WE Blog

(gufaws)

Yep, yep…right here is this used car I want to sell you – low mileage, driven by an old lady to and from church – lookee here – the tires are fully inflated – what a deal – I can offer it for 10 percent below wholesale!

*sold a bill of goods
*sucker born every minute
*white washing a fence is fun (Twainism)
*if you buy me a hamburger today, I’ll gladly pay you Wednesday(popeye-Wimpy)
*Election 2006 (we (Democrats) can fix it!)

uh huh uh huh…

Does Cal forget that there are a lot of Republicans in the Senate and the White House?
-Maggotpunk

Does Maggotpunk forget that there were a lot of Democrats (and Republicans) in the Senate and House during the past 8 years of Bush’s term who were cocomitantly with Bush in the run up to the Iraq War? Does he realize that these same Democrats are now using Bush as a political scapegoat to obtain power even though they have no expressed zero brilliance in correcting the situation?

Does Maggotpunk realize that the power possessed by the minority Republicans in Congress today is the no greater then the power posessed by the Democrats when they were a minority three years ago and blocking the efforts of the Republicans? Does anyone remember the term “fillibuster”?

If Maggopunk wants to blame the Republican majority for the problems in this country, why is he unwilling to blaim the Democratic majority for their current result deficient performance?

Since 2006 the Democrats have held slim majorities in Congress.

For the previous six years the Republic Party held substantial majorities in Congress and gave Shrub the veto pen. For six years prior to Shrub, the Republic party controlled Congress by promising:

- Term limits for congress-critters.
- A balanced-budget amendment.
- Smaller government.
- The overturn of abortion rights.
- To eliminate 95 government programs when, in fact, they increased all those programs’ budgets 13% between 1994 and 2001.

“Should they withhold funding?”

Yes. Whatever it takes.

1. You win a war by fighting half ass.

2. And you should not start wars that politically can not be fought full on.

Bush should have seen that the Democrats will perform the ultimate bait and switch which would leave America high and dry. They pretended to support the war when there was nothing but innuendo and speculation about Sadaam Hussein and WMD.

But when Sadaam (a brutal dictator in his own right but nonetheless no proven threat to the US) is removed, and the group that actually IS unabashedly responsible for 9-11 moves into Iraq to create chaos and oppose America, the Dems then become turncoats by playing the political card to obtain power.

Therefore, the Anti US PR campaign carried out by the Democrats becomes very effective in preventing the ability of the US to fight this war full on. The result is the quagmire we are in today.

Bush should have predicted this betrayal and that is why he made a grave strategic error in choosing to oust Sadaam Hussein while assuming the support from the congress the voted to give authorization. Bush underestimated the thirst for power enveloped in the halls of the Democratic Party. The Dems go against their century long practice of nation building to oppose the nation builder in chief himself, GWB.

If the Dems really wanted to close this war down right now, they could do it. But why shut it down when you can get a few more seats and one of your own in the White House?

“If the Dems really wanted to close this war down right now, they could do it.”

Amen, Brother! It’s been said many times on this blog. They could stop it quick.
The problem is, the war is not as unpopular as the you peoples would have you believe.
If it was, they would have stopped it months ago.

It’s a trap.

And bush is too dumb to have been the one to come up with it.

The idea was to invade and occupy Iraq….forever. There was NEVER any intention of winning or leaving.

Hence the trap. The cons knew that if the Dems did the right thing and cut the funding, they can play the old “not supporting the troops!” lie.

Did Democrats winning elections in 2006 dupe voters?

To the extent they convinced voters they could end the war WITH THE COOPERATION of the executive, yes. But the fact is that the Democrat simply don’t have a veto-proof majority in the House, and the Senate is split down the middle.

Now a bigger question.

In 2002 and in the election of 2004, did Bush fool all conservatives and enough others to win by promising that Iraq represented another World War?

ANS: oh hell yeah he did. And then he failed to execute Iraq like a world war. No tax increase, no war bonds, zero, zip, nada effort to grow significantly his coalition (Eastern Europe? Give me a friggin break). Most imporantly, NO ENERGY POLICY. No draft. It all adds up to this, we need a serious, serious, serious reassessment of our foreign policy. Because right now it’s broken, and it just ain’t the Democrats at fault here.

You idiots who still think this is WWIII need to do JUST AS MUCH RETHINKING as the Democrats. You’re both suckers, and you share the blame for our current state!

The Democrats duped their voters: yes. Bush duped his voters: yes, definitely, and still does.

Too bad the cons don’t have consciences.

Well, Scott McClellan maybe. But at large a conscience is not a con failing.

Had they any conscience, they might feel bad about the loss in blood and money in Iraq.

But cons count beans. And their bean counting tells them that they can now get the American people to buy the perpetual occupation of Iraq. The losses are now at a numbly acceptable level.

Blood on you hands Republicans. You can’t wash it away.

bluejay now you are right that there was no intent to ever leave Iraq, but it was not only Iraq. The intent is to reshape the entire Middle East. Iran, Syria, Libya the entire M.E. including Sadie Arabia and Egypt. All by force and in a line, it is the only thing that McClellan conformed that was of importance to the future.

“If Bush really thought this was a serious war, answer me this.
What would have been the proper response to his adminstration’s WMD claims?
ANS: it ain’t leavin’ it to Congress to investigate, nor the DoJ, it’s finding where the buck stops. He should have demanded Cheney’s, Powell’s, Tenet’s, Rice’s, and Rumsfeld’s resignation ON THE SPOT.
And while we’re at it, why the hell was his OWN resignation off the table?
Serious war my ass“.
Pedant great point, considering that this has been the greatest mistake this country has ever made.
The cost to this country even if there had been no casualties and the Iraqis had paid for the total reconstruction. It would have not erased the blot on this nation. In fact if Bush wanted to be a honorable man, he would have gotten Iraq under control as soon as possible and then announce his stepping down from the Presidency.

Steven,
“Have they no shame?

Have they no decency?

Have they no honor?

That would be no, no, and no.”

Have they got most of our money?
Have they destroyed our military to the extent that we can’t get it back?
That would be a resounding YES, YES!

American:

Dorothy called. She wants you to stop beating her friend the scarecrow with that two by four.

By the way, no one item on that list is related to another.

The executive branch has a 28% approval rating and the neocons are slamming Democrats? You know, by sticking your collective heads in the sand, and shouting slurs aimed at Democrats, gets you nothing but sand filled mouths. I suppose, though, that is a good thing, since it means we don’t have to listen to brain dead Republicans trying to blame someone else for their short-sided, illogical rhetoric.

“ksagnostic
Posted May 30, 2008 at 9:48 pm | Permalink
American:

Dorothy called. She wants you to stop beating her friend the scarecrow with that two by four.

By the way, no one item on that list is related to another.”

Sure it is, can’t you figure it out?

Social Progressive Radical Extremist Liberal Agenda!

And I thought you were smarter than that!

FOX News Poll:

Obama’s Favorable Rating Drops
Wednesday, April 30, 2008

By Dana Blanton

AP

Nearly half of Democrats (48 percent) think Hillary Clinton has a better chance of beating John McCain in November — 10 percentage points higher than the 38 percent who think Barack Obama can win, according to a FOX News poll released Wednesday. This represents a significant shift from March, when Democrats said Obama was the candidate more likely to beat McCain.

Democrats continue to favor Clinton as their party’s leader, albeit narrowly: 44 percent want her to win the nomination and 41 percent want Obama. Last month Clinton was preferred by 2 percentage points.

Further, for the second month in a row Clinton does slightly better than Obama in head-to-head matchups against the Republican senator. Clinton tops McCain by just 1 point (45 percent to 44 percent), down from a 3-point advantage last month. McCain edges Obama by a narrow 3-point margin (46 percent to 43 percent), up from a 1-point lead.

The leader in these matchups has shifted back and forth. In the last year, the biggest spread between Clinton and McCain was September 2007 when Clinton led him by 7 points. Obama held a 10-point lead over McCain last July.

Nearly a third of Clinton supporters — 32 percent — say they would vote for McCain instead of Obama (47 percent) if the general election were held today. Fewer Obama supporters — 21 percent — would defect and vote for McCain over Clinton if she were the nominee.

“The relative strength of this so-called ‘Dream Democratic Ticket’ is sure to fuel further speculation as to whether such a pairing is realistically possible after such a heated primary campaign,” said Ernest Paicopololos, principal of Opinion Dynamics Corp., which conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from April 28 to April 29. The poll has a 3-point error margin.

If Obama wins the nomination, most Democrats (73 percent) think Clinton would want him to win the White House, although nearly one in five (18 percent) thinks she would want McCain to win.

The results are similar for the reverse situation: If Clinton is the nominee, most Democrats (80 percent) think Obama would rather see her win the presidency and 13 percent think he would want McCain to win.

Despite those findings, there are signs of deep divisions among Democrats: If Clinton loses, a 54 percent majority of her supporters says they would rather have former Vice President Al Gore as the party’s nominee than Obama (31 percent). Obama supporters are more evenly split: If he loses, his supporters would only slightly prefer Gore (46 percent) over Clinton (44 percent).

Candidate Favorable Ratings

The ongoing controversy over Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, appears to have damaged how Americans view Obama. His favorable rating is now 47 percent, down 7 percentage points since February when 54 percent had a positive view of him. As may be expected, his unfavorable rating went up from 33 percent to 42 percent today.

The poll shows smaller changes in the other candidate’s ratings: Clinton’s favorable rating is up 2 points to 47 percent from 45 percent in February, while McCain’s is down 3 points from 52 percent to 49 percent today.

The decline in Obama’s favorable rating also is evident among Democrats: 63 percent have a favorable opinion now, down from 73 percent in February. For Clinton, 73 percent of Democrats have a favorable view of her, up from 71 percent.

Candidate Characteristics

Earlier this month a Democratic congressman said McCain was too old to be commander in chief. McCain is 71 and, if elected, he would be the oldest person to become president. The poll finds 22 percent of voters say McCain’s age is enough to discourage them from voting for him, up from 18 percent in April 2007. Even so, most voters say his age would not discourage their vote (77 percent), including 91 percent of Republicans.

Overall, more voters think McCain (60 percent) is honest and trustworthy than think Obama is (54 percent) and than think Clinton is (46 percent).

While majorities of Democrats think Clinton and Obama are honest and trustworthy, slightly more think Clinton is (69 percent) than Obama (66 percent).

Many more Democrats describe Clinton as “tough” (plus-38 points over Obama). They also are more likely to think “in touch with the American people” describes her (plus-10 points) as well as “arrogant” (plus-17 points).

Obama has a double-digit edge on being better-described by the word “humble” (plus-18 points over Clinton); although some Democrats (16 percent) say neither candidate can be described this way.

Somewhat more say the word “intelligent” describes Clinton (37 percent) than Obama (28 percent), though a third (33 percent) of Democrats say it describes both of them.

Few voters (15 percent) think Clinton and Obama truly like and respect one another, while a 56 percent majority thinks they somewhat “dislike, but still respect” each other. Another 17 percent think they truly dislike and detest one another. The results are similar among Democrats.

Are we there yet?

Democrats are more likely to describe the way Clinton has been running her campaign as “tough and hard-hitting” (43 percent) than as “positive and upbeat” (26 percent) or as “negative and nasty” (19 percent). As for Obama, nearly half of Democrats think he has been running a “positive” campaign (45 percent) rather than a “hard-hitting” (25 percent) or “negative” one (14 percent).

But when will the campaign be over? More than six of 10 Americans (including 67 percent of Democrats) think the Democratic Primary has gone on too long. Some 29 percent of voters think it has been about the right amount of time and 7 percent say not long enough.

hocum?

Pablum?

Take your pick, six of one, half dozen of the other.

More like hokum.

“It will start with the hearts of each individual person to do it!”

So what will McCain give us other than four more years of George WMD Bush’ policies and war?

How will McCain – part of the Washington GOBN for the last thirty years – do to change the country?

Answer that…………………….

hokum

Main Entry:
ho·kum
Pronunciation:
\?h?-k?m\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
probably blend of hocus-pocus and bunkum

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hokum
—

So that’s where the “c” came from in my misspelling of hokum.

That’s my mistake.

Your turn.

And we as Americans as a whole are just comfy and complacent and sit back and say “OK, you might as well take it over” with the supposed freedoms that are being pushed upon our society from every angle you can possibly see!

But American, what is McCain going to do other than give us Bush III?

THAT’S why I want a real convention in Denver JM.

At a real Democratic convention, anything can happen. DEEPLY divided folks can be gathered behind a candidate. Maybe even one who was never in the race….

As long as the war is going on, it shouldn’t be underfunded, and since we dems don’t have the votes to make it stop, no we weren’t wrong in continuing to fund it.

Republicans are to blame and you can’t lay the blame anywhere else for this mess.

Nice try.

RFL
Posted May 30, 2008 at 3:05 pm | Permalink
correction:

You CAN NOT win a war by fighting it half ass.
**********
We are not fightinng a war, we are managing an occupation. The folks we are killing and in return are killing us, are, Iraqis.

The occupation is not the solution, it is the problem.

You brain dead people always amaze me – but, not in a particularily positive way…

Yes they should have withheld funding.

“WSClark
Posted May 31, 2008 at 12:54 am | Permalink
And again…………………………………..

Let’s try this again……………………

“But American, what is McCain going to do other than give us Bush III?””

Using the liberal dialogue thinking: “Gee, I don’t think I can read this, it’s too hard for me!”

Therefore, I’ll just scroll over.

We are not fightinng a war, we are managing an occupation.
-Steven

Fighting a war and rebuilding a country are not mutually exclusive.

In order to defeat Radical Islam, the strategy is and has always been to install a democratic freedom loving goverment in the ME. Bush thinks that this will cause people to leave their terror war lords and embrace our Western brand of freedom.

RFL,

Who were we liberating Iraqis from?

There was graffetti written near the statute of Saddam that was brought down, it said “Job donne [sic]. Now, go home.”

We were greeted as liberaters when we entered France in WW II. We were liberating the French from German occupiers. Different story in Iraq.

You can’t deliver democracy like it’s pizza. :)

Who are we killing in Iraq today? Who are killing us? Both answers are a small percentage of Al Qaeda.

They’re calling it “al-qaeda” because they’ve worn-out “terrorists.”

{ They’ve got to call it something, other than “Iraqis }.

Bush is so intransient that if congress withheld funding he’d sacrifice all the troops for his misbegotten war. And, stupid Repubs. would’ve blamed congress!

Night. Going to bed. If I have time, I will read RFL’s convincing arguments, tomorrow.

Just plain common sense, is such a rare comodity in the Bush II administration.

God help us all.