Maybe Dude's friend Zell should read this...

[reeds]

Bush Born on Third Base -- Thinks He Hit A Triple
In his first four years, George W. Bush managed to destroy millions of jobs, to alienate most of the world's people, and to declare perpetual war. Just imagine what he could do if given another chance! After all, he's only begun to loot social security, and his band of Likud-loving neo-con zealots have a lot more Muslim nations to invade and conquer. God has told him that he is fighting on the side of Good in a war against the "forces of evil." He's a war president with war on his mind, and We The People should be glad he has anything on his mind at all, because for a man of such minor intellect, it's a real burden to think at all. That explains why he had so many nice things to say about Don Rumsfeld when the public learned that Don had allowed detainees to be killed and tortured under his watch. It also explains why Bush has such regard for Dick Cheney, even though Dick's dealings with Halliburton before and after becoming the Vice President rank right up there with the criminal misdeeds of Enron's "Kenny Boy" Lay. Or why he thinks new-cyoo-ler energy is "clean." It explains why he appointed John Ashcroft attorney general, a man who couldn't win a senate race against a dead opponent, and who has remained unapologetic about his mismanagement despite slashing the counter-terrorism budget in early 2001.
Former Bush advisors like Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke just don't appreciate the biblical gas that Bush breathes. They are caught up wrestling with facts and problems that Bush is able to ignore because he's just not too damned curious! Weapons inspector Hans Blix doesn't know how to enjoy the Bush administration's intimidations. He says that Bush's drive to war in Iraq was like "the witch hunts of centuries past." Neither does Joseph Wilson, who was sent to investigate the Niger uranium story, and who reported back to Cheney that the story was a hoax. For some reason Joe doesn't like being slandered, and he doesn't have the special appetite for wars of adventure. Weapons inspector Scott Ritter is another one who doesn't appreciate the firm — corrupt and delusional — convictions that moved Bush to declare war on Iraq at the earliest possible convenience. Ritter doesn't like the way Bush and Co. pissed on the truth and conducted a campaign of propaganda that would have made Josef Goebbels green with envy. He just doesn't appreciate the privilege that flows in the veins of a man like Bush, who would have been embarrassed to pull back after amassing troops on the Iraqi border, even though weapons inspectors were being granted access to everything they desired to see. No, there are just some people who can't be pleased with the sort of serial deception and incompetance that Bush's New World Ordure delivers.

What these critics fail to enjoy are the financial rewards that come with being a corporate whore! Cheney's Halliburton has received over $2.4 billion in contracts from the war in Iraq, many of them without bidding — that's just the way things work inside Bush's beltway. And if your old company happens to be trapped in Enron-like accounting scandal, as happened to Halliburton, it is a great relief that all the Securities and Exchange Commission members are appointed by the President. It's also a great relief that the Supreme Court will help keep the lid on secret meetings between Cheney, Kenneth Lay, and other energy criminals. And don't forget Rumsfeld's corporate contacts. Or Daddy Bush's Carlysle Group of military contractors. They've all made a LOT of money on this war. And since the US doesn't recognize the International Criminal Court, there's just no good reason not to cash in on all that power.

Shoot, you'd get visions of grandeur, too, if your only public appearances were orchestrated so that everyone within earshot is a brain-washed Limbaugh junkie. You'd start to think that you were above the laws of science. Who are fifty Nobel laureate scientists to tell you that a missile defense plan is silly, or that global warming is real? Bush has $250 million in corporate contributions that say his prayers will be answered!

As far as he's concerned, he's never done anything wrong. That's why he couldn't think of a single thing he would have done differently when he was asked at a rare press conference. No, he's faultless and blameless, as far as he's concerned. Although thousands of innocent people have perished in his "war" on terror. Though he oversaw more executions than any other governor, he knows he's never put an innocent man to death while he has been in office. God must have told him that his state was much more trustworthy than others like Illinois, which has abolished its death penalty because of numerous errors that came to light with the use of DNA evidence.

Hell, if you had a cable news network like Fox News that declares your every fart to be a symphony, and another like CNN that rubber stamps most of your official lies, you'd realize that you must be some kind of great man. Add to that an enormous radio network that sings your praises, and you'd see that you were born (again) to be rich, arrogant and insensitive, that He didn't want you to be smart or curious. The whole order of the universe was planned so that you could be a big cheese like your Dad, and anyone who tries to hold you accountable for lies, incompetence, and corruption is just a heretic commoner who doesn't understand noblesse oblige. Those nay-saying evil-doers weren't born on third base.

[dude1394]

why would zell(or myself) want to waste a moment of our lives reading anything written by an idiot named reed on a message board. No link, no cred, nothing but crapola. Did this come off of moveon.org or democraticundergroud.com? Or possibly an al queda website, looks about like something they would write.

Is it a US senator. Nope, it's hopeless leftist idiot who appeals to another mindless leftist idiot.

[dude1394]

Zell Miller also read this memo and it pissed him off way before the republican convention.

In fact Zell Miller's response to the treasonous memo above was:

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) today released the following statement concerning a memo written by Democratic staff on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that suggests ways to politicize intelligence data:

“I have often said that the process in Washington is so politicized and polarized that it can’t even be put aside when we’re at war. Never has that been proved more true than the highly partisan and perhaps treasonous memo prepared for the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee.

“Of all the committees, this is the one single committee that should unquestionably be above partisan politics. The information it deals with should never, never be distorted, compromised or politicized in any shape, form or fashion. For it involves the lives of our soldiers and our citizens. Its actions should always be above reproach; its words never politicized.

“If what has happened here is not treason, it is its first cousin. The ones responsible - be they staff or elected or both should be dealt with quickly and severely sending a lesson to all that this kind of action will not be tolerated, ignored or excused.

“Heads should roll!”

Just another example (as Zell said) that the DemocRAT party CANNOT be trusted with national security. The democrat party MUST be defeated soundly for the next 10-12 years until the pacifists are excised.


Here is the text of the memo linked to above.

Raw Data: Dem Memo on Politicizing Intelligence



November 05, 2003
FOX News

Following is the text of a memo written by a Democrat on the staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that suggests how to make the greatest gain off of intelligence data leading to the war against Iraq. The memo was obtained by Fox News.

Transcript of a memo written by a Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee staff suggesting how to make the greatest gain off of intelligence data leading to the war against Iraq.

We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:

1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard. For example, in addition to the president's State of the Union speech, the chairman has agreed to look at the activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department. The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and co-signs our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. (Note: we can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.)

2) Assiduously prepare Democratic "additional views" to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it. In that regard, we have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims and contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry. The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an independent commission (i.e. the Corzine amendment).

3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time-- but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year either:

A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report -- thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public: 1) additional views on the interim report; 2) announcement of our independent investigation; and 3) additional views on the final investigation; or

B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue. We could attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the "use" of intelligence.

In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter foot-dragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman; we have independently submitted written questions to DoD; and we are preparing further independent requests for information.

Summary

Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet, we have an important role to play in the revealing the misleading -- if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives -- of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives and methods.

[reeds]

Dude- Can you honestly say Zell is not insane? Did you listen to him after his speech talking to Mathews? The man is nuts

[knowitall]

Zell is the perfect "front man". He makes Bush seem tame. It was a classic move to recruit Zell. Brings in the WWF and Jerry Springer loyalist.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: reeds
Dude- Can you honestly say Zell is not insane? Did you listen to him after his speech talking to Mathews? The man is nuts

So does this mean everyone who cares about their family's safety is nuts?

[Smiles]

Zell did seem kinda crazy. I guess we all say and act pretty ridiculous sometimes - when our emotions are high, we're angry, offended, etc. Doh! Not that he was angry. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-blush.gif[/img]

[reeds]

"So does this mean everyone who cares about their family's safety is nuts?"


NO Mavsman, but anyone who wishes we lived in the middle ages so he could challenge someone to a "duel"- I would call that nuts...exactally what the old fool did- on national TV

[madape]

reeds, it was a METAPHOR. Do you know what a METAPHOR is?

[reeds]

a metaphor..regardless of it being a metaphor or not, he made himself look like a total fool...at least to the majority of this country anyways...

[dude1394]

No zell is about the most sane democrat in the party. Here are a few nuts.

Howard Dean Rebel Yell

Al Gore Screech

Ted "the bloviator" kennedy

MORE Presidential Democrat Candidates
Kucinich meets with his democrat cabinet

Sharpton as a tack. Uh...AL, I don't think the light is on

And of course the bunny man. "President??"


Ooops...Just sounded like a democrat.

[dude1394]

No zell is about the most sane democrat in the party. Here are a few nuts.

Howard Dean Rebel Yell

Al Gore Screech

Ted "the bloviator" kennedy

MORE Presidential Democrat Candidates
Kucinich meets with his democrat cabinet

Sharpton as a tack. Uh...AL, I don't think the light is on

And of course the bunny man and the OTHER guy from massachusetts


Ooops...Just sounded like a democrat.

[dude1394]

Terry McCauliffe and James Carville react to the new kerry polls.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: reeds
a metaphor..regardless of it being a metaphor or not, he made himself look like a total fool...at least to the majority of this country anyways...

Majority? No. The only people who thinks this man is a fool are the ones who are easily offended by the truth.

[dude1394]

Zell continues to be proven accurate.
kerry disses every ally that isn't france

-----------------------------------
Issues & Insights

Monday, September 27, 2004
Insulting A Friend

Politics: Sen. John Kerry and his crew have proved Sen. Zell Miller right. They really will say anything to get elected, even if that means undermining a courageous ally and greasing the skids to defeat in Iraq.

It was the renegade Democrat Miller who roused the 2004 Republican convention and raised the ire of the taste police with lines like these:

"Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief."

Strong stuff. At the time, even some on the GOP side suggested that Miller had gone too far. But after the events of the past week, we're wondering if he might not have gone far enough.

That "manic obsession" described by Miller has so consumed Kerry and his campaign aides that they don't seem to care how much harm they do to the national interest or to America's allies.

One of those allies, maybe the most important one at this point, is Iraq's interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. Allawi is a true hero, a man who has stepped forward for the hazardous mission of forming an effective Iraqi government and shepherding the nation toward democracy. Terrorists have marked him for death. Even critics of President Bush's policies owe Allawi some respect.

They owe him support as well. If he fails, Iraq would slide closer to chaos, and the danger to U.S. troops and civilians would rise accordingly. Whether the goal is to win or just get out unscathed, it would be harder to achieve.

So how did the Democratic presidential nominee show his respect and support for Allawi? By snubbing his Thursday speech to Congress (along with a number of other Democrats) and, as soon as it ended, calling him little better than a liar and a lap dog.

It was an insult as ignoble as Kerry's description of the coalition allies as "the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted."

In his speech, Allawi said the situation in Iraq is less chaotic than news reports make it seem, and the country should be able to hold national elections as scheduled in January. Kerry, who has pegged his campaign on persuading the American people that the Iraq war is an unwinnable fiasco, couldn't let such optimism go unchallenged, even when it came from a man who actually lives in Iraq.

So he suggested, not so subtly, that Allawi was bending the truth just to give Bush a boost.

"The prime minister and the president are here obviously to put their best face on the (Iraq) policy," he said, "but the fact is that the CIA estimates, reporting, the ground operations and the troops all tell a different story."

That was "relatively restrained," as Los Angeles Times' Ron Brownstein noted, in comparison to what some Kerry aides were suggesting. Brownstein quoted one of them, senior adviser Joe Lockhart, as saying of the courageous Allawi: "The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips."

What might Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and our other enemies make of such comments? Kerry and Lockhart have played into their hands. To the extent that the Kerry campaign's view of Allawi gets around in Iraq, it will weaken the prime minister's government. It's never helpful to a leader to be seen as anyone's puppet, yet here's Kerry and his crew calling Allawi just that.

Are we saying that the Kerry campaign is deliberately seeking to undermine Allawi, destabilize Iraq, embolden terrorists and bring about a U.S. defeat?

No. But Kerry's insulting treatment of a key ally shows him to be irresponsible, graceless and obsessively bent on winning office at all costs. Three little words come to mind: unfit to serve.

[reeds]

"Majority? No. The only people who thinks this man is a fool are the ones who are easily offended by the truth."

Oh, I almost forgot about all the "truths" he spoke off...That spitball comment- that was right on the nuts wasnt it?? To even imply that Kerry wouldnt defend this country is absurd..but of course the uneducated will lap that up as being true..I know better. This whole republican campaign has been run on FEAR, so I cant blame the nutcase Zell for talking of spitballs, regardless of how far off he was

[dude1394]

Why is implying that kerry wouldn't defend this country absurd in the least?? He came back from 'nam as one of the biggest anti-americans in history and has eviscereated the military ever since?

Just because he reported for duty 30 years ago doesn't counteract his 30 years of appeasement.

[mavsman55]

Hey reeds, do you remember the numerous times Kerry has voted against granting weapons to soldiers? These men are out risking their lives for us and he won't even spend a small portion of money making it easier for them? What country do you live in?

[Chiwas]

Hell, if you had a cable news network like Fox News that declares your every fart to be a symphony...

Hilarious. I can't imagine a President farting much less playing a symphony, even though in the movies they use to play symphonies when Doctor Lecter eats his victims.

[knowitall]

Forget the symphony. Go outside and take a big whiff. What you smell is Bush turning our country into a toilet. Those soldiers are their to follow up on Bush's deceptions. If they only knew why they were sent.

[Drbio]

knowslittle- if you hate our country so much why not leave it?

Every one of our soldiers understands why they are fighting. book it.

[reeds]

"Hey reeds, do you remember the numerous times Kerry has voted against granting weapons to soldiers? These men are out risking their lives for us and he won't even spend a small portion of money making it easier for them? What country do you live in? "

So did Bush's daddy?? Zell left that part out..just wanted to mislead the country (again).

"Once elected, however, Kerry's voting record evolved. He did cast votes more than a decade ago against the B-2 Stealth Bomber in 1989, 1991 and 1992. But by 1992 even President Bush (the current incumbent's father) was calling for cancellation of the B-2 and promising to cut military spending by 30% in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was no secret -- Bush did that in his 1992 State of the Union address. But Miller left out that little detail"

Miller did avoid some earlier Republican excesses, as when Miller's fellow Georgia senator, Republican Saxby Chambliss, told reporters on Feb. 21 in a Bush campaign conference call with reporters that Kerry had a "a 32-year history of voting to cut defense programs and cut defense systems." Since Kerry has only been in Congress for just under 20 years, the Chambliss statement was an impossibility. Republicans have also accused Kerry of voting against more mainstream weapons including the M-1 Abrams tank and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, but have been unable to cite any specific votes against those weapons. The best they can do is point to occasional votes Kerry cast against the entire Pentagon budget, which hardly constitutes opposition to any specific weapon.

[seal614]

ok so he only wishes to cut the pentagon's budget...

the specific weapons were just b.s. callouts to make his votes seem even worse. I don't care if he voted against the an APC or a Tank, the POINT is that he looks to cut military/defense spending.

Now is where you figure out if you are in agreement, or disagreement with cutting military spending...

The republicans have decided they are in disagreement; these speeches etc... attacking him on this basis are exactly that. Deal with it. The truth is the truth... a democrat should see the fact that Kerry voted against military spending and say "good!"

So what's so bad about republicans pointing it out? It's true isn't it? Shouldn't his supporters feel the same way? How is that an unfair rip.

Would we complain if democrats called out Bush's pro-life stance??!?!

- Brian

[knowitall]

Everyone of our soldiers believe what they've been told, doc. Just like you.

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: knowitall
Everyone of our soldiers believe what they've been told, doc. Just like you.

More drivel from the forum troll.

[seal614]

knowitall is right.... 100% of our soldiers over there enlisted on Bush's words. I'm sure they all rue that day now that they've been lied to.

Oh wait, actually I think many of them will fight for the U.S. regardless of how a president paints the struggle... they're patriotic; look it up.

- Brian

[dude1394]

The semantics' is just a way to justify kerry's weak position on national defense for his adult life. It would actually be better if kerry would just go ahead and pull the howard dean, that's what the dem party is about anyway, embrace it and defend the position.