I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Exactly. What's this all about?
I get it
I'm not worried, Kerry will clean up the agency starting in february !
Check the expiration date, bitches!
Expired what???? Bitch.
Btw, as for CONCERT FOR CHANGE.
If you want to see the best live band on this whole tour you need to see MY MORNING JACKET.
These guys are off the charts.
I'm upset I didn't get to state college.
Please tell Kerry to talk about the Repubs wanting a national sales tax to pay for things.
When has this administration ever been worried about our security, as opposed to theirs?
The only thing they did about the August 6, 2001 memo is keep Asscroft out of commercial planes.
They're spending billions on an unproven missile defence system, yet nuclear material is unsecured in the former Soviet Union-while 95% of cargo containers are uninspected.
Translators were fired for sexual orientation-there's a huge backlog of tranmissions waiting to be translated-apparently it's 12 hours before they even get looked at.
Geez, they had problems with their DNS service, hosting and whatnot all the time, and now somebody let their domain reg expire?
Interesting, but did you see Amy Sullivan's post below the one on Goss?
Someone should ask Bush why he doesn't go to church. Maybe Kerry could ask (rhetorically) during the next debate.
I still get it
Another reason Kerry must win: Otherwise the CIA will be is being turned into a branch of the Republican Party.
In the same page on Atrios link, thre's this gem from Kevin Drum, i love it when "real journalists" diss bloggers cause deep down they feel so threatened by them!
" Bloggers everywhere are basking in the illusion that they're sophisticated media operatives, actively collaborating to figure out the best spin for their guy. Emails are flying around from all parties pleading with fellow bloggers to stay on message.
This is insane. It's bad enough when the mainstream media spends too much time lazily regurgitating talking points, but doesn't the blogosphere supposedly pride itself on being fiercely independent, a small band of brave truthtellers immune to the spin and cant of professional politicos?
Immune? As near as I can tell, bloggers are delighted to find themselves part of the spin machine. It's a real rush." (blah blah blah etc.)
poor journos!
Is it possible for a large organization like Washington Monthly to forget to register. Last time I registered it was something like $200 for five years. WTF!!
Oops:
LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas (AP) -- The Arkansas Supreme Court on Friday granted independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader a place on Arkansas' ballot for the November 2 general election.
The court ruling overturned a circuit court judge's order to election officials that would have kept Nader's name off the ballot.
Circuit Judge Timothy Fox, ruling in a lawsuit brought by the state Democratic Party, said the signatories who petitioned for Nader name to be on the ballot had not declared him as their candidate.
Nader appealed Fox's ruling ...
-- http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLIT...s.ap/
index.html
Looks like the Democratic Syndicate Family lost another court ruling. Yet another determination this year that the Democrats sought unconstitutional legal means to disenfranchise Nader voters in the pursuit of a turf war ... I am not your entitlement, Kerry!
Holden - The only reasons I could think of for Kerry to ask Bush how often he goes to church would be if Bush brings it up himself. Otherwise - no. We don't want to go there.
I'm way more comfortable when presidential candidates stay the hell away from the whole church/religion thing.
Though I agree it's an interesting question.
That page also linked to a WaPo article that I had missed.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, asked Tuesday about similarities between Bush's statements about Iraq and Allawi's speech to Congress last week, said he did not know of any help U.S. officials gave with the speech. "None that I know of," he said, adding, "No one at the White House." He also said he did not know if the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad had seen the speech.
But administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the prime minister was coached and aided by the U.S. government, its allies and friends of the administration. Among them was Dan Senor, former spokesman for the CPA who has more recently represented the Bush campaign in media appearances. Senor, who has denied writing the speech, sent Allawi recommended phrases. He also helped Allawi rehearse in New York last week, officials said. Senor declined to comment.
The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and British Foreign Service officials also helped Allawi with the text and delivery of his remarks, said administration officials who were involved. The State Department and officials elsewhere in the government took the lead in booking Allawi's interviews. Administration officials said that the Iraqi Embassy in Washington consists of just a few officials and has only a dial-up Internet connection, so was incapable of preparing for the high-profile tour.
US Effort Aims to Improve Opinions About Iraq Conflict
*sniff*
Saturday morning cartoons must be over.
As buoyed as I was by Kerry's debate performance, I find myself increasingly dismayed by his stump rhetoric yesterday about 'not walking away' from Iraq and 'winning the war' and 'getting the job done.'
Is it really possible that someone with Senator Kerry's Vietnam background thinks that this conflict in Iraq is somehow 'winnable?' Sy Hersh says no one he talks to thinks it is.
The Pentagon Papers revealed that US Presidents from Eisenhower on persisted in strategies for military 'victory' in Vietnam in spite of an intelligence consensus (kept secret from the public) that no such thing was likely or even possible.
I'd like to believe that yesterday's fulminations were the necessary rhetoric for this campaign and that after winning he'll have some great 'come to Jesus' meeting with the intelligence and defense brass and set a new course.
Yet I have no basis for this hope except hope. This is The Great Unknowable about Kerry, isn't it?
Can anyone reassure me about this?
I sometimes think all the death and destruction of Sept. 11, 2001 MIGHT ALMOST have been worth it if they HAD gotten Asscrack in one of those planes...
By the way: When I went to bed Thursday night I had a Kerry/Edwards sign in the front yard. When I awoke the next morining I had TWO Kerr/Edwards signs in the yard...a bloody miracle, I tell ya...
Following in SteveLG's footsteps, I need some reassurance w/r/t the two Army divisions that Kerry proposes to create. Where on earth does he plan to get the people for this without a draft? And why haven't the Repubs seized on this apparent chink in his armor?
This one is good!
"THE PRESIDENT HAS 'OVALITIS'"
What happened to Bush? What's wrong with him? I would say he has a bad case of Ovalitis -- an ear infection endemic to the Oval Office. Sit there long enough, and you don't hear anything you don't want to hear.
the rest is at http://tinyurl.com/6skkz
and it's a funny read!
By the way, don't forget the Saturday Night Live premiere tonite with very dem Ben Affleck hosting, can't wait to see their "debate" spin!
Here's another Right Wing Spinner
Bush won the debate with kerry
Here's what I wrote. Copy/Paste/Flood them. Has to be quick.
letters@sfchronicle.com
--------
[Your address]
Gentlemen,
San Francisco Chronicle's seemed to fall short of its normally high standards in presenting Senator John Kerry's performance in the presidential debates on Thursday night. Senator Kerry articulated his leadership succinctly against the angry responses of the president. John Kerry's foreign policy goals were stated clearly and the public has responded overwhelmingly in his support, as evidenced by all of the online polls as well as the post-debate media coverage.
It is disconcerting that a respected paper such as S.F. Chronicle is willing to disregard the public opinion as well as their media counterparts reporting the facts on the ground. Allowing somebody as biased and conservative as Debra Saunders to blatantly mislead the public about the outcome of the debate undermines the principles of democratic journalism. I hope Mrs. Saunder's political opinions are brought to public attention to reflect the lack of her objectivity. She trivializes president's factually challenged war-making decisions. She also refuses to acknowlege the difference between voting to give the president the authority to go to war and his abuse of the given power. I hope the Chronicle addresses this issue immediately. It troubles me to see such misleading practices in use by one of today's larges circulating papers.
Sincerely,
[your name]
-----------
Don't be dumb, and edit the 'your name' sections.
Persistence and Tenacity win Spin Wars.
Do Something.
So, is it true that Allawi was registered to vote both in Baghdad and in Wisconsin?
CAF? Shove Nader up your ass. If he costs the election AGAIN, the fascist Bushistas WILL install "Uncle" Thomas as Chief Justice, sabotage Social Security, and spread the cancer of empire abroad. When that happens, your fuckin ass is grass, dickwipe...
If it's a domain expiration slip-up, I think that happened to Microsoft a year or two ago, and a helpful slashdotter stepped into the breach with his credit card to tide them over, and prevented a delightful outcome for spammers, crackers, etc.
-
SteveLG:
No, I can't reassure you at all. The "debate" (gag) taking place over Iraq this year is eerily similar to the "debate" that took place while Vietnam was just starting to heat up. Off-limits is any discussion grounded in sanity that "winning" might not be possible given that the entire thing was at best a mistake to begin with, if not worse than a mistake, but an imperialist fiasco.
Well, I guess Sen. Kerry wants to be President so he can ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake ... that seems to be his position.
(Well, actually, his position is that he will say anything to anyone that he thinks will get him elected, even if the resulting policy for continuing the Iraq war is just as disastrous as the policy that started the Iraq war.)
"By the way: When I went to bed Thursday night I had a Kerry/Edwards sign in the front yard. When I awoke the next morining I had TWO Kerr/Edwards signs in the yard...a bloody miracle, I tell ya..."
Yesterday,I put up a few signs on a busy street. There were probably 50 Republican signs to my 4, but they were all I had. Today I drove by and the K/E signs had all been pulled up and thrown on the ground. Lucky for me I had my Kerry/Edwards t-shirt on as I put them back up. I'm going to put up more signs and monitor them every day -- each day wearing my K/E t-shirt to work in.
Also, I've been wearing the shirt when I take my daily walk and run errands.
Holden - The only reasons I could think of for Kerry to ask Bush how often he goes to church would be if Bush brings it up himself. Otherwise - no. We don't want to go there.
I'm with Tena on this one. There is an amazing amoung of hypocrisy on the part of the press, examining, as Amy Sullivan points out, how often and when Kerry receives the Eucharist, but paying no attention to the fact that this most religious of Presidents never attends church.
But they did the same to Reagan, who was more overtly religious (i.e., wore it on his sleeve) than Carter or Clinton, but who never attended church regularly, as both Carter and Clinton found time to do.
I think, actually, this plays to a secular mind-set that is comfortable with people talking about "church" or "God," as long as that's all they do. It's that "small-group" mentality Sullivan mentions, where actual corporate worship is not really essential. Who does or doesn't go to church on Sunday, even to me, is dangerously close to Pecksniff; appearances obviously being more important than reality.
And it's simply a fight Kerry won't win points on.
Konopelli: you are yet another living, breathing example of why I choose not to affiliate myself with Democrats.
Do you comprehend that your personal sense of self-righteousness does not give you the right to abuse anyone however it pleases you?
Since you seem so concerned, what are the consequences of Clarence Thomas becoming Chief Justice?
Is it really possible that someone with Senator Kerry's Vietnam background thinks that this conflict in Iraq is somehow 'winnable?' Sy Hersh says no one he talks to thinks it is.
Probably not, but it's 1972 all over again if Kerry admits that.
Nixon had a "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam. McGovern wanted to end it NOW! McGovern had the sympathy of the youth vote. And he only carried Massachussetts (IIRC).
Kerry can't afford to repeat that by declaring the war "lost." Americans vote for leaders, not losers. Kerry would be branded a "loser" by Bush, and that would be the end of the race.
Um...I don't get it. I see the post about Goss, but don't know what that has to do with "expired".
I need some reassurance w/r/t the two Army divisions that Kerry proposes to create. Where on earth does he plan to get the people for this without a draft?
brendanl79 10.02.04 - 11:41 am | #
A division consistst of 10-15K soliders. Sweeten the deal a little and stop fucking with them (by, for example, sending them into unwinable wars) and you can get 20K troops out of Texas alone. Just put a signup form on the winsheild of everyone with a W sticker.
Hey Robert:
Believe it or not, times may have changed since 1972. You know, the political economy and overall climate here really, really, may have changed.
The whole McGovern bit is a canard. The truth of the matter is that there are some very powerful people at the top of the Democratic Party who have staked their careers on moving the party rightwards and they are not about to give up power even if it means dragging the country into yet another prolonged imperialist fiasco.
"THE PRESIDENT HAS 'OVALITIS'"
What happened to Bush? What's wrong with him? I would say he has a bad case of Ovalitis -- an ear infection endemic to the Oval Office. Sit there long enough, and you don't hear anything you don't want to hear.
Tangerine
Maybe Bush's given up the Kool-Aid in favor of Ovaltine(r).
mmmmm. Rich, chocolatey Ovaltine. mmmmm....
Terence J. McAuliffe, called by some "The Greatest Fundraiser in History", along with Kerry, Clinton, and a whole bunch of other "DLC" operators, have dragged the party rightwards, and will not admit they are wrong. To do so costs them their positions. That is why Kerry is committed to "winning" Iraq. Because if he is not so committed, then McAuliffe is looking for a different national committee to head up.
Well, I guess Sen. Kerry wants to be President so he can ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake ... that seems to be his position
~sigh~
So electing Bush will end the war sooner? How can you be so divorced from reality?
John,
I think it was a ploy for Atrios to direct traffic to Drum's website. I myself avoid the site as much as possible, since a few months before the end of Calpundit, around the time Drum turned into a c0ck.
To admit they are wrong also costs them the corporate sponsorship that people like McAuliffe have been so instrumental in gaining for the party. Unfortunately, for the DLC to remain in power, the DNC has to continue its movement towards becoming an institution existing to restrain and defuse grassroots progressive citizens' movements in the service of the plutocracy and corporate power.
That, in a nutshell, is why Kerry is committed to "winning" in Iraq and why we keep hearing about an election that took place over 30 years ago as an excuse for why the party cannot actually take a pro-peace position.
I've taken the liberty of shortening Kerry's answer to the question, "Can you give us specifics, in terms of a scenario, time lines, et cetera, for ending major U.S. military involvement in Iraq?".
I've put the pertinent facts in bullet like format for your viewing convenience.
1) Convince the Iraqis and the Arab world that the United States doesn't have long-term designs on it.
2) You have to close the borders.
3) Bring the rest of the world in and share the stakes.
4) Rapidly train the Iraqis themselves.
Please note that 'profit!!!' isn't listed.
Hecate: am I the one divorced from reality? All I am pointing out is that neither candidate has any plan to end the war. Both are committed to "winning" it. Will electing Bush end the war sooner? Will electing Kerry end the war sooner? The only consistent message from both is that they both agree that the US must "win" and that they both threaten to send tens of thousands more troops to Iraq.
That is THE reality of the situation.
I have a secret plan to win the war!
I object to the DNC taking all of those small dollar donations that should rightfully be going to me!
Pixie:
In your list, can you explain to me the apparent contradiction between items 1 and 3? How will you convince the Arab world that the US and the West do not have designs on it even as you bring in more Western troops (reality: no more nations are going to help out, anyway) and "share the stakes", ie., the loot?
Not really wanting to get into it, but I assert to a few posters in this thread that this is not a groupware project to craft a new Port Huron statement. This is electoral fucking politics.
All your reassurance's ass sits behind the desk in the Oval office and eats unborn grandchildren for breakfast. Let's wait until next year to twiddle.
-
CAF--
Offer countries that are willing to share in the burden a piece of the rebuilding pie - and that includes the Iraqis themselves.
Bush has not done this.
CAF, it's 9 in the morning here. I'm way to tired to listen to some wannabe Rethug poster whining about how Nader will make the White House all squeaky-clean when all the rest of us here have figured out that this isn't the year for that argument. Y'know, us being in the real world and all.
Go. Play elsewhere.
WaPo is on the Bush Reaction shots story.
Democrats must make this story last at least until the next debate. And if Cheney does as much as smirk, place the contemptuous and condescending tag on the entire ticket. It is crucial tha Democrats do not let this opportunity to corrode Bush's likability lead.
This is politics. This is not a personal attack, which I despise. This is rough and tumble politics, taking advantage of those small windows of opportunity.
The door is open. Can Democrats walk through it?
This story, doug's and other's posts, really get at the heart of my biggest problem with Bushco.
It's all partisan, all the time. It's as if they are ALWAYS campaigning. And what that means for me (and all of US) is that they completely ignore us, all the time. They know we aren't going to vote for them, so they ignore our concerns.
It's our country too. He's our president too. He works for us too (or is supposed to).
If the president ran a day care that my child was enrolled in and I had a concern about the way he was running the daycare, he would pay attention to me because I'm a parent of a child under his responsibility and he knows my child is precious to me and his ass is on the line if he pisses me off.
But he's the president of my country and he knows my country is precious to me and he doesn't give a rat's ass about me or my concerns because I will never vote for him and because he can get away with not doing so.
yes, I know, vastly oversimplified, but it's what's really chapping my ass today.
What we say to Republcans :
you're ruining our country and our lives
What they hear:
crickets chirping
Is it really possible that someone with Senator Kerry's Vietnam background thinks that this conflict in Iraq is somehow 'winnable?' Sy Hersh says no one he talks to thinks it is.
I'm sure Kerry is quite knowledgable about what the situation in Iraq is. "Winning" in his book consists of getting out without being seen to have lost (i.e, being chased out). To do this it is necessary to make it much less of an "All-American" show. He made the point with Colin Powell's pottery barn analogy. Breaking it was a mistake, but now that it's broken it is our responsibility to fix it. The way to fix it is to make the stabilization of Iraq a truly international initiative and remove the image of US and coalition forces trying suppress Iraqi nationalism and independence. This will be a difficult job, but one of the first steps will have to be abandoning the idea of the permanent bases the US is building in Iraq. This simply reeks of colonialism and so long as the US tries to force a government that will accept the permanent US bases on the Iraqi people, the US will not be welcome (actually, US forces have killed so many civilians by now that it is doubtful that they ever will be). If a freely elected and representative Iraqi government wants to negotiate a status of forces agreement with the US that is one thing. Already having built the bases and saying we aren't leaving until you let us keep them is quite another.
Whatever Kerry says, this war is lost and the only decision left to be made is how we withdraw.
SteveLG: As buoyed as I was by Kerry's debate performance, I find myself increasingly dismayed by his stump rhetoric yesterday about 'not walking away' from Iraq and 'winning the war' and 'getting the job done.
There's a great disconnect between campaign rhetoric & how the winning candidate governs. If you tell people you're going to cut out of Iraq, Bush brands you as a weak leader & giving in to our enemies. This is not a winning election strategy, given the American people are looking for resolve in the presidency.
I used to tell my political science students, ignore their campaign rhetoric, its just a bunch of hot air. Focus on their past positions prior to running for election, that the true guide to what they'll actually do once elected.
Kerry has been as circumscribed about sending American troops to fight abroad as any past Democratic candidate since Carter & maybe McGovern. That's his track record & true convictions rather than his present campaign rhetoric.
Dear Quentin,
People have been saying that for 20 years now. Do our grandchildren "twiddle" (work for actual change) or do we wake up and smell the coffee burning?
For me, I'll take the red pill. I have had enough of the chicanery of the national parties.
Pixie: No other country is going to send troops to Iraq no matter who gets elected. It's a fiasco and the world opposes it. What's more, you still haven't answered my question: how is sending more troops and sharing in the "burden" of rebuilding, in other words, in engaging in war profiteering in the foreign privatization of the Iraqi economy, going to signal to the Arab world that the US and the West do not have designs on Iraq?
We sent in our troops, and our businessmen right after. Sending in more troops, as both Kerry and Bush will do, will only make things worse, and sending in French businessmen along with American businessmen will make no positive change at all because they are businessmen one and all.
Can you believe the media whores?
They want Kerry to change Chimpy's drawers.
At the present rate,
We'll be at hell's gate.
When he takes office, he'll tend to the wars.
Carter:
You write: "There's a great disconnect between campaign rhetoric & how the winning candidate governs."
So you argue that I should support Kerry under the assumption that he is lying to everyone about his intentions in Iraq?
I think that there are different ways to win a war. By calling for a summit of world leaders, by restoring our committment to humane treatment and rejecting any justification for human rights abuses, by truly opening up the contracts for reconstruction and putting the Iraqis to work, etc. Kerry could concievably have a huge impact on ending the violence and bringing about an end to our occupation.
With what we have done to that country, I (a pacifist) do not see how we can simply pull out and walk away ignoring the inevitable civil war that would follow. We (the non-neoconservative Americans) may not have wanted or supported this mess, but we have a resposibility to make every effort to lessen the horror that has been created in our name.
Kerry is the only candidate who has a chance of winning and the alternative is in fact more of the same. The choice seems so clear to me. I agree that things have changed drastically in this country (the shift though is to the right)but the idea that a McGovern type stand on Iraq would win the election seems naive.
Just my 2 cents.
Carter: "Circumscribed"? He voted for the war and is threatening to send tens of thousands more troops into Iraq to "win" if elected. This is a very difficult position to reconcile with that of McGovern, over 30 years ago, who wanted to end the Vietnam war, admittedly in a radically different political climate and political economy, back then.
Shorter CAF: Better dead than right.
As Quentin said, this is not some game for wussies. It's electoral fucking politics. It's eat or be eaten.
Maybe it would be nice, although cumbersome, if we governed this country the way my coven governs itself with lots of "power with not power over," and consensual politics, and passing the speaking feather around the circle. We don't.
So either grow up and be part of the solution or get the fuck out of our way while we save your sorry ass along with our own.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. You tried voting for Nader last time to "send a message to McAuliffe" and, hey, how'd that work for you last time? Terry get your message loud and clear and decide to move the party far to the left this time? Terry quit hitting up big corporations for money? Terry adopt your policies in the Democratic platform? No? Well then grow up and change your godddamn tactics.
And, disclaimer, I'd personally like to retire McAuliffe, as well, but not because he raises money. I'd like to lose him because that's the only thing he's good at and he's got about one and half fewer balls than he needs.
Brendan
There are 2 bills waiting to be looked at (after the election of course) 1 was drawn up by Democrat charles rangel (15th cong. district).
His goal was to implement a draft bill which would incluse 20-26 including college students (no exceptions) If you have medical concerns (like deafness in 1 ear) you would still have to serve but it would be at home. The reason he did this was to counteract the Repub draft bill which obviously would include poor, middle class, non-college draftees. He is calling their bluff. It is almost a safe guard against a future draft. Repubs don't want to send their own.
Kerry will not re-instate the draft.
The reason he wants to add new divisions, is to guarantee that those who serve part time, will remain part-time for homeland security issues only. By doing this you will have more volunteers, as long as they are guaranteed to stay at home. He only wants full time Military serving in Iraq (since they have full Healthcare benefits) and he will send the National guard troops back home.
Someone mentioned here the column in the National Review by W F Buckley and said it stopped short of an endorsement. It was more like a permission slip for traditional conservatives to vote for Kerry. This came a couple days after Eisenhower's endorsement of Kerry. All the talk in the mainstream media is about the undecideds, but one has to wonder how many republicans are deserting Bush because of economic issues and Iraq, and if he can't hold republicans, can he win?
No other country is going to send troops to Iraq no matter who gets elected.
Bush to France: Fuck you.
Bush to Germany: Fuck you.
Bush to Russia: Fuck you.
Bush to Syria: Fuck you.
Bush to Jordan: Fuck you.
It might not be an 'American' problem, it might be a Bush problem.
Iraqi unemployment is over 40% right now. Why do we pay truckers from Georgia $80,000 a year to get shot at, kidnapped and beheaded when Iraqis would have gladly done the job in April?
Bush wants it all, and he wants it to be permanent. That's why nobody will help us right now.
OT
Did anyone follow the links to TNR Online's article? The most openly religious president doesn't go to church. Hmm...
Hecate:
That is YOUR characterization of my position not my position, and I encourage readers to not fall for your play. The "shorter" thing is way of misconstruing peoples' positions and misleading readers by pandering to their mental laziness; it is tempting when to believe that someone's political views can be boiled down to 3 or 4 words.
That is why 30-second sound bites work, just like "shorter". Because they (and you as well, now) pander to peoples' mental laziness.
As far as "grow up" is concerned, that is insulting and it is profoundly obnoxious of you to simultaneously attempt to dismiss my views with some sort of Limbaugh=esque 4-word-slogan while taking the position that this places you in a position of intellectual or moral authority over me.
YOU grow up.
For all the bitching and whining about O'Reilly on this web site, you all engage in the same "shut up!" tactics and silly, stupid little evasions of real questions that together characterize O'Reilly.
Hecause, YOU grow up. When you are ready to discuss these issues with me as if you have both an adult awareness AND manner of conduct, then we will continue.
But until then, you are just another loudmouth blowhard who has been confronted with views she does not comprehend, will not work hard enough to comprehend, and who would rather just rant and shout then engage in any sort of better communication.
Love,
CAF
He voted for the war and is threatening to send tens of thousands more troops into Iraq to "win" if elected.
Source, please?
Kerry said Bush mislead us by not sending in enough troops at the start. He did not say more American troops were needed now.
Unless you can cite otherwise, I'll assume it was an honest mistake.
CAF - believe it or not, there are more issues facing our country than the war in Iraq.
The environment, the economy, the judiciary, civil rights, and education are all of at least equal importance. In all of these areas Kerry is VASTLY superior to Bush.
I'm just as anti-war as most of the people who comment here. Since most of us live in the real world, we realize there is no magic wand to wave and make Iraq all better.
You've made your point many times. Now, why not relax and have a nice cup of coffee?
-
CAF,
I dont think anyone is trying to convice your bush supporting ass of any thing.
although you have almost got me thinking about how prudent dear leader has been, how effective in his management of war profiteering, and how he has my best interests at heart.
Please continue sharing that adrianesque wisom of yours with us. And how about telling us what compels you to support the manliest president in history. Thrall us with your acumen.
Kerry/Edwards in a Landslide!!
Kerry/Edwards in a Landslide!!
so what is your position CAF? Put up or leave the table.
What should be the announced plan? Set a date for withdrawal or something else?
Also, you are sloppy on Kerry's position... he has no plan for adding more foreign troops - American or otherwise.
Hi Hecate: I'd personally like to retire McAuliffe
I, respectfully, differ. McAuliffe is good at one thing, maybe the best the Democratic Party has ever had - raising large sums of money. We need it. Take away the other responsibilities such as being the public spokesman of the Democratic Party & keep him on for raising the big dough. The long term strategy should be to take money out of campaigns.
BTW, Allison Schwartz is really coming on strong in her Congressional race. Its hers to lose now.
Hecause, YOU grow up
Even shorter CAF: No, you grow up! No, you! Unh huh, you grow up! You! No, you! Unh huh! You!
Take away the other responsibilities such as being the public spokesman of the Democratic Party & keep him on for raising the big dough
Carter,
I'd definitely agree with that.
Hey CAF, if Nader got ten times the votes he will get (or even 30, as it looks like he may only receive 1%) he'll still end up in political oblivion. If Kucinich received 10 times the votes he received in the primaries he may well have been the Dem candidate.
Also, the vast majority of Nader supporters, and even Nader himself (on John McEnroe's chat show), say you should really only vote for Nader in non-marginal states.
Notice that CAF uses the same negative tactics that the rethugs do.
Instead of offering his candidate's ideas for solutions to the problem, he uses worn talking points and spin, doomday scenarios if Kerry is elected, and his *predictions* about probable policy in a Kerry presidency.
If there's any truth in anything he says, it's buried under the mud.
Dumb.
Nader isn't a viable choice. I don't know how many times CAF, in his different posting visits, has been told that. There is no way anyone here is going to support him.
That would be a waste of a good vote.
Pixie
You are so right. From day 1 of UN
meetings. We were determined to go to war with or without their help. We as a country were so arrogant and no diplomacy was ever used. The other countries knew we had already made up our minds to go to war, we never asked for their input. I do think Kerry can repair some of the damage BUSHCO has created with some of the European countries. They may not be willing to commit troops, but I think Kerry can get them to help out with some finances. If we were to withdraw, it would create a dangerous situation to the European communities as well as the Arab Neighbors. Kerry will use this as his main talking point.
SteveLG sez..."...this conflict in Iraq is somehow 'winnable?"
Depends on what one calls "winnable, doesn't it?
IMHO...the peoples(Shite, Sunni, Kurds, et al) in Iraq need to step up to the plate and decide for themselves, without the US's 2 cents worth thrown it, what they really want.
What I find odd is that this Admin is hell-bent on changing the world into a Democracy without first asking the people in the country if they really want one. Democray isn't for everyone.
Secondly, the people in Iraq did not rise up against Saddam and overthrow him...they didn't even have an internal resistance movement.
So, we spring "freedom" and "liberty" on them without having the people to go thru the nation-birthing process on their own free-will, and expect them to form a government just like ours? Maybe that's why there's so much turmoil at the moment, perhaps?
Therefore, the only way for the war to be winnable would be for the people in Iraq to decide for themselves what they want without any undue interference from the US, the UN, or anyone else.
regards from this side of the point od no return.
.
Whoo-hoo! Saint Ralph is on the ballot in Arkansas?
That should motivate all 200 Nader supporters in the state to show up at the polls on election day, rather than just sitting at home.
Ignore the moronic greenshirt fuck.
Source, please?
Kerry said Bush mislead us by not sending in enough troops at the start. He did not say more American troops were needed now.
Unless you can cite otherwise, I'll assume it was an honest mistake.
pixie
Pixie, you are a very generous person. Rather than commiting honest mistakes with his comments, CAF more likely is either outright dishonest or suffers from negligent research.
Kerry has been pretty clear... by acting with urgency, getting rid of the incompetents in this administration like Wolfowitz and Feith and their minions, and sharing decision-making with Iraqis and the international community, we can hope to create conditions where we can begin a withdrawal of some troops in six months, and be out completely within four.
Hardly a plan for an increase in troops.
About the differences-v-similarities between Bush and Kerry on Iraq, Kerry's going to pull out of building the 14 (or 17 or whatever it is) US military bases in Iraq, isn't he? Can someone confirm that?
If so, that's a HUGE difference right there, plain and obvious to the entire world.
BTW, back OT, LOL at the Monthly. Nice going, jackasses. You won't be getting that URL back any time soon.
And I'm the only one that thinks Drum was at least their third choice? After Atrios and Kos, who no doubt turned them down flat? Third-string blogger, the insufferable Amy "Let's Make It All About Religion" Sullivan, complete and totally inept tech staff... no wonder I'd get the magazine in the mail a month after it appeared on the stands when I was a subscriber (and no wonder I didn't renew).
I've noticed a new theme developing in the media's depiction of the first debate: Kerry won on style, but Bush won on substance. Candy Crowley just made a statement to this effect, and I have heard it from others elsewhere.
Each time I hear this assessment, it is stated as a fact, and no supporting details are provided. What the fuck? What substance are they talking about? I suppose one could say that Bush's demeanor and presentation were even worse than the substance of the ideas that he was trying to get across. But what the hell were those ideas - what was the substance of what he was saying?
If individuals in the media want to say Bush won on substance, fine, but those making this proclamation should also identify and defend the specific substantive ideas that Bush "won." This won't happen, of course, because what is happening here is a manifestation of the assumption that Bush had to win on *something* in the debate. He couldn't lose on *everything*, could he? If Kerry looked better, then his ideas couldn't also be better, could they? No one can win both style and substance - the two are clearly mutually exclusive.
This much is clear if you are a fucking troglodyte like Candy Crowley or the others who will soon spread this meme far and wide.
Hecate: am I the one divorced from reality? All I am pointing out is that neither candidate has any plan to end the war. Both are committed to "winning" it. Will electing Bush end the war sooner? Will electing Kerry end the war sooner? The only consistent message from both is that they both agree that the US must "win" and that they both threaten to send tens of thousands more troops to Iraq.
That is THE reality of the situation.
CAF
Clearly there is a dual occupation of Iraq; a military occupation and a corporate one. I'm sure I don't need to point out the numerous scandals regarding the contracting of post-invasion Iraq and the unseemly ties between the Bush administration and those who have received Iraqi contracts. This was a war of choice, and the true motivations of the Bush administration are less than transparent.
Can we please all just ignore the moronic greenshirt fuck?
I think we've all been at this long enough to know how the game is played. There's no point "responding" or trying to "engage" this paid shill. Fuck him. We've got bigger fish to fry.
good thing i get the dead tree version.
Meme--
We may possibly be able to encourage some countries to commit troops if we are able to diffuse the situation as it stands right now. Nobody wants to get involved with another country's civil war, but if we are able to tone down the rhetoric, provide real help for the Iraqi populace, and get them involved in the process it would do a world of good.
Remember, this was one of, if not the most, westernized country in the Middle East before the occupation. Iraqi citizens probably wouldn't prefer a fundamentalist government, but what choice do they have right now? Side with the insurgents, or perish at the hands of a genocidal madman. Not a choice I'd be terribly fond of making. I think Kerry can offer tem a beter solution.
sigh...
...offer them a better solution.
skills,
I have never, ever heard of Candy Crowley, and for this I am glad! I can't tell you how many times on this blog Atrios or posters mention some commentator on cable and I have no clue who the hell they are talking about.
However, by following this blog, I now know that there is someone named Joe Scarborough on cable who has a corpse in his closet and there is some kind of hideous male/female creature with long blonde hair who scares the children.
a cableless
CAF the War Activist! You and your ilk dropped America into a pile of shit. Take your crap elsewhere.
smarty jones--
It could very well be that CAF only knows this information through talking points, and by requesting a source I hope that s/he will do the research and find out the facts.
That's all I can hope or expect from anyone.
BBC News has some key points in the debate. To compare the substance, look at this exchange:
On Spending:
John Kerry: What kind of message does it send to be sending money to open firehouses in Iraq, but we're shutting firehouses who are the first-responders here in America...
The president hasn't put one nickel, not one nickel into the effort to fix some of our tunnels and bridges and most exposed subway systems...
Ninety-five percent of the containers that come into the ports, right here in Florida, are not inspected.
Homeland security was a key issue
Does that make you feel safer in America?
This president thought it was more important to give the wealthiest people in America a tax cut rather than invest in homeland security...
George W Bush: I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises. It's like a huge tax gap...
My administration has tripled the amount of money we're spending on homeland security to $30bn a year.
John Kerry: The test is not whether you're spending more money. The test is, are you doing everything possible to make America safe?
We didn't need that tax cut. America needed to be safe.
George W Bush: Of course we're doing everything we can to protect America. I wake up every day thinking about how best to protect America.
This is substance? If you're in middle school, maybe.
Anonymous wrote:
IMHO...the peoples(Shite, Sunni, Kurds, et al) in Iraq need to step up to the plate and decide for themselves, without the US's 2 cents worth thrown it, what they really want...
...
I don't agree. I think that the United States, along with the other nations, should work collaborativley with Iraq to help that country work through grievances and establish a system that works for them.
This is what is being done in many nations such as Boznia and Sierra Leone and Afghanistan. The important thing with these nations is that we are working through the UN and not calling all the shots as we are in Iraq. This is the fundamenatal reason that Iraq is such a complete disaster. We can't do it alone, but neither can Iraq.
I think that Kerry understands that we cannot just be chased from Iraq - if we are, we will become supremely vulnerable. Bush should have never gone into Iraq in the first place - and god I wish he hadn't - I hate everything about this illegal war. But we're there and if we run from there in utter defeat, then we are in big trouble all over the fucking world. Plus we will get even more Iraqis killed.
We have got to see if we can inject some stability into the situation and then turn it over - and as fast as possible. I want us out, and I think Kerry does, too. But we can't just run away from this incredible nightmare of our own creating - we need grown-ups in charge who can extricate us from this nightmare in an orderly way. To do that, we need help. Even Bush can see that, since he's been back to the U.N. twice now.
And fuck Ralph Nader - he doesn't give a shit about democracy in the United States. He's deluded.
No George, you are not paid to wake up thinking about things. You are supposed to be getting things done.
For every three dollars Shrub spends on Iraq, he spends one dollar on homeland security.
'Security moms', and others fond of their mortal coils, should vote for the smart one with the Silver Star.
-
I'm not into ad hominem attacks, but CAF=whinger
Remember the Madrid bombings? It was obviously an Al Queda hit, the police knew it was, and their fascist president was trying to pin it on Basque separatists. What was the U.S.'s contribution to this? Ashcroft offered up an innocent muslim lawyer as a sacrifial lamb.
The Spanish people got rid of their old adminstration and the new one promptly pulled their troops out of Iraq.
The world saw what kind of support the U.S. would give them in the face of the Al Queda threat and decided it wasn't in their best interests to put their armed forces on the line in Iraq for nothing.
With another four years of Bush it will be more of the same. With Kerry we at least have a glimmer of hope that things can be different.
When Bush pre-emptively attacked Iraq it was check-mate. He's refusing to concede the game and we have to watch each excrutiating move toward disaster. With Kerry we have a chance that we can concede the game, wipe the board clean and maybe start a new game.
This war is not winnable as it stands, but at least with a new administration we can mitigate some of its' worst outcomes.
pie,
That's a great post. Could you send it to the Kerry folks and suggest that whoever goes on the talk shows tomorrow should have those points on hand to counter the "Bush won on substance" spin? It's such a big lie, I'd like to see our side take it down fast and furiously.
That explains Drum's page. But what the hell was up with Eschaton yesterday? I had to hit reload 5 times every time I wanted to view the site before it would actually load! What the hell is "tux.democrats.org..." and what's is up with their slow ass server? Grr!
Absolutely, Hecate. There's lots more in that article. People need to be reminded what the two men said in that debate, because who really remembers otherwise? The majority of us listened and thought that Kerry definitely did better in both style AND substance. If, however, you've got some talking head telling you that georgie won the most important factor, substance, WITHOUT giving examples, people will start to believe it.
It's bullshit, and we need to counter it right now!!!
Do you comprehend that your personal sense of self-righteousness does not give you the right to abuse anyone however it pleases you?
pot kettle black
TTWD,
damn straight!
The faact of the matteer is that the war in Iraq is unwinable but the US will eventually declare victory to save face.
My keyboard suffers from vowel stickness sickness.
New Democracy Corps Poll Finds Substantial Gains For Kerry as Result of First Debate
Taken together these improvement in Kerry’s image and position have dramatically transformed the race, making the two remaining debates potentially decisive encounters.
Kerry's response to the "if you think it's a mistake, how can you get other countries to sign on" nonsense is that simply leaving would compound the mistake. Iraq has now eclipsed Afghanistan as the world's terrorist playground. Though it no doubt heresy to the orthodox Naderites, at least the Sunni areas of Iraq are already in the hands of virulent Islamicists. The colossal mistake of the Bushistas was to give these fanatics legitimacy as "freedom fighters" in the eyes of not merely the Muslim world, but apparently the Naderite world as well.
Kerry is right. Bush has created an area in the heart of the Middle East where militant Islamicism can flourish, where even the Marines have been driven out. As a twofer, he's even managed to give new legitimacy to militant Shiite factions.
It really is a long term threat to American national security to allow this to fester. Staying in Iraq now is a fucked up proposition with dismal chances for success. But Shrub has left us with no options but bad ones. Kerry can't say this in public for obvious political resons. But I trust him much more to deal with and understand this mess than either Shrubites or the Naderites, who are themselves dangerous fanatics in their own right.
Pixie,
I may be mistaken, but I believe that at one point Chirac offered US 10,000 troops in the spring of 2003 as long as they had the option to share the power in Iraq. Bush refused. I believe Kerry will have a better chance, but the situation in Iraq needs to be more secured first. Killing Al-Zakarwi would be a start.
"I've noticed a new theme developing in the media's depiction of the first debate: Kerry won on style, but Bush won on substance. Candy Crowley just made a statement to this effect, and I have heard it from others elsewhere."
Crowley also said the stock market was having problems because investors are afraid Kerry might win.
IMHO...the peoples(Shite, Sunni, Kurds, et al) in Iraq need to step up to the plate and decide for themselves, without the US's 2 cents worth thrown it, what they really want...
They already have. That's in many ways exactly the problem.
People like CAF are why I can no longer support Nader; CAF is plainly more concerned with hating Democrats than in building the coallition we'll desperately need to save our planet. Instead of reaching out to people and saying "Hey, you are concerned with the environment, as am I. Let's talk about how we can realistically work together", all I've seen from him so far is attempts to upset the discourse here. How does this purer-than-thou behaviour help build the groundswell of support we'll need? And even were Nader to win the Presidency somehow in the next 30 days, he's not even running on the Green ticket this year. What are Nader's views on Iraq? CAF doesn't want to tell us. What are Nader's views on the Debates? CAF doesn't know, and he doesn't seem to want to give anyone a sensible argument for why Nader wasn't allowed in to tackle Kerry himself.
None of this helps at all, CAF. But sadly, many on my side of politics are just as determined to be as unhelpful as CAF, which is why I won't be voting with them any more. They really can't create anything, so they'd sooner destroy, and that's not why I call myself a Progressive. I want to progress not destroy. And that requires work, working with others, not sitting around claiming superiority to everyone else. Thus I'll be voting Kerry this year; It's not a solution, but it is a start.
I agree that the war is unwinnable. What I know Kerry will avoid is what Bush 41 did - pull out, leave a vacuum and just stand there as people are slaughtered. And that's just what Nixon did in Vietnam, too.
It will only make it worse for the Iraqis if that's what happens. Bush would do it if he thought it would gain him what he wants. Kerry will approach this completely differently. He understand the dynamics of these kinds of situations. He's made that very clear.
Great BBC post, pie! Here's another along those lines. http://tinyurl.com/6fexp
Reality Check: George Bush
By TONY KARON
The Claim:
The difficulties facing the U.S. in Iraq are a product of foreign terrorists showing up to fight the America there.
Reality Check:
The U.S. military on the ground says that the overwhelming majority of the insurgents fighting the U.S. in Iraq are Iraqis, not foreigners.
The Claim:
Saddam Hussein "had no intention of disarming and was systematically deceiving inspectors."
Reality Check:
The fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and the U.S. inspection team has concluded that no such stockpiles existed when the war began, suggests that Saddam Hussein had, in fact, disarmed.....
There's more. It's pretty good.
Crowley also said the stock market was having problems because investors are afraid Kerry might win.
She did not!
Back in the real world, the market closed up on Friday...
Thinking about that style/substance assertion, I said last night that the media are trying to make this election a horse race (successfully, I might add). Maybe they feel that if they label the first debate a draw, interest remain high, and more people will watch the rest of them.
Holy Crap, the NYT has a 16 page article on skewed Iraq intelligence on its website for tomorrow's lead story.
I haven't read very much, but this part about the aluminum tubes is a sad indictment on the administation:
"The tubes quickly became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, asserted on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
But before Ms. Rice made those remarks, she was aware that the government's foremost nuclear experts had concluded that the tubes were most likely not for nuclear weapons at all, an examination by The New York Times has found. As early as 2001, her staff had been told that these experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were probably intended for small artillery rockets, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and a senior administration official, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the information.
"She was aware of the differences of opinion," the senior administration official said in an interview authorized by the White House. "She was also aware that at the highest level of the intelligence community, there was great confidence that these tubes were for centrifuges."
Ms. Rice's alarming description on CNN was in keeping with the Bush administration's overall treatment of the tubes. Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, The Times found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of their own experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public.
The result was a largely one-sided presentation to the public that did not convey the depth of evidence and argument against the administration's most tangible proof of a revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq..."
Now that Bush has had a meltdown when confronted with Kerry the father figure,he will totally lose it if Kerry dons a white wig and pearls at the next debate and says"Who cares about body counts,why should I trouble my beautiful mind?"
I don't know if the monster article mentions it, but the IAEA came to the same conclusion of our own experts about the non-nuclear aspect of the aluminum tubes, yet our leaders still lied.
"The majority of us listened and thought that Kerry definitely did better in both style AND substance. If, however, you've got some talking head telling you that georgie won the most important factor, substance, WITHOUT giving examples, people will start to believe it"
And that is exactly what happened! Listened non-stop since the minute the debate ended. NPR, too, got the memo, and started pushing the "draw" line. It was obvious that the spin came first, and the reports with the "man or woman on the street" were srafted to follow the spin.
...the situation in Iraq needs to be more secured first.
Truer words were never spoken.
Killing Al-Zakarwi would be a start.
That might prove difficult, as I suspect he is already dead. Al-Zarqawi is a ghost, responsible for all the atrocities and beheadings so Americans don't have to know that the 'terrorists' are actually citizen insurgents.
The letter that Al-Zarqawi purportedly penned and conveniently discovered by CPA officials has been rebuffed as a forgery by the Mujahadeen. After the yellowcake and MI5 incidents, I see no reason to doubt them.
This site itself is coming up very slowly. Either the WA readers are here or maybe the progressive blogs and sites need to be on the lookout for DDoS attacks and/or other typical Republican dirty tricks before the election since these are the only media where people can reliably get the scoop on what's really going on.
FWIW, Free Republic has been down all morning.
Why is it that every time I click on this site a warning comes up about its "revocation certificate" and asks if I want to proceed?
pie - I've been citing your comment about the media wanting to keep this election a horse race - I do attribute it to you - because I think you are totally correct there.
That is not the media's job, but of all the bullshit the media is responsible for, at least that one is having some good fallout.
Why is it that every time I click on this site a warning comes up about its "revocation certificate" and asks if I
want to proceed?
I get that on microsoft.com in Microsoft's own friggin browser.
If anyone still wants to get to Drum's site (God knows why you would though) but can't, try http://64.62.196.6/.
I'm starting to see a neo-cultural shift here - only -one- rambly, pretentious troll out playing? Why, we used to be lousy with 'em. Then, suddenly, as tho whole cases of Troll-B-Gonn had been emptied into the blogosphere, the scantest handfuls seem to have survived.
Something about that debate debacle, just seems to have taken out all their feisty fighting spirit...
Rats! I was hoping to catch CAF active. I usually can dismiss Naderites, by laying the corpses of 1000+ dead soldiers at their feet (verbally, of course). When they sputter something in reply, I just say "whatever it takes to sleep at night". They usually get the - uh - hint and back off. These gnomes are not convertable. They're generally well to do leftists who congratulate themselves on their purity while banking that Bush tax cut. Forget them.
Succinct response re: Bush supporters' claim that Bush won the debates on "substance":
WHERE'S THE SUBSTANCE?
If there really is any, they should be extremely forthcoming about naming, specifically, the "substance" they are referring to.
Bush lost on style. He lost on substance. He lost, period. And he's going to lose it all, very soon.
Crowley also said the stock market was having problems because investors are afraid Kerry might win.
Is that bloated ignorant cow even aware that the NYSE was up over 100 points on Friday?
Could she have bothered to actually look at what the markets did before issuing her mindless pronouncements?
Or is it more likely that she simply lied about it, not caring whether anyone found out what she did?
riverbend-Bagdad Burning
I was channel-surfing yesterday evening- trying to find something interesting to watch. I flipped vaguely to Al-Arabia and Bush's inane smile suddenly flashed across the screen. Now, normally, as soon as I see his face, I instantly change channels and try to find something that doesn't make me quite as angry. This time, I stopped to watch as Allawi's pudgy person came into view. It's always quite a scene- Bush with one of the alledged leaders of the New Iraq.
I prepared myself for several minutes of nausea as Bush began speaking. He irritates me like no one else can. Imagine long nails across a chalk board, Styrofoam being rubbed in hands, shrieking babies, barking dogs, grinding teeth, dripping faucets, honking horns – all together, all at once – and you will imagine the impact his voice has on my ears.
This is just a portion of riverbends blog. Click homepage for the rest.
As long as people keep arguing about whether Kerry supported "the war" or not, there will be disagreement, since there is no such thing as "the war".
The war Bush seemed to be promising, which many people, including Kerry, supported, was a war of last resort with meaningful international cooperation, adequate planning, enough troop commitment to get the job done without weakening the effort in Afghanistan.
Instead, Bush gave us a war of first opportunity with token international support, no planning beyond how to oust Saddam, and left it up to Pakistan to find Osama bin Laden.
It's as if someone said he likes apples, but doesn't like oranges, and is criticized for changing his mind about whether he likes fruit.
Now that Bush has had a meltdown when confronted with Kerry the father figure,he will totally lose it if Kerry dons a white wig and pearls at the next debate and says"Who cares about body counts,why should I trouble my beautiful mind?"
notch
Yet another keyboard takes a bath -- jeezus h! I totally flashed on Bush falling to his knees behind his podium a la Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet, grabbing his tank of gas & his mask, moaning, "Mommy! Mommy!"
I wrote to everyone about her shilling.
Wanted to comment on John Gillnitz --"Just put a signup form on the winsheild of everyone with a W sticker". Sorry, only works for the "other" guy. Those people will not sign up for shit. Nothing is easier than being a bumper sticker patriot. Many of those folks in Texas are civilians working for the DOD whose livelyhood is predicated on our country being involved in perpetual war.
pixie Great catch! And good analysis. If we can't change the people of Iraq into an enemy, then put the burden of the damage onto a fabricated enemy.
Kind of like how they attributed all sorts of funny quotes to Yogi Berra even though he never said them.
Don't worry about Nader and his kool-aid drinkers. Kerry Republicans will more than pick up the slack. The GOP is so busy kissing flat earth society (aka Jerry Fallwell's Kids) ass that they have ignored the rest of their no-so big tent. If the Democrats can make their tent a wee bit bigger, they will get a few elephants to perform in their circus. And the GOP will have 3 rings of just clowns and snake oil salesmen.
those libruls over at the monthly are being irresponsible. fell asleep at the switch. must have been vacationing in crawford.
The mullahs are going to rule now. We are going to have ten thousand years of the Islamic republic. The Marxists are going to go on with their Lenin. We are going to go on in the way of Khomeini
Atrios, would it freaking kill you to post a few words of context with these cutesy stories, so we don't have to follow the damn link to see what it's all about? I'm going to just start ignoring all your posts that don't have at least a sentence of explaination on them.
I don't get it. Do you pay by the letter or something?
canada casino niagara canada casino niagara canada casino niagara. casino hotel las nevada vegas venetian casino hotel las nevada vegas venetian casino hotel las nevada vegas venetian.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
