Palin Channels Cheney's 9/11-Iraq Falsehoods

posted by John Nichols on 09/12/2008 @ 11:48am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (111)

Subscribe Now

When everyone's attention was focusing on Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's less-than-reassuring interview about foreign policy with ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson, the Republican nominee for vice president was off delivering a speech in which she suggested a dramatically greater ignorance of recent history and international affairs than was on display in the interview.

Speaking at Alaska's Fort Wainwright on Thursday, where she hailed the combat deployment of her son's Army unit to Iraq as a "righteous cause," Palin explicitly and repeatedly renewed the discredited claim that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was initiated as a necessary and credible response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

"You'll be there to defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the deaths of thousands of Americans," Palin told the departing soldiers.

Palin's assessment directly contradicts that of President Bush and key members of his national security team.

After his administration got called out for trying to suggest an Iraq-terrorism connection -- following an over-the-top appearance by conspiracy-theorist-in-chief Dick Cheney on NBC's "Meet the Press," in which the vice president made the false claim that Iraq had been the "geographic base" for the 9/11 attacks -- Bush acknowledged on September 17, 2003, that, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks."

Then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld agreed. At a Pentagon briefing on the same day Bush spoke, Rumsfeld was asked if Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein or those around him were personally involved in the September 11 attacks. Rumsfeld replied, "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who was serving then as White House National Security Adviser, went even further. In an ABC "Nightline" interview, she insisted that, "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11."

Of course, that was a stretch, especially considering some of Cheney's comments.

But there is no question that, a full five years ago, the Bush administration had explicitly rejected any suggestion that it was appropriate to link the Iraq mission to September 11.

Yet, on the seventh anniversary of attacks on New York and Washington that were never legitimately linked to Saddam Hussein or Iraq, Sarah Palin was telling soldiers headed for Iraq that they are part of "the broad conflict that began seven years ago today."

Palin also told the troops: "America can never go back to that false sense of security that came before September 11, 2001."

Fair enough.

But isn't Palin creating a "false sense of security" by suggesting that the Iraq fight is an appropriate or meaningful response to 9/11? And isn't it unsettling that, as the United States prepares to see off a vice president who got in trouble for peddling fantasies regarding Saddam and terroirsm, the Republican nominee to replace Dick Cheney sounds an awfully lot like, er, Dick Cheney?

Comments (111)

Well, gee, Mr Nichols...

obviously Sarah is even smarter than Bush or Rice and KNOWS that Al Qaeda was plotting 9/11 in Iraq and ...is still there!

Ooops, wait a minute...PONTI said "we've won" in Iraq? So how can there be any "enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the deaths of thousands of Americans" there?!?!?!?!?

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/12/2008 @ 12:04pm
BTW, place your bets now...

"First right-wing poster to this thread will...."

A. Try to prove that Bush and Rice were wrong and Palin right and Al Qaeda was (even is) plotting from Iraq?

B. Try to change the subject to Obama or Biden?

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/12/2008 @ 12:06pm
Palin is right because she knows it was all part of God's plan.

If Obama/Biden lose, we & much of rest of the world are in extremely deep trouble.

A hot-head & a fundamentalist, both endowed with mean spirits & owned by corporate big money.

How did we get so lucky?

Posted by sloper at 09/12/2008 @ 12:14pm
>>>"You'll be there to defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the deaths of thousands of Americans," Palin told the departing soldiers. <<<

Invade Russia without sufficient troops?

Lack of understanding of Russia's peacekeeping role in South Ossetia an how this role is sanctioned by the UN?

No Knowledge of Bush's pre-emption doctrine?

And now this parroting of a completely discredited rationale that Iraq was somehow involved in 9/11.

This Palin is SCARY as a potential president if McCain's cancer starts acting up again!

Posted by Metteyya at 09/12/2008 @ 12:27pm
"911 was never even mentioned as a cause in Iraq except by the left"

Posted by JOMAMMA at 09/12/2008 @ 12:16pm

Whoa .. someones been spiking the Kool-aid again.....

Posted by leftofcenter at 09/12/2008 @ 12:43pm
How did we get so lucky? Posted by sloper at 09/12/2008 @ 12:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person

actually we are lucky. never has the choice been so clear.

Posted by emile duBois at 09/12/2008 @ 1:09pm
I HAVE heard Bush and Cheney, as they denied any link in numerous interviews and speeches , even after the invasion..

Posted by JOMAMMA at 09/12/2008 @ 1:04pm

"In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks, in April 2000 in Prague; Cheney later said the meeting could not be proved or disproved...In September, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.""

-http://tinyurl.com/6f6ps

Posted by FLaim at 09/12/2008 @ 1:16pm
actually we are lucky. never has the choice been so clear. Posted by emile duBois at 09/12/2008 @ 1:09pm

Except for '00, since WW2 at any rate.

Wouldn't count on this one not being stolen as well.

Posted by sloper at 09/12/2008 @ 1:20pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/12/2008 @ 12:06pm

And the winner is...

"A"

Thanks, MAASCH for playing!

heheh

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/12/2008 @ 1:22pm
"You'll be there to defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the deaths of thousands of Americans," Palin told the departing soldiers. "

Failing further elucidation from Palin or other quotes why not examine the above paragraph.

Who are the innocent? Well the context seems very obvious. You'll be there. Where? In Iraq. So the innocents are Iraqi citizens living in Iraq.

Who is the enemy? Well as this was in the 9/11 context it can only refer to al Qaeda. Now both sides Dem and GOP have in their Iraq policy the determination to fight and defeat al Qaeda in Iraq.

So the "enemies" Palin is referring to can only be al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and other al Qaeda offshoots operating against innocent Iraqi citizens living in Iraq.

Only someone unfamiliar with our mother tongue would gather that Palin was saying Iraq was involved in causing 9/11. Those who are familiar with the language are more likely to see she was saying the organization that caused 9/11, is operating in Iraq against the innocents and you are going there to defend them.

I notice JM hasn't a kind word to say about your public schooling system. If this is how educated Americans understand plain English he probably has a point.

Posted by lrjones4 at 09/12/2008 @ 1:23pm
"I HAVE heard Bush and Cheney, as they denied any link in numerous interviews and speeches , even after the invasion.."

Posted by JOMAMMA at 09/12/2008 @ 1:04pm

"Cheney blasts media on al Qaeda-Iraq link Says media not 'doing their homework' in reporting ties"

Friday, June 18, 2004 Posted: 2:25 AM EDT (0625 GMT)

Cheney said the press is "often times lazy, often times simply reports what somebody else in the press said."

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview with CNBC's "Capitol Report."

"It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials."

"The press, with all due respect, (is) often times lazy, often times simply reports what somebody else in the press said without doing their homework."

------------------------

BTW it was ONLY after the invasion, not EVEN afterwards, that they blatently contradicted themselves.

Do you hold any opinions, based in fact?

Eric

Posted by Malcontent at 09/12/2008 @ 1:23pm
sloper,

You said "Wouldn't count on this one not being stolen as well."

Sloper, that IS the next significant event on the political calendar this year - November 5, 2008 - when the Democrats will begin to proclaim the election was stolen, as they always do when they lose. (at least in recent times).

As you know, in 2006 there were no complaints about election fraud, disenfranchisement, machine problems, people waiting in long lines and not being able to vote, etc. I swear, I did not and have not seen a single story about any election problems in 2006.

I guess all the "problems" from 2000 and 2004 have all been fixed - our election system is now running like a fine-tuned swiss watch!

Of course, I did note the Democrats won Congress in 2006. I wonder if that had anything to do with how there were no "election problems"? Hmmm.

I wonder what "problems" will crop up this time, after John McCain and Sarah Palin win. Stay tuned to The Nation to find out!

Posted by sjchermak at 09/12/2008 @ 1:29pm
'The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion. ...

"I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hellbent on destroying America and our allies," she [Governor Palin] said after several questions on the topic. "We have got to have all options out there on the table."

That response put her in line with a view expressed by Sen. Barack Obama, now the Democratic presidential nominee, in August 2007, when he stirred controversy by saying that if he were elected president, he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government.' -- Washington Post -- 12 September, 2008

Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/12/2008 @ 1:35pm
I think it was and is irresponsible to report that AQ had zero ties to Saddam, when we know he did have ties on some level..----Posted by JOMAMMA at 09/12/2008 @ 1:36pm

So the choice was "zero" ties...or Cheney's almost-immediately-after-9/11 "OVERWHELMING" ties????

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/12/2008 @ 1:38pm
lrjones-Get back to us when you Aussies start to speak plain English and when you figure out that people who speak English don't all speak it in the same way nor do they even use the same words for everything.You aren't a very shining example of your educational system or maybe you are.

Posted by i'm nobody at 09/12/2008 @ 1:44pm
BTW, everybody check out this cartoon...

and see who here the non-Uncle Sam character sounds like?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGrD1tTi4ec&feature=related

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/12/2008 @ 1:48pm
As you know, in 2006 there were no complaints about election fraud, disenfranchisement, machine problems, people waiting in long lines and not being able to vote, etc. I swear, I did not and have not seen a single story about any election problems in 2006.

Posted by sjchermak at 09/12/2008 @ 1:29pm

"This account of the November 7, 2006 election draws on surveys from participants in Pollworkers for Democracy, reports from voters who called the Election Incident Reporting System and Voter Action, and reports collected by VotersUnite.Org from the national and local media. In all, we looked at 1022 reports of problems associated with electronic voting equipment from 314 counties in 36 states."

-http://www.votersunite.org/info/E-VotingIn2006Mid-Term.pdf

Posted by FLaim at 09/12/2008 @ 1:52pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 09/12/2008 @ 1:43pm

No, JOHN, like the Administration, you want it both ways...

BOTH "Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda" (as part of a rationale for invading Iraq)

AND "They never said SPECIFICALLY that Saddam and Al Qaeda planned 9/11!"

So if the first, then why "are the liberals wrong about Bush/Cheney/et al linking 9/11...committed by AQ...to Hussein"????

if the second, then why are the "ties" from Saddam to AQ important??!?!!??

And we all know the answer...9/11 was the impetus for getting support for invading Iraq...but no rational player can claim that Saddam had anything to do with it. So you use "ties" and "never said specifically they planned it together" to fudge the difference...leaning one side if confronted with the implication....leaning to the other side to prop up rationale for the invasion.

Which is exactly what the Administration did leading upto the war...and since.

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/12/2008 @ 1:52pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/12/2008 @ 1:48pm

BTW, the little "9/11" character is more indictative of PONTI and SJCHER than MAASCH....but not by much!

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/12/2008 @ 1:54pm
FLaim,

Fantastic. But it seems no Democrats got worked up by this, did they? That, of course was the point.

I didn't hear about any election problems, because Democrats weren't screaming about any.

Posted by sjchermak at 09/12/2008 @ 1:57pm
*I didn't hear about any election problems, because Democrats weren't screaming about any.

Posted by sjchermak at 09/12/2008 @ 1:57pm*

Then you weren't paying attention, because I certainly recalled there being voting irregularities in 2006. The fact they weren't on the scale of 2000/2004 might have had something to do with it, however to say you heard none I can only chart up to willful ignorance.

Posted by yutsano at 09/12/2008 @ 2:05pm
"In Florida, there were complaints that touchscreen computers had wrongly recorded voters' choices, and state DEMOCRATS called for the machines to be impounded. In other states, computer problems meant polling stations did not open on time, with voters being turned away or given paper ballots.

It was unclear last night how many voters were affected by voting machine problems. Any suggestion of a malfunction or fraud in the many close races for the House of Representatives, Senate, or governorships was expected to trigger a legal challenge from the thousands of lawyers that both parties have fielded around the country."

-http://tinyurl.com/4ex4nk

emphasis added

Posted by FLaim at 09/12/2008 @ 2:12pm
JM....

rather than repeat what others have posted, I will point you here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

and follow with what seems to be your assertion, that we invaded Iraq (a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, and it seems no ties to al-Qaeda), in order to establish a base to fight al-Qaeda ?

Is that how how convoluted your side thinks? (or is it cognitive issues from the dental visit?)

Posted by leftofcenter at 09/12/2008 @ 2:34pm
As for all this talk about how Bush/Cheney supposedly never linked Iraq to 9-11... "MUSHROOM CLOUD!"

It's really simple, just google --Bush Cheney link Iraq to 9-11. Maybe if McCain new how to use a computer he would be able to see how we were lied to over and over. There are plenty of examples from their own mouths with some on video. I miss TIM RUSSERT.

Bush is now adopting all of Oboama's ideas on Iraq and Pakistan. "Timetables", and striking inside Pakistan to target terrorists. They still misslead people about what MCPAIN really mean. JOHN BUSH slammed Obama for saying we should hit terrorists in Pakistan if the Pakistani's won't. Bush is now doing it. JOHN BUSH slammed the ideas of timetables as somehow aiding the enemy. Yet Bush always said if the Iraqi's asked us to leave we would leave. Well?

Posted by CanWeQuestionPalin? at 09/12/2008 @ 2:41pm
Not only did we follow Bin Laden's plan and not "God's" by invading Iraq, we took out the only buffer to Iran's power in the reason. The only secular government in a theocratic region. Yeah, brilliant.

Wasn't Afghanistan enough of a base to launch attacks on terrorists from? The Taliban are as strong now as they were before 9-11 thanks to "God's plan".

McCain wanted to go into Iraq immediately after 9-11...evidence be damned. So how the Bush/Cheney manipulated and lied and committed treason to get us to go there, McCain didn't need any excuse except desire for war.

Posted by CanWeQuestionPalin? at 09/12/2008 @ 2:47pm
Posted by yutsano at 09/12/2008 @ 2:05pm

SJCHER can't prove that...he just has a "vibe" that it's true.

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/12/2008 @ 2:52pm
I tell you what we need to do, let's exacerbate the situation about Georgia and Russia so we can have a war with Russia. Make Georgia a part of NATO so we would "have to". Then let's "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb ,bomb, Iran." And when the Israeli's unilaterally do whatever they want, lets never "second guess them". So we go to war with the Palestinians and maybe Syria just for the hell of it, oh and why not throw in Saudi Arabia. Does anyone hear the rumblings of a draft?

BLAME CANADA!

Posted by CanWeQuestionPalin? at 09/12/2008 @ 2:54pm
Well but,

http://tinyurl.com/3mcytu

So...

It doesn't really matter right?

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2008 @ 3:08pm
So what about 2004?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/2004votefraud_ohio.html

Far more than in just Ohio than the "1022 reports of problems associated with electronic voting equipment from 314 counties in 36 states."

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1118-30.htm

"In precincts 1 A and 5 G, voting as Hillman Elementary School, which is a predominantly African American community, there were woefully insufficient number of voting machines in three precincts. I was told that the standard was to have one voting machine per 100 registered voters. Precinct A had 750 registered voters. Precinct G had 690. There should have been 14 voting machines at this site. There were only 6, three per precinct, less than 50 percent of the standard. This caused an enormous bottleneck among voters who had to wait a very, very long time to vote, many of them giving up in frustration and leaving. . . . I estimate, by the way, that an estimated loss of over 8,000 votes from the African American community in the City of Youngstown alone, with its 84 precincts, were lost due to insufficient voting machines, and that would translate to some 7,000 votes lost for John Kerry for President in Youngstown alone. . . ."

Posted by CanWeQuestionPalin? at 09/12/2008 @ 3:15pm
No matter how delusional JOMAMMA is, Osama Bin Laden openly disliked Saddam saying Saddam was not a real Muslim. Al Qaeda was not welcome in Saddam's country. You know the whole Sunni Shiite thing. JOMAMMA just twists the facts in the same way too many people got their panties in a twist and attacked the wrong country.

Posted by CanWeQuestionPalin? at 09/12/2008 @ 3:31pm
Posted by madlib at 09/12/2008 @ 3:03pm

SJCHER is the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal, when it comes to information!

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/12/2008 @ 3:33pm
About "Election Problems"

yutsano says: "Then you weren't paying attention, because I certainly recalled there being voting irregularities in 2006. The fact they weren't on the scale of 2000/2004 might have had something to do with it, however to say you heard none I can only chart up to willful ignorance."

And then madlib chimes in:

"OH! YOU didn't hear about it, so that must mean it never happened! Since you are OBVIOUSLY just so "in the know" on everything! You should probably consider working for the federal government, they need smart, infinitely knowledgeable people like yourself!"

So we have libs lecturing me because I said there were no election problems when there were, and I am ignorant because I did not know about them!

THIS IS UTTERLY BREATHTAKING!

You on the left are the ones that profess yourselves, from Barack Obama on down, to be so enlightened and so intellectually superior.

You don't realize sarcasm when you see it!

You libs honestly believe that I think that every single machine or procedure in the United States worked perfectly in 2006, that there were no problems anywhere at any polling station in 2006?

When I said that I heard of no election problems in 2006, it was not because I am concerned about election problems in and of itself. I do not work for a board of elections, or work for a county or a municipality or a state, where I would be worried about such things.

I said that because there was no big public stink about election problems by Democrats. There was no proclimation of the election being stolen, with all the anger and rage that follows. No in-depth articles by libs on this site or elsewhere about election problems due to election stealing.

That was the context. I can't believe you libs are so dense.

Posted by sjchermak at 09/12/2008 @ 3:54pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 09/12/2008 @ 1:43pm

"Where and when did the B/C say.."Saddam and AQ or Osama planned this 911 together and we are gonna get them..now."

Silly question. The point is that the Bush Administration was desperately trying to tie the two together. Example:

" The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world....Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. "

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/ 2002/09/20020925-1.html

Posted by srjenkins at 09/12/2008 @ 4:44pm
darin-Loathe her because she is normal?That makes absolutely no sense,but I'm not surprised.What's normal?Makes no sense.

Posted by i'm nobody at 09/12/2008 @ 5:30pm
The US is in Iraq to defend innocent Iraqis from the same al Q that killed innocent Americans ...

... is that what Palin actually said?

If so ... when did al Q invade Iraq? how did al Q get into Iraq, while the US military was in charge, but couldn't get into Iraq when Saddam was in charge.

Are we to conclude that the US, not Saddam, was in cahoots with al Q?

Palin's postion on the US war in Iraq (including that it's God's plan) is as nonsensical as her position on the creation of the universe 600o years ago & the reason for her insight into Russia, i.e. I can sometimes see it from Alaska.

It's a great show, but please, GOP flacks, don't defend the indefensible here in the Nation. You're wasting your time & ours ... albeit, you may be getting paid.

Posted by sloper at 09/12/2008 @ 5:32pm
darin-Most of that was a distortion of the truth which is why you guys bought into it so quickly.The attempt to portray a moose hunting woman who has extremist end times religious views as normal is ludicrous.

Posted by i'm nobody at 09/12/2008 @ 5:41pm
Darin, like I am with Ponti, I am still waiting for you to tell me where I can find some of PAlins policy statements on issues like healthcare, Russia, federal input into education, energy policy beyond "drill now!" etc.

Got anything other than "librool bias" in the media?

------

In a speech to the conservative Madison Institute in Orlando on Monday (june 2004-crab), Cheney called Hussein ''a patron of terrorism" and said ''he had long established ties with Al Qaeda."

An April (2004-C)poll by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes found that 57 percent of Americans surveyed believed that Iraq was helping Al Qaeda before the war, including 20 percent who believed Iraq was linked to the Sept. 11 attacks.

Cheney's comments Monday echoed a January interview with National Public Radio in which he said, ''There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there."-Boston.com

Posted by crabwalk at 09/12/2008 @ 5:46pm
CLAIM: There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04

CLAIM: ?The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction.? ? President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03

CLAIM: ?Iraq [is] the central front in the war on terror.? ? President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03

CLAIM: ?You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam.? ? President Bush, 9/25/02

CLAIM: ?There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.? ? President Bush, 9/17/03

CLAIM: ?There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.? ? Vice President Cheney, 9/14/03

Posted by crabwalk at 09/12/2008 @ 5:57pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/12/2008 @ 5:56pm

Larry, can YOU direct me to some of Palins policy statements? It seems that no one else is able to.

Posted by crabwalk at 09/12/2008 @ 5:59pm
Hey Larry, did you hear Palins speech at the RNC conference? Did her attacks on Obama and the "liberal media" seem grown up to you? Have you heard the Palin/McCain surrogates this week? Does pig/lipstick ring any bells with you? Does calling Oabam a "fifth grader" help our national dialogue?\

did attacking Kerrys Navy medals raise the bar? Did attacking Dean for using the word "Mileu" approach the level of discourse you want? How about calling Oabam "zebra" or "the magic negroe"?

Methinks you should get your grass hut in order before that shipment of thrones rolls in.

Posted by crabwalk at 09/12/2008 @ 6:04pm
CLAIM: All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against civilization. President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03

CLAIM: We have made clear the doctrine which says, if you harbor a terrorist, if you feed a terrorist, if you hide a terrorist you're just as guilty as the terrorist. We're holding regimes accountable for harboring and supporting terror. President Bush, 9/10/03

FACT: The Administration continues its close ties with the Saudis. But the LA Times reported on 8/2/03 that the bipartisan commission investigating 9/11 found the Saudi government not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts

Posted by crabwalk at 09/12/2008 @ 6:06pm
It isn't, but should be very clear by now that a symbiotic relationship has long existed between the Bush govt & al Q ... each validates the other's policies & propaganda.

Not to mention the hundreds of millions channeled through the CIA to bin Laden to fight the Russians, while the US was simultaneously, under Reagan via Rumsfeld, channeling hundreds of millions & bio/chem WMD to Saddam.

We the People have been & continue to be defrauded.

McCain/Palin follow in a long tradition of deceit & corruption, hiding behind divine sanction ... not at all unlike some other violence-prone fundamentalists, but on a vastly greater scale.

Think We the People will ever wise up?

Posted by sloper at 09/12/2008 @ 6:18pm
lvliberty-Every election year the right says all of the same types of things that the left says, including you, who says very negative about the other side,but you are a blind and raging hypocrite who can't see that.Truth is that most Americans talk just like the "libs" you were referring to,but you would have to get beyond your partisan blindness to see it.In fact,it is on these boards,but you don't see it.

Posted by i'm nobody at 09/12/2008 @ 6:21pm
lvliberty-Repeating it daily will only show that you are,still,blind.

Posted by i'm nobody at 09/12/2008 @ 6:22pm
lvliberty-On here,Obama is called magic negro,half and half and zebra by the right.You made some comment where you claimed that Palin was Dorothy and Obama was the witch and Palin destroyed Obama's wickedness,and you have made numerous other slurs against Obama as have Ponti,redriver, and all the rest.Your comments are just as juvenile as the ones made by the more juvenile lefties.

Posted by i'm nobody at 09/12/2008 @ 6:31pm
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/12/2008 @ 5:19pm

I don't have any issues with Palin beyond her support for bad policies - such as supporting war in Iraq and her comments regarding NATO and Russia should give any thinking person reason to pause.

I'm not terribly interested in who is "normal" or "abnormal", but I am interested in how you perceive her as normal. Would you say that she represents most of the mothers you know - hunts, supports their children going to war, has ideas about the U.S. having a role in bringing about a divine order in the world, etc.?

I can't say I find much of that normal. And while I generally don't mind abnormal, so long as it doesn't represent bad ideas that will negatively impact me and the people I care about at some point. Those ideas about the divine mission of the U.S., fall into that category.

Also curious, how much more of your check would you like to donate for militaristic causes like Afghanistan, Iraq, possibly Iran and now, with Palin's vision, perhaps a confrontation with Russia. You willing to foot the bill for these activities? Be conscripted to provide medical services? Ready to send your children - or the children of your brothers and sisters?

Let's have it out. If you are going to support these people, I'd just like to know that you are on board all the way like LVL is.

Posted by srjenkins at 09/12/2008 @ 6:33pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/12/2008 @ 5:56pm

While I agree with your critique that there isn't much in the way of dialogue happening at this site and that the response to Palin is....puzzling, I think your efforts to characterize "liberals" as the problem is not a particularly balanced view.

If I try real hard, I might be able to think of a few people claiming to be conservative that actually articulate a different philosophy. Thrawn comes to mind. Darin the Troll, perhaps. Maybe a few others.

There was a time that I might have included you in the list, but I think every single post I've seen from you since I've gotten back from India has been some form of post like this one - where you are complaining about the dialogue, but aren't contributing to it yourself in any meaningful way.

I suggest you look to your own eye Reverend, before you look to take the speck out of your neighbor's.

Posted by srjenkins at 09/12/2008 @ 6:43pm
Thank goodness, most Americans don't speak like you libs.-----Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/12/2008 @ 5:56pm

LL who likes the job Bush is doing and thinks the Iraq war was a good idea speaks for "most Americans".

Polls prove it!

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/12/2008 @ 6:51pm
I really have to hand it to Karl Rove. Seven years after 9/11 and we're still obsessed with Iraq, while the real culprits, the Saudis, continue to support al Qaida, the Taliban and now the Sunni insurgents in Iraq.

What inestimable favors the Party of Big Oil has done for its pals the Saudis: airlifting the bin Laden family and other high-ranking Saudis out of the US on 9/12, shutting down the FBI investigation into Saudi 'Islamic charities' that launder contributions to the terrorists, and now creating a failed state right next door where the Saudi sponsors of 9/11 can kill Americans without leaving their own back yard.

No, I don't think Republican politicians are dumb or ignorant; no fools could fool so many.

Posted by samcrossett at 09/12/2008 @ 6:52pm
lvliberty-Happy,a right winger,just referred to Obama supporters as fools.Can you,please,one more time tell us how only the left does that.

Posted by i'm nobody at 09/12/2008 @ 7:20pm
Happy-The GOP just found tons of people that you call fools,but your fools globbed onto someone that they never heard of,but Obama's fools waited to see what he was about before supporting him.

Posted by i'm nobody at 09/12/2008 @ 7:22pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/12/2008 @ 7:20pm

Earlier today he referred to the leftists here as "retarded"...

and no doubt will VERY soon complain how "The left just insults people and calls them names!"

Again, what are those Bible quotes about hypocrites???

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/12/2008 @ 7:35pm
Mask-Jesus spent a fair amount of time exposing luvvy's type as hypocrites when He,constantly,referred to religious leaders as hypocrites.Even trashed their temple (church) to get His point across.

Posted by i'm nobody at 09/12/2008 @ 7:37pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/12/2008 @ 7:37pm |

Even more stinging, add this at the end of whatever insults and name-calling, LVLIB throws out....and when he complains again about how "the left is all about name-calling"...

"You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye."---Matthew 7:5

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/12/2008 @ 7:51pm
Mask-The problem is that luvvy believes that he and his ilk are perfect as is obvious from his posts.He would deny that,of course,but it is rather obvious from what he says.He does not see the log that is in his own eyes because he is blinded by ego where one must agree with him in order to go to heaven,love America,be considered to have morals,be intelligent,etc.Everything revolves around him and his beliefs.

Posted by i'm nobody at 09/12/2008 @ 7:56pm
"So where EXACTLY, did the Admin state.."Saddam was in on 911 with Osama and had knowlege of it, so we are invading"

If it is so that such connection was never made, and assuming we are in fact a nation of laws, of which the highest law in the land is treaty, which includes the UN charter that outlaws aggressive war, why did we invade Iraq?

But I can agree with you on dentists. Mine is great, but the damn process is creepy. But you know what is creepier? I asked a couple of the nurses "Is it safe?" and they had no idea what I was talking about. You'd think that would be in one of the 101 classes.

Posted by onthehelm at 09/12/2008 @ 8:08pm
"It really does seem as though the media and the Angry Left loathe Sarah Palin precisely because she is normal."

Right. Because living in Alaska is normal.

Posted by onthehelm at 09/12/2008 @ 8:09pm
Posted by onthehelm at 09/12/2008 @ 8:09pm

Well, now, she IS normal in one respect...

she doesn't understand the "Bush Doctrine" either!

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/12/2008 @ 8:32pm
Actually Darin "LibZ the Lame" used zebra and other more colorful euphemisms. But as a lower life form, it doesn't really count.

Posted by leftofcenter at 09/12/2008 @ 9:17pm
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/12/2008 @ 8:40pm

Yes, Darin, it was LIBZSUK (in his newest incarnation) who said that.

Now....going to try to claim that a guy who says "YOU LIBERALS CAN GO TO HELL ANDN BURN"....

is "on the Left"?????

No....hmmmm? What will Darin do? (A) "Admit there are looneys on the Right and that he was wrong?"....naawwwwwwww

(B) "Claim that LIBZSUK is a 'fringe character' and 'not REALLY part of the Right' and maintain he is still right?"

Yep...that's it!

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/12/2008 @ 9:25pm
I guess to the right LibZ is like that crazy uncle that no one wants to own up to. I think the problem is there seems to be lots of those loony relatives....

Hopefully its not due to inbreeding!

Posted by leftofcenter at 09/12/2008 @ 9:37pm
darin-I should have said some on the right.I was pointing out to luvvy that it was not just people on the left who used slurs.Brainless uses the zebra term and he is one of you.

Posted by i'm nobody at 09/12/2008 @ 10:10pm
I wonder how McCain feels knowing that he is the most irrelevant person in the campaign and how he feels knowing that winning and losing has little to do with him..

Posted by i'm nobody at 09/12/2008 @ 10:14pm
I think everyone should find a Palin they can support:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf1y9s73Nos

Posted by srjenkins at 09/12/2008 @ 10:16pm
The Democrats would not of course be in this agonizing position if they had nominated a better candidate. In this election year so very favorable to the Dems--when all the stars have seemed perfectly aligned for their triumph--they may have blown their chance to take the presidency owing to the poor decision made by the party big shots, the sycophantic media, the radical punditry, and a minority of extremist voters. A candidate with more experience, less of a rock star aura, less baggage, and fewer radical leftist views. Although there are many worrisome concerns about the Republican ticket, it has been clear from the beginning that the Obama campaign and its many fellow travelers in the media and other positions of great power have been attempting to sell the American people a bill of goods. Thankfully, the delusion of Obamamania is finally beginning to wear off, although Barack has never been given serious scrutiny by the msm, and certainly nothing like the crucifixion that Palin and her entire family have been subjected to in the course of a mere fortnight. Not only is Obama a poor choice, he compounded the error by bringing a has-been, arch political insider blowhard onto the ticket.

Democrats should continue give serious thought to the very real possibility that they have a collective subconscious death wish.

Posted by feinfein at 09/12/2008 @ 11:34pm
Quick sicknHillary on the redneck bigots, keeping in mind big corp media's "white working class" is code for:

1- herd/follower types that go gaga over their tribal leader us vs them message, no matter the lies

2-angry/ in denial neocons

3- dumbed way down media brainwashed, super weak critical thinking

4- whisper campaign type racists

Tailor the message accordingly!

Posted by winyahn at 09/12/2008 @ 11:41pm
i don't think the recent poll swing has anything to do with anything obama has said or done at all.

its what he HASNT done...

he hasnt fought back, yet.

i suspect he has been quite busy assessing the impact and best way to deal with this wildcard monkeywrench the repugnants have thrown into the machine.

i think he has been thinking and listening and asking questions and preparing to respond. he IS cautious, which does not mean he isnt bold when the situation requires such. that is a good thing in a leader.

he will have to attack and bone up on his machiavelli and suntszu and just to know whats coming, some atwwater/rove (but for gods sake just tune out rove...he's still a snake in the grass)...

so lets settle down, stop hyperventilating, and get a grip. lots of things to come here, guys...and obama IS going to start getting a little meaner if he knows whats good for him...

and he certainly is a smart, well educated, wise, and apparantly genuinely decent man, so i'm sure his nest moves will be at least solid...perhaps good...

but solid after sold after solid for the next 8-9 weeks is not so bad...sort of like body blows in boxing or a crushing running game in football...

Posted by dexter666 at 09/12/2008 @ 11:46pm
"white working class" for ex: feinfein

Posted by winyahn at 09/12/2008 @ 11:47pm
har har!

you know what i havent heard lately at least from the rightwing troll brigade?

comparisons to jimmy carter! whew!!!

poor ol jimmy! the saint king harry truman of the 70's who wasnt half as bad as his detractors ans sure as hell wasnt doing evil...

if we had followed his vision what a wonderful world it would be...he brokered a major peace effort in the middle east (imangine how bad things would be if we dodnt have the egyptians as on our side as a muslim arab nation can be...), he envisioned a system of tax incentives and initiatives (with government as facilitator) to develop alternative clean energy implementation...

if obama is half so bad, he's still so much better than the mushmouth in chief and his evil, incompetant cronies!!!

Posted by dexter666 at 09/12/2008 @ 11:55pm
and flippy mac? gramps? mr. "war hero" (yeah yeah yeah...i've heard the big war hero story...my old man told me his war hero stories and i will always treasure them, and sorry you suffered and thanks for your sacrifice, john mccain, but...ok...)

the big "maverick" that "voted with mushmouth 90% of the time" as the o man said...

another thing i find funny - the right's semiracist references to him as the "magic negro" as if such is bad...

pardon my satanic crassness, but what the hell is wrong with a "magic negro"? if it gets mo honkies voting for him...

???

he DOES seem to be the real deal (a potentially phenomenal leader) and he IS half "negro"...if sitcim and driving miss daisy white america wants a magic negro...why not?

are we really that racist?

Posted by dexter666 at 09/13/2008 @ 12:01am
Posted by SoHAPPY at 09/13/2008 @ 12:00am | ignore this person | warn this person

HA HA HA! GOTCHA TA SAY "MAGIC NEGRO!!!!!!"

HA HA HA!!

Posted by dexter666 at 09/13/2008 @ 12:03am
Posted by SoHAPPY at 09/13/2008 @ 12:06am | ignore this person | warn this person

he came into power in the 70's, hap...those were crazy times in terms of economics, culture wars, and the results of nixonian government maleasance...

it was in a malaise not of his making. he was good, and fair, and did the best with what we had...

oil prices went way down when iran and iraq went to war and undercut each other for 8+ years as soon as carter left office...

based on current events i would say that fluctuations in gas prices are indeed of monumental importance to the econmomy regardeless of specific ideology and carter's efforts at long term energy independence have been long overelooked as well as shamelessly abandoned by grasshopper reaganomics...

what if we had followed his example in energy and progressivism...?

Posted by dexter666 at 09/13/2008 @ 12:17am
and the nation NEEDED a good man for president...

Posted by dexter666 at 09/13/2008 @ 12:18am
i'm just not sure i trust john mccain anymore...

he used to seem to be the straight talkin express...was even courted by the dems...then became 90% bushy???

the longer yer in politics the more favors you owe...the downside of "experience"...experience in what??? sociopathic personality and ideology chameleonism?

Posted by dexter666 at 09/13/2008 @ 12:31am
Whoa! I can see by the Neo-Con fascist dumbasses posting here. That they just can't seem to spin themselves out of the vortex of ignorance and stupidity that drips out of the rancid piehole of "Caribou Barbie", as Mike Malloy likes to call her.

Keep her talking! Even when she gets softballs from the likes of Charlie Gibson she can't handle it. Im ecstatic at the possibilties. Even the somewhat sane voters in the GOP will barf up their cheerios.

We will win in November as long as they don't cut the witches tongue out..

Posted by chaoszen at 09/13/2008 @ 02:01am
Any president who wouldn't attack an enemy when they had solid evidence that said enemy was about to attack the home country would and should be shot for incompetence...Posted by JOMAMMA at 09/13/2008 @ 01:20am

Even this moron doesn't have a clue what the "Bush Doctrine" is. With its policy of preventive war it means that the United States could make war or depose a regime whether or not it posed an immediate threat to the security of the United States. That means the United States could strike another sovereign nation if the executive branch thought there was a chance at some point in the future this nation may pose a threat.

Without the approval of Congress and in violation of International Law. Insanity.. But some people talk out of their ass way before they put their mouth in gear.

Posted by chaoszen at 09/13/2008 @ 02:29am
Personally, I am very concerned that this insane policy will soon be used against Venezuela. The neo-cons know they need something big for their October surprise. Given the recent developments with diplomats being expelled from both the United States and Venezuela.

The Russians have sent two Strategic Bombers (nuclear) to Venezuela due the most recent attempt by the United States to depose Hugo Chavez. There has also been an attempt to overthrow the Bolivian leader Evo Morales. Im looking for some insane scenario to develop out of this. Grab yur ass..

Posted by chaoszen at 09/13/2008 @ 02:57am
And then on top of all this "Caribou Barbie" say in her interview with "Charlieee" that if Georgia or Ukraine were members of NATO and attacked by Russia would we go to war. She says "Perhaps So". See english.pravda.ru/opnion/columnists/12-09-2008/106354-palindevil-0 for a Russian opinion of all this.

Posted by chaoszen at 09/13/2008 @ 03:30am
Posted by chaoszen at 09/13/2008 @ 02:57am | ignore this person | warn this person

the russians are actin up for sure. the same dudes with lots of nukes as before, but leaner, meaner and more hungry...whats their game, eh? they are as nationalist as we are...

kind of refreshing nostalgic change from ilsamo crap...

hows venezuela doing economically, all ideology aside?

Posted by dexter666 at 09/13/2008 @ 04:01am
Posted by chaoszen at 09/13/2008 @ 02:01am

Less vitriolic, but that has been my strategy on Palin for some time...

K.H.T.

Keep Her Talking.

All the briefings, training, mock interviews, etc. in the world won't prevent her from finally saying what's REALLY on her mind....

and then a week's worth of "What the Governor REALLY meant to say..." from McCain spokespeople and the Right Wing Machine.

Look what she's done in ONE interview? Just imagine how ...on her own...away from McCain....she'll do in weeks to come?

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/13/2008 @ 07:23am
So, asking the conservative "adults" here to point me towards some of Palins policy statements has proved futile. Why is that cons? You guys say you want to have a serious discussion, but you can't even find a basis for that discussion. You have attacked "the media", the "left" accused "the left" of being children, called Obama a "zebra", a magic negro", The Messiah" and other grown-up names, but have yet to even point out the policies of his that you don't like, comparing them to Palins for instance.

I guess I will keep pointing out your rank hypocrisy and desire to fall in love with a brunette that speaks well, but offers nothing but platitudes and happy talk from God.

(I finally figured out why Palin is scared of Barak, she heard he is a Mooselum!)

Posted by crabwalk at 09/13/2008 @ 11:37am
Totally off-topic, but has Chertoff risen from the dead? I swear I saw this guy on a George Romero film: http://www.needlenose.com/i/gb/chertoff.jpg

Posted by leftofcenter at 09/13/2008 @ 1:12pm
Chaosen: The Russians have sent two Strategic Bombers (nuclear) to Venezuela due the most recent attempt by the United States to depose Hugo Chavez.

Damn! I hadn't heard that.

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/13/2008 @ 07:23am

Keep Her Talking.

may be all reality based people can hope for --

and as Stanley Milgram proved in the 60's the Mann result will be more followership.

A better strategy which MSM will curtail is Obama and Bides tearing them to shreds.

"Like their heroes, Dick and George, they're betting it all on your gullibility..." "They're stiffing lies down your throat -again- this time we say enough! C'mon, wake up, stand up, stand up for country! This time we're straight talkin' back to these lying super insiders, wrapped in the flag. That's our flag! Take it off! This is our country. We're tearing down the walls of insider power and deceit. Get the hell out of Washington! Get the hell out of our way! The only thing you reform is the truth. You reform, remake, twist, spin, distort then report - and lipstick or no - it's a lie!" etc

Posted by winyahn at 09/13/2008 @ 2:27pm
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/13/2008 @ 1:12pm

If you look closer you will see that Chertoff is actually Vlad Lenin arisen.

Posted by crabwalk at 09/13/2008 @ 4:22pm
Posted by chaoszen at 09/13/2008 @ 02:29am

I see another kool-aid laden moonbat has taken wing out of the left-wing fever swamp, spouting the predictable inanities with which you folks are indoctrinated, speech and thought laced with the usual obscenities and strong but unaccountable sense of intellectual superiority. Statism, socialism, progressivism, whatever you folks are calling it these days, drilled into the brain, with the answers to all questions requiring thought as reflexive as a knee-jerk.

There must be something in the water in the major cities, the rest of the country seems quite sane.

Oh, McCain up by 10 electoral votes today. The country is turning a nice health pink and red on the electoral map.

Posted by pontificus at 09/13/2008 @ 5:00pm
The problem for the Democratic Party is that the core constituency is hard left. Thus, we have hard leftist after hard leftist nominated for President, all of whom lose, thank God. We haven't had a Democrat in power since Clinton, and he wasn't really so much a leftist as he was a Clintonist. As illustrated in the Clinton-suppressed 'Path to 9/11', I would blame his negligence and the inborn moral cowardice and self-loathing of his Democratic advisers for the resurgence of terror in the world. He fiddled while it festered, preoccupied as he was with screwing the interns, and cowering from anythign stronger than sending messages along with missiles into the desert. He wasn't nearly as bad as Carter, or as bad as Obama would be.

Posted by pontificus at 09/13/2008 @ 5:09pm
Posted by pontificus at 09/13/2008 @ 5:00pm

Funny, I thought it was turning red from holding its breath. No doubt from Palin's stench of corruption, or maybe Gramps is going apoplectic?

Posted by leftofcenter at 09/13/2008 @ 5:25pm
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/13/2008 @ 5:25pm

Actually, doesn't holding your breath make you turn blue? Like drinking kool-aid laced with cyanide?

Posted by pontificus at 09/13/2008 @ 5:29pm
Latest gaffe from the gaff-o-matic machine: a campaign ad from the Obama campaign which mocks McCain because 'he can't send an email'. Which apparently is true. Wanna know why?

Obama Gets Tough, Shoots Self In Head

I've always thought that Barack Obama is unqualified for the office of President--he isn't qualified to be a Senator, either--but I've never thought he was particularly mean-spirited. Until now. Obama said he was going to get tough, and put out this ad, which is offensive in a number of ways:

" The reason he doesn't send email is that he can't use a keyboard because of the relentless beatings he received from the Viet Cong in service to our country. From the Boston Globe (March 4, 2000):

McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball."

You progressives really are brilliant, you know that?

Posted by pontificus at 09/13/2008 @ 5:46pm
Ponti .. aren't you guys the kool-aid crowd? We drink fancy "honest-tea" brand teas, remember. http://tinyurl.com/67827s

Posted by leftofcenter at 09/13/2008 @ 6:49pm
Ponti ... so Obama has a hard time constructing intentional meanness against his opponent. But McCain tells lie after lie even after the press has shown them to be false, and you think this is a good thing?

Posted by leftofcenter at 09/13/2008 @ 6:53pm
Obama Gets Tough, Shoots Self In Head

I've always thought that Barack Obama is unqualified for the office of President--he isn't qualified to be a Senator, either--.."

Posted by pontificus at 09/13/2008 @ 5:46pm

I think that Obama would be best keeping to prepared grand speeches rather than off the cuff remarks. His problem is that Biden, who said the Dems should have chosen Clinton instead of him, is about as hopeless as off-the-cuff Obama is but in the more formal situations as well.

McCain's problem, as I see it, is not so much his "lies" but trying to be a nice guy in interviews. The most successful politicians have a streak of the headkicker in them. That's why Palin, who leaves them all for dead as a politician, needs to be the GOP lead spokesperson.

Obama's vulnerability is in his discernment. I've noticed how easy it is for him to change his position. Probably because , unlike Palin, he has few fixed convictions. That he, as a highly educated man, could sit for so long under the irrational mythologies of Wright is testimony to that lack of discernment and one can only wonder if he would not likewise be influenced by other crazy ideas particularly in heads of states meetings, sometimes with those whose views may not be in the best interests of his country.

Posted by lrjones4 at 09/13/2008 @ 9:40pm
McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care.----Posted by pontificus at 09/13/2008 @ 5:46pm

Curious PONTI, Bush Prez for 8 years....Repubs held Congress for 12 years...

how did military families end up needing food stamps or veterans lack health care ...

under the Party with sole claim to "supporting the troops"?!???!??!???!?

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/13/2008 @ 9:53pm
Ponti, what is Palin/McCain going to change?

(Change...Change....gosh where did I hear that phrase....)

anywhoo.... so, Ponti, what is this corruption in DC that Palin talked about? According to you the place is pretty clean.

Got any Palin policy statements yet there, Guantanamouse? Or are you keeping that as secret as you have the list of witchhunters and the actual location of Saddams wmd's?

BOO!

Posted by crabwalk at 09/13/2008 @ 11:06pm
Anecdote time:

I was working with my new neighbor yesterday and his Alzheimer's suffering grandfather was watching us. At least a dozen times he asked us what we were doing. Then later he said "I have a great memory!". Reminded me of Pontificus.

Turns out the old guy was a radio operator on a WWII bomber. He needs ant-phsychotic medicine to keep him from totally going nuts. Up till Chimpies last VA budget cut the medicine was covered. Now his wife has to come up with $300/month for one prescription, in addition to the regular meds they both take.

The so-called Patriots should be outraged. But, no, they love Chimpy cuz he supports the troops. Till they come home.

What's Palins stance on VA benefits?

anybody?.....

prayer.... God's will..... for it before she was against it...

Posted by crabwalk at 09/13/2008 @ 11:16pm
" Probably because , unlike Palin, he has few fixed convictions"-LeeRoyJones

Fixed convictions... like being for something before she was against it? Or against pork, but willing to be the biggest pork per capita consumer in our union, or having a strong ethical center while billing the taxpayers of AK for living at home?

Perfect for for 4 more years of Chimpy rule. Up is blue, wrong is right, experience is meaningless and Family Values are a private issue.

Posted by crabwalk at 09/13/2008 @ 11:23pm
Before we end this thread, could we get another con to sing us the song about how nobody ever tried to link AQ, Sadddam and 9-11? It's so sweet, with it's naivete' and soft scent of grape flavored instant drink mix.

Posted by crabwalk at 09/13/2008 @ 11:26pm
Posted by crabwalk at 09/13/2008 @ 11:23pm

I think it must be past your bedtime Crabs.

"Convictions" if you please are those deep seated things that are developed over a lifetime of all sorts of experiences including moral and intellectual influences.

Things like a bridge to no where have to do with "trivial" details like will it advantage the community generally and is the cost worth it or is it just a ruse by a pollie to get support from vested interests?

Here's a borderline one for me ( I'm an ACC skeptic, but you may see a moral dimension here).

It has been reported that the Dems and big O, who as I understand it, think ACC is the moral challenge of this century, have gone a bit weak in the knees about drilling for oil in certain "no way ever" locations about the time the polls said Americans were in favour of it.

What sez you? Conviction or sound political instinct?

Posted by lrjones4 at 09/14/2008 @ 12:08am
Fiorini is complaining that the media is being "disrespectful" to a presidential candidate.

Imagine!

Posted by crabwalk at 09/14/2008 @ 10:35am
but he did screw the pooch( not Monica) with Osama and the first WTC bombings. Posted by JOMAMMA at 09/14/2008 @ 12:06am

How is that? By convicting the mastermind?

That's better than Chimpy has done, he got Osamas driver, though.

Old news....

why don't you tell me about Palins policy on Pakistan?

do you guys know ANYTHING about her policy positions on anything other than abortion, god and the NRA?

Posted by crabwalk at 09/14/2008 @ 10:40am
LeeRoy, before ACC drilling can even start, it seems to me that much more study needs to be done. So this "drill now!" mantra is in fact political posturing. Obama has shown himself almost as capable of tacking in the wind as McCain.

I am not an over enthusiastic Obama supporter LeeRoy. Unlike my friends on the far right here who are googly eyed over their VP pick, but cannot even point me toward her policy positions. These same folk were TOTALLY against the "liberal" MCcain just a few months ago. What changed? Palin. What is it they love about her? The heavily produced story that has been created about her. In many ways she is exactly what the cons have been decrying about Obama, inexperienced, her draw is her personality and her speeches and she was an earmark princess while governing at the local and state level.

she was picked by "the MaveriK" to appeal to the Qaida of the republican party. She is a fundamentalist evangelical anti-abortion pro-gun pro-war Bible thumper. But, maybe she missed the Ten Suggestions, she is also a liar, and she brings false witness against her opponents (which puts her in the same boat as the rest). Is this really what America needs now?

I see McCain as a blast of the past. I am tired of fighting Vietnam, I am tired of a Cold War mentality. I want a thinker in the office, not a reactionary. I want someone that can go across the world with a positive message, not a hawk. We have had 8 years of hawkishness, and we are still at war in two countries and even you cannot tell me when it will end and how much will have to be borrowed to pay for it. You cannot point to a decrease in worldwide terrorism. I want someone that will improve our image, not keep the militaristic hegemony that so many billions of people resent.

out of characters

Posted by crabwalk at 09/14/2008 @ 10:59am
Sarah is just so 'high school' , Mr. Yesterday made another bad choice.

Posted by linwood at 09/14/2008 @ 11:07am
the campaign has entered the realm of "low expectations" with the entrance of Sarah Palin. All she has to do is show up. All the "unbiased" reviews I see of her performance in the (one!) interview she has given are that she got about a "C". And the cons are giddy about it.

Talking head just made a good point...Charlie Gibson interviewed Palin more than McCain did before he picked her to be the VP.

why isn't she on the Sunday talk show circuit? Shouldn't she be out there telling people where she stands? Is she really that scared of the media? If she is, how is she going to stand up to the Arab League, Putin and Iran? Or is the McCain campaign afraid of what might come out of her mouth?

Posted by crabwalk at 09/14/2008 @ 11:08am
Sarah is just so 'high school' , Mr. Yesterday made another bad choice. Posted by linwood at 09/14/2008 @ 11:07am

that is the base, LIN. They are like High Schoolers in the locker room. They want to be Tough, they pick on those that are smaller than themselves, they spread rumors, they want to be ruled by someone they might have a beer with, they are frightened by intellectualism.

Another reason they love Sarah, she reminds them that HS basketball is more important than the Math Olympics. But they forget which one matters in the long run.

Posted by crabwalk at 09/14/2008 @ 11:12am
Does anybody have archived Levi Johnstons FaceBook page? The real one, not the one that replaced it after McCains people got ahold of it. I heard he was proud to be a redneck and claimed "I don't want kids!"

Is this true?

What would Dan Quayle say about unwed mothers? How many times did we hear from the rightwing that "Dan Quayle was RIGHT!".

what happened to that? Did it go out the window with the rest of the Family Values platform?

Posted by crabwalk at 09/14/2008 @ 11:18am
"It's all a question of values, and that brings us to a topic which will always be associated with tonight's speaker. I cannot recall any speech, by any vice president, that has provoked the kind of national debate that was engendered by what came to be called the "Murphy Brown" speech. It was a thoughtful and challenging assessment of where our culture was running offthe tracks - and how we might get things to go back in the right direction. As one non-conservative journal later headlined, "Dan Quayle was right.

And [right] about the crucial role of the family in everything from economic growth to welfare reform." - Trent Lott introducing Dan Quayle

Posted by crabwalk at 09/14/2008 @ 11:24am
" Probably because , unlike Palin, he has few fixed convictions"-LeeRoyJones

with the emphasis on the word fixed, as in the prizefight was fixed. Palin is truly the Manchurian candidate.

Posted by emile duBois at 09/14/2008 @ 11:50am
Lord, trust so-called conservatives posting to "The Nation" to suggest the implausible.

McCain is just too darn nice. Apparantly, you missed all the articles on his anger problems.

McCain is unable to type because of beating he recieved as a POW. Perhaps someone should introduce him to Dragon Naturally Speaking that enables disabled people to use the Internet much like anyone else. We all know that McCain can speak and that is all that is required.

Further, the ability to understand basic concepts about the Internet - an understanding that anyone that actually uses it has - is something that the chief executive setting policy ought to have.

Posted by srjenkins at 09/14/2008 @ 12:44pm
Posted by crabwalk at 09/14/2008 @ 10:59am

Love your idealism Crabs but as you suspect Obama is probably about as reliable as his opposition.

Sometimes its "better the devil you know". However I see the value of changing a party that has been in government so long that it gets tired, lazy and runs out of ideas.

We changed a conservative government last year for one that is centre-left on the basis that it was time for a change. The new government made a few symbollic gestures but people are finding that economic prosperity and jobs are a little more important than symbolic gestures such as signing Kyoto and a "Sorry" to Aboriginal people or removing some troops from Iraq.

This weekend the first centre-left state government (for some years all have been of the same party now in power federally) has been defeated by a conservative coalition. It in part is an indication of dissatisfaction with the federal government. Polls show this sentiment is gathering momentum in other states.

My observations on Palin are not so much on her policies or convictions but her appeal to a large number of Americans, which tells me that the culture wars are not over in America and that she speaks for those who obviously feel disenfranchised. If it means more Americans will vote then that's a healthy sign in a usually apathetic electorate.

If only in a subconscious way many have come to realise that short of a Chavez moment or a radical revolution politicians can do little to significantly and safely change the lot of most of us. The economic system is king and tamper too much with that and we all (middle class and down) lose out.

Posted by lrjones4 at 09/14/2008 @ 4:49pm
LR, do you think a culture war is going to be a salve for economic downturn?

Posted by crabwalk at 09/14/2008 @ 9:53pm
LR, do you think a culture war is going to be a salve for economic downturn?

Posted by crabwalk at 09/14/2008 @ 9:53pm

No. That's the job of the markets with a bit of help from the various governments.

The culture war, as long as the pen continues to be mightier than the sword, may not be an altogether bad thing. It would certainly make this forum a lot less fun if we all came off the same ideological assembly line.

Posted by lrjones4 at 09/15/2008 @ 9:16pm