In case anyone thought racism in America was dead . . .

[Rich]

Oh yeah ... here is for pandering to the masses ...

Yeah and here's McCain's rosy picture of life in Iraq under American control
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/04/09/mccain_iraq/

Now, I say, in terms of POTUS not a VP .... Seriously?

 

[dkinley]

Yeah and here's another, Republican Bush sent thousands of innocent Americans to their deaths in a futile attempt to get control of Iraqs oil and condemmed hundreds of thousand innocent Iraqis to their deaths in the process

Okay, I will agree that a Republican sent people to war for reasons other than what your stated. Here are the Democrats position on WMD at the time ...

“…it is clear to me that the current situation in Iraq is an on-going tragedy for the Iraqi people and an unacceptable menace for us, our neighbors, and the world.” - Tom Harkin

“While the distance betwen the United States and Iraq is great, Saddam Hussein’s ability to use his chemical and biological weapons against us is not constrained by geography” - Diane Feinstein

"Saddam Hussein has stockpiled, weaponized and used chemical and biological weapons, and has made no secret of his desire to acquire nuclear weapons.” -Tom Daschle

"There is unmistakable evicence that Saddam Hussein is working to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next 5 years” -Jay Rockefeller

“…it is Hussein’s vigorous pursuity of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people of the United States.” -Chuck Schumer

“…in the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.” -Hillary Clinton

"“Adoption of the force resolution will satisfy our obligations to make it clear to the international community that America stands united in its determination to rid the world of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” -Max Cleland

“With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don’t even try…Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?…Does he do all of these things because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him?” - John Kerry

Now, for the Iraq War Resolution ...

“…I commend President Bush for taking his case against Iraq to the American people…and I agree with the President that Saddam is a despicable tyrant who must be disarmed.” -Ted Kennedy

"There is no question that Saddam Hussein is ignoring the will of the United Nations and that he has not honored the agreements he made following the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein is a dangerous force in the world.” -Kent Conrad

“Saddam Hussein’s regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capability.” -Bob Graham

"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price." - Hilary Clinton

“Saddam Hussein’s desire to obtain weapons of mass destruction is of grave concern.” -Jim Jeffords

"Iraq has grim and ghoulish weapons to carry out its evil plans. As part of the Gulf War cease-fire agreement, Saddam Hussein committed to destroying its chemical and biological and nuclear weapons programs…instead, Saddam Hussein is trying to add nuclear weapons to an arsenal that already includes chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles.” -Barbara Mikulski

“With such strong evidence in front of them, it is now incumbent on the UN to respect its own mandates, and stand up for our common goal of either bringing about Iraq’s peaceful disarmament or moving forward with the decisive military victory of a multilateral coalition.” - John Kerry

"Saddam must give arms inspectors unfettered access. And, if he does not comply with this new U.N. resolution there will be consequences, including the use of appropriate military force.” -Paul Wellstone

“With regard to Iraq, I agree, Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I support the concept of regime change.” -Russ Feingold

" ... long argued that Saddam Hussein is a grave threat and that he must be disarmed. Iraq’s behavior during the past few months has done nothing to change my mind." - John Edwards

And the best one ...

"This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction." - Joe Biden

Now, you would think that people as smart as those the Dem's hail as political heroes wouldn't be duped, especially Joe Biden - he was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - if anyone knew, he shoulda knew. Howard Dean is the only one that went against it and the Dem's railed against him.

Unfortunately, if you call the Repub's liars, then the Dem's are liars, too. In summation, I think here the blame can be equally shared. One would think the members of the intelligence committees had the same information as the administration because they oversee the CIA, FBI, etc.

We were duped by everyone in Washington. That deal is done and was done by both parties.

-dK

 

[dkinley]

Yeah and here's McCain's rosy picture of life in Iraq under American control
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/04/09/mccain_iraq/

Now, I say, in terms of POTUS not a VP .... Seriously?

I know .. i lol'd when I saw that when it first came out. About as good as Clinton's running from the airstrip under sniper fire or the latest one when Biden said his "helicopter was forced down" in Afghanistan.

-dK

 

[ColinEssex]

How many weapons of mass destruction has the USA got?

When you've counted how many thousand, tell me what gives the USA the right to kill tens of thousands of foreigners for their oil.

Col

 

[dkinley]

I never said it gave the right for the US to do anything. In fact, I never said the US had a right to anything period. We've only dropped WMD's on a country that directly infringed upon us. We just carpet bombed the ones in the European theater.

I was just tired of the same ole blame game and pointed out that both parties are to blame. As I've stated before, I don't like either party. In fact, I don't like a party system at all.

Note that doesn't make me patriotic. It actually makes me feel more patriotic because I have the right to challenge the system and the status quo. It just gets played out when people insist their party is superior or to make a case why another's is inferior and they only paint it one-way. I really am not for John McCain, again like I said before, my horse is not in the race. I just chose to join in on the flaming just to get a rile and paint in the conveniently ignored other half of the picture.

-dK

 

[Alisa]

Let's see ... sounded like a broken record to me in acknowledgment who was right ....


LEHRER: Senator Obama?
OBAMA: (blubbers some answer that plays to the masses but of no substance)
McCAIN: "What Senator Obama doesn't understand ..." (and instructs on the inexperienced padawan)
OBAM: "Senator McCain is right ..." (and then blubbers out something else)

Now, I say, in terms of POTUS not a VP .... Seriously?

dk,I have pretty much stopped responding to your comments, because no matter the issue, your answer is, the democrats are worse. Maybe you can explain what Sarah Palin's answer actually means. I repeat:

We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state.

What the &*(%$ is she talking about? I can't even find a single complete sentence in there.

If you want to talk about Obama's performance in the debate, maybe you can post an actual quote of his that you disagree with instead of "blah blah blah", which just demonstrates that you close your ears whenever he opens his mouth.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

What I heard that Obama said during the debate was that McCain was right. I don't disagree with that.

 

[dkinley]

lol .. I guess she had a point but lost it midway?

I never stated I disagreed with anything Obama said, I was just pointing out that McCain thought what he said was wrong, said something and then Obama said McCain was right.

I thought the debate was middling to good, each could have done better.

Question though, I've looked but can't find but has either released a new economic plan in light of present fiasco? I am miffed that I read through all of that stuff before only for the proposal to change.

-dK

 

[statsman]

Yeah and here's another, Republican Bush sent thousands of innocent Americans to their deaths in a futile attempt to get control of Iraqs oil and condemmed hundreds of thousand innocent Iraqis to their deaths in the process

Rich:
How many times are you going to post the same old tired message. It's like you have it programmed into one of your function keys.

Change it around a bit once in a while.

 

[Alisa]

Rich:
How many times are you going to post the same message. It's like you have it programmed into one of your function keys.

Change the grammar and the sentence structure once in a while.

Probably until people start admitting that it is true.

 

[Alisa]

lol .. I guess she had a point but lost it midway?

I never stated I disagreed with anything Obama said, I was just pointing out that McCain thought what he said was wrong, said something and then Obama said McCain was right.

I thought the debate was middling to good, each could have done better.

Question though, I've looked but can't find but has either released a new economic plan in light of present fiasco? I am miffed that I read through all of that stuff before only for the proposal to change.

-dK

I don't know about McCain, but Obama specifically said that he would not release a new plan until all of this bailout stuff is settled - he doesn't want to muddy the waters or interfere with what progress is being accomplished in the congress right now. Unlike McCain who sees nothing wrong with barging in like a bull in a china shop.

 

[dkinley]

I am not so sure it is the Repub's that have caused the economic crisis anymore, I am almost ready to give them a complete pass, no matter what the press is telling me ...

Here is some stuff compiled from 2004. The last bit with Bill Clinton is quite shocking - he totally throws the Dem party under the bus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeWJZiJGc2s

The timeline may or may not be in order because it seems to be edited for a few minute summation, but it's all on video and from CSPAN so I am sure easy corroborated.

-dK

EDIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs is correct link, got em swapped - that link was going to be the next post.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

Yeah, Clinton started all this stuff off in the late '90s. It was all very innocent and seemed quite noble, but you just can't start giving stuff away without something happening...it happened.

 

[Rich]

What I heard that Obama said during the debate was that McCain was right. I don't disagree with that.

Yes he was right on one point, wrong on all the rest

 

[dkinley]

True, but Clinton even went against his own party to regulate the regulation they instituted and they wouldn't have it.

Now the Dems can't rally their own party to finish the bailout vote that is supposed to go down today. I just hope there is transparency on both sides to show the people who negotiated for what.

-dK

 

[Rich]

Yeah, Clinton started all this stuff off in the late '90s. It was all very innocent and seemed quite noble, but you just can't start giving stuff away without something happening...it happened.

You'll be telling us next the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were Clintons fault

 

[dkinley]

Everyone's fault as described above. I suppose one could make an argument that if Clinton wasn't so soft on terrorism during his administration any war might not have needed to be waged. By the same token, one could argue the opposite so I just prefer to blame both since they all voted for it.

-dK

 

[georgedwilkinson]

No, Rich. I blame those on the terrorists who pushed too hard.

But then again, Clinton called off a sure thing assassination of Osama Bin Laden because of personal issues and political expediency. He probably could have ended it then and there.

But I'd blame Bin Laden before I'd blame Clinton, then Clinton, then anyone else who knew but didn't act.

I don't blame Bush because he has done exactly what he said he was going to do when everybody loved him, even though it later became unpopular to those with no memory.

 

[Rich]

No, Rich. I blame those on the terrorists who pushed too hard.

Terrorists in Iraq?

 

[ASherbuck]

Everyone's fault as described above. I suppose one could make an argument that if Clinton wasn't so soft on terrorism during his administration any war might not have needed to be waged. By the same token, one could argue the opposite so I just prefer to blame both since they all voted for it.

-dK

Clinton was harder on terrorism than Reagan was. What did Reagan do in response to the Beirut Lebanon bombing ? Nothing.

So if you are going back to Clinton on terrorism let's go back to Reagan as well.