Sunday, April 23, 2006

I feel like such a slacker

Between what Pesky, Autoegocrat, Jeff, CPL, and the notorious Kibitzer are doing at the Pesky Fly, and what David Holt is doing at West Tennessee Liberal, I feel like a SLUG.

The bloggers at the Fly cover local and national stuff with equal abandon, all terrific and on time. Think WTL hasn't had an effect on local politics? After he led the fight to have people call the Commission offices to DEMAND that Terry Roland NOT be appointed to the District 29 seat, it was apparently leaked on Mike Fleming's show on Friday that ROLAND HIMSELF will request that he not be appointed. How's that for power?

You see, that's the kind of activism that we have to have EVERY DAY. When the eventual nominee of your Party for the United States Senate is running his campaign by denying that he believes in the core beliefs of that Party, you have to fight with all your power to keep from giving up on that Party.

I believe, despite nearly 30 years of activism in the Democratic party here, despite seeing many of OUR OWN candidates for office downplay our core beliefs in social and economic justice because they were afraid to offend potential voters, in this phrase by the greatest president of the 20th Century, Franklin Delano Roosevelt: WE HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR BUT FEAR ITSELF.

The Bush Administration, and by proxy, the Republican Party, promotes and is devoted to spreading fear and disharmony. Frankly, if these people had been in charge during World War II, we'd all be speaking German right now, and no one would notice that an entire religion had disappeared. Oh well, they weren't "our kind of people" anyway, right?

We have two options, folks: fight with everything we have, or lose everything we believe in. Make no mistake about it, folks: the people who run the Republican party these days at the national level don't want to beat us. They want to ELIMINATE US if we don't convert to their way of thinking.

Kill us all? Maybe not. Marginalize us to the point where we give up? Definitely. Watched Fox News or listened to AM600 lately? We have far more to fear from these people than we do from ANY external enemy.

The Bush administration is preparing to launch a nuclear strike on Iran. If that happens, ladies and gentlemen, America is DEAD. The entire world will align against us, and we will be destroyed.

And it will be OUR FAULT for not stopping it. That's why we have to stop them, and stop them NOW. THIS YEAR.

Karl Rove has suffered a "demotion" at the White House. My ass.

He is preparing for the last desperate stand of the Bush Administration by coming up with the most vicious, vile attacks ever seen in an American election in order to preserve the GOP majority in Congress. Our candidates will be called traitors, terrorists, supporters of al-Qaeda, and the like.

THE ONLY WAY YOU DEAL WITH THIS IS TO THROW IT BACK IN THEIR FACE. IF YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO FIGHT, GET OUT OF THE FUCKING WAY. IF YOU DON'T FIGHT BACK, PEOPLE WILL ASSUME THAT THEY ARE CORRECT. PERIOD. SO, ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK! PEOPLE RESPECT YOU WHEN YOU STAND UP FOR YOUR BELIEFS, IF YOU HAVE ANY.

If Rove fails, and the Democratic Party takes the House back, Bush WILL be investigated, and he WILL be impeached. Then, we will have to hope that the Republicans in the Senate will read the handwriting on the wall and turn their backs on him in order to save the nation.

In fact, please do me a favor if you attend ANY District 9 forums this summer: I want EVERY candidate asked if they would support a bill of impeachment against George Walker Bush. Unless they are willing to say YES, do not vote for them.

This is about far more than who wins; it's about our survival as a democratic republic. I am tired, and it is 1:15 in the morning, and I am going to bed, but I want to to end this post with this:

In Sparta in ancient Greece, mothers would send their warrior sons off to battle with this command: COME BACK WITH YOUR SHIELD OR ON IT.

If we don't have that mentality, and DEMAND that our CANDIDATES have that mentality, the United States of America will soon be only a faded memory.

16 comments:

RAM said...

The Republicans also need to stand up to Bush. They have allowed him to trash the Constitution. They protect him instead of defending our laws. It's shameful. Yes, the Democrats haven't stepped up enough, but the Republicans are majorly derelict in their duty.

RAM said...

On another note, as a member of the executive committee of the Shelby County Democrats, I'm having trouble understanding why Lexie Carter is asking for a 35% cut of the ad money (after SCDP expenses have been paid) for the newspaper. This is a volunteer group! If we were all to get paid for the things we do, wow, that would be great! In that case, Matt, Cherry, Randa, Desi, David Holt, David Robinson, Norma, Pat, John, Harold, Howard, Del, Don and so on would be making some serious money because they're all working very hard. Add Steve Haley, Jim, Dave Cambron on the Covenant committee. Talk about giving up their time! Lexie Carter should definitely be reimbursed for money spent, but she VOLUNTEERED to do the paper. This is a no-brainer. It's about civic duty.

Brassmask said...

I love that Spartan thing.

That's the only way Dems are going to be taken seriously. Unless we are prepared to lay it all on the line for our beliefs, what are we?

newscoma said...

Excellent post.

John Harvey said...

I feel the same way about Republicans. Unless we are willing to "burn the boats", we will continue wallowing in the mire. At least, our party isn't defending dead voters, felons, and attempts to import voters from other districts to steal elections.

This next week will be eye opening for many in the metro area - both Rs and Ds. I am calling for removal of ALL members of the local election commission and the executive director. They have failed us and should be replaced with people who know what they are doing - after the system is retooled. I'm also advocating a bipartisan workgroup put together a system that is workable. Visit my website at www.votinginmemphis.com

thurbis said...

“THE ONLY WAY YOU DEAL WITH THIS IS TO THROW IT BACK IN THEIR FACE. IF YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO FIGHT, GET OUT OF THE FUCKING WAY. IF YOU DON'T FIGHT BACK, PEOPLE WILL ASSUME THAT THEY ARE CORRECT. PERIOD. SO, ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK! PEOPLE RESPECT YOU WHEN YOU STAND UP FOR YOUR BELIEFS, IF YOU HAVE ANY. If Rove fails, and the Democratic Party takes the House back, Bush WILL be investigated, and he WILL be impeached. Then, we will have to hope that the Republicans in the Senate will read the handwriting on the wall and turn their backs on him in order to save the nation. In fact, please do me a favor if you attend ANY District 9 forums this summer: I want EVERY candidate asked if they would support a bill of impeachment against George Walker Bush. Unless they are willing to say YES, do not vote for them."Leftwingcracker

Cracker, I think this is a great idea! In fact, it would be doing the Republic a service to let every American know exactly what’s at stake in the next election, and just what they’re in for if the Dean wing of the Democratic Party is able to pull off gaining 15 seats in the House in November.

Steve, your one of the nicest guys I know, smarter than the average bear, a gentleman to boot, and I think that your chicken cookin'team should have won; needless to say I always shake my head (and usually hear Reagan saying "there you go again") when I read comments by you about Republicans like me that go like this:

"if these people had been in charge during World War II, we'd all be speaking German right now, and no one would notice that an entire religion had disappeared. Oh well, they weren't "our kind of people" anyway, right?"

Really? No party is perfect, and the Republican Party was indeed on the isolationist side of World War 2 much like the modern DeanWing of the Democratic Party is on the isolationist side of the war on terrorism.

Not only does America need a long, hard discussion on the plans of the DeanWing regarding impeachment, we also need to know what the Deaniacs would do regarding Iran.

We we need to also revisit the issue of why we went into Iraq and find out exactly which party has been using “disinformation, misinformation, and manipulation of information” and playing politics with national security.

With the release of Iraqi documents, we now learn that Iraq and bin Laden had a closer relationship than a paper like the Memphis Flyer has reported.

I would really love to revisit Joe Wilsons op-ed in the New York Times in which he wrote “Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.”

Everybodies favorite chromedome Robert Novak wrote this: “Like Sherlock Holmes' dog that did not bark, the most remarkable aspect of last week's Senate Intelligence Committee report is what its Democratic members did not say. They did not dissent from the committee's findings that Iraq apparently asked about buying yellowcake uranium from Niger. . .For a year, Democrats have been belaboring President Bush about 16 words in his 2003 State of the Union address in which he reported Saddam Hussein's attempt to buy uranium from Africa, based on British information. Wilson has been lionized in liberal circles for allegedly contradicting this information on a CIA mission and then being punished as a truth-teller. . . The committee found that the CIA report, based on Wilson's mission, differed considerably from the former ambassador's description to the committee of his findings. That report ''did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium.'' As far as his statement to the Washington Post about ''forged documents'' involved in the alleged Iraqi attempt to buy uranium, Wilson told the committee he may have ''misspoken.'' In fact, the intelligence community agreed that ''Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from Africa.''. . . . The normally mild Roberts is harsh in his condemnation: ''Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the president had lied to the American people, that the vice president had lied, and that he had 'debunked' the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. . . . [N]ot only did he NOT 'debunk' the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true.'' Roberts called it ''important'' for the committee to declare much of what Wilson said ''had no basis in fact.'' In response, Democrats were silent.” The Sun Times ^ | July 15, 2004 | Robert Novak

The website factcheck.org (which takes issue with both major parties), summed it up like this: The "16 words" in Bush's State of the Union Address on Jan. 28, 2003 have been offered as evidence that the President led the US into war using false information intentionally. The new reports show Bush accurately stated what British intelligence was saying, and that CIA analysts believed the same thing. . . . . In the CIA's view, Wilson's report bolstered suspicions that Iraq was indeed seeking uranium in Africa. The Senate report cited an intelligence officer who reviewed Wilson’s report upon his return from Niger: Committee Report: He (the intelligence officer) said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

All that being said, I tend to agree with David Horowitz when he wrote:

“Criticism of government policy is the life-blood of democracy. This includes war policy. But beginning with the founders, everyone understands – or used to understand --that there is a necessary trade-off between liberty and security and that in times of war sacrifices of the former are regularly made in the interests of the latter. “Loose lips sink ships” was a slogan memorialized on posters during World War II. It was an appeal to Americans to voluntarily restrict their own exercise of free speech to save the lives of themselves and their neighbors. It was not regarded as a bid to abrogate the Constitution or the destruction of the First Amendment, which is the way the leftwing is currently mis-characterizing measures to tighten America’s defenses against terror. It was a simple recognition that some speech can weaken a democracy and undermine its self-defense.
In a conflict like the war on terror, where the enemy walks among us and can kill thousands of civilians at a stroke, it is important to recognize the difference between criticism made in support of the war effort and criticism designed to undermine it, even if the actual line between them is not always easy to discern. Some criticism is maliciously intended, and some criticism in itself can constitute an assault on America that weakens our democracy and undermines our defense.”

While pondering what sort of “vicious, vile attacks” that Karl Rove must be plotting, I think the far left needs to understand that they themselves have been dishing out quit a bit themselves. There does seem to be a malicious hatred for the president during a time of war with the sole apparent purpose being to discredit him.

I bring this up because of your own comments:

“THE ONLY WAY YOU DEAL WITH THIS IS TO THROW IT BACK IN THEIR FACE.”

Is that sort of like when Democrats accuse Republicans of election chicanery while engaging in some pretty serious acts of intimidation and fraud themselves? Somehow Ophelia Ford comes to mind.

From Michelle Malkin (who was called a “yellow monkey” by someone you have linked to your site due to her ethnicity) we get quite the rundown on “democrats gone wild”:

“In Madison, Wis., someone burned an 8-foot-by-8-foot Nazi swastika on a homeowner's lawn, which had been decorated with Bush-Cheney signs. The vandals used grass killer to spray the hate symbol (it's OK, Bush-hating trumps environmentalism). Several other homes nearby were vandalized. In Orlando, Fla., Democrats stormed the local Bush/Cheney headquarters, and the ensuing melee resulted in physical injuries to at least two Republican campaign workers. The liberal protesters justified their actions -- including ramming the head of one of the workers into an office door -- by blaming President Bush's "negative campaign."

From the 10/6/2004 Tampa Tribune:

“Labor activists stormed President Bush's campaign headquarters in Tampa on Tuesday, part of an orchestrated event nationwide involving thousands of people protesting his policies on overtime pay. No one was injured or arrested in Tampa, police said. Miami and Orlando also were among the 17 cities in swing- voting states where the AFL-CIO organized such events… Stan Fields, a Bush campaign coordinator in Tampa, said the message was lost in the tactic as dozens of demonstrators rushed into the headquarters about 1 p.m. ``They were stamping. They were chanting,'' Fields said. ``Literally, you couldn't hear inside this building. This place was rocking.'' Al Higginbotham, Hillsborough County Republican Party chairman, said he arrived late to the scene and was told demonstrators, although not making physical contact with campaign workers, had moved within a few inches of them to impede them from leaving.”

Is this what you would call "throwing it back in their face?" Is this “keeping it real”? If so, I would suggest a group viewing of Dave Chapelles “when keeping it real goes wrong”!

How Democrats would feel if they were on the receiving end of behavior? I wouldn't tolerate someone from my party treating you this way.

Protestors Ransack Bush/Cheney Headquarters In Orlando
http://www.local6.com/politics/3785861/detail.html

Per this article, “ORLANDO, Fla. -- A group of protestors stormed and then ransacked a Bush-Cheney headquarters building in Orlando, Fla., Tuesday, according to Local 6 News.. . . Local 6 News reported that several people from the group of 100 Orlando protestors face possible assault charges after the group forced their way inside the Republican headquarters office. While in the building, some of the protestors drew horns and a mustache on a poster of President George W. Bush and poured piles of letters in the office, according to the report. . . . One of the protestors said she wanted to send a message.

I think the message was something like, THE ONLY WAY YOU DEAL WITH THIS IS TO THROW IT BACK IN THEIR FACE!

Or maybe throwing it in peoples faces will involve a few more drive by shootings into Republican headquarters around the country like we saw in 2004.

Shots fired into Knox Bush/Cheney headquarters
http://www.wbir.com/news/archive.aspx?storyid=20241

Per the article, “An unknown suspect fired multiple shots into the Bearden office of the Bush/Cheney re-election campaign Tuesday morning”. … Dewar says she can't imagine why someone would fire shots into an office where people could have been injured or killed. "I don't even know what to say to the person that did this," Dewar says. "...Get a life. This is ridiculous."

Even from the ole Volunteer State, we have Democrats volunteerin’ for mayhem! yeeee-aaaa!

Shots fired into Knox Bush/Cheney headquarters - Per this article: An unknown suspect fired several shots into the Bearden office of the Bush/Cheney re-election campaign Tuesday morning. The headquarters are located at 4618 Kingston Pike, next to Noveau Classics and in the same shopping plaza as Long's Drugstore. According to Knoxville Police Department officers on the scene Tuesday, it is believed that the two separate shots were fired from a car sometime between 6:30 am and 7:15 am. One shot shattered the glass in the front door and the other cracked the glass in another of the front doors."

Or, heck, if that doesn’t work, one can always slash tires.

Tire-slashing questions await Democrats' sons
http://www2.jsonline.com/news/metro/nov04/272605.asp

Per this article: Police are planning to question the adult children of two prominent Democrats as early as today in the wide-ranging probe into who, early on election day, slashed the tires of 20 vans and cars rented by the Republican Party."

Considering all of the above, it’s sort of ironic that you’re worried about “the most vicious, vile attacks ever seen in an American election” from Karl Rove! Call me crazy, but I wish that we could all treat one another kinder.

Considering all the Democrats who were indicted in Operation Tennessee Waltz, it’s sort of funny that some consider the Republican Party the party of corruption, especially when – a week before the indictments came down – we got a top notch article from Jackson Baker in which he wrote:

“LET ME STIPULATE RIGHT HERE that I like John Ford, and make of that what you will”.

Well, Jiminy Cricket, exactly what are we to make of it when John Ford is telling him things like:

"There's conflict of interest, and there's illegal…..Those crazy-assed rules and everything? Shit! I won't be able to make a living….Goddamn! Look behind me. A big-ass truck, right on my ass!"
http://www.memphisflyer.com/memphis/Content?oid=oid%3A9508

I will admit that I laughed while trying to picture that but,puh-leeze!

Within a week or so after that articke we were all treated to indictments and video of John Ford stuffing money down his pants and the senior editor of the paper that has blasted the President week in and week out since the year 2000, is just enjoying the ride back from Nashville with his buddy. Yet this same paper,this same editor, has ran years of articles accusing the President of everything under the sun. This,to me, is not good judgement.

Anywho, keep up the imeachment talk. Everybody needs to know exactly what they can look forward to should the Democratic Party somehow win 15 seats in the House!

Uh, and please be assured that your concerns have been documented and transferred to key members of management for use in our internal review and correction process!

Have a nice night, oh wise sage of the wing festival!

LeftWingCracker said...

What no coupon? No gift basket???? Geez....

PeskyFly said...

Thanks Thurb, I was about to go buy manure for the garden. Now, I don't have to.

thurbis said...

lol...Why, gee, you're welcome, Mr.Fly!

I can't believe that you take offense at me saying nice things about the Cracker. . .or was it everything else I wrote that bothered you?

In response to a "letter to the editor" I sent long ago, you responded, kindly telling me in no uncertain terms that people like me are the biggest problem in the world; this of course makes one wonder what you final solution would be to solve that problem!

Oh, fear not, while I've actually enjoyed your writing over the years, I know that it is too much for some to understand that others simply have sincere differences of opinion. If it makes you feel better, you can call it manure because I truly don't mind.

autoegocrat said...

Cracker, this was an excellent post. I'm sorry I just noticed it.

Thurbis is scared shitless. Righteous indignation armed with the truth is the single greatest threat to his comfortable rationalizations for having been lied to for so long and so effectively.

I don't know what motivated him to repeat lies from known liars on your website, but I can only guess that it is some form of mortal fear.

A demand from a liberal that not only the Republicans, but also the Democrats clean up their filthy act brings us one step closer to a world where dirty tricks and emotional appeals no longer work to shape public opinion, and that brings us one step closer to the day the Republican Party cleans up its act or dies the death.

thurbis said...

lol...uh, which "lies" would those be? Can you be a bit more specific? Methinks thou protests too much!

And - if you want to get specific -do you mind if I respond?

I am concerned because, watching C-Span this morning one of your liberal pals called in saying that "something needs to be done" about people "like me" because we're all "traitors"; and more than a few people from your side of the aisle made those comments this morning.

Aside from impeachment, exactly what are your plans for people "like me"? I'm truly curious!

You state, "Righteous indignation armed with the truth is the single greatest threat to his comfortable rationalizations for having been lied to for so long and so effectively."

While you may have "indignation" going for you, I have yet to be shown that it's "righteous" or even the "truth".

If you have some facts I am unaware of, please share. So far all I have is a claim that what I wrote is "crap" and one that "the single greatest threat to his comfortable rationalizations for having been lied to for so long and so effectively"; I sense some projection on your part in which you accuse others of what you're doing while pretending not to do it.

Lets see, I say that Cracker is a nice guy...hhhhhmmmmm...I don't see how you can really question that because you must know him to.

I don't see how you can challenge the fact that people from your side of the aisle have slashed tires (that case was on court tv), fired shots thru Bush/Cheney headquarters (the news links above are not exactly partisan web sites), or that thousands of union activists working on behalf of the Democratic party rioted, and tried to intimidate volunteers at Bush/Cheney election headquarters (heck, the AFL/CIO was eager to take credit for the proetests that were meant to "intimidate" people "like me"). I don't see how you can call that untrue.

Oh, gee, that leaves the whole Iraq war and the debunked claims made by Joe Wilson.

Gee, if the President "lied", than so did all of these people:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know." --Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003

I tend to agree with these people:

"People who say that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror are unaffected by the fact that the terrorists themselves obviously think otherwise, as they converge on Iraq from other countries." Thomas Sowell

"In September 2003, the senator (Ted Kennedy) was claiming that the Iraq was was "a fraud made up in Texas to give Republicans a political boost". This is pretty serious stuff - charging that the president of the united states went to war in order to win a re-election. And exactly how would that work? Lets see, President Bush takes the nation to war, an enormously risky political proposition, says that the reason we're going to war is that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, even though the president know that the weapons don't really exist, and that sooner or later, certainly before the election, everyone will know that they don't exist. . .and he does this to give Republicans a political boost? Am I missing something?" Bernard Goldberg

I eagerly await your response!

Brassmask said...

Call me crazy but it seems like all this verbage is just an attempt to change the subject. Thurb wants to set up all these alleged expectations so that if the Dems fail at one of the smallest insignificant points, he can sit back, along with his ilk and say, "Look, they failed!"

Nonsense. This is classic GOP tactic.

GCantStandYa said...

While true, I would modify that it is a classic political tactic, not exclusive to the GOP.

Brassmask said...

Perhaps.

Clearly, it has been SOP for this "administration" since Day One.

mike said...

Going back to Roland and WTL's call to call, I think you're confusing coincidence and causation.

It's simply smart for Roland to step aside. He's committed to running in the Fall. By keeping his name clean, and by looking selfless in this, he enhances his chances in the election. Ophelia Ford is the one who now has huge deficits in trust, appearance, competence and voter goodwill to overcome. Roland just looks like a hard fighter -- a nice image for a politician to have.

thurbis said...

First, I would agree with Mike that for Roland stepping aside to bide his time until November was probably the smart thing for him to do given Memphis politics, and given that the race card was already in play.

As for comments like "Thurb wants to set up all these alleged expectations so that if the Dems fail at one of the smallest insignificant points, he can sit back, along with his ilk and say, "Look, they failed!" Nonsense. This is classic GOP tactic" and "Clearly, it has been SOP for this "administration" since Day One", I simply disagree with that view.

Asking for "specifics" is not a trick question or an attempt to "change the subject", and for it being a "classic GOP tactic", I do believe that debate - you know, "a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal" - is pretty traditional stuff and not a " classic GOP tactic". In fact, you'd be mistaken if you thought I have always been on the GOP side of the aisle.

While I read the laundry list of issues in the Carl "do you mind if I mention Watergate 28 times in one article" Bernstein in the current issue of Vanity Fair (a must read for all you lefties!) it always seems to get back to the issues surrounding the Iraq War.

I would point out that on September 20, 2001 the President pretty much laid out a policy that he has consistently followed:

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. . .Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Regime change in Iraq was not only predicated on Iraq being in material breach of over a decade of UN resolutions relative to WMD and its state sponsorship of terrorism, but also due to the fact that it was in blatant violation of the terms and conditions it agreed to abide by in the cease fire signed at the end of the first Gulf War. At the very least, Iraq fired at British and American war planes patrolling the no-fly zones not once, not twice but hundreds of time; each one of those times constituted a breach of the conditions of the cesase fire.

Joe Wilson and yellowcake? Per an editorial in the Washington Post, "Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report [to the CIA] supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium. . . .President Bush was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons"

An editorial in the Wall Street Journal put it this way: ""In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. The media and the Kerry campaign promptly abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know."

Per the Washington Post article on the Senate Intelligence Committee hearings on the Presidents claim regarding information from British intelligence indicated that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa, we get this commentary on Joe Wilson:

"The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."
"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger."

The above are not "small insignificant points"; this is the shaky bedrock on which much of the "Bush Lied and Soldiers Died" distortions spring from.

I grew up reading a lot of lefties. Some of my favorite authors come from way left of the political spectrum. Fred Pohl, Harlan Ellison, Kim Stanley Robinson to name but a few.

One quote that always comes to mind is from Isaac Asimnovs diary (and, whew, Isaac could write...and write...and write...).

Isaac Asimov was a proud Democrat. Here's what he wrote in his autobiography "In Memory Yet Green" about the late 30's and conversations he would have with his father:

"With respect to the United States, we disagreed. I took for granted that if, somehow, President Roosevelt (whom we both revered) could move the United States into active opposition to Hitler, that would be it. I was absolutely certain that the United States could quickly defeat any nation, or any combination of nations, and I was endlessly frustrated at the fact that our isolationists were allowing the danger to rise to the point where it would be many times more expensive to defeat the enemy than might otherwise have been true."

I feel that way about Saddam Hussein. There was no "rush to war"; there was a decade plus slow crawl while Saddam Hussein made a mockery of the United Nations, and subverted the Oil for Food Program into the Oil for Food Scandal.

In December of 1998 (the 16th to be exact) President Bill Clinton said that Iraq had abused its final chance to cooperate with the UN Weapons Inspectors. How many "final chances" should Hussein get? It'd be sort of hard to do anything if he could lob a nuke over into Israel. In fact the problem facing us with neighboring Iran is no so much that Iran will launch a nuke at America, but the possibility that it will just rev up its support for terrorism around the world knowing that - with nukes - our options are severely limited.

Slobodan Milosovic wasn't a threat to America; why was war justified there and not in Iraq? Haven't the hudreds of mass graves filled with Iraqi's been enough? Since when did "never again" turn into Alfred E.Neumans "what?me worry?" when it comes to genocide? Heck, read this months Maxim (which has very, ahhhhh, "intellectual pictures") and see how Uday treated the Iraqi soccer team. No human beings deserve to be treated that way. Heck, cats and dogs don't deserve that treatment, much less human beings.

When did hatred of the President trump our compassion for fellow human beings living in conditions we can't even begin to imagine?

Madeline Albright used to understand the threat. In a speech she gave a speech to Ohio State University when she said: "Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

On her own website in 1998, Nancy Pelosi wrote: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

The long and the short of it is that President George W. Bush didn't make any claims that were not already made during the 1990's by the previous administration.

Now if you want a "real" White House scandal, check this link out. . .this is truly scarey stuff -

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/110680/surprise_visitor_at_the_white_house_easter_event/

Sorry to be so wordy. I'll update my blog with all this info soon so I won't have to take up Steves space and kind generosity.

Can we at least agree that Cracker is a scholar and a gentleman?

Now...g'night!