Friday, November 11, 2005

A Strong Word...


It's possibly my least favorite word. One that I wish to never use.

It is not the opposite of love. There is no opposite to love.

Hate, for me, comes from a combination of fear, desperation, anger and frustration.

It's not a healthy feeling.

Think about the following:

Our President says we do not torture, but the Vice President twists arms in the senate to remove a resolution barring America from using torture.

When someone (possibly a member of the CIA who doesn't like what's going on) reveals that, well, yeah, I guess we do torture after all, the Senate Majority Leader is pissed off about the leak, NOT the torture camps.

When the Supreme Court says that, yes, these detainees have the right to ask why they're being held, and can be released if the government can't come up with a reason, the Senate votes to change that law.

And even though its proponents insist that it's not about bringing religion into the classroom, one of the leaders of the evangelical christian movement that helped bring this group to power is prophesizing doom for Dover Pa, because voters removed the school board members who tried to foist Intelligent Design on its students.

Today, the President will tell us why, despite the fact that every previous reason given being proven to be inaccurate, misleading, or an outright lie, the war in Iraq is justified.

He will tell us why the war, which has cost us billions of dollars we don't have, killed more than two thousand Americans, wounded thousands more, killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, brought scorn upon this country from most of the rest of the civilized world, and has actually increased the terror threat, is justified.

Hate is a strong word.

But I use it here.

I hate what these people are doing.



Blogger Philip Morton said...

Right on brother. There is no excuse for endless two-faced hypocrisy. Read of all things Pat Buchannan ripping the GOP apart:

12:29 PM, November 11, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

When was the last time America had been attacked on home soil? The fight is in the middle east. There are fantatics that despise Western Civilization and will stop at nothing to end it...

I wish you people would understand that these fascists smashed planes into the World Trade Center, Usama had waged war against America dating back to '98. And your Beloved Leader Clinton did nothing. And three years later, 3000 people perished...

Read the reports: Everyone including France and Germany believed Saddam had WMDs. They just didn't think war was the proper route. We can debate this for hours: were they right? But the fact reamins those countries were not attacked on their home soil.

And remember, that although Dems want to back out of it now, they saw the same info that the President did. They also voted for war. Now, I'm sure they only voted this way to show the American people that they're as "tough" as the other guys, but that's also a debate for another day.

2:14 PM, November 11, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peter needs to be reminded that Saddam Hussein is not Osama Bin Landen.

Iraq did not attack on September 11, AlQuiada did.

6:24 PM, November 11, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

and anonymus has to understand that Al Queda is more than just one organization, it is an ideology spread throughout the Muslim world. It is an ideology that effects only a minority, but as we have seen from 9/11, the Madrid bombings and the London bombings born from second generation British, the minority is all it takes to reek havoc upon the innocent.

Saddam funded Palestinian suicide bombers: fact. Suicide bombers are part of the Jihad.

Call it what you will, Al Queda, or whatever. I call it fanatics who have poured their souls into a Jihad, a Holy War.

These are the people that ram planes into buildings, who blow up children on buses in Israel, who bomb and maim their own people in Iraq, who claim responsibility for slaughtering those at a wedding in Jordan.

Maybe once we start realizing that the enemy is bigger than a name will win this war.

8:17 PM, November 11, 2005  
Blogger Shawn said...

Some might say "pissant" is also a strong word.

Really, why is intelligent design so threatening?

8:30 PM, November 11, 2005  
Blogger Balloon Pirate said...

Shawn..I call you a pissant because that's what you are: a sad little annoyance who talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.

As for intelligent design--it's not threatening. It's actually an interesting idea. It's worth discussing.

It's not science. It's philosophy.

So the real question is: Why are so many people like you threatened by scientific inquiry? What scares you about rigourous thought?

Is your faith really that weak?

I believe in God. I spend 30-45 minutes every morning in prayer and meditation. I go to church every Sunday. Every day, I try to improve my conscious contact with God.

And I am perfectly able to increase my spirituality without ever worrying about the forces of natural selection. Why can't you?

It all comes back to Painful Truths and Comfortable Lies. It seems that pissants like you, shawn, and truly dense and obfuscatory people like peter, are afraid of Truth.

oh, and petey: a few posts ago, you wrote about Democratic solutions being microwave oven ideas from the '90's.

The way I see it, that's still a millenium or two ahead of the troglodyte policies you seem to hold dear.

I'm sorry if the Clintons scare you so much that you're still harping on him 6 years after the national embarassment of his sham impeachment. I've moved on. Everyone else has, too. This asshat in the White House is a far greater threat to America than a blowjob in the oval office ever was, and you're defending him.

You say that 'everyone including France and Germany' thought Hussein had WMD's. Well, no. The UN wasn't sure about this at all. In fact, they were pretty sure that he didn't. The Italians didn't either. Yes, there were some reports that suggested he might, but guess what? Most of those could all be traced back to Chalabi and his operatives.

And no one's saying Hussein was a nice guy. What is being said is that there was no real reason to go to war. That in fact this war would be counterproductive to national security. (A bleeding-heart group known as the CIA came to that particular conclusion) And those who have been saying this have been proven correct time and time again.

You can go ahead and spout your talking points, but more and more Americans are waking up to the fact that they have been given a Comfortable Lie, and it's getting less and less comfortable by the day.


10:44 PM, November 11, 2005  
Blogger Philip Morton said...

You know things are bad for the Pres. when the pundits ge so whiney. "Peter loves revionist history. They all knew he had WMD." Uh...wrong. Remember how the inspectors kept finding zip? And kept going back, and Bush said time's up - and everyone said, why? They didn't find anything, no let's let them back...? But we attacked. Because he knew we wouldn't find them. Because he spun the intel. Why didn't we flatten afghanistan in tacking down Osama - why was everyone diverted to Iraq? It wasn't a threat, wasn't even on the al queda radar, because Sadam was a secular dictator - so Osama HATED him and considered him as misguided as the west because he wasn't religous. Get it yet? Osama and Hussein were not in cahoots - hated each other - the only reason to go to war was the connection to the people who attacked AMERICA as you keep pointing out like some autistic tick. There was no connection. They switched the reasons for war to WMD, spun the intel, and now that hasn't played either. So they spun it again to "gee he's just so dangerous" Well, so is Syria. So is Iran. YOu vote we waltz in there too? How big do you think our army is? Do you know how much it costs to run? Or is bean counting like that inconvenient to you like it is to Bush? The hole this war is sinking the treasury of our country into might well break its back, genius. You can't imagine that can you? Get ready for 1929, Bush is leading us straight to it. No treasury, a completely debtor nation - interest rates skyrocketing, and the stock market crashing. All brought about by your boy in the white house. And when he goes back to his big ranch, and you're kicked out of your foreclosed house, you'll probably still be cheering him on.

1:16 AM, November 12, 2005  
Blogger Philip Morton said...

If I've been reading correctly, I get that Shawn would like to serve, but has been kept back for reasons that disqualify him. However he may get his chance if he really wants to as this late breaking news implies: " November 11, 2005 · Recruitment shortages have resulted in the Pentagon calling up reservists who are ill or medically unfit. According to the GAO, this includes reservists who have suffered from heart attacks, hernias, and a woman who was four months into chemotherapy treatment for breast cancer. " Seems like they're loosening their guidelines, which bodes well for those who truly want to serve but have been kept back against their will.

1:29 AM, November 12, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...


you seem like a really intelligent, nay, correction, a superior intellect... I'm just wondering why, if you have such faith in all of your facts, you have to resort to personal taunts?

Baloon, your words betray you: you must be a very lonely, unlikeable soul. You sit and grovel in your dingy bachelor apartment, your only friend is the glow and hum from your monitor.


Once again, you're very articulate, obviously someone of my posoinous beliefs can actually discuss and debate with. Baloon, you shouuld take a page out of Philip's book: he states the facts as he sees them and keeps on topic...

Anyhow, I'm just wondering: America has been attacked. There come intel that Iraq has weapons. People say we have to go to the U.N. (and by the way, when was the last time they actually did something worthy? It's frightening to see how bloated an irrelevant the U.N. has become when you combine the tragedies in the world that could have and should have been stopped. And when they're not stopped, people blame America. Go figure!) Bush goes to the U.N.

The U.N. says we need more time, this is like looking for weapons on a chunk of land the size of California...

Bush gives more time...

U.N. says we need more...

Bush says time's up... I mean, the U.S. has been attacked on home soil, the intel says such-and-such and you want more time...! Forget it! How long is too long?

Philip you say that intel was fudged. I think you give Dubya too much credit. After all, everyone calls this cowboy an idiot. But when it's convenient the same people who call him an idiot give him credit for fudging intel. That's quite a feat, even for someone as whiley old Clinton (doesn't he get old friends to just steal documents for him?)

And where is your expertise on intel documents? How would you know if the intel was fake? Where is your evidence? It's far too easy to say, Bush lied. How? Where is the evidence that the intelligence that everyone saw was the masterstroke from some imbecile?

3:23 AM, November 12, 2005  
Blogger steff81 said...

It's nice to read someone giving as good as he is getting from the other side on here. I still like you Phil and enjoy reading your back and forths. It's just nice to see someone better versed than me making those points.

7:27 AM, November 12, 2005  
Blogger Balloon Pirate said...


ow. ow. stop it. ow.

you know me so well.

Except I'm not an unloveable bachelor. I'm a father of four. One of whom is serving right now in Iraq.

And I've never claimed to be of superior intellect. In fact, I have gone on record on this very blog stating otherwise.

Interesting that you should think otherwise.

But I do have my failures. I do not suffer bullies lightly. I have a tendency to retaliate. Which is why you are so upset right now. You come onto this blog, as anonymous as you can be, offer 'facts' without attribution, and set up little straw men that you can knock down in order to try and prove an unproveable point.

And, of course, like a bully, when challenged, you get blustery and accuse people of doing exactly what you yourself are doing.

I have been known to bully. I try very hard not to do it. I view it as a character defect.

Peter, you view it as a character strength. Which is why you support this unsupportable bully President.

So, because you invoke such a negative reaction from me, after this comment, I will cease to respond to you in any way.

But let's stay on your little straw-man topics for a few more sentences:

I, for one, view Bush not as an idiot, but as an extremely shrewd, malicious, rage-controlled dirty fighting politician. Although he is not an intellectual, he is not stupid; he is just not interested in governing.

He has surrounded himself with nefarious people who have no compunction with selling this country down the river in order to serve their own personal agendas.

So, when he gets an idea--like: let's attack Iraq, he has them cherry-pick intelligence reports to substantiate his reasoning, and proceeds.

Now, as more and more of his claims as to why we're in this war have been proven to be at best misleading, and at worse out-and-out lies, he does the only thing he knows how to do:


I've just written and erased several paragraphs expounding on this. But let me end this last-ever response to you with an attribution proving he lied, and with three questions. shawn knows the questions, but I'll ask you them too.

Bush Lied.

[On October 1, 2002,]one of the most important documents in U.S. history was published and couriered over to the White House.

The 90-page, top-secret report, drafted by the National Intelligence Council at Langley, included an executive summary for President Bush known as the "key judgments." It summed up the findings of the U.S. intelligence community regarding the threat posed by Iraq, findings the president says formed the foundation for his decision to preemptively invade Iraq without provocation. The report "was good, sound intelligence," Bush has remarked.

Most of it deals with alleged weapons of mass destruction.

But page 4 of the report, called the National Intelligence Estimate, deals with terrorism, and draws conclusions that would come as a shock to most Americans, judging from recent polls on Iraq. The CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the other U.S. spy agencies unanimously agreed that Baghdad:

had not sponsored past terrorist attacks against America,

was not operating in concert with al-Qaida,

and was not a terrorist threat to America.

"We have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against U.S. territory," the report stated.

However, it added, "Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qaida could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct."

In other words, Iraq was not currently judged a threat, but might become one if provoked by, say, an invading US force.The NIE, which this columnist calls 'the gold standard of intelligence reports,' felt there was "low confidence" before the war in the views that "Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland" or "share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qaida."

What bleeding-heard organization published this column?

World Net Daily

Bush lied. And people are dying because of that.

And now the questions. These are the same ones I asked shawn, and he failed them miserably. It's called the chickenhawk test. You don't have to answer them to anyone but yourself. Hell, I probably wouldn't believe you if you did answer them.

1) Are you of military service age? (If you're beetween 17 & 35, the answer is 'yes')

2) Do you support this war, and condemn those who do not?

3) Are you now, or have you ever been a member of a military organization?

If you answer 'yes' to 1 and 2, and 'no' to 3, then you are a chickenhawk--a hippocryte who blathers on while people like my son and my nephew carry guns while wearing 60 pounds of armor in 100 degree heat.

steff--I think you better hitch your wagon to a different star. Or better yet, ask questions, and think for yourself.


8:47 AM, November 12, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

Balloon, please, I'm not your priest, and quite frankly, couldn't care less what hostility issues you obviously suffer. Pathetic, you feel the need to explain yourself. Even sadder, you felt that I was "bullying" you.
"...and truly dense and obfuscatory people like peter." Those are your words, Balloon, the first words you used to describe me, my personality and my intellect. And, in the end, that is fine with me. To tell the truth, I wasn't "angry" I was really amused. But if you can dish it out, but can't take it, well, there are many adjectives I could use to describe you but I'm afraid I'll break whatever sanity you may still have.

And since you have taken the childish position of not responding to me in the future, I suppose it's pointless to respond to the rest of your post.

It's unfortunate, Balloon, that you're too angry to indulge in some simple dialect. I guess in your world, if you don't abide by the party line, you don't exist at all.

That's a true shame. What did you want from this website? A bunch of people all agreeing to the same things?

You see, I respect the fact that this website exists. This is the beauty of the 21st century. Ideas can travel back and forth at such a speed, voices can be heard. This is the point, isn't it? To share ideas, debate?

Oh well, Balloon, I suppose it's my loss that you won't grant me access to your high-strung confessions and ideology...

9:56 AM, November 12, 2005  
Blogger United We Lay said...

I'm with you on ths one. I try to use the word sparingly, but it seems my aggitation towards the Republicans and my anger for the President has escalated as the war has gone on, and as other things have been dispicable as well, I feel that to use "hate" is our only p[ossible recourse as intelligent human beings. We have been pushed to the limits of our vocabulary and have only been able to find this one word waiting there, over and over again.

1:43 PM, November 12, 2005  
Blogger Shawn said...

Why are so many people like you threatened by scientific inquiry? What scares you about rigourous thought?

Nothing I have written would imply that these things scare me.

4:09 PM, November 12, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

See Shawn, when someone like Boni or Balloon write that you're scared, it's, once again, their own hysteria bubbling to the surface.

4:39 PM, November 12, 2005  
Blogger Shawn said...

Those are your words, Balloon, the first words you used to describe me, my personality and my intellect.

Good point. BP tends to revert to name calling when he doesn't agree with someone.

5:25 PM, November 12, 2005  
Blogger Philip Morton said...

Calling honesty pathetic? Nice. Anytime you want to answer any of the questions I asked, go ahead.

5:30 PM, November 12, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

I'm sorry Philip, which questions? There's been so many thrown my way in the past 24 hours, I've had trouble sorting through them.

And quite frankly I do find Balloon's "honesty" pathetic as, I stated, he attacked much about me from a couple of my comments, then turns back into his rat hole and accuses me of bullying him. Yes, I found this pathetic...

And Shawn, you're right about the name-calling...

5:52 PM, November 12, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

I would like to address a few points Peter made.

Peter said, "Read the reports: Everyone including France and Germany believed Saddam had WMDs"

What reports? Please cite them. The only consensus was that Saddam had failed to adequately account for some of the weapons that were part of his 1991 stockpiles and that there may be an effort to conceal them. Everyone assumed that there were weapons that were hidden, not accounted for or documented as destroyed. The difference, hence the deceit, is the degree to which they constituted a threat. The nuclear claims made by Cheney that he could have a nuclear weapon within six months was never considered true, verifiable or "believed" by anyone outside of this administration. They received warnings from a very friendly Italian government that their whole case was built on forgeries.

We also know as fact is that France, Germany and Russia strongly opposed military action. Can you really make the case that France, Germany and Russia thought that Iraq could launch an imminent WMD attack on them but decided opposing the U.S. was more vital than their own security. Be real. How could Saddam be a threat to the U.S. and not Europe? If Iraq did attack the U.S., the nations of Europe would be quickly involved. Iraq could not pose an imminent threat to the U.S. without also posing an imminent threat to Europe. Yet, these nations did not consider that going to war was appropriate.

Oh yeah, and they were right and we were wrong

He also said, "And remember, that although Dems want to back out of it now, they saw the same info that the President did. They also voted for war."

This is a prevarication. While semantically true, it is an essential lie in that it fails to mention the fact the Intel that the Senate saw came from the White House. Democrats, congress in general, after 9/11, were getting their intelligence filtered through the White House, the CIA and military officials working for the administration. They did not get everything that the president got. And even at that, they did not believe that Hussein was the threat Bush made him out to be. So yes, the Democrats who voted to give the power to use force to hasten disclosure and respond to threats from Iraq, saw the same Intel the President saw, but they did not do their own investigation. It's not as if Congress and the White House investigated independently and came to the same conclusion.

You seem to forget that shrubco went to Congress, all the while saying he didn't need to, asking for use of force authority as a way to get Saddam to disarm sooner.

And finally said, " Now, I'm sure they only voted this way to show the American people that they're as "tough" as the other guys, but that's also a debate for another day."

You are correct here, but don't forget only 29 out of 50 Democratic Senators and 81 out of 207 Democratic House members voted for the resolutions authorizing military action. So if you are trying to imply that "all" or even "most" Democrats agreed with shrubco you are way off. I agree that most that voted with the republicans did so to look tough in the climate of fear election that was running rampant in October 2002 when these votes were taken. I would be willing to bet that a large percentage of these were up for reelection in November 2002. Do you think it is any accident that the White House requested this authority when he did?

In closing, your case is mainly based on conjecture, false assumptions and logical incongruities. That facts of the actual events are in direct refutation of your claims and you offer no supporting evidence to illuminate or elucidate your position.

And yes, I'm a bully. just a different kind

11:20 PM, November 12, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

Hey cranky... first, why would you call yourself a bully? and second, why would you pride yourself with that?

I just don't understand how all of the "info" democrats uncover is "fact" and everything conservative thinkers uncover is bullshit?

An accusation of playing semantics? Politics is semantics... You guys with all your slogans, as if that answers all of the ills today: Bush LIED! Shame! Shame! Shame! Calm down with the hysterics and present some solutions that the rest of America can buy into. But the Dems are stuck in Carter's '70's when it comes to fresh ideas, or they're too busy stealing the philosophy of Regan-omics.

On this point, Bush has neglected some of his core. Here he is not conservative enough. But at least Republicans and conservative-thinkers are brave enough to dissent, to not just stand blindly and keep our mouths shut. Same with the Miers nomination. But when you Dems see us break from the ranks and voice dissent, you think the party is breaking-up. That's 'cause you guys would never do something like that. You don't understand that free speech can also be disagreeing with your party and you're free to voice opinion. No, the Dems hide and run behind the party line, too afraid to be the only soul to voice an individual thought. Balloon lectures someone on this site to think for themselves. Hell, all he wants on this website is a bunch of monkeys all nodding yes for the same things, nodding no for the same things. That's the problem with the Dems, too afraid to think outta the box, just keep microwaving ideas... God forbid if they were in power on 9/11. We would've tried to find the closest Asprin factory to Afghanistan and blown it sky high!

Apart from some insights (including some of the things you've mentioned in your own post), so far, I've found that many on this website don't want to discuss poltics and are more prone to psychological evaluations of others. It's kinda like listening to a kid with ADD. Some of you seem more angry than thoughtful. Shame...! yes, shame...!

Now, I will curl up in a little burning ball of conservative angry thinking and cry myself asleep. Adieu, Cranky, adieu balloon, adieu angry democrats everywhere. Adieu...

12:09 PM, November 13, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...


and Cranky Yankee says:

"You are correct here, but don't forget only 29 out of 50 Democratic Senators and 81 out of 207 Democratic House members voted for the resolutions authorizing military action. So if you are trying to imply that "all" or even "most" Democrats agreed with shrubco you are way off. I agree that most that voted with the republicans did so to look tough in the climate of fear election that was running rampant in October 2002 when these votes were taken. I would be willing to bet that a large percentage of these were up for reelection in November 2002. Do you think it is any accident that the White House requested this authority when he did?

Now, if even half your assumptions are correct, why would anyone vote for such a weak-willed party? If you don't believe in war, why on earth would you vote for it? Because you're scared? Talk about lacking in HONESTY.

Good God, you guys blame Bush for everything, but if you truly believe that the Dems were spooked into voting for the war in Iraq, doesn't it go to say that you guys should also point an angry, accusatory finger at yourselves? You blew it! In a vote! To send us to war!

The Dems, if they use the argument Cranky so eloquently makes for them, kicks them right off the moral mole hill they are now perched on.


And if you voted, not because you were "spooked" into it, but because you believe it was the right thing to do, then shuddup- that's to you Hill...

These guys go wherever the wind blows them. We voted! No, we didn't we- Uh... uh... okay, we voted, but we were FORCED to do it, yeah, that's it! Forced... no, that doesn't sound good. Uh... Okay, Bush SCARED us! That's what it is, people! Did you know, we have classified reports George Bush is actually... the BOOGEYMAN! That's right! In our White House! We had no CHOICE but to vote for the war...

Either way, thank you Cranky! You've reminded me again why I will never, ever vote for your party.

12:43 PM, November 13, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...


And I awoke in a fever, Cranky's words sailing around in my twisted conservative dreams. You see Cranky, you said so much, revealed so much, that I'm sure for many days to come, what you said in your comments will become fodder for all conservative thinkers and then we will rule the world! hahahahaha!

No, but seriously, a Cranky quote:

"I would be willing to bet that a large percentage of these (who voted for war) were up for reelection in November 2002."

So Cranky, lemme get this straight. You've just said that these guys voted with Bush for their own benefit? To get re-elected? They sent men and women to their deaths in a war they keep saying is/was illegal? For reelection?!?

Why Cranky, these people are far worse than anything you could ever say about Bush.

How can you not get on your soap box (or you Balloon and Boni) and rain down upon them with the same disgust and venom you use for Bush?

Oh, I see, it's okay when Dems are lying and immoral 'cause, ya know, they speak for the people. 'Cause, like, it's a means to an end, ya know?

Please Cranky, say no more! This stuff is too rich!

Sorry, guys, that'll be my last posting for the night. Gotta get back and plan how I'm gonna take over the world using all the evil principles that run thru conservative-think...

1:59 PM, November 13, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

So other than criticism, you aren't debating my case...?

I wasn't blogging when those chickenshit democrats voted with shrubco on the war. If you go back through the archives of my blog you will see that I did rain scorn down upon them. They are cowards, duplicitous or blissfully ignorant. I was also quite disappointed with the Kerry nomination for his nebulous stance on... well many things, but I did support him and voted for him.

3:47 PM, November 13, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

cranky, you certainly are passionate, I mean that. But are you seriously telling me that you voted for Kerry even though you were "disappointed for his nebulous stance on... well many things?"

The guy voted to go to war. And if he won, then what Cranky? What'd you think he would have done? Pull the troops out? Don't think so. In fact, i shiver to think of the consequences of a Kerry Admin. All ego and not much else.

At least with Bush, agree or no, you know we're in their for the long haul. Unpopular with the public? Certainly. Yet at least you know the answer: we're there for a very long time.

With Kerry:

One day: I... uh... the polls say we should... lets get those troops out...!

The next day: no! keep 'em in there! Keep 'em in!!!

and so on...

Cranky, haven't read your blog. I admire, however, that at least you're consistent. Good for you. A very hard trait to be consistent and democrat.

3:56 PM, November 13, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

Actually voting for Kerry in spite of his stance on the war was pretty easy. I figured that I know what shrubco is doing and what his course will be. The worst thing Kerry could do would be stay the course. I'm sure he would have surrounded himself with a better cast of characters. At least it would have been managed better.

The war wasn't the only issue. You want honesty? Kerry's best quality was his nonbushness. My Kerry vote was a vote against shrubco.

My disgust for shrubco and his cabal has its roots in the 2000 GOP South Carolina Primary. What they did to McCain was unforgiveable. I could never vote for bush under any circumstance and feel honor bound to oppose him to the best of my ability.

If had to pick a 2004 candidate with whom I held the most common stances, it would have to be a cross between Michael Badnarik and Ralph Nader.

I can't say I was particularly thrilled with any of the Democratic candidates. I can't wait to see the 2008 pool of dems. If Hillary runs and her opponent is McCain or Giuliani I have to admit I'd have a hard time voting for her. I know that makes me a bad liberal but, it is what it is. Here's a shocker Gore and Kerry are the only Democratic Presidential candidates I've ever voted for.

I really don't see Giuliani getting the nod. He is far to liberal for Wingnuttia.

Anyway, there it is. All I know is that all of my fears of what would happen to America under shrub are coming true. I might start voting republican again if you guys can weed out the corporate shills, religious nutjobs or combinations thereof.

5:08 PM, November 13, 2005  
Anonymous Cayugaman said...

If I may add a little more to what the Yankee said:

Bush told Congress that the reason he wanted the authorization to use force was to strengthen his hand when dealing with Saddam. The idea was that unless Saddam knew Bush could back up his threats, he'd have no reason to enter into or keep agreements.

Bush told Congress that war would always be a last resort, only to be entered into after exhausting all diplomatic opportunities.

That's why, when he voted for the bill, one senator said,

“My vote was cast in a way that made it very clear, Mr. President, I’m voting for you to do what you said you’re going to do, which is to go through the U.N. and do this through an international process. If you go unilaterally, without having exhausted these remedies, I’m not supporting you. And if you decide that this is just a matter of straight pre-emptive doctrine for regime-change purposes without regard to the imminence of the threat, I’m not going to support you.”

Of course, thanks to the Downing Street memo and other documents, we now know that Bush was lying to Congress, that he had already made the decision to go to war.

You can read what another senator wrote in the Washington Post about being misled into war here:

Interestingly, the first sentence of that column is "I was wrong." It takes a big man to say that.

11:53 PM, November 13, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home