Comments on: Bush defends war; Cheney links it to 9/11

By: bush debt national

bush debt national — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:01:57 +0000

bush debt national…

…

By: Bad Credit Car Loans

Bad Credit Car Loans — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 08:37:57 +0000

Bad Credit Car Loans…

If your brother demands a Mantachie , It is basic to recieve an} car loan in…

By: low fares

low fares — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:15:47 +0000

low fares…

Having an e-ticket also allows any passenger without luggage to check to completely skip the check-in counters and proceed directly…

By: Jed

Jed — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:51:56 +0000

Of course Bush and Cheney are defending their indefensible war; did anyone expect them not to? They both have way too much personally at stake to admit they took the nation into a war for purely political reasons. They weren’t mistaken about Saddam, it wasn’t faulty intelligence, it was a harebrained scheme cooked up years before 9/11 to “democratize” the middle east with an utterly simplistic reliance on a non-existant domino effect, with the goal of gaining corporate hegemony over the oil fields of the entire area. 9/11 was simply the excuse that came along, and they were sure that the war would be over and done with before the American public wised up.
Needless to say, it didn’t quite go according to plan, and they have the choice of appearing to be dupes of the CIA and curveball or absolute ideological idiots. Or they can continue to claim they were right all along, while desperately hoping something auspicious happens.

By: Phantom

Phantom — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 03:39:32 +0000

Nathan’s probably busy googling.

By: Phantom

Phantom — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 03:39:03 +0000

By McCain’s own admission, he’s not a business/economist expert. His Repub. primary debates definitely established that. We can see now that he doesn’t have a grasp on who the players are in Iraq, or who they’re playing with- so he’s not truly CIC material.
Question is what does McCain have going for him, other than his POW status? And, the fact that he has an R after his name on the ballot.

By: Mary Caruso

Mary Caruso — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:17:06 +0000

Nathan always disappears when confronted with facts…it’s his MO.

By: cosmos

cosmos — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:55:26 +0000

That’s a good question WSCLark,

“Name just one of John Sidney McCain’s current positions that differs materially from those of George W Bush.”

Nathan, please answer it.

By: CapnAmerica

CapnAmerica — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:53:51 +0000

Nathan asks, “If the Democrats didn’t have being against the war going for them, what would they have?”

Eight years of growing the economy, improving middle class wages, reducing poverty, catching terrorists before they could carry out attacks on American soil.

Also, pushing for universal health care, protecting the environment, paying down the national debt instead of doubling it, protecting pensions and social security, promoting a “living wage”, improving education and demanding clean transparent government (instead of secret meetings in which the lobbyists and polluters write policy).

Other than that and stopping the war-without-end, you’re right, Nathan.

We got nothing.

:roll:

By: Steven Davis

Steven Davis — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:48:18 +0000

Sorry, I really do want Nathan to answer that question so: John Sidney McCain, III.

By: CapnAmerica

CapnAmerica — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:47:58 +0000

Hmmm . . . good question, Clark.

I’d like to know that too, Nathank. If “Bush isn’t running, McCain is,” how is McCain different from Bush?

By: Steven Davis

Steven Davis — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:47:19 +0000

It is actually John Sidney McCain, the Third (Bush term).

By: WSClark

WSClark — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:43:07 +0000

That would be John Sidney McCain, Republic Senator from Arizona.

By: WSClark

WSClark — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:23:47 +0000

“I don’t respond to questions when you use your political crap in them.”

Of course you call your political crap “facts” right, Price?

But to humor you…………

“Name just one of John Sidney McCain’s current positions that differs materially from those of George W Bush.”

By: lindainks55

lindainks55 — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:21:26 +0000

I think that response (which btw wasn’t a response) says a lot!

By: Nathan

Nathan — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:18:50 +0000

WSClark,

Who is McBush? I don’t respond to questions when you use your political crap in them.

By: WSClark

WSClark — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:11:37 +0000

“So many years of being the Maverick and simply because he supports the war in Iraq he is now McBush.”

Name just one of McBush’s current positions that differs materially from those of George W Bush.

Just one.

By: J R

J R — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:09:48 +0000

“Wasn’t it Franklin that said something about a democracy needing a revolt every couple hundred of years.”

I THINK that was Jefferson said that.

Hey can a Clinton supporter join your march?

By: Nathan

Nathan — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:06:39 +0000

So many years of being the Maverick and simply because he supports the war in Iraq he is now McBush.

Talk about a one issue party.

If the Democrats didn’t have being against the war going for them, what would they have?

Nothing.

I suppose they could go back to scaring the old people with how the Republicans want to take their Social Security away.

By: Steven Davis

Steven Davis — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:49:54 +0000

I always kind of liked McCain, too. He is having to do an odd kind of dance, though. Distance himself from one of the least popular presidents in recent history, but also appeal to the fringe base of the republican party. I would hate to have to do that.

By: Creative Loafing Atlanta » Fresh Loaf » Blog Archive » War: five years of same old, same old

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:36:42 +0000

[...] (who dodged the draft during Vietnam, explaining he had “other priorities“) was in Iraq repeating the same old lies about 9/11 having something to do with our regime’s attack on Saddam Hussein’s regime. [...]

By: Mary Caruso

Mary Caruso — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:14:14 +0000

“Mary, McCain is his own man, despite the efforts of the left to portray him as “McSame”

Sorry Out, but watching him in the debates has only convinced me that he would just continue business as usual and not even address the real problems in this country.
I used to have a great respect for him and always thought that if he ran, I’d support him..but after listening to him these past few months, there is no way I can.

By: TDT

TDT — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:12:47 +0000

Linda – It really would have to be huge, and honestly, I think it would be good to do the march no matter who is in office. If one of our Democrats, then to show support for change, which both of our candidates will bring. Maybe it would wake up the legislatures.

By: lindainks55

lindainks55 — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:49:12 +0000

Marching would be good for us physically and we may as well have a destination and a worth-while cause! I’m in!

All joking aside. I think it might come to a revolution. Especially if McCain is elected. I’m just hoping it can be peaceful.

The youth I speak to are more motivated and interested than I can remember (at least since the 60s). They see what the current bunch of adults have done to their future, their country and want to have greater participation in the decisions that affect them.

By: TDT

TDT — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:41:45 +0000

Linda – We ought to do a march on Washington, have Obama’s organizers get it organized (and I say that because they have shown to be very good at getting people out for caucuses), and truly revolt. Wasn’t it Franklin that said something about a democracy needing a revolt every couple hundred of years.