About time it "waned." I woke up in 2002, less than 2 years after I voted for Bush in 2000, and knew this guy was not at all concerned for this country or its citizen. The minute Bush got into office he started privatizing everything in America he could get his hands on to sell off to his corporate buddies.
AMERICA IS STARTING TO WAKE UP.

califchris came out of his drug induced stupor and realized how fucked up the country was from 8 years of bubba , and G.W. Bush was trying to bring some sembalnce of society back to the country .
It's funny how the libs can make these statements without any kind of validity from a sampling poll of 1000 morons when there are 310 million legal Americans and 17 million illegals here , not to mention the 1 million illegal diaper heads that have been burrowing their way into this country . We real Americans understand people like califchris that have nose hooked on anus disease .Try drinking an enema solution there chris .
That's like the moronic statement that the leftwing marxist piece of shit bitch hilaary made " she does'nt take a back seat to anyone on national security " what evidence of that does she have to qualify or validate that statement ? There is no proof suggesting that is a true statement , there is however enough proof that when she was running the country into the ground while bubba was staining dresses that all our missile , radar , satellite and nuclear technology was turned over to china for their personal gain $$$$$ .

Let me be the first to coin the phrase" "fair weather republicans"

Lets see how they vote in November...then we shall see if this is just a knee jerk reaction to the Port story...or an actual movement within the party Like whathappened in 1992 when many of the GOP jumped ship for perot.

How amusing. These Christians have Bush elevated to God status. Hey, if God can't halt moral decline, how do they expect Bush to do any better?

Rightisacocksucker turn off the computer and get outside and clean your trailer lot for a change.

"Lets see how they vote in November...then we shall see if this is just a knee jerk reaction to the Port story..."

Knee jerk or lockstep, take yer pick.

Lokis....


Bingo, right on the money.

Bush ain't perfect but he beats anything the left can drudge up at this point.

We will see who the GOP has for 2008. Anyone but Hillary currently is the strategy and I think it is employed equally on both sides.

And we need one more SCOTUS pick before '08.

Brothas and Sistas,

My children, be thou not ignorant, for there is neither Republican nor Democrat ruling America today, but the love of money doth rule the hearts of the men of power in all the world today.

Greed is worshipped in the high places of men, in the banks and the corporations, in the governments, and yea, in the churches and temples also.

Envy and Jealosy are their bridesmaids, Pride and Anger their men at arms. Gluttony and Sloth are the measure of their ways, and Lust for their own desires fills their hearts.

But for ye, remember thou thine first love. Remember those first ones to believe in the power of love, who sold all they had and communed together, giving to those as had need, and sharing in all good things, one with another......

oops, sounds like a bunch of commie pinko fags, eh???

Nevermind.

Brotha Corky

Ray

How amusing. These Christians have Bush elevated to God status. Hey, if God can't halt moral decline, how do they expect Bush to do any better?

I read a commentary the other day about how you always saw Clinton (when in office and when not in office too) with his daughter Chelsea who now has a JOB (unlike the eternally unemployed Bush twin trust fund gals) and is a decent citizen. But you never see Bush with his daughters. RARELY. So much for morals and family values Bush drags out Laura only when his polls are in the dumps -- which now is every month. But other than that, you don't hear much about anything constructive for the country Laura has done for these 5 years her husband is in office. Any programs? Volunteer work? I like Laura Bush but who wouldn't because you never hear about her one way or the other.

Laura Bush is trotted out when needed when Bush is in trouble again -- and the Bush twins you never hear about or see them with their father and mother. Much different than with the Clintons and their daughter.

You would barely even know Bush had two daughters. A much healthier relationship with Clinton and his kid than with W and his daughters. You hardly ever see Bush with either his wife or kids. A family man he ain't.

"fair weather republicans"

Just another euphemism like RINO.

Man, if you don't toe the line in the Red states, if you have an opinion that doesn't match the sound of the jackboots marching, you better just duck your head and hide, 'cause you'll be "swift-boated" before you can say, "Moderate Republican".

Hey Brutha Corky,

Spud was watching the idiot box last night.

"Network" was on.

Spud remembers it being a fine show so I watched it again.

Spud had forgotten exactly wot Howard the "mad prophet of the air waves who denounced the hypocrisies of his time" was actually mad as hell about...

"Now, listen to me, goddammit! The
Arabs are simply buying us! They're
buying all our land, our whole
economy, the press, the factories,
financial institutions, the
government! They're going to own
us! A handful of agas, shahs and
emirs who despise this country and
everything it stands for --
democracy, freedom, the right for me
to get up on television and tell you
about it -- a couple of dozen
medieval fanatics are going to own
where you work, where you live, what
you read, what you see, your cars,
your bowling alleys, your mortgages,
your schools, your churches, your
libraries, your kids, your whole
life! --"

Spud was reminded of those words when he read this article this morning. Even hard core thumper folk are beginning to look behind the curtain and really see the pathetic creature that is Chimpy behind all the rhetoric and spin and lies and obfuscations.

The facade crumbles.

"And lo the scales fell from my eyes and I could SEE!"

Spuds not jumping too high for joy here.
They'll just latch onto another homophobic, scientifically challenged, forced birther most probably if our own l'il Nubster is any indicator.

Still, nothing new under the sun, eh?

Be Well.

for Nubs,

Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.
-Benjamin Franklin

Sweet Tater of Life,

That Network rant seems quite prescient now, eh?

When Shrubby decided to let it all hang out, even with his Virgin Veto, over Dubai.... it made me wanna go hmmmmmmm.

Reminded me of when King George decided not to take out Osama with a missle strike when he could have, because there were certain Princes from the UAE having dinner with Osama at the time.

That and the picture of Georgie tiptoeing thru the bluebonnets, hand in hand with the Princess Bandar.

But hey, GW and the Carlysle Group owe soooo much to these filthy rich Arabs, we as Americans ought to be just glad we have the unigue opportunity to help the Bushes pay back all they owe, pay it back with our blood and treasure, that is.


On a lighter note, I see where the Sci-Fi channel is bringin back Dr. Who in March!

Hope it is a worthy entry into the Tardis Hall of Fame!

Let me be the first to coin the phrase" "fair weather republicans"

Lets see how they vote in November...then we shall see if this is just a knee jerk reaction to the Port story...or an actual movement within the party Like what happened in 1992 when many of the GOP jumped ship for perot.

Posted by lokisfur at 2006-02-26 03:39 PM | Reply

Well They Voted For Clinton Twice So They Care About The Country And What Is Good For The Country And Not some Damn Party !!!!

Who Is Paying The Bills And Who Is Spending Money Like A Mad Man?!!

Who Is Minding The Budget?!!

We Owe China A Billion Dollars A Day!!

What Is Up With That !!

So Tell Me 2 Bush Administration Members That Were Getting Paid By This Company Sounds OK For Them To Broker This Deal Without Oversight?!!

-Sarge

On a lighter note, I see where the Sci-Fi channel is bringin back Dr. Who in March!

Hope it is a worthy entry into the Tardis Hall of Fame!

Posted by corky at 2006-02-26 04:48 PM | Reply


Is this the Tom baker Version ??

Larry

Awwwwwwwwpuke if it ain't Tom Baker it's not the real thing Baby(No offense)

Larry

Corkster,

"Don't all the dandelion heads like Brit space-outs like Red Dwarf, HHG, and the Good Dr.?"

Point well taken.

Be Well.

Mmmmm.... joint well token.

Breaktime!

"joint well token.

Breaktime!"

Spuds waaaay ahead of ya there!!

Is weekend. Dandelions a go go!!

Be Well.

LArry & Corky: The first BBC Dr. Who season ran last year, it was good, ended with the Daleks about to invade Earth, then the Dr morphed and the 2nd season will e with the new Dr. and the same sidekick: Rose.

I wish they'd bring K-9 back.

It should be hightime the Religious Right sees through the bullshit with this admin. Republicans (true ones that is) have an adgenda but they don't have enough votes so they stir up some social issue till the shit really starts stinkin good and the rednecks come out of the woodwork to vote on some gay marriage admendment of the constitution. In Louisiana a marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman. There are no and could never be any same sex marriages. But the Republican Party of Louisiana saw to it that we had a constitutional ammendment on the ballot to prevent same sex marriages! The sponsers of the ammendment never told the dumbass rednecks(many of whom never voted) that the ammendment was useless because the constitution prevented it anyway. Then the judge that looked at the ammendment afterwards throws it out because it was a useless peice of shit that was full of errors and it could not be legislated anyway. Oh well the pigs had already come to the trough. The republicans got what they wanted and the dumbass, gun carrying, rebel flag waving, anti abortion, church going fine citizens got $2.50 a gallon petro! These pepole could screw up a wet dream!

Briwo,

" it was good, ended with the Daleks about to invade Earth, then the Dr morphed and the 2nd season will be with the new Dr. and the same sidekick: Rose."

Wowsers! Spud remembers seeing that now!

Yeah the Doctor dies in Roses arms and is immediately replaced by the new Time Lord.

It was some good stuff with excellent production values and everything!!

You only got a brief glimpse of the new doc but all seems well in Who-world.

Be Well.

The republicans got what they wanted and the dumbass, gun carrying, rebel flag waving, anti abortion, church going fine citizens got $2.50 a gallon petro! These pepole could screw up a wet dream!

Posted by lfthndthrds at 2006-02-26 06:29 PM | Reply

My husband says if there is anything dumber than an American it is a repulsican American. Step Right Up and Vote Repulsican...Pay At The Pump!

Impeach Bush! Impeach Cheney but first take away his ammo!

Meaning that our braindead TV nation might be coming out of its coma. Wouldn't that be nice.

Niceville:

It's funny to see the bloggers on Drudge acting like a school of sharks with blood in the water.

Oh they are revelling in every bit of bad news and can just taste the glorious failure of the Bush policy throughout the world...

But the Bush policy is right...and the course of action he is taking is the correct one, the courageous one, the American one.

So I am quite sure that the Dancing by Dems on the grave of the Bush administration is premature and shortlived.

Because tjhe Democrats practice a hate filled marcisstic policy of self-hatred and negativity...that is anti-everything that the USA represents. They offer no hope, no vision, no future.

And when the dust settles from the past few weeks...it will be Bush who is waving the American flag...and the Democrats, as always, waving a white flag and wearing something yellow....because well...they are yellow (cowards).

Lokisfur, you're a blithering idiot. End of story.

Furbie,

"because well...they are yellow (cowards)."

Wot as opposed to George the AWOL?
George the coward? George the pussy?
George, who avoided military service cos he was born with a silver spoon up his nose?

Or are you talking about Dickless with the 5 deferments?

Maybe yer talking about the whole whack of lily livered PNAC chickenhawks who wanna run the world but don't want to learn about it first?

"revelling in every bit of bad news "

Wrong agin! People here are angry, disgruntled, disappointed, unhappy and generally mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore.

The only reveling that goes on hereabouts is the non-stop back patting that goes on w/i the ranks of the resident righty tighties who continually remind us that their team won.

Won wot? Spud asks.

It's not a game, people.

This is as serious as cancer
and as real as life.

That we can occasionally keep our spirits up with a quick joke or a play on words indicates only the degree of humor and humanity inherent in us all.

It indicates a succesful coping mechanism and the probability of sanity.

Which puts us head and shoulders above the PNAC pussies.

Thanx fer askin'

Be Well.

Yes, all but the moonbats who will continue to defend BushCo until the end.
Then they'll wake up blinking in the bright light of reality and say "Wot happened"?

Lokisfart's post reminds me of freshman Congresswoman Jean Schmidt standing up on the Floor of the House, calling acknowledged war hero COngressman John Murtha a coward.

Pretty much the same lame, embarrassing effect, too.

About time it "waned." I woke up in 2002, less than 2 years after I voted for Bush in 2000

Posted by califchris at 2006-02-26 03:04 PM | Reply

Well, Chris, you can thank yourself in part for having Bush in office. Hope you are proud of yourself. I never voted for the motherfucker.

where to start? one could write an essay on the disaster that the lesser spotted species of conservatives, personified in the bush supporter, has wrought on the body politic. the doctrine that they so enthusiastically supported (the bush doctrine) has run aground on the harsh rocks of ME realpolitik. domestically, bush has overseen an expansion of federal government and domestic spending bills that would make democrats blush.
the roll call of h.sapiens conservatus that have openly declared the bush brand of conservatism (compassionate you say?) the evolutionary equivalent of the grey squirrel is growing; will, buckley, fukuyama. from iraq to plame to katrina to the ports deal, the scales are coming off the eyes.
rove intends to make the locus of the 2006 elections national security. my one wish, apart from the satisfaction of saying, 'told you so', is to get any prominent replicant to explain how the republican strenght on defense issues resulted in troops being sent into combat without sufficient armour and how bush's war has safe-guarded the vaterland, ooops, 'homeland'.

Jeb Bush for president in 08. There is more of America for the Royal Bushies can sell to their Arab corporate allies. For example the BNSF railroad company, Ameican airlines, Dell computers, Yellowstone National park just to name a few.
So all you righties fearin the abortion, gays, and flag buners dig up that voter registration card for 08 and lets continue the Bush legacy. Jeb will assure you that we will be in Iraq no longer than we were in Korea.

mate,
jeb's gonna go to pyongyang. tehran'll be for wimps.

Dethspud:

On the night of 9/11, I went to Union Square here in Manhattan. There were people grieving, there were people angry, and there were also many people who blamed the US for what happened....and that's on the night of 9/11.

I believe that's the starting point for identifying and defining the intensly partisan split that is dividing this Nation on ideological lines.

The gloating on this site about Buhe's recent failures seems to be taken as a win for "Good (the Dems) over Evil (Bush)

That kind of Demogoguery is insane.

It is almost as if there is two Americas speaking two completely different languages...call it what you will - Democrat Republican, Left vs Right, Liberal/Conservative, or 9/10 vs 9/11 mindset...it has divided this nation in the most dramatic way since the Civil War.

The Demonization vs Canonization of George W. Bush is the front lines of this ideological war.

The absolute insane hatred by Democrats (and many high ranking Democrats at that) of Bush goes far beyond what the right fomented against Clinton....its pathological.

Likewise, the apologists for Bush at all costs ...are almost as insanely reactive as their "Bush is worse then Hitler" screaming counterparts on the left.

Even in your post, where you dredge up Bushs service during the Vietnam war seems completely out of context in the current debate.

It is a very scary time in US history. It must be horrible to think that someone you didn't vote for has his finger on the button. In some way I guess you can imagine how us republicans felt during the embarrassinng and corrupt Presidency of Clinton.

But I can't remember ever really believing that Clinton had evil intentions for the US...I thought he was selfish, self-serving and corropt...I thought he hurt his party, the Presidency, and thge US in its standing arounbd the world...but I never thought that Clinton was evil, or un-American, with long terms plans to hurt this nation for personal gain.


And that's what makes the ideological split over Bush so disturbing....that intelligent people can actually believe that Bush is a Saddam-like dicator, or a terrrorist, or as evil as Hitler is absolutely crazy...there are no mass graves in the US...and there's no genocide going on here...Bush as said he's going to wipe an entire Nation off the map like the Iranian President.

I don't think Bush has had the perfect Presidency...ar from it. And I am really troubled by his recent statements over the port story...but for me they are missteps and mistakes which are the result of a rapidly changing world in which the stakes are very high. He's not evil..he is human.

Above all, I do believe Bush is a principled human being and that his policy is sound, and the actions he has taken in the world and at home...for the most part, I agree with.

So I will continue to support my President, our President even when I don't agree with him because it is the right thing to do, and because I'm an American.

And if he screws up to such an extent that my next President will be Hillary...then I will have to suck it up and support her also...and do everything I can to make sure that she doesn't get a 2nd term....But I guarantee you that I won't compare her to Hitler or call her a terrorist..because there is nobody on the US political scene, on the right or left, who can be portrayed in such a heinous way.

The absolute insane hatred by Democrats (and many high ranking Democrats at that) of Bush goes far beyond what the right fomented against Clinton....its pathological.

Your experience is very different than mine. I have never heard such hatred as that voiced by "Conservatives" against Clinton. You have convenient memory, Lokisfur. I have Republican friends that still foam at the mouth over Clinton and his "lesbian" wife. The slander continues to this day. Hell, it's on this site. I would counter it was this pathology was brought to full fruition against Clinton. Conservatives launched nothing less than a coup d'etat.

You may wish to reinvent the past, but it doesn't change facts one bit. Murder conspiracies, corruption, you name it your side has done everything it can to divide this Nation. How much did you spend of our Nation's resources on Clinton's impeachment and subsequent investigations? I won't even go into how you've been played on "moral values".

Believe what you want about this, I'm not going to change your mind - but I won't let your statement stand on its own.

You just get to feel what it's like finally - and it doesn't feel good does it. Too bad, I have no sympathy for you or Conservatives that sold our Country out.

Oh, and as far as we're my anger comes from it is where this Country has gone in 5 years. My anger's been building slowly. I was behind Bush after 9-11, but he's eroded any trust he may have been granted. He's certainly never earned any, and has done his best to squander it.

Your post illustrates unintentionally why we are divided, and why we are likely to stay divided.

'insane hatred'-i read and re-read your post with a an appreciation that this may be the closest you come to a mea culpa until that characterisation loki; the second time round, it all went belly up.
firstly, there's a daily widening ideological split within the president's OWN PARTY, both foreign and domestic. why did bush reference isolationists in the SOTU?
it was this president's apparatchiks that thought it a grand idea to label dissent 'treasonous'. and lemmings on this board continue the 'talking points from bin laden' slander. it was this adminstration that put party ideology before country by enacting the pNAC white paper. it is this adminstration's apologists that shout 'war' one second then attempt to parse the exposure of a CIA agent as being politics as usual.
krugman wrote 3 years past(presciently i might add) that every time bush has a choice as to do what's good for america or what satisfies his 'base', he picks his 'base' every time. that base is xtian or saudi or MIC or neo-cons etc.
you and others of your politics have wished away opposition many times. ain't gonna happen. matter of fact, right about now, there are maybe 5 republicans with any foreign policy credibility left. and may i be so rude as to posit that your proximity to the scene of those devastating attacks permenantly impaired your ability to rationalise w/r/t america's relationship with the ME/world.
the only excuse you could put out just now is to admit you were taken in by the enormous psy-op enacted by this regime post 9/11. heck, even those equally slimy democrats who voted for it before they voted against it, so as not to be seen to be 'weak' (jeez, please some one put the liebermans, kerrys, schumers, pelosis out to pasture), were taken in by this psy-op program.
you elected a man who has continued to promote incompetence with the likes of chertoff, gonzales, rove and rice. to appeal to unity now-well, the horse has already bolted from the stable buddy.
oh, and as a fitting rejoinder to all the 'commie'-themed invective directed towards 'liberals' from your side of the isle, neo-conservatism is a direct intellectual descendant of LENINISM (so says francis f'yama), so all the equating of dissent with treason smacks so much of chekist style polemics. dictators, whether of the fascist or socialist branches nod in recognition of the conditions in the US. and all in 6 years. like your ilk are fond of reminding us, 2 years left....
it's gonna get worse......

I must say Lokisfur, although I don't agree with many of Bush's choices and policies, your post was very thoughtful and honest.

Well written.

well contended yav. 'and when our naked frailties be hid, that do suffer in exposure, let us meet and make of it this most bloody piece of work, to know it further.'

Yav,

You've gotta admit, the hatred is pathological regardless of which side is being scrutinized. The ease at which Bush is compared with the likes of Hitler, or that his policies are akin, or worse than those of the most insidious in our world's history?!!? Truly amazing, AND pathetic. As are some of the murder conspiracy theories. Although, I rarely see Vince Foster references in a serious derogatory manner any more.

jeffj,
clinton? what about the continued vilification of carter or gore or kennedy? add kerry to this list. this is a lack-of-oxygen-in-the-brain-
whilst-a fetus-type hatred, for people long since out of govt nonetheless! look up any of n'ville's posts. gore features prominently (like a fond appendage, eh?)

Tunde, Yav et al:

I will agree that as a Manhattan Republican my negative view of Clinton is probally not as extreme as my red state counterparts. However, the comparison I was trying to make was that far from just the expected demogoguery from the rank and file Dems of Bush...the leaders of the Democratic party are saying the same thing....comparing Bush to Hitler, the Nazis etc. And THAT never happened during Clinton....no elected leader of the GOP ever made such exterme comments.

Also, there is an ideological split in the GOP...it's been happening for years...I consider myself a Libertarian Republican, a Giuliani Republican before being a Bush republican....and I certainly am no Buchanan Republican or Falwell republican.

The columnists I find that I agree with most are Krauthammer, Sowell and Will.

The GOP is a diverse group that tends to put the principles of the party ahead of any one personality. I would submit that until Clinton came along so did the democrats....who sold out their party principles in order to protect a corrupt president Clinton.

It has hurt them to this day. The Democrats still have no guiding principles or vision fo rthier party or this country.

Whether or not the GOP finds itself at a similar crossroads remains to be seen.

Since Bush came to office, the GOP principles on small govt. vs big govt....Federal programs, our role in the world, etc. has been tested. And the recent developments in Iraq, with the Ports story, Iran, and Katrina, Sociual Security, etc. have forced many Republicans to reevaluate exactly what those principles are. I would imagine, it is foprcing President Bush to also reevaluate his positions and ask himself what kind of Republican he actually is.

I joined the Republican party when I was 18 because it is a party that has always stood for something more then just the latest fad, or popular philosophy. The GOP has never been about personalities...and its biggest personalities like Reagan, Lincoln, or even our current President were big because they were beholden to a set of principles and they stayed the course and didn't waver in the face of negative opinions. The GOP is not about being in a popularity contest.

And when a republican does not stay the course and drifts off of message...then the GOP tends to distance themselves as far as quickly and as possible.

Bushs credibility is being challenged right now by his own party because he appears to be drifting away from his message.

Unlike the Democrats who followed Clinton blindly to thier partys doom, I would hope the GOP does not make the same mistake.

I for one voted for perot when Bush1 drifted from the principles of the Republican party...and I would not hesitate to abandon Dubya if I felt he was doing the same.

But for now, the Jusry is still out on him.

Poor party-line toting loki... six years gone by and he is STILL eating crow over losing to Clinton, even though they were the MOST PRODUCTIVE YEARS of his and the rest of the country's life.

Oh wait, what's that? Another Bin Laden video released... sorry folks, lil yellow-bellied coward loki had to go change his diapers, and write another novel about how Dear Leader's policies are so good for the country. He also likes to take large objects into his rectum, which explains many of his posts.

FVZ is still suffering from "battered woman syndrome" believing that the Clinton years were good years for his Democrats.

Denial is a river in egypt running right through FVZ's legs

"And THAT never happened during Clinton."

Although I will agree that Clinton was far from squeeky clean...his administration's "corruptness" fails in comparison to Bush's. A lot of things are happening now that didn't happen during Clinton.

I do respect your opinion Lok, however, you can't ignore the fact that Bush and his administration feel they don't need to be held to checks and balances. Their actions have shown they believe they are above the law.

IMHO, Bush's definition of "leadership" is confused with dictatorship.

Clinton was held accountable for lying under oath. Perhaps that's because at the time, it wasn't a Democrat lead government and the investigations into him were more likely to happen....moreso than now with the current Republicans controlling our government, refusing to investigate Bush.

However, the principals of this country shouldn't waiver from party to party.

Wrong is wrong. And it is of my opinion, that all politicians should stand up against corruption, investigate when the possibility of corruption has taken place....no matter what party is in control, no matter what party the President represents.

Your too late Lok...the Republican party IS blindly following Bush.

INWI:

Thanks for the positive comment....the reason I like to write on Drudge retort is because even though I don't agree much of the time, or am agreed with....many of the arguments are rational and sincere....and make me think and evolve.

I wish I could say the same for freerepublic.com But I have been banned for life....that site gives all Republicans and conservatives a bad name.

clinton? what about the continued vilification of carter or gore or kennedy? add kerry to this list. this is a lack-of-oxygen-in-the-brain-



tunde.......one reason that any of us on the right ever mention any of these names is because they continue to do things like gore and go to saudi arabia and tell them that they think we are abusing muslums and all that bullshit...and all the time getting paid a ton of money for it. when a liberal talks about money that the bush family might get, it never seems to matter what the ex dems are getting or doing.
we should hardly even remember carter was a president except for the misery and depressed mood of the country during that time.
clinton still runs his mouth but usually only overseas and if they would just shut the fuck up .,,or hell....just do their shit over here instead of going abroad to tell thier lies....its almost like they think that if they do it over there, no one here will know......and they wouldnt if it were up to the mainstream liberal media......case in point....STILL HAVENT HEARD A SINGLE THING ABOUT GORE"S TRIP on cnn or the EX big three......


but to this subject....PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE......read this story and aw shit e mail it to howard dean and just keep thinking that the elections in 06 are going to be a cakewalk.....the people in this country who decide these things.....(not the blue blooded elitest in the northeast) dont read the retort or care what the press says......they know that democrats are becoming a relic of the past.

Miss Wiss,

Although I will agree that Clinton was far from squeeky clean...his administration's "corruptness" fails in comparison to Bush's.

Whoa!

Have you ever seen the statistics of 'corruption' dutifally provided by 'A_Citizen'? By any measurable standard, team Cliton was far more corrupt than Team Bush. Don't worry though. Bush enjoys competition and he still has almost 3 years remaining....

Tunde,

Don't forget that Ronald 'Raygn' and Nixon are still derided to the day.

shit....forgot about ted((((mary jo))))))kennedy.....

how can you forget about a man who goes off on an adulterous romp with a young woman and then drives off a bridge and goes home to rest and lawyer up all the while the young women's lungs have filled with water......and then so many years later....this KILLER has the nerve to LECTURE us on anything.

INWI:

(((Your too late Lok...the Republican party IS blindly following Bush.)))

I disagree. They are not blindly following Bush yet. I think these midterm elections will be a referendum on what the principles of the GOP will be going into the 2008 Presidential election cycle.

This is one of those times when the democrats should try to say as little as possible lest they make themselves a target for the GOP to rally around. They tend to always want to "Kick a man when he is already down" and it always backfires on them.


I suspect that Bush will backoff on the proposed veto on the Ports issue....and instead the GOP led congress will come out with some Bill tightening security over the ports....which the dems and Bush will sign onto.

That at least would be the sane resolution...but DC is never sane these days it seems.

FVZ is still suffering from "battered woman syndrome" believing that the Clinton years were good years for his Democrats.

My democrats? That is how much of a locksteppin party-totin clueless fool you are. You move to Manhattan from some west lower bumfuk hillbilly town and now you consider yourself evolved and wordly. You are joke and NYC natives are just laughing at your incredible lack of insight. That also explains why you cannot get a date.

Get a clue, Loki, Nutville is in agreement with what you say, that speaks volumes in itself.

Denial is a river in egypt running right through FVZ's legs

Posted by lokisfur

Great comeback, almost as good as your pickup line.

no need for that fiz;
loki
you mentioned 'leaders of the democratic party' equating bush with hitler. whom? may i remind you that clintonn was also hitlerised, particularly in the aftermath of waco.
gore compared GOP workers to 'brownshirts' and byrd said bush reminded him of goering. have you seen what lindsey graham said to gonzales about 'fifth columnists' and the need to imprison them? in conjunction of the KBR contract to build additional detention centres to the tune of ~$400 million? deny it all you want, but the pre-conditions for totalitarianism have been met. it is only for a new regime to enact the provisions. any bets that another 9/11 will do that?
columnists like krauthammer-have you read the k vs f'yama exchanges last year in the national interest? krauthammer comes across as a skilled sophist and talented polemiscist. krauthammer's m.operandi is to take the most general meaning of terms to turn his own false assertion into a tautology (v. broad rejection, i know). cf his iraq as a 'central' front in the WoT contortions. besides charlie k is a barely concealed likudnik in stars-n-stripes clothing. we're going to be hearing a lot about this tar-baby for a while yet (cf mike scheur's recent thoughts on the hamas election).
i admire the fact that you've been a member of the GOP since 18. gives me more prespective.
your democrat criticism may indeed be right. i don't think it derives from clinton necessarily. bush has (thankfully) exposed the democrat establishment as craven, venal opinion poll watchers, wedded to the same corporate interests as their republican breathren (hence the lack of opposition for high on 5 years. it took a woman who had lost her son to galvanise the democrats. think about that).
the same republican actors (cheney, rumsfeld, wtc)who were present and appalled by how congress hobbled nixon and the presidency during watergate and after, are today determined to alter the balance of the constitution towards an imperial presidency.
anyone who could'nt see this as a trait of this admin. some time back lacks any political foresight.

"They are not blindly following Bush yet"

I am interested in how you came to this opinion, Lok.

What I see, are Republicans closing their eyes, ignoring the serious suspicions of Bush's actions.

I will agree that some Republicans have spoken out regarding this port deal, which, I am happy to see, and I applaud them for.

But as a whole, Bush has caused enough doubt over the legalness of some of his actions as well as reasonings for others.

Yet....nothing from this Republican lead government.

InMo says, "I will agree that some Republicans have spoken out regarding this port deal, which, I am happy to see, and I applaud them for."

I know that you are very honest, right?

That means that you will be able to direct me to the criticism you made when Clinton supported the sale of Long Beach port facilities and management to a communist Chinese company. . .

Won't you. . .?

Well, perhaps you were still too young, then, eh? A callow engenue just starting in backbiting politics. . .so you might not have thought to complain, then. . .okay. . .

However, you should be able to point me to the Leftwing sites that complained about the sale of Long Beach port to China. . .eh?

Go on, give it a shot and then ponder just which political philosophy might just be a bit more honest than the one you espouse. . .

bl2
you mention gore at every turn.
the man's unemployed :) cut him some slack.
why do you hate camelot? :)
i don't think the 06 elections will be a cake-walk. probably more like a political insurgency. i think lokisfur's analysis may well be correct.
but it's remarkable that a republican congress has so downgraded it's goals because of self-inflicted wounds.

tad'
whilst the PRC threatens us with across the board espionage, i have yet to see a threat analysis of the PRC which links them with terrorist activities against the US. is your criticism one of US port sales to foreign entities in totality or another example for you of democrat hypocrisy such that you saw in the plame story (in short the clinton did it deflection)?

And Toady is back now... with the Clinton deflections he is famous for. Hey toady, try dealing with the here and now. Besides, I don't recall the Chinese were ever suspected of terrorism against the US, they are just beating us through trade fair and square. And I could be wrong but the Chinese company was not owned by the Chinese government. There is a little matter of the law to contend with in DP.

What I see, are Republicans closing their eyes, ignoring the serious suspicions of Bush's actions.


the only thing this means is you have your eyes closed instead of reading what we write.


I mention gore only when he opens his mouth which is often. it would please me no end to never mention his name again...but as we see with clinton.,thats not what they have in mind......

and you also have to understand that when it comes to those of us here on the retort, we sometimes have to "NUT UP" in the face of overwhelming attacks from the left and in the face of posters here who are aligned with a democratic party run by someone like dean and thier lapdog....the liberal media.

"the only thing this means is you have your eyes closed instead of reading what we write."

I've been reading what the right has written here for two years now and it's always the same frickin' thing...deflections, deflections deflections...from most...especially from you!

OH...that and of course the "liberal" bashing you do in almost every post.

It's always someone elses fault other than those who are actually making the decisions for this country, isn't it Bushlover??

You remind me of my kids when they were younger...always blaming the other guy!

They were under the age of 10.

'ponder just which political philosophy just might be a bit more honest that the one you espouse....'
exoteric translation? liberals are dishonest, ....'callow'....'Ingenue'.
what a verbose, Inelegant way of saying that conservatism is better than liberalism and other Infantile jeering...blah..blah COVERT...blah..blah...FISA
the air just got stale in here.

Real conservatives would have nothing to do with Bush.

bl2
understood.

FVZ

(((You move to Manhattan from some west lower bumfuk hillbilly town and now you consider yourself evolved and wordly.)))

I grew up in Hollis Queens and now I live in the east Village of Manhattan

what you are mistaking for bashing and deflections is the 'nutting up' that I referred to .......when you have to battle the other side who also has a lieing and liberal media to extend thier bullshit...(at least in the old days)...you have to be strong....not being willing to yell back at liberals is a sign of weakness to them and since they were used to having it thier way for so long that when we fire back with thier own methods, THEY CANT TAKE IT.......

Tunde explains, "whilst the PRC threatens us with across the board espionage, i have yet to see a threat analysis of the PRC which links them with terrorist activities against the US."

"Whilst?" Are you obsessed with Dickens, or something?

Take your "whilst" and stick it in the same place all the "threat analysis" you have read about the PRC came from. . .

"is your criticism one of US port sales to foreign entities in totality or another example for you of democrat hypocrisy such that you saw in the plame story (in short the clinton did it deflection)?"

And, stick your rhetorical questions there, too. . .

and it is telling that I posed several questions about the port deal and the only answers given were to demean and question whether any on the right wouled question anything coming from the white house.....I guess its just too partisan here to have a discussion on facts about something as important as a muslum nation working in our ports......I guess partisan hacks think its more imortant to attack us.,,,,,,,too bad

I wish the media were liberal---if the media was liberal we would have known about the secret prisons, the torture, the lies of the Bush administration long ago. If the media were liberal we would know much more about what is going on in Iraq. The media is owned by the conservatives and is protecting this administration as best it can. The only way America hears the truth now is from foreign sources and Air America. The rest of the media lies for the government just like Fox.

To Tadowe:

(((That means that you will be able to direct me to the criticism you made when Clinton supported the sale of Long Beach port facilities and management to a communist Chinese company)))

I don't think a fair comparison can be made. 9/11 changed everything...and it definitely changed the way we look at the security of our Nation within our borders.

Clinton was really weak on foreign policy....he just wasn't interested...our intelligence community suffered, our military suffered, and our leadership role in the world suffered. A lot of foregn governments exploited that weak spot in Clinton...and I can certainly make a good argument (as many pundits have) that because Clinton was so weak on foreiogn policy it sent the message that the US was weak in general and vulnerable to attack from organizations like Al-Quaeda.

But 9/11 changed everything...and since then there has been a continuous reevaluiation of what US policy should be regarding national secutrity, intelligence agencies, about foreign governments and companies that have established
nexus in the US, about illegal immigration, etc.

9/11 created a Poseidon-like shakeup of the entire government on both sides of the aisle.

This Port story is not so much about the UAE company taking over the ports then it is about Americans asking why any foreign nations should be allowed to manage our ports.

Until this story broke, I had no idea how unsecure our ports really were.

Hopefully the end result will be a much stronger tightening of our ports and better oversight of who controls what.

That candorville was funny....but you know I couldn't help but thinking that if it had taken place in a mosque instead of a Church the cartoonist would be dead already

(((The only way America hears the truth now is from foreign sources and Air America. )))

I see that it's Howdy Doo-doo time for Buffalo Bob again

tapole,
we're frogs here having a croaking match, something of which, at this stage in your lifecycle, you have no idea about.
bog off sheila

to the selfsame tune and words, the amphibian that attempted to pour scorn on the plame case/FISA brouhaha. tadpole, newt or any other diminutive you choose to acknowledge
prithee, please explain your long absence after the plame/FISA threads? there's a good urchin...
perhaps clinton was to blame young oliver?
to witter censoriously of others in order to reach the same tired conclusion is to tadpole. eg. 'i tadpoled an old friend and he threw me out of his party.'

The rest of the media lies for the government just like Fox.

Is this why the NYTimes graced its readers with 48 front page stories about Abu Graihb?

Let me be the first to coin the phrase" "fair weather republicans"

Lets see how they vote in November...then we shall see if this is just a knee jerk reaction to the Port story...or an actual movement within the party Like whathappened in 1992 when many of the GOP jumped ship for perot.

Posted by lokisfur at 2006-02-26 03:39 PM | Reply


As opposed to ass kissing, bed wetting, hardcore republicans that never waiver no matter how fucked up your representative in the white house turns out. I am a republican and not some stupid fuck like you that claims party "loyalty" over principle. You give republican a bad name.

Legio,

I suggest you re-read Lokisfur's post. Your criticism isn't relevant to the tone of what he was saying. I think you've misconstrued his point.

Because tjhe Democrats practice a hate filled marcisstic policy of self-hatred and negativity...that is anti-everything that the USA represents. They offer no hope, no vision, no future.

And when the dust settles from the past few weeks...it will be Bush who is waving the American flag...and the Democrats, as always, waving a white flag and wearing something yellow....because well...they are yellow (cowards).

And what fucking vision is the right offering besides platitudes and bullshit?

Solved the alternative energy issue? No
Solved the healthcare issue? No
Solved the middleast problem? No
Solved the deficit issue? No
Solved the Social Security issue? No
Solved the immigration issue? No
Solved the jobs decline? No


Talk about hollow mandate.

If I did indeed misconstrue your point Lokisfur.. then I offer my sincere humble apology.

"""Clinton was really weak on foreign policy....he just wasn't interested...our intelligence community suffered, our military suffered, and our leadership role in the world suffered. A lot of foregn governments exploited that weak spot in Clinton...and I can certainly make a good argument (as many pundits have) that because Clinton was so weak on foreiogn policy it sent the m"""

What a bunch of nonsense. Bill Clinton actually had a far better understanding of foreign policy that GWB is even capable of having....if he had the attention span.
Clinton did something different from Bush, he worked WITH other nations, as in Kosovo.
And then, to actually make the disgusting lie that somehow Clinton's style sent a message which empowered Al Quaeda to bomb us is beneath contempt.
Disgusting, lie. Anyone who read that post needs to stop and look closely at the way Lokisfur uses statements which are not facts, are not even truthful, to make a case, subtly, that 9-11 was Clinton's fault. When...we all know George W. Bush was president, and that He and He alone ignored breifings and intelligence that warned of such an attack.

""9/11 created a Poseidon-like shakeup of the entire government on both sides of the aisle.""

Bullshit! Congress has allowed themselves to be a doormat for George W. Bush, they have allowed homeland security to be almost totally ignored, even the 9-11 commission itself was a joke. Then the handling of Katrina by the Dept. of Homeland Security proved what the 9-11 Commission said in its final report....four years after 9-11 and little has been done.
Rather that 9-11 being the event that caused our Congress to get serious about Homeland Security, instead the Republicans have played pure partisan politics, wasted hundreds of billions of dollars, allow incompetent cronies to occupy important positions (ala Brownie), etc.

Legio:

By "fair weather republicans" I meant those that would abandon ship because a lot of problems are hitting all at once, but the integrity of the core principles of party are still sound. That's like jumping off the Titanic before it has even hit the iceberg.

I read your other post. Where you said, ((("Solved the alternative energy issue? No
Solved the healthcare issue? No
Solved the middleast problem? No
Solved the deficit issue? No
Solved the Social Security issue? No
Solved the immigration issue? No
Solved the jobs decline? No)))

I think success from my point of view and for the Republican party I choose to support will be guaged not by whether these problems have been solved already but by whether the GOP has a consistent set of solutions on these issues based on shared core principles which the GOP and the President are taking unified actions on.

That's why my party is beginning to split with the President right now...not because any of the above have been solved but because the actions of the President and/or the GOP leadership are beginning to fight over what the core principles of the Republican party are.

To respond directly to your post with the relevant questions for me:
What are the GOP solutions to the healthcare issue? Do they differ from the solutions of the President

What are the GOP solutions to the Middle East Problem? Do they differ from the solutions of the President

What are the GOP solutions to the Deficit issue? Do they differ from the solutions of the President.

What are the GOP solutions to the Social Security issue? Do they differ from the solutions of the President

What are the GOP solutions to the immigration issue? Do they differ from the solutions of the President

What are the GOP solutions to jobs decline? Do they differ from the solutions of the President.

Every issue can be broken down the same way. And then each issue must be prioritized and if there are differences compromise can be reached...with a consensus on the most important issues and some wiggle room in the party line over less important issues.

The Port issue highlighted a split between the President and the GOP on the most important issue for Republicans - National Security. Which is why a consensus needs to be reached ASAP.

I submit that, the Democrats should be doing the same comparison bettwen the issues that the party stands for and the issues their 2008 candidate stands for.

It seems like the whole Democratic primary system is set up for failure on a national level because the compromises on important issues that a candidate must make to win the nomination, are so far out of the mainstream that it is almost impossible for the candidate to reach a consensus on the most important issues with both the Democratic membership and the majority of Americans.

Danni:

I am not going to go over the litany of Clinton foreign policy mistakes, and weak responses to acts of war against the US which it could be argued led to environment which made 9/11 possible.

That litany has been posted here, there, and everywhere a million times before. And if someone else wants to post them here or send them to you....please do...and let the education of Danni on Clinton foreign policy begin.

REading political analysis like Loki's above but which does not take into account the big gorilla....cable news outlets....is ridiculous. Party platforms don't matter, candidate's experience, intelligence, positions, don't really matter either.
What matters is that the major cable news outlets support you....like they have George Bush. George Bush wasn't qualified to be a dog catcher, didn't know where Iraq was on a map, has presided over an economy that has cost the average American a percentage of the income every year since he has been in office....but the corporations who own Fox, CNN, MSNBC want deregulation, low wages, low taxes, etc.
In today's era of low newspaper readership, it isn't opinion any more that cable news controls people's views, it is just a fact.
The case of the purchase of the ports by the government corporation of the UAE is the perfect example, they will "sell" it for the next 45 days so that our spineless REpublican Congressmen can give in again to Bush and not necessarily blow their chances for reelection. The cable shills will sell if for dubya, and the morons at home will slowly allow their own better judgement be clouded by being inundated with b.s. from the cable news shills.

(((REading political analysis like Loki's above but which does not take into account the big gorilla....cable news outlets....is ridiculous. Party platforms don't matter, candidate's experience, intelligence, positions, don't really matter either.)))

But whose fault is that? Ever since man has had the ability to communicate there has been "spin" and propoganda.

People in a free society are expected to stay informed as best they can in order to be able to make the best decisions they can.

The fact that we can disagree and point to various "facts" and sources to prove our respective points means that at least the two of us are attempting to decipher what we consider real and relevant from bullshit and propoganda.

Just like the onset of TV in the 1950's forced politicians to learn a new way to communicate and connect with the electorate....so has the internet and cable tv forced a similar change for politicians in the new millenium.

It's a big gorilla allright and it ain't going nowhere...so we all have to learn to live with it.

and here is an interesting observation....everytime I talk about the liberal media someone comes back and says that the liberal is anything but liberal. It has always interested me in people's interpertation of this.....surely the new york times would be considered liberal even by the staunchest lib. and what of the washington post.....surely not middle of the road....and nbc,abc, and cbs.....not liberal?????? and if you think they arent lib. or hell even middle of the road....could you state why you think that.....there is NEVER positive news on any national issue.....now I understand the concept of 'if it bleeds, it leads' idea on local news but this I dont get.

and I also understand why fox is always the first if not only media outlet used by libs to show how the media is not liberal....okay....while they almost ALWAYS have someone from the other side when the others.....cnn...dont.....ther
e is one.....any others....and I of course am talking about national stuff...

just curious how some of you come up with this.....not trying to be antagonisitc.......at least not this time........

"just curious how some of you come up with this...."

Michael O'Hanlon Paul Driessen Michelle Malkin
Alan Reynolds Martin Schram Oliver North
Jeffrey T. Kuhner Steve Chapman Cal Thomas
Larry Elder Robert Novak Alan Reynolds
Brit Hume Ben Lieberman Chris Wallace
Tony Snow Brian Wilson John Gibson
Bill O'Reilly Alicia Acuna Dari Alexander
John Allen Jim Angle David Asman
Carl Cameron Alisyn Camerota Gretchen Carlson
Neil Cavuto Steve Centanni Linda Chavez
Kiran Chetry Jamie Colby Todd Connor
David Corn Bill Cowan Claudia Cowan
Alfonse D'Amato Bret Baier Scott Ott
Julie Banderas Fred Barnes Michael Barone
Bob Beckel Lisa Bernhard Jeff Birnbaum
Scott Bleier Steve Brown Patti Ann Browne
Greg Burke Eric Burns Brenda Buttner
Janice Dean Laurie Dhue Steve Doocy
Tim Eads Mike Emanuel Donna Fiducia Rick Folbaum
Trace Gallagher Mike Gallagher Major Garrett
John Gibson Newt Gingrich Marc Ginsberg
Jeff Goldblatt Stan Goldman Wendell Goler
Rebecca Gomez Lauren Green Jennifer Griffin
Jane Hall Sean Hannity Steve Harrigan
Ellis Henican Molly Henneberg Catherine Herridge
E.D. Hill Page Hopkins David Horowitz
Adam Housley Juliet Huddy David Hunt
Jonathan Hunt Mansoor Ijaz Laura Ingle
Carol Iovanna Gregg Jarrett Rush Limbaugh
David Limbaugh Mike Jerrick Peter J. Johnson
John Kasich Phil Keating Terry Keenan
Amy Kellogg Greg Kelly Megyn Kendall
Douglas Kennedy Brian Kilmeade Chris Knowles
Mort Kondracke William Kristol William La Jeunesse
Adam Lashinsky John Leo Brent Bozell
Rick Leventhal Dana Lewis Robert Lichter
Erik Liljegren Martha MacCallum Robert Massi
Bill McCuddy Dagen McDowell Angela McGlowan
Thomas McInerney Carol McKinley David Lee Miller
Craig Mitnick John Moody Burton Moore
Mancow Muller Andrew A. Napolitano Chuck Nash
Greg Palkot Uma Pemmaraju Julian Phillips
Jim Pinkerton John Podhoretz Brigitte Quinn
Ellen Ratner James Rosen Isadore Rosenfeld
Dennis Ross Orlando Salinas Bill Sammon
Thomas Sancton Barry Schweid Jon Scott
Bob Sellers Jonathan Serrie Eric Shawn
Caroline Shively Jane Skinner Shepard Smith
Gary Smith Tobin Smith Dan Springer
Andrew Stack Steve Stone Mike Straka
David Folk Thomas Mike Tobin Liz Trotta
Paul Vallely Stuart Varney Linda Vester
Anita Vogel Lis Wiehl Brian Wilson
Georgia Witkin Kelly Wright

Hans,
That looks like the holiday wish list Fox News ran during Christmas.

Bob Beckel, Ellen Ratner,Ellis Henigan...

Glad you took the time t o post your own work. Typical Liberal... Let someone else do the work while we take credit. At least you look like you know something.

well hans.....you dont know much about one of the names on that list...

you obviously havent heard chris wallace....as in just the other day when he stated on a radio show that he thought the white house was broken....in fact he said it on the mike gallagher show.....

and its interesting to see that few if any of the names you mentioned were on the 'big three' or cnn or from the major papers....now I know that there is a token or two from the right that write for them...but all you have to do is see what gets the most coverage or the worst treatment from the editorial staff.

and still......yet another perception....hhhhhhhhmmmmmmmm
mmmmm

OK so now that we have all the conservatives in the media...can someone take the time to list the names of 90% of the staff at every major newspaper, as well as all the network news, and CNN, MSNBC and their affiliates, etc...etc...

Is there even enough web space on all of Drudge retorts servers to hold such a long list of Liberal media flunkies...I doubt it.

It seems like the whole Democratic primary system is set up for failure on a national level because the compromises on important issues that a candidate must make to win the nomination, are so far out of the mainstream that it is almost impossible for the candidate to reach a consensus on the most important issues with both the Democratic membership and the majority of Americans.

Posted by lokisfur at 2006-02-27 12:25 PM | Reply

put into that context I agree wholeheartedly. The democratic solution(s) is in even worse shape than the republican solution(s)

its a dismal day for america.

(((its a dismal day for america.)))

And a great day for the makers of anti-depressants I guess

All the Bush lovers talk about Dems being "Out of the mainstream". hmmmmmm

I guess the 60% who DON'T approve of Bush's job performance, and the 67% of US who don't approve of the Republican Congress must be out of the mainstream too.

So, if my math is correct the mainstream is somewhere between 30 and 40% rather than 60% and 70%.

Fuzzy math? Guess so.....LMAO

ALLAMERICAN LIB,
Please continue to donate and support the likes of: The Congressional Black Caucus, Dean, Schumer, Kerry, Reid, Hillary, Feingold, Boxer, Pelosi, Murta, Lankos...

This is your mainstream party? Can you give me 1 example of any laws or bills that are considered mainstream? Last time I looked lower taxes, personal responsibility, protecting Americans at home and abroad were considered mainstream.

""Last time I looked lower taxes, personal responsibility, protecting Americans at home and abroad were considered mainstream.""

Where did you look???? In the RNC handbook????

the ""mainstream"" is beginning to worry about: the war, Republican corruption, health care, erosion of the middle class, etc. They are also beginning to understand that tax cuts for the wealthy during war time was bad economics AND completely unpatriotic.

Dear All American:

Do you serioulsy believe that John Kerry was not out of the mainstream? or Michael Dukakis?

Kerry just got rated on of the most liberal senators...Ted Kennedy is # 1 of course...but Kerry is like #5.

If by mainstream, one means closer to the middle....then there is no possible way a Democrat or a Republican could look at Bush and Kerry and say that Bush was more out of the mainstream then Kerry.

Most Democrats voted against Bush not FOR Kerry. And they didn't vote against Bush because he was out of the mainstream....they voted against him because they disagreed with him on the issues they found important, the war, the economy, etc.

But don't think for a 2nd that Kerry's far-Left agenda helped him one bit...it hurt him ....hurt him badly.

Had the party chosen a true moderate like Gephardt or Lieberman....the Democrats could very well have been in the White House right now.

Danni,
Actually I try and live by that. I feel I work my ass off.I do not appreciate having my hard earned money going to lazy bastards. You know, those who believe they are entitiled to what I and other hard working Americans have. I also believe if I make a stupid choice in life it is not the fault of Bush or the Government. The last time I looked I did receive a tax cut as well as those who actually PAY TAXES.

But if you feel the Government should take care of you from cradle to grave. Or you believe all Americans are not taxed enough. Or you think someone else should do your work... By all means keep supporting the Democrats.

"Do you serioulsy believe that John Kerry was not out of the mainstream?"

Honestly, I think John Kerry was a horrible candidate and anyone who doesn't see that is as blind a follower as anyone who thinks Dubya isn't a total shitbomb as president. Its a little easier to excuse Kerry's flock of sheep because Kerry never actually got to prove how bad he is. Dubya has gotten thousands of Americans killed and wasted hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq for no reason so his sheep are borderline treasonous in their continued support of this highly destructive presidency.

Crispee - Are you against the taxation of Americans to be wasted in Iraq for no benefit to Americans? Or is it just when you see tax money wasted on the American poor that you get upset?

"Until this story broke, I had no idea how unsecure our ports really were." - Posted by lokisfur at 2006-02-27 10:58 AM

Paying attention would probably help:

December 1, 2002

"""I feel I work my ass off.I do not """

yadayadayadayada.
Yeah, you worked for everything you got....blah, blah, blah.
Everyone has the same opportunity, blah, blah, blah.

Fine, cheapskate, enjoy your tax cut dollars, buy something nice, our grand kids will be happy to pay for the war for you. But...do not ever....be so crass as to refer to yourself as patriotic. You can't have it both ways, real patriots put their money where their mouths are. They don't leave bills for their grand children to pay...that is what deadbeat dads do.

Hans:

(((paying attention would probally help)))

Thanks for the links pointing out that I must have been asleep completely all these years. What have I been doing with my life.

I really am guilty of ignorance over the port issue. Even though I am a news junkie, I must admit that I did not get my necesaary fix of low port security stories until it reached the front pages these past few weeks.

But you did..and apparently you have been following this story intensely for 4 long years....it must have been quite frustrating for you not to have been heard while so many other stories reached the front page before your "baby", the security of the ports.

Well, you should be so happy...we are all paying attention to the story now.

Sully,
Explain to me how people who come here without a lick of english or american culture and succeed without a dime from the Goverment? You are a fool if you think throwing more money at every problem will solve anything in the long run. We have given the so called hard ship Americans well over a trillion dollars in the last 40 years. Do you think we got our moneys worth? Do you really believe the reasons all those in need of assistance are all the same? Give me a break. If you cut off the money to the lazy bastards who choose not to work. Or choose not be a producing citizen in society, there would be ample money for those who actually deserve the help.

The Best thing we can do for America is seal the borders and start deporting illegals. We have millions of these illegals using up our resources.

Lokisfur-
Maybe what was most frustrating to Hans was that the pres. has not made us safer, but less safe, and yet all he had to do was repeat meaningless phrases over and over to convince you and others that he was good for 'merca.

You took his word for it and never even examined the goods.

Danni,
It is amazing how widespread your knowledge is. You can now determine a persons financial habits. What he does for a living, how much he has given to charity, how much volunteer time he gives to his community. All from a couple of opinionated comments.

Seems to me you should be somewhere doing this for a living. How much are you paid to post your opinion?

Boyd:

What probally is most frustrating to Hans is that he was named after the Nazi youth character in "The Sound of Music"..but I digress.

I would like to think that we have legislators and a President that are not just waiting for things to hit the front page before any action is taken on it.

If the port secuirty is as bad as many are saying now...then surely we got lucky in not having been attacked.

But, once again, like the wiretapping story, there is a lot of speculation and few actual facts...and the speculation that most of us have is tainted by our ideological bents.

That's why I try, at least as a starting point, to discuss that which is accepted as truth by all sides of an issue.

Once a set of facts are agreed upon then one can begin to develop an argument, policy, suggestion, etc. around them.

And frankly, I don't have enough facts on the issuie yet to begin to discuss it. My knee-jerk reaction, like most American I think, when this stroy broke was that I was horrified to find out hgow many foreign companies are already managing our ports anbd have been for many years.

That said, the next question I have is, "Well, how much of managing the ports means these companies are in charge of security in our ports, and how much top secret info are they privy too?"

I just don't know enough yet about the subject to give a full response yet.

I will say though, that I tend to agree with Krauthammer, that any management of a port would necessitate that the managing company would have to know at leasst some top secret info about the security of the ports....and that any such info in foreign hands compromises the security of the US.

"....it must have been quite frustrating for you not to have been heard."

But not nearly the frustration of, say, the authors of the August 6, 2001 PDB ("bin Laden determined to hit US")...

.. or ..

The authors of the CIA Intelligence Report for White House, July, 2001 ("THE ATTACK WILL BE SPECTACULAR AND DESIGNED TO INFLICT MASS CASUALTIES AGAINST U.S. FACILITIES OR INTERESTS. ATTACK PREPARATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. ATTACK WILL OCCUR WITH LITTLE OR NO WARNING.")...

.. or ..

Eleanor Hill, Staff Director, Joint Inquiry Staff ("THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY DID HAVE GENERAL INDICATIONS OF A POSSIBLE TERRORIST ATTACK AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR U.S. INTERESTS OVERSEAS IN THE SPRING AND SUMMER OF 2001 AND PROMULGATED STRATEGIC WARNINGS.")...

.. or ..

The author(s) of the pre-9/11 "Phoenix memo" ("planes used as weapons, crashing into buildings,' and Arabs taking flying lessons at American flight schools?").

Yeah, I would say my frustration, as you put it, pales in comparison to theirs.

Hans

Crispee - I was not trying to say that our welfare system is not wasteful and that people do not abuse it. It is and they do. I'm not against cutbacks there.

However, at least that money is being wasted on Americans who will spend most of it here. My point is that it is foolish to worry about that type of waste as we piss away lives AND hundreds of billions over in a country where the people hate us and have no intention of cooperating.

I really was curious. Does the much bigger waste going on in Iraq also bother you? Its not a trick question. But if you say it doesn't bother you then I'm going to want to know why considering that you've already come out against the government taxing us and then pissing away the money.

(((bin Laden determined to hit US")))

((("THE ATTACK WILL BE SPECTACULAR AND DESIGNED TO INFLICT MASS CASUALTIES AGAINST U.S. FACILITIES OR INTERESTS. ATTACK PREPARATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. ATTACK WILL OCCUR WITH LITTLE OR NO WARNING."))))

You can't get more specific then that...its almost as if Bin Laden gave the Bush administrarion details about all their plans for 9/11...and Bush just ignored them. How they could possibly not decipher from the above that Bin Laden planned to hijack airplanes and fly them into the WTC and the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 is beyond me.

I mean, the intellignece info was just so specific ...how come they didn't immediately mobilize our entire military to stop Bin Laden from attacking on 9/11....I mean how much more specific then "bin Laden determined to hit US" can you get...the Bush administration should have known that tjhe word "determined" was Al-Quaeda code for "We arre going to hijack airplanes and fly them into the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11/2001".

I mean it is so obvious that thats what was meant by "bin Laden determined to hit US"....that it almost goes without saying.

Right?

Lokisfur,

How about this?

On July 5, chief of staff Andy Card and I met with Dick Clarke, and I asked Dick to make sure that domestic agencies were aware of the heightened threat period and were taking appropriate steps to respond, even though we did not have specific threats to the homeland.

Later that same day, Clarke convened a special meeting of his CSG, as well as representatives from the FAA, the INS, Customs, and the Coast Guard. At that meeting, these agencies were asked to take additional measures to increase security and surveillance.

Throughout this period of heightened threat information, we worked hard on multiple fronts to detect, protect against, and disrupt any terrorist plans or operations that might lead to an attack. For instance, the Department of Defense issued at least five urgent warnings to U.S. military forces that al Qaeda might be planning a near-term attack, and placed our military forces in certain regions on heightened alert.

The State Department issued at least four urgent security advisories and public worldwide cautions on terrorist threats, enhanced security measures at certain embassies, and warned the Taliban that they would be held responsible for any al Qaeda attack on U.S. interests.

The FBI issued at least three nationwide warnings to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, and specifically stated that, although the vast majority of the information indicated overseas targets, attacks against the homeland could not be ruled out.

The FBI also tasked all 56 of its U.S. field offices to increase surveillance of known or suspected terrorists and reach out to known informants who might have information on terrorist activities.

The FAA issued at least five Civil Aviation Security Information Circulars to all U.S. airlines and airport security personnel, including specific warnings about the possibility of hijackings.

The CIA worked round the clock to disrupt threats worldwide. Agency officials launched a wide-ranging disruption effort against al Qaeda in more than 20 countries.

During this period, the vice president, DCI Tenet, and the NSC's counterterrorism staff called senior foreign officials requesting that they increase their intelligence assistance and report to us any relevant threat information.

This is a brief sample of our intense activity over the Summer of 2001.

WOW !!!!

Please This Shows Something could have been done!!

-Sarge

Yeah it was the liberal media bleating about Clintons haircut for 8 years and it was the liberal media that has forgotten bushs lies about going to war after three weeks coverage.

It was the liberal media that bleated about Clintons blowjob for 8 years and forgets about The Downing Street Memo after two days.

It was the liberal media that hides all the pictures from Abu Ghraib (NYT exception--one out of thousands of outlets) and bleats how much the Iraqis loves us to bomb their homes and kill their relatives.

It was the liberal media that shows us the pictures from Iraq like they did in Viet Nam---oops---forgot the government censorship there.

As to all those guys in that list above---I never heard of one of them. Anybody else ever heard of them?

The media is conservative. All the way. Owned and operated by bushco. The fear is back in this country. That is how they "won" the election---promoting fear. Convincing the faithful there is a terrorist in every closet. Hey---we left a lot of terrorists back in Nam---when are we going to go back and get them. We have lots of terrorism in this country---the KKK and skin heads and the mafia come to mind--why not fight a little terrorism here first? Oh yeah that's right---all the terrorists are in Iraq---the conservative press says so.

LOKISFUR,

Oh How About This One Also:

The following is a redacted text of the presidential daily briefing from August 6, 2001:
Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.


Q: Why is the term "patterns of suspicious activity" used in the PDB and what does it refer to?

The CIA author of the PDB item judged, after consulting an FBI colleague, that there were suspicious patterns of activity that were worrisome, even though nothing pointed to a specific operation in a specific location. o In that vein, the author was concerned that one of the East African bombing defendants had told FBI officers earlier in 2001 that Bin Laden would retaliate if the defendants in the trial were convicted -- four were convicted in New York on May 29 -- with a major attack, something the FBI interpreted to mean possibly in the United States. o In addition, the CIA author understood that there had been possible recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York. Except for the information relating to the possible surveillance of federal buildings in New York, which was later determined by the FBI to be consistent with tourist-related activity, the PDB item contained no information from FBI investigations that indicated activities related to the preparation or planning for hijackings or other attacks within the United States. None of the information relating to the "patterns of suspicious activity" was later deemed to be related to the 9-11 attacks. From June through September, the FAA and FBI issued a number of warnings about the possibility of terrorist attacks. FAA warnings included specific warnings about the possibility of a hijacking to free imprisoned al-Qaida members inside the United States and the possibility of attacks in response to law enforcement actions against al-Qaida members.

Q: Why has information been redacted from the PDB?

Sorry That Dog Don't Hunt !!!

-Sarge

Sarge:

Hindsight is 20/20...it is always so easy to follow the trail backwards after something happens.

The truth is that our intellignece agencies were getting about 600 legitimate terrorist threats and leads on possible threats per day...it was only after 9/11 happened that the trail of intelligence leads could be followed.

But prior then that, there was nothing specific enough to mobilize on...and part of the reason for that was because of the Wall of silence erected by the Clinton administration which prevented the CIA and FBI from communicating.

Sarge:

(((This is a brief sample of our intense activity over the Summer of 2001.

WOW !!!!

Please This Shows Something could have been done!!)))

It shows we knew something was up...but it doesn't show that we knew specifically what was up...your suggestion that somehow the Bush administration was negligent jsut doesn't fly...given the state of Security in this country prior to 9/11, al-Quaeda was able to determine the weaknesses in our Intelligence community and security net and exploit it....that's how 9/11 happened.

Post 9/11, the Patriot Act has gone a long way into filling in those holes in our security and shoring up the weaknesses in our intelligence.

HGowever, I am quite sure thatour enemy is looking for nbew weaknesses to exploit.

To just point the finger at Bush and say he should have prevented it...is just naive.

Sarge:

(((LOKISFUR,

How Is All That "Hindsight"?

That Was Prior To The Attack,)))

Ok...I can't argue with someone who doesn't know what the word hindsight means.

There are thousands of memos and other documents with other threats that never came to fruition (thank God) there is nothing in any of the information that would have been specific enough for the FBI or CIA to mobilize on and protect specific airports and planes.

It just wasn't specific enough. There must be thousands of threats every week about hijacking....bnut just not enough info about specif planes, dates or times to move on. Bin Laden exploted our weaknesses...but they were structrual flaws in the intelligence community and our National security....it wasn't because of negligence by the President or any one person.

Please find out what the word hindsight means and then respond.

Sarge never mind I will define it for you:

Definitions of hindsight on the Web:

* understanding the nature of an event after it has happened; "hindsight is always better than foresight"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/
webwn

* Hindsight bias, sometimes called the I-knew-it-all-along effect, is the inclination to see past events as being predictable and reasonable to expect, perhaps because they are more available than possible outcomes which did not occur. Subjects also tend to remember their own future predictions as being more accurate than they were after the fact. People are, in effect, biased by the knowledge of what has actually happened when evaluating its likelihood.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Hindsight

And:

Definitions of 20/20 hindsight on the Web:

* The perfect, error free perception available after the fact. Usually implemented by those uninvolved in a project to offer suggestions on how the project could have been done better.
www.egltd.com/production/
Glossary.html

Sarge - In the words of George W. Bush:

"Hindsight is the pages that follow the cover of the book, right Laura? I mean, some of those memos specifically warning of al Queda threats before 9/11 were really, really long - like 3 or 4 pages and stuff sometimes. Well, long story short, I was almost at Level 5 of the new Donkey Kong game on Nintendo 2 right before 9/11, so I really didn't have time to have someone read the daily briefing to me."

"Misunderestimate" told me exactly how smart he was and how devious. That one word made his foes lower thier expectations and feel like they were dealing with a dolt. This gave him the upperhand. Think about the word "misunderestimate". It means, simply, to underestimate someone the wrong way. They did misunderestimate Bush and he showed himself to be the master of doublespeak. He knows exactly what he is doing.

"Do you know the incredible insight, empathy, imagination, maturity, determination, and intelligence it must take to be a governor, a President? "


Hahahahahahahahah...yeah... hahahah....Bush sure does....hahahaha...have incredible....lol....insight..
.and...HAHAHAHAH....intelligen
ce. ROFL.

Imagination?!? Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Why would you guys argue that either Clinton or Bush was/is good on foreign policy/national security? They both suck. That you live under the delusion that one has to be good and the other bad because they work for different parties is just sad.

Clinton ignored multiple attacks by Al Queda during his years. He was not interested in fighting back. But he sure bombed the shit out the Serbs when the Europeans told him to do so.

Bush gave up on going after Al Queda in favor of starting a very costly war in Iraq that poses no potential gains for this country.

They're both negligent. Arguing that either did a decent job is equally stupid.

"Do you know the incredible insight, empathy, imagination, maturity, determination, and intelligence it must take to be a governor, a President?"

Bush isn't stupid, he's intellectually lazy. His entire life has been built around doing as little as possible while drawing as much attention to the little he does do. I have never seen anyone who's been around Bush declare him an intellect, not that I'm saying he needs to be. Clinton was reknown for his attention to detail, so much so, his staff had to always be on their p's and q's so that his questions wouldn't catch them off guard. Daily we speak of issues that Bush publically acknowledges he knew little if not anything about in detail, with the ports issue being the latest.

Bush's attribute is mainly the Frankensteinian genius of Karl Rove, and how he has been able to create an image of Bush and sell it first to the people of Texas, and then the country as a whole. But as much as you'd like to assign credit to Bush's own personna, you have to admit that his personal admissions of not liking to read is not a thing usually assigned to intellects. He admits that he isn't curious about things, and this, in my opinion, reaffirms his pension for being lazy. Also Bush's political success has as much to do with the destruction of his opponents as it does with the voters rallying around his strengths.

All in all, the circumstantial evidence, including his C average at Yale in History, doesn't point to George as the master of knowledge, be it past or contemporary. His governance shows the very same traits.

"Clinton ignored multiple attacks by Al Queda during his years. He was not interested in fighting back. But he sure bombed the shit out the Serbs when the Europeans told him to do so."

Bullshit! Read Clarke's account of what Clinton did during his tenure in regards to al qaeda. What many of you, the same crew yelling "Wag the dog," ad nauseum during Monicagate, fail to recognize, was that Clinton was more engaged on OBL than Bush was prior to 9/11. Clinton left Bush a retaliation plan for the Cole bombing that Bush promptly shelved, so how is that Clinton's fault? Clinton had the decency not to make an attack during his final weeks in office that his successor would then have to deal with the repercussions of.

And I love how the Clinton detractors conveniently forget that NO Republicans were even engaged about al qaeda or OBL during the Clinton years. They were too busy using Whitewater to bring down his presidency. At least call it like it was, not as you revisionists like to think it was.

Yeah Tony Roma is here!!

"Bush isn't stupid, he's intellectually lazy"

Agreed. Non-Curious George prefers driving a golf ball on the links to driving home a point in an informed debate.

This much is obvious.

"Bush's attribute is mainly the Frankensteinian genius of Karl Rove"

Spud may despise Rove fer being a truly wicked man who has perfected dirty political tricks from the past and even invented some new ones but Spuds gotta admire the way he sold a pig in the poke to the American people not once but twice.

Bringing Coals to Newcastle or selling icecubes to Eskimos would be a breeze compared to that.

Be Well.

PS pension = penchant

Do you really believe that President Bush is stupid...I mean, really?

Why Yes I Do, Please Read :

They misunderestimated me.
- US President George W. Bush (November 6, 2000 in Bentonville, Arkansas)

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
- US President George W. Bush (August 5, 2004)

You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.
- US President George W. Bush (2000?)

Reading is the basics for all learning.
- US President George W. Bush (Discussing his "Reading First" plan in Reston, Virginia, March 28, 2000)

Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?
- US President George W. Bush (January 11, 2000)

My views are one that speaks to freedom.
- US President George W. Bush (in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 29, 2004)

And it's a struggle between good and it's a struggle between evil.
- US President George W. Bush in a speech (on terrorism) to the Cattle Industry Annual Convention and Trade Show at the Denver Convention Center (February 8, 2002)

We cannot let terrorists hold this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile.
- US President George W. Bush (2000 in Des Moines, Iowa)

Our nation must come together to unite.
- US President George W. Bush (June 4, 2001)

If you choose to do so, when Iraq is liberated, you will be treated, tried and persecuted as a war criminal.
- US President George W. Bush (In St. Louis on January 22, 2003, he likely meant 'prosecuted.' Just for the record Bill O'reilly made the same mistake on his TV show The O'reilly Factor in August 2004)

Will the highways on the Internet become more few?
- US President George W. Bush (Concord, New Hampshire, January 29, 2000)

Oh There Is More.......

If you don't stand for anything, you don't stand for anything!
- US President George W. Bush (November 2, 2000 at Bellevue Community College)

I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.
- US President George W. Bush (September 29, 2000 in Saginaw, Michigan)

I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family
- US President George W. Bush (January 27, 2000 in New Hampshire)

This very week in 1989, there were protests in East Berlin and in Leipzig. By the end of that year, every communist dictatorship in Central America had collapsed.
- US President George W. Bush (November 6, 2003 in Washington, D.C.)

Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream.
- US President George W. Bush (October 2000)

I think we agree, the past is over.
- US President George W. Bush (May 10, 2000

"I don't intend for this to take on a political tone. I'm just here for the drugs." -- Nancy Reagan, former First Lady of the United States


Rep. Carl Gunter (R-Louisiana) "With incest you could get super-smart kids."


Abraham Lincoln "Most folks are about as happy as they make up their minds to be."


"Solar energy is not something that is going to come in overnight." (1974)


"I'm from the South Bronx, and I don't care what you say, those cows look dangerous." (About George Bush's ranch)


"Sometimes in order to make progress and move ahead, you have to stand up and do the wrong thing."


"If I were two-faced, would I be wearing this one?"


"There are different Klans - just like there's different fraternities at a college." (Explaining his former Ku Klux Klan membership)


"Things are more like they are now than they have ever been."


All the fans are wearing yellow shorts, it's a fantastic kaleidoscope of color. (Soccer World Cup)


The World Cup is truly an international event. (Soccer World Cup)


Julian Dicks has been everywhere today. It seems the Rangers have eleven Dicks out there! (Rangers vs. Hibernian)


The U.S. Government will not allow portraits of living persons to appear on stamps.


Oh There Is More.....

-Sarge

Loki - I don't think Bush is stupid. I think he has a speech or learning disability that he refuses to acknowledge and I think he is intellectually lazy (which may be a result of the first thing - maybe reading is difficult for him to do, so he doesn't do it).

"I promise you I will listen to what has been said here, even though I wasn't here." --at the President's Economic Forum in Waco, Texas, Aug. 13, 2002

"We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease." --Gothenburg, Sweden, June 14, 2001

"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.'' --Townsend, Tenn., Feb. 21, 2001

"We both use Colgate toothpaste." --after a reporter asked what he had in common with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Camp David, Md., Feb. 23, 2001

"Tribal sovereignty means that; it's sovereign. I mean, you're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." --Washington, D.C., Aug. 6, 2004 (Watch video)

"I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves." --Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 2003

"I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president." --as quoted in Bob Woodward's Bush at War

"I am here to make an announcement that this Thursday, ticket counters and airplanes will fly out of Ronald Reagan Airport." --Washington, D.C., Oct. 3, 2001

"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself." --Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003

"I saw a poll that said the right track/wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America. It's pretty darn strong. I mean, the people see a better future." --Washington, D.C., Sept. 23, 2004

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." --discussing the Iraq war with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson, as quoted by Robertson

"I hear there's rumors on the Internets that we're going to have a draft." --presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004 (Watch video)

"Haven't we already given money to rich people? Why are we going to do it again?" --to economic advisers discussing a second round of tax cuts, as quoted by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, Washington, D.C., Nov. 26, 2002

"We need an energy bill that encourages consumption." --Trenton, N.J., Sept. 23, 2002

"After standing on the stage, after the debates, I made it very plain, we will not have an all-volunteer army. And yet, this week -- we will have an all-volunteer army!" --Daytona Beach, Fla., Oct. 16, 2004 (Watch video)

"Do you have blacks, too?" --to Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso, Washington, D.C., Nov. 8, 2001


*************Now The Topper**************


"This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating." --as quoted by the New York Daily News, April 23, 2002


I Rest My Case

-Sarge

, you have to admit that his personal admissions of not liking to read is not a thing usually assigned to intellects.


tony...this is just patently false as anyone can tell you. He never said that he didnt like to read and in fact he reads quite a lot considering all the time that he spends on the job.

Yeah, we know. Bush love to read so much that he needs to have the news regurgitated for his consumption, just like a cute little baby bird.

And listen to him speak. A more in-tie-lektual man you will not find in all of Texass.