Democrat "talking points"

[Jerk]

being used by many, inluding John Mccain and Al Quida!

"Can't you be honest at least once in your life, and admit that you are a deceitful liar who intentionally deceived your nation when you drove them to war in Iraq," Ayman al-Zawahri said in a portion of the video released by the Washington-based SITE Institute.

Al-Zawahri also criticized Bush for continuing to imprison al-Qaida leaders in prisons, including al-Qaida No. 3 Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged Sept. 11 mastermind who was captured in Pakistan in March 2003.


and...

Al-Zawahri, the deputy to Osama bin Laden, accused the United States and its agents of torturing Muslim prisoners seized across the Middle East.

"Your agents in the Arabian Peninsula, Yemen, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan have captured thousands of the youth and soldiers of Islam whom you made to taste at your hands and the hands of your agents various types of punishment and torture," al-Zawahri said, according to the IntelCenter. "But we, by Allah's grace, are taking revenge on their behalf daily from your troops and the troops of your allies and agents in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula and all Muslim countries from Indonesia to Morocco, and moreover, on your own soil every day."

Who briefed this guy? Howard Dean?

Or did they just repeat what they read in the New York Times everyday?

[sooneron]

As a dem, I am on the fence as far as torturing goes. I admit it, I sink to the level of the competition.

And also, to be honest, Howard Dean does not represent me. He doesn't represent a lot of Dems. Just like Ralph Reed not (hopefully) representing a lot of Repubs.

[Jerk]

As a dem, I am on the fence as far as torturing goes. I admit it, I sink to the level of the competition.

And also, to be honest, Howard Dean does not represent me. He doesn't represent a lot of Dems. Just like Ralph Reed not (hopefully) representing a lot of Repubs.

I understand.

I am more on the liberatarian side of the Republican party than the religious side.

Alot of Democrats, I'm sure, are aware of the fight that we face and although they didn't agree with going into Iraq, they want us to win. What I am saying is that AQ is saying the same thing here that many on the far left are, and sadly, a few in the Republican party as well...i.e. "Bush lied" and "Bush tortures"

[sooneron]

Well, I can understand McCain having an issue with torture. He knows better than you or I ( I would venture to guess). The Geneva Convention is a joke. We all know that we torture and we all know that during the "great conflicts" our enemies and allies tortured. I don't know how to ***** foot around it.
Do I think theat Bush had an agenda of getting rid of Hussein when he took office, **** yeah. I prolly would have if someone put a bounty on my Pop's ***. But we're there and we need to get **** right-

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

McCain doesn't HONESTLY believe(IMO) that the USA had a policy of actual torture, as opposed to Alquida and other islamic terrorists, who cut people's heads off, suicide/homocide bomb restaurants, schools, etc. Either that, or he's not the sharpest crayon...and to equate the behavior of Howard Dean with Ralph Reed is willful negligence, at best! Folks, the moral equivalency argument between Dem. behavior and republican behavior is just WRONG.

[sooneron]

McCain doesn't HONESTLY believe(IMO) that the USA had a policy of actual torture, as opposed to Alquida and other islamic terrorists, who cut people's heads off, suicide/homocide bomb restaurants, schools, etc. Either that, or he's not the sharpest crayon...and to equate the behavior of Howard Dean with Ralph Reed is willful negligence, at best! Folks, the moral equivalency argument between Dem. behavior and republican behavior is just WRONG.
You are absolutely right b/c you can see more than black and white, like our little IM fest with which your reading comprehension was readily apparent! Would you like to hear some of the rhetoric spewed by Reed back in the day?

Yeah, Ralphie boy really stand by his convictions. :rolleyes:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2004/11/10_400.html

[sooneron]

I'll give him credit, at least he goes to where the cash is.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Let's hear it.

[sooneron]

Hear what?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Hear what?hear what it is that you think puts Ralph Reed in the same maniac camp as Howard Dean. Look, if you have a problem with religion, it's okay. Just why not pick on the religion that is absolutely off the deep end with intolerance, rather than one that professes love and the golden rule?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

To be fair from the whole McCain fiasco. Basically they just wanted clarity and imagine this but Bush and them were able to get together and talk the issue out and obviously agreed in the end on how they were going to get the job done. The fact that Republicans had differing opinions and were able to get together and work out a resolution shows how much more connected the Republican party is. Instead of letting Hilary attack it, you had Republicans do it and the democrats stayed out and now the Republicans I think look much more decisive and team orientated.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

To be fair from the whole McCain fiasco. Basically they just wanted clarity and imagine this but Bush and them were able to get together and talk the issue out and obviously agreed in the end on how they were going to get the job done. The fact that Republicans had differing opinions and were able to get together and work out a resolution shows how much more connected the Republican party is. Instead of letting Hilary attack it, you had Republicans do it and the democrats stayed out and now the Republicans I think look much more decisive and team orientated.Yeah, well maybe some "undecided" voters will think that way? However, it has been the drumbeat of the dems to scream "torture" about both Abugreb and Gitmo for years. McCain and the gang of RINOS shouldn't have joined the chorus.

[Vaevictis]

Alot of Democrats, I'm sure, are aware of the fight that we face and although they didn't agree with going into Iraq, they want us to win. What I am saying is that AQ is saying the same thing here that many on the far left are, and sadly, a few in the Republican party as well...i.e. "Bush lied" and "Bush tortures"

A lot of Democrats think that going to Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror. The realists also realize that with the current situation on the ground, even if it wasn't before, it is now.

As far as AQ saying these things goes, it's really simple -- they're following the same strategy as the North Vietnamese because it works. They've just found a leverage point, and are trying to leverage it.

Unfortunately, Bush opened the door for this to happen by compromising himself wrt WMD, torture, warrantless wiretaps and his "oversight? **** THAT" attitude. *broken record*

[OklahomaTuba]

As far as AQ saying these things goes, it's really simple -- they're following the same strategy as the North Vietnamese because it works. They've just found a leverage point, and are trying to leverage it.

Its sad that a liberal like you seems to see no problem with this.

[Vaevictis]

Its sad that a liberal like you seems to see no problem with this.

What, that I'm not frothing at the mouth over the fact that the opponent has an effective strategy? Sometimes that happens in a war, you know, and frothing at the mouth over it rarely has any positive effect.

I'd much rather address the root of the problem -- the Bush administration doing things that undermine the public confidence -- than gnash my teeth over an enemy using the weapons we gave them.

[OklahomaTuba]

Heh, so now your blaming Bush for AQ parroting the dims talking points??

Nice.

[Vaevictis]

Heh, so now your blaming Bush for AQ parroting the dims talking points??

Nope. I'm blaming him for doing things that make the talking points hold water in the first place.

Give the public a reason to doubt you, and they will. Like my father always said, "The appearance of impropriety is itself improper." The way to stop your enemies from using such instances against you is to not allow them to happen in the first place.

[Stoop Dawg]

Its sad that a liberal like you seems to see no problem with this.

It's sad that you have almost 10,000 posts and still can't read and comprehend others.

[Vaevictis]

It's sad that you have almost 10,000 posts and still can't read and comprehend others.

Zebras can't change their stripes.

[SCOUT]

As far as AQ saying these things goes, it's really simple -- they're following the same strategy as the North Vietnamese because it works. They've just found a leverage point, and are trying to leverage it.


But your argument is the apex of that leverage point. The North Vietnamese understood that if they could give the impression that the war was unwinable then the US populace would lose the stomach for it. AQ has almost stated that their strategy is the same.

Questioning the government is a good thing. Undermining a current administration for political reasons is contemptable. I am afraid a significant portion of the arguments fall into the second category.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The North Vietnamese understood that if they could give the impression that the war was unwinable then the US populace would lose the stomach for it. AQ has almost stated that their strategy is the same.

Questioning the government is a good thing. Undermining a current administration for political reasons is contemptable. I am afraid a significant portion of the arguments fall into the second category."The greatest no-brainer in the history of earth".-John Whomever, from a mortgage company.

[Vaevictis]

But your argument is the apex of that leverage point. The North Vietnamese understood that if they could give the impression that the war was unwinable then the US populace would lose the stomach for it. AQ has almost stated that their strategy is the same.

IMHO, by behaving the way it has, this administration has massively accelerated the timetable upon which that occurs.


Questioning the government is a good thing. Undermining a current administration for political reasons is contemptable. I am afraid a significant portion of the arguments fall into the second category.

Remember that whole, "I'm a uniter, not a divider" thing? Well, if you pay attention to how Bush's political operatives work, their whole strategy relies on division.

When your entire political strategy is centered around the notion of division, is it really any suprise that things turn out the way they do?

Both parties are to blame for this mess.

[OklahomaTuba]

It's sad that you have almost 10,000 posts and still can't read and comprehend others.

Heh,

Thats really funny and ironic, coming from you of all people.

[OklahomaTuba]

But your argument is the apex of that leverage point. The North Vietnamese understood that if they could give the impression that the war was unwinable then the US populace would lose the stomach for it. AQ has almost stated that their strategy is the same.

Questioning the government is a good thing. Undermining a current administration for political reasons is contemptable. I am afraid a significant portion of the arguments fall into the second category.

Its very simple.

They hate Bush so much, they see him a bigger threat than they see AQ.

I think we can see who AQ would vote for.

[Vaevictis]

They hate Bush so much, they see him a bigger threat than they see AQ.

That's pretty common for the minority party.

In case you've forgotten, in the late '90's, the Republicans were far more concerned about where Clinton's penis was than what Al Qaeda was up to.

They did their damned best -- which is quite a bit, as they controlled Congress -- to stifle his ability to do anything.

The "easy" way to solve this problem is to take away the impetus.

The Republican majority has done everything it can to shut the Democrats out of the decision making process, which means the Dems feel a "need" to gain seats in order to have any say at all. (This is not a criticism, merely an observation -- whoever is in the majority does it.)

If both parties agreed to a social agenda cease-fire -- keep the status quo until the war is over -- and come up with a reasonable power sharing plan, then the impetus ceases to exist.

You'll never see such a thing, though. Neither party today -- Dem or 'pub -- is ever going to be willing to do that, even if it costs us the war.

[Stoop Dawg]

Heh,

Thats really funny and ironic, coming from you of all people.

You can be certain that I know exactly where you're coming from. ;)

[OklahomaTuba]

That's pretty common for the minority party.

In case you've forgotten, in the late '90's, the Republicans were far more concerned about where Clinton's penis was than what Al Qaeda was up to.


Thats the thing, if Clinton had been more concerned about AQ as well, instead of sexually harassing paula jones, staining monicas dresses or lying under oath, maybe the opposing party wouldn't have had to be so concerned about where his little friend was?

And I don't believe Osama ever parroted any GOP talking points.

[Vaevictis]

Thats the thing, if Clinton had been more concerned about AQ as well, instead of sexually harassing paula jones, staining monicas dresses or lying under oath, maybe the opposing party wouldn't have had to be so concerned about where his little friend was?

That's the thing. If Bush had made sure that when he sold a war that the reasons he was selling it on were actually true...

If Bush weren't so vehemently against oversight...

... etc, etc. There's always a reason.


And I don't believe Osama ever parroted any GOP talking points.

Assuming he lives long enough to see a Dem president, he will. The GOP will do the same thing the Dems are doing now, and the Dems will do the same thing the GOP is doing now once/if the situation is reversed.

Remember, when Clinton wanted to relax governmental restrictions, it was the GOP that was concerned about our constitutional rights and how the President was overreaching. See the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Bill, for example.

What you see has been seen before and will be seen again. Every 10-20 years, it's the same ****, just with the roles reversed.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Thats the thing, if Clinton had been more concerned about AQ as well, instead of sexually harassing paula jones, staining monicas dresses or lying under oath, maybe the opposing party wouldn't have had to be so concerned about where his little friend was?

And I don't believe Osama ever parroted any GOP talking points.

Finally someone brave enough to point this out..... I was eating breakfast with my g'f this morning and we had this conversation.

"Ya know Osama is so democrat!!" "Why do you say that" "Well I mean like every democrat he is Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, in favor of a larger military, Pro-Death Penalty" "hmmm that is very true!!!" "Not to mention their leader Howard Dean is totally connected throughout the Saudi world and has cute little nicknames with a country that supplied almost all of the 9/11 hijackers!!" "Wow I never realized Hilary and the democrats were so Al-Qaedaish!!!"

[OklahomaTuba]

Finally someone brave enough to point this out..... I was eating breakfast with my g'f this morning and we had this conversation.

"Ya know Osama is so democrat!!" "Why do you say that" "Well I mean like every democrat he is Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, in favor of a larger military, Pro-Death Penalty" "hmmm that is very true!!!" "Not to mention their leader Howard Dean is totally connected throughout the Saudi world and has cute little nicknames with a country that supplied almost all of the 9/11 hijackers!!" "Wow I never realized Hilary and the democrats were so Al-Qaedaish!!!"

I think you have it backwards.

AQ is becoming Dim-o-craticish.

Next thing you know, AQ will be making movies about killing Bush, and blaming him for 9/11.

Oh wait...

[OklahomaTuba]

That's the thing. If Bush had made sure that when he sold a war that the reasons he was selling it on were actually true...

If Bush weren't so vehemently against oversight..
Wasn't much of a "sell" considering most people, including the previous President and most dims, all said it was true.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Did you read anything I actually wrote....GOP Talking Points = Pro-Life, Larger military, Pro-Gun, Pro-Death Penalty = All things that Al Qaeda would support

Now what was your exact words " And I don't believe Osama ever parroted any GOP talking points" Let's see Osama has the same position Republicans have...if I was like you I would say something like " AQ is becoming Repub-o-craticish." However, I refuse to call a large group of "Americans" basically Al-Qaeda members because I can promise you that Al Qaeda would kill Hilary just as fast as George. They are the Anti-Martin Luther Kings...they do not see character...they do not see positives in others...They see people as one of two things...Islam or filthy infidel.

[yermom]

you forgot pro-torture ;)

[OklahomaTuba]

Did you read anything I actually wrote....GOP Talking Points = Pro-Life, Larger military, Pro-Gun, Pro-Death Penalty = All things that Al Qaeda would support.

Funny, I don't see any AQ videos asking for us to increase the size of our military, or putting our POWs to death.

Seems you have it backwards again.

[OklahomaTuba]

you forgot pro-torture ;)
I don't think AQ wants us to begin doing that either.

Besides, they just behead people.

[GottaHavePride]

I am now OFFICIALLY....


IBTL.

[yermom]

I don't think AQ wants us to begin doing that either.

Besides, they just behead people.

so now neither of us torture people?

[GottaHavePride]

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/penguincult/_images/ThisThreadSucks.jpg

[Vaevictis]

Wasn't much of a "sell" considering most people, including the previous President and most dims, all said it was true.

People believed it because the President and his staff said it was true.

What you don't seem to realize, or just prefer to ignore, is that the people in Congress have to rely on the President to make sure that the intelligence is right. It's not like the director of the CIA/NSA/etc answers directly to Congress or anything.

And it's because of this gross failure (which is the most charitable way to describe it) on the President's part to make sure that this intelligence was correct that people don't believe him anymore, either thinking he's incompetent or a liar or both.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Both parties are to blame for this mess.Heh.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

In case you've forgotten, in the late '90's, the Republicans were far more concerned about what Clinton was doing with our national defense secrets, especially in regards to giving them away(selling) to the Chicoms, than what Al Qaeda was up to.

Now you got it.(fixed)

[SCOUT]

People believed it because
What you don't seem to realize, or just prefer to ignore, is that the people in Congress have to rely on the President to make sure that the intelligence is right. It's not like the director of the CIA/NSA/etc answers directly to Congress or anything.

Umm....

The Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980
1980- The Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980 provided that the heads of intelligence agencies would keep the oversight committees “fully and currently informed” of their activities including “any significant anticipated intelligence activity.” Detailed ground rules were established for reporting covert actions to the Congress, in return for the number of congressional committees receiving notice of covert actions being limited to the two oversight committees.

[Vaevictis]

Umm....

The Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980
1980- The Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980 provided that the heads of intelligence agencies would keep the oversight committees “fully and currently informed” of their activities including “any significant anticipated intelligence activity.” Detailed ground rules were established for reporting covert actions to the Congress, in return for the number of congressional committees receiving notice of covert actions being limited to the two oversight committees.

When I said "answers", I was thinking more in the sense of the way an employee reports to his boss. In the sense that he not only shares information with this person, but takes orders from them and gets fired if he doesn't do what he's told.

People in the CIA are in the executive's chain of command, not Congress'.

[OklahomaTuba]

Dude, Congress gets its very own briefing, just like the WH does.

Any suggestion otherwise is complete horse****.

[Vaevictis]

Tuba, since your difficulties with reading comprehension are kicking in again, let me give you the easy to comprehend version:

The CIA/etc briefs Congress, but answers to the White House.

You have a job. Don't you provide information to anyone that doesn't have a say in whether you have a job tomorrow?

[Vaevictis]

Remember, when Clinton wanted to relax governmental restrictions, it was the GOP that was concerned about our constitutional rights and how the President was overreaching. See the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Bill, for example.


Quotes from the Congressional record in support of my comment:



Dan Burton (R-Ind): Mr. Chairman, this is one of our major concerns among the groups called the conservative action team in the House. I just want to make absolutely clear to all of our colleagues what the gentleman is saying right now, and I want them to understand it. This is going to expand the ability for people to be wiretapped way beyond where it is right now.

Mr. Barr: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.

Dan Burton (R-Ind): So any citizen of the United States might be subject to this good-faith exception which would allow the Government to find something out about them inadvertently through a wiretap that could cause them unbelievable problems.

Mr. Barr: The gentleman is correct.

Dan Burton (R-Ind): I think my colleagues ought to think long and hard about that. One of the things we are concerned about is expanding the Government's ability to spy on or to find out everything about any individual in this country. Expanding this wiretap provision, I think, is something that is very, very disconcerting to me and many of my colleagues.



Dan Burton (R-Ind): If the Government of the United States can through, quote-unquote, good faith tap our phones and intrude into our lives, they violate our constitutional liberties, and that is something that we should not tolerate, and that is in section 305 and section 307. The FBI can gain access to individual phone billing records without a subpoena or a court order. Once again I believe that infringes upon our constitutional rights and liberties, and while we are trying to deal with terrorism, and we should, we should not violate our constitutional rights and liberties, and I believe this bill in its present form does. And that is why I think the Barr amendment is absolutely essential if we are going to pass something that will really deal with terrorism crime, but protect the liberties that we fought so hard for in the Revolutionary War.

Wayne Allard (R-Colo) Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report.

Today I am going to vote in favor of S. 735, the Terrorism Prevention Act conference report. As I stated throughout debate on the antiterrorism bill I have had concerns that the bill might be used as a vehicle to expand Federal power over law-abiding citizens. This was my reason for opposing the original House bill, I was concerned that a House-Senate conference would add a number of undesirable Senate provisions. A number of bad ideas were in play, including expansive Federal wiretapping authority, included in the Senate bill, excessive power for certain Federal law enforcement agencies, and excessive spending. I have followed the conference closely, and I am now satisfied that the civil liberties of law-abiding citizens are protected, and that Federal authority is appropriately restricted. The bill focuses on international terrorist organizations, a matter of Federal jurisdiction.



Orrin Hatch: Mr. President, again, in the real world, in the case of the Unabomber or a terrorist where there is a real threat or an immediate concern, you do not need this provision to get an emergency wiretap. All the Senator's motion does is expand the number of crimes that would trigger the wiretap statute. This amendment was offered during the Senate debate. It was defeated. It was not a part of the Senate bill. It was not a part of the House bill. It is not a part of our conference report, and rightly so. I oppose this provision that could expand emergency wiretap authority to permit the Government to begin a wiretap prior to obtaining court approval in a greater range of cases than the law presently allows. I personally find this proposal troubling. I am concerned that this provision, if enacted, would unnecessarily broaden emergency wiretap authority. Under current law, such authority exists when life is in danger, when the national security is threatened, or when an organized crime conspiracy is involved. In the real world, we do not need this amendment to get emergency wiretap authority, and that is a fact.

Let me also say that this authority is constrained by a requirement that surveillance be approved by the Court within 48 hours, but that authority already exists in those areas I have addressed.



Porter Goss (R-Fla): Mr. Speaker, this effort comes in the wake of three horrible tragedies: The bombing of a military installation in Saudi Arabia, the loss of TWA flight 800 out of New York's JFK Airport, and the recent pipe bomb explosion in Atlanta at the Olympics. While we haven't had time to thoroughly assess these tragedies and the effectiveness of the antiterrorism law Congress passed earlier this year, these attacks tell us that our society remains vulnerable to terrorism. Unfortunately, terrorism is a fact of life. In response to recent events, a series of proposals were offered to solve the problem--some with merit, and some that could cause more problems than they might solve by cutting deeply--and unnecessarily--into the constitutional freedoms of American citizens. I include in that category certain proposals for expanded wiretapping authority for Federal law enforcement. This is a dangerous proposition--and one that would be ceding victory to terrorists, whose goal is to disrupt our society, create anxiety and constrain our freedoms. That's the way terrorism attacks a free open society. Let me be clear, this bill does not--I repeat, does not--expand wiretapping authority. In fact, it goes the other direction, strengthening penalties for misuse of Government's existing authority. That's good news for all Americans--especially the many southwest Floridians who urged us not to succumb to the pressure to diminish our liberties. For this we owe our thanks to our able policy committee chairman, Chris Cox.

Can you guess what the Democrats were saying at the time? Yup, they were for the expanded wiretapping authority.

The difference is who is in the White House right now.

Republicans being very serious about national security during the whole Lewinsky scandal...



Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV):

“‘Look at the movie Wag the Dog. I think this has all the elements of that movie,’ Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said. ‘Our reaction to the embassy bombings should be based on sound credible evidence, not a knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from his personal problems.’”

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA):

“There’s an obvious issue which will be raised internationally about the response here as to whether there is any diversionary motive involved. … I have deliberated consciously any references to Ms. Monica Lewinsky, but when you ask the question in very blunt terms, the president’s current problems have to be on the minds of many people.”
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX):

“I’m very supportive of the strike that has happened, but I will tell you that the timing is very questionable. This was the day that Monica Lewinsky has gone back to the grand jury, evidently enraged. Certainly that information will be overshadowed.”

Former Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN):

“Coats (R-IN), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, ‘While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack and why it was ordered today, given the president’s personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action.‘”

Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL):

“‘The obvious question is, are the two connected?’ asked Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.), who chairs the National Security Committee’s research subcommittee. ‘That’s the unthinkable, and I would hope it would never occur in America, but I can tell you, a lot of people are wondering about it today.‘”

Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA):

“All I’m saying is if factors other than good intelligence, military necessity, being prepared for the consequences entered into it, then it is wrong, and it appears that one of those factors that may have entered into it is to take something that could have been done a week ago and do it today in an effort to divert some attention.”

Rep. Dick Armey, then GOP majority leader: "The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack [on Iraq] is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons."

Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y.: "It is obvious that they're (the Clinton White House) doing everything they can to postpone the vote on this impeachment in order to try to get whatever kind of leverage they can, and the American people ought to be as outraged as I am about it."

Rep. Gerald Solomon: "'Never underestimate a desperate president. What option is left for getting impeachment off the front page and maybe even postponed? And how else to explain the sudden appearance of a backbone that has been invisible up to now?'"

Welcome to the new American two-party system. Whichever party doesn't control the White House will do whatever it takes to undermine the party that does.

Just wait; when the worm turns, it'll be the Dems pushing an agenda and the Republicans doing everything in their power to obstruct, including undermining a war president for the sake of undermining him, if that's the situation at the time.

[PhilTLL]

Rep. Dick Armey, then GOP majority leader: "The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack [on Iraq] is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons."

Laugh? Cry? Both?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Laugh? Cry? Both?Yes, Clinton could do all that, and more, to people.

[PhilTLL]

Yes, Clinton could do all that, and more, to people.

Your wit is as estimable as your political acumen.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Neener-neener! I don't think much of your political analyses either. So what?