VIDEO: Feingold Argues Emergence of Al Qaeda Leader Shows ‘Insanity’ Of Misplaced Priorities
VIDEO: Feingold Argues Emergence of Al Qaeda Leader Shows ‘Insanity’ Of Misplaced Priorities
This morning on NBC’s Meet the Press, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) argued that the broader al Qaeda network is gaining strength as a result of the Iraq war.
Feingold cited Somalia, where an individual listed by the U.S. State Department as a suspected al Qaeda collaborator was yesterday named as the new leader of a militia that has seized control of Somalia’s capital:
While we were asleep at the switch, while we were bogged down in Iraq, all focused on Iraq as the be all and end all of our American foreign policy, we are losing the battle to al Qaeda. … We’ve spent $2 million in Somalia in the last year while we’re spending $2 billion a week in Iraq. This is insanity if you think about what the priorities are of those who have attacked us and those who are likely to attack us in the future.
Full transcript:
FEINGOLD: Our number one moral responsibility is to protect the American people — to focus on those who attacked us on 9/11, to not be distracted into a situation where even the administration did not have Iraq as one of the 45 countries that was connected with al Qaeda.
Our number one responsibility is to protect the American people from being killed by terrorists. Iraq has very little to do with that at this point. Iraq is obviously a place where they’re training people, but the idea of standing up and keeping a military involvement forever in Iraq will actually weaken the American people’s ability to go after terrorists who, frankly, look like they’re taking over Somalia right now.
You know, Tim, today it was announced that a guy named Hassan Dahir Aweys is now the head of the government that has taken over in Mogadishu in Somalia. He is on the State Department’s terrorist list. He is known as an al Qaeda operative, or somebody that is connected with al Qaeda. While we were asleep at the switch, while we were bogged down in Iraq, while we were all focused on Iraq as the be all and end all of our American foreign policy, we are losing the battle to al Qaeda because we’re not paying attention.
I asked [Coordinator for Counter Terrorism in the State Department] Ambassador Crumpton at a hearing the other day, how many people in our federal government are working full time on the problem in Somalia? He said one full time person. We’ve spent $2 million in Somalia in the last year while we’re spending $2 billion a week in Iraq. This is insanity if you think about what the priorities are of those who have attacked us and those who are likely to attack us in the future.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
244 Responses to “VIDEO: Feingold Argues Emergence of Al Qaeda Leader Shows ‘Insanity’ Of Misplaced Priorities”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Hard to refute the facts. Next topic please.
June 25th, 2006 at 1:13 pmOh, good. Another terrorist to ignore.
Speaking of Iraq: Where's the missing link between 9/11 and Iraq? Such a demand for a missing link seems to work well for Creationists. Why not war critics?
June 25th, 2006 at 1:15 pm"Insanity" is putting it mildly, Senator Feingold. I'd cast it as raw, unadulterated, stupidity.
June 25th, 2006 at 1:19 pmI loves me some Feingold. He's a smart man. "Asleep at the switch?" He's also polite.
June 25th, 2006 at 1:23 pmFeingold was calm, cool and collected. He was fact-filled and unfazed by Russert. Timmy is a terrible interviewer - he consistently asks all Democrats to defend other Democrats instead of following up on comments. Feingold clearly laid out the situation in Somalia, but Russert focuses instead on the vote for censure, the lack of vote on impeachment, Hilary Clinton, et al.
June 25th, 2006 at 1:24 pmFeingold held his own, however, staying focused and acting like a leader.
But but but what aboout the fly-paper method? Aren't all of the terrorists from around the world going to Iraq and fighting us in the streets of Bahgdad? What do you mean blowing up somebody's mom will turn them into a terrorist?
The previous paragraph was brought to you by dumb ass chicken hawk conservatives everywhere.
June 25th, 2006 at 1:27 pmYES! this part was great... and timmy didn't want to go there...
June 25th, 2006 at 1:27 pm[...] Think Progress has the video. [...]
June 25th, 2006 at 1:37 pmDoes anyone know if MTP is going to be repeated? I have dial-up at home, and no way am I going to be able to watch my sweet Russ. I can't stand Timmah, he's forgotten what his job is.
June 25th, 2006 at 1:46 pm[moderated by admin.]
June 25th, 2006 at 1:50 pmAnvilhead--with GOP control of the White House, and both houses of congress–how long do you think people are going to keep believing what’s wrong with America is the Democrats’ fault? It's going to take the common sense AND fiscal responsibility of the Democratic party (and about 25 years) to fix the mess your GOP/Neocon dullards have created. AND--Why does anyone's sexuallity bother you so much?
June 25th, 2006 at 2:02 pmI guess all that money GWB was sneaking to those Somali warlords was wasted huh? So I guess that means we will have to attack Somalia now, too? Way to go BushCo.
June 25th, 2006 at 2:03 pmOnce again, Bush is ignoring the problem and keeping Americans vulnerable. Or maybe it's all part of the Cheney/Rumsfeld rule the world policy.
Too bad George jr. feels so impotent against his father. When "W" stated that he is the "Decider", he was addressing his father. What a fool believes.
June 25th, 2006 at 2:17 pm[...] ThinkProgress has the video. by Pogie | posted in National Security Trackback URL | Comment RSS Feed Tag at del.icio.us | Incoming links [...]
June 25th, 2006 at 2:17 pmanvilhead
June 25th, 2006 at 2:22 pmis this idiot the 13 year old of a repubublican sob?
sure sounds like it.
simplehead is more like it.
anvilhead
June 25th, 2006 at 2:22 pmis this idiot the 13 year old son of a repubublican sob?
sure sounds like it.
simplehead is more like it.
Sen. Feingold is one of the few Democrats in DC that has any balls at all! Sen. Hillary Clinton is worthless compared to him!
June 25th, 2006 at 2:25 pmI think you got that wrong it's the Republican lazy kids that need to go an fight for America. LIKe old Bushies two daughters and Cheney's Daugther, Most of the Republican and their fox commentator have not been in the military.
June 25th, 2006 at 2:27 pmZookeeper --
I believe MTP repeats tonight on MSNBC at 10pm. MSNBC.com also has the entire show available for viewing.
June 25th, 2006 at 2:37 pmFeingold and Obama in 2008! And you can pick the order.
A divorced Jew anda Black--it's the beginning of the end for the neocons!
June 25th, 2006 at 2:38 pmReason, compassion, truth : Concepts BushCo. knows absolutely nothing about!
June 25th, 2006 at 2:38 pmThis link will work.
Just Click on Clyde!
June 25th, 2006 at 2:39 pmI congratulate Senator Feingold for staking out a position which will appeal to the comrade-makers in the Dem Party!!! THIS is a candidate whom progs can unite behind and support with unswerving confidence. Of course, Senator Feingold doesn't explain the US culpability of the emergence and growth of Al Qaeda before the 9/11 attacks or the War on Terror, but I'm sure that was just a small detail that is easily explained by blaming US policy (specifically the Bush administration) - but there wasn't enough time in the interview get into such specifics. One small suggestion for the Feingold for President campaign - propose across the board tax hikes to balance the budget and congratulate Dems who voted "no" on the lineitem veto legislation.
June 25th, 2006 at 2:44 pmAnvilhead, are you serious? Jack Murtha (D-PA) is a "good solid" Democrat who is a Marine veteran. Repubs who never served call him a traitor who supposedly wants to surrender. They do the same with decorated veteran John Kerry (I know, I know--he shot himself in the ass while trying to devote US resources toward saving baby seals and patching up the ozone layer. How dare he pretend to have served when he was actually in Vietnam during a war? The cojones on that guy) Many Dems have served, many Republicans have not.
Bush doesn't know his ass from his elbow, let alone Somalia. I haven't heard him mention Somalia as a threat. What he does talk a lot about is Iraq, which we invaded 3 years ago, supposedly to get (nonexistent) WMD and break a (nonexistent) alliance between Iraq and Al Qaead). Bush invaded a country, Iraq, that had nothing to do with 9/11, instead of devoting resources toward fulfilling his promise to get the people who actually did attack us on 9/11, including Bin laden, who, five years after 9/11, is at large. Democrats who went along with this are also to blame, as are those (like Hilary Clinton) who still don't recognize what a mess we made over there.
I don't think serving in the military is a prerequisite for having informed opinions about how to fight Al Qaeda. But your "logic" is bankrupt as the Republican party and its roster of supporters/shills are filled with warmongers who didn't see action--Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Dennis Hastert, Saxby Chambliss, Tom DeLay, Trent Lott. There are whole websites devoted to listing Republican chickenhawks who never served.
Dems and trust fund children? Umm, sounds like a good description of the Bush family and Cheney's kids. Republicans with lots of $ aren't exactly sending their kids over to Iraq in droves.
is there anything in your post that actually has anything to do with facts or reality? If there is, I can't find it. what exactly is the point of hurling lying insults? let's stick with reality.
June 25th, 2006 at 2:49 pm#11--Above the Clouds--good, post
June 25th, 2006 at 2:53 pmBUSH WOULD FIGHT AL QUAEDA IN SOMALIA IF THE WEAK DOVE-ISH DEMOCRATS WOULD STOP BITCHING LIKE WOMEN AND WOULD LET HIM….
Comment by ANVILHEAD — June 25, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
Just this statement alone shows how ignorant you really are. Democrats have NO POWER! We can't stop this administration from doing ANYTHING! What an asanine, moronic, un-informed citizen you are. I won't even go into your homophobic rant which has nothing to do with the topic. As we've seen too much in the past...those who are most troubled by homosexual lifestyles are indeed themselves homosexuals. I'm sure history won't fail me this time either!
June 25th, 2006 at 2:54 pmYeah, it's hard to argue a guy who actually focuses on what's important for the security of our country, and not the coffers of the Republican National Party (and therefore the profits of Haliburton and ExxonMobil).
June 25th, 2006 at 2:55 pmMighty, history will record Bush as the most incompetent American president, and that the worst attack on American soil happened on his watch. All your pathetic bleating won't change that.
June 25th, 2006 at 2:56 pmLine item veto is unconstitutional. 5 of the 6 justice majority still sit on the court. If it's passed again, it'll be struck down again.
June 25th, 2006 at 2:59 pm#19 - Thanks, ericnh, I'll watch for it.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:08 pmMight Aphrodite: when the Bush admin took office, outgoing Clinton administration officials told Condoleeza Rice that the biggest problem she and the new admin would have to deal with would be Al Qaeda. In February 2001, the bipartisan Hart/Rudman commission warned of terrorist attacks within the US (though they didn't realize attacks were so imminent) and called for specific actions to prevent possible attacks. Hart and Rudman personally briefed Rice on the commission's findings. The Bush admin ignored the report and took none of the recommended actions. In August 2001, a vacationing GW Bush was handed a PDB memo titled something like "Al Qaeda determined to attack within US". Bush stayed on vacation and reportedly told the CIA official who gave him the memo that they had done a good job of covering their ass (i.e. the memo was BS).
But you're right, the Bush admin bears no responsibility for the largest terrorist attack on US soil that took place on their watch. It bears no responsibility for failing to being Bin Laden to justice. It bears no responsibility for urging invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
your budget comment is hard to understand. Under Clinton, we did achieve a balanced budget--in fact, a large surplus. Clinton did advocate for, and achieve, tax increases at higher income levels. The middle class and working class got tax breaks--and an expanded earned income tax credit for the lowest wage earning Americans. Bush has brought us deficits as far as the eye can see. There is no evidence that giving Bush a line item veto would do anything to change this. Although Bush has been for high spending, a big part of the problem has been the enormous tax rebates he has heaped on the wealthy.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:09 pm9 - zookeeper, MTP reruns on MSNBC at 10:00 EDT.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:12 pm#24 - Dear eblair - Benedict Arnold served in the Revolutionary Army with valor and distinction until he went on to make a true name for himself in history as the most famous traitor in US history. To his chagrin, Mutiny Murtha will never gain the long-lasting fame of Arnold, but his statements are open to criticism since he's a "public" servant.
#28 - Dear BarGNAT - Using your flawed (but convenient!) logic, FDR MUST have been the worst President previous to GWB as Pearl Harbor happened on his watch. Taking your strained logic FURTHER - Bill clinton MUST have been the best President since Lincoln - I mean no real response for WTC1, the embassy bombings, Khobar Towers AND the USS Cole. Such TREMENDOUS leadership - the progs are certainly paving their way for victory in November with their strong, "sure footed" stance on terrorism.
I think Russ and Murtha would be a DREAM ticket!!!!
June 25th, 2006 at 3:14 pmFeingold also addressed the Iraq proposal for the withdrawl of American troops saying that:
Can we just hurry up and impeach Bush and elect Feingold, already?
June 25th, 2006 at 3:17 pmBUSH SHOULD HAVE A LINE ITEM LEAD PIPE... TO SMACK SOME PATRIOTISM AND FIGHTING SPIRIT INTO THE WUSSY TRAITOROUS DEMOCRATS.
DEMS CANT FACE THE FACT THAT IRAQ IS A VICTORY...... WERE IN THE FINAL STRETCH. THE WORLD RESPECTS AND FEARS AMERICA. ALSO..... I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AN 80 % FEAR RATIO.
2006 WILL BE A REPUBLICAN LANDSLIDE, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WILL LOSE MOST OF ITS SEATS IN CONGRESS.THATS GREAT, BECAUSE IT WILL TAKE AN ALL REPUBLICAN CONGRESS TO FIX THE BLOATED GOVERNMENT MESS DEMORCATS HAVE MADE OF AMERICA.
FEINGOLD WILL NEVER BE ELECTED, MAYBE IN ISRAEL, BUT HERE IN AMERICA, JEWS CANT BE PRESIDENT.
THERE ARE TOO MANY VOTING SOUTHERNERS WHO WOULD NEVER ALLOW AN EVIL HELLBOUND JEW TO BE CIC .
THATS GREAT, BECAUSE IT WILL TAKE AN ALL REPUBLICAN CONGRESS TO FIX THE BLOATED GOVERNMENT MESS DEMORCATS HAVE MADE OF AMERICA.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:17 pmBush, Cheney, Rice, Perle, Rumsfeld, Rove et al created 9/11 for world domination and profits. Remember we needed another catastrophic event like Pearl Harbor.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:18 pmIn Feingold's bringing of Somalia to the forefront this morning, my heart sunk due to the fact that this is yet another incontrovertible threat that will go unconfronted by this Administration. Somalia has no resources, in either its land or its people, from which the United States could directly benefit - as is not true with Afghanistan, Iraq, Venezuela, and Iran. Therefore, not even a blind eye will be batted. Score yet another point for the US's unabashed scapegoat - Al Qaeda. And as for the American people, with little retention or care for anything that does not immediatly affect their wallets or their prejudices - this, too shall pass unnoticed and unchanged. (GOP lobbying corruption, NSA wiretapping, lack of an immigration bill, vote tampering, AIDS crisis, global warming, torture, Presidential signing statements, China's subsidation of our tax cuts, ...)
June 25th, 2006 at 3:18 pmWhat are the neocons most afraid of? The one thing they cannot manipulate--the thing Feingold has a firm grasp on: the truth. A lie can be spun in any direction but the truth is a compass which will always point to their failures, lies, and crimes. If you tell the truth you don't have to remember what you said. Right Scooter? Right Rove? The biggest nut kick the neocons face every day is: Osama Bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein, killed Americans on American soil. Repeat that thruth often.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:19 pm#32 - Thanks, cynicalgirl.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:20 pm24 - Dear eblair - Benedict Arnold served in the Revolutionary Army with valor and distinction until he went on to make a true name for himself in history as the most famous traitor in US history. To his chagrin, Mutiny Murtha will never gain the long-lasting fame of Arnold, but his statements are open to criticism since he’s a “public†servant.
oh good point. I forgot that Jack Murtha sold us out to Al qaeda. That is an absolutely asinine comparison. Benedict Arnold sold secret information about American plans and troop movements to the enemy. Murtha has done absolutely nothing of the sort. He has openly advocated a change in US policy. You may disagree with Murtha but to compare his actions to Benedict Arnold's makes you look ignorant
June 25th, 2006 at 3:27 pmAnvilhead - you've started drinking a bit early, no? You really need to seek help my hammer-headed friend. Seriously, your last post takes delusion to a new level.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:28 pmDon't let the door hit you in the ass, Mighty Haggis of the Clan Waste of Skin -- not that I actually believe you're gone.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:29 pmOh my, a homophobe (?) saying queer democratic 19 yr olds should stop "being so FABULOUS"!! That is the most hilarious slip I have heard in a long time.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:31 pmLOL - the Bush adminstration will point at Democratic flacidity in the face of a fight as the reason not to bother with Somalia, but really, it is just not in our economic interest to be there.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:34 pmAnvilhead--you impressed me with your comment that Jews are evil and damned to hell. That kind of blind anti-Semitism is usually the mark of a great mind.
Iraq's in the final stretch--yeah, Cheney made a similar comment last year. He has since retreated. I hope things get better in Iraq but there is nothing to indicate that. Attacks continue, our soldiers are attacked and killed on a regular basis, baghdad is not secure. (when Bush recently visited, he had to be secretly spirited in--it's not safe to make an open, pre-announced visit)
the bloated government mess Dems have made of the US?? Repubs have been in control for most of the past 6 years and they currently control WH and Congress. It is they who have put us where we are now, it is they who turned a surplus into deficit, it is they who championed bloated govt spending and bridges to nowhere
seriously, naked anti-Semitism (Jews can't be president and are damned to hell) is ignorant, ugly, and sad. It's not possible to take you seriously and I hope I will stop trying
June 25th, 2006 at 3:35 pmit is just not in our economic interest to be there.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
But it is in our economic interests to be in Iraq, right Jason?
June 25th, 2006 at 3:36 pm#47, zookeeper,
YES, an oil rich nation like Iraq, who is friendly to our military and economic interests will help reign in OPEC when/as we need it. Obviously, it is in our security interests as well.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:43 pmoff topic, but this made me laugh:
Oh my, a homophobe (?) saying queer democratic 19 yr olds should stop “being so FABULOUSâ€!!
Comment by lol — June 25, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
if anyone else need a good chuckle, i just spent some time a Jesus' General watching some Bruno videos... very funny... be sure to scroll down to see the one about "hunting buddies"...
June 25th, 2006 at 3:48 pm$48 - Jason, Iraq is NOT friendly to our military. We have emptied our coffers for Bush's folly. That is NOT in our economic interests, and it never will be so. As for our security, George W. Bush has been the greatest recruiter for al Qaeda, even greater than Osama bin Laden. Iraq was no security threat to us on 9/11/01 or 3/19/03, but we have certainly placed ourselves at greater risk by going into Iraq based on Bush's lies. Do you feel safe now?
June 25th, 2006 at 3:49 pm-10
Doodooo Monkey.....................................................................................
June 25th, 2006 at 3:54 pmeblair - I especially liked the way President Clinton got into the pockets of Social Security recipients. But I am always amused by Dems who think everyone’s paycheck is theirs - and they’ll kindly let them keep some. The EVIL wealthy - when they get a tax break from the PUNITIVE tax burden, don’t run to one of their many mansions and stuff the mattresses - they invest in companies, which in turn, is excellent for the economy. But while you’re foolishly trying to sell me on the inequities of the tax code, please explain why revenues INCREASE during the period of tax cuts??? Please explain why the deficit is lower by over $100 BILLION than projected….
----------------
the deficit is hundreds of billions of dollars larger than it was in 2000--when it didn't even exist. if the deficit does turn out to be $400B instead of $500B that's not much of an achievement--and I'm not sure what projection you're talking about in any event.
who said anything about rich people being evil? I think it's fair for rich people to pay their share--it's reverse Robin Hood policy to give the affluent tax cuts when the budget is in deficit. The economy is not so excellent at present. Unemployment is higher now (4.6 %) than it was when Clinton left office (4.0%). The domestic stock market has been flat this year and has not exactly been gangbusters over the past 4 years. The dollar has been losing value during the Bush years--early 2001 $1 was worth more than 1.06 Euro--now $1 is worth about .80 Euro . A Gallup Poll taken at the end of 2005 showed 6 in 10 Americans say the economy is fair or poor--and almost 6 in 10 said the economy is getting worse. Productivity is up but salaries are down. Median household income has fallen for five years in a row. US household debt has risen by a third over the past 4 years. Gas prices are at around $3 per gallon (hope you weren't driving to the beach). The poverty rate has risen each year since 2001. See http://www.alternet.org/story/30447/ ,
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/07/straight-truth-economy/
http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.cfm?lesson=EM219 ("At its low in December 2000, the unemployment rate equaled 3.9 percent." In June 2006, it was at 4.6%).
http://www.oanda.com/convert/fxhistory
Clinton got into the pockets of Social Security recipients? not sure what you mean there
revenues increase with tax cuts--the same tired Laffer curve theory we've heard for 25 years. Revenues can increase all they want--if spending is more than revenue, then we get deficits. That's what happened in the 80s under Reagan that's what's been happening this decade under Bush.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:58 pm#33. It's funny that you want to put Murtha into the same category as Arnold. The former Marine that belongs in the same category with Arnold is Oliver North.
Oliver North is the biggest traitor to ever dishonor the uniform.
North actually provided weapons to the enemy. He admitted to it live, on national television, while wearing his uniform and decorations. Guys like Arnold and Oswald at least had the decency to disavow the country before committing their crimes, then they stuck to their misguided principles.
North wants to be celebrated as a decorated war hero, and refuses to go hide in shame like every other convicted traitor should.
For all anyone knows, some of the same weapons are killing Americans today.
June 25th, 2006 at 4:01 pmAphrodite--
Laffer curve theory doesan't even hold up over the past 6 years. In 2000, revenue from individual income taxes was over one trillion dollars. In 2004, it was about 800 billion dollars. Based on your assertion that tax cuts produce higher revenue, cutting individual income taxes between 2000 and 2004 should have increased revenue. It didn't.
June 25th, 2006 at 4:02 pmhttp://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=203
revenue from corporate income taxes also declined during the recent golden era of tax cuts--see same chart cited in previous post
stop being so arrogant Aphrodite--facts simply don't bear it out
June 25th, 2006 at 4:03 pm#35 You must be smoking something. The Republican have made a mess of our country.
Senator Russ Feingold is from the state of Wisconsin and I am proud of him.
GO RUSS GO!!!
I will vote for him for President in 2008.
The Dems will be taking over both houses in November and you can cry in your beer.
The people in America do not trust Old Bushie anymore.
June 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm16,137- number of murders in the US in 2004.
2704- number of deaths in total in during the 3 1/2 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.cryptome.org/
The US gov should be spending 500 billion dollars in the US to reduce the number of murders here, not be spending it to kill people in Iraq.
June 25th, 2006 at 4:26 pmThe Aphrodites must be at the beach, I just noticed the water at my dock rise about a foot.
June 25th, 2006 at 4:42 pmI think you have it wrong Jason...
What do you mean, .."reign in OPEC?"
The reason Bu$hCo started a war in Iraq is to control the pumping of Iraqi oil (read limit the flow). Bottom line stuff here really. Pump less, pay more at the pump, more profits for Bu$hCo and pals. Simple stuff really. It has nothing to do with al Qaeda, Democracy, WMD's, terrorism, or anything else you that lying sack of crap in the oval office may tell you.
Saddam Hussein was about to let the oil start flowiing in volumes that threatened to lower the price of crude oil. Bu$hCo and OPEC would have none of that.
Another advantage of waging a mideast war, or any war for that matter, is to keep all of the war profiteers happy.
June 25th, 2006 at 4:47 pmwhoever said Feingold/Osama or obama or whatever. YES please do it!! as a consevative I would like to sse that even more than Shrillary!! please, please,please run them !!
Feingold is an absolute joke.. of course he's s liberal. He is just an attention whore trying to run for pres and oh dear sweet God I hope and pray he runs. I just love seeing democrats , especially liberal democrat moonbats run and LOSE!!
June 25th, 2006 at 4:59 pmkeep up the good work you democratic strategists!!
#40 Mighty
Your comment about the deficit being so much less than projected brings to mind an old ploy I used to use with my Ex-wife. After my weekly poker games, when queried about my performance I always told her I lost, as it was better to suffer her comments about my playing ability than to share my winnings. I did not lie, I just used your logic: I projected I would win $200 (It was a long time ago) and only won $100, ergo I lost $100.
Come to think about it you two have about the common sense logic--somewhat less than a rock but greater than DUHbya.
Click on Clyde to Bash Bush!
June 25th, 2006 at 5:17 pmhey marie - stiill around? check this out:
Durbin won’t commit to supporting the Democratic winner in CT.
On THIS WEEK, Dick Durbin refused to respond to George Stephanopoulos’ question about the upcoming Lamont/Lieberman race.
Stephanopoulos: Will you commit to support the winner of the Democratic primary?
not as good a response as feingold's, but holy joe should know he's in trouble...
June 25th, 2006 at 5:23 pmdeservedly so... he's a turncoat, if he ever WAS a dem... go ted!
lets hope Russ Feingold fares better than Paul Wellstone did or the fellow who wrote about bushes cocaine habit.Feingold is virtually the only democrat speaking out and willing to do what needs doing here.
June 25th, 2006 at 5:24 pmYou can say that again Freeman.
June 25th, 2006 at 5:26 pm#60
It was I, Clyde the Ripper, among others, that proposed Feingold and Obama. It is I, Clyde the Ripper, that will also make a sporting proposition to you. I will take my two against any two crooks of your choice and give you ten, yes ten, times my usual odds. I will bet $200 against your glass of warm pee that my guys will save your investment by kicking the pee out of any McPain or Spongoli you choose.
For better odds Click on Clyde!
June 25th, 2006 at 5:27 pmFeingold is looking real good for President.
Unlike every other candidate out there, he doesn't give speeches. Yet.
Right now he looks like the real McCoy, even more so than Gore I think.
Lets hope the Dems get behind him early.
June 25th, 2006 at 5:29 pmMaybe feingold can borrow the pope mobile from the vatican .
June 25th, 2006 at 5:42 pmthat way he'll appeal to both jews and catholics while staying alive .
June 25th, 2006 at 5:45 pmhe's probably the only democrat I'd actually support at this stage !
June 25th, 2006 at 5:48 pmAh, so it is the responsibility of the USA to unilaterally clean up all over the world. Back and forth on that, it seems. I have to laugh at this strawman:
"all focused on Iraq as the be all and end all of our American foreign policy"
Who said that? Iraq is just one piece of the War on Terror puzzle. The reason why we're not touching Somalia is because Clinton disgraced us there 13 years ago, in addition to the fact that we would have absolutely no legitimate authority to do anything in Somalia.
It sounds like Feingold wants to both attack the policy of being in Iraq, and also pretend that he wants us to unilaterally clean up in Somalia. We have a UN mandate to be in Iraq, do we have anything to be in Somalia? Nope.
So what is it going to be guys? USA as world police or not? Make up your minds.
June 25th, 2006 at 5:51 pmIs ANVILHEAD for real? No one can be that stupid. He must be playing a tune for us.
June 25th, 2006 at 5:51 pmNOT
June 25th, 2006 at 5:54 pmDisregarding & Disparaging the Vast Majority of America
by davidsirota
It is very clear that Washington, D.C. today is a place wholly separated from the rest of America - a place that no longer even pretends to be slightly interested in the will of the people it is supposed to be representing. We can see this no more clearly than on the Iraq issue.
June 25th, 2006 at 5:56 pm...
you gotta read the whole thing!
Ron # 57 thanks for helping me put all this in context ,
June 25th, 2006 at 5:57 pmmarie - did you see #62?
also, about the anvil... sometimes i'm just sure it is a parody...
June 25th, 2006 at 5:59 pmit's just easier to think that than that it could be real...
#62 Katy,Just checked back in ---
June 25th, 2006 at 6:00 pmThanks for the heads up - I heard Durbin say something very similar late last week. He's trying not to say outright that Lieberman is a Bush ass-kisser, a DINO, and a loser in November.
P.S. I wrote to the DCCC and asked why they are not throwing $$ toward Laesch who is trying to unseat Hastert. Hastert, regardless of his scandal, is going to be very hard to knock down.
do we have anything to be in Somalia? Nope.
Comment by Sexlessone — June 25, 2006 @ 5:51 pm
Uh, yup.
And we can start with the millions of people asking us to come help them.
June 25th, 2006 at 6:01 pmasked why they are not throwing $$ toward Laesch who is trying to unseat Hastert
Comment by Marie — June 25, 2006 @ 6:00 pm
and the reply? standard form letter i suppose...
where do i send bucks!
is hasterts scandal common, repeated, knowledge???
June 25th, 2006 at 6:03 pmYou can't spell "terrorist" without "liberal".
June 25th, 2006 at 6:07 pm#79 - please take your meds.
June 25th, 2006 at 6:11 pm#73 Katy this is the sad sorry truth ,I agree .Unless your a major corporation you can't expect any representation from either party in Wash. The dems have an opportunity with Feingold to show a little back bone but I wouldn't hold my breath.Take it to the streets 98% of the population no longer seems to have a stake in this farse and all it will take to rock the ruling class is for a good portion of us to stop what were doing get very quiet and rock the boat through non violent civil disobedience to scare the hell out of the lot of them .They are hopelessly outnumbered here if we show alittle unity.Obviously great disparities of wealth run contrary to democractic institutions.The tax cuts could be reversed in a hurry and a few private fortunes could go along way in restoring our fiscal integrity.Wake up corporation america before the neo cons ruin your scene.
June 25th, 2006 at 6:14 pmWorfeus,
Uh, yup.
And we can start with the millions of people asking us to come help them.
Iraqis asked us to come there too. So? Iranians ask us to come there. So? Is that suddenly the standard needed to invade or occupy a country? Sorry, but the UN has to be involved in some way, shape, or form. Somalia hasn't threatened us nor anyone else, nor are they in violation of any outstanding treaties or UN resolutions. There simply is no legitimate course of action other than the UN Security Council taking up the issue. As most of us know, that will most likely either not happen, or will not result in any action taken.
Somalia is even less a threat to us than Saddam Hussein was, but going after them would be OK? I don't follow. You guys seriously have to hold a consistent position on these matters or you just look like you are throwing up dirt whenever you can without wanting to be held accountable for anything you say.
June 25th, 2006 at 6:14 pm#61 - ".... I just used your logic: I projected I would win $200 (It was a long time ago) and only won $100, ergo I lost $100." - Comment by Clyde the Ripper
*****Dear Clyde - Hiding your winnings of your penny ante poker game from your wife - clever!! (but to hear the former Mrs. Ripper tell it "sneaky and selfish" is a better description - but I detected just a hint of bitterness....) I must compliment you on noting the Clinton administration's PROJECTED surplus and claiming the funds were REAL. Don't be embarrassed to admit the "surplus" $$$ was a pipe dream that gullible Dems bought "lock stock and barrel". On the other hand the latest tax receipts are just that - received.
June 25th, 2006 at 6:18 pmRuss Feingold would be an excellent President.
June 25th, 2006 at 6:19 pmKaty,
June 25th, 2006 at 6:19 pmThey sent me an individual reply - not a form letter.
But they did not commit to sending $$ to unseat Hastert - ... "we will be allocating our resources in the best possible way to ensure a Democratic majority come November. Many spending decisions will be made in the final months of the campaign...
Hastert's scandal is making national news, but we are the only ones who can get rid of him. And he maintains hearty support in the area. Dupage, Kane, Kendall counties -- his name is everywhere.
Iraqis asked us to come there too...
WHAAAAA??????!!!!
June 25th, 2006 at 6:21 pmDoes AH have a brain in his head?
June 25th, 2006 at 6:21 pmDon't wait for the elections to fix this thing ,boycot exxon today.Check our progress on the dow its fun its easy and could be very satisfying .Tell every one you meet .Even conservatives can get behind this one ,they are also unhappy with our big oil overlords everytime they pump gas and we get to vote this way alot more frequently then at the polls !They even count these votes !You can be sure!
June 25th, 2006 at 6:25 pm#87 John K
June 25th, 2006 at 6:25 pmIt's hard to believe isn't it - that someone could be that stupid and still be walking around.
We've helped to create hatred of the United States. The AP had a picture in our local newspaper of a boy who was looking at the back of a trailer with his mom, dad, and two siblings under blankets-- they'd been killed by the U.S. bombs-- I'm not very proud of that and do not condone the killing of innocent people. I believe that young man will grow up to challenge the U.S. and I can't blame him for doing so.
June 25th, 2006 at 6:27 pm#82 says Iraqis asked us to come there too. So? Iranians ask us to come there. So?
June 25th, 2006 at 6:27 pmWTF??
Where do you think he gets his information?
#66 - "Feingold is looking real good for President.Unlike every other candidate out there, he doesn’t give speeches. Yet. Right now he looks like the real McCoy, even more so than Gore I think. Lets hope the Dems get behind him early."
Comment by FLAVIUS `WORFEUS
*****Flavius - if the Dems don't nominate my choice of Feingold/Murtha, or Feingold/Kucinich, the ticket would have to be Gore/Feingold (Roaring Al won't play second fiddle again.) Feingold seems to be able to say what he means more consistently than Gore. But don't discount Hillary yet - she'll take a sharp left hand turn and she's flush with money.
June 25th, 2006 at 6:28 pmHillary is not capable of winning an election. Ralph Nader would be electable.
June 25th, 2006 at 6:31 pmhey Ive entirely stopped reading the fascist posts placed here and it really feels good just ignore them, they,ll go away (kinda like your constitutionally guaranteed rights )You should try it its good therapy !
June 25th, 2006 at 6:36 pm"Hillary is not capable of winning an election. Ralph Nader would be electable."
Comment by John K
*****No one thought Bill could win in '92 - don't discount her. Nader??? Nah... I still have friends who blame hime MORE for GWB than the Supremes and Jeb....
June 25th, 2006 at 6:40 pmIf at this late date you can still find someone who is seriously pro bush then obviously they are beyond help or reason.Hey can I get a yes on the boycott idea it might help me sleep at night !Any takers ?
June 25th, 2006 at 6:43 pmM.A. Kindly return to the subject that we were trying to discuss which was the Feingold appearance on Meet The Press. Like Murtha, who I am proud to represent my county in PA, Feingold bitchslapped Luke Russert's equally stupid dad with intelligent answers to totally inane questions.
But to compare Murtha to Benedict Arnold is definite indication that you and your republikkkan buddies are losing their battle to attain any sanity that's left in them. That explains them trying to not renew the Voting Rights Acts till after November. That explains them wanting to take credit for a potential pullout from Iraq, an idea the Democrats came up with first. That explains Little Ricky Santorum or as Tony Soprano calls him, Sanatorium, trying to claim that we have found WMDs when they were hardly capable of MD due to age and lack of use.
Feingold is the most maverick politician to come in quite awhile. He has "brass balls" as Mr. Stephen Colbert would say. Watch MTP tonight on MSNBC and see why the truth still exists.
June 25th, 2006 at 6:43 pm[...] VIDEO: Feingold Argues Emergence of Al Qaeda Leader Shows …Think Progress, DC - 5 hours agoThis morning on NBC s Meet the Press, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) argued that the broader al Qaeda network is gaining strength as a result of the Iraq war. … [...]
June 25th, 2006 at 6:45 pmMarie, Sexion gets his information from evil gremlins that represent the voices in his head. The voices in his head tells him things that are devoid of reality and force him to think that Tim Russert knows more about journalism than the esteemed Mr. Keith Olbermann.
June 25th, 2006 at 6:47 pmyou call anvilhead silly bit you are the ones here speculating on Feingold/osama-bama. This just goes once again to show how disconnected the far left is in America. Feinglod could not even get his own party to support him on the comical effort to censure George Bush. What p[lanet are you "progressives" living on?? But like I said PLEASE push to run the your moonbat idols. The further left wingnut the candidate the more it is assure the demo-nuts will never , ever get elected again...EVER.
June 25th, 2006 at 6:53 pmas far as clinton. the only reason clinton won was because that nutjob Ross Perot ran and split the Repubs. Clinton never got even close to 50% of the vote. get real. Nader ? nader who? doesn't he drive a politcal Corvair or something... more fun, games and delusion from those wonderful wingnuts to brought you ( and forced on us all) "tolerance and diversity.
hey maybe you can find a black,jewish, transexual,child molester fag who who has had a few abortions to run on the "progressive" party ticket.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Flavius - if the Dems don’t nominate my choice of Feingold/Murtha, or Feingold/Kucinich, the ticket would have to be Gore/Feingold (Roaring Al won’t play second fiddle again.) Feingold seems to be able to say what he means more consistently than Gore. But don’t discount Hillary yet - she’ll take a sharp left hand turn and she’s flush with money.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — June 25, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
Well I'm not sure of your motives on Feingold, so on that one I settle to agree.
As for Kucinich, I see your goal. You know Kucinich, while a stalwart and intelligent liberal, presents a somewhat less than Presidential visage. While I do not care, and no one with a brain should care, you know, that he'd never be accepted by mainstream male dominated USA. His appearance would prove a liability. But of course, you know this.
As for Hilary, you know she doesn't have a shot, which I am sure frustrates you on the right considerably, which is why you're the only ones talking about her.
June 25th, 2006 at 6:57 pm#82 says Iraqis asked us to come there too. So? Iranians ask us to come there. So?
WTF?? Where do you think he gets his information?
Comment by Marie — June 25, 2006 @ 6:27 pm
no, marie, i think we're supposed to say, "oh, well i didn't know that...
June 25th, 2006 at 6:59 pmthat changes EVERYthing! all's good and wonderful now!"
not?
Murtha? I really don't think thats going to happen. He's running for Pelosi's seat, but who knows?
I would be open to looking more at that.
Course compared to Bush, a water bottle would make an attractive candidate.
June 25th, 2006 at 7:01 pmJIMBO,
Marie, Sexion gets his information from evil gremlins that represent the voices in his head. The voices in his head tells him things that are devoid of reality and force him to think that Tim Russert knows more about journalism than the esteemed Mr. Keith Olbermann.
Ah yes, Tim Russert who's been doing journalism on NBC since 1991 on Meet the Press knows more about the subject than a sports broadcaster who has had relatively little experience with real journalism until the late 1990s and then when he got his own show in 2003 that is largely to attack FOX News commentators.
Only blinded fools don't know that Iranians and Iraqis did call and have called for the USA to remove their dictators from power. I mean, in the least you guys must be familiar with Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress? Come on, get your head out of the sand.
June 25th, 2006 at 7:07 pmIraqis asked us to come there too. So?
Comment by Saxon — June 25, 2006 @ 6:14 pm
Come again?
Please share with us your Iraqi\English dictionary, which must translate "We'll mee them with the gates of hell" as an invitation.
June 25th, 2006 at 7:11 pmmeet
June 25th, 2006 at 7:16 pmWhat's Feingold doing? He's making far to much sense,he can't be a member of the U.S.Congress.I thought only fools such as Peter King and Ricky S..hang out!
June 25th, 2006 at 7:21 pmmoonbat, you make about as much sense as George Bush... why are you so hateful, did your parents throw you out to the wolves?
June 25th, 2006 at 7:35 pmWorfeus,
So Saddam's henchmen were synonymous with the Iraqi population? Do tell.
June 25th, 2006 at 7:35 pmmean, in the least you guys must be familiar with Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress?
Comment by Saxon — June 25, 2006 @ 7:07 pm
Chalabi?
Wasn't he the guy who was all buddy buddy with the right wing for so long?
In fact, isn't he the guy who lied to us about the WMD, providing the right wing with all the false information thats gotten 2500 Americans killed and another 18,000 killed, and is currently under investigation by multiple US agencies?
Never heard of him.
June 25th, 2006 at 7:36 pmJust days after President Bush and his Republican allies in Congress lambasted their Democratic opponents for supposedly wanting to "cut and run" in Iraq, the Iraqi government and American military leadership in Baghdad essentially endorsed the Democratic position to set a timeline to draw down U.S. troops.
For the details, see:
June 25th, 2006 at 7:36 pm"Iraqi PM, U.S. Commander: Cut and Run"
Worfeus,
So Saddam’s henchmen were synonymous with the Iraqi population?
Comment by Seixon — June 25, 2006 @ 7:35 pm
So who were all those thousands burning American flags in the streets, and dubya in effigy?
And who are all those guys shooting at us and planting the bombs?
Oh yea. Thats right.
You think they're all foreigners.
June 25th, 2006 at 7:39 pmhey moon bat your way with words is truly a thing of beauty "hey maybe you can find a black,jewish, transexual,child molester fag who who has had a few abortions to run "Somehow I'm thinking you aren't worth debating much .You seem to be doing a good job of discrediting yourself without anyones help.Is there any group you don't despise .You do need help and I mean that sincerely,What happened to you SORRY
June 25th, 2006 at 7:50 pmI doubt even the pseudo fascists posting here will want to be associated with that!!! I'm hoping they'll get a good look at the company they're keeping !!!Your priceless REALLY
June 25th, 2006 at 7:58 pmWorfeus,
You sure do have a black/white mentality. Apparently it has escaped you that there were Iraqis that wanted us to remove Saddam Hussein and also Iraqis who would rather see the entire American population wiped out. Apparently in your mind there exists only one type of Iraqi, and all Iraqis seemingly must agree with one another. Typical brainwashed partisan hack tunnel vision.
Yes, Ahmed Chalabi is a dirty bastard, but that doesn't mean that he and many other Iraqis didn't want the US to remove Saddam Hussein. They did. I never said ALL of the Iraqis did, but your duotone mind seemingly cannot deal with any shades of gray.
June 25th, 2006 at 8:10 pmonly problem is rumsfeldis the guy who helped arm him in the first place when we couldnt manage to overthrow irans gov't fast enough.That war between iraq and iran cost the lives of millions I believe and the very players Rummy and cheney who are toppling the evil tyrant were the ones who made him in the first place.And W callsIran part of the axis of evil wow
June 25th, 2006 at 8:45 pmIguess that seems like a little too much gray area for your duo toned mind
June 25th, 2006 at 8:48 pmWe followed the brittish lead originally intoIran ( a country brittain created the borders for ) when the iranian came upwith the mistaken idea that their oil didn't belong to england and attempted to nationalize their own resources .The sun never sets on the brittish empire mate
June 25th, 2006 at 8:51 pmyou guys are not very good at this are you?
June 25th, 2006 at 8:52 pm"On the other hand the latest tax receipts are just that - received. "
Aphrodite, I am seeing that facts don't trouble you, but as I pointed out earlier revenues are down in the Bush years--the latest stats I saw showed a decrease in revenue from 2000-04 when the Bush tax cuts should have supposedly been increasing revenue...
June 25th, 2006 at 8:56 pmAphrodite--you say the surplus was a pipe dream. Apparently Bush was smokign the same pipe--in early 2001, he claimed the surplus justified a tax cut--see
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/02/24/national/main274334.shtml
June 25th, 2006 at 9:05 pm"I doubt even the pseudo fascists posting here will want to be associated with that!!! I’m hoping they’ll get a good look at the company they’re keeping !!!Your priceless REALLY "
good point Freeman. This anti-Semitic, anti-gay stuff is really ignorant. Doesn't exactly bring honor to those here who are arguing the right wing point of view. I hope nobody wants to be associated with that garbage talk
June 25th, 2006 at 9:48 pmApparently in your mind there exists only one type of Iraqi.
Comment by Tunnel Vision — June 25, 2006 @ 8:10 pm
And apparently in your mind there existed only one way to remove Saddam.
One that would cost 2500 American lives and counting, the lives of more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians, 18,000 wounded Americans and counting, 100's of billions of dollars and counting, and the ire of the entire world.
You're a tribute to tunnel vision.
June 25th, 2006 at 9:50 pmSaddam could have been removed through many methods.
But the lowbrow small minded tiny brained republicans couldn't think of any other method, but brute force.
Brilliant Charlemene, just brilliant.
June 25th, 2006 at 9:54 pmEveryone tried to warn you not to do it.
Hell a few years earlier Dick Cheney said it would be a quagmire.
But you had to go. Damn the torpedoes and full steam ahead. And God help any man, women or child in our path. You had to go in to remove one guy from power, in a tiny defeated nation, that has no Navy, no long range Air Force, and no weapons of mass destruction and who had never attacked us.
Simpletons every last one of you.
June 25th, 2006 at 10:00 pmFeingold hates America.
I believe in you, Anvilhead. We shall destroy the democrats. The earth is ours; take it, and rape it. God hates Democrats. I tell my parish to hate all democrats, socialists, gays, and muslims.
Rev Davies
June 25th, 2006 at 10:01 pmfunny stuff Flavius Worfeus on the tunnel vision thing.
June 25th, 2006 at 10:01 pmAnd these poor simple backwards people, running around in rags, wearing sandals on their feet, fighting us with Viet Nam era weapons and homemade land mines, with no air support, no armor support, and no artillery support, no medics, no medivac choppers to take them to Ramstein, hell they probably don't even have band aids, these people, we are to believe are somehow so evil, somehow so horrific, some how so terrible and powerful that we had to remove the Geneva Conventions so we can torture them and we are commited to killing or imprisoning every last one of them.
We call them cowards, evildoers, murderers.
But we're the ones in thier country, killing them.
June 25th, 2006 at 10:07 pmFlavius-would it be ok if the 500 canisters of mustard and sarin gas were stored in your backyard? Since they are harmless I'm sure you would be ok with that. Right? Nothing to be concerned about, right? So what if they are pre-'91? The weapons inspectors didn't/couldn't find them and Saddam said they were destroyed and/or didn't exist. 14 resolutions. $25k to families of homicide bombers. Medical aid to Zarqawi. Rape rooms. Impoverished shiite population. Tens of thousands murdered/butchered. Dozens of mass graves. Official policy of Clinton's US was removal of Saddam. Every major democrat on record saying Saddam posed a serious threat for his possession of wmds prior to '03 but Bush is the only liar?
June 25th, 2006 at 10:14 pmActually Feingold is starting to lose me on many issues.
He says a lot of the right stuff, to win the appeal of the far left, but he's way out there on some issues. Like being opposed to amnesty for enemy combatents to make peace.
People want to say, oh they're murdering the troops in one breath, but say "we're at war" in the next.
Well? Which is it?
Because if this is a war, then these guys have the right to kill as many of us who are in their country as they can. Thats what a war is. How can you hate the enemy soldiers for shooting back at you? For defending their homeland?
We can't just kill every soldier of the opposing army.
Wouldn't you do the same if someone came here, regardless of their intentions?
Wouldn't you fight to defend American soil?
We'd hang every collaborator from the street signs. We' string em up kill them. Anyone who collaborated. So why would we praise the collaborators in Iraq with us? Aren't they just traitors to their countrymen?
June 25th, 2006 at 10:14 pmActually Feingold is starting to lose me on many issues.
He says a lot of the right stuff, to win the appeal of the far left, but he's way out there on some issues. Like being opposed to amnesty for enemy combatents to make peace.
People want to say, oh they're murdering the troops in one breath, but say "we're at war" in the next.
Well? Which is it?
Because if this is a war, then these guys have the right to kill as many of us who are in their country as they can. Thats what a war is. How can you hate the enemy soldiers for shooting back at you? For defending their homeland?
We can't just kill every soldier of the opposing army.
Wouldn't you do the same if someone came here, regardless of their intentions?
Wouldn't you fight to defend American soil?
We'd hang every collaborator from the street signs. We' string em up kill them. Anyone who collaborated. So why would we praise the collaborators in Iraq with us? Aren't they just traitors to their countrymen?
June 25th, 2006 at 10:14 pmAlso he's saying take the illegal wiretapping, and make it legal.
I'd never be on board with that.
June 25th, 2006 at 10:16 pmthe aptly named troll 2--yes, Dems who thought Saddam had WMD were wrong too and they piss me off as well, as do those on either side of the aisle who still don't recognize what a mistake this war has been.
But this was Bush's war. He is the one who started calling for it imemdiately after 9/11. He is the one who blew off the UN when it voted no on war and went in anyways. He is the one who told us Iraq had drone planes capable of reaching the US with chemical weapons and that Saddam was six months away from going nuclear--we knew these allegations were wrong when Bush made them: See "For Bush, Facts Are Malleable" (10/22/02), Washington Post, front page.
I don't have any praise for Dems who supported the war. But Bush used the office of the presidency to mislead the nation, and to try to mislead the world (some saw through the lies).
as for the 500 canisters of pre 91 mustard and sarin gas. That's not why we went to war. We went to war because Saddam was supposedly ready to launch an imminent attack--with WMD, possibly with nucleart weapons, yes, Saddam is unspeakably evil, as you allude to. That's also not why we went to war--see 2 sentences ago. Castro, Kim Jong Il, and others are also dictators who have done awful things. we haven't invaded their countries. The torture chambers and other atrocities were offered as justification when the initial reasons proved false.
Clinton admin policy may have been to remove Saddam. first, he can be wrong too. second, he didn't launch a war based on lies to carry out that policy goal. I know. I know he lied about a BJ. yes, that is roughly equivalent to lying about a war that has resulted in thousands of deaths (sarcasm)
June 25th, 2006 at 10:27 pmOfficial policy of Clinton’s US was removal of Saddam. Every major democrat on record saying Saddam posed a serious threat for his possession of wmds prior to ‘03 but Bush is the only liar?
Comment by troll2 — June 25, 2006 @ 10:14 pm
Clinton didn't invade the country-and what is with your obsession with Clinton? you got like a thing for him? Kind of the same with guys that hate gays because they are.
June 25th, 2006 at 10:28 pma link to the pre-war Wash Post article I mentioned which shows we knew (or should have known) Bush was lying:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61903-2002Oct21?language=printer
June 25th, 2006 at 10:28 pmkaty @49
June 25th, 2006 at 10:35 pmLoved the Bruno video..fabulous! I'm always looking for stuff to send to my kids.
lol
Comment by eblair — June 25, 2006 @ 10:28 pm
GREAT link!!!
June 25th, 2006 at 10:36 pmthanks Joe--that article has stuck with me for years. I remember reading that back before the war and realizing we were being lied to. not that anything will convince Bush supporters that Bush was misleading us
June 25th, 2006 at 10:38 pmI understand the troll fascination with Clinton--with the GOP expanding government, spending like drunken sailors, and failing their base at every turn--they need to look to fiscally responsible leaders like Clinton and the Democrats. The bad news for the GOP is that a great majority of the country has lost faith in President Bush and his Administration’s conduct with national security, fiscal matters, and everything else--
June 25th, 2006 at 10:51 pmWorfeus,
You want to detail another method that could have been used to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime? Thanks.
June 25th, 2006 at 10:58 pmI'll vote for Feingold for prez in a second. He is the only Democrat that stands for something. The GOP stands for a lot - unfortunately, most of it is immoral or criminal. Feingold and Murtha have guts. Even Reid backs down too much and has that NV habit to deal with...
June 25th, 2006 at 11:00 pmMitey Aphrodittohead must be stuck in a repeat mode.
He hauls water and chops wood in his unenlightened, pre-apostate 'Republican' mode.
He may never get to the enlightened stage, but that's ok.
If he chops wood and hauls water for the Bush Cabal, he's in the useless idiot stage; been there for too long.
June 25, 1876 Custer died. 130 years later to this very day, his death is still all in vain.
Ask Jack Crabb.
The time to leave Iraq is now. The US gov. won't though, it hasn't learned a thing in 130 years.
June 25th, 2006 at 11:00 pmFlavius-would it be ok if the 500 canisters of mustard and sarin gas were stored in your backyard? Since they are harmless I’m sure you would be ok with that. Right?
Comment by troll2 — June 25, 2006 @ 10:14 pm
Well you obviously don't know too much about Washington DC, do you Oppenheimer?
Next time you're passing through, take a drive down North Capital Street, and pay close attention to the red brick round building just past the old soldiers home.
Another genius.
June 25th, 2006 at 11:02 pm14 resolutions.
Comment by troll2 — June 25, 2006 @ 10:14 pm
Yea? What about the resolution for North Korea to not have Nuclear Weapons?
They tossed that back in your boy Georges face 3 years ago.
And what did you tough guys do?
Not a damned thing.
Thats what you did.
June 25th, 2006 at 11:06 pmWorfeus,
You want to detail another method that could have been used to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime? Thanks.
Comment by Action Saxon — June 25, 2006 @ 10:58 pm
What are you kidding me?
Where were you when we were working on hitting him with a bunker buster?
In the words of the CIA, "Saddam was in a box". We had him "contained".
You obviously don't remember that Saddam couldn't even sleep in the same house from night to night, because he knew we were right on his tail.
Remember that genius?
Or did does your memory chip not go back that far?
June 25th, 2006 at 11:09 pmWell, maybe if that BB rolling around in your thick cranium can't recall that far back, maybe it can reach back as far as last week.
Remember how we killed Zarqawi genius?
June 25th, 2006 at 11:12 pmFlavius--funny and cogent stuff
do these rightwingers ever give up? they're getting slaughtered on this board
June 25th, 2006 at 11:13 pmCause THATS how we would've killed Saddam, if we'd just kept at it.
But no.
You'd rather see 2500 Americans in body bags.
You'd rather see 9,000 Americans with arms and legs missing, or blinded.
You'd rather see 100,000 men, women and children dead.
All so you can "talk tough".
Well you got it tough guy.
You got your wish.
June 25th, 2006 at 11:15 pmWell eblair, its kinda like the war in Iraq. They like declaring victory.
Everytime they lose.
June 25th, 2006 at 11:16 pmSexion-
Keith Olbermann had a show in 1998 on MSNBC called The Big Show. But when later when the show's producers decided to devote the show to the sex scandal, Olbermann
felt that his show was being tabloid and losing its' focus. He left the following year.
For awhile he was of Fox Sports, but then he came back to MSNBC in 2003 and the rest is legend.
As for the subject of sportscasters being not legitimate from your point of view, how do you explain Hannah Storm, Robin Roberts and of course Mr. Bryant Gumbel who
is more qualified to anchor CBS Evening News?
Oh, and what about Jim McKay during the Munich Olympics when he covered the
murder of the Israeli athletes? Did that coverage not qualify as real news coverage?
How about when ESPN covered the San Francisco earthquake when they were originally
there to cover the World Series? Howard Cosell on December 8, 1980 on Monday Night Football when he announced to viewers on air that John Lennon was murdered.
Cosell would have made a great anchor on World News Tonight.
Dude, YOU need to get your head out of the sand. Sports journalism not real? Don't make me laugh.
June 25th, 2006 at 11:19 pmRape rooms. Impoverished shiite population. Tens of thousands murdered/butchered. Dozens of mass graves
Comment by Droll troll2 — June 25, 2006 @ 10:14 pm
All good points.
One question though.
Are you talking about when Saddam did all that to them, or us?
June 25th, 2006 at 11:20 pm151 that is absolutely brutal--and very sadly, on the money
June 25th, 2006 at 11:25 pmever meet umbra he just scared the hell out of me sounded like a cia guy with the blood still frsh on his hands very intimidating which PISSED ME OFF.Had really no problem with murder as a tool of real politic told me i should find a new country to live in .Damn very scary stuff .got my adrenaline going Really !!!
June 25th, 2006 at 11:25 pmEveryone tried to warn you not to do it.
Hell a few years earlier Dick Cheney said it would be a quagmire.
Comment by FLAVIUS WORFEUS — June 25, 2006 @ 10:00 pm
worfeus - wasn't that before he got a taste of the halliburton influence and resources?
June 25th, 2006 at 11:30 pmYou know it eblair.
Cause the Iraqi people were certainly better off under Saddam, then they are under our rule.
Under Saddam they had running water. They had electricity. They had hospitals, movie theatres, shops were open, and people walked down the street safely.
Under our rule, they're lucky if they live out the summer.
June 25th, 2006 at 11:30 pmworfeus - wasn’t that before he got a taste of the halliburton influence and resources?
Comment by katy — June 25, 2006 @ 11:30 pm
Actually that was when he worked for a President who had a lick of sense.
He got handed his marching orders from the Father, but he now hands them to the Son.
June 25th, 2006 at 11:32 pmFlavius notes, "Well I’m not sure of your motives on Feingold, so on that one I settle to agree."
*****Feingold is beatable - that's why I like the prospect of him running for the top spot. Dennis Kucinich seems like a very likeable man with kindly, but misguided ideas, HA!! But the name that should strike fear in the hearts of progs in liberal bastions from Madison to Manhattan is "McGovern" . WWII vet turned abject dove - how many electoral votes did he manage to pull off???
P.S. You dismiss Hillary and I despise her politics and lack of character - but I maintain she's determined to turn the base toward her candidacy through careful orchestration. 'Twill be fun...
Have a good evening....
June 25th, 2006 at 11:33 pmSaddam tortures people and you call him a butcher.
Bush tortures them, and he's a patriot.
Go figure.
June 25th, 2006 at 11:33 pm*****Feingold is beatable - that’s why I like the prospect of him running for the top spot
Comment by mighty aphrodite — June 25, 2006 @ 11:33 pm
Well Feingold all but lost me on Meet the Press this morning MA.
I liked him, till I heard him talk for more than a 2 minute sound bite.
Jury's still out, but at this point, I don't think he's the one for me.
June 25th, 2006 at 11:36 pmwould be hard to see Feingold win. 2008 is a long way off--I'm hoping we get thru these next 2 years and that we're not in the same place or worse in Iraq 2 years from now
later,
June 25th, 2006 at 11:37 pmMy biggest problem with him right now is this ideaology that we cannot make peace with the insurgents.
He said unequivocably that we cannot give "amnesty" as he calls it, to insurgent fighters.
That means we have to kill 10s of thousand of people, before their will accept surrender. Of course, then their brothers, fathers sons, sisters and friends will take up arms to avenge their deaths, and our lovely circle of blood continues.
Its clear to me tonight, what the difference between us and the republicans.
They WANT war.
No one wants to say it. Everyone dances around it.
But the truth is, they WANT war. They LUST for it. They worship it. They seek it out. And they embrace it.
They WANT this war. They want any war, they think they can win.
June 25th, 2006 at 11:45 pmBut they RUN from the real battles, which is why they didn't have the gnads to go into Kashmir after Bin Laden.
They talk tough.
But they're wimps.
June 25th, 2006 at 11:48 pmsomething i found from comments at crooksandliars...
it's a long one, worth bookmarking... or get comfy...
Why Conservatives Can't Govern By Alan Wolfe
Search hard enough and you might find a pundit who believes what George W. Bush believes, which is that history will redeem his administration. But from just about everyone else, on the right as vehemently as on the left, the verdict has been rolling in: This administration, if not the worst in American history, will soon find itself in the final four. Even those who appeal to history's ultimate judgment halfheartedly acknowledge as much. One seeks tomorrow's vindication only in the context of today's dismal performance.
About the only failure more pronounced than the president's has been the graft-filled plunder of GOP lawmakers--at least according to opinion polls, which in May gave the GOP-controlled Congress favorability ratings in the low 20s, about 10 points lower than the president's. This does not necessarily translate into electoral Armageddon; redistricting and other incumbency-protection devices help protect against that. But even if many commentators think that Republicans may retain control over Congress, very few think they should.
...
g'nite all...
June 25th, 2006 at 11:50 pmBut as for Feingold, the jury's still out.
We'll have to see if he can break free from trying to "sound tough" like the republcans, and start talking smart.
The only way this is going to end nicely, is if all sides agree to stop the killing.
And that means letting the insurgents live too. Cause the insurgents, ARE the Iraqi people.
That is if you believe the commanders on the ground.
June 25th, 2006 at 11:50 pmIt's really very simple to campaign against Republicans. (+ jOE LIEberman)
Point out how they ignored Bin Laden, protect the Saudi funders of 9/11, and misused our troops for war profiteering in Iraq (A treasonous offense) while you favor getting Bin Laden, destroying the Taliban, securing our ports, etc...
Then link the Republicans to Osama Bin Laden on all these social issues.
June 25th, 2006 at 11:52 pmWorfeus,
What about the resolution for North Korea to not have Nuclear Weapons?
Would you like to tell us the number of this resolution? Using imaginary numbers not allowed.
Where were you when we were working on hitting him with a bunker buster?
Ah yes. So we bomb Saddam, then what? His sons are still alive. His regime is still intact. Where does that get us? No where. Genius. Not to mention the fact that we didn't even have any human intelligence in Iraq (due to not having a presence there as we do now) and never even knew where he was anyways. We tried to bomb him right at the beginning of the war, and guess what? He wasn't there. Nice plan!
Under Saddam they had running water. They had electricity. They had hospitals, movie theatres, shops were open, and people walked down the street safely.
Ah, the "Iraqis flying kites" scenario from Fahrenheit 9/11. Good grief. Iraq has more electricity now than they did before the war. There are now commerical TV and radio stations - there were zero before the war. There are now millions of people with telephones, about 6-fold from before the war. Car ownership is way up there. Does this sound like a population that is restricted and going to hell?
Saddam tortures people and you call him a butcher.
Bush tortures them, and he’s a patriot.
Go figure.
Ah yes, I remember when Bush signed the orders to torture some child-rapists in Abu Ghraib prison. Oh wait. Keep living in your lies buddy, it's all you've got left.
JIMBO,
Sexion-
Keith Olbermann had a show in 1998 on MSNBC called The Big Show. But when later when the show’s producers decided to devote the show to the sex scandal, Olbermann
felt that his show was being tabloid and losing its’ focus. He left the following year.
For awhile he was of Fox Sports, but then he came back to MSNBC in 2003 and the rest is legend.
Uh huh, and Tim Russert started in 1991. Your point?
As for the subject of sportscasters being not legitimate from your point of view, how do you explain Hannah Storm, Robin Roberts and of course Mr. Bryant Gumbel who
is more qualified to anchor CBS Evening News?
Sportscasters deal with one thing: sports. Covering sports is entirely different than covering other news. Certainly you can see the difference. One focuses on stats, trading, scores, and a very limited set of circumstances. News journalism is broad and involves politics with virtually anything that can happen. Not to mention that it's far more important to the world whether the US goes to war in Iraq instead of whether the Yankees win the World Series.
Oh, and what about Jim McKay during the Munich Olympics when he covered the
murder of the Israeli athletes? Did that coverage not qualify as real news coverage?
How about when ESPN covered the San Francisco earthquake when they were originally
there to cover the World Series? Howard Cosell on December 8, 1980 on Monday Night Football when he announced to viewers on air that John Lennon was murdered.
Cosell would have made a great anchor on World News Tonight.
That still doesn't make them veteran news journalists. Sportscasters are sportscasters, not news journalists. When's the last time a sportscaster grilled a politician? When do sportscasters interview people on something that actually has any real value to the lives of people? Sports are entertainment, and sportscasters are part of that entertainment. What you've described here are unordinary circumstances that happen very rarely.
Dude, YOU need to get your head out of the sand. Sports journalism not real? Don’t make me laugh.
Sports journalism isn't the same as news journalism. Sports are entertainment - news is not.
Tim Russert is a veteran news reporter, while Olbermann is a veteran sportscaster who apparently has a chemical imbalance and gets off calling Bill O'Reilly the worst person in the world day in and day out. Please, don't make me gag. Russert, although a doofus in his own way, is much more of a news journalist than Olbermann will ever be.
Let's face the facts here, the only reason you are on this ridiculous adventure in trying to defend sports journalism as "real" in comparison to news journalism is because you want to defend your hero, Olbermann. Olbermann hates Bush, says so all the time, attacks everyone who you hate, and you love it. Russert, on the other hand, is a professional journalist and has been for 15 years.
Sports are not "real", they are entertainment put on for a show. Poor kids starving in Africa is real, and covering it is real journalism. Now stop defending the abominable Olbermann with this insane tangent.
June 25th, 2006 at 11:55 pmWhat really bothers me about all this ranting is the people who can't seem to understand that ANY thing reported by mainstream media is suspect. They're all al Qaida this and al Qaida that when they know in their hearts that al Qaida is a blanket term coined to strike fear into the stupid Americans.As far as being progressive,this is something that must be gotten past.I can't admire someone who keeps going along with the msm on their terms.It is a published fact that bin Laden was a CIA asset and was used brutally by the PNAC and this administration for its propaganda.He did not "mastermind" 911.A little research is in order for any and all who want to see the end of the bush regime because it's not just politics anymore.It's personal.
June 25th, 2006 at 11:57 pmThey want any war, they think they can win.
Comment by CLUBBER WORFEUS — June 25, 2006 @ 11:45 pm
Of bush's 'axis of evil', he pre-emptively invades the country that posed the least threat, or, as it turns out, no threat to the US. Any moron could have predicted what Iran and N. Korea's reaction to seeing dumb-dumb take such an action would be.
June 25th, 2006 at 11:59 pmwhich is why they didn’t have the gnads to go into Kashmir after Bin Laden.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:00 amComment by CLUBBER WORFEUS
My guess. he is living in Park Avenue and right now is drinking lemon margaritas, waiting for CIA guys to tell him to do another nice tape.
Hey dumbas...er I mean Sexlessone,
Do us all a favor. Try to keep your responses to under 40 pages.
I know you guys can't think on the fly, and so you have to research and stuff, but if you can't say it in a few sentences, then you have nothing to say.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:02 amWould you like to tell us the number of this resolution?
Comment by Strapon — June 25, 2006 @ 11:55 pm
Oh sorry. I forgot what a dumb ass you are.
Its actually a "treaty", called the The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Sorry. I forget what a dumb ass you are at times.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:07 amWe tried to bomb him right at the beginning of the war, and guess what? He wasn’t there. Nice plan!
Comment by Not a Smart Guy — June 25, 2006 @ 11:55 pm
Yea I know.
If at first you don't succeed, waste 2500 American lives, right Einstein?
You're a testament to your cause.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:10 amSeixon. Copy & Paste. Well done, buddy.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:12 amAh yes, I remember when Bush signed the orders to torture some child-rapists in Abu Ghraib prison. Oh wait. Keep living in your lies buddy, it’s all you’ve got left.
Comment by Lamebrain — June 25, 2006 @ 11:55 pm
Lets see, Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Rice have removed the Geneva Conventions and fought Anti-Torture bills openly and publically.
They have encouraged torture in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and advocated secret prisons for torture in Europe.
Oh but the fun doesn't stop their.
We've got art.
Thats right.
It happens so frequently, that thousands of photographs and video have been revealed, with more yet to come I'd wager, and its all over the internet.
But I'm lying.
What a mook.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:14 amSports are entertainment - news is not.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:16 amComment by Seixon
In few words you just describe you are a fat, lazy, geek behind a desk which has troubles chewing gum and walking at the same time.
Here Dr Mengele.
Here's a list of interrogation techniques reliably documented at U.S. detention centers in Guantanamo or Afghanistan
APPROVED METHODS OF INTERROGATION:
-------------------------
Beating; punching with fists; use of truncheons; kicking; slamming against walls; stretching or suspension (to tear ligaments or muscles to cause asphyxia); external electric shocks; forcing prisoners to abase and to urinate on themselves; forced masturbation; forced renunciation of religion; false confessions or accusations; applying urine and feces to prisoners; making verbal threats to a prisoner and his family; denigration of a prisoner's religion; force-feeding; induced hypothermia and exposure to extreme heat; dietary manipulation; use of sedatives; extreme sleep deprivation; mock executions; water immersion; "water-boarding"; obstruction of the prisoner's airway; chest compression; thermal burning; rape; dog bites; sexual abuse; forcing a prisoner to watch the abuse or torture of a loved one.
----------------------
Yea.
You guys are some real Christian warriors there you are. Bunch of real saints.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:16 amBut I'm making it all up.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:17 amHeres what Republican and Conservative pundit, Andrew Sullivan has to say about it. You remember Andrew Sullivan don't you? He's the guy the right was putting on every talk show in 03 and 04 to defend the war and help the President get re-elected.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:19 am
But I think the most famous and well respected Newspaper in the Country, the Washinton Post said it best last week.
The Bush administration has wrecked the system for capturing and holding foreign enemies.
The Washington Post
Sunday, June 18, 2006; Page B06
NEARLY FIVE years into a war between the United States and Islamic extremists, U.S. policies and practices for arresting, holding, interrogating and trying enemy militants are in a state of disarray unprecedented in modern American history.
They shame the nation and violate its fundamental values.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:21 amAnd by the way slappy.
I wouldn't be too smug about making fun of journalists like Tim Russert.
In case you didn't notice in your bloody zeal, the ONLY network news journalists who you can claim ALL work for ONE STATION.
That thing you call Fox.
In other words pinhead, you're a joke.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:28 amThey can love them one day Btruth, and loathe them the next.
Look at the Dixie Chicks.
One minute they were loved by the good ole tobacco chewing, steak eating, beer drinking, redneck right wing. Security moms sang their tunes at the stop lights while taking their little dumplings to soccer practice. Hell they were so downright loved by Patriotic right wing America, that they were asked to sing the National Anthem at the SUPER BOWL!
Certainly one of the highest honors good old blue collar redneck right wing America could bestow on entertainers.
Then, just one short month later, one of these sweet, young talented girls, dared to excercise the primary right that the republicans claim they are fighting for over in Iraq, the freedom of speech, they are blacklisted for good, never to be heard of again in trailer parks all across the midwest.
Bush was right about one thing.
If you're not for him, you're against him.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:46 amIraq has more electricity now than they did before the war.
Comment by Just another Goebbells
Yea?
Sounds nice.
Why don't you head on over and spend the summer? Take the wife and kids.
Shoot us (pun not intended) a postcard when you get there.
But no cheeting. You need to visit all the tourist sites outside of the greenzone.
Cool?
June 26th, 2006 at 12:48 amIt never ceases to amaze me that anyone continues to defend the Dubya Dunce Decider on TP! Bush Junior is the worst president in US history and one of the biggest fools the world has ever had to endure! He is a pathetic inept fascist moron!
June 26th, 2006 at 1:08 amOh an no kevlar.
June 26th, 2006 at 1:09 amWhose the bigger fool?
The fool or the fool who follows him.
Obi Wan Kenobi
June 26th, 2006 at 1:10 amJust kidding around a little Jay, but I'm sure you get my meaning.
June 26th, 2006 at 1:17 amYes WORFEUS > I just read all the TP thread postings for yesterday > hard to understand why anyone would defend Bush on here > he is a certified lunatic! Even If I was desperate for money, I would not defend Bush ass on TP threads like moonbat, MA, and other trolls do on here!
June 26th, 2006 at 1:24 amBush doesnt want to protect us. He wants WWIII, the disintegration of the proud, free United States of America and a New World Order of rich vs poor and total control of our lives and money. He is the dark side that destroys our fiscal integrity and monitors our every move. Our soul has been outsourced.
June 26th, 2006 at 1:24 amGeorge Orwell foresaw the emergence of Oceania/America and the "Big Brother" leader, but he had no idea that a certified idiot like Bush Junior would try to rule the world > it's like some Twilight Zone episode that cannot ever happen, but somehow has come to pass?!
June 26th, 2006 at 1:31 amcheck out alex jones http://www.infowars.com. Unbelievable video of Bush and company worshiping Pagan dieties.
June 26th, 2006 at 1:33 ammo g,
Bush doesnt want to protect us.
Ah, so that's why the FBI arrested those freaks i Miami.
He wants WWIII
If he wants it, why doesn't he just start it? He's got thousands of nukes ready to go. All he has to do is give the order and we can have WWIII in no time. Doesn't seem like he wants it all that much.
the disintegration of the proud, free United States of America
Yeah, all our freedoms are evaporating! Wait... I can't even think of one. Odd.
and a New World Order of rich vs poor
Yeah, I guess that's why lowered the taxes on poor people frmo 15% to 10%. Just being a big old meanie! I guess that's why the median income in the USA has increased under Bush. Bush making people... poorer...? The unemployment at historically low levels... Hmmm damn, that's gotta be bad.
and total control of our lives and money.
Yeah, to think he wants to cut taxes and leave you with more of your own money, have personal accounts for social security to give people more freedom with their own money, and hell, gay marriage and abortion are still not federally regulated. He's on a tear!
He is the dark side that destroys our fiscal integrity and monitors our every move. Our soul has been outsourced.
For sure. Bush is Hitler. Rawr!
Disclaimer: because I bring up certain facts does not mean that I agree or disagree with any of them, I am simply stating them as matter of fact. Think devil's advocate.
June 26th, 2006 at 1:39 amThe Repbilcans have CUT & RUN from fighiting the war on teror and have been diverted to Iraq because the oil in more important than killing the enemy......
June 26th, 2006 at 1:55 amCliffhanger,
We still have about the same amount of troops in Afghanistan as we had there to begin with. Try again.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:02 amI love this guy... I'm totally voting for him in 2008!
This is the kind of leader we need... someone who's principled, honest, straigtforward & articulate.
...oh yeah, and PROGRESSIVE!
June 26th, 2006 at 3:07 amAnother "victory" for BushCo, in their "WOT". A brand new base for the Terrorists! Can we get a refund of the money GWB gave to the Somali warlords? Probably not. Is this what they call 'winning the war on terror'? If so, I'd hate to see what losing it looks like, or am I already?
June 26th, 2006 at 5:48 amI think if Feingold and the Democrats were serious about conveying the situation to Americans they would buy prime time air time.
June 26th, 2006 at 7:52 amAverage Americans are unaware of their reality.
George Bush, Jr. is the worst president the U.S. has ever not elected-- history will show that the elections of 2000 and 2004 were low points in American democracy.
June 26th, 2006 at 8:49 am[...] [HT ThinkProgress, they have the video, too] [link] [...]
June 26th, 2006 at 8:58 amPLEASE SENATOR FEINGOLD---Please save our country. Please run for President. Pretty Please?
June 26th, 2006 at 9:03 amSeixon 193--I don't have time to respond to each inaccuracy you list. Here's one specific mistake you made. You claim that median income has increased under Bush. Not true. Here are the numbers from 2000-04: (couldn't find anything for 2005):
Decrease in median income from 2000-2004 in White households: $1,066
--Decrease in median income from 2000-2004 in Hispanic households: $2,141
--Decrease in median income from 2000-2004 in Black households: $2,407
June 26th, 2006 at 9:29 am[Historical Income Tables ÂHouseholds, H-6 White, not Hispanic, Black, and
Hispanic Tables, US Census]
now I know truly who my opponent is here. The nutjob who calls himself worfeus actually quoting a fictional character in godamm star wars movie..I was right .. he does think he is on Star Trek. Now I know beyond ashadow of adoubt that many of the "progressives" here are nothing more than malcontnet kids in their parents basements!
June 26th, 2006 at 9:33 amObi wan kanobi hahahahahahahaha! that's rich there clubfoot!
the other thing that is absolutely rich, I mean just roaringly laughable is that you poor disallusioned "progressives" are actually thinking that someone who is to the left of Shrillary clinton could actually win the national election!
I don't know at this point which is actually funnier, some leftartd quoting star wars or thinking that some far left anti-American nutjob with bad hair can win the presidential election. It does re-inforce my belief that you left wingnuts are really out of touch with any concept of reality.. but keep up the good work , I really am enjoying the good laughs I get here
hahahahahahahahaha.. you leftards are sooo funny.
Seixon 193--your blatantly incorrect assertion that unemployment is at a historic low was too much. I'll stop after this though, at least for now.
As I have pointed out in an earlier post unemployment is NOT at a historic low. It was at 3.9% in December 2000, before Bush took office. It's now at 4.6%. 4.6 is more than 3.9. it is really annoying to me that several people have gotten this fact wrong just on this one board. do you just pull this crap out of thin air? I guess so because this is really easy to refute.
source: http://www.econedlink.org/ lessons/ index.cfm?lesson=EM219 (â€At its low in December 2000, the unemployment rate equaled 3.9 percent.†In June 2006, it was at 4.6%).
June 26th, 2006 at 9:33 amSeixon 199:
"and I will love to see you substantiate this claim."
that is hilarious given that you have posted multiple incorrect assertions yourself, as I recently point out. how many of your claims have you substantiated?
June 26th, 2006 at 9:47 amI am just skimming through the comments since I left early last evening, and I see that Seixon claimed that Ahmed Chalabi is among the sources for information that the Iraqis wanted us to invade. WTF?? A discredited, self-serving, indicted felon.
June 26th, 2006 at 9:49 amThere is nothing more to say - I rest my case
I definately need to hear more from Sen. Feingold.
June 26th, 2006 at 9:50 amSomething every single day would be good.
To hear a man in his position speak those words is a thing of beauty.
Wow! The "right-tards" are out in force today!!! I guess the supply of lithium is running low at the local pharmacies.
June 26th, 2006 at 9:51 amSeixon--apologies, the unemployment link I gave before doesn't seem to work anymore
here's another one, from the US Dept of Labor. you'll see that the current 4.6% rate is far from the lowest ever, as you claimed. Most recently, it was below 4% in late 2000, as I noted, though there are plenty of other examples (notably in the 1950s and 1960s) when the rate was also lower than it currently is
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt
June 26th, 2006 at 9:52 ammoonbat named himself well, but moonbeam would be even better for him > lol.
June 26th, 2006 at 9:58 amNow if Feingold can just get his own party to agree with him...................
June 26th, 2006 at 10:28 amOn the Sunday shows......
...Russ Feingold and Carl Levin hand out some truth about Iraq....
June 26th, 2006 at 11:09 ameblair,
The stats from this (page A4) say that the median income rose 1.6% between 2001 and 2004, which is the number I was remembering when I stated that.
Also, I never claimed that the unemployment is the lowest ever right now, I said it is at historically low levels. Perhaps I should have worded that a bit more clearly, but what I was saying was that the unemployment rate is pretty low from a historical perspective. It's lower now than for most of Clinton's terms, for example.
Marie,
I am just skimming through the comments since I left early last evening, and I see that Seixon claimed that Ahmed Chalabi is among the sources for information that the Iraqis wanted us to invade. WTF?? A discredited, self-serving, indicted felon.
There is nothing more to say - I rest my case
It wasn't just Ahmed Chalabi, but the entire Iraqi National Congress, his group, and many other anti-Saddam groups. You may scoff at me mentioning Chalabi, but he's an Iraqi even if he is a scoundrel. Yet I see that provides you an exit instead of taking on the wider implications - that what I said was correct. Chalabi was not a "source" of this information, he and his whole group advocated for the removal of Saddam Hussein, as did other groups in Iraq.
I mean, let's just consider the Kurds. The Kurds definitely wanted the USA to come and wipe out Saddam Hussein, there is no doubt about that. Look at any Iraqi opinion polls, and the Kurds are the most supportive of the USA of all Iraqis.
June 26th, 2006 at 11:12 amSeixon--your numbers on median income are contradicted by US census data, which show median income has decreased during each year of the Bush presidency (through 2004--no numbers for 2005 yet)
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h08a.html
sorry, you're right, you didn't claim unemployment was at the lowest ever rate. But you seemed to suggest that everything is a-ok economically under Bush. Yes, 4.6% unemployment is not that bad if you look at the last 20 years (check out numbers under Reagan by the way). But it can't be considered a success story when unemployment has increased on this administration's watch.
Also, as I mentioned earlier, other statistics paint a dim economic picture--The domestic stock market has been flat this year and has not exactly been gangbusters over the past 4 years. The dollar has been losing value during the Bush years–early 2001 $1 was worth more than 1.06 Euro–now $1 is worth about .80 Euro . A Gallup Poll taken at the end of 2005 showed 6 in 10 Americans say the economy is fair or poor–and almost 6 in 10 said the economy is getting worse. Productivity is up but salaries are down. US household debt has risen by a third over the past 4 years. Gas prices are at around $3 per gallon. The poverty rate has risen each year since 2001. See http://www.alternet.org/story/30447/ ,
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2005/ 12/ 07/ straight-truth-economy/
I'm sure there is some good news out there (e.g. productivity is up). But there is so much bad economic news under this administration. On top of everything else, we now have a huge annual deficit (before Bush came into office there was no annual deficit), an ever expanding debt, and a huge trade deficit.
June 26th, 2006 at 11:40 amI say it is time that we get rid of the free markets and let government control everything. At least everyone on this site would be happy then :)
June 26th, 2006 at 11:56 am218 that is a Limbaugh-esque comment, and I don't mean this as a compliment.
Pointing out that the economy is not doing well under Bush doesn't make me a socialist! I don't think anyone here has said anything about getting rid of free markets or letting government control everything. I was happy with the economy under Clinton. The Clinton years had nothing to do with socialism. Free markets reigned--a Wall Street icon was Clinton's Secy of Treasury (this man, Rubin, was far from a socialist). Clinton worked to expand free markets e.g. through NAFTA. He did not initiate government control. I assume some would argue his proposal for health care reform smacked of govt control. Well, it didn't pass--and I'm still happy with the Clinton years in terms of the economy
I would not be happy if we got rid of free markets and let govt control everything. Nothing I have written here suggests otherwise. I don't know what else to say, other than that there is absolutely zero legitimate basis for your post.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:00 pmthe fact is that Seixon has no standing to even discuss matters regarding the US. He abandoned the country to live in Norway. I strongly suspect he is being paid to disrupt these comment boards as he is posting his fascist BS on many of them.
-the doc-
June 26th, 2006 at 12:44 pmFeingold is the guy with the guts in Congress.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:47 pmI hope he doesn't take any rides in private planes.
now I know truly who my opponent is here. The nutjob who calls himself worfeus actually quoting a fictional character in godamm star wars movie..I was right .. he does think he is on Star Trek
Comment by moonrat bastard — June 26, 2006 @ 9:33 am
Your opponent?
Your one sentence non punctuated illiterate rants barely qualify as a debate pinhead.
As for the obi wan quote, it was a joke.
Kinda like you, except that one was funny.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:51 pmYou may scoff at me mentioning Chalabi, but he’s an Iraqi even if he is a scoundrel
Comment by Seixon — June 26, 2006 @ 11:12 am
Scoff? Hell I'm laughing my ass off...
Course I guess the same thing could be said about you.
You're sort of an American, even if you are a scoundrel.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:55 pm#163 - "...But even if many commentators think that Republicans may retain control over Congress, very few think they should." Comment by katy
June 26th, 2006 at 1:00 pm*****katy - WHOOOOOOOO cares what a bunch of commentators think???? (Right, Left or Center - whooo cares?????) I'll never forget the late, great Peter Jennings DISMAY in 1994 when Newt and the Repubs took the majority in the House. Fortunately, the "annointed" in the news media have the same number of votes at the ballot baox - except of course, for you conspiracy theorists......
…
I mean, let’s just consider the Kurds. The Kurds definitely wanted the USA to come and wipe out Saddam Hussein, there is no doubt about that. Look at any Iraqi opinion polls, and the Kurds are the most supportive of the USA of all Iraqis.
Comment by Simpleton — June 26, 2006 @ 11:12 am
So now the US is the puppet regime doing the wet work for any country out their with a beef?
You guys sure come up with a lot of reasons to justify your invasion of Iraq.
To bad none of them are going to get you off the hook.
June 26th, 2006 at 1:01 pm#219 - Socialism is not incompatible with the free-market economy. You are thinking of Marxist Communism. Socialism (with respect to economics) simply states that the economy (in whatever form, in the USA's case "free market")should be regulated by the government. Putting Socialism and Communism as synonyms of each other is a tactic the Right Wing uses to discredit Socialist ideals. Afterall, who wants their political beliefs to be associated with the dominant party of the former Soviet Union or Cuba? Remember the Right Wing credo: If you can't win on ideals alone, SMEAR THE OPPONENT!
Love,
June 26th, 2006 at 1:08 pmYour friendly neighborhood Registered-Democrat Socialist.
good point Parrotlover--what I was objecting to was being smeared in a baseless way. I'm not an expert on distinctions between socialism and communism, though I haven't advocated for either and was annoyed by the poster who suggested I had
June 26th, 2006 at 1:34 pmI must point out though--here is the dictionary definition of socialism (or one dictionary definition):
"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."
I don't favor that--not that anyone has ben discussing that here, other than the one poster who seemed to think anyone who criticizes Bush must support government control of the economy
June 26th, 2006 at 1:38 pmTrust me eblair.
Having no game, all these assclowns can do is define your argument for you.
Then its easier for them to refute it.
June 26th, 2006 at 1:39 pmTrust me eblair.
Having no game, all these assclowns can do is define your argument for you.
Then its easier for them to refute it.
June 26th, 2006 at 1:39 pmthat seems about right Worfeus. thanks
June 26th, 2006 at 1:51 pmNot a problem, eblair. I just like to let fellow Progressives know that the "S" word is nothing to be ashamed of. :-) The trolls that generalize the left-wing as those who want to do away with the economy and make everything state-run amuse me, considering they support an administration that has continually tried to eat away at our civil rights and personal freedoms... Not to mention supports the massive unregulated consolidation of corporations into less larger entities, instead of more smaller entities. I'd love to hear how having only a few MegaCorporations that collude instead of compete is different from a state-run company.
So that begs the question, who is actually closer to a Fascist regime that wants everything "state-run?"
June 26th, 2006 at 1:52 pm“Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.â€
Good point. Glad you brought it up. This is a very loose definition that can be applicable to even the existing free market system in the USA. Regulation becomes the public's "means" of producing and distributing and being "owned" by the people. Think about it. The government already subsidzes farmers to grow certain crops instead of others, taxes and tarrifs imports/exports, and controls the eb and flow of the economy through control of interest rates, money production, and so on. The key is the amount of regulation and the amount of trust for the market to "fix itself." It will fit into either a free-market or state-run economy. I happen to prefer free market (being a small business owner myself), so I suppose for a Socialist, I'm actually "conservative." ;-) For me, it's the social aspects that apply to me. Healthcare for everybody and all that. In today's terms, a single linear graph of political views does not fit. That's why many systems use a two dimensional grid instead.
I'd never support a state-run economy, but I do support a lot of regulation. I'm a registered Democrat with Socialist ideals. "Very Left" Democrat, I suppose.
I guess I should stop being so nit-picky, considering that I cannot even "nail it down" myself without getting all abstract. I think I just am tired of the thought that all aspects of Socialism deal with state-owned economy, so I tend to get on my soapbox. :-)
June 26th, 2006 at 2:17 pmInteresting points Parrotlover--I definitely get annoyed by those who try to throw slogans around--socialist, communist, etc. This is pretty brainless. The question of how much regulation is an important one. I don't trust companies--or anyone--to operate in a wholly unfettered manner. That's why we have laws after all. Nobody really wants "the law of the jungle"--especially not corporations which need to know the law, courts and governments will enforce their contracts, bail them out when they are in distress, provide roads and other infrastructure, provide schools to train future employees, provide trade representatives and other diplomats to hammer out deals with other countries allowing for trade, provide subsidies and other incentives for their businesses.
The "free market" is a misnomer. Our current economy is of course regulated--by courts, by international agreements on tariffs, by Federal Reserve policymakers, by state and federal legislators who pass laws on the minimum wage, on the right to unionize (or not, in "right to work" states), on health and safety standards, on discrimination. The question isn't whether to regulate, it's when and how to regulate, and whether to acknowledge the reality that businesses don't succeed on their own.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:32 pmInteresting points Parrotlover--I definitely get annoyed by those who try to throw slogans around--socialist, communist, etc. This is pretty brainless. The question of how much regulation is an important one. I don't trust companies--or anyone--to operate in a wholly unfettered manner. That's why we have laws after all. Nobody really wants "the law of the jungle"--especially not corporations which need to know the law, courts and governments will enforce their contracts, bail them out when they are in distress, provide roads and other infrastructure, provide schools to train future employees, provide trade representatives and other diplomats to hammer out deals with other countries allowing for trade, provide subsidies and other incentives for their businesses.
The "free market" is a misnomer. Our current economy is of course regulated--by courts, by international agreements on tariffs, by Federal Reserve policymakers, by state and federal legislators who pass laws on the minimum wage, on the right to unionize (or not, in "right to work" states), on health and safety standards, on discrimination, on copyright and patent protection, on spending programs allotting research and development dollars. The question isn't whether to regulate, it's when and how to regulate, and whether to acknowledge the reality that businesses don't succeed on their own.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:34 pmsorry for doublepost
June 26th, 2006 at 2:35 pmHey whats a pingback?
Is that TP telling us to get back on topic?
June 26th, 2006 at 2:42 pmDear Parrot - YOU don't think there's enough govenment regulation??? Should there be more??? Socialism is a dirty word to the competitive as well as the co-oparative. (But employees who KNOW exactly how many hours of vaca pay they have at all times, who rely on others to negotiate pay raises or health care benefits SEEM to love the mediocre achievements of Socialism.)
June 26th, 2006 at 3:42 pmYou're the same crew who wants to limit executive's pay. You're the same crew that wants state run health care. Your the same crew that want us to depend on the state for retirement. You sure your not into Communism?
June 26th, 2006 at 4:51 pmGoat--more assumptions, huh? who said anything about limiting executive's pay?! (where the heck did you get that one from?! I've actually never heard anyone, anywhere propose that). who said anything about the state running health care (though if you mean Medicare and Medicaid those are very popular programs with bipartisan support and hardly Communist conspiracies to end life as we know it)? who said anything about depending on the state for retirement (though if you mean Social Security, that's a very popular program with broad bipartisan support and hardly a radical Commie idea)
yes, I'm sure I'm not into Communism, Senator McCarthy. Thanks for asking though. And thanks for making baseless assumptions plucked from thin air.
June 26th, 2006 at 6:13 pm[...] VIDEO: Feingold Argues Emergence of Al Qaeda Leader Shows Think Progress, DC - Jun 25, 2006 This morning on NBC s Meet the Press, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) argued that the broader al Qaeda network is gaining strength as a result of the Iraq war. [...]
June 26th, 2006 at 6:40 pmI agree with Feingold on this topic, 150 percent. He is right here. Of course the CIA has been telling us this now for 2 years.
Of course our invading Muslim holy land would be the best recruiting tool a Muslim religious extremist group could hope for.
What did we think they'd do, toss flowers?
June 26th, 2006 at 11:43 pmwho cares what left wingnut feingold says?? Maybe some turd ferret like dorfeus maximus does but he is like all liberals, nobody listens to them anymore outside of their kook fringe base.. like stayfreeus- maxipaddus here the star trek nerd who lives in mommies badement attacking those evil conservatives.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:12 amgive it up maxi pad you are way out of your leauge and nothing you can say or do matters or will get me to stop voicing reason on this moonbat monolog you have going..you have not the intelligence of a clam .
244 "turd ferret"..."stayfreeus-maxipaddus"..."star trek nerd"..."moonbat monolog "...this is what "voicing reason" looks like? looks more like the rantings of a character on South Park or a hyped up 10 year old on the playground
or this earlier moonbat gem: "hey maybe you can find a black,jewish, transexual,child molester fag who who has had a few abortions to run on the “progressive†party ticket.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha"
that is voicing reason? in what universe?
shame on me though, for taking you the least bit seriously
June 27th, 2006 at 10:54 ameblair funny you moonbats can dish it out but you sure can't take it ya hypocrite bastards! the worfeus sisters dish out some garbage but they don't get called to the mat because they are (ahem) start flowery language here: progressives. you hypocrite loser liberal scum you are all the same, brain dead hypocrite juvenile , sex obssesed dirtbags.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:18 pmgo tell somebody who cares eblair, you are just another moonbat turd on the road to proving your own stupidity .. how very progressive of you.
who cares what left wingnut feingold says?? Maybe some turd ferret like dorfeus maximus does but he is like all liberals, nobody listens to them anymore outside of their kook fringe base.. like stayfreeus- maxipaddus here the star trek nerd who lives in mommies badement attacking those evil conservatives.
give it up maxi pad you are way out of your leauge and nothing you can say or do matters or will get me to stop voicing reason on this moonbat monolog you have going..you have not the intelligence of a clam .
Comment by moonrat bastard — June 27, 2006 @ 9:12 am
Just when I thought you couldn't be any less articulate, any less erudite, your undereducated brain proves me wrong again.
Well done Hemmingway.
You're a tribute to your cause.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:24 pmgive it up maxi pad you are way out of your leauge
Comment by Walt Whitman — June 27, 2006 @ 9:12 am
Perhaps I am way out of my "Leauge" as you say, whatever that is supposed to mean.
But you're definately way out of your "league".
June 27th, 2006 at 1:32 pmI had never seen an in-depth interview with Feingold before, and I came away very impressed.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:22 pm#247 wow dorfeus maximus you really must have given you thesaurus a workout ther with all them big woeds you used! Do you even know what any of them mean little fella?? Or did you ask a grownup to write that for you because some big bad anti- liberal was making you look more ignorant than you are??
June 29th, 2006 at 10:12 amYOU are an asset to my argument. moonbats like you should keep posting and let the world know how ridiculous they are.. nice try colostomy bag!
[...] On NBC �s Meet the Press, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) argued that the broader al Qaeda network is gaining strength as a result of the Iraq war.read more | digg story Digg this [...]
August 26th, 2006 at 6:37 am