The Deans, DFA and the DFA grassroots are first!

Oh, I like that report from Denton county, Texas.

I was conversing with someone with on the ground experience in Iraq (who I disagree with over withdrawal, but that didn't stop the conversation), and they say what is happening now, at least on a limited basis, is that the US Forces are trying to work with local Iraqis to build local institutions in isolation with the national Iraqi government.  In doing this, they are less concerned with de-Baathification or ethnicity or religion or formal elections than finding people who can gain the respect of the local populace and get the job done.

If this doesn't sound like Bush's "spreading democracy", it's not, but it's what seems to be working on a limited basis in areas of Anbar and Diyala (along with a US troop presence).

Will it hold in the absense of US troops?  Nobody knows that.  Can Iraqi government be built from the bottom up?  Nobody knows that either, but top down has certainly failed. 

This is the success that people who say "the surge is succeeding" are trumpeting. Interestingly, the tactic predates the surge.  It's not a military, but a political, solution.  It's not getting much publicity because it's easier to see the surge, and besides, as I said, it's like sausage making, not pretty close up.

Is the limited success we are seeing of building from the bottom up a reason to keep US troops in place to support it?  I don't think so, but I understand why others do, particularly those who are there and finally see some progress.

Just doing some reporting. 

RICH, MARK WARNER IS RETIRING.

RUN MARK RUN.

WE HAVE A NEW BLUE SENATOR.

Just doing some reporting.

I'm not doing any believing. 

<>RICH, MARK WARNER IS RETIRING. RUN MARK RUN. WE HAVE A NEW BLUE SENATOR.

I would expect that whatever dirty little secret kept him from running for prez after so much preperation would also keep him from running for Senate.

And do DCDems really need another blue dog in the ranks?

6) is right and I'll tell you why.

We all know now that the commie scare of the seventies and eighties was largely manufactured to keep Americans inthralled and doing what they were told, even as the conflagrations in America's cities during the late sixties continued to gnaw at the innards of America's ruling elite.  But, what it turns out was really causing convulsion were the civil and consumer rights that were asserted by both law and court decisions.  That's what there's been a consistent effort to turn back.  And the war on terrorism seems to be just the ticket.

And they're really rather blatant about it.  Senator Sununu, for example, sent out a letter to constituents in which he was pretty clear that, under the umbrella of the war on terror, "law enforcement" was going to be able to act against "suspected terrorists," presumably without having to take into consideration such niceties as probable cause, judicial warrants and miranda warnings.  

These requirements have long been a thorn in the side of law enforcement (mainly, IMHO, because they require more work than many are willing to put in), but the only enforcement mechanism on the books was the inadmissability of evidence in court.  In other words, if the agents of law enforcement didn't follow the proper procedured, their charges would be dismissed and the defendants released.  And the only real consequence of that would be that the law enforcement agency would not "look" good--a perception that was easily dismissed by blaming the courts.

The solution to this conundrum, it turns out, is really simple.  Don't take the perps to court!  If the courts are throwing cases out, then that's rather easily avoided, if you can figure out a way to detain people without having to take them to court.  And that's what Gonzo managed to achieve under the umbrella of the designation "suspected terrorist."

Now, most people were inclined that this designation only applied to foreigners taken into custody on foreign soil.  But, that's not how the legislation reads.  Anyone, at home or abroad, can be called a "suspected terrorist" and that's a designation the target can do nothing about.  I mean, how do you deny that you're a suspect or, for that matter, that someone isn't terrorized by your existence? 

That's been the agenda for the last three decades--how to reverse the Constitution of the U.S. as intepreted by the Supreme Court.   Trying to do it by stacking the Court hasn't worked for the simple reason that the Supreme Court doesn't give advisory opinions.  It only rules on cases that are brought to it by bonafide plaintiffs--people who have been harmed by some government or private action (that's what kept Rowe from being reversed--women aren't harmed by appropriate medical procedures).  So, the only alternative was to go the legislative route and find an excuse for significant revisions to the law.  (You'll remember that the reason the Patriot Act went through the congress so quickly and was so comprehensive was because the provisions had been drawn up long before by a law enforcement community that felt put upon by having to investigate and find evidence, instead of just beating it out of the perps as they used to do.

So, what do I conclude?  Many of the excesses being perpetrated against innocent foreign detainees are just as likely to be perpetrated against Americans for the simple reason that the agents of law enforcement are lazy and prefer to use intimidation rather than investigating crimes.  The rationale they use on the unsuspecting law-abiding public is that intimidation will prevent crime.  There's no evidence for that.  The only obvious result is a lot of people locked up at public expense unnecessarily. 

Mark Warner was a tedious, dull, hectoring would-be candidate and hardly anyone was sorry when he decided not to go down that trail.  I don't know to what extent his electoral success in Virginia was a consequence of name recognition.  Lots of people may have thought they were just voting for Elizabeth Taylor's former husband. Or maybe his son.

Old habits are hard to break. 

John Warner is retiring.  Mark Warner is the former Governor, who may run for his seat, unless he wants to run for Governor again.

OT - WUFT FM Friday trivia question --

2 answers required

Enrique Grenados sp was inspired by this Spanish master. Name the Spanish master and the Grenados sp work he inspired.

Whatever the Americans are trying to do in Iraq, or think they're doing in Iraq, is like teaching your grandmother to suck eggs.

Contrary to popular myth, the Iraqis had a constitution when the Americans arrived.  They had a central government and nine governorate (states) which took care of regional matters.  They had local councils that took care of local business.  They may not have been popularly elected, but they were appointed by tribal leaders.

Substituting the election of an autocratic central government for all of that was not wise.  The idea that democracy had to be brought to the cradle of civilization while destroying the cities in which civilization flourishes is idiotic.

For some reason, Americans don't seem to understand that civilized behavior is what people who live close together and respect each other's privacy in cities practice.  There's no opportunity to be civilized or civil when you have no neighbors.

Maybe it's all just a problem that results from an inabiltiy to comprehend that Greek and Latin have different words that mean the same thing.  Like "republic" = "democracy" 

So, urbanized = civilized.  But, for some reason Americans hate urbs.

Which is why we now have DARPA preparing for and gaming "urban guerrilla warfare" and looking at iraq as a testing ground. 

I got my PBS booklet --

Beginning Sep 23 at 8 pm is Ken Burns The War, "a new seven-part documentary series directed and produced by Burns and Lynn Novick, exploring the history and horror of the Second World War from an American perspective by following the fortunes of so-called ordinary men and women who become caught up in one of the greatest cataclysms in human history."

To call Elizabeth a mud-slinger is what?  True? False?  Appropriate?  Inconsequential? Tireswome?  Worrisome?  Or just your own opinion.

MO is that those two are going for broke and why shouldn't they?  When you have nothing left to lose, most people fly with the truth and with the angels, not grovel in slime.  Problem is, the truth about neo-cons and Clinton dems and blue dogs is often very slimey and MO is that they should be called on it 24/7.

Mud is in the eye of the beholder. 

Gore/Edwards and then Edwards maybe in 2016 

Or Gore/Dodd.

Just please.....................GORE 

11.

Monica Smith
Fri, 08/31/07
3:02 pm


........
For some reason, Americans don't seem to understand that civilized behavior is what people who live close together and respect each other's privacy in cities practice. There's no opportunity to be civilized or civil when you have no neighbors.
.......
So, urbanized = civilized. But, for some reason Americans hate urbs.
------------

It is THE very same "some reason" that you'll find everywhere trying to answer many other questions...

Look primarily for the oil/gas industry's PROFIT REASON Monica..., again..., and nothing else.

10. Goya and the Goyesquas sp. (These questions -- I used to at least know what they were talking about lol).

16. Goyescas (1911), suite for piano. Movements are: Los Requiebros; Coloquio en la Reja; El Fandango de Candil; Quejas ó la Maja y el Ruiseñor; El Amor y la Muerte; Epilogo (Serenata del Espectro).

Thanks Wiki.

Problem is, the truth about neo-cons and Clinton dems and blue dogs is often very slimey and MO is that they should be called on it 24/7.

<>Maybe they deserve to be slimed. But until very recently, Edwards was one of them. So he slimes himself too.

Mud is in the eye of the beholder.

I will never countenance such politics. Go for the policy record in office and the poroposals, not the person. 

3738

Legislator from Florida, Dan Gelber, admits they did not fight the GOP about the primary date.   It is good that he admitted it, but then he writes Dean to stil make excuses.    

Dan, that circular firing squad you ask Dean to stop...is...you and your buddies here. 

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1468

"We may have disagreements, but please, let’s retire the circular firing squad.

Much of the back and forth and criticism of Florida by the DNC has been focused on the conduct of the Democratic legislators who – some argue – did not fight against the early primary bill. Yes, there is gambling in Casablanca. Of course we didn't fight against the bill. When the Republican leadership made it clear that this was their priority, Democrats had two choices: support something their constituents support and that was going to become law anyway; or support the DNC Rules Committee enforcement of a primary system that our constituents revile. For me, this decision was easy."

They knew the DNC rules said they had to prove they fought.

What a treat!!!

Three hours of Thom Hartmann on C-span. And again, he urged people..."that it isn't enough to vote, you need to get out there and get active, go to Democracy for America and Join".

Pretty Funny homemade video.

"Help us Albiwon Gorenobi"....LOL

http://blip.tv/file/359454

When the Saudi bosses told Cheney to knock off the attacks on the Sunni tribal leaders progress was possible. Now someone else has to tell them to knock off the attacks against Shia militias and the war is over.

Tell me again why more than 5000 advisors tops wouldn't be plenty to guide militias into community protection forces.

Once you give up the idea of a strong central government there isn't much use for forces to prop it up.

If there was a central government that could rule the country then we are back where we were before the war

It is a good idea to hand the keys over to the person that will be in charge after you leave anyway.

Does anyone have a clue why did we invade if we didn't want a large portion of Iraq ruled by the Shia, Saddam had oppressed?.

Out. Now.

Almost two years to the day after Katrina, Bush today assured millions of Americans about to lose their homes in the credit crunch that the federal response will be limited. How appropo.

When the Saudi bosses told Cheney to knock off the attacks on the Sunni tribal leaders progress was possible. Now someone else has to tell them to knock off the attacks against Shia militias and the war is over.

Maybe for America. But it won't be over for Iraqis until their civil war is. 

Does anyone have a clue why did we invade

The only logical reason is unbridled greed. 

Florida law makers willingly gave up the votes of their convention delegates so let them hold the straw poll whenever. Iowa Republicans like August.

BTW Iowa does have a June primary and turnout is roughly the same as the caucus. The caucus pretty much gets all the party regulars. about 25 times the turnout for a school election

Florida law makers willingly gave up the votes of their convention delegates so let them hold the straw poll whenever. Iowa Republicans like August.

I'm guessing that they'll get their delegates when convention time rolls around. A big fight  would ruin the infomercial.

Iowa does have a June primary

For what purpose? 

Sitka has more respect for Al Sadr, a brutal Machiavellian two-faced dictator with death squads, than he has for Biden,

To borrow one of FRED's favorite replies, "You lie."

=============

Well, happy to be instrumental in clearing up that misunderstanding, from the way you talk about them respectively - I got that impression.  My apologies.

RICH, MARK WARNER IS RETIRING.

RUN MARK RUN.

============

Great, that will give us some breathing room in the Senate if we need someone like Biden in the next executive cabinet.

Well, happy to be instrumental in clearing up that misunderstanding, from the way you talk about them respectively - I got that impression.

I've never praised al Sadr and never criticized anything about Biden but his record and proposals. The impression you got was entirely of your own making. Apology conditionally accepted based on your future behavior.

13. 14.

Biden - Boxer

...and never criticized anything about Biden but his record and proposals

=======

Nobody's perfect, but rather focus on his positive accomplishments you seem to out of your way to google up the worst perceived thing you think you can find.  One thing he like to say about himself is that he is honest and sincere, and a straight-shooter.  To me that is more important than ideological labeling.  Unfortunately, our decadent society often punishes people for their honesty and candor.

Look, I don't know what Biden was thinking, but there's no evidence of him on the ground in New Hampshire.  2006 he was here, but not now.

Waste of time. 

What people say about themselves is rarely to be trusted because "know thyself" is a life-time endeavor and often not even achieved by the hour of death.

Just got this in my email

This Sunday, Senator Joe Biden will appear on CBS's Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer.

but rather focus on his positive accomplishments you seem to out of your way to google up the worst perceived thing you think you can find.

I only focus on Biden's rotten scheme for Iraq because you post about it incessantly and try to sell it and him like soap. If you posted about his proposal for clean car engines I would agree. In fact, virtually all of my commentaries on various candidates are in direct response to what amount to bad infomercials for them. 

Post what you want, but don't complain if others point out what they think is wrong with it.

<>Maybe they deserve to be slimed. But until very recently, Edwards was one of them. So he slimes himself too.

So be it!  I'm glad people don't judge me by my past words or behavior.

What is it exactly, Sitka, that she said that so irks you? Let's have the quote please.

I should have said, "don't judge me entirely by my past behavior. 

I'm not happy with his past voting record either and that's why I have Gore buttons, Gore bumper stickers and keep screaming here

GORE!

What is it exactly, Sitka, that she said that so irks you? Let's have the quote please

Edwards' Wife Talks of Clinton 'Hatred' 

``I want to be perfectly clear: I do not think the hatred against Hillary Clinton is justified,'' Elizabeth Edwards said in an interview with Time magazine out this week. ``I don't know where it comes from. I don't begin to understand it. But you can't pretend it doesn't exist, and it will energize the Republican base. Their nominee won't energize them, Bush won't, but Hillary as the nominee will. It's hard for John to talk about, but it's the reality.''

Elizabeth Edwards has become the voice for many criticisms of her husband's leading rivals. She has suggested that Obama and his campaign plagiarized material from Edwards' 2004 presidential campaign and criticized Obama for opposing the Iraq war but voting for the funding, saying that he's been ``behaving in a holier-than-thou way.''

But many of her criticisms have been aimed at Clinton. She's criticized her for not having the ``political will'' to enact universal health care. She also said her husband has a better record on women's issues than Clinton.

Last year, Mrs. Edwards apologized to Clinton after saying her choices in life have made her happier than the New York senator.

John Edwards also has been making distinctions with Clinton as he tries to overcome her strong lead in the primary race, but his criticisms have been more veiled. Last week, during a speech in New Hampshire he said Washington is corrupt and suggested Clinton was part of the system.

``The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale. The Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent,'' Edwards said, referencing a Clinton-era controversy in which high-dollar donors were allowed to stay in the White House's famed bedroom.

I find such politics unacceptable. In the first place, wives shouldn't be used as attack dogs  -- and the fact that she has cancer and can't be criticized for doing it makes it even worse.

Also, criticism should be limited to public records and policy proposals.

I only focus on Biden's rotten scheme for Iraq because you post about it incessantly and try to sell it and him like soap.

=================

I do not patronize the plan because of the man.   I like Biden the man because of this plan.  I thought such an idea had value long before Biden announced it.

Reading books, hearing experts talk, etc, I thought it was a good idea to have some kind of provincial separation for security purposes, even three separate States, if necessary all the way back in 2004.  When Biden announce Biden-Gelb about a year ago.  To me it was something that fulfilled my own previously long held convictions.

That's why I am such a proponent of Biden.

You demeaningly refer to it as a  "rotten scheme" but you seldom, if ever have explained with intelligent terminology why it is "not a good idea" as any other politician, academic, or correspondent might say...in serious strategic terminology.  All you do is hurl insults and propogate character assisination.

"Rotten scheme" or "ingenious idea," it is gaining traction as Obama, Richardson, Hillary, and many many others are admitting it may be the best only way to go, as some still are critical.

I like Biden the man because of this plan.

I don't like him or dislike him personally because of his bad record and bad Iraq scheme. 

Sitka
Fri, 08/31/07
4:47 pm

I find such politics unacceptable. In the first place, wives shouldn't be used as attack dogs  -- and the fact that she has cancer and can't be criticized for doing it makes it even worse.

=============

I don't see how that enters the equation at all, except by the infusion of those who say so, in this case, you.

Has she ever insinuated that people who disagree with her on political  issues or even character issues, had anything to do with her cancer???

Sitka
Fri, 08/31/07
4:59 pm

======

When I said "Biden the man" I was not referring to him in personal terms.  I was talking about the "Statesman" man.

I don't see how that enters the equation at all, except by the infusion of those who say so, in this case, you.

Perhaps it's never entered John's and Elizabeth's heads that the candidates she attacks have to respond to a cancer victim . 

Has she ever insinuated that people who disagree with her on political  issues or even character issues, had anything to do with her cancer???

What a nutty question. 

When I said "Biden the man" I was not referring to him in personal terms.

In that case, I dislike Biden the man based on his record and Iraq scheme.  I see him not as a stateman, but as a political opportunist.

Perhaps it's never entered John's and Elizabeth's heads that the candidates she attacks have to respond to a cancer victim . 

Has she ever insinuated that people who disagree with her on political  issues or even character issues, had anything to do with her cancer???

What a nutty question. 

================

Nutty question?  that's the heart of your argument.  People don't have to think about her cancer when they disagree with her about a law or policy, or a statement she made.  Cancer is not the only thing that effects people.  Many people suffer from terminal or disabling chronic conditions that can be more easily hidden from public view.  Everyone is aware of that. 

Tact and civility should be followed regardless of a person has a serious medical issue or not.

Thanks, Sitka.

IMO, all that stuff appears to be true.  The woman has guts and nothing to lose by speaking her truth.

If they're too spineless to respond to a *cancer patient* that is their problem.

Attack dog?  You think John could or want to shut her up?  Not a prayer.  She's her own person and you can tell that by watching them  together.

DC is corrupt.  Even Deansaid that.  Clintonistics are a huge part of the corruption.

What's that fresh breeze?  Åhhhh, someone is finally speaking the truth.   

Sitka
Fri, 08/31/07
5:10

========

What is your definition of "political opportunist" that detracts from the quality of an individual?

Nutty question?  that's the heart of your argument.

FRED has a serious disconnect from reality. There is no "heart" to my argument. Just the observation that a woman with cancer can't be attacked in kind.

The woman has guts and nothing to lose by speaking her truth.

It doesn't take guts to attack your husband's opponents for him. In fact, it's cowardly. 

This is no longer a sweet kind working democracy where everyone sweet talks everyone else and people get along and agree on what's best for the country and pass laws that benefit the people.

We've lost our country and this is WAR.  Bring it on!

To understand the Edwards'sss'sss, LOL, you need to see with emotional intelligence and you have to know what it feels like to have death sitting on your shoulder month after month.

 Gore,IMO, would approach it a bit more  obliquely but he'd get it out there....he has already.  In fact, I can hear him clapping. 

Gore/Kucinich

What is your definition of "political opportunist" that detracts from the quality of an individual?

FRED seems to be confusing politics with person again. Biden is a political opportunist because when invading Iraq was popular he was for it, and now that it's not, he's against it -- but not even really all the way.

To understand the Edwards'sss'sss, LOL, you need to see with emotional intelligence and you have to know what it feels like to have death sitting on your shoulder month after month.

There's no excuse for their tactic of attacking his opponents with mud -- and GOP mud, no less.

She's doing what she's doing for HER perhaps.  That should occur to you.  How do you know what motivates her?  Don't assume please.

A life threatening illness also often clears the mind letting the truth about things shine thru.

I saw my mother and father achieve such clarity as they were approaching death.  That and *priorities* drop away (houses, clothes, cars etc)

That said, I hope Elizabeth lives and that the disease leaves her. Ånd vice versa.

Sitka, I like you.  Today you need to plug in your BS meter.

Love you!  Mean it! 

FRED seems to be confusing politics with person again. Biden is a political opportunist because when invading Iraq was popular he was for it

====================

IMO He was never "for invading Iraq ."  He voted for authorization in October 2002 for UN inspections, and invasion as a last resort, contigent upon what the inspectors decided.  That was how Bush framed it at the time.

But rather than argue the semantics of whether he was ever  "for invading Iraq" - I will ask you. 

 Do you consider everyone who voted for that authorization, who anytime afterwards opposed the occupation, to be a "political opportunist?"

My issues with Biden:
1 - The chance for any plan that does not start with the US apologizing, getting the outside countries involved, setting a date to leave, leaving the bases and oil behind and paying the entire tab for reconstruction is nonsensical. Biden is weak on process as are most politicians who have been in office a while.
2 – His health care plan keeps the insurance companies in power. When asked about it he said he does not want to see layoffs in the insurance industry.
3 – On energy, he wants to use develop/use clean coal technology. I think we have to move off a carbon-based energy system.
4 – He wants to strengthen activity in Afghanistan and Darfur which I agree with.
5 - I like his education and service plans for high school grads.
6 – Nothing about removing the tax cuts for the wealthy (lets say over 150k/300k).
7 – Nothing about ways to stop the off shoring of jobs and capital.
8 – The usual Dem talking points on everything else.

To me, the bottom line is Biden has been involved in foreign policy and not much domestic policy activity. He is the opposite of Edwards who has a sound domestic policy message but not much foreign policy knowledge.

Bush is touting Andhar as proof the surge is working but what is working is we arming the Sunni’s to fight Al Qaeda. The Sunnis do not want Al Qaeda around either. We should really be doing some serious negotiation with Iraq and the neighbors now. The lull is phony because of the high summer temperatures and will ramp up once fall arrives.

If they're too spineless to respond to a *cancer patient* that is their problem.

==========

No, that's their cop-out excuse.  In my own experience, I have never known Sitka to be ultra-sensitive to disabilities of others to the point of perceiving that excessive degree of empathy.  He's just imagining she has an inadvertant defense that doesn't exist in the real world.

The American Tragedy of Our Troops Held Hostage
by Rockridge
Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 01:01:41 PM PDT

Written by Glenn W. Smith, Senior Fellow of the Rockridge Institute.

Crossposted at Rockridge Nation.

President Bush is holding our troops hostage and threatening them with death. Here is what he is saying to Congress:

"Order me out of Iraq, and I will abandon the troops in the field. The blood of your children will be on your hands, not mine."

Every coffin that comes home shows he means business.

This is the ugly truth Congress wrestles with but will not name. Congress has been terrorized, like any family whose children are kidnapped and held hostage. ...full post: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/31/...

Cable news either missed or suppressed the Larry Craig revelation in hopes of helping the R Party.

Now that the news is out -- some eight weeks after the incident -- the same media is again helping out the R Party by playing the same ol' same ol' videos and audios in an attempt to give him a swift kick out of town.

I hope Craig stays just to show the media they don't have the power. I doubt if that will happen, but Vitter is still there so why not Craig.

Dodd 2008 -- the strongest candidate

bbl

She's doing what she's doing for HER perhaps.  That should occur to you.  How do you know what motivates her?  Don't assume please.

If she's wallowing in political mud for her own sake rather than her husband's, then she deserves pity, if not contempt.

A life threatening illness also often clears the mind letting the truth about things shine thru.

I doubt if you would be making such excuses if she weren't smearing politicians you don't like.

That said, I hope Elizabeth lives and that the disease leaves her. Ånd vice versa.

Of course everyone wants the best for her. I just hope she doesn't have to have a Lee Atwater type recantation of her political actions one day. 

Sitka, I like you.  Today you need to plug in your BS meter.

Plug in Elizabeth Edwards' -- she the one who needs it. 

I have never known Sitka to be ultra-sensitive to disabilities of others to the point of perceiving that excessive degree of empathy.

I grew up with a truly disabled person and know who not to waste empathy on.

IMO He was never "for invading Iraq ."  He voted for authorization in October 2002 for UN inspections, and invasion as a last resort, contigent upon what the inspectors decided.  That was how Bush framed it at the time

Anyone who thinks that a "statesman" like Biden fell for Bush's weak lies is truly gullible and not just pretending to have been tricked like Biden. 

 Do you consider everyone who voted for that authorization, who anytime afterwards opposed the occupation, to be a "political opportunist?"

Yep. If they really are such fools to have believed Bush then we're in even worse trouble than it seems.

But either reason is disqualification to be the next president. 

Cable news either missed or suppressed the Larry Craig revelation in hopes of helping the R Party.

They did a heck of a job covering up his 1982 page scandal for 25 years. 

Vitter is still there so why not Craig.

There's a big difference. Hiring female prostitutes is "family values,"  since it doesn't involve homosexuality.

Anyone who thinks that a "statesman" like Biden fell for Bush's weak lies is truly gullible and not just pretending to have been tricked like Biden.

================

I think you're a Monday morning quarterback. Personally, I was against invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq.  I honestly don't remember how I felt about the October 2002 authorization bill, but I do remember that it was not considered a fait accompli vote for invading Iraq and that many who voted for authorization were enraged at Bush's rejection of the UN inspectors' opinions when Bush announced preparations for invasion.

You are off-the-wall for  making that vote a litmus test for who is most capable for planning ethnic peace, negotiations and withdrawal logistics.  They are judgements of two completely differents sets of parameters.

Yep. If they really are such fools to have believed Bush

=========

At the time, what reason did they (Biden, Dodd, Clinton, Edwards) have not to believe the President? 

 Except for the heroics of flight 93, the White House would have been a target for the 4th plane.  It is hard to deny such a person the prerogative to judge the security of the nation.

I am not linking Iraq to 9/11 but we were in a state of vigiance for future attacks.

Of course, now we have 20/20 hindsight. 

Your inability to weigh all the variables makes me think your  judgement is ego-centric, and that you believe more than 98% of the people in this country are make a misjudgement in supporting the other Democrats (Kucinich only got 2% of the primary vote in polls.) Besides Biden - Dodd, Hillary, and Edwards also voted for authorization.

63.  Worse than that.  They are sitting ducks for the missiles from Iran. 

I grew up with a truly disabled person and know who not to waste empathy on.

========

That's a pisser, don't waste your sympathy - recycle it - and use our "sympathy meter" to test how sympathetic you should be, before you throw it away.

but wait, there's more.,,, if you order your meter in the next 30 minutes, we'll throw in a "tacky meter," that lets you judge how tacky you can be to people with disabilities.

70.  Getting free sex from a male prostitute is probably better.  The problem is that Craig got caught.

Besides, it's possible that he did something else for which he needed to be outed. 

Sitka, we'll have to agree to disagree.  That way I can still go oolala when I see photos of your biceps.

There's always'

Gore/Dodd

We have some good VP candidates!  LOL 

Whew, I didn't want to get into the Sitka/Fred show! 

"Best defense, no be there."  (some kung fu or something movie) 

new thread

Whew, I didn't want to get into the Sitka/Fred show

At least I get top billing. 

that lets you judge how tacky you can be to people with disabilities.

Show me someone around here with a real disability and i'll be nice as hell to them about it.

But there's only one person who claims one as a crutch. 

Having to occassionaly put on a cloth mask while out for walks or working on the car doesn't count as one in my book.

I am not linking Iraq to 9/11 but we were in a state of vigiance for future attacks

Yet FRED and Bush keep doing it. It's the only way left to trick anyone into supporting US troops in Iraq. 

You are off-the-wall for  making that vote a litmus test for who is most capable for planning ethnic peace, negotiations and withdrawal logistics.

I'd support a politician who had sex in a public restroom before i supported one who voted with bush. 

I'd support a politician who had sex in a public restroom before i supported one who voted with bush.

=========

There you have it folks

82.
Sitka
Fri, 08/31/07
7:26 pm
============

It may come as a surprize to you, but the people moving to avoid ethnic cleansing, and having family members blown apart or executed, could not care less about who you would vote for - or if they are having homosexual sex in bathrooms - they just want someone somewhere to do something to end the cycle of violence, and that's where I'll go with the people of Iraq over "The Sitka Doctrine"

they just want someone somewhere to do something to end the cycle of violence

They aren't looking to an ambitious American politician to do it for them. 

``I want to be perfectly clear: I do not think the hatred against Hillary Clinton is justified,'' Elizabeth Edwards said in an interview with Time magazine out this week. ``I don't know where it comes from. I don't begin to understand it. But you can't pretend it doesn't exist, and it will energize the Republican base. Their nominee won't energize them, Bush won't, but Hillary as the nominee will. It's hard for John to talk about, but it's the reality.''
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The average Iowa likely caucus attendee that expresses a negative thought about a Clinton nomination uses similar language all of the time, no way is saying that an attack. It is fact. all you have to do is listen to Rush for ten minutes. it is the biggest hurdle for Hilllary, the difficulty of winning with her as the nominee for just that reason

Those aren't fighting words, it is something the Clinton team has to overcome.

But she is bringing up the "hatred for Hillary" and repeats it and reaffirms it. Yes, Elizabeth is a smart woman and knows what she is doing. Kinda of like the "I hear some say" or "don't say I said it, but some one has said she..."