I remember the first time I ever laid eyes on W, though of course I knew who he was, I had never seen him. It was the night they executed Karla Faye Tucker, and I was watching with my father and brother. And they both thought he was going to stay the execution, and I said, well no, he's not. She's as good as dead. I knew that he was going to be running for President one day, though I didn't know what election cycle it would be. And even though back then I did not yet know about this penchant for executing people, nor did I know he was sick enough to, years later, mock Karla Faye Tucker pleading for her life to Tucker Carlson, I did know that a Republican could not stay an execution and expect to win the primary. I did already know that much. And when I saw him walk out in front of the cameras I noticed his hair was mussed. And I said to my father and my brother, look at how sick this is, they mussed up his hair before he came out to make him look as if he had sweated over this. And I don't know how, but I swear to God I knew he had not and I knew someone had done it to him just before he came out. And I knew immediately, that I could not stand him. I had not felt that way about his father.
Meh. Unlike Duhla, the Danold believes in equal oppurtunity for women. If they commit savage murders, they should be executed just like a man should.
Duhla, why do you have to be so against equality?
And flash forward to election night 2000, when they reversed the earlier (and correct) call of Florida for Gore, and my heart sunk. Because I had known from the first time I set eyes on him that George W Bush was very bad news.
Wrong Florida was correct after the ONE mandated statewide recount - you do not keep getting recounts until you try and get the result you want. Republicans respected the law, Dems did not.
Now, it is possible the dumber Dems who voted possibly wrongly on that butterfly ballot (which a local Dem rep designed BTW) could have shifted the election, but any semi-intelligent person saw how to vote correctly so boohoo.
And then flash forward all of these years later to see the tens of thousands dead,
Tens of thousands died under Saddam, directly from Saddam's orders, not indirectly from terrorists. Which is worse?
Uh poverty? We took the slightest step back if that after the natural economic downturn which had already started at the end of Clinton's term.
Pretty much all the Dems supported Afghanistan war, while all the major Dems supported the Iraq war because all of them believed the intel about WMD, much of it before Bush was prez - check the dates.
Anyone else getting tired of hearing this silly line from Liberal Democrats over how Bush 'duped' them into going into Iraq and it's all his fault? That they believed there was never a threat from Saddam, that this war was the Republican's baby.
To disprove this, take a look at the huge amount of quotes from Democrats on where they really stood on Iraq:
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & <b>John Kerry</b> among others on <b>October 9, 1998</b>
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- <b>Bill Clinton</b> in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. <b>He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members</b>, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- <b>Hillary Clinton</b>, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. <b>We know that he has chemical and biological weapons.</b> He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- <b>John Edwards</b>, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"<b>Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf</b> and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- <b>Al Gore</b>, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because <b>I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002 </b>
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
What else can a reasonable person conclude but that Democrats wanted to take on Saddam and Iraq?
I suppose we could say but Bush wanted Saddam more, but is this just irrelevant when you think about it, there are 2 sides on Iraq, you could have been for it or not, Democrats were for it. Trying to naively believe that the American people are so stupid as not to realize that Democrats supported the war is not a strategy thay will work and quite frankly is insulting to people's intelligence.
Bush will and is getting his flak for Iraq, but he at least stands by his principles, whereas I think any person can easily see that the Democrats were and are trying to play both sides on this, yet they get off scot free.
Does it make sense to punish Bush by supporting the unaccountable Democrats? Is this not rewarding politicians who try and lie to get out of truth?
Consider well who is really worse on Iraq...
The standard response from Democrat leaders on high health care insurance is that companies are making too much profit.
Now insurance companies sell all different kinds of insurance. Why have we only seen big increase in health insurance? If corporations really wanted big profits, why would not increase premiums on something far less politically explosive like life insurance?
The answer is because
the increases in the health care premiums are coming specifically from health care itself. Part of this is paying for increases in technology, but we have had increases in technology for decades, so it must be more than that.
The answer is government has regulated more in the health care industry to 'protect people' and also trial lawyers and Liberal judges are pushing bigger and bigger settlements that add huge amounts to the industry.
Trial lawyers have over the last decade gone over almost exclusively to the Democrat party.
Dem presidential candidate John Edwards is a former trial lawyer.
Likewise you can see to what degree and why they support the Dem party now:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/081300-03.htm
Very important. You can see here that
the Association of Trial Lawyers of America is the biggest single group donor that favors the Democrats:
http://www.opensecrets.org/newsletter/ce36/ce1196p5.html
And they favor them heavily with 83% of donations going to Dems.
Right after the 2000 election, the biggest priority the Dems undertook, was pushing for HMO suing, which would add billions in lawsuit settlements adding of course more billions to health care costs.
Remember now
the health insurance industry instead of just paying for health has to pay out massive settlements for often minor health problems. Greedy trial lawyers get rich and Dem politicians get those donations. Add to that cost the cost of going through the trials, the cost of paying bigtime lawyers to help protect against these. The cost of advertising to help combat the negative image of profiteering that Dems keep doing and the due diligence costs of contracts, increasingly complicated waivers and so on to protect them against some lawsuits. Plus as they are now a target by congressional Dems looking to push the hot buttons on them, the industry also has to donate money to Repubs to protect them and donate money to Democrats to tone down their attacks.
All these big costs get factored into your health bill. The money to pay for all the above is in your health care bill and premiums
It is crystal clear that
as government and the ease of lawsuits that Democrats have pushed has contributed to the big health care cost increases in the last decade.
If we can get government out of health care and pass tort reform to reasonably limit number of lawsuits and amount of lawsuits then we can get health care costs down again.
This is a big if. People love the big bad Hollywood image of an HMO or the evil corporate profitering villain.
We must never forget that
Canada has a universal health care system. So if universal health care is so good, why do Canadians come here for health care?
We still have the best health care in the world, with the right reform and getting government out, it need not so expensive.
Should Bush get blamed for a hurricane? Does he get credit for low amount of hurricanes in this very warm year?
I know what you're gonna say and the response of the National Guard was fast to Mississippi which has higher percentage of blacks than Louisiana. Why?
Because you can't drive aid trucks through water. Imagine that.
the state of our Constitution, our reputation as warmongers and torturers, the dead still to come and I am amazed, because as bad as I knew he was, I never saw all of this coming. I didn't have that kind of imagination then.
I do now.
Yes you do have quite an imagination - and here I bet you thought I was gonna disagree with you on every point...
