Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Fitz is either incompetent or he was on a blind witch hunt, or both.

0 Replies

And, the media takes sides against the Bush WH, as usual.

CBS & NBC Black Out Woodward's CIA Leak Revelation That Boosts Libby's Case
Posted by Brent Baker on November 17, 2005 - 00:45.
Bob Woodward's revelations, in a Wednesday Washington Post front page story, "Woodward Was Told of Plame More Than Two Years Ago," seemingly undermined two premises of special prosecutor Peter Fitzgerald's case against Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former Chief-of-Staff -- that he was the first to tell a reporter about Valerie Plame and that everyone involved remembers when they were told about Plame. But while the developments animated cable television all day, all the broadcast networks ignored it in the morning and in the evening both CBS and NBC, which led October 28 with multiple stories of Fitzgerald's indictments, spiked the story while ABC's World News Tonight devoted a piddling 31 seconds to Woodward's disclosures. The CBS Evening News found time for supposed dangers to kids of cold medicines and a look at "why the obesity crisis is far worse for African-Americans." The NBC Nightly News provided stories on claims the U.S. used "chemical weapons" in Iraq and on the effectiveness of diet pills. (Story rundown follows.)

At his October 28 press conference, Fitzgerald asserted, as shown tonight on FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume: "He [Libby] was at the beginning of the chain of the phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter." In fact, the Post reported that "a senior administration official," not Libby, told Woodward "about CIA operative Valerie Plame and her position at the agency nearly a month before her identity was disclosed" and thus before Libby talked about it with a reporter, a disclosure which provides some support for Libby's contention that he heard about Plame from a journalist. The Post also noted how "the only Post reporter whom Woodward said he remembers telling" in 2003 about Plame's job, Walter Pincus, "does not recall the conversation taking place," thus boosting Libby's contention that different people can have different recollections of old conversations.

What ABC squeezed in and how MSNBC's Chris Matthews saw nefarious motives ("a confidential source could be using rolling disclosure here for a political purpose" to help Libby) behind Woodward's source allowing him to talk, follows.

[UPDATE, 2:45pm EST Thursday: On Thursday morning, CBS held the development to a very brief news update item, NBC squeezed it into the very end of a session with Tim Russert while ABC actually touted it at the top of Good Morning America and provided a full story. See full rundown below.]
_____________________
The press is on the Dem payroll. Is Matthews working for the prosecutor?
They sat on a HUGE story.

0 Replies

And as a refresher about what is at stake here, this from the Washington post a summer ago. Note the reference to the June date. Woodwad is also using a June date when Plame's name first came up. Joe Wilson didn't go public in his criticism of the Bush administration until July, so certainly a vengeance motive is now off the table.

Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission
Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role
By Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 10, 2004; Page A09

Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.

Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.

The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him.

Plame's role could be significant in an ongoing investigation into whether a crime was committed when her name and employment were disclosed to reporters last summer.

Administration officials told columnist Robert D. Novak then that Wilson, a partisan critic of Bush's foreign policy, was sent to Niger at the suggestion of Plame, who worked in the nonproliferation unit at CIA. The disclosure of Plame's identity, which was classified, led to an investigation into who leaked her name.

The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional.

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.

Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger.

"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."

Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview yesterday, saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."

The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The committee found Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at his wife's suggestion.

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.

Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.

Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."

According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.

Still, it was the CIA that bore the brunt of the criticism of the Niger intelligence. The panel found that the CIA has not fully investigated possible efforts by Iraq to buy uranium in Niger to this day, citing reports from a foreign service and the U.S. Navy about uranium from Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse in Benin.

The agency did not examine forged documents that have been widely cited as a reason to dismiss the purported effort by Iraq until months after it obtained them. The panel said it still has "not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa."

© 2004 The Washington Post Company
SOURCE

0 Replies

There needs to be an additional investigation about Plame sending her anti-Bush husband with an agenda not to investigate anything.

She's quoted as saying there was nothing to the Niger assertion--and meant to have it go the way she wanted it to go. "There's this crazy report..." Uh-huh.

THAT'S the investigation I'm waiting for. The CIA sending a pot smoker to do such an important job--when they won't even hire regulars to do mundane work if they'd smoked pot. Why bend the rules backward for Wilson to do such a critical investigation? Nepotism and agenda and underlying democrat bureauocracy that has tentacles stretching beneath the infrastructure of DC--throught the media, the departments, the Gorlick agency relics....

Did you hear Gorlick is ass deep in the AbleDanger cover up?

Meh.

0 Replies

FrontPage Magazine has a very interesting interview with a former weapons inspector, who talks about what may have happened to Iraq's WMDs:

Quote:

While working counter-infiltration in Baghdad, I noticed a pattern among infiltrators that their cover stories would start around Summer or Fall of 2002. From this and other observations, I believe Saddam planned for a U.S. invasion after President Bush's speech at West Point in 2002. One of the steps taken was to prepare the younger generation of the security services with English so they could infiltrate our ranks, another was either to destroy or move WMDs to other countries, principally Syria. Starting in the Summer of 2002, the Iraqis had months to purge their files and create cover stories, such as the letter from Hossam Amin, head of the Iraqi outfit that monitored the weapons inspectors, stating after Hussein Kamal's defection that the weapons were all destroyed in 1991

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE.

0 Replies

Interesting chap, bill...

Quote:

Terri Schiavo
Bill Tierney has been among the demonstrators standing vigil outsite Terri Schiavo's hospice in St. Petersburg, Florida. On March 28, 2005, the New York Times reported Tierney as saying, "No, we're not going to go home ... Terri is not dead until she's dead . . ." Tierney "cried as he talked about watching the Schiavo spectacle on television and feeling the utter need to be at the hospice." [2] (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/28/national/28cnd-schiavo.html?)

[edit]On Saddam Hussein
Bill Tierney "says Saddam Hussein is hoping Iraqi forces will be able to inflict heavy casualties on American troops in order to get the anti-war crowd in the U.S. and abroad worked up into a state of frenzy. Tierney says the Iraqi dictator takes heart in watching 'peace protestors' on CNN because he considers them an integral part of his arsenal. Tierney, who has spent a great deal of time in Iraq, expects Saddam Hussein to 'pull out all the stops' as coalition forces converge on Baghdad. The former inspector says if something goes wrong and American casualties are heavy, the Iraqi dictator will count on the peace protestors in the U.S. to come to his aid. As Tierney puts it: 'If they can kill enough of us as we come into Iraq, they figure that the anti-war crowd will scream and holler so loud that we will be forced to stop.'" The Country Baptist Church Newsletter, March 23, 2003 (http://www.countrybaptist.org/newsletter/newsletter_032303.htm).

[edit]Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida
"Finally, with respect to Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida, weapons inspector Bill Tierney claimed that he came across an Al Qaida training manual some time back that called for the assassination of all Middle Eastern lead- ers---all but one that is, and that one individual was Saddam Hussein." --unverified (http://www.bvalphaserver.com/postp242404.html).

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bill_Tierney

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

McTag wrote:
If the US could make that case in UN council and get a resolution, then it might have been credible.
They did not, they could not, and war, the last resort in any situation, by any measure of civilisation should have been unthinkable.
Therefore, it is an illegal unilateral action- and it matters not to me, as I believe I may have mentioned before, whether it is made by a Dem or a Rep administration.

That is at least a self-consistent position. Namely that any war or significant military action is illegal if it does not take place purtsuant to a Security Council resolutiuon explicitly calling for the action in question.

The problem is that this position goes well beyond both the normal practice of nations large and small and the provisions of the UN Charter. It is noteworthy that President Clinton did not have a Security Council resolution specifically authorizijng the actions he took following the above quoted statements. Rather he acted to enforce requirements on Iraq2i behavior enacted in a number of previuous Security Council resolutions -- just as did President Bush and PM Blair in 2003.

McTag ius certainly entitled to imagine that his illusions constitute international law. However that does not make it a fact.

A critical reading of the Resolution (read it again) would indicate that it has no validity (i.e should not of itself lead directly to warlike action) without a further resolution of the UN Security Council to instigate such action.

0 Replies

Just so as we all understand the...um, like really real realities about...uh, like about what is coming out of their mouths right now...

Quote:

Iraq Critics Meet Familiar Reply
White House Reverts to Blistering Attacks of 2004 Campaign

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 18, 2005; Page A06

Beset by criticism of its handling of intelligence before the Iraq war, the Bush White House is fighting back with familiar weapons. There have been sarcastic one-liners from Vice President Cheney. There have been rapid-response rebuttals to unfavorable editorials. Most of all, there have been pointed suggestions from President Bush that the people questioning his policies are emboldening America's enemies.

These tactics have worked before -- never more so than during Bush's successful reelection bid in 2004. And it is not a coincidence that they are being revived now. White House officials say they are quite consciously borrowing tested campaign techniques -- aggressive opposition research and blistering partisan invective, to name two -- to lift Bush out of his current problems of mounting criticism and falling public support for the Iraq war.

link

0 Replies

It's funny how it becomes "aggressive opposition research and blistering partisan invective" when the republicans do it, yet it is only considered criticism when the dems do the same exact thing. Odd that.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

It's funny how it becomes "aggressive opposition research and blistering partisan invective" when the republicans do it, yet it is only considered criticism when the dems do the same exact thing. Odd that.

Sure. But not the point.

Meanwhile, Dionne's appraisal looks right to me. Anyone running for office next year will have to consider the increasingly approval-toxic nature of association with the war and with Bush.

Quote:

This will be remembered as the week when President Bush lost control over the Iraq war debate. His administration has perhaps six months to get things right. If the situation in Iraq fails to improve significantly, public pressure for withdrawal will become irresistible.

link

0 Replies

Mein gott un himmel! (or something like that) Krauthammer writes something with which I agree! Grabbing my toque, lacing my skates and heading for hell...

Quote:

Which brings us to Dover, Pa., Pat Robertson, the Kansas State Board of Education, and a fight over evolution that is so anachronistic and retrograde as to be a national embarrassment.

Dover distinguished itself this Election Day by throwing out all eight members of its school board who tried to impose "intelligent design" -- today's tarted-up version of creationism -- on the biology curriculum. Pat Robertson then called the wrath of God down upon the good people of Dover for voting "God out of your city." Meanwhile, in Kansas, the school board did a reverse Dover, mandating the teaching of skepticism about evolution and forcing intelligent design into the statewide biology curriculum.

Let's be clear. Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge -- in this case, evolution -- they are to be filled by God. It is a "theory" that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species but also says that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today." A "theory" that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science -- that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution -- or behind the motion of the tides or the "strong force" that holds the atom together?

krautlink

From a political perspective, this gets interesting.

The modern republican/conservative machine has been incredibly successful at keeping disparate viewpoints and interests from colliding with each other. From what I can gather so far, that organizational rigor seems to have been the work of Norquist and Rove, most particularly. It has served everyone involved quite well. Many of the neoconservative and fiscal conservative folks have never shown any personal interest in religious matters, and quite a number of them aren't christian by culture. Norquist has said he has no personal interest in the abortion matter, for example. The Kristol family, a key philosophical and organizational nexus in the construction of the modern conservative movement's neo wing do not display any evident 'religious' notions, but hold the Platonic/Straussian believe that 'virtue' ought to be promoted in the citizenry even if the premises/believes which might forward such 'virtue' are merely instrumental (for orderly management of the filty masses - a notably elitist sense of things) even if they are false or, explicitly, a known lie (the 'noble lie').

That non-theist understanding of the world and proper civic rule over the state meshed quite accomodatingly with folks like Bill Bennett who share certain key policy objectives, and even with the christian right for the same reason.

But when things get stressed and extreme, as is happening now, the various fault lines between these groups are starting to grow wide and highly visible. Very tough job now to pull all this stuff back together. I don't think it's possible outside of some earthshaker event.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Just so as we all understand the...um, like really real realities about...uh, like about what is coming out of their mouths right now...

Quote:
Iraq Critics Meet Familiar Reply
White House Reverts to Blistering Attacks of 2004 Campaign

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 18, 2005; Page A06

Beset by criticism of its handling of intelligence before the Iraq war, the Bush White House is fighting back with familiar weapons. There have been sarcastic one-liners from Vice President Cheney. There have been rapid-response rebuttals to unfavorable editorials. Most of all, there have been pointed suggestions from President Bush that the people questioning his policies are emboldening America's enemies.

These tactics have worked before -- never more so than during Bush's successful reelection bid in 2004. And it is not a coincidence that they are being revived now. White House officials say they are quite consciously borrowing tested campaign techniques -- aggressive opposition research and blistering partisan invective, to name two -- to lift Bush out of his current problems of mounting criticism and falling public support for the Iraq war.
link

About time they responded to the crap coming out of the mouths of the liberals.

0 Replies

That's all we've wanted and I think all that is necessary to bring Bush's poll numbers out of the cellar. Americans don't respect wimps and cowards. Let Bush return to his former macho self telling it like it is, and people will respond to him again as they did before. "Laying low" only lets the liberals pile it on with impunity.

Bush and company are going to have to get back to and fight for conservative principles though. It appears they have abandoned them in the face of fire, and they simply can't do that and be true to those who elected them.

0 Replies

Traitor George's chickens are coming home to roost:

Clinton: The big mistake of the Iraq war
Ex-President leads the critics
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Published: 18 November 2005

The dam has burst. Former president Bill Clinton's verdict that the war in Iraq was "a big mistake" is echoing around the world.
The unease, the misgivings, and downright opposition can be contained no longer. From Senate Republicans, to one of the most influential Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill yesterday, the message has been the same. The Iraq war has been a disaster, and the sooner American troops leave the better. The alarm was sounded on Capitol Hill on Tuesday when Senate Republicans and Democrats joined forces to demand the White House explain every three months how it intends to "complete the mission" in Iraq.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article327773.ece

0 Replies

Quote:

Americans don't respect wimps and cowards.

Clearly a false statement. Many respect (or are easily deceived by) cartoon-level portrayals of those characteristics.

John Bolton..."I didn't fancy the idea of dying in a rice paddy"

You have no one in that administration who demonstrated any personal bravery during Viet Nam. Not one.

0 Replies

Which isn't to say that the Republicans now have any alternative to trying to continue the portrayals of themselves in such a light. But the whole facade of it is crumbling. Thank god.

0 Replies

The George W. Bush Loyalty Quiz
The George W. Bush Loyalty Quiz
10 Questions to Test Your Allegiance to President Bush

Q: What statement best describes your opinion of George W. Bush?

He's a resolute, principled leader who is a strong wartime President
He's a clueless moron who couldn't find oil in Texas
He's an arrogant liar hell-bent on world domination
He's a faithful servant of God
He's a faithful servant of Dick Cheney

Q: The biggest mistake Bush ever made was ___

Trading Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox
Waging an ill-conceived, unnecessary war based on lies
Prancing around an aircraft carrier in a flight costume and prematurely declaring "Mission Accomplished"
Going AWOL from the National Guard
He has never made a mistake

Q: Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream.

Agree
Disagree

Q: Which bumper sticker would you be most likely to put on your car?

Bush/Cheney '04: Leadership, Integrity, Morality
Bush/Cheney '04: This Time, Elect Us!
Bush/Cheney '04: Four More Wars
Bush/Cheney '04: Don't Change Horsemen Mid-Apocalypse
Bush/Cheney '04: Vote Nader
George W. Bush: Master of Strategery
George W. Bush: President for Life

Q: Complete the following statement: George W. Bush belongs ___

On Mount Rushmore
In Jail
Back in Crawford, Texas
To Jesus

Q: What has been the most defining moment of Bush's presidency?

Standing amid the rubble of Ground Zero and addressing firefighters with a megaphone
His triumphant landing on the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln
His surprise Thanksgiving visit to Baghdad
Choking on a pretzel
Continuing to read "My Pet Goat" to schoolchildren for a full seven minutes after being informed that a second plane had crashed into the World Trade Center

Q: What label best describes Bush?

Compassionate Conservative
Miserable Failure
Warrior President
Dim Son
Reagan's Heir
Smirking Chimp
Fossil Fool
Our Lord and Savior
Deserter

Q: Complete the following statement. George W. Bush won the 2000 election because ___

Voters embraced his strong leadership and philosophy of compassionate conservatism
The Supreme Court embraced his strong leadership and philosophy of compassionate conservatism
His brother Jeb and Katherine Harris rigged the vote and orchestrated a coup
The sore losers in the Democratic party were unsuccessful in their attempts to steal the vote in Florida
God chose him to be president

Q: What's the best explanation for the failure to find WMD in Iraq?

Bush lied to the American people
Bush was misled by faulty intelligence
It's Clinton's fault
Donald Rumsfeld forgot where he planted the WMD
The WMD will eventually be found

Q: Complete the following statement. If George W. Bush wins the election ___

I'm going to dance on my roof naked
I'm moving to Canada
I'm going to thank Jesus
I'm going to thank Ralph Nader
You can kiss Iran, Syria, and North Korea goodbye
The terrorists will have won

0 Replies

It's sorted out now:

Quote:

Who Says Democrats Don't Have a Plan?[/size]
By Lee Duigon
MichNews.com
Nov 16, 2005

Contrary to what you've been hearing lately, the Democratic Party really does have a long-term plan for America.

Party leaders won't talk about it, or lay it out as an electoral platform. They wouldn't dare. This plan won't be carried out until they control Congress and the White House.

But they do have a plan. And to find out what it is, we must turn to other sources: lawsuits filed, and court rulings handed down; proposed legislation (much of it repeatedly voted down); newspaper and magazine editorials, radio and TV commentary, Internet blogs; and, of course, lobbying campaigns by such left-wing stalwarts as teachers' unions, Planned Parenthood, etc.

In advance, I extend sympathy to those many Democrats who have not signed on to this agenda and would stop it if they could. As a New Jersey Republican, I know what it's like to have leaders who refuse to listen to you. These Democrats have lost control of their party--and through no fault of their own.

Here is the Democratic Party's agenda for America.

1. Restrict Free Speech. We've seen the beginnings of this in California, where Democrat legislators last year enacted a hate speech law which gives a virtual "license to kill" to any atheist or gay activist who takes offense at anything he might hear or read. Hate speech laws make debate impossible. If you can't defend marriage without committing a hate crime, where's the debate?

Then there's the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," a not-so-subtle attempt to silence the New Media: talk radio, Christian radio, the Internet, etc. By forcing conservative media to give free air time or column space to liberals, a Democrat Congress can render those media unprofitable. And you can bet your house that the Fairness Doctrine will never be used to force The Nation to run editorials by David Limbaugh.

Where liberals already rule--on college campuses--"speech codes" have been used to intimidate and silence conservative students and faculty. This is liberalism in action.

2. Undermine Our Republican Form of Government, as Guaranteed to Us by Article IV, Sec. 4, of the Constitution. By packing the federal bench and the Supreme Court with left-wing ideologues, and by referring to the courts all questions of public policy, the Democrat agenda becomes election-proof. As long as the courts set policy, it won't matter whom we elect to our legislatures, and referenda will be an exercise in futility. The judicial branch of government will become an absolute oligarchy, lording it over the executive and legislative branches, and the people.

3. Abolish the Family. The courts--as they have already done in Massachusetts--will rule unconstitutional all popular and legislative efforts to ban homosexual "marriage." Polygamy and polyamory will be "legalized" by the courts, too.

Abortion on demand will be enshrined forever as a legal right. But long-established rights to private property, and parental control over what their children are to be taught about sexual morality, have already been dealt body-blows by the Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit Court.

4. Destroy the Influence of Christianity. The ACLU, Americans United, and People For the American Way (has anybody ever figured out what "American way" they're thinking of?) file lawsuits to remove even the smallest, most innocuous public expressions of Christian belief. They don't do this for the exercise. Their aim is to drive Christianity out of the public square altogether--because the Christian faith is all that stands between them and their dream of a state-supervised perpetual Saturnalia.

There you have it: the reason why Democrats must never be allowed to rule America. If you're a Democrat and you don't like it, you'd better start winning some primary elections.

source: MichNews: Most In-depth, Conservative, Honest News & Commentary

And that's the way it is.

:wink:

0 Replies

Blatham again ventures into areas in which he apparently knows little or nothing.

Blatham opines: "Anyone running for office next year will want to consider the increasingly approval-toxic nature of association with the war and with Bush"

Really?

Many will indeed consider it, but what difference will it make?

Blatham apparently makes the assumption that the "increasingly approval-toxic rating" will continue to find Bush in the negatives.

I don't know what Universities in Canada say about politics but one of the cornerstones in the American Politics Class I took at the University of Chicago was--"A year is a lifetime in politics"

Secondly, although Blatham is apparently fond of spewing unsupported generalizations, he appears to know nothing about next year's elections.

If he really thinks that the Republicans will lose their edge in the Senate, I would really like to see the list of the Republican Senators who will lose their seats. I hope that he knows that only one third of the Senate seats are at issue and that the Republicans have a 5 seat advantage at this time.

Blatham may indeed be pinning his hopes on a change in the House of Representatives. He is apparently unaware that the organization FAIRVOTE, a non-partisan group devoted to election reform, has shown that House districts are now so gerrymandered that only 30 or so congressional districts out of 435 are competitive. The two parties, both Democratic and Republican, conspired after the 2000 census to protect incumbents by packing Republican voters into Republican Districts and Democrats into Democratic districts.

I would advise Blatham to do more reading concering elections in the USA. Canada's election rules are not similar.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

It's sorted out now:

Quote:
Who Says Democrats Don't Have a Plan?[/size]
By Lee Duigon
MichNews.com
Nov 16, 2005

Contrary to what you've been hearing lately, the Democratic Party really does have a long-term plan for America.

Party leaders won't talk about it, or lay it out as an electoral platform. They wouldn't dare. This plan won't be carried out until they control Congress and the White House.

But they do have a plan. And to find out what it is, we must turn to other sources: lawsuits filed, and court rulings handed down; proposed legislation (much of it repeatedly voted down); newspaper and magazine editorials, radio and TV commentary, Internet blogs; and, of course, lobbying campaigns by such left-wing stalwarts as teachers' unions, Planned Parenthood, etc.

In advance, I extend sympathy to those many Democrats who have not signed on to this agenda and would stop it if they could. As a New Jersey Republican, I know what it's like to have leaders who refuse to listen to you. These Democrats have lost control of their party--and through no fault of their own.

Here is the Democratic Party's agenda for America.

1. Restrict Free Speech. We've seen the beginnings of this in California, where Democrat legislators last year enacted a hate speech law which gives a virtual "license to kill" to any atheist or gay activist who takes offense at anything he might hear or read. Hate speech laws make debate impossible. If you can't defend marriage without committing a hate crime, where's the debate?

Then there's the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," a not-so-subtle attempt to silence the New Media: talk radio, Christian radio, the Internet, etc. By forcing conservative media to give free air time or column space to liberals, a Democrat Congress can render those media unprofitable. And you can bet your house that the Fairness Doctrine will never be used to force The Nation to run editorials by David Limbaugh.

Where liberals already rule--on college campuses--"speech codes" have been used to intimidate and silence conservative students and faculty. This is liberalism in action.

2. Undermine Our Republican Form of Government, as Guaranteed to Us by Article IV, Sec. 4, of the Constitution. By packing the federal bench and the Supreme Court with left-wing ideologues, and by referring to the courts all questions of public policy, the Democrat agenda becomes election-proof. As long as the courts set policy, it won't matter whom we elect to our legislatures, and referenda will be an exercise in futility. The judicial branch of government will become an absolute oligarchy, lording it over the executive and legislative branches, and the people.

3. Abolish the Family. The courts--as they have already done in Massachusetts--will rule unconstitutional all popular and legislative efforts to ban homosexual "marriage." Polygamy and polyamory will be "legalized" by the courts, too.

Abortion on demand will be enshrined forever as a legal right. But long-established rights to private property, and parental control over what their children are to be taught about sexual morality, have already been dealt body-blows by the Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit Court.

4. Destroy the Influence of Christianity. The ACLU, Americans United, and People For the American Way (has anybody ever figured out what "American way" they're thinking of?) file lawsuits to remove even the smallest, most innocuous public expressions of Christian belief. They don't do this for the exercise. Their aim is to drive Christianity out of the public square altogether--because the Christian faith is all that stands between them and their dream of a state-supervised perpetual Saturnalia.

There you have it: the reason why Democrats must never be allowed to rule America. If you're a Democrat and you don't like it, you'd better start winning some primary elections.
source: MichNews: Most In-depth, Conservative, Honest News & Commentary

And that's the way it is.

:wink:

Gee thanks, Walter. This is what we've been saying all along, but none of our European friends would sign on to our 'save America' campaign. Welcome! :wink:

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know