Noting that, according to a new book, President Bush still believed last year that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, New York Times columnist Gail Collins expressed the reasonable hope that both parties will find 2008 presidential nominees who are in touch with reality. She wrote, “Watch out for candidates who believe you can change the unchangeable if you just: a) Think positive. b) Hire a better lawyer. c) Check into rehab. d) Quote Ronald Reagan. e) Click your heels three times and repeat after me: ‘Gen. Petraeus, Gen. Petraeus . . . .’”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
43 Comments
Less than 500 days left in the reign of President Augustus Stupidus. Hopefully, we’ll leave La la Land and rejoin the world of reality.
The Bush presidency has been like a long, dark nightmare.
OKThis is how you liberals think:
ANYONE who disagrees with YOU is not living in the “real world” —
That says more about YOU than it does about Bush.
Saddam DID have WMD’s, Clinton and Gore and Kerry all said so, remember? Were those people living in “reality” when they said so?
And, to believe that Saddam moved those WMD’s to Syria or elsewhere is not outside of mainstream thought. Many of Saddams former Generals indicate that this is exactly what happened.
The disturbing thing, about this thread, is the liberal tendency to believe disageement (with them) is evidence of mental disease.
Soviet Gulags, here we come?
Don’t except money from fugitives or unless you plan on pardoning them later.
If anyone remembers correctly, Bill Clinton along with many members of Congress and the Senate had the same beliefs about Sadam and WMD.
True, many believed there were weopans of mass destruction, but most of us changed out mind when Hans Blix and the inspectors told us there weren’t any.Duh.
Its always amusing to hear the Republicons blame Bill Clinton whenever they are trying to defend their president’s failures. Isn’t that excuse wearing a little thin by now?
Because Paul, the reason we think ya’ll have mental disorders is because you refuse to see reality even when it’s smacking you upside the head.
It is amazing how liberals think. Just talk, talk, talk to your enemies and they will eventually come around. No need for consequences.
Our prisons are full of people who were not told no as children. If we leave them alone and just talk to them, they will watch us and come around. Duh! The principle is the same way you want us to deal with our enemies.
I wonder if liberals all grew up with talk and no consequences. It might explain their screwy thinking and their hatred of anyone who disagees with them.
It makes no sense to dole out consequences that hurt US more than the enemy.
I think it’s funny you all think we were raised with no discipline or something. Were you raised by a dictator?
I could not possibly care less about what a NYT columnist lady writes in her book.
That’s right (gasp!), and I’m not a member of “TimesSelect”. You know the NYT online service where you pay them to tell you their opinion. That right, you pay them for their opinion! It seems to me that a person’s opinion is really not worth paying for. Especially the NYT crew. After all, you can get foolish liberal opinions here all day long, for free. Right, Rhonda?
Saddam DID have WMD. He used them on his own people. WE SOLD/GAVE THEM TO HIM back in the day when he was our friend.
Evidently, the UN and Clinton did a better job than we thought in containing him, and preventing him from effectivly running a WMD program. They didn’t have any once we got there.
Anyone would have assumed he had them. I thought for sure he did. But he was a contained little island. Saddam had to let his enemies think he had them as well. The threat was a vital part of his defence.
I strongly suggest people read up on retired Marine (SEMPER FI) General Anthony Zinni. Google him, watch his speeches on youtube. Zinni is a lifetime Republican, but was appointed as Commanding General of Central Command by Clinton. Why? Because he was the best for the job, and Clinton thought that was more important than party affiliation when real important things were on the line.
Clinton had a pretty good mix of Democratic and Republicans assigned to key jobs in government. When you don’t do business that way, you get things like the failed occupation of Iraq, people drowning in sewage after Katrina, mortage banking melt downs (they knew it was coming, and rewrote bankruptcy laws to protect the greedy fat cats prior to it happening). etc… I could go on for days.
I HATED Bill Clinton when he was in office, because my Church told me to, I was in the Marines part of the time and everyone was a Republican. Boy was I wrong. He damn near had Saddam out of power, the whole time the Republicans were jumping up and down screaming “Wag the Dog” saying Clintons surgical strikes in Iraq were intended to get the public’s attention off of Monica Lewinski. At the same time, we had opportunities to get Osama BinLadden, but the political fall out would have been so great, we didn’t. 911 happened because the Republicans tromped on Clinton for every move he made, claiming he was murdering people world wide in order to draw attention off of the scandels.
Oh, and what about the scandels. Kennedy was a poon hound. Many powerful men are. Hell, look at Tony Soprano! All joking aside, everyone knows Bill and Hillary are a business-political venture, not a conventional married couple. The Monica Lewinski affair didn’t deserve the attention it got because of that fact!
outlander,the WEBlog is so wonderful, you can get foolish opinions of All sorts here anytime.
One thing I don’t care about in the next president is who he is having relations with (as long as they are consentual).
If the President of the United States of America wants to get it on with some Hollywood starlets a la Kennedy, good for him (or her). If he wants some intern fun, good for him (or her). If he/she likes his (or her) VP’s puppeteering hand up his (or her)nether regions, good for him (or her).I don’t hire them to provide my moral compass and show me how to live a just and holy life. I go to church for that.
Well! Kind of makes you feel sorry for Hillary. When is the last time she has some? No Viva Viagra going her way.
It’s a shame people blame Bush for the entire Sadaam issue. Maybe he should have let him go like the former President Bush or just ignored him like Clinton, that really helped the issue. Yes he talks alot, its better to talk about issues and at least pretend to work on them than just ignore them for the duration of your term like Clinton. Hillary won’t be any better.
Rhonda Holman must view Gail Collins as a role model. Part of the Panty Hose MSM Mafia, Collins has skewered more news stories than s Greek picnic at a lamb kabob festivals.
SemperFi71–Bravo, two thumbs up. In other words, I’M IMPRESSED.
Ron Paul was the only real American on that stage. The rest are all smug arrogant representatives of AIPAC.
Ron Paul? Not so much.
“If the 2008 Republican presidential primary were held today, whom would you support if the candidates were [see below]?” If “All”: “If you absolutely had to choose, which one person would you support?” Names rotated. N=547 Republican primary voters..8/22-26/07 7/19-22/07
% %
Rudy Giuliani 27 20
Fred Thompson 17 19
Mitt Romney 15 8
John McCain 12 17
Mike Huckabee 4 1
Ron Paul 2 2
Duncan Hunter 1 -
Sam Brownback – 4
Tom Tancredo – 1
All of these (vol.) 1 1
None of these (vol.) 2 3
Other (vol.) 1 2
Unsure 18 21
Tommy Thompson n/a 1
Fleet
And that’s the reason we’re in trouble. The MSM can’t be trusted.
We’re in Iraq for the same reason all your thugs are popular. They’ve all been hyped, in varying degrees, by a corrupt anti-American media.
So you can understand: Your candidate all contain too much lead { toxic levels }.
Econ101,
Bush was told by credible sources that Saddam didn’t have WMD. He decided not to pass on that info to Clinton, Kerry, Gore, or anyone else.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/index_np.html
Get a new talking point, Econ101. Unless you want CF2K to call you out as a liar.
Ron Paul defends the Constitution, which the rest, an assortment of AIPCA operatives, Zionist operatives, Neocon operatives, PNAC operatives, One-Worlders operatives, and their “sold America down the drain tag-alongs traitors.”
Now if you’re a traitor to America, you’ll fit right in, but if you’re a real American, you’ll vote for Ron Paul and help save America.
It is as simple as that.
“…you’ll vote for Ron Paul and help save America.”
Hey Sol! Looks like you and ed are brothers. That should make you proud. Along with Durbin, Reid, Pelosi, Kucinich and on and on. Panty wearing panic monkeys
Keep your smart-ass remarks to yourself you stupid bastard.
A vote for Ron Paul offers real change, whereas the others offer more of the same old crap.
“Keep your smart-ass remarks to yourself you stupid bastard.”
Below me, Nazi.
“Noting that, according to a new book, President Bush still believed LAST YEAR that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction”
After reading the posts, I think some of you overlooked the key words “last year”.
It’s the best kept secret in the history of modern man: Saddam’s WMD’s are still hidden in Iraq! The WMD’s went to Syria!Once we leave Iraq, watch them Sunnis dig up the WMD’s and use them on our sometime buddies the Shiites! It’ll be calamitious!
The thing to avoid, is a repeat or Repub. clone of 43! The Repub. is going to have a hell of a time running on a continuation of what we’ve endured the past 7 yrs.
The reason for Bush now supporting a manned mission to Mars is to look for Saddam’s WMDs. He finally has realized that Saddam would not have given them to an enemy so he must have shipped them to the ‘red planet’
Wow, now I see why he’s the Pres.!
Ben, Phantom
Well, Bush does have access to all the best reconnaissance and intel data.
Now if only he would read and understand it….
The number one thing to avoid with #44…CONNECTIONS.
Connections to;Past AdministrationsConnections to;PAC moneyConnections to;LobbyistConnections to;GOP PartyConnections to;Mormon religionConnections to;OIL IndustryConnections to;Anti-Abortion groupsConnections to;911 eventsConnections to ……………
The number one thing to look for in #44, HONESTY.
“When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for.” -Bill Clinton on Larry King Live July, 2003
The idea that Saddam hid or moved his WMDs on the eve of the US invasion is absurd. Does anyone besides a neocon lapdog and Bush worshipper really believe that a country builds a massive stockpile of weapons only to get rid of them when they might have actually served a purpose. If Saddam had WMDs, he would have used them on US troops to repel the invasion, any other suggestion is so stupid as to not even merit a discussion.
Panty wearing panic monkeys posted by fleettwood
Have I found one of the Opinion Line trolls?
“”When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for.” -Bill Clinton on Larry King Live July, 2003
Posted by: Bill Gamelson | September 07, 2007 at 03:31″
I thought it was all found on Monica’s dress
BLAH BLAH BLAH, how i miss this kind of horse s*** from the radical right in Kansas! President Bush saved us! he Fights Terrorists! the Liberals want to eat your children!!! etc etc etc.
So tell me, did the “political capital” that bush “won” after the election, did he spend it wisely? for a bunch of “financially responsible” conservatives how’s that investment paying off? we’ll he’s gotta about 200 supporters left, and i’m sure they all live in western kansas. Keep using that imaginary monopoly money W, you’ve done a damn fine job!!!!!
“Things to avoid in a 44th president”
Answer: All the things except Ron Paul.
Any Republican.
I agree and we can add
and any Democrat. Oh wait, that was covered under
Connections to;Past AdministrationsConnections to;PAC moneyConnections to;LobbyistConnections to;Mormon religion, debatable since no Democrats are declaring to be MormonConnections to;OIL IndustryConnections to;911 eventsConnections to ……………
Anyone that thinks the Democrats dont get oil money, PAC money, or Lobbyists is foolish. Where do you think that 100 million more than the Republicans came from?
Bloomberg should run. I doubt he could past most of the above connections.
Things to avoid in the next U.S. President: exhorters with a law degree certificate and no real world problem solving and leadership experience — non-candidates such as Brownback, Edwards, Obama and some of the other wannabes.
These people need to find churches to preach in.
Anyone with a law degree needs to remember what the law is all about before they choose to run for office. Half of the Senate and 1/3 of the House are lawyers. They pass laws allowing lawyers to have special privileges. One example if you rob a bank and use the money to buy something and the store did not know it was stolen money, then they lose out when the money is traced to them. If you tell your lawyer it is stolen money and use it to hire him/her, they get to keep it. Is that fair?