Mul,
And you would remain a staunch supporter/apologist if it was Clinton instead of Bush who did this the last 6 years?

YES / NO (circle one)

Pledging loyalty for a person rather than the office has potentially negative repercussions for a democracy.

Sherwood

Did what?...If I recall Clinton's presidency was about the economy and nothing, including character, mattered. Clinton failed and Bush was left to clean up his mess. Bush inherited a recession, overbloated corporations like Enron, and Osama running loose in Afghanistan. Bush turned around a quickly sinking economy and decided that enough was enough regarding terrorism.

My loyalty is to truth and not seditious hate speech that fuels world distrust, gives aid and comfort to the enemy and demoralizes troops in harm's way...This is what the critics offer, seditious hate speech bordering and crossing the line into the realm of treason.

A constant, ruthless person like Rice deserves nothing less than constant, ruthless attacks.

Yes, she has a morals problem of the first order.

I'm also for truth and not seditious hate speech, but allow me to clarify. If instead of Bush the last 6 years, Clinton was POTUS and he had the same policies, waged the same war in Iraq, thought, acted and functioned as Bush did during Katrina, Supreme Court nominations, UAE port sales, NSA eavesdropping, etc., etc. etc., would you support Clinton (or anyone else) in the same manner?

YES / NO (circle one)

Sherwood

Clinton would have bombed Serbia, been credited with all good in Katrina and given an award for civil rights, nominated far-left Justices without nary a peep out of Republicans, gave his buddies in Dubai (FYI, they have given 100s of thousands to the Clinton liebury) a better deal than Bush (the press would have provided cover fire), the NSA wiretapping would be hailed as brilliance, etc., etc., etc.

Clinton was not Bush. Clinton bombed Serbia after the WTC-1, Kobar, Embassy bombings and the Cole. Clinton appointed an ACLU head to the Supreme Court, Clinton actually used the IRS and illegally obtained 900 FBI files on his enemies, Clinton sold missile technology to the Chinese Military for campaign contributions, and as a piece de resistance he pardoned corporate crooks, cocaine traffickers and terrorists.

Really no comparison, but to answer your question..NO...Clinton could not be trusted, Bush has proven himself a man of his word.

Patsy-speak for "she is black."

I guess my attempt to set up this "what if" example failed to communicate, but thanks for the gaze into your crystal ball. Let's get back to reality.

I'll gather from your response it's not the actions of a president that count - it's really George Bush, the man you admire, although I suspect the term, "admire", is too soft a description. By minimizing the very same Bush scenarios as performed by a different person (Clinton, joe blow or whoever), you're showing more loyalty to a person than to your country or its institutions. I'm glad there's only 31.99% of us who agree with you. Hang in there.

Sherwood

Ignoring your racist attempt at race baiting, she has a morality problem related to her being one of the key engineers of the Bush'ist policies of bloodletting and failure in the middle east.

That alone disqualifies her as fit for any office, much less one more powerful than she holds today.

What he said. It has to do with a politician's tolerance for "collateral damage" as a result of their foreign policy. And you cannot use Adolph Hitler or Saddam Hussein as your barometer of moral relativism, it stands alone. As in, "by itself".

This is something that war-mongering, revenge-seeking idiots will never understand, unfortunately. Great leaders know the costs and avoid war obsessively, at the risk of being called names by the Ford vs. Chevy crowd.

Like Neville Chamberlain, hero of the left? He did avoid war at all costs, how did that work out for him?

You are a racist, but nice try at deflecting that reality.

Condoleeza Rice has been a party to the greatest liberation of people's from oppression. She has contributed to success the world could never have imagined regarding dealing with terrorism and constructing a respresentative form of government where tyranny previously existed.

By any honest evaluation Iraq has been successful. By any honest evaluation it has been undermined and sabotaged by you and your leftist friends bent on regaining power for surely evil purposes (when you lie to harm America, you are evil).

Clinton's pussy pullout of Mogadishu is precisely what motivated Osama. Appeasement was no longer an option; 9-11 proved this more than convincingly. Saddam had connections with terrorist organization including al qaeda. Saddam had WMD, planned on reconstituting them and planned on seeing them delivered to America.

You know Denis, if Clinton was doing his job this never would have happened. Just think if Clinton said "yes" when the Sudan offered bin laden on a silver platter?...Just imagine if after WTC-1, Kobar and Cole, after Clinton promised to bring to justice the terrorists, he did?

You see, Denis, this could have all been prevented with a little focus, quite easily. Instead Bill Clinton chased skirts, bombed innocent Serbians liberating Kosovo for KLA al qaeda related terrorists and pardoned corporate crooks, cocaine dealers and terrorists for $$$$$$$...and constructed the intel failure that allowed 9-11 to go down (Jamie Goerlick)...and what was Sandy Bergler stealing from the National Archives, Denis????

Bush is doing his job and nobody could have expected better. He is being undermined by you and your ilk, and when the fruits of your sabotage come to roost, you blame Bush.

Where is the "civil war", Denis?...Was that just another PR product launch by the Democrat party and their media buddies?

Nul,

Your quote says everything "when you lie to harm America, you are evil".

I would say when you lie, you are evil.

The stakes are higher when our men are in harm's way, or credibility is being called into question from within our own country (which feeds world distrust), and we are trying to deal with people who want us dead...It is a greater kind of evil the left are perpetrating.

Sorry, late to the thread, but I about spewed my coffee all over the screen when I read this one...

Translation: We liberals are for equality for all and being non-judgemental. Except, of course, if you are a conservative Black Woman who we think might just be a lesbian. LOL

So tell me how you view Iran Contra hearings? It was evil to be airing these deeds or evil for doing them?

It was evil for the Democrats to undermine a sitting President trying to conquer the evil of communism. It was evil for the Democrats to put through the Boland Amendment so Reagan could not fund the pro-American Contras. Daniel Ortega was funded by the USSR and defended by the American Democrats.

The evil was on the part of the Democrats, criminalizing Reagan's strategy of ending the Cold War and supporting pro-American Democratic regimes in south America.

don't they ever turn off the neo-con kool-aid fountain?

Somehow, I'm envisioning a Kool Aid firehose and at least three people here who constantly try to drink from it.

I think that earlier reference about some sort of personal fixation on Bush is the only explanation for ignoring the facts of this unprecedented chain of disasters he has perpetrated.

And Condi has been at his right hand -- from thwarting the attempts of the counterterrorism advisor, Richard Clark to get to Bush for 8+ months, and for dismissing the PDBs as being of 'historical interest,' etc. etc.

Finally, to pretend the core of the Republican 'base' would support her is the highest form of delusion.

Only when their IV of the same is hooked up and running.

Yes, all true, and Mul-berry's sad attempt at the race card is racism itself.

Rice is a bloodthirsty neo-con, not a genuine conservative, in fact she hasn't a drop of old-right blood running in her veins.

I wonder how long these neo-cons will go until they realize that worldwide conquest to force a government on a people is a form of communism in action, Trotskyism?

You say bloodthirsty as if it were a bad thing. Realize that many of the people you are communicating with here do not see the killing, wounding, impisonment or torture of innocent civilians to be all that bad.

There is no sense of moral high ground among the neocons. Sure, they promised higher ethics, but as soon as they were caught, brought up other, previous transgressors as an excuse: 'well, we're not as bad as ___________.'

Finally as far as self-realization goes, I subscribe to the notion that the few neocon holdouts defending the Bush administration are suffering from cognitive dissonance. this means they neve have to look objectively at their leaders.

And that hasn't been the action of the GOP wrt Dems also?

not really.

If the technique is successful this election then the Reps will follow the Dems lead on the technique imo.

Ron nailed it.

It isn't about beliefs or platforms, it's about political strategy or technique to employ to get / keep power. What's good for America isn't high on the priority list, IMO.

For example? When Clinton decided to bomb Serbia to get the nation's mind off his sexual harassment imbroglio, the Republicans were the loyal opposition and stood behind Clinton. Clinton's justification for entering and bombing Serbia were proven a lie, the Republicans let it go.

There is no moral equivalence here. Republicans take a position and Democrats oppose and deride it, irrespective of truth or the good of the country.

"it's about political strategy "

For entertainment I'm watching that Wisconsin Dem Russ Fiengold sic. He's got big brass and no Hillary worship. lol

Feingold was deceptively and underhandedly calling for censure of Bush, the rest of his party stuck their tails between their legs and ran the other way pissing on themselves.

Feingold's brass is brass colored plastic made in China...There is nothing genuine or of lasting value in his recent grandstanding.

utter crock of *****

"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

This pretty much says it all about Foolsgold's move yesterday.

The Feingold Resolution and the Sound of Silence

By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, March 15, 2006; A02


Democratic senators, filing in for their weekly caucus lunch yesterday, looked as if they'd seen a ghost.

"I haven't read it," demurred Barack Obama (Ill.).

"I just don't have enough information," protested Ben Nelson (Neb.). "I really can't right now," John Kerry (Mass.) said as he hurried past a knot of reporters -- an excuse that fell apart when Kerry was forced into an awkward wait as Capitol Police stopped an aide at the magnetometer.

Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) brushed past the press pack, shaking her head and waving her hand over her shoulder. When an errant food cart blocked her entrance to the meeting room, she tried to hide from reporters behind the 4-foot-11 Barbara Mikulski (Md.).

"Ask her after lunch," offered Clinton's spokesman, Philippe Reines. But Clinton, with most of her colleagues, fled the lunch out a back door as if escaping a fire.

In a sense, they were. The cause of so much evasion was S. Res. 398, the resolution proposed Monday by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) calling for the censure of President Bush for his warrantless wiretapping program. At a time when Democrats had Bush on the ropes over Iraq, the budget and port security, Feingold single-handedly turned the debate back to an issue where Bush has the advantage -- and drove another wedge through his party.

So nonplused were Democrats that even Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), known for his near-daily news conferences, made history by declaring, "I'm not going to comment." Would he have a comment later? "I dunno," the suddenly shy senator said.

Republicans were grateful for the gift. The office of Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.) put a new "daily feature" on its Web site monitoring the censure resolution: "Democrat co-sponsors of Feingold Resolution: 0."

Many of Feingold's Democratic colleagues agree that Bush abused his authority with the NSA spying program. And they know liberal Democratic activists are eager to see Bush censured, or worse. But they also know Feingold's maneuver could cost them seats in GOP states.

Hence the elaborate efforts to avoid comment. Five Democratic senators called a news conference yesterday to talk about the Bush budget's "dangerously irresponsible priorities" -- but three of them fled the room before allowing questions. The other two were stuck.

"Was it a good idea for Senator Feingold to bring up this resolution?" came the first question, from CNN's Ed Henry.

"He brings up some very important issues," Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) ventured.

Henry was unsatisfied. "So do you support censure, or not?

Stabenow took another stab. "It needs to have hearings," she said.

Mary Landrieu (La.) pursed her lips. "Senator Feingold has a point that he wants to make," she said. "We have a point that we want to make, talking about the budget."

"Senators," an aide interrupted, "we need to go."

Next in the Senate TV gallery came Schumer. An aide hung up a poster showing a port. The senator called the ports situation "extremely troubling." The aide hung up a poster of an Exxon cartoon. "Obscene profits," decreed Schumer, equally passionately.

CNN's Henry asked the Feingold question. Schumer ended the news conference.

Outside the Democrats' lunch downstairs, the senators were similarly agile. The number two Democratic leader, Richard Durbin (Ill.), darted out of an elevator and into lunch when he thought nobody was looking.

"I haven't made any judgment," said Jeff Bingaman (N.M.). Two minutes later, he reappeared. "I will support an alternative that would call for an investigation," he amended.

The one Democrat happy to talk was Feingold, who, in a pre-lunch chat with reporters, seemed to enjoy his colleagues' squirms. "I'm concerned about the approach Democrats are taking, which is too often cowering," he said.

Feingold, seeking liberals' support for the 2008 presidential nomination, said he wasn't motivated by politics. But then he slipped. "If there's any Democrat out there who can't say . . . the president has no right to make up his own laws, I don't know if that Democrat really is the right candidate," he said of his likely primary opponents.

After an hour of closed-door negotiations, Democrats were no closer to resolving the Feingold rift.

"Most of us feel at best it's premature," announced Sen. Christopher Dodd (Conn.). "I don't think anyone can say with any certainty at this juncture that what happened is illegal."

Dodd must not have checked with Sen. Tom Harkin (Iowa). "The president broke the law and he needs to be held accountable," he said. "Talk about high crimes and misdemeanors!" Harkin said he'll vote for the Feingold resolution -- if it comes up.

That gives Feingold two solid votes, including his own. The rest: avowedly undecided.

Schumer, leaving the lunch, still hadn't found his voice. " He's gonna talk about it," Schumer said, pointing to Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (Nev.).

Reporters, as instructed, asked Reid where he stood. "It's a question that's been asked 33 times in the last few hours," he said. "And so, for the 34th time, I'm going to say the same thing: I'm going to wait .

They were right. It appears Clinton lied to get us into Serbia. He used as a rationale "ethic cleansing" and "genocide" and both were proven lies. So, although some Republicans had the balls to tell it like it was, a lot of Republicans rolled over and supported Clinton...Not that it mattered, as the media supported Clinton and Serbia, so the invasion was painted as a good move.

Clinton bombed Serbia under false pretenses. I am sure some Republicans (very few) came out in opposition, but for the most part they stood behind the crook Clinton's wag of the dog.

One more thing: What is our exit strategy out of Kosovo? You ever ask yourself why Clinton is never grilled about his lies regarding bombing Serbia. You ever scratch your head and ask yourself why Kosovo gets no attention?...Is it the fact that it is a quagmire and the KLA Islamics were in bed with al qaeda?

but it ain't over yet.

The Dems have nothing to offer but anti Bush and he seems like the far left delight. And afaik the far left is where the $ is. If Hillary slides to his censure rant then he's a serious Dem nonimation contender.

Mul,
You're still talking like Clinton is still in office. Get over it. It's history. He was impeached already. Slap yourself. It's 2006 and the count is up to 2300+.

What's the strategy now?

Sherwood

The repercussions of the Clinton failures are what led to the recession of 2000 and the current terrorism war we deal with today...Not only that, but when judging the present it is valuable to look to the past, especially if that recent past illuminates the absolute hypocrisy of the left and their protestations.

Why did Bill Clinton encourage Sandy Berger to steal documents from the National Archives?...Why hasn't the media questions Bill Clinton regarding this fact and the lies that Clinton used to get us into Serbia?

Just think, Sherwood, if Bill Clinton did his job we never would have had to enter Iraq and Afghanistan. If Bill Clinton secured Osama when he had the undeniable chance, we would not have lost those 3000+ and 2,??? American troops fighting a war that should have been fought instead of boming Serbia from 10,000 feet.

dose's still hearing voices, too, Sherwood. It's that damn kool-aid, I tell ya.

The Dems are pitiful for *****ing about the NSA tapping and not standing behind Feingold. It's illegal and Bush should be called out on it. If the law needed changing, change it, not ignore it. ******* criminal administration.

Iran financed and Syria intelligence started this war bs in Beirut under Reagan. Reagan grabbed Bill Casey from Wall St to head the CIA when the House or Senate was in Dem control. Bill did his best to sidestep the politics. AFAIK the issue back then was either going to war with Iran or not.

The moment Bill Clinton had Sandy Bergler steal documents to hide incriminating evidence regarding terrorism, was the moment Bill Clinton became inextricably linked to any discussion regarding the war on terrorism...You would think the media would be all over Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger and Madeline Albright, wouldn't you?...I suppose Dick Cheney accidentally shooting a friend is more important than what Bergler stole from the National Archives that made a full vetting of what led to 9-11 impossible.

I wonder if the media is going to question Bill Clinton about his financial benefactors from Dubai?...Nahhh..