Funny quote about Gore

[jbooma]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/26/gore.iraq/index.html

"Al Gore's attacks on the president today demonstrate that he either does not understand the threat of global terror, or he has amnesia," Dyke said.

[Johnny Punani2]

I think you can add he's a fuggin' nimrod to that list as well. If he was Pres instead of Bush we would be in some deep sh*t!

If Kerry gets in we are going to have another 9/11 type attack.

[Thiebear]

I don't blame him: If the ONLY reason I'm not sitting in the Oval office is because I couldn't win my HOME state... I'd be kinda psycho myself. It's been knawing at him for years...

If he didn't make headlines by saying outrageous things backed up by???? he wouldnt make the news at all..... so he does what he does to make more money so he can continue to do it....

[jbooma]

I bet Kerry today is calling Gore to tell him to be quiet :laugh:

[Kilmer17]

The smae kind of call that went out to Delay from the WH yesterday.

Neither side needs obnoxious antics like this right now. It only hurts themselves.

[Skins24]

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20040526/capt.sge.tvo73.260504204121.photo00.default-266x384.jpg

[Skins24]

:laugh:

looking at my post with both Gore and Dean.....is there anger management problems within the Democratic party?

[OURYEAR#56]

I completely agree. Gore needs to fall back and shut up. He needs to go party like he did at the Renisance after he lost the presidency. I think he's the only presidential canidate that lost in his own state. What a joke. I'm still mad at him for saying Tu Pac and rap music glorifies violence. The guy loves the taste of shoes, because he keeps putting his foot in his mouth.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Skins24
:laugh:

looking at my post with both Gore and Dean.....is there anger management problems within the Democratic party?

I think both are thinking of Clinton and Kerry to be honest :laugh:

[jbooma]

Originally posted by OURYEAR#56
I completely agree. Gore needs to fall back and shut up. He needs to go party like he did at the Renisance after he lost the presidency. I think he's the only presidential canidate that lost in his own state. What a joke. I'm still mad at him for saying Tu Pac and rap music glorifies violence. The guy loves the taste of shoes, because he keeps putting his foot in his mouth.

OY best post ever by you :cheers:

[Joe Sick]

Did anyone actually read the speech, or is attacking the messenger easier on the old noggin that actually debunking the issues he raises?

Anyone who still brings up Gore's exaggerations, yet doesn't acknowledge similar missteps by the current pretzeldent is obviously partisan.

-----------

Remarks by Al Gore
May 26, 2004
As Prepared

George W. Bush promised us a foreign policy with humility. Instead, he has brought us humiliation in the eyes of the world.

He promised to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Instead, he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.

Honor? He decided not to honor the Geneva Convention. Just as he would not honor the United Nations, international treaties, the opinions of our allies, the role of Congress and the courts, or what Jefferson described as "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind." He did not honor the advice, experience and judgment of our military leaders in designing his invasion of Iraq. And now he will not honor our fallen dead by attending any funerals or even by permitting photos of their flag-draped coffins.

How did we get from September 12th , 2001, when a leading French newspaper ran a giant headline with the words "We Are All Americans Now" and when we had the good will and empathy of all the world -- to the horror that we all felt in witnessing the pictures of torture in Abu Ghraib.

To begin with, from its earliest days in power, this administration sought to radically destroy the foreign policy consensus that had guided America since the end of World War II. The long successful strategy of containment was abandoned in favor of the new strategy of "preemption." And what they meant by preemption was not the inherent right of any nation to act preemptively against an imminent threat to its national security, but rather an exotic new approach that asserted a unique and unilateral U.S. right to ignore international law wherever it wished to do so and take military action against any nation, even in circumstances where there was no imminent threat. All that is required, in the view of Bush's team is the mere assertion of a possible, future threat - and the assertion need be made by only one person, the President.

More disturbing still was their frequent use of the word "dominance" to describe their strategic goal, because an American policy of dominance is as repugnant to the rest of the world as the ugly dominance of the helpless, naked Iraqi prisoners has been to the American people. Dominance is as dominance does.

Dominance is not really a strategic policy or political philosophy at all. It is a seductive illusion that tempts the powerful to satiate their hunger for more power still by striking a Faustian bargain. And as always happens - sooner or later - to those who shake hands with the devil, they find out too late that what they have given up in the bargain is their soul.

One of the clearest indications of the impending loss of intimacy with one's soul is the failure to recognize the existence of a soul in those over whom power is exercised, especially if the helpless come to be treated as animals, and degraded. We also know - and not just from De Sade and Freud - the psychological proximity between sexual depravity and other people's pain. It has been especially shocking and awful to see these paired evils perpetrated so crudely and cruelly in the name of America.

Those pictures of torture and sexual abuse came to us embedded in a wave of news about escalating casualties and growing chaos enveloping our entire policy in Iraq. But in order understand the failure of our overall policy, it is important to focus specifically on what happened in the Abu Ghraib prison, and ask whether or not those actions were representative of who we are as Americans? Obviously the quick answer is no, but unfortunately it's more complicated than that.

There is good and evil in every person. And what makes the United States special in the history of nations is our commitment to the rule of law and our carefully constructed system of checks and balances. Our natural distrust of concentrated power and our devotion to openness and democracy are what have lead us as a people to consistently choose good over evil in our collective aspirations more than the people any other nation.

Our founders were insightful students of human nature. They feared the abuse of power because they understood that every human being has not only "better angels" in his nature, but also an innate vulnerability to temptation - especially the temptation to abuse power over others.

Our founders understood full well that a system of checks and balances is needed in our constitution because every human being lives with an internal system of checks and balances that cannot be relied upon to produce virtue if they are allowed to attain an unhealthy degree of power over their fellow citizens.

Listen then to the balance of internal impulses described by specialist Charles Graner when confronted by one of his colleagues, Specialist Joseph M. Darby, who later became a courageous whistleblower. When Darby asked him to explain his actions documented in the photos, Graner replied: "The Christian in me says it's wrong, but the Corrections Officer says, 'I love to make a groan man piss on himself."

What happened at the prison, it is now clear, was not the result of random acts by "a few bad apples," it was the natural consequence of the Bush Administration policy that has dismantled those wise constraints and has made war on America's checks and balances.

The abuse of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib flowed directly from the abuse of the truth that characterized the Administration's march to war and the abuse of the trust that had been placed in President Bush by the American people in the aftermath of September 11th.

There was then, there is now and there would have been regardless of what Bush did, a threat of terrorism that we would have to deal with. But instead of making it better, he has made it infinitely worse. We are less safe because of his policies. He has created more anger and righteous indignation against us as Americans than any leader of our country in the 228 years of our existence as a nation -- because of his attitude of contempt for any person, institution or nation who disagrees with him.

He has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. town and city to a greater danger of attack by terrorists because of his arrogance, willfulness, and bungling at stirring up hornet's nests that pose no threat whatsoever to us. And by then insulting the religion and culture and tradition of people in other countries. And by pursuing policies that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children, all of it done in our name.

President Bush said in his speech Monday night that the war in Iraq is "the central front in the war on terror." It's not the central front in the war on terror, but it has unfortunately become the central recruiting office for terrorists. [Dick Cheney said, "This war may last the rest of our lives.] The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's utter incompetence has made the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat of terrorism against the United States. Just yesterday, the International Institute of Strategic Studies reported that the Iraq conflict " has arguable focused the energies and resources of Al Qaeda and its followers while diluting those of the global counterterrorism coalition." The ISS said that in the wake of the war in Iraq Al Qaeda now has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world and the war in Iraq is swelling its ranks.

The war plan was incompetent in its rejection of the advice from military professionals and the analysis of the intelligence was incompetent in its conclusion that our soldiers would be welcomed with garlands of flowers and cheering crowds. Thus we would not need to respect the so-called Powell doctrine of overwhelming force.

There was also in Rumsfeld's planning a failure to provide security for nuclear materials, and to prevent widespread lawlessness and looting.

Luckily, there was a high level of competence on the part of our soldiers even though they were denied the tools and the numbers they needed for their mission. What a disgrace that their families have to hold bake sales to buy discarded Kevlar vests to stuff into the floorboards of the Humvees! Bake sales for body armor.

And the worst still lies ahead. General Joseph Hoar, the former head of the Marine Corps, said "I believe we are absolutely on the brink of failure. We are looking into the abyss."

When a senior, respected military leader like Joe Hoar uses the word "abyss", then the rest of us damn well better listen. Here is what he means: more American soldiers dying, Iraq slipping into worse chaos and violence, no end in sight, with our influence and moral authority seriously damaged.

Retired Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, who headed Central Command before becoming President Bush's personal emissary to the Middle East, said recently that our nation's current course is "headed over Niagara Falls."

The Commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, Army Major General Charles H. Swannack, Jr., asked by the Washington Post whether he believes the United States is losing the war in Iraq, replied, "I think strategically, we are." Army Colonel Paul Hughes, who directed strategic planning for the US occupation authority in Baghdad, compared what he sees in Iraq to the Vietnam War, in which he lost his brother: "I promised myself when I came on active duty that I would do everything in my power to prevent that ... from happening again. " Noting that Vietnam featured a pattern of winning battles while losing the war, Hughes added "unless we ensure that we have coherence in our policy, we will lose strategically."

The White House spokesman, Dan Bartlett was asked on live television about these scathing condemnations by Generals involved in the highest levels of Pentagon planning and he replied, "Well they're retired, and we take our advice from active duty officers."

But amazingly, even active duty military officers are speaking out against President Bush. For example, the Washington Post quoted an unnamed senior General at the Pentagon as saying, " the current OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense) refused to listen or adhere to military advice." Rarely if ever in American history have uniformed commanders felt compelled to challenge their commander in chief in public.

The Post also quoted an unnamed general as saying, "Like a lot of senior Army guys I'm quite angry" with Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush Administration. He listed two reasons. "I think they are going to break the Army," he said, adding that what really incites him is "I don't think they care."

In his upcoming book, Zinni blames the current catastrophe on the Bush team's incompetence early on. "In the lead-up to the Iraq war, and its later conduct," he writes, "I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worst, lying, incompetence and corruption."

Zinni's book will join a growing library of volumes by former advisors to Bush -- including his principal advisor on terrorism, Richard Clarke; his principal economic policy advisor, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who was honored by Bush's father for his service in Iraq, and his former Domestic Adviser on faith-based organizations, John Dilulio, who said, "There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you've got is everything, and I mean everything, run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis."

Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki told Congress in February that the occupation could require "several hundred thousand troops." But because Rumsfeld and Bush did not want to hear disagreement with their view that Iraq could be invaded at a much lower cost, Shinseki was hushed and then forced out.

And as a direct result of this incompetent plan and inadequate troop strength, young soldiers were put in an untenable position. For example, young reservists assigned to the Iraqi prisons were called up without training or adequate supervision, and were instructed by their superiors to "break down" prisoners in order to prepare them for interrogation.

To make matters worse, they were placed in a confusing situation where the chain of command was criss-crossed between intelligence gathering and prison administration, and further confused by an unprecedented mixing of military and civilian contractor authority.

The soldiers who are accused of committing these atrocities are, of course, responsible for their own actions and if found guilty, must be severely and appropriately punished. But they are not the ones primarily responsible for the disgrace that has been brought upon the United States of America.

Private Lynndie England did not make the decision that the United States would not observe the Geneva Convention. Specialist Charles Graner was not the one who approved a policy of establishing an American Gulag of dark rooms with naked prisoners to be "stressed" and even - we must use the word - tortured - to force them to say things that legal procedures might not induce them to say.

These policies were designed and insisted upon by the Bush White House. Indeed, the President's own legal counsel advised him specifically on the subject. His secretary of defense and his assistants pushed these cruel departures from historic American standards over the objections of the uniformed military, just as the Judge Advocates General within the Defense Department were so upset and opposed that they took the unprecedented step of seeking help from a private lawyer in this city who specializes in human rights and said to him, "There is a calculated effort to create an atmosphere of legal ambiguity" where the mistreatment of prisoners is concerned."

Indeed, the secrecy of the program indicates an understanding that the regular military culture and mores would not support these activities and neither would the American public or the world community. Another implicit acknowledgement of violations of accepted standards of behavior is the process of farming out prisoners to countries less averse to torture and giving assignments to private contractors

President Bush set the tone for our attitude for suspects in his State of the Union address. He noted that more than 3,000 "suspected terrorists" had been arrested in many countries and then he added, "and many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way: they are no longer a problem to the United States and our allies."

George Bush promised to change the tone in Washington. And indeed he did. As many as 37 prisoners may have been murdered while in captivity, though the numbers are difficult to rely upon because in many cases involving violent death, there were no autopsies.

How dare they blame their misdeeds on enlisted personnel from a Reserve unit in upstate New York. President Bush owes more than one apology. On the list of those he let down are the young soldiers who are themselves apparently culpable, but who were clearly put into a moral cesspool. The perpetrators as well as the victims were both placed in their relationship to one another by the policies of George W. Bush.

How dare the incompetent and willful members of this Bush/Cheney Administration humiliate our nation and our people in the eyes of the world and in the conscience of our own people. How dare they subject us to such dishonor and disgrace. How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison.

David Kay concluded his search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq with the famous verdict: "we were all wrong." And for many Americans, Kay's statement seemed to symbolize the awful collision between Reality and all of the false and fading impressions President Bush had fostered in building support for his policy of going to war.

Now the White House has informed the American people that they were also "all wrong" about their decision to place their faith in Ahmed Chalabi, even though they have paid him 340,000 dollars per month. 33 million dollars (CHECK) and placed him adjacent to Laura Bush at the State of the Union address. Chalabi had been convicted of fraud and embezzling 70 million dollars in public funds from a Jordanian bank, and escaped prison by fleeing the country. But in spite of that record, he had become one of key advisors to the Bush Administration on planning and promoting the War against Iraq.

And they repeatedly cited him as an authority, perhaps even a future president of Iraq. Incredibly, they even ferried him and his private army into Baghdad in advance of anyone else, and allowed him to seize control over Saddam's secret papers.

Now they are telling the American people that he is a spy for Iran who has been duping the President of the United States for all these years.

One of the Generals in charge of this war policy went on a speaking tour in his spare time to declare before evangelical groups that the US is in a holy war as "Christian Nation battling Satan." This same General Boykin was the person who ordered the officer who was in charge of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay to extend his methods to Iraq detainees, prisoners. ... The testimony from the prisoners is that they were forced to curse their religion Bush used the word "crusade" early on in the war against Iraq, and then commentators pointed out that it was singularly inappropriate because of the history and sensitivity of the Muslim world and then a few weeks later he used it again.

"We are now being viewed as the modern Crusaders, as the modern colonial power in this part of the world," Zinni said.

What a terrible irony that our country, which was founded by refugees seeking religious freedom - coming to America to escape domineering leaders who tried to get them to renounce their religion - would now be responsible for this kind of abuse..

Ameen Saeed al-Sheikh told the Washington Post that he was tortured and ordered to denounce Islam and after his leg was broken one of his torturers started hitting it while ordering him to curse Islam and then, " they ordered me to thank Jesus that I'm alive." Others reported that they were forced to eat pork and drink alcohol.

In my religious tradition, I have been taught that "ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so, every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit... Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

The President convinced a majority of the country that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on September 11th. But in truth he had nothing whatsoever to do with it. The President convinced the country with a mixture of forged documents and blatantly false assertions that Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda, and that he was "indistinguishable" from Osama bin Laden.

He asked the nation , in his State of the Union address, to "imagine" how terrified we should be that Saddam was about to give nuclear weapons to terrorists and stated repeatedly that Iraq posed a grave and gathering threat to our nation. He planted the seeds of war, and harvested a whirlwind. And now, the "corrupt tree" of a war waged on false premises has brought us the "evil fruit" of Americans torturing and humiliating prisoners.

In my opinion, John Kerry is dealing with this unfolding tragedy in an impressive and extremely responsible way. Our nation's best interest lies in having a new president who can turn a new page, sweep clean with a new broom, and take office on January 20th of next year with the ability to make a fresh assessment of exactly what our nation's strategic position is as of the time the reigns of power are finally wrested from the group of incompetents that created this catastrophe.

Kerry should not tie his own hands by offering overly specific, detailed proposals concerning a situation that is rapidly changing and unfortunately, rapidly deteriorating, but should rather preserve his, and our country's, options, to retrieve our national honor as soon as this long national nightmare is over.

Eisenhower did not propose a five-point plan for changing America's approach to the Korean War when he was running for president in 1952.

When a business enterprise finds itself in deep trouble that is linked to the failed policies of the current CEO the board of directors and stockholders usually say to the failed CEO, "Thank you very much, but we're going to replace you now with a new CEO -- one less vested in a stubborn insistence on staying the course, even if that course is, in the words of General Zinni, "Headed over Niagara Falls."

One of the strengths of democracy is the ability of the people to regularly demand changes in leadership and to fire a failing leader and hire a new one with the promise of hopeful change. That is the real solution to America's quagmire in Iraq. But, I am keenly aware that we have seven months and twenty five days remaining in this president's current term of office and that represents a time of dangerous vulnerability for our country because of the demonstrated incompetence and recklessness of the current administration.

It is therefore essential that even as we focus on the fateful choice, the voters must make this November that we simultaneously search for ways to sharply reduce the extraordinary danger that we face with the current leadership team in place. It is for that reason that I am calling today for Republicans as well as Democrats to join me in asking for the immediate resignations of those immediately below George Bush and Dick Cheney who are most responsible for creating the catastrophe that we are facing in Iraq.

We desperately need a national security team with at least minimal competence because the current team is making things worse with each passing day. They are endangering the lives of our soldiers, and sharply increasing the danger faced by American citizens everywhere in the world, including here at home. They are enraging hundreds of millions of people and embittering an entire generation of anti-Americans whose rage is already near the boiling point.

We simply cannot afford to further increase the risk to our country with more blunders by this team. Donald Rumsfeld, as the chief architect of the war plan, should resign today. His deputies Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and his intelligence chief Stephen Cambone should also resign. The nation is especially at risk every single day that Rumsfeld remains as Secretary of Defense.

Condoleeza Rice, who has badly mishandled the coordination of national security policy, should also resign immediately.

George Tenet should also resign. I want to offer a special word about George Tenet, because he is a personal friend and I know him to be a good and decent man. It is especially painful to call for his resignation, but I have regretfully concluded that it is extremely important that our country have new leadership at the CIA immediately.

As a nation, our greatest export has always been hope: hope that through the rule of law people can be free to pursue their dreams, that democracy can supplant repression and that justice, not power, will be the guiding force in society. Our moral authority in the world derived from the hope anchored in the rule of law. With this blatant failure of the rule of law from the very agents of our government, we face a great challenge in restoring our moral authority in the world and demonstrating our commitment to bringing a better life to our global neighbors.

During Ronald Reagan's Presidency, Secretary of Labor Ray Donovan was accused of corruption, but eventually, after a lot of publicity, the indictment was thrown out by the Judge. Donovan asked the question, "Where do I go to get my reputation back?" President Bush has now placed the United States of America in the same situation. Where do we go to get our good name back?

The answer is, we go where we always go when a dramatic change is needed. We go to the ballot box, and we make it clear to the rest of the world that what's been happening in America for the last four years, and what America has been doing in Iraq for the last two years, really is not who we are. We, as a people, at least the overwhelming majority of us, do not endorse the decision to dishonor the Geneva Convention and the Bill of Rights....

Make no mistake, the damage done at Abu Ghraib is not only to America's reputation and America's strategic interests, but also to America's spirit. It is also crucial for our nation to recognize - and to recognize quickly - that the damage our nation has suffered in the world is far, far more serious than President Bush's belated and tepid response would lead people to believe. Remember how shocked each of us, individually, was when we first saw those hideous images. The natural tendency was to first recoil from the images, and then to assume that they represented a strange and rare aberration that resulted from a few twisted minds or, as the Pentagon assured us, "a few bad apples."

But as today's shocking news reaffirms yet again, this was not rare. It was not an aberration. Today's New York Times reports that an Army survey of prisoner deaths and mistreatment in Iraq and Afghanisatan "show a widespread pattern of abuse involving more military units than previously known.'

Nor did these abuses spring from a few twisted minds at the lowest ranks of our military enlisted personnel. No, it came from twisted values and atrocious policies at the highest levels of our government. This was done in our name, by our leaders.

These horrors were the predictable consequence of policy choices that flowed directly from this administration's contempt for the rule of law. And the dominance they have been seeking is truly not simply unworthy of America - it is also an illusory goal in its own right.

Our world is unconquerable because the human spirit is unconquerable, and any national strategy based on pursuing the goal of domination is doomed to fail because it generates its own opposition, and in the process, creates enemies for the would-be dominator.

A policy based on domination of the rest of the world not only creates enemies for the United States and creates recruits for Al Qaeda, it also undermines the international cooperation that is essential to defeating the efforts of terrorists who wish harm and intimidate Americans.

Unilateralism, as we have painfully seen in Iraq, is its own reward. Going it alone may satisfy a political instinct but it is dangerous to our military, even without their Commander in Chief taunting terrorists to "bring it on."

Our troops are stretched thin and exhausted not only because Secretary Rumsfeld contemptuously dismissed the advice of military leaders on the size of the needed force - but also because President Bush's contempt for traditional allies and international opinion left us without a real coalition to share the military and financial burden of the war and the occupation. Our future is dependent upon increasing cooperation and interdependence in a world tied ever more closely together by technologies of communications and travel. The emergence of a truly global civilization has been accompanied by the recognition of truly global challenges that require global responses that, as often as not, can only be led by the United States - and only if the United States restores and maintains its moral authority to lead.

Make no mistake, it is precisely our moral authority that is our greatest source of strength, and it is precisely our moral authority that has been recklessly put at risk by the cheap calculations and mean compromises of conscience wagered with history by this willful president.

Listen to the way Israel's highest court dealt with a similar question when, in 1999, it was asked to balance due process rights against dire threats to the security of its people:

"This is the destiny of democracy, as not all means are acceptable to it, and not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it. Although a democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back, it nonetheless has the upper hand. Preserving the Rule of Law and recognition of an individual's liberty constitutes an important component in its understanding of security. At the end of the day they (add to) its strength."

The last and best description of America's meaning in the world is still the definitive formulation of Lincoln's annual message to Congress on December 1, 1862:

"The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise - with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country. Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history...the fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation...We shall nobly save, or meanly lose the last best hope of earth...The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just - a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless."

It is now clear that their obscene abuses of the truth and their unforgivable abuse of the trust placed in them after 9/11 by the American people led directly to the abuses of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison and, we are now learning, in many other similar facilities constructed as part of Bush's Gulag, in which, according to the Red Cross, 70 to 90 percent of the victims are totally innocent of any wrongdoing.

The same dark spirit of domination has led them to - for the first time in American history - imprison American citizens with no charges, no right to see a lawyer, no right to notify their family, no right to know of what they are accused, and no right to gain access to any court to present an appeal of any sort. The Bush Admistration has even acquired the power to compel librarians to tell them what any American is reading, and to compel them to keep silent about the request - or else the librarians themselves can also be imprisoned.

They have launched an unprecedented assault on civil liberties, on the right of the courts to review their actions, on the right of the Congress to have information to how they are spending the public's money and the right of the news media to have information about the policies they are pursuing.

The same pattern characterizes virtually all of their policies. They resent any constraint as an insult to their will to dominate and exercise power. Their appetite for power is astonishing. It has led them to introduce a new level of viciousness in partisan politics. It is that viciousness that led them to attack as unpatriotic, Senator Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in combat during the Vietnam War.

The president episodically poses as a healer and "uniter". If he president really has any desire to play that role, then I call upon him to condemn Rush Limbaugh - perhaps his strongest political supporter - who said that the torture in Abu Ghraib was a "brilliant maneuver" and that the photos were "good old American pornography," and that the actions portrayed were simply those of "people having a good time and needing to blow off steam."

This new political viciousness by the President and his supporters is found not only on the campaign trail, but in the daily operations of our democracy. They have insisted that the leaders of their party in the Congress deny Democrats any meaningful role whatsoever in shaping legislation, debating the choices before us as a people, or even to attend the all-important conference committees that reconcile the differences between actions by the Senate and House of Representatives.

The same meanness of spirit shows up in domestic policies as well. Under the Patriot Act, Muslims, innocent of any crime, were picked up, often physically abused, and held incommunicado indefinitely. What happened in Abu Ghraib was difference not of kind, but of degree.

Differences of degree are important when the subject is torture. The apologists for what has happened do have points that should be heard and clearly understood. It is a fact that every culture and every politics sometimes expresses itself in cruelty. It is also undeniably true that other countries have and do torture more routinely, and far more brutally, than ours has. George Orwell once characterized life in Stalin's Russia as "a boot stamping on a human face forever." That was the ultimate culture of cruelty, so ingrained, so organic, so systematic that everyone in it lived in terror, even the terrorizers. And that was the nature and degree of state cruelty in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

We all know these things, and we need not reassure ourselves and should not congratulate ourselves that our society is less cruel than some others, although it is worth noting that there are many that are less cruel than ours. And this searing revelation at Abu Ghraib should lead us to examine more thoroughly the routine horrors in our domestic prison system.

But what we do now, in reaction to Abu Ghraib will determine a great deal about who we are at the beginning of the 21st century. It is important to note that just as the abuses of the prisoners flowed directly from the policies of the Bush White House, those policies flowed not only from the instincts of the president and his advisors, but found support in shifting attitudes on the part of some in our country in response to the outrage and fear generated by the attack of September 11th.

The president exploited and fanned those fears, but some otherwise sensible and levelheaded Americans fed them as well. I remember reading genteel-sounding essays asking publicly whether or not the prohibitions against torture were any longer relevant or desirable. The same grotesque misunderstanding of what is really involved was responsible for the tone in the memo from the president's legal advisor, Alberto Gonzalez, who wrote on January 25, 2002, that 9/11 "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

We have seen the pictures. We have learned the news. We cannot unlearn it; it is part of us. The important question now is, what will we do now about torture. Stop it? Yes, of course. But that means demanding all of the facts, not covering them up, as some now charge the administration is now doing. One of the whistleblowers at Abu Ghraib, Sergeant Samuel Provance, told ABC News a few days ago that he was being intimidated and punished for telling the truth. "There is definitely a coverup," Provance said. "I feel like I am being punished for being honest."

The abhorrent acts in the prison were a direct consequence of the culture of impunity encouraged, authorized and instituted by Bush and Rumsfeld in their statements that the Geneva Conventions did not apply. The apparent war crimes that took place were the logical, inevitable outcome of policies and statements from the administration.

To me, as glaring as the evidence of this in the pictures themselves was the revelation that it was established practice for prisoners to be moved around during ICRC visits so that they would not be available for visits. That, no one can claim, was the act of individuals. That was policy set from above with the direct intention to violate US values it was to be upholding. It was the kind of policy we see - and criticize in places like China and Cuba.

Moreover, the administration has also set up the men and women of our own armed forces for payback the next time they are held as prisoners. And for that, this administration should pay a very high price. One of the most tragic consequences of these official crimes is that it will be very hard for any of us as Americans - at least for a very long time - to effectively stand up for human rights elsewhere and criticize other governments, when our policies have resulted in our soldiers behaving so monstrously. This administration has shamed America and deeply damaged the cause of freedom and human rights everywhere, thus undermining the core message of America to the world.

President Bush offered a brief and half-hearted apology to the Arab world - but he should apologize to the American people for abandoning the Geneva Conventions. He also owes an apology to the U.S. Army for cavalierly sending them into harm's way while ignoring the best advice of their commanders. Perhaps most importantly of all, he should apologize to all those men and women throughout our world who have held the ideal of the United States of America as a shining goal, to inspire their hopeful efforts to bring about justice under a rule of law in their own lands. Of course, the problem with all these legitimate requests is that a sincere apology requires an admission of error, a willingness to accept responsibility and to hold people accountable. And President Bush is not only unwilling to acknowledge error. He has thus far been unwilling to hold anyone in his administration accountable for the worst strategic and military miscalculations and mistakes in the history of the United States of America.

He is willing only to apologize for the alleged erratic behavior of a few low-ranking enlisted people, who he is scapegoating for his policy fiasco.

In December of 2000, even though I strongly disagreed with the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to order a halt to the counting of legally cast ballots, I saw it as my duty to reaffirm my own strong belief that we are a nation of laws and not only accept the decision, but do what I could to prevent efforts to delegitimize George Bush as he took the oath of office as president.

I did not at that moment imagine that Bush would, in the presidency that ensued, demonstrate utter contempt for the rule of law and work at every turn to frustrate accountability...

So today, I want to speak on behalf of those Americans who feel that President Bush has betrayed our nation's trust, those who are horrified at what has been done in our name, and all those who want the rest of the world to know that we Americans see the abuses that occurred in the prisons of Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and secret locations as yet undisclosed as completely out of keeping with the character and basic nature of the American people and at odds with the principles on which America stands.

I believe we have a duty to hold President Bush accountable - and I believe we will. As Lincoln said at our time of greatest trial, "We - even we here - hold the power, and bear the responsibility."

[Ax]

Originally posted by VT Shockoe Joe
Anyone who still brings up Gore's exaggerations, yet doesn't acknowledge similar missteps by the current pretzeldent is obviously partisan.

Obviously partisan. You mean like yourself?



BTW. Al must be really mad at his hair.

Is that an oil spill?
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20040526/capt.sge.tvo73.260504204121.photo00.default-266x384.jpg

[Old Glory]

Originally posted by Jamiroquai
I think you can add he's a fuggin' nimrod to that list as well. If he was Pres instead of Bush we would be in some deep sh*t!

If Kerry gets in we are going to have another 9/11 type attack.


Please. We are in this situation because of Bush.

It was Bush who came into office and in his second day of office made the request, " HOW CAN WE INVADE IRAQ?"

And that was before 9/11. Bush is living proof that a knuckle head can do a 35% job of running the country.

[Duncan]

Gore has gone completely off the deep end. It started when he hired that feminist Naomi Wolf to help him look more manly ($10,000 and she put him in brand new boots, stiff dark blue jeans and a red flannel shirt - what a tool)

How could anyone have voted for a guy that hires a woman to help him look like a man.

Gore is seriously struggling with his sexuality - not that there is anything wrong with that.

[Destino]

Originally posted by Duncan
Gore has gone completely off the deep end. It started when he hired that feminist Naomi Wolf to help him look more manly ($10,000 and she put him in brand new boots, stiff dark blue jeans and a red flannel shirt - what a tool)

How could anyone have voted for a guy that hires a woman to help him look like a man.

Gore is seriously struggling with his sexuality - not that there is anything wrong with that.

Hey buddy, Gore was trying to appeal more to women thus he hired a woman. Perhaps you think he should have hired a man to give him tips on how to dress? yeah that would have been brilliant.......

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Destino


Hey buddy, Gore was trying to appeal more to women thus he hired a woman. Perhaps you think he should have hired a man to give him tips on how to dress? yeah that would have been brilliant.......

My question is what is Gore really trying to do, set something up for 2008?? He needs to realize he was only going to be a VP. Now I can see him run for governor in his home state, then again he might lose since they didn't even vote him for president :doh:

[Old Glory]

Well....first we all know how bush stole the votes in the African American neiborhoods in Florida and doctored them so none of the votes would count. Gore has reason to be mad right there.


And if your any kind of observer..we've watched Condolesa Rice lie for Bush to cover his *****.

We've watched Rumsfield lie that he knew nothing about the goings on in those prison camps and then he quickly flies over then and says that it is a "Moral Boosting" trip for the troops when we all know it was a trip to tell the troops to "Keep Your Mouths Shut and we'll cover your butts in D.C."

This administration is a bunch of lying, money hungry bums and there no better then the mafia.

But I have no doubt that Bush will get back in office because him and his buddies have had almost 4 years to find a new way to cheat and rig the election again.

[Destino]

Originally posted by jbooma


My question is what is Gore really trying to do, set something up for 2008?? He needs to realize he was only going to be a VP. Now I can see him run for governor in his home state, then again he might lose since they didn't even vote him for president :doh:

Ever thought that perhaps actually he means what he is saying?

Gore isn't a bad guy, he's just a geek.

[Kilmer17]

Well....first we all know how bush stole the votes in the African American neiborhoods in Florida and doctored them so none of the votes would count. Gore has reason to be mad right there.

we do? You have proof?

[Duncan]

Originally posted by Destino


Hey buddy, Gore was trying to appeal more to women thus he hired a woman. Perhaps you think he should have hired a man to give him tips on how to dress? yeah that would have been brilliant.......

Your kidding right? The fact that he had to hire anyone to help him dress manly is a joke. Stiff dark blue jeans and a flannel shirt? What a clown. :laugh:

[DieselPwr44]

Well....first we all know how bush stole the votes in the African American neiborhoods in Florida and doctored them so none of the votes would count. Gore has reason to be mad right there.

Kind of like how the Dems wanted all the military absentee ballots thrown out of the election huh? Hello Pot..I'm kettle.....

[Destino]

Originally posted by Duncan


Your kidding right? The fact that he had to hire anyone to help him dress manly is a joke. Stiff dark blue jeans and a flannel shirt? What a clown. :laugh:

yeah Gore is the only canidate that has pro's working on his image.......

[Duncan]

Originally posted by Old Glory
Well....first we all know how bush stole the votes in the African American neiborhoods in Florida and doctored them so none of the votes would count. Gore has reason to be mad right there.


This is a perfect example of the ignorance of the typical democrat voter and why thier party has lost power over the past 15 years.

[Destino]

Originally posted by Kilmer17


we do? You have proof?

There is a lot of proof showing Katherine Harris scrubbed names "similar" to convicted felons. Felons can't vote, but last I checked people with "similar" names can......but not in florida.

As for doctoring votes and all that....I haven't heard of that or seen any proof. Same goes for closing early, which many said happened in democratic districts in florida, I haven't seen proof of that either.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Destino


There is a lot of proof showing Katherine Harris scrubbed names "similar" to convicted felons. Felons can't vote, but last I checked people with "similar" names can......but not in florida.

As for doctoring votes and all that....I haven't heard of that or seen any proof. Same goes for closing early, which many said happened in democratic districts in florida, I haven't seen proof of that either.

Destino it was 4 years ago :doh: I think it is about time to let go, man I have heard on to holding on to your ex and all but this is bad :laugh:

[Duncan]

Originally posted by Destino


yeah Gore is the only canidate that has pro's working on his image.......

The fact you find nothing strange about his "alpha male" consultant is telling.

We are not talking about a new hair cut or working on improving hand gestures.

I guess you find Gore's manly man transformation "sthweet";)

[gbear]

Did any one actually read the substance of his speach?

I know it's much easier as a Republican to make fun of who dresses Gore than to actually address what points his speach made.

I thought the most telling was the bit about a policy of preemption. We went to a pre emptive war to stop an imminent threat. Was it imminent?

Lately, we hear all the talk about how bad Sadam was (and he was). But we went to war over an imminent threat. Is nobody having any second thoughts about our implementation of a policy of pre emption? If Iraq had WMD, what have we accomplished in terms of reducing the threat to us? Either the WMD were spirited away to terrorist organizations/countries elsewhere, or they didn't exist.

Getting back to substance, who here thinks the Bush administration policy of pre emption has succeeded?

[Kilmer17]

Okay, share that "proof" with us.

[Kilmer17]

When did Bush say it was "imminent"?

He said we had to stop it BEFORE it became imminent.

[troyster]

Maybe you should start your own thread, gbear. I saw the headline as "Funny quote about Gore" not "Bush administration failure."

[Oldskool]

Hey cut the man some slack. He DID invent the internet after all. :rotflmao:

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Oldskool
Hey cut the man some slack. He DID invent the internet after all. :rotflmao: \

3.........2...........1.....

RUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN for the hills :laugh:

[Destino]

Originally posted by Duncan


The fact you find nothing strange about his "alpha male" consultant is telling.

We are not talking about a new hair cut or working on improving hand gestures.

I guess you find Gore's manly man transformation "sthweet";)

I find his need for help completely normal. Gore is a geek, and geeks as you know do not dress themselves very well. In a national election, sadly, image matters a lot more then it should.

Personally I don't really care if a man looks manly or not. Interesting to note that you prefer you canidates naturally manly and seem to put a great deal of importance in this issue, does Bush turn you on?

I for one couldn't give a **** and would vote for a guy wearing a "gamerz4L1fe!" t-shirt if I felt he was the smarter and better choice for the job.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Duncan


The fact you find nothing strange about his "alpha male" consultant is telling.

The fact that you can't answer a question and resort to name calling shows how truly "smart" you are.



We are not talking about a new hair cut or working on improving hand gestures.

WOW, now this really added some insight to the discussion!!!! Where do you get your information from Duncan, because you REALLY have a lot of it. . . :rolleyes:



I guess you find Gore's manly man transformation "sthweet";)

Again, nothing, just like the rest of your posts.

Bring up one point. All you ever post is crap Duncan, go back and read them. When people ask you questions, you never answer them and try to avoid the question by clipping some article from the paper, or sprouting off nonsensicle gibberish about the person instead of discussing the topic. In other words, like I said before, your a tool.

Prove me wrong and talk about his speech, othewise don't bother posting.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Kilmer17
When did Bush say it was "imminent"?

He said we had to stop it BEFORE it became imminent.

Kilmer, read below. . .

I backed up the claim with websites in another post, I'm just too lazy to search for it now, they are all true though. A majority of them are on whitehouse.gov you can check them out if you want.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970


"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

[Kilmer17]

Can you show us specifically where President Bush said prior to the war that the threat was IMMINENT.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Kilmer17
Can you show us specifically where President Bush said prior to the war that the threat was IMMINENT.

Are you asking for specifically for the words imminent from Bush's mouth? He uses many synonyms for imminent and his administration uses the word plenty of times.



"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

[Duncan]

Originally posted by Destino

Personally I don't really care if a man looks manly or not. Interesting to note that you prefer you canidates naturally manly and seem to put a great deal of importance in this issue, does Bush turn you on?


I prefer candiates that are comfortable in thier own skin. Its called coming across as an honest person.

If Al was a geek, then run as a geek - don't try to BS and come off like you are something else.

I remember the debates where he was "too strong" in one, then "too easy" in the other. The pundants were actually discussing how good of a job he was doing reinventing himself every week. It was painful to watch him try to contort his persona to fit what the latest consultant recommended.

The sad thing is that it looks like Michael Moore is the latest consultant.

Remember when Al was the pro-life moderate from Tenn?

[Duncan]

QUOTE]Originally posted by chomerics


Lets get this straight, you have neglected to discuss anything and all you do is throw out crap copied and pasted from websites. So far, you have added nothing to the conversation, absolutely nothing. So I will give you one last time to try and debate. [/QUOTE]

OK, I’m going to be civil.

I will debate you on the issues Chometrics like we debated taxes in another thread, but everything you post is called into question because you lie and claim to be right of center. No moderate, reasonable guy would use your sources or parrot typical partisan rhetoric. Actually I take that back, it not your run of the mill democrat rhetoric, it’s the rhetoric of hard core leftists. No moderate, reasonable guy would dismiss Fox News as neo-con propaganda and then paste a Krugman article from The Nation as support for your arguments.

Prove it wrong! Prove it wrong!...you say.

Then when someone posted a newsmax article you dismiss it outright as neo-con propaganda. You can’t have it both ways.

You want me to reasonably respond to your debating points and I will, but only after you come clean and admit where you truly stand politically.

And stop using communist Berkeley professors and socialist websites to prove your points. It really makes you look foolish.

[Kilmer17]

He uses many synonyms for imminent and his administration uses the word plenty of times.

So he never actually said Saddam poses (present tense) an IMMINENT threat. Even though that seems to be the argument dujour from the left.

[Cskin]

Just as he would not honor the United Nations, international treaties, the opinions of our allies, the role of Congress and the courts
That's all I needed to read before moving on. Here is your democratic train of thought in a nutshell. Bow to the United Nations, do as they say..... regardless of the fact their skimming billions off of programs designed to restrain and constrict Sadamm from being a threat to his people and his neighbors.

The opinions of our allies? I'm assuming he's talking about France, Russia, and Germany here. Yep! We're going to listen to them, while they scramble to hide illegal contracts and illegal arms agreements. Allies that are threatening to vote no to the fullfillment of "serious concequences" because they fear their billions in illegal contracts are at stake with a regime change.

Please.... Gore's the epitome of Left Wing Liberalism.... and he and his cronies are one of the greatest threats to our nation other than Islamofacists radicals.

[Utah]

You know Cskin, anyone who puts gives any credience to France loses alot of .............. well, I just kind of turn a deaf ear (or eye) towards them.

[Thiebear]

You judge a person by who they are:
Not who they try and get you to believe they are.

If you hire someone to make you look.... stop and go home.
If you hire someone to make people think ... stop and go home.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Duncan
QUOTE]Originally posted by chomerics


Lets get this straight, you have neglected to discuss anything and all you do is throw out crap copied and pasted from websites. So far, you have added nothing to the conversation, absolutely nothing. So I will give you one last time to try and debate.


OK, I’m going to be civil.

I will debate you on the issues Chometrics like we debated taxes in another thread, but everything you post is called into question because you lie and claim to be right of center. No moderate, reasonable guy would use your sources or parrot typical partisan rhetoric. Actually I take that back, it not your run of the mill democrat rhetoric, it’s the rhetoric of hard core leftists. No moderate, reasonable guy would dismiss Fox News as neo-con propaganda and then paste a Krugman article from The Nation as support for your arguments.

Prove it wrong! Prove it wrong!...you say.

Then when someone posted a newsmax article you dismiss it outright as neo-con propaganda. You can’t have it both ways.

You want me to reasonably respond to your debating points and I will, but only after you come clean and admit where you truly stand politically.

And stop using communist Berkeley professors and socialist websites to prove your points. It really makes you look foolish.

Duncan, you say your going to debate me, then you sprout out you gibberish again. Do you have an original thought in you head???

If you've even bothered to read other posts, you'd understand my viewpoint on a variety of issues, not just Bush. Only then you could make an informed opinion on what I believe in and what I stand for and where I truly am politically. You just can't fathom somebody can have such hatred for Bush and not be a radical liberal. It make yor argument easier. It's the same tact as every other Neo-con. If your left of us, your liberal. :rolleyes:

[Thiebear]

O.K. Chomerics,

What are your conservative views?
Do they match that of John "F" Kerry?

Conservative test:
What part of Social Security should go Private?
What Programs in the Gov't should go Private?
How many extended Welfare Months should ea. person get?
part(b) What is the total amount before handed over to the church and community for help...
What is your thought on National Healthcare?
I omit Abortion as that is more of a personal issue...
What is your view of Gun control?
What % of Bush's Judges should make it to the Bench: More than Reagan/BushSr./Clinton or less
Should there be a litness test for judges? or do they have to recuse(sp) themselves from the case if they answer the question.

I understand I am a conservative and only agree with about 50% of What GW has done so far, but compared to the other 2 options I am left with no choice. Not to vote is just silly.

To have people say they are liberal or conservative and "NEVER" bring one or two up is just weird...

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Thiebear
O.K. Chomerics,

What are your conservative views?
Do they match that of John "F" Kerry?

Conservative test:
What part of Social Security should go Private?

A whole mess of SS should go private. It pisses me off to no end that I'm paying money to the government that I will never see. I want the money for myself to invest it myself, not to feed in the pyramid scam the government has in place now. The problem is not only how to fix it, but also how to not cut off the elderly in this country that survive on SSI alone. I think it could be a 2 step approach.

1.) Make a cut off date in which all SSI will dissolve. People can be grandfathered in, but when they die, that's it.

2.) Use the manditory employer match to fund SSI until the cutoff date and allow people to invest their portion of the "donation" to SSI to be invested at their owndoing. Make it a mandatory savings program in which you are required to put a certain amount of money away to invest, instead of just letting the government perpetuate the pyramids scheme they've been using for the last 40 years.




What Programs in the Gov't should go Private?

There are a ton of government programs that should go private or be dissolved. Subsidies have always been a pet pieve of mine. NASA should go private, education should be run at the state level not federal, tax incentives for companies to produce overseas without paying import costs, I could go on and on, but those are just a few.

I'll answer any thing you want if you wnat to bring up each deartment, what they pay for and how it's going, but there is a whole bunch of fat in the governmant budget. Once the government is involved in anything, the costs double, it's the nature of the beast.



How many extended Welfare Months should ea. person get?
part(b) What is the total amount before handed over to the church and community for help...

I think the welfare system need to be reformed BIGTIME. I have a big problem with paying money to people for doing nothing other than taking up space. I have always felt welfare should be a work based initiative program.

1.) Require all welfare recipients to work, no matter what. If it's a grocery store clerk, gas statiuon attendant, or a Mickey D's employee, they should be required to work.

2.) Set up a base minimun standard of living for welfare recipients. Each American citizen should have a place to live, health care and a job. Simple as that. Figure out what the poverty level is in the area and supplement the work income until they reach above the poverty level. For example, the poverty level in Boston would be higher than say Huntsville Al. The person on welfare will recieve a government surplus check to make up the difference between the poverty level and their current salary. Once that salary is met, the welfare checks stop. It would force people to work, but it would also take away the outrageous problem of having a minimum wage job is less beneficial than being on welfare. It would also take care putting competint people in our service industries.



What is your thought on National Healthcare?

I think every person should have the right to healthcare in this land. I would prefer the companies emplolyer pay for the costs, and this would elieviate some of the burden. I also believe by revamping welfare, we would ease some of the burden of welfare recipients on our health care system.

I think the senior drug plan is a joke which does nothing for seniors, but it guarentees federal money to drug companies. It's nothing more than a big business welfare plan, similar to the airline industries. IF they want to pay for senior drugs, make the government have the ability to negotiate with the drug companies on the cost structure, you should NEVER alloow a business to decide the cost of drugs, then guarentee them the money without negotiation. It promotes a skewed profit margin and increases the government burocracy we currently face.



I omit Abortion as that is more of a personal issue... [/quote

I'm for abortion, but I think it's the woman's right. For the life of me, I will never know why a bunch of men can decide what a woman can and can't do with her body.

[quote]
What is your view of Gun control?

First, i am an avid hunter and I have been for a while. I currently own four guns which I don't keep at my house, but at my grandparents house (where I hunt.) I am a card carrying member of the NRA, but I don't agree with their approach to everything, I think they're out for the gun manufactures rather than for the rights of individual citizens.

I am for strengthening regulations on the sale of handguns at trade shows without the proper backround checks. It's the majority of these guns that end up on the streets because of the lack of regulations.

I'm for serial identification of all handguns and making the owner responsible for what is done with the gun. If your gun is stolen from your home, you have to report it, or you can be held accountable for the actions of the gun. It's a radical approach, but I always felt if we made more gun owners responsible, a lot of the problems with gun control wouldn't be around.

I'm for banning of automatic machine guns and uzis for private owners. If you want one, and you have a legimit reason for owning one, then you should have to go through a thorough backround check in order to own one. You can own them for collecting reasons, but if this is the case, then you must follow certain regulations for selling them.

There isn't much of a reason for owining an automatic gun for anything other than killing people. How many deer are taken by an M16 every year? I think if you made people more resopnsible for their actions concerning guns a lot of the problems would take care of themselves.



What % of Bush's Judges should make it to the Bench: More than Reagan/BushSr./Clinton or less
Should there be a litness test for judges? or do they have to recuse(sp) themselves from the case if they answer the question.


I'll admit I've not read up enough on the judcial nominations so I can't really answer this one with the knowledge needed to back up my beliefs.

As for recuseing themselves, I'm assuming you're referring to the Scalia/Cheney case and I do believe Scalia should have recused himseld from the case. His defense of his actions was downright deplorable and just adds to the speculation that he's "on the take". There have been judges disbarred for failure to recuse themselves on cases and this should be no different. He has a personal relationship with Cheney and he should not be allowed to try the case. It's not a deomcrat/republican issue, but a judicial one. The real problem is that it leads to speculation that the supreme judicial law of the land isn't putting the law before their own hidden adgenda. I'm not saying this is the case, but even if there is the slightest appearance of this, as in this case, the judge needs to recuse himself because it brings into question the validity of the laws their deciding.



I understand I am a conservative and only agree with about 50% of What GW has done so far, but compared to the other 2 options I am left with no choice. Not to vote is just silly.

To have people say they are liberal or conservative and "NEVER" bring one or two up is just weird...

Bear, I hope this clarifies matters for you, I get accused a lot of being a radical liberal on this board. I've said a some things that can be attributed to the far left, but that's only because I feel this administration has moved so far right, I'm forced to look like I'm coming from there just because of their position on the political spectrum.

I'm actually a centrist with a slight leaning towards the conservative side of financial issues and a leaning towards the democratic side of social issues. I'm a registered independent and I've voted for BushI, Clinton, Gore in the last 3 elections. I plan on voting for Kerry in this election, but that doesn't necessarily make me either liberal or a deomcrat, it just means I feel like he's the right canidate for the job. I would alsovote for a ham sandwich over Bush as I feel that he's taken this country in the wrong direction and I think it will be horrible if he's re-elected for another 4 year term.

BTW, your posts have become a lot better of late. Your offering your opinion instead of just sprouting rhetoric and ignoring questions.

If you still think I'm a liberal democrat after reading my views, so be it, but I still consider myself a moderate/centrist. I think it's the best position in this country if you want to get things done. Iv'e often thought of my self as a "comprimisist". In order for any good bill to get passed, there has to be some beliefs of both sides and when they meet in the middle, it's usually the best for the country.

My $0.02

[fmorris]

Originally posted by Duncan


I prefer candiates that are comfortable in thier own skin. Its called coming across as an honest person.


All politicians have visual consultants these days...do you think Bush doesnt spend hours having his hair done and make up applied just right before giving a speech? IN fact he goes to great lengths to appear 'manly'. An example of this is wearing a flight suit to give his speech on the air craft carrier. Every thing these men do is carefully calculated, and no party has a monopoly on this sort of, um...primping.

[fmorris]

Originally posted by Destino


Ever thought that perhaps actually he means what he is saying?

Gore isn't a bad guy, he's just a geek.


Correct, and rather or not we agree with him it should be in our interest as citizens to consider these issues, even if it's to dismiss them as so much non-sense. In fact, I would like to know more on this administration's knowledge of these alledged abuses of prisoners, along with its 'unspoken' policy on interrogation methods. I know enough to know that your average Army Private does not have a working knowledge of the sort of psychological torture techniques we've all seen used at that prison. So the orders were there, the question becomes, "From how high up the chain?"

As far as Gore's credibility, this is a man who won the popular vote in this country. As an American living in a democratic society, thats enough credibility for me to atleast consider his opinions and not dismiss him as a joke. I could care less how he dresses.

I for one wear the pants in my family ..the wife just tells me which ones.:doh:

[Thiebear]

I have never and would never just spout .....
I dont just cut and paste, i always put forth my opinion..

I will say I'm surprised at your responses based on your previous posts.... most dont match...

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Thiebear
I have never and would never just spout .....
I dont just cut and paste, i always put forth my opinion..

I will say I'm surprised at your responses based on your previous posts.... most dont match...

Most of thses issues don't get brought up, only Bush and his history.

If I said you cut and pasted, I may have confused one of your posts with Duncan's, but you were not answering questions, just sprouting ideologies instead of setting forth your opinion, I think you've stopped that of late.

[JimboDaMan]

Originally posted by Duncan


I prefer candiates that are comfortable in thier own skin. Its called coming across as an honest person.

If Al was a geek, then run as a geek - don't try to BS and come off like you are something else.

I remember the debates where he was "too strong" in one, then "too easy" in the other. The pundants were actually discussing how good of a job he was doing reinventing himself every week. It was painful to watch him try to contort his persona to fit what the latest consultant recommended.

The sad thing is that it looks like Michael Moore is the latest consultant.

Remember when Al was the pro-life moderate from Tenn?
Duncan, poor child, I think we've isolated the problem here.

"Too strong"? "Too easy"? Unusual in this forum to have a guy explain that he's allowed the pundits to do his thinking for him.

Al Gore did not - are you listening? - hire Wolf to advise him on clothing, alpha males, or anything of that sort. Find me anything approaching proof that this happened. In fact, lets make a wager on it. You'll lose.

That particular spin was a product of the RNC, thanks to a bit of speculation from Dick Morris about why Gore might have hired Wolf. With no basis in fact but widely circulated in the supposedly liberal media, it was trash like this that dogged Gore - certainly a more perceptive and honest man than George W Bush - the entire campaign and contributed mightily to the closeness of the 2000 election.