So instead of trying to turn the tide back...
Posted By: sam on 2008-09-16
In Reply to: My opinion is that he still wasn't intending - Kiki
to where children can be children while they are in elementary school, we just keep indoctrinating them younger and younger? Sorry....don't see it. And why can't parents take care of this? Why do we need to have this addressed in a public school?
I wish I could agree with you...I don't. And I doubt if either of Barack Obama's little girls have had the sexual intercourse HIV AIDS class yet. Would be willing to bet on it, as a matter of fact.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
tide is turning
If the republicans keep being brought up on charges, which it seems will happen, LOL, this tide will continue to turn. If the Libby situation continues for months on end, it will also affect the republicans chances next year and hopefully (now Im just dreaming) if Cheney is shown to have played a part in the outing of a CIA agent, this will really mean positive things for democrats. I must state, my own feeling is Cheney, of course, was part of the outing of Valerie Plame, how could he not be? His Chief of Staff is but not him? Oh please.
the tide's-a-turnin'
At least it certainly appears that way, esp. on this board. Since I first even read the politics on this board it was far-left moveon types. In the last 24-48 hours I've seen what appears to be common sense finally setting in from all the propaganda. I hope and pray I'm right.
The huge key here is WHERE people get their news. I've known about NBC, CNN, etc. forever. Thank heavens many people know about places like Newsmax, Heritage.org, wnd.com, townhall.com, and many more.
It's getting more difficult for the drivebys to cover for this wolf in sheep's clothing, esp. when their own words are played out for all to hear. I'm tellin' ya, it's the best way to prove the truth every time. I have more sources for info than I can even read, in addn to talk radio.
Did the FBI turn him down for a job?
Where DO you get your information?
TURN ON YOUR TV
They are bailing out the car makers right now. That is why stocks are down. The secretary of the treasury is the DECIDER of where the money goes and his boss is BUSH.
Why? So you could turn around and
B*tch and moan that he was trying to act too presidential too soon, that he's not sworn in yet and that he should have let W have his moment in the sun? Like I said, phoney outrage (much ado over nothing) is juvenile, beyond petty and very unbecoming. Besides, there's no point whatsoever in trying to please those among us who are determined to hate him no matter what he does.
turn off your TV
is what you posted under. Get control of your keyboard. Then maybe your mind will follow.
In the US, we turn away no one from an ER with or
nm
Dude! Turn off your PC and go out and look
It is JM's/SP's party's turn to be on the
the media dished out on their behalf throughout the entire primary season. Repeat. Show me one time JM has attempted to rein in his supporters when their tactics got out of control. Never mind what the media would or would not have done. I am looking for an example of JM expressing his awareness or concern that the tactics being used were inappropriate. O has done this on occasions, which makes the inquiry legitimate. The reason there is no answer is because there is no example. The hypocrisy of the remainder of this post speaks for itself and requires no rebuttal.
You are an adult when you turn 18.
Where does this adult work? How are her and her future husband going to support this child? Where does he work?
I highly doubt anyone considers Bristol Palin an adult because if they did, they wouldn't have made such a big deal about it on the news?????
If it did happen it will mostly likely turn up on
.
Hope it will not turn
x
Oh Please. He is too hot? Then turn off the heater
Sorry, but no excuse because of heat. I lived in a hot/he** state for almost 30 years and finally (Thank God) moved to a four season state. Since moving here, we turn down the heat to save energy and cost of gas heating and so we wear sweaters, etc. Too hot? Simple. TURN DOWN THE HEATER. Still too hot? Open up the windows. Poor excuse, because I came from Hawaii and it is too hot. I thought he also came from Chicago. I also remember him stating that his daughters could not believe there was no school because it was too cold and they could not believe it and in Chicago the girls would be outside playing unlike in Washington D.C. So which is it? Too hot or complains it is not cold enough for school to close? Contradicting personality. Also he arrives to practically everything LATE. I wonder how he would feel if he called a meeting and everybody showed up late and made him wait. Oops, forgot, dealing with a contradicting person.
Did mine. YOUR turn.nm
nm
Turn the tables
So someone found her flag offensive? too bad. I find not being able to fly it offensive so what is the difference? I just do not get this crap. If someone doesn't like her flag, then they shouldn't look at it. Otherwise, I don't find anyone's right to remove it more compelling than someone's right to fly it. Actually the reverse is true. This is the USA and we have a right to fly our flag. If someone doesn't like it, go live in a country that doesn't fly it, but don't force those beliefs down the throats of patriotic Americans.
Apparently you turn a blind eye
nm
Turn about's fair play so...
If you're condemning Palin for THREE MINUTES standing before a visiting minister, I'd love to hear your take on Obama spending TWENTY YEARS in the company of his spiritual mentor (Obama's words, not mine), Reverend Wright.
You believe AIDS was created by the US government to wipe out minorities?
You believe 'GD America is in the Bible?'
Or do you only believe things subjectively, when it suits your cause?
Sometimes I do too, and I don't turn a blind eye to the the "party"
and its mistakes and exactly why we are in the shape we are in. I do not check my principles nor my thinking at the door of the DNC as you apparently do. The Democrats lost any high ground they had when they denied having anything to do with this and blamed it entirely on Republicans. Totally lacking in integrity.
Maybe "sometimes" is the operative word here.
Do you hear yourself? Trying to turn a gaffe
Seriously. It doesn't get any more pathetic than that. Lay off those fringe blogs and turn off that Hannity before you end up in the boobie hatch.
Denial won't turn those numbers around.
I wouldn't expect too much out of the debate tomorrow either, especially McC caves and makes good on his threat to talk about Ayers. Can you say plunging numbers?
I most certainly do not turn off the TV every time he speaks
I listen carefully to every word he says, same as I do Obama. Thus far all I have heard from McCain is that "that one" is lying about. I would PREFER to hear what he proposes. I am perfectly capable of listening to Obama and deciding for myself without McCain's ( or Palin's) input.
I wonder when pubs are going to turn their attention
constantly pronouncing judgment on the big, bag boogey man. Have you noticed that republicans have a leadership and principle/platform crisis?
We did...turn off the TV, that is. Still splattered over the Internet, tho...
Took this site off my favorites, too, because you libbies are just too much lately.
Came back to see if there's anything nice going on, and just the same old rapture from you.
Unbelievable.
Why turn down Obama-bucks?
Why turn down Obama-bucks?
By: Roger Simon
February 24, 2009 04:36 AM EST
I never thought we’d live to see the day, but there are actually politicians out there who want to turn down money.
Some Republican governors, who normally like federal tax bucks, now want to turn them down. Why? Because they aren’t just tax bucks, they are “Obama-bucks.”
They are bucks from President Obama’s stimulus plan, and if these bucks put people back to work and let people hang on to their homes, he and the Democrats might get the credit.
And that would never do.
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, attacked the Obama stimulus plan on Saturday by saying, “It’s filled with social policy and costs too much. You could create just as many jobs for about half as much money.”
OK, Gov. Barbour, go ahead and do it. And get rid of all that evil “social policy” while you are at it.
Bobby Jindal, the Republican governor of Louisiana who often has “rising star” and “presidential hopeful” attached to his name, also said he didn’t want some of the federal money.
But under questioning by David Gregory on “Meet the Press” Sunday, Jindal seemed to wilt a little when it came to explaining why.
“Well, let’s be clear,” Jindal said, not being clear at all. “The best thing that Washington could do to help Louisiana and all of our states with our budgets is to get this economy moving again.”
Gee, thanks. But don’t get him wrong. While some people see these times as filled with pain and suffering, Jindal sees them as an opportunity. A political opportunity.
“I think now is the time, and it’s a great opportunity for Republican governors and other leaders to offer conservative-based solutions to the problem,” Jindal said.
Because those conservative-based solutions worked so well under George W. Bush, right?
It is not just Republican governors who are irked with Obama-bucks, however. There is Rick Santelli, an on-air Editor for CNBC, who went on the air live last week from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade and delivered what he now proudly refers to as his “rant.”
Basically, Santelli doesn’t want federal aid going to people who can’t pay their mortgages. “How many of you people want to pay your neighbor’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills?” Santelli said, waving his arms.
He then called such people “losers” and said it was better to “reward people that could carry the water instead of drink the water.”
When Wall Street moguls got billions in bailout money and gave themselves millions in bonuses, threw lavish parties, redecorated their offices and ordered $50 million jets, Santelli did not wave his arms and rant.
Because Wall Street moguls are not losers. They are his people. But when it comes to the working-class family trying to scrape by, that’s where we must draw the line. Throw them out on the street. Foreclose on their homes, even though the banks can’t sell those homes.
Because it’s far better to have a foreclosed house on your block with the windows boarded up than having a family living there and paying a renegotiated mortgage, isn’t it?
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs quite properly slapped back at Santelli last week, sarcastically inviting him to the White House for a cup of “decaf.”
But Santelli doesn’t need decaf. He needs the milk of human kindness. (What does he do in his free time, go down to homeless shelters and laugh at the “losers”?)
The Santelli “survival of the fittest” plan is the opposite of what Barack Obama said repeatedly during his campaign. “If we’ve learned anything from this economic crisis,” Obama said Oct. 18 in St. Louis, “it’s that we’re all connected. We’re all in this together, and we will rise or fall as one nation, as one people.”
The Republicans don’t believe it. They think opposing the Obama financial recovery plan is their ticket to success. Mark Sanford, the Republican governor of South Carolina, recently criticized the three Republican senators who voted for it, saying it was “a gut check vote, a gut check deliberation ... for the future of our civilization.”
The Republican platform for 2012 is going to be: “You give up your house so we can win the White House.”
And they thought 2008 was bad.
Amusing to see those elitists cry "hate!" at every turn:)
Let's cut the crap. Republican apologists are some of the nastiest, most condescending and basically vicious debators on the boards. So while you're running around crying Bush haters! and insinuating that they are little more than drooling fools, you might keep in mind that your astounding and deliberate hypocrisy is far uglier than any natural, normal anger at an incompetent leader could ever be.
Don't forget that he flip flops at every turn....sm
of the wind, saying stuff INFORMED voters well know is just a ruse to get votes. Most of the stuff he is so-called "promising" will never get out of Congress - he knows that and is banking on uninformed Americans who think highly of his rock-star status. Personally I always thought the lying was supposed to start AFTER they got into office, but it's obvious that Obama sees things WAY differently than most folks who pay attention to his rhetoric instead of being "sheeple. "
Yep. It is our turn to be inspired. They need to book her a stadium....
lol
She didn't turn it in an abortion issue - you did
The poster tried to make an unfair slam against Sarah Palin talking as though Mrs. Palin is dumping her special needs child on the cold street corner when the poster knows for a fact that's not true.
Sam was correct in my opinion. All she said was at least she had him and not aborted him - which has been a big "media" talking point.
Your the one who has turned this into an abortion issue. Sam has the right to express her opinion just like the poster has a right to say what he/she did - unfortunately you must think its okay to distort and falsely spread lies.
Like Sam said - you give it a rest. I agree with Sam. I commend this woman for having a baby and choosing to raise it no matter what hardships they will go through. They have a strong and loving family and will do very well for the child.
So go stick that in your pompous attitude.
Obama supporters don't have to turn their headlights off (nm)
x
Looks like O is getting ready to turn that ACORN smear
Asking DOJ for special prosecutor to investigate Bush-McCain vote fraud scheme. Now, this story is going to start growing some real teeth. 2000. 2004. 2008....NOT.
Encouraging and empowering kids to turn in pedophiles
Your link is a dead end.
How much are we supposed to stand for???...government keeps trying to turn to the taxpayer ...sm
to fix all these messes when we are not the ones with the money. Go to the CEOs, etc with the huge bonuses and golden parachutes, and ALL the money, and have them bail the banks out. They are the ones who made this mess. I live in a state that already double taxes me on my vehicles, has one of the highest sales tax rates in the country, and we even have taxes/fees our loved ones have to pay when we DIE~!!@!@ I am so sick of this! Think I'll quit paying all my taxes and when the IRS comes knocking on my door, I'm gonna hold my hand out on my way out the door on that Bahamas cruise NOT paying taxes paid for, and say oh please bail me out, I can't pay this. Yeah I'll get bail alright, but not in a good way!
holy crap- i forgot to turn off the water in the bathtub!!!!
x
Lets make a bet on how long it takes dems to turn
nm
Yes! Don't you hate when you wake up happy, turn on theTV with a nice cup of coffee, and one of t
giving an interview (alibi) that not even HE OR HIS MOTHER could believe, defending spending millions of dollars renovating an office because "he could not possibly use it as it was, did not fit in," ARE YOU KIDDING??? Was it a stalag, did it have electricity, a desk, chair, and necessary electronics? Are there people out there, living and breathing, who actually THINK this way????? Tell that to the woman who has not eaten in days so that she can give a few morsels to her kids, trying to keep them warm with old blankets because the heat was shut off! The unbridled greed in this country (along with moral decay, and by that I do not just mean sex, I mean morals like charity, honesty, hard work, sacrifice, humanity), is what is destroying our country incredily quickly. It has been a hidden, ugly plague.......oh sorry, guys, I say this interview when my eyes were barely open and I think I popped a blood vessel just listening!!
get on back, neocon, get on back
Tell ya what, sweetheart, last I checked this is the LIBERAL BOARD and I havent been banned, as I dont break the rules, so I can stay as long as I want..Seems to me, conservative, you are the one who should mosey on by and get back to drink more Kook-Aid.
Go back then
So, *Really* or whomever you are..I have a thought, why dont you go back to the conservative board and have some fun discussing how you are gonna save America and the world from terrorists or whatever you think we are accomplishing with this war. Bye..bye..**BIG HUG**
Did think you could come back on that
except to call names. If you can't defend yourself just call names...that's how it works, right?
It's funny and predictable how you all react when you're called on the carpet about your hypocrisy.
*Did think you could come back on that*??
You don't consider *unhinged liberal* calling names?!
All you do is come here and pick, pick, pick, fight, fight, fight. You're boring, and you're terribly unfriendly and unpleasant to be around. For that reason, I don't think I'm going to continue to provide an audience for any more of your attention-seeking temper tantrums.
Other than that, I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by *Did think you could come back on that.* Is English your second language or is your anger and hatred causing you to become a bit *unhinged* yourself? (Was just a rhetorical question. No need to respond. I won't be reading it.) 
We should just go back to
ignoring them, Democrat.
Their own board is dead because they can't stand to AGREE with each other and just be NICE people. They have too much venom that they need to purge or explode, and they've been doing it here.
Not one of them (assuming there is more than one) has posted anything that deserves a response. Not one.
They're just pitiful, bitter, angry, hateful people, and the more we feed them, the fatter they get.
OMG, they are back
The neocons are back..the administrator tells them not to post here but THEY ARE BACK!! A fungus is among us!
Welcome back...nm
Welcome back! You are definitely not alone ...sm
I think anyone who is still able to think for themselves can see it, it is almost predictable actually. Because of all that is going on lately, the translation for that propaganda is:
You need to vote for Republicans so you will not get killed by terrorists.
Back at ya....
Not flip-flops by one person...but several:
1.
WASHINGTON - House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi continues to prove that she is willing to say or do just about anything in attempts to gain traction for Democrats. Now, Pelosi is even warming up her rhetoric for summer using the tried-and-failed, Democrat style of flip-flopping.
According to Roll Call, writing in February to members of the Democrat caucus, Pelosi andthe four elected leaders of theDemocratic Caucus ... urged Members to continue a drumbeat of criticism of theprogram, which went into effect on Jan. 1. 'We ask you to use the upcoming February District Work Period and the following weeks to hold town meetings, visits to senior centers, and other public events to drive this message home,' the leaders wrote. (Roll Call, 2/13/06)
Yesterday in a massive course alteration and in the face of positive polling, Pelosi said that Democrats have been out across the country encouraging seniors to sign up for a prescription drug plan by May 15th. (Pelosi Statement, 5/9/06)
If Nancy Pelosi thinks the Medicare prescription drug program should be criticized in February, why is she saying in May that Democrats are encouraging seniors to sign up for the program, National Republican Congressional Committee Communications Director Carl Forti asked.
Nancy Pelosi is flailing in her attempts to call the prescription drug benefit a program that is 'borne of corruption,' because she knows millions of Americans are in fact saving money, so instead she s taken to her tired routine of playing politics with America s seniors, Forti added, in reference to Pelosi s Sunday appearance on NBC s Meet the Press.
2.
Pelosi and Reid Flip Flop on Implementation of all 9/11 Commission Recommendations
Despite the fact they voted against many of the most important recommendations of the 9/11 Commission over the last few years, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid made the implementation of all their recommendations one of their more prominent campaign promises this year...
Well, now that they've won, promises don't mean a thing, and Speaker-elect Pelosi, in response to a reporter's question, now says you can't do them all.
REPORTER: But your promise though was to enact all of the 9/11 recommendations.
PELOSI: What I am saying to you is that they presented several different options and with the goals they have in mind, we have come up with this proposal which removes the barriers between the house appropriators and authorizers, makes the oversight stronger and makes the American people safer, so if they are giving you different alternatives, implicit in that is that you can't do them all. They're already breaking promises... Should we have expected anything else from them?
3.
Hillary Flip Flops on Ethanol
Following in the footsteps of Democrat presidential hopefuls, Hillary Clinton has “Flip Flopped” on an issue that will play a significant part in the 2008 elections. She is now for ethanol fuel, but she voted against it in June of last year. She failed to learn from Senator Kerry that Flip Flops no longer go unnoticed by voters.
She spoke at the National Press Club and announced her energy plan for the nation. In addition to several user tips like checking tire pressure etc., she espoused the development of ethanol for motor fuel. She suggested that we put a billion dollars from the strategic energy fund into research aimed at unlocking the full potential of ethanol. She also wants to expand loan guarantees to help the first one billion gallons of ethanol capacity come online. She proposes that we have ethanol pumps at 50% of gas stations nationwide by 2015 and a hundred percent by 2025.
This is all well and good, but how could she make 180 degree turn from last June when she voted against ensuring that ethanol is treated like all other motor vehicle fuels and that taxpayers and local governments do not have to pay for environmental damage caused by ethanol? The answer is simple, she has flip flopped in order to better her position in Iowa , whose caucus is a crucial start in the primary process in Presidential elections. In the age of instant information, candidates who change their position with the political winds should take note that their voting record is available to anyone with internet access. Read the how the votes fell at U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 1st Session.
4.
Hillary Flip-Flops on Immigration
Democrats flip-flop on a regular basis, and in the age of instant information it is becoming increasingly difficult to pull it off. Kerry tripped over his own statements on his way to defeat in 2004, and Hillary Clinton is well on her way to following in his footsteps.
In an attempt to appear hawkish on immigration in 2003 she said that she was adamantly against illegal immigration:
I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants, Clinton said in a Feb. 2003 radio interview.
Clinton said the U.S. might have to move towards an ID system even for citizens in order to combat illegal border crossings, or implement at least a visa ID, some kind of an entry and exit ID. Story
She has now come out is in favor of citizenship for illegal aliens and claimed that Republicans want to impose a “police state”. In typical Democrat fashion, she is adjusting her position according to the direction in which she believes the winds of politics are blowing:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a potential White House candidate in 2008, said Wednesday some Republicans are trying to create a police state to round up illegal immigrants. Newsmax
This is similar to the strong position she has taken on the Dubai ports deal. She is adamantly against and Arab company running a handful of terminals at our ports, but is also adamantly against racial profiling. Playing both sides of the fence is classic Clintonian politics and a tactic she probably learned from her charismatic husband.
5. Reid Ticket Flip-Flop
The Associated Press reports that Senator Harry Reid has reversed course, and his office acknowledged Wednesday night he misstated the ethics rules governing his acceptance of free boxing tickets and has decided to avoid taking such gifts in the future.
The Nevada senator still believes it was entirely permissible for him to accept ringside seats for three professional boxing matches in 2004 and 2005 from the Nevada Athletic Commission but has nonetheless decided to avoid doing so in the future, his office said.
In light of questions that have been raised about the practice, Senator Reid will not accept these kinds of credentials in the future in order to avoid even the faintest appearance of impropriety, spokesman Jim Manley said.
The announcement came after The Associated Press confronted Reid's office early Wednesday with conclusions from several ethics experts that the Senate leader misstated congressional ethics rules in trying to defend his actions.
According to Reid, it was perfectly okay for him to accept the free gifts because they were from his home state.
6. Pelosi - Murtha
Pelosi, in a letter distributed Sunday to newly elected House Democrats, wrote that Murtha's outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq helped change the electoral campaign for the House this fall. Murtha began calling for a U.S. pullout from Iraq a year ago, and his open opposition to the war made him a focus of intense criticism from Republicans and the White House.
(SNIP)
Pelosi added: Your strong voice for national security, the war on terror and Iraq provides genuine leadership for our party, and I count on you to continue to lead on these vital issues. For this and for all you have done for Democrats in the past and especially this last year, I am pleased to support your candidacy for Majority Leader for the 110th Congress.
Here is a few interesting points about Murtha on National Security.
Murtha on Homeland Security:
Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
Voted NO on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004)
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Rated 44% by SANE, indicating a mixed record on military issues. (Dec 2003)
So far, doesn't seem Murtha has shown a strong voice on Security for America. Then again, Pelosi doesn't have to tell the truth, does she? After all, she doesn't even think Iraq is a war... she thinks it is a situation!!!!!
Since it has been reported that al-Qaeda has been trying to enter our country via the Mexican border, lets also take a look at Murtha's record on immigration, shall we?
Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
To be VERY clear here, al-Qaeda has already informed us that they have smuggled materials across the Mexican border, this was reported on Nov. 2006.
A NEWSCHANNEL 5 investigation reveals what the feds don't want you to know. Suspected terrorists are hiding inside the U.S. and they got here by sneaking across the Mexican border.
What we've been reporting for more than a year has been confirmed by a government report just released. (Click here to download the report.)
And a brand new interview by Pakistani investigative reporter Hamid Mir is bringing in more information. Mir has interviewed some of America's most dangerous terrorist enemies.
This time the Al Qaeda commander he talked to gave a grim warning that another attack on America is coming very soon.
We can attack America anytime, says Abu Dawood during the interview. He also told the reporter that Muslims must leave America.
Murtha also flip flops about as much as John Kerry does.
Murtha voted for the 10 October 2002 resolution that as a last resort authorized the use of force against Iraq. However, he later began expressing doubts about the war. On 17 March 2004, when Republicans offered a “War in Iraq Anniversary Resolution” that “affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq, when JD Hayworth called for a recorded vote, Murtha then voted against it.
Still, in early 2005 Murtha argued against the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. “A premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable could rapidly devolve into a civil war which would leave America’s foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America’s judgment but also its perseverance”, he stated
On 17 November 2005, he touched off a firestorm when he called for the redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq, saying, The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily.
I guess liberal political opinion flip flops according to what political season it is.
During debate on adopting the rule for the resolution, Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, a Republican from Ohio, made a statement attributed to Danny Bubp, an Ohio state Representative and Marine Corps reservist, “He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do.
7.
|
 |
( 8/10/2004 ) CNN quoted the San Francisco Democrat today in saying she didn't support the nomination: But I will say what I said before is that there shouldn't - a person should not be the director of central intelligence who's acted in a very political way when we're dealing with the safety of the American people. Intelligence has to be the gathering and analysis and dissemination of information, of intelligence, without any political, any politics involved at all. Sorry, Nancy. The Republican National Committee has unearthed this from June 5, in the Chattanooga Times Free Press: If Goss is nominated for the post, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said that she would support him. Pelosi worked closely with Goss during the congressional investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks. Whoever replaces Tenet needs to be independent of political pressure, Pelosi said. Goss, who worked for the CIA before becoming a congressman in 1988, has shown that ability as chairman of the House Intelligence panel, she added.
8.
Kennedy Flip-Flops on Quizzing High Court Nominees
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
July 28, 2005
(CNSNews.com) - Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts will be expected to answer fully any questions about his views on controversial issues that could come before the court in the future, according to Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). But, during the 1967 confirmation debate over future Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kennedy argued that Supreme Court nominees should defer any comments on such matters.
In his June 20, floor speech responding to President Bush's nomination of Roberts to the Supreme Court, Kennedy argued that senators must not fail in our duty to the American people to responsibly examine Judge Roberts' legal views.
Kennedy listed a number of issues, including workers' rights, health care and environmental regulations, that he considers important.
Each of these issues, and many others, [have] been addressed by the Supreme Court in recent years, Kennedy said. In many of these cases, the Court was narrowly divided, and these issues are likely to be the subject of future Court decisions in the years to come.
The Massachusetts Democrat said he is troubled by Roberts' strict interpretation of the Constitution's commerce clause and added that other aspects of Judge Roberts' record also raise important questions about his commitment to individual rights.
Because Judge Roberts has written relatively few opinions in his brief tenure as a judge, his views on a wide variety of vital issues are still unknown, Kennedy charged. What little we know about his views and values lends even greater importance and urgency to his responsibility to provide the Senate and the American people with clear answers.
Kennedy listed examples of conservative positions Roberts had argued on behalf of both private clients and as the principle deputy solicitor general for the administration of President George H. W. Bush.
Judge Roberts represented clients in each of these cases, but we have a duty to ask where he stands on these issues, Kennedy continued. I join my colleagues in the hope that the process will proceed with dignity. But the nominee will be expected to answer fully, so that the American people will know whether Judge Roberts will uphold their rights. See Video
During the 1967 confirmation debate over the nomination of then-Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, however, Kennedy held a different view about the types of questions the nominee should be required to answer. Film footage obtained by Cybercast News Service shows Kennedy's response to the prospect of senators asking Marshall questions about how he might rule in future cases.
We have to respect that any nominee to the Supreme Court would have to defer any comments on any matters, which are either before the court or very likely to be before the court, Kennedy said during a 1967 press conference. This has been a procedure which has been followed in the past and is one which I think is based upon sound legal precedent. See Video
Marshall was serving President Lyndon Johnson as solicitor general when he was nominated in the summer of 1967. Prior to that, he had been an attorney for the NAACP, and had successfully argued the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case that racially integrated the nation's public schools. Marshall's nomination was opposed by Southern Democrats who feared his confirmation would further the cause of racial equality in the United States, but he was confirmed by a vote of 69 to 11 on Aug. 30, 1967.
Multiple calls to Sen. Kennedy's office seeking comment for this report were not returned.
9. noted back on the 10th about how Democrats were playing political games with the Iraq war by being before the suggested ’surge’ in troops in Iraq before they were against it. Well guess what? Add another Democrat to the game players: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes. Via the Washington Times:
On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an “exclusive.” And for good reason.
“In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq,” the story began, Mr. Reyes “said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a ’stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.’ ”
“We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq,” the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, “I would say 20,000 to 30,000.”
Then came President Bush’s expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes’ recommendation and argument word-for-word — albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops.
Wouldn’t you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable.
“We don’t have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level,” he said.
The chairman’s “double-talk” did not go unnoticed. Among others, Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, says such blatant “hypocrisy” undermines both national security and the war on terrorism.
Indeed.
And just in case anyone doubts the validity of the WashTimes story about this, here’s that Dec. 5 Newsweek story on Reyes:
Dec. 5. 2006 - In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.”
The soft-spoken Texas Democrat was an early opponent of the Iraq war and voted against the October 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to invade that country. That dovish record got prominently cited last week when Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi chose Reyes as the new head of the intelligence panel.
But in an interview with NEWSWEEK on Tuesday, Reyes pointedly distanced himself from many of his Democratic colleagues who have called for fixed timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Coming on the eve of tomorrow’s recommendations from the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission, Reyes’s comments were immediately cited by some Iraq war analysts as fresh evidence that the intense debate over U.S. policy may be more fluid than many have expected.
“We’re not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies,” Reyes said. “We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq … We certainly can’t leave Iraq and run the risk that it becomes [like] Afghanistan” was before the 2001 invasion by the United States.
[…]
When asked how many additional troops he envisioned sending to Iraq, Reyes replied: “I would say 20,000 to 30,000—for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military.”
[…]
Reyes added that he was “very clear” about his position to Pelosi when she chose him over two rivals—Rep. Jane Harman of California and Rep. Alcee Hastings—to head the critical intelligence post. One widely cited reason that Harman, a moderate Democrat who supported the war, didn’t get the nod from Pelosi is that the Speaker-designate wanted somebody who would be more aggressive in standing up to the Bush White House—which Reyes promises to be on other issues like domestic wiretapping and CIA secret prisons.
But when asked what he told Pelosi about his thinking on Iraq, Reyes replied: “What I said was, we can’t afford to leave there. And anybody who says, we are going pull out our troops immediately, is being dishonest … We’re all interested in getting out of Iraq. That’s a common goal. How we do it, I think, is the tough part. There are those that say, they don’t care what Iraq looks like once we leave there. Let’s just leave there. And I argue against that. I don’t think that’s responsible. And I think it plays right into the hands of Syria and Iran.”
Here’s Reyes’ flip flop, as reported in the El Paso Times on 1/11/07:
President Bush’s announcement Wednesday evening that he would send about 21,500 more soldiers and Marines to Iraq drew a mixed reaction from El Paso residents, and local officials said they weren’t aware he planned to use Fort Bliss Patriot missile units to defend U.S. allies in the region.
Bush had been expected to announce that he would send a “surge” of troops to Baghdad and to Al Anbar Province in an effort to stop sectarian violence and control the al-Quaida insurgency so the country’s fledgling government can establish itself.
“We don’t have the capability to escalate even to this minimal level,” said U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, referring to the availability of troops. “The president has not changed direction, but is simply changing tactics.”
Reyes, who met with Bush on Tuesday to review the plan, said sending more troops removes any incentive the Iraqi government had to take responsibility for the safety of its own citizens. He added that Bush was continuing his “go-it-alone” approach, rather than trying to find diplomatic solutions.
I wrote this in my intial post on Dem flip flops on the surge, and I believe it’s worth repeating today:
They simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth, nor can they be trusted to be in the driver’s seat in a time of war. That these shameless, dishonest, disingenuous, anti-war, cut and run, stuck-in-Vietnam clowns are going to be micromanaging the President’s every move over the next two years on the war on terror is a travesty of epic proportions, and is already proving to be disastrous.
10. Dems Flip Flop on Iraq War
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_CepS8u9wQ
A little light listening and watching.
11.
The 16 August 2005 Washington Times has an editorial that digs deeper into two prominent Democrats with aspirations for 2008: New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-New Arkansas). In Border-control Democrats and President Bush the editors summarize many of the sneaky backtracks and politicking that these two have employed on this crucial national security and economic issue. The opening paragraph alone summarizes the piece perfectly:
Democratic hopefuls for 2008 are sensing how vulnerable President Bush is on border control. The latest sign: New Mexico's politically shrewd governor, Bill Richardson, has made a partial about-face on the issue — at least in words — and is throwing money and attention at his state's southern border. If he makes a national comeback from the Energy Department security scandals that all but ruined his reputation in the final years of the Clinton administration, it will owe in part to a seeming shift on border control that mirrors the one that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton made in December and then reneged upon.
The editors then go on to dispel any doubts of the disingenuousness of their rightward tack on immigration and border control by chronicling their flip-flops. Granted: President Bush has been impotent on border security and weak on immigration — one can only assume because he is playing to his Hispanic voter base. So, I grant Bush no amnesty there. But at least he's consistently frustrating on the issue. Richardson and Clinton, however, have been all over the place, but of course pretend that they haven't. (I guess they just assume the American electorate are too stupid to follow their shenanigans… after all, they have election 2004 as precident that at least 48% of the nation could believe anyone, even an alleged war hero.)
Here are some examples of duplicity from The Washington Times regarding Richardson:
In 1996, as a New Mexico congressman, he voted against increases in border-control expenditures and against a work-verification program to discourage the hiring of illegals. His last few years as New Mexico governor have been more of the same. …As the state Minuteman leader, Clifford Alford, put it to local reporters last week, Mr. Richardson has never done anything to secure the border and he's not doing anything now.
This year Mr. Richardson began changing his tune. In March, he appeared on Fox News Sunday with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and called for tough law enforcement, more border guards, a crackdown on illegal smuggling, better detection of those that overstay their visas, stolen/lost passports.
Last week, after a tour of border areas, Mr. Richardson declared a state of emergency in four counties abutting Mexico, citing growing border-area violence, property damage, drug smuggling and problems with illegals crossing the border. He then invited Chris Simcox, a Minuteman leader, to discuss border control — something Mr. Bush has not done and probably cannot do, having labeled them vigilantes in March — and called on Mexico to bulldoze Las Chepas, a staging ground for illegals and smugglers.
As regards Hillary, the editors refer to her comment last December that [I do] not think that we have protected our borders or our ports… we can do more and we can do better — I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants… People have to stop employing illegal immigrants, and then observe:
Since then, Mrs. Clinton has turned back toward left-liberal orthodoxy. Last month, she gave a fawning speech to the National Council of La Raza in which she endorsed the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minorities (DREAM) Act, which would guarantee illegals in-state college-tuition rates and also grant amnesty to tens of thousands of illegals who graduate from U.S. high schools. The border-control hawkishness had vanished.
|
12. Massive Al-Qaeda Iraq flip flop
Today's lesson on How to Beat the Liberals with Facts about Iraq and Al Qaeda focuses on the hypocrisy of the Democrats. The Bush Administration was not the only politicos to link Al Qaeda and Iraq. But to listen to these very same Dems today, you would think otherwise. **Keep in mind that there is quite a difference in claiming ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda versus Iraq in cahoots with Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks. The ties between the two terrorist organizations is the issue in question.**
How many times have we heard the KOS kissing former presidential candidate, Gen. Wesley Clark, claim no connection to Iraq and Al Qaeda? But what did Wesley say in 2002???
Tape Shows General Clark Linking Iraq and Al Qaeda
NY Times ^ Jan. 12, 2004 EDWARD WYATT
MANCHESTER, N.H., Jan. 11 — Less than a year before he entered the race for the Democratic nomination for president, Gen. Wesley K. Clark said that he believed there was a connection between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda.
The statement by General Clark in October 2002 as he endorsed a New Hampshire candidate for Congress is a sign of how the general's position on Iraq seems to have changed over time, though he insists his position has been consistent.
Certainly there's a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, he said in 2002. It doesn't surprise me at all that they would be talking to Al Qaeda, that there would be some Al Qaeda there or that Saddam Hussein might even be, you know, discussing gee, I wonder since I don't have any scuds and since the Americans are coming at me, I wonder if I could take advantage of Al Qaeda? How would I do it? Is it worth the risk? What could they do for me?
SNIP
In an interview, General Clark said his more recent remarks were not inconsistent with what he said in 2002. In those remarks, he said, he was trying to explain that based on his knowledge of how the intelligence community works, low-level contacts almost certainly existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda, But, he said, that does not mean that Iraq had anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks.
********************
President Bush was not the first President to claim ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The slick one from Arkansas was numero uno...
Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam
By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements...
In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan...
The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists...
To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists.
*************************
Clinton White House Saw Saddam-Osama Connection
NewsMax ^ 7/12/04 Jon E. Dougherty
...The U.S. attorney involved in preparing that indictment, Patrick Fitzgerald, told the federal 9/11 commission the intelligence surrounding the indictment came from one Jamal al Fadl, a former high-ranking al-Qaeda leader who, before the Sept. 11 attacks, gave the U.S. its first real look at the terrorist organization.
Fadl said an associate of bin Laden's, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim (Abu Hajer al Iraqi) tried to reach a sort of agreement where they wouldn't work against each other -- sort of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' -- and that there were indications that within Sudan when al Qaeda was there, which al-Qaeda left in the summer of '96, or the spring of '96, there were efforts to work on jointly acquiring weapons.
Within several months, al-Qaeda bombed a pair of U.S. embassies in East Africa. In retaliation, Bill Clinton used an Iraq-al-Qaeda connection, Hayes said, when he ordered the cruise missile attack on the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
On Aug. 24, 1998, a senior intelligence official was made available by the administration and cited strong ties between the plant and Iraq as the basis for the attack.
SNIP
A day later Thomas Pickering, undersecretary of state for political affairs and one of only a few officials involved in planning the al Shifa strike, confirmed an Iraq-Sudan (and, by proxy, al-Qaeda) connection: We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, al Shifa officials, early in the company's history, we believe were in with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq's VX program.
U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson (now the governor of New Mexico) made an appearance on CNN, where he talked of direct evidence of ties between Osama bin Laden and Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation.
You combine that with Sudan support for terrorism, their connections with Iraq on VX, and you combine that, also, with the chemical precursor issue, and Sudan's leadership support for Osama bin Laden, and you've got a pretty clear-cut case.
Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security advisor, penned an op-ed for the Washington Times on Oct. 16, 1998. In it he asserted the administration had physical evidence indicating that al Shifa was the site of chemical weapons activity.
Other products were made at al Shifa, he continued. But we have seen such dual-use plants before -- in Iraq. And, indeed, we have information that Iraq has assisted chemical weapons activity in Sudan.
Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism czar for both Clinton and Bush who, in a recent book, laid most of the blame for 9/11 at the feet of the current administration, told the Washington Post in a Jan. 23, 1999 interview the U.S. was sure Iraq was behind the VX precursor being manufactured at the al Shifa plant.
The Post reported: Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at al Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.
*****************************
Dems connected Iraq, al-Qaida
By Charles D. Ganske 7/5/04
Yet, Clinton's Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, in his recent testimony before the 9/11 Commission, insisted that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program. For the Iraqis not to have known bin Laden was a major investor in the El Shifa plant seems to be quite a stretch.
*******************************
The final nail in the coffin was signed by many of the Lefties that now claim voting for the war in Iraq was a mistake... You know, people like John Kerry, John Murtha...
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
[[Page 116 STAT. 1498]] Public Law 107-243107th Congress
Joint Resolution To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
<>
...Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;...
My my my... how things change when a Republican is President. It was completely believable and promoted by Democrats when Clinton was in office. Yet the only action Clinton took was bombing the pharmaceutical factory at Al Shifa. President Bush's actions have deposed the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. His only mistake - he is a Republican.
13.
BEN NELSON:
Immigration Hardliner? Or Lobbyist for Meatpackers?
NEGOP Questions Democrat Ben Nelson’s Immigration Flip-Flop
***
Lincoln, Neb. – The Nebraska GOP called on Democrat Senator Ben Nelson today to come clean on his apparent flip-flop on federal immigration policy. Nelson announced plans to introduce legislation addressing illegal immigration.
In 1999, former Governor and soon to be candidate for United States Senate Ben Nelson acted as a lobbyist for the meatpacking industry in a dispute with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). INS was subpoenaing employee records at meatpacking plants across the state, investigating document discrepancies.
- “Former Gov. Ben Nelson says the crackdown on undocumented workers in Nebraska meatpacking plants is detrimental to Nebraska.” (Nelson critical of Operation Vanguard, Calls it Detrimental; Grand Island Independent; Thursday, June 3, 1999)
- Nelson said he thinks the INS should start a separate program that would allow temporary visas for undocumented workers. (Associated Press, “Nelson says INS operation draining state’s labor pool”; 6/4/99)
- [Nelson] said he has been approached by several meatpacking companies, asking for his help in developing a pilot program that would make temporary visas available to undocumented employees. “We need to find more ways to employ people rather than limit them,” Nelson said. (The Grand Island Independent, 6/3/99).
“The issue in this instance is consistency and leadership. In 1999, the year before his Senate race, Ben Nelson lobbied for meatpackers – advocating for programs to permit the importation of foreign workers into permanent US jobs. In 2005, the year before his Senate race, Ben Nelson feigns concern about border security,” said Executive Director Jessica Moenning. “Ben Nelson changes what he thinks from one term to the next based on who he’s lobbying for or what a poll says - that is NOT leadership.”
“Nebraska needs a leader who will say what he means and mean what he says, not someone who changes his position if a focus group says so. Ben Nelson owes the voters of Nebraska an explanation for his flip-flop.”
I don't know. Where were you back then??
I was aware because a friend of mine is from Iraq and his mother was a Kurd and was killed. He and his brother had been schooled here and they were working here. His father is still there. I have lost contact with him, the friend. He moved to CA and we just lost touch. I would imagine that his father is probably dead. We worked together in the 80s. I know Mavis Leno (Jay's wife) has been working for Afghanistan women for years. She probably knew and cared a lot and I am sure that the people who did know cared quite a lot a well. I really can't tell you where everyone else was. I would guess most Americans were in the same state of mind about Iraq that they are today in respect to every other poverty-ridden, despot-ravaging, corrupt country, state or region, Asia, Africa, South America...We(some of us) care about Iraq because it has been brought to our attention for the first time, Iraq that is. You will find no dearth of man's inhumanity to man in any corner of this planet you look. Whoever you are, you may or may not know that I am a complete and total pacifist. I can think of no good reason for war...really...but since we've got it, my priority is to end the carnage for both sides ASAP.
Right back at ya..lol nm
nm
your back
I agree. It would be very traumatizing to the child to be hauled around and raised by a succession of nannies. The child's needs come before her political ambition.
right back at ya...
DIdn't see anything there about God Dam* America for starters. More to follow.
No, sam's right. I can't back it up but I
remember that being on the news almost every night for weeks when Clinton revealed his budget.
WELCOME BACK SAM!!!!! nm
nm.
Yes I did, quite a while back. nm
.
|
