The first sign should have been Ari Fleisher’s resignation. If things were coming that were so bad that he couldn’t find positive ways to spin them, that was a tip-off right there.
American soldiers are continuing to die and, at this rate, within a month or two more will have died since Bush declared fighting was over than before that point. The Iraqis who were supposed to have loved us are shooting at us while we pour billions into the new Vietnam. Saddam is just fine, thanks (as is bin Laden.) Deficits and unemployment are spiralling out of control. And it appears that the administration lied to the American people about matters of greater consequence than oral sex with an intern.
Am I happy about this? No. The wheels are coming off the wagon, the worldwide sympathy we had as a result of 9/11 is long-squandered, but hey…let’s get right to work on trying to pass a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages. Thank heavens our priorities are in order.
PAD
• 
Thanks for more partisan bûllšhìŧ.
Thanks a lot.
Totally agree, Peter. Sucks, doesn’t it?
Jam: Since when is dead US soldiers a partisan issue? Or that the current administration lied to place those soldiers in harm’s way, let alone kill thousands of others in the process? Please enlighten.
Thanks for more partisan bûllšhìŧ. Thanks a lot.
Funny how the same people who spent the economically successful Clinton years crowing over a man having *gasp* extramarital sex are now screaming “partisan” every time someone points out how badly the current administration is dropping the ball.
O.K. Peter, what would you do right now? Would you pull them out? Would you send more? Don’t just say you wouldn’t have sent them in, what would you do today if you were in charge?
Why are the reasonable explainations put forth by the administration just brushed aside?
The president didn’t say that the fighting was over, just that the major military conflicts were behind us. Lone snipers in trees and four guys with machine guns do not make military engagements. On top of that, there is a significant, but not majority, segment of Iraqis that want us out, namely anyone who benefitted from the Baath administration, or about 35% of Iraqis. Clearly, not all Iraqis love us, and there are enough of them there to damage us. That doesn’t make the president a liar.
And as for the nuclear weapons lie, it’s unfortunate that it’s all come down to those 12 words which were technically correct[1], but turned out to be based on faulty intel. It was always supposed to be about WMDs, chemical, biological and nuclear. I still believe, as does a good portion of the US, that Iraq has or recently had, WMDs that we needed to get rid of.
But, as Carville said, it’s all about the economy. We’re still paying for the excess of the 90s[2], but I think that we’ll eventually catch up and regress towards the mean in the macro-evironment.
And I agree with you, the gay marriage thing is a useless argument, but I agree with the writer for the National Review Corner, that no one has thought about this hard enough. Here’s the link:
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/03_07_13_corner-archive.asp#010869
If we allow for Gay Civil Unions, we must also allow lots of others, or we risk reverse discrimination.
Londo
[1] As the president said, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” Which is technically true, since the Brits did and do believe it. Turns out they are probably wrong.
[2] This isn’t partisanship, in the 90s, we produced so much stuff, such as networking hardware, computer chips, automobiles, etc, that we still have to burn through the inventory before we get back to normal. The 90s showed overemployment so we’re now faced with underemployment to compensate.
Wow! Open mind huh Jam?
Clinton was a moral blackhole yes, but his lies to the American people didn’t result in people dying or millions of more people hating America. Yes his actions strenghtened the American stereotype that we’re all a bunch of morally free sex-áhølìçš. Oh, and Gore didn’t spend his time with the CIA making sure whatever intelligence was collected agreed with what Clinton “knew for sure.”
But wow? “Partisan” huh?
“Funny how the same people who spent the economically successful Clinton years crowing over a man having *gasp* extramarital sex are now screaming “partisan” every time someone points out how badly the current administration is dropping the ball.” – Some Dimwit
Funny how people ASSUME (remember that old joke about ÃSS – U – ME) that because I would call PAD’s obviously onesided comments partisan that I’m somehow a Republican.
Far from it, I think both sides of this ‘debate’ are equally retarded. Sean Hannity is as much a political dûmbášš as PAD is.
The use of the word partisan was purposeful, I think America’s political system has been almost entirely corrupted by it’s current two party system. Both parties are equally corrupt, and anyone who claims otherwise is a fool.
Just so happens PAD is a fool who can write comics I like.
As for dead US Soldiers, to be brutally honest, dying is part of a soldier’s job. They knew what they were signing up for, one does not join the military thinking it’s going to be all fun and games.
As for the Iraqis, I think the majority of them are better off now than they were a year ago.
That there’s a few Saddam loyalists still fighting doesn’t suprise me.
Tobin sez: “but [Clinton’s] lies to the American people didn’t result in people dying or millions of more people hating America”
True, but what his lies did do was lower the bar for what we expect from our Presidents forever more. Since we’ve now accepted that our president wont be truthful with us, there is little incentive for them to be so. While I agree that Clinton’s untruths were more petty in nature, they were more of the gateway drug for the rest of the politicians to say, “let’s see if I can get away with this…”
My mind IS open, that’s why PAD’s closed minded, onesided, political hack-isms bothers me.
This whole “Republicans are evil!” thing is just as silly as the right’s “Democrats are the pawns of Satan!” thing.
Same difference, anyone who buys either side strikes me as a foolish sheep.
Can’t call me partisan, I hate all politics equally. 🙂
The problem is that the U.S. forces are trying too hard. They insist on remaining in Iraq in force until electricity, water, medical systems, etc are in place, and meanwhile the bickering about how to best go about giving the Iraqis democracy drags on for months.
It’s not the soldiers’ presence that’s the problem, it’s the lack of action stateside that’s causing Iraqi impatience. To them, it seems like they’ve gone from one military regime to another one, and their hope for finally getting a democratic government is waning.
Geez Peter, you’re such a bitter, angry little man. God, I swear Matt Groening based the ‘Comic Book Guy’ after you.
…and this is why I hate politics:
It seems to be all about how to spin lies correctly to make them believable, and then, if the lie fails, make the ‘other side’ take the blame.
That all seems to phony to me.
As far as presidential “escapes” an argument could be made that it didn’t start with Clinton, because there was the whole Iran-Contra thing with Reagan, but there was also Watergate.
I agree with you Londo. I think politicians as a whole rely on the voters having short-term memory. In Clinton’s case I think it was the idea that if he could drag out the scandal long enough the people would eventually get apathetic towards the whole thing.
One of the reasons W’s SotU sentence has not been dropped is becuase no WMDs (or evidence) have been found and soldiers keep dying. People are begining to ask whether we needed to go in like we did WHEN we did. Could we have waited a little longer and formed a better post-Saddam plan?
The only way democracy works is if the people can continually Question Authority. The Bush administration has been excellent, until recently, at soundly pounding on those throwing out the questions.
Tobin
“My mind IS open, that’s why PAD’s closed minded, onesided, political hack-isms bothers me.”
Though Mr. David is a far better wordsmith than I and would have no trouble defending his stance, should he feel it worth the bother, I’ll ask one little question:
Can you quote [verbatim, mind] where Mr. David specifically stated “All Republicans Bad, All Democrats Good”? Because, if he didn’t, then your assertion of his being closed-minded and one-sided doesn’t hold up, does it?
I only wish I could hold my [Canadian] head up proud, but our governments suck, too. Take the municipal government in Ottawa, where I am …
A billionaire buys himself a shiny toy – the NHL’s supposedly hottest franchise – well below market value, and has a world-class, spanking new venue practically given him (10 cents on the dollar or thereabouts) yet cries buckets because he has to pay taxes on these. “Oh, no”, immediately respond the geniuses at City Hall, “We’ll give you a 75% tax break on that.”
And they wonder why they have trouble making ends meet come budget time? Who elects idiots such as these?
Boy PAD seems to have stirred up the hornet’s nest. Did anyone see Good Morning America today reportedly US Soldiers were openly complaining to the cameras about being stuck in Iraq for too long, not a good sign. The funny thing is that one of the reasons we invaded Iraq was to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia, now if we have to abandon Iraq we might wind up without US troops in SA and Saddam back in charge of Iraq.
I must admit I agree with Peter on this one. The main question I ask myself is “Am I, and is this nation, in better shape now than it was four years ago?” My answer to that one is pretty obvious.
While I’m not a fan of either party, I like the Republican Party less. Bill Maher, I feel, said it best when he stated that “The Democratic Party is bought and owned by a slightly less scary set of special interest groups than the Republican Party is.”
That said, of all the people who ran in the last election, I liked McCain the most. He had the political career and backgroup and war experience and a solid set of priorities and knowledge of the issues, but that can’t compete these days against money and name recognition.
As for dead US Soldiers, to be brutally honest, dying is part of a soldier’s job. They knew what they were signing up for, one does not join the military thinking it’s going to be all fun and games. –Jay
Maybe so, but does that mean we should just accept their deaths as S.O.P. and not question whether or not those deaths could have been prevented? Yes, they’re soldiers. But they’re also Americans who believe they are fighting for their country and rightfully expect that they will not needlessly be put in harm’s way. We just don’t seem to be doing anything productive over there right now and my perception is that our soldiers (who are also fathers, mothers, sons and daughters) are dying for no good reason other than our president wrapping up a questionalble job his father left unfinished a decade ago. Meanwhile, we let North Korea do whatever the hëll they want to do.
Whether you agree with Peter’s comments or not, can you at least concede that some of us have good reason to feel frustrated and consider that maybe our current president is not acting completely in our best interests as a nation?
True, but what his lies did do was lower the bar for what we expect from our Presidents forever more. Since we’ve now accepted that our president wont be truthful with us, there is little incentive for them to be so.
I think Nixon had already accomplished that long before Clinton did.
Den sez: I think Nixon had already accomplished that long before Clinton did.
I would agree with you, had Nixon not resigned. But Nixon, who didn’t go so far as to lie to a Grand Jury, realized that remaining in the office would make a mockery of both the position and himself, eventually did resign, which separates himself from those that followed.
I voted Republican for years. I was even registered Republican for a great number of years. However, thanks to the Bush family, unless the Democrats nominate a Hitler clone, I doubt I will ever vote Republican again. We were totally mislead and I just want the freaks out of office.
Presidental Lies
Ike was the first President to really get his chops busted over lying to the American people. The CIA assured Ike that Gary Powers would kill himself if shot down. So Ike denied spy flights over the USSR, when the Soviets produced a live Powers, Ike ate crow. That was a big deal in the 50s. In many ways I think the Powers episode set the stage for what would come later, LBJ in Vietnam, Nixon, Reagan & Iran-Contra.
“I must admit I agree with Peter on this one. The main question I ask myself is “Am I, and is this nation, in better shape now than it was four years ago?” My answer to that one is pretty obvious.”
And what the !@#$%^ does the president have to do with that? In the last year I have lost my job due to the economy and have not nearly yet recovered. But I don’t expect the government to somehow save me. It’s up to me, no handouts. All the president can do is lobby to lower taxes and spending as much as possible, then get out of the way of the markets. Bush has done half of that (he’s a little too Democrat spend-happy), which is much more than a democrat president would do.
And I love the comment about Peter D. as the Comic Book Guy, always speaking in absolutes. Can you picture his “Worst. Administration. EVER.” about Bush?
A few points to consider (or not):
If Saddam did not have WMD, then his behavior prior to March must be considered the most irrational in world history. I think it is far more likely that the WMD were hidden or smuggled out of the country than that they never existed.
True, there are people in Iraq who don’t like us. Some of them were supporters of Saddam. Some of them want to establish a theocracy. That those elements should be engaging in guerilla warfare should surprise no one. Anyone who ever thought this stage would be easy wasn’t thinking it through. I certainly don’t recall the President or anyone else saying it would be easy.
When Clinton lied about Monica Lewinsky, he did it to defraud the judicial system. A lie about sex is highly relevant when being sued for sexual harrassment.
This leads to the statement about uranium. Assuming Saddam did not try to obtain uranium from African nations, and I am not willing to make that assumption yet, we still haven’t established Bush’s motive for saying they were. Did Bush honestly believe it was happening? Did he trust British intelligence in that matter? Was it a mistake, or was it a lie?
I don’t see what Bush might have gained from lying about it. He already had Congressional authorization to act in Iraq, and I don’t remember the statement being discussed between the SotU address and the war, to think it swayed public opinion in any detectable way.
If Saddam did not have WMD, then his behavior prior to March must be considered the most irrational in world history.
Do you mean behavior like letting the inspectors back in and allowing them to investigate suspected WMD sites or allowing the over flight of U2 spy planes?
I don’t see what Bush might have gained from lying about it.
I have a little theory about this. It centers on the fact that for years many of us were taught that the USSR might drop nukes on us at any second. We grew up watching films of a-bomb tests, countless movies and at least two TV mini –series were built around the concept of nuclear war. IMHO the Administration wanted there to be a nuclear threat because for almost 60 years the American people were taught to fear the bomb above all. It has a psychological impact that chemical and bio weapons don’t.
I gotta chip in just to commend Londo. He’s showing the conservative angle and the considered angle ain’t mutually exclusive.
I don’t ask that the President share my political views, just that he be _competent_ at the job.
Here’s hoping John McCain somehow manges to usurp the nomination in ’04.
The worst part of it PAD?
There isn’t really any other better country out there. America has followed it’s own political credo, America is the lesser of the world’s evils.
Former Senator Gary Hart was on the Daily Show last night, and during his interview it was mentioned that President Bush would be spending $250,000,000 (a quarter of a billion!) on his re-election campaign. It is highly doubtful that any Democrat will be able to compete with that kind of backing. But since everyone knows it is the candidates stand on the issues that gets them elected, that shouldn’t be a worry, should it?
Matt Wieringo said: “…can you at least concede that … maybe our current president is not acting completely in our best interests as a nation?”
No, I cannot concede that, as I see no evidence to support such a claim. Since there are probably 350 million opinions on what’s “best for our nation” I believe the president is considering all factors, and acting in what he and his advisors believe to be in our best interests.
In no way do I think he’s acting against what he believes to be in our best interests, but I’d be interested in hearing why you’d think so.
Den sez: I think Nixon had already accomplished that long before Clinton did.
I would agree with you, had Nixon not resigned. But Nixon, who didn’t go so far as to lie to a Grand Jury, realized that remaining in the office would make a mockery of both the position and himself, eventually did resign, which separates himself from those that followed.
By the time Nixon’s lies were revealed, he hadn’t been before a Grand Jury. If he had been and was asked about Watergate, I strongly suspect (based on his history of actions) he would have lied as facile as he’d done before. Praising a man for not committing a crime when he didn’t have the opportunity to commit said crime really doesn’t wash.
And resigning before you get fired is perhaps a tad more noble than getting fired, but not by much (especially if you know you will be pardoned which is what the strong concensus is).
Tackling same-sex marriages & everything else? It’s called multi-tasking! 😉
O.K. Peter, what would you do right now? Would you pull them out? Would you send more? Don’t just say you wouldn’t have sent them in, what would you do today if you were in charge?
Sorry, but I’m not abiding by your curtailment of what I can or can’t say. I wouldn’t have sent them in.
PAD
My mind IS open, that’s why PAD’s closed minded, onesided, political hack-isms bothers me.
This whole “Republicans are evil!” thing is just as silly as the right’s “Democrats are the pawns of Satan!” thing.
Same difference, anyone who buys either side strikes me as a foolish sheep.
I wonder why it is that some people feel the need to put quotation marks around things they themselves say and then attack that as if I said them. Seems a mášŧûrbáŧørÿ way to go about things.
I don’t know that Bush lied. I do believe that anyone who makes the claim that we had “darned good intelligence” is, at the very least, delusional.
PAD
From Sasha: Praising [RMN] for not committing a crime when he didn’t have the opportunity to commit said crime really doesn’t wash.
I am not Praising Nixon, nor do I consider him particularly noble. He committed a crime, tried to cover it up, when it was obvious that he was caught, he threw in the towel and resigned. Nothing really noble there. However, it did set the precedent that the president cannot committ a crime, and remain president for very long.
However, to committ a crime, be found guilty, and basically say, “So what you gonna do about it?!” Is in a different league in my thinking.
“I must admit I agree with Peter on this one. The main question I ask myself is “Am I, and is this nation, in better shape now than it was four years ago?” My answer to that one is pretty obvious.”
And what the !@#$%^ does the president have to do with that? In the last year I have lost my job due to the economy and have not nearly yet recovered. But I don’t expect the government to somehow save me. It’s up to me, no handouts. All the president can do is lobby to lower taxes and spending as much as possible, then get out of the way of the markets. Bush has done half of that (he’s a little too Democrat spend-happy), which is much more than a democrat president would do.
Since the president sets the agenda, the president is in no small part responsible for what happens to the country (and W has really had a strong and free hand in setting the agenda since 9/11). If the plans he sets into motion helps you find a job then great, but if his initiatives result in the disappearance of yet more jobs, then that’s his trumpet to play too (whether he likes it or not). I agree that the government isn’t meant to be an enabling parent or girlfriend allowing you to avoid working altogether, but if it can help you find a job and perhaps keep you from being evicted, I really don’t see a problem.
And I love the comment about Peter D. as the Comic Book Guy, always speaking in absolutes. Can you picture his “Worst. Administration. EVER.” about Bush?
That image is hilarious although I’ve noticed that everyone tends to speak in absolutes on this board when politics are the topic.
And the Worst. Administraion. Ever. would probably be Hoover or Harding. But the current crop is probably in the top ten.
I would agree with you, had Nixon not resigned. But Nixon, who didn’t go so far as to lie to a Grand Jury, realized that remaining in the office would make a mockery of both the position and himself, eventually did resign, which separates himself from those that followed.
Nooo, Nixon realized he was going to be impeached and thrown out of office. He didn’t resign out of some great noble concern over how the office would look. He resigned because it was better to walk away than be kicked out.
PAD
I think what really bothers people is that the army was sent in because of these weapons of mass destruction.
The idea of regime change/links to terrorists/mas graves/etc all came later to justify the fact that no WMD were found.
As of the idea that soldiers know they may die in their duties.
You’re correct but it is the administration’s duty to be sure they are fighting and dying for a proper reason and not some tale based on poor (or worse fabricated)intel.
PAD said: “…Nixon realized he was going to be impeached and thrown out of office…”
Sure, and Clinton realized he was going to be impeached, and had a 60/40 shot of staying in office, and decided to roll the dice. While neither action or result is particularly admirable, with Nixon resigning (or escaping, however you wish to state it) at least there wasn’t a known criminal in office.
“I must admit I agree with Peter on this one. The main question I ask myself is “Am I, and is this nation, in better shape now than it was four years ago?” My answer to that one is pretty obvious.”
And what the !@#$%^ does the president have to do with that?
Depends. If the president is GOP, then nothing. If the president is Democrat, then everything.
Now if the economy is going well, the GOP Prez gets the props. If things aren’t going well, it’s the fault of whenever the most recent Democratic administration was.
That’s just how it works. I’m surprised not everyone is aware of that.
PAD
“While I’m not a fan of either party, I like the Republican Party less. Bill Maher, I feel, said it best when he stated that ‘The Democratic Party is bought and owned by a slightly less scary set of special interest groups than the Republican Party is.'”
Ha! I like that.
I like to put it like this- The Democrats have their hearts in the right place, but are incredibly stupid. The Republicans on the other hand simply have no hearts…
Election 2000 was the imcompetant moron with his right hand up his ášš vs. the insufferable twit with his left hand up his ášš.
re: Peter’s original post & subsequent comments throughout the entire string – *ahem* [small voice] Absolutely correct.
On the subject of Richard Nixon and known criminals in the White House:
This is a man who attempted to plant campaign literature from his opponents in the homes of convicted criminals in order to smear them. This is a man who created an illegal black ops group in order to wiretap and sabotage political enemies. This is a man who deliberately attempted to plant false stories in the press. Just two sources (which contain numerous others) can be found here and here. To even pretend there is any sort of moral equivalency between Nixon and any other President until evidence of similar misdeeds comes to light is grossly unfair and inaccurate. The man was quite simply in a league of his own. Occassionally brilliant, certainly ruthless, capable of great political acumen and unrestrained vituperation, totally and completely unconcerned with the means by which power could be attained and held. Quite honestly, Clinton was a rank amateur when it comes to this kind of behavior. I further find it less than genuine to compare Clinton’s attempt to deflect unwarranted (yes, unwarranted) efforts to snoop into his sex life with Nixon’s full-fledged misinformation campaign.
Of course, it is impossible to dispute that Clinton did indeed lie just as Londo says he did, and possibly for the reasons listed. But he didn’t have any of his people try and plant wiretaps in Ken Starr’s offices so far as anyone has alleged (and considering how much time and effort Starr put into finding absolutely every single scrap of even possibly objectionable behavior in the Clinton closet, I think he would have alleged it if there was any evidence of it) much less attempt to steal anyone’s medical records (as Nixon ordered done to Dan Ellsberg to prevent the leaking of the Pentagon Papers).
Clinton, for all his flaws, did not wind up impeached. Nixon didn’t go through the process, and was then pardoned by his successor, a man he’d appointed because his original Vice President resigned under a cloud for Tax Evasion charges, so there was no legal way to attempt to prosecute Nixon for any crimes he certainly committed.
I should also point out that by any other President one should include all of his successors, not just Clinton. Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II…none of them have been proved to have anything like Nixon’s cavalier disregard. I say that as someone far less than thrilled with the current administration and willing to believe they might be capable of that scale and scope of activity…but again, without actual evidence of it, there’s simply no way to compare any of them with Nixon.
Matt said: “Clinton, for all his flaws, did not wind up impeached.”
Well, of course he was impeached, he was even sanctioned, he was just left in office. It’s not the crimes that I’m comparing, like I said before, I think Clinton’s were fairly petty, it wsa the reaction afterwards. It was the “Yeah, I’m guilty, now what are you going to do about it?!” Stance that the administration took that rubs me the wrong way.
Having a president who is found guilty of crimes remain in office lowers the standard for all future presidents. While Clinton’s crimes were probably lesser than other president’s, it’s what happened next that makes it worse…
The idea of regime change/links to terrorists/mas graves/etc all came later to justify the fact that no WMD were found.
No.
Seeking Iraqi regime change was the official policy toward Iraq since 1998, when Bill Clinton was President.
That Iraq was a hellhole on the human rights front was part of the President’s public statements on Iraq since roughly the time of the “Axis of Evil” speech and part of the public record long before that. The possibility of Iraqi links to terrorism have been endlessly hashed out since 9/11.
The mass graves found in Iraq are not an “idea” but an empirical fact. There are those of us in this country who think getting rid of a regime that has jails for children, tortures political dissidents, and uses rape as a tool for suppressing dissent is A Good Thing.
On the WMD front, I wonder why it is PAD hasn’t mentioned the Iraqi nuclear scientist whom it turns out was ordered to bury documents and other materials relating to the Iraqi nuclear program in his backyard…an act which certainly suggests that any “cooperation” Saddam was displaying with the weapons inspectors was in bad faith, just as his worthless report to the UN last December was, and that Saddam was in fact hoping to rope-a-dope the inspections and attempt to restart the weapons program he agreed not to pursue when he thought the coast was clear.
And, I mean, honestly, it’s not like PAD and other antiwar liberals have been right on one single solitary thing when it came to Iraq…weren’t you saying a coupla months ago about how we were going to “slaughter” hundreds of thousands of Iraqis with shock and awe? Ah, yes, these and other lies we were told about Iraq (http://www.porphyrogenitus.net/archives/week_2003_07_13.html#001477)…
Ah, well. It’s not like it matters. The antiwar left will continue to self-destruct into an impotent, inchoate blob screaming “What about Floooooorida” and “it’s all about the oooooooil” and slapping each other on the back and waiting for the revolution. And the grown-ups of the world — those of us who aren’t disappointed that a murderous dictator has been deposed and can watch Bush on TV without having an anyeurism, even if we didn’t vote for him, that sort of thing — will deal with reality.
I mean, I didn’t vote for Bush and I know that it’s misleading at best to say he declared “fighting was over” when he actually said major military operations were concluded. Hëll, a kindergartener knows that.
I gotta say, though, a PADtrum is always great free entertainment…
The thing that scares me isn’t the people who back either the Republicans or the democrats… The real enemy is among us, folks.
Anyone who makes infantile statements like “all politicians are crooks” or “I don’t back either party because all politics is BS” is, pure and simple, the real problem. These people do more harm to this country than any regime can ever hope to do.
They remind me of the old MST episode where Crow is satirizing stand-up comics by trying to end every joke with some line about a sex scandal involving X and saying “I didn’t know X was in Congress.”
I can only conclude that these people have never met a politician and that their understanding of politics is like the average D&D gamers understanding of real warfare.
As a reporter, I met a lot of politicians and some were every bit the cartoon people would expect and many were people with genuine concern about their constituents.
What these nay-sayers don’t understand is that there are frequently no easy answers. Does a politician vote with her conscience? Then what about all the people she represents who disagree with her? Does he vote with the will of the majority? Then what about the special information he may have access to because of his position?
Hey, I even see politicians get crap because they attach the building of a highway or the placement of a ship-building plant to a bill. Trust me, I’ve lived in depressed towns and it don’t seem like pork when it’s going to bring jobs to a dying town.
I’m not arguing that all or even most politicians are good but politics isn’t good or bad, it’s a process that is defined by the way it’s conducted and the people who involved.
But these creeps who just sit back and sneer, hëll, they don’t even have the guts to choose the wrong side. They just take no side at all and get satisfaction in the way they gauranteed the results they wanted: “See, I told you things would get worse.”
The worst part is their dishonesty about their part in the process. Their apathy doesn’t keep them out of the problem, it creates it because a cynical, disinvolved public makes good politicians bad and makes bad politicians even more powerful.
Silence isn’t not using your voice it’s letting someone else speak in your place and trust this, someone else will.
Oh, and PAD, if you’ve got information to the effect that Saddam and bin Laden are “just fine, thanks” — which seems to imply that you know where they are and what they’re up to — you might want to let someone like, I dunno, the Army know about that. Unless, of course, you DON’T actually know that…which I’m guessing you don’t with any degree of certitude.
And can you provide more information about this proposed amendment to ban gay marriage? As far as I know this hasn’t gotten any farther than a trial balloon foolishly floated by Bill Frist on a Sunday talk show. Can you tell me which member of Congress has introduced such an amendment so I can write to him and tell him it’s a terrible idea?
You wouldn’t be trying to mislead so you can score cheap rhetorical points, would you?
“Geez Peter, you’re such a bitter, angry little man. God, I swear Matt Groening based the ‘Comic Book Guy’ after you. “
PETER DAVID IS NOT LITTLE
with a divorce rate so high, the defense of marriage act is laughable.
“On the WMD front, I wonder why it is PAD hasn’t mentioned the Iraqi nuclear scientist whom it turns out was ordered to bury documents and other materials relating to the Iraqi nuclear program in his backyard…”
It could be because the White House itself has already stated (and did so mere hours after the original announcement) that those materials were not the ‘Smoking gun’ that they needed.
Just like the “Mobile Chemical Weapons Labs” that turned out to be nothing of the sort.
This is just me, but I have to wonder why, if Saddam had these terrible WMD that GWB (and Clinton as well) told us that he wouldn’t hesitate to use against the USA, why he didnt use them when we attacked?
GWB made the case that these weapons were there for the explicit purpose of killing Americans.
Well, we’re there now and have been there for a while. If the intent was to use them against us, and they have supposed stockpiles of this stuff, and it really exists, why were none used?
PAD comments (hopefully) in bold…
The first sign should have been Ari Fleisher’s resignation. If things were coming that were so bad that he couldn’t find positive ways to spin them, that was a tip-off right there.
Fleisher resigned months ago. He must have a hellofa crystal ball to have seen all of this coming.
American soldiers are continuing to die and, at this rate, within a month or two more will have died since Bush declared fighting was over than before that point.
Bush never declared fighting was over. For someone that often complains how his comments are changed, this statement is ironic. Bush declared major hostilities over. As in no more major war actions.
The Iraqis who were supposed to have loved us are shooting at us while we pour billions into the new Vietnam.
No, the Iraqis that were supposed to love us are out helping our troops and working with them. The ones shooting at the troops are probably the remains of the Iraqi army that scattered once the bombing started.
Saddam is just fine, thanks (as is bin Laden.)
Being alive is much different than being just fine.