For those who like Bush...

[CanadianChris 0]

National Review is about as intelligent a political periodical as is out there right now. wage-slave.org it is not.

I'll give you that. I DID enjoy the article "Fair And Balanced Mathematics," though. Stupid Fox News.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I don't think he should send people to war, war is wrong in my opinion. Simple as that.

Bush is for the death penalty, and I am not. One of the reasons I don't like him, simple as that.

He is against gay marriages and I am for it, simple as that.

It is the point that they CAN go look at it, but now they can't. Simple as that.

I don't think people should have guns in the household, simple as that.

I love this.

 

"Simple as that! You're gonna hear this giant sucking sound, see? Simple as that! It's just that simple!"

 

Looks like our brave little molestomp is going to grow up to be Ross Perot without the money. Or the charisma, the intelligence, the good looks, and fashion sense...

Wait, Ross Perot's good looking now?

 

While I may disagree with him on a few things, I still think Bush was a better choice than Gore, if only for the fact that he seems to be a lot charismatic. He's got the "intangibles" down, and I think someone else on this board said something like how they might not vote for him, but they'd like to have him over for dinner. Pretty much my feelings on the matter.

 

But what do I know? I'm Canadian.

[Guest MikeSC]

MORE Dean goodness, brought to us by our favorite psychopathic nutjobs, buzzflash.com:

 

DETROIT, Dec. 29 -- From Iraq (news - web sites) to homeland security to public health, President Bush (news - web sites)'s "reckless" habit of placing "ideology over facts" has resulted in "the most dangerous administration in my lifetime," Democrat Howard Dean (news - web sites) charged over the past two days.

 

Search news on

washingtonpost.com

 

In Midwest campaign stops and an interview, the former Vermont governor said developments both abroad and at home give credence to his assertion two weeks ago that the United States is "no safer" with the capture of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

 

"If we are safer, how come we lost 10 more troops and raised the safety alert" to the orange level, Dean said Sunday night in Ankeny, Iowa.

 

"All the other Democrats pounced on me and beat me up and said how ignorant I was about foreign affairs," he said. "I think most people in America agree with me today and it's only two weeks later."

 

Dean has rocketed to the top of the Democratic presidential field with his sharp attacks on Bush, especially on the war in Iraq. Far from backing off his earlier comment about Hussein, Dean has broadened the critique, adding mad cow disease, the national deficit, HIV (news - web sites)-AIDS (news - web sites) and homeland security to the list of safety failures during Bush's tenure.

 

"National security and economic security are the touchstones of the election," he said in the interview after a rally Monday in Green Bay, Wis. "I think the president has been fairly reckless in just about every area I can think of."

 

Dean accused Bush of taking "enormous risks" by refusing to negotiate with North Korea (news - web sites), permitting "warlords" to control much of Afghanistan (news - web sites) and failing to address the most serious threats to homeland security.

 

"We've made progress" on strengthening defenses at home, he said. "The problem is, on the things that are enormously important to us we have apparently made no progress. That is the ultimate nightmare of the so-called dirty bomb or a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States."

 

As president, Dean said he would initiate bilateral negotiations with North Korea, purchase the entire uranium stockpile held by the former Soviet Union and shift more money into security programs such as cargo ship inspections. "Why aren't these things being done now?" he said. "Why have we dillydallied for 15 months?"

 

Dean, leading in many polls in early nominating states such as New Hampshire and Iowa, is also on the verge of setting a Democratic fundraising record of $40 million. Aides announced Monday that the campaign had raised more than $14 million for the final quarter of the year from 280,000 contributors. The total is likely to climb by at least $400,000 before the official closing date with more than 1,300 fundraising house parties scheduled for Tuesday night.

 

Wesley K. Clark is the only candidate who will come close to Dean this quarter -- aides said Monday the retired general will top $10 million. Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) is tapping his own fortune to keep pace with Dean.

 

Dean received glowing praise Monday from Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle and the endorsement of Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), the dean of the Congressional Black Caucus (news - web sites).

 

"I am proud to state and stand with the man that's ahead of everybody else, that is raising money from the little guys to the shock of everybody who thought it should always be the big fat cats," Conyers said at a Detroit rally Monday afternoon.

 

As he traveled across the Midwest, Dean hit familiar themes but with the fresh twist that they fall under the broader rubric of safety and security.

 

On domestic policy, Dean said the current $500 billion deficit and losses of nearly 3 million jobs have created widespread economic insecurity. If elected, he promised to raise the national minimum wage to $7 per hour, up from $5.15.

 

"Our philosophy is give the working people a little more money and they might be able to go down and spend something on Main Street," he told the audience of labor and African American activists here in Detroit.

 

Rising deficits and a large national debt mean people cannot find jobs, Dean said, and undermine U.S. authority overseas by forcing the government to look to nations such as China and Saudi Arabia for loans.

 

More than once, Dean drew direct connections between Bush's 10-year, $3 trillion tax cuts and critical security investments. "If you think tax cuts are more important than homeland security, then I think you've made a mistake as president, and clearly that puts us in greater danger," he said in the interview.

 

A physician, Dean also accused the administration of stubbornly ignoring warnings about mad cow disease and blindly promoting an abstinence-only sex education program that "is not a good solution at all for teens who have decided to have sex."

 

It may not be fair to blame the president for the recent mad cow case, Dean told Iowa audiences, but Bush is responsible for failing to enact broader cattle testing requirements, he said.

 

"Ordinary farmers in Iowa can't sell their calves right now because the president of the United States did not take the precautions that we could have easily predicted," he said. By choosing "ideology over facts," he added, the Republican administration is "not only a failure, but the most dangerous administration in my lifetime."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...39768_2003dec29

 

PLEASE let this clown win the nomination. PLEASE!

-=Mike

...Who wouldn't mind seeing a candidate getting less than 40% of the vote.

[Lando Griffin 0]

I'd like to ask Mole:

 

If you don't want guns in the household, where should we store them? In a shed out in the backyard? An underground bunker? A safe deposit box?

[CanadianChris 0]

It was all Clinton Clinton Clinton. I guess they're to blame for exaggerating Iraqi weapons and the such. If only it weren't for Clinton.

Clinton ignored the WTC bombing on 1993. He ignored the bombing of the USS Cole. He ignored the embassy bombings. This emboldened terrorists.

Well, sure, if you want to call arresting, trying, convicting and jailing the perpetrators of WTC "ignoring," then, sure, I guess he ignored that. If Clinton is guilty of "ignoring" all of the above, then Reagan is certainly guilty of "ignoring" Pam Am 103, among other things.

 

And, of course, there's the small matter of that Time article which said that the administration DID have a plan in the wake of the Cole bombing, which was then "ignored" by his successor. Let's see, who was that again?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

MORE Dean goodness, brought to us by our favorite psychopathic nutjobs, buzzflash.com:

Uh.. Okay?

 

I didn't read that whole thing, but I did read the bolded parts and agreed with it. Did I miss something?

[Mole 0]

I'd like to ask Mole:

 

If you don't want guns in the household, where should we store them? In a shed out in the backyard? An underground bunker? A safe deposit box?

No where.

 

There really isn't any need to own a gun. I grew up without one in my household and I don't have one now.

[MrRant 0]

There really isn't any need to own a gun.

::Resists urge to point out many reasons to own a gun::

 

Edited.

[CanadianChris 0]

There really isn't any need to own a gun.

::Resists urge to point out many reasons to own a gun::

Just shoot him. It's not like he has a gun.

[The Robfather 0]

I voted for Bush in 2000 and I'd vote for him again. I do not trust the Democrats on the international issues concerning the USA's safety.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I do not trust the Democrats on the international issues concerning the USA's safety.

Uh, why?

[Mole 0]

There really isn't any need to own a gun.

::Resists urge to point out many reasons to own a gun::

Just shoot him. It's not like he has a gun.

Oh no, I better get one...

[Vern Gagne 0]

It was all Clinton Clinton Clinton. I guess they're to blame for exaggerating Iraqi weapons and the such. If only it weren't for Clinton.

Clinton ignored the WTC bombing on 1993. He ignored the bombing of the USS Cole. He ignored the embassy bombings. This emboldened terrorists.

Well, sure, if you want to call arresting, trying, convicting and jailing the perpetrators of WTC "ignoring," then, sure, I guess he ignored that. If Clinton is guilty of "ignoring" all of the above, then Reagan is certainly guilty of "ignoring" Pam Am 103, among other things.

 

And, of course, there's the small matter of that Time article which said that the administration DID have a plan in the wake of the Cole bombing, which was then "ignored" by his successor. Let's see, who was that again?

Reagan should of done more to fight terrorism. But, he likely thought the Soviets where a greater threat at the time.

 

Clinton twice turned down Bin Laden. Thinking their wasn't enough evidence to arrest him. The Time story's sources are people inside Clinton's administration.

[Guest MikeSC]

It was all Clinton Clinton Clinton. I guess they're to blame for exaggerating Iraqi weapons and the such. If only it weren't for Clinton.

Clinton ignored the WTC bombing on 1993. He ignored the bombing of the USS Cole. He ignored the embassy bombings. This emboldened terrorists.

Well, sure, if you want to call arresting, trying, convicting and jailing the perpetrators of WTC "ignoring," then, sure, I guess he ignored that. If Clinton is guilty of "ignoring" all of the above, then Reagan is certainly guilty of "ignoring" Pam Am 103, among other things.

 

And, of course, there's the small matter of that Time article which said that the administration DID have a plan in the wake of the Cole bombing, which was then "ignored" by his successor. Let's see, who was that again?

Reagan should of done more to fight terrorism. But, he likely thought the Soviets where a greater threat at the time.

 

Clinton twice turned down Bin Laden. Thinking their wasn't enough evidence to arrest him. The Time story's sources are people inside Clinton's administration.

Reagan bombed Khaddafy's HOUSE and scared him out of terroristic activities for a LONG time.

 

He did enough.

-=Mike

[Vern Gagne 0]

Talking and with and reading former Marines. Who love Reagan. They wish he would done more after the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut.

[BX 0]

Talking and with and reading former Marines. Who love Reagan. They wish he would done more after the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut.

My head hurts just trying to read that.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Alot of Marines wish Reagan, would of done more after the attack in Beirut in 1983.

[Guest JMA]

Blaming Clinton for the attacks on 9/11 (or implying he could've stopped them)has got to be one of the more disgusting tactics I've seen in recent years. The people who say this are no better than those who compare Bush to Hussein.

 

Further proof of idiocy in both parties.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Man, it's a sad when I have to start quoting Franken. Oh well, at least what it presents is well researched. Pointless liberal partisan wanking will be snipped and marked appropriately.

 

In times of crisis, people often respond by instinctively doing the things they find most comforting. For many Republicans, then, it is hardly suprising that their way of coping with the horror of 9/11 was to attack Bill Clinton.

 

Some attacks were more instinctive than others. A clearly rattled Orrin Hatch was all over the news that day, blaming Clinton because he had "de-emphasized" the military. Hatch was also the first to confirm al Qaeda's involvement by disclosing classified intercepts between associates of Osama bin Laden about the attack. Asked about it on ABC News two days later, a miffed Donald Rumsfeld said Hatch's leak was the kind that "compromises our sources and methods" and "inhibits our ability to find and deal with the terrorists who commit this kind of act." Thanks, Orrin.

 

So if it hadn't been for Hatch, we probably would've gotten bin Laden right away. The disclosure that al Qaeda was responsible did allow Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) to identify the "root of the problem" just hours after the attack: "We had Bill Clinton backing off, letting the Taliban go, over and over again."

 

The right-wing media followed suit. The Washington Times blamed Clinton. The New York Post blamed Clinton. You know who Rush Limbaugh blamed? Clinton. The National Review's White House correspondent Byron York wrote that Clinton's "record is a richly detailed manual on how not to conduct a war on terrorism." Within two days, Newt Gingrich was blaming Clinton for the attacks, because of his "pathetically weak, ineffective ability to focus and stay focused." You really have to give Gingrich credit for how hard he tried to disrupt Clinton's focus: His Republican-run House conducted dozens of hostile investigations against the President.

 

But it had kind of been a waste of Gingrich's time. Clinton, as I will demonstrate below, focused more on terrorism than any other previous president. A month before Clinton left office, his administration was praised by two former Reagan counterterrorism officials. "Overall, I give them very high marks," Robert Oakley, who served as ambassador for counterterrorism in the Reagan State Department, told the Washington Post. "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which made him stronger." Oakley's successor in the Reagan administration, Paul Bremer, disagreed slightly. Bremer, who is currently the civilian administrator in Iraq, told the Post he believed the Clinton administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden." Notice the word "focused" next to the words "on bin Laden." I'm talking to you, Newt. And all you "Blame-Clinton-Firsters."

 

[Partisan dick-waving here snipped]

 

Anyone with an open mind and an open heart must admit that, as with the budget deficit, Reagan's antiterror record was a disaster. Radical Islamic terrorists killed more Americans during his administration than during any before, and more than would die under Bush Sr. and Clinton combined. Between the 1983 embassy and Marine barracks bombings in Beirut and the destruction of Pan Am flight 103, nearly five hundred American lives were lost. Reagan's only direct response was a single bombing run against Libya in 1986.

 

To be fair, two days after the Marine barracks bombing, Reagan did invade Grenada. Although he cut and ran in Lebanon, which might have been interpreted as capitulation, I think his bold attack on Grenada sent a clear message to violent Muslim extremists: If you attack us, we'll invade a Club Med.

 

The Great Communicator scored another direct hit in the fight against terror by supplying arms to violent Muslim extremists among the Afghani Mujahedeen, as well as to his friends in Iran and Iraq. Crazy, you say? Crazy like a fox, says I!

 

Now, the Gipper wasn't the kind of president who saw terrorism just in terms of black and white. No, Reagan had distinguished between good terrorists and bad terrorists. He loves his terrorist death squads in Guatemala, El Salvador, and most of all, Nicaragua. Enough to violate the Constitution to support the Contras as they rapted and tortured nuns. Bad terrorists, on the other hand, were those who used terror irresponsible. See, Reagan saw the shades of gray, where a less nuanced politician may have only seen unmitigated evil.

 

On to Bush Sr. No huge terrorist attacks, thank goodness. And there was no way he could have known that Ramzi Yousef and a vast network of Muslim extremists were planning the World Trade Center bombing that would take place Feburary 26, 1993. You may remember that no one blamed Bush Sr. for this bombing of the World Trade Center by radical Islamic terrorism. After all, it did happen on Clinton's watch. He had been president for thirty-eight days.

 

The only tiny little thing I fault Bush Sr. for is the way he handled Afghanistan. After he continued arming his violent Muslim extremist friends there, the Soviets eventually withdrew in early 1989. Bush promptly implemented the top-secret Project Neglect, which consisted of abandoning (or "neglecting") Afghanistan and allowing it to become a breeding ground for anti-U.S. terrorist training camps. [...]

 

In his four State of the Union speeches, George Herbert Walker Bush said the word "terror" only once, in the context of the "environmental terrorism" perpetrated when Saddam set fire to the oil fields. That was it. Bush Sr. cared even less about terror than he did about the economy. Stupid, stupid.

 

[...]The way Clinton responded to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was to capture, try, convict, and imprison those responsible. Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, and Wali Khan Amin Shah are all currently behind bars. You can visit them and ask them if they think Clinton was tough on terror. I hear they enjoy having visitors.

 

You can ask them, too, about the Clinton administration's ability to thwart planned terrorist attacks. They were involved in further plots to kill the Pope and blow up twelve U.S. jetliners simultaneously. But neither happened. And neither did the huge attacks that were planned against the UN headquarters, the FBI building, the Israeli embassy in Washington, the LA and Boston airports, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, and the George Washington Bridge. Why? Because Clinton thwarted them. He thwarted them all. Why, he even thwarted a terrorist truck bomb plot against the U.S. embassy in Tirana, Albania.

 

That's a lot of thwarting. How did he do that? Well, for one, he tripled the counterterrorism budget for the FBI. And doubled counterterrorism funding overall. And rolled up al Qaeda cells in more than twenty countries. And created a top-level national security post to coordinate all federal counterterrorism activity.

 

His first crime bill contained stringent antiterrorism legislation. As did his second. His administration sponsored a series of simulations to see how local, state, and federal officials should coordinate their responses to a terrorist strike. He created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines (including forty million doses of smallpox vaccine). He coaxed, cajoled, and badgered foreign leaders to join in the fight internationally or to do more within their own borders. And a huge long list of other stuff.

 

"By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him," Barton Gellman reported in his definitive four-part series for the Washington Post.

 

Now, you know how Washington is. It's almost impossible to get anything done unless both parties are willing to put politics aside and work together. So, on this counterterrorism stuff, you're thinking the Republicans must have been cooperating the whole way. Isn't that what you're thinking? If so, I wish I lived in the same fantasy world as you. No, once the Republicans took hold of Congress, they fought Clinton with the same bitterness that the hostile Whig Congress fought President Polk during the storied second half of his first term. I still get angry thinking about that.

 

Just as the Whigs fought Polk every inch of the way on tort reform, so did Republicans fight Clinton on counterterrorism spending. When Clinton asked for more antiterrorism funding in 1996, Orrin "Loose Lips" Hatch objected. "The administration would be wise to utilize the resources Congress has already provided before it requests additional funding."

 

The year before, after the horrific Oklahoma City bombing, Republicans rejected Clinton's proposed expansion of the intelligence agencies' wiretap authority in order to combat terrorism. Speaker Gingrich explained his opposition by questioning the FBI's integrity. On Fox News Sunday, Gingrich said, "When you have an agency that turns nine hundred personnel files over to people like Craig Livingstone...it's very hard to justify giving that agency more pwoer." Gingrich, of course, was making a remark about Filegate, one of the many Fox-hyped investigations that yielded zip and then fizzled out. It is unusual to see a man of Gingrich's integrity compromise national security in order to score a cheap political point. Just proves that even the finest of our public servants can slip now and then.

 

Gingrich was more supportive in 1998, when Clinton struck targets in Sudan and Afghanistan with Tomahawk missiles in retaliation for terrorist strikes against our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. "The President did exactly the right thing," said Gingrich. "By doing this we're sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists." See? He's not so bad.

 

And that's why I just know there must be some good explanation for why, on September 13, 2001, Newt said on Fox, "The lesson has to be that firing a few Tomahawks, dropping a few bombs is totally inadequate," and then implored Bush to "recognize that the Clinton policy failed." 

 

[Partisan wanking snipped]

 

Immediately after the embassy bombings, Clinton issued a presidential directive authorizing the assassination of Osama bin Laden. Assassinate bin Laden? Amen, I say. Sean Hannity, though, has devoted a substantial amount of time, both on the air and in his book, to pretending this never happened and criticizing Clinton for not having the balls to do it. On his show, he yammers a lot about Reagan's Executive Order 12333, which prohibits the assassination of foreign heads of state. Watch Hannity on TV, or listen to him on the radio. He'll bring it up. It's one of the eleven things he knows.

 

The fact that Osama isn't actually a foreign head of state and that Clinton issued his presidential directive to assassinate didn't stop Hannity from writing in his book about a Feburary 2001 episode of Hannity and Colmes on the topic. Guest racist David Horowitz is quoted as saying: "We can protect ourselves from terrorist threats like Osama bin Laden. It would be nice if the CIA were able to assassinate him."

 

Hannity writes about his own reaction: "Amen, I thought."

 

What is his deal, anyway?

 

The final al Qaeda attack of the Clinton Era came on October 12, 2000. Al Qaeda terrorists attacked the USS Cole, killing seventeen of our sailors. Clinton decided to take the fight against al Qaeda to the highest level possible. Instead of funding and arming them like Reagan, or ignoring them like Bush, Clinton decided to destroy them. He put Richard Clarke, the legendary bulldog whom he had appointed as the first national antiterrorism coordinator, in charge of coming up with a comprehensive plan to take out al Qaeda.

 

What unfolded became the subject of a shocking cover story in the August 12, 2002, issue of Time magazine, which I will now take credit for having read.

 

Working furiously, Clarke produced a strategy paper that he presented to Sandy Berger and other national security principals on December 20, 2000. The plan was an ambitious one: break up al Qaeda cells and arrest their personnel; systematically attack financial support for its terrorist activities; freeze its assets; stop its funding through fake charities; give aid to governments having trouble with al Qaeda (Uzbekistan, the Phillipines, and Yemen); and, most significantly, scale up covert action in Afghanistan to eliminate the training camps and reach bin Laden himself. Clarke proposed bulking up support for the Northern Alliance and putting Special Forces troops on the ground in Afghanistan. As a senior Bush administration official told Time, Clarke's plan amounted to "everything we've done since 9/11."

 

Remember how I mentioned that the National Review's Byron York wrote that Clinton's "record is a richly detailed manual on how not to combat terrorism"? Well, if you take out the word "not," you get a pretty good description of the plan: "a richly detailed manual on how to combat terrorism." So Byron was just one word away from understanding the Clinton antiterror legacy.

 

 

This leads into a chapter about how the Bush administration undid a lot of that and missed some obvious warnings due to being dedicated to inaction, but my hands are fucking exhausted.

Edited January 2, 2004 by Jobber of the Week

[BX 0]

You typed that all up? And even bothered to minimize the word "Colmes", as it was in the book? Excellent.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Al Franken is a biased source in this matter. He of course, will find opinons from people who praise Clinton, and criticize the Republicans.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Shockingly, I don't particularly dislike him.

Bush or Rumsfeld?

Bush.

 

Rumsfeld is good for a chuckle because he looks like he doesn't have any lips sometimes.

 

Actually, few Bush cabinet members look like they have lips...

[Guest JMA]

Al Franken is a biased source in this matter. He of course, will find opinons from people who praise Clinton, and criticize the Republicans.

No shit. It still doesn't change the fact that people who blame Clinton for 9/11 ARE partisan assholes.

[CanadianChris 0]

Al Franken is a biased source in this matter. He of course, will find opinons from people who praise Clinton, and criticize the Republicans.

I defy you to find one political commentator on either side who doesn't use sources friendly to his/her own argument. Franken at least does his research, and quite thoroughly.

[C Dubya 04 0]

Al Franken is a biased source in this matter. He of course, will find opinons from people who praise Clinton, and criticize the Republicans.

I defy you to find one political commentator on either side who doesn't use sources friendly to his/her own argument. Franken at least does his research, and quite thoroughly.

I agree. Franken's books seem to be the most substantiated of the lot.

 

People are very quick to call a source biased when it goes against what they've always believed. It's easier than looking at the facts and admitting you might have been wrong.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Al Franken is a biased source in this matter. He of course, will find opinons from people who praise Clinton, and criticize the Republicans.

Nah, really?

 

It wasn't so much the opinion why I typed it in so much as it was the information.

[Guest JMA]

I defy you to find one political commentator on either side who doesn't use sources friendly to his/her own argument. Franken at least does his research, and quite thoroughly.

Indeed. There are no unbiased political commentators.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Al Franken is a biased source in this matter. He of course, will find opinons from people who praise Clinton, and criticize the Republicans.

I defy you to find one political commentator on either side who doesn't use sources friendly to his/her own argument. Franken at least does his research, and quite thoroughly.

The credit really goes to the Kennedy School of Government Graduate students.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Al Franken is a biased source in this matter. He of course, will find opinons from people who praise Clinton, and criticize the Republicans.

I defy you to find one political commentator on either side who doesn't use sources friendly to his/her own argument. Franken at least does his research, and quite thoroughly.

The credit really goes to the Kennedy School of Government Graduate students.

Topic is really starting to sway out of hand. I'd still wish you would expand on this:

 

Clinton twice turned down Bin Laden. Thinking their wasn't enough evidence to arrest him.

[BUTT 0]

Topic is really starting to sway out of hand. I'd still wish you would expand on this:

 

Clinton twice turned down Bin Laden. Thinking their wasn't enough evidence to arrest him.

Well, there is a section on that claim in Franken's book (which apparently you own) on Page 113.