http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20031217-115113-2173r
I mentioned in other thread, or maybe in chat, that I wanted to collect THE TOP 20 BUSH CONSPIRACY EXPLANATIONS OF SADDAMâS CAPTURE. Itâs off and rollinâ.
Oh, gee, let me think, has any other politician EVER done something like that. Hmmm, I donât think the server has enough room to name them all.
âMr. Dean, in a Dec. 1 interview on National Public Radio, was asked about claims that Mr. Bush is suppressing information that he was warned about September 11.
âThe most interesting theory that I have heard so far,â Mr. Dean said, âis that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis.â
Asked if he had reconsidered the remark six days later on âFox News Sunday,â Mr. Dean said that âwe donât knowâ whether the theory is true or notâ.
Dean seems determined to destroy his chances of getting elected.
His comment that our finding Saddam wonât make America
safer will get considerable play in Republican campaign ads.
The Bush administration is hoping Dean will
be the Democrat nominee.
Letâs not forget Wesley Clark, who with apparent clairvoyance claimed âIf Iâd been president, I would have had Osama bin Laden by this timeâ. But seriously, while Deanâs comments seem pretty strange I would not take anything for granted. Much can change between now and next November. While I support GWB, he has been known to talk before he thinks as well.
I agree, of course. It would be imprudent to be
complacent. But some of these guys are positioning themselves
so far to the left that they seem suicidal.
Leiberman would be better.
I think its great they got Saddam, he was a bad guy no doubt, and I think getting him may make Israel safer, which is great. But make the usa safer? Iâm skeptical.
Lieberman would be a disaster. Iâd never vote for him. First of all, this country is not ready to elect a conservative jew. Too much prejudice. And if they did, anti-semitism would skyrocket all over the world. Think of it- the former vp of malaysia is not the only one that believes in some jewish conspiracy crap, but putting lieberman in the most powerful office in the world? I know what they would be thinking, its pretty obvious.
Any chance of mideast peace talks would go down the toilet so fast- The bias towards Israel would be too obvious, weâd have even less credibility than we do now, and thatâs saying something.
But hey, otherwise, heâs ok I guess. Boring I think, Iâve seen more exciting corpses honestly.
As a democrat it irks me to say it but you can kiss the Dems chances buh-bye for 04.
When Bush lands on an aircraft carrier for his partyâs acceptance speech, you will know it is a lock.
word to your mother
I agree, but then I am not a Democrat. While to me Liebermanâs ideas (of the nine) seem the most balanced and acceptable to the whole country, not just Democrats, this also makes him less attractive in a primary where the party line now is more to the left. He also is strongly pro-Israel, which does not seem to mirror what I read from many liberals, who while generally not overtly anti-Israel are not very happy with Israel either.
Lieberman is the Democratic candidate who, while I wouldnât be exactly thrilled with him, I also wouldnât lose much sleep if he were in the White House. This of course probably means he doesnât have a snowballâs chance.
Between the rabid Bush hatred and Demo disarray, itâs a very strange political time now. Dems were over-exposed in debates, Hillary hangs there like a specter, Gore bows to Dean, BClinton dissinâ Dean (apparently) by sending his operatives to support various other candidates. And Saddam turns up. A poli-sciâs dream!
I have thought, since Clark entered, that we were in for a surprise draft of Hillary/Clark ticket in the Spring. Somebody said vice versa (Clark/Hillary) on the RWHR (Right Wing Hate Radio) last night. I dunno. So much of the talk revolves around 2008 that I wonder, given terrorism etc., if that is not a huge mistake of assumptions. By 2008, we might have a military figure from THIS engagement emerge as a hero for succeeding Bush, then where will Hillary be?
BUt the more Dean spins, the more patriotic Lieberman looks to me. Thank God. The guy has some real cosmetic issues but at least he is standing by as Loyal Opposition instead of rabid seditionist while our soldiers (and other nationsâ kids) are dying for a cause that some of us find noble and right.
If Dems could find and present a cogent alternative vision, it would go better for them. I can still hear the echoes of âLet the Inspectors Do Their Jobs!â as their solution. Time has passed. instead of just rippin at Bush, while he is probably chuckling in the Oval Office, they need to calm down and unify. It feels like roulette though, and I donât know which number will be the final one.
I mean that Lieberman would stand a better chance
of being elected than Dean will. The latter seems
to be determined to be eaten for breakfast.
On related fronts: it seems likely now that Bush will
back a constitutional amendment defining marriage
as a relation between a man and a woman.
But he wonât back one that bans civil unions, too.
This will anger some of his supporters on the
right, but not too much. The debate has been
raging fiercely on the right as to whether a
more extensive amendment, forbidding civil unions, too,
is feasible. This settles it.
Savvy politics. Apparently Americans oppose gay
marriage 2 to 1, reacting partly to recent court
decisions. The Democrats are already attacking
Bush on the constitutional amendment, thereby
positioning themselves far to the left of
the middle. Not healthy.
If the economic recovery goes on and there;s
no horrible upset overseas, wellâŚ
But itâs absolutely trueânobody can be
complacent. Best
When I saw what my nephew has put up with in Iraq. How ill prepared they were. I cannot understand why Rusmfeld, Wolfowitz and Bush have not been called to task for ordering the troops to push ahead and not secure or destroy ammo and weapons dumps. Now those same ammo and weapons are being used to kill the young people sent there to do a job that they country has requested.
They pinned medals on the Chests of the General who fought the war from Florida. Those who forgot that their duty was to their men, Those slapped each other on the backs to celebrate the great military victory. Well we have 199 dead soldiers since the aircraft carrier landing and each one should be weighing heavy on the fools whoâs lack of respect for those who serve has cost these young people their lives.
My nephew will be coming home in a few months but I have another one being deployed in a few weeks.
It shameful that the ideals of these young people who are tying to give something back to this great country that we live in are been spent on the lies and deceptions of this administration..
Very insightful, The Weekenders. What if Dean picked Hillary as his running mate, she acceptedâŚthen something happened to Dean (like what happened to other Clintoners). She could become President by default. 
Crafty! (ducking and running)
Or VP Gore? 
eww, deja vu.
Wizzer: With all due respect, I hafta tell ya that the rule of thumb is that the generals usually are inept, all through our history. It is no consolation to the guys on the ground but if you read a lot of historical accounts of battles, you usually scratch your head and wonder how anybody won anythingâŚ
I just finished reading a decent bio of John Paul Jones. Though his vanity planted the seeds of disloyalty among his sailors, the guy had brilliant battle plans but his immediate inferiors and fellow fleet captains continually failed to execute them. Itâs maddening to read NOW, 200 years later.
Now I am reading a new bio of JFK. Turns out the PT boat thing was a huge blunder, in terms of their vaunted but ultimately deficient abilities. Men died needlessly on the things and JFKs ordeal was actually hyped in some degree to save some credibility. The book paints the command in pretty unflattering terms, especially MacArthur!
Despite my defense of this President and this effort, I hate to pose as an apologist. But our military was reduced and reduced under Clinton and we are basically spread as thin as can be in terms of numbers and readiness.
Once reduced, I reckon Congress is loath to approve huge new numbers for any President, especially an upopular one.
But we have all allowed this reduction and transition to a supposedly âsmaller and smarterâ defense, so its not just on Clinton. I am sorry that our soldiers are paying dearly for it. My thoughts are with them this holiday, especially.
These are meak conspiration theories.
The Muslim Body Snatchers is so obvious no-one sees it 
-
They first got every male American circumcized, so as to better hide undercover ayrabb agents.
-
The current administration is 100% made of such undercover mudjahiddins, infiltrated to make provocatations, and hence a radicalization of Islam throughout the world.
The worst is that, so far, it works 
I would not vote for Dr. Dean.
I would not vote for Gen. Clark (I always want to spell it like Clarke whistles) or Rep. Gephardt.
None of the others have a chance of getting the nomination.
Looks like Iâll vote Green this year (no surprise).
I dislike the way Hillary is basically riding the coatails of her husband. If her husband had never been President, she would never have been Senator, and eventual Presidential candidate. I believe that if women are going to truly come to power, we have to stop electing daughters, wives, and sisters of powerful men. We have to elect women who have the gravitas and leadership in their own right.
Besides, Hillary is all âpro-war letâs kill them all and send more troops!â lately, which to say the least, isnât expected from a Democratic woman Senator from New York.
To The Weekenders. I do not mean this as a personal attack but I am passionate about how badly our troops in Iraq have been treated.
I as a Viet vet cannot accept the premise that because other military leadership or even our own in the past have been inept is reason why our soldiers should die today.
When one quotes history to mitigate the damaged done by inept leadership it seems to indicate the lack of personal experience.
In Iraq we have had to send to the troops:
1 toilet paper (they were not being supplied with enough)
2 clothing (they could not even get a new uniform)
3 food (it took them forever to supply anything other than MREâs)
4 Tooth brush, razor, sunscreen and moisturizer
5 reading materials magazines, books.
6. The greatest blunder was sending mixed signals to the men and their families about when they would be comming home.
7. All the above was done by generals living in Saddams Palaces with Air-conditioning, Tennis courts and Swimming pools while the men were sleeping on the ground and getting eaten up by bugs.
We learned in Vietnam that the stress of being in a combat zone over long periods of time does things to your mind that take years to manifest themselves.
After Vietnam we had thousands of vets living on the streets as homeless people because the could not fit back into society. In preparation for this the Administration has cut combat pay for those in a war zone, cut veterans hospitals and benefits.
This guy we call Mr. President seems to talk the talk but when it comes to action that respect the troops he is just a sham and needs to be called on it.
His most vocal opposition in the upcoming election will be the families of those whom he has sent to war under false pretences.
I would ask you and the other that read this to support our troops and make sure that the government does not shirk its responsibility to our veterans as they return and become a burden to our tax system. What we will be paying is nothing compared to what they have given.
Free People of the World Unite! A New Day is Dawning!! Statues of the Tyrant Bush are Starting to Tumble!!!
Interesting how taking a stand equals destroying oneâs chances of being elected. Well, not with me. No matter how many foibles Dean has (and he has a number), Iâd vote for him in a second over ANY of the other candidates. If only because he is the only one to have taken a serious stand against the current administration and against the swing to the right of his own party.
I am increasingly tired of Democrats being Republicans at heart, or worse, of Democrats afraid of fighting for issues because they are afraid of public opinion. Well, screw public opinion. If public opinion can swing 10 or 15% percentage points in favor of Bush because of Saddamâs capture, screw it.
What is so wrong with Deanâs claim that Saddamâs capture changes nothing for the security of America? Explain to me how it does, please. How does it change the fact that this war was started on false pretenses? How does it change the fact that it hogged much needed resources in the (real) fight against terror in Afgahanistan, thereby making America LESS secure.
Lieberman? Give me a break. Any of the others? Give me a break. The are too busy being scared that Dean is going to get the nomination that they are more concerned with him than with Bush.
Hey, he may not have a chance of being elected, but he gets my blood going, which is more than any of the other whiners can hope to do.
Quote @ pthouron
I am increasingly tired of Democrats being Republicans at heart, or worse, of Democrats afraid of fighting for issues because they are afraid of public opinion.