Member since: Tue Feb 14, 2006, 11:40 PM
Number of posts: 3,819
Number of posts: 3,819
I copied this just to show how stupid you have to be to fit into the fox crew.
George Bush spent time in AUg cutting brush in crawford texas in aug 10 days before 911
if he had done his job their never would have been a 911.
"quote from the drone of the bullcrap crew"
Lance Dutson: George W. Bush's foreign policy was the perfect foil for Barack Obama, and arguably launched him into the presidency. But after 7 years of Obama’s foreign policy, the world is engulfed in the flames of terrorism like never before.
From Libya to Iraq to Syria, this administration has allowed an abstract theory of pacifism to put America at terrible risk. The attacks in Paris must make progressives like you finally see that Bush's aggressive forward stance kept us far safer than “leading from behind.”
one more month of the right in 2008 and their would have been no country! 43 states on the verge of bankruptcy! how bout that lance? credit ratings of the country in trouble!
no lance your ploy war for oil was a disaster! the left had to take over the countries business to save what you boneheads wasted! next you will try to make another hero out of a loser like REAGAN!
Posted by luckyleftyme2 | Wed Nov 25, 2015, 11:07 PM (0 replies)
Democratic congressman, asked him when he first found out about the report from the FBI's Minnesota field office that Zacarias Moussaoui, an Islamic jihadist, had been taking lessons on how to fly a 747. Tenet replied that he was briefed about the case on Aug. 23 or 24, 2001.
Roemer then asked Tenet if he mentioned Moussaoui to President Bush at one of their frequent morning briefings. Tenet replied, "I was not in briefings at this time." Bush, he noted, "was on vacation." He added that he didn't see the president at all in August 2001. During the entire month, Bush was at his ranch in Texas. "You never talked with him?" Roemer asked. "No," Tenet replied. By the way, for much of August, Tenet too was, as he put it, "on leave."
And there you have it. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has made a big point of the fact that Tenet briefed the president nearly every day. Yet at the peak moment of threat, the two didn't talk at all. At a time when action was needed, and orders for action had to come from the top, the man at the top was resting undisturbed.
Throughout that summer, we now well know, Tenet, Richard Clarke, and several other officials were running around with their "hair on fire," warning that al-Qaida was about to unleash a monumental attack. On Aug. 6, Bush was given the now-famous President's Daily Brief (by one of Tenet's underlings), warning that this attack might take place "inside the United States." For the previous few years—as Philip Zelikow, the commission's staff director, revealed this morning—the CIA had issued several warnings that terrorists might fly commercial airplanes into buildings or cities.
And now, we learn today, at this peak moment, Tenet hears about Moussaoui. Someone might have added 2 + 2 + 2 and possibly busted up the conspiracy. But the president was down on the ranch, taking it easy. Tenet wasn't with him. Tenet never talked with him. Rice—as she has testified—wasn't with Bush, either. He was on his own and, willfully, out of touch.
A USA Today story, written right before Bush took off, reported that the vacation—scheduled to last from Aug. 3 to Sept. 3—would tie one of Richard Nixon's as the longest that any president had ever taken. A week before he left, Bush made a videotaped message for the Boy Scouts of America. On the tape, he said, "I'll be going to my ranch in Crawford, where I'll work and take a little time off. I think it is so important for the president to spend some time away from Washington, in the heartland of America."
Dana Milbank and Mike Allen of the Washington Post recently wrote a story recalling those halcyon days in Crawford. On Aug. 7, 2001, the day after the fateful PDB, Bush, they wrote, "was in an expansive mood … when he ran into reporters while playing golf." The president's aides emphasized that he was working, now and then, on a few issues—education, immigration, Social Security, and his impending decision on stem-cell research. On Aug. 29, less than a week after Tenet found out about Moussaoui, Bush gave a speech before the American Legion. The White House press office headlined the text of the address, "President Discusses Defense Priorities." Those priorities: boosting soldiers' pay and abandoning the Anti-Ballistic-Missile Treaty. Nothing about terrorism, Osama Bin Laden, hijackings. Nothing that reflected the PDB or Moussaoui.
Anyone who has ever spent time in Washington knows that the whole town takes off the month of August. Despite the "threat spike," August 2001, it seems, was no different.
Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer and the State Department's counterterrorism chief from 1989-93, explained on MSNBC this afternoon, during a break in the hearings, why the PDB—let alone the Moussaoui finding—should have compelled everyone to rush back to Washington. In his CIA days, Johnson wrote "about 40" PDBs. They're usually dispassionate in tone, a mere paragraph or two. The PDB of Aug. 6 was a page and a half. "That's the intelligence-community equivalent of writing War and Peace," Johnson said. And the title—"Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US"—was clearly designed to set off alarm bells. Johnson told his interviewer that when he read the declassified document, "I said 'Holy smoke!' This is such a dead-on 'Mr. President, you've got to do something!' " (By the way, Johnson claimed he's a Republican who voted for Bush in 2000.)
Posted by luckyleftyme2 | Wed Nov 4, 2015, 10:28 PM (0 replies)
Trump brought it up: George W. Bush's responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. This allowed Elizabeth Drew to address, as she put it, "the heretofore hushed-up public policy question that Trump stumbled into." Drew's "How Much Is George W. Bush Responsible for 9/11?" is the most cogent and damning indictment of Bush on this count that we are likely to get. And it comes just in time to counter an incipient George W. Bush rehabilitation campaign.
Elizabeth Drew is the yoda of politics at the world's premiere intellectual forum, The New York Review of Books. As a journalist, she helped bring down Nixon. From 1972 to '77, she was the director of the prestigious and influential Council on Foreign Relations. She is the author of fourteen books of the shrewdest political analysis. Her pedigree, therefore, is the highest.
In "How Much Is George W. Bush Responsible for 9/11?," Drew relies heavily on the report of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, which Bush resisted and subverted. She writes, "The unpleasant, almost unbearable conclusion -- one that was not to be discussed within the political realm -- is that in the face of numerous warnings of an impending attack, Bush did nothing."
This is on top of Peter Beinart's recent indictment of Bush for 9/11 in The Atlantic (which relied more on former counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke than the 9/11 Commission), and concluded, "Bush was insufficiently vigilant. The evidence is overwhelming."
So some degree of blame for the 9/11 attacks must be added to that list of catastrophic blunders known as the George W. Bush administration. That list already includes some degree of blame for the culminating disaster of his presidency, the 2008 global financial collapse. Bill Clinton gets some of that blame, but Bush gets most of it for being the leader of the deregulation party and for policies, like massive tax cuts for the wealthy and unpaid-for wars, that turned an inherited budget surplus, according to The New York Times, into a 1.2 trillion dollar budget deficit.
As for the pointless Iraq War, Bush gets all the blame for that after lying the country into it and then managing it with such stunning ineptitude. And ineptitude was the salient feature of something else that Bush owns in its entirety, the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. For that we have A Failure of Initiative: the Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina. The Washington Post's article on this report opens with, "Hurricane Katrina exposed the U.S. government's failure to learn the lessons of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, as leaders from President Bush down disregarded ample warnings."
Then there are the lesser crimes: theft of the 2000 election, multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts for cronies, pandering to anti-gay bigotry during his reelection campaign, withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol lowering greenhouse gas emissions, withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, invalidation of the Geneva Convention protocols against torture, and here are 300 anti-environmental actions listed by the Sierra Club.
The point of this rehash is to counter rehabilitation efforts like that of David Brooks, generally considered a housebroken conservative, who recently tried to portray Bush and Cheney as victims of faulty Iraq intelligence. Plus, Bush's rising poll numbers indicate he may be acquiring a glaze of nostalgia. His defenders, including most recently brother Jeb, explain away George W. Bush's record as "bad luck." Another explanation is that an intellectual level, a political philosophy, and a detached governing style combined to create a perfect storm of incompetence. W's record of failures snaps into focus beside his achievements of taking the most vacations, by far, of any modern president, and the longest vacation.
In March of 2008, History News Network polled 109 professional historians, 61 percent of whom declared George W. Bush the worst president. Another 35 percent put him in the bottom ten. It seems likely that back then few if any of those historians would have given Bush the degree of blame for 9/11 that Elizabeth Drew and Peter Beinart propose now.
There are some corrupt incompetent boobs down in that bottom ten, but if there is one, just one, with a record of catastrophic blunders like that of George W. Bush, name him.
ALSO ON HUFFPOST:
this is what the right has tried to hide-much like the Reagan myth
Posted by luckyleftyme2 | Wed Nov 4, 2015, 12:55 PM (0 replies)
THE CIA SAYS THE RIGHT HAS BEEN FALSIFYING THE FACTS ABOUT HILLARY'S E-MAIL!
Ever since Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) admitted that the primary function of his House Benghazi committee was to publicly smear Hillary Clinton and damage her credibility, the details of their gross misconduct have begun pouring out, indicating that this was a much more elaborate and extensive conspiracy than it originally appeared. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), a ranking member of the House Benghazi committee, is determined that justice be served for the blatant misuse of public funds and that Secretary Clinton’s name be cleared.
Now Cummings and the Central Intelligence Agency have caught Chairman Rep.Trey Gowdy (R-SC) culpable in one of the biggest scandals to hit the notorious committee. Gowdy accused Hillary Clinton of releasing the name of a classified CIA informant in her email, saying that her email server contained “some of the most protected information in our intelligence community, the release of which could jeopardize not only national security but human lives.”
This has been found to be patently false. Gowdy has been exposed for altering documents and distorting information in order to make Clinton look culpable – except none of that information was classified, as stated in this sharp letter issued by Cummings:
The problem with your accusation—as with so many others during this investigation—is that you failed to check your facts before you made it, and the CIA has now informed the Select Committee that you were wrong. I believe your accusations were irresponsible, and I believe you owe the Secretary an immediate apology.
To further inflate your claim, you placed your own redactions over the name of the individual with the words, “redacted due to sources and methods.” To be clear, these redactions were not made, and these words were not added, by any agency of the federal government responsible for enforcing classification guidelines.
Contrary to your claims, the CIA yesterday informed both the Republican and Democratic staffs of the Select Committee that they do not consider the information you highlighted in your letter to be classified. Specifically, the CIA confirmed that “the State Department consulted with the CIA on this production, the CIA reviewed these documents, and the CIA made no redactions to protect classified information.”
Unfortunately, you sent your letter on October 7 without checking first with the CIA. Now that we have done so, we have learned that your accusations were incorrect.
Not only has Gowdy been found leading his committee on a partisan crusade, he’s been fabricating evidence and openly lying about the contents of Clinton’s email server. It is an absolute travesty that the deaths of four Americans have been used in such a vile fashion by House Republicans. Instead of honoring their memories and learning from the mistakes that were made, in order to prevent them from occurring again, they have been turned into a political firebomb aimed at discrediting one of our nation’s most prominent and dedicated public servants. The legality of all this is still unclear, but one would assume that some consequences would be in store for distorting intelligence documents and openly lying to the public.
In an atmosphere of political dysfunction where the House Republicans have become a roadblock preventing any substantial legislative action from moving forward, it’s time to question the role of the Republican Party in our politics at all. They have wasted millions and produced nothing; they draw their salaries and waste our nation’s time on ridiculous witch-hunts against Planned Parenthood and Hillary Clinton but do nothing as our infrastructure crumbles and our middle class withers away under the ravenous hunger of the wealthy oligarchs. They do not deserve a place in the political discourse of a civilized nation.
IF THEY HAVE THE FACTS (CIA) THEN THE RIGHT (REPUBLICAN PARTY) SHOULD BE MADE TO FOOT THE BILL FOR ALL THE TIME AND MONEY SPENT ON THIS FARCE! AND THOSE INVOLVED WITH DIRTY TRICKS SHOULD BE BARRED FROM HOLDING OFFICE OR PARTICIPATING IN ANY POLITICAL VENUE INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO VOTE!
Posted by luckyleftyme2 | Mon Oct 19, 2015, 10:36 PM (2 replies)
while liberals nurse the fantasy that conservatives are "full of hate", instead, when these incidents occur, we see that most times a liberal is doing the killing.
I think it is reasonable to conclude that IBM's actions stirring up racial hatred figured, at least in part, into the killer's decision for action here.
Had this killer been a Christian, or a TEA party member or a hated Trump supporter, the story would be run wall-to-wall for days.
However, I think as this unfolds we will see that the shooter does not fall into that narrative, and so this story will disappear from the MSM in a day or two.
the above is a typical post from this lame brain fool! I have had a gun since I was 8,hunted since I was 10(the first two years I was not allowed to use a gun in nov.) but went with my dad to his stump! I tagged my first deer when I was 12. I SHOT MY FIRST PARTRIDGE WHEN I WAS 10. This was my first lesson about killing game the bird was sitting in a fir tree after we flushed it -my dad said you can shoot it. when we cleaned it he said see all those shot in the breast- you should only shoot a bird in the air. And try to aim at the wing . well I never was the wing shot my dad was -but more than once I've proved I can clip a wing on a partridge or a duck so there is fewer pellets in the breast. I've dropped more than one deer on the dead run. I've never shot anyone but I must admit there have been a few I should have. how anyone can make the statement that the right is for the colored when it's only been a few years that any have been elected to national office in their party shows me the person has the brains of a bucket of mush.
ps this is mild compared to what I would really like to say in person to this hate monger- and is one independent that will stand his ground!
Posted by luckyleftyme2 | Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:02 AM (3 replies)
Last seen: 17 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 03/08/2013 - 1:45pm
I am so sick of Paul LePage's
I am so sick of Paul LePage's stupid antics.
Log in to post comments
Thu, 08/06/2015 - 8:11pm (Reply to #4) #4
Last seen: 12 min 17 sec ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
And then there is stupid
And then there is stupid posts !
Log in to post comments
Thu, 08/06/2015 - 8:17pm (Reply to #5) #5
Last seen: 17 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 03/08/2013 - 1:45pm
"And then there is stupid
"And then there is stupid posts !" Which yours could be considered an example of...
Log in to post comments
Fri, 08/07/2015 - 5:56am #6
Last seen: 34 min ago
Joined: 08/05/2011 - 2:38pm
Now is the time for the
Now is the time for the Republican Party to publicly distance itself from LePage. He has already alienated the legislature, and more and more of the electorate is likely beginning to recognize him as the buffoon that he is. Unfortunately, doing that would be tricky. Some of his ideas appeal to the majority of voters, especially in the areas of welfare reform and taxation, but the man himself is a liability. The tricky part is repudiating his actions without denigrating all of the programs he espoused. He's rendered himself completely ineffective as the leader of the Party. He's lost the power of the bully pulpit. The legislature will have to muddle through the rest of the 127th and all of the 128th sessions. If Eves wins his civil suit, it will get even worse.
Log in to post comments
Fri, 08/07/2015 - 6:41am (Reply to #7) #7
Last seen: 17 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 03/08/2013 - 1:45pm
Sadly, the Maine Republican
Sadly, the Maine Republican Committee is behind the Governor right or wrong. The committee is more comfortable distancing themselves from the Maine people. Besides, the damage to the party has already been done. Further damage might be preventable but I fear 2016 is going to be a blood bath for Rs in the Maine Legislature. People want to neuter LePage and the best way to do that is to ensure that Dems have a strong majority. Dems are loving all of this and I can't blame them.
Posted by luckyleftyme2 | Mon Aug 10, 2015, 11:38 AM (0 replies)
A MESSAGE FOR THE MAINE HERITAGE GROUP ;THE TEA PARTY AND MR BURNETT -IT'S NOT ABOUT WINNING OR LOSING, IT'S ABOUT YOU IDIOTS WASTING MY TAX MONEY ON THE FOOLISHNESS YOU GUYS COME UP WITH=LIKE TABOR(WHICH WAS FALSELY PROMOTED A FEW YEARS BACK ) GET OFF YOUR GOD DAM ASS AND DO THE PEOPLES BUSINESS(THAT'S HOW A DEMOCRACY IS RUN) THE COURT HAS SPOKEN NOW ACT OR WE THE PEOPLE WILL!
"In their unanimous ruling Thursday, the justices acknowledged that "the constitutional language at issue is ambiguous. The Questions presented by the governor require reference to context, governmental tradition and practice and judicial precedent." The ruling said based on the filing, factual background and legislative record, along with the long-held traditions and practices of Maine governors and Legislatures, the "temporary legislative adjournment does not prevent the return of the bills."
Schedule set for Gov. LePage vs Legislature
The State of Maine Constitution mandates the governor has 10 days to act on bills if lawmakers are in session. However, if the Legislature has adjourned, the governor is not required to take action until the Legislature reconvenes for three full and consecutive days.
The justices said the 65 bills that were not returned within the time limit became law, effective 90 days after the adjournment of the first regular session. They said they were aware of the hope that a compromise would be found that would allow an opportunity to revisit the decisions and timeframes, but the Maine Constitution doesn't allow for it.
NOW WHAT ONE OF YOU MORONS CAN'T READ THIS!OR NEED A PROCTOR TO EXPLAIN IT TO YA?
Posted by luckyleftyme2 | Thu Aug 6, 2015, 08:46 PM (1 replies)
It seemed to me that the better speakers were in the lower % group. I see all this pack money
is going to the party choice (JEB) and he seemed ill prepared in his responses. hmm you say ;well if your hit with a question your not ready for you fumble and stumble-you have a speech impediment or as a Mainer would say "your a little slow on the up take." my opinion after seeing him several times on different tv bytes is he isn't to fast on the up take and I think that may be generic. that doesn't mean he's dumb,but his slow fumble bumble replies could make voters think this.
IF they give Trump free reign he will chew the other nine to bits. I'll bet you will see the tables turned in the blink of an eye.
Posted by luckyleftyme2 | Wed Aug 5, 2015, 05:08 PM (1 replies)
Medicare turns 50 this week, and it has been a very good half-century. Before the program went into effect, Ronald Reagan warned that it would destroy American freedom; it didn’t, as far as anyone can tell. What it did do was provide a huge improvement in financial security for seniors and their families, and in many cases it has literally been a lifesaver as well.
But the right has never abandoned its dream of killing the program. So it’s really no surprise that Jeb Bush recently declared that while he wants to let those already on Medicare keep their benefits, “We need to figure out a way to phase out this program for others.”
What is somewhat surprising, however, is the argument he chose to use, which might have sounded plausible five years ago, but now looks completely out of touch. In this, as in other spheres, Bush often seems like a Rip Van Winkle who slept through everything that has happened since he left the governor’s office — after all, he’s still boasting about Florida’s housingbubble boom.
Actually, before I get to Bush’s argument, I guess I need to acknowledge that a Bush spokesman claims that the candidate wasn’t actually calling for an end to Medicare, he was just talking about things like raising the age of eligibility. There are two things to say about this claim. First, it’s clearly false: In context, Bush was obviously talking about converting Medicare into a voucher system, along the lines proposed by Paul Ryan.
And second, while raising the Medicare age has long been a favorite idea of Washington’s Very Serious People, a couple of years ago the Congressional Budget Office did a careful study and discovered that it would hardly save any money. That is, at this point raising the Medicare age is a zombie idea, which should have been killed by analysis and evidence, but is still out there eating some people’s brains.
But then, Bush’s real argument, as opposed to his campaign’s lame attempt at a rewrite, is just a bigger zombie.
The real reason conservatives want to do away with Medicare has always been political: It’s the very idea of the government providing a universal safety net that they hate, and they hate it even more when such programs are successful. But when they make their case to the public they usually shy away from making their real case, and have even, incredibly, sometimes posed as the program’s defenders against liberals and their death panels.
What Medicare’s wouldbe killers usually argue, instead, is that the program as we know it is unaffordable - that we must destroy the system in order to save it, that, as Bush put it, we must “move to a new system that allows (seniors) to have something — because they’re not going to have anything.” And the new system they usually advocate is, as I said, vouchers that can be applied to the purchase of private insurance.
The underlying premise here is that Medicare as we know it is incapable of controlling costs, that only the only way to keep health care affordable going forward is to rely on the magic of privatization.
Now, this was always a dubious claim. It’s true that for most of Medicare’s history its spending has grown faster than the economy as a whole — but this is true of health spending in general. In fact, Medicare costs per beneficiary have consistently grown more slowly than private insurance premiums, suggesting that Medicare is, if anything, better than private insurers at cost control. Furthermore, other wealthy countries with government-provided health insurance spend much less than we do, again suggesting that Medicare-type programs can indeed control costs.
Still, conservatives scoffed at the cost-control measures included in the Affordable Care Act, insisting that nothing short of privatization would work.
And then a funny thing happened: The act’s passage was immediately followed by an unprecedented pause in Medicare cost growth. Indeed, Medicare spending keeps coming in ever further below expectations, to an extent that has revolutionized our views about the sustainability of the program and of government spending as a whole.
Right now is, in other words, a very odd time to be going on about the impossibility of preserving Medicare, a program whose finances will be strained by an aging population but no longer look disastrous. One can only guess that Bush is unaware of all this, that he’s living inside the conservative information bubble, whose impervious shield blocks all positive news about health reform.
Meanwhile, what the rest of us need to know is that Medicare at 50 still looks very good. It needs to keep working on costs, it will need some additional resources, but it looks eminently sustainable. The only real threat it faces is that of attack by right-wing zombies.
Posted by luckyleftyme2 | Wed Aug 5, 2015, 04:54 PM (2 replies)
The minimum wage in France and Australia is much higher than the US and Big Mac's actually cost less. In Denmark, the minimum wage is $21/hr and Big Macs are $5.38---only 59 cents more than in America. Pass this along for the millions of Americans who believe raising wages will increase prices!
Like · Comment · Share
this sort of proves people like our governor are like mushrooms kept in the dark by their benefactors and fed bullshit!
yet this mushroom gave a 20+% raise to his cabinet-but insisted A RAISE FOR THE WORKER WAS NOT NEEDED! HELL WE ARE THE LOWEST PAID WORKERS WITH THE HIGHEST COST OF LIVING IN THE NORTHEAST! WHY =BECAUSE OF THE GREEDY RIGHT
Posted by luckyleftyme2 | Sat Jul 25, 2015, 10:32 PM (0 replies)