Liberals crack me up...

[[AK]Devil_Dog]

What still amazes me about Liberals is they will vote for anyone that is not Bush. The Liberal media has brain washed people so bad that they honestly believe Bush is bad for this country... Liberals are willing to put one of our weakest politians into office just so Bush is out. Of course it means nothing that he turned the economy around, while cutting taxes. Or the fact that he's not afraid to stand up to the special interest groups.
Perhaps that is what the Liberals hate the most: Liberals are all about their civil rights, however when it comes to not agreeing with them about abortion, gay marriage, or affirmative action, well then your just an evil person who should be sent to sensitivity training. I like to call those classes what they really are: concentration camps. Your rights do not mean a thing as long as you disagree with them. Of course I am not too happy with Republicans either right now, because the fact of the matter is we have judges re-writing laws and they should be arrested. The Mayor of San Franciso did something that was blatantly against the law, but no one arrested him. God forbid some Mayor from Texas says it OK to buy automatic weapons... You know what would happen then....

I truly believe if Stalin or Hitler ran for office they would vote for them as opposed to Bush, because after all they were freedom fighters just like al-Sadr....

Ahhhhh, I feel better now....

[[AK]Sonic Boom]

Apparently Paul Wolfwitz has been brainwashed by the liberal media.

"A Pentagon architect of the Iraq war said yesterday the Defense Department underestimated its enemy, failing to predict how resilient Saddam Hussein and his government would be.

In a rare admission of prewar miscalculations, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz also said it's impossible to say how long a large U.S. military force will have to stay in Iraq after political power is handed to Iraqis on June 30.
Answering a question about miscalculations, Wolfowitz said: "I would say of all the things that were underestimated, the one that almost no one that I know of predicted ... was to properly estimate the resilience of the regime that had abused this country for 35 years."

The Seattle Times via AP

[[AK]Squidly]

I'm not getting into a lot of the detail of the rant(s) here. I just want to say that as far as underestimating, or not getting things perfect, or getting things wrong - who cares? It's war. It happens.


Respond to errors, underestimations, fubars, and move on.

Mistakes are a GIVEN in war. Harping on them and nitpicking errors (from both sides) is nothing but politics.

[[AK]Sonic Boom]

I'm not saying that war is perfect. My point is that I've been hearing much rhetoric from uberconservatives about how peachy everything is in Iraq and the infallibility of our fearless leaders.

In an interesting departure from Bush's "Never Admit You're Wrong About Anything" dogma (and denial), they've finally let their chief underling start to admit they screwed up the postwar "plan."

[[AK]Squidly]

I'm not saying that war is perfect. My point is that I've been hearing much rhetoric from uberconservatives about how peachy everything is in Iraq and the infallibility of our fearless leaders.

In an interesting departure from Bush's "Never Admit You're Wrong About Anything" dogma (and denial), they've finally let their chief underling start to admit they screwed up the postwar "plan."

Seems to me you're overly interested in an admission of fault for things large and small. What would anyone gain by such and admission? It'd weaken him as a candidate and it wouldn't serve any purpose for the people of the US.

It may serve as a fake comfy moral blanket for those anxious to say "I told you so!" but you aren't one of those.

So I don't get it.

Oh and in response to your response to Slaughter... I didn't vote in the Bush/Gore election. I didn't like either of them, and I was lazy so I was in about the same boat as Slaughter. I'll definitely be voting this year. Keeping Kerry out of office is that important. He would be a disaster.

[[AK]Sonic Boom]

Seems to me you're overly interested in an admission of fault for things large and small. What would anyone gain by such and admission? It'd weaken him as a candidate and it wouldn't serve any purpose for the people of the US.

It may serve as a fake comfy moral blanket for those anxious to say "I told you so!" but you aren't one of those.

So I don't get it.

Oh and in response to your response to Slaughter... I didn't vote in the Bush/Gore election. I didn't like either of them, and I was lazy so I was in about the same boat as Slaughter. I'll definitely be voting this year. Keeping Kerry out of office is that important. He would be a disaster.

Damn right I'm interested in admission of fault for things large and small, especially from the President. Denying fault is also denying responsibility. In order to fix something you've screwed up, you first have to admit you've screwed it up.

As far as the "fake comfy moral blanket," don't patronize me.

If you didn't vote in the last election, then shame on you. I will always find one's choice to not participate in the Democratic process reprehensible. I'll definitely be voting this year, too.

[[AK]Devil_Dog]

Apparently Paul Wolfwitz has been brainwashed by the liberal media.

"A Pentagon architect of the Iraq war said yesterday the Defense Department underestimated its enemy, failing to predict how resilient Saddam Hussein and his government would be.

In a rare admission of prewar miscalculations, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz also said it's impossible to say how long a large U.S. military force will have to stay in Iraq after political power is handed to Iraqis on June 30.
Answering a question about miscalculations, Wolfowitz said: "I would say of all the things that were underestimated, the one that almost no one that I know of predicted ... was to properly estimate the resilience of the regime that had abused this country for 35 years."

The Seattle Times via AP

I'm not talking about admiting we made a mistake. What I am talking about is blatant media propaganda. If you don't think CNN really stands for Communist News Network, then you live in a closet. How about 60 minutes. The person who is incharge there is personally responsible for Kennedy winning the election over Nixon in 1960. He purposely showed Nixon everytime he wiped his brow. But, let's talk about here and now. To think that the majority of Iraqi people are not happy that we are not there is ludicrous. Also, you never see how Bush truly cares about the people of this country, and you never will. The Liberal Media paints one single picture. Why doesn't CNN show Marines handing food and water to children? Why doesn't 60 minutes interview people who have been over there and know that we are helping everywhere we can???
I will tell you why, because the treasonous dogs who call themselves Americans hide behind this thing called the 1st Amendment saying we can do anything we want. Well guess what, there is a line, and they have crossed it time and time again.

[[AK]Sonic Boom]

I'm not talking about admiting we made a mistake. What I am talking about is blatant media propaganda. If you don't think CNN really stands for Communist News Network, then you live in a closet. How about 60 minutes...

I actually haven't watched television news for over five years (with the exceptions of 9/11 and the entire Iraq invasion), so I really have no idea what they're doing these days. I will say, though, that it sounded like the liberal media did a pretty good job of crucifying Howard Dean.

Regarding the liberal media, George W. has done an excellent job of further consolidating the power of the media into the hands of a wealthy corporate elite, to the detriment of the hearts and minds of America.

Here's a tidbit I dug up:

The FCC.

On June 2, 2003, the Republican-majority Federal Communications Commission—run by President Bush’s choice for chairman, Michael K. Powell—approved sweeping changes to media ownership rules that would allow for greater consolidation of mass media across the nation. Among six major changes, the FCC made it easier for national networks to buy local affiliates and threw out the ban that prevented a company from owning a news paper and a television or radio station in the same media market.
New York Times columnist William Safire declared that “no other decision made in Washington will more directly affect how you will be informed, persuaded and entertained.” One of the two dissenting votes on the panel, Michael J. Copps, complained that the decision “empowers America’s new media elite with unacceptable levels of influence over the ideas and information upon which our society and our democracy so heavily depend.” But how did such a tidal wave of changes occur when critics from across the spectrum— from Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to Trent Lott (R-MS)—were vocal opponents of media consolidation? And when more than 750,000 citizens contacted the FCC to complain about further media consolidation and urge the commissioners to vote against the changes?

It certainly didn’t hurt that lobbying the commission were nearly all big media companies, including Clear Channel, now the dominant owner of radio stations in America with 1,225, about 970 more than its nearest competitor; its vice chairman is the individual who in 1998 purchased the Texas Rangers and made the soon-to-be president a multimillionaire. (The company also no doubt pleased President Bush when it organized several pro-war demonstrations during the buildup to the Iraq conflict, under the banner of “Rally for America.”)

But then, in a surprising development, a normally disciplined Republican Congress balked. The House voted 400 to 21 to block the rules, and the Senate 55 to 40 to pass a “resolution of disapproval.” In response the Office of Management and Budget released a statement concluding that “the Administration believes that the new FCC media ownership rules more accurately reflect the changing media landscape.” And President Bush himself told Fox News: “I support what Michael Powell did. He took a long, deliberative process.”

But before the Congress could formally vote down these pro monopoly rules and before Bush could veto, on September 3, 2003— one day before the rules were scheduled to take effect—the Third Circuit Court of Appeals blocked, at least temporarily, implementation of the changes. The court argued that “given the magnitude of this matter and the public’s interest in reaching the proper resolution, a stay is warranted pending thorough and efficient judicial review.”

[Slaughter]

Of course it means nothing that he turned the economy around, while cutting taxes.

At what cost though?

Honestly, I hate G.W. I will agree he has done some good for this country, but he has done some bad as well (some will say that what Clinton did in office led to the decline of this economy, I would argue otherwise.. Clinton was the best president this country has seen in a while. In fact, if he were to use the loop hole in the system he could run for president again this year and win in a landslide, though the landslide is purely my prediction.)

Long story short, I want Bush out of the office.. Kerry isn't going to get my vote either, though I do claim to be a Democrat.. I just don't think Kerry has what it takes to be President.

[[AK]Hylander]

At what cost though?

Honestly, I hate G.W. I will agree he has done some good for this country, but he has done some bad as well (some will say that what Clinton did in office led to the decline of this economy, I would argue otherwise.. Clinton was the best president this country has seen in a while. In fact, if he were to use the loop hole in the system he could run for president again this year and win in a landslide, though the landslide is purely my prediction.)

Long story short, I want Bush out of the office.. Kerry isn't going to get my vote either, though I do claim to be a Democrat.. I just don't think Kerry has what it takes to be President.

If Clinton had been the best president we had in awhile then this country would be like Kosovo. The Republicans had enough control in congress to mitigate the damage he could do to the country with his socialistic agenda. We would be suffering the same ills that Germany and France have paying for all their "social" programs. He still managed to sell military technology to China, sold illegal access for contributions, committed perjury, Sold pardons for contributions, Fired federal workers to give positions to party friends, and who knows what really happened in Arkansas.

Kerry has his fathers Communist genes and it shows.

[[AK]Squidly]

At what cost though?

Honestly, I hate G.W. I will agree he has done some good for this country, but he has done some bad as well (some will say that what Clinton did in office led to the decline of this economy, I would argue otherwise.. Clinton was the best president this country has seen in a while. In fact, if he were to use the loop hole in the system he could run for president again this year and win in a landslide, though the landslide is purely my prediction.)

Long story short, I want Bush out of the office.. Kerry isn't going to get my vote either, though I do claim to be a Democrat.. I just don't think Kerry has what it takes to be President.

No offense, Slaughter, but that post didn't make much sense. Perhaps if you itemize the things you don't like about Bush it'd be easier to see where you're coming from. Right now it sounds a lot like a popularity contest.

[[AK]Sonic Boom]

Long story short, I want Bush out of the office.. Kerry isn't going to get my vote either, though I do claim to be a Democrat.. I just don't think Kerry has what it takes to be President.

Except that we have reality to deal with. Only two men can win the Presidency, Kerry or Bush. This means that you realistically have three choices, vote for Kerry, vote for Bush, or don't vote at all.

Regardless of your decision, the third "choice" is reprehensible to me. I'm not saying this is what you'll do, I just don't recommend it.