There are many, many people who think exactly like good ole Debbie here in the US. She’s extreme, but we’ve got posters here who are a mere two or three steps behind her.
The Democrats are running scared. Not only that, if your a politician with any sense, would you really want to take over that stinking pile of crap created by Bush? Uh oh. I insulted Bush. Did God kill a kitten?
If the people lead, the leaders will follow.
Not looking to swiftly reverse the direction we have been on. Looking to halt our descent into madness. Then, step by step, find our way home again.
If it were easy, we would already have done it.
I find this passage interesting (and amusing):
Notice how she immediately mentions France and Germany right after she refers to “our enemy.” And to think all this time I incorrectly thought our main foes were Al-Quaeda and the ragged (but still dangerous) remnants of Saddam Hussein’s former regime.
This woman is an Ann Coulter clone. She’s not worth getting upset about.
So, If the Democrats don’t differ substantially in approach to the current administration (in relation to Iraq), is ‘Bush’ a euphemism for the entire Republican and Democrat politcal establsihment in the US?
The president is representing the policy of both parties, right ?
LC: Iraq’s a done deal. It’s the rest of the world I worry about.
This morning, for instance, Pat Buchanan and a couple of others were pointing out, and agreeing with, the proposition that some Florida Cubans had put forth: why don’t we start building democracy in Cuba? You know, a little regime change, occupation, etc.
I know, probably won’t happen, since all they have is sugar & cigars. Still, one worries.
Damn. I’d hate to see what tooawfulreports.com is like.
Not quite London_Calling, in another thread I noticed that the main difference will be that partisan policy hacks like the OSP:
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/072103Leopold/072103leopold.html
Will be less likely to be a factor, a congress in Republican hands will make sure a Democratic president will be taken to task for any future decisions. (Frankly all the lack of balance we have right now is bad, I mean really, the Palme investigation!)
It is true that historically speaking, a party does follow the military actions that were started by the other one, but it looks to me that many other things will follow from the dumping of Bush: like more support overseas and better interpretation of intelligence, since decisions of future actions will not be hostage to extreme Neo-con ideologies.
No, the differences between the two parties are sometimes difficult to see, but in this case it’s pretty easy. The president is all for continuing the campaign of misinformation and lies that brought us into this quagmire. The dems feel that we’ve had enough of that crap, and favor a return to a multilateral reality-based policy with respect to Iraq, as well as the war on terror. Of course, what with the neocons being in charge of the Iraq spin machine, it’s kind of hard to tell what is reality, and what illusion.
Ohhhhhhhhh. Silly me.
Ya know, my brother’s going into the Air Force. Right now. And he’s not any fonder of Bush and his buddies than I am. It is possible to separate appreciating and serving one’s country from kissing Bush’s ass, said ass hopefully destined to be kicked outta Washington next year.
The funny thing is, I feel more patriotic in loathing Bush than I ever did in liking Clinton, who was the first president I paid any attention at all to, since I voted for him and all. I hate what he’s doing to my country.
Just to all:
Sure, there’s a difference in tone between Dems and Pubbies. A different tone implies a different approach (“we’d have done it differently”) and (thus) engineers a degree of distance from Bush so they (the Dems) can attack him.
But they’re agreed on the big picture, on conquest, on the war of aggression. No one’s saying “come home”everyone’s still on message “We’ll stick this thing out” e.g. the occupation is open-ended ?
She also tells an outright lie…here she says Clinton didn’t win the popular vote.
I beg to differ…
1992
Bill Clinton 43.0%
George Bush 37.4%
Ross Perot 18.9%
1996
Bill Clinton 49%
Bob Dole 41%
Ross Perot 8%
One last complaint about here. She’s not even entertaining to read.
At least Coulter makes me laugh.
LC: Also in actions. Either NATO or the UN would be brought in to help deal with the occupation, and probably they’d even let a British company be prime contractor for one of the reconstruction projects. I mean, Blair could’ve at least insisted on some of the spoils from this splendid little war if he was going to come on board, couldn’t he?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” – Theodore Roosevelt, 1918
I think we’ve just found Mrs. december.
What a fascist bitch :rolleyes: sounds more like rhetoric from one of Saddam’s mistresses than from a US citizen.
Sail on, sail on, O sheep of State!
“Why, everything is perfectly fine! Look, see! The rats have being driven off the ship!”
No, you’d need heavy-handed control of the media to get this sort of stupidity – and last I looked, the left doesn’t have anything close to the Fox News/talk radio/Ann Coulter bullshit trifecta.
And the award for most incoherent wingnut rant by a female goes to… Debbie Daniel!!!
Ann Coulter storms out in tears saying “but it was mine, it was MIIIIINE!!!”