The American Spectator

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.8.10 @ 6:30AM

That's very interesting.

Basically, the health plan as you describe would amount to a government spy network where you turn your neighbor in for eating french fries, or children who are simply dumb will be used as a prelude to opening federal investigations.

We have some difficulties finding certain terrorists but hey, grab that lady with the foot corns!

Alan Brooks| 3.8.10 @ 9:45AM

Last year you compared Obamacare to the Soviet invasion of Ashcanistan; today you have a photo of the Vietnam evacuation in '75.
What next?
The Beirut bombing of '83?

brutus6| 3.8.10 @ 12:59PM

Obama's own senior advisor Gloria Borger is the one who compared Obamacare to the Vietnam Evacuation in '75, not Mr. Blackwell.

Seems Mr. Brooks thinks TAS readers are idiots.

Seems the Obama administration thinks the same about all Americans, eh?

George F| 3.8.10 @ 1:03PM

Alan Brooks that remark wasn't up to your usual standards. And the posting you remarked on was correct about the healthcare plan.

Besides that, Government people's intelligence is nearly always at the lowest common denominator of a mob. In other words be very afraid if someone from the government comes in to help you.

We must stand on our own two feet, take our lumps and keep the government away from our doors.

Alan Brooks| 3.8.10 @ 3:29PM

I have no intention of reading all the articles; once in awhile there's a good one, and if I screw up, too bad, even you perfect beings here make tiny mistakes every century or so.

Alan Brooks| 3.8.10 @ 3:58PM

"And the posting you remarked on was correct about the healthcare plan. "

Last year's post comparing Obamacare to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?? Wasn't that taking hyperbole too far? But most of all, some of AS's commenters say I'm a crypto-libtard; you personally say my comment up top isn't up to my usual standards (which isn't saying much).

So who am I? Pol Pot or Little Red Riding curmudgeon?

Mark in Kansas| 3.8.10 @ 4:41PM

This is the first time I've read a comment of yours on this site. I say you're a misinformed curmudgeon.

Radegunda| 3.9.10 @ 3:06AM

It would be a lot smarter to read the articles that you purport to comment on. The mistake was not "tiny." And replying to yourself isn't terribly smart either.

John II| 3.8.10 @ 1:40PM

For Pete's sake, Alan--read the damn article before you spout off. We've got enough cranks running the government without your muddying the waters with your own crankery. Be conservative: keep it to your self if you don't have anything interesting or informed to say.

"I've HAD it!" (--signature line of Mark Levin)

Alan Brooks| 3.8.10 @ 3:33PM

It was half right: the guy last year dID compare Obamacare to Ashcanistan-- even I wouldn't be so careless.

If in 2005 I had compared the Prescription Drug Plan to the Khmer Rouge's killing fields, wouldn't you shit all over me here?

John II| 3.8.10 @ 4:07PM

Okay--point taken. But I still like the Levin quote. I've been using it a lot these days.

TeddyRosewaz4Health| 3.8.10 @ 5:50PM

U r always ridiculous with your comments. This whole health care thing is about jobs jobs jobs, that's why obama is pushing for this hard. We conservatives, on the other hand, have framed the debate in a manner that has crippled our ability to see it for what republicans in the past would have seen it. We are all in it together, and reform is a path to new jobs, medical service, providers and even insurers - and they can't be off-shored. I have changed my mind I hope you will take a look and think about it too

http://bit.ly/brAKLJ

Kat| 3.9.10 @ 12:10AM

I have worked in the healthcare industry for 15 years & since Feb 2009, I have been unemployed & cannot find employment . . . health insurers are not hiring, third party administrators are not hiring, there is no allowance for new hires!!!

ontheright| 3.9.10 @ 10:20AM

You Teddy, are no conservative if you believe this BHO healthcare reform bill is a "keeper"...you may be a RINO, but no conservative. Wake up, before it's too late - they will come for YOU eventually.

Ole Sarge| 3.9.10 @ 11:03AM

Teddy, don't know what you are smoking, but no true Conservative would even begin to agree with you.

You are either a lib in a poor disguise or a troll, or maybe both.

pjack| 3.9.10 @ 11:10AM

yeah right.
Just what we need. Our entire economy based
on health care; we will all be selling each other
medical devices, Rx's, mobility scooters.
How bout when you park in Wallmart, some
one will greet you at your car with a mobility
scooter?

basur| 10.27.10 @ 9:11AM

One question, please.
If this bill is so critical to "help cover Americans" why do the benefits not start for four years?

Brian Mc| 3.8.10 @ 7:08AM

I am watching the flowering of Nazism in 21st Century America right under my very nose and I feel powerless to stop it. I am getting a sense of what it must have felt like to have lived in Berlin in 1934.

Mike| 3.8.10 @ 9:27AM

You need to stop watching Fox and reading AmSpec and start looking at some non-partisan sites for your information.

May I also suggest that you read a little history. That you think America today feels like Germany in 1934 betrays an incredible lack of knowledge.

I suspect you believe Mitt Romney is a closet communist because of his role in providing insurance for the people of Massachusetts.

Nazis and Communists are not the danger to America. Uninformed citizens who don't know enough to be able to distinguished between Nazism and communism are the danger to America. They are the ones who are easily lead down the primrose path by dangerous ideologues.

oof oof| 3.8.10 @ 9:40AM

and by non-partisan you must be referring to.....CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC,WashPost,NYTimes, HuffPo,DailyKOS?

Ok, I'll check out the "non-partisan line".

Mike| 3.8.10 @ 1:50PM

Try the Concord Coalition and the Council on Foreign Relations.

oof oof| 3.8.10 @ 2:28PM

Nice to see the trolls are back. I was starting to think you didn't care about us anymore.

Tabby Cat| 3.8.10 @ 2:32PM

Me-Ow! Funny.

Mike| 3.8.10 @ 4:32PM

oof oof

The sites a little above your intellectual capabilities?

oof oof| 3.8.10 @ 7:19PM

mikey,
After reading the gems of wit that you posted here, it is obvious that the the sum total of your intellect could be shoved of a gnat's ass, with plenty of room to spare. Arguing with you trolls is like trying to have an intelligent conversation with a person who thinks 9/11 was an inside job, done by Bush/Cheney so they could invade Afghanistan over an oil pipeline.

oof oof

JS| 3.8.10 @ 9:53AM

Mike,

Which 'non-partisan' news sources are you speaking of? You say Fox and AmSpec are biased. This is true. They have a conservative bent, however you know up front where they stand. The old media propaganda machine says to the public its not biased. THEY LIE! I'm a trained journalist (don't tell my mom, she thinks I'm a piano player in a brothel) and there isn't a single working journalist who could pass a freshman journalism class. Opinions = an F and 3 F's = a failing grade for the course and they all put opinions in what should be considered hard news articles. Fox, AmSpec, PJTV, Frontpage Mag, etc. are up front with where they stand. Based on this, who's more honest?

MIke| 3.8.10 @ 1:52PM

MSNBC, Daily Kos et. al are up front with where they stand.

Ball is in your court.

Stephanie| 3.8.10 @ 2:50PM

Yeah, MSMBC and Daily Kos are up front along with being nasty, racist and uninformed.
And Mika B. with her collegen lips is a haughty bitch.

Mike| 3.8.10 @ 4:35PM

Yeah, and Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are models of decency and decorum.

Mika B with her collegen lips. How about a fashion commentary concerning the women on Fox?

Radegunda| 3.9.10 @ 3:12AM

I doubt you actually listen to Rush, but he is consistently courteous and decent in how he treats callers, including those who disagree with him.

Perhaps you think it's indecorous to speak unsettling truths about people you blindly admire. It's actually a public service.

Remember when "speaking truth to power" was considered a good thing--just a couple of years ago?

ontheright| 3.9.10 @ 10:24AM

You hit the nail on the head with this post...now if you would only come on over to the right side, you won't be judged by history to be yet another "progressive" who lost his way on the long, long trip to Utopia...grow up!

Dan Hirsch| 3.8.10 @ 10:02AM

Hi, Mike,

Do you agree that two primary, common characteristics shared by the Communist and Nazis was government control of industry and re-distribution of wealth?

If you do, I think, you will be unable to persuade most careful observers that the current trend in the main Democrat policy initiatives: national, single-payer health care, de facto takeover of significant portions of the banking, home mortgage, and automobile industries; combined with Mr. President O'bama's self-professed "we've got to spread the wealth around" policy and his complete devotion to 'taxing the rich' "even if it results in decreased revenue to the Treasury" do not have more in common with the fascist and communist approaches than anything envisioned by our Constitution.

If you don't think that the Communists and Nazis did in fact commandeer their industrial bases or re-distributed their nations' wealth, you don't know your history very well.

Thanks for your thoughts,

Dan Hirsch

'hinationalizationand rule , smfacism is

Mike| 3.8.10 @ 2:05PM

So you believe the relationship that existed between the Nazi government and Krupp was no different than the one that existed between the communist governments in the Soviet Union and China and their industries?

Single payer health care. Only in the fantasies of the far left and the delusional thinking of the far right.

De facto take overs. You are referring, of course, to the policies started by the Bush administration and continued by the Obama administration.

Taxing the rich. Funny, I missed how the Bush tax cuts enriched our treasury.

Radegunda| 3.9.10 @ 3:14AM

The tax cuts led to economic growth, which does in fact enrich the treasury--until Democrats take over Congress (or Republicans tilt leftward) and spend like drunken socialists.

ontheright| 3.9.10 @ 10:30AM

Rad - this is economics 101; it is almost impossible to explain the process to closed-minded, leftists who have been brainwashed in the failed govt. school systems. It's very simple - lower taxes = more capital for jobs creation, which = more taxpayers, which = more tax revenue...as simple as that. Those who don't understand this KISS principle will never have a clue as to the inner workings of capitalism - and they don't want to know. Rich = bad; equality for all = good (no matter if you have to steal from the "rich" to get there).

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 5:06PM

The Nazi's and Russia's Tyranny, formerly communism before the over throw, did redistribute wealth...to themselves and their already wealthy buddies. The same as the Bush administration did when the cut taxes on the top, and increased everyone's debt redistributing the debt burden to fall more heavily on the poor. Also, by spending the regressive SS tax on failed wars.

ontheright| 3.9.10 @ 10:35AM

Jon - you can't really be this ignorant, can you?

I can see the BDS is flaring up. How does a debt burden fall more heavily on the poor when the poor pay absolutely no income taxes? In fact, most "poor" get refunds when they pay NO money into the system. That is money they get from those of us who DO pay taxes. Can you please explain the "...debt burden fall more heavily on the poor" comment, please? I'm not following your flawed logic...

Jon B| 3.9.10 @ 11:12AM

On the contrare', every working person pays taxes.

The bottom 20% pay a National average of 10.2% in State & Local taxes compared to a National average of 5.4% for the top 1%.

The bottom 20% pay 14% in FICA taxes if you include the employer's share of the SS tax which would otherwise be in your check. While the top1% pays less than 1% in FICA taxes.

This money is spent in the General fund effectively redistributing wealth from the bottom to the top when the top receive Progressive tax cuts, since the bottom pays less with the Fed Progressive.

The real wealth redistribution is in the wage system, however.

Now the question is, since you're far more ignorant about this than I am, will you pass the same judgment on yourself that you did for me? Doubtful, hypocrite.

Susan Brei| 3.9.10 @ 2:03AM

Obama is much, much more moderate than he gets credit for. So was Clinton. In fact, they are both so moderate that it enrages the far-left in this country as much as they do the right. Here are some alternative points of view.

The banking industry has been bailed out and a major distaster averted (a good move by Bush), but the Obama administration has done little to re-regulate the industry to pre-1990's standards.

Obama does not support gay marriage and has not repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell, even though he could easily remove it with an executive order.

Obama has not closed Gitmo.

Obama has not ended either war, and in fact, has increased focus in Afghanistan.

Obama eliminated the Bush tax cuts, but the rich still don't pay as much as they did under Reagan.

Obama's healthcare plan does not have a public option, does not expand Medicare, and includes many ideas that Republicans used to support. It is actually a huge give-a-way to the health insurance industry, in that people will be mandated to buy private insurance.

Obama has not lifted a finger to control guns.

Obama acknowledges that our society's "trickle-down economics" experiment did not work, and that the result is wealth piling up in the hands of a few families. When he says, "Redistribute the wealth", he means returning to the way we USED to tax the rich, and trying to get some decent jobs built up in this country. The rich, will of course, stay rich, but a robust middle-class will make this country great again.

Please, be fair-minded. Obama is not the boogeyman. He's just an effective moderate Democrat that conservatives have a stake in removing from office. That's it. Nothing dangerous or extreme about him.

Radegunda| 3.9.10 @ 3:23AM

So now a "moderate" Democrat is someone whose voting record is farther left than any other Senator's, and whose whole background is suffused with radical-Marxist influences, and who once belonged to the socialist New Party.

You think he's "moderate" because he hasn't been able to "transform" the country "fundamentally," as he announced he would, in a mere 13 or so months. That's because certain realities have prevented him from exerting the kind of dictatorial power that he craves.

As for health care policy, he has clearly stated (when it wasn't politically unwise to do so) that he wants "single-payer"--i.e. everything government-controlled, and also said that getting there will be a gradual process. The bill he's trying to ram through is designed to push everybody under government control eventually.

Being "fair" doesn't mean being blind.

Jon B| 3.9.10 @ 11:20AM

You started out with a huge, bald-faced lie, Radegunda.

Obama is more left than Dennis Kucinich? Paul Wellstone? Russ Feingold? No way. The neocon organization that pumps out that BS said Gore had the most liberal voting record in 2000, Kerry had the most liberal record in 2004, and Hillary had the most liberal record in 2008...until...drumroll please...Obama pulled ahead, then suddenly Obama was "the most liberal."

See a pattern, per chance?

Obama supports Single payer, of course. Single Payer would save $400 billion a year immediately by eliminating the HMO's 31% in administrative costs, and another 11% in their profits. Saving money is STILL a CONSERVATIVE value no matter how distorted the GOP is now.

Jon B| 3.9.10 @ 2:41PM

BTW, the main gist of Marxism came directly from the Bible.

Acts 4:32-35 ~ "And the multitude believed they were of one heart and one soul; neither said any of them that the things he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. Neither was there any among them that lacked, and distribution was made unto every man according to his need."

But I suspect in your need to demonize people you dislike, you'll retain a false definition.

Jon B| 3.9.10 @ 11:14AM

Thanks for the large dose of reality these fanatics need to ignore to push the bald faced lies they chose to believe in, and promote, and then they blame other people for ignoring their ignorance.

RAMIII| 3.8.10 @ 10:56AM

Hey Mike,

Why are you reading AmSpec?

Mike| 3.8.10 @ 2:06PM

For the occasional reasonable, well thought out article.

RAMIII| 3.8.10 @ 3:31PM

Mike,
Thanks for your reply.

But what I don't get is that you told us to STOP reading this info. How does that work when you consider some of their material "reasonable, well thought out"?

Mike | 3.8.10 @ 4:38PM

Well done, RAMIII.

I amend my suggestion to increasing reading and viewing other sources.

RAMIII| 3.9.10 @ 10:23AM

Thank you Mike. I agree that it is important to be well informed from multiple sources.

John Navratil| 3.8.10 @ 11:02AM

Mike does make one point. It was the electorate which led us "down the primrose path by dangerous ideologues" when it voted for Obama. I suppose they were unable to distinguish hope from change.

Margie| 3.8.10 @ 12:49PM

AmSpec has a bent. A bent for the TRUTH. A BIAS for the TRUTH.
The Left has a bent for LIES.
Mike prefers lies.
Your choice, Mikey.

Mike| 3.8.10 @ 2:08PM

I would remind you that this is the same electorate that voted for Bush. I trust I don't have to review his record of failure for you.

John Navratil| 3.8.10 @ 2:40PM

Yes! Let's have the record of failure. Overspending, steel tariffs, prescription drugs, and no child left behind. All darling positions of the left, now being doubled-down on. Bring on those failures and remind me just what an Obama-nation it was.

Remind me about that war (no surprise I agreed, and agree with it) and Gitmo and how Mr. Hopey-Changey was going to fix all that. How do you explain his position today? At least with Bush you knew where he stood. No "definition of 'is'" there.

Obama got elected because Bush was unpopular. It was a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". As always it doesn't really turn out that way does it?

So you keep thinking about haw bad ole Bush and how Obama inherited this mess. Sure he inherited it and now his successor and our kids will inherit it twice.

Mike| 3.8.10 @ 4:41PM

If so much of Obama's administration seems to you to be a continuation of the Bush administration, does that mean Bush and Cheney are socialists?

John Navratil| 3.8.10 @ 6:59PM

Mike,

I know it is improper to answer a question with a question, but if one argues in hasty generalizations does that make him a fool? (The exercise is left to the reader)

Please tell my how my invocation of your argument that uninformed citizens unable to distinguish Nazism and communism may be led "down the primrose path by dangerous ideologues" but those who cannot tell the difference between McCain as a touted proxy for Bush and Obama may not? I IMPLIED through the form of the argument that the electorate was uninformed. The argument was perhaps too subtle; I was looking for "pithy" but obviously failed.

Your non-sequitor response was that the electorate stupid enough to vote for Obama also voted for Bush. A generalization which I ignored as being not germane as I had already implied the electorate had made a foolish choice and, instead, took you up on your offer to review the failings of Bush.

You ignored my reponse and produced yet another generalization -- If Obama is so like Bush must they be the same?

Just to be blunt, my point is, Obama has disappointed his voters because he promised free Bubble-Up and rainbow stew, got blind-sided by reality and still promises free Bubble-Up and rainbow stew. The electorate was fooled once (bad!) but doesn't appear to be making the same mistake a second time.

I await your next syllogism.

ontheright| 3.9.10 @ 10:40AM

May be a long wait...

Jon B| 3.10.10 @ 12:02PM

The system of campaign finance $'s affects everything, and leaves many arguments up in the air. I more often see people wallowing around in the mire, instead of confronting the real problem with Government: Corporate control of policy, politicians, and the media.

You either wallow out of ignorance, boredom, or blind acceptance of the corrupted system.

John II| 3.8.10 @ 2:17PM

What a strange post. The latest Zogby poll indicates that Professor Obama would win an election today against any likely Democratic or Republican contender. I would think you'd be happy to know that the electorate is so distinctively informed and the culture so usefully corrupt--and that outlets like AmSpec and Fox have so little influence. Why does our existence bother you so much?

And why doesn't Professor Obama make the grade as a "dangerous ideologue"? He lies compulsively and serially, exhibits colossal ignorance and all the classic signs of narcissism, and ignores arguments. What else would he have to do to be truly dangerous, considering the power he wields?

You're a very strange dude, Mike, on the likes of whom the Professor depends for his otherwise implausible political viability.

Margie| 3.8.10 @ 2:31PM

Well said. Thank you, JohnII.

Mike| 3.8.10 @ 4:44PM

Why does our existence bother you so much?

John, my dear John.

You flatter yourself.

John II| 3.8.10 @ 5:18PM

Confucius say, "Small man without argument project smugness in place of same." Thank you so much.

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 12:00PM

That's pretty insane, Brian. Hitler lied to start a war, like Bush did. Hitler merged business and government, the meaning of fascism. Bush WELDED them together allowing them to dictate policy, then redistributed wealth by giving away US oil on federal lands free to US oil companies, made the US taxpayer responsible for corporate toxic waste site cleanups, gave numerous tax breaks to the top doubling YOUR debt, shifted IRS prosecutions to the low and middle classes, sued America to throw out 60,000 votes in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (Hitler was appointed too). Bush increased police powers throwing out the Constitution again in regards to privacy rights illegally spying on, arresting and detaining Americans for any reason, or no reason at all.

And only NOW you complain about the loss of rights under a Democrat?

You're 9 years late with that faked concern. Why is that?

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.8.10 @ 12:11PM

Heh, Jon B

I could almost wish you guys had gotten "GreenGorpse" as President.

Hmmmmm, let's see now, who was his VP candidate?
Hee hee hee hee hee hee.

Ignoramus, mommie would have had to throw you out of the house years ago.

Margie| 3.8.10 @ 12:57PM

Ken: GreenGorpse? LOL.

Jon B~ Quoting the GREAT Ronald Reagan: "There you go again!" ..have you had a lobotomy?

RAMIII| 3.8.10 @ 12:55PM

Jon B.
You, sir, are an idiot and a mindless robot. Or perhaps, you yourself are insane??!

"Merged" you say. Hitler robbed the Jews, then infused that blood money into Nazi Koffers and started handing out goodies to those who acquiesced until that ran out and everything started being rationed.

Within just a few years the German economy was in shambles. When the government robbs it's citizens no good can come from it.

BTW where "numerous tax breaks to the top" are concerned, do you get paid for your labor by someone who is poor?

George F| 3.8.10 @ 1:09PM

When a president believes the international community who said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that isn't lying. (If you still think he lied, you have a rather strange definition of what a lie is.) Iraq did indeed have a weapon of mass destruction that they used on their own people, chemical weapons!

You really should stop watching opinion based news.

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 1:40PM

George Tenet admitted during a congressional investigation in September 2006 that he was coerced to lie by the Bush administration in support of a war with Iraq.

The October 2002 NIE was heavily edited to make it appear Saddam might have weapons, by leaving out caveats in regards to the reliability of "Curveball," the INS, and other dubious sources of info. However it did say that the chances of Saddam attacking or supporting an attack against the US were "Extremely low."

The Bush administration created the OSP, Office of Special Plans, in the Pentagon specifically to find a way into Iraq before 9/11. Run by Douglass Feith at one point, and Abraham Schulsky, this is the office created the lies to go to war that were NOT vetted by the US intelligence community.

The Bush administration gave Colin Powell a pack of these lies top present to the UN

Dick Armey says that he would've stopped the war if not for Dick Cheney calling him into a private meeting and telling him things about Saddam that were proven to be lies, not bad information, but lies.

Both Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice said that Saddam was not a threat, that he was contained, in 2001 shortly before 9/11.

Bush then lied to Congress asking for war powers to "bring the UN onboard" when he had no intention of doing it.

We had FULL ACCESS to all sites in Iraq when Bush invaded Iraq.

Let's face reality: the administration created the lies to invade by cleverly making it look like there was a consensus when there wasn't one.

It is neither wise, nor cool, nor anything but raw criminality to lie to start a war. And let's throw McNamara and LBJ in that same pile. McNamara for lying to Johnson about the Tonken incident, and Johnson for never having the balls to admit he was fooled and pulling out.

Margie| 3.8.10 @ 1:54PM

When will you & co. stop lying about the lie that wasn't?

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 2:02PM

Colin Powell says he was lied too. Was he lying, or is Bush?

George Tenet says he was coerced to lie by BUsh. Was he lying, or was Bush?

Paul O'Neil says BUsh lied about him. Is he lying, or was Bush?

Richard Clarke, a Reagan appointee, says Bush lied. Is he lying, or was Bush?

David Kaye said there was no WMD. Was he lying, or was Bush?

Dick Armey says the Bush admin lied to him. Is he lying, or was Bush?

Several members of Congress have said Bush lied to them. Were they lying or was Bush?

Scott McClellan says Bush lied. Did he lie, or was Bush?

Larry Wilkerson, Powell's chief is staff, says Bush lied. Is he lying or was Bush?

The downing memos shows that Bush intended to lie no matter what to invade. Were they lying, or was Bush.

The atomic energy agency says Bush lied about the aluminum tubes. Were they lying, or was Bush?

Joe Wilson says Bush lied. Was he lying, or was Bush?

Sorry, but just the sheer volume of evidence from insiders show that Bush lied incessantly.

RAMIII| 3.8.10 @ 2:10PM

"Someone" says/said = evidence?

"He said/She said" sounds like a dispute; NOT evidence.

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 2:21PM

I agree. Someone said Saddam had WMD. That someone was a none BS-er named "curveball" by US intelligence, and Chalabi, another phony. The Bush administration removed the red flags surrounding Chalabi and Curveball and more, allowing others to be misled.

Someone said that the aluminum tubes Sdaam had were purchased to make centrifuges. But the AEIE knew they could not be made into centrifuges.

Someone said that Saddam sought to buy Yellow Cake from Nigeria, so we sent someone over there who found out that wasn't true.

Someone said that Saddam met with Atta, but our intelligence found that was not true.

Someone said that Saddam was connected to al Qaeda, but we knew even then there was no connection.

Someone said that Saddam kicked out UN inspectors, though that never happened. N Korea did that.

Someone said that Saddam had WMD, with no proof, and we found he did not have any. N Korea did.

Someone said that Saddam wanted to attack the US, but our own intelligence said the chances of that were "extremely low."

N Korea threatened to attack the US at least twice, they have nukes, and missiles that can reach our coast.

N Korea was a diplomatic issue, and Iraq meant "war." Why would that be? any guesses?

RAMIII| 3.8.10 @ 3:40PM

Again: You merely re-inforce the DISPUTE, rather than support your argument. Please post a reasonable argument with support from facts that can be verified.

Btw with all our movements broadcast over the whole world, how do you know whether or not Saddam Hussein didn't move those WMD to Iran or Syria?

So in effect you still have not provided EVIDENCE for your claims. You may feel better, but you have gained nothing.

Ezra| 3.9.10 @ 10:11AM

We know that Saddam had WMD at one time (gas used on Kurds, etc.). Now you be the judge of whether he out of the goodness and kindness of his heart decided that he didn't want to hurt anyone anymore and therefor destroyed them, or if just maybe he had them hidden or shipped somewhere ahead of time knowing war was inevitable. The latter seems to be unlikely, but I would say the former is far more unlikely. How long did it take to locate Saddam himself? It would not surprise me at all to find out that Syria or some other rogue nation has the WMD's.

Jon B| 3.9.10 @ 1:05PM

Of course had gases in the 80's: we sold them to him. Read the 1994 Congressional report on exports to Iraq. We gave Saddam Anthrax spores, Botulism spores, VX nerve gases, West Nile viruses, radar and nuclear production equipment, helicopters, and tactical advice/help from 1984 to March 1992. We also armed Iran.

Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice said that Saddam was contained just prior to 9/11, that he was not a problem or an issue.

"Evil" leaders world wide have weapons, many have WMD, but we don't fly around invading them even when they kill their own people unless....they have a resource we're interested in. Ike overthrew a Democracy in Iran in 1953 for the oil, and a democracy in Guatemala for bananas, of all things, installing dictators in both countries.

These lessons are not lost on the world, or the indigenous peoples who chose to fight back on 9/11. When we promote democracy consistently, we will find friends we never knew we had, and return to the days when we were the greatest country on Earth. We now remain pathetic because of what we've done, and it's no one's fault but our own.

Margie| 3.8.10 @ 2:26PM

Jon B~
If you hate liars so very much, why is it that you revere Obama? He is the worst bald faced liar of a President we have ever had. And acts like a fascist dictator, who openly proclaims to want to "remake" the country. One who states openly that he thinks our Constitution is obsolete! Yet you are obsessed with a past President.
Either you are being highly paid to obfuscate or you are not based in reality.
Either way you are not based in reality!

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 2:32PM

If you'd like to prove that any of the points I made are not based in reality, please do so. Otherwise, please top lying about me and who I am, OK?

I didn't vote for Obama, or any Democrat, but I recognize when this got out of control.

Margie| 3.8.10 @ 2:42PM

You must prove your own points, Jon B., since you made the dozens of accusations.

You call GW a liar. That's a strong accusation which you have no basis for saying, except for listening to the Leftist media.
That is NOT reality based behavior.
Also~ by repeatedly referring to GW as a liar (with no proof), aren't you trying to obfuscate and deflect what Obama is currently doing? This is a typical Leftist operation, if you will. And you seem to be another little part of it.

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 4:54PM

numerous officials in the BU$H administration say he lied. They are not "leftists." So you even lied in your reply, again, like a parrot glued to FOX news, perhaps the most inaccurate news source, even worse than al Jazeera in regards to Iraq. Why is it that your devotion to delusional thinking is now my problem?

Margie| 3.8.10 @ 5:48PM

Speaking of parrots, have you gotten your crackers from Soros today? You keep parroting lies and more lies and you present not one source. A verifiable source. Day and date.
You're nothing but an obsessive obfuscater and you're wasting time. Git along, little doggie.

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 5:16PM

Israel said that they preferred for Saddam to remain in power pre-war.
Our own intelligence said that Saddam was "highly unlikely" to attack us or aid anyone in an attack against us.

Saddam, in fact, didn't trust al Qaeda and tried unsuccessfully to arrest Zarqawi several times.

We had FULL ACCESS to all sites pre-war. There was no hurry to invade, unless, of course, you were lying and needed to pull the wool over someone's eyes ASAP.

Iraq was secular allowing women and Christians in high positions of power, but now cannot deviate from the laws of the Koran according to their new Constitution. Iraq's been a terrorist training camp since the invasion, and the cut-n-run from al Qaeda in Afghanistan gave them a base of operations to so they could re-arm, come into Iraq and pick of our troops.

535 Muslim clerics signed a Jihad decree in may 2003 precisely because we lied to invade Iraq intensifying and lengthening the conflict to the present day.

there is an International community that would've joined us if there was any evidence, which there wasn't. You ask for evidence that Saddam didn't have WMD, but you ask for no evidence that he did have it before sending OTHER PEOPLE off to die for the illusion it was.

That's just a bit of the intellectual dishonesty one must embrace to support the invasion.

ben| 3.8.10 @ 5:30PM

If Iraq having WMDs is a lie, then whos lie is it?
Remember Bush didn't take office until January of 2001.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 5:35PM

Are you seriously trying to say that Bush listened to Congressional Democrats 5 years prior instead of the current US intelligence community in 2002?

Wow! just WOW!!!

Now that's the true definition of a streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch!

ben| 3.8.10 @ 7:33PM

Jon B
Either you can’t comprehend a simple argument or you’re trying to spin your way out of your lie. So I’ll explain it for you.

I'm saying that if claims of Iraqi WMDs were a lie, then the ones who started those claims are the liars.
I'm saying that Bush used the same intelligence agencies, who issued the same reports of WMD to Clinton as they did Bush. You are the one trying to call Bush a liar for listening to and parroting the same info that Clinton listened to and parroted 3 years earlier.
If these lies were fraudulently put into intelligence reports, as you and the left contend, then it must've been done by the liars who first spoke these lies.
There are 2 possibilities.
1) Either the intelligence was wrong and both Clinton and Bush were duped;
or 2) The intelligence reports were falsified, and since Clinton and others were making these claims 3 years before Bush took office, it could not possibly have been Bush who falsified the reoports, and would thus point to the Clinton Admin as the source of the lies.

It's obvious that it is you who is stretching. If you can't comprehend simple arguments, how can you be sure that you comprehend anything at all?
People on these Conservative sites aren't nearly as dumb as those with whom you usually associate. Your spin won't work here.

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 7:41PM

You're reverse psychology doesn't work on me sir Ben. If you seriously think that I or anyone else believes that Bush listened to 5 year old intelligence Senate Democrats, or Clinton, who he hated with a passion, when his intention to invade Iraq was made clear even before he sued America to throw out 60,000 votes, then you obviously live in a delusional world of your own creation. It apparently angers you that I'm not as delusional as you are. Thanks for blaming me for your own self-willed ignorance on this issue. You might want to play your game on someone else.

ben| 3.8.10 @ 7:51PM

Thank you. You just proved my point about your reading comprehension.
I never once said that Bush listened to the Dems. I said that if Iraq WMDs was a lie then it was a lie perpetuated long before Bush and thus not his lie. I believe Bush listened to the intelligence reports as did Clinton and all those congressional Dems from 98. You are trying to put words in my mouth. My argument is clear as is your imbecility.

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 8:14PM

Just because you can't distinguish the difference between concern/rhetoric and actually invading when we had full access to all sites, doesn't mean I proved your point. You're now extrapolating your own ignorance of the issue onto me. Isn't working Ben. We had full access when Bush invaded in a hurry.

You have to avoid completely how many people Bush lied too, and where he got the "intelligence," (an office his administration created specifically for the reason to invade Iraq), to make your ignorance even appear to be a factual point at all.

In other words, you cut-n-ran on this issue years ago, and are only repeating what you wish was true.

ben| 3.9.10 @ 11:32AM

The UN Inspectors were pulled out of Iraq by Clinton in 1998. The Inspectors went back in 2002 after Bush started pressing the UN to force Iraq to capitulate with their Cease Fire agreements. If you recall, the UN gave Iraq a deadline to prove that their WMDs had been destroyed - Iraq missed the deadline. The UN extended the deadline and Iraq missed it again. The deadline was extended 3 times with Iraq failing to meet the deadline 3 times. When the UN wanted to extend it again, Bush said we can't keep playing this game forever. Iraq had made a commitment to follow the agreement and must be held to their commitment.
So let's assume that Iraq WMDs were a lie as you believe. Well then the evidence of Clinton, Pelosi, and many other Dems above making the claims of Iraq WMDs in 98 makes this their lie. UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter is also in the above qoutes so the UN must have been in on Clinton's and the Dems lie. If the Intelligence reports were falsified then they must have been falsified either in 98 or before. Clinton and the congressional Dems had the authority and positions to effect the intelligence when they made these claims, and since no inspectors were let into Iraq between 98 and 2002, the intelligence Clinton and others were citing in 98 would've remeained unchanged since there couldn't have been any new information from the UN inspectors. It's obvious Bush was only listening to Intelligence, if you assume the intelligence was fake then you'd have to assume Clinton faked it. So what was Clinton's agenda. Was he trying to "steal" Iraq's oil to enrich his big oil friends? Did he plan on destroying Iraq to grant union jobs in the reconstruction? Were the environmentalists involved? - the subsequent rise in oil prices after the Iraq invasion fits with their espoused policies of high gas prices to curb excessive driving. And what about 9/11? You on the left say Bush executed 9/11 to gain support for an Iraq invasion. The problem I've always had was how could the Bush admin have gotten the WTC towers wired for demolition in only 8 months. That's not much time and would require many people to do the job, not even mentioning the fact that those towers were open for business 24/365 during this time. But if these were Clinton's lies as the evidence I've presented shows, then it was Clinton who had the agenda and a 9/11 conspiracy makes much more sense since Clinton had years to plan and execute this conspiracy vs the 8 months Bush had.
So I'll take your word for it. Iraq WMDs was a lie planted by our government to create an excuse for an Iraq invasion. The invasion was for the purpose of stealing Iraqi oil and US Imperialist tendencies to conquer the world. But it most definitely wasn't Bush's lie or agenda, it must've been Clinton's as per the evidence above. Or were Clinton and the Dems using the Iraq WMD lie for some other purpose and Bush just happened to fall victim to their fabricated intelligence? Or were Clinton and the Dems in collusion with Bush and the Repubs in wanting to go to war? For what reason were Clinton and the Dems making this lie in 1998 if not for the purpose of going to war with Iraq?
You're an idiot. You can't let go of your assumption that Iraq WMDs was a lie by the evil Bush even when presented with evidence that proves Bush wasn't the originator of the lie. You are so determined to paint your oponents as evil you disregard any evidence that doesn't fit in your fabricated little world of animosity, resentment and hatred for your opponent. Your stubborn stupidity is astounding, and your disregard for evidence, logic and reason is why Lenin called people like you "Useful Idiots".

Jon B| 3.9.10 @ 12:35PM

The problems remian: we had full access to all sites when Bush went in; Saddam was not considered a threat by our intelligence community; he was not connected to 9/11 or Al Qaeda; even Israel wanted Saddam to remain in power.

You make a lot of dubious claims in your reasoning, obviously grasping for any short straw to deflect responsibility for Bush's actions.

Try to remember, if possible, ONLY Bush sent other people's kids into Iraq in a war. There is a difference between rhetoric and action, have you noticed yet? It would be a more mature position to recognize it.

This throws out the bulk of your position immediately.

Let's go back to the beginning: we had FULL ACCESS when Bush invaded.

You state that Iraq had to provide "evidence" that they were disarmed placing your trust in what Saddam said. That's clearly another "straw man" you're throwing out for debate. The only real proof would be hands on inspections from outsiders, unless you seriously believe Saddam is 100% honest.

I make no claim in regards to 9/11 except that is highly unusual with the large amount of warnings the Bush administration received, that they did absolutely NOTHING at all to try and prevent the attacks. Nothing at all. Mind boggling incompetence, will full ignorance? I don't know. Then they lied about it forever. That didn't help their position in regards to quelling conspiracy theories.

ben| 3.9.10 @ 1:42PM

I stated: "The Inspectors went back in 2002 after Bush started pressing the UN to force Iraq to capitulate with their Cease Fire agreements. If you recall, the UN gave Iraq a deadline to prove that their WMDs had been destroyed - Iraq missed the deadline. "
Where's the "Straw Man"?
You stated: " The only real proof would be hands on inspections from outsiders, unless you seriously believe Saddam is 100% honest. "

In my statement, I showed that UN inspectors were let back in in 2002-they were not granted full access as the inspectors stated repeatedly at the time, and the UN ordered Saddam to prove that he destroyed his WMDs- which he couldn't.
You are starting with the assumption that Iraq WMDs is a lie - that assumption is wrong. If you believe in that assumption then you'd have to look at Clinton and the Dems who started the lie. What were their reasons for lying? You instead disregard the lies Clinton told and attribut all the dishonesty to Bush simply to feed your hatred of him. You, like most libtards start with your conclusion then move to the arguments rationalizing some and disregarding others to support your preordained conclusion.
The facts are evident. Intelligence from a dictatorship is hard to come by and even harder to verify. This was the problem with the intelligence that Clinton, Bush, and congressional Dems and Repubs were relying on when the statements above were made, as well as the the build up to war. This was not some nefarious lie on the part of Bush nor was it some nefarious lie on the part of Clinton. It was people relying on the intelligence garnered by other people from a tightly controlled regime. You however can't get by your hatred for Bush and your right wing fellow countrymen and look objectively at the facts. You argue that Iraq WMDs was a lie. If so, the evidence says the lie was Clinton's. You argue that the intelligence was faked. If so why wasn't it Clinton who faked it when he made the claims in 98. Instead you disregard the weatlth of evidence in the claims made by many democrats matching the claims by Bush several years later. You want to attribute all the nefarious activity to Bush without acknowledging that Bush's claims match those of many in our governmnet from years earlier. Bush was not listening to them, he was listening to the intelligence reports. If they were fake as you assert, why won't you pin the blame on Clinton who was making these claims well before Bush was in office? Was Clinton making bald-faced lies about Iraq WMDs without regard for intelligence, or was he relying on the intelligence when he made those claims? If he was disregarding the intelligence then what was his purpose for the lies in 98? Was the intelligence faked? If it was then Clinton was relying on fake intelligence well before Bush had any ability to plant the fake evidence? It couldn't possibly have been Bush who faked the intelligence, therefore if it is fake someone else would've had to have done it. Who? Why?
You problem is that you start with a nefarious conclusion then work backwards to filter your arguments into support for your preordained conclusion rather than letting the evidence speak for itself and adjust your conclusions accordingly. Your premier assumption is wrong and it's filtered into your ridiculous arguments that disregard any evidence that doesn't fit within your assumptions or predetermined conclusion.
If Iraq WMDs were a lie then it was not Bush's lie as the lies were being made well before Bush was elected to office.
If the intelligence of Iraq WMDs was faked then it was not Bush who faked it since these claims were being made well before Bush was elected to office.

The facts are clear. Your assumptions are wrong.

bob s| 3.9.10 @ 1:15PM

jon b: bit of a wanker, aren't you?

Jon B| 3.9.10 @ 2:47PM

Saddam wanted to give Iran the impression that he had weapons, so he held out making bellicose statements. We already knew that years ago.

But Saddam did give full access to all sites pre-war. He was not considered a threat by the consensus of the US intelligence agencies. He did not have any effective WMD. There was no evidence that he did. However, there was a chance to see if he did, and before you send SOMEBODY'S KIDS off to die, you take that opportunity EVERYTIME, unless you're a pompous jerk.

I'm really not amazed that you've callously ignored this simple fact. I expect a certain %-age of people in this world to think only of themselves & what they want to believe. Both of you now fit in this category.

ben| 3.9.10 @ 6:02PM

Saddam gave the impression he still had weapons. He did have them before 02 and that was verified. He also used them before and that was verified. The UN Inspectors catalogued and verified the existence of Iraq WMDs in 1998. UN Inspectors were kicked out in 1998 and not allowed back until 2002. If he was not considered a threat by US intelligence agencies as you state, then why did congress declare war on Iraq? - and don't say WMDs because they were never mentioned in our declaration of war with Iraq.

Joe Biden relying on our Intelligence Community reports made these statements in 2002:
“He’s a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security.”
“We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”
“He must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power.”

In 2007 Biden defended his 2002 statements to Tim Russert.
SEN. BIDEN: That’s right, and I was correct about that. He must be, in fact—and remember the weapons we were talking about. I also said on your show, that’s part of what I said, but not all of what I meant. What I also said on your show at the time was that I did not think he had weaponized his material, but he did have. When, when the inspectors left after Saddam kicked them out, there was a cataloguing at the United Nations saying he had X tons of, X amount of, and they listed the various materials he had. The big issue, remember, on this show we talked about, was whether he had weaponized them. Remember you asked me about those flights that were taking place in southern Iraq, where—were they spraying anthrax? And, you know, what would happen? And, you know, so on and so forth. And I pointed out to you that they had not developed that capacity at all. But he did have these stockpiles everywhere.
MR. RUSSERT: Where are they?
SEN. BIDEN: Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them.
The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued—they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued. They looked at them and catalogued. What he did with them, who knows? The real mystery is, if he, if he didn’t have any of them left, why didn’t he say so? Well, a lot of people say if he had said that, he would’ve, you know, emboldened Iran and so on and so forth.

Others were making statements along these lines in 2002 as well.
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons. U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

What does Hillary mean by “Intelligence Reports show…” Didn’t you say “He (Saddam) was not considered a threat by the consensus of the US intelligence agencies.” Was Hillary Lying? Was she colluding with Bush?
Patty Murray was relying on UN Inspectors who also verified Saddam’s having weapons. Was she lying? Was the UN lying? If so then this conspiracy of yours is far deeper than even you imagine.
Clearly I have facts and have presented them to you, while you have none, have not presented any and have changed your story throughout this debate. You started off saying Bush lied to get us into war with Iraq. You even presented claims of being lied to as proof of the lies. When I pointed out that those same lies were made before Bush, you tried to paint me as arguing that Bush was listening to Clinton and not our Intelligence Communities. When I explained that if your belief that Iraq WMD reports were lies then it was Clinton and the Dems lies, you tried to “distinguish the difference between concern/rhetoric and actually invading”. At this point you’ve thrown out your own claims and evidence of manipulation by Bush because I’ve proven your assertions wrong and they no longer fit with your narrative. Your new argument is that the lies don’t matter but the actions do and Bush was the one who committed the action, without verifying the claims.
Jon B- “He did not have any effective WMD. There was no evidence that he did. However, there was a chance to see if he did, and before you send SOMEBODY'S KIDS off to die, you take that opportunity EVERYTIME, unless you're a pompous jerk.”
So now I’ve presented you with statements from more democrats in 2002 making the assertion that our Intelligence agencies as well as the UN’s and the rest of the world’s believed Saddam had these weapons. According to Biden and Hillary this evidence was verified and therefore the action of going to war was based on verified evidence that Saddam had WMDs, and not the unverifiable belief that he didn’t.
So now you’re going to have to change your argument again because your “facts”(assumptions) have been handily refuted once again and don’t fit with your preordained narrative of “Bush is the Devil”.
What we know:
1-Dems and Repubs, US, UN and foreign Intelligence agencies, as well as both Clinton and Bush made the claims that Iraq had WMDs.
2-There were no WMDs found.

There are then only 2 possibile conclusions.
1-Everyone who made these claims was lying, and the evidence was fabricated, meaning that this conspiracy encompasses not only Repubs, but Dems and the World as well.
Or 2- The intelligence was wrong.
The evidence points to #2 and away from #1. Gathering intelligence is not an exact science, and gathering intelligence from a dictatorship is difficult to verify. Those who made these claims were making them based on the best evidence they had at the time and not for some nefarious reason as you are want to believe.
Jon B – “I expect a certain %-age of people in this world to think only of themselves & what they want to believe.”
Perhaps you should look in the mirror.

Jon B| 3.10.10 @ 12:22PM

You can beat around the BU$H all you want. YOu can lie if you want too, like you just did: Saddam did not kick out UN inspectors.

We had full access to all sites pre-war. Saddam was not considered a threat to America by consensus of our intelligence community. Do you understand this at all?

Since when do we take someone out when they're not a threat? Joe Biden didn;t have the same access to intelligence that Bush had, and Bush manipulated that intelligence when he lied to Congress, and when he had Tenet lie to Congress. Is it Biden's fault somebody lied to him? Is it Hillary's fault that Bush manipulated intelligence, created a bogus office in the Pentagon that created the lies to go to war, removed caveats/red flags on the bogus info? Even Colin Powell said in a video-taped interview that someone high up ion the administration/intelligence community removed the red flags, which is how he came to present the lies to the UN.

The you lied again when you said said Congress declared war on Saddam: they gave Bush the power to declare war because Bush lied to Congress saying he needed the power to bring the UN onboard, which he had no intention of doing.

The Downing memos prove that he intended to manipulate intelligence around policy. Something else you conveniently ignore, as if that never happened.

Why would you ignore the wealth of information by Bush insiders who say that the the Bush administration totally created the lies to go to war? What do you gain from that?

Jon B | 3.10.10 @ 1:05PM

The OSP, an office set-up for Cheney and Rumsfeld created the lies to go to war. A congressional investigation revealed this: Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaeda as threat By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer Fri Sep 8, 2006

"...former CIA Director George Tenet had modified his position on the terrorist link at the request of administration policymakers."

"information shows that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."

"A second part of the report concluded that false information from the Iraqi National Congress, an anti-Saddam group led by then-exile Ahmed Chalabi, was used to support key U.S. intelligence assessments on Iraq. It said U.S. intelligence agents put out numerous red flags about the reliability of INC sources."

The Bush administration removed these Red Flags. This was also with held...

"...The report shows that Saddam "was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime."

"It said U.S. intelligence agents put out numerous red flags about the reliability of INC sources but the intelligence community made a "serious error" and used one source who concocted a story that Iraq was building mobile biological weapons laboratories."

Mother Jones, a leftist rag, investigated this 3 years earlier and released a more deeply detailed investigative article on the OSP: http://motherjones.com/politic.....ie-factory

Jon B| 3.10.10 @ 3:27PM

Reportsays Pentagon manipulated intel
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

Pentagon officials undercut the intelligence community in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq by insisting in briefings to the White House that there was a clear relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, the Defense Department's inspector general said Friday.
Acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the office headed by former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith, the OSP, took "inappropriate" actions in advancing conclusions on al-Qaida connections not backed up by the nation's intelligence agencies.
Gimble said that the actions of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy "did not provide an accurate analysis of intelligence to senior decision makers" at a time when the White House was moving toward war with Iraq.
Gimble found that Feith's office was, despite doubts expressed by the intelligence community, pushing conclusions that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague five months before the attack, and that there were "multiple areas of cooperation" between Iraq and al-Qaida, including shared pursuit of weapons of mass destruction...
Gimble responded that at issue was that the information supplied by Feith's office in briefings to the National Security Council and the office of Vice President Dick Cheney was "provided without caveats" that there were varying opinions on its reliability.
Gimble's report said Feith's office had made assertions "that were inconsistent with the consensus of the intelligence community."
The report concludes that Feith misled Congress about the basis of the administration's assertions on the threat posed by Iraq, and shows a Pentagon policy shop was trying to shape intelligence to prove a link between al-Qaida and Saddam.
The 2004 report from the Sept. 11 commission found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terror organization before the U.S. invasion.

ben| 3.10.10 @ 5:14PM

Jon B-“Is it Biden's fault somebody lied to him? Is it Hillary's fault that Bush manipulated intelligence, created a bogus office in the Pentagon that created the lies to go to war”

-So when Biden said in 2007, “When, when the inspectors left after Saddam kicked them out, there was a cataloguing at the United Nations saying he had X tons of, X amount of, and they listed the various materials he had.” He was misled by Bush and had not in fact read any UN reports. Was he then lying to cover for Bush?

-It appears we’re back to square 1.
You claim that Iraq WMDs was a lie made up by Bush to validate an attack on Iraq. You’ve presented many arguments supporting this claim after 2001 when Bush took Office. But what you HAVEN’T DONE and what you can’t do is explain how President Bill Clinton, Sec of State Madeline Albright, Nat’l Security Advisor Sandy Berger, UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter, and Senators Nancy Pelosi (Intelligence committee), Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, Tom Daschle et al were all duped by Bush when they made claims of Iraq WMDs in 1998 – 3 years BEFORE Bush took office.
You disregard any statement after 2001 as being a product of Bush’s lie, but that doesn’t explain how statements before Bush was elected were products of Bush’s lie. My contention is that Bush wasn’t lying. He and the others who made this claim were acting on the intelligence. The intelligence was wrong but that doesn’t make it a lie, and the fact that many were saying this before Bush means that if it was a lie it wasn’t Bush’s. In fact if Iraq having WMDs is a lie, the evidence points to the Dems and the UN as being the ones who planted the lie.

If it is Bush’s lie as you claim, prove it by showing how Bush manipulated those people who made these claims before Bush took office. If you can’t then your assumption that Iraq WMDs was Bush’s lie is clearly only an assumption and not supported by any facts.

It’s clear that you hate Bush and will continue to believe he is the source of these lies IN SPITE OF THE EVIDENCE.
You have a right to your opinion but not your own facts.

Jon B| 3.10.10 @ 6:22PM

OK, it's Bill Clionton's fault Bush manipulated intelligence and lied to the nation, even creating an office to bypass the intelligence community so he could serve up lies as if it was from the intelligence community. yeah , it's Bill Clinton's fault that Bush lied. Can we impeach Bush now because this obviously means he's the one who forced Clinton to lie aboout sex?

ben| 3.10.10 @ 8:08PM

You're a moron.
If you'd like to see some of the intelligence (US, UK, IAEA and UNMOVIC) documents about Iraq WMDs, Al Qaeda links and UN inspections visit the link. They cover from 1981 through 2004.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/

Jon B| 3.10.10 @ 8:38PM

And now the truth comes out: your whole opinion is based in anger. If you had any confidence in the 1/2 truths you present. You could calmly walk away. But you can't. here's why: You just supported will full lies that sent as many as 1/2 million innocent people to their deaths, and you have the nerve to call me a moron?

All you've done is insulated yourself from reality for 7 years, and now faced with that reality the only defense you have is raging anger and hatred. The very hatreds you used to selectively create your own "intelligence' instead of looking a everything when it happened. Thanks Ben, your concession is accepted.

Please think about the people you helped send to their deaths the next time you cherry pick this issue.

ben| 3.11.10 @ 11:14AM

The argument I've been making is simple logic. You claim that Bush lied about WMDs. This claim states that Bush made up or fabricated these claims. That he was the originator of these claims. But the statements I've presented of the same lies being made by many before Bush was elected to office proves Bush is not the originator of these claims. Bush did not make them up, therefore this is not Bush's lie. If it is a lie as you say it belongs to someone else.
Your problem is you present arguments you think lead to your conclusion that "Bush is evil", but you frame your arguments on the presumption that your conclusion is correct. Your basic argument is; if Bush lied then he's evil, and because he's evil he lied. That argument is circular and relies on the presumption of the truth of the conclusion in order for the arguments to be believable. It's a typical argument from those who are subjective and irrational rather than objective and reasonable. To make a rational, reasonable, valid and thus logical argument, the arguments must be the basis for the conclusion, not the conclusion being the basis for the arguments.
If you can't admit via the overwhelming evidence that Bush was NOT the originator of the claim of Iraq WMDs, then you cannot be honest or objective in any analysis and you are simply displaying your density.

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 8:00AM

Simple deflection of responsibility would be a more accurate assessment of your argument. Bush invaded Iraq based on false intelligence his administration created. Bill Clinton didn't invade based on fake intelligence. We needed to get inspections moving forward again. I give Bush credit for pressuring the issue, but that was never his goal. He wanted to invade, and said so, even before he sued America to throw out votes.

You seem to have a large capacity for denial built into your political thinking since throughout this debate you've consistently blamed other people for Bush's actions.

Again, the Bush administration created the lies to invade Iraq. While others believed Saddam might have weapons, and said so, once we had FULL ACCESS to all sites, there was no reason to invade Iraq. Later we learned that Saddam indeed had no weapons. Saddam was telling the truth, and Bush lied. Imagine that.

The problem I have is that Bush sent OTHER PEOPLE'S kids off to die when there was no reason to do so.

ben| 3.12.10 @ 11:37AM

Jon B-"Simple deflection of responsibility would be a more accurate assessment of your argument."

-I have never deflected any responsibility. I have challenged your assertions that Bush lied about Iraq WMDs. Assertions that are not based on any factual evidence or analysis.

Jon B-"Bush invaded Iraq based on false intelligence his administration created. Bill Clinton didn't invade based on fake intelligence. "

Jon B- "Again, the Bush administration created the lies to invade Iraq."

-So where did Clinton get the information about Iraq WMDs in 1998 that obviously couldn't have been "created" by the Bush administration since the Bush administration didn't exist yet?
-I don't care about who invaded. We know that answer and it has nothing to do with this argument. I've challenged your assertions that Bush had made up the claims of Iraq WMDs. That's all.

Jon B-"Later we learned that Saddam indeed had no weapons. Saddam was telling the truth, and Bush lied. Imagine that. "

-So are you saying Bush should have known the future and to not know the future makes him a liar? It seems you want to play Monday Morning Quarterback and apply evidence discovered AFTER the invasion to your argument about what we knew BEFORE the invasion.

Jon B- "you've consistently blamed other people for Bush's actions. "

-I have not blamed anyone for Bush's actions. I've simply challenged your assertion that Bush's claims about Iraq WMDs was "lie". The evidence all supports my argument that Bush was relying on the intelligence and not making things up as you keep claiming.
Why can't you understand this. No one could be that dense. You are either a moron incapable of rational, reasonable analysis or your so married to your conclusion that you know to admit Bush was being honest in his assessments and basing his claims on verified intelligence as both Clintons, Albright, Biden, UN Inspectors Ritter & Blix, Pelosi, Kerry et al confirmed from 1998 through 2007 would shatter your conclusion and you can't let that happen.

You know Bush wasn't lying but because you need to start with that assumption in order to reach your preordained conclusion that "Bush is evil" you're unwilling to even consider or acknowledge factual, incontrovertible evidence that refutes your claims. When you start with your conclusion as your presumption, every statement Bush made that turned out to be false appears to be proof of a lie. But that's appearance and not fact. Your conclusion that Bush is evil can only be reached if you use your conclusion as your presumption when analyzing the evidence. The conclusion must be the sum of the arguments not the source if your arguments if it is to be considered reasonable, rational, valid and thus logical. The fact that you base your arguments on the assumption that your conclusion is true makes your argument circular and illogical. In fact with all the evidence presented that clearly and overwhelmingly refutes your claim one could say that you're wilfully lying when you claim that Bush was lying and "created" the claims of Iraq WMDs.

Jon B-"If you had any confidence in the 1/2 truths you present. You could calmly walk away."

-Why would I walk away when I'm so obviously right?
-If you believe that a person who believed in their aguments would walk away, why are you still here?

Jon B| 3.13.10 @ 5:52AM

Obviously something's wrong here. I provided multiple facts about how the intelligence was created and manipulated, with links to 2 investigations. I also provided multiple sources who said Bush lied to them, several from his inner circle.

You should stop and think about what you're saying.

ben| 3.15.10 @ 12:30PM

What's wrong is that your so married to your conclusion you can't reasonably assess the information at hand.
You think that because the weapons inspectors were at the sites and couldn't find any weapons that that proves there weren't any. The inspectors however, had catalogued and verified the existance of those weapons in 98. No inspectors were in Iraq between 98 and 02, and when they went back in 02 they couldn't find the weapons they had verified were there in 98. What happened to them? Saddam said they were destroyed but could not provide any evidence or verification that they were. The weapons inspectors said they met resistance in searching sites in 02 and could not confirm those weapons had been destroyed either.
You seem to want to trust in the honesty and character of Saddam, a man who used chemical weapons 10 times between 81 and 91, a man who'd used them on his own people, who committed genocide of the marsh arabs, invaded Iran twice, Kuwait once and Bombed Saudi Arabia and Israel, funded terrorist groups, had verified meetings with al qeada, spoke agressively against the US, Isreal and the West, while disregarding any possibility of honesty or integrity of our own president simply because he's Republican and you needed to destroy his character for political purposes. Your assumption that Bush isn't honest is the conclusion you think your evidence supports, but its the conclusion that can only be reached when you start with the conclusion as your presumption.
The evidence clearly shows that Saddam had these weapons in 98. No one was there to account for them between 98 and 02. Saddam was not able to account for the weapons he says he destroyed, nor was he able to produce documentation that they were destroyed. Saddam violated the cease-fire agreement by manufacturing weapons with ranges far greater than he was allowed by the agreements he signed, and by purchasing more weapons with oil for food money. These were both verified by the inspectors. Our congressional leaders with access to the intelligence supported Bush's interpretation of the intelligence, and our foreign allies' intelligence matched ours.
Yes Bush pushed to go to war with Iraq, there's no question about that. Saddam was an agitator in an already unstable part of the world, a part of the world that is crucial to the world economy. There were reasons for invading Iraq, the intelligence on WMDs had been verified and had not been refuted by anyone. Was some of the intelligence unconfirmed or questioned?-yes. Had any of it been refuted?- no. Does that make it a lie? -no.
You've argued that Iraq WMDs was a lie made up by Bush and I've proven you wrong. You argued that people came out later saying he lied and I say they're probably covering their political asses against the incredulous screechings of "war crimes" or "illegal war" by those on the left. You argue Saddam himself said they were destroyed but his honesty is questionable at best and he could not confirm his assertion. You claim Bush is dishonest but that's your political agenda and like I've pointed out, when you start with your conclusion as your presumption it's easy to find things that seem to support it. When you start with no presumption and simply rely on the evidence objectively you cannot reach the conclusion you espouse.
Bush presented the intelligence as support for his war effort. The intelligence he presented was not made up by him or his administration but came from previously verified information, as well as new information from Iraqi dissidents that was not verified as verification in a tightly controlled dictatorship is extremely difficult, but did fit with Saddam's own claims and past behavior.
You seem to forget the time after 9/11, when we weren't wondering "if" another attack was coming but "when" it was coming. There were many reasons for looking at and even invading Iraq, none nefarious as you are want to believe. The intelligence was used to support that course of action, but using intelligence and manipulating or fabricating intelligence are very different things. You don't seem to be able to comprehend this, or you're unwilling to acknowledge this because you have an agenda and this would shatter your agenda.
The facts are clear, Bush didn't make up the intelligence of Iraq WMDs. Every claim Bush made about Iraq WMDs came from intelligence reports. The world's top agencies confirmed our suspicions with nearly identical intelligence as ours, and many in our government from your side of the aisle, with access to the intelligence, concurred with Bush's assessments. You want to claim Bush lied and duped your side to absolve them of their own claims and actions. You want to claim Bush lied and sent people off to die to make him and thus his party (your opponent) out to be heartless, evil people. You have a political agenda to vilify your opponents as evil and you refuse to look at the evidence objectively because you know that your preferred conclusion cannot be reached without first holding your conclusion as your assumption. Your agenda is not to seek the truth or to understand what really happened but rather to paint your opponents as being evil, stupid warmongering cretans with no compassion or regard for the lives or rights of others. And to paint your opponents this way requires you to disregard overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You are the one who's lying and you have to because your political beliefs are all based on lies to begin with.
Something is definitly wrong here. I've provided you with quotes by many on your side making claims of Iraq WMDs from 98 (before Bush) through 2007. I've provided you with links to 43 intelligence documants from the UN, UK, and US citing Iraq WMDs going back to 1981. Your refusal to even read the intelligence documents proves your dishonesty and agenda because these intelligence documents prove that Bush was relying on the intelligence and not lying about it. You need to believe Bush was lying because your political beliefs are a lie and your agenda depends on that lie. There is no chance for us to have an honest, objective debate until you decide to be honest and objective.

bill| 3.8.10 @ 3:37PM

Jon B,
Quit lying.
The Polish Army and US Army found nearly 600 WMD's in their patrols in Iraq. Don't believe me. Ask Jane Harman, a Democrat, on the Intelligence Committee. This occurred in 2006,and for a time the lefts mantra was these weapons were to "old". We also discovered over 300,000 chemical warfare suits in Iraqi military depots as well. I guess they just bought these for their style. We arrested at least 2 ex-Iraqi military trying to combine roadside bombs and chemical munitions. In 2003 we deactivated 3 of these weapons before they could explode.
AS far as the rest of your tripe, the intelligence services of France, Germany, Russia, and Britain all agreed that the Hussein was stockpiling WMD's as did the UN.
This leftist claptrap is 6 yrs old and has been discredited many times. Try to keep up with the program. You're embarassing.

Wrong...| 3.8.10 @ 4:38PM

"The Polish Army and US Army found nearly 600 WMD's in their patrols in Iraq. Don't believe me. Ask Jane Harman, a Democrat, on the Intelligence Committee. This occurred in 2006,and for a time the lefts mantra was these weapons were to "old"."

This is false. While they did find them, the weapons in question contained no WMD or chemicals. I posted a link to an article. Here is an excerpt "Sixteen rocket warheads found last week in south-central Iraq by Polish troops did not contain deadly chemicals, a coalition spokesman said yesterday, but U.S. and Polish officials agreed that insurgents loyal to former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and foreign terrorist fighters are trying to buy such old weapons or purchase the services of Iraqi scientists who know how to make them."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....4Jul2.html

Wrong...| 3.8.10 @ 4:43PM

The United States found no WMD in Iraq. These are the facts. This was concluded by the chief US weapons inspector. Here is a link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm

ontheright| 3.9.10 @ 10:52AM

The term, "fox guarding the henhouse" comes to mind with these links...couldn't have picked further left rags to get your "truth" from.

Jon B| 3.9.10 @ 11:26AM

The US military said, under Bush, that the WMD's they found were expired, "They could cause a headache, or a small cold at best." The UN said they knew about these WMD's, knew where they were, and chose not to remove them because they were expired already in the 90's.

Why do people try and deceive others about this? Because likely, they're fanatical lunatics to begin with: Truth isn't the goal as much as promoting their own fanaticism.

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 1:52PM

Let's go a little farther, shall we?

The Bush Administration claimed the right to arrest anyone in the world, including American citizens, without a warrant or probable cause, and claimed the right to wiretap anyone it wanted without a warrant. They claimed the right to imprison anyone forever, without charges and without the right of habeas corpus, and claimed the ability to begin investigating anyone it chose for any reason or no reason whatsoever. They began secretly poring through the bank records of Americans and encouraged people to spy and inform on their neighbors. They also proposed creating a huge database to collect the transactional records and emails of everyone.

The Bush Administration tortured several hundred innocent people including Americans. 17 Secret energy meetings with Ken Lay that benefited US energy at the expense of consumers. Bush also rescinded a "stop-gouging" order placed on Enron, and Lay jacked prices 1,000% in one week in California alone.

Over 300 environmental rollbacks including the end of enforcement of coal burning pollution laws. The EPA's top 3 prosecutors resigned under protest including Eric Schaeffer appointed by his dad in 1991. Airborne pollution prosecutions went down by 80% in Bush's first year. Premature deaths from airborne pollution went up by 15,000 a year. The EPA found that 1 in 6 US babies/fetuses were at risk for brain damage because of the subsequent release of mercury into the atmosphere-540,000 a year.

Delaying setting widely accepted standards for arsenic in water for a year. We had 1 in 10 ppb levels from WW2 when the rest of the industrialized world had 1 in 50 ppb levels.

This isn't just dictatorial, it's fascism in it's purest form: Benefiting corporations at the expense of the people. The actual definition of fascism.

JimE| 3.8.10 @ 5:30PM

With morons like you ALCOA is looking like a good buy. Do you buy or make your own tin foil hats?

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 5:37PM

At what point in your life did you decide that not killing Americans for profits was "moronic" to you?

And why do you hate Americans?

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 5:37PM

At what point in your life did you decide that not killing Americans for profits was "moronic" to you?

And why do you hate Americans?

JimE| 3.8.10 @ 5:51PM

Jon are a moronic lefist cyborg, no debate, no facts, just spouting tlak points and cut and paste jibberish from KOS. Go pay homage to obama's anus, perhaps he won't flush immediately and you'll be able to eat.

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 6:20PM

Reading over the posts, I'm all debate with scores of facts. That's probably what drives you nuts.
You're all personal attacks and aggression. Isn't there a 3rd world country somewhere you should be lying about to invade instead? Why waste your energy on a message board when you can kill for resources? You know, conserve your ignorance for more useful purposes.

ontheright| 3.9.10 @ 10:56AM

Your "some say", "others have said", "most believe" are not cited sources and therefore your "facts" are nothing of the sort. Keep trolling - with your "facts"; I haven't had this good a laugh in ages. Your tripe is right off the HuffPo/KOS pages - how's that failed govt. school education working out for you? Oh, and that "hopey changey" stuff, too?

Jon B| 3.9.10 @ 11:27AM

That's actually not what I've said at all. Nor did I vote for Obama. But if you need to lie about it to "feel good," feel free.

Richard Baker| 3.8.10 @ 7:16AM

Impeachment, Impeachment, Impeachment!

EricTheRed| 3.8.10 @ 7:55AM

One thing is clear: Obamacare is not consistent with the values of life and liberty.

It never was intended to be. All you hear from these whiny Dems is getting coverage for the uninsured. Coverage coverage coverage. President Hope&Change; politicizes dead 40-year-old women who died from breast cancer (even though his own government plan would enforce mammograms starting at age 50.) Harry Reid spins tales of the thousands of Americans who will die over the next 24 hours supposedly because of lack of coverage.

So let me ask Messrs. Obama and Reid: What does Section 2951 have to do with getting anybody coverage? Nothing at all. It is and always has been about one thing: Controlling every aspect of your life.

http://VocalMinority.typepad.com
The Jewish Republican's Web Sanctuary

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.8.10 @ 8:15AM

One question, please.
If this bill is so critical to "help cover Americans" why do the benefits not start for four years?

Joyce| 3.8.10 @ 9:43AM

And why doesn't it cover the ruling class or royalty such as the executive branch and the legislative branch? If it is good enough for the taxpayers, why isn't it good enough for our rulers? Kill it! Kill it! Kill it! If it isn't killed, we will all be enslaved forever.

Clementine F.| 3.8.10 @ 1:24PM

You're right. If the healthcare bill were any good, congress would be clammering to get onto it. They obviously think their own plan stinks.

What is not good enough for them is not good enough for us!

danfromatlanta| 3.8.10 @ 8:29AM

Goo point Ken. And also, if this is such a great plan, why are congressmen and senators exempting themselves from it? Here's an idea, ... if we want to persuade even more voters on the fence about this stupid bill, why not point this out? There is no surer way to illustrate the elitism of dems supporting this crap than calling their own reluctance to accept the consequences of this legislation themselves. It's great for the unwashed masses, but not good enough for themselves. Any member of congress or the senate that votes for any piece of legislation from which they themselves are exempt ought to be voted out at the earliest opportunity.

cuban pete| 3.8.10 @ 8:59AM

On the money, danfromatlanta. These people do not "vote with their a--" They love public schools but their children go to private. See the Chicago dems for a great example of this.
They want the great unwashed to take public transportation or drive electric deathmobiles but like Corzine they ride in 8 MPG SUV' s at 95 MPH without a seatbelt.
I could go on but it is Monday and I have fish to fry.
All the Best

Dietrich| 3.8.10 @ 8:35AM

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." - Cardinal Richelieu Give me a piece of legislation with over two thousand pages and I will find something for everyone. Abortion? Sex change operations? Death panels?

Louis Jenkins| 3.8.10 @ 8:43AM

Old Texican:

I believe it is for increased taxes to begin ASAP to pay for this mongstrosity. Of course, Congress being what it is, will immediately spend the increased revenues, begating another tax increase, repeat as necessary, to pay for Health Care. Also, four years can be a long time and allowing an old folks die off period can't hurt the bottom line.

Much of our society has grown inept at raising children because of increasing social program interference and a growing desire for government to do something. (Little Johnny won't eat his grits or listens to rap on his MP3 player all the time. Answer, "Auntie" calls the cops.) This bill only gives the Obamatrons what they want. Granted, everyone who raises a child is flying blind for the first time, and they need to have deep seated moral roots, principles, or beliefs to be successful. But success no longer has meaning in our society. It's a race to irresponsibility, even in child rearing and morals/beliefs are out the window. Health Care Reform Home Visits is putting a bandaid on an amputation.

For instance-'time out' is now the accepted way to punish the errant child in school or at home. The only time out I received in either place when I erred was for the whooping, and then it was back to business. I'm not advocating harmful physical abuse, but time out is just a game with no real consequences. The experts claim that physical punishment is too barbaric for our enlightened times, but you know, I grew up with a respect for authority, the law, and for my elders. Harry Reid, et al, are way past due for a physical time out as they have no respect either of the three.

Margie| 3.8.10 @ 1:15PM

My Dad grew up with discipline by the belt. He's 79 yrs. old. He now sees his grandchildren getting "time out". I now see a very effeminate young man. I've listened as his parents made my Dad feel guilty for using discipline on us as children. (No belts). I respect my Dad immensely. You cannot have respect for a parent that has not the love enough to discipline.
"For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it." Heb. 12:11.

Louis Jenkins| 3.8.10 @ 3:32PM

Some children do understand time out and comprehend the displeasure that their particular act has brought. For others, it's an opportunity to goof off, no punishment factor to be considered. The point is that parents, if they're willing enought to make a child, need to have a handle on how their child is reared. Reliance on Nannie GovCo doesn't cut it. A bureaucrat cannot, never, take the place of a parent. But this is what these people want! They're too lazy to take responsibility, and the Obamatrons think they're too ignorant. Biblical teaching tells us that unpleasant tasks, such as child discipline, is part of being a parent. Truly, if you love your child, you are punishing yourself as well.

Margie| 3.8.10 @ 4:03PM

So well said, Louis. I fully agree. I do think it's sad though that spanking is considered wrong now by the PC police, and is indeed illegal in some states. Is it in all states now? I don't know. But that is another thing where government has gotten involved in raising children, and it's wrong.

Love your last sentence.. the loving parent always says "this hurts me more than it does you."

oof oof| 3.8.10 @ 9:02AM

Hitler knew that you start the indoctrination process with the young. You can't afford to raise your kids and pay your taxes? We're here to help. Let's have our social services people help you, so that the indoctrination process is well under way before they sent off to the government schools to complete the process. A gun in your home for protection, from what? You don't need that, junior might find it and hurt somebody. We'll get rid of it for you. We're only here to help you.

Gee, what could possibly go wrong.

oof oof

Bob| 3.8.10 @ 9:38AM

Gee, that kind of indoctrination sounds a lot like Christian evangelism.... Hmmm...... In fact, Hitler claimed he was a Christian and used his religion to spread his policies:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org.....itler.html

Troll Watch| 3.8.10 @ 10:22AM

Bob is secular of course like Stalin.

Dan Hirsch| 3.8.10 @ 10:30AM

Hi, Bob!

I went to the website you showed. Funny, the only referneces to Christianity were Nazis referring to their own self-professed faith. Claiming to be an adherent of a particular faith does not condemn that faith anymore than identifying would-be professor, alleged murderer Amy Bishop, tax collector-killer, pilot Stack, or Pentagon shooter all self-professed Obama voters as representing President Obama's views.

I have yet to hear of a religion based on a 'god' that found true expression in the eugenics and wholesale slaughter of millions of people practiced by the Nazi regime for no reason other than their victim's beliefs or heritage. Oh wait, what faith did those September 11 guys profess? I forget.

And another thing! How does including Al Gore's 'Inconvenient' movie as mandatory class content for children as-yet uneducated in science differ from indoctrination? Especially when this not-so-settled science has been shown to be fraught with distorted data and methods.

Whatever your problem is, blaming it on true Christians will not solve it. Good luck.

Bob| 3.8.10 @ 1:24PM

So let me get this straight... You don't believe in "self-professed faith"????? I guess YOU are the one that labels the faith of others? That's very "Christian" of you...

Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" was a huge stretch from factual information just as many who claim that tax cuts are stimulative to the economy. The data does not support either conclusion.

So now Christians are divided into "true" and "untrue"???? Who decides??? You????

RAMIII| 3.8.10 @ 11:01AM

Hey Bob,

Define "Christianity" for us, will you please? I'd just like to know how you see it.
Thanks.

Bob| 3.8.10 @ 1:31PM

How do I define Christian? Of course, there are many definitions based on history, belief, culture, and training. You probably want to base your definition on behavior, right? Can you be at war and kill non-combatants and be "Christian"? Can you have unmarried sex and be "Christian"? Using your definition, there would be virtually no "true" Christians on this planet. A sin is a sin, right? Therefore, if you claim to be a Christian, then I must take your word for it...

RAMIII| 3.8.10 @ 2:19PM

Bob,

I did not give you my definition of Christianity. And it is clear that you didn't either. Is it possible that you do not know?

Bob| 3.8.10 @ 3:46PM

I provided the Talmudic answer. You have studied the Talmud, right???? My point is that there is no one right answer to that question. Therefore, my conclusion that I must take your word for it. Now what is YOUR definition, or do you just want to chicken out????

RAMIII| 3.9.10 @ 10:29AM

Bob,
Are you absolutely positive that the only right answer to that question is: "that there is no one right answer to that question"? That is logically untenable.

RAMIII| 3.10.10 @ 9:19AM

Talmud??

Margie| 3.8.10 @ 1:17PM

Bob,
Now cut that out!
Bob,
If I tell you I'm a bird, would you believe me?

Bob| 3.8.10 @ 1:49PM

Yes, I believe you. Are you the one they coined the term "birdbrain" for????

Margie| 3.8.10 @ 2:07PM

Very nice. And I'm sure you have many friends here that would agree with you.
But that wasn't the point, Bob, as you know full well. Now stop being bird-brained and use the reason God gave you. OK let's use another example, since using myself for the brunt of insults was too much to your liking.. Do you believe Santa Claus ir Santa Claus because he says he is, and will bring you presents each and every year? How about the Easter Bunny?

Margie| 3.8.10 @ 2:16PM

Not that it matters to you but my posts here were intended to fall under yours concerning your comment about Hitler calling himself a Christian.
Ty.

Bob| 3.8.10 @ 3:58PM

Margie, I know precisely from where your comments emanate. To answer your question, given that "THE" Santa Claus is a mythical creature, if I met him, I would be not of this earth. If someone of this earth claimed to be "THE" Santa Claus, I would certainly doubt his authenticity. But being part of a category is different. For example, I am a Republican because I am registered Republican. The same logic applies to Hitler. You cannot mount a "proof" that Hitler was not a Christian because there is no data to support that other than your particular beliefs. I do understand the argument that you don't believe he was "Christian". But that is belief, not reason. There are lots of "Christians" that act immorally and lots of non-Christians that are quite moral to both you and I. In our secular society, we have laws -- and that determines our collective sense of right and wrong. You want to judge people on your religious beliefs -- and that is certainly your right. I want people to be free and have full liberty unless they break the law. The fewer the number of laws, the better in my opinion.

Margie| 3.8.10 @ 4:15PM

What do you think laws are based on? Our laws are based on morality, Bob. Basically the 10 Commandments. God's Law. According to you, some should be laws and some shouldn't Whichever ones suit your fancy. You want to allow some things, like the murder of the unborn child, to be legal, and call it "freedom." This is a lie and not based in reality, or truth. Murder is murder.
You pick and choose and make yourself the arbiter. Yet that's what you accuse us of doing. You are very contradictory in your thinking.
Liberty has nothing to do with making murder legal for the unborn baby. Where is the Liberty for that child, who like you, wanted to be born. had the opportunity to be born?
Liberty isn't promoting a lawless society in the name of freedom. True freedom is having standards and laws of the land. Anything else is utter chaos.

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 9:46PM

^...never noting the irony that the Bible was written by man using their best interpretation for what they "believed" was God's law at the time. This explains why they thought GOD wanted them to kill their kids if they swore or hit a parent, or why GOD ordered rapes of women from opposing warring tribes, and God's personally killed thousands of innocent babies in the Bible. This was man's understanding of what God is at the time, thousands of years ago. I disagree that the Bible, or any religious text is God's word in pure form.

Margie| 3.8.10 @ 10:06PM

Even paid shills may have consciences. Perhaps you might, I don't know. In case you just may, let me ask you a question. Do you believe in right from wrong?

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 10:18PM

abortion? I think it's wrong.

But I also saw that when Republicans had control of the House, Senate, the throne, and a conservative majority on the US SC, they proposed zero bills to end abortion, and only a faux bill that didn't protect the health of the mother for late term abortions. I understood then that they're using it as a straw-man's issue for election year. It was another thing that convinced that the GOP isn't the conservative or moral party anymore, but a ghost of itself. It's discouraging.

However, if I were to believe the bible, I'd wonder why Romans 14:14 says that "nothing" is unclean unto itself, except to those who deemeth it unclean. the bible basically says that the rules of the Bible are meaningless, unless you think they aren't. :)

Margie| 3.9.10 @ 12:39PM

That entire passage in the Bible is talking about food. That we are allowed to eat whatever we want to eat, there are no more rules. It is saying though, that if someone sees fit to only eat one type of food and not another, that is also fine, and not to make them feel bad for doing that. But it works both ways too, and don't let someone else cause you guilt for eating what you choose to eat. So it's about food.
In your usual way, you misrepresent, and you ought to be more careful.
~As for the GOP, yes it has gone astray but it is still the best party we've got. The platform and planks are right, but sometimes the people aren't, and so we need to help to restore it back to those things that are great for America by helping to nominate and elect conservatives. It's real work that's needed. Are you on board?

Jon B| 3.9.10 @ 1:11PM

That depends on what translation you read. "Food" is used as an example of what we take in spiritually, and of what we are. I guess you didn't read to Romans 14:17...

17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,

In other words, the whole of Romans 14 is not about food at all, except as a parable/example...

Margie| 3.9.10 @ 2:50PM

You have once again revealed yourself as a dishonest person. The passage indeed speaks of food, eating, mainly. The entire passage! It does mention also about esteeming a certain day of the week or not as well. And it has nothing to do with which version you may read. Verse 17 sums it up. That, as the entire passage explains, it doesn't matter whether you eat a certain food or not, or consider a certain day or not. Your conclusion takes that last verse entirely out of context. To try and say that vs. 17 disintegrates the entire meaning of the passage I suppose suits your purpose, whatever it may be, but is wrong. Try and change what is written all you want. You seem to have a proclivity for that. And a certain determination to work against the Truth.
http://www.blueletterbible.org.....;t=RSV#top

Jon B| 3.9.10 @ 2:55PM

Food is used as a parable, as the scripture in Romans 14 actually points out. This is why 80% of the translations do not use food as the example, but rather they say, "I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus Christ that NOTHING is unclean unto itself. To those who deemeth something unclean, to them it is unclean."

Pretty simple stuff, Marge, but I guess you'd have to actually believe in the message of God, which is love, not words or material things, to understand it. I suggest you convert to Christianity and drop your pre-conceived notions of what GOD is.

Margie| 3.9.10 @ 3:10PM

You're a liar. 80% you say! The Greek, that is the original language, couldn't be more clear. You have no idea of what you speak. You're a fake, a phony, and a fraud. Someone surely does need a conversion.

Jon B| 3.9.10 @ 3:42PM

I've actually looked it up, Marge. It's actually over 80% of the different translations of the Bible that make no mention of food in Romans 14:14. I just used a more conservative figure for your benefit.

Beyond that, no material thing exists in heaven, not even words, but only love, and the "knowledge" of love. Surely you're aware of that...

Margie| 3.9.10 @ 3:51PM

80% translates the Greek word for food as something other than food, huh? OK~ name them! I'll be waiting.

Your second paragraph obfuscates, as is your habit.

Jon B| 3.10.10 @ 3:18PM

Much of the Bible is written using material examples to explain spiritual lessons. Those w/o God won't see that.

Margie| 3.11.10 @ 12:08AM

Jon B. proves that he is not only a fraud in all things political, but in all things.

You haven't backed up your claim. You even lied when you said you "looked it up." LOL. (For my benefit).

You continue to prove what a liar you are, little man!

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 8:04AM

I did look it up, well over 80% of the different translations of the Bible do not use food as an example at all in Romans 14:14.

Beyond that, your desire to hate someone exceeds your desire to follow God's word. That was part of the point I was trying to make in the first place: God's word is love, which is why no material act is necessarily evil since GOD values the spiritual world over the material world. You never touched on it because you're without understanding.

Michigan Farmer| 3.8.10 @ 9:44AM

To Mr. Mike;
To what non-partisan site do you refer?
Germany in 34 is a stretch, but it captures the mood of liberal democracy under assault. My ex-pat friends from Canada and England tell me we are about to lose our freedom and they are sick about it.
Romney is a closet anti-capitalist. His Mass Miracle health plan has given those folks the highest premiums in the country. State is now planning to freeze rates to providers. Next will come rationing. Meanwhile few businesses are planning to move there.
Fascists of all stripes remain a danger to free men everywhere. Who is the dangerous idealogue, Reagan or Mr. Obama?

Tomas| 3.8.10 @ 10:23AM

Tort Reform and Term Limits for Congress.

Everything is fixed.

Guaranteed.

-

Yosemeti Sam| 3.8.10 @ 10:36AM

" ... One thing is clear: Obamacare is
not consistent with the values of life and liberty. "

There you go!

Corollary precepts:

On Life - his guardian angel approach
to unsuccessfully/cleanly aborted babies;
to a nearest closet for expiration.

On Liberty - that Mao Zedong ornament
which graced a White House Christmas tree
of late. BTW - where is that ornament?

Steve Deleede| 3.8.10 @ 11:23AM

Nuts reading and commenting on a nutty story published in a nutty magazine. LOL

RAMIII| 3.8.10 @ 12:41PM

That's a reasonable and well articulated argument. Very persuasive.

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 9:48PM

I agree. It's more persuasive than then the pretend "Government control" article at least.

Northern Rebel| 3.8.10 @ 12:28PM

Alan Brooks:

Actually, I think photos of Nazi death camps, would be an appropriate accompanying photo, for Obamacare.

Mike:

Don't worry, constitutional conservatives don't trust Romney any more than you do.

As for the gist of this article, you almost need an excorcist to get children's "advocates" from the state out of your familiy's life, once they worm their way in, as it is now.

I am a step-father of what was once an extremely troubled 14yr old teenage girl, who punished her mom for leaving an abusive husband for me, by turning us in to the state authorities, and telling lies about her situation.

It took legal court battles to defeat these zealots, because they want to teach children their liberal-socialist-progressive values, and prevent you from bringing your children up the way you see fit.

The funny thing was, they'd send freshly scrubbed 25yr old females to "advise' the parents. The first question I'd ask was,
"So, how many children do you have?"

The debate was over.

fred edwards| 3.8.10 @ 12:40PM

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
Thomas Jefferson

fred edwards| 3.8.10 @ 12:41PM

"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants."
Albert Camus

fred edwards| 3.8.10 @ 12:42PM

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
Thomas Jefferson

brutus6| 3.8.10 @ 1:13PM

Sorry, Fred. Brooks and Bob could care less about quotes from founding father Thomas Jefferson, because Jefferson professed his belief in God.

But quoting existentialist Albert Camus against them, a stroke of genius. Now your hitting Brooks and Bob where they live.

Bob| 3.8.10 @ 1:57PM

Utilizing a quote without context? Well, I guess that's par for the course for the uneducated. I suggest you look at the context in which Jefferson used that remark.

He also said this:

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

Do you still want to quote Jefferson?

I don't want to fund faith based groups or training based only on abstinence. I believe banning abortion is tyrannical. If we held to that standard, we wouldn't have any government.

Margie| 3.8.10 @ 2:10PM

So Bob believes making abortion illegal is tyrannical.
Abortion is murder. So then making murder illegal is the result of a tyrannical government as well?

Bob| 3.8.10 @ 4:06PM

You believe abortion, even when the fetus is just a couple of cells, is murder. I do not. To force your particular religious belief on me is, indeed, tyranny. Now I do agree that there comes a point in the growth of a fetus when we should protect it. Typically, that would be when the fetus can live on its own without the use of machines. So I have no problem with first trimester abortions. I have a severe problem with third trimester abortions. Second trimester abortions should be justified and rare. I do certainly believe that if the life of the mother is in jeopardy, abortion is fine.

The mistake that you and others make is your absolutism. I don't know many pro-choice people like myself who would PREFER an abortion to things like adoption. You don't encourage abortions, but you respect the decisions of others. I have had very close relatives who have had abortions who have asked my advice. My response has always been that if there are other reasonable courses of action, then take them. But at the end of the day, liberty demands that you make your own decision and I will support you in that decision.

Margie| 3.8.10 @ 4:23PM

Sorry Bob, Liberty DEMANDS the RIGHT of the baby to be allowed to come to full term. Just as you were allowed to.
Once again your definition of Liberty is skewed. The decision of anyone to snuff out the life of an unborn child is not one that deserves respect, as you say.
Murder in the name of Liberty is not Liberty.
Just as Hitler murdered in the name of Christianity (so you say), and that makes him a murderer, not a Christian.
And that my dear friend is indeed absolute!

Jon B| 3.9.10 @ 2:52PM

I agree. And just as Bush cut funding for Pregnancy Prevention, not for abortions as he said, that makes him a murderer, and a liar, not a Christian. When this was pointed out at a press conference, Bush ignored the question and kept the policy of under funding pregnancy prevention in place thereby keeping his increase of 3 million more abortions a year in place. I think he ruined the GOP for decades to come.

Margie| 3.9.10 @ 2:55PM

The only liar see in this conversation is Jon B.

Jon B| 3.9.10 @ 3:03PM

Obama's restoring of funds for pregnancy prevention measures in the world's poorest countries reduced abortions by 10's of millions in the next 8 years. Republicans lie about the Mexico City Policy by falsely claiming it funds abortions, etc. It's been illegal for US $'s to fund abortions overseas since 1973, but we DO fund pregnancy prevention measures, emergency field birth kits, etc.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_wrld.htm

1993: Repeal of the funding ban: President Clinton felt that private, foreign organizations should be able to receive USAID funding for that part of their programs that involved pregnancy prevention, even though they used their funds raised elsewhere to finance abortions or to appeal for abortion reform. On 1993-JAN-22, his second day in office, he rescinded the executive order.

2001: Reinstatement of the funding ban: On 2001-JAN-22, during his first day in office, President George W. Bush reinstated the funding ban for family planning programs run by agencies that also provide abortion services out of their own funds. His rationale was somewhat confusing. He wrote to the U.S. Agency for International Development: "It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad." But no such funds have ever been granted. Existing legislation prevents foreign grants from being used to fund abortions or provide abortion counseling.

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0126-05.htm

January 26, 2001: Family planning research groups, such as the Alan Guttmacher Institute, last year said that if US funding levels were restored to the $540 million (from $425 million), the following would happen: Nearly 12 million more couples in developing countries would gain access to modern methods of contraception.

There would be 4.3 million fewer unintended pregnancies, 1.5 million fewer unintended births, 500,000 fewer miscarriages; 2.2 million fewer abortions each year; 8,000 fewer deaths from unsafe abortions, 7,000 fewer deaths from other causes related to pregnancy and 92,000 fewer deaths of infants.

Bush cut funding on 1-22-2001, then cut it some more in 2002, so it was roughly 1/2 or just over $200 million. However, some of it was restored because of his 2003 Africa/Aids program, which he didn't fully fund either. Bush cut aids funding completely in early 2001, and dropped another program in Congress (around $800K more) too. then restarted the program 2 years later promising roughly the same $ amount he prevented in the first place.

Jon B| 3.9.10 @ 3:06PM

http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/world/200 ... _abortion/

Aid workers and experts say President Barack Obama's decision to allow aid money to flow again to international groups that offer abortion counseling will help restart programs desperately needed in Africa, the continent hardest hit by a so-called "gag rule."

For instance, she said, groups that could have helped distribute the condoms the U.S. was supplying to fight AIDS were denied funding because of their stance on abortion.

(When Bush cut funding) Clinics serving over 1.5 million women closed in Kenya, homeland of Obama's father, said Marie Stopes Kenya and Family Health Options Kenya...

I know it's hard when you find out that something you believed in is the polar opposite of what you were told, Marge. But I'm anti-abortion, and when Democrats reduce abortions, I give them credit for it. In other words, I believe in my values, not any particular party, like you do.

Margie| 3.9.10 @ 3:16PM

I see. So "Jon B" loves his Obama man who wants to make abortion part of the so-called Health Plan, but "Jon B" the paid shill wants to talk about a past President in order to deflect.
Hypocrite!

Jon B| 3.10.10 @ 3:00PM

Marge and her efforts to demonize patriotic Americans...what will we ever do with her?

Margie| 3.10.10 @ 11:59PM

Toddard, oops I mean Jonny boy~~ That seems to be what you do for a living.

journey home| 3.8.10 @ 12:47PM

Health Care Reform is Easy

The republicans have used reconciliation on health care before plenty of times - heck they created the whole CHIP program - via reconciliation. Dear lord stop swallowing the kool-aid - this isn't a sporting event my side versus your side (do you think the status quo might be aware of the concept of divide and conquer - don't be such dupes)

People, people, people - this is about getting our dollars back from the richest 1% that hoard them at the top (there is no such thing as trickle down) or For Profit insurance wouldn't be killing the middle class, driving people with health insurance into bankruptcy, and tying a dead weight around small business and even the bigger national corporations - this has to get done - our politicians are playing games to get elected....

They are not "governing" but manipulating voter sentiment to whip up turn out to try and win elections - not based on any specific philosophy of governing but for plain old self interest.

Actual governing takes a huge back seat to "will I get re-elected" - the easiest way to solve the health care debacle of for profit health care is simple - but handing a success to the other party - isn't how the political "game" is played.

Unfortunately our lives are caught in the cross fire of their STUPID GAME. And because of game playing we deregulated everything and created the global financial meltdown - ooppps - maybe proper management would have prevented that - but politics has never been about properly managing our resources - its about GETTING RE-ELECTED.

Healthcare is easy - here's how -

“Use Senate reconciliation and expand Medicare via the Senate’s buy-in provisions. The CBO has already signed off on this as a means of saving money.

More importantly, if more Americans can do a buy-in with Medicare, it creates more cost control (because there’s a genuine competitor to for-profit healthcare).

It also helps to solve the problems of pre-existing conditions, because Medicare does not deny coverage on this basis.

Allowing a Medicare buy-in to Americans under 65 would give people a genuine alternative to private insurance and thereby render the pre-existing question moot.

It would also lower Medicare costs by expanding the risk pool of patients (the great bulk of medical expenses are accounted for by a small number of people, mostly the elderly, requiring very expensive treatment).

And it would substantially enhance the global competitiveness of American corporations. After all, in what other country in the world is health care a marginal cost of production for business?” - Roosevelt Institute Marshall Auerback

Now get out there tell your neighbors, your friends, pick up the phone and email your representatives - because whether you like it or not we are all in this together - and it's us versus the politicians - not each other.

Paul Burke
Author Journey Home
Democracy For America

RAMIII| 3.10.10 @ 9:28AM

"People, people, people - this is about getting our dollars back from the richest 1% that hoard them at the top"

Who pays your salary?

"Democracy for America"?

I like our Republic just fine thank you!
We don't need "Mob Rule"; your argument is vacuous, you Marxist!

George F| 3.8.10 @ 1:34PM

Stating a lie and then using lies to support the lie does not make the lie true. Don't go there.

One simple fact: taking the proposed $500 billion from Medicare without getting rid of the fraud and waste will cause rationing and like the president said, "seniors who are sick should receive pain medication and prepare to die."

I call that statement by the president cold hearted. What ever happened to equal rights for citizens?

What would you call it?

Bob| 3.8.10 @ 1:59PM

Senior citizens (like myself) are part of a government run universal health care plan. Try taking that away from them. The fact is that we can no longer afford Medicare the way it is structured. The only way to cut it is to ration care. Those are the facts. Statements to the contrary are simply idiotic.

Old Soldier| 3.8.10 @ 2:16PM

Well this is great news. When the revolution starts, all I have to do is stay home and wait for them to come to me. How convenient, Obama saved me a trip!

N0rthern Rebel| 3.8.10 @ 2:52PM

Bob:

Perhaps you can do your part as a good socialist, and ween yourself off medicare, so there is more for the rest of us.

Bob| 3.8.10 @ 4:10PM

Actually, if you believe Medicare is right, then YOU are the socialist. Unlike you, I believe in limited government and that includes social programs. You obviously don't understand socialism because you are a socialist.

As for me, when my time comes I will not be on any machines to keep me alive. I have a living will and have told my relatives of my decision. I don't want a fancy burial either since after I'm dead it will be of no value to me. We live on through our progeny. Hopefully, I've done a good job at it.

John II| 3.8.10 @ 7:39PM

"I don't want a fancy burial either since after I'm dead it will be of no value to me."

Well, that about sums it up, I reckon. As one old bastard to another, I should like respectfully to point out, Roberto, that you are not the only orange peel in the punchbowl. Consider:

1. What you want or don't want after you've cashed in your chips shouldn't be any of your concern, since your worldview has you reduced, post-mortem, to fertilizer for the local cornfield.

2. It is, I believe, a rather touching if inadvertent display of your inner doubts about your materialist ontology that you should advert to a sure-enough personal "me" at the point where your ontology insists that there shall no longer be a thee, so to speak.

3. In any event, why should the absence of "value" to thee who will no longer exist be sufficient warrant to support your proposed wants. True, only retrograde Christian types like myself believe that funeral services are of benefit to the departed. But surely even so enlightened a child of your times as yourself can at least see the possibility that such services are of benefit to the bereaved?

4. So that, I propose that you too, Roberto, are of the deeply considered opinion that what you take to be of no "value" (the loaded term in such a context is from Nietzsche, but let it go) to your departed self may nonetheless be of considerable import to the fondness and recollection of your progeny.

In short, and somewhat in the manner of Dan Rather's recent apercu to the effect that Professor Obama has proven to be so ineffectual that he couldn't sell watermelons, I believe you have let the cat out of the bag. Rather like Rather's lofty claims to liberal enlightenment, your atheism is a pose, sir, and thou should'st best prepare thyself for a big surprise awaiting you hopefully on the other side. I pass on.

Bob| 3.8.10 @ 8:32PM

Well, I believe in celebrating life, not death. Since there is nothing on the other side, I guess your ignorance is truly bliss....

Margie| 3.8.10 @ 10:10PM

If you say there's nothing on the other side, it is you that is ignorant and participating in said "bliss."

You're making a BIG mistake!

John II| 3.8.10 @ 10:16PM

Other side? What other side? Oh . . . you mean . . .
the Other Side? What're you, some kind of theologian?

John II| 3.8.10 @ 10:38PM

That last comment was addressed to Roberto, Marge. My old man was the same way. My older brother too, come to think of it. They too were inadvertent theologians. They're both gone now. To the Other Side.

Margie| 3.9.10 @ 12:48PM

JohnII,
Understood, and thanks. :^)

Jason B. | 3.8.10 @ 2:55PM

The Obamacare plan will cost you more for healthcare and give you less healthcare if you work. Somehow democrats have concluded that adding 18 million illegals to the healthcare burden of the 49% or so of who pay taxes will save billions.

We know that these people have TB, cancer and all the diseases we have plus things like malaria, yellow fever and the like.

But keep drinking the Marxist Milkshakes dems and you will disappear.

Northern Rebel| 3.8.10 @ 2:55PM

I am pro-choice. I believe abortion takes away the unborn child's choice to live.

Perhaps I would've been convinced to make an exception in Bob's parent's case

Stephanie| 3.8.10 @ 3:03PM

I'm on board with Richard Baker.
IMPEACHMENT! IMPEACHMENT! IMPEACHMENT!

maverick muse| 3.8.10 @ 3:23PM

Obama's original healthcare bill HR3200 has grown to nearly 3000 pages now. Where is the transparency to document what IS or is NOT in the bill that continues to mutate as votes are bought?

HR3200 contained measures to implant chips in everyone, and imprison all the non-compliant. No one has verified that those measures would NOT be in the final law that Obama would sign.

John3| 3.8.10 @ 6:37PM

During the last presidential election, we warned of the leftist leanings of Mr Obama: expansion of abortion services, violation of conscience and free speech rights of health care workers, imposition of "equal representation" of leftist ideology: atheism, gay rights, abortion services into conservative radio stations including christian radio stations--so that "both can be equally represented; elevation of a higher class of citizens in their "hate crimes" legislation e.g., if you are murdered and you are gay, the murderer is given a more severe punishment than a run-of the-mill murder (like for example a grandmother killed by a gay activist because she had the "audacity" to say that she was praying for her murderer). I told my democratic party friends of mine and they all said: "No, he will not do that!"
I think it is time we see the writing on the wall: HE WILL DO IT; IN FACT HE IS DOING IT. Worse, he says one thing like" There will be no funding for abortions in the health care bill" and lo and behold it is there. If it wasn't there, why are there no shrieks from Planned Parenthood? Because they know--its there.

JmsA| 3.8.10 @ 6:01PM

That's not Mike; that's Keith Olbermann.

Tim| 3.8.10 @ 6:34PM

This isn't primarily about American voters choice regarding Health Care now , this is all about a self-absorbed Obama's re-election.
Obama thinks he can sell Snake Oil to American voters again.

chaussurestnfr| 3.8.10 @ 8:03PM

fasasff

old man| 3.8.10 @ 8:28PM

All of you folks are right Bush is a massive liar, but Obama lies with a charismatic smile on his face that has blinded and mesmerized most of his followers. For that instance has he ever told the truth? If you doubt Obama's ability to lie, just read what he said a year ago or a week ago and compare it to what he says today or tomorrow. What really scares me is the attack and progression of loss of personal rights that Obama has focused on and has turned up to hyper-drive speed. America is truly in a precarious stage in it's existence.

JJ| 3.8.10 @ 10:24PM

I'm worn down. Let's all just go to our local bank branch, withdraw all of our money and send it to Obama. I'll even sign the voucher that gives them 34% of what I make from this point forward for the next 8 years without any government services kicking in until 2015.
Will that make them happy and get them off TV?
Please -- please !! - take it all Barak !! -- take my dog too if you want. Just leave me alone! Ahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

archer52| 3.9.10 @ 11:07PM

It is hard watching some of you support healthcare in your comments. One went as far as saying it is about jobs and access to providers. Really? Then ask yourself if it is so important, with people dying every day, that the government is going to collect taxes for FOUR years before offering ONE benefit. They do this in order to make the first ten years solvent. Now if you extend it to the next ten years you'll find it in the whole four years worth of taxes the second the new decade starts. Wow. You would think that alone would make anyone with more than two brain cells rubbing together just run screaming down the street. But no.

The truth is that with healthcare the government can force any number of changes in your behavior. Have a gun in the house- extra fees. Homeschool and you are a suspect parent. Smoke, eat wrong, not exercise enough and you get an extra ding in your premiums. You do realize you will be paying premiums. It is just that you 'll be paying Uncle Sam and not a company like Blue Cross.

Orrin Hatch hit it on the head; it is about control and stealing the cash out of the medical field and bringing into the treasury, after the Dems get to shave of their cut from the top.

Wake up people. They don't care about you, just what you can do for them. Read my book REVOLT (www.revoltthebook.com). I wrote the original draft in 1997 based on a question- "What would it take for our nation to be in a position where it could subject to a takeover by a rogue President?" Then I asked myself "Would anyone stand up?" The book foretold a lot of what is happening now. I know how it ended in the novel, but I'm still wondering how we'll answer this challenge. Do not think for a second just because we are Americans we are immune to tyranny.

It is going to only get worse. It is the nature of some humans to want to rule other humans, and it is also the nature of some humans to want to be ruled. It is simply the way it is.

nonaivete'here| 3.10.10 @ 3:10PM

It's been entertaining watching this debate about Iraq to say the least. Speaking as an Independent, the hell with you traditional Dems and Reps - you're both full of shit. I don't have time to get involved in this "he said she said" debate so I'll use a more common sense approach (couldn't care less if ya'll like it or not). My question is how in the F--- was Sadam considered more of a threat than N. Korea??? How in the F--- is Sadam more of a threat than Pakistan??? How in the F--- is Sadam more of a threat than Iran??? I see the US invading countries that don't appear to have nuclear weapons.....why is that??? Aren't they more of a threat??? Who the F--- is shooting missles over Japan and have nearly the technology to reach our mainland?? You people are probably the same people that would defend so-called rightwinger and had been guitarist Ted Nugent who boasted in no fewer than 3 major publications to urinating and defecating in his jockeys for a week before appearing at this draft board physical to avoid serving his country during the Vietnam War. Now, you wanna talk about WMD'S would you want to stand next to that yellow belly??

PDeverit| 3.10.10 @ 10:43PM

People used to think it was necessary to "spank" adult members of the community, military trainees, and prisoners. In some countries they still do. In our country, it is considered sexual battery if a person over the age of 18 is "spanked", but only if over the age of 18.

For one thing, because the buttocks are so close to the genitals and so multiply linked to sexual nerve centers, striking them can trigger powerful and involuntary sexual stimulus in some people. There are numerous physiological ways in which it can be sexually abusive, but I won't list them all here. One can use the resources I've posted if they want to learn more.

Child buttock-battering vs. DISCIPLINE:

Child buttock-battering (euphemistically labeled "spanking","swatting","switching","smacking", "paddling",or other cute-sounding names) for the purpose of gaining compliance is nothing more than an inherited bad habit.

Its a good idea for people to take a look at what they are doing, and learn how to DISCIPLINE instead of hit.

I think the reason why television shows like "Supernanny" and "Dr. Phil" are so popular is because that is precisely what many (not all) people are trying to do.

There are several reasons why child bottom-slapping isn't a good idea. Here are some good, quick reads recommended by professionals:

Plain Talk About Spanking
by Jordan Riak,

The Sexual Dangers of Spanking Children
by Tom Johnson,

NO VITAL ORGANS THERE, So They Say
by Lesli Taylor M.D. and Adah Maurer Ph.D.

Most compelling of all reasons to abandon this worst of all bad habits is the fact that buttock-battering can be unintentional sexual abuse for some children. There is an abundance of educational resources, testimony, documentation, etc available on the subject that can easily be found by doing a little research with the recommended reads-visit the website of Parents and Teachers Against Violence In Education at www.nospank.net.

Just a handful of those helping to raise awareness of why child bottom-slapping isn't a good idea:

American Academy of Pediatrics,
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
American Psychological Association,
Center For Effective Discipline,
Churches' Network For Non-Violence,
Nobel Peace Prize recipient Archbishop Desmond Tutu,
Parenting In Jesus' Footsteps,
Global Initiative To End All Corporal Punishment of Children,
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In 26 countries, child corporal punishment is prohibited by law (with more in process). In fact, the US was the only UN member that did not ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

mobility scooter man| 4.25.11 @ 1:02PM

They do this in order to make the first ten years solvent. Now if you extend it to the next ten years you'll find it in the whole four years worth of taxes the second the new decade starts.

ensogo| 4.25.11 @ 1:10PM

Just what we need. Our entire economy based
on health care; we will all be selling each other
medical devices, Rx's, mobility scooters.
How bout when you park in Wallmart, some
one will greet you at your car with a mobility scooter ?

出会い| 7.21.11 @ 3:48AM

itumomiteimasu

IBCBET| 8.1.11 @ 12:34AM

There are abundant reasons to oppose this health care bill. ibcbet 888 IBCBET ibcbet wap