How many people are dead today because the Democrats have chosen to use the war as a partisan political issue?

Uhhh...which party took us to war in the first place? Whch party made "terrorism" its central theme in the 2004 elections? That'd be the Republicans on both counts. Yet you try to spin that on its head like a good little water-carrier. And which do you think helps recruit new terrorists more: Russ Feingold wanting to censure Bush, or a Middle Eastern family getting its home blown up by outsider forces? Well, we know which you think recruits terrorists; unfortunately, reality disagrees with you.

Clap harder, Tinkerbell!

Sees,

Typical of a lefty, you've got that a bit bass ackwards...you see, we were attacked by terrorism and thus we had to go into the Arab/Moslem world to end the problem of terrorism. They started it, they are the bad guys, we are the good guys...all that sort of stuff.

All that the Feingolds, Kennedys, Kerrys and Pelosis of the world do is make the war longer and bloodier than it had to be.

Hey, Mark, here is a great link for everyone to easily find their Senate Critters: http://www.congressmerge.com/

And, sent that letter to Sens. Dole and Burr.

Wait, I thought Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, Mark? (Which is true; it didn't.) Can't even keep your story straight, can you? The talking point from here out is "Saddam was a bad man" because the initial justifications--the Saddam/al Qaida connection, the Saddam WMDs, the Saddam nukes, etc. were all proven false.

Again: Clap harder, Tinkerbell! That way, the party of personal responsibility can blame everybody but themselves for their shortcomings.

Finally, I'm not a lefty. I'm a realist. Sorry you seem to find that so threatening.

"We were attacked by terrorism and thus we had to go into the Arab/Moslem world to end the problem of terrorism." - Mark Noonan

Spoken like a true simpleton. Did you lift that line from one of Dubya's election speeches?

Sees,

You can claim your a realist all you want, but you endlessly parrot the leftwing Party line. If I ever see you deviate from Michael Moore/MoveOn/Soros thinking on any issue, I'll probably faint dead away.

Aside from that - no one ever said that Saddam had a hand in 9/11 (I know, the leftwing line to parrot here is that President Bush et al implied as much...but I've disposed of that myth long ago); but he was connected, deeply, with terrorism and Iraq was the logical place to start a re-working of the way the middle east works. Add in his past use of WMD plus the fact that in 1998 he booted out the inspectors and THE WHOLE WORLD agreed that he still had them, and we had a very strong interest in getting rid of Saddam.

This link has the video abc news Meanwhile -

Frist called the censure attempt "political" and a "terrible, terrible signal" to enemies of the U.S. abroad.

maf,

Nope - figured that out all on my own about 6 hours after the WTC came down. Liberating Iraq was and is the key...don't liberate Iraq, might as well just give up the whole concept of fighting terrorism and sit home sucking our thumbs until a terrorist group gets a nuke to set off in New York or Los Angeles.

Interesting. None of the Lefties are actually defending Feingold, just parroting Surrender Monkey talking points.

Mark, I agree. Isn't it about time someone came out and said it. The democratic party is and has been for several years now, the political wing of al queda. The democratic party is directly responsible for the deaths of americans soldiers and of iraqis, because of the encouragement and hope that they have given to the terrorists to not give up. The democratic party is on the same side as the enemy who attacked us on 9/11 and killed 3,000 americans. Every democratic senator and congressman, with the exception of joe lieberman, should be forced to resign, and held for trial for treason. The democrats are shamefull. A terrorist beheads Nick Berg. His father doesn't say a peep about the terrorist holding the knife, but blames President Bush. Cindy sheehans son is killed by a terrorist. She doesn't say a peep about the terrorist holding the gun. She blames President Bush. Terrorist homocide bombers kill american soldiers, woman and children. The dems don't say a peep about the killers. They blame President Bush. On 9/11, 19 terrorists kill 3,000 americans. The dems don't say a peep about the terrorists in the cockpit. They blame President Bush and say he could have stopped the attack because he knew that bin laden "wanted to attack the USA". Well bin laden had been attacking the USA for years under clinton, who didn't do cow manure about it. Another reader of this blog put it perfectly. The dems offer nothing to the USA except their hatred of President Bush. The dems have no business being anywhere near a position of power. The dems are dangerous to this country and to the world. Thank God the people of the USA made the right choice in 2004. I pray that we will continue to make the right choice in 2006 and 2008. I beg and plead with every conservative out there to please get out and vote in November 2006, no matter how mad you may be at your party. The life of your country depends on it and I think the world as well. These are historic times we live in and it is our generations duty to step up to the plate and fight the terrorists and the libs. We are fighting the terrorists in Iraq and will soon be fighting the terrorists in iran. Losing this war is a prospect too horrible to contemplate. What will we tell our children and grandchildren. Support President Bush and vote GOP in November. God bless our country, our troops and President George W. Bush.

Mark, in a previous post I asked you & the other war cheerleaders to define "victory" in Iraq, to which you answered:

"What is victory in the war? The general sense that there is no major terrorist attack likely in the future."

It should be no wonder why the American people are no longer sold on this war, if that is the best answer you can offer. Face it - Bush has no plan in Iraq. Victory is nowhere in sight because he doesn't know how to define it.

You create new enemies every time you slaughter another innocent Iraqi, not when Feingold comes out calling for censure of Bush. Got it?

And as for "accusing American soldiers of abuses" - well, then I'm assuming that you condone torture? Otherwise, why else would you take issue with Senators calling out American tourture in Abu Grhaib?

And how about when Islamic wacko's kill Americans? Where is the outrage from the Left?

Mark, Great Post my 3 letters are sent! The lefties here are sad. Why is it so hard to love your country against those that would destroy it? What are you afraid of? Big talkers but who are you really supporting the Democrats or the terrorist? Right or wrong we are there and now we need to finish this fight. So join us or not. In this case President Bush has was chosen to Lead this country and Patriotic Americans should follow. The rest of you terrorist supporters get the F**k out of the Military's way to finish the job!!

Finally, I'm not a lefty. I'm a realist. Sorry you seem to find that so threatening.

I checked my Roget's Thesaurus, and despite what you claim, "realist" is not a synonym for "dumbass." However, I will pencil it in.

Mark, these kooks have been spinning the lies they've been fed by the their party, the DemoMSM. You and I, and anyone with more than half a brain, knows what what was said right after 9/11. Sure, there was some question as to whether or not Saddam had any part in it, but that was determined not to be the case. However, Saddam was supporting, harboring, and permitting the training of terrorists, in violation of the Bush Doctrine. WMD's notwithstanding, Bush had every right to invade Iraq for that reason alone. Remember, "you're either with us, or you're against us." Now, some are gonna come back with the "well, why aren't we invading this country or that country" argument. Don't even bother; it's redundant. Iraq was the most logical choice for many reasons that have been outlined here, and in many of the reports that have been prepared by past weapons inspectors.

I'm afraid these lemmings will ignore any logic you try to throw at them, Mark; groupthink has overcome them. Hatred is their weapon.

Interesting. None of the Lefties are actually defending Feingold, just parroting Surrender Monkey talking points.

Exactly, William. Feingold is a delusional cheesdi...I mean, cheesehead. And thanks for supporting me by characterizing these kooks as parrots. They're parrot lemmings, the little band of Murthas.

Spoken like a true simpleton. Did you lift that line from one of Dubya's election speeches?

He put it in "simpleton" terms expressly for you, mf53...

It's smart strategy. The polls show that the American public is somewhat disenchanted with the progress in the war, and blame Bush. Not all of them, of course, but enough to swing an election.

Now the Republicans that are up for re-election are going to have to revoice their support for Bush. The public's going to hear a lot more "scary" rhetoric, but they're getting really tired of it.

If I ever see you deviate from Michael Moore/MoveOn/Soros thinking on any issue, I'll probably faint dead away.

Poor, poor Mark. So sad that you have to go inventing stuff like this when, of course, none of it is true. The only thing I'm loyal to is the truth, no matter how inconvenient that might be. That's why I subscribe to no political party, subscribe to no "wing" of politics, and carry water for no party line (unlike yourself, quite obviously). I think for myself, and evidently that threatens you quite a bit as thinking for oneself can often lead to the conclusion that Bush has screwed up. More people agree with me than with you, Mark. But try not to let that hurt your feelings so much.

Keefer: I don't speak stupid, so you'll have to get somebody to translate your prattle into English.

Mark

There seems to be good number of Republicans who are starting to question the intentions of the "King". Would you consider them to be traitors to the party? Perhaps, as the number of supporters dwindle, you will come to realize the folly of blind acceptance of all things "Bush".

I just have to wonder if Democrats have ever heard of that great American saying "innocent till proven guilty." Sure doesn't seem like it.

Except when they are talking about a pedophiliac murderer.

maf,

As other posters here have noted, we see what you are doing - trying to change the subject.

Sorry, but we're not going to get drawn into that - you've got all the answer you need on why we're in Iraq.

You can now choose: support your country, or help the enemies of your country.

Pick.

Canadian,

And what annoys us about your lefties is your blind acceptance of all things anti-Bush...well, guess what?

He's not Chimpy McSmirk Bushitler...he's a center/right American politician of deeply Christian beliefs who is trying to do the best he can in extraordinarly difficult circumstances.

Doc,

Thanks much - I'd really like to see this thing catch fire a bit.

I am not angry at Feingold - saddened is the better word to describe how I feel...and I don't blame him for all of it, but I think we've got a chance here to lay down the marker and separate out those who want American victory and those who want American defeat. It'll also do the troops in Iraq good to have someone like Feingold taken down a peg or two - let them know that the leftwing America-haters don't rule the roost over here.

Sees,

And how would you know that more people agree with you than with me?

The last time the people were asked, they gave 51% of their votes to President Bush...you can refer to all the bogus MSM polls you want, but you don't get to find out how the American people feel about things until November. Until then, the President has the majority at his back, not yours.

Meanwhile, you can try to dance away from your slavish devotion to leftwing ideology, but I can read, ya know? I've never seen you say anything that wouldn't be acceptable at a meeting of ANSWER...

Now we're back to "America haters"? It didn't work the first time around and it won't work now. If you want to save America, get out of Iraq. Peace

James,

That is about it...I hope we can generate some action here. I hope that everyone who is reading this and agrees with it has sent an e mail to Frist and their own Senators...

Steve,

We never really left it, now did we?

I've been doing a bit of research, and it was on September 22nd, 2001 where the first anti-war demonstration took place...only 11 days after the Towers went down and before we even went into Afghanistan, the left was already out there trying to defeat America in the War on Terrorism...

The America-haters are out there and they keep trying - what I want to do is show our troops and the world that we're not lying down for it.

Well, I AM MAD , at that little. opportunistic weasel!!! that SMALL little man...................I am just seething!!! rest assured ,he has already heard how mad I am.

If you want to save America, get out of Iraq. Peace

If you want to save America, sent little steve to Iraq. the terrorists will all die laughing, and our troops can come home and rest up for the next ground invasion...of San Fransicko!!!

Mark

If Bush is a politician of deeply Christian beliefs then he is certainly giving Christianity a bad name.

Keefer

Perhaps you could fight side by side with Steve in Iraq and forget about invading your own country.

Canadian,

Only if you think that Christianity is a wimpy religion which won't do battle against evil...

Face it - Bush has no plan in Iraq. Victory is nowhere in sight because he doesn't know how to define it.

Face it--you're a moron. This talking point is over two years old, and it's used to preach to the choir, the band of Murthas, of which you are a charter member. Why don't you think for yourself, mf?

Keefer: I don't speak stupid, so you'll have to get somebody to translate your prattle into English.

Good one, EatsDogShit; I'll bet you had help with that one. You're a colossal waste of oxygen; I hope your daddy didn't waste his money sending you to college.

There seems to be good number of Republicans who are starting to question the intentions of the "King".

Hey, Canuck Observer has chimed in; he must be between shots. Observer, do you live in BC? I hear there's a legal "shooting gallery" there. Just thought you'd like to know...

Yes, Canadian - haven't you heard of the Christian Crusades?

Apparently Doofus Bush has his heart set on Part II.

Perhaps it's over two years old, Sheep Keefer, because *nobody has defined victory yet*. Define it, and we'll stop asking.

Go ahead, give it a try Keefer, rumor has it you work in a toll booth, you must have half a brain.

Glad to see the Demorats are talking about the wiretapping issue. The port issue is now dead. I wish the Demos would have called for banning all foreign firms from "owning the ports," buth they have not.

They better get off of this wire tap issue, because the Demorats were beaten up on this issue pretty good in January and early February. 70% of the American public concur with the right to wiretap and Presidents Carter and Clintune have also done the same. Finally, the Courts, have stated that the President has this power Finally, a NY Judge (probably a liberal) rejected an attorney's claim to overturn charges filed against two persons on illegally obtaining NSA Wiretaps just this Friday. Do an internet search for more details.

Did you see the new Rasmussen poll, Bush's approval rates have surged ten points compared to CBS. Wow wee!!!

Is it working-Yes

12 March 2006: U.S. District Judge Thomas McAvoy refused to dismiss charges against two Muslims arrested in an FBI anti-terrorism sting, rejecting claims that evidence was tainted by use of "illegal warrantless wiretaps." He also rejected the defense to suppress any evidence acquired from the wiretaps or force authorities to disclose whether they were even used in the Albany case. His "classified" order leaves secret his reasons; a three-sentence public order was issued late Friday.

Yassin Aref, 35, an imam at Masjid as-Salam in Albany, and Mohammed Hossain, 50, are accused of laundering money in 2003-04 for an FBI informant, a Pakistani businessman posing as an arms dealer.

"Forty-one percent (41%) of Americans now trust Democrats in Congress more than the President on national security issues. Forty percent (40%) have more trust in the President."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/March%20Dailies/Dubai%20Ports%20Update.htm

So much for that tired "soft on terrorism" slogan, eh Mark?

Perhaps it's over two years old, Sheep Keefer, because *nobody has defined victory yet*. Define it, and we'll stop asking.

Keep asking, pico de pollo; keep asking. I've heard it defined numerous times, by numerous politicians. Just because you have ears full of s***doesn't mean others are deaf too.

...rumor has it you work in a toll booth, you must have half a brain.

Ouch! How creative, mf. Rumor has it you're the lead pole dancer at a gay club--you must have a sore bunghole...

(edited for obscenity)

Maf,

You are aware, aren't you, that the Crusades were a counter-attack, right? I mean, you aren't ignorant of the fact that Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morroco were once Christian, are you? You do realise that the great Church Father St. Augustine was an African Bishop, don't you?

You do realise that the Moslem came through Christian Asia and Africa with fire and sword, subjugating the Christian population, appropriating the benefits of Christian civilization and passing it off as Moslem, don't you?

"Given that the only possible beneficiaries of such an action are the terrorist enemeis of the United States, I believe that we should urge the Senate to censure Senator Feingold for giving aid and comfort to the enemy."

God you people are whiny.

When it comes to the War on Terror, nothing can convince me that Bush and Feingold are on the same side. That is because they are not. Feingold has been appeasing terrorists since 9/11. Opposing the Patriot Act. Opposing the liberation of Iraq.

This is just the latest strike of vicious anti-American leftism that Russ Feingold has mastered.

The fact is that the terrorists have a lot to use for their propaganda.

They can use the fact that John Murtha has called for a retreat from an important War on Terror front.

They can use the fact that leftists subverted a perfectly fine ports deal to advance their claim that we are "At War with all Muslims".

There should be consequences for treasonous actions.

Terrorist supporters like Cindy Sheehan, John Kerry, Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, George Soros, John Murtha, and Russ Feingold deserve to be punished for their treason against America.

I'm behind the President 100%

"Poor, poor Mark. So sad that you have to go inventing stuff like this when, of course, none of it is true. The only thing I'm loyal to is the truth, no matter how inconvenient that might be."

Well, loyal to what you think the truth is, if you're even that. No offense, but that line sounds like complete BS.

"Finally, I'm not a lefty. I'm a realist. Sorry you seem to find that so threatening."

Perhaps if your opinions didn't resonate so much with certian left-wing blogs, people woulnd't think you're a "lefty".

Posted by: SeesThroughIt at February 22, 2006 11:23 PM:
"'San Francisco Fudge: collected on the streets and packed in the bath houses.'
Conservatives: Just don't call them homophobic! They love (to hate) gays!"

Posted by: SeesThroughIt at February 19, 2006 10:47 PM:
So you're in favor of displaced New Orleans residents being shut left behind come voting time? Good to know. I see that infamous conservative compassion striking again.

Posted by: SeesThroughIt at February 7, 2006 09:29 PM:
Nor will they ever, Frawg. They have no use for factual content around here--just sheer belief. As a nonbeliever, you're far too logical for this crowd.

Posted by: SeesThroughIt at March 9, 2006 01:48 PM:
It's not in the slightest, but even if we take this stupid analogy at face value, anti-choicers are the ones trying to claim ownership over a woman, usurping her autonomy. Which would make anti-choicers the po-slavery faction.

Posted by: SeesThroughIt at December 15, 2005 08:44 PM:
I know you need to whip up this patently absurd "war on Christmas" meme every year to keep people focused and in line, but surely you must realize that it's phony. If not...wow. You're even more far gone than I thought.

Hey, i've got one for you, SeesThroughIt.

You know how Bill O'Reilly is supposedly an independent? Seems to me that you're similar to him in that you're not really associated with either side, you're a "realist". You seem to have some strong agreements with the left (calling pro-lifers anti-choicers, for instance. Blaming Bush for Katrina, etc). In your mind, you might be a "realist", but if you really are left-of-center, why not just admit the label of Lefty?

So much for truth.

shortz, why bother posting? Why? You never say anything significant. Surely you can find somebody on that shortz-bus who can help you come up with something worthwhile. Why don't you ask mommy or daddy?

shortz,

Given the amount of comments on a Sunday night on a little blog out in the middle of nowhere...I think we've struck a nerve, on both sides.

The Demorats are stupid. They should have pushed for banning all foreign takeover of ports and not rehashed this issue of the NSA Wiretaps. They got outflanked on the ports issue by the House Republicans and now that issue is dead. Bush killed them on this issue months ago. It is legal and 70% of the American public support this. Its actually more narrower than what Carter and Clintune did in the past. To quote John Kerry, "Bring it on!!!"

Mark, we could argue this back & forth all day - the point is, both Christianity & Islam have violent histories.

Now, for the religious right who post on this site, take a look at this column from your favorite paper, the NYT. Here's a sampling:

"Fundamentalists do what they perceive as good deeds in order to fulfill God's will and to earn salvation; atheists do them simply because it is the right thing to do. Is this also not our most elementary experience of morality? When I do a good deed, I do so not with an eye toward gaining God's favor; I do it because if I did not, I could not look at myself in the mirror. A moral deed is by definition its own reward. David Hume, a believer, made this point in a very poignant way, when he wrote that the only way to show true respect for God is to act morally while ignoring God's existence."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/opinion/12zizek.html?_r=1&incamp=article_popular_3&oref=slogin

"Fundamentalists do what they perceive as good deeds in order to fulfill God's will and to earn salvation; atheists do them simply because it is the right thing to do."

I don't think you have a very good understanding of Christianity. Good deeds don't get you into heaven. It is only through the grace of God that you enter heaven. It's a gift from the Lord, and to recieve that blessing, you must not reject God.

Yes, there are self-serving Chrisitians, just like there are self-serving Atheists (something that was "cleverly" left out of your posting). Thanks for your lovely generalization though.

"both Christianity & Islam have violent histories."

As does secularism. Take the USSR, China (PRC), Khmer Rouge (Cambodia - Pol Pot) who are officially atheist, and look at the atrocities associated with them. My point: Violence happens whether religion is present or not.

"David Hume, a believer, made this point in a very poignant way, when he wrote that the only way to show true respect for God is to act morally while ignoring God's existence."

A believer? Funny, as i'm finding him described as an agnostic.

I don't quite know how religion got into this post (I didn't bother to read all of the comments), but I am reminded of a quote by Clinton's former spiritual advisor:

"Mixing Religion and Politics is like mixing Ice Cream and Maneure."

Anyway, on to the point.

I don't really see any point of censuring anyone this year. Feingold is just blowing hot air out of his rear (as usual), and you will not get any democrat in an election year to censure him either.

Really... Nothing good can come from censuring Feingold... The Democrats won't risk voting for it because it would make the party look bad (it is possible), and if the Republicans succeed (even with a full, party-line vote), it would just make them look vindictive.

We all know that Feingold is posturing to get re-elected later this year; if you guys want to look really good in an election year, just rise above it.

Mark, Freedom, Keefer, Bearman, Tina, etc. -

How do you define "victory" in this so-called War on Terror.

What does it mean to "win" this war?

Those are two very pointed questions. For all the military cheerleaders on this site, surely you have an answer or two.

Posted by: maf53 at March 12, 2006 03:31 PM

Mark, in a previous post I asked you & the other war cheerleaders to define "victory" in Iraq, to which you answered:

"What is victory in the war? The general sense that there is no major terrorist attack likely in the future."

It should be no wonder why the American people are no longer sold on this war, if that is the best answer you can offer. Face it - Bush has no plan in Iraq. Victory is nowhere in sight because he doesn't know how to define it.

You create new enemies every time you slaughter another innocent Iraqi, not when Feingold comes out calling for censure of Bush. Got it?

And as for "accusing American soldiers of abuses" - well, then I'm assuming that you condone torture? Otherwise, why else would you take issue with Senators calling out American tourture in Abu Grhaib?

Posted by: maf53 at March 12, 2006 05:49 PM

Same ol' crap Maf53, Your head is to large to contain the simple facts! Victory eludes the faint hearted! We'll not waste our time esplaining to you what you won't hear! We'll just continue to fight for you simpleton commi bastards!

Maf53, Tis extremely hard to explain to one of whom has never had a victory in their life(since they never fight for anything)! From victory on a battle feild, to the victory of the hearts and minds, to the defeat of the defeatists on the homefront, you my friend wouldn't know a victory if it slapped you in the face!

Example: I call it a VICTORY, that we have managed(however that may be) too go without a single terror attack on home soil since 9/11!!!

I call it a VICTORY that even tho Osama bin ladled hasn't been captured he surely has been neutralized & made to beg at our feet for a truce!!!

I could go on, but it would be a waste to you and your commi buddies, so I'll stop there!!!

Posted by: bearmanUSMC at March 13, 2006 12:27 AM

Mark

There seems to be good number of Republicans who are starting to question the intentions of the "King". Would you consider them to be traitors to the party? Perhaps, as the number of supporters dwindle, you will come to realize the folly of blind acceptance of all things "Bush".

Posted by: Canadian Observer at March 12, 2006 07:11 PM

Mark, they are so unaccustomed to free thinking in the democrat party these days they can't even imagine that republicans can disagree on issues without imploding! I feel sorry for the democrats hard, hard lessons in store!

"Given the amount of comments on a Sunday night on a little blog out in the middle of nowhere...I think we've struck a nerve, on both sides."

The squeaky weel gets teh greas. And boy are you guys squeaky.

"Surely you can find somebody on that shortz-bus "

You came up with this one, and you're not letting it go are you? Is anyone in your family mentaly disabled?

maf,

Well, that is entirely off topic...I'll only answer briefly by saying that all the article really argues for in the end is for the need of Authority. Tends to confirm my Catholicism.

And you may attempt to argue back and forth with me all day, but as you brought up the Crusades in an asinine attempt to denigrate our effort in the War on Terrorism, it would be up to you to controvert anything I've said. If you can't, then you'll have to come down, hard, on the side that the Crusades were entirely justified...and thus if this is Crusade II, it is also justified.

Georgia,

Until just this morning, that is how I was thinking...not any more.

This Feingold thing really is the last straw. I've had it - I've had it with putting up supinely with the left slandering our efforts and giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Does Feingold intend to give aid and comfort? Of course not - he's just another self-absorbed leftist who thinks that it is good because he advocates it. He's too blinded by leftwing ideology to even understand what he's doing - and he continues in his leftwing fantasy world because no one ever calls him to account. That is what I am attempting to do.

I really want him censured - the battle lines are already drawn, national unity has been completely destroyed...and thus every act and every vote takes on the character of an either/or event. Compromise is the great American tradition, but we cannot compromise with people who call for the censure of the President for acting entirely within his Constitutional authority during war time.

If you think the Democrats should be held to task for free speech, you cannot consider yourself an American. And it's not the Democrats who are hurting America. It was the Republicans who condoned torture and screwed up the post-war, thus creating a huge recruiting tool for al Qaeda. Republicans are hurting this country by ignoring the things that make America great (free speech, right to privacy) in the name of being protected by the big, bad terrorists. You are doing the terrorists' work for them. Congratulations. You right-wingers talk a mean game, but you all really need to grow a pair. No one's going to attack your crappy little town in Montana or South Dakota or wherever the hell you live. It was Manhattan that was attacked, and yet New Yorkers overwhelmingly oppose Bush. That is saying something.

"This Feingold thing really is the last straw. I've had it - I've had it with putting up supinely with the left slandering our efforts and giving aid and comfort to the enemy."

What does this mean? That its the 'last straw'? Does it mean it calls for a final solution? Or just censure? Thats it? That's all that aid and comfort to the enemy deserves? censure? No rope?

shortz,

Censure will do the trick - and we've also, I think, had it with our attempts at just doing the right thing being taken to absurd lengths...where do you get a threat of hanging from a simple desire to censure a Senator for his misconduct?

As I said to Georgia, I don't think that Feingold wants to give aid and comfort to the enemy, I just think he's so blinded by leftwing ideology that he doesn't realise what he is doing...censure will concentrate the mind.

Jacob,

Unintentionally, you illustrate my point...all these lefties saying that we've been torturing...its been repeated so ad-nauseum that people start to believe it. The fact that no torture has happened (underwear on head hardly comparing with bamboo shoots up fingernails, etc) has been completely lost...a censure will put things back into perspective.

You will be free to say whatever you want...but the whole world, and most especially our troops, will know that those of you who put out the slanders are impotent...that you cannot affect American policy.

Boy, what a mass of BS! Where do I begin?
1) Feingold's motion will go nowhere while the Republicans hold a majority. With all the problems that need action, your initiative is about as necessary as a "Stop the KKK lynchings!" campaign.
2)"Liberating Iraq was and is the key...don't liberate Iraq, might as well just give up the whole concept of fighting terrorism and sit home sucking our thumbs until a terrorist group gets a nuke to set off in New York or Los Angeles."
Actually, it's more likely to be a Pakistani bomb. We know they've got them, we know that Pakistan is an Al-Qaida hotbed.
3)What's all this "war in Iraq" crap? We're talking about a motion to censure a president for listening in to American overseas phone calls without a warrant - and then saying that he wasn't doing so.
4)"You can now choose: support your country, or help the enemies of your country.
Pick."
A country is not the people who live in it, or the governors who rule it. A country is the values it espouses. America is the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, freedom, democracy, rule of law.
Do you support rule of law?
5)"Only if you think that Christianity is a wimpy religion which won't do battle against evil..."
Christ told us to turn the other cheek. He fought with ideas and ideals, not with swords.
6)"The fact is that the terrorists have a lot to use for their propaganda."
I've heard a lot about terrorists using MSM talking points in their propaganda. What propaganda? Al Qaida issues a statement about twice a year.
7)"They can use the fact that leftists subverted a perfectly fine ports deal to advance their claim that we are "At War with all Muslims"."
They can also use the following.
"Maf,
You are aware, aren't you, that the Crusades were a counter-attack, right? I mean, you aren't ignorant of the fact that Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morroco were once Christian, are you? You do realise that the great Church Father St. Augustine was an African Bishop, don't you?
You do realise that the Moslem came through Christian Asia and Africa with fire and sword, subjugating the Christian population, appropriating the benefits of Christian civilization and passing it off as Moslem, don't you?"
8)"Example: I call it a VICTORY, that we have managed(however that may be) too go without a single terror attack on home soil since 9/11!!!"
There have been at least nine. None by Arabs, but nine still got past Homeland Security.
9)"Compromise is the great American tradition, but we cannot compromise with people who call for the censure of the President for acting entirely within his Constitutional authority during war time."
And thus ends a great American tradition.

I think I'll go post on a thread that isn't quite so uptight. And is a little more important.

"This Feingold thing really is the last straw."

Interesting. Perhaps you would be in favor of instituting death squads to quell public opinion as our puppet regime has apparently been unable to stop: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/14086733.htm

I comprehend that you have "had it" with dissenting voices. The truth does hurt. I wonder if you believe that those conservates (Patrick Buchanan, etc.) who have been opposed to the war every step of the way are traitors as well?

Russ Feingold, the person who didn’t have the foresight to see the negative repercussions of the McCain-Feingold act, must be in favor of Sahria law for all. Why else would Feingold put himself so squarely in the terrorist’s corner?

"We all know that Feingold is posturing to get re-elected later this year;"

I don't know if you'll find a senator who's more intuned with his constituency than Feingold. Every year, he visits all 72 Wisconsin counties for "town hall" meetings.

A lot of is attitudes and actions regarding the Iraq war, for instance, have come from these town halls. If he's gauged that his constituanced are uncomfortable with what the president has done with the NSA program, and he thinks what the president has done is illegal, what's wrong with a censure in this case.

We CAN'T let the president break the law without any consequence. Granted, in this case it looks like he did it with the best intentions, but that doesn't make it OK to turn a blind eye. Censure is the best solution in this case. It will allow the country to move on damage Bush's presidency very much at all.

"Censure will do the trick - and we've also, I think, had it with our attempts at just doing the right thing being taken to absurd lengths...where do you get a threat of hanging from a simple desire to censure a Senator for his misconduct?"

I asked because it wasn't clear. You talk about aid and comfort, which is an element of treason, which is a crime punishable by death. So I ask to clarify: do you really mean what you say, or are you just bloviating and tossing around words that you think have high import?

It is not a given that the only beneficiary of this censure motion are terrorist enemes. All free people are endangered when politicians assert that they are beyond the reproach of the law. If politicians do not have to obey the laws, how can politicians ever be held accountable for their actions before the people of our nation? We must balance executive power with independent oversight and we must check the power of politicians lest it be exercised irresponsibly. On face, it is the FISA courts which provide the independent certification that the wiretapping is being used against terrorist enemies. Without that independent review there is unchecked executive authority. Such lawless authority harms all free people by putting politicians beyond the accountability of the law. I hope at some level you care deeply about the laws of this nation and the Constitution, even if you are making an intensely partisan argument, because we all want to ensure the health of our American democracy after President Bush leaves office in 2009.

I think the democrats have it all wrong with their attacks on Bush. George Allen said it best on Meet the Press when Russert tried to pin him in as a pro-Bush Republican. Basically he said his record stands for itself, and if it happens to be in line with President Bush then so be it. He told Russert to look at the issues he supported rather than paint it as a pro-Bush record.

The Democrats don’t have issues that seem to stick. In fact their popularity is no higher than Bush’s in just about every poll; despite the huge number of polls that have tried to triangulate and issue for the Dems.

Feingold may be in touch with his constituents. Fortunately the Presidency is a National constituency and Americans overwhelmingly support tracking down terrorists, including wiretapping. This is a loser issue for Mr. Feingold outside of the far left.

I would imagine that he is actually trying to separate himself from Hillary in this effort. In any case it will be something that he will have to back peddle on if he makes it past her. History has shown that the Presidential campaigns are not won by being soft on security.

Tracking down terrorist yes, not invading countries and holding illegal wars around the world. Look-out Iran. Peace

I didn't notice the Republicans worrying too much about the international reputation of the Commander in Chief when they were impeaching Clinton for getting a blow job, or when they openly accused him of creating a "Wag the Dog" scenario when he attacked Osama Bin Laden's training camps. What hypocrisy! and how useless is any effort to enhance Bush's image among Arab nations--what can anyone say to offset among Arabs the images of Abu Graib?

Mark,

Respectfully, your attack on seesthroughit is not supported by fact nor is your claim to have somehow debunked the claim Bush and his administration made that they had proof that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

They did indeed make that case and continued to do at least up until late 2004. The following links provide just two of the hundreds of news reports which quote (in these two examples anyway) both John Bolton and Vice President Cheney as flatly stating exactly that.

At one time or another Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, Ari Fleischer, Powell and everyone else connected with the Administration made that very same claim both before and after we went to war.

In America, one of our most sacred rights is the right to dissent. To deny that is the epitome of disrespect for our Constitution and the height of hypocrisy.

Your views are as valid as seesthroughit's or mine or anyone else on this blog. We may not all see it the same way but distortion of well documented facts do your cause more damage than anything anyone (left or right) could possibly post.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, calling it a dog just makes you look ignorant.

The right to question the Government and our elected officials was expressly written into the Constitution by our founders and it is meant to be exercised in order to maintain our rights and keep our system of government healthy and free.

Don't flame those who use that right because when we deny anyone any right,we diminish and begin the process of relinquishing all of our rights.

Here is what only 2 of the 5,940,000 hits google found to document the facts you say never happened.

----------
Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

A link to the entire article is below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

AND

Wolfowitz Bombshell: Saddam Behind 9/11 Attacks and OKC Bombing

Posted on 06/01/2003 3:40:37 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY

Wolfowitz Bombshell: Saddam Behind 9/11 Attacks and OKC Bombing
Sunday, June 1, 2003
Newsmax.com

While a media firestorm has erupted over Wolfowitz's comments suggesting that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction played a smaller role in the decision to go to war than previously thought, Tanenhaus said the press has missed the real news in his report.

"[There are] allegations he made or that others close to him have made that, to me, are much more startling," the author told WABC's Crowley. "That's what I thought was going to be the news [coming out of this interview]."

In a transcript on the interview released by the Pentagon, Wolfowitz also indicates that he suspects Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Asked why Iraq was at the top of the U.S.'s list when it came to taking action in the war on terror, Wolfowitz told Tanenhaus that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction played a role, but then added:

"Plus the fact, which seems to go unremarked in most places, that Saddam Hussein was the only international figure other than Osama bin Laden who praised the attacks of September 11."

A link to the entire article is below:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/921398/posts
------------------

To get drawn into useless finger-pointing is an exercise in futility and a waste of effort. Fact is, (like it or not) BOTH Republicans AND Democrats voted us into this war.

The decision to go to war was made based on "evidence" that has been largely proven false and now, we must figure out what level of accountability to place on the people who fed the lies to us should be.

There is more than ample proof to bring Bush to task for his actions. Feingold is simply starting a process which could have been legally and legitimately started several years ago.

I voted for Bush the first time. Voted against him the next when his first term left me with more questions than answers.

Clinton went through his trial for one hell of a lot less than what Bush has to answer for. I wanted to find out about Clinton and supported his censure and impeachment. Now, we need to know the real truth about Bush in the same way.

If he has done nothing wrong, he (and you) should not be threatened by this. This is the process our elected Officials to Government have sworn an oath to take in matters such as these.

Let's see where our constitutional process takes us.

Meanwhile, you can try to dance away from your slavish devotion to leftwing ideology, but I can read, ya know? I've never seen you say anything that wouldn't be acceptable at a meeting of ANSWER...

Ah, Mark. You're so difficult to enlighten. Let me break this down for you as simply as possible, OK?

You're a right-wing idealogue. You admit this on this very blog. You start from the position that the right wing is always correct and the left wing is always wrong, then you set about finding bits of information that'll fit in that mold. Naturally, because you're trying to fit a mold, you'll discard things that won't fit--specifically where the left wing has been correct and where the right wing has been incorrect. This is why you're prone to making sweeping--and laughably false--generalizations.

I am not an idealogue for anything. I start from the position that neither side is correct until they can prove they're correct. So I set about finding information--not information that fits a preconceived mold about who's right and who's wrong, just information. And then from that, I figure out who's right and who's wrong. And as any logical person might expect, both the left and the right have times when they are correct and times when they are incorrect. That, you see, is called intellectual honesty. No slavish devotion to some wingnutty truth. Just objective analysis.

Independent thought is a magnificent thing. I suggest you try it sometime, Mark. I know it'll be uncomfortable for you at first--even scary. But it'll make you a much better person and less prone to saying ridiculous things like, "Let's censure Russ Feingold for daring to criticize the president!"

Anphanax, I blamed Bush for Katrina? Really? News to me...in actuality, I blamed nobody for Katrina, it being a natural disaster and all, but I blamed ALL levels of government--yes, including Bush--for the terrible response to Katrina. See that? That's called "not taking sides." Everybody screwed up. It's just that idealogues like Mark think only people with (D) next to their name are at fault, as people with (R) next to their name never, ever screw up. Now tell me who's being honest. Hint: Not Mark, or you.

Bearman,

If I'm a Commie, then I'm sorry, that makes you equally a Nazi. Nice military speech though, about the victory on the battlefields, and the victories in the hearts and minds bullshit .. bottom line: you have no plan to win in Iraq. None whatsoever. You're not going to democratize the entire Middle East. Hate to be the one to break it to you, but it's not happening. Nice pipe dream, though.

Mark, I did not bring up the Crusades as an "asinine attempt to denigrate our effort in the War on Terrorism," I brought them up because somebody else expressed shock that Bush, as a Christian, could be so pro-war - I just pointed out that Christians have used excessive violence in the past as well. Sorry if basic history upsets your faith.

Also, Jacob brings up an interesting point (which was obviously ignored): New York was attacked on 9/11, not West Virginia, or Montana, or Alabama, or from wherever else you crazy right wingers are from - it was NY. And NY *overwhelmingly* opposes Dufus Bush. What does that tell you, sheep?

Victory in Iraq is this:
1. Capturing Saddam and putting him on trial. Check
2. Stopping his murderous regime. Check
3. Invading the country and taking it over quickly with minimal loss of lives. Check
4. Killing thousands of terrorists. Check
5. Giving the Iraqi people a chance for democracy. Check
6. Putting fear into other dictators around the region, such as Libya so that they voluntarily submit to inspections. Check
7. Showing bad leaders that we ARE willing to use ground troups in this war on terror. Check
8. Showing the world that we mean what we say and are to be taken seriously. Check
9. Not having to wait for bungling UN idiots to do proper WMD inspections, but being able to do those inspections properly, with OUR military. Check
10. Drawing in more terrorists so that we can kill them and send them to their false god, Allah. Check

Victory is ours. The war has has already been won. The real question is not whether we will succeed, but how long is it going to take before all loose ends are tied up and most troops can come home from Iraq? There is a plan in effect for this and it is happening as well.

Lefties are so invested in their hate-filled, alternate realities, that they can best be desribed as being cult members. As such, they can not understand or perceive anything properly or accurately.

"Anphanax, I blamed Bush for Katrina?"

I appear to have been mistaken. I was paraphrasing from something else your wrote, and didn't do a good job wording it. What I should have said is "Blaming The Post-Katrina Situation Entirely (Seemingly, anyways) On Bush And His Administration".

From:
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/006258.html
"Anyways I asked this same question several months ago, in the wake of the stupendous Bush Administration incompetence that left thousands dead and homeless after Katrina hit the Gulf Coast."

I agree that his administration deserves some blame for the response. It seems to me when people makes comments about the local government deserving blame too, they seem to be dismissed, that's all. Perhaps i'm reading things that aren't there, though.

"Also, Jacob brings up an interesting point (which was obviously ignored): New York was attacked on 9/11, not West Virginia, or Montana, or Alabama, or from wherever else you crazy right wingers are from - it was NY. And NY *overwhelmingly* opposes Dufus Bush. What does that tell you, sheep?"

Remember, when you're insulting other's intelligence, it's important to spell words like "doofus" correctly.

Secondly, what's it supposed to tell us?

We have:
New York Attacked On 9/11.
New York Overwhelmingly Opposes Bush.
Therefore, what? The terrorists and Bush are buddies?

Logical Fallacy:
(The Friends Of My Enemies Are My Friends)
---------------------------------------
If A is in opposition of B,
And C is in opposition of B,
Then A and C must be friendly.
---------------------------------------
Replace A with Bush, and C with Terrorists.

I hope you're not one of those "THE US STAGED 9/11" people.

(The Friends Of My Enemies Are My Friends)
Should read:
(The Enemies Of My Enemies Are My Friends)

I wish we could edit our comments here.

Look, the President could have done this legally, or he could have gotten the law changed (most of the Patriot Act WAS changes to FISA) or he could violate the law, repeatedly, concertedly and going forward. He chose the third course. Therefore, censure is in order.

No President is above the law. No President has the constitutional right to blow off laws, duly enacted, that he finds inconvenient.

I, for one, would be just as fervently for this censure if the name of the offending President was Bill…or Hilary–and I think some reflexive Bush supporters should think about whether they would still be arguing for some of the propositions that they are now urging if the President was a Democrat.

connected, deeply, with terrorism

That's a total lie. Saddam was a secularist and the terrorists who attacked us were Islamic extemists.

I'm just waiting for Bush to declare himself President for Life a la Papa Doc and you right wing wackos blogging about what a good idea it is as long as we're in The Long War.

Why don't you enlist?

If I'm a Commie, then I'm sorry, that makes you equally a Nazi. Nice military speech though, about the victory on the battlefields, and the victories in the hearts and minds bullshit .. bottom line: you have no plan to win in Iraq. None whatsoever. You're not going to democratize the entire Middle East. Hate to be the one to break it to you, but it's not happening. Nice pipe dream, though.

Posted by: maf53 at March 13, 2006 12:38 PM

I hate to break it to you again commie, your to stupid to see victory if it slapped you in the face!!! If 99.999999% of our troops returned home with tales of victory & accomplishment you'd still be saying what you've been saying all along,"Bush lied, he lied, and people died, they died & & & ............" and .1% percent of the troops said it too. Get a life freak show! You guys get more pathetic by the hour, rather than the day!!!

i have an idea... why dont you splendidly tough and just American bloggers (and wannabes) suit up and get yer arse over to iraq and put your money where your mouth is.

you think the war is where its at? then go and fight, dont sit around your computer and bitch at those who think America has made a grave error

The other beneficiaries are your children, who would presumably prefer to not live in a police state. Come on, why are you all so horribly short-sighted all of a sudden? You are REALLY going to be so sanguine when it is a democratic president and he/she is using this wiretapping authority to be certain that large gun dealers are not cooperating with street gangs or churches are not coordinating with the RNC... hey the possibilities are endless (because the war on terror is endless) and it's amazing you can't see that.

Ok, I'm a lefty, and a pretty big anti-Iraq War one, and I don't see how anyone could seriously consider censuring the President of the United States for doing something that is in direct violation of a law passed by Congress and signed by another President of the United States as helping the enemy. Now as much as I disapprove of the Iraq War and the Bush Administration, I hate the Islamofascists more, mostly because they are uber-right wing religious nuts that want to turn back everything we consider to be civilization to what it was in the 8th century. You right-wing religious nuts just want to go back to Puritanical days, so you all aren't as bad. Feingold is simply standing up for the RULE OF LAW, and if Conservatives aren't behind that, they aren't real conservatives, just Bush apologists. No one thinks the president shouldn't tap the phones of terrorists, but only Bush and his apologists think the FISA judges and Congress don't want to tap terrorists' phones. If Bush had just asked HIS REPUBLICAN Congress for the power, he would have gotten it. Bush and Cheney need to worry more about fighting this war and providing us with a competent functioning government than trying to restore the power and prestige of their office. I'm about as far to Left as you get on things, and I wouldn't have had any problem changing the laws to make this wiretapping legal and I doubt seriously some Arab religious nut would have cared if a judge approved it or not.

i have an idea...

enough criticizing everyone...

i am going to assume that everything the (Republican) government does is correct and good for all of us.

i think if we all do that (especially those who dare to criticize your government), and stop complaining about the boy-king's actions, we'll all be better off (and a lot happier!)

will the fine Republicans out there do the same when a Dem takes over the white house, and recapture a majority in the legislature?

in sum... i think the fewer the differences there are between us, the better we can fight islamists AND get America back on the right track!

who's with me?

Mark?

Just out of curiosity, How many people are dead today because the Democrats have chosen to use the war as a partisan political issue? Do you have an answer?

I have an idea... why dont you splendidly tough and just American bloggers (and wannabes) suit up and get yer arse over to iraq and put your money where your mouth is.

you think the war is where its at? then go and fight, dont sit around your computer and bitch at those who think America has made a grave error

Posted by: daver at March 14, 2006 09:57 AM

And what about you daver, were you there? If not, you really have no right whatsoever to ask that of anyone here! And if you think this country made a grave error, that is your right, as it is my right to think you are making one big dumb.ss mistake in opening your mouth to state it! Get a clue bud!!!

hey bearmanUSMC, why dont i have the right to suggest all war supporters suit up? If you're there, thats great, but you volunteered, right? and let me be clear... i disagree with your govt policy of war, not with you, the warrior. you've been duped, man, and your leader continues to dupe you. But i realize questioning authority makes many people uncomfortable.

and why is it that the hard-core righties are always saying "you dont have the right to ..."?

why are you so determined to prevent people from having rights?

You lefties daver just don't get it do you!!! Which part of your right, my right don't you get! We are not determined to prevent you people from a damn thing. If we were, your lives would be a living hell(literally)! If you want to experience not having rights move to frickin cuba, or Iran! That's were the "get a clue comes in"! When we "Warriors" go to fight, we don't just fight for Christian conservatives! We fight for You, Howard Stern, Anna Nichole Smith, Dick Cheney, John effin Kerry, Jane Fonda, Hillary Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, Sean Hannity, Al Franken, Michael Moore, George W. Bush, My Mom, My Dad, My brothers & sisters, My neighbors, the drug addict on the street, the homeless in San. Fransisco! Do you get my point, or need I go on! We fight for Americans & humanity. You CAN SAY whatever the hell you want, that's O.K. So can I. You can condemn our efforts in the middle east all you want, we won't thro you in jail, or cut out your tongue or rape & kill your sister! We won't do those things, but if you can't take us saying what we WANT to SAY about your OPINIONS, then find a different BETTER country to spew your hate in! You can disagree all you want, and I will continue to excersice my freedom of speech & tell you from a "supposed duped first hand position", you guys are full of sh.. And you need to get a clue!

When has it become legitimate to punish somebody for saying that the president should follow the law?