Bush commented today that we cannot force democracy in the Palestinian crisis. His reasoning? It's not something accepted in the region.

Yeah, no kidding.

Cheney listened to Chalabi , and the other exiles.
Rumsfeld didn't listen to his Generals.
And Bush just went with his gut.

Yeah, wars don't just end. Which is why we should have planned this a little better instead of cheering on these warmongers.

I know, you think I'm a liberal commie. I have news for you, born and raised in a Republican military family.

The one lesson I learned from Vietnam is don't rush into anything that might effect generations.

Stop cheering either party like they were some local sports team. And, remember not supporting one side does not automatically put you in support of the other.

I honestly think that what stops both sides from looking at this in any clear logical way is stubborn pride, and I think it's disgusting that the blood of our soldiers is going to smear the battlefield until this President can dump this 6 year mess onto another person.

I don't support this administration's bungling mess, and you're a fool if you think that makes me a liberal democrat.

OT: Found the following over on Drudge. Combined with this is that I believe Hillary has reneged on giving back the Hsu money.

This woman is a hack and a criminal.

Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown

Necon, I suspect most candidates, at one time or another have either knowingly or unknowlingly accepted dirty and/or illegal contributions, but the Clintons have turned it into an artform. If Hillary ends up back in the White House on January 20th, 2009, the people who put her there deserve exactly what they get. Unfortunately, the rest of us, well..........all I can say is hold on to your wallets.

In all fairness, we survived 8 years of her moral slug of a husband, although we're still paying the price in a number of ways. In the end, damage can usually be undone, albeit usually at great cost.

Emmett Tyrrell has a great piece

OT: Its going to be a tough week in the NFL.

Hmmm, not sure why it cut off the last couple sentences of my previous post, but the link to Tyrrell's excellent piece about the Clintons works. Bill and Hill are two of the slimiest people to ever occupy the White House. I really don't relish the thought of giving them an encore. Hopefully the majority of the American people agree.

Spook,

Maybe it's just me, but I can't possibly see this pathetic excuse for a woman winning the White House in '09.

Do you seriously think she has a chance? Afterall, she is detested by conservatives, are repulsed by many women and many members of her own base do not like, or support her. Combine that with the plethora of damaging ads that can be generated by the GOP highlighting her socialist agenda and her policy positions du jour depending on how politically expedient they are.

So, do you guys only post the comments of those that agree with you?? Well, I think you are idiots, and like Bush himself you don't want to hear any side to a discussion other than your own, no matter how wrong you are,,, and anyone who supports Bush is dead wrong.

neocon,

But you're fogetting that the MSM LOVES her. I don't understand their fascination with her, or WJC, but the MSM has put them both on pedestals.

The conveniently ignore her illegal campaign contributions. Her endless scandals while First Lady. Her fits of rage and contempt for the military and the "little people". Her Socialist agenda. Her tendency to pander to every voting block - "Baby bonds", goverment-matched 401K contributions, Hillerycare, etc. Her direct ties to Soros, Moveon.org, and Media Matters. Her failure to vote to condemn the Moveon.org ad and her signing the letter attempting to deprive Rush of his Constitutional right to free speech and freedom of the press. Her desire to tax, tax, and tax, then history shows that tax rate cuts stimulate the economy and generate greater government revenues. Her complete lack of executive experience. Her enabling of her sexual predator husband.

She has so much baggage, she needs a train to carry it all.

Here's another name to add to Hill's list of questionable donors -- although given his past connections, it might be a little hard for Bush supporters to slam her too hard.

The conveniently ignore = They conveniently ignore

Do you seriously think she has a chance?

Neocon, when your motto is "whatever it takes", you bet I think she has a chance. AS A-10 notes, the MSM loves her. Whatever negative things come out about her during the campaign are going to be at the GOP's expense, because they'll get zero help from the MSM with the exception of Fox News.

I've been getting regular mail and phone solicitations from the RNC for months. The mail I just toss in the circular file, and the phone calls I usually just hang up, but last week I finally got into it with a GOP phone solicitor. When he met with my initial resistance, he shot back with "you don't want the Clintons back in the White House, do you?" When I said, "of course not", he said, "well, then, can we count on you for $100?" I threw him off his game when I said, "that depends on how you'll spend it". He asked what I meant, and I said, the Clintons will do whatever it takes; will you?" He kinda hemmed and hawed, something about how they would never stoop down to the Clintons' level, and I said, "thanks, have a nice day", and hung up.

I'm not going to sugar-coat it by putting it in Spanish -- NO BALLS, that's the GOP's biggest problem.

I forgot to mention (Rush pointed it out yesterday), that the MSM is already beginning to ressurect Hillary's image by reporting how people are surprised when the meet her how likable she is and similar such rhetoric. In 2004, Evan Thomas at Newsweek publicly said that support from the MSM would be worth 15 points to Kerry. Make no mistake about it, that number will be even higher with Hillary.

Ok, ok - I'm putting up an entry on the donations!

Arn,

Now, don't you feel a fool? If you would just register, your comments would appear...but since you didn't, and now acccuse us of censorship, that comment of yours will never appear.

Don't be a jerk.

Personally, I would rather see another Democratic candidate receive the nomination but with that said, the Republicans are in a world of hurt. Democratic fundraising is ahead by over 100 million dollars and business and industries which for generations supported Republican candidates are no longer interested in what the Republicans have become or whom they represent.
How many times does it need to be said that there is no military solution to Iraq? What does it take to wake some of you up to that fact and why do you continue to demonize anybody who points out the obvious? Is it your religion? Your absolute unquestioning devotion to all things Bush? And just whom on the Republican side do you support? You laugh at Ron Paul and yet he has raised more money from military familes than the other Republican candidates combined.
This country has been torn apart over the past 7 years by the misguided and incompetent fools who have spent more time amassing power than demonstrating real leadership and problem solving abilites. The is a huge difference between being right and being sure. George Armstrong Custer was sure too and look what happened to him. Not to mention all of the graft of Delay and Abramoff, Cunningham etc or the sexual "issues" that so horrify you about a past president but seem to over-look in you own kind: and most of them homosexual at that! Gay marriage is out but gay sex with a prostitute is OK? How about congress person Aldrich? Found dead this past June wearing 2 (TWO!) wetsuits with an inanimate object up is arse. That's some real fine folks representing "real americans" and their "real" values.
Excuse me while I gag.

Excuse me while I gag.

Choking on one of those "inanimate objects," eh, Alexisis?

It's Alex.
Yeah, but I put it between my girlfriends legs as an appetizer, so to speak. That way I can concentrate on what I do best with minimal effort. At my age I've learned a thing or two about women and sex. Hahahaha!!

alexanderdelarge,

"Democratic fundraising is ahead by over 100 million dollars"

Proof? The latest figures from opensecrets.org do not show them close to 100 million ahead, let alone "over" 100 more.

"business and industries which for generations supported Republican candidates are no longer interested in what the Republicans have become or whom they represent."

Proof? Or is this just another of your wet dreams?

"You laugh at Ron Paul and yet he has raised more money from military familes than the other Republican candidates combined."

Proof? Since he has only raised a little more than $8M, and the rest of the GOP field have raised over $160M, it's highly unlikely that he has raised more from military families than the rest combined.

"Gay marriage is out but gay sex with a prostitute is OK?"

Are you taking about Barney Frank (D-MA)?

"How about congress person Aldrich? Found dead this past June wearing 2 (TWO!) wetsuits with an inanimate object up is arse."

Who? Are you just making this up. Cite please.

The absurdity of me quoting sources of information is an excersize in futility because I know that you will refute them, but here goes anyway. The NYTimes.The LATimes. The WaPO. The Washington Times. The NRO. The Weekly Standard. Andrew Sullivan in the Atlantic. Slate. Salon. The Iraqi Daily News. Pentagon press releases. Nature. Scientific American. And the hits keep on comming.
Real Time on HBO. CNN. The RNC. The AP. MSNBC. Faux Noise.
WTF is "opensecrets.org"? A portal for authoritarian lemmings to get their daily fix of skewed bs? Or is it run by christianists?
Excuse me, but I am going to practice propigating the species with my horny girlfriends.
They have a need that I have to satisfy.
Viddy well little brother, viddy well.

alex "arse" where you writing from?

Kahn:
The planet earth.
And here you go A-10. The last research I will do for such a contrairian as you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/opinion/19krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Neocon put your money up on Intrade.com the larhest political futures market.

Oooooh, isn't comarade alexi just the COOLEST!!!!????

Of course, women learned a long time ago that them that can, do, and them that can't, talk about doing it. But what a snotty little potty-mouth! And politically ignorant, to boot! What a catch!
.................

The Dems are not trying to "end" the war because Bush is giving them the same information he has, and also letting us KNOW they are getting it. So they are fully aware of the fact that if they act to ensure defeat in this war, as they did in Viet Nam, they will be publicly outed as actual traitors.

I thought it brilliant of Bush to make public the information that he is sharing his classified reports with the Dem candidates, so they can factor in the hard information when they campaign and therefore not make promises they will not be able to keep, regarding national security.

History is already going to be very harsh with these people---if they continue to promote an ignominous defeat with all that would mean, even after receiving the information they have been given, they will be judged even more harshly. And they know it.

The hard thing for them is doing the tap dance on the high wire, trying to posture as wanting to "end" the war while at the same time knowing it has to be won, not "ended". Poor babies.

walcrowe, it your example is the only thing you "learned" from Viet Nam, you weren't paying attention.

What you SHOULD have learned is that the radical Left will lie, even under oath to Congress as Kerry did, in pursuit of political power, and that they are indifferent to the horrible cost in human life when they do so. You SHOULD have learned to study history, and ignore the mainstream media, and you SHOULD have learned that Viet Nam was actually an honorable war, brought about by our keeping our word according to SEATO, and also that we were winning the war in Viet Nam when we lost it here at home. THOSE are valuable lessons, which are being ignored as the same radical Left tries to do the same snow job on America, for the same reasons, indifferent to the fact that if they succeed the even more innocent people will be slaughtered.

Almiranta,

Know what the difference between the conservative posts here and the liberals posts here is? The conservative posts have a high degree of personal thought and analysis in them. While the liberals posts largely consist of posts pasted from other liberals or of mindless "chants-of-the-day".

Thats why trying to "debate" them gets so tedious. There's nobody home on the other end of the line.

If you "conservatives" were even 1/2 way correct, then Bush's approval numbers would not be stuck at less than 30%, the war in Iraq would be over, New Orleans would be under reconstruction, the Republican candidates would have raised more money than the Democrats, businesses and industries would still be faithful to Republicans, the constitution would not be under attack by Cheney, Libby would have never gone to trial, Rove and Gonzo would still have positions in the administration and...well, you get the point.
Or do I need to cut and paste more evidence that my master gives me.

That just proves that your side has a very effective propaganda and personal attack machine.

Lets look at some of the Democratic utopias, places where Democrats have ruled for decades, even centuries.

I see the Democrats on Cape Cod decided to deny the power company the right to install buried cables to connect power from the proposed windmill project to the power grid. Let me know when global warming is more than a chant up there.

I wonder how race relations and the wars against drugs and poverty are going in; Atlanta, Washington DC, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Detroit (all of Michigan in fact), Chicago, New Orleans, and Los Angeles? I;m sure that the Big Dig wasn't massively corrupt and New Jersey didn't hand out anti-terror funds based on part affiliation.

Uh oh, outside your programming I bet. Better plug into KOS to see if you care.

President Bush's approval rating may be low, but it's far better than that of the worthless "DO NOTHING" Democrat Congress!

"Public approval for the job that Congress is performing -- 11 percent in the new survey -- matches the all-time low that Reuters found last month."

We're not complaining though. The best we could possibly hope for from a bunch of useless Democrats (Liberals) is NOTHING (remission)!

AAR

Kahn,

You're right. There's nobody home on the other end of the line.

Now if we could just get rid of that irritating static. I think it's bleeding through from one of those alternate universes we hear about!

AAR

alexanderdelarge,

"The absurdity of me quoting sources of information is an excersize in futility because I know that you will refute them, but here goes anyway. The NYTimes.The LATimes. The WaPO. The Washington Times. The NRO. The Weekly Standard. Andrew Sullivan in the Atlantic. Slate. Salon. The Iraqi Daily News. Pentagon press releases. Nature. Scientific American."

You are correct. That was absurd. I asked for specific cites to prove your assertions. You give me a list of mostly left-leaning MSM. You have proven absolutely nothing. Therefore, I can safely assume that your statements were fabrications, just as most things uttered by liberals.

"WTF is "opensecrets.org"? A portal for authoritarian lemmings to get their daily fix of skewed bs? Or is it run by christianists?"

Why don't you visit their site, you might learn something. Its simply a site that tracks who gives money to whom. One of the few non-partisan sites out there.

Christianists? Is that a new word you just made up to try to act smart?

The one link you did provide is to an op-ed by Paul Krugman, a thoroughly discredited "economist" who is trying to eek out a living writing liberal hit pieces for the NYT that no one reads. He is a typical liberal hack, misrepresenting economic data, lying about the facts, and generally making a fool of himself every time he puts his thoughts to paper.

Since you refuse to back up any of your claims with link, cites, or facts, I will deduce that you were making things up (also know as lying), as usual. Typical liberal, lying, waste of human flesh.

A-10:
Christianist is not a word I made up. You can google it for it's etymology. I came across it on Andrew Sullivans site. You are the sort of person who, when confronted with things you either don't agree with or don't want to believe, you claim that they are "made up". As far as Krugman you are infinately more qualified, as you are superior to John Dean as well. Enjoy and Ilook forward to your smear of him too.
P.S. Make sure you read the articles on Authoritarianism. Your mode of thinking was used as a model.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/

Wikipedia...

Some authors have used the terms "Christianism" or "Christianist" in place of "dominionism," a usage that began as early as 2003 in certain media outlets, particularly liberal-oriented blogs. By analogy to the term "Islamist," this usage is intended to evoke the specter of theocracy and even terrorism (citing, for example, the notorious bomber Eric Rudolph).

AAR

Keep reading...
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1191826-1,00.html

And more the the point...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism

And lastly, I went to opensecrets as you suggested and according to the rules of mathematics, if one adds up the totals of Democratic contributions vs Republican, the difference is indeed over 100 million dollars.
I also suggest tha you read this very short, but to the point article from today edition of The Economist. Refute away!!

http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=9139211&story_id=9988740

alexanderdelarge,

You must have a defective calculator, or maybe a defective brain, because when I add up the contributions for Democratic candidates, I get about $244M. When I add up the contributions for GOP candidates, I get about $172M, a difference of $72M, not "over $100M." So what is it, do yo have a defective brain or a defective calculator?

Your link to Wikipedia was a nice diversion. Are you trying to equate Right Wing authoritarianism with "Christianist"? (A word that does not have a Wikipedia entry, nor is it found in the dictionary) So this is a word that Andrew Sullivan made up and you thought that it made you sound elitist, so you started to use it. Besides, what does "christianist" have to do with a web site that tracks campaign contributions. NOTHING. You were just taking a cheap shot at Opensecrets.org before you even checked out the site. Typical of a liberal. Take something out of context and try to turn it into a scandal, or don't get the facts and start wildly attacking someone or something.

"You are the sort of person who, when confronted with things you either don't agree with or don't want to believe, you claim that they are 'made up'."

No, I've read too many of your poorly constructed comments, with fabricated "facts", opinions passed off as science, and bold-faced lies. Everything you post needs to be challenged, because most of it is made up.

"As far as Krugman you are infinately more qualified, as you are superior to John Dean as well."

I have read many of Mr. Krugman's op-ed pieces. They are always good for a laugh. He has a fine record for predicting exactly the opposite of what the economy will actually perform. After all, he was an advisor for Enron in the late 90's, just before their collapse.

As for Dr. Dean, I have no reason to doubt his qualifications as a MD. He did graduate from medical school and is/was licensed to practice medicine. I do wonder, however, about his temperment as a politician. Anyone who says: "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for", has some serious issues.

Let's see, Republicans stand for a strong national defense; individuality; freedom of speech, religion, and the press; the right to bear arms; limitations on federal power; free-market economy and limited regulation; low taxes; equal rights (they were the anti-slavery party and were responsible for passing the Civil Rights Amendment - the Democrats were pro-slavery, segregationists and tried to block the Civil Rights Amendment). Dr. Dean is on record stating that he hates all these things, and more. Aren't you just so proud to have Dr. Dean as a leading liberal and the Chairman of the Democrat National Committee.

And I'm still waiting for your proof on "business and industries' contribution" (an opinion piece is not proof, it is opinion), and Ron Paul's campaign contributions from military members and/or their families.

As for your mysterious "congress person Aldrich? Found dead this past June.." The only Congressmen named "Aldrich" were J. Frank Aldrich, who served from 1893-1897, and William Aldrich, who served from 1877-1883. Neither died in the manner you so gleefully described (I'm not sure that they had "wetsuits" back in the 1800's).

I did find some references to a Gary M. Aldridge (why worry about spelling when you're throwning out ad hominem attack), who died recently in the manner you described. What exactly does he have to with anything?

A-10:
Had you actually linked to the sites I offered, I doubt you would have exposed yourself for being the utter fool you are.I hope you have enough shame to be embarassed and admit your mistakes.
Opensecrets, (your suggestion not mine) lists the following. Dem contributions House: $98,147,299.00 Senate: $40,433,248.00 President: $244,404,140.00 Total: $382,984,687.00
Rebublican contributions House:$66,334,161.00
Senate: $33,054,568.00 President: $175,336,955.00 Total: $274,725,684.00
Subtract Republican total from Democratic total and you get....$108,259,003.00 An eight million two hundred fifty nine thousand and three dollar difference. An excess of one hundred million dollars, just as I said.
Next point, it is JOHN DEAN...NIXONS LEGAL COUNCIL NOT HOWARD DEAN!
John Dean wrote a book along with Barry Goldwater entitled Conservatives Without Conscious. I suggest again that you link to the site instead of just assuming that you know so much and lastly, the piece in The Economist is not "opinion" it is based on fact. Facts that you do not want to hear because they undermine your beliefs.
Don't lecture me about what being a Republican is all about because the Republicans of today are nothing as you describe. Big government conservatives with a president who has expanded his power at the expense of our constitution; the same constitution that you claim to hold in such high regard. If you really felt the way you claim, you would be agreeing with me that we do not have a Republican in the executive branch, we have an authoritarian who is at the same time, a christianist.

And some thing else I forgot. Just because a word isn't in the dictionary doesn't mean that it is not used in the public lexicon. Words evolve, sometime quite quickly and dictionarys are not published every month. As far as Wikipedia, I am surprised that you aren't calling it out as a "liberal" website. Andrew Sullivan is a conservative. He has written several books on conservativism. Perhaps you should become familiar with them before you accuse me of being "an elitist". Seems to me that intellectuals...people who think... are always feared in certain circles. That is why some countries lock them up because they fear what they have to say.
You buddy, are intimidated, not me.
I expect an appology. I assume you are man enough to give it.

I'm having computer problesm, sorry for multiple posts.
Krugmans article was not about the economy, it was about the shift of large businesses and industries to contribute to Democratic candidates, not Republican ones. Articles that are published are veted by an editor before hand in order to insure factuality. Now you can delude yourself and believe that columnists are self-publishing but you would be incorrect. Blogs are self publishing, not newpapers, magazine or periodicals.
As far as his relationship to Enron, that is news to me but I do not doubt what you say. What I do challange is the uninformed and snide implication that the faliure of Enron was directly tied to Krugman. Seems to me it was Ken "Kenney Boy" Lay and Jeff Skilling who cooked the books and paid the price. Along with thousands of employees and shareholders. I didn't know that the implosion of Enron was directly tied to the dastardly liberal, wrong way Mergitroid, Paul Krugman. Maybe you should have the judge re-examine the case.

Again, my bad and I appologize. What I meant to say in my first post was a one hundred eight million two hundred fifty nine thousand and three dollar difference. An excess of eight million above and beyond the 100 that I factualy stated.
So NOW argue with me! (Schwoo. Is that a word? Or a sound? Or both?? If it is both, what is the word that describes a sound that is spelled as a word???)

alexanderdelarge,

I see we're moving the goalposts, a typical liberal way to weasel out of the corner. You started talking about the Presidential race, the Democrats under consideration, and campaign contributions. I proved you wrong, and now you've expanded it to ALL races. Typical.

Further, these are contributions for the primaries. Hillary and her gang of theives aren't running against the GOP candidates (although they all seem to think GWB is running againt), so the current contributions aren't really that meaningful.

Oh, now it's about John Dean. Why didn't you say so in the first place. Or was it easier to throw a name out, get a reaction, then change the subject.

His book, not written along with Barry Goldwater, who died before he could collaborate on it, talks about the change from the Goldwater Conservatives and today. Probably a great read. I'm sure we could write a book about how much the Democrats have changed from the era of Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Scoop Jackson to the anti-American, anti-victory in the war on terror, party of today.

"Don't lecture me about what being a Republican is all about because the Republicans of today are nothing as you describe."

That's your opinion. I would disagree. And you haven't refuted that the Chairman of the DNC "hates" some of the guiding principles that made America great.

"Articles that are published are veted by an editor before hand in order to insure factuality."

Really, then why do the "editors" allow incorrect data to be published? Why did the NYT Ombudsman attack Krugman, saying: "Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults". Sounds like the "editors" aren't doing their job. Or, is it that as a columnist, he gets to write what he wants, regardless of the truth?

I didn't insinuate that Krugman was resonsible for the Enron collaspe, just stated fact.

"Andrew Sullivan is a conservative."

Really. He also was the editor of The New Republic, a left-learning wannabe, which is known to be factually challenged. Sullivan has some conservative beliefs, but you can't tell be that someone who supported Kerry for President is a "conservative."

Frankly, I'm growing tired of your lies and refusal to substantiate your fabrications (Ron Paul, "Aldrich"). Go crawl back under your bridge, troll.

Oh, and learn how to spell and use proper sentence and paragraph structure. Typos are fine, but when you mangle people's names, or get them totally wrong, you reveal your lack of intelligence.

A10:
You are wrong again. Except perhaps my spelling. I did not once mention Presidential fundraising, did I?
If you had bothered to link to John Deans site you would know that it was to him I am refering, not Howard Dean. Furthermore, Dean DID collaborate with Goldwater. The book was published well after his death and incorporated their findings on authoritarianism.
For you to claim that Andrew Sullivan is "left leaning" proves that you are an authoritarian. What I find most telling about you is your claim to support limited federal power. Hmmm. So that infers that you find The Patriot Act to be an expansion of federal power and therefore against the tenents of our constitution. It also infers that Cheney's claim of unlimited and unrestricted executive power to be an anthema also. (Check out Frontline. Cheney's law.)
You seem to have a psychological need to cast me as a cultural stereotype but I don't fit. Please, I implore you. Link to the sites I have mentioned or explore what I have mentioned and THEN try to debate me. It will be alot more productive.