From what/whom? We are already involved in the war against terrorism. How is going to war with Iraq going to “protect” us? Especially considering the very real likelyhood of a much larger conflict as a direct result?
And this is different from virtually EVERY other country in the world, how?
You familiar with the phrase: “blatant hypocrisy”?
Much as the same way we can prevent forest fires by logging the trees, the admirable Bush administration has discovered the right way to stop the endless struggle for peace in the mid-east. War! War is winnable, peace is not. And some say that IRAQ WMD can’t reach us. All the more reason to attack now, before the smoking gun goes off!
After our glorious attack, is which Saddam and the rest of the Camel jockeys surrender and never hit Israel with any WMD, all Americans will be once again secure in their Haliburton Oil CEO Bunkers, free from the ravages of a treaty-breaking UN-convention flouting rogue state, and Iraq, too.
And if the Bush administration secures US safety from terrorists while pissing off the world, too bad for them! They’re a bunch of wusses, anyway. I’m sure they’ll appreciate our benevolence when they’re incoroporated as protectorate-oil-states.
We must make this clear to the Demoncrats. Only by bombing the occasional wedding party and Canadian marines will the ragheads in the US will think twice before picking up their box cutters of mass destruction at Home Depot. Anyone who says differently is “not at all interested in the security of Americans.” Our president says so, and he can’t get fooled again!
Thanks, President Bush, for caring so much about my safety. Be assured I wll vote patriotically, which is to say, illegally, and Republican.
-Ace
I don’t particularly care one way or t’other, but I thought I’d go look for this.
Found this, FWIW.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020916-73474262.htm
The Dems are saying that the current version of the congressional Iraq resolution is “too broad”, and if I could figure out which one was the 1998 resolution, I could compare them…However, I’m having a problem finding the actual 1998 resolution itself–Too Much Information. Is it in here somewhere? Scroll down to “Iraq”.
Then there’s this.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/12/congress.iraq/
So Unca Karl Rove gingerly tested the waters of the Warfever River, carefully inserting just the one toe, not willing to dive in unless the advantages are certain, but still interested to see what one can get away with, which way the polls twitch…
The toe is bitten off at the first joint by the dreaded South Dakota Snapping Turtle. (A curious species, combines the ferocity of the snapping turtle with calm placidity of a rock.)
Unca Karls immediatly issues a press release to the effect that he he is unaware such a river exists, if it does. Further, he did not test the waters with the aforesaid toe, and the object that the turtle just spit up on the shore is a figment of said turtle’s imagination.
Hey! HEY! HEY! Let’s remember what this little pissing match is all about. It is not about Senate authorization of a war with Iraq. It is about whether employees at the prospective Department of Homeland Security will have civil service status and collective bargaining rights. The President’s comment was clearly a cheap shot. Mr. Daschel as Senate majority leader had every right to resent it. If the President is going to go around stirring up the faithful by impugning the patriotism of the members of the Senate by parroting the language of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and the other para-cheerleaders for the GOP, then he had better be prepared to get some fairly heated response and he had best be prepared to take it like a man, as should his running dogs.
And don’t tell me that the whole “care more about special interests that their nation’s security” was a mere hasty ad lib. The fact that the statement came in a fairly long and complex sentence and was uttered with out any glaring grammatical or syntax error tells me that it was a carefully crafted grenade that the President read off the teleprompter verbatim before pulling the pin. It sounds to much like the “Democrats hate America but are unwilling to leave” line that occasionally appears like a summer mushroom in the dinner conversation of some hidebounds. Even a dog, after all, can tell the difference between being tripped over and being kicked. The Senate Demos were kicked. The nip the President got as a consequence was pretty minimal. It is a long road, etc…
On top of all that, the fact that the President is willing to make this sort of reckless statement tells me that he is not all that hot about having a Department of Homeland Security and is willing to sacrifice it in order to have a club to beat Democrats over the head. If he thinks that having the new cabinet department is genuinely important, he would be looking for some compromise on the employment status of the department’s employees instead of needlessly offending Senate Demos. Some one once said of some political move: it was worse that stupid, it was unnecessary. So say I.
It’s deja vu all over again.
Appreciate you recognizing my intellectual superiority right off the bat – but really, you too can be “enlightened” on this topic in no time. Just loosen the wingnuts on the side of your head for a bit and start seeing the world in technicolor.
The lines between “good and evil” are hardly as clearly defined as your Supreme Leader would have you believe. In fact, he keeps blurring them everyday with his "with us or against us’ rethorical B.S.
Good for Amerika = Anything the pResident and his cronies do.
UnAmerican = What anyone else does.
And the fact that they are still exploiting the events on 9/11 to further this agenda is beyond repulsive.
Right. You may now screw your wingnuts back on and go munch on a towelhead or two.
No.
The president is tralking about a law to legalize union busting (and maybe taking a bite out of Civil Service) which he holds to a higher priority than actually establishing his new department. (Does this mean that he holds his politics in higher regard than our “security”? Seems like it.)
In order to do so, he used the egregious lie that the Democrats were not interested in the security of the people.
To which Daschle replied with understandable anger, badly demonstrated.
It is all politics and position for the election and has nothing to do with any serious discussion.
I totally agree with you, tomndebb. My point is that this issue isa poltical winner for Bush and a loser for Daschle.
Whether a Homeland Security Dept. outside of civil service will actually protect the public is a key question. I have my doubts. But, at least it *claims to do so. Dasche and Byrd being insulted doesn’t even claim to affect the public.
So, maybe Daschle and Byrd weren’t making the speech for political gain, or because they thought making it would affect the public. Maybe they were honestly offended by what Bush said and were just responding to an attack on their honor. You know, politicians are still people…even Democratic ones.
This is the second time in recent weeks that Bush has been playing politics with the national security issue. The first time was when he made a smirky comment about how Democrats would have a hard time explaining to the voters about seeking U.N. backing before approving military action against Iraq. Now there’s this suggestion that Dems aren’t interested in protecting American security.
Regardless of whether the Democratic labor-related beef is justified or not, Bush’s comment is a cheap shot and another blatant attempt to politicize a vital issue. And I do not think voters will fail to see through such tactics.
Daschle’s support for some military action against Iraq four years ago is interesting - though I don’t remember that in '98 we were proposing an all-out invasion of Iraq in a climate of anti-U.S. terroristic threats.
If you had seen the sound bites of Daschle and Byrd, you would have little doubt that the speeches and outrage were a pre-planned, organized tactic.
Politicians insult each other all the time. I can recall some Democrat accusing Republicans of wanting to starve babies. Bush’s insult didn’t even mention Democrats.
Just saw soundbites of four speeches, including Daschle’s and Bush’s, on the Daily Show. All four were equally bad and hilarious.
“Pre-planned” and “organized” in the sense that there was a regularly scheduled meeting in the morning, and they decided the little fuckgnat had gone over the top and needed to be bitchslapped back to reality.
Well done, Tommy Boy.
[The Who]
That deft, dull and bland kid
Sure plays a mean hard-ball!
[/The Who]
But surely Jon Stewart made more fun of Bush? He’s always bashing Bush, he always takes left-wing guests totally at their word even when they spew crap that lies somewhere between urban legend and conspiracy theory. You mean he actually mocked Daschle’s speech? Could it be a step towards neutrality on the Daily Show?
Naaaaah. Well, I’m sure the clips themselves were accurate. If you just ignore Stewart’s left-wing editorializing, you can actually get the news from that show.
Clearly, RexDart, you don’t actually watch the show. Because a few weeks ago he had Ann Coulter on. Yes, that Ann Coulter. He was civil, he let her have her say, and he seemed interested in her point of view.
You may wish to mark it on your calendar.
Editorilizing? On a satirical show? Imagine that. Were you under the impression that The Daily Show was an actual news program?
If you play the video on mute and blast the intro the Teenage Pinhead it matches perfectly.
“hey gabba gabba hey gabba gabba!”
Wow. I do watch that show all the time. Perhaps I skipped that one when I heard Ann Coulter would be a guest, although I’d think morbid curiousity of seeing those two interact would have overcome my “Oh god, Ann Coulter is on TV” gag-reflex.
Anyway, point noted. I must say I’m surprised though. Jon Stewart has a leftist bent that often becomes distracting in a comedy show. Thankfully, the pure apolitical comedy pieces are 100% gold on that show, so there’s always something to enjoy there. The phony debates they stage, even though covering political material, are designed to mock each position with outlandishness, and that’s the feel I think they should stick with.