But why are you posting, youa re supposed to be off to a BnB. 
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Stuff TomS said |
See Toker, that’s how it’s done.
Hmm… I sort of thought I was going over the top, and TG might get mad at me. 
Of course, if he posts here today, I think we should all give him heck.
Me? Mad? Yeah probably. But not at anyone here. 
Just a little off my rocker maybe. Just got back. It was just a quick trip. The girls that work for my wife bought her a gift certificate for dinner at the place but I thought why not spend the night? No kids, no TV, just beautiful country side views and fresh air. It was a hoot even if it was a very short trip. Wifey has sinusitis and bronchitis so the “main event” was somewhat “subdued”… LOL!
Thanks for the “proof”. I can see how one can surmise that to be the case.
TG
Well, not proof in the strong sense - inference to the best explanation.
No kids. How did you stand it?
Here., TG, here’s a well-authenticated story of a GOP man - now, suppose that this is not an isolated case, but supposed that we find that there are dozens of cases of illegal behavior by important GOP people - wouldn’t that be enough to give you pause?
Read this:
http://alternet.org/story/27725/
There’s plenty out there to give me pause about ANY of ‘em Tom. My cynical ol’ mind is finding it tough to put much (if any) faith in any of our politicos. They are all crooked and nasty and self-centered. I hope the Dems put somebody worth considering forth in '08.
You know the story of Diogenes wandering around with a lantern looking for an honest man? That’s me. Pretty hopeless I think…
D
| Quote (TomS @ Nov. 13 2005,16:21) |
| Read this: http://alternet.org/story/27725/ |
This is really sad Tom.
Tom - excellent link to the letter to Clinton. The Neo-Con philosophy in a nutshell. They’ve been wanting to attack Iraq since the 1st Gulf war & Bush Senior’s failure to finish the job then.
We helped unleash a monster & his name was Saddam. We also helped Bin Laden too.
I don’t think Bush et al. deliberately lied but after 9/11 they saw that they could convince the American people that Saddam was dangerous & that we had to take him. To do that, they cherry-picked intelligence & presented falsehoods to the world. The American people bought & hear we are today. Bin Laden’s still on the loose & we’re trying to set up a democracy in a region where there has never been one before.
But I and many others never bought it. I didn’t believe Saddam was an immediate threat to us & guess what - he wasn’t. The sanctions worked & we stopped the monster we helped to create.
Is that story true Tom?
If so, it’s horrifying. 
Ture, absolutely true. Our media under reports the real dirt. Like PNAC.
Sorry - I missed the story, where was this post?
The PNAC website [2] states the group’s “fundamental propositions”, which are
* “American leadership is good both for America and for the world”
* “such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle”
* "too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."
what’s the problem?
Ooh-ooh… Can I try?
"Right-wing LIES!! Spin! Smear and LIES!"
Somehow it didn’t feel like I thought it would…
TG
It all depends on how the American leadership interprets and implements those three things. Out of context their meanings are vague. In current context and by looking that the last few years it’s obvious that the attempted implement of of those principles has been misguided or misplaced at best and downright evil at worst. That’s the problem.
Hmmm… I think maybe phoo has it. Looking at the way they are going about achieving the goals outlined in their “fundamental propositions”, makes me wonder. Actually, I don’t know if “downright evil” is involved. Maybe downright incompetence? Even IF they are on the right track, their methods of dealing with the propaganda and the populace leave much to be desired IMO.
The methods the Dems have been using to attack the problem are equally inept. Rather than working with each other to resolve issues, BOTH sides have resorted to playground bully tactics. What a shame.
TG
| Quote (gtr4him @ Nov. 14 2005,11:34) |
| The methods the Dems have been using to attack the problem are equally inept. Rather than working with each other to resolve issues, BOTH sides have resorted to playground bully tactics. What a shame. TG |
You are right on the money TG. The Democrats have been inept. Of course, they are in the minority and do not have the power to change anything, literally. And when they have spoken up about incompetence in the administration, they have been spun into the ground and labeled traitors. Look at Tom Daschle… there is a man who spoke up about all sorts of problems with Iraq and the current administration and now he is out of office.
What a shame.
I would like to see where you see the democrats using “playground bully tactics”. To be the bully, you have to have power and the dems have none.
You see, it is a common ploy of those in power to blame those without power and to say, “They do the same thing!”,or “They are just as bad!”. But the fact is that under Clinton, the country was in much better shape, morally, financially, economically and world politically. In fact it isn’t even close in comparison to today. So try not to blame the democrats for how bad things are today. Sure, some of them voted to go to Iraq after seeing and hearing the information released through the White house. But we now know that the information was carefully picked and released to forge an alliance against Saddam.
To say that the Democrats are just as guilty as the White House for sending our children to war is like saying, the democrats are guilty for believing white house lies. By the way, I do not blame the republicans who voted to go to war either; they were also duped. I blame the white house…
Again,
What a shame…
Part of the vote to authorize was based on this passage:
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; |
There were 27 Democrats who could have voted against the resolution, which would have forced a tie and Cheney would have had to cast the tiebreaking vote. Such a vote might have changed the urgency at which the administration proceeded.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| To be the bully, you have to have power and the dems have none. |
What? A President can authorize a WAR without congressional approval? There are Democrats in congress right?
TG
EDIT** Bat-dude beat me to it…
enter Oliver Stone…it’s a consipiracy.
Well, I recetnly heard D.C. described as a town filled with political entrepreneurs looking out only for themselves. I don’t this applies to some, e.g., Senator Levin, but it sure does apply to quite a few, repubs and dems both. Who was going to challenge Bush when his poll numbers were way up there? Now that they are low…