Nov 02 2006
Pyhrric Victory
The WaPo epitomizes the possibly empty win the Dems may get if they take over the House – it will not be because of their ideas or policies. Right now the WaPo claims Dems will win be because of media hyped (or media coordinated) scandals against specific candidates. So Dems will win without any mandate whatsoever? Now that is winning ugly. But I am not ready to bet America is falling for all these coincidental bad news stories.
During the 2004 election the media thought it gave the Dems 15 points with their slanted coverage. I think they are out to increase that to 25 points. I read the Christian Collation is going to get out the vote big time, like in a presidential election year. Here’s hoping!
I am far from giving in. It is fight to the end. I get worried about Joe Public like anyone, but I still believe we can win this election as long as we keep getting our voices heard. I am driving on Nov 7. I might need a step stool to get a couple of those old ladies in and out of the pickup and to the voting booth but it will be worth the effort. I feel badly because I am in such a red-state……if only I were in VA, or MD.
Actually, I think the donks are returning Kerry to his wife; with postage due labels hanging out of his hair.
Will she pay the premium?
Or will the poor gigolo finally be freed up from doing his duty?
Who knows? Who cares?
The donks achievements have evaporated.
My guess is that the pundits will need an excuse for Tuesday.
And, they’re trying on for size, now, a way to get around complimenting Bush!
A lot of noise will go with their fire crackers.
Meanwhile, if there was one smart person in hollywood, they’d be trying to fund a movie, now, called MY LIFE AS A GIGOLO.
Why should Borat make all the money?
I personally know 100’s of Reps and I have not met one that is staying home.So this “reps are staying home” campaingn by the MSM is not working.
I have a very wealthy dem friend in Miami who in 2004 gave Kerry a fund raiser dinner at her house. She called me afterwards and told me she was voting for Bush because the Kerry and Thereza where the most horrific people she had ever met.No one likes this man.
Has anyone seen Pelosi,Reid ,Schummer,Rangel,Murtha,or Kennedy ?
They have suddenly dissapear so the American public doesn’t remember the real dem party before they vote.
Drudge says the NYTimes is planning some kind of MAJOR story on Iraq’s nuke program on tomorrow’s front page.
Will it be a hit piece ?
Keep the faith folks… if we get down, we’ll be out. There are a lot of us “independents” who will feel pretty damn disappointed if the Republicans stay home and leave us hangin’… prove these BoZos wrong… we can win this thing.
Good Evening All,
I am in such a good mood at this moment! I must share this with y’all.
To make a long story short, I am a naturalized American citizen, born in Mexico. Was a liberal when I was young and stupid. As our great Ronny Reagan used to say, all Mexicans are Republicans, they just don’t know it yet. Anyway, as my parents also became naturalized citizens, and as I became a very conservative Republican (I make Rush seem liberal), I got my parents and family to also hear the Republican message, and how we all belonged to this party, based on our conservative Hispanic, Catholic pro-life values.
Ok, that’s the background. Here’s the great news!! I am on a business trip right now, so I called my Mom in Orange Co, CA, to say hello. We got to talking about various things, when suddenly she got very agitated and began to ask me if I had seen what “That man” had said on TV. I asked her, “What man?” She said, “That John Kerry man, SOB, @@@****,etc, etc!!” (Now this is in Spanish we’re conversing in and she hardly ever says bad words). So of course, I’m eager to understand how she means this. I asked her, how did they translate his words in Spanish on Univision and Telemundo, and what was the commentary like (I assumed it was liberal, because like all DBM, Spanish TV is also liberal). To my surprise they translated his words correctly.
She said that she, my Dad, my brother (who was a marine during the first Gulf War), all of her neighbors (mostly Dems), Church friends are very angry — AND she said that people are being interviewed on Spanish TV all over So. CA about this and they are LIVID. She said that that was all people were talking about in the community. They feel very insulted, because MANY Hispanics are in the military!! My Mom is so upset that she wished he were on the ballot, so she could scratch his name out. So instead she’s taking my Dad (who mainly votes in the G.E.) and as many people as she can take to the polls.
Well, it looks like this is a huge event, and the media knows about, but is covering up — AND why the Libs forced this SOB to “apologize”, their internals must be in the toilet. I can’t wait for Tuesday!!
So many Hispanics, like my Mom, Dad and brother, who may not have been inclined to vote in this election, are so offended by this, that many Republican and Democrat Hispanics are going to go and vote AGAINST the Democrat Party – all thanks to “Jon Carry.”
God Bless our country and our “W”.
GWGirl…that was a great post!…..’Jon Carry’ may have saved the nation! Tell your folks ‘gracias’ from this Texan! GET OUT THE VOTE!
Oh John Kerry.
A little birdie told me this is a Democrat supporting website although I haven’t verified that personally.
Nonetheless, it should win the prize for political cartoon of the year.
Da prizhe 4 pic ahv da yeer shood stil go too da troupes.
@Mark78
Perhaps the NYT hit piece you allude to will be this:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/11/how_to_build_a_.html
Dubios,
My fault, not a hit piece. A good story.
My analysis with the quotes here…
The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who said they hoped to “leverage the Internet†to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.
The implication being than they wanted to “manufacture†dangers instead of looking for the proof of what they already had a good idea about.
Last spring, after the site began posting old Iraqi documents about chemical weapons, United Nations arms-control officials in New York won the withdrawal of a report that gave information on how to make tabun and sarin, nerve agents that kill by causing respiratory failure.
So Iraq had manuals for making tabun and sarin, tons of chemical agents, the equipment for processing it, chemical suits and factories but didn’t actually put it all together? I am not buying it.
The campaign for the online archive was mounted by conservative publications and politicians, who argued that the nation’s spy agencies had failed adequately to analyze the 48,000 boxes of documents seized since the March 2003 invasion.
Why aren’t ALL media outlets interested? Is this a reflection more on conservatives being more interested in history or proving liberal media bias? Also, those in the know will confirm that recovered boxes have absolutely not been adequately analyzed and I don’t know of anyone even pretending that they have been.
The Web site, “Operation Iraqi Freedom Document Portal,†was a constantly expanding portrait of prewar Iraq. Its many thousands of documents included everything from a collection of religious and nationalistic poetry to instructions for the repair of parachutes to handwritten notes from Mr. Hussein’s intelligence service. It became a popular quarry for a legion of bloggers, translators and amateur historians.
Correct, a full blackout from the mainstream media who has acted curiously uninterested in the documents.
Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.
Saddam was a year away in the 90’s or in 2002?
European diplomats said this week that some of those nuclear documents on the Web site were identical to the ones presented to the United Nations Security Council in late 2002, as America got ready to invade Iraq. But unlike those on the Web site, the papers given to the Security Council had been extensively edited, to remove sensitive information on unconventional arms.
So information about Iraq’s weapons programs, that wasn’t turned over to the proper authorities, was only discovered post invasion?
In Europe, a senior diplomat said atomic experts there had studied the nuclear documents on the Web site and judged their public release as potentially dangerous. “It’s a cookbook,†said the diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of his agency’s rules. “If you had this, it would short-circuit a lot of things.â€
Obviously the Iraqis were farther along than everyone knew or this wouldn’t be surprising to anyone. Right????
Peter D. Zimmerman, a physicist and former United States government arms scientist now at the war studies department of King’s College, London, called the posted material “very sensitive, much of it undoubtedly secret restricted data.â€
Ray E. Kidder, a senior nuclear physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, an arms design center, said “some things in these documents would be helpful†to nations aspiring to develop nuclear weapons and should have remained secret.
So the public has never been told of Saddam’s full nuclear capabilities? When were we going to find out? Wouldn’t that information change the way people view the war?
Some intelligence officials feared that individual documents, translated and interpreted by amateurs, would be used out of context to second-guess the intelligence agencies’ view that Mr. Hussein did not have unconventional weapons or substantive ties to Al Qaeda. Reviewing the documents for release would add an unnecessary burden on busy intelligence analysts, they argued.
Talk about CYA. What’s more important, the truth or the reputation of our intelligence agencies?
Some of the first posted documents dealt with Iraq’s program to make germ weapons, followed by a wave of papers on chemical arms.
But…but….I thought Iraq didn’t ever have or know how to make such things? In all seriousness, these manuals being passed to terrorists were one of the major reasons for removing Saddam.
At the United Nations in New York, the chemical papers raised alarms at the Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, which had been in charge of searching Iraq for all unconventional arms, save the nuclear ones.
If UNMOVIC knew what was going on then none of these findings should be a surprise. Apparently they didn’t.
In April, diplomats said, the commission’s acting chief weapons inspector, Demetrius Perricos, lodged an objection with the United States mission to the United Nations over the document that dealt with the nerve agents tabun and sarin.
Soon, the document vanished from the Web site. On June 8, diplomats said, Mr. Perricos told the Security Council of how risky arms information had shown up on a public Web site and how his agency appreciated the American cooperation in resolving the matter. What else has been suppressed in the name of unknown international bureaucrats?
GWGirl,
Do you know of any stories on this? It would be great to get the news out.
AJStrata
The leftist New York Times has so much tunnel vision and are so blinded by BDS that they couldn’t see that the article they published vindicated Bush’s stance on the danger Saddam presented to the world. They have in the past put out stories that were so outrageous knowing that a good portion of the populace would believe them and never see anything different. The pen is mightier than the sword, you know. They keep forgetting that those days are gone. The internet is here now and thousands of people can blog and refute their garbage. No longer can they drive national politics the way they want. However, they are still trying and steadily losing their credibility while trying. I hope this treasonous rag goes out of business ASAP.
Barbara
I assure you that Bush’s blundering the occupation alone is enough to discredit him , regardless of the motives of the New York Times.
This blundering involved unnecessary loss and maiming of US servicemen in the tens of thousands. Not to mention the hundreds
of thousands of Iraqis killed. Under the terms of the Geneva
Convention the occupying power must restore peace and
safety in a timely manner.
Bush ignored detailed reports from State and other experts
as to the number and kind of troops necessary to effect this,
and tactics involved.
This is why the UK just voted Bush the most dangerous leader in the world.
Ken,
“Bush’s blundering the occupation” – False assumption
“hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed”- name a credible source
“Bush ignored detailed reports from State” – Not State’s job to determine troop levels. Besides, State was probably intriguing against the White House.
” UK just voted Bush the most dangerous leader in the world.” – just like the American polls showing most can’t even identify the VP.
“restore peace and safety in a timely manner.” – The War on Terror is not just a police action.
Ken, before “assuring” anybody anything, get your facts straight.
Ken
You are just about the most misinformed person I have ever heard of.
I know for a fact that you twist all information to your own ends. You have done so from my posts. You have lost all credibillity if you ever had any to start with.
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0610223319171205.htm
Above link provides several “credible sources” for the 650,000
figure.
Was General Shishinski also intriguing against the White House?
“restore peace and safety in a timely manner” refers to the occupying
power of a country occupied in a war, not a police action.
My facts are straighter than another neocon poseur, Rev. Haggard.
Barbie, I glad I have no credibility in the dream world of Bushophilia and neocon warmongering in which you reside.
Ken
You really have gone around the bend. Your credible news source is tone of the newspapers of our enemies? All this strengthens my question of are you an American or an Arab? You really sound like an Arab with your absolute hatred of the US, Bush, Israel and your
absolute love for all things Arab. Your stance on Israel is the same as any Arab I ever heard of.
Thank you for making it an issue, Barb. I suppose Johns Hopkins,Tufts University, and all the epidemiologists involved,
including those of prestigious Lancet, are agents of the Arabs.
I note the hundreds (thousands?) of so-called “American”
“conservative” blogs and websites on the Net with “I stand with
Israel” regalia festooned above.
Too late,many will regret equating Israel’s interests with
America’s. But that is the perspective from which you too judge,
since you do not accuse these of “sounding like Israelis.”
Stand with Israel…fall with Israel. But before you do, better
question the motives of such as Ricard Perle, a key player
in the war’s implementation.
Ken,
• That casualty study has been totally discredited because of the handful of cluster samples, the bias of the authors, the fake unregistered death certificates and the unrepresentative reference sample (during no-fly enforcement).
• When Iraq is a freely functioning democracy, you will see its logo on conservative web sites also.
• True, America has cultural degradation, but it’s generally promoted by liberals. And no peoples have ever been totally immune. In fact, the Islamists are guilty of even more heinous obscenities, ie. beheadings.