BUSH: Just this weekend we saw new evidence that the Senator fundamentally misunderstands the war against terror. … Our goal is not to reduce terror to some acceptable level of nuisance. Our goal is to defeat terror by staying on the offensive, destroying the networks, and spreading freedom and liberty. [10/12/04]

CHENEY: Nor can we think of our goal in this war in the way Senator Kerry described it yesterday in The New York Times. Quote: “We have to get back to the place,” he said, where terrorism is “a nuisance,” sort of like – and these are his comparisons — sort of like gambling and prostitution. This is naive and dangerous. [10/11/04]

GIULIANI: “In a conference call with reporters arranged by the Bush campaign, Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, mocked Mr. Kerry for comparing terrorism to gambling and prostitution. ‘The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening,’ Mr. Giuliani said.” [NYT, 10/12/04]

Transcript From video:

BUSH: Either we’ll succeed, or we won’t succeed. And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not, no violence. There are parts of our own country that have got a certain level of violence to it. But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives. And that’s what we’re trying to achieve.

Sorry, I will have to stop you there.
You spent time going back 3 years to find multiple accounts to establish the fact that either:
a – two people disagree with Bush on Iraq, or
b – Bush said something and that didn’t help.

Forrgetting the fact that you could have gone back 3 minutes instead of 3 years and achieved the same result, Is this really a good use of your time ?

You know I think I read someone in the press recently saying that no WMDs were found in Iraq. Dig that up and post it like it’s news.

Bush minions: Kerry is naive and does not understand the nature of the threat! There is no acceptable level of terrorism or terrorist violence! Kerry is a traitor! Dangerous! Frightening!

Pres Bush: Success against terrorism is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives. And that’s what we’re trying to achieve.

Bush minions: What wisdom! What vision! All hail the Leader!!

Pure projection.

Bush won. I gave you multiple sources. It takes a really dumb person to believe othrwise. Or be hoodwonked into believing otherwise. Comment by muckdog — May 2, 2007 @ 11:34 pm

Once again, pure projection. You didn’t provide *multiple-sources*, you provided Op-ED pieces. Those aren’t *sources*, dear st*pid little child. Although you tend to post them for everything from Global Warming to politics – it just shows what an idiot you are…

The OP-ED article was about the actual recount numbers (it lied), that were in fact linked by others here. Just because you’re so r*t*rded that you can’t go check those numbers or see the numbers people posted here that prove you’re wrong, it isn’t our fault child. It’s your parent’s fault for raising such an immoral, inbred lying piece of sh*t.

Grow up little boy – you lying here day in and day out is making you evil, not just st*p*d.

Comment by muckdog — May 2, 2007 @ 11:34 pm

Oops, I guess the Herald missed the 93,000 voters who were purged illegally from the Florida rolls as having the same name as a felon elsewhere in the US – what they were purged for was the ‘crime’ of trying to ‘vote while black’….

Thanks for playing dogmuck, try again soon.

Dear heart, considering that the sources you provided were either missing, wrong, or incomplete, forgive us for not taking them, or you, seriously. I gave you the full story above. You want to quarrel with that? Take it up with the consortium that did the counting. Those seven scenarios are the scenarios they reported — that is the full and complete report in my post.

The op-ed you pointed to was particularly wrong, by the way, in that it was referring to a different set of data, not the complete consortium report.

The New York Times article that you mentioned (without citing or linking to it) reported only on three of the scenarios, contending that the full recount would not have taken place and that overvotes would not have been counted, both of them highly questionable assertions. However, when you actually read the full article, the Times does admit that there were four scenarios where Gore won. And I repeat: every scenario where determining the actual number of votes and the will of the voters was paramount, Gore won. This is not in dispute by any reputable source.

That you don’t know any of this says a lot about the accuracy of your information and “research” on this issue.

Remember Brit Hume’s comment aired by Fox News -Back in
Aurgust of 2003 that our troops are more likely to be murdered in California than to die in Iraq.

Such misrepresentations aimed at downplaying the senseless
bloodshed wrought by this immoral and incompetent administration
are insulting.

“Success is not, no violence. There are parts of our own country that have got a certain level of violence to it.” George Bush

Bush won. I gave you multiple sources. It takes a really dumb person to believe othrwise. Or be hoodwonked into believing otherwise.

…on consecrated ground…

…after all of this sh*t?

Um, no, actually not. The link you provided is a link to an op-ed, not a link to actual data. Moreover, the op-ed is flatly incorrect. The data you are citing refer to recount scenarios that don’t count the over-votes or only recount the disputed four counties or have other restrictions placed on them. In every single recount scenario where determining the will of the voter was paramount, Gore won.

Counting all the votes in all of the Florida counties, Gore won, regardless of which “dimpled chad” standard was applied.

The full set of results for this ballot count was as follows:

Review of all ballots statewide:
- using standard set by each county canvassing board: Gore by 171
- counting fully punched chads and limited marks: Gore by 115
- counting any dimples or optical mark: Gore by 107
- count one corner of chad detached or optical mark: Gore by 60

Review of limited set of ballots:
- recount of ballots in four disputed counties: Bush by 225
- recount of all undervotes statewide: Bush by 430
- recount as actually implemented by some of the counties before the counting was stopped, with each county deciding for itself whether to count overvotes as well as undervotes: Bush by 493

There were seven potential outcomes. Gore won four of them. Most notably, he won every single scenario where a full, complete and accurate recount was paramount. In short: he won. See Wikipedia for more information.

Yeah, poor st*pid thing, doesn’t even realize that the Herald was thrashed for posting their OWN conclusion to the findings of the recount. Geez, wonder whether a republican had anything to do with that misinformation! No wonder these guys fear the fairness and truth in reporting bill the democrats are proposing?

Heh. Gotcha!

Bush became president in 2000 because he got the Black Vote….namely Clarence Thomas.

Perfect!

There, the matter is settled.

BwaaaaHaaaaHaaaa

Well DogMuck, I see you are still rolling around in it. I won’t believe it until you show me that O’Reilly and Rush said it.

You haven’t factored in the strong arm tactics the Rethugs used to supress the vote. And you say, “There, the matter is settled.”

BwaaaaHaaaHaaa

In the real world, people like valiant venus ask me for change and I tell them to get off the meth.