Conservative VS Liberal

[BJean 16]

I'm afraid the extremists will only try to defend the offenses in that article by naming a few Democrats who have had inappropriate sexual relationships. Which only goes to help everyone understand where they are coming from, right?

It's the same as them excusing the behavior of the tea baggers by saying that people demonstrated against Bush and his war. Bush demonstrators legitimize the bigoted, hypocritical displays of emotion so whatever the tea baggers do, no matter how horrific, is excusable. With hearts and minds like that, we don't need foreign enemies to cause us harm, we have plenty of problems within our borders to worry about.

I can just envision the terrorists watching the U.S. melting down on CNN or the BBC everyday. They must be having a great time. What scares me is that those terrorists seem to be smarter, way smarter, than so many of the right wing extremists here in our country.

[pattygreen 5]

A Brief Compilation of DemocRAT Hypocrisy

by BOBTHENAILER

"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 times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. 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, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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 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." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"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." 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 Rockerfeller (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.

"[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 F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!!

[LeighaMason 19]

In response to Pattys cut and paste article above please see snopes for the complete statements made, several of these quotes are taken out of context and abbreviated to change their meaning.

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq

Intelligence 'Misused' to Justify War, He Says

By Walter Pincus

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, February 10, 2006

The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Paul R. Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, acknowledges the U.S. intelligence agencies' mistakes in concluding that Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction. But he said those misjudgments did not drive the administration's decision to invade.

"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he asserted, the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."

"It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized," Pillar wrote.

Pillar's critique is one of the most severe indictments of White House actions by a former Bush official since Richard C. Clarke, a former National Security Council staff member, went public with his criticism of the administration's handling of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and its failure to deal with the terrorist threat beforehand.

It is also the first time that such a senior intelligence officer has so directly and publicly condemned the administration's handling of intelligence.

Pillar, retired after 28 years at the CIA, was an influential behind-the-scenes player and was considered the agency's leading counterterrorism analyst. By the end of his career, he was responsible for coordinating assessments on Iraq from all 15 agencies in the intelligence community. He is now a professor in security studies at Georgetown University.

Those who worked inside the white house have written books about how invading Iraq was the goal from day one (before 9/11). bush made the decision to invade Iraq after 9/11 and wanted those whose job it was to present intelligence to make the intelligence fit the decision to invade, whether in reality it did or not.

He wanted the american people to think that invading Iraq had to do with 9/11. Most of the soldiers in the early years of the war believed this lie, too. How sad.

Finally, almost at the end of his administration a reporter finally asked him what invading Iraq had to do with 9/11 and he said nothing.

Was Saddam a bad dictator? Of course. Did he at one time have WMD. Yes. Did he have them in 2003. No, and we knew it.

bush gave the inspectors like 10 minutes to inspect.

Plus it was later learned that we could have bought Saddam off and deposed him to some island. Sure would have saved a lot of money and more importantly lives.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[Cleo's Mom 257]

With apologies to LeighaMason (sorry but it does seem like many of the nut cases are from TX) I have to post this:

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) is calling for a strong re-assertion of states rights against Congress -- in the form of a Constitutional amendment to eliminate the direct popular election of Senators, and go back to the pre-17th Amendment setup of state legislatures appointing them.

So, he wants to take away voter's rights to directly vote for Senators.

Then we had that hilarious Rudy Giuliani on today saying to give the republicans a chance. Vote them in because under Pres. Obama they just haven't been able to do anything they wanted.

Just give them a chance, he said and they would do healthcare right, buy across state lines, tort reform, etc..

Well, let me think for a minute. When was that that the republicans had the white house, the congress and the senate. Hmmmm. Oh, I remember now. It was under bush.

Gee, I wonder why they didn't do all those wonderful things then? Oh, I think I know. They didn't have time.

They were too busy passing two tax cuts for the rich, expanding an unfunded drug program, invading Iraq, and turning a surplus into a deficit.

Well, you can see then that they wouldn't have had time to tackle an unimportant issue like healthcare.

Keep 'em coming rudy, I need the laugh. :thumbup:

I just heard something equally funny from sourgrapes McCain. He said (because of healthcare passing) that there would be no more cooperation for the rest of the year.

Really, McCain? And how would we be able to tell? As if the party of no has cooperated on anything.

Obama: Yes, we can

Boehner: Hell, no we won't

I think the democrats can go it alone without all that republican "cooperation". In fact, they can do better without it. Just take your toys and go home. The big boys will take it from here. :smile:

Edited March 25, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[pattygreen 5]

I think the democrats can go it alone without all that republican "cooperation".

Don' you worry! Them democrats will be going it alone in Novemeber. Alone at the unemployment office. Oh that's right. They're too good for unemployment.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I think the democrats can go it alone without all that republican "cooperation".

Don' you worry! Them democrats will be going it alone in Novemeber. Alone at the unemployment office. Oh that's right. They're too good for unemployment.

Not if the teaparty runs candidates as a third party. When they do the democrat wins. So, I guess they'll have to get squarely behind the republicans that they claim they are not associated with.

As I have posted before, the majority always loses in mid term elections. That is not unexpected. But once people see the lies about healthcare are just that (just as they eventually did with the lies of Iraq and turned against the war) and that they are personally benefitting by it, and that the republicans are the party of no and have nothing to offer but tax cuts for the rich and war at any cost, well I don't think the republicans will make that big of gains. Of course if they unseat only one democrat they will be shouting about what a mandate it is, blah, blah, blah, just like they did with Scott Brown.

Actually, Scott Brown did the democrats a favor. First, he took the power away from the likes of Lieberman as the 60th vote. Lieberman then became irrelevant. Which was great. Second, it got the cowards in the democratic party from cowering and they came out fighting. AND WE WON. :thumbup:

I don't care what happens in November. Majorities come and go but this healthcare is forever.

[BJean 16]

And to think that John McCain promised to "reach across the aisle" if he was elected. No more divisive politics, total cooperation and bipartisanship would be his order of the day. What a jackass.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

And to think that John McCain promised to "reach across the aisle" if he was elected. No more divisive politics, total cooperation and bipartisanship would be his order of the day. What a jackass.

I have never seen a sorer loser. After the election, the classy and gracious Pres. Obama reached out to mccain and had a dinner in his honor and like the next day mccain was bashing Pres. Obama and hasn't stopped since. He is so desperate in his re-election bid that he has sarah palin (who dissed him) stumping for him in Arizona. And to think this guy might have been president. And her vp. Whew, we dodged that bullet.

[BJean 16]

If you look up the word "hyprocrisy" in the encyclopedia you'll find a picture of John McCain with a quote beneath saying "I reach across the aisle and work with my fellow senators to get the work done for all Americans."

[Cleo's Mom 257]

As I've said many times on this forum, the republicans stand with the rich, corporate america and wall street. Here is further proof from Mr. Coppertone himself:

Boehner Tells Bankers To Fight Financial Reform: ‘Don’t Let Those Little Punk Staffers Take Advantage Of You’  

This week, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) released the latest version of his financial regulatory reform bill, which aims to correct the deficiencies in the financial system that led to 2008’s economic crisis. The House of Representatives has already passed a comprehensive regulatory reform bill, and now that Dodd has given up on negotiating with recalcitrant Republicans, he is moving on an expedited timeline, with a markup scheduled for Monday.

It’s taken the Senate a year and a half after the financial crisis to even get to this point, but House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) told “an enthusiastic crowd of bankers” today that, even if the Senate passes a bill, reconciling it with the House version will take another year. “If the Senate is able to produce a bill, I think it’s just as likely that we’ll be talking about the same issue a year from now as we are right now,” Boehner said at the American Bankers Association government relations summit.

Boehner then added that the bankers should be standing up for themselves against “those little punk staffers” trying to write new regulations:

“Don’t let those little punk staffers take advantage of you and stand up for yourselves,” Boehner said.

“

That's right. And standing with them will be the hypocritical republicans. The democrats, in trying to advance financial reform, are standing with middle america.

These reforms would help prevent the financial abuses of wall street when they played russian roullette with our money and created the worst financial disaster since the great depression.

But apparently the republicans want to allow wall street to continue with their greedy practices.

Now, the teabaggers claim to be against the bank bailouts and the wall street abuses, so let's just see which side they come out on with financial reform. Because, gosh darn, it's not about hating Pres. Obama or racism, it's about the deficit. :Banane20:

Edited March 25, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[BJean 16]

Yeah, and if you believe that, I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.

[KartMan 58]

I’m a little late on this thread.

I think of myself as a left leaning Centrist, or center leaning Liberal, after reading my rants you are free call me whatever you like. I don’t much like labels. I really don’t care much for the extremists from either side.

I am a registered Republican for two reasons. First, when I was younger I identified with the Republican party. I came of age under Reagan – sue me. I was also in the military at the time, which tends to lead one a bit to the right. Sadly, after all these years I see that many of Reagan’s ideals were built on a flawed foundation. Now I stay Republican because it gives me at least some say in who wins the Republican Primaries in CA.

My voting record:

1984 Reagan (Winner)

1988 Bush 1 (Winner)

1992 Bush 1 (Loser)

1996 Dole (Loser)

2000 Bush 2 (Winner)

2004 Kerry (Loser)

2008 Obama (Winner)

2012 Obama (Winner:sneaky:)

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I’m a little late on this thread.

I think of myself as a left leaning Centrist, or center leaning Liberal, after reading my rants you are free call me whatever you like. I don’t much like labels. I really don’t care much for the extremists from either side.

I am a registered Republican for two reasons. First, when I was younger I identified with the Republican party. I came of age under Reagan – sue me. I was also in the military at the time, which tends to lead one a bit to the right. Sadly, after all these years I see that many of Reagan’s ideals were built on a flawed foundation. Now I stay Republican because it gives me at least some say in who wins the Republican Primaries in CA.

My voting record:

1984 Reagan (Winner)

1988 Bush 1 (Winner)

1992 Bush 1 (Loser)

1996 Dole (Loser)

2000 Bush 2 (Winner)

2004 Kerry (Loser)

2008 Obama (Winner)

2012 Obama (Winner:sneaky:)

Well, I'm glad to see that since 2004 you came around. I had to laugh when you said the military tends to lean one bit to the right. Ya think?

Anyway, I am glad you have some voice in the primaries. In my state, we have closed primaries. Democrats can only vote for democrats and republicans for republicans and independents can't vote in the primaries. I am as optimistic as you for 2012.

[BJean 16]

you know kartman, with age comes wisdom.

My better half worked in defense contracts for many years and worked for the government before that. It tends to make you favor the dudes who like war. But my heart and mind know better and I've never let my personal well-being cloud my political judgement. Much to my husband's chagrin.