In analyzing Governor Christine Gregoire’s disappointing electoral showing in Pierce County, one overlooked factor may have been her stunning rejection by convicted felons known to have illegally cast ballots.
As first reported in The News Tribune on Jan. 8 (“A few felons voted in Pierce County“), investigative reporters could verify only seven of the 42 felons alleged by the BIAW to have voted illegally. And of the three who spoke with TNT reporters, two voted for Republican Dino Rossi, and one for Libertarian Ruth Bennett:
“I didn’t know that I couldn’t vote,” said Glen, 43. “I didn’t know any different. Is it the Republicans that are throwing a fit about it? Because I voted Republican
Goldy – the article you link to is even more damning to the BIAW and Republican claims.
Sounds exactly like the supposed “wrongly rejected” ballots the Republicans were touting 3-4 weeks ago. Turns out many of them had been counted, and the others were properly rejected.
Now they’re lying again – claiming felons voted when they didn’t or weren’t felons. Or the county actually did their job, when the BIAW says they didn’t. Or, in the rare case where a felon did vote, they voted for Rossi or Bennett.
The pattern clearly is:
1) “BIG REPUBLICAN/BIAW CLAIM”
2) Independent investigation turns up that 80-90% of evidence is either trumped up or actually false,
3) 5% is immaterial or not applicable under the law
4) We’re left with maybe 5% of their overall claim to even debate
So if these two examples are indicative of to the quality of BIAW/Republican-supplied “evidence”, the Republican’s don’t have a chance of prevailing in court.
So if these two examples are indicative of to the quality of BIAW/Republican-supplied “evidence”, the Republican’s don’t have a chance of prevailing in court.
Ahh, but see, at that point they’ll blame the ruling on “activist” court judges. Especially if it ends up in the hands of the biggest boogeyman, the State Supreme Court.
You know the Republican jihad against “activist judges” is totally over the top when Chief Justice Renhquist (that notorious liberal) is cautioning them about their rhetoric.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12.....judges.ap/
Since there is no way of tracing the ballot of an illegal voter, if they get caught the best thing a Gregoire voter could do is say they voted for Rossi. That way in the Republican court case their vote would be subtracted from Rossi’s total, thereby netting Gregoire two votes.
The investigation into felons voting is not over yet, obviously. So to reach a conclusion, as you have, based upon the information to date is not advised. Until all th einformation is in it is a big stretch to assume that the retio as you described will continue. Also you do not know truly how these people voted, no matter what they say. And being biased as I am, I think we may find that the felons, that “accidentally” voted could balance out amongst the canidates but those that knowingly voted illegally went for Gregoire. But none of you have yet to address the real deal breaker, the provisional ballot fiasco. Dead people, felons, double votes, and even enhanced ballots (which I also view as deal breaker) matter when the 300+ provisionals are considered. Noone disputes that these provisional ballots exist and that they were counted and are part of the elction totals. How do you know that these ballots were valid and or what % they would be valid? (An assumption cannot be used – it must be known fact) How do you know who these ballots were cast for? Since you don’t know and noone ever will you have to consider that 100% of those votes could have went to either canidate and make a re-vote decision from there. The courts will have to consider that they COULD HAVE all went for Gregoire then her # of votes must be decreased by 300+ which is more then double what she won by. Since the validity of these ballots can never be known, there will have to be a new election. In my humble opinion. Please tell me where this point of view is wrong, or how it would not be your point of view if the roles where reversed.
Dead people, felons, double votes, and even enhanced ballots (which I also view as deal breaker) DON’T matter when the 300+
Left out “don’t”
Something to think about……
If I were a felon that voted for Gregoire, I could hav etwo votes now, based upon you wanting to modify the vote totals. First I vote illegally for Gregoire +1 gregoire, then when caught I swear I voted for Rossi -1 Rossi. Net gain to Gregoire 2 illegal votes per felon. Do I know that this is happening? No, but you don’t know that it is not. Only answer…Re-Vote.
For those who value common sense and common experience – we are not surpised the felons supported Rossi. – slick Rossi – a touch of larceny and old friends in the real estate business sent to the joint.
Of course they voted Rossi. NEED TO POST THIS TO THE OTHER SITE – for some reason I can’t explain my posts come back.
They are still talking big time felon problem.
Chris et al… the point I make about “felons for Rossi” is that we don’t know who these people voted for, despite the insulting Republican assumption to the contrary. And the court is not going to toss an entire election of 3 million votes because a few hundred were improperly canvassed.
Indeed, the biggest goof-up I see is the 348 provisional ballots that were improperly fed into scanning machines without being properly canvassed. This is something that can and should be fixed.
But to toss out this election based on these ballots requires two assumptions: A) that large number of these would have been ruled invalid, and that B) the large majority of those would have gone for Gregoire. There is no evidence to suggest that either of these assumptions are true.
Again… the statute is very clear that there must be an appearence that errors or illegal votes benefited Gregoire to the degree that they changed the outcome. That is the standard to set aside this election.
Hey, here’s an idea. If enough Gregoire voters came forward and admitted to illegally voting for Rossi then the margin of victory could be increased to greater than the margin of error. That way Goldy wouldn’t have to say that this election is just too close to call for sure, Gregoire would have won by enough votes that there would be no question of her victory.
Chris – that’s not the way the law works. “We might not know, so let’s have a do-over”. The law is narrowly written, as Goldy has pointed out many times so that the burden of proof is quite high. The number of illegal votes or errors has to be enough to over-turn the election. If Rossi convinced 300 felons to vote for him, just because 300 > 129, doesn’t mean the election should be overturned.
Here’s what Goldy wrote on another thread:
You clearly don’t understand how our laws work. I suggest you go read the RCWs and show us where it says “uncertainty = revote”
Or how about we re-write other laws to conform with your understanding:
“Hmm, don’t know if this guy might have committed the murder. Only answer is lock him up to be safe”
“Not sure whether this check was already cashed, better take out the money again to be sure”
The Republican lawyers know how this works, which is they and the BIAW are on a desperate fishing expidition hoping to trump up enough legal-like evidence that they can actually meet the burden of proof spelled out in the RCWs.
I don’t see the BIAW search for felon voters amounting to anything other that Rossi seems to have a majority of their vots.
Is there any evidence whatsoever that more felons voted in this election than other ones?
Is there any evidence that a higher percentage of felons voted in Washington than other states?
Is there any evidence that Rossi or Gregoire or any other party worked to get the felons to vote one way or another?
Felons who voted committed a crime by doing so. However, it so far still amounts to zero relevance for the election contest.
Unemployed – keep tracking. The felon purse is empty. Take Pierce as a moded of the so called problem. Life is very consistent when it comes to human behavior. The Pierce felons are the control group – and – the model for the problem.
Give it up. Felon in Eastern Washington from the red counties will just be more illiterate…..how can UnSound keep blathering about these felons for Rossi………felons now in danger from Mob At the Door with Noose and Horses…..what a sorry legal case.
There are folks out there that think attorney Jenny Durkan is one of the very best in a city full of legal talent. Glad to see her on the Dem case. R’s beware – she is not the sir babbling brook you have.
Sad that you constantly are forced to refute the crazy allegations from the right.
Must be done…without rebuttal, people would start believing them!
Would be interesting to see at least one of their claims stand up to even rudimentary scrutiny.
The republicans have been trying to steal this election since November. Their outpourings just created more work for all of us. Luckily, nothing they say (so far) has any staying power.
Hooray for democracy! Let’s not let the republicans rid of us that!
Yawn. I see you neglect to report that the day after this BIAW story appeared, the TNT editorialized that the evidence militated in favor of a re-vote. These felons identified were only ones that had an identical address in the court file as the voting record. When the GOP gets a list of voters’ birthdays, there will be several hundred verifiable matches. This is only the tip of the iceberg.
There will be a revote. Get over it.
Goldy — I just posted this message on the other website in connection with a thread talking about errors and omissions in voting systems. I thought it might have some value to share it here and put some of the issues in perspective. Maybe even put to rest some of the hysterical screaming from the right-wing, although I know that is far too much to ever hope for or expect. Anyway, here were my thoughts about voting systems, in general:
There’s one thing that everyone is missing in this discussion, and that’s costs. One of the main reasons why voting is never as accurate as, say, bank accounts, or even DMV databases, or ATM machines, etc., is that virtually all other activities occur on a continuing basis throughout an entire year and have individuals working on them on a continuing and professional basis.
Elections, however, occur only on 1 day every two years and have largely volunteer help working on that day. So while voting is critical in our democracy, and accurate vote counting is an ideal to strive for, the fact that systems will get only one day’s use every two years and volunteer operatives (even ones who are very dedicated and committed to excellence) may easily forget from one election to the next how all the systems work.
Since they are usually working with inferior equipment because govts are loathe to spend money on equipment that gets such limited single-purpose use, and because they are mostly citizen-volunteers who typically undergo 1 hour of training, the more complex you make the system, the more likely you will have major errors and omissions.
Think simple, efficient and inexpensive and then you’ll have a great voting system. And then when you realize that those 3 goals are often mutually exclusive, you would realize why we have the systems in place that we have and why the American democracy will always be a beautiful, but flawed, system.
We’ve lived with these flaws effectively for 228 years as a country. No problem.
Let’s do the math regarding the “illegal or mistaken votes”. First of all, the number of voters never matches the number of votes. This is always the case in any county which is even half the size of King. The counties have until March 31st to release a final report on absentee ballots, which is well after Rossi’s election contest will end. It would be possible to argue that this issue is relevant to an election contest if it weren’t for the fact that RCW 29A.60.130 states:
“No certificate shall be withheld on account of any defect or informality in the returns of any election, if it can with reasonable certainty be ascertained from such return what office is intended, and who is entitled to such certificate, nor shall any commission be withheld by the governor on account of any defect or informality of any return made to the office of the secretary of state.”
So we can forget about the 1800 vote-to-voter discrepancy in King county, as well as the discrepancies in counties which favored Rossi.
Next we have the “permanently altered” ballots. Removable tape was used on all enhanced ballots in King county, and therefore no King county ballot was “permanently altered” as claimed by Rossi and Vance. This is simply an outright lie which they apparently expect people will believe if parroted for months.
Next we have the 348 provisional ballots which were mistakenly fed into the machines without having been verified. Since only 10% of the provisional ballots in King county were found to be invalid and were not counted, only 10% of the provisional ballots in question would not have been counted had this error not occurred. 10% of 348 is 34.8. Let’s round that up to 35 and then do the breakdown in King county. Gregoire won King by 18%. This would indicate that about 21 of those votes were for Gregoire and 14 were for Rossi. That comes out to 7 net votes for Gregoire which would not have been counted had this error not occurred.
As Goldy was nice enough to point out, “Of the three dead and three felonious voters whose ballot preference we know thus far, four have voted for Rossi, one for Bennett, and only one for Gregoire.” This brings us to a grand total of 4 net illegal or mistaken votes for Gregoire. Of course, the Supreme Court won’t assume that any of the 348 votes were for any specific candidate, but since six illegal voters have revealed for whom they voted, that’s four illegal votes for Rossi, one for Gregoire and one for Bennett. Of course, none of this matters anyway because the Supreme Court will laugh the BIAW out of court, but it’s still interesting to see that all of the neo-cons’ hype and “evidence” has led to a net of four illegal or mistaken votes for Gregoire if you do a breakdown on the 348 provisional votes, and a net of three illegal votes for Rossi if you don’t.
As I’ve said all along, I’m willing to analyze evidence of fraud or gross incompetence brought forth by the BIAW, and if it is legitimate, I will accept it; and if there is enough legitimate evidence to meet the requirements of state law and the Supreme Court rules their way, I will support a runoff election. So far, the BIAW is, at best, up to four net illegal or mistaken votes for Gregoire. Keep trying. I’m sure eventually you dumb assholes will stumble upon 129 net illegal votes for Rossi, and when you do you’ll try to convince everyone that it doesn’t matter that the votes were for Rossi – they were illegal so the election is invalid on its face. Pathetic. You whiny, cry-baby sore-losers are not just shooting yourselves in the foot, you’re making laughing stocks of yourselves and as a result of your actions, no Republican will be elected to a state-wide office in Washington for decades. Except for commissioner of public lands, but that’s only because civilized people don’t really care about the rural issues of inbred hicks.
Also, am I the only one who remembers that the founding fathers intended for this country to be a republic?
Goldy –
Since you have everything all figured out, and therefore, Rossi doesn’t stand a snowballs chance in hell winning the court battle. Why in the heck do you keep wasting your time trying to refute what the crazies at BIAW and others are doing to demand a re-vote or runoff if you prefer?
Why not go crack open a cold one and enjoy your victory party?
Is it because deep down you have trouble believing in what you write?
“Hmm, don’t know if this guy might have committed the murder. Only answer is lock him up to be safe”
1. Comment by jcricket— 1/14/05 @ 2:48 pm
“It is not enough simply to show that there were 129 or more errors. The Rossi folk must show the appearance that these errors benefited Gregoire to the extent that they likely changed the results. And they have provided no such proof thus far.”
Not sure what correlation you are trying to make here? If someone was suspected of murder, they only get looked up after there is evidence to indicate his involvement. No one is taking the lead away from Gregoire yet, they are working on the case to do it but it has not arbitrarily been done. Murder and mishandled provisional ballots are not even close. You are 100% sure someone was murdered and that someone did it. Then you build a case to convict the perpetrator. With the provisional ballots you are only 100% they were mishandled. You will never be able to prove how many went for whom and how many were valid. So if I understand your logic correctly, if 100 ballots were incorrectly mixed in with the valid ballots. Ballots no one had verified and Rossi won by 40 votes you would be ok with the result and there would be no law to address these ballots.
In my opinion, it is not unreasonable to expect that a court would find that these provisional ballots meat the requirement; unless the irregularity or improper conduct was such as to procure the person whose right to the office may be contested, to be declared duly elected although the person did not receive the highest number of legal votes.
RCW 29A.68.070
Misconduct of board – Irregularity material to result.
No irregularity or improper conduct in the proceedings of any election board or any member of the board amounts to such malconduct as to annul or set aside any election unless the irregularity or improper conduct was such as to procure the person whose right to the office may be contested, to be declared duly elected although the person did not receive the highest number of legal votes.
Now you know why I don’t want the BIAW’s “help”. Hell, they’re helping Gregovych.
Maybe instead they should get to work at Xeroxing Marummy :-).
Brent – “civilized people don’t really care about the rural issues of inbred hicks.” What a lovely human being you must be.
Hopefully Brent you realize I was trying to make the point of taking a quote OUT OF CONTEXT – as seems to be done quite a bit these days. LOL
DP, I’m absolutely sick and tired of the non-stop stereotypical personal attacks from neo-cons. They devote pages and pages of nothing but stereotypical attacks against “liberals”, and in response I made one stereotypical attack against them as a side-comment at the very end of a long post. If I had resorted to stereotypical personal attacks first, or had attacked them on the level which they have attacked me, your criticism would be warranted. However, in light of all the stereotypical personal attacks coming from the neo-cons, your criticism falls flat on its face. If my response to their constant personal attacks means that I’m not a lovely human being, then what kind of human beings are they who engage in stereotypical personal attacks almost exclusively? And for that matter, what kind of human being completely ignores their constant stereotypical personal attacks and yet condemns another for throwing a tiny bit of it back in their face?
DP, I’m absolutely sick and tired of the non-stop stereotypical personal attacks from neo-cons.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Am I to assume that you would prefer us conservatives just go away and leave you libs to sing koom by ya together, what an exiting blog that would be…no you need us.
Chuck, I wasn’t referring to comments made on this blog so much as comments made on unsound politics. Things are about even here in terms of whom attacks whom and for what. On the other hand, they ban liberals at unsound politics, so their site is a joke. Just a bunch of mentally challenged parrots stuck in an infinite loop.
For one thing, Chuck, you’re not a conservative. You’re a neo-conservative. If you were conservative, you would not support the political party which racks up huge deficits and steals hundreds of billions of dollars from taxpayers to “finance” a BS war. But you do support them, and you’re loud and boisterous, which is anything but conservative.
And I don’t want you people to go away. I just want you to tone it down, stop lying about and distorting the facts, and listen. That’s all I ask, but apparently it’s too much to ask of brainwashed didiots with single-digit IQs.
If you were conservative, you would not support the political party which racks up huge deficits and steals hundreds of billions of dollars from taxpayers to “finance” a BS war.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are you referring to Clinton in Haiti? I didnt support that at all.
To clarify my previous post, I just want neo-cons to tone it down, stop lying about and distorting the facts, and listen. If they cannot rise to this minimal level of decency, THEN I want them to go away because they bring nothing of value to discussions or debates; they simply irritate people and attempt to brainwash the ignorant and easily manipulated.
LOL Chuck. You know damn well that Clinton didn’t steal hundreds of billions of dollars from taxpayers for Haiti, but Bush and his cronies told us it would cost us only a few billion dollars for the fist year of the Iraq war and a few years into it it would be costing us at most $15 billion per year. They also told us that all of our money would be repaid through Iraqi oil. Less than two years into the war, the total bill for the war is $200 billion (The last time I checked. If this has changed, the price has gone up, not down.) and we haven’t seen a penny from Iraqi oil and we’ve been told by the administration that we won’t be paid back any money through Iraqi oil sales.
Also, I distinctly remember Aristeed claiming that he was kidnapped at gunpoint by American military personnel, so don’t tell me the Bush administration had nothing to do with the (relatively) recent coup in Haiti.
Brent – My second post was an attempt to show you that I understand your frustration – on my side, I’ve been there. I am a conservative and try to state opinions without resorting to name-calling, etc. I suppose you would call me a neo-conservative because I support George Bush.
DP, I responded to your first post before I had a chance to read your second post. I think George W. Bush put it best when he said “I make no distinction between terrorists and those who support them.” That’s the only half-way intelligent thing I’ve ever heard him say. I make no distinction between neo-cons and those who support them.
Josef is a broken record. Too bad he doesn’t let facts get in the way.
Also, I distinctly remember Aristeed claiming that he was kidnapped at gunpoint by American military personnel,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dont let the parinoid accusations of idiots sway your mind, as far as Iraq we are going to have to spend a bit more to gain some stability there. You call the war sensless, do you want to let Saddam go home and take charge of Iraq again? Would Iraq be better? Would we be safer? Would the world be better off? How about womens rights in Iraq, would that be better with Saddam? How about religious freedom, would saddam improve this? How is the war sensless?
By the way, the action in Haiti was sensless…
Chuck – And don’t forget the children’s prison, the rape rooms and thousands of dead Iraqi’s in mass graves. Forgive my low IQ.
Comment by Chuck— 1/14/05 @ 6:47 pm
“A bit more money”? We were told that we would have to pay at most $30 billion for the first three years of the war and that all of that money would be paid back to us by Iraqis through oil revenue. Now the price tag is $200 billion. It’s the biggest understatement imaginable to say that $200 billion is more than “a bit more” than $0.
Of course I don’t think Saddam Hussein should be allowed to be set free. He is a war criminal and he should be tried for his crimes. However, he is not receiving a fair trial. Now I don’t give a shit about Saddam, but if a fair trail were to take place, when the Americans accuse him of using chemical and biological weapons, he could call Regan/Bush/Bush Jr. administration officials to the stand and force them to testify as to where he got his chemical and biological weapons. Those of us who aren’t in denial know he got plenty from Bush Sr. and Rumsfeld. Would anyone be safer or better off? If Saddam were re-installed as dictator and all American presence ceased in Iraq, Iraqis would be much safer because insurgents would not have any targets left in Iraq. Also, Saddam was so brutal towards criminals that it kept most would-be criminals in check because they knew what would happen to them if they committed a crime. Would we be safer? No, and we wouldn’t be at more risk, either. Saddam Hussein did not pose a significant threat to anyone but his own people from the end of the gulf war until the day he was removed from power. Saddam returning to power would not make the world better or worse off. How about women’s rights in Iraq? It’s being run by a Bush-installed dictator, and this administration has gone out of its way at every opportunity to destroy women’s rights (for example, one of the first things Bush did after stealing office was to eliminate the council on women’s issues), so I would venture to guess that if anyone but this administration had control of Iraq women’s rights might have a chance in hell of succeeding. How about religious freedom? Under Hussein, Christians, Muslims and Jews all lived and worshiped in Iraq. Iraq was the only Islamic (not Islamist, mind you) state which allowed Jews to live and worship openly and freely. Now that he’s not there keeping the Islamists at bey, they’re free to roam around killing innocent Christians and Jews and Muslims who aren’t of their particular faction. So yes, religious freedom would be much better in Iraq if Saddam were in power than if this theocratic administration remained in power there.
The war is senseless because in order for it not to be, it would have to make sense. No president should ever deliberately lie repeatedly, especially during the state of the union speech. War should always be a president’s last option and if he has no other choice, the reasons for war should be blatantly obvious to everyone. He should not have to build a case for war. After major combat operations, the reasons which he gave for starting the war should hold up to scrutiny. It is never acceptable for a president to make up excuses for why he went to war. Nor is it ever acceptable for a president to keep changing his story and keep coming up with a new excuse every time he is proven to be lying. None of those things should ever happen, yet Bush did all of them. If you want anyone to support your war, you have to prove that it is a just cause. What were the reasons and excuses for the war? Weapons of Mass Destruction which were never there and never found? I forget what the other bullshit excuses you rabid animals have come up with for why it’s okay to napalm and expose to depleted uranium hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
And explain to me how it is acceptable that American military personnel turned Fallujah into a free-fire zone and shot anything that moved? If civilians stayed in their homes they would be bombed and killed. If they went outside waving white flags, they were shot and killed. If they attempted to run or swim away, they were shot and killed. Anything that moved. Men, women, children, animals. It doesn’t matter to the brain-dead subhuman rabid animals in the American military. They just love shooting and napalming and blowing up innocent civilians, especially women, children and the elderly. You people are not even really people. You’re nothing more than rabid animals who have somehow developed the ability to speak and type. And don’t tell me that this didn’t happen. It was reported by almost every news organization, corporate or independent, worldwide, except in America, of course, where we are forced to put up with fascist censorship on a massive scale. Oh, but you don’t care about any of this, do you? I’ll bet you don’t think it even happened. After all, everyone else on Earth is wrong and you neo-cons are right. Right?
You just gotta laugh Chuck..
These boneheaded, poor excuses for Lefty’s have forgotten what they were told almost a month ago. The R’s don’t have to produce evidence until the Court case moves forward. In the meantime, these clowns have been rope-a-doped…big time. All the quotes and attacks by the Left minimizing, marginalizing and accusing the Right as being crazed liars???
Who here actually believes BIAW and the Rossi campaign would reveal their entire case in a BLOG??? Not me.
Who thinks the R’s would reveal everything before a trial?
Do any of you know what a “snowman” is?
Do you actually think it is a mere coincidence all this information and focus has been on felons the past 2-3 weeks?
pause for a second and look around…but this time when you look around actually open your eyes! Now, which one is your ass and which one is a hole in the ground?
It is well known that “neo-con” is code word for Jewish, or being a supporter of Israel. It is the way bigots get to be anti-Semitic without having to admit it. Why is it necessary to label someone? Why not just address their comments, and either agree or refute?
Comment by DP— 1/14/05 @ 6:54 pm
Yeah, and let’s not forget how those same torture and rape rooms are still being used for the same things by the Americans, or that children are thrown in with the adult prison population now that Iraq is controlled by Halliburton. Let’s not forget the millions of innocent Iraqis who were starved, shot, raped and tortured to death by Americans. And let’s especially not forget that many of the pictures and videos released during the Abu Gharib torture scandal were never released to the public, but a few journalists were allowed to view them. Seymour Hersch described a videotape where a ten-year-old boy’s screams could be heard as he was being raped. Let’s especially not forget that. And let’s not forget that torture was both authorized and ordered by the Defense Department and the White House. Let’s not forget, and let’s allow them to be properly tried and convicted in international criminal courts for their barbaric, fascist actions.
Two thirds of the voting population in Iraq has registered to vote in the upcoming election. Over 6,000 have put their names forward as candidates. Only 20% of the population is Sunni, a smaller percentage of these are Baathists. So why, Brent, are you so in favor of having the small minority be back in power? If we leave, and the election is cancelled, this small terrorist minority will once again take over, and those who dared to have freedom will be destroyed.
The small minority will prevail without the US Military there because they have lots of money. Where did they get it? From the Oil for Food program, under the guidance of the UN.
The Iraqi people finally have a chance to control their destiny, and the likes of Brent want them to go away, and die. How sad.
Comment by Janet S— 1/14/05 @ 7:39 pm
Wow. You’re even dumber than the average neo-con. In fact, you’re so incredibly stupid that you don’t even know that it is common knowledge that “neo-con” is short for “neo-conservative” and is used to describe Republicans with an agenda which is directly antithetical to true conservatism. I use the term neo-con for you people because I don’t want to offend REAL, ACTUAL Republicans.
Brent will accuse me of name-calling, but why are election counting disputes seemingly limited to counties run by Democrats?
The bigger issue here is the relaibility of close elections, typically the issues like school board bond propositions.
Reconciliation of votes to voters is done at the Precinct level, around 1,000 voters. It is not unreasonable to expect a Precinct to be able to reconcile the records to demonstrate that there was one voter for each vote.
Counting Provisionals with no verification is a problem even Goldy admits must be solved. It should not be too hard to include felons whose voting rights have been revoked and the deceased in the problems to be resolved.
There are clearly identified problems in King County, and they likely extend to other counties as well.
Cheer for Gregoire all you want, but why defend these obvious errors?
Goldy-
You actually believe you have disproved “distributed voter fraud” based on 6 ballots??
And you did it based on newspaper information? REALLY?
Did you know that the Sec of State gave the newspaper data they wouldn’t provide to BIAW? Why was that Goldy?
I thought everyone wanted the truth?
So the SOS helps the newspaper get felon database information they didn’t provide someone else, when Reed knew what others were looking for? VEEDDDDY INTERRESSSTING!
I’d love to see the newspapers Public Records Request.
Do you think the SOS office or one of the County Election Officers (like Logan) helped the newspaper write it?
We’ll see.
Brent – Not to be your alter-ego, but it’s certainly plausible to have the latest political phrase mean different things to different people. There is no politically correct definition of neo-con. Just as liberals now want to be called progressives as it has a negative connotation to some. Stop name calling.
Comment by Janet S— 1/14/05 @ 7:47 pm
It’s pathetic that the only way you can construct any type of argument is to lie about and misrepresent what others have said. I never said I was in favor of putting the small minority into power. I answered Chuck’s questions in great detail, but I clearly did not state that I believe any specific person or group of people should lead Iraq. You can make up whatever lies and bullshit you want, Janet, but just because you made it up doesn’t make it true. There were no terrorists in Iraq before Cheney invaded it. Now Iraq is overrun with terrorists because they are offended by an American presence there and feel it is their duty to defend their fellow Muslims. Since you people have had your way with Iraq and terrorists overrun it now, the country is less safe than it has been in decades. All the poll workers for the election have quit after receiving death threats. In the vast majority of Iraq, it is not safe for people to go to the polls and vote. Insurgents have warned Iraqis to stay away from the polls on voting day or risk being killed. Rumsfeld’s answer to all of this? “It won’t be a perfect election, but an imperfect election is still better than no election at all.” Is this your idea of democracy? Is this your idea of freedom? Go wash all that blood off of your hands before you type a reply.
Comment by DP— 1/14/05 @ 8:00 pm
I made it quite clear in one of my previous posts that I am not name-calling. I simply do not wish to insult real, actual Republicans by calling you people Republicans. I call you neo-cons to specify which type of Republicans you are, so as to avoid confusion and the appearance that I hate all types of Republicans, which is not true at all. Neo-cons have had a stranglehold on the Republican party for decades now, but some decent, fiscal conservatives just aren’t bright enough to wake up and realize that their party is committing acts which are directly antithetical to true conservatism, such as racking up huge deficits.
I see were either in lock-step with the current administration (Kool-aid drinking neo-cons) or naive and stupid Republicans. Silly me, I thought you were name-calling.
“…why are election counting disputes seemingly limited to counties run by Democrats?”
Comment by Terry J— 1/14/05 @ 7:51 pm
You’ve got to be shitting me. You honestly can’t figure out that one? The Democrats won. They’re not contesting the election. The Republicans are. And the Republicans have to prove that any fraud or gross negligence benefited Gregoire by at least 129 votes. If the GOP went around making accusations of fraud in counties which favored Rossi, the fraudulent or mistaken votes would favor Rossi, and they’re trying to prove that the fraud and negligence caused an advantage to Gregoire, not Rossi.
“It won’t be a perfect election, but an imperfect election is still better than no election at all.” Is this your idea of democracy? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is what you King County democrats just handed the state of Washington
Why should the Iraqis get any better election than the state of Washington?
Democracy, however imperfect, sure beats the alternative. I’m not sure where the information is coming from that ALL the poll workers in Iraq have quit. It sounds like a bit of embellishment.
I was beginning to think that the discussion of Iraq was quite off topic from the governors race, but, really it isn’t. Elections can be messy, but they prove that we are a nation of laws, not of men. Iraq is trying to get there, but can’t do it all at once. Those being disenfranchised don’t go to court, they just blow up the opposition. I applaud those in Iraq who risk their lives in order to vote. It kind of puts our whole discussion here in perspective.
I would like an election at least as fair as the Ukraine just had. Keep chilled, Brent
Comment by Chuck— 1/14/05 @ 8:17 pm
The Democrats did not hand Washington an election in which ALL of the poll workers quit due to death threats and in which everyone has been warned by terrorists to stay away from the polls on election day or risk being killed. Nor did they ever refer to such a situation as “better than nothing”.
Keep in mind that we have 200 years on them – things are more subtle but just as deadly to democracy.
I applaud those in Iraq who risk their lives in order to vote.
Comment by Janet S— 1/14/05 @ 8:20 pm
But you refuse to realize or admit that you are personally responsible for every Iraqi who has been tortured, raped and murdered in Iraq since Halliburton invaded it (assuming you voted for Bush, and judging from your comments, I’d say it’s fair to assume so).
Comment by DP— 1/14/05 @ 8:28 pm
Saying we have 200 years on Iraq is like saying we have +/-55 years on Thailand because that’s when they changed their name from Siam, or saying we have 80 years on Thailand because that’s when they switched from being a total monarchy to a democratic monarchy. They’ve been around for millennia and it’s not like they don’t pass things down from generation to generation.
The Four defenses of the Democrats : Read Them and Weep
Of course, the Democrats have no intention of letting the case go the way the Republicans want, having filed a motion to stop it. The Democrats believe there are four problems with the lawsuit. First, the courts do not have jurisdiction in an election challenge of a governor’s race (the state constitution assigns that power to the Legislature). Second, if any court has jurisdiction, it’s the state Supreme Court, not a county superior court. Third, it’s unconstitutional to hold a special election for governor. And fourth, the Republicans’ claims don’t have merit under the state law that speaks to contested elections.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/f.....vernor.php
I’m not quite sure why this post didn’t show up, but I’ll repost it.
“I applaud those in Iraq who risk their lives in order to vote.”
Comment by Janet S— 1/14/05 @ 8:20 pm
But you refuse to realize or admit that you are personally responsible for every Iraqi who has been tortured, raped and murdered in Iraq since Halliburton invaded it (assuming you voted for Bush, and judging from your comments, I’d say it’s fair to assume so).
Mr. C – is it true that you run the count the voting felons program?
How many of these felons are in Jefferson? Asotin? Garfied?
Brent -Exactly my point. This little experiment in democracy called the United States has done pretty well world/history wise. A lot of people died and are dying to defend it. Iraq is just beginning.
How many of these felons are in Jefferson? Asotin? Garfied?
Unknown to date but there are likely tons of them in Walla Walla with a great majority of them likely voting for Rossi.
Comment by DP— 1/14/05 @ 8:42 pm
You have one incredibly sick, twisted view of the world if you believe that defending your country falls into the category of illegally (under international law) invading a basically unarmed country which has never attacked or threatened to attack your own, and proceeding to rape, torture and murder tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. What the hell does turning a city into a free-fire zone and shooting anything that moves, even children and the elderly, even though many were holding white flags, have to do with defending your country? You barbaric animals have the audacity to refer to your war crimes as self-defense when it is obvious to everyone on Earth – except a minority of the American public – that you are fascist war criminals and aggressors. And the most infuriating thing of all is that you will defend said genocidal war crimes by claiming it was self-defense. Was that 10-year-old boy who was raped by a Halliburton contractor a threat to national security? Were the elderly and children who were napalmed, exposed to depleted uranium, tortured, raped and murdered a threat to national security? You’d better shoot that 80-year-old woman who’s waving a white flag! She and her two-year-old grandchild are the biggest threat to democracy this world has ever seen!
I refuse to discuss this, or anything else for that matter, with barbaric, rabid, unthinking animals like the pathetic pieces of shit who have the audacity to defend said war crimes as “self-defense”. Go fuck yourselves. And go wash all that blood off of your hands. It’s really starting to get messy.
Comment by DP— 1/14/05 @ 8:42 pm
You have one incredibly sick, twisted view of the world if you believe that defending your country falls into the category of illegally (under international law) invading a basically unarmed country which has never attacked or threatened to attack your own, and proceeding to rape, torture and murder tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. What the hell does turning a city into a free-fire zone and shooting anything that moves, even children and the elderly, even though many were holding white flags, have to do with defending your country? You barbaric animals have the audacity to refer to your war crimes as self-defense when it is obvious to everyone on Earth – except a minority of the American public – that you are fascist war criminals and aggressors. And the most infuriating thing of all is that you will defend said genocidal war crimes by claiming it was self-defense. Was that 10-year-old boy who was raped by a Halliburton contractor a threat to national security? Were the elderly and children who were napalmed, exposed to depleted uranium, tortured, raped and murdered a threat to national security? You’d better shoot that 80-year-old woman who’s waving a white flag! She and her two-year-old grandchild are the biggest threat to democracy this world has ever seen!
I refuse to discuss this, or anything else for that matter, with barbaric, rabid, unthinking animals like the pathetic pieces of shit who have the audacity to defend said war crimes as “self-defense”. Go fuck yourselves. And go wash all that blood off of your hands. It’s really starting to get messy.
Unknown to date but there are likely tons of them in Walla Walla with a great majority of them likely voting for Rossi.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I lived in Walla Walla for a year, few actual felons live there compared to the western side….
Summation – the dead who are voting issue has deflated to 6 or 7 people, mostly confused elderly folks, no consequence at all. The Seattle Times has debunked by careful research all the crap the R’s including Vance and inthemudSound have been ranting about for weeks. All debunked-gone.
The felons, their numbers and candidate choice both on display. Again the Times tell us many errors in early reports, not the felon voting but old dad, same name, at the same address. And other data errors in the first stunning accusations, “there are hundreds of felons voting” — said big mouth Vance. Not true at all. Debunked. Claims gone also because even facing criminal charges they say they voted for The Cool Cat, Rossi. Irony the law and order party has a voting caucus for felons, very progressive for R’s.
We all know some provisional ballots were process that should have been verified. Error only. No organized plan, less that one ballot per precinct, who know who they voted for. And how do you stop a voter who has just voted from going over to the counter and feeding their ballot just like everyone else……maybe shoot them on sight? This is as weak as the felon and the dead.
No case. And with 90 parties and every law firm in the state and all the county prosecutors — you think this is going to be speedy trial…….taking bids to sell the 520 bridge cheap….remember all parties can appeal…..any part……
these clowns have been rope-a-doped…big time.
Cynical you crack me up (again). Would those “clowns” include Sharkansky and most if not all of the commenters at (u)SP who breathlessly parroted these “felon” announcements from the BIAW?
And, forgot to mention…..all the law firm attorneys are on the clock. Gold mining is nothing to what they are going to bill and collect.
Why would any of them want to close the case down with deep pocket clients forking over 200.00 to 500.00 per hour. Speedy trial, even the judges will have some days of fame.
Why would any of them want to close the case down with deep pocket clients forking over 200.00 to 500.00 per hour. Speedy trial, even the judges will have some days of fame.
Thanks Dino hypocRossi and Chris Rants!
That’s funny, because when I’m reading my hate mail, the most common code words for Jewish I see are “East Coast intellectual”, “you people”, and oh yeah… “commie kike” is always popular.
On the other hand, I’ve always used “neo-con” in a nonsectarian way.
Chuck – if you are out there – tell us again how Microsoft is moving to Vegas – that was your theory of things weeks ago. Somehow blaming Dems….”they are getting a deal they can’t refuse”
News reprts of recent days – not true at all…Building the new Gates Foundation offices, prime 50 million site, in Seattle, giant expansion in Redmond. Must be the good business climate.
Remember grandpa Gates is here, and the Media house is comfy for Bill and Melinda.
“jim”;
The facts are clear: The BIAW is a bunch of liars… and I don’t trust anything they say on their own. Happy now?
Now do you understand why I do NOT want their help?!?
Comment by Goldy— 1/14/05 @ 10:08 pm
You’ve got to admit that neo-con gets tossed out far too often. And the term has absolutely 100% nothing to do with whether an individual is inclined to support Rossi or not.
Yes Zip… like most labels, “neo-con” gets over used and misused. (Though “codeword for Jewish”… I’ve never heard that one before.)
In general, I think it is mostly used, rightly or wrongly, to try to distinguish traditional conservative Republicans (balanced budgets, small government, protection of privacy) from the more extreme, right-wing elements of the party.
And I agree, I wouldn’t consider the majority of Rossi voters neo-cons. Though if you really look at his record, he is more closely aligned with the neo-con wing of his party than with the mainstream.
Response to Brent:
If Bush did not go to war with Iraq and Saddam gave WMD’s to Terrorists you would be the first to crucify Bush for not acting. You would say; “Bill Clinton knew Saddam had WMD’s and was a threat, John Kerry knew Saddam had WMD’s and was a threat, John Edwards knew, the CIA knew, foreign governments knew. You would call for his head saying he ignored all the evidence, he ignored his advisors and he ignored the democrat leadership. The blood of the dead would be on his hands, you would say.
So now you want to say, because no WMD stockpiles were found that he lied. If he lied then they all lied. They all lied, starting way before Bush was president. President’s lied, Congressmen lied, Senators lied, the CIA lied, the FBI, Foreign governments. You can’t have it both ways; you can’t have years of Democrat leadership and countless sound bites and congressional testimony and intelligence briefings stating the threat of Saddam. You can’t have John Kerry saying years ago that he was way ahead of his party in stating the true threat Saddam and his WMD’s posed. You can’t have john Edwards state that Saddam was an imminent threat and then try to push that quote off on Bush. You can’t have the policy of the United States be regime change in Iraq, when the President to put that policy in place was Clinton. You can’t have mass graves filled with men, women and Children. The democrats always want to go save the world but in this case you would prefer if Saddam was still filling those graves. Quite hypocritical of you. I can go on and on. You can’t have all of these things and then call this a senseless war and proclaim Bush a liar. You also can’t say that you think it is better for everyone that Saddam is out of power. You believe what Bush did was wrong, which means you think the right thing would be for him to not have removed Saddam from power.
Your post only served to show your hatred for Bush and not any objective, rational analysis of fact.
For a change of pace, this post:
http://www.timothygoddard.com/blog/index.php?p=816
lays out a good case why “Distributed vote fraud” or interviewing felons to determine who they voted for will not be the issues the court looks at. Those issues and whether or not fraud was involved are a smoke screen, maybe the beginnings of the “PR war” that has been bandied about.
Zip… there have clearly always been two different battles going on here… the PR battle and the legal battle. I personally can’t do much about the legal battle, so I choose to engage in the PR one.
That said, I think Timothy’s analysis contains a bit of wishful thinking, as it’s built on the assumption that ballot enhancement is illegal, and that the failure to reconcile the voter list with the ballot count is significant. In fact he’s totally missed the one thing in Foulkes v. Hays that actually should give hope to the Rossi camp… the court isn’t necessarily limited by the statutes.
The problem for the GOP is that making mistakes and being negligant are not the same thing. Every election is flawed… but that doesn’t imply that all election officials are negligent. This election by both historical and national standards was relatively clean, orderly and accurate.
Saying we have 200 years on Iraq is like saying we have +/-55 years on Thailand because that’s when they changed their name from Siam, or saying we have 80 years on Thailand because that’s when they switched from being a total monarchy to a democratic monarchy. They’ve been around for millennia and it’s not like they don’t pass things down from generation to generation.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dont compare Siam/Thailand to anyone else…the country basically has for centuries allowed themselves to be invaded, and after the latest “ruler” takes over they hold out the rice bowl, this is Siam…possibly the most invaded country on earth.
Chuck – if you are out there – tell us again how Microsoft is moving to Vegas – that was your theory of things weeks ago. Somehow blaming Dems….”they are getting a deal they can’t refuse”>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yup and Boeing bought Fredrickson and Longacres….where are they now??????
Comment by Goldy— 1/14/05 @ 11:45 pm
The unverified provisional ballots that were counted should be enough to meet the standard the court based their decision on in Foulkes. The rest of the irregularities are additional smokescreen. And I think public opinion (among people who cut thru the BS) hinges on the unverified provisionals, too.
The problem for the GOP is that making mistakes and being negligant are not the same thing. Every election is flawed… but that doesn’t imply that all election officials are negligent. This election by both historical and national standards was relatively clean, orderly and accurate.
Comment by Goldy— 1/14/05 @ 11:45 pm
Everyone agrees Goldy that elections are flawed. Ths issue at hand in this case is; is this election “flawed” enough to have an impact of the extreme closeness of the result. Obviously, we would not be having this debate if the vote gap was 5,000 votes becuase it would be improbable that “Flaws” although they existed, had an impact on the result. So it is the closeness of the race and not the existence of the flaws that makes the flaws relevent. That is why the law is written the way it is, machine count, recount, hand count, contest. If the machine count had a large gap, I believe 2500 votes (I could be rmebering incorrectly) then the process stops. No recounts. That is a large enough victory, according to the law to have reasonable confidence in the result. Everyone knows that it is probably not 100% accurate but unlikely that the few hundred or thousand erros that would be normal or expected would not impact the result.
Chris… I understand how your argument might make sense to you, but the problem is every election this close would fall within the margin of error, and thus every such election would be set aside.
Think again about your argument… when the count comes within 1500 votes, there is an automatic recount, because it is accepted that 1500 is far enough within the margin of error that we need to count more carefully. But if the recount results in a margin of 1… that’s it… the winner wins by 1. If the statute didn’t accept a certain degree of uncertainty, then it would require a minimum margin of victory. It clearly doesn’t.
The court is not going to want to create a precedent where every close election ends up in court, with attorneys constantly pushing the limit of what is or is not the unwritten minimum margin of victory.
Errors tend to be distributed randomly. The GOP is going to have to prove that the errors in this election were not.
Goldy, that’s not my understanding of the law here. Better consult an attorney on whether the GOP has to prove the unverifed provisional votes DID or COULD HAVE swayed the result. Since it is impossible to determine whether they DID, it seems that COULD HAVE will be the test. There should be no argument that they were negligently counted.
Comment by Chuck— 1/14/05 @ 11:45 pm Chuck in all of your self centered hysteria you could not have said it worse. Thailand is one of the very few countries in the world that has never in ‘modern times’ been ruled over by another country. Thailand in the Thai language means Free Land. You should do some studying before you let your big mouth run amuck. I do know a thing or two about Thailand, I have lived here for the past 7 years. Once again, get a grip on reality and accept the fact that you are flawed.
Thai language means Free Land. You should do some studying before you let your big mouth run amuck. I do know a thing or two about Thailand, I have lived here for the past 7 years.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cool Thailand was and probably still is home base for the real “Air America” Give us a break…thailand is US govt puppet (hold out the rice bowl)
jimp, You have not even lived in WA for the past 7 years? So where do you get off making statements like “Actually when you get right down to it, the neocon buzz right now is very similiar to the JIHAD in the middle east. Fanatics through and through going against the grain of humanity” ? You proved with this statement that you have no conception of why Rossi took so many votes that Gregoire thought she had in the bag, and by admitting that you don’t even live here you’ve double proved it. So if you’re ignorant of the conditions “on the ground” in WA, maybe you should not get so fanatical with youe name calling.
Chuck – I asked a specific question about all your assumptions tht Microsoft was going to leave the state….etc….and implying that it was Dems fault and Gregoire was to blame or something —-
You changed the topic. Boeing has been a badly run INC. for a long time. Their plane making is shorter profits than their other divisions.
They would sell the airplane side in a minute if there was a buyer. Airbus??? As the dollar slides the Euros will buy the whole of American business…..small planet.
COULD HAVE – is that a new legal term that Chris Vance is substituting in law for facts and evidence. What a standard of proof.
Please, think aout what you just said. And you COULD HAVE been guilty of ….how many cimes….but you were not, FACT.
Wake up man, Boeing is history, understand? gone!, you Libs have ran that one out of town. Airbus is a possible engagement…possible if you guys pull your heads out long enough, and keep the promises you make. They may be looking for a tanker factory. MS is a pretty much gone deal, just a matter of time ( I hope I am wrong…really!)
bby, Boeing was severely burned when they could not build on Longacres. Based on stupid decisions made by Dept. of Ecology under Gregoire’s leadership. Ecology was the most scrwed up agency in State govt. back when Gregoire ran it, couldn’t make a decison to save their lives and delayed countless projects. That is the main reason I distrust Gregoire so much, I don’t believe she can manage the executive branch of govt.
Comment by bby— 1/15/05 @ 1:01 am
Maybe you should go back and read the article and my comment again. And then tell me why the unverified provisional votes should be allowed to count. Then tell me who those votes were negligently counted for. Then tell me that it is a FACT that they did not sway the election.
Chuck – Boeing sold all its Wichata Kansas stuff to another aero company. Now, just what did Kansas do wrong.
You have the George Bush head – hard and can’t say I made a mistake. You are not famous enough to have hurbris, just hard head. Empty mostly……hot air space
ZIP – The provisional have to count. Not challenged earlier, have no idea whose ballots they are.
Misake, yes. Fraud, no. Criminal neglect. no. Change the totals, all guess work.
Not a good case to build on. More investigtion will show, I bet, that voters took it on themeselves to feed the ballots. Poll workers – should have done what to stop them, if noticed in the swirl of the polling place.
I have posted many times on the topic, including the good voter sanding in line watching people feed ballots in to the machine and when finished and just followed suit.
One of the problems debating with paranoid people is they can’t let go of it. It is one of the asumptions they build their lives on.
The real world and real life scapes, never intrudes on their mental state. You do reflect a lot of paranoia in the new R world. Suspicion for all except your own. Cultish, too.
Chuck – Boeing sold all its Wichata Kansas stuff to another aero company. Now, just what did Kansas do wrong>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Wrong again, they sold a few little non profit deals like wire loom producers. Look at the east coast, you libs had a hay day there years ago. Now they are taking the plants back (exept Nevada)….
bby, you failed to tell me why the unverified provisional votes should be allowed to count. I’ll bet you didn’t read that article. Those were good voters in adams county too, but the court decided the votes were no longer good due to negligence.
And please don’t lob any more hand grenades, nobody cares. I’m not paranoid, I’m trying to respond to some of the BS I see posted on this site.
ZIP – read the case. Someone opend the bags and altered the ballots. Clearly altered them.
Where is the comparison? Mistake vs. clear FRAUD, altering ballots – illegal FRAUD.
The investigation into felons voting is not over yet, obviously. So to reach a conclusion, as you have, based upon the information to date is not advised. Until all th einformation is in it is a big stretch to assume that the retio as you described will continue. Also you do not know truly how these people voted, no matter what they say. And being biased as I am, I think we may find that the felons, that “accidentally†voted could balance out amongst the canidates but those that knowingly voted illegally went for Gregoire.
To what end? RCW 29A.68.020(5)(b) provides that “(b) Illegal votes do not include votes cast by improperly registered voters who were not properly challenged under RCW 29A.08.810 and 29A.08.820.” RCw 29A.08.810 provides ” Under RCW 29A.08.810, “[c]hallenges initiated by a registered voter must be filed not later than the day before any primary or election, general or special, at the office of the appropriate county auditor.”
Your boys, Rossi and Vance, should have contested any registration of felons voting by voters by the day before the election. Here, they screwed up by missing the November 1 deadline, but the effect is got 3 more felons voting for Rossi in Pierce County. But the point is that November 1 was the deadline to submit this challenge in order to say that any vote was an illegal vote.
Brent, you’re right about the neo-cons promising that reconstruction costs would be low. Here’s an example quote:
[i]Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]
But then six months later – only AFTER the war had already begun – Wolfy changed his story.
No one said we would know anything other than this would be very bloody, it could be very long and by implication, it could be very expensive.”
There are plenty of other example quotes from these fake conservatives lying through their teeth.
http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm
Also, in case people really have no idea who the neo-conservatives are, they have their own website.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Check out what’s on their “Statement of Principles” page:
June 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America’s role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital — both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements — built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation’s ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration’s success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
Look at that! Dated 1997, they’re talking about the US’ military role in shaping “Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.” 9/11 was the greatest gift to their cause, and what an expensive – coincidentally, of course – cause it has turned out to be! But then that’s not surprising when you look at who signed onto the principles page:
Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz
Note how most of the Bush administration is listed here, but Dubya is not. Plausible deniability, that’s the ticket!
Dearest Zip for brains, because I live in another country does not mean that I do not get to my home state. Get real. I travel to Olympia about 6 times per year. Probably more aware of the real ‘feel’ in the street than you are, it seems you just sit in your glass house and throw stones at others that do not see your vision of a free America. I outside the state for working purposes only. Maybe you should try to understand some facts before you let you ignorance show the world what little you really know of all that is going on.
jim p–
Now I get it..you don’t live here but you “visit” frequently. And that makes you an expert.
I appreciate your rants for civility jim p and followed immediately by an offensive tirade.
Your uneducated opinions jim p reminds me of the old saying:
“opinions are like a$$holes jim p, everyone has one…and jim p you are one!”
Dearest Mr. C, if the shoe fits, wear it. I have been involved in this states elections longer than you I imagine, and I am not paid by anyone (seems unlike yourself) to post here. What I say comes from my heart and clear mind, not from some deep, dark, depressed area in my being like you it seems. I have every right as you to say and feel what I feel. If I make my money in another country, what is the problem. Atleast I can look in the mirror every morning and see someone who has a clear concious and can walk tall knowing that I am who I am, and not someone that ‘somebody bigger’ wants me to be. And you of all people Mr. C, ” the pot calling the kettle black”?
Even though we are on opposite sides of basically every issue, I do with you luck and happines……I guess…LMAO at YOU
and to add another comment to Dearest Mr. C. atleast my a$$hole doesn’t pucker and get wet waiting for the BIAW to give me some. Enough already
Jim – let’s cut Cynical a little slack. The BIAW isn’t going to keep paying him to post here once the Republicans lose their lawsuit. And I’m wondering how they will judge his performance knowing that he has failed to convince a single person of anything, and has increasingly resorted to ad hominem attacks.
Let’s take pity on poor Cynical :(
Comment by Chris— 1/14/05 @ 10:53 pm
The assertion that Saddam Hussein would give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists is the most laughable, idiotic assertion I’ve ever heard. Osama bin Laden referred to Hussein as the “Socialist Infidel” and repeatedly called for his assassination. Once you give up control of weapons, you no longer have any control over how and where they are used. Hussein was a brutal war criminal, but he wasn’t stupid in the sense that he would give weapons of mass destruction to a group of people who severely want to kill him.
The CIA reported that they could find no evidence that Hussein had reconstituted his weapons programs, so the White House told them to go back and look again. This is called “data mining” and it always results in inaccurate, self-serving propaganda. After their data mining expedition, the CIA reported to the White House again. The White House then changed all the qualifiers in the reports from terms such as “wants to” to terms such as “has”. The “evidence” of Hussein trying to buy uranium from Niger was an obviously forged document, complete with many misspelled French words, days of the week which do not match the day of the month, and government officials who had already left office, in some cases decades ago. George Tenet told him that this evidence is extremely weak and specifically asked for the Niger uranium claim to be taken out of the state of the union address. Condaleeza Rice claimed on national television that after a few months, they simply had forgotten that he had wanted that line taken out of the speech, so it was an honest mistake. In Bush’s 2004 state of the union address, he repeated his claim that Hussein sought significant quantities of uranium from Niger, and the Republicans went nuts! They cheered and clapped their hearts out (if any of them even have a heart, which I very seriously doubt). They just loved the fact that their president intentionally committed an act of high treason. In the 2003 state of the union address, there is no way to know whether or not Bush knew that the Niger uranium claim was based on forged documents, but after all the press surrounding the claim, he definitely knew for a fact that he was lying during the 2004 state of the union address. And the Republicans just ate it up. They love it when their president commits acts of high treason.
The White House then presented this propaganda to the congress and U.N. security council as cold, hard fact which was verified and reported by the CIA. Now you bash Kerry and Edwards for assuming they weren’t being outright lied to by the White House. It’s not unreasonable to assume that when the White House says things like this they’re not committing an act of high treason. But they were, so Kerry and Edwards, who only knew what the White House told them, were wrong because they were intentionally lied to.
Again, the CIA knew that Hussein had not reconstituted his weapons programs and that he was not a threat to anyone except his own people. Don’t believe me? Fine. Then ask all the career CIA analysts, ambassadors and U.N. weapons inspectors who resigned in disgust over this war. Foreign governments also knew that Hussein had not reconstituted his weapons programs. The U.N. weapons inspectors were allowed back into Iraq during the lead-up to war. Hand Blix said “Don’t start a war now. We need more time to inspect.” But Bush invaded Iraq anyway and then, when almost everyone on Earth demanded that they show us the weapons of mass destruction, the White House’s response was “We need more time to inspect. These things take time.” The White House’s original search team reported that they found nothing, so another search team was put into place. They just finished their search and found nothing as well. Every reason for going to war has been proven to be an outright lie, and now the administration doesn’t even bother trying to come up with excuses for having gone to war.
The only people who claimed that Hussein had reconstituted his weapons programs were White House officials and the people to whom they presented their data-mined propaganda. Senators and House Reps were lied to, and since they assumed the White House was not committing acts of high treason, they believed them. Not anymore, though.
In his 1996 book, George Herbert Walker Bush wrote:
“Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible … We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq …there was no viable “exit strategy” we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations’ mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.”
Laura Bush teaches children how to read, yet her husband still either can’t or refuses to read. If he had bothered to ask his father what he thinks about his plans to invade Iraq and had bothered to take into consideration what his father had to say regarding the subject, we would not be in this quagmire.
You people always like to talk about the mass graves created by Hussein. Well, let’s look at what happened. After the Regan and Bush Sr. administrations armed Hussein to the teeth with chemical and biological weapons, Hussein hinted that he wanted to invade Kuwait. Bush Sr. promised to stay out of the matter, so Hussein invaded Kuwait. At that point, Bush Sr. did a 180 and invaded Iraq for having invaded Kuwait. On his way out, Bush Sr. told the Kurdish population that he would have their backs if they rose up and overthrew Hussein. They did rise up against Hussein, so he attacked them with the chemical and biological weapons he procured from the White House and their cronies. Bush Sr. stayed out of it. Bush Sr. then pushed for U.N. sanctions against Iraq, and they passed. Hussein was incredibly wealthy, and therefore the sanctions did not affect him in any way. All the sanctions did was to murder millions of Iraqi civilians, over 500,000 of them children. Hussein decided to contribute to the starving of his people so that he could artificially inflate the number of civilians killed by U.N. sanctions, so it is unclear exactly how many were killed by U.N. sanctions and how many were killed by Hussein. However, Hussein would not have starved to death those people if it weren’t for the fact that he wanted to artificially inflate the number of dead from U.N. sanctions. So if the U.N. sanctions had never been put in place, the people he killed would still be alive today (unless they lived in Fallujah, which was completely destroyed).
This is only the tip of the iceberg. The fact of the matter is that I have bothered to inform myself regarding this topic and have used rational analysis throughout. You’re living in a fantasy world were it’s okay to napalm, expose to depleted uranium, torture, rape and kill innocent civilians at will. “Oh, that’s oaky because we’re us! We can’t do anything wrong because we’re us and therefore we’re always right and we can do whatever we want!” you cry to deaf ears. Pull your head out of your ass and wake up to the stark reality that no one outside America supports the invasion of Iraq by the current administration, and, according to a January 11, 2005 article on the Gallup organization’s web site entitled “Americans Pessimistic About Future in Iraq” reveals that disapproval of Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq is at 56%.
But you don’t care about the facts, do you? Nor do you care that the only people left on Earth who even so much as tolerate the war are a minority of the American public. An article of impeachment of Tony Blair has been finalized and signed by 23 members of the British Parliament. The article of impeachment is in response to his actions regarding the Iraq war. Blair’s approval ratings have been consistently under 40% for over a year and a half.
Even felons are smart enough to not vote for Gregoire.
Comment by Homophobe— 1/15/05 @ 9:11 am
What makes you think anyone would listen to a single word uttered by someone who is not only an outright bigot, but is such an outright bigot that he has nicknamed himself “Homophobe”?
If the statute didn’t accept a certain degree of uncertainty, then it would require a minimum margin of victory. It clearly doesn’t.
The court is not going to want to create a precedent where every close election ends up in court, with attorneys constantly pushing the limit of what is or is not the unwritten minimum margin of victory.
Errors tend to be distributed randomly. The GOP is going to have to prove that the errors in this election were not.
Comment by Goldy— 1/15/05 @ 12:08 am
I agree 100% Goldy. There is an acceptance of a certain degree of uncertainty and it is 1500 votes, as you stated. That is the the level of acceptabel uncertainty. No less then that. You are always going to have flaws and it is accepted that a 1500 vote difference is enough even though you know if the flaws were all identyfied and accounted for the lead would not really be 1500 votes it would be some number larger or smaller but it would be reasonable to conclude it would still be a lead. It is not reasonable to conclude that the lead would remain the same in this race with the narrowest of margins. If the difference in votes is less then that then the required steps to lessen the degreee of uncertainty begin. First the machine recount, then if desired by either party, they attempt to reduce the uncertainty more by a hand recount and then they attempt at the will of the the trailung party to reduce the uncertainty even further by an Election Contest. that is what the law is and that is what is occurring.
Nelson, in my neck of the woods they are already putting signs out for the next election–a school levy. I disagree with you, it seems that somewhere in Washington state they are having elections every few months! I for one am tired of us “living with” error filled elections–and this could be solved with very little $$$s!
To you all, why is “Red” Lewis county trying to get out of being on the short end of Rossi’s suite against county auditors?
There are three counties with petitions to the Judge to be excluded. Have not seen any post as to why. Prior to discovery, expect the ruling to be no. Lewis, Franklin, and another.
Interesting question. Are you Lewic? How does your county vote? All mail?
Brent – ref: Mr Homophobe – this person is in personal conflict. Let’s us hope he can come to terms and come out. Even as a gay R. There are a few in the East and the Bible belt, very rare in this region.
Did anyone catch the comments in today’s P-I about how the Republicans, who have been screaming “100s of felons voted” now admit that they’re not sure about that. Well, their words were “we need the [felon] list to verify our information”. So for all we know, the only felons who voted are the 2 identified who voted for Rossi and the 1 for Bennett.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....nor15.html
Intend… If… Sounds like yet another case of Republicans lying when they presented “smoking guns” and “proof” for yet another allegation. As usual Republicans based their conclusions on incomplete analysis of the data (just like the voter list, KC supposedly “finding” 10,000 ballots, military ballots being late, affidavit signature problems, improperly rejected ballots outside of KC (already counted, oops), etc.).
So it seems Cynical wasn’t lying when he said “the Republicans haven’t showed their hand.” But it turns out to mean the opposite of what he intended. The Republicans have clearly been holding back nothing, they’ve been bluffing all along. They want you to public to support a re-vote the basis of alleged improprieties, which they are admitting they haven’t proven.
My conclusion is that the Republicans are deliberately trying to short-circuit the election contest by drumming up public support because they know they don’t have evidence to set aside the election.
My conclusion is that the Republicans are deliberately trying to short-circuit the election contest by drumming up public support because they know they don’t have evidence to set aside the election.
That reminds me of the neo-con Iraq war strategy.
Dave – You’re right on target. The core of the modern GOP’s strategy is to remain un-constrained by the facts (i.e. blur fact and fiction), and rely on propoganda rather than the rule of law (if all else fails, smear your opponent).
“The fabricated crisis is the hallmark of the Bush presidency. To attain goals that he had set for himself before he took office — the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the privatization of Social Security — he concocted crises where there were none” – Harold Meyerson, Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....Jan11.html
Dave and jcricket, You ignore the unverified provisional ballots.
Comment by zip— 1/15/05 @ 1:01 pm
There were 348 provisional ballots in King county which were not properly verified before being fed into the machines. 90% of all provisional ballots in King county were found to be valid and were counted. 10% were found to be invalid and were not counted. The Supreme Court will undoubtedly decide not to speculate as to the breakdown of the provisional ballots in question. However, they will also undoubtedly decide not to assume that all of the 348 provisional ballots were invalid and should not have been counted. 10% of 348 is 35 votes which would not have been counted if this error had not occurred. The six illegal voters who revealed for whom they voted results in a net of three illegal votes for Rossi. The BIAW has to prove that the illegal votes favored Gregoire to the point that it affected the outcome of the election. Since we don’t know which 35 provisional ballots were invalid, we don’t know if they were Gregoire or Rossi votes. We do know, however, how the six illegal voters voted. So we know for sure that there were a net of three illegal votes for Rossi There are 35 votes which shouldn’t have been counted and it cannot be proven how many were for Gregoire and how many were from Rossi. The burden of proof is on the BIAW to prove that these 35 (not 350) definitely benefited Gregoire to the point that it swayed the election. If you do the breakdown on the 35 votes in King county, it would stand to reason that 21 are for Gregoire and 14 are for Rossi. I’m sure the Supreme Court will keep in mind that only about 35 of those 348 ballots would not have been counted had this error not occurred, and I’m also sure they’ll remember that the BIAW has to prove that this somehow benefited Gregoire, and while they won’t officially count it as 7 net votes for Gregoire, they’ll keep it in mind when looking at all the other evidence.
bby–I’m Grays Harbor. Lewis votes RED all the way.
Don’t know but bet Lewis doesn’t vote all mail/male!
ZIP – you keep mentioning the provisionals and mistakes.
Very weak stuff. It has not been explained if other counties had the same problems that use on site counting scanners. It has not been explained if the majority of these were fed into the counters by voters or poll workers.
And in any case it is a mistake of less than one voter per precinct…..one half a vote maybe.
In the first year of Federal guidelines requiring these ballots, and record turnouts…thousands of newly registered, and busy, busy polling places.
Why do you think they are so significant? Did the Gregoire campaign feed them from the hq….all recorded on secret video?..No, this is not going to mandate a recount, or re-vote….maybe a comment about tightening up the game….better education and instructions at the polls.
Set aside election evidence…no way….huffing and puffing doesn’t make it so. Facts, proof.
Hight Court is geared to same and excellent attorneys on the Dem. side….no detail or small point will be given to the R’s….Super Dogfight in the trials…and hearings….think of 90 big ego attorneys all on the same case….surreal….all looking for some fame and getting big bucks to show their stuff…..I may go to Wenatchee for a week. What a show.
bby and brent, if I read the statutes properly, there is no way the Supremes will be looking at statistics concerning the verified provisionals to decide law regarding the unverified. Unverified provisionals by definition are not valid votes. And 348 is enough to sway the totals. I’m no attorney but this whole provisional issue seems set in stone the way I read it.
brent, not being an attorney, I also don’t agree that the law says that Rossi “has to prove that this (the 348 unverified provisionals) somehow benefited Gregoire”. Only that the reasonable possibilty exists.
zip – the law is quite clear. The law could have been written more narrowly, but it wasn’t. The burden of proof is on Rossi not just to prove that a reasonable probability exists, but that the votes actually benefited Gregoire enough to over-turn the election. There’s just no way they’re going to meet that burden with the “evidence” they keep turning up (which hasn’t amounted to a single thing yet).
(sorry, I meant more broadly – as is the case in North Carolina – not more narrowly).
Comment by Brent— 1/15/05 @ 9:09 am
Do you want me to send you all the video and audio clips of your dear Democrat leadership stating all the things I listed and more? A significant portion of which comes from years prior to Bush being in office. So, if you want to protect your idols by saying they did not know better because the Big Mean White House was lying to them, that would be the Clinton White House. Was Kerry not on the intelligence committee? Did he not hear classified briefings directly form the CIA? Did he not say the things I suggest he said? You say Saddam would not give WMD’s to terrorists because Bin Laden may use them to kill him instead of us. Are you really this stupid? I think Saddam and Bin Laden would have been happy to work together if we were the target. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Besides, are there not many terrorist organizations in the world? Did Saddam not openly and publicly support some of them? Do you not believe he privately supported them as well? You wrote a long diatribe that did not mean shit. You live in a fantasy land. There is no point in discussing any issue with you because you refuse to see fact for fact and are clouded by your pure hatred.
I will summarize your post for those weak stomached people that could not stand to read it. Democrats good, Republicans bad, John Kerry was fooled by the all powerful and manipulative Bush, made him say those stupid things. The dems are smart and never believed Saddam was a threat. UN is great they should run the world. Bush is Hitler incarnate. Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied. Bush is an idiot, (although he is smart enough to fool all the elite democrats into supporting his cause in Iraq and authorizing it, even though they really knew the truth and knew it was a mistake to go in.) Big mean Bush is so stupid Laura should teach him to read. Brent is so smart and informed he should be president. How’d I do?
You are a joke Brent; you are a waste of time. Get over the whole Bush hatred thing, there is nothing you can do about it. He is President, Again! I know those stupid conservatives aren’t smart enough to know what’s best for them. They should have voted for Gore and after screwing that up we then should have voted for Kerry. We need people like you to tell us; how to vote, that we make too much money and our taxes are to low, everyone is entitled to health insurance – for free (great trick how does that work, oh yeah, it’s not free the “Rich” can just pay for it), the minimum wage is to low, our cars are to big and use to much gas, all tax cuts are for the rich…should I continue?
We screwed it up. We’re morons, you are right about everything, we are wrong. The world would be such a better place if we just thought like you. Can you ever forgive us, for we know not what we do?
Comment by Chris— 1/16/05 @ 12:30 am
First of all, I’ve already responded to all your claims. I’ve explained them in great detail. Just because you ignore fact and logic does not mean that you are correct. You’re so pathetic that you didn’t even bother to respond to any of the evidence I presented. You simply resorted to idiotic personal attacks. But then, if you people had triple-digit IQs you wouldn’t vote for neo-cons. The most pathetic thing about your post is that your entire argument revolves around the theory that I am a Democrat or somehow like them. Unfortunately for you, I’ve pointed out several times that I am not a Democrat and I do not like Democrats. I have also repeatedly stated that it’s not that I don’t think the Democrats’ shit doesn’t stink, I just can’t smell it over the rank odor of the Republicans’ shit. But I know it’s there, I’ve pointed this out, and I don’t defend Democrats unless they actually deserve it. And in this case, Clinton never committed high treason by intentionally lying in the state of the union address, to the congress and to the U.N. Security Council to support a full-blown invasion and occupation of a country, with only military help from Britain and a few poor countries. The security council was presented with the White House’s cooked CIA reports. If they had been presented with the actual CIA reports, none of them, regardless of their political affiliation, would have supported the war. But since they were outright lied to and assumed the White House was not committing high treason, they were wrong and supported a war which they no longer support. The only criticism I have of anyone who bought the White House’s lies is that they are naive to assume that the current administration would not commit acts of high treason to attempt to convince them that going to war is the only viable option. Democrats actually listen to Republicans and take into consideration what they say, even though Republicans never listen to Democrats and never take into consideration anything they say. This is not just naive, it’s outright stupid.
“I think Saddam and Bin Laden would have been happy to work together if we were the target.”
Hussein was extremely brutal towards Islamists, and this caused such hatred from bin Laden that he repeatedly called for Hussein’s assassination. Are you telling me that you would be stupid enough to give chemical and biological weapons to a group of fanatical Islamists who have repeatedly attempted to assassinate you, even though you hate Islamists and have been extremely brutal towards them? If so, you’re even stupider than I thought.
Thank you for pointing out that I am infinitely smarter and more articulate than you could ever dream of being. You know you’ve made a great case when your opposition completely ignores all the evidence you presented and simply resorts to partisan personal attacks. You’re so sheltered, pathetic and severely mentally ill that you cannot even comprehend the fact that the entire rest of the world hates you people. A minority of the American people support you, but no one else on Earth even so much as tolerates your existence. But you don’t care about the facts. You don’t care if you’re wrong. You’re you so you’re automatically right, aren’t you? Go crawl back under that rock, reinforce your self-denial and pretend that a third of the world doesn’t want to kill you and everyone else on Earth doesn’t want you to be held accountable for your war crimes.
Janet S., aspiring linguist, says:
I call bullshit. Yes, Goldy already debunked it (see posts #67 and #71 above), but this is so mind-bogglingly wrong that I have to respond. “Neo-con” is not code for “Jewish.” Janet, I don’t know where you get off saying it’s “well known” to be an anti-Semitic slur.
I know a little something about anti-Semitism. I’m a Jew. I got first-hand experience growing up near the neo-Nazis in north Idaho. Now I’m on the regional board of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL)—and let me tell you, I’ve had the chance to hear plenty of Jew-hating smears, used both casually and maliciously.
But “neo-con” is about as anti-Semitic as “libertarian” or “federalist”. It’s a political philosophy—and heck, plenty of neo-cons are proud of their movement. On the other hand, I object to the neo-cons’ political platform and philosophy—to me it reeks of hubris. At the same time, I am a lover and staunch defender of Israel and the Jewish people. There is no contradiction in disliking neo-cons and loving Israel.
No one should be afraid to call someone else a neo-con; and more importantly, no one who’s been labeled a neo-con should be able to hide behind the disgusting claim that only Jew-haters would call them that. You want to align yourself with Israel and against anti-Semites? Fine. Why don’t you contribute to the ADL?
Wait, let me make it easier for you to contribute to the ADL.
Comment by Brent— 1/16/05 @ 3:12 am
That’s right Bush lied……
(I won’t bother addressing YOUR personal attacks against me, mostly because I don’t give shit what you think about me, you are nothing to me. BTW – I actually know what my IQ score is, I highly doubt you know yours. It is very unlikely yours exceeds mine.)
Bill Clinton: “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” (“US: Clinton Says Diplomatic Solution Preferable In Iraq,” AAP Newsfeed, 2/5/98)
Bill Clinton: “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program.” (“Standoff With Iraq,” The New York Times, 2/18/98)
Bill Clinton: Earlier today I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq… Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors… The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again… I have ordered a strong sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam’s capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors… The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of this region, the security of the world… He will make war on his own people. And mark my words; he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will use them. (“Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq Attack,” Agence France Presse, 12/17/98)
Madeline Albright: “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face, and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm.” (“Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary Of Defense William Cohen And National Security Adviser Sandy Berger Participate In Town Hall Meeting,” Federal News Service, 2/18/98)
John Kerry: “When I vote to give the president of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security….” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10174)
John Kerry: “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 1/23/03)
Ted Kennedy: “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” (“Remarks By Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) At The Johns Hopkins School Of Advanced International Studies,” Federal News Service, 9/27/02)
Hillary Clinton: “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10288)
Bob Graham: “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” (Seth Borenstein, “U.S. Officials Plan Next Move,” Aberdeen American News, 12/9/02)
Letter To President Bush, Signed By Sen. Bob Graham And Others: “There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” (Sen. Bob Graham And Others, Letter To President George W. Bush, 12/5/01 as quoted in Dennis Jenkins, Letter To The Editor, The Bellingham Herald, 10/2/03)
Sandy Berger: “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” (“Clinton Team Jeered During Town Hall,” USA Today, 2/19/98)
Nancy Pelosi: “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process. The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people.” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, “Statement On U.S. Led Military Strike Against Iraq,” Press Release, 12/16/98)
Carl Levin: “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” (Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 9/19/02)
Al Gore: “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” (“Text Of Remarks By Former Vice President Al Gore At The Commonwealth Club, San Francisco,” Federal News Service, 9/23/02)
Al Gore: “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” (“Text Of Remarks By Former Vice President Al Gore At The Commonwealth Club, San Francisco,” Federal News Service, 9/23/02)
Robert Byrd: “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” (“Threats And Responses,” The New York Times, 10/4/02)
Jay Rockefeller: “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” (Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10305)
Henry Waxman: “He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.” (Rep. Henry Waxman, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. H7767)
Brent, since I am not as smart as you I thought I would let John Kerry prove my point for me.
TRUTH IS, FOR OVER A DECADE, KERRY HAS CITED EVIDENCE OF SADDAM’S WMD . . .
2003
Kerry Said “If You Don’t Believe In The U.N. … Or You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)
Kerry Said Leaving Saddam Hussein “Unfettered With Nuclear Weapons Or Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Unacceptable.” (Jill Lawrence, “War Issue Challenges Democratic Candidates,” USA Today, 2/12/03)
Kerry Defended Vote In Support Of Use Of Force In Iraq.” “I think Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that’s why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him. I think we need to, but it’s not September 11th, folks, and the fact is that what we’ve learned is that the war on terror is much more of an intelligence operation and a law enforcement operation.” (Sen. John Kerry As Quoted On NPR’s “All Things Considered,” 3/19/03)
2002
Kerry Said We Owe It To US Troops To Be Informed Of Saddam Hussein’s WMD Arsenal. “We owe it to America’s parents and our country’s troops … to have our decision on going to war with Iraq informed by the latest threat assessment that cross-analyzes agency intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.” (Faye Bowers, “Iraq’s Pursuit Of Nuclear Weapons Called ‘Unrelenting’,” Deseret News, 9/18/02)
Kerry Said Threat Of Saddam Hussein’s WMD Is Real. “The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)
Kerry Said Saddam’s Arsenal Of WMD Is Cause Of War. “As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10173)
Kerry Wished For Resolution More Focused On The Removal Of Iraq’s WMD. “The President said: Saddam Hussein must disarm himself, or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. This statement left no doubt that the casus belli for the United States will be Iraq’s failure to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction. I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10173)
Kerry Said U.S. Should Make Clear We Will Not Be Blackmailed By Iraq’s WMD. “I believe the Senate will make it clear, and the country will make it clear, that we will not be blackmailed or extorted by these weapons, and we will not permit the United Nations an institution we have worked hard to nurture and create to simply be ignored by this dictator.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10174)
Kerry Described Iraq’s WMD As A “Real And Grave Threat” To The United States. “Mr. Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran and potential 2004 presidential contender, said Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction posed ‘a real and grave threat’ to the United States.” (Dave Boyer, “Key Senators Of Both Parties Back Bush On Iraq War,” The Washington Times, 10/10/02)
2000
Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said WMD Destabilize World. “I think all of us are deeply concerned about the degree to which certain countries seem to be contributing to the potential of instability in the world. Obviously, there is nothing more destabilizing or threatening than weapons of mass destruction. We have spent an enormous amount of time and energy focused on Iraq, on Iran, on Russia, on loose nukes, on nuclear materials, and of course on China and on the issue of the transfer of technology to Pakistan.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 9/11/00, p. S8322)
1998
Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said Saddam Used WMD And Has Intent “To Continue To Do So.” “[T]here are set of principles here that are very large, larger in some measure than I think has been adequately conveyed, both internationally and certainly to the American people. Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)
Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said We Must Make Clear We Cannot Allow Saddam To Use WMD. “[I]t is imperative for us as a nation to stand our ground and for the western world to make clear that we cannot abide by any nation breaking out, so to speak, with respect to the capacity to possess and use those kinds of weapons. And so that principle is enormous. … But we cannot be pressured into a position that calls on us to give up what are the legitimate interests of our country and of the world with respect to the behavior of Saddam Hussein.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)
Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Stressed Need To Eliminate Saddam’s Weapon Capability. “Saddam Hussein has violated … that standard [against using weapons of mass destruction] on several occasions previously and by most people’s expectation, no matter what agreement we come up with, may well do so again. The greater likelihood is that we will be called on to send our ships and our troops at one point in the future back to the Middle East to stand up to the next crisis.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)
Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said Decision Must Be Made Concerning Iraq’s WMD. “We’re going to have to make some fundamental decisions about whether to follow a policy of containment or deprive Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.” (Eric Schmitt, “U.N. Arms Inspector Who Quit Is Told He Can’t Make Policy,” The New York Times, 9/4/98)
Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said Saddam Has Used Hesitancy Of Other Countries To Hold Him Accountable To Influence International Community. “Russia, France and China have consistently been more sympathetic to Iraq’s call for sanctions relief than the United States and Britain. … These differences over how to deal with Iraq reflect the fact that there is a superficial consensus, at best, among the Perm 5 on the degree to which Iraq poses a threat and the priority to be placed on dismantling Iraq’s weapons capability. … France, on the other hand, has long established economic and political relationships within the Arab world, and has had a different approach. Russia also has a working relationship with Iraq, and China, whose commitment to nuclear nonproliferation has been less than stellar, has a very different calculus that comes into play. Iraq may be a threat and nonproliferation may be the obvious, most desirable goal, but whether any of these countries are legitimately prepared to sacrifice other interests to bring Iraq to heel remains questionable today, and is precisely part of the calculus that Saddam Hussein has used as he tweaks the Security Council and the international community simultaneously.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/10/98, p. S12287)
Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Defended President Clinton’s Decision To Bomb Iraq. “Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a decorated Vietnam veteran, said Wednesday that no one should question the ‘legitimacy’ of Clintons decision to bomb Iraq. ‘I am confident that every reasonable member of the United States Congress and reasonable people of this country will understand the legitimacy of this moment. And no one will question that once again, once too many times, it is Hussein who has precipitated this confrontation and no one else.’” (Eric Schmitt, “Many In GOP Voice Suspicion Of Attack Timing,” Topeka Capital-Journal, 12/17/98)
1997
Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said Use Of Force Against Saddam Justified To Prevent WMD Production. “[Saddam Hussein] cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said U.S. Must Do What It Has To Do To Address “Grave Threat.” “[W]hile we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said U.S. May Have To Go It Alone To Stop Saddam. “Were its willingness to serve in these respects to diminish or vanish because of the ability of Saddam to brandish these weapons, then the ability of the United Nations or remnants of the gulf war coalition, or even the United States acting alone, to confront and halt Iraqi aggression would be gravely damaged.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Warned Of Saddam’s WMD Capabilities. “It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said Military Force Should Be Used Against Suspected WMD. “In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior. This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
1991
Kerry Acknowledged Saddam Working Toward Development Of WMD “For Years.” “If we go to war in the next few days, it will not be because our immediate vital interests are so threatened and we have no other choice. It is not because of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons when, after all, Saddam Hussein had all those abilities or was working toward them for years ….” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record,1/12/91,p. S369)
1990
Kerry Said “Iraq Has Developed A Chemical Weapons Capability.” “Today, we are confronted by a regional power, Iraq, which has attacked a weaker state, Kuwait. … The crisis is even more threatening by virtue of the fact that Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons development program. And Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons of mass destruction in the past, whether in his war against Iran or against his own Kurdish population.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/2/90, p. S14330)
I actually know what my IQ score is, I highly doubt you know yours. It is very unlikely yours exceeds mine.
I just love it when I see stuff like this. It’s a red flag, literally like saying “Beware, I’m full of shit.”
How soon and CONVENIENTLY they forget.
It is amazing how the facts are unimportant to so many, and how soon they forget! (Read through to the bottom).
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” – President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” – President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” – Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983.” – Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18,1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” – Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D – MA), and others Oct. 9,1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” – Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” >- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” – Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” – Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” – Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” – Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” – Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
SO NOW EVERY ONE OF THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED–THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY! I GUESS *THEY LIED* AS WELL.
Chris, thank you for meticulously proving my points for me.
“…Clinton never committed high treason by intentionally lying in the state of the union address, to the congress and to the U.N. Security Council to support a full-blown invasion and occupation of a country, with only military help from Britain and a few poor countries.”
You do not offer any evidence that anyone but Bush did these things. Also, assuming my claim is correct, and the security council was lied to by the neo-cons, the security council would be saying the same things the neo-cons were saying.
“Democrats actually listen to Republicans and take into consideration what they say…”
You prove this point by citing quotes from 2002 and 2003, when the neo-cons were lying about Iraq’s alleged WMD programs in order to support a war to overthrow Hussein. Other quotes were from 1997 to 1998, when the neo-cons viewed Clinton as particularly vulnerable due to the various BS “scandals” they invented and the media repeated. The neo-cons pushed for war with and occupation of Iraq, and again, the Democrats assumed they weren’t outright lying and that their evidence wasn’t cooked and invented. The only quote you cited which was not during a period when Democrats were forced to respond to a push for war in Iraq by neo-cons was a quote from Kerry from 2000, and it is quite obviously a generalized statement which does not mention war, let alone support it. Kerry is correct that “We have spent an enormous amount of time and energy focused on Iraq, on Iran, on Russia, on loose nukes, on nuclear materials, and of course on China and on the issue of the transfer of technology to Pakistan.” He didn’t state that Iraq currently possesses WMDs or the ability to produce them. He simply states, in the past tense, that “We have spent an enormous amount of time and energy focused on Iraq”. You cannot assert that this quote implies that Kerry supported going to war with Iraq without asserting that it also implies that Kerry supported going to war with Iran, Russia, China and Pakistan.
The other quotes you provided were from 1990 and 1991, when Hussein actually possessed and was developing weapons of mass destruction. Since I wasn’t talking about the gulf war, but rather the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the quotes from 1990 and 1991 are completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. Of course he had weapons of mass destruction in 1990 and 1991. But where did he get them, and who enabled him to constitute a weapons program? You people always avoid these questions like the plague, so I expect that you will avoid these questions just like you avoided all the evidence I have presented thus far.
I have never cared, nor will I ever care about neo-cons. You people are unintelligent, inarticulate, and, most importantly, you refuse to listen, refuse to acknowledge fact, and cannot be reasoned with or even talked to. I learned a long time ago not to care what stupid people think about me. It’s pointless to argue or debate with a neo-con. The only reason I am doing so here is for the benefit of others, not for you. I always prefer to civilly discuss issues with people, regardless of their views. However, when it is clear that someone is stupid as hell and completely unwilling to listen to reason, the only proper response is to metaphorically drag them out back and shoot them like a rabid dog.
I have never cared, nor will I ever care about neo-cons. You people are unintelligent, inarticulate, and, most importantly, you refuse to listen, refuse to acknowledge fact, and cannot be reasoned with or even talked to. I learned a long time ago not to care what stupid people think about me. It’s pointless to argue or debate with a neo-con. The only reason I am doing so here is for the benefit of others, not for you. I always prefer to civilly discuss issues with people, regardless of their views. However, when it is clear that someone is stupid as hell and completely unwilling to listen to reason, the only proper response is to metaphorically drag them out back and shoot them like a rabid dog. -Comment by Brent— 1/16/05 @ 2:10 pm
Thank you, Brent, for perfectly illustrating why America is turning its back on the rabid left.
Thank you, HowCanYouBeProudtobeAnASS, for proving my point that neo-cons ignore all evidence and fact presented by their opposition, provide no accurate evidence or fact to prove their positions and are only capable of name-calling. I’d might as well be speaking to a couple of toddlers.
With shining examples of Christian morality such as this
http://demandmedia.net/images/.....medium.jpg
we know Bush has permanently secured the asshole vote! But this part of America had turned their backs on us long ago. That leaves the two dark horsemen of fear and homophobia, of which only fear remains now that Bush has decided it’s no longer necessary to push a ban on gay marriage.
HowCanYouBeProudtobeAnASS
Because the alternative is life as a festering pustule on the anus of an elephant.
DP, I’m absolutely sick and tired of the non-stop stereotypical personal attacks from neo-cons. They devote pages and pages of nothing but stereotypical attacks against “liberals”, and in response I made one stereotypical attack against them as a side-comment at the very end of a long post. If I had resorted to stereotypical personal attacks first, or had attacked them on the level which they have attacked me, your criticism would be warranted. However, in light of all the stereotypical personal attacks coming from the neo-cons, your criticism falls flat on its face. If my response to their constant personal attacks means that I’m not a lovely human being, then what kind of human beings are they who engage in stereotypical personal attacks almost exclusively? And for that matter, what kind of human being completely ignores their constant stereotypical personal attacks and yet condemns another for throwing a tiny bit of it back in their face? -Comment by Brent— 1/14/05 @ 5:30 pm
Mr Pot please let me introduce you to Mr Kettle:
“we know Bush has permanently secured the asshole vote!” -Comment by Dave— 1/16/05 @ 3:53 pm
“Because the alternative is life as a festering pustule on the anus of an elephant.” -Comment by Dave— 1/16/05 @ 3:53 pm
“However, when it is clear that someone is stupid as hell and completely unwilling to listen to reason, the only proper response is to metaphorically drag them out back and shoot them like a rabid dog.” -Comment by Brent— 1/16/05 @ 2:10 pm
“I just love it when I see stuff like this. It’s a red flag, literally like saying “Beware, I’m full of shit.” ” -Comment by Dave— 1/16/05 @ 10:51 am
“Thank you for pointing out that I am infinitely smarter and more articulate than you could ever dream of being.” -Comment by Brent— 1/16/05 @ 3:12 am
“You’re so sheltered, pathetic and severely mentally ill that you cannot even comprehend the fact that the entire rest of the world hates you people.” -Comment by Brent— 1/16/05 @ 3:12 am
“A minority of the American people support you, but no one else on Earth even so much as tolerates your existence.” -Comment by Brent— 1/16/05 @ 3:12 am
“Go crawl back under that rock, reinforce your self-denial and pretend that a third of the world doesn’t want to kill you and everyone else on Earth doesn’t want you to be held accountable for your war crimes” -Comment by Brent— 1/16/05 @ 3:12 am
“Dearest Zip for brains” -Comment by jim p— 1/15/05 @ 7:08 am
“Once again, get a grip on reality and accept the fact that you are flawed.” -Comment by jim p— 1/15/05 @ 12:39 am
“Go wash all that blood off of your hands before you type a reply.” -Comment by Brent— 1/14/05 @ 8:01 pm
“Wow. You’re even dumber than the average neo-con. In fact, you’re so incredibly stupid…”
-Comment by Brent— 1/14/05 @ 7:50 pm
“You’re nothing more than rabid animals who have somehow developed the ability to speak and type.” -Comment by Brent— 1/14/05 @ 7:38 pm
“If they cannot rise to this minimal level of decency, THEN I want them to go away because they bring nothing of value to discussions or debates; they simply irritate people and attempt to brainwash the ignorant and easily manipulated.” -Comment by Brent— 1/14/05 @ 6:04 pm
“Just a bunch of mentally challenged parrots stuck in an infinite loop.” -Comment by Brent— 1/14/05 @ 5:49 pm
“That’s all I ask, but apparently it’s too much to ask of brainwashed didiots with single-digit IQs.” -Comment by Brent— 1/14/05 @ 5:49 pm
“but that’s only because civilized people don’t really care about the rural issues of inbred hicks.” -Comment by Brent— 1/14/05 @ 4:03 pm
“I’m sure eventually you dumb assholes…” -Comment by Brent— 1/14/05 @ 4:03 pm
“You whiny, cry-baby sore-losers…” -Comment by Brent— 1/14/05 @ 4:03 pm
ProudAss…. wow! You sure do have a lot of free time on your hands.
Thanks for being concerned about how I spend my time, but dinner
is in the oven and it’s all in the waiting now.
All those invectives come just from this ONE thread. It took very little time and was well worth effort to reveal the true character and rampant hypocrisy.
It took very little time and was well worth effort to reveal the true character and rampant hypocrisy.
Your name is intended to bait us, and is inherently insulting. So your self-righteous screaming about our hypocrisy is blatantly hypocritical in its own right.
It would be like Osama bin Laden being upset over a suicide attack taking out members of al Qaeda.
So why the hell should we one, care about a single thing you say, and two, do anything but return your insults right back at you? You reap what you sew.
Brent, you are clearly in denial. The evidence I presented speaks for itself. I don’t need to say any more, although I know you will continue to spin it into Bush lied. I love your latest excuse, the democrats were pressured to respond to the WMD issue by Neo-Cons and that’s why they said all the things I listed, even before Bush was president. Again, you use a lot of words but never really say anything of substance.
Comment from Brent:
“…Clinton never committed high treason by intentionally lying in the state of the union address, to the congress and to the U.N. Security Council to support a full-blown invasion and occupation of a country, with only military help from Britain and a few poor countries.”
Why don’t you spend some of your free time and get charges filed against Bush? Because Clinton did not “Testify” to these things in congress it is ok that he lied? I am sure that he had to give testimony or his cabniet would have at some point to justify to the congress his bombing raids he ordered, should I find that evidence for you as well. Better not waste my time, becasue I know “Bush lied” Clinton (Both of Them), Kerry, Albright, you know them all…they never lied, it just that damn neo-con pressure to speak that got to them. Bush is a criminal, yada, yada, yada.
I expect that you’ll respond with more unsubstantiated allegations, you have no facts. Just becaus eyou sya it does not make it a fact. I sited factual, verifiable quotes as fact, you offer you warp opinion of fact. You presented no evidence, as you claimed. You only spewed opinion.
Bare with me if you will – I think most of you will enjoy the hypocracy here. Below I will paste some of best evidence Brent used to support his tirade against Bush and this country. What you’ll notice is missing is, well, the evidence.
Of course I don’t think Saddam Hussein should be allowed to be set free. He is a war criminal and he should be tried for his crimes. However, he is not receiving a fair trial.
Those of us who aren’t in denial know he got plenty from Bush Sr. and Rumsfeld.
Saddam Hussein did not pose a significant threat to anyone but his own people from the end of the gulf war until the day he was removed from power. Saddam returning to power would not make the world better or worse off.
No president should ever deliberately lie repeatedly, especially during the state of the union speech.
Nor is it ever acceptable for a president to keep changing his story and keep coming up with a new excuse every time he is proven to be lying. None of those things should ever happen, yet Bush did all of them.
What were the reasons and excuses for the war? Weapons of Mass Destruction which were never there and never found? I forget what the other bullshit excuses you rabid animals have come up with for why it’s okay to napalm and expose to depleted uranium hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
And explain to me how it is acceptable that American military personnel turned Fallujah into a free-fire zone and shot anything that moved? If civilians stayed in their homes they would be bombed and killed. If they went outside waving white flags, they were shot and killed. If they attempted to run or swim away, they were shot and killed. Anything that moved. Men, women, children, animals. It doesn’t matter to the brain-dead subhuman rabid animals in the American military. They just love shooting and napalming and blowing up innocent civilians, especially women, children and the elderly. You people are not even really people. You’re nothing more than rabid animals who have somehow developed the ability to speak and type. And don’t tell me that this didn’t happen. It was reported by almost every news organization, corporate or independent, worldwide, except in America, of course, where we are forced to put up with fascist censorship on a massive scale.
There were no terrorists in Iraq before Cheney invaded it.
All the poll workers for the election have quit after receiving death threats.
Osama bin Laden referred to Hussein as the “Socialist Infidel” and repeatedly called for his assassination.
The CIA reported that they could find no evidence that Hussein had reconstituted his weapons programs,
The White House then changed all the qualifiers in the reports from terms such as “wants to” to terms such as “has”. The “evidence” of Hussein trying to buy uranium from Niger was an obviously forged document, complete with many misspelled French words, days of the week which do not match the day of the month, and government officials who had already left office, in some cases decades ago. George Tenet told him that this evidence is extremely weak and specifically asked for the Niger uranium claim to be taken out of the state of the union address.
Condaleeza Rice claimed on national television that after a few months, they simply had forgotten that he had wanted that line taken out of the speech, so it was an honest mistake. In Bush’s 2004 state of the union address, he repeated his claim that Hussein sought significant quantities of uranium from Niger,
They just loved the fact that their president intentionally committed an act of high treason. In the 2003 state of the union address, there is no way to know whether or not Bush knew that the Niger uranium claim was based on forged documents, but after all the press surrounding the claim, he definitely knew for a fact that he was lying during the 2004 state of the union address.
But they were, so Kerry and Edwards, who only knew what the White House told them, were wrong because they were intentionally lied to.
Again, the CIA knew that Hussein had not reconstituted his weapons programs and that he was not a threat to anyone except his own people.
Don’t believe me? Fine. Then ask all the career CIA analysts, ambassadors and U.N. weapons inspectors who resigned in disgust over this war. Foreign governments also knew that Hussein had not reconstituted his weapons programs.
The only people who claimed that Hussein had reconstituted his weapons programs were White House officials and the people to whom they presented their data-mined propaganda. Senators and House Reps were lied to, and since they assumed the White House was not committing acts of high treason, they believed them. Not anymore, though.
Hussein hinted that he wanted to invade Kuwait. Bush Sr. promised to stay out of the matter, so Hussein invaded Kuwait.
However, Hussein would not have starved to death those people if it weren’t for the fact that he wanted to artificially inflate the number of dead from U.N. sanctions. So if the U.N. sanctions had never been put in place, the people he killed would still be alive today
The fact of the matter is that I have bothered to inform myself regarding this topic and have used rational analysis throughout.
You’re living in a fantasy world were it’s okay to napalm, expose to depleted uranium, torture, rape and kill innocent civilians at will.
Pull your head out of your ass and wake up to the stark reality that no one outside America supports the invasion of Iraq by the current administration,
Nor do you care that the only people left on Earth who even so much as tolerate the war are a minority of the American public.
You’re so pathetic that you didn’t even bother to respond to any of the evidence I presented. (what evidence, he listed no evidence at all – only opinion and things he wants us to assume as factual)
The security council was presented with the White House’s cooked CIA reports. If they had been presented with the actual CIA reports, none of them, regardless of their political affiliation, would have supported the war.
You know you’ve made a great case when your opposition completely ignores all the evidence you presented and simply resorts to partisan personal attacks. You’re so sheltered, pathetic and severely mentally ill that you cannot even comprehend the fact that the entire rest of the world hates you people. (this is hilarious – He just did what he accused me of…ignored my “Real” evidence and then tossed in a borage of personal attacks.-)
A minority of the American people support you, but no one else on Earth even so much as tolerates your existence.
but just because you made it up doesn’t make it true. (My personal favorite – it sums it up so well. Brent, try supplying real evidence to back up your claims – until then this quote is quite fitting for you.)
You reap what you sew. -Comment by Dave— 1/16/05 @ 6:08 pm
Um … that would be SOW – as in reaping a harvest from the seeds you’ve sown.
And thanks for proving my point so grandly!
Oh, and by the way, I was wrong with my previous assessment. Now I’m convinced that your head is actually the festering pustule, which has been roughtly inserted into the anus of the elephant. Copious amounts of methane exposure has subsequently left you incapable of engaging in conversation beyond the scope of ape-like chest beating common to Republican hacks. You are no more intimidating than you are honestly interested in civil debate so let’s just stop pretending otherwise, shall we?
And thanks for proving my point so grandly!
What a cop-out response. If all you have to gripe about is that I used the wrong word then you failed righ out of the gate.
HowCanYouBeProudtobeAnASS, way to prove my points yet again. You just keep making my job easier and easier. I’ve stated on more than one occasion that it is perfectly acceptable to use personal attacks as long as you present evidence to support your position. You people always like to ignore all fact and reason and logic, and only quote selective portions of people’s comments to attempt to prove your point. If you had bothered to even read this thread, you would have noticed that I’ve used facts and evidence and logic to support my personal attacks, and the time I spend citing evidence far outweighs the time I spend on personal attacks.
Hypocrisy is refusing to hold yourself to the same standards to which you hold others. Well, let’s see to what standards I have held others. I have accused neo-cons of non-stop stereotypical personal attacks. All you have to do is look at unsound politics, read this blog or turn on your TV to see the barrage of unsupported personal attacks coming from the right. When under such vicious attack, you have two choices. You can either fight back or concede, and, in case you hadn’t noticed, I have quite a bit more temerity than most Democrats, liberals or even progressives. This is most likely because I am not a Democrat, liberal and I suppose it’s debatable whether or not I’m a progressive. The only label I accept outright is intellectual. And, as I have said, and Goldy has expressed the same sentiment, I might add, I don’t mind personal attacks as long as you provide evidence to support your opinions. I wouldn’t get on your case for personal attacks if you ever bothered to address any of the evidence I’ve cited or if you bothered to cite any evidence to support your personal attacks. I’ve cited many, many paragraphs worth of evidence to support my personal attacks on this thread alone. Why don’t you go back and quote all the evidence you’ve cited to support your personal attacks? Believe it or not, I would enjoy reading evidence you cite and would enjoy attempting to debunk said evidence. But alas, you people very rarely bother to cite any evidence to support your personal attacks. This is not to say that you do not cite evidence. You do that occasionally, and it is much appreciated. However, when engaging in personal attacks, you never cite any evidence to explain why you think or feel the way you do.
Perfect example of what I mean:
“… what kind of human beings are they who engage in stereotypical personal attacks almost exclusively?”
I engage in presenting evidence almost exclusively and my personal attacks are side-comments.
Comment by Dave— 1/16/05 @ 10:51 am
I offer this up in reply to Brent’s ascertian that my IQ and the IQ of those of similiar thinking was only double digits. I assure you it is not in my nature to throw my IQ in the face of people, except people like Brent and apparently yourself.
Brent suggested he supplied evidence to support his position, I only found opinion. See below……….(you’ll notice actual evidence missing, I guess we are to assume his opinions are fact)
Of course I don’t think Saddam Hussein should be allowed to be set free. He is a war criminal and he should be tried for his crimes. However, he is not receiving a fair trial.
Those of us who aren’t in denial know he got plenty from Bush Sr. and Rumsfeld.
Saddam Hussein did not pose a significant threat to anyone but his own people from the end of the gulf war until the day he was removed from power. Saddam returning to power would not make the world better or worse off.
No president should ever deliberately lie repeatedly, especially during the state of the union speech.
Nor is it ever acceptable for a president to keep changing his story and keep coming up with a new excuse every time he is proven to be lying. None of those things should ever happen, yet Bush did all of them.
What were the reasons and excuses for the war? Weapons of Mass Destruction which were never there and never found? I forget what the other bullshit excuses you rabid animals have come up with for why it’s okay to napalm and expose to depleted uranium hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
And explain to me how it is acceptable that American military personnel turned Fallujah into a free-fire zone and shot anything that moved? If civilians stayed in their homes they would be bombed and killed. If they went outside waving white flags, they were shot and killed. If they attempted to run or swim away, they were shot and killed. Anything that moved. Men, women, children, animals. It doesn’t matter to the brain-dead subhuman rabid animals in the American military. They just love shooting and napalming and blowing up innocent civilians, especially women, children and the elderly. You people are not even really people. You’re nothing more than rabid animals who have somehow developed the ability to speak and type. And don’t tell me that this didn’t happen. It was reported by almost every news organization, corporate or independent, worldwide, except in America, of course, where we are forced to put up with fascist censorship on a massive scale.
There were no terrorists in Iraq before Cheney invaded it.
All the poll workers for the election have quit after receiving death threats.
Osama bin Laden referred to Hussein as the “Socialist Infidel” and repeatedly called for his assassination.
The CIA reported that they could find no evidence that Hussein had reconstituted his weapons programs,
The White House then changed all the qualifiers in the reports from terms such as “wants to” to terms such as “has”. The “evidence” of Hussein trying to buy uranium from Niger was an obviously forged document, complete with many misspelled French words, days of the week which do not match the day of the month, and government officials who had already left office, in some cases decades ago. George Tenet told him that this evidence is extremely weak and specifically asked for the Niger uranium claim to be taken out of the state of the union address.
Condaleeza Rice claimed on national television that after a few months, they simply had forgotten that he had wanted that line taken out of the speech, so it was an honest mistake. In Bush’s 2004 state of the union address, he repeated his claim that Hussein sought significant quantities of uranium from Niger,
They just loved the fact that their president intentionally committed an act of high treason. In the 2003 state of the union address, there is no way to know whether or not Bush knew that the Niger uranium claim was based on forged documents, but after all the press surrounding the claim, he definitely knew for a fact that he was lying during the 2004 state of the union address.
But they were, so Kerry and Edwards, who only knew what the White House told them, were wrong because they were intentionally lied to.
Again, the CIA knew that Hussein had not reconstituted his weapons programs and that he was not a threat to anyone except his own people.
Don’t believe me? Fine. Then ask all the career CIA analysts, ambassadors and U.N. weapons inspectors who resigned in disgust over this war. Foreign governments also knew that Hussein had not reconstituted his weapons programs.
The only people who claimed that Hussein had reconstituted his weapons programs were White House officials and the people to whom they presented their data-mined propaganda. Senators and House Reps were lied to, and since they assumed the White House was not committing acts of high treason, they believed them. Not anymore, though.
Hussein hinted that he wanted to invade Kuwait. Bush Sr. promised to stay out of the matter, so Hussein invaded Kuwait.
However, Hussein would not have starved to death those people if it weren’t for the fact that he wanted to artificially inflate the number of dead from U.N. sanctions. So if the U.N. sanctions had never been put in place, the people he killed would still be alive today
The fact of the matter is that I have bothered to inform myself regarding this topic and have used rational analysis throughout.
You’re living in a fantasy world were it’s okay to napalm, expose to depleted uranium, torture, rape and kill innocent civilians at will.
Pull your head out of your ass and wake up to the stark reality that no one outside America supports the invasion of Iraq by the current administration,
Nor do you care that the only people left on Earth who even so much as tolerate the war are a minority of the American public.
You’re so pathetic that you didn’t even bother to respond to any of the evidence I presented. (what evidence, he listed no evidence at all – only opinion and things he wants us to assume as factual)
The security council was presented with the White House’s cooked CIA reports. If they had been presented with the actual CIA reports, none of them, regardless of their political affiliation, would have supported the war.
You know you’ve made a great case when your opposition completely ignores all the evidence you presented and simply resorts to partisan personal attacks. You’re so sheltered, pathetic and severely mentally ill that you cannot even comprehend the fact that the entire rest of the world hates you people. (this is hilarious – He just did what he accused me of…ignored my “Real” evidence and then tossed in a borage of personal attacks.-)
A minority of the American people support you, but no one else on Earth even so much as tolerates your existence.
but just because you made it up doesn’t make it true. (My personal favorite – it sums it up so well. Brent, try supplying real evidence to back up your claims – until then this quote is quite fitting for you.)
Hey ASSPride. Why don’t you be the big man and show us an example of class: change your name! Do that and you will actually have the moral high ground from which to accuse us of all the hypocrisy you like. Otherwise this mock outrage is made moot by your own lack of character.
I assure you it is not in my nature to throw my IQ in the face of people, except people like Brent and apparently yourself.
History has shown me that a good 99% of anonymous internet claims – like about personal wealth, IQ, etc. – are totally bogus. The prejudice may be mine but I make no apologies for it.
Brent suggested he supplied evidence to support his position, I only found opinion. See below……….(you’ll notice actual evidence missing, I guess we are to assume his opinions are fact)
Of course I don’t think Saddam Hussein should be allowed to be set free. He is a war criminal and he should be tried for his crimes. However, he is not receiving a fair trial. (Actual Evidence Missing)
Those of us who aren’t in denial know he got plenty from Bush Sr. and Rumsfeld.
(Actual Evidence Missing)
Saddam Hussein did not pose a significant threat to anyone but his own people from the end of the gulf war until the day he was removed from power. Saddam returning to power would not make the world better or worse off. (Actual Evidence Missing)
No president should ever deliberately lie repeatedly, especially during the state of the union speech. (Actual Evidence Missing)
Nor is it ever acceptable for a president to keep changing his story and keep coming up with a new excuse every time he is proven to be lying. None of those things should ever happen, yet Bush did all of them. (Actual Evidence Missing)
What were the reasons and excuses for the war? Weapons of Mass Destruction which were never there and never found? I forget what the other bullshit excuses you rabid animals have come up with for why it’s okay to napalm and expose to depleted uranium hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. (Actual Evidence Missing)
And explain to me how it is acceptable that American military personnel turned Fallujah into a free-fire zone and shot anything that moved? If civilians stayed in their homes they would be bombed and killed. If they went outside waving white flags, they were shot and killed. If they attempted to run or swim away, they were shot and killed. Anything that moved. Men, women, children, animals. It doesn’t matter to the brain-dead subhuman rabid animals in the American military. They just love shooting and napalming and blowing up innocent civilians, especially women, children and the elderly. You people are not even really people. You’re nothing more than rabid animals who have somehow developed the ability to speak and type. And don’t tell me that this didn’t happen. It was reported by almost every news organization, corporate or independent, worldwide, except in America, of course, where we are forced to put up with fascist censorship on a massive scale.
(Actual Evidence Missing)
There were no terrorists in Iraq before Cheney invaded it.
(Actual Evidence Missing)
All the poll workers for the election have quit after receiving death threats.
(Actual Evidence Missing)
Osama bin Laden referred to Hussein as the “Socialist Infidel” and repeatedly called for his assassination. (Actual Evidence Missing)
The CIA reported that they could find no evidence that Hussein had reconstituted his weapons programs, (Actual Evidence Missing)
The White House then changed all the qualifiers in the reports from terms such as “wants to” to terms such as “has”. The “evidence” of Hussein trying to buy uranium from Niger was an obviously forged document, complete with many misspelled French words, days of the week which do not match the day of the month, and government officials who had already left office, in some cases decades ago. George Tenet told him that this evidence is extremely weak and specifically asked for the Niger uranium claim to be taken out of the state of the union address. (Actual Evidence Missing)
Condaleeza Rice claimed on national television that after a few months, they simply had forgotten that he had wanted that line taken out of the speech, so it was an honest mistake. In Bush’s 2004 state of the union address, he repeated his claim that Hussein sought significant quantities of uranium from Niger, (Actual Evidence Missing)
They just loved the fact that their president intentionally committed an act of high treason. In the 2003 state of the union address, there is no way to know whether or not Bush knew that the Niger uranium claim was based on forged documents, but after all the press surrounding the claim, he definitely knew for a fact that he was lying during the 2004 state of the union address. (Actual Evidence Missing)
But they were, so Kerry and Edwards, who only knew what the White House told them, were wrong because they were intentionally lied to. (This is a joke right? Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence Committee – Moron)
Again, the CIA knew that Hussein had not reconstituted his weapons programs and that he was not a threat to anyone except his own people. (Actual Evidence Missing)
Don’t believe me? Fine. Then ask all the career CIA analysts, ambassadors and U.N. weapons inspectors who resigned in disgust over this war. Foreign governments also knew that Hussein had not reconstituted his weapons programs. (Which CIA analysts, ambassadors and U.N. weapons inspectors who resigned in disgust over this war and Foreign governments did Brent speak to and can we see the transcripts)
The only people who claimed that Hussein had reconstituted his weapons programs were White House officials and the people to whom they presented their data-mined propaganda. Senators and House Reps were lied to, and since they assumed the White House was not committing acts of high treason, they believed them. Not anymore, though. CIA analysts, ambassadors and U.N. weapons inspectors who resigned in disgust over this war. Foreign governments
Hussein hinted that he wanted to invade Kuwait. Bush Sr. promised to stay out of the matter, so Hussein invaded Kuwait. (Actual Evidence Missing) – Not relevant to this topic but still no evidence.
However, Hussein would not have starved to death those people if it weren’t for the fact that he wanted to artificially inflate the number of dead from U.N. sanctions. So if the U.N. sanctions had never been put in place, the people he killed would still be alive today (Actual Evidence Missing- and this whole thing is just asinine. Brent you need real help)
The fact of the matter is that I have bothered to inform myself regarding this topic and have used rational analysis throughout. (Actual Evidence Missing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
You’re living in a fantasy world were it’s okay to napalm, expose to depleted uranium, torture, rape and kill innocent civilians at will. (this guys an F-ing nutcase)
Pull your head out of your ass and wake up to the stark reality that no one outside America supports the invasion of Iraq by the current administration, (Actual Evidence Missing)
Nor do you care that the only people left on Earth who even so much as tolerate the war are a minority of the American public. (Actual Evidence Missing)
You’re so pathetic that you didn’t even bother to respond to any of the evidence I presented. (what evidence, he listed no evidence at all – only opinion and things he wants us to assume as factual)
The security council was presented with the White House’s cooked CIA reports. If they had been presented with the actual CIA reports, none of them, regardless of their political affiliation, would have supported the war. (Brent – Maybe you can share your copy of the actual CIA reports so the world can see them)
You know you’ve made a great case when your opposition completely ignores all the evidence you presented and simply resorts to partisan personal attacks. You’re so sheltered, pathetic and severely mentally ill that you cannot even comprehend the fact that the entire rest of the world hates you people. (this is hilarious – He just did what he accused me of…ignored my “Real” evidence and then tossed in a borage of personal attacks.-)
A minority of the American people support you, but no one else on Earth even so much as tolerates your existence. (Actual Evidence Missing)
but just because you made it up doesn’t make it true. (My personal favorite – it sums it up so well. Brent, try supplying real evidence to back up your claims – until then this quote is quite fitting for you.) (Actual Evidence Missing)
Comment by Dave— 1/16/05 @ 6:48 pm
Dave, where exactly did I claim what my IQ was? I intentionally did not specify for that exact reason you mentioned. My comment, again, was in response to the statement made by Brent regarding IQ. I then stated my belief that Brent’s IQ(what ever it truly is) would exceed mine. I came to that conclusion by evaluating his inability to truly offer any evidence to support any of his claims (what he calls evidence) He has a knack for saying a lot without really saying anything at all.
BTW – I did not ask for your apology.
Brent suggested he supplied evidence to support his position, I only found opinion. See below……….(you’ll notice actual evidence missing, I guess we are to assume his opinions are fact)
Of course I don’t think Saddam Hussein should be allowed to be set free. He is a war criminal and he should be tried for his crimes. However, he is not receiving a fair trial. (Actual Evidence Missing)
Those of us who aren’t in denial know he got plenty from Bush Sr. and Rumsfeld.
(Actual Evidence Missing)
Saddam Hussein did not pose a significant threat to anyone but his own people from the end of the gulf war until the day he was removed from power. Saddam returning to power would not make the world better or worse off. (Actual Evidence Missing)
No president should ever deliberately lie repeatedly, especially during the state of the union speech. (Actual Evidence Missing)
Nor is it ever acceptable for a president to keep changing his story and keep coming up with a new excuse every time he is proven to be lying. None of those things should ever happen, yet Bush did all of them. (Actual Evidence Missing)
Continued….
What were the reasons and excuses for the war? Weapons of Mass Destruction which were never there and never found? I forget what the other bullshit excuses you rabid animals have come up with for why it’s okay to napalm and expose to depleted uranium hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. (Actual Evidence Missing)
And explain to me how it is acceptable that American military personnel turned Fallujah into a free-fire zone and shot anything that moved? If civilians stayed in their homes they would be bombed and killed. If they went outside waving white flags, they were shot and killed. If they attempted to run or swim away, they were shot and killed. Anything that moved. Men, women, children, animals. It doesn’t matter to the brain-dead subhuman rabid animals in the American military. They just love shooting and napalming and blowing up innocent civilians, especially women, children and the elderly. You people are not even really people. You’re nothing more than rabid animals who have somehow developed the ability to speak and type. And don’t tell me that this didn’t happen. It was reported by almost every news organization, corporate or independent, worldwide, except in America, of course, where we are forced to put up with fascist censorship on a massive scale.
(Actual Evidence Missing)
There were no terrorists in Iraq before Cheney invaded it.
(Actual Evidence Missing)
All the poll workers for the election have quit after receiving death threats.
(Actual Evidence Missing)
Osama bin Laden referred to Hussein as the “Socialist Infidel” and repeatedly called for his assassination. (Actual Evidence Missing)
The CIA reported that they could find no evidence that Hussein had reconstituted his weapons programs, (Actual Evidence Missing)
The White House then changed all the qualifiers in the reports from terms such as “wants to” to terms such as “has”. The “evidence” of Hussein trying to buy uranium from Niger was an obviously forged document, complete with many misspelled French words, days of the week which do not match the day of the month, and government officials who had already left office, in some cases decades ago. George Tenet told him that this evidence is extremely weak and specifically asked for the Niger uranium claim to be taken out of the state of the union address. (Actual Evidence Missing)
Condaleeza Rice claimed on national television that after a few months, they simply had forgotten that he had wanted that line taken out of the speech, so it was an honest mistake. In Bush’s 2004 state of the union address, he repeated his claim that Hussein sought significant quantities of uranium from Niger, (Actual Evidence Missing)
They just loved the fact that their president intentionally committed an act of high treason. In the 2003 state of the union address, there is no way to know whether or not Bush knew that the Niger uranium claim was based on forged documents, but after all the press surrounding the claim, he definitely knew for a fact that he was lying during the 2004 state of the union address. (Actual Evidence Missing)
But they were, so Kerry and Edwards, who only knew what the White House told them, were wrong because they were intentionally lied to. (This is a joke right? Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence Committee – Moron)
Again, the CIA knew that Hussein had not reconstituted his weapons programs and that he was not a threat to anyone except his own people. (Actual Evidence Missing)
Don’t believe me? Fine. Then ask all the career CIA analysts, ambassadors and U.N. weapons inspectors who resigned in disgust over this war. Foreign governments also knew that Hussein had not reconstituted his weapons programs. (Which CIA analysts, ambassadors and U.N. weapons inspectors who resigned in disgust over this war and Foreign governments did Brent speak to and can we see the transcripts)
The only people who claimed that Hussein had reconstituted his weapons programs were White House officials and the people to whom they presented their data-mined propaganda. Senators and House Reps were lied to, and since they assumed the White House was not committing acts of high treason, they believed them. Not anymore, though. CIA analysts, ambassadors and U.N. weapons inspectors who resigned in disgust over this war. Foreign governments
Hussein hinted that he wanted to invade Kuwait. Bush Sr. promised to stay out of the matter, so Hussein invaded Kuwait. (Actual Evidence Missing) – Not relevant to this topic but still no evidence.
However, Hussein would not have starved to death those people if it weren’t for the fact that he wanted to artificially inflate the number of dead from U.N. sanctions. So if the U.N. sanctions had never been put in place, the people he killed would still be alive today (Actual Evidence Missing- and this whole thing is just asinine. Brent you need real help)
The fact of the matter is that I have bothered to inform myself regarding this topic and have used rational analysis throughout. (Actual Evidence Missing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
You’re living in a fantasy world were it’s okay to napalm, expose to depleted uranium, torture, rape and kill innocent civilians at will. (this guys an F-ing nutcase)
Pull your head out of your ass and wake up to the stark reality that no one outside America supports the invasion of Iraq by the current administration, (Actual Evidence Missing)
Nor do you care that the only people left on Earth who even so much as tolerate the war are a minority of the American public. (Actual Evidence Missing)
You’re so pathetic that you didn’t even bother to respond to any of the evidence I presented. (what evidence, he listed no evidence at all – only opinion and things he wants us to assume as factual)
The security council was presented with the White House’s cooked CIA reports. If they had been presented with the actual CIA reports, none of them, regardless of their political affiliation, would have supported the war. (Brent – Maybe you can share your copy of the actual CIA reports so the world can see them)
You know you’ve made a great case when your opposition completely ignores all the evidence you presented and simply resorts to partisan personal attacks. You’re so sheltered, pathetic and severely mentally ill that you cannot even comprehend the fact that the entire rest of the world hates you people. (this is hilarious – He just did what he accused me of…ignored my “Real” evidence and then tossed in a borage of personal attacks.-)
A minority of the American people support you, but no one else on Earth even so much as tolerates your existence. (Actual Evidence Missing)
but just because you made it up doesn’t make it true. (My personal favorite – it sums it up so well. Brent, try supplying real evidence to back up your claims – until then this quote is quite fitting for you.) (Actual Evidence Missing)
If you had bothered to even read this thread, you would have noticed that I’ve used facts and evidence and logic to support my personal attacks. – Comment by Brent— 1/16/05 @ 6:32 pm
Whether or not you have used facts is of absolutely no consequence when the point is the total hypocrisy your self-righteousness when you complain about others by calling them vile names. I cannot fathom any evidence you could use to support your position to wish death and hatred upon others. Nice try though.
I’ve stated on more than one occasion that it is perfectly acceptable to use personal attacks as long as you present evidence to support your position. -Comment by Brent— 1/16/05 @ 6:32 pm
That’s a joke, right?
Excuse me? “perfectly acceptable” by whose standards?
All you have to do is look at unsound politics, read this blog or turn on your TV to see the barrage of unsupported personal attacks coming from the right.
I see.
Because you simply don’t like the views of anyone anywhere that disagree with YOUR views, its ok to spout venom.
Right.
You can either fight back or concede
No, you can espouse your point of view in a MATURE, COHERENT fashion. I can promise you that as soon as you start mouthing off with vile invectives anything of merit you may have to say and with which you may have had the opportunity to convince is totally and completely diminished.
The only label I accept outright is intellectual.
So, I guess that means ‘humble’ is out.
Now I’m convinced that your head is actually the festering pustule, which has been roughtly inserted into the anus of the elephant. Copious amounts of methane exposure has subsequently left you incapable of engaging in conversation beyond the scope of ape-like chest beating common to Republican hacks. You are no more intimidating than you are honestly interested in civil debate so let’s just stop pretending otherwise, shall we? -Comment by Dave— 1/16/05 @ 6:26 pm
Right!
Thanks for that great example of civil debate
Hey ASSPride. Why don’t you be the big man and show us an example of class: change your name! Do that and you will actually have the moral high ground from which to accuse us of all the hypocrisy you like. Otherwise this mock outrage is made moot by your own lack of character. -Comment by Dave— 1/16/05 @ 6:42 pm
No one has yet made any attempt to EXPLAIN why they accept or are proud to be called an ass. Clearly, if you consider my screen moniker HowCanYouBeProudtobeAnASS an “outrage”, you are OFFENDED by that which you claim to be. You can’t have it both ways.
Chris, first of all, I should elaborate about what the security council is and is not privy to. The only CIA information which the security council is privy to is the information which is presented to them by the CIA. The security council does not have access to ALL CIA information. The White House has made the CIA its bitch and will not allow it to speak freely or disclose accurate information when it contradicts the official White House line. This has not always been the case, but after 9/11, the current administration decided it has the right to do whatever it wants whenever it wants.
Since you claim you have a high IQ and everything you want proof for is common knowledge amongst intellectuals and is right there in the public domain, I assumed you were at least aware of it.
“No president should ever deliberately lie repeatedly, especially during the state of the union speech.”
This is a personal opinion of mine which is shared by the vast majority of Americans. If you ask any American the simple question, “Would it be acceptable for the president to deliberately lie repeatedly, especially during the state of the union speech?” by far, the vast majority will agree that it would not be acceptable, regardless of whether or not they believe that this has ever happened.
The rest of the evidence you want is contained in the film “Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War”. The director of the film, Robert Greenwald, noticed that an awful lot of recently resigned CIA analysts, ambassadors and U.N. weapons inspectors were extremely upset with the Bush administration and were saying the same types of things. So he decided to make a film where they could say what was on their mind. The film is not narrated and only contains public domain video clips and the video the film’s producers shot of the former analysts, inspectors and ambassadors. Video of Condaleeza Rice speaking on national television about Tenet’s wish to have the Niger uranium claim removed from the state of the union speech is included in the film. Seeing as how you claim to have a high IQ and take an extraordinary interest in politics, like most of us who post to this blog, I’m surprised you haven’t seen the film. It’s been shown in theaters and has been out on DVD for well over a year.
If you have a high IQ, I can assume you are aware of information which is common knowledge among intellectuals. If you have a low IQ, I have to assume that you know nothing of which I speak and have to explain everything. So how is it that you claim to have a high IQ and yet are completely unaware of common knowledge and have to rely on me to be able to verify what I’ve said? Don’t you know how to use a library or search engine? When you claim you have a high IQ it reminds me of a guy with a three inch cock who claims that he has a nine inch cock. Well, whip it out. Let’s see how smart you really are. Address and attempt to disprove my evidence and present evidence of your own.
It apears these other example of Brent’s “Evidence” may have not posted…..
The only people who claimed that Hussein had reconstituted his weapons programs were White House officials and the people to whom they presented their data-mined propaganda. Senators and House Reps were lied to, and since they assumed the White House was not committing acts of high treason, they believed them. Not anymore, though. CIA analysts, ambassadors and U.N. weapons inspectors who resigned in disgust over this war. Foreign governments (Actual Evidence Missing)
Hussein hinted that he wanted to invade Kuwait. Bush Sr. promised to stay out of the matter, so Hussein invaded Kuwait. (Actual Evidence Missing) – Not relevant to this topic but still no evidence.
However, Hussein would not have starved to death those people if it weren’t for the fact that he wanted to artificially inflate the number of dead from U.N. sanctions. So if the U.N. sanctions had never been put in place, the people he killed would still be alive today (Actual Evidence Missing- and this whole thing is just asinine. Brent you need real help)
The fact of the matter is that I have bothered to inform myself regarding this topic and have used rational analysis throughout. (Actual Evidence Missing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
You’re living in a fantasy world were it’s okay to napalm, expose to depleted uranium, torture, rape and kill innocent civilians at will. (this guys an F-ing nutcase)
Pull your head out of your ass and wake up to the stark reality that no one outside America supports the invasion of Iraq by the current administration, (Actual Evidence Missing)
Nor do you care that the only people left on Earth who even so much as tolerate the war are a minority of the American public. (Actual Evidence Missing)
You’re so pathetic that you didn’t even bother to respond to any of the evidence I presented. (what evidence, he listed no evidence at all – only opinion and things he wants us to assume as factual)
The security council was presented with the White House’s cooked CIA reports. If they had been presented with the actual CIA reports, none of them, regardless of their political affiliation, would have supported the war. (Brent – Maybe you can share your copy of the actual CIA reports so the world can see them)
You know you’ve made a great case when your opposition completely ignores all the evidence you presented and simply resorts to partisan personal attacks. You’re so sheltered, pathetic and severely mentally ill that you cannot even comprehend the fact that the entire rest of the world hates you people. (this is hilarious – He just did what he accused me of…ignored my “Real” evidence and then tossed in a borage of personal attacks.-)
A minority of the American people support you, but no one else on Earth even so much as tolerates your existence. (Actual Evidence Missing)
but just because you made it up doesn’t make it true. (My personal favorite – it sums it up so well. Brent, try supplying real evidence to back up your claims – until then this quote is quite fitting for you.) (Actual Evidence Missing)
i can’t seem to get the remaining examples to post, I’ll keep trying – They are hilarious.
This is a personal opinion of mine which is shared by the vast majority of Americans. If you ask any American the simple question, “Would it be acceptable for the president to deliberately lie repeatedly, especially during the state of the union speech?” by far, the vast majority will agree that it would not be acceptable, regardless of whether or not they believe that this has ever happened. ( I agree – now prove he lied assfuck, just saying it does not make it so)
If you have a high IQ, I can assume you are aware of information which is common knowledge among intellectuals.
Well, whip it out. Let’s see how smart you really are. Address and attempt to disprove my evidence and present evidence of your own.
Comment by Brent— 1/16/05 @ 9:57 pm
You are an IDIOT. Your Common knowledge argument is almost as stupid as you are. You still have not provided any evidence and now you want me to go research it for you. An illectual like yourself should have no problem substantiating your point of view, this is done with fact by the way, not just more opinion. I am finished with you, you are not worth the time. You talk of things being common knowledge among intellectuals, what the fuck are you talking about???? Only people that agree with your warped opinions are intellectual??????? Your a dumb fuck and I am not wasting anymore time on a schmuck like you. Everytime you post you make it more clear to every open minded reader that you are a hate filled, closed minded, warped asshole. You make no real arguments, just spew crap. I have provided extensive “REAL” evidence, which you refuse to acknowledge or your closed mind cannot accept. And I debunked your evidence as opinion only and you only come back with more opinion and personal attacks. I hope I have included enough personal attacks to help your simple mind understand…if not here’s one more – Fuck Off!
Everytime you post you make it more clear to every open minded reader that you are a hate filled, closed minded, warped asshole. You make no real arguments, just spew crap. I have provided extensive “REAL” evidence, which you refuse to acknowledge or your closed mind cannot accept. -Comment by Chris— 1/17/05 @ 9:26 am
I hope I have included enough personal attacks to help your simple mind understand…if not here’s one more – Fuck Off! -Comment by Chris— 1/17/05 @ 9:26 am
Gosh, thanks for yet another great example of your calm, rational CIVIL DEBATE.
No one has yet made any attempt to EXPLAIN why they accept or are proud to be called an ass. Clearly, if you consider my screen moniker HowCanYouBeProudtobeAnASS an “outrage”, you are OFFENDED by that which you claim to be. You can’t have it both ways.
I don’t even know where to begin with this, but suffice it to say – you are one sorry excuse for a wannabe intellectual. Your name obviously references the Democratic party icon, first used by Andrew Jackson in 1828 after opponents called him a “jackass” for supporting populist views. It was later adopted by political cartoonists in 1837 and then by Thomas Nast, who in 1874 made the official party icons which are still in use by the media to this day. Obviously after all these years, the irony of taking on the mark of bigots and making it into a badge of honor is still lost on people like you.
Our pride for the Democratic party is derived by ideals, not some ancient comic strip drawing. But your intent to insult by invoking this icon is as transparent as those who came before you.
I don’t consider your name an outrage, I consider your ignorance and dishonesty to be outrageous in their extremes. The real jackass is the one who cries out for civil debate from beneath a flag of animosity.
Hi
Whether you play on musical tools?
Hi! Who knows still sites similar to this?
And how many there is a print on the photoprinter? Who knows?