http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070110-112457-7197r.htm

Herb

Herb, my guess is that, should Hillary wind up winning the election in 2008 that you and your conservative buddies will spontaneously combust! Although I can't confess to being Hillary's biggest supporter, the prospect of how you and your friends will react is reason enough for me to support her most enthusiastically.

Andrew

Considering the democrat infighting she's likely to provoke, Hillary is one candidate whom conservative pundits hope democrats will pick.

Herb

Gee, I hope the Republicans will throw their support for Mitt "pro-abortion, gays should be allowed in the boy scouts" Romney...his flip-flopping will be enough to the conservative right into an apoplectic fit.

President Hillary Rodham Clinton.


(the GOP's terrifying thought of the day)

but I'm sure the Rush and the rest will find much humor in saying:

"and first lady, Bill".

I'm hoping for a Hillary-Obama ticket. We wouldn't even have to campaign.

Deane writes:
I'm hoping for a Hillary-Obama ticket. We wouldn't even have to campaign.

That could be taken in more than one way.

Andrew

>>>:That could be taken in more than one way."

But, I suspect you know which way I was thinking.

We always know Right away which way you are thinking, Deane!

Andrew

Of all of the Democrat possibilities, I would be the most comfortable with Hillary as President. I dislike the sneaky way she is hiding her extreme liberal views, but she knows an extreme liberal can never be elected.

Did you dislike the sneaky way that George W. Bush hid his extreme conservative views during the 2000 election? Like when he lied about regluating CO2 and then did exactly the opposite a few months after he was elected? How about the sneaky, Orwellian way that Bush labels things in a way opposite of their actual purpose, like the "Clear Skies Initiative" that actually weakened prior laws?

A lot of liberals are actually uncomfortable with Hillary because she has been so nuanced on her Iraq War position, by the way. Then again, a lot of conservatives misjudge her genuine positions as simply political spin. Having read her biography, I sincerely believe she is a devout Christian.

Did you know Hillary's first campaign experience was going door to door for Goldwater when she was a teenager?

Andrew

>>>"Did you dislike the sneaky way that George W. Bush hid his extreme conservative views during the 2000 election? Like when he lied about regulating CO2 and then did exactly the opposite a few months after he was elected? How about the sneaky, Orwellian way that Bush labels things in a way opposite of their actual purpose, like the "Clear Skies Initiative" that actually weakened prior laws?"

Yes, I detest the all of this and it's not limited to Bush by any means. It's part of the way politicians these days pull the wool over the eyes of a public that doesn't pay any attention to reality, but only to sound bytes and sit-coms.

There are a lot of things I dislike about Bush these days, but I haven't bothered posting them since there's plenty of that to go around already.


>>>"Did you know Hillary's first campaign experience was going door to door for Goldwater when she was a teenager?"

So, when did she lose her way.

"A lot of liberals are actually uncomfortable with Hillary because she has been so nuanced on her Iraq War position, by the way. Then again, a lot of conservatives misjudge her genuine positions as simply political spin. Having read her biography, I sincerely believe she is a devout Christian."

The question is, WHAT are her "genuine positions"?? She's all over the map.

It'll be tough for the Democrats to stand behind her 100 percent if she were to win the nomination I believe because she HAS flipflopped ... she's not the moderate she portrays, just like Dubya's "Compassionate Conservative" horse**** mantra of 2000 was a load of doo-doo. It's hard for both conservatives and liberals to tell exactly WHAT is a genuine position and what is just political spin from Hillary.

My question is...

WHO IN THE HELL DO THE neo-CONers have to run??? Cheney???
LMFAO!!!
CONdi??? CONdi????
LMMFAOROG!!!!!

McCain..... As long as he distances himself from the CONers... ANd CONdi...

McCain and CONdi???

Hillary and Obama would kick ass and take names in a Fin heartbeat...

CONdi???
LOL!

Trix,

I've a hunch that you don't own a pair of CONverse tennis shoes, won't dare step in CONnecticut, put CONiments on your hot dogs, put pine CONes in your x-mas wreaths, let ex-CONs in your house, and so on, right?

Trixter brings up a valid point. Who exactly DOES the GOP have in the wings? The lack of young excitable Republicans could well spell trouble, especially when you have people like John Edwards and Barak Obama on the left side of the aisle, young, energetic, charismatic, and intensely popular.

A lot of us moderates need someone to WOW us, grab our attention. I really like John McCain but am TOTALLY turned off by his ultra-hawkish stance on Iraq, and it could very much be a deal breaker for me. Milt Romney? See Hillary - stances and views changing all the time, and that really spooks me. Who is out there to grab us swing folks?

>>>"Trixter brings up a valid point."

How can you tell what Trixter's point is? All I see are a bunch of juvenile gyrations with a keyboard.

>>>"TOTALLY turned off by his ultra-hawkish stance on Iraq,"

What should his stance on Iraq be to make him acceptable?

Stuff is going to happen in the next 12 months that will change whatever the situation is now. The first caucuses and primaries aren't until January '08.

As the media has to keep covering these folks for the next year, things will happen. An uncomfortable revelation or two will come out. A candidate or two will say something stupid or have a "macaca moment."

No telling what the details will be. We just know it will happen.

"WHO IN THE **** DO THE neo-CONers have to run???"

Trixter-You see a NEO-CONer behind every corner.

Let's set the record straight:

Are you going to continue branding every Republican who runs as a "NEO-CONer" unless they're a so-called 'moderate?'...which means essentially a RINO [Republican in name only]?

Herb

"Are you going to continue branding every Republican who runs as a "NEO-CONer" unless they're a so-called 'moderate?'...which means essentially a RINO [Republican in name only]?"

So what you're saying is, unless it is a Republican in the ilk of Rick Santorum, George W. Bush, George Allen ... then it ISN'T a Republican?

You saying that isn't any more right than Trixter painting the wide brush calling ALL of them Neo-Coners (keep in mind Trixter has said time and again he is registered Republican!).


"What should his stance on Iraq be to make him acceptable?"

Deane - I think I stand very much in the majority here in stating that it's pretty damn obvious that throwing more soldiers in Iraq, more gas on the fire, is NOT the answer here. The ONLY stance that is acceptable to me is finding a way to get our guys out of there, and doing exactly that.

Herb said>>>>
Trixter-You see a NEO-CONer behind every corner.

McCain isn't much of a CONer unless he is trying to kiss DUHbya's ass on issues to keep his name in the news. McCain should be kicking DUHbya in the head for all the crap his camp pulled in 2000. That was a DISGRACE to an human being! That is one of the MANY reasons I won't/can't have anything to do with this administration. One of the lowest points in political history! That and Nixon having to resign so he wouldn't be impeached.....

Brianl....
I am a card carryin' Republican but NOT a neo-CONer period! The EXTREME is not my choice....

Guys....
Guys....
Guys....

No need to defend me..... I consider the source.

You are forgetting someone. A "9-11" hero. A "true" Republican. Someone not scarred by a direct attachment to the Bush Brigade.

Rudy Giuliani.

Mark it down folks.

>>>"No need to defend me..... I consider the source."

As do we.

>>>"Deane - I think I stand very much in the majority here in stating that it's pretty damn obvious that throwing more soldiers in Iraq, more gas on the fire, is NOT the answer here. The ONLY stance that is acceptable to me is finding a way to get our guys out of there, and doing exactly that."

What is that way?

Deane writes: (in regards to Iraq)
What is that way?

The "way" is realizing that Bush's basic assumptions about Iraq are flawed. He assumes it's basically a united country with some pesky terrorists that are causing trouble - if only we could take care of the terrorists, Iraqis would want a free, Democratic, US-friendly, united country, Sunnis living hand in hand with Shiites and Kurds.

Instead, Iraq is basically in a civil war. Shiites don't trust the Sunnis to be part of the government because they in charge under Saddam. Sunnis aren't ready to give up what they lost when Saddam was toppled. Loyalties are to family, sect, and religion way before they are loyal to country. So they are killing each other, even rivals of the same religion. Iraq is an artifical country created by the British after World War I that has no deep history of unity. Bush doesn't seem to have a clue about that.

Just sending more American troops to Baghdad isn't going to change any of this history and mutual resenemtnt. But, Bush thinks otherwise, because he has a whole different set of flawed assumptions. Nothing will change in Iraq until January 21, 2009. Until then, more and more Americans and Iraqis will be killed and hundreds of billions more American dollars will be wasted. I'm sure our grandkids will enjoy paying the interest on the money we are now borrowing for Iraq, thanks to Bush.

Andrew

So Andrew, if you could get your mind off Bush for a moment, what is the solution?

The solution is first to accept the reality of what is going on in Iraq (civil war, not just some "bad terrorists").

Now assume you have 150,000 American troops in a country that in a civil war. How do you handle that? The US Congress did not authorize sending troops to Iraq to quell a civil war. Should we even be there? Is America the right country to be putting down a civil war (basically alone - even the British are pulling out) in an Arab country?

Is American military might the way to end a civil war in Iraq? Or should there be negotiations between the rival factions for, say, partitioning Iraq? Shouldn't we get other Muslim counties like Syria and Iran involved, like the Iraq Study Group suggested? (Doesn't it make sense to have two key countries on Iraq's border involved in ending its civil war?)

(Not that we should pretend there aren't al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq, too - but we should realize that the Sunnis in Iraq are just using them and once we resolve the civil war, we can get the Sunnis' help to root out al Qaeda in Iraq.)

It seems like James Baker and Lee Hamilton's Iraq Study Group had a better approach to Iraq than Bush's. Deane, do you reject the approach of the ISG? Or do you think Bush's approach is better?

Andrew

You ask a lot of question, intelligent ones at that, but not much in the way of solutions. That's not surprising, as there are no good solutions.

This country should get off the Bush shouldn't have done this terrible thing apporach. He did it. He did it poorly. He didn't listen to people with a better feel for it than he had.

I am totally surprised the US (whoever that is)thought they could clear areas of Baghdad and move on and the bad guys wouldn't move right back in. A boy scout could figure that out. Now, we're going to try to fix that. Why now, why not several years ago.

It's this kind of thinking that scares me. That's not as much Bush as it is those running the war.

If there is one thing we have learned in history, it is that if you're going to get into a military situation, have overwhelming force at hand. We haven't done that.

Get off blaming Bush. He screwed it up. He knows that and is now admitting it. Let's get on to demanding solutions.

You're wrong, Deane. Bush didn't just screw up Iraq in the past...he is STILL screwing it up!! That's the problem. You seem to think that we should continue to listen to this guy and let him pick any course he wants for Iraq, because what happened in the past is past. Gee, maybe he'll get it right this time...or the time after that...until January 21, 2009. It's too bad our country and a lot of soon-to-be-dead Americans have to suffer for that.

Bush has had almost four years to get Iraq right. He has failed. Sure, the people below him made mistakes too, but who exactly should be held accountable for that? Bush appointed them or the people who did. Bush kept Donald Rumsfeld for many years after he should have. He's stubborn and doesn't change his mind easily, and I'd say he isn't going to change much now. THAT'S THE PROBLEM. What Bush did in the past is a good indication of what he's going to do for the rest of his term. Bush has demonstrated that he has terrible judgement as a leader and makes disasterous decisions over and over again and will continue to do so if not stopped.

Don't you believe in accountablity, Deane? No consequences for leaders who make catostrophic decisions that continue to cost American blood and financial treasure? If Hillary is elected and gets America stuck in some other war, should we just let her keep trying over and over again too?

Bush should be fired (impeached) because he has shown he cannot manage the situation he got us into in Iraq, and someone else, even Cheney, should be allowed to try for the rest of Bush's term. I say impeachment not as punishment for past mistakes but to remove him for what he WILL do if he is not removed. I hope the new Congress can hold Bush in check until he leaves, but I'm skeptical they can completely stop him from making more of a mess.

The fact that no one has the ideal solution for Iraq doesn't mean we should keep doing almost the worst thing. Some wise people have presented at least some better alternatives instead of "Stay the Course" (still Bush's strategy, regardless of what he chooses to call it). It's time for ideas like those of the ISG to be given a chance - and send Bush back to Crawford now, where he can be of the most benefit to the country.

Andrew

>>>"You're wrong, Deane."

Hell, I knew that would be the case before I even started typing.

I'm beginning to think you saw The Passion of the Christ and you want to see Bush handled the same way.

Good job ducking my entire response, Deane! I presume that means you have no real rebuttal, because your only real response around here anymore is "You all hate Bush, get over it."

Andrew

Actually, it would be an interesting discussion, but my wife is standing here insisting we select the movie to be shown in our home theater this evening (which starts now where I am).

How about "Dirty Harry?" Let me know when you get to the part where Harry says, "When are you going to stop messing around with this guy?" and apply that to Bush.

Andrew

Let me throw you some dessert before I launch into the movie.

I no longer support Bush or have any faith in his judgement. It could have come down over Iraq, God only knows there's enough there, but it's really happened over his prosecution of the two Border Patrol agents who shot a drug smuggler in the butt who had been shooting at them. He sent the justice department to Mexico to find the drug smuggler and granted him immunity to testify against the Border Patrol agents. That's when I wrote him off, you guys go ahead and impeach him if you wish.

Fair enough, Deane.

The question is, if the House were considering Articles of Imeachment against Bush, would you advise your Congressman to vote for it? Would you advise your two senators to vote for conviction in the Senate - if the House promised not to impeach Cheney as well?

Andrew

Actually, with two years left, I think it would be terrible for the country. Plus, there really aren't grounds.

DJ said>>>
"No need to defend me..... I consider the source."

As do we.

Good one....

Now...... About you????

The Dems might not put the country through that bullshit like the neo-CONers did with Clinton. Even though DUHbya has more than enough to be impeached. It wouldn't be good for the country and our standing in the world and people who DON'T have an axe to grind will let DUHbya and CO. slip through the cracks.
Karma will bite him in the ass in the end. That's why Cheney will get off too. Karma is a bitch and both of them will get what they deserve. Remember they're SUPPOSE to be men of God. God will judge them.... I would hate to be there when those two stand before the Almighty... OUCH!

Impeachment of Bush could definitely be bad for the country if done the wrong way. The wrong way was doing it the way the Republicans impeached Clinton in 1998, when it was clear Clinton would win aquittal in the Senate and the majority of the country still supported Clinton.

Democrats in the House shouldn't even consider impeachment of Bush unless they count votes in the Senate and have 67 solid votes to convict. It may seem hard to imagine 17 Republicans would join the 49 Democrats and Bernie Sanders to convict, but Republicans have to see the writing on the wall for 2008: 2/3 of the Senate senators up for re-election are Republicans, and if they let Bush drag the party even further into the gutter, they could be looking at a sizeable Democratic majority in 2009. Some diehards (including Lieberman) would never vote to remove Bush, but if Bush continues to defy the wishes of the new Congress and apparently the American people, impeachment might not be so far fetched or that difficult. I admit it seems unlikely today.

Andrew

Has anyone caught this? Down in AZ the state legislature is getting ready to vote to send forward an article of impeachment on Bush. Apparently this is constitutionally allowed. If any state legislature (Gov. is not involved) commands it, their U.S. House delegation must introduce a motion for impeachment. House rules require that such a motion must be considered *immediately* and will supercede any other business. The motion to impeach will also get no less than one hour of debate.

*If* Arizona does this and it goes to the House, I don't personally think that it will result in actual impeachment (neither the votes, nor the political will, are there at this time). But, it would be for a rousing hour of debate. Make C-SPAN worth watching for once.

Go ahead, impeach Bush if you want. We could use a fresh start with President Cheney.

As much as I hate the idea of Cheney being president for even a day, I'm starting to think that's preferable to keeping Bush for two more years.

Andrew

>>>"As much as I hate the idea of Cheney being president for even a day, I'm starting to think that's preferable to keeping Bush for two more years."

I'm sure you would think that. Cheney could nuke Iran and have it all cleaned up before Hillary takes office.

Do you think Cheney would sign a gay marriage bill before leaving office so his gay daughter's baby isn't born out of wedlock?

Andrew

>>>"Do you think Cheney would sign a gay marriage bill before leaving office so his gay daughter's baby isn't born out of wedlock?"

Not likely. Besides, she doesn't need any new law in order to marry the sperm donor.

andrew2 says: "As much as I hate the idea of Cheney being president for even a day, I'm starting to think that's preferable to keeping Bush for two more years."

Noooooo!!!!!!!!! Cheney has the same priorities as Bush, but the difference is that he's INTELLIGENT, and more able to effect anything that he wishes. He would not slack off on treasonous signing statements. I feel that he's as much the President already as Bush, and that Bush is merely the weakest part of the Bush-Cheney-Rove triumvirate.

And, HILLARY...???...no thanks! I would vote for her easily, but the conservative media spin would make SURE that she becomes unelectable. Her cattle trading thing (where she made - GASP! - $100,000) will certainly be endlessly and ruthlessly paraded in front of us, as well as Whitewater. We've already seen some pundits who do nothing but blame BILL Clinton for everything.
Just as continuous reminders have made much of the American public think that Saddam Hussein ordered the NineOneOne attacks, their spin would attribute many of Bill's excesses on Hillary. Sadly the Democrats are required to have a candidate that's absolutely squeaky-clean, while the Republicans can run a promiscuous presidential candidate propped up with dirty money, etc. and he gets a pass. There is no way the Republicans will allow Hillary to take Dubya's chair...

DJ said>>>>
We could use a fresh start with President Cheney.

The DEVIL is already there why would it be any different??? Darth Cheney has been running things for the last 6 years why not let him be the next Ford????

Ok.

You call Mr. Cheney the devil...then get exercised about unflattering facts about Mr. Clinton?

Lord knows we've given you plenty of documentation on the impeached Mr. Clinton. How about some facts on Mr. Cheny that justify calling him the devil?

Interestingly, no democrat here has even called Saddam Hussein the prince of darkness. How revealing that Mr. Cheney appears to rate lower among democrats here than a murderous dictator.

Herbert M.

I prefer Anti-Christ, but that's just me!

Talk about ad-hominem.

If a Republican name-calls, that's grounds for hate-speech.

Now two liberals here call Mr. Cheney the anti-Christ and the devil himself, and it's a joke.

That's everyday life here at the liberal bastion known as PDXRADIO.COM.

Now at least it's out in the open: It's open season. Name-call all you want.

Next time democrats cry, conservatives pay no heed.

Herb

Yep Herb. Unabashadly ad-hominem!

I completely and utterly dislike Cheney. IMHO, he has no redeeming qualities of character that warrant anything resembling deference or respect. He's a bad, bad seed the world would do better without being in power.

Now, I've articulated why I think this is over time --plenty of times actually.

Feel free to enlighten me, I'm open on the matter. However, also be ready with your solid support, as I think you will need it. With me, the burden is perhaps artifically high.

Proceed as you will.

Oh, and it's not hate speech at all. I am completely comfortable with that characterization. He (Cheney) is a pretty cold guy! If we are to discuss Cheney, on matters of core character, I'm perfectly sure I would not meet the burden for 'Anti-Christ". Darth Cheney is probably defensible though. Just listen to him!

Fair enough. I can live with that.

However, I know absolutely I can meet any resonable burden that supports his character being characterized as less than respectable. Those that lie beneath respect, are often the butt of such expressions. I will not be the first, nor will I be the last.

So, in the end of this whole mess you can easily catch me having a bit of fun. All things considered over the last 6 years or so, I'm entitled! Trust me, I feel just fine with all of that.

Oh, so when your challenged, now he's NOT the anti-Christ, simply 'Darth Cheney.'

Why not give us your reasons for saying Mr. Cheney is evil, then?

The man is strong on defense issues and for going after terrorists.

Unless you present a rationale for hating him so much, it simply appears that you're soft on defense and have a problem with anti-terrorist policies.

Enlighten us.

Herb

Herb, Adolf Hitler was tough on defense. He had people executed for opposing him and of course millions of people exterminated. If you hate Hitler, does that mean you are weak on defense? If you like Hitler, please explain why.

Only a right-winger sees things in such black-and-white terms. If you oppose Cheney, then you must be weak on defense. Well, John Kerry was a war hero, and you opposed him and supported the Draft Dodger, so I guess that means you guys don't like veterans. Shame on you!

Andrew

I'm not going to give squat. The answer you seek, had you worded it correctly, lies in my post above, but you have to actually consume it. Go ahead, crack the nut. Will be over quicker than you think.

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth, would you? I really have a problem with that. Far better to keep things accurate and somewhat honest, don't you agree?

I said, "I prefer Anti-Christ, but that's just me."

Now, here is where it gets dicey.

I didn't actually call Cheney anything! I indicated my preference. You really need to pay attention. Should somebody decide to engage in that activity, I highly recommend "Anti-Christ". Packs a nice punch and will really set the loyal off.

This is ad-homeniem in that I would not have said preference for a person of solid character, but really it's by implication alone. Sue me.

Now let's discuss hate.

Nowhere did I express hate for the man. I don't like him, and I think he is of low character; thus, the recommendation cited above. But that's not hate.

Finally, you've got faulty cause and effect working in your favor this evening. Factoring in dislike, where you made the mistake of putting hate, we get some bizzare sort of, "better say you like Cheney, or that means you are soft on defense and anti-terrorist policies".

Total BS. Look it up.

To finish up, there is no need to enlighten anyone here. My position on these matters has been fairly consistant over the years. Though much of the posting history is under construction, the current state of the archive is more than plenty to consult for greater guidence in this.

Now, had you actually engaged me in a manner worthy of greater consideration, I may well have entertained the whole soft on defense and anti-terror thing. Want more? Please do start a thread, keep the focus there, and let's see where that leads.

"Darth Cheney is probably defensible though."

STILL can't defend it?

We didn't think so.

Turn on the lights and watch 'em scatter.

Herb

The sound of and general intonation of his voice is similar to those typical of the character "Darth Vader", in my opinion. He exhibits similar parallels in body movement as well.

Again, that answer was in the post cited above, you just had to actually consume it.

FYI: "Darth Cheney is probably defensible though. Just listen to him!"

Had you quoted me in context, your post would have been rendered moot. In hindsight, all but my comment regarding his body language, really is redundant and could easily be summed up with, "Just listen to him!".

Sheesh.

Still trying to understand why you hate veterans, Herb?

Andrew

The Democrats I can't imagine considering impeaching Bush. Yes, IMO, he has enough against him to impeach. The Iraq fiasco, I'm sorry, it's not legal. BUT, the Democrats would come across as being vindictive and sink themselves into the mud, just like the Republicans did with the Clinton impeachment proceedings. Best not to react here.

And while Cheney is somewhat a scary thought as President, can he be any worse?

H.R.C....one word...unelectable.

Brianl, I'd say the Democrats are in a very different position with respect to Bush that the Republicans were with respect to Clinton in 1998.

The act for which each president was/could be impeached is very, very different. While many of us were disgusted by what Clinton did and how he handled it, Clinton's behavior itself didn't seem to have done much damage to the country, and "No one died when Clinton lied" as the bumpersticker says. Also, Clinton was extremely popular in 1998 despite his scandal. The American People DID NOT want the Republicans to impeach him.

Bush on the other hand is extremely unpopular now, and it's clear that his Iraq blunders may be worse for America than Vietnam was. No doubt many who voted for Bush in 2004 deeply regret their votes. The Congress would seem to have great justification for impeaching Bush for the damage he has caused/is causing the nation.

I'm not saying a majority of Americans today want the Democratic Congress to impeach Bush, and unless Bush makes an even bigger mess in Iraq, I doubt it will happen. But it COULD if the American people get completely fed up about Iraq, and that is not too far off. People are already disgusted about the tens of thousands of permanently wounded veterans (not to mention the families of the 3,000+ killed there) as well as the billions of tax dollars squandered - into a situation that appears to be getting worse, not better.

There HAS to be a breaking point where the American people would say, "Enough!" and support an impeachment of Bush. Maybe Bush will skate through his last 2 years without reaching that point. But Republicans must already be getting nervous about Bush dragging them down even further in 2008 (not to mention their genuine digust about Iraq). You can see how sharply Republican senators have been criticizing Bush lately. Remember, there are probably 50 Senate Democrats and independents who would vote to remove Bush if he goes nuts in the next few months and it would only take 17 Republicans to go along. Bush is really not that far away from that, though he is most certainly not there yet. He's skating on thin ice.

I believe the Democrats in Congress now are not as dumb as the Republicans of 1998. They wouldn't vote to impeach Bush unless they saw enough Republican votes in the Senate to convict. With that kind of bipartisan support, it wouldn't exactly be a huge fight that would tear the country apart.

Andrew

The main difference I see Andrew is, besides what you stated about Clinton's popularity at the time compared to Bush's, is that while what Clinton did was, yes, of questionable moral judgement and how he handled it could have been better, it wasn't ILLEGAL.

It can be said that Bush's invasion and occupation, and everything that has happened SINCE the invasion, IS illegal. Abu Ghirab? Definitely illegal, and definitely against the Geneva Convention (though Bush contends otherwise since we "never declared war"). The handling of the prisoners in Guatanamo Bay? Illegal for sure.

This is more than just having a fascination with a fat intern.

I KNOW that there has to be a breaking point, and I also feel that Americans are very close to saying, "Enough!". I am well past that. We also had this in 1974 with Richard Nixon, and it tore this country apart.

I AGREE with Redford and I would put CONdi in there too!!!!

DA said talking out his ass>>>
How can you tell what Trixter's point is? All I see are a bunch of juvenile gyrations with a keyboard.

Thanks for the insult... Right on cue! You extreme right neo-CONers can resist.. It's Fin funny to watch you...

Brianl, what could change the landscape a bit is a showdown with the Congress, which has the Constitutional power of the purse. Democrats (even some Republicans) are talking about another vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq, considering that today's military action seems to have little to do with that original authorization: a mission to disarm Saddam Hussein because of his possession of WMDs. There are no WMDs and Saddam's dead. Now how exactly does that authorization cover what is happening today?

No declaration of war exists. On what basis would Bush have to commit American military forces to Iraq indefinitely?

Bush and Cheney have given all indications that they intend to ignore whatever the Congress does now in regards to Iraq. That's where there could be a showdown.

Andrew

Oh but Andrew, we must STAY THE COURSE! We CAN'T LET THE "TERRORISTS" WIN! We're all Saddam lovers!

*rolls eyes*

What's sad is, Bush is too ignorant and stubborn, and stupid, to heed the advice of bipartisan independent commissions on 9/11 and the Iraq War, and Cheney only wants to remain probably because he makes so much $$ on it from the Halliburton contracts and that, and he wants to help out his cronies.

Hundreds of thousands of lives lost, for this? We literally are putting a price on human lives, for this?

And all the neo-CONers can say is CUT and RUN! The terroists will win! We can't run scared! Liberals are SOFT on terror!!!!
3,000+ YOUNG men and women and 30,000+ Iraqi women and children!
YEP! The neo-CONers got it all figured out!

Don't forget the multi-nationals that have secured 30 years of access to Iraqi oil...

"Liberals are SOFT on terror!!!!"

Wanna know WHY that claim resonates so much?

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity..."

From: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52747

Herbert M.

perhaps liberals seem "soft" on terror because they don't become TERRIFIED when their leaders (demos or republicans) spout BS.

Thank God Cheney isn't the devil and spoke the truth to us when he said the Iraq was in its last throes so now we have less things to be terrified about . . . wait a sec . . . did he LIE about not having to be terrified OR should we still be terrified about terrorists? Or did he create terrorists for us to be terrified about so he could claim liberals are soft on terror?

I'm confused. Thank God we can TRUST our GOP leaders.

>>>"perhaps liberals seem "soft" on terror because they don't become TERRIFIED when their leaders (demos or republicans) spout BS."

Or, perhaps they're just naive.

Liberals seem soft on terrorism, because their answer is to "appease" terrorists.

No, YOUR BELIEVE (and repeat endlessly) that liberals want to "appease" terrorists even though Republicans have done more appeasing than Democrats in the last 20 years. You've been spending too much time with Herb.

Reagan and Bush the Wiser both sat back and let Saddam gas and slaughter his own people for example and did nothing. Reagan retreated when America's embassy in Beirut was savagely attacked. Reagan negotiated with terrorists and even sold weapons to the Ayatollah.

So you are welcome to call Liberals "appeasers" so long as you add "but the Republicans have done even more appeasing than anyone else."

Andrew

It's 'head in the sand' politics, a la Neville Chamberlain.

Wish the terror away.

The French learned their lesson the hard way. It was too late when tanks rolled into Paris.

Herb

Andrew, since you're well versed in "appeasement", did Clinton do any?

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis learned the hard way that the United States could not be trusted to stand up to Saddam Hussein; Bush the Wiser told them to rise up in 1991, they did, then Bush the Wiser let them be slaughtered while American soldiers were ordered to stand down.

But hey, it's those damn liberals who are soft on dictators.

Andrew

>>>"Bush the Wiser told them to rise up in 1991, they did, then Bush the Wiser let them be slaughtered while American soldiers were ordered to stand down."

Andrew, when you're right, you're right. Then Bush Jr. followed through and nailed Saddam and the two jerk-off sons, and you're unhappy with him. One can never win with liberals.

"...then Bush the Wiser let them be slaughtered while American soldiers were ordered to stand down."

Yet that's precisely what the democrats want now...for us to pull out.

You've just made a clear case to finish the job.

Herb

Deane, I'm sure all those Iraqis who were slaughtered in 1988-91 were mighty appreciative when Bush the Slower came in in 2003 to get Saddam. That will bring all those innocent people gassed under Reagan in 1988 back for sure. Remember, it's the Democrats who are the appeasers.

Actually, I don't know of many people who are unhappy that we "got" Saddam. Mostly, they are unhappy about how we did it and how catostrophic the result has turned out to be for Iraq and for us.

Andrew

Another example of how a thread has morphed into a Bush debate. Wasn't this thread about Hilary's front-runner position? I guess I'm just being niave.

They morph into a Bush debate because we are trying to figure out how Hillary, and others, would compare to Dubya. The thing is, my dog would compare favorable to Dubya.

And a big smelly pile of cow dung would compare most favorably to Hillary.

I don't like Bill Clinton at all, but It's easy to see why he did what he did with Monica.

Your dog wouldn't have gotten us stuck in Iraq, that's for sure, Brianl! He probably would have blown the Federal Treasury on dog bones and car windows, though...

Andrew

skybill sez: "And a big smelly pile of cow dung would compare most favorably to Hillary."

Funny though, one could say the same about GW Bush, but that didn't stop him from getting elected in 2004.

"Your dog wouldn't have gotten us stuck in Iraq, that's for sure, Brianl! He probably would have blown the Federal Treasury on dog bones and car windows, though..."

Yeah, I would be the first to question the domestic policy of my dog. She's a Rottie though, so I think that our national security would be in good shape!

3,000+ YOUNG men and women and 30,000+ Iraqi women and children!
YEP! The neo-CONers got it all figured out!

Yep!

Millions of freed Iraqis and Afghanis.

And all that democrats can do is hand wring and spin.

Herb

WIth car bombs going off EVERYDAY and hundreds of Iraqis dying every month being free isn't that much fun for Iraq Herb??
And with the Taliban gaining control in Afghanistan things are not looking so good for the neo-CONers.
Spin the extreme right press!!!!
Your ham-fisted look at what is going on is outlandish.
Hang wring and spin.
OH! No spinning going on, on the extreme right! NEVER!!!!!
Thanks for the rhetoric.

Here is some more of Herb's freedom


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16649074/

Any man that votes for Hilary should have his nuts removed.

bigot.

Actually, I think that would just level the playing field...

;-)

Totally!

Just let natural selection run it's course. All will be good before we know it!

If I may add to Mc74's cogent statement, any man who would vote for Hillary should also have his head examined.

Herb

Which head?

So what if we are two years away from having to decide for ourselves? - Hilary is already a lost cause.

Got it. There is no hope. We're not gonna win - again. OK. I'll start packing.

Sheesh.

Sutton, I was afraid that would come up.

I meant noggin as in above one's shoulders.

Herbert M.

P.S. Chickenjuggler-No one here says Hillary CAN'T win. It would simply be scary if she did. Even many democrats don't want her as president.

But come to think of it, were she the head of the defense department, I wouldn't want to the leader of another country in a war against her. Maybe we should re-think this.

I must be not paying anough attention to some extemely obvious things. Everybody else already has their minds made up on who not to vote for and who to vote for. Is everyone really so up on various candidates' platforms that they have already made up ther minds?

I'm not.

Or is it just because they are a Democrat or Republican and that was enough for you to know that you'd not be voting for them?

I do not think that way about stuff like this. I haven't made up my mind yet.

It's largely about money and perception.

They both feed off each other.

No one knows who will run in '08.

Anything else is merely handicapping the race, to use horse racing parlance.

Herb

Iowa is not looking pretty for Hillary, but here's a poll from one deep-red, deep South state that's looking good for her right now. It's looking a whole lot better for Hillary and Obama than it is for John Edwards, from a neighboring state. And keep in mind that a lot of Democrats in the South are African-American.

Meanwhile, the conventional wisdom says that Rudy Giuliani can't win in the rock-ribbed, religious Republican South. Too New York. Too Liberal.

BUT: America's Mayor is leading in Georgia right now. Among Republicans. Hmmmmm.

http://strategicvision.biz/political/georgia_poll_011707.htm