What's the difference? - G. W. Bush

[Cronus Protagonist]

We can't let him get away with this one. He all out admitted that Saddam has and had no WMD, and just shrugged it off with the phrase, "What's the difference?" during his Diane Sawyer interview. She seemed flabberghasted and didn't seem to know what to say when Bush let this bon mot drop.

I can understand her predicament - how can one question the leader of the free world when he's displaying a psychotic disregard for reality without insulting the little prick and causing a national crisis? - see the link below:

Transcript:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1110221,00.html

Cartoon:

http://bushspeaks.com/home.asp?did=152

[7th_Sephiroth]

1. IMPEACH HIM NOW

This is the straw that broke the camels back

[forgethell]

35. Dream on

The Repukes control both houses of Congress. whatca gonna do? As the opposition here, we need to control our anger, and yes, hate, however justified it may be, and think logically, and more importantly, realistically. this will never happen. A win in the coming election is the only thing that will remove * from office until 2008.

[Silverhair]

36. HOW?????????? N/T

[spychoactive]

2. the man just infuriates me...

now more than ever we need to getthrough the primaries intact and get this bozo out of the white house

suddenly electability seems more important to me...

how refreshing would it have been for diane sawyer to call him on it?

maybe next time
spike

[Cronus Protagonist]

3. She called him on it about three times

He just gave the same "answer" and told her she can ask as many times as she likes, the "answer" is going to be the same.

If it were me, I would have followed up with something like, "So, your argument is that there is no difference between real weapons and a thought?" - But then I would be killed, so I undestand Diane's inability to continue probing about it.

"Terminate Governor Gangbang" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[gasperc]

18. the difference is that Bush itemized the chemicals and weapons in SOTU

and these were THE reasons why we must go into Iraq and "secure the stockpile" as a US General put it.
Now were stuck in a tar pit trying to govern chaos and spending billions and billions doing it!!!

[max2000]

9. Diane Sawyer

She's too busy kissing his rear end all the time. Remember the Dixie Chicks- "Shame on you, Shame on you"
She's hardly a journalist.

[Cronus Protagonist]

19. That not withstanding, she did call him on it

And made the appropriate faces of shock and incredulity that his "answer" should elicit from any thinking person.

"Terminate Governor Gangbang" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[whathappened]

4. this is so sad

that we have allowed ourselfs to get to this kind of crap in our country , i'm from the old school that if ya lie long enought in life ya can't remeber how to tell the truth

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kcwayne]

7. Iraq is not a dead issue

The cost in lives of the military assigned to conduct the occupation, the cost of civilian lives in Iraq, the costs of civilian lives in the US from the terrorism sure to come as a result of our actions there, and the huge financial costs to US citizens who are already struggling with massive job losses and a strategic destruction of the standard of living in the US is a gigantic issue.

It is the job of leadership to reverse this course. Leadership must articulate the message and turn the tide against the onslaught of lies, misrepresentations, and crimes committed by this abysmal administration.

It boils down to how many lives, jobs, and dollars must Americans lose to protect the interests of energy companies and a government that uses its military as its only strategic energy policy tool, when it should be using research and development.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kcwayne]

16. Your view of what Americans think is taken directly from Fox

The idea that Americans are pre-disposed to accept casualties is culled from what source? Sounds like the Pravda playbook being used by Fox news.

I hang around with die hard republicans, of which I suspect you are one based on your fine articulation of the far right ideology. These guys were all gung ho about bombing Sadam back to the stone age. While the bombs were flying and the killing was easy they were all red white and blue.

Now that the conflict has bogged down with daily killings, and the prospect that their sons might get drafted and have to go over there, they are strangely silent. They aren't calling for Bush's ouster by any means, but it is clear that the nature of this conflict has gone beyond the mindless patriotism spewed by Fox, and is settling in as one that has a price that was not anticipated. Their discomfort is clear, their commitment to spending more blood and money is suspect.
This is anecdotal of course, but so are Fox's pronunciations.

This is where leadership counts. When the democrats rolled over and played dead while the right wing ideology swept the debate in the media, they failed miserably. To accept the right wing's policies as the minimum entry point for election would be a furthering of this failure of leadership. If we are going to have a one party system, then the Democratic party should simply rally behind the likes of Zell Miller and be upfront about supporting Bush.

Leadership is about having the courage to confront the status quo, and execution is about articulating a base of ideas that address the issues that are important to a constituency. Winning an election by suggesting to those people that you are no different than Bush, and then thinking you will institute democracy later is fraud, much like the fraud of the right wing that masqueraded as moderates and then instituted their radical policies.

The argument that we will be fighting them in Boise rings hollow for those of us old enough to remember Viet Nam. Your arguments are the same flawed ones used by the Johnson and Nixon administration to escalate the war there, and are being repeated now by politicians that think we are dumb, and forget that today, we have tools like Google to fact check their propaganda.

If you are right, and most Americans are believers in the right wing mantra, then the Democratic party is irrelevant, and the election is of no consequence. If you are wrong, then there is a voice for people that understand that this administration is acting against their self interests. I think that voice is being tested by the current Democratic candidates and they are finding support for opposition to the world view you are championing. There is no other explanation for the groundswell of support for Dean, Clark, Kerry, Sharpton, Kucinich, and Braun, who are directly challenging the direction that the right wing wants to take this country.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kcwayne]

26. We heartily disagree here

Again, because there was an actual -- spectacular -- attack on US soil the model for this war is WWII not Vietnam


WWII, as instigated by Pearl Harbor was an attack by a sovereign, identifable nation on US Territory. 9/11 was an attack by an unidentifiable group of terrorists. The only similarity between the two is that Americans suffered catastrophic loss of life.

The conduct of hostilities against terrorists should not be conducted by a military attack against a people who had nothing to do with 9/11. It should be conducted by covert operations against the money, munitions, and stealthy organizers of those that are driven by the ideology that wants to murder our citizens. Our response to terrorists should be goverened by precision and intellect, not by scattered and non-discriminating destruction. The end result of what we are doing in Iraq, if indeed its purpose is to quell terrorism, is simply more terrorism. If you support this type of war, then you are giving license to perpetual war. You can roll over as many tinpot dictators you want, but the defeat of an endless string of nations will not defeat the ideology behind the terror, which is absolutely not founded on nationalism.

It's something you can't ignore because if you do and keep hammering home it will be the same as going into a southern church and doing a speach on supporting abortion and homosexual marriage

If Abraham Lincoln had believed this, then the south would still have slaves. That is why Lincoln was a leader. He was able to put forth the Emancipation Proclamation, even though an overwhelming majority of people in the South destested the idea, and an overwhelming majority of people in the North were opposed to it as well.

Maybe Lincoln thought that acting morally was more important than promoting the status quo, because this act was certain not to get him votes.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cronus Protagonist]

49. When you say "us" - you're not counting me in that I hope.

Because you're part of my "us" like oil is part of water.

"Lick Bush" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[Skip Intro]

28. The fleeting saddam capture effect should determine who we are?

That same Gallup poll you reference shows that in mid-Sept., the nation was split evenly (50-48, well within moe) on whether the war was worth it. There was a gradual drift toward the "worth it" column in the weeks after (don't forget the turkey's trip to Baghdad), with a big swing after the saddam capture. Many of the polls being discussed now were taken in the now fading illusion that the saddam "capture" was somehow a US victory that justified everything bush has done to this point re-invading Iraq. It has since become clear that saddam's capture was not the result of US/UK intel, and that the US is definitely not safer - according to tom ridge, anyway.

I think a clearer picture of how the Iraq/wmd bushlie will play in the general election might be shown if someone would ask in one of these polls, "do you think bush lied about wmd" and "is it important if the president of the us lies to the people in order to start a war." I think those results would be telling.

And we all know a timespan of 10 months is several lifetimes in politics, so even if the answer to all questions about wmd/Iraq invasion/bush lies went well for bush now, doesn't mean that will be the case come July. The Iraq invasion has been a see-saw issue for both sides.

Beyond all of the poll data, there is something bigger. bush LIED this nation into a war, at extreme costs on many levels, not the least of which are the lives lost and shattered. It is the duty of bush's opponent to stand up and speak the truth about this, and to demand that the American people hear. This issue, imho, transcends polls. This is about right and wrong. If we're going into this race taking issue after issue off the table because polls tell us we can't win on them, then we're not only seling ourselves short, we're selling this nation short as well.

We should not base what we stand for on some poll of the week that (imho) reflects only some rovian media manipulation. We don't deserve to win if we hock our integrity and bury our conviction.

[Cronus Protagonist]

50. Around town, I hear people talking about the US "getting out"

And soliders "coming home now"... there are man in the street intervies every day on broadcast TV and the people generally seem to think that, now that we've got Saddam, the sole architect behind 9/11 (I know), the end of the war is nigh and Bush has done a great job.

Now, I've seen Bush and the rest of the cabal on TV spouting the party line that this doesn't mean anything of the sort, but the problem is the nuance is not getting across. They're so used to blunt-edged rhetoric that when they need to get across nuances, they're as unable to do it as we are. So the polls show a small bounce, but IMHO, not because Bush is doing a great job, but because people are sick of the war, want it to end, and think that this is a large step towards the end.

So, the people right now think the war is nearly over. And it's not. This is perpetual "war" and it hasn't sunk in yet. When it does, the Bush cabal will be thrown out on their asses. It's our job to educate the public about that.

"Lick Bush" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[thesemodernsocks]

8. ...

But with Iraq's oil we can actually bring economic sanctions against them by lowering the price of oil until they beg for mercy, and if that tinpot kingdom won't reform then we can reform them because with Iraq we'll have the base and we'll have the oil.

Oh Christ.

[newyawker99]

54. Hi FlyingSaucerAttack!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bread_and_roses]

20. Why shoot the messinger?

I do not even know what "conservative Democrat" means, exactly, and I absolutely oppose this war and both the real and purported reasons behind it...but his point about the general public is something to be considered. The general public still expresses support for this war, and still polls as believing that Iraq was involved in 9/11 (at least, last poll I saw). In terms of strategy for the election, this is something to be taken into account. Which does NOT mean that I think the Dem candidate should support the war or PNAC, or that I am a Repub troll or support Bush and his evil cabal in ANY way. I find DK to be the best candidate, which should tell you where I come from. I think that a strong pro diplomacy and international cooperation as means to a safer world message can work better than simply "anti-Iraq war."

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cronus Protagonist]

24. Being pro-war and Democratic requires some explanation here, IMHO

War is antithetical to liberal and Democratic ideals. Sometimes it is neccessary, IMHO, like when there's an invading country landing on your shores or bombing your people, but this "war" is a war like the "war" on drugs is a war.

In other words, it's not a war at all, it's either a police action or an imperial acquitision, against a foreign nation in violation of international law and against the wishes of the United Nations and the world community.

So, if you're a Democratic and you support this war (I know you didn't say "this war", but you said "war" in general, referring to this "war"), I think you have some 'splaining to do.

"Lick Bush" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skip Intro]

32. So the 30,000 slaughtered Iraqis were expendable?

I don't care if Iraq was 100% totally innocent of every charge leveled against it, the leaders of the middle east now know full well the US is NOT weak and there IS a price to be paid for attacking us.

No disrespet to you, but that strikes me as insanity. I think those suffering the consequences of bush's little invasion might disagree with you as well.

Also, you link 9*11 to Iraq (as in 9*11 gave us the right to attack Iraq). Yet, Iraq did not cause the events of 9*11 to occur (we KNOW we would have heard this if it were so - even bush said no connection). Attacking Iraq was unjustified, a crime, and justice should be served.

But sticking with your logic, let's say bin laden (or whoever is behind the attacks here - don't forget about the Anthrax mailers, carrying "praise Allah" messages but now said by the FBI to be an internal (US) job...) - but let's say bin laden is able to pull off another attack here, do we then toss a dart at a map of the Mid East to see who we freedom bomb to bits next to teach them arabs a lesson? And then if we're attacked again? Where does it end?

Its my opinion that what bush has done has made us far less safe by stoking hatred toward the US and creating more enemies than we had before, while weakening our ties to our allies. Its also my opinion that no nation, not even this one, has the right to attack another nation simply to teach the world not to mess with us. The more I think about your statement above, the more absurd it becomes to me.

All imho, of course. No offense intended.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blitz]

39. Welcome to DU pcx99

You've chosen the uphill road and that is admirable. I wish you luck. People will try to get you to say something stupid that will get you banned because they don't agree with your views on foreign policy. Don't rise to the bait, keep posting the way that you are posting now, become familiar with the rules (posted on the homepage) and you'll be just fine.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kcwayne]

42. We have a single party system now

then we stand a hugely major chance of losing the senate next year and as I've said before that would turn the US into a single party state with bush dictating whatever he wants to a rubber stamp senate that will swiftly vote down any attempted democratic fillibuster.

When the IWR and the Patriot Act went up for vote, the Democrats were hiding under their desks for fear of being branded a traitor. The Republicans controlled this issue through the threat of a compliant media that does 24x7 attack on anyone that opposes the administration.

Once Dean, as an outsider, challenged this pathetic group think and cowardice, and the Democrats saw that he wasn't shipped off to Gitmo, then some of the trembling voices found a steady chord and some courage to speak out against the lies, misrepresentations, and chicanery of this administration. I don't know how long their courage will last, but I sure hope it is permanent.

I don't think the Democratic party can sway voters that believe, even in the face of outrageous lies about the reasons to attack Iraq, that it was the correct thing to do. If the Democratic party's objective is to be closely aligned with Republican ideology, then they will certainly lose the election because they will lose the base of people that can't then distinguish a Democratic representative from their Republican counterpart, and as a result have quit voting. There are alot of these people out there. It is why the Ross Perots and Ralph Nader's develop grass roots followings that sway election results.

The Democratic party should focus on the needs those people that feel disenfranchised by a government that willfully and criminally lies about weighty matters that get many people killed needlessly. It should focus on the economic interests of the current as well as the next two to three generations, and offer an alternative to the McKinley era of government we are headed towards. The average non-voter on the street doesn't understand this, but they sure do understand the decline of economic opportunity they face in their lives, and they sure will understand seeing their children drafted to sustain a country who's number 1 export is the military.

In short, I think the Democratic party needs to build a base from the millions of people whose lives are going to be negatively affected by policies championed by a government that commits crimes against its own people and is only committed to preserving the welfare of the top 1% of its population. Engaging this disenfranchised voters is the challenge and key to electoral victory.

BTW, if you choose to make another rebuttal, please refrain from accusing me of saying things which I simply have not. I will quit responding to your posts because I find this tiresome.

[Blitz]

44. Where did our new poster

accuse you of saying things that you did not say? I've looked over his posts and I just don't see it. I could have missed it, so perhaps you can point it out to me.

As for your main point, no party in America will EVER win a general national election by turning the American center, which represents the majority of the American voting public. Even if the Democratic "base" were as large a voting power as you seem to believe it is or could be (it's not, by a longshot), you need to understand that any candidate that campaigns for the edges is also campaigning for his opponent's base, as he is, by his extremism, encouraging the other side's "base" to come out hard against him. Meanwhile, his opponent is free to go after the center, which is where general elections are won.

Pat Buchanan's speech during the 1992 Republican convention did as much to sink George H. W. Bush as anything that happened that year because while he fired up the base, he also fired up the Democratic base and scared the hell out of moderates in both parties. The Republicans learned from their mistake. You won't see any fire and brimstone diatribes at next year's Republican convention but, rather, a parade of centrists with a positive and hopeful message. The Democrats, on the other hand, seem determined to walk into the Buchanan trap, pandering to the extremes in its party (who, let's face it, aren't going to vote for Bush anyway), while forgetting the people who elected the last Democratic President and who are very much on the fence. When you see Al Sharpton walk up to the podium, you'll know it's all over.

[kcwayne]

46. Re: Where

Harping on haliburtan and claiming this war is all about oil and the energy companies

I didn't mention Halliburton (or haliburtan), and didn't say the war was all about oil. I said "to protect the interests of energy companies and a government that uses its military as its only strategic energy policy tool, when it should be using research and development." Maybe this is too nuanced for the casual reader, my point being we have been saying for 50 years that our actions in the middle east are a matter of national interests, but we do nothing to change the dependence on unstable governments by using our brains to get away from needing their product, preferring to use the military to secure our interests.

You can claim all you want about how all those americans gun waving confederate pickup type guys are deluded and hoodwinked by GWB

Never said anything about conferate pickup guys or deluded hookwinks.

And I totally and completely disagree that we should do nothing in response to such an overt act of agression on the US

Read my posts, never said we should do nothing.

Are your views so weak that you must supress and drive off disent

This is subjective, but how is disagreeing with someone driving off dissent. I have no power to control the poster's access to this board. Did I say something threatening, or suggest I have the means to control the poster's access? No.

As for your main point, no party in America will EVER win a general national election by turning the American center, which represents the majority of the American voting public.

True, if the voting participation continues to be an overwhelming minority of Americans. The interesting surprise of this election will be how many people will become energized to vote because they have simply had enough of the status quo, and have not been voting because they have not seen anything from the parties that suggests there is a difference between them worth voting over.

My 77 year old mother, who hasn't voted since Kennedy, is fired up and ready to go to the polls to oust Bush. She absolutely detests the man, and has been moved to action over his lies, and his policies that she is seeing have a direct effect on her quality of life. Does she represent a trend or is she anecdotal. I don't know, Gallup hasn't polled her yet.

[Blitz]

43. Funny, I've never felt an obligation to explain myself

I have stated my positions in favor of both the War on Terror (badly named) and the Iraq War on numerous occasions but I hardly think that it is incumbent on any DUer to do so. Certainly, the rules do not call for it.

Actually, there was one very, very good thread concerning the then-imminent Iraq war where someone asked DUers who favored it to justify their views. I wish I had bookmarked it.

[FDRrocks]

30. Wow you make great points.

B/T The liberal media and the people supporting the Iraq war even with the all powerful liberal media throwing thier god awful lies at them all the time... I guess Republicans are just always right!

1 BJ > Thousands dead b/c of lies

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. You've made a great case to vote republican.

And, for American corporate hegemony throughout the world. I've read all of your posts, with interest, in this thread. It seems that your theme is that the Democrats won't win in '04 if they dare to speak out against American Imperialism which you defend as "defense" of American lives. The fact that this "war" costs innocent lives is of no concern to you as long as American interests are defended. You dismiss lightly the repugnance and disgust of most of the people of world, and a sizable number of Americans, at the use of American power to defend American corporations. You say that the "war on terrorism" supercedes all other considerations of humanity when you declare that 30,000+ Iraqi lives are expendable in comparison to 3000 American lives - even though none of those 30,000 had anything to do with the attack on the WTC. You applaud the "reshaping of the world" to "address totalitarian communism". I assume then, that you condoned the slaughter in Vietnam, the support for Savimbi in Angola, the overthrow of democratic governments, and a long, very long, list of other bloody conflicts that the US government(s) instituted or supported.

The fact that none of what BushCorp has done will, in any way, diminish the causes of "terrorism" whether from Islamic extremists or people around the world who seek a better life, you brush aside as insignificant.

You say that "new Europe" is on our side. You neglect to mention that the governments of some of the states of "new Europe" are being bought and paid for to support our imperialism and that the majority of the people of new Europe oppose our invasion and subjugation of Iraq.

Bush and his corporate cronies have managed to turn most of the world against us with his act of naked aggression against Iraq.

You seem to think that we should embrace the "war" and Bush's policies because the polls indicate that it's politically expedient to do so. That voting against Bush's vision of America is a silly exercise in futility because the majority of American voters back it.
In 1968, the majority of the American people backed the war in Vietnam. A "minority" opposed it. They did it again in 1972. Why do you think they did that? So, the Democrats could lose? Couldn't they see the handwriting on the wall?

As one of those "minority" voters I voted against the war in Vietnam because it was the right thing to do.

I have a question for you. What in the hell do you stand for?

[Cronus Protagonist]

47. I think he's been quite clear and what he stands for

United States control of the world at all costs and without any regard for humanity or the lives of foreigners.

Or, in short, everything George W. Bush stands for, does, has done and will do.

I don't know why he's sticking to voting Democratic when he's no different from the neocons that wrote PNAC.... must be those family ties or a lack of ability to guage his own political positions against what's out there, but I for one, will be happy to see the Democratic party gladly take his allegedly solid Democratic vote and use it to overthrow every one of his positions.

"Lick Bush" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[priller]

6. Quote from another UN inspector:

"It's unbelievable to me," David Albright, another former UN inspector and a Washington expert on nuclear arms.

"He can't possibly have meant it. Because it means we can hit you if we don't like you.

"The administration is redefining its meaning of having stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction to thinking about acquiring large stockpiles. His claims that there is no difference is disingenuous. But they're sticking with that position - that black is white."

I guess he's finally figuring it out. "Disingenuous" is Bush's SOP, and that's putting it mildly. Bush is perfectly willing to lie as often as he pleases about war with Saddam. That fact that he lies so easily, and so often, and so egregiously, shows me that he probably believes his own ridiculous assertions; it shows he has enormous ability for self-delusion.

[Saudade]

10. No Difference

In my opinion, this statement by Bush is the absolute stupidest, most outrageous thing he's ever said as President.

This clearly demonstrates a contempt for democracy and legal process that is just astounding.

I cannot understand why this is not a scandal, because he is basically saying that it makes no difference if we invade another country (with all the implications of that) based on lies, incompetence, deception and so on. He's also saying, in effect, "what's the difference if I fooled everyone?"

This should be an issue in the campaign; what more could the opposition want as ammunition?

Yet, it has received little press.

[max2000]

12. Here, Here on both counts

He has no respect for democracy, he thinks this is HIS government.
and it has received no press, because americans need to make the press irrelevant. Talks amongst yourselves and to anyone who will listen, and use the web often.

[althecat]

13. It would have a fair bit of competition for that spot..... "Bring it on"

...comes to mind for starters

In reply to this remark: In my opinion, this statement by Bush is the absolute stupidest, most outrageous thing he's ever said as President.

[NewJeffCT]

25. no difference?

Hmm, every married person in the world is 'capable' of commiting adultery. No difference between possibly cheating in the future and actually cheating now.

Most people are capable of commiting murder. Should we all be locked up for our own safety and the safety of others? We could possibly commit murder, after all.

[Cronus Protagonist]

51. In Bush's world, yes (eom)

"Lick Bush" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[phillybri]

27. Our President is a pathological piece of SHIT!!!!!

:grr:

[grannylib]

33. I just sent about 25 e-mails on this issue to the 'news' networks and to

individual anchors; let's flood these people with some requests for the truth! Here is what I sent:

"What's the difference?" asks the pResident

What is up with the 'news' media in this country? The pResident lies to the American people about Saddam Hussein possessing WMDs and being an imminent threat to the US, as a justification to go to war. Then when the truth comes out, there are no WMDs and Saddam was no threat to the US, the misadministration backpedals and says, Oh no, we said EMERGING threat (and we have our altered web sites to prove it) and that he had PROGRAMS to develop WMDS. When asked about this discrepancy by Diane Sawyer, our pathological, untreated alcolholic pResident asks, "What's the difference?" and gets away with it!
Well let's see: 460 lives of American troops lost for starters, there's a difference for you. Thousands injured, some maimed for life, there's another difference. The billions of dollars being spent on this war that could have gone to domestic issues, there's a third. The fact that there is NO connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, no matter how hard the misadministration tries to make us think there are; the fact that Saddam was not involved in 9/11, no matter how hard the misadministration tries to make us think he was; the fact that Saddam was distraction to keep us from wondering where Osama bin Laden was; these are some additional differences.
If those in the media want to continue to provide NEWS and not Republican propaganda, let's start with the reports surfacing that the Kurds captured Saddam, drugged him and stuffed him back in his hole.
Let's report on the lies Bush has told and continues to tell: lies that have cost the lives of our troops; lies that, had they been told by Bill Clinton, would have been grounds for impeachment.
This pResident is a deserter, a pathological liar, and should be ousted from office along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and the rest of the cabal.
What a disgrace this misadministration is, and it is a larger disgrace that the media allow his lies to stand unchallenged, unreported and unexamined, so that we can have air time for Michael Jackson and the other distractions that they keep feeding us.

[Cronus Protagonist]

48. grannylib, you're my kind of Democratic :)

Thanks for doing that. Actions count louder than words.

"Lick Bush" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[freesqueeze]

52. I Agree

I created a similar post that sunk without much attention on Sunday. Oh well, I'll just post it in here:

INCREDIBLE!

I’ll tell you what the difference is Mr. President:

(1) The threat is real and imminent (what you claimed in dealing with our Senate and the American people before the war)

(2) The threat is not real and only in the planning or conceptual phase (the story your mealy- mouthed puppeteers have recently cobbled together to try and save just a minor portion of your two faces)

Case (1) was not true and (2) was probably the truth that you seem to have stumbled upon and put to use now that it’s politically expedient.

In the first case, our Senate votes to authorize anything that is required to fight this looming direct threat to the America we hold dear. You send our troops into Iraq, lots of flag stickers are sold, and the direct threat to American soil is stamped out.

Pshew! That was close!

Only there was no WMD and little concrete evidence of the programs. There was no looming threat to the American way of life from Saddam.

In the second case, the truth, if put before the senate before the war might have resulted in a different vote sparing the lives of the growing number of our Service personnel.

It makes a huge difference to the families and loved ones of those lost in this war you wanted bad enough to lie about. You should drop by and meet them sometime.

So you either lied or you were just dead wrong. I could accept either story. But this stand you’re taking now that there is no difference between the actual weapons and plans to build them in the future is ludicrous!

This shuffle-step move of yours has been under reported.

If we only actually had a liberal TV media then the majority of Americans would know what an outrageous liar you are and we could all look forward to an honest statesman moving into the White House in ‘05.

[Cronus Protagonist]

53. Looks like everyone was out shopping at the weekend

...buying bric-a-brac from the 99 cent stores in lieu of decent gifts... :)

"Lick Bush" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[ElementaryPenguin]

55. The difference is a life behind bars for treason, you fucking traitor!

IMPEACH THE VILE MONSTER!! :puke:

[kcwayne]

56. Do I have the right to get pissed?

I got into an exchange with a poster on this thread that
walked like a Republican
talked like a Republican,
mis-spelled like a Republican,
beat the war drums like a Republican,
so I "gasp", suggested that he was a Republican.

I get 3 warnings against my max of 30 fired across my bow by the moderators. I didn't read the fine print of the rules, I didn't realize you can't call someone a Republican.

And judging by the fact that they deleted all of this Republican's posts here today, the mods also figured out that he was a freeper. Not too hard to do since he admitted in one of his posts that he found out about DU from freeper.com, not to mention his penchant for perpetual war with all of those A-Rabs, and full support of setting up a strategic base in Iraq so we can scare Iran and Syria into submission, and proclaiming that the loss of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives was irrelevant, since we were retaliating for 9/11. (Ok, I know this is Lieberman's position too, but he doesn't count).

So why do I get bagged with 3 warnings for my misfortune of calling out this lurker and doing the unforgivable act of calling this guy a Republican? Hell, I know its a terrible thing to do to someone, but sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade.