This is great. I hope the war gets delayed forever and ever. Bush will have to deal with angry neo-conservatives who want WAR (it seems at any cost) and who have no use for the U.N. anyway, and he also has to deal with Poppy who says you'd better get U.N. backing. This is what happens (listen up, Supremes) when you place an inept spoiled frat boy in charge of a super-power.

What a cynical game of chicken. By the time Monday's 9-to-6 Resolution is vetoed by France and/or Russia, it'll be so tainted. It'll be so watered down that it just barely calls for military action, and the five swing votes will be bought off--"a coalition of the bribed". It won't be worth anything.

Bush/Rove/Powell/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice will hail any 9-to-6 as a major victory. I just hope that the swing nations will see through this and vote NO. Inspections are working, and they should be given more time. Good inspections, with the U.S. military in the Gulf, will work. So what if they take three or four months? So what? If Bush puts the power of the U.S. government behind them, inspections will lead to disarmament. Inspections are better than war and bombing and the Trillion Dollar aftermath.

If enough countries are bribed so that 9 countries vote yes & the resolution is vetoed, does Bush still have to pay off these bribes? My guess is no. I think he is promising the moon because he knows he will not pay, claiming that the pelf was conditioned upon a successful resolution. Those countries are fools if they didn't get anything in writing.

Bush will let North Korea stew a while after our victory in Iraq. Bush will use the momentum after the war to focus on the economy. He will bowel over the Democrats because they will be painted as weak for their opposition to the war and as obstructionists for attempting to block the Bush economic packages (tax cuts).

And just when you think the Democrats could get the ball rolling before the 2004 elections, they will be doomed to failure for the following reasons:

1. War fears looming. Our attention will be focused again on North Korea as Bush directly challenges Kim. He will have his victories over the Talliban, Saddam and many of the terrorists captured or killed as a proven track record. And the war on terrorism will still not be over.

2. All the talk now from Dean and other Democrats about North Korea being an immediate and dangerous threat to our national security will serve to mute any attempt by them to take an opposite position at that time.

3. The Democrats will have more vulnerable congressional seats on the table.

4. A lopsided cash situation favoring the Republicans. This created by the new campaign finance reform laws and the incumbent Bush fundraising advantage.

The Democrats will have an extremely tough time in 2004. The smart money is on the Democrats that put their focus on the 2006 and 2008 elections for a better opportunity at victory. Dean would have had a much better chance at winning the 2008 as a fresh face then as a old face that already lost last time (either as a nominee or candidate). Hillary Clinton is positioning herself perfectly. She is supporting the war and she is keeping a low profile now.

Mikey, spare us the defeatist talk. Assuming you are actually a Democrat. Acting like Bush has this in the bag when he's losing to a generic Democrat is foolish.

By the way, here's your sociological tipping point: the Dixie Chicks have come out against an Iraq war.

http://www.wral.com/entertainment/2037780/detail.html

Mikey may be a troll, and he may be right, (no pun intended.)
And he could be both.
This thing is a long long long way from over.
The dirty tricks haven't even started yet.

"He will bowel over the Democrats because they will be painted as weak for their opposition to the war and as obstructionists for attempting to block the Bush economic packages (tax cuts)."

"bowel over the Democrats..."?

"He will bowel over the Democrats..."

I guess this explains the stench coming from the executive office these days.

Karl Rove: "We will prevail because America can not stand up to the putridity of our policies."

Ari & Press: Heil! Heil! Heil!

FLPeach - since you are reprimanding the Supreme Court, do tell what Al Gore would've done after September 11th? The man has no confidence in himself. Al Gore would've been like a deer in the headlights after September 11th. He has no resolve. He would've been changing his positions everyday. I think many people in this country were relieved that on Bush was president when the attacks occurred. You can blast Bush all you want, but Al Gore would've been a mega disaster during the current world events.

That "Bowel" was an unintended spelling error. OK, maybe a Freudian slip?

Mike the Troll,

Al Gore wouldn't have been a "megadisaster" after 9/11/01. He would have benefited from the same "halo effect" that emboldened Bush after 9/11, sending his ratings from 50% to 88% literally overnight.

The same "halo effect" benefited Carter
after the 11/04/79 hostage takeover at the U.S. Embassy in Teheran. Carter's approval ratings went from the mid-40's to the mid-60's overnight, as people "rallied around the President".

Carter was viewed in a new light, his reputation at least temporarily enhanced. It lasted long enough for Carter to defeat Sen. Kennedy in the crucial early 1980 primaries.

Gore's presidential stature would have likewise been enhanced after 9/11. True, Gore's national security team would probably have lacked a Cheney, and Gore has long had trouble conveying a genuineness that people appreciate.

Still, Gore has a mental discipline and foreign policy background that would have served him well after 9/11/01.

Gore wouldn't have been flopping around, changing his mind every day. He likely would have led the nation and gone after the Taliban just as effectively as Bush.

Father of Six,
Are you six children as naive as you!!!!

>Are you six children as naive as you!!!!
>
>Posted by Mike the Troll/Corporista!

This is Republican family values??!! Attacking another man's children? Mike the Troll, get lost.

Mike the Troll,

It's not naivete on my part. I just reject the notion that Al Gore would have been a magadisaster after 9/11. He probably would have handled the crises well.

Likewise, Kennedy in '62 was given credit for his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. There was commentary then of "thank God Kennedy's President, just think what Nixon woulda done".

Nixon likely would have done well--probably opted for an invasion, then backed off for a blockade. Nixon was a thoughtful foreign policy tactician with good experience. No morals, but good experience.

FLPeach and Father of Six,

Do not let the Troll (right wing) distract you into "What if" scenarios.

Gore was not President at 9/11. He is not President today. It is senseless to try and envision what he would do.

Dubya was and is our President. We can only effect what he does.

Peace has prevailed for a few more days. No one will die from a U.S. bomb this weekend.

Keep imagining a peaceful solution. War is never inevitable.

The French have a clue:

"It's not a question of giving Iraq a few more days before committing to the use of force," he said. "It's about making resolute progress toward peaceful disarmament, as mapped out by inspections that offer a credible alternative to war."

Dear Anon,
How was I attacking "Father of six"'s kids? I was attacking HIM for being naive, you KNAVE! And, to further disappoint you, I will not get lost. I enjoy debating and discussing politics, and by posting on this site, so does everybody else. And until this site is a pay site with password protection, I will read it, and I will post on it. So why don't you sit back and shut the f--- up, you friggin' whiner! What a friggin' mary that you are!

PS - I would like to be addressed by my proper name, "Mike the Troll/Corporista!"

I firmly believe that 9.11 would not have happend, had Gore been President.

with gore president 9/11 wouldn't have happened. he reads, for one thing. he saw terrorism as our main priority, not new orleans prostitution and medical marijuana. and he wouldn't have considered 9/11 a trifecta, man. bush allowed this to happen, rove wanted a disaster for bush, and the fact that it is such an outrageous notion that our president would wink and nod with this kind of risk in the air, fits these traitors exactly. add it all up, call me a loony conspiracy theorist, but he knew and in our hearts we all know he knew.

All I know is, that the Patriot Act was on John Ashcroft's desk three months prior to 9.11 and the outgoing Clinton administration tried to brief the incoming Bush administration on the looming terrorist threat, and the Bush administration personnel just got up and walked out of the room. They didn't want to know.

The worst tragedy in American history, and no investigation. Pearl Harbor was investigated, why not this? Believe me, if "Monicagate" is any indication, the Bush administration would have called for an investigation within five minutes of the second tower falling if Clinton/Gore were even remotely negligent during their term in office.

This tells me that the Bush administration either completely dropped the ball or wanted a terrorist attack on American soil to give Ashcroft his police state and Bush his gravitas. They're either incompetents or traitors.

Amen about the Canal St. brothel. Do you live here in N.O.? You know that the only guilty party they could nail in all of that was a corporation who owned a boat that some people used to go over to the Miss. coast and had a couple of strippers?

Look, I've had suspicions ever since right after Sept. 11. Why has the White House been so difficult in dealing with the families of victims and in investigating the intelligence failures? Why did certain people start screaming "Iraq, Iraq..." right away, especially when even today there's still no evidence of Iraqi involvement? Don't you think that had Iraq really been involved and they had evidence that the President's people would have announced that loudly to the world and we'd have been there to oust Hussein right away, if not before? Are we to just accept that somehow nameless, faceless bureaucrats prevented the FBI agents who suspected that something was up are the parties who have to take the ultimate responsibility?

"All I know is, that the Patriot Act was on John Ashcroft's desk three months prior to 9.11" - Arnie

What a nut. For one thing, eventually the Democrats will eventually be back in office. Why would the right-wingers want Democrats to have at their control a so-called police state? You really must be either some teenager who is full of misdirected rage, or an old hippie who has burned his brain out with drugs.

We know what the Clinton/Gore administration did to fight the terrorists. The Gore/Lieberman administration would have responded the same way. Lob a few cruise missiles at a few empty training camps and maybe a medicine factory or two. Then they would have pushed for more gun control to stop the terrorists from buying guns while Osama prepared his next attack against us.

Mikey,
Attack the argument, not the person. By doing what you're doing, you end up creating the appearance you have nothing to back up your positions.

We can be certain that a Gore administration would have protected us against terrorism and would have paid attention to the August, 2001 briefing that warned of pending activity. Gore would have concentrated on capturing bin Laden until the job was done. Gore would have worked hard and done far more for a Mid East peace plan. If Gore were our president, he would not be trying to use 9-11 as his Reichstag fire in order to co-opt the world's oil. If Gore were president, we would still enjoy the world's esteem, not its contempt. If Gore were president, our economy would not be in the toilet and we would be running surpluses.

Thanks Last Robot, that last part of my post was over the top.

When Repubs/Conservs claim that the factory in Sudan was a medicine factory, they are lining up with Communists and supporters of Al Quaeda (because when I search for this in Google, those are the first hits I come up with as stating the same thing). I would think that the right would be better served supporting the intelligence gathered by the CIA. Many here will probably think I'm foolish, but I still trust the intelligence reports coming out of the CIA/FBI. Right now I'm not trusting the WH because they keep turning everything into an emotional issue. Intellectual arguments should always take precedence over the emotional.

If only Gore was President the world would be a utopia. HA!

Gore is stiff condescending blow hard who knows he would not beat PRESIDENT Bush in 04, that’s why he chickened out!

Under a Gore presidency, right now we'd be fighting Al Queada with all of our military might, probably victorious by now, North Korea would be history (as in there'd be one Korea with a few million people now on welfare, like W Germans did with the E Germans) and unfortunately Kim Jong Il would probably be retired comfortably in Hawaii) and we'd continue to hold Iraq down with sanctions. Of course, there's a strong chance that there'd be no 9/11 because the characteristic of Gore that many Repubs found very annoying is that he is kind of a nerd and would have been studying everything in detail...and there's a good chance he'd have noticed a pattern of activity in his daily briefings and would not have ignored the signs in favor of a pipeline deal with Taliban-run Afghanistan.

How can you argue with FANTASY! Let’s get back to serious issues that have some basis in reality please.

sorry, fantasy is fun sometimes.

The state of Florida has changed its opinion and let a Muslim woman have her picture on her driver's license with her face covered.

I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Americans. However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the "politically correct" crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others.

I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to America. Our population is almost entirely made up of descendants of immigrants.

However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand.

This idea of America being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity.

As Americans, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.

We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!

"In God We Trust" is our national motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.

If Stars and Stripes offend you, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet.

We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from.

This is OUR COUNTRY, our land, and our lifestyle. Our First Amendment gives every! citizen the right to express his opinion and we will allow you every opportunity to do so.

But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about our flag, our pledge, our national motto, or our way of life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great American freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.

I have to commend Last Robot. His satire is wonderful. No person with any sense could possibly believe what he is writing. I think he should give lessons on creating satire as wonderful as his last post. I practically fell out of my seat from laughing so hard when I read that (I bet that "anon" wishes I had fallen out of my seat and gotten hurt, because then I would have just gone away for awhile).

This "compromise" resolution that also appears destined to fail is just another pretext for war. So, in order to avert war, Iraq must disclose and destroy its WMD. Well, Iraq has been saying for over one year now that all their WMD have been destroyed. Where is the proof that the WMD still exist? The fact that Iraq cannot account for a small fraction of the WMD they claimed to have over 10 years ago, is not proof that they still exist. That is what it all comes down to.

Dominique de Villepin should get the Nobel Peace Prize. He has been a profile in courage throughout this sad affair. The international community should not give any legitimacy to an unjust war based upon false pretenses.

Mike:

A word of advice: If you're going to crash a party, at least try not to act like an ass while you're there. Spirited debate is welcome, but basically all you're doing is antagonizing those with whom you disagree. Its been said to others before you: raise the level of your game or go someplace else.

I challenge anyone to find one reference to Jesus or to any Christian denomination in the Declaration of Independence or to any deity at all in the Constitution. I challenge anyone to prove that the United States was really founded as a Christian nation. If the founding fathers, who were mostly freethinking Deists, had meant to found the U.S. as a Christian nation, why didn't they advertise that in our nation's most important documents? Thomas Jefferson, who coined the "wall of separation" phrase, as applied to the First Amendment and church and state, was often accused of being an atheist, and his disciple James Madison, considered the "father of the Constitution," was also a fierce advocate of separation of church and state.

That's not to say that Americans aren't allowed to be Christian. Of course, any American is guaranteed the right to practice their religion -- or not to practice any religion -- no matter what it is, and, anyone of any religious affiliation, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Jewish, or even Muslim has the right to be treated equally with respect to their beliefs or non-beliefs. That's exactly why the U.S. cannot be considered as being a "Christian nation" or a "Muslim nation" or a "Hindu nation" or anything like that and there has to be definite separation between church and state.

Something else: this country is not just the country of those who happen to agree with the administration's policy. This is the country of all of the citizens, and the expression of dissent doesn't make anyone less of an American or entitle them to any fewer rights than those rights to which those who agree with the President are entitled.

It's ridiculous that our forces are supposed to be fighting for human rights abroad and yet some Americans at home want to squelch dissent as if this were the old Soviet Union.

Hey Bouncer - eat it! The sparring is back-and-forth on this webpage. It is 50% my fault and 50% the fault of those I spar with. I react to people calling me names and to those on the loony left (which would be this page) who post the most idiotic and insane comments.

Mr. the Troll, what part did you enjoy the most?

Richard, Thomas Jefferson wasn't an atheist, but he wasn't what wignuts would consider a "good Christian" either (although their version of a "good Christian" is seriously fucked up). Jefferson believed in God, but he had a major distrust of organized religion. I'm a lot like that, for I believe in God, but knowing history like I do, organized religion has done as much harm as it has done good, if not more.

Really, Jefferson and Madison and the rest of the Founding Fathers wanted religion kept seperate from government because of what Europe had gone through. They had seen the wars of religion that had ripped Europe apart for decades and decided they wanted none of that here. THAT'S why they determined the sepration of church and state and that's why it's imperative that guys like John Ashcroft don't try to knock the wall down.

Irregardless of whether one agrees with Bush on the threat level Iraq poses to our national security, it is pretty obvious that his administration could have handled the diplomatic aspect differently. Bush could have gotten Europe behind him (including France and Germany, maybe even Russia) had he gone to the leaders of those countries FIRST before announcing to the world that regime change in Iraq was his next goal. If he presented the evidence to each of them, I believe they would have given him the benefit of the doubt--quite possibly building up the coalition his father built. I believe they were offended by Bush making life/death decisions assuming he had world support without asking for it. Some will say we shouldn't care about how offended people are but guess what, that is and always has been what international diplomacy is about. How about us being offended? Do we have the right to be offended and they don't? Bush needed to approach them with a direct and simple argument (for example Iraq is a threat to its neighbors because we know they harbor X, Y and Z weapons of mass destruction or This is the law as passed by the UN and Iraq is defying it). The problem has been that the administration keeps leaking evidence to the media and the rest of the world in slow trickles rather than one massive dump. Please keep in mind I am not for the war, but I'm trying to look at it from the strict point of view of international relations without regard to the moral implications. The whole situation is comparable to a prosecutor who keeps bringing up new evidence in the middle of a trial--juries tend to become suspicious of the state's intent. Notice that whenever the prosecution in a case comes up with a simple, solid argument they maintain from opening statement to closing, they win. It has sadly become irrelevant whether Iraq possesses WMD as Bush has made it an argument about whether he is right or not. This is now a very difficult situation for him and I don't believe he can succeed in this as he is showing day in and day out that he and his staff are not diplomats. They keep digging the hole deeper and deeper with inconsistancies. They should have stayed in the business world where such skills are not as important. At least in business, the risks to life and limb are fewer.

And if we were a Christian nation as some so fervently decree, would that mean we'd bomb women and children in Iraq? Ignore the poor, and even blame them for their condition? Would we befoul God's green earth? Would we support dictators like Samosa, Batista, Marcos, the Shah, and, my fav, Saddam Hussein?

And as for the anonymous dufus who wrote at 5:24, this nation was founded by those who read and wrote, who loved learning and philosophy, and sought the truth in debate and civil discourse. So I'd suggest that it is indeed Bush and his illiterati followers who are
the foreign invaders here, and I'd encourage their departure to some place where narrow Taliban-like views are encouraged.

very well written article:http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2003-03-15&id=2883

To respond to the article above, a piece chock full of the same emotion-heavy, substance-light rhetoric that the hawks have been using to sell this war, my emotional argument is this: what's happened to the America that everyone around the world felt sympathy for right after Sept. 11, 2001? If those attacks, or the possibility of more such attacks are supposed to be the justification for this war, then why is the rest of the world now more afraid of America than it is of Iraq? Why does the rest of the world feel like America is not justified in going to war now when they were with us before? Do Americans really believe in their country, the most powerful on earth, needing to invade and occupy a nation who hasn't attacked us first? If we're so strong, then why we are so afraid of Iraq? Can a pre-emptive invasion and take-over ever meet the ethical criteria for a just war? Is flouting international law, ignoring the voices of clergy in almost all denominations, ignoring the pleas of the Pope for peace, ignoring the pleas of the Secretary General of the U.N., ignoring broad world opinion and insulting almost every single one of our longtime allies what America should be all about? How many innocent Iraqi's will die from American bombs and missiles? How can America claim that it's bringing democracy to Iraq when what it's really planning is a military occupation of unknown duration?

Everyone has a price.....Ask Mohamed Farrah Aidid.

Notice how the Repug idiots only talk about the "game". They can't discuss ideas, or go beyond the trite recycling of RNC talking points.

People here have been surprisingly tolerant of them recently.

That's the thing about us Dems/Libs...we're tolerant of other ideas.

Mike the Troll

Were you also Mike the Analyst. I have read many of your post and thought they were well reasoned even if I disagreed. But your continual use of looney left and name calling has not helped you make your arguments here. You gotta have respect and give it to have people take you and your arguments seriously.

The summit in the Azores raises the stakes on the U.N. vote. Bush and Blair have lobbied the six swing members of the Security Council and have gotten nowhere.

Bush has been reduced to begging for Camaroon's vote (where's Camaroon and who cares?). I guess I better find Camaroon and Guinea on a map, since they're now so important to our national prestige.

Bush and Condi Rice have had three weeks of clumsy diplomacy. Bush has it backwards. He treats war as a first step, and diplomacy as a last resort. Here he is at the 11th hiour having a summit in the Azores. He should have visited France, Germany and the Middle East last September, but didn't.

The American people have "overestimated" Bush's diplomatic skills. Bush loves being "underestimated", but on diplomacy, he has been "overestimated". The Texan just doesn't measure up like we thought he would.

>Bush has it backwards. He treats war as a first step, and diplomacy as a last resort. - Father of Six

What a great line! And I agree that, in this case, the American people and the American Congress have, as Bush might say, "misoverestimated" him.

Father of Six

You have had the most clear and coherent argument hear against war in Iraq and I just wanted to say keep up the good work.

Dear Readers,

An allegation has been made against my loyalty to the Democratic Party. I was charged with repeating RNC talking points. Let’s explore this allegation….we all know were to pick up RNC talking points so I challenge you to find my reference in any news letter, radio show, internet page or TV show. You will not be able to find such a reference anywhere within such places. Why?...because my work is original. Like a select few that post on this site my views are original. We do not the echo of the daily talking heads, be it, liberal, conservative, Democrat or Republican. Most of all, I am a proud Democrat but I refuse to be a fool, naïve or a hypocrite. When in power Democrats and Republicans alike throw money at nations to buy them off. So, neither can take the high road when it comes to the issue of bribing other nations. As Democrats, we need take that high road again.

I propose that we start with a point by point plan to take back our party from the fools and hypocrites who run it today. Only then will the Democratic Party belong to the people.

1. Get rid of Terry McAuliffe.
2. Call on Tom Daschle to stop his latest pursuit of corporate giveaways.
3. When we regain the power place trade embargos on countries that violate human rights.

And anything else fellow true democrats would like to add.

People here have been surprisingly tolerant of them recently. That's the thing about us Dems/Libs...we're tolerant of other ideas.

Just overlook the personal insults by the "tolerant" leftists --- Repug, idiots, dufus and ass - just to name a few from this thread directed at the people who offer an opposing view.

The left is actually the most intolerant of opposition. Even in the media the liberals commonly resort to attacking the people who express conservative views instead of honest debate of the issues themselves. This is rare from the conservative side. This type of inconsistency is typical from the liberals. The ones who cry the most about tolerance when they want to be heard are the most intolerant of others. It really weakens your position.

Hey, tim:

I didn't walk the neo-conservative line with a couple of my opinions, and was accused by someone named "mikey" of being a nut, an enraged teenager, and/or a drug-addled hippie. No substance to his post, no counterpoint, just insults. How come you didn't bring that up?

I disagree with you wholeheartedly Tim. I was once a conservative Republican and am now a moderate to liberal democrat. I have walked in both circles and know from first hand experience that many conservatives are very intolerant of dissent. I point to religious right conservatives as a good example.

Hey Tim,
All I ever hear on conservative talk radio is insult after personal insult. Whenever anyone they disagree with starts to explain their issue, the topic is changed, the accusation of not being able to answer is thrown and afterwards comes the personal insult. Other than that this works to get ratings (conflict is at the center of all good entertainment), why does this happen? Is it because its easier than defending conservative issues? And in newsgroups, I see far more personal insults from the right than the left (but the left does have its fair share of personal attacks). Maybe we on the left should really work hard on keeping our debates fair and clean, but so should you. But at the same time, politics is no domain for the thin skinned....

What do you mother-f'ers on the loony left know? You are all a bunch of sissy, foul-mouthed, deranged, racist, classist, bigots who cannot stand debate. You ugly f'ers always have to resort to name-calling all of the time!! You big fat hairy assed ugly stupid ignorant morons have no idea of what it is too be fair-minded and have a courteous discussion with those who disagree with your sorry stupid ugly smelly fat ugly faced selves!!!

PS - That was a satire.

Someone's toilet training never really took.

Somebody's "Humor Training" never really took.

de gustibus non est disputandum

I'll admit it, the troll got me...good one! Hey. I'll take some of the heat, I used the word "dufus", it's true. I refer to the Christian Right as American Taliban. It's true, I've lost must semblance of balance in seeking the truth. The reason why is that the right, with some notable exceptions, is idealogically rigid. Can Tim look us all in the I-eye and say Rush and Savage and Coulter and Hannity and Falwell (who sold some 50000 videos accusing Clinton of murder, drugs, you name it) have been anything but insulting, demeaning and insulting propagandists? Can Tim give me the list of the similar names on the left? I've said it before, I have no problem with conservatives, but this ain't them. Even the real right is freakin out over the Patriot Acts. So, with all due respect, if you really believe the right-wing you think about has been a band of nice people suffering the slings and arrows of nasty-boy liberals, yo' a dufus too.

The "Dixie Chicks" country women's group have publicly claimed embarrassment that the President is from their native Texas. They have issued a statement on peace and seeking a diplomatic solution to the Iraqi crises.

The "Dixie Chicks" are hardly foreign policy specialists. But their peace message is a cultural indicator. It's a cultural marker. I expected the Dixie Chicks, a southern,white, Anglo, country music group to be all supportive of Bush and his war. At least, they could easily ignore Bush's war at no cost to their reputation. But they have spoken out for peace, for a diplomatic solution. They didn't have to.

There's the Dixie Chicks, the 100+ City Council resolutions (even NYC, the home of ground zero), the Pope, the mainline Protestant congregations, and the peaceful protests around the world--advocating peace and a diplomatic solution.

Something's terribly amiss at the Bush White House. He's out of sync with America. My gosh, even the Dixie Chicks are against him.

Falwell and Savage are a disgrace. Hannity is annoying and a parrot. Coulter is entertaining because she is confident and attractive (but doesn't hesitate to insult). As for Limbaugh, I find him to be very fair as far as liberals are concerned (although I haven't listened to him in a longtime - no reception at my desk). He does include insulting humor, but I think he generally debates instead of attacking.

I gather that Ann Coulter has said some really mean-spirited things but I only know that second-hand. I don't watch Fox and don't listen to right-wing radio.

The "freedom fries" business is just pure nonsense. The insulting of other countries is childish and needs to stop for everyone's sake.

Like many others, I believe, the issue I have is NOT with mainstream conservatives. It's with these hardliners who have a bloodlust for war and a my-way-or-the-highway attitude.

To me, a genuine conservative would always be suspicious about going to war, particularly when the nation has not been attacked or there's even the imminent threat of attack here. What's happened to the natural skepticism, the willingness to ask questions of our government?

There can be no doubt that what Bush wants to do is of a very radical nature and yet the case the administration has made thus far has only been a rather shaky one and their handling of diplomacy has been a total catastrophe.

This war is one of the most complicated issues ever. Do we attack a country that has not attacked us yet? I have no idea. But I am certain that Bush does not want to build an empire so that he can own all of the oil and build a pipeline from Afghanistan to Texas in order to kill innocent Iraqi civilians so that Dick Cheney may become Emperor of Eastern America(formerly known as Iraq), so that he may then employ Paul Wolfowitz as his CEO, who will in turn make Don Rumsfield in charge of the Israeli armed forces so that they may blow up Palestinian-controlled areas so that Ariel Sharon will be re-elected so that he may then hire Ari Fleischer as his investment banker so that he can take all of the money from innocent palestinians and invest it in research into sure-fire ways to poison all of the non-white people of the world so that Antonin Scalia can change the Constitution so that George Bush can declare himself President-Select-For-Life.

Psst - hey, hey, jlb that was a joke.

"de gustibus non est disputandum"

Response - I don't give a flying f--- what that means, so tell somebody who cares.

"As for Limbaugh, I find him to be very fair as far as liberals are concerned..."

Sheesh! You have strange ideas of what is fair. You're talking about Rush, the pimple-ass, draft-dodging chickenhawk, right? When has Rush ever debated anyone? All he ever does is attack.

This is what Rush has to say about Daschle, who is a veteran and a Democrat, but is not a liberal:

From FAIR:
Limbaugh has gone on at length about what he calls the "devil analogy" with Daschle (7/20/01): “How many different versions of Satan, the devil, have you seen in your life?... We've seen the comic devil of TV shows. We've even seen the smooth, tempting devil in Hollywood movies. Is Tom Daschle simply another way to portray a devil?” Later in his broadcast (as transcribed by the centrist Spinsanity.org--7/21/01), Limbaugh complained: "Just yesterday, as Bush winged his way to Europe on a crucial mission to lead our allies into the 21st century...up pops 'El Diablo', Tom Daschle, and his devilish deviltry, claiming that George Bush is incompetent, criticizing Bush at the very moment he is engaging in these efforts to improve our relationship with these world leaders."

Of late, Limbaugh has painted Daschle more as a traitor than as a demon: "Now he's decided to roll the dice and align himself with Iran, North Korea and Hussein," he told his listeners (2/11/02; quoted in Spinsanity, 2/15/02). "In essence, Daschle has chosen to align himself with the axis of evil."

I am talking about how he talks to liberal callers. The people in the media or in government are a different story.

"Gore is stiff condescending blow hard who knows he would not beat PRESIDENT Bush in 04, that’s why he chickened out!"

It was the DNC and the other insiders who wanted him out. The grassroots crowd loves him. His draft is slowly picking up speed.

Case in point.

http://www.algore04.com/04um/YaBB.pl?board=DG04;action=display;num=1045542472

Go down to the post made by "Blaze" 'Jim Tate'

John Jimenez

http://www.draftgore.com

Of course on the rare occasions that Rush takes a liberal caller, he can easily win any debate with MUTE!

LIMBAUGH: Here’s Greg in Orlando Florida. Nice to have you on the program, sir. Welcome.

GREG: Hello.

LIMBAUGH: Yes sir.

GREG: Yes, about John Kerry. I’m not as sure that he’s going to be as easy to write off as a garden-variety liberal. Did you see the New Yorker piece on him a couple weeks ago?

LIMBAUGH: Yeah, You mean the one with molasses dripping off of it.

GREG: It started out telling the story of how when Vietnam happened, he went down to the recruiting station and signed up with his two best friends, John J. Pershing III and Fred Smith, the founder of Federal Express. Now that’s the kind of gravitas that gave me a chill up my spine. And I’m wondering if in the debates with Bush, he might ask Bush just off-the-cuff “Where were you when you were supposed to have shown up for duty in Mississippi and you didn’t show up for that year?”--in the national guard when he dodged the Vietnam draft. And Rush you never mentioned how you dodged the Vietnam draft.

LIMBAUGH: I didn’t

GREG: Yes, you did. You claimed you had a boil on your butt—

[Limbaugh mutes Greg]

LIMBAUGH: No, you see, that’s part of popular mythology that is out there that I have not whined nor complained about, Greg. But that is just a bunch of internet BS and hyperbole. Never happened. Was not the cause, wasn’t the case. This business of Bush is a bunch of BS, too. And if John Kerry tries to bring up Vietnam in a debate with George W. Bush, and asks that question, all Bush has got to do is bring up Bill Clinton—and all he’s got to do is give a couple quotes about John Kerry. There’s just a story in the paper today, Greg, and I’m sorry, you missed this. I forget who wrote it—it might have been Tony Blankley’s column today. John Kerry said something, “You know, I’ve learned a lot with my military experience and if you’re leading the way and you turn around and the troops aren’t behind you, you got a real problem.” Now what he was trying to say is: Bush is trying to take us into areas nobody wants to go, but the answer to the question—or the question that is: “Oh, Senator, you were commanding officer in Vietnam and you actually turned around and troops weren’t there? What kind of commanding officer were you?” We can play this any number of ways you want, Greg, baby. But until you can get your facts straight and stop believing a bunch of internet B.S. and hyperbole, you guys are— You see, this is exactly what they have been doing for fourteen years, my friends. And we haven’t been complaining about it--we haven’t been whining about it. And not one thing he said has anything to do with the ideas that are important to the American people today. It isn’t about personalities, Greg. Although if it were, you’d definitely be climbing out of a hole that you’ve just dug for yourself. Judy in Chicago, you're next. Welcome...

From:
http://www.scoobiedavis.blogspot.com

hey troll--your comments: but I am certain that Bush does not want to build an empire so that he can own all of the oil and build a pipeline from Afghanistan to Texas in order to kill innocent Iraqi civilians so that Dick Cheney may become Emperor of Eastern America(formerly known as Iraq), so that he may then employ Paul Wolfowitz as his CEO, who will in turn make Don Rumsfield in charge of the Israeli armed forces so that they may blow up Palestinian-controlled areas so that Ariel Sharon will be re-elected so that he may then hire Ari Fleischer as his investment banker so that he can take all of the money from innocent palestinians and invest it in research into sure-fire ways to poison all of the non-white people of the world so that Antonin Scalia can change the Constitution so that George Bush can declare himself President-Select-For-Life.

you obviously have not read the actual words within speeches given and papers delivered by mr. pearle, mr. wolfowitz, mr. cheney...of couse bush is just the prop out front. the plan has been since 1946 to be the unapposed global leader, only the rosenberg's delayed that. is this news to you that some men might try to grasp the ultimate empire of all time? what drove alexander or augustus or even attila is not at all different from what drives some today, with weapons far beyond even their imaginations. i think you've covered some of their plan pretty well actually.

Wanting to install democratic governments accountable to their people is not the same as wanting to build an empire, Al.

PS - Liberal callers get taken immediately, and as for him muting that other caller, that was a personal issue.

Here's what Greg (the presumably liberal caller from above) has to say about Rush taking liberal callers:

"I was on the air live around 1:30 p.m. [EST]. In order to get onto Rush's show as a liberal, you have to fall within usually a 1-2 day window where he has recently claimed, on the air or to friends and colleagues (falsely), that he 'always puts liberals at the front of the line' -- when in reality they screen out almost anyone who they even suspect disagrees with them on 99 out of 100 days ...

"His and ALL of the right-wing shows ... carefully screen [and] filibuster the calls, so that opposing views are quickly cut off and a balanced view cannot be reasonably entertained. It is almost as if they know that if the other side can be fairly aired beside their own far-right viewpoint, they would lose a significant [percentage] of sycophants."

From:
http://www.salon.com/politics/conason/2002/12/05/bush/index.html

"liberal callers get taken immediately". Ha! HA! Ha! What makes you think that "liberal" callers are taken immediately? Because Rush says so?

Have you noticed Troll, that Rush will never ever appear in any situation where he does not control the terms of the debate or is treated deferentially? Can you name me one situation where Rush has ever debated with a "liberal" besides against the alleged "liberals" that allegedly call into his show?

Rush created the whole genre of "conservative" screamers arguing against "liberal" strawmen. He's a coward and he's proven it repeatedly by refusing to EVER debate a real live "liberal" on equal terms.

Mike the Troll, have you heard about the latest classified State Department report?

http://www.latimes.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=la%2Dfg%2Ddomino14mar14§ion=%2Fnews%2Fnationworld%2Firaq%2Fdiplomacy

" The report, which has been distributed to a small group of top government officials but not publicly disclosed, says that daunting economic and social problems are likely to undermine basic stability in the region for years, let alone prospects for democratic reform.

Even if some version of democracy took root - an event the report casts as unlikely - anti-American sentiment is so pervasive that elections in the short term could lead to the rise of Islamic-controlled governments hostile to the United States."

Mike the Troll: so that Ariel Sharon will be re-elected so that he may then hire Ari Fleischer as his investment banker

This is a perfect example of a strawman argument - create something that is plainly incorrect in order to cast doubt on other aspects of the topic.

The Troll said this and other related statements were a joke. But, so as not to confuse our right-wing zealots with each other, let's make clear that Ari Fleischer has no background in investment banking, nor is he a member of the Project For the New American Century, the right-wing think tank that Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Perle all belong to.

Though Flesicher was, surprisingly enough, a Democrat once upon a time.

From Biography.com
*****************
Born Lawrence Ari Fleischer in Pound Ridge, New York. Fleischer became the official spokesperson for President-elect George W. Bush in December of 2000. As White House press secretary, Fleischer is in charge of handling media queries and disseminating information about the administration, its policies, and its goals to reporters. His notoriously tough job became even more difficult in the wake of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, and the subsequent U.S. military assault on Afghanistan, but Fleischer won high marks for his performance. A predecessor who worked for the Clinton White House described the role of White House press secretary as "an impossible job," Joe Lockhart told People. "If you can avoid making yourself the story and reflect the President's beliefs, you've done a good job. And so far he's done that."

Fleischer, who turned forty years old the year that Bush was inaugurated, grew up in Pound Ridge, a suburban enclave near New York City. His father was an executive recruiter, while his mother worked as a computer programmer at IBM. He attended Fox Lane High School, where twice he was elected president of his class. Both Fleischer parents were committed Democrats, and admitted later that their youngest son's Republican sympathies, which emerged during his years at Middlebury College, surprised them. After graduating with a degree in political science in 1982, Fleischer found work as press secretary to Jon Fossel, a Republican from New York who was running for a Congressional seat. Fossel lost, but Fleischer was still determined to work in politics, and so he moved to Washington and lived with his older brother. He first worked the phone banks for the Republican National Committee, and was eventually hired as press secretary to New York congressman Norman Lent. From there he took a job with New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici in 1989.

Fleischer became a trusted up-and-comer in Republican Party circles. He served as deputy communications director for incumbent President George Bush in his failed 1992 re-election campaign. During the Clinton years, Fleischer ran his own lobbying firm for aircraft makers and cattle ranchers, and returned to the back halls of Congress when he took a job with a Republican from Texas, Bill Archer, who chaired the House Ways and Means Committee. He quit that job when he was hired by American Red Cross president Elizabeth Dole as communications director in her campaign to become the Republican Party nominee for the White House in 2000.

Fleischer quit the Dole team in September of 1999, and Dole herself dropped out of the race when the presidential campaign of another Republican, Texas governor George W. Bush, began to gain momentum. When the communications director for the Bush team, Karen Hughes, learned that Fleischer had quit the Dole campaign, she offered him a job. He initially declined, but Archer urged him to take the job, and so he interviewed with Hughes. "I remember him telling me what he really wanted to do was find a nice Jewish woman and get married and have children," Hughes told Washington Post writer Howard Kurtz.

After the election dispute between Bush and Democratic hopeful Al Gore was resolved in the Texas governor's favor, Bush began making his staff appointments, and Fleischer was named the next White House press secretary. Fleischer endured some initial trials during his first few months on the job. Members of the White House Correspondents' Association complained that he called press conferences on too short a notice, and in June of 2001, a Washington Post article allowed Fleischer to voice his ire about acts of vandalism he claimed were committed by outgoing Clinton staffers. At times, he was derided as a member of a tightly controlled Bush White House staff, and termed an official spokesperson who appears to be tied to "a very short leash," as four-decade White House correspondent Helen Thomas told New York Times writer Alessandra Stanley. In response, Fleischer stated, "My job is to faithfully represent the president at all times. The French use the expression 'porte parole,' which means 'carries the words,' and that is what I do."
*********************

I doubt Ari will be quoting anymore French phrases in the ensuing months, though I do hope he does.

Fleischer is a party hack. He is an employee (high-level, but still a worker-bee). He does not have the fortune or clout of the Project For a New American Century gang.

mike the troll says "Wanting to install democratic governments accountable to their people is not the same as wanting to build an empire, Al." Can you give me another example where the US govmint went out of its way to install a democratic government? Chile? Guatemala? Nicaragua? Iran? Iraq? I jusrt read that the era when Hussein tore peoples tongues out was when he was our buddy! We knew! We have no record of supporting democracy in the 3rd world over strongmen who keep their people in line for American economic interests, do we Mike? Can you tell me any?

-"Chile? Guatemala? Nicaragua? Iran? Iraq? I jusrt read that the era when Hussein tore peoples tongues out was when he was our buddy! We knew! We have no record of supporting democracy in the 3rd world over strongmen who keep their people in line for American economic interests, do we Mike? Can you tell me any?"-

"Posted by Al Alessi at March 14, 2003 06:34 PM "

Not only that but you can't really use the phillipines as an example either. The US gave the Phillipines its freedom on July 4th 1946 to prevent a gorilla war from eventually breaking out. But then you have the fact that in order to have it on our side during Vietnam we let Marcos in.

John Jimenez

http://www.draftgore.com

I predict that the walls of civil discourse will crumble as liberals adopt the vulgarities and obnoxious behavior of conservatives. Centirst republicans and democrats will then form coalitions to govern the country while liberals and conservatives engage in vile mudslinging and turf wars.

Conservatives are the not the problem. The problem is the hard-line far right element.

Conservative used to be a decent thing to be, at one time. Prudent, careful, cautious, principled, restrained, meticulous. Do any of those adjectives apply to the current group in charge in Washington?

Has the GOP flushed away its moderate wing?

Richard P.,

I agree totally. I consider myself to be conservative in a lot of areas, as I still support what used to be standard conservative positions; for example, fiscal restraint, individual liberty, and self-reliance.

But today's GOP is so far out there that I can't identify with them at all. I just can't get behind the party of Lott, DeLay, and Ashcroft. Barry Goldwater and Dwight Eisenhower would be considered too "liberal" and driven right out of today's GOP.

So, if we have any kind of an election to speak of in '04, I'm gonna pull that lever for the Democrat: Dean, Lieberman, Kerry, whomever. I don't care which one. If he's got that (D) after his name, he's my man. I want these radical fundies and warmongers tossed out on their holier-than-thou behinds. I want my country back.

Mr. the Troll- With regards to your post and labeling it as satire...that was actually sarcasm. There is a big difference between sarcasm and satire.

Sarcasm - A form of wit that is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule

Satire - A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit

Sorry, your post is not a literary work (and this is said with a bit of sarcasm)

shadow eyes, usually i include phillipines as well, one of our true historical travesties. We screwed the Philiipines in 1898 and never looked back. It was a huge discussion in the US with the Anti-imperialist League (VP was Samuel Clemens) fighting hard to give the Phillipines their independence, which was promised in exchange for native help in defeating the Spanish. Space does not permit a full listing of every country we have de-democratized for our imperial interests since then. If anyone challenges that please get specific.

Also could Thalsen give me a specific example of the vulgar and obnoxious behavior of liberals, other than myself in these pages?

Good point, last robot, to Mr. the Troll (I like the Bill & Ted allusion)

The hoary Latin cliche means that taste (or aesthetic judgement) cannot be disputed logically. You have the sensibility you have, and that's that. Despite that, I don't have to dignify it as anything but primitive aggression presenting itself under names it doesn't understand.

Yes, exactly.

If you're a conservative of the strain who says they oppose or they're suspicious of big government, intrusive government, overly-powerful government, wasteful government, etc., I'd like to know how you can find any comfort with this administration.

What, in this time of looming large deficits, could possibly be more of a waste than a pre-emptive war, a war of choice, to be followed by possible long-term military occupation?

Wielding such power is almost guaranteed to bring widespread and sever corruption and abuse , if it hasn't done so already.

Why has Bush not investigated 9/11? Because it doesn't serve his purposes to have all that dirty laundry explode on the front pages.

Look, this should not be a surprise. All his life, Bush has tried to show his father up and failed miserably. Why should this be any different? He mangled the process and then had daddy's friends save him. Not just once or twice, but repeatedly. Remember, they rejected him from UT, but took Jeb. Ever wonder why?

Bush is a chronic fuck up. His temperment, his alcoholism, his relationship with his kids, all show strains of being a guy who's failed upward his entire life.

Bush has been led to believe he can convince people of anything and now, when the shit is on the line, he can't convince anyone of anything and he's bewildered why.

For reasons I cannot comprehend, the French are smiling and shaking their heads as we throw tantrums, instead of reminding us of how many times in our mutual history and friendship they saved our asses.

Bush is going to fail. He always has and he's too old to change.

"Bush has been led to believe he can convince people of anything and now, when the shit is on the line, he can't convince anyone of anything and he's bewildered why." steve gilliard

Wrong. The latest polls show that Bush now has overwhelming support for the war and that the UN position is less important then ever. Polls show that Bush has convinced the only people who he has too. The American people. The anti-war effort is losing steam. The rally today in San Francisco was much smaller in size than was predicted. And much smaller then it had been in the last month’s protests. The anti-war protests would be growing on the eve of war if the public were with them.

That's wrong that Bush only has to convince the American people. The war may be something that can be handled unilaterally -- although nothing is guaranteed -- but rebuilding Iraq successfully will require a true multinational effort.

Another issue is that Bush has mentioned Sept. 11th in the same sentence with Iraq so many times, lots of people have begun to believe that there is a connection and even that the Sept. 11th attackers were from Iraq when in fact no one has produced one iota of evidence of an Iraqi connection to the attacks and none of the hijackers was Iraqi.

The fact of the matter is that Iraq and al-qaeda are very much separate issues, although the administration hasn't really presented things that way.

you can fool some of the people all of the time, an and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all the people all of the time. still a majority would support an attack only with a UN resolution...that the American people are not freaking out entirely as they are throughout all the rest of the world is a testament to an unfree media dominated by the very same people who will benefit from this war and their friends. what a scam, written in blood.

addendum----i will again go on record, we will either see massive fraud in 2004 or a cancelled election due to "terrorist activity" and a perpetual state of war. these guys will never release power, they have gone too far down the road. awful prediction, hope i'm wrong, but that's who they are. traitors to our constitution. and it's why i believe bush and his handlers knew 9/11.

Could we just quit yapping about what "would have happened" had other people been president when 9/11 happened? If you people remain so stuck in the past, how do you expect people to take you seriously about improving our future? You'll have less credibility than Ann Coulter!

sure, as soon as i stop hearing "thank the lord jesus bush is our president and not that lying gore." or words to that effect. gore enlisted, bush is a chickenshit chickenhawk. and frankly a full investigation into exactly who did what around 9/11 is what we need, and a travesty we don't have it.

I have no problem with an investigation into the events surrounding 9/11 - - in fact, I encourage it. But any suggestion of "X would/wouldn't have happened if Gore had been in the White House" is pure speculation.

And, quite frankly, it's also a waste of time and energy, since Gore won't be running for president.