Bush's Simple State of the Union--and the World

posted by David Corn on 02/01/2006 @ 12:44am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (234)

Subscribe Now

Simple works.

For George W. Bush, at least. In this year's State of the Union address, Bush led with his weakness--the Iraq War--and stuck to the un-nuanced and bold (if misleading) assertions he has used to justify the war and to argue for staying the course, his course.

After speaking of the death of Coretta Scott King (in which he endorsed the notion of heaven by speaking of her "reunion" with her husband), calling for preserving a "civil tone" in the "tough debates" of Washington (this from the man who during the 2002 campaign claimed the Democrats "were not interested in the security of the American people") and referring to September 11 (suggesting that it was the lack of democracy in Afghanistan that brought "murder and destruction to our country"), Bush launched into his standard comic-book defense of the war on Iraq. To protect America, he explained, the United States must fight for freedom and democracy in Iraq and elsewhere. (WMDs in Iraq? Whoever said anything about WMDs in Iraq?) "We do not forget," Bush said, the people who live in undemocratic "Syria, Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Iran." He did not include China in this list. And in Iraq, he continued, "terrorists like bin Laden...aim to seize power" and use Iraq as a "safe haven to launch attacks against America and the world." He added, "A sudden withdrawal of our forces from Iraq would abandon our Iraqi allies to death and prison...[and] put men like bin Laden and Zarqawi in charge of a strategic country."

This is--to be polite--an absurd analysis. The insurgency, as even Bush has noted in other speeches, is mainly made up of rejectionists and Baathist remnants. Islamic terrorists are a fraction. They are fighting the United States more than they are fighting to take over Iraq. Moreover, these foreign jihadists are hardly in a position to "seize power" in Iraq. The dominant (Iran-backed) Shiite theocrats now in control are unlikely to let that happen, and they have militias of their own. But Bush depicted the mess in Iraq as an us-against-Al Qaeda clash. That is disingenuous and ignores the harsh realities and policy dilemmas created by the rise in sectarian violence in Iraq.

After laying out a false white-hat/black-turban dichotomy, Bush turned into a cheerleader. "We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it," he intoned. There can be no "retreating within our borders.... There is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat.... The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil." Get the picture? And, interestingly, he equated disengagement in Iraq with "isolationism" several times in the speech. (Did a new memo come in from the pollsters?)

After rallying the public with his Americans-don't-retreat cry, he vowed he had a "clear plan for victory." He did not say when the clarity of that victory will become apparent. But he claimed, "We are winning." He did not--to borrow a term fancied by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld--offer any "metrics" for supporting this claim. Then came the inevitable we-must-support-the-troops rationale for sticking with the war. And Bush pointed out the parents and widow of Marine Staff Sgt. Dan Clay, who was killed last month in Falluja. They were sitting behind Laura Bush in the balcony. A bipartisan, standing ovation ensued. Was this a moment of genuine respect for the family of a fallen soldier? Was it a moment of exploitation, in which Bush was using their tragic, heart-wrenching sacrifice to prop up his war (which will produce other grieving parents and spouses)? The line between the two was thin.

When it came time to address his authorization of warrantless wiretaps, Bush was unapologetic and in-your-face. Staring at the members of the House and Senate before him--his voice rising--Bush defiantly defended what he called his "terrorist surveillance program." He suggested that if such a program had existed before 9/11 (when his Administration was proceeding slowly in devising a plan for dealing with Al Qaeda), perhaps the attack could have been prevented. (Prior to 9/11, the CIA and the FBI did have a bead on two of the hijackers, without having resorted to the use of warrantless eavesdropping, and failed to act until it was too late.) Becoming louder, Bush proclaimed, "If there are people inside our country who are talking with Al Qaeda, we want to know about it--because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again." Republicans jumped to their feet. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton smiled, perhaps in amazement at or appreciation of Bush's brazenness. In a classic Rove-ian maneuver, Bush was daring Democrats to come after him on this point. The not-too-hidden message: Go ahead, make my day; I'll shove this down your throats in the coming elections. As GOPers shouted their approval, that long-ago-banished smirk seemed to flash on Bush's face for an instant.

Bush does this sort of speechifying well. The sentiments and arguments are stark--easy to convey. But his defense of Iraq was nothing new. It's hard to imagine this rhetoric having much, if any, impact on public attitudes here or abroad. After nearly three years of war in Iraq, Bush's words matter little. The mess there will remain once the speech is done.

In his 2002 and 2003 State of the Union speeches, Bush telegraphed the invasion of Iraq. This time, even as he promoted a global crusade for democracy, he was less bellicose. (There's nothing like having an overextended and stretched-to-its-max military to moderate tough talk.) On Iran, Bush and his speechwriters (who went through thirty drafts of this not-so-monumental speech) showed they can learn from past mistakes. Unlike the 2003 State of the Union address--in which Bush presented the unconfirmed charge that Iraq had been uranium-shopping in Africa--Bush this time was more circumspect in decrying a foe. He said that the "Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions"--"ambitions" being a somewhat vague term. And he stayed clear of any details. He also told Iranians, "We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom." Could that be read as a pledge that he will not use military force to export freedom to Iran? (I hope a reporter asks Scott McClellan about this.)

******

Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read recent postings on Jackgate, Alito, and more.

******

The domestic stuff was mostly the same-old/same-old. Make the tax cuts permanent. (Don't worry about the massive and structural deficit that is growing.) Cut programs. (No need to note that federal spending has ballooned under the gaze of Bush and Congressional Republicans.) On healthcare, he pushed Health Savings Account, an initiative that insurance companies support and that mainly addresses the needs of people who already can afford to buy health insurance. He declared America "is addicted to oil," urged a boost in nuclear energy and proposed a series of fine-sounding initiatives regarding alternative energy. (Look for the inevitable statements from alternative energy experts that will show that Bush's proposals are on the slim side.) He called for training 70,000 new teachers for advanced-placement courses in math and science in high schools--but said nothing about college education. (He certainly did not boast about the recent cuts in college funding.) When Bush turned to Social Security--a focus of last year's address--he essentially hoisted a white flag. "Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security," he said, and Democrats began applauding and hooting. This was the closest the US Congress gets to question time in the British Parliament. Bush trudged on and called for creating a bipartisan commission to deal with the long-term fiscal challenges posed by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. On the economy--no shocker--he said all was swell and pointed out that in the last two-and-a-half years, America has created 4.6 million new jobs. (His speechwriters left out this factoid: To keep up with population growth, the US economy needed to add between 4.5 and 5 million jobs in this period.)

Bush twice referred to Jackgate--the Congressional corruption scandal tied to felonious GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff. First, he equated public concern "about unethical conduct by public officials" with worries about "activist courts that try to redefine marriage." Seriously, he did, suggesting a moral equivalency between sleazy and criminal lawmakers and judges who decide that state Constitutions require states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Moments later, Bush offered the most benign comments on Jackgate a speechwriter could concoct: "A hopeful society expects elected officials to uphold the public trust. Honorable people in both parties are working on reforms to strengthen the ethical standards of Washington--and I support your efforts."

Commentators often complain when a SOTU comes across as a laundry list of overly hyped proposals meant to cover every area of policy known to Washington wonks. Bush certainly did not go overboard in this manner. Here is a partial list of subjects he did not have anything to say about: global warming, wage levels, missile defense, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, genocide in Sudan, torture, the mission to Mars (he promoted in SOTU 2004), the campaign against steroids (he promoted in SOTU 2004), Michael Brown and FEMA, and corporate responsibility.

At the end, Bush attempted a soaring-rhetoric finale. He equated his mission to change the world with the work of Lincoln and Martin Luther King, stating,

We have entered a great ideological conflict we did nothing to invite.... [E]very great movement of history comes to a point of choosing. Lincoln could have accepted peace at the cost of disunity and continued slavery. Martin Luther King could have stopped at Birmingham or at Selma, and achieved only half a victory over segregation. The United States could have accepted the permanent division of Europe, and been complicit in the oppression of others. Today, having come far in our own historical journey, we must decide: Will we turn back, or finish well?

Such rhetoric sounds good. But does it have any real meaning? There was no way for King to have achieved "half a victory over segregation." What would that have looked like? Integrated buses, but segregated lunch counters? And, as critics of Yalta grouse, the United States did accept the division of Europe, at least for decades. (The alternative was probably war, perhaps nuclear war.) And the United States has been complicit in the "oppression of others" by supporting repressive regimes and brutal armies in such nations as Chile, South America, El Salvador, the Philippines, Argentina, Iran and Iraq.

"Before history is written down in books, it is written in courage," Bush declared. "Like Americans before us, we will show that courage and we will finish well." Written in courage--it's a nice notion. But can Bush persuade Americans to stick with him in Iraq (and elsewhere) by tossing out well-crafted and dramatic lines that seem suitable for a Mel Gibson historical epic and that are designed to appeal to cliche-driven sentiments? It is a simple plan--and perhaps the best he's got.

Comments (234)

Bush used the word "terror" (or a derivative) 20 times in his State of the Union address tonight; he only used the word "freedom" 17 times. I think it's a hint...

Last year he used "terror" and "freedom" 27 times each. In 2004 S.o.U.: "terror" 20, "freedom" 8. In 2003 S.o.U.: "terror" 21, "freedom" 5. In 2002 S.o.U.: "terror" 34, "freedom" 14. In 2001 Inaugural: "freedom" 5, "terror" 0.

To sum up: terror has a winning record of 4-1-1.

Now if I were a betting man...

-Alan "Defender of Freedom" Kennedy-Shaffer

Posted by aks at 02/01/2006 @ 01:33am
"Becoming louder, Bush proclaimed, "If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it--"

What was the last figure-- 30,000+ wiretaps? So, there are 30,000 Americans "talking with al-Qaeda"? How irremediably dimwitted can a person be who laps up idiot drivel like this? They must be ignorant serfs from the Middle Ages transported through time with no concept of a government controlled by anything other than degenerate thugs. Back then they would willingly kneel in the mud when the carriage of the king passed. Today's serfs are more subtle about appearances but the basic mentality hasn't evolved in the least.

Posted by fromredbird at 02/01/2006 @ 01:40am
Anyone want to bet that al-Qaeda won't successfully attack again because the Republicans have spent the last five years attacking everyone who wasn't responsible for 9/11, including the American people and the primary concepts upon which America was founded?

The Republicans have done absolutely zero to protect America. Did I say "zero"? How about minus 100?

Posted by fromredbird at 02/01/2006 @ 01:47am
Good work David. Has this thread become a neo-nostradamus cypher rant??. The address was, in simple terms, bullshit and lies. I am still amazed that so many Americans swallow this crap hook line and sinker.. I'm from California and I'm voting for Cindy.

Posted by parulis at 02/01/2006 @ 02:33am
Although I agree with most of your opinions, I am still debating whether you are a professional journalist or propaganda producer. In what school of literature would this be acceptable? "Bush and his speechwriters (who went through 30 drafts of this not-so-monumental speech)" -- Purely, simply, completely inappropriate, baseless, intentional degradation without any reasonable explanation; ad-hominem, if you will.

It seems the focus of this article is, very simply, to degrade Bush's points at all possible cost. No, not to make logical points, not to present counter-viewpoints where appropriate -- this is, after all, the purpose of a blog, and I'm not arguing the presentation of personal viewpoints. Your article was instead focused on degrading the speech and the man at every possible opportunity, without logical rhyme or reason. The pure, unfettered bias seething through this article makes it intensely painful to read, and, I'm afraid, damages your credibility so badly, that no points within can be taken seriously.

If you read this article and thought "Good article", you deserve to go back and re-examine your bias and ability to read and produce rational discussion on a given topic. While I have accused the Right of being hopelessly biased many times, I'm afraid this article falls under the exact same category: "Shameless Political Propaganda".

Posted by mhjc at 02/01/2006 @ 02:33am
I just finished reading the transcript and have a few comments.

First, did anyone notice the overwhelming attention to war and mass violence? Bush outlined his support for war and mass violence in detail. Then, he finally got around to domestic issues, and made only perfunctory comments.

Bush suggested the "war on terror" will last until all countries on earth -- another 170 to go -- are democracies. If we are to be honest with ourselves, Bush is talking about permanent war aka mass violence. It can't last long.

Just take a look at the Iraq War Timeline [ameswire.com] to see how badly things are going. This war, this mass violence, has to stop.

Posted by arbes at 02/01/2006 @ 02:33am
MHJC...it's ok dude...go back to Fox now, we won't miss you.

Posted by parulis at 02/01/2006 @ 02:42am
Although I agree with most of your opinions, I am still debating whether you are a professional journalist or propaganda producer.

Posted by MHJC 02/01/2006 @ 02:33am

Tricky devils, aren't they?

With mud all over their knees.

Posted by fromredbird at 02/01/2006 @ 03:20am
A great analysis of Bush's speech, Mr. Corn. Very satisfying to read. I like the way you follow his own logic through to it's less-than-satisfying conclusions.

Thanks!

B.

Posted by Blinky at 02/01/2006 @ 04:23am
Ok, now that the U.S. president has been analyzed, let's bring the person out of the woodwork that we want to replace the president. We need a production. We need to read about this person in action, and see this person in action. We need to see this person working on issues, leading a movement. We need to imagine him or her in the Oval Office as this person performs. We're never going to have someone in the Oval Office upholding the public interest until that person first pops out of the woodwork and performs to our satisfaction and I don't see it happening anywhere. I want to read about this person in The Nation, regularly, and I want to see rallies, speeches, works, plans, action. Now where is this person?

Posted by rtdrury at 02/01/2006 @ 04:52am
Bush's SOTU message is clear Staus Quo, so those who believe in change are dreaming. I can only see the stabilization and further consolidation of Neocon policies. We will have to live with that reality, and manage accordingly.

Posted by areyouok at 02/01/2006 @ 06:18am
Interesting part here-

"And, as critics of Yalta grouse, the United States did accept the division of Europe, at least for decades. (The alternative was probably war, perhaps nuclear war.)"?

So, we surrendered Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and East Germany to the Soviets...because we would have had a "nuclear war" with them?

I'd love to see Mr Corn defend that. Especially given that the Russians didn't test their first nuclear bomb until 1949. How would it have "gone nuke"...if, from 1945-1949, WE were the only ones with the bombs and could threaten Stalin with "his own versions of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" if he didn't pull back to the pre-Ribbentrop/Molotov Pact borders?

As to Mr Corn's assessment of the SOTU...."comic book defenses" is in the eye of the beholder and nobody on Bush's team expects to win "David Corn" or "The Nation" over. We'll see what the polls look like and how the IMAGE of them plays for Bush.

Posted by Mask at 02/01/2006 @ 06:34am
Oh, to have someone like David giving the State of the Union instead of this warmongering, lying fascist homophobe.... One can dream.....

Posted by sksamra at 02/01/2006 @ 07:12am
Areyouok,

"Bush's SOTU message is clear Staus Quo, so those who believe in change are dreaming. I can only see the stabilization and further consolidation of Neocon policies. We will have to live with that reality, and manage accordingly."

Amen....

Yes, this is the reality of the situation, whether you like it or not = )

I still love you my liberal friend!

Todd

Posted by Oksportsguy at 02/01/2006 @ 09:09am
OKSPORTSGUY,

The reality also involves a poor image of the US around the world, corruption at the Hill, torture around the world, lies concerning dangers, occupation of countries, use of illegal weaponry in occupied countries, ilegal wiretapping of citizens, and soon, woman will not decide on their own wombs, homosexuals will become 2nd class citizens.

So the status quo is more a shame than a praise. But you dont see that reality, you feel all is OK. Believe me, something is wrong, and only time will show the reality to endoctrinated people. When that will happen it will be too late. It is, in fact, already too late for all the dead and mutilated people.

That is a reality they and their families have to cope with all the time, and just because of lies!

Posted by areyouok at 02/01/2006 @ 09:37am
Not since his speech shortly after 9/11 has the president risen to the heights he achieved last night. As I listened with pride, I could not help but think of how liberals such as post here would be seething in their anger and contempt.

We have 2 Americas. Those who have a traditional pride in America's leaders to guide us through difficult seasons. Then we have the other America, more reminiscent of the ugly child that you constantly try and figure out what went wrong with the gene pool.

It is no surprise to this writer and to the other conservatives who post here that the gnashing of teeth and hissing have taken on cartoon like dimensions.

By all means, continue your path which is already marginalized. Two more years of this and we may have to declare the far left an endangered species.

BTW, I notice even Corn would not bother with the pathetic Democratic response last night.

Posted by love liberty at 02/01/2006 @ 10:37am
Although I agree with most of your opinions, I am still debating whether you are a professional journalist or propaganda producer. In what school of literature would this be acceptable? "Bush and his speechwriters (who went through 30 drafts of this not-so-monumental speech)" -- Purely, simply, completely inappropriate, baseless, intentional degradation without any reasonable explanation; ad-hominem, if you will.

It seems the focus of this article is, very simply, to degrade Bush's points at all possible cost. No, not to make logical points, not to present counter-viewpoints where appropriate -- this is, after all, the purpose of a blog, and I'm not arguing the presentation of personal viewpoints. Your article was instead focused on degrading the speech and the man at every possible opportunity, without logical rhyme or reason. The pure, unfettered bias seething through this article makes it intensely painful to read, and, I'm afraid, damages your credibility so badly, that no points within can be taken seriously.

If you read this article and thought "Good article", you deserve to go back and re-examine your bias and ability to read and produce rational discussion on a given topic. While I have accused the Right of being hopelessly biased many times, I'm afraid this article falls under the exact same category: "Shameless Political Propaganda".

Posted by MHJC 02/01/2006 @ 02:33am | ignore this person

i find your post to be completely unbiased and utterly devoid of hyperbole. thank you for waking us all up to the intellectual peril to which we have subjected ourselves by reading mr. corns blog post (not an article, but, big deal, eh?). the pubs, of course would never stoop to such intellectual depravity. they are icons of "fair and balanced journalism.

why no, i would never imply rank, partisan hypocrisy on your part. NEVER....

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/01/2006 @ 10:45am
You know you have a successful SOTU speech, when "the Nation" and her posters are angry about it.

Posted by CPT at 02/01/2006 @ 10:46am
LOVE LIBERTY,

Why attack the left (or the right), we here are in a case of lies, torture, illegal war, wiretapping, and so on, its not democratic or republican ideologies that are the problem, it is the policies of the administration that are not capable of delivering what the USA and the world needs.

Posted by areyouok at 02/01/2006 @ 10:46am
ALL

On Cindy Shehaans "wardrobe malfunction" So Janet J can flip a tittie out in front of the entire world and is risque if laffable. Shehaan wears the wrong T-shirt and goes to jail for "unlawful conduct". Did Chertoff expand Homeland Security into the "Fashion Police"? Next thing you know "Queer Eye" is gonna turn into a Republican police drama on CBS.

Posted by leftofcenter at 02/01/2006 @ 10:48am
Gee, people, you're complaining that Cindy Sheehan was arrested at an event she had been invited to. don't you realize she was wearing an ANTIWAR T shirt? I mean this is war time, and the pres and all invited dignitaries have a right not to see such a blatant attempt of expression, this is clearly within Bush's commander in chief perogatives. we cannot forget the lessons of 9/11 and the global war on just about everything, who does that woman think she is, a gold star mom?

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/01/2006 @ 10:49am
Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/01/2006 @ 09:20am | ignore this person

why frank - how dare that dangerous treasonous taxpaying citizen, cindy pinko sheehan, so arrogantly assume she can enter the halls of power of her elected officials, who are supported by her taxpayer money, wearing a t-shirt that expresses her non-pornographic "free speech" opinion? in fact the fact that the t-shirt pointed out the number of american dead, in my opinion, shows she must be brainwashed by the demonic secular "culture of death"!!!!! furthermore, the t-shirt was a blatent lie!!!! several more americans have died in iraq since its printing already!!!! yet another example of "demoncrat" lies!!!! wake up america!!!!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/01/2006 @ 10:51am
LOVE LIBERTY,

Why attack the left (or the right), we here are in a case of lies, torture, illegal war, wiretapping, and so on, its not democratic or republican ideologies that are the problem, it is the policies of the administration that are not capable of delivering what the USA and the world needs.

Posted by AREYOUOK 02/01/2006 @ 10:46am

Areyouok,

It was not intended as an attack. Rather it was meant to highlight the seemingly parallel universe that currently exists between most Americans and the radical left. The problem for those on the far left is that in the US, their world is diminishing even while they find their ideology growing in Europe and Latin America.

I am somewhat sympathetic to the level of frustration that must produce. However, it is a valid criticism to compare the near identical responses of the Nation writers with the very different perspective of the vast majority of those with a different viewpoint.

Posted by love liberty at 02/01/2006 @ 10:59am
Vast majority of bible thumping phonies is more like it. Crow away, old roosters. Flail all you want. At the end of the day, everybody knows what happens to roosters who flail.

Posted by Legba at 02/01/2006 @ 11:03am
But LOVE LIBERTY,

I myself not being a radical leftist, nor a leftist, find all those lies and illegal situations a waste of time and money, that is not the added value a country needs. So in a way these radical leftist are not fully mistaken.

Posted by areyouok at 02/01/2006 @ 11:05am
LL

Not since his speech shortly after 9/11 has the president risen to the heights he achieved last night.

Brother...what were you smokin' and where can I get me some?

Posted by leftofcenter at 02/01/2006 @ 11:07am
"- how dare that dangerous treasonous taxpaying citizen, cindy pinko sheehan..."

She has a job where she pays taxes? What is her job? Or does she work for Soros or some political group? I would like to know who is paying for all of her "travels". She has been used and is being made a fool.

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 11:16am
This just in:

30-Year Treasury Bonds Return Feb. 9

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The long bond is back! The Treasury Department announced Wednesday that it will have its first sale of 30-year bonds on Feb. 9, bringing back a debt security it had discontinued issuing five years ago when the government's finances were in better shape.

But faced with soaring budget deficits, the government has decided to bring back the 30-year bond.

`````````````````````````````

The government began selling a 30-year bond in 1977 but it was discontinued in 2001, the last year the government produced a budget surplus.

Since that time, the surpluses have disappeared and been replaced by huge deficits, including an all-time high of $413 billion in 2004. For the current budget year, the administration is projecting a deficit of $400 billion, up from last year's $319 billion imbalance.

Don't count on self-misnamed, Republican sycophants like LOVE LIBERTY to ever start acting like Americans. They won't be satisfied until America is thoroughly ruined and reduced to a banana republic. They've even formulated a twisted, heretical version of Christianity to complement their barbarian bloodlust.

Posted by fromredbird at 02/01/2006 @ 11:23am
JOHN MAASCH,

Please extend those questions to our representatives in the Congress and the Senate, as well.

Posted by areyouok at 02/01/2006 @ 11:24am
Brother...what were you smokin' and where can I get me some?

Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/01/2006 @ 11:07am

LOC,

Sorry, gave it up almost 30 years ago. Guess you'll have to find another source.

Posted by love liberty at 02/01/2006 @ 11:28am
We have 2 Americas. Those who have a traditional pride in America's leaders to guide us through difficult seasons. Then we have the other America, more reminiscent of the ugly child that you constantly try and figure out what went wrong with the gene pool.

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/01/2006 @ 10:37am

That's what you define as Americanism- 'pride in your leaders'? That's mindless pap that originated in a German beer hall in the 1930's. Where the hell is your immediate gene pool located- in a barnyard or a jungle?

Posted by fromredbird at 02/01/2006 @ 11:30am
Are,

I have been asking that for years.

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 11:32am
"- how dare that dangerous treasonous taxpaying citizen, cindy pinko sheehan..."

She has a job where she pays taxes? What is her job? Or does she work for Soros or some political group? I would like to know who is paying for all of her "travels". She has been used and is being made a fool.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/01/2006 @ 11:16am

And worst of all she doesn't want to end the barbaric bloodletting in Iraq that some mentally imbalanceded characters find so delightful- that's the part that really hurts, isn't it Maasch?

Posted by fromredbird at 02/01/2006 @ 11:35am
Coming back to SOTU,

Could anyone highlight any important comitment concerning economic development, social cohesion, world peace, justice, freedom, and more simple quality of live elements, in the President's speech ?

Posted by areyouok at 02/01/2006 @ 11:38am
I am somewhat sympathetic to the level of frustration that must produce. However, it is a valid criticism to compare the near identical responses of the Nation writers with the very different perspective of the vast majority of those with a different viewpoint.

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/01/2006 @ 10:59am

Funny, isn't it genius, that opinion polls show exactly the opposite of what you're saying?

And, who is suffering from frustration? You're the one who can't tear himself away from a discussion group that is anchored by a publication which advocates the opposite of your own social and political beliefs. To put up posts about "gene pools". Sure- you're normal.

Posted by fromredbird at 02/01/2006 @ 11:42am
You know you have a successful SOTU speech, when "the Nation" and her posters are angry about it.

Posted by CPT 02/01/2006 @ 10:46am

You would have considered Hitler's speeches equally "sucessful". What are your basic personal values- murder, destruction, and domination of the weaker by the stronger? You think that's what it means to be an American?

Posted by fromredbird at 02/01/2006 @ 11:48am
Did anyone notice if the security guards who ejected Cindy, an invited guest, were wearing brown shirts?

Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/01/2006 @ 09:26am

I heard on the news last night that the T-shirt she was wearing was actually underneath another shirt so she wasn't displaying any message that someone could see without going out of their way to look for it.

Posted by fromredbird at 02/01/2006 @ 11:52am
Reading posts from the usual Bush apologists, it is clear the president knows how to appeal to his base. I haven't seen post SOTU polling results yet, but won't be surprised if he gets the expected bounce that normally follows events like last night's speech.

At the end of the day, it is just another speech. It is a rally event for the declining numbers who remain sleeping amid the perils that have befallen us under GWB's leadership and the Orwellian future that faces us.

Posted by seattlescribe at 02/01/2006 @ 11:53am
She has a job where she pays taxes? What is her job? Or does she work for Soros or some political group? I would like to know who is paying for all of her "travels". She has been used and is being made a fool.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/01/2006 @ 11:16am

And worst of all she doesn't want to end correction: continue the barbaric bloodletting in Iraq that some mentally imbalanceded characters find so delightful- that's the part that really hurts, isn't it Maasch?

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 02/01/2006 @ 11:35am

Posted by fromredbird at 02/01/2006 @ 11:54am
They won't be satisfied until America is thoroughly ruined and reduced to a banana republic. They've even formulated a twisted, heretical version of Christianity to complement their barbarian bloodlust.

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 02/01/2006 @ 11:23am

Redbird,

Actually, you have highlighted the complaint that conservatives have toward the far left. Listening to many of the left's leaders, you would prefer that the US become a 3rd world nation by redistributing our wealth to everyone who "lacks". It is the left and not conservatives who want to tax us into economic oblivion.

And you fulfill the far left stereotype by joining the usual ad hominum attacks on Christians which is completely unrelated to the subject matter. Well, as they say, when you have nothing of substance to contribute, make a slanderous attack on your opponent.

Posted by love liberty at 02/01/2006 @ 12:09pm
However, it is a valid criticism to compare the near identical responses of the Nation writers with the very different perspective of the vast majority of those with a different viewpoint.

Majority, huh? That's why Bush's approval ratings haven't broken 50% in months.

Posted by brunowe at 02/01/2006 @ 12:10pm
Frei, what the hell are you talking about? Sheehan was arrested for wearing a shirt. That's utter bullshit in a society that supposedly values free expression. Your hypothetical turnabout scenario is absurd. Right wingers harassed Clinton constantly. How often were they arrested?

Posted by MyParadigm at 02/01/2006 @ 12:11pm
Interesting part here-

"And, as critics of Yalta grouse, the United States did accept the division of Europe, at least for decades. (The alternative was probably war, perhaps nuclear war.)"?

So, we surrendered Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and East Germany to the Soviets...because we would have had a "nuclear war" with them?

I'd love to see Mr Corn defend that. Especially given that the Russians didn't test their first nuclear bomb until 1949. How would it have "gone nuke"...if, from 1945-1949, WE were the only ones with the bombs and could threaten Stalin with "his own versions of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" if he didn't pull back to the pre-Ribbentrop/Molotov Pact borders?

As to Mr Corn's assessment of the SOTU...."comic book defenses" is in the eye of the beholder and nobody on Bush's team expects to win "David Corn" or "The Nation" over. We'll see what the polls look like and how the IMAGE of them plays for Bush.

Posted by MASK 02/01/2006 @ 06:34am

Are you saying that for some reason the Soviet Union couldn't have used it's nuclear weapons a few years later? If that isn't what you're saying then what are you saying?

It seems you'll go to any illogical length to cast aspersions on The Nation and it's columnists. The polls have for some time already indicated that David Corn's assessment of the duplicitious Bush administration is solidly in the mainstream of American opinion so your personal opinion of where you're located on that continuum is very likely a misapprehension.

Posted by fromredbird at 02/01/2006 @ 12:12pm
Frei,

One was hauled out at Clintons Impeachment hearings, buty I am sure no brown shirt comments came forth. Not the uber left style.

Redbird,

"And worst of all she doesn't want to end correction: continue the barbaric bloodletting in Iraq that some mentally imbalanceded characters find so delightful- that's the part that really hurts, isn't it Maasch? "

This post is completely irrelevant to my question...Does she have a job or is she now a paid professional lefty? Or is that her job? Profession Bush basher and Antin American proterster no matter when, where or why, so long as it is anti Bush. Who pays her bills? I jhave to caugh up big time in 2 months and I hope she pays her "fair share" and not getting "free ride" like congressman..

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 12:12pm
Apparently the ONLY "Democratic response" to Bush's SOTU....

was the "arrest of Cindy Sheehan"?

Tim Kaine seemingly has been left out in the cold, even been vilified as "weak".

Posted by Mask at 02/01/2006 @ 12:14pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 02/01/2006 @ 12:12am | ignore this person

Not really concerned with Mr Corn's "poll numbers"....more about his view of history.

Again, between 1945 and 1949, WE and only we had nuclear weapons, so why would it have resulted in "nuclear war" with the Soviets if, in say, 1946, we had told them to "pull out of Poland, Hungary, East Germany, etc. and allow free elections....or else Stalin will find himself in the same situation as Emperor Hirohito"?

Posted by Mask at 02/01/2006 @ 12:17pm
The Democratic Party's response means something, but is predictably not going to take any sharp variance with Bush's war on either people abroad or our freedoms at home. The Democrats are the Republicans' enablers.

What is more important, I believe, is the staged "filibuster attempt," which was nothing more than a spectacle designed to keep cash coming from wealthy liberal supporters. A complete and unabridged cave by the Dems would have impacted their income--the one thing you can rely on them to actively prevent. Otherwise, it was business as usual.

State of the Union? One party masquerading as two, making war on the world and turning our country into a prison with red-white-blue bars, guards in crisp uniforms, and a Bible in every cell.

Posted by Dravazed at 02/01/2006 @ 12:18pm
Redbird,

Actually, you have highlighted the complaint that conservatives have toward the far left. Listening to many of the left's leaders, you would prefer that the US become a 3rd world nation by redistributing our wealth to everyone who "lacks". It is the left and not conservatives who want to tax us into economic oblivion.

The "economic oblivion" is being engineered by the Republicans. They turned the very large Democratic budget surplus into a yawning budget deficit. But don't let the facts stop you from parroting your Republicanism.

And you fulfill the far left stereotype by joining the usual ad hominum attacks on Christians which is completely unrelated to the subject matter. Well, as they say, when you have nothing of substance to contribute, make a slanderous attack on your opponent.

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/01/2006 @ 12:09am

It's not in the least "unrelated" since you regularly spend hours here posting nutcase explications of your personal heretical version of "Christianity". Your essentially anti-Christian beliefs and allegiances are like something out of a horror movie.

Posted by fromredbird at 02/01/2006 @ 12:20pm
Again, between 1945 and 1949, WE and only we had nuclear weapons, so why would it have resulted in "nuclear war" with the Soviets if, in say, 1946, we had told them to "pull out of Poland, Hungary, East Germany, etc. and allow free elections....or else Stalin will find himself in the same situation as Emperor Hirohito"?

The Soviet Union had a whopping big army. Do you think we had enough nukes to equate the damage they suffered from the German invasion, and which didn't keep them from fighting? Do you think we would've gone on to nuke Brussels, Strasbourg, Paris, if they got that far?

Posted by brunowe at 02/01/2006 @ 12:26pm
John, regarding "Does [Sheehan] have a job or is she now a paid professional lefty?"

So what if she is? Do you not notice that something like the Heritage Foundation is bunch of "paid professional righties"?

Posted by MyParadigm at 02/01/2006 @ 12:28pm
Redbird,

Please let me know when you are ready to engage your brain with your writing and we will have a dialogue.

It is a waste of time responding to someone so bent on their ideology and hatred that they would not accept a fact if it was posted on their forehead.

I will look forward to that day when you can assimilate facts and posit a cogent response.

Posted by love liberty at 02/01/2006 @ 12:29pm
Yes, I know what the Heritage Foundation is as I know what Moveon.org is..they are registered organizations.

You expect us to swallow that Sheehan is just another citizen who only wants to right the wrongs inflicted by the ever evil GOPers and Bush.

Sheehan is a fraud is this case. I want her to pay her fair share..I would feel better about her if she daid ,"I am a paid empolyee of..whomever,..." and stop this goldstar mom play...speaking of truth...

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 12:35pm
said, sorry..

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 12:36pm
Again, between 1945 and 1949, WE and only we had nuclear weapons, so why would it have resulted in "nuclear war" with the Soviets if, in say, 1946, we had told them to "pull out of Poland, Hungary, East Germany, etc. and allow free elections....or else Stalin will find himself in the same situation as Emperor Hirohito"?

Posted by MASK 02/01/2006 @ 12:17am

Maybe it escaped your attention but Japan lost the war and the Soviet Union won. Japan had lost the war before we used the atom bomb. We didn't have enough nuclear weapons to keep the Soviet Union from overrunning western Europe. A very few years later they had enough nuclear weapons to devastate anyone who had been shortsighted enough to have previously attacked them.

What's your opinion now? Should we nuke every country in the world that refuses to have democratic elections? That would make 150 or so countries that we're going to nuke. And you're claiming that David Corn is out of the mainstream? You must have been drinking some LOVE LIBERTY Kool-Aid since the last time I was here.

Posted by fromredbird at 02/01/2006 @ 12:36pm
Maasch, you don't actually know anything about Ms Sheehan's financials. it's actually no one's business. but you go on with your meanspirited, baseless attacks, and then look in the mirror to see what you've become

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/01/2006 @ 12:40pm
Redbird,

Please let me know when you are ready to engage your brain with your writing and we will have a dialogue.

It is a waste of time responding to someone so bent on their ideology and hatred that they would not accept a fact if it was posted on their forehead.

I will look forward to that day when you can assimilate facts and posit a cogent response.

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/01/2006 @ 12:29am

Oh, cow poo! You don't have a logical leg to stand on. Take your toys and go home.

Posted by fromredbird at 02/01/2006 @ 12:41pm
Out of time, and I broke my no-Cindy rule.

Here's what pisses me off about Bush's speech. He says:

"Our Nation has only one option: We must keep our word, defeat our enemies, and stand behind the American military in its vital mission."

Then he goes into a little memorial for Staff Sergeant Dan Clay, who was killed last month.

And immediately after that:

"Ultimately, the only way to defeat the terrorists is to defeat their dark vision of hatred and fear by offering the hopeful alternative of political freedom and peaceful change."

So what is it? Fight to the bitter end, or set an example of peaceful change? These are mutually exclusive. But Bush fans stood and cheered for both quotes. Because it all makes sense, you know, when you think about the noble sacrifice of our troops.

Who's writing his speeches these days, George Orwell? Doublespeak, nothing but doublespeak. Three years to go.

Posted by MyParadigm at 02/01/2006 @ 12:44pm
two historical notes.. Hitler was a far better public speaker than Bush, not as good as Goebbels perhaps, but good. it was the russian army that defeated Hitler. england had held him at bay, america helped, chiefly with its mighty industrial production, but Russia did the heavy lifting. Stalin's army could perhaps have kept going all the way up to the channel in France. look what happened to the US and Britain at the battle of the bulge. Mask knows nothing about actual history, a trait he shares with numerous other Tory posters. the best history of WW2 in my not often humble opinion is by B.H. Liddle Hart, Putnam, New York 1970

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/01/2006 @ 12:48pm
From LL

"Rather it was meant to highlight the seemingly parallel universe that currently exists between most Americans and the radical left"

Sorry for the late post, but could not get over the "most americans" statement. LL you did not give up smoking pot anf the above statement proves it.Trolls have a habit of saying "most americans" when trying to make a point. The truth is "most Americans" believe just the opposit of LL, read the polls.

Posted by butterfly at 02/01/2006 @ 1:16pm
ya wanna hear something really depressing? two more state of the union speeches to go. maybe there's light at the end of the tunnel

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/01/2006 @ 1:21pm
Just in

According to CNN/USA Today/Gallup, Last night's SOTU received the lowest level of positive reaction from viewers of President Bush's tenure. So much for "most americans".

Posted by butterfly at 02/01/2006 @ 1:22pm
Zero,

The desperation in your posts is growing day by day. I suggest a mini vacation with some beautiful scenery and a variety of drinkable wines.

You are too intelligent and could contribute much, so get out there and regain a joy for life.

Posted by love liberty at 02/01/2006 @ 1:55pm
very good zero

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/01/2006 @ 1:58pm
Actually, these [tinyurl.com] are the conservatives. They're not the least bit in agreement with the Republican trolls here and their "Christian" crusade to enslave the world.

Posted by fromredbird at 02/01/2006 @ 2:12pm
Actually, these [tinyurl.com] are the conservatives. They're not the least bit in agreement with the Republican trolls here and their "Christian" crusade to enslave the world.

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 02/01/2006 @ 2:12pm

Redbird,

Only someone like yourself would think it relevant to post a link to a John Birch Society website and suggest it represents conservative or Christian thought.

Posted by love liberty at 02/01/2006 @ 2:23pm
Even Paul Bremer, when on" The Daily Show", said that Bush is not online with most conservatives today. And he LIKES Bush and thinks he's doing a good job. Well people can dream......

Posted by k330k at 02/01/2006 @ 2:35pm
Posted by BRUNOWE 02/01/2006 @ 12:26am | ignore this person

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 02/01/2006 @ 12:36am | ignore this person

Again, I'm afraid neither one of you seems to recognize the situation of 1945-1949 or the effect that Hiroshima had on Stalin.

It scared the BEJEEZUS out of him, hence he took a fledgling atomic program and poured millions of rubles in it AND contacted his "friends" over here in the States and got them to work on stealing OUR atomic secrets as fast as he could.

Why? Because he knew that all it would take would be a meeting of the Politburo in Moscow, with him giving one of his famous speeches....and an American B-29 overhead....to decapitate his cult of personality state and end Soviet expansionism.

What could he have done if Truman had taken a "harder line" on the removal of Soviet forces, instead of the "medium line" he took that resulted in the Berlin blockade? Invaded West Germany and France? Sure.....and Truman would have nuked Moscow and Kiev and the Russians would have been cut off from both food, ammunition AND their "Glorious Leader".

What held Truman in check was an American people tired of 4 years of war and what they had been TOLD for those 4 years about how the "Russians are our allies" and "Uncle Joe's brave stance at Stalingrad".

So....what we got was enough of a delay until the Soviets developed a bomb in 1949, then fear of it hitting New York (when it couldn't even hit London before being shot down)...then MORE time passing....and a hyper-militarized Soviet Union, nearly bled to death in 1945, and by 1955 able to muscle their way around the world sponsering "people's republics" and "workers' paradises".

Posted by Mask at 02/01/2006 @ 2:59pm
zero, there was a mistake in the white house secretary pool, it actually read pox americana, as in: "a pox on both your houses" Shakespeare yes, but from which play?

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/01/2006 @ 3:21pm
wow zero! you're really on a roll today. keep up the good work.

Posted by loveloki at 02/01/2006 @ 3:33pm
Again, I'm afraid neither one of you seems to recognize the situation of 1945-1949 or the effect that Hiroshima had on Stalin.

It scared the BEJEEZUS out of him, hence he took a fledgling atomic program and poured millions of rubles in it AND contacted his "friends" over here in the States and got them to work on stealing OUR atomic secrets as fast as he could.

Posted by MASK 02/01/2006 @ 2:59pm

Your chronology is incorrect. Stalin's spy rings were already stealing the technology long before we applied it against Japan. Prior to that, when Truman personally mentioned to Stalin that the US had a new and powerful weapon, he just brushed it off because he was already reading the blueprints, unbeknownst to Truman.

Also, you're assuming that WE could deliver an atom bomb in the Soviet Union as easily as in Japan. Not correct. Japan had been devoid of airpower to defend itself for quite a while before the atom bombs. Not the same case at all in the Soviet Union.

Anyway, did the US have any additional atom bombs to use in the first place? There very likely was a gap in useable weapons for a while. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were final testbeds for the first two. Stalin also probably had good enough information to know if the US was contemplating your scenario. He would have taken precautions and overrun Western Europe then delivered nuclear weapons to the US on a cruise ship for revenge.

Additionally, the underlying premise of your concept is inapplicable in any case. The US didn't have the slightest bit of interest in promoting democracy after WWII. They immediately began setting up self-serving puppet oligarchies and dictatorships similar to the Soviet Union.

Hope that doesn't ruin the smell of napalm for you in the morning.

Posted by fromredbird at 02/01/2006 @ 3:41pm
Pox Americana. Oh yes. And the play was Romeo and Juliet.

Posted by bkarloff at 02/01/2006 @ 3:44pm
JR,

"... but Russia did the heavy lifting. Stalin's army could perhaps have kept going all the way up to the channel in France. look what happened to the US and Britain at the battle of the bulge..."

I think you may be right on this one and I had an uncle killed 3 days after D-Day...I believe the retreating German Army and their SS-divisons actually stopped the Russians from going to the English channel.... sort of a defeating win, so to speak...saw the movie DOWNFALL, last week end. It was good, did you see it?

Sorry for off thread...

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 3:47pm
JR,

Maasch, you don't actually know anything about Ms Sheehan's financials. it's actually no one's business. but you go on with your meanspirited, baseless attacks, and then look in the mirror to see what you've become..

I am nor attacking her, merely pointing out what should be obvious..She is not the only one to have been given the bums rush out the door that night..or the only one in the past..To believe she is a pawn is not mean spirited...in fact, quite the contrary, those using her are mean spirited..

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 3:51pm
LL

At least if you blaming your opinion on drugs, I would understand the rationale....must be the Kool-Aid

Posted by leftofcenter at 02/01/2006 @ 4:02pm
Redbird,

Only someone like yourself would think it relevant to post a link to a John Birch Society website and suggest it represents conservative or Christian thought.

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/01/2006 @ 2:23pm

You're so in the dark it's lamentable. I didn't say anything about whether Birchers are Christian or not. That's your addition. And, there is nothing in the least "conservative" about your "Christian" crusade to conquer and subjugate the Muslim religion or your nutcase rantings about Jesus returning to earth to rule from Jerusalem after Armageddon.

A traditional, conservative America would be one that abides by it's founding principles and minds it's own business rather than attempting to violently impose it's political and cultural suzerainty over other countries. You are an utter fake if you're trying to define yourself as "conservative".

Your allegiances are cultic and, in fact, downright clinical. You and your ilk originate from the same spiritual impulse as Hitler and Pol Pot.

And- why are you "dialoguing" with me again? The only "fact" I see posted on anyone's forehead are those three numbers on yours.

Posted by fromredbird at 02/01/2006 @ 4:13pm
"....The US didn't have the slightest bit of interest in promoting democracy after WWII. They immediately began setting up self-serving puppet oligarchies and dictatorships similar to the Soviet Union."

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 02/01/2006 @ 3:41pm | ignore this person

I'm sorry....post war-France, West Germany, Italy, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Japan....all "puppet oligarchies and dictatorships"?!?!?

Posted by Mask at 02/01/2006 @ 4:31pm
"....The US didn't have the slightest bit of interest in promoting democracy after WWII. They immediately began setting up self-serving puppet oligarchies and dictatorships similar to the Soviet Union."

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 02/01/2006 @ 3:41pm

I'm sorry....post war-France, West Germany, Italy, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Japan....all "puppet oligarchies and dictatorships"?!?!?

Posted by MASK 02/01/2006 @ 4:31pm

Democratic forms of government had already existed in all those countries before the war (a culturally deformed version in Japan). The US would have had to forcibly stopp them from continuing that tradition. Not the case in less economically developed Asia, Africa, and Latin America, where the US did exactly what I said they did.

Does your shift in the main subject mean you're ending your nuclear bombing campaign?

Posted by fromredbird at 02/01/2006 @ 4:47pm
Why do progressives say they "support" the troops but then turn around and accuse troops of committing torture and murder of Iraqi and Afghan civillians??? Or when they call the troops "occupiers" not liberators??

If you progressives actually said that in front of soldiers, they'd knock the living hell out of you.

How can you progressives say you support America when you are AGAINST the Afghanistan war, a NECESSARY war to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda??? Or when you claim that the US government was behind the most horrific attack on American soil in history???(9/11)

Just ADMIT it you progressives, you WANT America to lose the Afghanistan and Iraq war because of your hatred for George W. Bush. Just ADMIT it, that you think America is an EVIL country.

Posted by UCS1923 at 02/01/2006 @ 4:59pm
ucs, :"accuse troops of committing torture and murder of Iraqi and Afghan civillians???

are you saying those things did not happen? and whom did they in fact liberate? you seem to be terminally fact cchallenged

"If you progressives actually said that in front of soldiers, they'd knock the living hell out of you."

I guess you are a battery wannabe, grow up.

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/01/2006 @ 5:06pm
Maasch, how exactly are "they" using Ms Sheehan? you're going to have to actually make an argument instead of just throwing these baseless opinions out there

also I don't care what T shirt either of the ladies were wearing, it's a freedom of speech issue, period

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/01/2006 @ 5:11pm
UCS1923, your question, as dispicable and unamerican as it is, deserves an answer. The answer is that for a true patriot, it's not "My country, right or wrong." It is My country; proud when it's right, strive to fix it when it's wrong.

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 5:22pm
I am not saying you. Somebody is financing her and promoting her the same as one would promote a book tour or concerts...

She is anti Bush and someone or group has an interest in shoving her in front of any camera or any opportunity in order to promote her agenda;anti US, BUSH,GOP,Ect,...Even if you feel exactly as she does, can you go to Venzuela(SP), get on national and intenational TV, travel around the country or world without resources? She has said she has no money..do you think most people will follow her?Support her? Is it because her son died doing what he believed in , twice, or is it because she is anti Bush? Where are the mothers who support there sons and daughters who have been killed? Will the MSM or any group promote them on publicity stunts?

I think that if she hadn't become a media darling, she would be on welfare as we speak. As soon as she blows out her fame or the left loses interst inher, she is toast. The real story will be what happens to her when this fever dies out...

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 5:22pm
Funny how for today's conservatives, money is speech, but teeshirts aren't.

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 5:23pm
John Maasch, is it a prerequisite that someone have personal wealth before they can make a political statement? When Tom Delay went to Scotland to play golf, paid for by Jack Abramoff, were you angry? After all, wasn't Abramoff "supporting" Delay? What's the difference?

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 5:25pm
BB,

No, to all your points.

what is the point?

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 5:29pm
GW Bush: "You see, when we're talking wiretaps, you're talking about court order. Ya have ta get a court order..."

Bush cultists: how is this not a lie?

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 5:29pm
The point, Maasch, is that you are complaining that Cindy Sheehan doesn't have any of her own money and is being "supported" by someone else, but you hypocritically see no problem with Abramoff paying for things your elected representatives do.

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 5:30pm
Jr,

"also I don't care what T shirt either of the ladies were wearing, it's a freedom of speech issue, period"

I also don't care about t-shirts....I am not sure it is free speech per say, as I think a case could be made, that she or anyone who would disrupt a speech planned, whether in House or a university campus, is actual preventing another from exercising their rights to a free speech. I am pretty sure that most there in House came to hear the president, and not Sheehan, althpough I am sure there were some who would have loved to see her make a scene, as that is her MO anywhere she is presented or sent to do...

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 5:34pm
So, John Maasch, you're not sure if something written on a teeshirt qualifies as speech. What about money. Is money speech?

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 5:37pm
A legal analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concludes that the Bush administration's limited briefings for Congress on the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping without warrants are �'inconsistent with the law.''

Bush: "Appropriate Members of Congress have been kept informed."

Bush cultists: how is this not a lie?

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 5:38pm
BB, "The point, Maasch, is that you are complaining that Cindy Sheehan doesn't have any of her own money and is being "supported" by someone else, but you hypocritically see no problem with Abramoff paying for things your elected representatives do."

Wrong, they are not equivelant. I would like to follow the money and see who Sheehan is working for.....

...where do you get the notion that I,"see no problem with Abramoff paying for things your elected representatives... " ?

I can't find that in any post here, anytime.

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 5:40pm
BB,

"So, John Maasch, you're not sure if something written on a teeshirt qualifies as speech. What about money. Is money speech?"

Didn't say I am not sure if what is written on shirt qualifies as free speech or not.... I am saying I am not sure removing her or the congressmans wife from the chambers is violating their free speech.. thats all.

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 5:44pm
Well, all I can say is that I've never seen you express any misgivings about Abramoff and the republican K Street project, which literally subverts our democratic process, but you seem to have a hair up your butt about the Mother of a dead soldier wearing a teeshirt in the halls of congress. You don't seem to see a contradiction or duplicity in that. I find that very strange.

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 5:50pm
Bush: "Keeping America competitive requires us to be good stewards of tax dollars."

And yet, the Bush administration opposes a congressional inquiry into the missing $9 Billion in taxpayer money lost in Iraq and has run up the largest deficits in U.S. history. Bush cultists: do you see inconsistency here?

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 5:52pm
In his SOTU address, Bush stressed education. But, uh oh, his budget cuts $12 billion from college loan funding, the largest cut in history.

Bush cultists: do you see inconsistency here?

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 5:55pm
BB,

I think Abramhoff and his ilk deserve what they get for breaking the law. Lobbying has been around for ever. I would actually like to see all REPS and SEN work for,say, $ 20,000 a year, and hold session for only 3 months. Actually hold real jobs and make all lobbying illegal.

Sheehan only bothers me as she doesn't seem genuine and is not credible...based on her performance and her past. Why is it not news or important to you that what she is doing flies in the face of her sons beliefs? He actually went to Iraq twice and disagreed with her views...why is no one talking with the sons father, who actually raised him? And has the opposite position as she...it doesn't fit someone's agenda...

too many questions about her

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 5:56pm
Bush: "The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly 10 billion dollars to develop cleaner, cheaper, more reliable alternative energy sources � and we are on the threshold of incredible advances."

Uh oh, Bush's 2006 budget includes cuts of $50 million to the DOE's renewable energy and energy efficiency programs. Bush supporters: do you see inconsistency or distortion in Bush's SOTU statement on this?

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 5:59pm
BB,

NO to question 1..I don't like deficits and it depends on whether or not you think Iraq is a waste, half of us do not.

No to question 2..Spending on education has doubled in the last 10 years and I have never seen a government cut in spending since I stared paying taxes. Spending cuts to you are cuts in the rate of increase.

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 6:00pm
Actually, you have highlighted the complaint that conservatives have toward the far left. Listening to many of the left's leaders, you would prefer that the US become a 3rd world nation by redistributing our wealth to everyone who "lacks". It is the left and not conservatives who want to tax us into economic oblivion.

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/01/2006 @ 12:09am

Interesting argument. But my read of the third world shows that it is characterized by a monied elite and the crushing poverty of the masses.

it's only when a viable middle class developes that a country moves away from third world status.

It seems to me that the republican model of tax cuts for the wealthy and outsourcing living wage jobs to slave wage country's not only kills the viable middle class in this country but strives to create the very third world that you rail against.

but then we are easier to control if you keep us poor and keep us scared.

Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2006 @ 6:01pm
John, do you actually believe that her son would agree with the villification of his Mother by the right?

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 6:02pm
Come on,

the DOE has never produced 1 watt or 1 horsepower, 1 joule, 1 erg or any measure of energy.

It is a government beuracrocy(SP) that eats dollars, generating nothing.

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 6:02pm
Will, let me add to your argument. Venezuela has the fastest growing middle class in all of Latin America.

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 6:03pm
Will,

No I don't think he would approve of her villifaction by anyone. I also don't think she is being villified, rahter, I feel she is being pointed out as an example who is not genuine..you think she is and I think she is enjoying her fame..

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 6:04pm
I see, so by your reasoning, John Maasch, the way a government encourages renewable energy is by cutting the government's program to enhance and encourage renewable energy. Does that really make sense to you?

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 6:05pm
I don't rely on polls except election polls. Peoples opinion change all the time...I am glad we don't govern by polls in the news media.

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 6:06pm
Will,

No I don't think he would approve of her villifaction by anyone. I also don't think she is being villified, rahter, I feel she is being pointed out as an example who is not genuine..you think she is and I think she is enjoying her fame..

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/01/2006 @ 6:04pm

john you should really focus on the name below the post and not the name above it.

I wonder if any of your claims are accurate or simple misreads

Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2006 @ 6:08pm
Maasch: "I also don't think she is being villified..."

Fox's Fred Barnes: "Cindy Sheehan is a crackpot."

Rush Limbaugh: "Cindy Sheehan is a wacko."

Niel Cavuto: "Cindy Sheehan is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. She is no better than the terrorists."

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 6:08pm
Will C, I know this is off topic, but I want to personally apologize to you for any attacks on Christians that I have made here. I was raised in a conservative Christian environment and I know that there are all kinds of Christians. Just wanted to get that out while you are looking at these boards.

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 6:12pm
BB,

"I see, so by your reasoning, John Maasch, the way a government encourages renewable energy is by cutting the government's program to enhance and encourage renewable energy. Does that really make sense to you?"

What is the governments program to enhance energy? Financing projects like electric cars? Private industry will be happy to have public finacinmg for projects and we will never see an end product. Better left to private industry to develope on their own..Tell them, if you develope , say electric car that works,, you will pay no taxes for 20 years..

then you will have many electric cars that work..but if you give them a check from DOE, your money is gone and the car will never work and people will never buy it. It has to be in their interst to buy it..Algore tried something similar, and there was no car and no demand.

How about more nuke power?

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 6:12pm
ya wanna hear something really depressing? two more state of the union speeches to go. maybe there's light at the end of the tunnel

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/01/2006 @ 1:21pm

Great!

(So will I be killed by its blast wave or by its neutron pulse)

Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2006 @ 6:13pm
Will,

Sorry, I meant BB.

Shoot me.

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 6:13pm
Maasch: "What is the governments program to enhance energy?"

That's a legitimate question. How about this: stop giving enormously profitable resource extraction industries huge tax breaks and tax givaways and start giving the breaks to industries working on renewable forms of energy.

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 6:15pm
Fred and Rush..yes,

Neil, no..

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 6:15pm
John Maasch, I have been sitting here posting some of the misdirection and inconsistencies in Bush's SOTU. At least you responded to one of them. All your brethren seem to think that if you ignore a challenge, it doesn't exist.

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 6:18pm
Bush: "Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. Here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world."

Great point, Mr. President, but uh oh, this year we get 66% of our oil from foreigh sources, up from 58% in 2000.

Bush supporters: Is Bush serious?

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 6:21pm
BB,

I think that is what I am saying, altho, I think at the same time we should go after oil that is easily obtainable. It will take time to switch. More nuke plants as they are extremely cheaper and cleaner than coal..Some day our next generations will question why we burned oil..

I have 2 friends that are geologists for BP and they told me that if oils hits and stays $100 a barrel that shale oil will be profitable to recover and that hybreds will become even more desireable. I am not for $ 100 barrel of oil but I think as long as it is "affordable" people will use it.

Change the economics of oil and you will change demand..the oil companies earn , 3-7 cents a gallon before corporate taxes, according to a news story I heard today, while government taxes take over 50 cents a gallon...biggest chunk...want to make gas cheaper for average driver? cut the tax will have a bigger impact..take awy ALL oil company profit and you gas goes down pennies, and your supplies will dry up fast...then gas price will sky rocket and no one will be able to afford any cars, electric or not...

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 6:24pm
Posted by BBATTEN 02/01/2006 @ 6:12pm

No appology necessary. I'm not Christain. But that's only because I don't believe a man was a God. But I know that men can be touched by God. The nazarenne was a good man and his words of life are as true today as they were then.

It is unfortunate that so many here who loudly proclaim to follow his path instead only believe him to be their lord and savior.

They talk, but do not walk

And, God knows the difference.

Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2006 @ 6:26pm
Shoot me.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/01/2006 @ 6:13pm

not my thing

Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2006 @ 6:28pm
I hear you John, but Exxon just posted a yearly profit of over $36 billion, the largest corporate profit in history. So, clearly, current government policies are not hurting oil companies.

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 6:29pm
Will, I'm impressed. You sound like one of the Founding Fathers, most of whom as you probably know were Deists and NOT Christians.

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 6:30pm
CPT

Of course you would like the SOTU. He talked for 3/5 of the time about war...which you call "job security."

Posted by leftofcenter at 02/01/2006 @ 6:33pm
Posted by BBATTEN 02/01/2006 @ 6:30pm

You are very gracious and I thank you for your kind words

But, I'm not so sure I could fill their shoes.

Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2006 @ 6:33pm
BBATTEN

Well, if we take over Iraq and then Iran...is it still considered foreign oil?

Posted by leftofcenter at 02/01/2006 @ 6:35pm
Will,

I am glad you would not shoot me...

Did I read here that you were in the military at one time?

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 6:35pm
BB,

YUP..but we will not take over either, just buy it....

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 6:37pm
Leftof, I think you've hit upon a winning strategy: Iran and Iraq, our 51st and 52nd states!

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 6:39pm
BB,

True, huge profit, as that is ther function and I for one do not condemn them for it.. I would point out that it is before taxes and they will search for more supplies(extremely expensive) to keep it going. There have been years when they did not earn such high profits..much of it probably earned on the oil they had at a lower price before the rise started. Perhaps the next quarter or 2 will be smaller as the effects of higher replacement stocks work their way to the balance sheet..maybe..

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 6:41pm
I am glad you would not shoot me...

Did I read here that you were in the military at one time?

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/01/2006 @ 6:35pm

Waging war against my countrymen doesn't fit with forming the more perfect union, establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity ...

or the oath that I took to support and protect the document that promises all of us these things will be done.

Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2006 @ 6:43pm
JM

Nukes are "task-wise" clean (unless they go all "3-mile Island" on you) meaning they do not spew out grenhouse gasses, etc. etc. They do entail a lot of infrastructure though...any time you raise the level of technology you increase the environmental foorprint.

Then too, there is always the leaving of high-level wastes for the future to deal with. Only ceramo-vitrification gives any "medium term' stability, and we are talking about having to sequester these materials for geologic time spans. Seriously, we cannot even envision buidling something that will remain stable for like 50 to 200,000 years! Too much nuke dependency bodes ill for the future....

Posted by leftofcenter at 02/01/2006 @ 6:44pm
BB

Would they be the new East coast, or the West?

Posted by leftofcenter at 02/01/2006 @ 6:45pm
I also don't care about t-shirts....I am not sure it is free speech per say, as I think a case could be made, that she or anyone who would disrupt a speech planned, whether in House or a university campus, is actual preventing another from exercising their rights to a free speech. I am pretty sure that most there in House came to hear the president, and not Sheehan, althpough I am sure there were some who would have loved to see her make a scene, as that is her MO anywhere she is presented or sent to do...

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/01/2006 @ 5:34pm

It isn't "making a scene" or "disruptive" to wear a T-shirt with a few simple words of truth, except to rank liars. The Republican Congressman's wife who was wearing a "Support Our Troops" T-shirt and was asked to leave was treated far differently than Cindy Sheehan. That was probably a pre-planned set up so the Republican brownshirts could claim equal treatment to all. The whole objective was to keep any shred of truth from interfering with the Republican Party's lie extravaganza and they created a new lie to help cover up an old lie and extinguish the truth.

I just heard that they dropped charges against Cindy Sheehan. Mission accomplished. No static intruded into the public consciousness to create questions about Republican lies.

Posted by fromredbird at 02/01/2006 @ 6:55pm
John, let's remember the point of citing these huge profits. All this government taxation and regulation conservatives complain about are obviously not hurting the oil industry's ability to make huge profits. It's kind of like how people complain that Clinton's raising rates in the top brackets were bad for the country. 3.5% higher rates for the top brackets obviously didn't hurt the economy. It was the best economy in postwar history. Conversly, Reagan's tax cuts for the top brackets tripled the national debt and had a role in creating Bush 1's recession. Tax policy should work like religious faith -- we should look at what really works whether or not it fits within the framework of dogma.

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 7:00pm
Cindy Sheehan should sue the Capitol Police for violating her First Amendment rights. Of course, our new Supreme, Alito would rule that she has no standing. After all, when police shot and killed a 16 year old boy running from a store after shoplifting, Alito wrote a dissenting opinion that the boy's family had no standing to sue the police department. No standing to sue a police department that shot your boy in the head and killed him for stealing a candy bar. This, my friends, is nothing short of fascism.

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 7:03pm
Sorry, above I meant to say that tax policy should NOT work like religious faith.

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 7:06pm
The Capitol Police have not only dropped all charges against Cindy Sheehan, but they have made a public apology to her.

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 7:13pm
BB,

We just disagree on economics and policy, and that is cool. I enjoy others views..

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 7:18pm
Posted by UCS1923 02/01/2006 @ 4:59pm

Why do progressives say they "support" the troops but then turn around and accuse troops of committing torture and murder of Iraqi and Afghan civillians???

Kind of a weird statement considering the fact that Bush's army flunkies sentenced junior-grade soldiers to prison for long years for exactly that . . . so that Bush could get off scotfree. Again. But Bush isn't a hypocrite, not to the Republican Robots he isn't.

Or when they call the troops "occupiers" not liberators??

If they aren't occupiers why does the Bush administration dishonestly claim that they are abiding by the Geneva Conventions, which were created for the conduct of occupying armies?

If you progressives actually said that in front of soldiers, they'd knock the living hell out of you.

I have and they didn't. About half of them agreed with me. Makes me think you've never had a conversation with a soldier.

How can you progressives say you support America when you are AGAINST the Afghanistan war, a NECESSARY war to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda???

al-Qaeda was defeated? What comic book are you reading?

Or when you claim that the US government was behind the most horrific attack on American soil in history???(9/11)

Say what?

Just ADMIT it you progressives, you WANT America to lose the Afghanistan and Iraq war because of your hatred for George W. Bush. Just ADMIT it, that you think America is an EVIL country.

No, just the part located between your ears. You have a weak grasp of very basic facts of the world around you. Strange.

Posted by fromredbird at 02/01/2006 @ 7:19pm
The Capitol Police have not only dropped all charges against Cindy Sheehan, but they have made a public apology to her.

Posted by BBATTEN 02/01/2006 @ 7:13pm

I hope she does the same at the next SOTU.

would they arrest here twice?

would they apologise twice?

would they admit to being tools if they did?

Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2006 @ 7:21pm
Right, John. I support tax policies which work. Supply-side or "trickle-down", whatever you want to call it, has never worked, makes no sense and will never work. Policies which strengthen the middle class always work. Policies which favor the rich at the expense of the working classes never work. If I ever witnessed a supply-side policy that worked in any way, I can imagine rethinking my opinion, but that hasn't happened yet. Moreover, deregulation never works. Is there any example of deregulation which has ended up helping consumers?

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 7:23pm
Redbird, let me add something to your response to the hysterical rantings of UCS1923. You don't support the troops by cutting economic and medical aid to veterans. You don't support the troops by not providing proper body armour. You're not supporting the troops by cutting educational services for military families. You don't support the troops by lying about Pat Tillman's death. And you damn well don't support troops by not holding any of their leaders responsible for war crimes, but instead blaming them on a couple of "grunts."

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 7:28pm
Here's a SOTU question for Bush supporters: Two years ago, he spent a lot of time trumpeting his Medicare Drug Benefit program. Last night, he made no mention of it. Why do you think that is?

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 7:40pm
Here's another: two years ago, he talked about hydrogen energy for cars. Nothing has happened to further that "initiative" in the years since he brought it up. With that in mind, what makes you think he's serious when he talks about new energy sources today?

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 7:42pm
As Bush says "freedom is on the march," Cindy Sheehan is marched out of the capitol building in handcuffs. Republicans are proud.

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 7:52pm
Another Bush foreign policy vomit-fest: Japan and Australia have just announced that they will be pulling troops out. Bush supporters: who does that leave us with besides the UK? Samoa? Afganistan? What happened to the "Coalition of the Willing?" Don't they know that freedom is on the march?

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 8:02pm
It's funny and kind of pathetic. Bush supporters rush to type snide comments at the beginning of each of these Nation threads. Then, as more Nation readers get involved, Bush apologists scurry off like cockroaches when you turn the lights on. Good night and good luck to everyone!

Posted by BBatten at 02/01/2006 @ 8:04pm
Will,

Thank you for your service. I am sincerely grateful.

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 8:55pm
It's funny and kind of pathetic. Bush supporters rush to type snide comments at the beginning of each of these Nation threads. Then, as more Nation readers get involved, Bush apologists scurry off like cockroaches when you turn the lights on. Good night and good luck to everyone!

Posted by BBATTEN 02/01/2006 @ 8:04pm

BB,

Actually BB it's because I think others have learned as I have, that facts have no meaning for you and that any attempt to debate the facts ends up a worthless endeavor (think-lead a horse to water, but getting him to drink)

I have debunked among other things the lies you keep posting about the education funding, yet you persist, hoping that no one will remember. You are just intellectually dishonest and that is a shame because you are obviously intelligent.

Posted by love liberty at 02/01/2006 @ 9:55pm
Maasch, you take care not to censure Exxon for huge profits, but when pregressives make a lot of money you go ballistic. Duh

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/01/2006 @ 10:52pm
Thank you for your service. I am sincerely grateful.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/01/2006 @ 8:55pm

Oh Please

You want to thank someone? Thank the convict in the road gang picking up trash. Thank the guy down at the local Whatever-Mart who's having a bad day and is grinding on your last nerve because you are having a bad day. Thank the garbage man or the local school teacher or the guy who cuts your grass or the zit faced nose miner who handed you your bag of chicken nugs and fries.

Thank them because what they do is just as important as what any soldier does.

We all matter

We all have value

We all count

Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2006 @ 10:57pm
but don't thank me, because I didn't do anything for you

Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2006 @ 10:57pm
Will,

I have already thanked the fore mentioned and will continue to do so. I thank you anyway, whether you want it or not, accept it or not,because IMO you have done something for me, as an American,and the zit faced , jail bird,Walmart irritant..and many others..are me.

Yoy don't know me but you should.

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 11:11pm
JR<

"Maasch, you take care not to censure Exxon for huge profits, but when pregressives make a lot of money you go ballistic. Duh"

HUH? Progressives are entitled to all their dollars are is Exxon.........? Clue me in...

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 11:12pm
Redbird, let me add something to your response to the hysterical rantings of UCS1923. You don't support the troops by cutting economic and medical aid to veterans. You don't support the troops by not providing proper body armour. You're not supporting the troops by cutting educational services for military families. You don't support the troops by lying about Pat Tillman's death. And you damn well don't support troops by not holding any of their leaders responsible for war crimes, but instead blaming them on a couple of "grunts."

Posted by BBATTEN 02/01/2006 @ 7:28pm

You nailed them on their main dirty tricks against our men and women in uniform, most of whom signed up to defend our country against real threats, not to wage aggressive war against those whose resources the Republican cult craves. Unbelievable that they tried to cut veterans benefits right in the middle of their own damnable war. Even more unbelievable, however, is a serviceman that can think of nothing to do in response but lick the Republican's hand in abject devotion while casting aspersions on the Democrats who defended and preserved their needed benefits.

Posted by fromredbird at 02/01/2006 @ 11:44pm
Actually BB it's because I think others have learned as I have, that facts have no meaning for you and that any attempt to debate the facts ends up a worthless endeavor (think-lead a horse to water, but getting him to drink)

I have debunked among other things the lies you keep posting about the education funding, yet you persist, hoping that no one will remember. You are just intellectually dishonest and that is a shame because you are obviously intelligent.

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/01/2006 @ 9:55pm

Same mindless comment you make every time someone proves that you don't know what you're talking about, which is a reliably frequent behavior of yours.

Posted by fromredbird at 02/01/2006 @ 11:49pm
Yoy don't know me but you should.

Posted byJOHN MAASCH 02/01/2006 @ 11:11pm

Let me be clear. You make me sick to my stomach when you "Thank me". If you feel the urge again, keep your fucking mouth shut. If you can't keep your fucking mouth shut, go out and find one of the people I listed and thank them. If you can't find one of them and still can't fight the urge, go and find a homeless guy and buy him a meal and then thank him for the company.

but do not thank me

(On a side note, I don't want to know you. From what I have learned about you, that is one thing I am sure of.)

Posted by Will C. at 02/01/2006 @ 11:51pm
Will, You come through perfectly clear.

Posted by john maasch at 02/01/2006 @ 11:57pm
Will, You come through perfectly clear.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/01/2006 @ 11:57pm

Good

Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 12:02am
Will,

What ever happen to you? So bitter and miserable, so it reads...

Posted by john maasch at 02/02/2006 @ 12:07am
Are you ok?

Posted by john maasch at 02/02/2006 @ 12:07am
Will,

What ever happen to you? So bitter and miserable, so it reads...

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/02/2006 @ 12:07am

Are you ok?

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/02/2006 @ 12:07am

Maybe he just doesn't like you. Hard to believe though, isn't it?

Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 12:33am
Red,

NO. I can believe it...kind of sad tho...not to like some one with out meeting them in the flesh...many misunderstandings occur without an eye to eye view.

Posted by john maasch at 02/02/2006 @ 12:58am
But, I will sleep fine to night..

Posted by john maasch at 02/02/2006 @ 12:59am
I know where Will C. is coming from, and it's not a place of bitterness or misery, although rage seems to be a constant feature. We're tired of people who patronize us constantly carrying on about how condescending we are. None of the right wing posters here who carry on about liberalism, or socialism, or what have you, ever step outside of the usual playbook, which, by the way, never takes into consideration anything which does not confirm its point of view, but insists that all allowances and shortcomings be granted of due course to their own side only. Y'all are full of shit. You don't warrant respect because you don't give it. You scream about partyline politics, but not one of you sets any standard that can't be seen over on the left in the most stalinoid and hidebound tendencies. So I don't respond point by point anymore. It's a waste of time. And I'm sure Will C. isn't too far down the road from me on this one.

Posted by Legba at 02/02/2006 @ 01:20am
What ever happen to you? So bitter and miserable, so it reads...

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/02/2006 @ 12:07am

On day I awoke with the sun on my face and saw my country teetering on the edge of darkness.

John, why do I need to expose myself to the deceptions of the flesh when your words ring out so clearly? What makes you think my contact with the body will change my perception of the mind.

I square off against a foe that is so arrogant that it believes that if I don't like it, then I must be Bitter. That if I disagree with it, then I must Hate it?

That if I don't love it, then I must be Miserable?

This is not the face of America. Americans are not Bitter or Hateful or Miserable. But its is not from Americans that I hear these words but rather it is from Conservatives that I hear these words.

And I hear them everyday, without pause, without thought. They are gut level, reflexive, mindless, programed.

And the country is beginning to ignore them.

John, what will you do when all of us see through you?

What will you do when you cry out and you are not there?

invisible

pointless

Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 02:17am
Maasch, nice try to turn the question around without answering, but shoddy

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2006 @ 08:16am
Maasch, paging Miss Lonelyhearts

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2006 @ 08:17am
" ever step outside of the usual playbook, which, by the way, never takes into consideration anything which does not confirm its point of view, but insists that all allowances and shortcomings be granted of due course to their own side only."----LEGBA

I'm sorry....the Left does something different from that?!?!?!???

What's the last thing you "considered which did not confirm your point of view"?

Posted by Mask at 02/02/2006 @ 08:52am
JOHN MAASCH

You have to understand, the "angry liberal". They lost TWICE to an ignorant hick Texan, who they dont think is worthy, and yet they must call him, Commander in Chief.

They must endure, what I am sure what appears to them, agony over having lost to him. That their "enlightened ideas" were rejected, especially in 2004.

Also its the contradictory views they must deal with, example:

It is really a strange paradox, they say they support the troops but in the next breath they say they are fighting and dying for a lie.

They support the troops but in the next breath they say they are going to fail.

If that is your idea of support, then keep it for yourself.

I guess I would be mad as well if I had to try and reconcile those views of the LEFT within me.

Posted by CPT at 02/02/2006 @ 10:55am
CPT

Of course you would like the SOTU. He talked for 3/5 of the time about war...which you call "job security."

Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/01/2006 @ 6:33pm | ignore this person

Job security? Is there any doubt, why a country needs an Army? War will always be with us, War endures, you might as well ask what one thinks of stone, its a regardless fact. A nation will always need a professional armed force. To imagine otherwise is pointless.

Dont misconstrue these words for war-mongering, the LEFTIES here often do this, some more than others. Stating simple truths.

Posted by CPT at 02/02/2006 @ 11:09am
I don't support the troops or the imperial mission they're on. I don't support your war criminal president, or the one before him, or the one before him, or the ones before them. The troops are going to fail, but it is no reflection upon them, but upon a bullying, bullshitting political culture that should go down in flames. Now. Go ahead. Quote that, fucker. I hate your cause, I hate your government, and if that's what you choose to support, that's your business. But don't come around here implying those of us who don't endorse your partyline, doctrinaire bullshit that we're irrelevant. People like me don't care what the mainstream thinks, the mainstream is stuck in 1935. We will have to pull them forward. You are backwards, you are ignorant, and you are a brute. Okay? Just so we all know what some of us are actually talking about out here. Liberal, my ass. You and yours are going down.

Posted by Legba at 02/02/2006 @ 11:14am
WILL C.

By the way, "THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE!

P.S. I dont thank you per se, but what you represented you mindless shitfuck, get that straight in your tiny infantile, immature and pure bred mind. There are far greater individuals who have served with great honor and dignity, beyond what ANY humanitarian organziation has ever dreamed of doing. That is what you represented you fuck nut.

They honor THEM, not you, when that Thank you is given toward you. You fucking return the compliement, smile and move the fuck out.

You want to continue to talk out of your ass, go ahead, you do that well, but dont demean those with whom who have served cockfuck. They deserve better even if you dont.

Posted by CPT at 02/02/2006 @ 11:26am
Sometimes you have to speak the language in order to get thru.

Posted by CPT at 02/02/2006 @ 11:28am
LEGBA

You have already lost, you just dont know it yet, even among mainstream liberals.

Brute?? If you think that is brutish, then sit down and allow others to run the country, you wouldnt last, Neville Chamberlain proved that.

Posted by CPT at 02/02/2006 @ 11:33am
FREIHEIT

Every now and then brother, you have to go native.

Posted by CPT at 02/02/2006 @ 11:47am
Mr. Corn says that "Islamic terrorists are a fraction" of those fighting in Iraq. Exactly what makes him think that? Zarqouwi and his band of Sunni facists have not only killed U.S. soldiers, but also thousands of Shias, Kurds and even Sunnis who don't believe in his interpretation of Islam. This is exactly this kind of Sunni extremism that is being exported around the world in places like Afghanistan, Sudan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Phillipines and Thailand.

Sunni extremism in Iraq is more than a problem, it is a symptom of a much larger problem the world is facing.

Posted by Zeddmen at 02/02/2006 @ 12:02pm
LEGBA

"People like me don't care what the mainstream thinks, the mainstream is stuck in 1935."????

The HEIGHT of the New Deal?

Posted by Mask at 02/02/2006 @ 12:15pm
Zedd, al quaeda is a SMALL fraction of the insurgency, even the mis-administration concedes that. Bush is just plain lying that AlQuaeda is seeking to take over Iraq, there is really zero chance of that. this is a civil war between the minority who has ruled this country for half a century at least, and the shia majority who has been ruled by them, and which we unleashed by this illconsidered and illegal invasion. neither side are nice people, and there have been many revenge killings by the Iraqi army we are training, are we training them in torture? nah, they know that already, we are just providing an example with torture, the rape rooms too. an equally large problem the world is facing is the imperialistic designs and policies of the Bush administration, and most of the world agrees with me on thsi. to you I say get some facts, before you post, try google.

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/02/2006 @ 12:25pm
Love Liberty: "I have debunked among other things the lies you keep posting about the education funding, yet you persist, hoping that no one will remember. You are just intellectually dishonest and that is a shame because you are obviously intelligent."

Hey Bibleboy, the 2006 budget includes a $12.7 Billion cut in college loan programs. Instead of just claiming that you have debunked my arguments, why don't you just go ahead and debunk them for everyone. How is a $12 billion cut in college loan support not a cut in education? I am a working class guy with two children in college. Believe me. On economic support for sending your kids to college, I know what I'm talking about. But, thanks for the compliment on my intelligence. I appreciate it.

Posted by BBatten at 02/02/2006 @ 12:48pm
CPT -

That was very ignorant of you, to descend that far.

When you act like that, you become just another broad-brush wielding wackjob, regardless of party affiliation. The liberal use of profanity does not make you honorable or respectable or any kind of tough guy, and it certainly doesn't make you right and someone else wrong.

I support our troops. I support them in Afghanistan (a just and necessary invasion to oust the Taliban, who harbored the terrorist responsible for 9/11), and even in the misguided adventure in Iraq, because they are, for the most part, acting with a sense of duty, honor, and love of country.

There is no "strange paradox" in supporting the troops but being pissed off that their valiant and heroic service and lives are being wasted on the mismanagement of this particular war. You should be angrier about stop-loss, lack of armor, equipment, etc., that many others here have posted more eloquently than I ever could. This government gives far less of a fuck about our troops than you do. And you aren't angry about that at all...

Settle down, CPT. I actually like hearing the viewpoint of the military man, but you're being a pretty poor representative today.

Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 12:51pm
Freiheit: "Trucking industry. Telecommunications. (My personal favorite) Banking (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act). Airline Deregulation Act."

Thanks for your detailed responses, but I'm not sure I agree. The cost, in general, of telecommunications services in America is much higher than in any other industrialized society where these services are regulated (check out what you get for your monthly fee in England and France). I don't think that the truckers themselves would agree that it's been good for their industry -- safety violations and crashes are way up since truckers are forced to drive longer hours by the realities of how they get paid. Banking is far more centralized and oligarchic than it was before deregulation -- the general consensus I see is that consumers have fewer real choices and local banks are dying. Finally, the airline industry, in my opinion, is one of those examples of disasterous results -- I've been doing business flights since the mid 70's and I think deregulation of the airline industry has been horrible.

Posted by BBatten at 02/02/2006 @ 12:53pm
Bush supporters: does it bother you at all that Bush's energy department came out the very next day and said that Bush didn't mean it when he said we're addicted to oil and didn't really mean it when he singled out the mid-east? Doesn't this sound a little duplicitous to you all?

Posted by BBatten at 02/02/2006 @ 12:56pm
Freiheit, the first part of my post was about "supply-side" or "trickle-down" economics. I say it has never worked and never will. Since you disagree with me on deregulation, I'm going to assume you disagree about that as well. So, when and where has reducing tax rates on the wealthiest ended up increasing government revenues? Keep in mind that I'm not talking about momentary rises in capital gains taxes -- I'm talking long-term -- three to five years and out.

Posted by BBatten at 02/02/2006 @ 12:59pm
Freiheit, I would add that the Gramm-sponsored banking deregulation is cited by most economic experts as part of what led to the fraud of Enron and Worldcom.

Posted by BBatten at 02/02/2006 @ 1:07pm
Love Liberty, you called me "intellectually dishonest" for claiming that the Bush administration was cutting education funding. You claimed that you have debunked me on that score. I have repeatedly mentioned the $12 billion cut in college loan funding. Here's another:

Bush's budget for FY 2006 proposed the "first cut in overall federal education spending in a decade." The administration requested a reduction of a half billion dollars, or 0.9 percent, from the current spending plan. [Washington Post, 2/7/05]

You claim I post lies and hope people will forget. I keep posting these facts, so you are obviously mistaken about that. What else are you mistaken about?

Posted by BBatten at 02/02/2006 @ 1:10pm
Love Liberty, you can come out of your spider hole now. I've got to get back to work.

Posted by BBatten at 02/02/2006 @ 1:12pm
NEW DAWN

Of course, you are right, I ususally refrain, but once and blue moon one has to speak the language. Point noted

Posted by CPT at 02/02/2006 @ 1:51pm
Thanks, CPT.

Posted by New Dawn at 02/02/2006 @ 1:52pm
You have to understand, the "angry liberal". They lost TWICE to an ignorant hick Texan, who they dont think is worthy, and yet they must call him, Commander in Chief.

Posted by CPT 02/02/2006 @ 10:55am

He's the President to me. You're the one who has to call him Commander-in-Chief, since you are a member of the armed services. Maybe you don't understand the difference.

One thing you don't have to do, though, is lick the hand that beats you. The awful truth you won't face is that the Republican elite looks down on you and only pretends respect for you when you display unalloyed subservience to their un-American designs.

Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 1:58pm
WILL C.

By the way, "THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE!

P.S. I dont thank you per se, but what you represented you mindless shitfuck, get that straight in your tiny infantile, immature and pure bred mind. There are far greater individuals who have served with great honor and dignity, beyond what ANY humanitarian organziation has ever dreamed of doing. That is what you represented you fuck nut.

They honor THEM, not you, when that Thank you is given toward you. You fucking return the compliement, smile and move the fuck out.

You want to continue to talk out of your ass, go ahead, you do that well, but dont demean those with whom who have served cockfuck. They deserve better even if you dont.

Posted by CPT 02/02/2006 @ 11:26am

CPT, this post confirms what I always suspected about you- you're just a mindless lifer whose knowledge of representative, constitutional government and civil society in general falls well short of that of a junior high school student. No wonder you love the Republican Party that treats you like shit.

Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 2:08pm
"Allan did not want to go back to Iraq after he came home on leave. But he said that he was in the Army and it was his job.

"He said that morale was quite low. They did think it was wrong to be out there. An awful lot of them thought that," she said, adding: "I did not think it was his place to be there, it was not his war.

http://tinyurl.com/d58bm

CPT doesn't think it's wrong. CPT doesn't think.

Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 2:11pm
"When we're talking about runnin down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order to do so." -- President Bush, 2004

Bush supporters: is this not lying to the American people? If the sentence, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" is a lie worthy of impeachment proceedings, why isn't this statement at least worthy of an investigation?

Alberto Gonzolves, when asked if the administration needs a court order to wiretap: "This is a hypothetical situation." Bush supporters: is it OK with you for the highest law enforcement official in the U.S. to have lied under oath to a Senate committee?

Posted by BBatten at 02/02/2006 @ 2:16pm
You have to understand, the "angry liberal". They lost TWICE to an ignorant hick Texan, who they dont think is worthy, and yet they must call him, Commander in Chief.

They must endure, what I am sure what appears to them, agony over having lost to him. That their "enlightened ideas" were rejected, especially in 2004.

Posted by CPT 02/02/2006 @ 10:55am

Hmmm�

Doesn't know his enemy

(let us see if other posts reveal if he knows himself)

Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 2:41pm
WILL C

By the way, "THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE!

Posted by CPT 02/02/2006 @ 11:26am

And you accused me of having shitty reading comprehension

Ha Ha Ha Ha

Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 2:44pm
not a good sign for the know yourself thing

Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 2:45pm
P.S. I dont thank you per se, but what you represented you mindless shitfuck, get that straight in your tiny infantile, immature and pure bred mind. There are far greater individuals who have served with great honor and dignity, beyond what ANY humanitarian organziation has ever dreamed of doing. That is what you represented you fuck nut.

Posted by CPT 02/02/2006 @ 11:26am

(before I begin, "PS" normally goes at the end of a post, letter etc)

bad logic stream buddy. If you are going to call me a mindless shitfuck you can't then immediately follow and say that I have a, how did you put it, a tiny, infantile, imature and purebread mind.

The first implies that I don't have a mind. The second implies that I do. I personally don't care which way you go, after all it's your argument, but to contradict yourself, within the same sentence usually causes this type of reaction from us liberals:

Ha Ha Ha Ha, oh that CPT, he kills me

PS (see how I used that) also if in the future you wish to discuss the lack of mental development "Inbread" rather than "Purebread" might be a better choice of words. Of course it's just a recommendation. You are still free to bring your own special charm to the thread

Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 2:58pm
They honor THEM, not you, when that Thank you is given toward you. You fucking return the compliement, smile and move the fuck out.

Posted by CPT 02/02/2006 @ 11:26am

If you are not honoring me then you don't need to thank me do you?

I'm glad we've cleared this matter up

:)

Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 3:01pm
You want to continue to talk out of your ass, go ahead, you do that well, but dont demean those with whom who have served cockfuck. They deserve better even if you dont.

Posted by CPT 02/02/2006 @ 11:26am

I think it's clear to all who is talking out his ass in this particular exchange.

Except for perhaps you CPT

Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 3:03pm
Sometimes you have to speak the language in order to get thru.

Posted by CPT 02/02/2006 @ 11:28am

Wow, CPT, that was good. You sounded just like them!

Posted by FREIHEIT 02/02/2006 @ 11:34am

Every now and then brother, you have to go native.

Posted by CPT 02/02/2006 @ 11:47am

You sure got through to Freiheit

(preaching to the choir again eh CPT)

Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 3:09pm
As I've said before, CPT you couldn't move outside of a theoretical construct to save your life. As for Neville Chamberlin, your own politics bear far more resemblance to his than my own. Death to the empire, down with its toadies.

Posted by Legba at 02/02/2006 @ 4:17pm
WILL C

The impact is greater than what I would have imagined, otherwise, you would not have made such a strenous attempt to appear so C A S U A L

But maybe, this is not apparent to...eh you.

Posted by CPT at 02/02/2006 @ 4:23pm
Love Liberty: "I have debunked among other things the lies you keep posting about the education funding, yet you persist, hoping that no one will remember. You are just intellectually dishonest and that is a shame because you are obviously intelligent."

Hey Bibleboy, the 2006 budget includes a $12.7 Billion cut in college loan programs. Instead of just claiming that you have debunked my arguments, why don't you just go ahead and debunk them for everyone. How is a $12 billion cut in college loan support not a cut in education? I am a working class guy with two children in college. Believe me. On economic support for sending your kids to college, I know what I'm talking about. But, thanks for the compliment on my intelligence. I appreciate it.

Posted by BBATTEN 02/02/2006 @ 12:48am

BB, My apologies BB, I wrote this in response to someone else and I could not remember where I had posted it.

AJD,

Thank you, I have been waiting for someone to present this left wing talking point so it can be revealed for the sham that it is. The various Lib groups have been trying to present as fact that somehow Bush and the Republican Congress are cutting Pell Grants, and cutting spending for Education. Conference Report S1932 is the Budget Conference agreement already agreed to by the Senate and now waiting for House approval.

A few facts to correct the misstatements:

1. The cuts are not to the available funds but to Administrative accounting. In fact, the dollar limits have been raised substantially.

2. While some overall dollars are taken away from the Pell Grant program they are put into 2 new programs for students. The new SMART Grant programs direct student loans specifically for those majoring in Sciences and Math.

3. Not addressed by critics also is a provision to cancel the repayment provisions for certain teaching positions

4. The revised Student Loan programs reduce Loan origination fees (hence less money back to the government and cheaper loans for students).

There are other features that I believe liberals would support (in fact far more than conservatives) if you actually read the legislation. The Title VIII Educatio provisions begin on page 65.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7028/s1932conf.pdf

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/01/2006 @ 2:12pm

I do recommend that rather to listening to talking points from either side, it is good to go to C-Span.org and access any bill that is before Congress and read for yourself what it actually says and/or does.

Posted by love liberty at 02/02/2006 @ 4:46pm
The Republican Moth's who fitfully flit around The Nation lightbulb are a case study in detachment from reality. For example, their incessant claim that Democrats are out of the solid mainstream which they purport to represent. Consider, also, that they give every indication of being the extreme right wing of a right wing party- i.e., their regular references to genetics in political discussions and, as another example, LOVE LIBERTY'S obvious relish in referring to Muslims as "animals".

The Post-ABC News poll offers a revealing portrait of a restless electorate at the start of the campaign year. By 51 percent to 35 percent, Americans said they preferred to go in the direction outlined by congressional Democrats rather than the direction established by the president.

By 54 percent to 38 percent, voters surveyed said they would vote for the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate for the House in November. That is one of the largest margins favoring the Democrats in two decades, although the gerrymandered House districts mean that incumbents are safer today than they were in the past.

By 51 percent to 37 percent, Americans said they trust the Democrats more than the Republicans with the main problems facing the country over the next few years

source [tinyurl.com]

Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 5:06pm
The impact is greater than what I would have imagined, otherwise, you would not have made such a strenous attempt to appear so C A S U A L

But maybe, this is not apparent to...eh you.

Posted by CPT 02/02/2006 @ 4:23pm

you're right, the impact was great. and roll off the chair laughter does mellow my responses.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha, oh that CPT, he kills me

Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 5:09pm
WILL C.

Thanks again, for proving the point.

Posted by CPT at 02/02/2006 @ 5:25pm
Thanks again, for proving the point.

Posted by CPT 02/02/2006 @ 5:25pm

Your welcome

But if you want continue to maintain any semblance of discipline in your unit, you should really try to hide the fact that you are a moron.

It's too late for you here (we already know) but maybe your guys haven't caught on yet

Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 5:32pm
The Republican Moth's who fitfully flit around The Nation lightbulb are a case study in detachment from reality. For example, their incessant claim that Democrats are out of the solid mainstream which they purport to represent. Consider, also, that they give every indication of being the extreme right wing of a right wing party- i.e., their regular references to genetics in political discussions and, as another example, LOVE LIBERTY'S obvious relish in referring to Muslims as "animals".

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 02/02/2006 @ 5:06pm

Redbird,

Don't you ever get tired of lying about what others say? I never said Muslims were animals, I said that the terrorists were animals because they have no respect for human life, muslim, Christian, women, or children. You attempt a linkage that was never said nor intended in your twisted effort to malign others.

Posted by love liberty at 02/02/2006 @ 5:34pm
LL

Pell grants have been stagnant for like 5 years. Colege costs have gone up, and eligibility criteria exclude more. ALL

Here's a real Fed boner for you:

Our University was "pounced on" by the DOJ recently for "discriminatory" factors regarding administration of three minority fellowship programs. The boner is, the programs are federally funded programs with guidleline to fund minorities. When we do it, they sick the hounds on us.

So we try to get minority students - placating that constituency, the GOP can say "See, we fund minorities in education." The GOP controlled DOJ then pounces on us liberal educators and call foul, and shake us in front of THEIR constituents hollering "Looke at we got us here....liberal criminals abusing federal funds"

Very efficient of you guys on the right....stupid, but efficient.

Posted by leftofcenter at 02/02/2006 @ 6:40pm
The Republican Moth's who fitfully flit around The Nation lightbulb are a case study in detachment from reality. For example, their incessant claim that Democrats are out of the solid mainstream which they purport to represent. Consider, also, that they give every indication of being the extreme right wing of a right wing party- i.e., their regular references to genetics in political discussions and, as another example, LOVE LIBERTY'S obvious relish in referring to Muslims as "animals".

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 02/02/2006 @ 5:06pm

Redbird,

Don't you ever get tired of lying about what others say? I never said Muslims were animals, I said that the terrorists were animals because they have no respect for human life, muslim, Christian, women, or children. You attempt a linkage that was never said nor intended in your twisted effort to malign others.

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/02/2006 @ 5:34pm

Show me one example where you have ever referred to Christian "terrorists" as "animals". 9,000,000 to 1 odds, case closed.

Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 7:59pm
Show me one case where you have ever referred to Americans who tortured and murdered helpless Iraqi prisoners as "animals". Doesn't fly, LOVE LIBERTY- you reserve the "animal" term exclusively to those who are Muslim.

Posted by fromredbird at 02/02/2006 @ 8:02pm
Thank you, I have been waiting for someone to present this left wing talking point so it can be revealed for the sham that it is. The various Lib groups have been trying to present as fact that somehow Bush and the Republican Congress are cutting Pell Grants. While some overall dollars are taken away from the Pell Grant program they are put into 2 new programs for students. The new SMART Grant programs direct student loans specifically for those majoring in Sciences and Math. Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/02/2006 @ 4:46pm | ignore this person

I haven't investigated this part of the budget to determine what is factually correct, but noticed the Howitzer size hole you blew in your own argument. You suggest it is inaccurate to say Bush has cut Pell Grants, but then two paragraphs later you write, While some overall dollars are taken away from the Pell Grant program�. So, if you take dollars away from something isn't that the same as a cut?

You assert the reduction in Pell Grants is funneled into a program called Smart for math and science students. So, if all of your assertions are true, then is it not a matter of fact that the Pell Grant program has indeed been cut? Further, it suggests that this cut favors math and science students at the expense of studies in the humanities.

So, just using your information then, there is no "sham" as you put it and the "Lib groups" pointing out Bush cut Pell Grant are speaking truth.

Posted by seattlescribe at 02/02/2006 @ 8:05pm
WILL C

I must have hurt your feelings. too bad life is unfair.

Posted by CPT at 02/02/2006 @ 10:24pm
I must have hurt your feelings. too bad life is unfair.

Posted by CPT 02/02/2006 @ 10:24pm

There's only one thing more fun then watching a wingnut's head explode from self rightous indignation.

And that's watching him trying to wriggle his way out of the room afterwards

Posted by Will C. at 02/02/2006 @ 11:08pm
Leftof, I think you've hit upon a winning strategy: Iran and Iraq, our 51st and 52nd states!

Posted by BBATTEN 02/01/2006 @ 6:39pm

I wonder what the rights view, on states rights would be, in that case.

Eric

Posted by malcontent3 at 02/03/2006 @ 01:24am
one more time. the constitution decrees the pres as commander in chief of the army in time of war. it does not name him, or her, to be commander in chief of the country. again commander in chief of the armed forces, not commander in chief of the country.

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/03/2006 @ 09:12am
Mal

It s likley these "new states" would get along well in "wingnut land" as they already do things like stone adulterers (well, women anyway) and abortionists!

Posted by leftofcenter at 02/03/2006 @ 09:35am
johannesrolf, way to keep it simple. unfortunately, i don't think you could simplify enough. see george bush. see george bush as president. see george bush as c in c. these are not the same.

loc, maybe that's why norquist already joined up with them. i think you're absolutely correct, many of our wingnuts would be much more comfy with extremely radical islam.

Posted by loveloki at 02/03/2006 @ 11:25am
"Why do progressives say they "support" the troops but then turn around and accuse troops of committing torture and murder of Iraqi and Afghan civillians??? Or when they call the troops "occupiers" not liberators??"

we suppport them by insisting that they get out of there. and doubling thier vet benefits--for life--as well as other slashed benefits.

"If you progressives actually said that in front of soldiers, they'd knock the living hell out of you."

not a compelling argument if you are trying to suggest that military folks are civil.

"How can you progressives say you support America when you are AGAINST the Afghanistan war, a NECESSARY war to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda??? Or when you claim that the US government was behind the most horrific attack on American soil in history???(9/11)."

no one s suggesting that the american govt was BEHIND the attacks. ceratinly though, bush used it, and continues to use the attacks, as justification for current atrocities. stop supporting america and start supporting the planet.

"Just ADMIT it you progressives, you WANT America to lose the Afghanistan and Iraq war because of your hatred for George W. Bush. Just ADMIT it, that you think America is an EVIL country."

america is not evil. there are americans who fit the bill though. you, your heroes in the white house, the media, and other stations of power are quite evil. oh, and the wars we started are lost already due to incompetence and evil behavior.

i know of no progressives that hate america. america has been very good to us...up here in nyc, where all the elite liberals live, we celebrate our elite status by simply realizing that we're better educated, wealthier, thinner, and better looking (by far) than the rest of the deranged red-state country. sorry, but thems da facts, jack.

Posted by dabar at 02/03/2006 @ 12:50pm
I think this is a must consideration when thinking it's just the left seeing through the flim flam thank you mam sotu.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48648

"Having plunged us into an unnecessary war, Bush now confronts the real possibility of strategic defeat and a failed presidency. His victory in Iraq, like the wars of Wilson and FDR, has turned to ashes in our mouths. And like Truman's war in Korea and Kennedy's war in Vietnam, Bush's war has left America divided and her people regretting he ever led us in. But unlike the world wars, Korea and Vietnam, Bush cannot claim the enemy attacked us and we had no choice. Iraq is Bush's war. Isolationists had nothing to do with it. To a man and woman, they opposed it.

Now, with an army bogged down in Afghanistan and another slowly exiting Iraq, and no end in sight to either, Bush seeks to counter critics who warned him not to go in by associating them with the demonized and supposedly discredited patriots of the America First movement of 1940-41. His assault is not only non-credible, it borders on the desperate and pathetic.

********************************************************

If America is angry over what interventionism and free trade have wrought, George Bush cannot credibly blame isolationists or protectionists. These fellows have an alibi. They were nowhere near the scene of the crime.

It is George W. Bush who is running out of alibis." JP Buchanan

Posted by Bushfools at 02/03/2006 @ 1:07pm
"He who cannot change the very fabric of his thought will never be able to change reality."

��Anwar al-Sadat

Uuuhhmmm

"But what has done more to radicalize Islam than our invasion of Iraq? Who has done more to empower Islamic radicals than Bush with his clamor for elections across a region radicalized by our own policies? It is one thing to believe in ideals, another to be the prisoner of some democratist ideology. " PJBuchanan

Posted by Bushfools at 02/03/2006 @ 1:25pm
"Kennedy's war in Vietnam", I'm sorry I can't let this revisionism go by. It could be called Eisenhower's war in Vietnam, since it started in his administration, Kennedy inherited it with the office. but realistically it has to be laid at the feet of Johnson and Nixon. incidentally both lied to the public repeatedly about it, just like you know who.

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/03/2006 @ 1:40pm
Talk about your Warrantless Spying�check out this Official DEA Report.

None of these guys had a warrant to spy in the United States on US citizens, but Chertoff set them all free�all 200 OF THEM!

Now can you help me out with a plausible explanation for this:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/deareportisraelispying.html

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm

http://www.timesherald.com/ site/ news.cfm?newsid=15114089&BRD=1672&PAG=461&dept_id=33380&rfi=6

According to ABCNEWS sources, Israeli and U.S. government officials worked out a deal -- and after 71 days, the five Israelis were taken out of jail, put on a plane, and deported back home.

The men all underwent at least two polygraph tests each, the lawyer added. He said one of the Israelis took the test seven times, a very unusual total according to several polygraph experts interviewed by the Forward. All failed their tests.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/Artstudents.htm

http://killtown.blogspot.com/ 2005/ 11/ dancing-israelis-on-911.html

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE???

Posted by plunger at 02/03/2006 @ 1:42pm
Zedd, al quaeda is a SMALL fraction of the insurgency, even the mis-administration concedes that. Bush is just plain lying that AlQuaeda is seeking to take over Iraq, there is really zero chance of that. this is a civil war between the minority who has ruled this country for half a century at least, and the shia majority who has been ruled by them, and which we unleashed by this illconsidered and illegal invasion. neither side are nice people, and there have been many revenge killings by the Iraqi army we are training, are we training them in torture? nah, they know that already, we are just providing an example with torture, the rape rooms too. an equally large problem the world is facing is the imperialistic designs and policies of the Bush administration, and most of the world agrees with me on thsi. to you I say get some facts, before you post, try google.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/02/2006 @ 12:25am

My point was that it is not just Al Qaeda who should be considered as Islamic terrorists. The insurgents in Iraq are mostly Sunni and their victims are not just U.S. soldiers but also any Muslim who does not subscribe to their interpretation of Islam. This is a fact.

And sorry for not googling information. I was taught to do research and critique information before subscribing to any particular philosophy. Maybe you limit your knowlege to internet search engines, but I don't.

Posted by Zeddmen at 02/03/2006 @ 1:44pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/03/2006 @ 1:40pm |

Yeah, I cringed on that one too, but was more interested in what bombs he's throwing at the BC BS regime. I guess Pat isn't getting any of the lobby money.

Posted by Bushfools at 02/03/2006 @ 1:48pm
Zedd, I don't mind the insult. I get most of my info from newspapers, which I read online. when you make an ignorant remark, just suck up the correction, as I do, don't attack the messenger.

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/03/2006 @ 1:54pm
Looks like a lot of pre- "Alibi War" exposure of the BC BS regime should be hitting the MSM soon unless there's more lobby money to go around:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-corn/the-mother-of-all-downing_b_150 25.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/02/02/another-preiraq-war-meet_n_1501 3.html

Posted by Bushfools at 02/03/2006 @ 1:56pm
Zedd, I looked at your original post again, it wasn't so much that you were wrong, but that your statement was too vague. Zarquawi and his alquaeda warriors are a small fraction of the insurgency, and therefore are responsible for a small number of the huge amount of attacks. it is Bush's way to conflate the enemy to justify his phony war on terror.

the majority of the attacks in Iraq are by the previous government of Iraq, in other words Baathists etc. i'm sure many attacks are also by Iraqis who don't like to see their country invaded and occcupied, eventhough they may not have liked Saddam's regime before.

if this country were invaded, distinctions of party would disappear, as americans would fight the invaders. that this is not so in this war of agression against Iraq speaks for the illegitimacy of that enterprise. ' I use google mainly to on substance here.

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/03/2006 @ 2:05pm
last sentence got garbled. I use google mainly to fact check. we actually don't disagree on substance here

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/03/2006 @ 2:07pm
ZEd,"My point was that it is not just Al Qaeda who should be considered as Islamic terrorists."

here you are mistaken, the Baathist while they may be considered terrorists, are NOT islamic terrorists, they are secular arabs, at preserve distinctions

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/03/2006 @ 2:10pm
again garbled, my apologies. it is important to preserve distinctions

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/03/2006 @ 2:12pm
Zed, I will amend that to say that since the occupation, previously secular arabs have turned more islamic

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/03/2006 @ 2:13pm
has anyone been able to post comments on the notions section? I haven't

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/03/2006 @ 3:22pm
it works now

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/03/2006 @ 5:29pm
no one s suggesting that the american govt was BEHIND the attacks.

-Maybe not, but I know one or two leftists that really (no kidding)believe that Bush and co. KNEW 9/11 was going to happen, and purposely did nothing to stop (i.e., allowed it to happen). This may not be as crazy as saying they were BEHIND it, but it is crazy enough!

Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/05/2006 @ 6:55pm
Are you absolutely, 100% sure Frank Thomas?

Posted by SG at 02/06/2006 @ 12:16am

David Corn

Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations. They may speak English there, but most citizens still need an interpreter to understand its ways and meanings. DAVID CORN, the Washington editor of The Nation magazine, has spent years analyzing the policies and pursuing the lies that spew out of the nation's capital. He is a novelist, biographer, and television and radio commentator who is able to both decipher and scrutinize Washington.

In his dispatches, he takes on the day-by-day political and policy battles under way in the Capitol, the White House, the think tanks, and the television studios. With an informed, unconventional perspective, he holds the politicians, policymakers and pundits accountable and reports the important facts and views that go uncovered elsewhere.

Check out David Corn's latest book, (co-written with Michael Isikoff and now available in paperback), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers). For information, visit his personal blog at davidcorn.com.

Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini

Bush's Simple State of the Union--and the World

posted by David Corn on 02/01/2006 @ 12:44am

David Corn

Archives

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» The Beat

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation

Bush's Simple State of the Union--and the World

posted by David Corn on 02/01/2006 @ 12:44am

Share this article

David Corn

Archives

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» The Beat

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation