We Are One

This Tuesday, Barack Hussein Obama will be inaugurated as America’s 44th President. He will be the first black man ever to hold the office. In the run-up to inauguration day, people all over the country have begun to cash in on Obama’s popularity. I saw an American flag with Obama’s mug on it the other day; this is extremely disrespectful and against the rules of the US Flag Code. To me, seeing that was as sickening as watching the Phelpsians kick my flag around at anti-military and anti-gay protests.

I love my country. Despite the fact that I strongly disagree with a great many people in it, I love my country and all it stands for. The election of Barack Obama has proven that the democratic process still works. Yes, even though I dislike the man I can say that he won the election fairly. But there are a lot of things that I’m not okay with, things that I would like to see American liberals address.

Such as inauguration fever. In 2004, when Bush was re-elected and we got ready for the inauguration party, liberals screamed that he was reportedly spending around $45 million on the inauguration ceremony and party. We’re at war, they argued, why is he spending so much? Obama has already spent $150 million on HIS inauguration and party, and nobody has made a peep about it. Three times as much as Bush in 2004–in the middle of a freakin’ recession, far worse economic times than in 2004–and nobody has a problem with this. Do you know what we could do with $150 million?

The droves that are supporting Obama are digging at the detractors, asking, “why can’t we just get along?” Where the hell was this sentiment when Bush was elected? You wore shirts that said, “killing 100 is terrorism, killing 50,000 is foreign policy” (a blatant lie, we never killed that many in Iraq–that was the insurgency’s fault) and put bumper stickers on your cars that said, “he’s not MY President.” You were completely unwilling to accept him and at times demanded that he be impeached for war crimes, an outrageous claim if ever there was one. Yet you want us to accept YOUR man, a guy who has admitted openly to socialist politics that could be just as bad for America as Bush’s failed economic policies. You want us to do what you absolutely refused to do.

We didn’t scream “stop the hate” when you dogged Bush. We didn’t call you names when you protested the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (calling your patriotism into question doesn’t count, kids). But somehow I’m a racist for believing we could do better than Barack Obama? You’re a hoot.

We are one. I’m not being sarcastic there, I mean that. WE ARE ONE. We are one nation, under God. We’re America. Even when we disagree, our Constitution and our law still holds true. I pitched my little fit after the election and got it out of my system. Now I wanna see what Obama is really going to do. During the campaigns, Obama promised a lot of things–chief among them ending the war in Iraq, closing Guantanamo Bay, and allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. Now he’s singing a different tune on a lot of the things he promised. He has admitted that it would be dangerous to simply close Gitmo and send the bad guys home; he’s not going to keep that promise. He’s admitted that Iraq cannot end overnight, and the troops won’t all be coming home on January 21. He has changed his tune on taxes, admitting that raising anyone’s taxes–even on the rich–during a recession could send us into a full-blown economic depression.

When I see things like this going on, I have hope that he won’t be as bad as I thought he’d be. Yet when I see massive crowds of people hailing Obama and practically treating him as the Second Coming of Christ, I have to wonder what’s next. I think we’ll survive; we’re America, we always do. But even James Madison said that it is the nature of a Democracy to eventually murder itself. What kind of place are we leaving to my nieces and nephews? Will they inherit a bigger mess? Will they look back on all of this and wonder why we didn’t do more to avoid what’s going on? I hope not. I sincerely do. I hope Obama proves us wrong and does better than he’s said so far.

Either way, we’ll still be America. I can at least have hope for that.

Advertisements

69 thoughts on “We Are One

  1. “When I see things like this going on, I have hope that he won’t be as bad as I thought he’d be. ”

    It troubles me he invited noted gay hater Rick Warren to give the Invocation at his innagural. Rick Warren has compared being gay to incest. Views like that don’t deserve legitimacy by any President of our country.

    What troubles me about the above is the lack of understaning on the part of Barack Obama. Actions like that lead to sitting down with our enemies without any pre-conditions. That concerns me and it should concern everyone. The path from Rick Warren to the President of Iran is not as long as people think.

  2. It has been a guilty pleasure to watch Obama have to back down from his lofty campaign promises, but I cannot help but fear that when the picture of America appears to be getting rosy, that he will usher in his socialistic ideals. And my real fear is that underneath all the grand speeches and ideas is a man who has no clue and will flounder about when the country most needs him.

    I wish I could believe we are all one, but even after 9/11 we were not. I do agree with your point that we should all just be able to get along according to the left by joining them in their ideology. No one is moving our way – they want us to come to them. That’s not happening here.

    I truly do hope America will survive like it always has, but great empires like Greece and Rome fell when they allowed the things to happen within their government that we are watching happen within ours. Our Republic is almost unidentifiable now.

  3. I wonder; by the way, if liberals will demand he lives by GWB’s budget for his party at $43.7M and use the balance of that $150M to re-distribute to the poor?

    Single mothers will still be mistreated.

    Welfare recipients will still starve.

    But Obama will be partying like a rock star!

    I’m glad change is coming. No longer do we work for our dreams in America. We wait for our turn at the Inaugural Committee!

  4. “It has been a guilty pleasure to watch Obama have to back down from his lofty campaign promises, but I cannot help but fear that when the picture of America appears to be getting rosy, that he will usher in his socialistic ideals.”

    We have 10 trillion in national debt plus trillions more in unfunded Social Security and Medicare liabilities.

    There isn’t any money for his socialist ideals. There won’t be any money for them.

    America is going to have to roll up her sleeves, work hard and go without to get out of this mess. The Republicans are ready to do that but the Liberals? No way. Work? Don’t make me laugh. Go without? Never.

  5. “John, which is precisely why he’s already warning that he won’t be able to do it in on term.

    It’s such a joke.”

    Then he has some common sense versus the idiots who voted for him.

    Anyway…I saw yesterday on ABC News the city of Philadelphia and all of the infrastructure problems it has. Philadelphia is kind of like a high speed car crash victim: lots of problems that need to be fixed.

    The big question is not how to fix the problems but why did they get so bad and so numerous? Who has been running that city? Where has the money gone? What did Philadelphia buy with all of that tax money? If Obama is brining change then he should ask such questions and demand accountability. No wait…he’s a Democrat. They don’t ask such questions do they?

  6. JOHN IN CA said: “The path from Rick Warren to the President of Iran is not as long as people think.”

    Really? You really believe what you said? Rick Warren has his beliefs, but I think the whole “let’s get along” goes only for liberals and their beliefs.

    I don’t know why you guys spend so much time and energy HATING when someone doesn’t agree with you.

    I don’t like Obama’s policies, but unlike our liberal friends, I’m not going to call him a Nazi, a terrorist or say he is stupid, like many on the left did to GWB.

    Sad!

  7. Well, I think we owe it to Democrats to be as kind to their President as they’ve been to ours.

    Everyone is miraculously just getting along now. Even Newsweek who writes articles explaining why it’s difficult to close Gitmo.

    Rick Warren has beliefs as a Christian minister. I don’t know the full length to his remarks.

    I do know that in the USA; where most of the population is Christian, all folks have managed to co-exist without being slaughtered for not conforming to anything.

    Obama’s policies are dangerous. Spending $150M on an inauguration is simply outrageous. If indeed he was this worried about his safety, he shouldn’t have ran for President.

  8. “Really? You really believe what you said? Rick Warren has his beliefs, but I think the whole “let’s get along” goes only for liberals and their beliefs.”

    I do believe what I said. It was idiotic of Obama to select Rick Warren without having the man renounce his more inflamatory remarks about gays. It’s called a pre-condition.

    The same goes for international affairs. Countries that are on our shit list know how to get off that list. But I think Obama is the kind of person who’d ignore preconditions and go have tea with Mussolini.

  9. John, I do agree with you about Rick Warren, but I’m not willing to crucify the man. I think “The Purpose-Driven Life” was one of the worst pieces of Christian literature I ever read, and I sincerely don’t appreciate his likening gays to people who commit incest. Then again, there are a great many people in the church who say that sort of thing. There’s a handful who say worse. I have to admit I don’t know as much as I should about the guy, but as I said, I’m not willing to crucify him. He still isn’t in line with the likes of Phelps.

    Devil Dog, nobody here is hating. Hate is a very strong word, one I’ve spent a great deal of time reminding people shouldn’t be used so liberally (no pun intended) against conservatives. I don’t like the title at all and I don’t think it’s fair. Personally, I think the real haters are the ones who call for tolerance but aren’t willing to give it–which is mainly the liberal end of America.

  10. “I don’t know why you guys spend so much time and energy HATING when someone doesn’t agree with you.”

    I don’t hate people. But I do sometimes hate what they do or say they will do.

    Closing GITMO and signing the Freedom of Choice Act are two things Obama has said he will do and I don’t like that. But, I don’t hate the man.

  11. “John, I do agree with you about Rick Warren, but I’m not willing to crucify the man.”

    Mel – Calling Rick Warren a gay hater was over the line. I do apologize for that. It was my intent to focus on President Obama’s choice to legitimize Warren’s all too common views. I don’t approve of any President legitimizing old, tired, and untrue notions of who gay and lesbian people are.

  12. I think Obama’s choice to have Warren deliver the invocation was his attempt at being the tolerant figure he thinks everyone should be. I agree, the attempt may have been feeble, but at least he made it. It’s a step in the right direction. I just don’t want to see anyone here take the same stance that the gay elite have taken in accusing Warren of being a gay hater, because we all sound hysterical when we do that. I’ve been guilty of it myself.

  13. “I saw an American flag with Obama’s mug on it the other day; this is extremely disrespectful and against the rules of the US Flag Code”

    Isn’t this
    (http://soundingcircle.com/newslog2.php/__show_article/_a000195-000407.htm)
    also a violation of the flag code?

    “…and put bumper stickers on your cars that said, “he’s not MY President.” You were completely unwilling to accept him and at times demanded that he be impeached for war crimes, an outrageous claim if ever there was one”

    First, the whole notion behind ‘not my president’ came from the fact that Bush took office in an illegitimate fashion after losing the majority of the vote. Voters felt disenfranchised. The people didn’t really have the final say, the Supreme Court did. The entire debacle of 2000, where 95% of those purged from Florida voter rolls were done so erroneously, led to the phrase catching on. Secondly, it’s not outrageous that a president be impeached for war crimes if war crimes have been committed. And the last time I checked, torture is a war crime, and should be punished accordingly. And before you rush to defend water boarding as mere discomfort, I should preemptively point out that this country successfully prosecuted Japanese soldiers for employing this, and other tactics during WWII, not to mention our own soldiers being court martialled for doing so in Vietnam. Lastly, I’ll leave you with the words of our own Susan Crawford, the Republican appointed authority of military commissions. She had the unfortunate duty of tossing a case because, in her legal opinion, “We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani. His treatment met the legal definition of torture.” War crime. These tactics were approved by Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney gleefully admitted to being “involved in helping get the process cleared”. Please explain how impeachment for war crimes is an outrageous claim.

    “We didn’t call you names when you protested the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan”

    At an Iraq war protest in the Biltmore area of Phoenix, I, and other protesters were called several names by passing motorists. Some gems tossed out at me included: faggot, traitor, asshole, etc. I was even accused of taking joy in US soldiers’ deaths, just before I was labeled a “sand nigger lover”. Please don’t pretend that inappropriate behavior is not perpetrated on both sides of this issue.

    “He has admitted that it would be dangerous to simply close Gitmo and send the bad guys home; he’s not going to keep that promise”

    That’s where you’re wrong. Obama has repeatedly asserted his ambition to close the torture camp, and as recently as one week ago, stated his desire to have plans drafted to close the facility in his first week. Now, do I think it will be closed in the first week? Please, I’m not naive. I am patient, and I know that it will be closed as soon as it possibly can be. But it seems the prevailing attitude among conservatives is that this Pandora’s box cannot be closed, so leave it alone. This is an incredibly irresponsible position to take. Just earlier tonight, Pat Buchanan asked the question ‘what will be done with all the detainees?’, as if there were no possible answer for it. It seems pretty simple to me. If there is sufficient evidence to charge detainees, great, do it. If not, let them go. Most detainees have been released when said sufficient evidence could not be obtained anyway. If I’m suspected of GTA or arson, I can’t just be held indefinitely without being charged, and I think it’s ludicrous to take such a cavalier attitude to someone else’s rights granted to them by the constitution just because they’re Arab or Muslim. We all want to catch terrorists or prevent them from doing something awful, but as conservatives love to point out (when it suits them), we are a nation of laws, not of men.

    “He’s admitted that Iraq cannot end overnight, and the troops won’t all be coming home on January 21”

    I don’t think anyone expected that, just like no one expects him to wave any kind of magic wand that fixes the economy. But, a simple thing like expressing a desire to abandon an occupation that 70% of America finds unnecessary goes a long way. Obama hasn’t backed off of any campaign promises, but he has been honest about the time frame in which they can be accomplished.

    “He has changed his tune on taxes, admitting that raising anyone’s taxes–even on the rich–during a recession could send us into a full-blown economic depression.”

    He hasn’t changed his position on this either, I don’t know where you’re coming up with this. The tax cuts expire next year anyway, so I really don’t get the socialism angle. If that’s the story you want to go with, blame the Republican that authored the expiration date. I will concede that cutting taxes doesn’t do a whole hell of a lot to stimulate an economy (which, some on my side of the aisle assert it does), but raising them sure as hell does. If you take a look back at history, you’ll find that the most prolonged periods of economic growth occurred when tax rates were higher. The 1950’s, for example, one of the most prosperous periods in history, the top marginal tax rate was 90%. And of course there was the Clinton era. When he came in, the top marginal tax rate was 31%. He increases it to 39%, and we have healthy economic growth. On the flip side of that, tax cuts merely serve to create booms, bubbles, and crashes. We saw it in Herbert Hoover’s administration, where the tax rate was dropped from 73% to 24%, this caused a housing bubble, which burst in 1929, and obviously the Great Depression. We saw it happen twice during the Reagan years. Each time he cut taxes: boom, bubble, crash. It was almost like a math formula: cut taxes, bubble, crash, bank failure, recession. The crash of 1987 was the worst since the depression, and was labeled ‘Black Monday’. We had a huge bailout of the banks back then too. If you need more proof that these policies don’t work, just compare the Dow Jones Industrial average under Democrats vs. Republicans, the growth, you see that under Democratic administrations it does well and under Republican administrations it does poorly, and I think I know why…

  14. “If Obama is brining change then he should ask such questions and demand accountability. No wait…he’s a Democrat”

    That’s pretty funny, especially coming on the heels of a George W. Bush presidency. No one in that entire administration knew what accountability was…

  15. George Bush stuck by his principles.

    Obama has sold you out more times than you can fathom to count. But, you’re still hung up on the fancy speeches, including the not-so-great one he made today.

    And today, you still want Bush impeached. It seems to me that you’re the one who needs to get over things, Robert.

    Apparently, Colin Powell and Scott McClellan cared about responsibility. Remember those guys who you once hated. Miraculously now you folks think they are intellectuals.

    I agree with Ann Coulter. With Obama, we are all in for a big surprise because you cannot keep voting present. He has to make real decisions now and now he’ll have to to deal with what George Bush dealt with.

    Guess what little boy? The $150M party is over now. All the welfare moms still need help. All the poor are still poor.

    From this moment on, it’s going to require more than a speech and a vote of present.

  16. “I will concede that cutting taxes doesn’t do a whole hell of a lot to stimulate an economy (which, some on my side of the aisle assert it does), but raising them sure as hell does.”

    Just where was that great humanitarian tonight? I expected Robert to react in outrage over a President who could preach about people making $250K per year “living high on the hog” while the man is the guest of honor at a party that cost $150M.

    Hey Robert, I do believe our selfish George spent $43M on his – and you guys attacked him for it!

    I do believe that your President spent over $100M more. Hey, why couldn’t he have spent the same amount as Bush as re-distributed that $100M to the poor needy Americans?

    How can we expect the mere voters of this man to have any principles when the man himself has none?

  17. I can’t just be held indefinitely without being charged, and I think it’s ludicrous to take such a cavalier attitude to someone else’s rights granted to them by the constitution just because they’re Arab or Muslim.

    This is where the difference lies on your side and on ours, Robert. Terrorists give a shit not about our Constitution or the Geneva Convention. And they’re NOT FREAKING US CITIZENS! So why prey tell should they be granted the same rights as US Citizens? WHY?

    Do you hear bin Laden’s minons telling him, “Uh, sir. We can’t do that to these people. It says so right here, see?”

    And I frankly, don’t care what we do to someone that is associated with a terrorist. So I’m mean, and I’m evil or whatever, but the truth is, if there is information to be gained that will stop their end-game, I want to know about it.

  18. “But, you’re still hung up on the fancy speeches, including the not-so-great one he made today.”

    Steveflesher

    You listened to his speech? I paid zero attention yesterday.

  19. “First, the whole notion behind ‘not my president’ came from the fact that Bush took office in an illegitimate fashion after losing the majority of the vote. Voters felt disenfranchised.”

    They should have felt stupid instead because they are. We don’t elect by Popular Vote. We never have.

    How quickly people forget that Al Gore did not get it done in New Hampshire. Had he won that state, then Florida would be irrelvant. New Hampshire was easily winnable. But Gore took it for granted. Shame on him.

  20. “Guess what little boy? The $150M party is over now. All the welfare moms still need help. All the poor are still poor. ”

    Steveflehser

    But on the bright side black folk can finally stop crying. I had more than my fill of that on Election Night. It was so bad I wanted to hurl. But, perhaps it’s over? No, wait, there is the State of the Union Address.

  21. “George Bush stuck by his principles.”

    So it’s principled to invade an unarmed nation because God told you to? It’s principled to appoint Michael Brown to head FEMA because he was Joe Allbaugh’s college roommate or try to install Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court because she was Bush’s work wife? It’s principled to circumvent constitutional amendments and spy on American citizens? I could go all day with this. Tell me what principles that man has, and how you think Obama has sold out the American people after we’ve been left up shit creek by George Bush.

    “But, you’re still hung up on the fancy speeches, including the not-so-great one he made today.”

    I know you don’t actually believe that. You’re probably just pissed that we now have a president who can speak in full sentences. That speech is being hailed as one of the greatest inaugural speeches ever given, and rightly so. Obama wrote the speech himself, AND he was able to pronounce every word correctly. That’s gotta sting…

    “And today, you still want Bush impeached. It seems to me that you’re the one who needs to get over things, Robert.”

    This is total nonsense. If proof existed that I murdered someone two or three years ago, are the police not supposed to arrest me today? Should the family of the person I killed just get over it? This is such a ridiculous argument. This is the mistake Ford made when pardoning Nixon, and the mistake Clinton made by not pursuing Iran Contra investigations. That sets a terrible precedent that shows future presidents that they are above the law. What kind of example does that set for future generations? You people are supposed to all about punishing the guilty, demanding that drug users be locked up for life, yet this fucking guy can violate just about every amendment under the sun (including your precious second), and he should just be able to get away with it? Why is that, Steve?

    “Apparently, Colin Powell and Scott McClellan cared about responsibility. Remember those guys who you once hated. Miraculously now you folks think they are intellectuals.”

    These people are not celebrated as somehow now being great, they’re just one more indictment of the failures of the Bush administration. If those people could confess to their own shortcomings and tell the public what went on, we should hate them? Like you guys? You used to love them. You loved Colin Powell when he was lying to the UN, holding up phony vials of anthrax, and showing them cartoons of mass destruction. You loved Scott McClellan when he kept his trap shut and acted as a mouthpiece for Bush. Remember those guys you once loved? Miraculously now you folks think they’re liars and traitors…

    “Just where was that great humanitarian tonight? I expected Robert to react in outrage over a President who could preach about people making $250K per year “living high on the hog” while the man is the guest of honor at a party that cost $150M.

    Hey Robert, I do believe our selfish George spent $43M on his – and you guys attacked him for it!”

    You know, for someone who thought it was unfair for the media to report on Sarah Palin’s $300K shopping spree, you sure do bitch a lot about the inauguration being paid for by donations, and by the government that was still ran by Bush at the time. And not only did I not hear one story reporting how much Bush’s inauguration cost, I also don’t remember anyone complaining about it. But, perhaps Obama’s inauguration costs a lot more because so many thousands more people actually showed up for it. Security’s not cheap, you know…

  22. Cowgirl,

    “This is where the difference lies on your side and on ours, Robert. Terrorists give a shit not about our Constitution or the Geneva Convention. And they’re NOT FREAKING US CITIZENS! So why prey tell should they be granted the same rights as US Citizens? WHY?’

    Constitutional rights are guaranteed not only to citizens, but to those in US custody as well. We can’t just pick and choose who we want to give rights to and whose fingernails we can pull out. You have to have an across the board standard. And what’s more, torture is immoral and counterproductive. John McCain was tortured for five years, and he never gave up any pertinent information. Funny how the person with firsthand knowledge of what it’s like is against it, right?

    “Do you hear bin Laden’s minons [sic] telling him, “Uh, sir. We can’t do that to these people. It says so right here, see?” ”

    So, you’re of the mind frame that two wrongs make a right? Don’t you find it morally reprehensible to torture another human being? What’s wrong with you?

    “but the truth is, if there is information to be gained that will stop their end-game, I want to know about it.”

    And you think torture is the best way to go about it? Have you not listened to law enforcement officials, the FBI, the CIA? they’ve all discounted torture as an ineffective means of coercion. It doesn’t produce results, it just makes whoever is being tortured say whatever they think their captors want to hear.

    There is a long standing tradition of not torturing people in this country. George Washington said to “Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands” and said that “by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.”

  23. Iraq was hardly an “unarmed nation.” When Saddam was forced out of Kuwait and he signed the surrender, part of the agreement was that he would obey no-fly zone boundaries, he wouldn’t pursue the purchase of certain high-end military aircraft, and he would not develop weapons of mass destruction.

    As soon as he realized that Bill Clinton was never going to take real action, he started refusing to allow weapons inspectors into the country. He also started openly defying no-fly zone boundaries on a regular basis. He bombed a Kurdish region with sarin, killing no less than 5,000 people on the first day and killing at least another 5,000 as symptoms progressed later on. There are mass graves all over Iraq, some of which are already known to the locals and have had bomb statues erected over them to show how the people buried there were killed.

    What did we do while this was going on? We wagged a finger at him for eight years. Exactly how long were we supposed to allow that to continue? I get into this argument frequently, and it seems a great many people don’t realize what happened. Any criminal can swear they don’t have a weapon, but if they’re a criminal and they’re refusing to show you their hands, are you really going to believe they don’t have that weapon and aren’t going to try to kill you when your back is turned? Same thing with Saddam. I think a lot of things should have been done differently, but hindsight is always 20/20. It’s easy to sit here now and judge, but at the time there was no way to tell. There’s also the question of the satellite images of a massive movement of something in large trucks across the border into Syria, not to mention the portable facilities that were found with traces of nerve agents that Saddam wasn’t supposed to have all over them.

    And again, we’ve never claimed that Bush was perfect. He’s done plenty of things to piss me off, the Harriet Meiers thing being near the top of the list. I do not, however, recall Bush party-hopping until the wee hours of the morning when he was inaugurated. Obama did.

  24. “They should have felt stupid instead because they are. We don’t elect by Popular Vote. We never have.”

    That’s not the point. People are bound to feel ripped off when they guy in office got less votes than the one who didn’t get into office. It doesn’t happen very often, because it’s so unlikely that the person with less of the vote will get elected.

    “But on the bright side black folk can finally stop crying. I had more than my fill of that on Election Night. It was so bad I wanted to hurl”

    A bitter old bitch til the end, huh? Why can’t you appreciate the gravity of what took place? Like you wouldn’t be balling if a gay were chosen to be president. Hell, I probably would…

  25. “As soon as he realized that Bill Clinton was never going to take real action, he started refusing to allow weapons inspectors into the country”

    And he was bombed as a result of that. He was not developing WMD, and UNSCOM said as much in 1998 (as did the UN in 2003). They found no stockpiles of weapons, save for a few missiles that flew 15 miles outside their allotted range, and those were destroyed. But he possessed no real threat, and I’m sorry, but threatening one’s neighbors does not warrant massive military action. I agree, the guy was a piece of shit, but there was no justification for war. He didn’t attack us, and he didn’t attack the one country we’d actually go to war over, Israel. The guy killed tens of thousands of people in the 1980’s, what exactly did we do about that? I mean besides giving him the weapons to do so and our blessing. Iraq attacked the USS Stark in 1987, killing 37 people, and what did we do? Nothing. That would have been a justification for war, but Reagan decided to keep giving them weapons instead, so they could keep killing Iranians.

    “He bombed a Kurdish region with sarin, killing no less than 5,000 people on the first day and killing at least another 5,000 as symptoms progressed later on.”

    So, using this logic, we can prosecute George H.W. Bush for using munitions tipped with Depleted Uranium? After the first Gulf War, thousands of pounds of DU we dumped in Iraqi deserts, where it eventually seeped into water supplies, where unsuspecting people drank it, and large numbers of them died of cancers and radiation poising. The number of deformed children being born in Iraq has shot up somewhere around 400% in the last decade. It’s the gift that keeps on giving…

    “I do not, however, recall Bush party-hopping until the wee hours of the morning when he was inaugurated. Obama did.”

    Yeah, and he was still in the office at 8:30AM. He also managed to sign an executive order that bars anyone who leaves his administration from being a lobbyist for the ENTIRE TIME HE IS IN OFFICE. That’s change, baby…

  26. “And he was bombed as a result of that. He was not developing WMD, and UNSCOM said as much in 1998 (as did the UN in 2003). ”

    Those statements weren’t based on facts at the time. They were mostly based on limited information that was able to be gathered since Saddam wasn’t letting inspectors in. We didn’t really bomb Iraq; Clinton just gave it a lick and a promise, and after the fact Saddam had his people put a sign over a destroyed factory (believed to be turning out the munitions he wasn’t supposed to have) that claimed it was a baby milk factory–in both Arabic AND English. If you’ve never been to the Middle East, particularly to Iran and Iraq, they don’t post signs in both languages. That was purely for media play. Which begs the question–what did he really have and when did he have it?

    “So, using this logic, we can prosecute George H.W. Bush for using munitions tipped with Depleted Uranium?”

    I watch the news religiously from various outlets. Contrary to popular belief, I don’t just watch FOX. I’ve heard absolutely nothing about the incident you related or the statistics that followed. If you have proof, by all means, share it. And if Bush Sr. actually did this, then I wouldn’t prosecute him for war crimes, but I would like to see him brought up for something. War crimes is only prosecutable if irrepairable damage is done deliberately and with malice aforethought in the course of a war. Bush Sr. would be liable in the same way that Pacific Gas & Electric was for similar poisoning of several California communities across multiple generations. I brought up Saddam’s bombing to prove a point: we KNOW he had WMD’s because he used them on his own people.

    “Yeah, and he was still in the office at 8:30AM.”

    Fantastic! If he’s really going to enact the change he’s sworn to give us, he’ll have my respect. I wouldn’t care how many parties the guy went to if it wasn’t so freakin’ expensive. We’re shelling out billions to bail out irresponsible auto and banking corporations and our new leader is blowing $150M in one night? That’s my issue.

  27. “You know, for someone who thought it was unfair for the media to report on Sarah Palin’s $300K shopping spree, you sure do bitch a lot about the inauguration being paid for by donations, and by the government that was still ran by Bush at the time. And not only did I not hear one story reporting how much Bush’s inauguration cost, I also don’t remember anyone complaining about it. But, perhaps Obama’s inauguration costs a lot more because so many thousands more people actually showed up for it. Security’s not cheap, you know…”

    You know, where did you get $300K from? Last I heard it was $150K. And while we are talking about it, why did you care about the RNC paying anything for Palin’s campaign clothes. While we’re also on it, why did you care about $30K in per diem?

    McCain/Palin chose public financing. Obama chose private sectors.

    Money is money….and security does not cost $100M.

    Though, it seems that the private ones donating must not give too much of a damn about the needy. They’d rather spend their money on a party, right? On a party that will turn around and tax folks who work for a living. THAT’s where you want it to come from.

    My point is those folks had a choice on where the money was to be spent. They spent it on Obama. Apparently, if his supporters were half the humanitarians they claimed to be, they would have sent it to where it was really needed.

    However; it was more important to cut a check to Mariah and Mary J Blige.

    Somehow it went with the theme, I know.

  28. “Like you wouldn’t be balling if a gay were chosen to be president. Hell, I probably would…”

    Robert

    No I wouldn’t be crying over that.

  29. “Why can’t you appreciate the gravity of what took place? ”

    This is why I don’t appreciate the gravity of what took place. Forgive me for being long winded.

    After the stock market collapse in October, the Democrats could have nominated Satan, the Republicans could have nominated God and God would have lost in a landslide. The voters were checkbook voting and that doomed the Republicans. The voters were angry at George W. Bush and the Republican party and they expressed that.

    If October had not occurred then I could give Obama the day if he had won. But this time? Forget it. He caught a lucky break. Bully for him.

  30. “That’s not the point. People are bound to feel ripped off when they guy in office got less votes than the one who didn’t get into office. ”

    No Robert, stupid people are bound to feel ripped off. That’s what they get for snoozing in Civics class.

  31. Um…I think he meant the street vernacular there, as in, “me an’ my homies, we be ballin’!”

    Blushing. I’ve got a boyfriend. We don’t need to wait for a gay man to get elected President to do that. We might even do it tonight. Then again, maybe not.

  32. As I recall the history Sadaam Hussein feared an invasion from Iran. He had to maintain the fact/illusion he had WMD’s to keep the Iran in check. Look what his big lie got him and us.

    Now I am sure there would have been a way for Hussein to accommodate the U.S. regarding WMD’s and keep it all hush hush. That would have been a win/win as the U.S. would not welcome an invasion by Iran either.

    It’s too bad Hussein never went for that option because I know President Bush would have gone for it.

  33. “If you’ve never been to the Middle East, particularly to Iran and Iraq, they don’t post signs in both languages.”

    I see your point, and you are right to be suspicious. But, UN inspectors didn’t find anything in 2003. And this is the big lie (or misunderstanding), that Bush started dropping bombs because Hussein would not allow UN inspectors into the country. Not true. They were there, and not only did they not find any weapons, but they were told to get out of the country SO THAT Bush could start his bombing campaign. I find it fascinating that rumors were abound that Iraq had snuck WMD into Syria, when no evidence exists to prove the theory. George Bush himself has explained the absence of WMD by saying that the “intelligence was wrong.” I always thought the most damning deflation of the rationale was Hans Blix asking the question “how can you be 100 percent certain that Iraq has these weapons, but zero percent knowledge as to where they are?”

    “I’ve heard absolutely nothing about the incident you related or the statistics that followed. If you have proof, by all means, share it”

    This didn’t really make the rounds on the news circuit, so it’s not surprising that you haven’t heard about it. But here is some information on the subject:

    http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearch/FocusAreas/depleted_uranium.shtml

    The U.S. knew the harmful effects of DU before the first gulf war:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1118590.stm

    Please be advised that these photos are pretty graphic:

    http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/DU-Baby2003.htm

    Congressman Jim McDermott is the only person I know who speaks out about this with any regularity, so a lot of stuff I know was brought to my attention by him.

    http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/pr060511b.shtml

    “we KNOW he had WMD’s because he used them on his own people.”

    You mean you knew he had them because we gave them to him? And as was previously stated, weapons inspectors destroyed any remaining weapons after the gulf war.

  34. “You know, where did you get $300K from? Last I heard it was $150K. And while we are talking about it, why did you care about the RNC paying anything for Palin’s campaign clothes”

    The $150,000 was paid for by the RNC. The other $150,000 was paid for by the McCain campaign. And the only reason it was a big deal was because that bitch was seriously trying to call Obama an elitist. Plus, they’re fucking CLOTHES. Just like when you guys made a huge deal about John Edwards’ haircuts, which, while I love Edwards, but seriously, what kind of asshole pays $400 for a haircut?

    “Money is money….and security does not cost $100M.”

    Wanna bet? In 2005, the New York Times reported that “the federal government and the District of Columbia spent a combined $115.5 million, most of it for security, the swearing-in ceremony, cleanup and for a holiday for federal workers” for Bush’s inauguration. The reason right wing hacks keep saying that Obama’s inauguration will end up costing four times as much as Bush’s is because, as reported by the Washington Post on January 20th, 2005: “The $40 million does not include the cost of a web of security, including everything from 7,000 troops to volunteer police officers from far away, to some of the most sophisticated detection and protection equipment.” The $42 million figure you keep throwing around was the money bundled by Bush backers, bringing the cost of his inauguration to $157 million. Obama raised $24 million in private donations. Seems the “liberal” media has a problem in establishing a consistent standard by which to calculate inauguration costs.

  35. “Um…I think he meant the street vernacular there, as in, “me an’ my homies, we be ballin’!”

    Smack me now. I know. It’s racism.”

    It’s not racism, Mel. But it made me laugh, because I actually imagined you saying that 😛

  36. “After the stock market collapse in October, the Democrats could have nominated Satan, the Republicans could have nominated God and God would have lost in a landslide. The voters were checkbook voting and that doomed the Republicans. The voters were angry at George W. Bush and the Republican party and they expressed that.”

    Actually, John, a Democrat was expected to win the White House long before the economic crisis. The final nail in McCain’s coffin just happened to be him saying, for the 22nd time, that the fundamentals of the economy were strong. The Republican brand was absolutely tarnished by Bush, and knowledgeable folks on both sides of the aisle were predicting a Democratic win since 2007.

  37. Robert,

    Bush did not spend $157M on his inauguration including security. If that indeed were true, you would have said that from the beginning, so stop making things up. That is not documented anywhere.

    You would have to make the case that Obama is more at risk of assassination than Bush. NO WAY!

    Bush has actually been attacked. A movie and a book both have been done fantacizing about his assassination (from the same crowd who kept fantacizing about an impeachment, by the way).

    They were “clothes” that were sent back and no headline read anything about her clothes costing $300K. You have such an inflated imagination when it comes to the other side, it seems.

    Moreover, we never did get Obama’s clothing bill tally, did we? Just like we aren’t aware of what he reads (other than novels penned by William Ayers) or what his position on the issues are.

    And the fundamentals (people like me) of America are strong. I don’t need bailouts. Do you? I don’t have any special talents that exclude me from any other Joe. I didn’t have it easy, that’s for sure. Still, I want to pay for my own education. I want to advance on my own. My only trade off is, I get to keep it!

    Once those fundamentals close down, even the most insane tax policies won’t mean squat. Sooner or later, they’ll have to do it for themselves just like others had to.

    The Republicans were tarnished by Bush with regard to idiotic stimuluses, the advocating of amnesty for illegals, and the bailout. Yes, big mistakes. All supported by McCain as well. Which is why Republicans need to pay attention and keep people like McCain out.

    McCain lost because he was not a Republican. As I say, much of what you will get from Obama, you would have gotten from McCain and McCain or Hillary would have gotten to it a lot faster and more effective.

    But Bush lived up to his promise to keep us safe. In the end, that’s what I cared about the most. He ignored the moonbats and kept the economy strong throughout the better part of his tenure even with hard times like 9/11 and Katrina, even after inheriting the Clinton slump and when NAFTA’s evolutionary results began to surface.

    He; as my President, accomplished those things because he ignored you. He stuck around for 2 full terms and was not swayed with our safety no matter how loud the insane cried.

  38. Interesting, here is what the NY Times reported just yesterday:

    A Wounded Wall St. Helps Pay for Inauguration Bash

    The economy may be in recession, but the Champagne flowed freely at Tuesday’s celebrations of the inauguration of Barack Obama — thanks in large part to donations from some movers and shakers on Wall Street.

    The finance, insurance and real-estate industries have been at the center of the recent economic storm, but even so, people who work in those industries contributed at least $7.1 million to help fund the dozens of events and parties celebrating Mr. Obama’s official move into the White House, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington nonprofit group that studies money and politics.

    That is more that a quarter of the $27 million of donations that have been disclosed so far by the Presidential Inauguration Committee, which estimates the festivities will cost about $45 million. That would make it the most expensive inauguration ever.

    Those figures don’t include the $124 million that federal, state and local governments are providing to pay for security and the official swearing-in ceremony.

    The Obama administration did not take money from corporations, lobbyists, unions or political action committees to fund its inauguration tab, so it had to reach out — with the help of former President Bill Clinton — to wealthy individuals, including many from the troubled finance industry.

    Among those giving the maximum allowed amount of $50,000 per person were George Soros, the famous former hedge-fund manager, and four of his family members, for a total donation of $250,000.

    Another donor who maxed out was Ray McGuire, co-head of investment banking at Citigroup, the beleaguered banking giant that received a big government bailout last year.

    Ronald O. Perelman, the financier who built his fortune with takeovers of companies including Revlon, also gave $50,000, records show.

    And then there was David E. Shaw, founder of the hedge fund D.E. Shaw & Company. He and his wife, Beth, a business writer, each gave the maximum amount, for a combined $100,000.

    Ronald G. Insana, the onetime CNBC anchorman who recently shuttered his fund-of-funds, Insana Capital Partners, also gave $50,000 to help pay for Mr. Obama’s party.

    Other hedge fund executives giving the max include: Grosvenor Capital Management’s Stephen Malkin and Michael Sacks; Willow Creek Capital Management founder Aaron Braun; Paloma Partners founder Donald Sussman; Seminole Capital Partners founder Michael Messner; Taconic Capital Advisors founder Frank Brosen; and Oaktree Capital Management chairman Howard Marks.

    The heavy contingent from the hedge fund world is interesting, especially considering that Mr. Obama’s nominee to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission, Mary Schapiro, has already put tighter hedge-fund regulations on her agenda if she is confirmed.

    Contributing money to the inauguration may not spare hedge funds from stronger scrutiny in Washington. But big donors will certainly get great seats at Tuesday’s festivities, allowing them to rub elbows with the new advocates of change.

  39. “Bush did not spend $157M on his inauguration including security. If that indeed were true, you would have said that from the beginning, so stop making things up. That is not documented anywhere.”

    You have got to be kidding me. I didn’t bring it up earlier because I didn’t know it earlier. I didn’t even know about the figures for Obama’s inauguration until you started bitching about it. That was the first I’d heard about it. I did some research, and that’s what I found. Don’t get all pissy because something ludicrous broadcast on ‘Fox and Friends’ was so easily debunked. Here are my sources:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22427-2005Jan19.html

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/us/politics/06donors.html

    “You would have to make the case that Obama is more at risk of assassination than Bush. NO WAY!”

    Ironically true, although I didn’t argue that point.

    “Bush has actually been attacked. A movie and a book both have been done fantacizing [sic] about his assassination”

    Uh oh, we’d better lock up anyone with thoughts of harming the ex president (God, I love the way that sounds). I think we’d have a bit of over occupying of detention facilities, though…

    “And the fundamentals (people like me) of America are strong”

    Fundamentals aren’t people and you know it. It was a lie tossed out by McCain to cover his ignorance. If he meant the people of this country, it would be the first time in the history of the country that someone talked about the fundamentals and meant the people, and I think a lot of college textbooks would need to be updated. Plus, he said it 23 times, and never once bothered to change his wording or clarify it until it became apparent that he was retarded. The only reason he revised his statement was because the final time he said it was the day that we bailed out AIG.

    “I don’t need bailouts. Do you?”

    I don’t know, my office was just shut down today, and I’m out of a job. Why the hell should irresponsible fucks in the banking industry get a bailout while thousands of hard working people get screwed due to the decisions of someone else?

    “But Bush lived up to his promise to keep us safe”

    Except for that whole 9/11 thing, which conservatives seem to forget…

    “He stuck around for 2 full terms and was not swayed with our safety no matter how loud the insane cried.”

    Then why did the State Dept. acknowledge that his foreign policy was creating terrorists faster than we could kill them, thereby making us less safe? And since when is it insane to expect that our civil liberties remain intact? God forbid that a president walk and chew gum simultaneously. The British invaded this country and set the White House on fire, for crying out loud. And do you know how many constitutional amendments were violated in the name of keeping the country safe? Bagel.

    And I do so love the WSJ article you mentioned. In it, it says the security costs for the inauguration are $124 million, yet you want to claim that security couldn’t possibly cost $100 million. Then, you accused me of making up the numbers that are right there in black and white, as if it’s so much of a stretch to imagine that security for Bush would be anywhere near that amount AFTER you admitted that if anyone was at risk for assassination, it was Bush! You’ve gotta rehearse your phony indignation a little better, bud…

  40. Sorry, the article you referenced was from the New York Times, not the Wall St. Journal. My mistake. But, oddly enough, the article says that Obama took no corporate money, and that it came from individuals. So, what exactly are you bitching about?

  41. The point is, it was extraordinary amounts of money that could have been re-distributed in ways he and his supporters have been preaching about. Apparently, the folks making over $250K per year aren’t the only ones living “high on the hog.”

    Your ideology is simple. You don’t mind just a few folks like Warren Buffet, George Soros, or Barack Obama living high on the hog so long as you have their word that they will make the everyday folks working for a living pay for everyone else’s mistakes. That’s a mighty big gamble taken into consideration the fact that their “high on the hog” days are no where near being over.

    The fact is he required no more security than GW Bush given the ideological nature of past assassins.

    And the fact is that while we blame Wall Street executives for the economic crisis, we’re willing to take their money in large sums for the deep and meaningful purpose of having a big party with lots of balloons.

  42. “Except for that whole 9/11 thing, which conservatives seem to forget…”

    Robert, that happened eight years after Bill Clinton. Bush had only been in office for eight months. 9/11 took all those years to plan and as we all know, Bill Clinton “tried and failed with Bin Laden.”

    Next, how many PDB’s do you think reached the President’s office regarding Bin Laden’s determination to attack the United States?

    We discussed this before. If Bush had indeed directed airport security to detain more than two arabs per flight or had held all arabs in preventative detention or threw them out of the country, you would have bitched about it. Just like you bitched about detaining too many people above in your crack about folks dreaming of his assassination.

    The fact is if Bush had stopped 9/11 by doing things you wouldn’t have approved of, you today would have not noticed that September 11, 2001 was just another day and that 9/11 was never to be. This is the case with the current detainees. The foiled JFK plot, the plane headed for England a few years back, Fort Dixx, plots to hit the Brooklyn Bridge, etc. Any attack that could have happened on this soil since has not because of the same bitching about Bush you factually did, as you would have done before 9/11.

    Miraculously, folks like yourself only notice when we are attacked as opposed to when we are not.

    Of all the attacks that happened on America’s interests since 1979, most occured during Democrat administrations. The hostage crisis was Carter, then we had four that Reagan inherited after Carter stabbed the Shah in the back. Then we had one during the GHW Bush administration. Guess how many during the Clinton years?

    1.) The first WTC bombing in 1993 by Muslim Extremists.
    2.) Americans killed in bombs set my Muslims in Saudi Arabia in 1994.
    3.) In 1996, Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia blown up by Muslim Extremists.
    4.) In 1998, our embassy in Kenya was blown up by Muslims.
    5.) In 1998, our embassy in Tanzania was blown up by Muslims.
    6.) In 2000, the USS Cole was bombed by Muslims.

    So, you’re right. We had to have a grand finale on September 11th. Afterall, America did nothing for the eight years preceding the historical attack that folks like you choose to fashionably remember.

    But thanks to GW Bush, it ended with 9/11 in terms of our interests and we have now sustained the largest numbers of years of peace on our interests from Muslim extremists since it all began in 1979.

    I don’t know who or what you attribute that to. I’d say showing the leaders of these movements what we could do to a powerful and evil dictator like Saddam Hussein had a small hand in it. GW Bush showed these assholes that America wasn’t taking their shit.

    So, go on. Say it was luck. The world hated us for eight years you say. But, we had most of those living under peace where you had the luxury of degrading your President all while taking it for granted.

    So, you’re right. Some of us aren’t ready to unite and play sweet. After all is said and done, you couldn’t even acknowledge the intentions of GW Bush let alone his accomplishments.

    Finally, I’m sorry you lost your job. But we are all at risk now. Banks won’t loan money to anyone now because you and I could never agree on what kind of regulations were needed. You want salaries of working Americans regulated while their taxes fly up. I want lending practices regulated so that welfare and unemployment benefits aren’t being used on loan applications as “additional sources of income.”

    Our business stands at the same risk. However; your Democrats have kept our tax code quite interesting. So that in and of itself has provided us with much security.

    But hey, when are professional tax preparers needed? If folks innocently forget to pay payroll taxes someday even after being audited about it twice, so be it. Hey, they may even wind up in an Obama administration someday.

  43. As a former active duty Marine, I can tell you that George W. Bush kept us safe for eight years. That is undeniable.

    I woke up seeing terrorists that are going to be treated as a typical American on the street in our court system.

    Hmmm, I guess my brothers and sisters in the field will now have to collect evidence on these scumbags.

    Yeah, now they are going to be detectives and, maybe, they just might have to testify against the terrorists!

    Is that what you want Robert, because that seems pretty sick to me.

  44. The evidence is pretty convincing that DU was a horribly bad idea. As I said, if that is the case, and Bush Sr. approved of it, then he deserves to be held liable, though I still wouldn’t exactly call it war crimes because it’s possible that they hadn’t quite worked out what the effects might be from using DU (which might explain why they don’t use it now).

    Here’s my beef with the argument about his WMD’s…if, as you say, the inspectors destroyed all of his major weaponry after the first Gulf War, then how did he get more to use on his own people? Interrogations of Saddam’s own people proved that he knew exactly what he was doing, and he said in taped meetings that he was solely responsible for ordering nerve agents to be used on the Kurds. The way he put it, he was the only one allowed to make such an order.

    I have to wonder the same as Steve and Devil Dog here. If 9/11 had been stopped, would America have noticed? Plans to bomb the tunnels in New Jersey and New York were thwarted, but all we did was ask, “would it have really happened?” We do that when it’s reported that an attack was pre-emptively stopped–wonder quite loudly if it would have been as bad as they say. We complain that we trampled on someone’s rights. Then we turn around and demand to know why the government didn’t act more swiftly and decisively to avoid the tragedy that became 9/11.

    I think I feel another blog coming on.

  45. “The evidence is pretty convincing that DU was a horribly bad idea. As I said, if that is the case, and Bush Sr. approved of it, then he deserves to be held liable, though I still wouldn’t exactly call it war crimes because it’s possible that they hadn’t quite worked out what the effects might be from using DU (which might explain why they don’t use it now).”

    If I am in the Infantry then I want my tanks to protect me. I want my artillery to protect me too. If firing DU shells at the enemy does that then that is fine with me. Better my life than theirs.

    If Iraq had stayed out of Kuwait then none of Desert Storm would have happened; none of it.

    Bush Sr. isn’t liable for anything. But what’s left of the Iraqi high command from those days is.

  46. “I don’t know, my office was just shut down today, and I’m out of a job. Why the hell should irresponsible fucks in the banking industry get a bailout while thousands of hard working people get screwed due to the decisions of someone else?”

    How will this country function with a banking system people don’t trust? It’s the exact same thing as the government saying we won’t enforce the Clean Water Act. People would stop drinking tap water and buy bottled water instead if they can afford it and if they trust it.

    Did you really lose your job? I am sorry if you did. That’s awful.

    I don’t favor bail outs per se. But our nation needs a banking system the people trust. It needs a banking system that lends to businesses so they can meet payrolls, buy inventory and keep people employed.

    I am not a big fan of big government either. But I do favor mandatory financial counseling before any person buys their first home. I consider it consumer protection.

  47. “Actually, John, a Democrat was expected to win the White House long before the economic crisis. The final nail in McCain’s coffin just happened to be him saying, for the 22nd time, that the fundamentals of the economy were strong. The Republican brand was absolutely tarnished by Bush, and knowledgeable folks on both sides of the aisle were predicting a Democratic win since 2007.”

    I never read about any Landslide wins and that is what happened.

    I stand by what I said. I am sick of teary eyed black people. If they cut to the heart of things, then it all plays out different. But they won’t do that and I won’t bring it up because it is far from politically correct.

  48. The problem with DU is that it was being used in tank armor and munitions. According to the research, which appears to be quite well done, simply handling these weapons or being near the armor if it scorches can expose you to radioactive material. This could very well account for the oft-debated Gulf War Syndrome. A lot of those guys have some very, very odd symptoms that seem to make sense when you consider what they may have been exposed to (including Saddam’s chemical weapons).

  49. “Robert, that happened eight years after Bill Clinton. Bush had only been in office for eight months. 9/11 took all those years to plan and as we all know, Bill Clinton “tried and failed with Bin Laden.””

    Okay, I’ll try to explain this to you again so you understand the foolishness of the argument: the 1993 WTC bombing happened three weeks after Clinton’s inauguration, so using your own ridiculous logic, we should all blame George H.W. Bush for that attack. And they key word there from Clinton was he *tried*. Here’s what we got from your guy:

    I don’t know where he is, and I don’t spend that much time on him. Nice. Real presidential

    “Next, how many PDB’s do you think reached the President’s office regarding Bin Laden’s determination to attack the United States?”

    The FAA had fifty two different warnings pertinent to a terrorist attack, and I shouldn’t have to tell you that the FAA does not have its own intelligence agency. These were well known, and many of which were delivered by Richard Clark himself. Let me ask you this, Steve: why, if your every statement belies your intention to blame Clinton, did Bush not hold one single meeting regarding terrorism until early September 2001? Why did his Attorney General slash funding for anti terrorism measures on September 10th, 2001? Why the fuck did Bush find it a better use of his time to remain on vacation when he received that infamous PDB? The guy is a colossal failure, and it’s sad that you’re still willing to defend the actions that cost 3,000 innocent people their lives, just so you can blame the guy who hadn’t been in charge for eight fucking months. It’s pathetic. If I get tanked and decide to get behind the wheel of the car and end up killing someone, how seriously would my professed innocence be taken if I blamed the guy who was my designated driver eight months ago?

    “The fact is if Bush had stopped 9/11 by doing things you wouldn’t have approved of, you today would have not noticed that September 11, 2001 was just another day and that 9/11 was never to be”

    So, you’re saying we needed a massive terrorist attack for you to shower Bush with undeserved praise? How much sense does that make?

    “Miraculously, folks like yourself only notice when we are attacked as opposed to when we are not.”

    Really? Because I could have sworn everyone was very pleased with Clinton when he thwarted the millennium LAX plot…

    “Of all the attacks that happened on America’s interests since 1979, most occured during Democrat administrations. The hostage crisis was Carter, then we had four that Reagan inherited after Carter stabbed the Shah in the back. Then we had one during the GHW Bush administration. Guess how many during the Clinton years?”

    America’s interests. That probably doesn’t do a whole hell of a lot for the families of the 3,000 who died while Bush was asleep at the switch, which is considerably more than all the attacks on “America’s interests” combined. By the way, I love that you mention the hostage crisis was Carter. Perhaps if Carter was willing to abandon American principles and trade deadly weapons to an enemy of the county for their release, you’d have more respect for him. Aren’t you guys supposed to be the ones who don’t negotiate with terrorists?

    “But thanks to GW Bush, it ended with 9/11 in terms of our interests and we have now sustained the largest numbers of years of peace on our interests from Muslim extremists since it all began in 1979.”

    So having over 4,000 Americans still be alive today is not in the interest of the country? Where are you getting this ridiculous nonsense? What peace have you seen? Every single year that Bush was in office, Americans needlessly died. I love how that’s peace to you…

    “After all is said and done, you couldn’t even acknowledge the intentions of GW Bush let alone his accomplishments.”

    You already acknowledged his intentions. Remember, the foothold in the Middle East? And we’ve already gone over his accomplishments They’re all negative and not really accomplishments.

    “If folks innocently forget to pay payroll taxes someday even after being audited about it twice, so be it. Hey, they may even wind up in an Obama administration someday.”

    At least you were honest enough to say payroll taxes. Most assholes on the right would like us to believe it was income tax. And he was audited once, not twice. But hey, if you ever work overseas for the IMF, now you’ll have the presence of mind to remember to do that. I do, however know how jarring and unsettling it must be to faced with a treasury secretary who was never the CEO of Goldman Sachs…

  50. Devil Dog,

    “I woke up seeing terrorists that are going to be treated as a typical American on the street in our court system.

    …Is that what you want Robert, because that seems pretty sick to me.”

    It is what I want, and it should not be sick to you, especially since you were a marine, and took this oath:

    I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

    Terrorism suspects should be allowed to stand trial for their crimes, if any were committed. Habeus Corpus grants that right under the constitution (ever since the Magna Carta), and since your oath was to protect and defend the constitution, I don’t see how doing just that would be sick.

    “Hmmm, I guess my brothers and sisters in the field will now have to collect evidence on these scumbags.”

    Yeah, you wouldn’t want to have that pesky thing that proves beyond a reasonable doubt people’s guilt, also known as evidence…

  51. Mel,

    “if, as you say, the inspectors destroyed all of his major weaponry after the first Gulf War, then how did he get more to use on his own people?”

    Well, I’m not exactly sure how they categorize a weapon as being an instrument of mass destruction, but listening to Bush and Cheney, it meant nuclear. That’s what they claimed, that he was a direct threat to the United States, and that he was reconstituting a nuclear program. This turned out to be false. So there was never a rationale for going to war, and as fucked up as it is, terrorizing your own citizens is not a reason to go to war. If it were, we’d have invaded Sudan long ago

  52. “If Iraq had stayed out of Kuwait then none of Desert Storm would have happened; none of it.”

    That’s not exactly true. April Glaspie told Saddam Hussein that it was not the business of the United States to involve themselves with Arab-Arab conflicts. Hussein of course, took this to be a tacit approval by us to invade Kuwait. Not only that, but after we forced him out of Kuwait, Bush Sr. urged the Iraqi people to “rise up against the dictator”, then he let them all be slaughtered, even thought there were hundreds of thousands of US troops in the area to help them.

  53. “So having over 4,000 Americans still be alive today is not in the interest of the country? Where are you getting this ridiculous nonsense? What peace have you seen? Every single year that Bush was in office, Americans needlessly died. I love how that’s peace to you…”

    Hmmn.

    WWI – Wilson a Democrat got us into that.
    WWII – FDR a Democrat got us into that.
    Korean War – Truman a Democrat got us into that.
    Vietnam – LBJ or JFK a Democrat got us into that.

    More than 4,000 people died in those wars.

    But why stop there?

    WWI ended with the Treaty of Versailles (sp). That laid the ground work for WWII.

    WWII ended with the Soviet Union in tact and that laid the groundwork for Korea and Vietnam.

    Democrats start wars and they can’t finish them either. If it isn’t Hot War then it’s Cold War. Oh Reagan and Bush Sr. ended the Cold War in case your did not notice.

    Now let’s look at some other wars.

    Spanish-American War – T. Roosevelt a Republican started that one. That was the end of Spain as an Imperial Power. Job completed!!!

    Mexican – American War – Polk a Democrat got us into that and vanquished Mexico for good. Well that’s one the Democrats got right.

  54. JFK got us into Vietnam. LBJ escalated it. Nixon got us out of it. And Nixon is still the bad guy…?

    Regardless of April Glaspie’s comments to Saddam, simply because we felt that it wasn’t our job to get involved at the time did not mean we were approving of it, and if Saddam took it that way he was making one hell of a big leap of faith.

    As for Bush Sr. abandoning the Iraqi resistance, I think (and this is just my opinion) that Bush was hoping that if the resistance gained momentum and Saddam acted violently outside the parameters of his surrender, we’d have the right to actually wipe him out. I honestly think that was Bush’s purpose. Does that make it right? No. When something that huge has the potential to backfire drastically, chances are the risk isn’t worth it. But I could be wrong in that assessment.

    A weapon of mass destruction is any instrument that has the destructive power to cause loss of life, severe injury, and lasting damage on a large scale. This is to include sarin, mustard gas, long-range missiles and MiG25 Foxbats–all of which Saddam wasn’t supposed to have, but did. Any weapon that can kill more than ten thousand people is definitely a WMD. We know he didn’t yet have a nuclear weapon, but he was working very hard toward that end. There are a handful of engineers who worked on a nuclear project for Saddam who have been given asylum in the US for testifying about Saddam’s nuclear ambitions.

    I really, really don’t like the idea of giving terrorists captured on the battlefield access to US civil courts and “Constitutional” rights. The way I see it, they were captured trying to kill Americans, they are prisoners of war, and thus are subject to military law. A soldier in the US is subject first to the UCMJ in case you didn’t know. Traditionally, there is a separate military code set aside for prisoners of war. I’m not sure I’m okay with allowing them to be held indefinitely without being charged, especially since the evidence against them is usually comprised of wounded or dead soldiers and the survivors who witnessed it, not to mention the weapons they carried and anything else confiscated upon incarceration. But these people are a class of “criminal” that falls far outside the rules of civilian courts. Enemy combatants aren’t provided for in civilian law, however they are in military law.

    As for soldiers collecting evidence? That really isn’t their job. They have a million other things to worry about without being bogged down with one more monumental task. It all goes back to the chasm that separates civilian and military law. The two cannot be reconciled.

  55. “WWII – FDR a Democrat got us into that.”

    I could have sworn that Japan got us into that…

    “Vietnam – LBJ or JFK a Democrat got us into that.”

    We’ve actually been in Vietnam in some for or fashion since the 50’s, so technically, Eisenhower got us into that…

    “Democrats start wars and they can’t finish them either. If it isn’t Hot War then it’s Cold War. Oh Reagan and Bush Sr. ended the Cold War in case your did not notice.”

    Did you really just say that when W. admitted he was leaving his messes for the next president? And while you’re bitching about a Democrat getting us into WWII, it was a democrat who got us out of that, too. Kind of funny that under a democratic president, we fought a two front war and won it in less time than we’ve been in Iraq. And I didn’t notice that Reagan and Bush ended the Cold War. You say Reagan, I say Afghanistan, but it’s all the same, right?

  56. Robert, silly boy, the Oath has no bearing on the rights of terrorists.

    Boy, you are stretching on that one. I swore to defend the Constitution, not go around collecting DNA for some scumbag terrorist that you seem to have empathy for.

    That is still truly sick!

  57. “I could have sworn that Japan got us into that…”

    It’s funny that you mention that because I’d like to know why FDR was not taunted on a daily basis:

    “What are we going after Hitler for? Hitler didn’t hit us at Pearl Harbor! Why are we spending all this money to fight Hitler when the Japanese are still multiplying!?”

    The fact is FDR sat on Hitler for quite a while before going. Just like Bill and Hill sat on going after Saddam Hussein in the 90’s, then our Georgy came in and showed ’em how it was done.

    “We’ve actually been in Vietnam in some for or fashion since the 50’s, so technically, Eisenhower got us into that…”

    Actually, Eisenhower was involved in the Indochina War which was against Vietnamese loyalists and because of our involvement, a ceasefire was negotiated in 1954.

    Much like the fact that we fought against Saddam in the first Gulf War – the one Democrats always pretend to support.

    As a liberal, you’re probably supposed to back the Eisenhower years, as opposed to the Democrat years we actually spent in the Vietnamese territory. (Although, I supported it all and our military never lost one single battle in ALL of Vietnam).

    “Did you really just say that when W. admitted he was leaving his messes for the next president?”

    No, he pointed out the Democratic failures in war and how Republicans had to fix them. Iraq requires no fixing. Violence is down massively and more deaths happened in New York and Detroit than in Baghdad in the last six months.

    Our troops will still be out by 2011 as already negotiated by Bush. Them coming home will not be an orginality of Obama’s. He knows this as well, which is why he did the crazy thing with Gitmo so that someday we get to fight all over again.

  58. “Boy, you are stretching on that one. I swore to defend the Constitution”

    Then stop complaining that the Constitution is doing what is was designed to do…

  59. “What are we going after Hitler for? Hitler didn’t hit us at Pearl Harbor! Why are we spending all this money to fight Hitler when the Japanese are still multiplying!?”

    Yeah, guess who was saying that – Republicans.

    “Just like Bill and Hill sat on going after Saddam Hussein in the 90’s, then our Georgy came in and showed ‘em how it was done.”

    Is that what we do? Let dumb ass Republicans show us how not to use diplomacy?

    “As a liberal, you’re probably supposed to back the Eisenhower years”

    And I do for the most part. He wasn’t a crazy partisan neocon, he had a brilliant tax structure, and he actually favored feeding the poor over dropping bombs on people…

    “Although, I supported it all and our military never lost one single battle in ALL of Vietnam”

    So, nevermind that whole ‘losing the entire war’ thing?

    “No, he pointed out the Democratic failures in war and how Republicans had to fix them. Iraq requires no fixing”

    What?! Wow, I can’t even begin to form a thought cogent enough to tell you how fucking ass backwards that is. If I think about it anymore, my head is going to explode. Talk about projection…

    “Violence is down massively”

    Funny how paying insurgents to stop shooting at our troops will do that…

    “Our troops will still be out by 2011 as already negotiated by Bush. Them coming home will not be an orginality [sic] of Obama’s”

    Yeah, I’m sure it had to do with years of Democratic pressure. By the way, why is it that you weren’t accusing Bush of waving that white flag of surrender?

  60. “Hi, Steve. You’re a bottom, aren’t you?”

    Hi Joe,

    Nah, liberals make the best bottoms ever. Liberal men cannot even show up for work everyday, you really think they have what is required to be a top?

  61. “Yeah, guess who was saying that – Republicans.”

    No, they did not say that which was my point.

    “Is that what we do? Let dumb ass Republicans show us how not to use diplomacy?”

    That’s funny….Robert, the peacekeeper cannot refer to Republicans without using the term “dumb ass” and yet he wants us to believe he can exercise diplomacy with dictators who gas 300M+ of his own people and had rape rooms, and folks who shout “Alah Akbar” before disemboweling toddlers.

    “And I do for the most part. He wasn’t a crazy partisan neocon, he had a brilliant tax structure, and he actually favored feeding the poor over dropping bombs on people…”

    Eisenhower was incredible. And we all prefer feeding the poor which is why Christians and churches have set up shelters for years to help the needy. But socalizing contributions and forcing people to give up portions of their income never works, so I can guarantee you that Eisenhower did not support that.

    “So, nevermind that whole ‘losing the entire war’ thing?”

    We didn’t lose because our troops were incapable, we lost because of nitwit media like Walter Kronkite warning us “the Red Coats are coming.” So of course, we did not back our allies and now that part of the world is living under communism. Which is what liberals want for Iraq. Thank God they didn’t get their way.

    “If I think about it anymore, my head is going to explode. Talk about projection…”

    Then perhaps you should think a little harder and longer before opening your mouth. Just a suggestion.

    “Funny how paying insurgents to stop shooting at our troops will do that…”

    Where’d you get that from? Dennis Kucinich?
    Even though it’s a lie, what does it matter to you? You don’t mind tax dollars going towards abortions in other countries, so why should you care? What a way to support your troops. Why don’t you just get a banner that says: “our troops couldn’t do it, it can’t be because of them!”

    “Yeah, I’m sure it had to do with years of Democratic pressure. By the way, why is it that you weren’t accusing Bush of waving that white flag of surrender?”

    Because violence is down. Now it’s just monitoring and completion of training for the Iraqis. And Democratic pressure was ignored for eight years. If that were true, we’d have yanked them out when violence was at record numbers.

  62. “No, they did not say that which was my point.”

    Wrong as usual. It was Senate Republicans on the floor arguing against getting involved in the war, for two reasons, the first being that the economy was just getting back on track and they didn’t want the war efforts to drive us back into recession, and two, Hitler didn’t do a thing to us.

    “That’s funny….Robert, the peacekeeper cannot refer to Republicans without using the term “dumb ass” and yet he wants us to believe he can exercise diplomacy with dictators who gas 300M+ of his own people and had rape rooms, and folks who shout “Alah Akbar” before disemboweling toddlers”

    First of all, Iraq is a country the size of California, and has nowhere near 300 million people (and you wonder why I can’t refer to Republicans as anything besides dumb asses). Secondly, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we are not the world’s police. If you gave a shit about the suffering of others, you’d want to fix it in our own country first, then maybe move on to Darfur, where real genocide is taking place. So please, spare me the phony altruism.

    “And we all prefer feeding the poor which is why Christians and churches have set up shelters for years to help the needy”

    Says the guy who bashes the poor at every available opportunity…

    “But socalizing contributions and forcing people to give up portions of their income never works, so I can guarantee you that Eisenhower did not support that.”

    Wrong. Here’s Dwight in his own words:

    “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”

    He’s basically saying that tax dollars would be better spent on feeding the poor and clothing the cold than bombing people…

    “We didn’t lose because our troops were incapable, we lost because of nitwit media like Walter Kronkite [sic] warning us “the Red Coats are coming.” So of course, we did not back our allies and now that part of the world is living under communism. Which is what liberals want for Iraq. Thank God they didn’t get their way.”

    Steve, is it blissful being oblivious to reality? We were out manned in Vietnam, and out fought. We lost because we didn’t know how to fight a war like they did. Some might even say we lost because we didn’t belong there. Much like Iraq, we were not attacked by Vietnam. You can’t expect to win an illegitimate war. Oh wait, you’re a conservative…

    “Where’d you get that from? Dennis Kucinich?
Even though it’s a lie, what does it matter to you? You don’t mind tax dollars going towards abortions in other countries, so why should you care? What a way to support your troops. Why don’t you just get a banner that says: “our troops couldn’t do it, it can’t be because of them!””

    God, I love it when you bring up stupid shit that just gets force fed back to you.

    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_the_us_government_paying_factions_in.html

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2413200.ece

    “Because violence is down”

    And why is violence down? See above.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s