« So Which One's Fatal? | Main | Quiet »



God, there are quite a few frenzied, little leftists posting here. The devotees of Clinton are only matched in fervor by those that are devoted to fat man Moore. They seem to be under the sad delusion that having your NSC staff pushing memos back and forth, {between downloading porn...}, actually constitutes effective ACTION against terrorists, and their sponsors. These Clinton true believers place a higher premium on discussed plans, than on making your enemies into corpses. Such creatures can't see the forest for the trees. If Clinton desired action to occur, it occured. If he wanted to meet the intern, he met the intern. Being President of the U.S., Commander in Chief, no cabinet member, no staffer, no objection made by some mid level twirp at Justice could have stood in his way. Clinton was not constrained in any way from going after bin laden. The only real and momentous brake existed in his inability to seriously address a national security issue. Clinton was a profoundly unserious man. But there are times that Clinton could make decisions, its just that they almost always inured to the injury of our country. For an example where clear, confident, precise Presidential direction blazed a trail, let us turn our eyes to China.

Early 90s, China wants targeting and guidance technology for their nuclear missiles, which up to that point had problems hitting the Pacific ocean. Every responsible agency tasked to examine the transfer of technology argues against it, {State, Defense, Energy, CIA, NSC, and others}. BUT, Clinton WANTED that sale to go through, so he turned to Commerce, then transferred responsibility for judging such sales to their control. Ron Brown promptly produced a favorable judgement on the sale, and away the technology went, {far be it from me to suggest that the deal was a campaign donation payoff}. Notwithstanding adamant and entrenched opposition to the transfer, the transfer went through. Clinton made it happen. China's nukes got accurate fast. In response, India immediately goes nuke. Clinton and his collection of the clueless and the witless are flabbergasted, stunned, stupefied, and caught flat footed. So they go to India and ask why they would do this, they respond YOU are the ones that put us at risk by making Chinese missiles accurate. While the Clinton creatures were still digesting and pondering this, Pakistan responds to India going nuke, by almost immediately doing likewise. The Pakistan nuclear program is headed by a fellow named A.Q. Khan, who will figure prominently in the programs of N. Korea, Libya, and Iraq. Now the Clinton administration is constrained by prexisting Congressional direction to initiate sanctions against India and Pakistan because of their nuclear program. The implementation of those sanctions caused a profound souring in relations between our countries. Now flash forward to Sept 11, 2001. What was the very first assignment to Colin Powell, GO CLEAN UP OUR RELATIONS WITH PAKISTAN AND INDIA. Relations that fell into disrepair because of the shit, stupid sale of technology to the Chinese. BUT HEY, Dan, your being too harsh on the Clintons, dont you have anything better to do with your time.

But hey, DIDNT Clinton STOP the Millenial bomber, because Clinton, Berger and Clarke were "shaking the trees," "issuing alerts," their "hair standing on end......" {Actually recalling this stuff is an exercise in gallows humour....} So one and all should accord the Slickster credit for stopping the bomber right? WRONG! One little bump, one little, speed bump on the road to claiming credit for this incident, is that the one who actually did pull the dirtball over, NEVER heard anything of a "heightened alert."

But hey, Clinton wanted to go after Saddam, he was alert to the danger, he "kept saddam in the box..." He, himself actually said he was thinking of removing Saddam, but he could not get the UN security council to aggree. Which is puzziling, if Saddam was in his box, how was it he was able to create diplomatic obstacles to removing him. If saddam was so in the box, why were his intel agents meeting with al qaeda, here, there, and everywhere. Why were his agents functioning in Europe, meeting with that dirtball Atta? If he was so "contained," "safely sealed," and "closely watched," if all this was the case, how was it he was able to orchestrate the greatest financial scandal in the history of the planet. How was it this fellow so "boxed" in was capable of doing that. How was it that he could bribe so many people, indeed so many governments. Indeed bribe them to such an extent as to present insurmountable diplomatic obstacles to a national security goal of the USA. But hey, these nagging little questions can all be answered by "moving on," by "putting it all behind us." Its all "old news."

To replay the Clinton years does not just take time, energy and patience. What it really takes is will, a will to endlessly and constantly expound the truth. To do so despite the frenzied, incoherent and inconsistent objections of those, whose worship of him reminds us that are sane, of some preliterate, barely clad tribe, worshiping some totem pole.

Henry Schlatman

Welcome to the 21st Century or should we hold Bush 43 responsible for his fathers lack of leadership for giving Saddam WMD's?


A challenge to our liberal lunatics.

Give me one war, one conflict when a sitting president was able to take out the leader of the movement during the initial phases of battle.

Of course the Senator has researched each and every conflict that all of our previous presidents have faced. His conclusion is, "I could have been a smarter Commander in Chief in every instance!"


I do not understand what the Bush campaign is doing....you want to win this thing.

Kerry vehemently opposed Killing terrorists who kill Americans - -it is a fact he simply can't dispute.

There should be commericals on this issue in all the Reagan democrat areas of the country.


jaybo - Here is a better challenge. Name one time in History when the United States invaded and occupied another country. As a bonus questions, did the country in question ever attack the United States? I think the true answer to your question lies in the answer to mine.

Poppy - Kerry does not oppose the death penalty for terrorists that have declared war on America. Your facts are simply incorrect so it would only bring another critism to the often distorted anti-Kerry commercials that the Bush team keep throwing out there.

“They declared war on us, they are combatants, and I'm for eliminating those combatants who declare war on you until there's peace… I support killing people who declare war on our country.”

Jim Rodgers

I was actually surprised to see mr bush address OBL's video, since he said that he didn't really think about him & that he didn't matter.

Because of that attitude & because we spent 200 billion dollars going after the wrong guy (and even screwing that up) - the guy who organized the September 11th attacks is still out there taunting us. Kerry's right to point out that mr bush even screwed up Tora Bora.

It's really as simple as that.

I, know - I know: Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Hillary, Liberal, Liberal - BOOGA-BOOGA!!

bush can't win this election by running on his record - it's abysmal - so it's all fear & lies.


No, this isn't a good week for Bush, which is surprising to me. All of us, Republicans as well I'm sure, are waiting to see what Rove has up his sleeve. Some say the Oct Suprise IS the OBL tape but if it is, Rove is losing his touch. It is having a bad effect because people aren't thinking about the good ol' days of Bush making a good speech or two about OBL. They are instead reminded that this man was promised to be brought to justice and here he sits. Notice also, that no one in the media is talking about the content in his speech. It is pretty damning to Bush.

I just read this:

IMAGINE THIS: John Doe, a known murderer kills your entire family

But first, imagine he had sent you a letter, stating he was going to kill your family.

You report the threat to the chief of police who... promptly goes on vacation and assigns no one to investigate.

Imagine you find your family murdered, and the entire hideous crime is caught on a security camera, which reveals the murderer to be, none other than John Doe.

Imagine the chief of police vowing on television, for the cameras, to bring your family's killer to justice.

But instead of pursuing their killer, he focuses all of his attention on catching shoplifters at the local WalMart.

Imagine the police chief is running for re-election, and on the eve of the election, John Doe appears at your door, taunting you because he has gone unpunished.

QUESTION: Do you vote to re-elect the chief of police?

Jim Rodgers

Here's the whole bush quote:

"We haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is," Bush said during the 2002 news conference. "I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run.

"I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country," Bush continued. "I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban. But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became — we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his Al Qaeda killers anymore."

OBL was never "in control" of Afganistan, he was not "calling the shots" for the Taliban. Does he have a "place to train his AQ killers"? We don't know, do we - all of our best resources are wrapped up in a country that didn't attack us. OBL is as much a threat to us now as he was on Sept 10th - and the country's president is "truly am not that concerned about him".

It's time to elect someone who will be.

son of BJU grad

Posted by: wasted potential | October 29, 2004 04:16 PM


Posted by: Dan | October 30, 2004 12:04 AM

... listen guys, you must be educated enough to summarize. Even the talking heads do. Just repeat it over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

Short and sweet...

Bush failed, move over!

G.O.P. Serial Liars!


son of BJU grad

Posted by: Jim Rodgers | October 30, 2004 06:27 AM

Iraq seems to be a 'live' training ground w/ actual victims... our troops. Great job wingnut boyking fool.

Mr. Nationalist

Can liberals do anything except spew hatred? I mean, I know some republicans can be nasty and all, but the liberal enmity is unmatched.

Again, as those who have read my few posts know, I don't really care who wins: George Kerry or John Bush. Whatever. As an observer of the death throes of the two party system, I am amazed at the state of the Democratic Party. When oddballs like M. Moore and A. Franken are mainstream and the candidate of choice for the party is one of most liberal on record, I'm not sure what to think.

Jim Rodgers

For anyone who reads this blog who's not totally wrapped up in the bush cult:


The article is dated April 17, 2002 - It sure took Franks & the administration a LONG time to start denying this.

Kerry has every right to talk endlessly about this - what's the percentage of bush supporters who still think Iraq had something to do with September 11th? Sixty-percent, maybe? I'd be willing to bet close to 90% don't know anything about Tora Bora (the other 10% hope that if they lie about it often enough, the other 90 won't face up to the facts).


Mr. Nationalist - It is hypocritical of you to criticize DEMS on this board for hard words of Bush. There are REPS on here who go beyond Kerry bashing and turn it on us. I think, by and far, DEMS have been the most respectful of differing opinion. We don't want to demonize you. We want to discuss facts.

Insult Moore and Franken all you like. I actually find Frankens show to be very clean and fair for an opinion on the left. Have you listened to Rush lately? Do you hear Hannity and Savage and Coulter? You really think the hate is a staple of Liberals? You want to offer them up as proof that the right doesn't have a total hatred of opposition? In reality it is rather the opposite - especially by definition.

LIBERAL - Open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

CONSERVATIVE - Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

Jim Rodgers

"mr. nationalist" -

I seriously doubt anyone here believes you when you say you're not a bush supporter.

Bill Evansold

I was privileged to attend the Bush rally in Columbus, Ohio, last night. There were 25,000 people at the rally in this mostly demorat county.

In contrast, Kerry *claims* to have attracted 20,000 to the south oval of Ohio State on Thursday. The south oval couldn't hold 20,000 people if everyone had someone on their shoulders. Not only that, but half of the crowd left as soon as Springstein quit singing. We were all proud of the 600 or so college Republicans who showed up with flip flops and aquitted themselves well in interviews on radio and TV.

On to the Bush rally. There wasn't an empty seat in the house, and the floor of Nationwide arena, minus the ice (NHL morons!) was as full as they would allow. The crowd was boisterous, upbeat, and deafeningly loud. When the Governator was introduced, followed by President Bush, the standing ovation lasted over 10 minutes. Every time Arnold tried to speak, the crowd got louder. It was incredible.

Arnold spoke about his love of Ohio. Not a political love. He won his first world bodybuilding title here. He comes to Columbus every year for the Arnold Classic, a bodybuilding competition which adds millions to the central ohio economy. He talked about the great gift of freedom and the American dream. It was inspiring.

Then, the president spoke. He was really uplifted after a long day on the campaign trail. He was firm, resolute, and pointed out clear choices in this election on national security, the economy, education, and the great moral issues of our day.

All in all, it was worth leaving work 2 hours early, standing in line, and waiting for 3 hours for the president to arrive. They showed the Kerry on Iraq video. If you haven't seen it, go to www.kerryoniraq.com. If you know someone who is waffling, make sure they see it.

Call 3 friends and make sure they get to the polls to vote for the President.

Also, pray for me personally, as I am a poll observer/challenger for President Bush here in Franklin County, Ohio. It is a demorat stronghold. There are more registered voters than there are people over the age of 18 (One of 4 counties in Ohio where that is the case). We will be trying our best to make sure that only people legally registered to vote are allowed to do so.

Now is the time to work hard to make sure George W Bush is reelected!


Bill - I've seen the Kerry on Iraq video and it is wonderful example of words out of context. Kerry has had one position on Iraq since day one and that is easy to see if you read his entire statement on the Senate floor the day he voted to give the President the authority to go to war as a final option.


I'm glad you enjoyed the rally. They certainly can be a lot of fun. But, tell us, why do you support Bush?


I learned during the 2000 election that Rove is a master of the mixed message. In my study of propaganda in modern day politics, the goal isn't to win an argument. It is much easier to muddy the waters so that people don't know what to think. Terror Alert up and down. Saddam and Al Qaeda - no Saddam and Al Qaeda ... ETC. They know how to hit those talking points when it is time to attack (Kerry flip flop - George consistent) but when it is something that makes the President look bad, let the confusion begin and start to slime the person bringing damning information into the light! Example of the mixed message to the American people.

CNN Last night:
DOBBS: Level of chatter at this point?

ARENA: Low. Lower than it's been. Now it does ebb and flow, but it's interesting to note that before the September 11 attacks, the chatter level fell. No one is saying that that means anything. It is what it is, but the chatter level has fallen over recent weeks.

DOBBS: Kelli Arena, our justice correspondent.

MSNBC just now:

Francona: The people I've talked to are telling me that they've seen increased chatter over the last several weeks and they attribute this as we lead up to the election process, but once again no specific threats and nothing that they can pin any reason to raise the level of alert.

Willow Bay: Now when you say chatter, is it chatter similar to the level around 9/11?

Francona: It's not that high but it's that type of traffic. They're seeing more internet traffic. Morer telephone calls.

Mr. Nationalist

Rocket Dude -

Really. I don't care who wins. It's all the same. Global corps supply the $$$ to both sides and to a Congress that has given power away to the Supreme Court, lawyers and the President.

I grew up in the Democratic party of the 70s and 80s. What I see now is not the party of that time.

Bill Evans

In 1991, President Bush 41 passed John Kerry's global test, getting UN approval and a coalition including mid-east countries like Saudi Arabia, yet Kerry voted no.

In 1998, Kerry chided President Clinton for not taking Sadaam out, stating flatly that a coalition would be nice but we should act unilaterally if necessary.

In 2003, Kerry voted for the resolution giving President Bush 43 the authorization to go to war. In 2003, Kerry stated that voting against funding for the troops would be irresponsible and that no senator would do so. Then, 2 weeks later, he voted against it (1 of 4 to do so). One of the others was John Edwards. So please, stop drinking the magic kool-aid if you think Kerry has been consistent on Iraq.

Why do I support President Bush?
Simple. The security of my family is at stake. By attacking Iraq, a battlefield has been created. The terrorists, who would much rather be concentrating on attacking us here at home, are busy trying to defend themselves in the middle east. While we have lost many lives in Iraq, and that is horrible, we have helped many more people who think heaven is acheived through martrydom to acheive their ultimate goal.

If Kerry were president, Sadaam would still be in power. He would control hundreds of thousands of tons of weapons. He would still be paying a bounty to families of suicide bombers in Israel. How much more would he have paid for suicide bombers here?

The enemy we face is hard for us to understand. They do not want what we want. They only want for us not to have what we have. They consider us infidels who must be killed. George Bush has demonstrated that he gets it. John Kerry has not.


Mr. Nationalist - Jim is the one who doubted you. For me, I don't care if you don't care who wins. I'll be first to agree that there are problems in the system. I think that, right now, we need a leader who can get our economy back on track. We need someone who can roll back Bush's attack on the environment. We need someone who can bring back our respect in the world. I believe Kerry is that man. When it comes to the growing trend under Bush towards corporatism, I think Kerry can get the ball rolling. But, it will take some public outcry and a leader who is policy smart and inspirational all in one. When our country is stable, a leader of that quality will have the most effectiveness. That is why I am Kerry 2004 Obama 2012!!


Thanks for the comments. I know many people believe "better in Iraq then here". But, you must understand, Terrorists aren't defending Iraq, they are training in Iraq. We created the biggest training camp they could ever hope to have access to. The facts so far paint a picture that would tell us the Bush Administration does not have a solid understanding of the middle east. If this were the case, he and his administration would not have been so horribly wrong on everything from claiming we would be greated with "flowers and sweets" to "WMD" to "Oil paying for the rebuild". Instead of talking to the experts, the Bush White House decided to listen to Ahmed Chalabi who admits he lied because "The ends justify the means". Now today most experts agree that the U.S. invading of Iraq was the greatest gift to Bin Laden. It is no secret that Bin Laden had been preaching in the middle east that the U.S. wanted to invade an oil rich country. No matter our true reason, we invaded an oil rich country! As a result the number of terrorists in the world has grown FAR beyond what it was in the past. And again, the Duelfer Report clearly shows that Saddam, no matter his personal desires, was contained and NOT a threat to anyone in any significant way. Do we tell the 100,000 dead Iraqis that we invaded so Saddam would stop giving money to support the conflict in Israel? Do we tell them we turned their country into a battle ground so that ours didn't have to become one?

There seems to be a lack of understanding about Islamic Extremists in regards to the U.S. They don't attack us because they "hate our freedom". They attack us because they believe our involvement, our military bases, on their land is a threat to their society. It seems herecy to some people when others voice that fact but that doesn't make it any less of a fact. We don't solve the problem by invading middle eastern countries who did not attack us.


Some of the best critical minds could be found at this site.

Nonsensical criticism of Bush, part...

Bill Evans

The terrorists are not, for the most part, training in Iraq. By all accounts, for the most part, they are dying in Iraq.

So, if your understanding is that the problem is our involvement in the middle east, what is your solution? Complete withdrawl? If Bin Laden had said that we only want to invade countries with sand, should we avoid all enemies with deserts? The fact is that the world will believe what it wishes. With the propaganda machine of AlJazeera, we couldn't win that PR game if we surrendered without being accused of trying to poison their culture through infiltration.

Bin Laden will only be vindicated if we possess and occupy that country forever. As Colin Powell said so eloquently, many Americans have died on foreign soil. The only land we have asked for is enough to bury our dead.

We have one main goal - democratic countries surrounding Iran. How long will the people in Iran tolerate being crushed under authoritarian rule while their neighbors elect their own leaders? How much longer can the feifdoms in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the like last? Are you racist enough to believe that Arabs cannot rule themselves?

I think the biggest miscalculation made about Iraq is this - what we take for granted, living in freedom, has to be taught. We thought people would naturally know how to act when they are free. When Iraqi's are confident the government will prevail against the insurgents, they will turn them in. They still live in fear that if the insurgents win, those who fought them will end up in Sadaam style mass graves.

As for not being a threat, I'm not sure the people who died in terrorist bombings in Israel would agree. I'm sure the pilots who took daily fire from Iraqi's in the no-fly zones felt threatened. The folks who ended up in mass graves in Iraq didn't feel threatened any more, but I'm not sure you could count them.

All of that aside, How does one build a coalition when those who have already joined are called coerced and bribed, only to have their sacrifices demeaned and diminished?

How do we entice those who refused to join because they were bought off by our enemies? Offer a bigger bribe?

How do we trust the UN when its corruption rivals that of our enemy? When the son of the president is being bought off by our enemy? When its officials release information a week before an election trying to affect the outcome?

It is quite dangerous, IMHO, to reliquish our security to those whose interests are in direct conflict with our own. Bush has demonstrated he would not do that. Kerry has demonstrated that he would, his protestations to the contrary. He has also shown that even when the world is with us, it isn't good enough. We can't sit back and wait to be attacked again. Offensive action against those who have declared war on us is our best defense. Lobbing missles didn't work, ala Clinton. Even Kerry knew that. In 1998. When he was consistent on Iraq. Or not.


100,000 innocent Iraqis killed since the start of the war by US forces.

OBL is somewhere else, having slipped away from Tora Bora when Bush outsourced the action.

Winning hearts and minds in the Middle East?

Impeach Bush. He is a war criminal.


Bill - Lots of questions, so little time. I will leave the UN part alone because it can be discussed without change until we are both blue in the face.

"The terrorists are not, for the most part, training in Iraq. By all accounts, for the most part, they are dying in Iraq."

There is not one single statistic that shows a number of deaths of terrorists. However, statistics do show that out of the 100,000 killed since the war started, the vast majority were woman and children. Don't be so hypocritical as to claim we did a great deed by stopping Saddam from funding attacks on Israel when we have already killed more innocent people then his money could have done in his support of random bombings in a conflict that the United States is not involved in.

"So, if your understanding is that the problem is our involvement in the middle east, what is your solution?"

The solution was to listen to the experts. The people who truly understand the Middle East warned against the effects of preemptively invading a Middle Eastern country. We needed to harness the international support created from 9/11 and flush out these terrorist. Cut off their funding and create a relationship with countries that offer a sense of pride for standing with the U.S. Then, once Al Qaeda was successfully diminished, we take a true look at the source of our problems. How many military bases do we have in the Middle East? How much is too much. We need to increase our humanitarian aids and be a source of positive leadership, peace and inspiration. These are the true seeds of change. Dropping bombs will never create peace and the path Bush decided on has worsened the situation and made out world far less safe.

Curious, if Bush went to Congress and said we need to invade countries in the Middle East to spread democracy and defeat terror, do you think we would still be in Iraq? Keep in mind, every reason he gave us for invasion was proven false. We know this and the world knows this. If the American people elect Bush we justify his mistakes and we are all dragged down with him.

The comments to this entry are closed.