More on the RNC Bush ad - WaPo

Richard Cohen writes:

[A]bout the only way to find out what really happened is through the political process. This is especially the case because the Senate has gone from being the world's greatest deliberative body to the world's greatest rubber stamp. Naturally and predictably, the White House would like to avoid any accounting whatever and is likely to respond to criticism with demagogic appeals to patriotism. I hope it doesn't work. I love my country and I love the truth and I always thought the best thing about being an American is that you don't have to choose.

Comments

[Liz Siena]

Here's a link to a must read by Maureen Dowd of the New York Times about the RNC's scare tactics:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/opinion/23DOWD.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists

MoveOn is working on an ad to counter the RNC's scare tactics, I believe. They'd be a worthwhile charitable cause in our quest for change in the White House.

[abdul]

During the Clinton years, I was kind of in favor of the investigations because of what I saw as the subversion of the truth by the president. In the past few years, I have come to believe that Clinton was right when he complained about a conspiracy against him. Why? Consider the following:

Clinton had an independent counsel investigate him for a $100,000 deal he made for before becoming president. That investigation took several years, cost $133 Million and led us nowhere. Furthermore, Clinton was impeached by Congress for lying about a sexual matter - something that really is between him, his wife and perhaps the late-night comedians but not for Congress.

Now look at the stonewalling and refusal of the Republican-dominated Congress to investigate Bush. The way I see it, there should currently be 3 investigations:

1. Why did 911 catch us with our pants down? The government had warnings about plots to hijack airliners and use them as missiles, while the FBI knew some terrorists were in the country. Finally, Clinton had left a detailed report about the danger of al-Qaida as well as contingency plans to land take out bin Laden and his terrorist bases in Afghanistan. Yet no action was taken in the first 8 months of the new administration - instead, Bush spent the summer on a 30 day vacation, assuring the nation that he could govern effectively from Texas. In the aftermath, he vehemently opposed the investigation and now stonewalls the handover of documents necessary to conduct a thorough investigation in the run-up to 911.
Those are all facts, the following is my speculation: could it be that he doesn't want the nation to know that he ignored Clinton's warnings because of his A-B-C syndrome (anything but Clinton)??

2. Why did so many of the "facts" about Iraq's WMD's and al-Qaida links turn out to be lies, exaggerations and half-truths? I don't think this one is debatable. A reporter (I know, its hearsay, but I can no longer find the link to the article. damn!) wrote an article summarizing 54 public accusations by the entire administration made in the months before war which have turned out to be lies. Mind you, he was not referring to speculations, fearmongering leading to conclusions or the drawing of analogies. He categorically outlines 54 separate lies.
An additional paper has been published by Thomas Powers in the Dec. 4 issue of NY Review of Books, which is quite damning of the administration claims - including an excellent review of erronous statements made by Powell at the UN (actually he did leave out several further inconsistencies, but we can leave those for another time.)
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16813
Considering that so many false claims were made by so many administration members, it is disturbing that Republicans want to limit the Senate investigation onto just the CIA. Don't get me wrong, it needs to start with the CIA, but it MUST include the Pentagon, the White House and the State Dept.

3. Why was the name of a CIA operative leaked in response to a public contradiction of government by that agent's spouse? If you ask me, this one warrants an independent counsel investigation since the leak supposedly came from the administration itself.

Consequently, in order for the Republicans to show that they are seriously interested in the truth, they must not hinder these 3 investigations. Anything less will prove that they are nothing but a partisan rubber-stamp (gee, and I thought Cuba had a rubberstamp parlaiment.) Because of my advocacy for the Clinton investigations, I believe I am staying true to my objectivity here. I don't care who runs the government, they must be accountable. I challenge the Republican party to prove that they can be objective as well.
Is a fraudulent $100,000 land deal worse than a false war which kills thousands, costs billions and litters another country with depleted uranium? And let's face it, is lying about extramarital sex really that important to Republicans? I wonder how many of them have had affairs (Gary Condit voted to impeach Clinton, but he had an intern-lover.) All those who have ever gotten a bj, raise your hands. Mine is up!

[abdul]

I'm sure some of you have seen this before...

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

(as for my previous posting, who on earth is it that I pick up my typos AFTER I post them??)

[Alex]

I just picked up a copy of this month's Vanity Fair (and not because Russell Crowe is cover boy). It has several interesting articles on the state of things in general - a piece by Howard Dean on how the poor live in America today, anoather on the 'judge wars' being fought over the appointment of radical judges and how right-wing the courts are going to end up getting if the Republicans get it all their way, plus a great opening Editor's Letter which sets out a Bush scorecard. I don't generally advocate buying fairly expensive magazines, but even if you can just stand around in Smith's and read those few pages, it'll spur you on.

[Sarah Forrester]

Abdul,
I wholeheartedly agree with you. Clinton's blow job affected no one but him, his wife, and Miss Monica. Georgie's war has affected the world, and suddenly no one's interested in the lies. Very suspicious.

[Del]

I can't help continue to scratch my head...

The whole premise of this site and organization is to defeat Bush in the upcoming election yet all that is posted is complaints about all the things that you claim are wrong and illegal.

It seems that your plan is to try and get some sort of legal action and get Bush out of office through impeachment. If that's what your underlying plan is - then maybe your continuous and current actions may help. A very long shot – but hey ‘ya never know’.

If on the other hand the plan is to defeat him through the election process - I don't see any kind of action plan and or any discussion of the current Democratic candidates that are closely aligned with your ideals. I know that Luke has mentioned that you are waiting for a candidate to be selected but aren’t all Democrats supposed to be involved in selecting the candidate of choice? The candidates today have many varying views – do you not care which one is selected? Wouldn’t it be helpful to internally select maybe two or three of the current candidates, contact them and then get involved in supporting your candidate of choice so that you have one that is more closely aligned to what you believe?

This is the same exact problem the Democratic Party is having today. One listens to the debates, the speeches and all you hear is Bush bashing and complaining. What has happened to the Democratic Party - no vision - no plan.

When are you guys going to actually get down to figuring out how you are going to actually beat Bush in the election? Or is your plan and aim to have him impeached?

[abdul]

Del,

you have upstaged me. I was gonna wait until people enjoy their Turkeys and then propose some to Luke that he put up a page in which people post potential ideas on how to fight back. Thank you for maintaining focus.

to answer your question, if the House was a Democratic majority, we would well be on our way to impeachment by now, but that is politics.

[Del]

Touché Abdul! There may be some validity in your statement about the position of the Dems. I wouldn't put it past them to try anything to get Bush out of office. That's a critical point - they are so angry, so bent out of shape that they are continuously stepping over each other and not focusing on winning the majority of Americans to their side. Americans see this clearly hence the fortification of the majority behind Bush.

Do remember Abdul that if enough of Americans believed in what you folks are yelling about - the political process allows doing the majorities will by many different ways. Your views are just not the majority view - plain and simple.

[Sarah Forrester]

Del, it's quite interesting that you now want to give advice on how this organisation is run, gived that you are neither an "expat", nor "against Bush". While I won't begrudge you your right to constantly post your views, I wonder exactly what your point is? You have consistently behaved in a dismissive and mocking manner towards those who don't agree with you, and insinuate that we are a minority that no one is interested in hearing. If it's the case that no one cares about/agrees with what we're saying, why do you feel the need to so vigorously defend Bush on this site and wage personal attacks against its founder?

As to your "advice" - the site is linked to Democrats Abroad and some of the Democratic candidate sites. Our point of unity is that we (U.S. Citizens living abroad) think Bush is doing a bad job as President and we do not want to see him "elected" again. When faced with the choice between Bush for another four years or MOST (not all) of the Democratic candidates, I'd take one of the Dems any day. Most of us feel the same on that point. You'll note that Dems Abroad have not endorsed any particular candidate either.

We aren't the Democratic Party here, and having been started by one guy, only a little over a month ago, we don't have the cohesion or "vision" that more well established groups have. But the potential is there, and we put together a great response to Bush's visit to London. Our current goal is to make sure we get expats to vote in the next election, and obviously to show why we don't think Bush is the right choice.

As to the impeachment, Bush SHOULD be impeached. If we're impeaching presidents over lying about a blow job, we most certainly should be impeaching over lies that led us into a war and cost thousands of human lives.

[Chrish]

Luke, Sarah, Abdul,

As much as I have disagreed with many of the positions that have been taken on this site and as much as I have agreed with most of the points argued by Del I have to agree with many of your sentiments regarding President Bush in this instance. As I've stated before I am a Democrat but, I'm not a die hard "My Party, Right or Wrong" follower.

Given the, and I'm sure all would agree, the extreme importance of the issues here, the lives lost and, God Forbid, more lives to lose I would have absolutely no problem with a full scale investigation into the truth of "Why are we there?.

I just finished reading Sarah's posting of that interview with "USA" and, if it's all truthful, no disrepect intended Sarah, it brings back memories of Vietnam, I was also there, and the lies told us. We also, in the beginning, went over there waving the flag, "My Country, Right or Wrong!", etc. and soon discovered that we were involved in a never ending blood bath with no apparent rhyme nor reason.

I steadfastly DO NOT WANT our men & women over there killing and being killed for some DAMNABLE Oil (PERIOD). If it requires a full scale investigation to reveal The Truth, then so be it. I, for one, want only the truth nothing less.

And if Pres. Bush, and all those politicians lowered benefits for our Veterans then damn them for that act. I would also encourage everyone to write, email, fax, phone the politicians and the President and let them know WE ARE OPPOSED TO A REDUCTION IN VETERANS BENEFITS AND WANT IT RESTORED. That includes both Democrat & Republican politicians. They do work for Us, they are Our Employees, We do have a say....

Yes, it does work, it worked here in California. The politicians have gotten the message We, The People, Are Not Happy with their job performance.

That's my two cents, for what it's worth.

[Del]

Here - here!

Nothing more than I love than a feisty intelligent liberal!

You do have my respect (not that you want it of course) Sarah!

Luke - where have you been hiding this jewel?

Let's make sure your potential is put to good use!

How I love a good fight!

[Sarah Forrester]

Del, don't even PRETEND you actually have any respect for me, for Luke, or for anyone who disagrees with you. Your mocking and derisive tone says it all. The sooner you get tired of hearing yourself talk, the better. I resent your implication that I've been brought out of "hiding" to "fight" with YOU. Truthfully, you sound like a sexist jerk when you call me a "hidden jewel". Your grandiose sense of self-importance that borders on psychotic. Perhaps you ought to get out of that library and seek help.

[Del]

Oh are we now getting a medical degree with your prognosis of my needing help...

Hey how did you know did you know I was in a library?

Have you been reading previous posts?

I smell an attempted set-up!

he-he-he...

[Sarah Forrester]

Yes, I have read previous posts. I've been reading and commenting from very near the beginning of this site, but unlike you, I've tried for quality posts, rather than quantity. Try turning your conspiracy theories on to the Bush administration instead of me. There's plenty more material there.

As to my prognosis of your needing help, as a former mental health worker with a psychology degree and a good working knowledge of DSM-IV (that would be the latest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), I repeat my view that you've really got some issues.

Not that anyone's credentials would mean anything to you, I mean, you're the only one who matters here, aren't you? We're all just here for your personal amusement, right? Luke keeps people like me in his back pocket to bring out, just to "fight" with you, correct? It's your personal responsibility to keep "all those liberals" over at the Expat site in line, right?

For one, I won't bother to play your little games anymore, for fear of sending you further into this fantasy that you are the most important person ever to live. Have fun talking to yourself.

[Del]

Sarah - even you with the supposed mental health education will agree that one talking to himself or herself is not a sign of a mental illness - now if I answer myself... well - you may have a point... he-he-he…

Here's the difference between you and me...

You attacked me first - hey I'm game - a big boy and can take it as well as give it...

Your first stab was your doubting my sincerity about your brother - that is what set you off.

You showed your true colors as you stated about me earlier and I'll tell you why...

I never doubted you had a brother in the armed services and still don't though...

Realizing early on that you were a liberal and your statement about your brother thinking Bush's trip was a publicity stunt could lead one to believe that maybe your brother is a liberal?

Now if I were like most liberals are – cynical – I could have responded – ‘hey wait a minute your brother sounds like a liberal yet either he joined the military under the command of President Bush or if he were a lifer – he stayed under the command of President Bush!’

I didn’t take this position because I admire all folks that join the military. I’m sincere about it. I wouldn’t bring up that argument, even though you attacked me about wishing him well – I had every right to bring that up because if there is a sliver of a chance that it is true – I will take your word on it.

For whatever reason Sarah you were disingenuous and just waiting to pounce on me. That’s ok – nothing I like more than raising the ire of a confused liberal… he-he-he… Sorry I can’t help myself.

Anyone reading through the threads can see where I’m coming from. Yes I can be arrogant, just I can get under ones skin and frankly just be a plain pain in the ass. But I have never shied away from that and yes – I have always shown my true colors. Like Popeye – ‘I am what I am’… no pretenses here.

I’m a liberal’s worst nightmare… humbly…

A minority

Self-educated – no formal education beyond high school

Have no need for the ACLU

Have no need for affirmative action

Self made man – very successful

Today the liberals are still under the Democratic flag yet it’s folks like you and others affiliated that have driven away folks like me from the party. More and more minorities are joining the Republican Party and for the life of me the Democrats – either are ignoring that fact or don’t care or just don’t get it.

Sarah – you posted a page on this site discussing the recent law concerning outlawing certain medical procedures. I brought up a very important fact that you seem to have wanted it to be left out because I have not seen it added to the page.

Now honestly – who’s being disingenuous or insincere?

Showing your TRUE COLORS but hey I always knew it all along...

[Chrish]

Dell,

On that I wholehearted agree. I'm also a member of the "minority", I have no need for the ACLU, and have no need for "affirmative action", or at least what it has become.

One point I would disagree on is your phrase "Today the liberals are still under the Democratic flag". The Democratic flag is actually under the liberals flag. Although lately I've noticed they've begun calling themselves "Progressives". They still have the same philosophy, the same ideas, and the same concepts they're just carrying a different flag now.

And yes, "the Democrats – either are ignoring that fact or don’t care or just don’t get it."
The only way to correct this situation is to either go over to the Republican's or correct it, the Democratic Party, from the inside out. Sad to say it will be necessary to accomplish this by reducing the number of Liberals, their Special Interest Groups, and their politicians they control. To put in new leadership that reflects what the majority of The People want and the courage, determination, and strength to stand up to the liberals and their Special Interest Groups.

[Bruce]

http://homepage.mac.com/katyk128/RhodesSho...04-12-2003).mp3

Fast foward to 45minutes and listen to Ellen Mariani open letter.

link no longer works. care to give us a synopsis?