't acknowledge anything but what you have bought into. Ther are good reasons for the war, wether you like it or not, you better educate yourself a little bit more before mouthing off.

After you studied those facts, please share them with us!

By Anonymous, at Saturday, March 04, 2006 11:47:00 PM
Thank you REIM rholmgren for so completely illustrating why you are so belligerently loutish.

You were asked a simple question "How much is the Iraqi war costing the American taxpayers?"

Now lets look at your response. First, you never answered the question.

Instead you launched into a series of unrelated comments and questions. Then finally you resorted to your usually insults.

For example you said ". . . there were certainly pacifists such as yourself ...."

Apparently you either won't or can't answer the question so you resort to calling me a pacifist. How do you arrive at the conclusion that one who asks how much the Iraqi war is costing is a pacifist? Doesn't follow does it. That type of logical error is called a non sequitur.

Then you said: "I have read a lot of good posts, filled with good research, articles and food for thought, on both sides of the argument. I don't think you read them or retain the information and facts presented in them."

Notice, you do not identify any of the research, articles or "food for thought" which you claim to have read. Consequently, your proclamation that they are "good" rests only on your say so. Guess what, that's not enough authority, especially given your proclivity to nonsensical ramblings. Further, you say that I haven't read them or retained information and facts. I haven't read what? How would you know? But you would rather insult me by claiming that I haven't read the unidentified material. Your statement is rediculous and doesn't even come close to answering the question which I posed. Right?

Next you said: "Or you don't acknowledge anything but what you have bought into." This isn't even a complete thought. It says nothing, but it is intended to insult me.

Then you said: "Ther [sic] are good reasons for the war, wether [sic] you like it or not, you better educate yourself a little bit more before mouthing off."

This response is also illogical. The question I asked you did not challenge whether there were good reasons for the war. But now your desire to insult me is in full flower, so you say that I'm "mouthing off." But I only asked a question. So, REIMy, who's mouthing off?

Finally, you say: "After you studied those facts, please share them with us!" What facts? The question was about the cost of the war.

So, MT and any other readers still hanging around, do you see why I said that REIMy doesn't really ask any meaningful questions? His flawed style is to evade any question addressed to him by making up generalities, deflecting the topic under discussion and then hurling insults to cover his own ignorance.

Sorta sounds like the type of argument style which children use which is precisely why I said that REIMy rholmgren can barely communicate at the level of an elementary child.

Utterly Disgusted

By Anonymous, at Sunday, March 05, 2006 8:05:00 AM
Ud,
please tell us how much the war on terror is costing the taxpayers, I am sure. Also enlighten us, what source you are using for your figures. Thank you.

By Anonymous, at Sunday, March 05, 2006 12:06:00 PM
REIMy rholmgren, I picked the post apart not because it was logical, but, like you, it made no sense.

Are you going to answer the question I put to you or not?

Utterly Disgusted

By Anonymous, at Sunday, March 05, 2006 6:07:00 PM
REIMy rholmgren, on second thought just forget it. You are not bored, you are incapable of rational response. My purpose in engaging you was to demonstrate just how nasty, brutish, stupid, vaporus, insulting, etc. you really are.

I've suceeded completely. There is no further reason to engage in any dialog.

Utterly Disgusted

By Anonymous, at Sunday, March 05, 2006 6:29:00 PM
Looks to me Rholmgren, that you, Murrieta T and gottorun won. Scared off all the libs and supposed "independents" with your common sense.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, March 08, 2006 12:06:00 PM
Just been out of the country on vacation 12:06. But look.....conservatives voted for an indicted crook....sleeze.....scum....Delay.

Here is Roy hooten and hollaren about Enochs,....you'd think he'd have a the guts to say how terrible Republicans are to back an indicted, chastised and unethical criminal like DeLay. More will follow....
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, March 08, 2006 2:58:00 PM
rholmgren did you ever hear the expression - actions speak louder than words? You want to defend the repuglican (no that's not a mis-spelling) agenda but you are actually defending their actions not their words.

So you defend, massive deficits, give away tax gifts to those who don't need it, corporate welfare, stupid promises of drug programs for seniors, and on and on.

That's why you are considered stupid on your postings because you don't deal with the reality of what's actually happening.

It's not ok with the majority of the country any longer, if it ever was, to keep a president in office who is a liar, to suppport people like Rumsfield, Delay, Libby, Chaney, and all the other neocons. It's people like you who are allowing this country to be savaged from inside. You and your nonthinking knee jerk blowhard cronies are responsible for this mess.

Thanks for nothing.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, March 09, 2006 7:57:00 AM
rholmgren, you pompous presumptuous jerk, the economic problem currently exists because the republicans IN POWER have spent our money and failed to rein in the give aways. There are no other republicans that matter. But jerks like you who keep voting in the other repuglicans because you think that somehow any member of your team is ok. What a loser you are and I wouldn't care except that you losers are hurting everyone.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, March 09, 2006 11:13:00 AM
11:13 seems to have some personality defects. Feel free to disregard that post Rholmgren.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, March 09, 2006 6:29:00 PM

MURRIETA OPEN FORUM - Get it said, get it read, communications for the community.

Sunday, December 11, 2005

National Politics

162 Comments:

About

About Me

Links

About Me

Previous