web analytics

A GOOD DAY TO BE AN AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE…

By ATWadmin On November 9th, 2006

swaraaj-American-Eagle-and-Flag-II-Print-C10055018-small.jpgI wanted to offer my congratulations to the US Democrats, who have now won both House and Senate, and whose candidates have pulverised the Republican Party across the United States.

Yes, I know I was grumpy about it yesterday but hey – I’m made of flesh and blood and I react like everyone else does when confronted with what was…unwelcome news! But I have calmed down. Honest.

You see, on reflection, yesterday turned out to be a GOOD day to be a Conservative in the USA. I say that because as other commentators have also been putting on record, the GOP can now renew itself because it HAS to renew itself ….or face President Hillary Clinton in 2008. There is no option to do otherwise.

This is going to be a momentous task and it will need huge change.

Most importantly, Leadership is required. Bush has comprehensively failed in this regard. He has stuttered  but never really started in his second term to give that which the American people want – dynamic articulate and confident leadership.  And his Party has now paid the severest price. Not that Bush is alone in the blame – I believe this must be shared across the current highest echelon within the Party. They have become complacent, smug, unfocused, corrupt…and unworthy.

So the American people were RIGHT to send them the momentous message that hit home yesterday. The American people were RIGHT to reject Bush and his hesitancy on Iraq. The American electorate have done us a favour by stopping the stumbling that has characterised this shambolic second term of the Bush Presidency. And make no mistake about it – the Bush Presidency effectively came to an end last night.  Again, that is good news because he has been going NOWHERE for the past two years and I, like so many others, am sick of it.

So, what can we look forward to?

Well, if 2008 is see revived GOP fortunes, then a Presidential big win by a Republican candidate is key. I favour Rudy Giuliani at this point. I believe that he would trounce Hillary and whilst he is too liberal on some social fronts for my liking, he IS  a man who has shown leadership, and an ability to articulate this when necessary.  That’s what is lacking at the moment and voters sense it. We need the GOP to retain the essence of the Bush doctrine, but make it  MUCH more aggressive and unilaterist, and then sell this to the American people who YEARN to see our troops WIN in Iraq. It’s high time that an all out attack on Big Government was made, and illegal immigration tackled head on by enforcing Borders. It’s also time that the United Nations was taken on – how about having a policy calling for the bozos on the East River to "up shop" and go to France or somewhere that does not cost Americans money? How about supporting Israel when it tackles the Jihadists in Hezbollah? There is SO much that a reinvigorated GOP can do – but it means strengthening core conservative principles, putting forward clear moral values, giving Americans a reason once again to cast their votes FOR the Republican Party.

So, I think a big thank you to the Pelosicrats. And above all, to the US electorate. It’s time for a Republican rising…..cometh the hour…

158 Responses to “A GOOD DAY TO BE AN AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE…”

  1. "We need the GOP to retain the essence of the Bush doctrine, but make it MUCH more aggressive and unilaterist, and then sell this to the American people.."

    You mean more wars? The Iraq war is being lost and because of the diversion of resources to Iraq, Afghanistan is also in danger of falling again to the hateful Taliban.

    If the USA wants to be totally unilateralist (= do exactly as it likes) then it should obviously leave both the UN and Nato.

  2. By the way, I agree that Giuliani would be a formidable GOP candidate. But McCain could also beat Hillary, if the Democrats choose her to run.

  3. You’re reading it totally wrong, David, and if Republicans were to follow your recommendations, they’d suffer an even worse defeat in 2008 than we saw yesterday.

    This is in today’s NYT:

    "From October on, in stump speeches and television advertisements, the Democrats moved the war front and center. Republican candidates began to avoid the issue. Yet to the increasing distress of Republican Party strategists, the White House appeared to play into Democratic hands, as Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney continued to offer arguments for victory .

    “Iraq was the driving factor behind everything,” Mr. Emanuel (Dem candidate for Illinois) said, in an assessment that drew little argument from his Republican counterparts yesterday. “And October was a disastrous month.”

    Across the country, at the urging of Mr. Emanuel and his Senate counterpart, Charles E. Schumer of New York, Democratic candidates began demanding the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. As they did, Mr. Emanuel would later admit, he gave private thanks that the president had not robbed the Democrats of a potent issue by firing Mr. Rumsfeld before the campaign was engaged."

    The last sentence shows what was the undoing of the GOP, and this is exactly the position people like you had been supporting.

    The truth is there are no easy solutions for Iraq. Any possible military easing of the situation will require Syria and Iran to be brought on board – yet more humble pie on Bush’s plate and a total reversal of his ME policy hitherto. But if he stil goes all out for victory – as you suggest – the result will be an even greater military and political disaster, simply because that kind of victory is unachievable.

    The big hope offered by yesterday’s results is that now both sides in the US might come together and hammer out a policy that could work – a comprehsnsive peace deal for the whole ME, involving all parties, from Israel to Iran. This should, of course, have been tried years ago, but it’s still not too late.

  4. i didnt think the revisionism would come so quick, but you can read similar tomes and language all across the rightwing blogosphere.

    Bush is a lameduck now, so the knives have come out and he will feel the cold blades of many strike his back.

    "Most importantly, Leadership is required. Bush has comprehensively failed in this regard. He has stuttered but never really started in his second term to give that which the American people want – dynamic articulate and confident leadership."

    this is in complete contradiction to anything you have ever said about bush. who you have repeatedly claimed is one of the best presidents ever, and the best since reagan. even in his second term.

    "Again, that is good news because he has been going NOWHERE for the past two years and I, like so many others, am sick of it."

    ditto

    "That’s what is lacking at the moment and voters sense it. We need the GOP to retain the essence of the Bush doctrine, but make it MUCH more aggressive and unilaterist, and then sell this to the American people who YEARN to see our troops WIN in Iraq."

    a vote winner for sure.

    ——————————————-

    my questions to you are, who is your handler? who feeds you this crap?

  5. Tripper,

    Don’t annoy me with offensive comments.

  6. Well, I disagree with most of your foreign policy ideas, but fundamentally the fird
    st paragraph of your blog is completely on the money.

    Better for the GOP that they fail now then they fail in the presidential elections. This could be the boot up the you-know-what they need.

  7. Cunningham posted:

    "The big hope offered by yesterday’s results is that now both sides in the US might come together and hammer out a policy that could work – a comprehsnsive peace deal for the whole ME, involving all parties, from Israel to Iran. This should, of course, have been tried years ago, but it’s still not too late."

    I wish I could believe such a thing is possible. Much more likely is that the world will have to live with a area which is a continued source of wars and instability. Israel is likely to be the only real democracy in the middle east for decades to come.

  8. "I favour Rudy Giuliani at this point. I believe that he would trounce Hillary"

    He would if he got nominated but his views on abortion make that a long shot.

  9. The Iranians are not going to let the US out of Iraq anytime soon. One of the architects of the Bush doctrine and the war has "fallen on his sword" a trillion dollars and three thousand deaths after it began. And no-one was more aggressive than Don.

    The Dems have wrested control by doing nothing except field a few conservative candidates against a Republican party which has abandoned any notion of conservative principles. The Dems had no new policies and didn’t need them.

    If yesterday’s poll – (Would you vote for Giuliani or Hillary Clinton?) are correct then Giuliani is unlikely to beat Hillary Clinton in any contest.

    Meanwhile Bush will continue to sit on his hands over Iraq; there is not much else that he can do.

  10. Peter,

    The first goal should be stability and peace, democracy can come later. I’d prefer a region with non-democratic states at peace with each other than one with democracies at war.

  11. "Don’t annoy me with offensive comments."

    they werent meant to cause offense. im only pointing out the truth. you rarely, if ever, criticised the bush administration. then when faced with the cold light of day, post-midterm defeat, a new vision is presented and the old one sanitised beyond recognition.

    its in the same league as bush claiming "we never said ‘stay the course’" or rumsfeld "nobody ever claimed the threat from iraq was imminent".

    offensive would have been trolling the ATW back catalogue and exposing you completely. dont rule it out either.

  12. Agree Peter. Cunningham – Are you arguing for corrupt, torturous, feared regimes just so that on the surface everything looks ok?

  13. "The first goal should be stability and peace"

    purge the politicised reconstruction effort in iraq. get the professionals in. the US has many experts who were sidelined in favour of political acolytes. bush had every oppurtunity to make iraq a beacon of hope. he showed criminal negligence, and must pay for it.

  14. Stu,

    Wasn’t that poll you mention only conducted in New York? If yes, then it’s not saying much that Hillary would beat Giuliani there.

  15. Hi Eagle, you may be right I just caught it on Imus I think it was, as I walked throught the room. Still think Hillary will be hard to beat. Mind you I would not vote for her.

  16. What about Condi v Hilary ?

  17. Obama for President 2008!

  18. Just been reading up about Obama. I love the fact that he was firm with pally students on a trip there recently "the US will never recognize winning Hamas candidates unless the group renounces its fundamental mission to eliminate Israel", and that he had conveyed the same message in his meeting with Mahmoud Abbas. After the election, Obama said: "My hope is that as a consequence of now being responsible for electricity and picking up garbage and basic services to the Palestinian people, that they recognize it’s time to moderate their stance" Thats what id hoped. That and recognise what a pigs ear they are making of Gaza (which they have done).

  19. David Said

    "It’s time for a Republican rising…..cometh the hour…"

    My god David! Thats a sentence I really thought i’d never see in any of your posts !!!

  20. David

    So true (from Drink Soaked Trots). LOL. I have to say its this that im looking forward to the most 😉

    "What are Guardian CIF commentators going to do if a Democrat is elected President and all the ills of the world don’t disappear when Bush goes back to his ranch? Will their heads implode?"

  21. David: Very interesting take on the midterm elections. Many talking heads are noting that it was a rejection of Bush’s lack of competence rather than his conservatism. It was ironic for him to complain about the "tone: in Washington regarding things said about him when he has essentially claimed that the mainstream opposition party would surrender to the terrorists. He has backed off that, noting that both Pelosi and Reid share his concern for security, but that they have different ideas on how it is to be accomplished.
    I think Rudy is too liberal to survive the Republican primaries. He favors gun control, is pro-choice and homosexual rights. He has had a very messy personal life and his temperment is not the calmest. In addition, the Republicans have never nominated a Catholic, and while that would not be as daunting a factor as it was when JFK ran, it is another factor.

    He was a godsend to New York City as a Mayor where his combative nature helped him overcome the bureacracy, but that kind of a temperment does sell well in a lot of places in the country. He has enjoyed a hero’s status since 9/11 for his nearly flawless role at that time, but that won’t protect him in a national contest. He should be on any candidate’s short list as a Vice Presidential running mate because he could balance a ticket.

  22. Tripper,

    Don’t make stupid threats to me about trolling the ATW back catalogue. I am happy to debate with you, and I have even stood up to defend you from those who inappropriately use your name – but you’re going at things the wrong way here. Stick to topic, debate if you can, but don’t dare threaten me.

  23. Mahons,

    Thanks for your feedback. I do understand Rudy might be "too liberal" but I think he is also a winner. However there is scope for perhaps another to come through.

    Andy,

    I am hawk-like on foreign policy hence my views openly expressed.

  24. you rarely, if ever, criticised the bush administration

    Thats also absolute tosh DT. David has been very critical of Bush, Condi…whats UP with you? If you want to talk about someone changing their tune you’d do well to look inwards. The nos of times we had to endure your ‘America is finished’ and ‘used to be a great nation’ rubbish where the idea an electorate could usher out what they dont like seemed lost on you.

  25. Thanks for that Alison. I have indeed been a critic of Bush, and of Condi, and of State in general. In fact, I am a critic of most politicians per se! But I treasure freedom and liberty, I admire America from coast to coast, and I get annoyed when my views are misrepresented by moonbats. The idea that all conservatives slavishly follow their political masters is left wing bunkum. Take Cameron – pul-lease! The great thing about the net is that we can discuss IDEAS and they are the most powerful thing of all. So let’s concentrate on that…

  26. "You mean more wars? The Iraq war is being lost and because of the diversion of resources to Iraq, Afghanistan is also in danger of falling again to the hateful Taliban."

    Peter your just like so many other gits The Iraq war is only being lost in the press not one battle has been lost and name me any other warzone that after 3 years only 3000 soldiers have died…
    As for pulling troops out of afghanistan that is another media lie not one troop that was sent to Afg was pulled and sent to Iraq. We may have never sent enough troops to Afg but not one was pulled and sent anywhere else you never check your facts you like so many others just spout bull shit.

    As for more wars its only one war the war on terror Iraq is just one battle, but don’t worry now that the dems are in controll when the jihadi go nuts and blow up say westminster abbey you can bank on the fact that we won’t becoming to help you or anyone. Except maybe we will send counslers over to try and help you understand why it was your fault that the self exploding arabs are killing you…..

  27. PS
    "McCain could also beat Hillary, if the Democrats choose her to run."

    McCain the traitorous scum can’t beat his way out of a paper bag let alone even win the nomination He is un-electable in the national arena. Once again just more proof of the ignorence of those who just read headlines

  28. I agree that Giuliani is by far the best candidate out there.

    Aside from the fact that I agree with him on most things, he is just about the only potential candidate that has run something, who has accomplished things in an executive role.

    Obama’s a kid, he can’t even be taken seriously.

  29. What happened in this election was simple the base abandoned the republican party. The party stoped leading in a direction that the base was willing to support.

    The Dems offered NO policy changes no explanation of what they would do different except raise taxes but their base is mindless and they came out and voted.

  30. the only thing Obama offers is a black face that’s attached to a really great orater, he has no other qualifications

    As for Rudy the party will stomach him before they Stomach McCain….

    The person that the base is screaming for is Gingrich. Newt has to be in the race even if he doesn’t win the nomination. He will keep the debate focused on CONSERVATIVE issues. It will force out those who can’t commit and define those that can…

  31. Mahons,

    Of course, Giuliani has the fact that he went to the same college as us in his favor. He clearly is a cut above the rest based on that fact alone.

    I also think Giuliani is too liberal, but I’ve been reading a lot about his frequent trips to the Republican heartland. He has, it seems, struck a chord with a lot of ‘red-necks’. He goes out to meet people in the midwest and south regularly and talks openly with them on any topic. I think the conservative Christians believe that Giuliani would not be their enemy even if he’s not really "one of them". I suspect his pro-Choice leanings would moderate as necessary. The only real break with the Repbulican heartland that I foresee is his belief in gun control.

    The ability to manage is too often underestimated. A lot of Bush voters feel let down because he has managed so badly the past two years. Katrina, more than Iraq, really showed that. I think that’s the card Giuliani will play strongly. He managed New York well, even if he had to crack heads to do it. And, don’t for one minute think that anyone in Oklahoma or anywhere else is going to worry about Rudy G. going to town on Washington bureaucrats.

    Of the two – McCain or Giuliani – I’d say conservatives will go for Giuliani. That’s a gut call, right now. Obviously, Giuliani has to stay healthy – he was treated for prostate cancer a few years ago, no? His personal life is disgrace, but I half suspect that people might (might) overlook that. Besides, Republicans can rationalize that Hillary Clinton’s hardly going to be in a position to throw stones.

  32. The Dems offered NO policy changes no explanation of what they would do different except raise taxes but their base is mindless and they came out and voted

    That was my take on it. But i honestly believe that if they step up to the plate and have to deal with the issues they havent really had any solutions to all this time Bush was such an easy punchbag, then the inclination to see Bush as the sole cause of all America & the worlds problems will cease to be and issues will get handled. They wont find it so easy as to simply ‘blame Bush’. Not such a bad thing.

  33. Troll,

    I agree with you on Gingrich. I think he’s unelectable, but he’s an intellectual heavyweight and the Republican Party badly misses him now. They need ideas and Gingrich has always been good at that.

  34. McCain will NEVER make it with the conservative Republicans. In fact, he’s a big part of the problem and has been over the last several years.

    I don’t think Rudy will make it either. He’s a great guy and thank God for him after 9/11.

    Mitt Romney is one of the names being thrown out there and so far he looks good. Many believe that his being Mormon will make it impossible for him to be elected to the presidency.

    Obama is as lefty loony as Hillary.

    As far as David’s criticism of the Bush administration – lol! There is PLENTY of criticism. Talk about revisionism. You’re projecting, Tripper.

  35. David, i agree withyour assessment. And I agree with Mahons. Conservatism wasn’t rejected, but the lack of it shown by the admin.

    But the Dems won fair and square. In fact, they ran away with the election like a hobo with a sweet potato pie!

    What we can’t understand, is that if bush decided to dump Rummy a month ago, why in the name of all that’s holy did he wait until 1 day AFTER the election??????
    Many Repub. might still have their jobs!

    I’m just dissappointed and flabergasted, but always recognizing the wisdom of the American people.

  36. What Obama really offers is a perception of hope, and a lot of people on both sides find his views palatable. He’s no uber-liberal. He hasn’t been around long enough to accomplish much at the national level, but that also means he’s not had the chance to be tainted by anything either. Sadly though I have my doubts about whether anyone other than a white man could win a presidential election.

    Troll I think you’re projecting your own view of McCain to the GOP in general. He was close in 2000. And Giuliani’s positions on gun control and abortion would almost certainly do him in if he runs. His extramarital affair is also unlikely to help. But I think most any GOP candidate would beat Hillary, who has too much baggage from 92-00.

  37. Charles I wouldn’t have picked you as a fan of Jon Stewart!

  38. >>name me any other warzone that after 3 years only 3000 soldiers have died..<<

    Or name me one where most of the dead died after hostilities were declared over!

  39. >>Conservatism wasn’t rejected, but the lack of it shown by the admin.

    What we can’t understand, is that if bush decided to dump Rummy a month ago, why in the name of all that’s holy did he wait until 1 day AFTER the election??????
    Many Repub. might still have their jobs!<<

    So you mean dumping Rumsfeld would have been a step that pleased conservatives?

  40. Charles,

    On your point re the sacking of Rummy – I also am profoundly annoyed with Bush over this and here’s why. If the President thought he was doing a bad job, he should have been sacked long ago. That is the President’s call. But to do so the day after LOSING the election is just pathetic, disloyal, and gutless. Now say what you will about Rummy, and I am a fan, but surely the President has been taking a view as to how efficacious his running of the Def Dept has been before now? And here’s another thing – if the election had been more successful, would Rummy have been praised? It’s pathetic.

  41. PS Yes – I salute the wisdom of the American people on this one. It’s time we all realised that the GOP needed thumped – and thumped very hard in order to get back to principle and values that resonate from coast to coast.

  42. Neal,

    Although I’d like to believe that Hillary is unelectable, I don’t believe that. Those who would vote against her because of her baggage would probably not reach 30%. That’s a high negative percentage for starting a campaign, but she’s an unusual candidate. I think she’s going to be very tough to beat, particularly if all her challengers for the nomination come from the left of the Democratic Party.

  43. Wow. McCain a traitor. I can accept that one may not agree with him politically, but a traitor? A war hero imprisoned under the harshest conditions for years during Vietnam? Troll, you are clearly out of your mind.

    I agree that the war is not lost in a conventional sense. The problem is that it is not a conventional war. The Republicans didn’t suffer this setback because we went into Iraq, but because of the incompetence of the adminsitration in the prosecution of the war.

    I think on the Democratic side, Obama is perhaps the least experienced politician to be considered for the Presidency from Illinois since. . .Lincoln. However, I believe he is enjoying more of a honeymoon period, and that if he runs and the spotlight that comes with that, he may not stay on his pedestal.

    Eagle: The factthat Rudy is a Jasper is of course grounds enough to support him (for Mayor). Don’t underestimate the intolerance of the so-called Republican base in the deep South. They may have him to dinner but he ain’t sleeping over.

    As for Gingrich, he is a very erratic man. He has flashes of genius and flashes of foolishness. As a family values guy his bark is worse than his bite since he’s been married three times and had at least one extra-marital affair which made him look hypocritical. I don’t think he has what it takes to even make it through the early rounds of the primaries.

  44. Cunningham, Gtting the job done in Iraq with VICTORY would please conservatives, and if Rummy wasn’t getting the job done he should be replaced. Bush shouldn’t put loyalty to a friend above the lives of our troops. The american people gave the president ample time to make headway, they were angry, and handed the Repub. their heads.

  45. Mahons.

    I agree with virtually all of your last post. Do you think Hillary will end up with the Dem nomination?

  46. Hillary. I think she can get the nomination of the Democrats, as the other campaigners will likely be male and split the vote. The general elction will be an issue. She is more centrist than many of the left would like and many on the right would admit. The negative issues (Whitewater, the the Health Care fiasco, and the cattle investments) are there but they are old and known. And the filed of politics is littered with people who underestimated the Clintons. She would make a serious candidate.

  47. Troll,

    When you say, "the base abandoned the republican party," does that includes you, Monica and Skye? I asked Skye last night:

    As a conservative Democrat in Pennsylvania, did you vote for Casey and against Santorum?

    but haven’t gotten an answer. Personally, I think we Dems re-took the middle after losing it to you Repubs for so long.

  48. Mahons

    I agree with you re McCain completely. Just because he does not unfailingly toe a party line does not make him a traitor

    He has more manhood,and courage in his left toe than the likes of George W Bush and Dick Cheney have in their entire bodies. When GWB spent his youth as a giggling male cheerleader at Yale, McCain spent his confronting the pit of despair at the Hanoi Hilton.

    And I say this as someone who voted Republican in the past two Presidential elections.

  49. "We need the GOP to retain the essence of the Bush doctrine, but make it MUCH more aggressive and unilaterist"
    This is exactly why the Republicans lost the election.
    We don’t want this approach anymore, its failed, and has been rejected.

    David would you descibe yourself as a war-monger?

  50. Yeah, jeez, let me pile on before it becomes unseemly. I don’t agree with McCain all the time, but he is a hero, a true American. Gosh, if he was going to be a traitor it would probably have been more benefit for him to have done so when he was being tortured in a Hanoi jail.

  51. David: I typed my response befeore I read your 4:27. Let me break down the Hillary nomination process a little more:
    Number One, she’ll attract a warchest the size of Dolly Parton’s chest. Both she and her husband are incredible fundraisers.
    Number Two, she didn’t move to New York for the bagels. She starts off such an advantage coming from such a highly populated state. In the region even the Republicans would admit she has been a very able Senator for New York. She has roots in midwest, her husband helps her in the South, and she attracts a clearly overwhelming number of woman who see a real chance for the first woman President (male competitors will split the anti-Hillary vote).
    Number Three, she is also a good fundraiser for Republicans as there is an element in the party that equates her with Satan. However, those folks don’t effect a Democratic primary.
    Number Four: She can finese a challenge from the far left. She was almost as pro-war if you will as Joe Lieberman. Why didn’t she have her own real Ned Lamont? Because the liberal wing has acepted the Clintons’ centrist tendancies. The charisma trumps the consternation.
    Number Five: She’ll get a pass on direct confrontation from any serious challenger. What Democrat in his or her right mind is going to try to make the former first lady look bad? They have got to hope she suffers some self-inflicted wound.

    The general election is another story, but do we think she has a chance to do AT Least what Gore did and just a little better in Florida? If so, she’s in.

  52. Mahons,

    I do disagree with you about the intolerance of the Republican base down south. Yes, it’s still there, but who are the intolerant folks going to back – McCain? (doubt it) Romney? (Morman – no way) And, even though I’m admitting there’s an intolerant element to the Republican base in the south – I think it’s less significant than you do. A minority in the south. I honestly believe Giuliani’s experience managing NYC and his leadership in a time of crisis will play big down south where Katrina showed how crisis management is so important.

    By the way, I haven’t heard his name with regards to ’08 yet, but I thought Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour acquitted himself well after Katrina and that he might throw his hat in the ring.

  53. Mahons,

    Your Hillary summary is right on the money. She already has a TON of money. And, she’s still raising it. No Democrat will come near her.

    Her downside is herself. She’s not Bill. I’m not convinced she’ll be able to last the campaign without shooting herself in the foot and I don’t think she has the ability to connect with people that Bill has. I think it’s possible that someone with real charisma (Obama) will steal that plank from her no matter how good her husband is at projecting his charm around her.

    It’s also possible that she’ll do something stupid between now and primary season, but I doubt it.

    Imagine if the Republicans nominate Jeb Bush? Funny thing is, he probably has the best resume of all the potential candidates for the nomination, but I don’t think it’ll happen.

    {By ‘best’ I mean his resume is almost perfect for a potential Republican nominee. Right now, I think it will never happen for another Bush, but you never know.}

  54. >>name me any other warzone that after 3 years only 3000 soldiers have died..<<

    Or name me one where most of the dead died after hostilities were declared over!
    Thursday, November 9, 2006 at 04:13PM |

    once again misquoted talking points if thats the best you can come up with you really have no argument to refute what an EXCELLANT job our troops have done in Iraq

  55. Mahons

    "Wow. McCain a traitor. I can accept that one may not agree with him politically, but a traitor? A war hero imprisoned under the harshest conditions for years during Vietnam? Troll, you are clearly out of your mind."

    Yes McCain is a traitor he has attacked the constitution of the US over and over the McCain-Feingold campaign Finance reform is an aqct of treason and subversion of the constitution of the US… Congress Shall Make NO LAW curtailing FREE SPEECH period and he has said on numerous occaisions that "he would gladly get rid of the first ammendment if it would help get corruption out of politics"

    The man was also a failure in the vietnam war he failed as a pilot by getting shot down and he collaborated with the enemy by signing a confesion. He should have been tried for treason then instead of parlaying his failures into a Senate seat….

  56. Troll,

    Easy there. I think McCain-Feingold is wrong too, but it’s hardly traitorous. If you think that McCain is a traitor for backing that bill, what about the man who signed it into law?

  57. no Allen I pulled a straight ticket I also am a commiteeman and was at the polls at 6am to set up the machines and hand out the literature

  58. the man who signed it and every member of congress that supported it were and are fools trying to give the illusion of reform to a busted system but in the process only damaging the very fabric of our country… This position is nothing new to me you can go back on my blog and this one and find me holding this position from day one the man is a traitor

  59. Alan – when I stated in another comment that I had to swallow my own vomit to vote to retain the Republican majority last election what does that tell you about how I feel about many of the Republican representatives???

    We’ve been squawking about it for a couple of years now. Seeing the disenchantment (and feeling my own) of my Republican peers and knowing where that would lead – namely Pelosi as Speaker of the House and a Democrat majority – has prompted many of us to urge voting Republican even if we were unhappy with our leadership.

    I have had problems with the Bush administration, namely border and immigration issues and being too weenieish with the terrorists, but I had no problem voting a straight Republican ticket this election. As you can see many Republicans followed their hearts and put them out.

    Now we’re stuck with the worst lunatics running the asylum. I hope my fellow Republicans are happy. I hope that they sleep well tonight knowing what they’ve done. I hope that they’re okay with me and my family having to pay several thousand dollars more p/year in taxes. I pray to God that their stupid mistake doesn’t cost American lives because you KNOW that the Dems are going after the Patriot Act.

    Thanks! Thanks alot!!

  60. Sir Percy,

    Am I a war-monger? No,

    Do I believe the US is the champion of liberty and freedom around this world? Yes

    Does that mean tyrannies need dealt with? Assuredly!

    Now behave yourself!

  61. Eagle: On Rudy in the South we’ll have to disagree. I note that his Catholicism will not be as much of a factor as it would have been thirty years ago, but there will be an element. Romney as a Morman will face a bigger hurdle (you know how Mormans are always knocking on your front door? In the northeast we are generally inside and can hide, but our southern neighbors are usuallly sitting out on their front porch enjoying the weather and can’t duck the missionaries).
    Where Rudy will get killed in the Southern primaries is on abortion, gun control and gay rights. Never mind the high incidence of abortion, gun violence and (dare I say it ) sodomy in the Red States, they don’t like them things and don’t like folks who ain’t agin ’em. Another thing, his type of plain speaking is New York plain speak (fuggetitabouddit) not the y’all come over soon ya hear type. Believe it or not, they are very regional conscious and vote that way. New York is a foreign as Istanbul to some of those folks.

  62. Troll,

    I had thought you were just blowing off some steam, but now I’m beginning to think you’re a bit of a loon. McCain is NOT a traitor.

  63. Eagle: Troll is not a bit of a loon. He would be insulted by that. He is a total lunatic. Please do not suggest any limitations to his insanity. His tasteless ignorance on McCain is merely the tip of the iceberg.

  64. So – wishing that Freedom of Speech was stricken from our Constitution is not traitorous behavior?

  65. Monica: It is of course not McCain’s wish that Freedom of Speech be stricken from the Constitution, which is a silly argument even from you. You can oppose that legislation claiming it curtails freedom of speech as part of your argument, but you are clearly going over the top if you suggest McCain is a traitor. It is a libelous comment against a true American hero and you should be ashamed of yourself, if you still possess the ability.

  66. This traitor talk is typical of the McCarthyite witch-hunt mentality of the extreme right. It’s often heard from right-wing moonbat Ann Coulter and her fans.

  67. Its been a matter of received wisdom for some in the nutjob right that campaign finance restriction is a "freedom of speech" issue.

    Complete and utter bullshit,as all know.

    When many Republicans got on the wrong side of this issue, which I feel is a moral issue, it was a major error and helped set the stage for defeat.

  68. mahons, really first-class analyses from you today (04:24, 04:31 and 04:46). Thks! (Almost redeems you for voting in Bush 2000 and having a dad who voted in Dicky in `72!)

    Oh, and 5:29 was pretty insightful too!

  69. "Don’t make stupid threats to me about trolling the ATW back catalogue. I am happy to debate with you, and I have even stood up to defend you from those who inappropriately use your name – but you’re going at things the wrong way here. Stick to topic, debate if you can, but don’t dare threaten me."

    david, i dont need you to defend me. all ive ever asked is that you apply the same standards for ALL your contributors. im just shining a light on your blatant reverse on bush. the only criticism i can remember is when you complained that he wasnt being brutal enough.

    ——————————-
    ——————————-

    "Thats also absolute tosh DT. David has been very critical of Bush, Condi…whats UP with you?"

    alison,

    criticism of condi generally comes thick and fast. generally under the misguided notion that she works against the administration. as for bush, apart from what i spoke of above, there is far from an abundance of overt criticism.

    "if you want to talk about someone changing their tune you’d do well to look inwards. The nos of times we had to endure your ‘America is finished’ and ‘used to be a great nation’ rubbish where the idea an electorate could usher out what they dont like seemed lost on you."

    america is finished. it has been proved to the world thats its military might is fallible. despite incessant proclamations to the contrary. neo-conservative unilateralism has utterly failed. not because of lack of capability but because the far right was incapable of being, to quote churchill, "magnanimous in victory". their arrogance and pathalogical dislike of criticism has cost many thousands of lives, at home and abroad.
    america will once again have to join the international community, and listen to alternate opinion.
    until the democrats disassemble the the series of autocratic acts that bush shoved through congress while republicans dominated, i shall reserve my judgement. as i said before, it may not be bush who uses these powers in a malign manner, but until those acts are repealed, any future president has the right to declare martial law, move the army onto the streets and define anyone (including US citizens) as an enemy combattant. they can arrest them, detain them indefinitely, torture them and even execute them. and it would all be completely legal under current US law. Using;

    "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (worth serious investigation)
    "Military Commissions Act of 2006"
    and the "Patriot II Act"

    I have little faith in the democrats to actually repeal any of these powers. They criticised them, but dont expect them to give them up once in power.

    My dispair of the political establishment in the US ofcourse will be misconstrued as a hatred for america as a whole. nothing could be more wrong. and i look forward to raising the same spectre when the democrats become the focus of continual criticism from the right.

    the only people i have faith in is the american people. but their part in politics of the nation dwindles in real terms every week.

  70. Thanks David, I’m good as gold. Like you I believe in the battle for ideas, having no time for petty insults.

    I’m all for liberty and freedom, we fought Hitler, it cost us alot.
    I don’t see Liberty or Freedom in Iraq.

    my main worry is I just don’t know how you square your views with the teachings in the Bible.
    For example the Beatitudes, is unarguably the most explicit word of God.
    It says blessed are the merciful, the meek, the pure in heart, and blessed are the peacemakers.

    What we’ve seen in the character of Rumsfield is the very opposite : arrogant, haughty.proud, pitiless.

    Yet you support him.

    Does it not follow that those who oppose the beatitudes are the enemies of God.

    Anybody?

  71. Cunningham: Your compliment could make me revist my ramblings to search them for error since you approve.
    Seriously, Nixon would still win in a landslide despite Watergate. You may be too young to remember McGovern, I was a young wippersnapper myself, but he was a terrible candidate (although a decent man, oddly the exact opposite of Nixon). My father’s relatives were all from Massachusetts (the only state that went with McGovern) and they were appalled.
    The Bush vote in 2000 for me was and remains the lesser of two evils.

  72. DT: Thankfully you are so extreme that you can’t be cited by the right as a supporter of the Democrats. There really should be a sanity bar (like the height bar at amusement rides) for blogging.

  73. –The Bush vote in 2000 for me was and remains the lesser of two evils.–

    Same here. John McCain was my man. If he had been elected, I think that the country would have been in vastly better shape.

    Though Bush is a better man than either Gore or Kerry, that is the faintest praise in the universe.

    For starters, the man is an inarticulate dunce who was only considered for the office because Daddy had been a President. I don’t want a C list candidate next time. We can’t afford it.

    Giuliani in 2008.

  74. Phantom,

    Glad we agree on Rudy in 2008.

  75. I had a mate working for the New York Distict Attorney recently and the word seems to be that McCain and Giuliani will run together.

    McCain for President in the first term and then Giuliani in the second.

    McCain would win the nomination but lose the election and Giuliani would lose the nomination but win the election.

    I would of course prefer Peter King, for obvious reasons, however I do believe that these two will run on a joint ticket.

  76. so David Vance you oppose the teachings of christ in the beatitudes? and think that showing pity and mercy is a sign of weakness? And you think that strength is defined as being harsh, judgemental and pitilessly resolute in killing your enemies.
    Which is not to be found or encouraged in Christianity.
    Please answer I need to know

  77. Well, I have a lot of time for Peter King. I wish he had run against Hillary Clinton, who he would have crushed in the Senate race six years ago. Instead, the Repubican powers that be pushed through nonentity Rick Lazio ( as in Lazy-oh ) who was defeated.

    McCain and Giuliani get along quite well, and were they to join forces, they might be unstoppable. For starters, I think they would be expected to take many Northeast states as well as traditional Republican states. We can hope.

  78. mahons. whether you think im extreme or not, if you think the above acts are good for america, its definitely in trouble.

    ‘democracies die behind closed doors.’

  79. Phantom

    The word from New York is that they had a meeting at a very posh restaurant that lasted 6 hours.

    It seems all the issues have been ironed out and they will stand as a team.

    It’s time to watch this space.

    BTW, I just want to make clear that I do not suport the Republicans in America. I was delighted that the Democrats slapped them in the Mid Terms however I do have a lot of respect for King for his long support of the Republican Movement.

  80. daytripper

    Extremism in the name of virtue, as Barry said, is no vice.

    Its the believing in things that never were, such as the WTC conspiracy matters that concern me. Lets get to solid ground on these things, and then we can talk about Patriot Acts and the like.

  81. I can’t see Rudy and McCain running together. They don’t balance each other sufficently. Each will need to be paired with a more socially conservative Republican (if they even could get the nomination) to reassure that part of the party.

  82. Sir Percy,

    I don’t like being told to answer anybody.

  83. Chris

    Noted.

    This country is crying out for proper leadership, and those two could be the best possible combination.

    It could lead to a realignment of the political parties as well. It has been a long, long time since there has been a Republican president who was not from the West or South.

    The thrashing at the polls could mean the Republican powerbrokers will be more open to such a possibility.

  84. DT: America in trouble? I thought you said we were finished? Not by a long shot amigo.

  85. David: Well said.

  86. David
    I’m only asking a question, not telling you what to do, which would be arrogant.

  87. Sir Percy,

    Well, this is a discussion on US POLITICS so stick with it. My theological views are not under debate – though I thunk you must know where I stand.

  88. –and think that showing pity and mercy is a sign of weakness?–

    Yo Percy

    When someone has a dagger at your throat, or a bomb under your child’s schoolbus, that is not the time for pity and mercy.

    The war on terror is just war by any proper Christian definition. Disagree on particular tactics if you must but please do not disagree with the necessity for the war.

  89. David, I just saw your post of 4:19 re Rumsfeld. I like Rummy. I am however profoundly dissapointed in the pres who i cheered Monday night. It’s obvious that he had made his pick some weeks ago. just last week he lied to the press that Rummy was with him for the long haul. If we need a new SecDef fine, but do it with honor. I feel worse about the way it was handled than about the thumping the party took.

    What’s the difference between "I did not have sex with that woman" and "Rumsfeld is with me for 2 more years"??????

    Profoundly saddened. 🙁

  90. That’s fair enough David.
    Phantom I guess I’m trying to say that blessed are the peacemakers still stands and is a worthy ambition, which may indeed be of a higher moral value than making war.
    After Abu Graib USA lost the moral high-ground and alot of Iraqis turned against us.
    Therefore you could say that the USA policy has created terrorists, and our prescence there is adding to the problem, not solving it!

    These are the questions we need to ask ourselves in the wake of the election, so please with repect I think its all relevant to where we go from here.

    Fresh perspectives Bush has called for.

  91. Sir Percy

    I don’t want to hijack a thread meant to be about US politics, but Abu Ghraib was terribly overhyped. And it was the overhyping by the NY Times/European/Al Jazeera type media, more than the abuse itself that was the cause of the Arab Street reaction.

    And, y’know….there were plenty of terrorists before.

    Check the media reports BEFORE Abu Ghraib. Was the media saying the US had moral high ground at that time? Doubt it.

  92. "Its the believing in things that never were, such as the WTC conspiracy matters that concern me."

    phantom, why? whatever my opinions on such matters, no lives have been lost by voicing them. and you have a long way to go to convince me that the Bush administration werent aware that 911 was going to happen, and failed to act. the only thing open to debate is; that knowing it was going to happen, how far they were willing to ensure complete success.

    "then we can talk about Patriot Acts and the like."

    im ready when you are. dont let my opinions on other matters get in the way. its acts like this that convince me that 911 was the catalyst the neo-cons desired and got.

    ———————————————-

    "America in trouble? I thought you said we were finished? Not by a long shot amigo."

    mahons, dont get me wrong, i truely hope you are right. i have faith in the people of your country. but youre government has the right under law to supress any mass protest.

    check the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007". while the military commissions act was signed in relative fanfare, this equally nefarious attack on your liberties was quietly signed on the same day behind closed doors.

  93. >>please do not disagree with the necessity for the war.<<

    Phantom, I dont even agree it’s a war in the first place.

    It’s a security issue with foreign policy implications. It was just hyped up to sound like a war by those who couldn’t otherwise maintain popular support. That’s why they kept saying it’ll be a long one, etc, etc.,, just to get the most mileage out of it. Well, it got them five years. But sooner or later the people begin to see through the smoke.

  94. daytripper

    Again, we’ve not gone into great depth on these things but..

    Lets start with the conjecture by a very small number that the US govt itself blew up the two WTC towers, and the adjacent Seven WTC.

    If true, that would be one of the more immense crimes imaginable. If false, it is one of the more immense slanders imaginable, a blood libel of the highest order.

    I think that this is a ludicrous subject of "debate". There is zero evidence backing any of it up. But yet, you still hear it from the same small group.

    I would think that those who believe this would believe anything. Which would impact how seriously I might take these peoples next position.

    So back at you: do you think that there are any grounds for believing that the Twin Towers were taken down by a controlled demolition?

    Before you answer, remember– I worked there until maybe 12-13 hours before the first plane hit, and we all saw each of the two jumbo jets crashing into them. Now, consider carefully before responding–are there ANY grounds for belief that the buildings were taken down by means of a inside domolition job by any party?

  95. –But sooner or later the people begin to see through the smoke–

    Well there was a lot of smoke in NYC and London and Madrid and Bali most of that was done by the same organization and all of it was inspired by the same cause. So if you want different strategy then say what it is that you want but this is war against all in the West and if you think turning the other cheek will work against these guys, you are painfully in error.

  96. Charles in Texas: I know you haven’t been this disappointed since Lee surrendered.
    The answer to the question what is the difference between "I did not have sex with this woman" and "Rumsfeld will be with me for two more years" is that in the first case we are talking about one guy lying about screwing some girl, in the second it is another guy lying about screwing the country.

  97. phantom
    well I dunno meself, you seem to believe that making war brings peace, I don’t I believe making peace brings peace. I guess that the diff between Rep/Democrat.
    Good luck tya anyways

    Funny thoug how its almost always in Republican presidencys that we have all these wars !!!
    Whats that tell ya

    Oh Tower 7 was demolished by careful explosions inside, its a mathematical certainty, based on the time it took to collapse, and the way in which it collapsed. There’s no argument.

  98. >>the first case we are talking about one guy lying about screwing some girl, in the second it is another guy lying about screwing the country.<<

    Mahons is in good form today. That election result obviously did him a power of good!

    >>if you think turning the other cheek will work against these guys, you are painfully in error.<<

    Phantom, what are you talking about? When did I ever suggest such a thing?

    I merely said that 9-11 and similar attacks across the world (on average one each year) does not qualify for the term "war", except in the metaphorical sense. This – albeit major – security problem – was hyped up into a "war" by shallow politicians who needed to get the people behind them. Before 9-11 Bush’s main claim to fame, in Europe at any rate, was for choking on a pretzel, after 9-11 he suddenly became a "national leader", etc. (although the choreography of him with the firemen etc. at Ground Zero was pathetically transparent).

    By the way, you have spoken out very strongly against Bush on this site today. Am I wrong in mistaken that you never spoke so negatively about him before? This is of course also true for many others (most laughable of all is of course Troll). Honestly, it’s almost like looking for someone who supported Hitler in Berlin in May 1945.

  99. >>Funny thoug how its almost always in Republican presidencys that we have all these wars !!!<<

    Parcifal, it’s not so much that Republican presidents have so many wars, but that Republican presidents have so few brain cells. Look, between Gerald Ford, Reagan, Bushes I and II, the average IQ must be somewhere between 9 and 11.

  100. Mahons, you’ve brought the 1st smile to my face in days!!

  101. Cunningham

    I supported and still do support the War on Terror and the Iraq action.

    I will support Bush as opposed to any American or European appeaser and any dummy like Gore or Kerry.

    It is true that I have had grave reservations about Bush’s intellect all along, which I have kept to myself in these discussions as Bush got one thing –the need to vigorously prosecute the war on terror–a thing which many Dems and most Europeans seem to miss.

    Back in 1999, I had many arguments on Bush vs McCain. I thought we had a chance to nominate a better man with a better mind with McCain, but unfortunately Bush won–with the aid of some unethical tactics in South Carolina during the Primary where Bush people called voters telling them that "McCain had a black baby".

    I still will largely support Bush, but here the conversation has shifted a tad to who we want going forward. And I have to discuss in a firm voice the fact that I don’t want another goddmamned dunce in the White House.

    We have two fine men in Guiliani and McCain. I want one of them. Not another son of a politician, not another guy who can barely speak or think.

    I liked Reagan, and still do. He wasn’t Einstein but he was smarter than Bush, and he proved to be a strong leader, exactly what the country needed after the grim malaise of Jimmy Carter.

    George Bush Sr. was very intelligent. Maybe not a great President, but he could speak and think.

    My gravest differences with GWB, besides his intellect or lack of same, has been his ineffectiveness re immigration, his unwillingness to use the veto power, and his complete lack of action as respects uncontrolled spending.

    The Iraq strategy can be criticized, but the decision to go in there will not be criticized from this quarter.

  102. One plausable explanation I’ve heard about Bush’s actions vis a vis Rumsfeld is that he couldn’t be fired as long as all the ex-generals and generals were calling for it. This is b/c sacking him uder such conditions blurred the lines of civilian leadership of the military. It smacked of a South America junta dictating policy to the administration. But once the American people spoke at the polls, the time was right. Interesting analysis.

  103. Cunningham: I forget at the moment which idiot (it was a Republican) made the comment a few years back that it was the Democrats who were responsible for all wars we were involved in in the 20th Century (Wilson WWI, FDR WWII, Truman Korea and JFK/Johnson Vietnam). This was manifestly rejected as the statement of a politician with perhaps one drink too many or even one chromosome too many by decent people across the political spectrum who recognized the bi-partisan commitmment of both parties to times of war. I equally reject the statement that the Republicans are all warmongers or have so few brain cells. All right, I’ll give you Bush II, but only on the brain cell charge.

    By the way, purely for entertainment purposes, Mike Cunningham’s post on election machines drew forth a lunatic who makes Troll seem like Ghandi. The cat’s name is YOY and you’ve got to check out his thoughts on invading Canada. While I think he tried to pass himself off as a Yank, he used the term "arsed" and offered "Goodnight" at approx 4:00 pm US Eastern Standard time which means he may be one from your side of the pond.

  104. Monica: It is of course not McCain’s wish that Freedom of Speech be stricken from the Constitution, which is a silly argument even from you. You can oppose that legislation claiming it curtails freedom of speech as part of your argument, but you are clearly going over the top if you suggest McCain is a traitor. It is a libelous comment against a true American hero and you should be ashamed of yourself, if you still possess the ability.
    Thursday, November 9, 2006 at 06:03PM | mahons

    Those are McCains on words asked by7 Tim Russert his answer was he would abolish the first ammendment if he thought it would help curtail political corruption and getting shot down and signing a war crimes confession does NOT make you a hero…..

    This traitor talk is typical of the McCarthyite witch-hunt mentality of the extreme right. It’s often heard from right-wing moonbat Ann Coulter and her fans.
    Thursday, November 9, 2006 at 06:10PM | Peter

    History proved that McCarthy was right but facts never mean anything to koolaid drinkers like you pete

  105. Phantom, I’ve honestly never heard you (and so many others today) speak so negatively about Bush. It just strikes me a wee bit opportunistic that you all jump on him now that the NeoCon-Unilateralist-Fundamentalist bubble has burst so drammatically.

    But whatever. forget it.

    Tell me. Do you not vote for Democrats (presidential candidates) on principle or was it just that you never liked the Dem. guys that stood? You seem to prefer a liberal Republican to a conservative Democrat.

    BTW, did you not miss the whole election buzz by being in the UK?

  106. Charles in Texas: Thoughtful theory, and one Bush could have floated from a political standpoint even if it isn’t true (and I suspect it is not).
    BTW I hope you enjoyed the rally experience. I’ve never seen a sitting President "live". It is interesting to see history.

  107. Troll: McCain’s arm is disabled. your brain is disabled.

  108. Well, I’ve said all these things, over the past eight years, but maybe not in this place I will concede.

    I hate to say that I did vote for Jimmy Carter with my first Presidential vote. But I grew disenchanted very fast.

    I do not vote and will never vote down the line for any party on priciple. I tend to vote Republican because the Dems have taken an anti-military, anti-patriotic bender since the McGovern days, and they are now on a stealth campaign in support of the ludicrous concept of gay marriage, which I oppose.

    A real Democrat of the old days, like JFK or Roosevelt, could not be nominated now. I’d vote for either now. Nominate Peter King, and I might vote for him also.

    But don’t count the conservatives out yet. The Republicans did not lose because they were too conservative. They lost because they were not conservative enough.

  109. Mahons, yeah, Ive commented on him there.

    After a brief linguistic analysis I can localise the one who spake "arsed" and "Goodnight" at precisely that time in …. er… North Yorkshire!

    BTW. I was well aware of the McGovern election at the time. Your dad’s people probably weren’t typical in that regard. We had had our Yank cousins – including one real hottie I remember – and I recall them saying that all their crowd are very much "rootin’" for McGovern and – and this was decisive – so were the Kennedys! (well, the ones that were left)

    Nixon was actually the only US president I ever saw. I was a nipper of about 14 at the time and after his perfunctory visit to "Arland" his cavalcade, and all the energy and power of America it seemed, rushed through our grimy district in Dublin on the way to the airport, but not too fast that we could miss him. (this was before I’d had my training in firearms.. har, har)

  110. = we had had our Yank cousins over for the summer

  111. Cunningham: Funny stuff. You are now our forensic linguist.
    A hottie cousin? Are you from Ireland or West Virginia?
    I saw Clinton at a pre-election rally in New Orleans before he was President. His voice was shot but he spoke a while and then Gore took over.
    My dad’s people were typical for Massachussetts only. Irish-Americans who held the Kennedys in near sainthood status, they could never have voted for Nixon. I remember them arguing that Teddy was covering for one of his friends and didn’t drive that poor girl off the bridge. Good Lord.

  112. phantom, the nature of the tower collapses is deeply suspicious. i just dont understand how three large buildings can fall almost directly onto their own footprints. the two main towers atleast have an excuse. tower 7 though is a different matter. no major fires and yet it falls directly down, in seconds. no partial collapse. all of it, verticly down, on to itself.

    of course we cannot prove it one way or the other. the evidence was cleared almost immediately. the single bggest sanitation of a crime scene in history. no investigation, no sampling. nothing.

    thats why some real investigators have ignored the trap of physical evidence all together. there is no way to conclusively prove it one way or the other.

    Michael Ruppert has written one of the best books on the subject. and doesnt even go near the subject of rockets into the pentagon or the nature of the towers collapse. he doesnt even discuss them. he has investigated the the suspicious activity of certain peoples before and on the day. he draws special attention to the war games exercises that occured on the day. all of which took place in the NE sector and several of which involved commercial jet hyjackings. there were radar injects to FAA as part of these exercises, many of which confused and stifled response by both FAA and the Airforce. there is myriad evidendce to suggest these wargames were designed to confuse systems and allow a genuine attack to go through. what else could explain how an entire region of the US was defended by a mere handful of F16s. even still, what did exist only managed to make contact with the target areas only after the mission was complete.

    then there is the continual stream of warnings from the worlds intel community. russian, israel, germany and a host of other nations all specifically warned the whitehouse about an attack. and they all described roughly the same scenario. all were ignored. it makes no sense. none! no leader in his right mind would ignore these warnings.

    here is the single best free resource on the web. untainted by politics. it is a compilation of decades of news articles. its raises more questons than it answers. its not about answers.

    http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

    then theres the unanswered questions posed my the victims 911 family steering comittee, setup during the kean commission.

    http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

    and finally mike rupperts excellent timeline from 2002.

    http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_11_02_lucy.html

    —————————————————
    —————————————————

    im completely convinced your whitehouse let it happen. but im still open to debate on how far theyd go to ensure success. the timelines give the whole thing the global perspective it deserves. read them and we can talk further.

    ————————————————-

    by the way. mike rupperts book is ‘crossing the rubicon’.

  113. DT: Excuse me while I interrupt your conspiracy theory. My firm represents the construction companies that cleared the wreckage in various civil legal matters arising out of the site. I can assure you that the progress of the work (which was herculian), was fully documented via photo, video etc.

    Everyone is entitled to their opinions but I must say it is very disrespectful to offer such theories as if they have any basis in reality.

  114. daytripper

    I’ll take a look at the links you gave over the weekend.

    But I’ll say:

    these are not the first buildings in the world to collapse into their own footprint

    One WTC did initially lean forward from the top before it fell down

    Any building hit by a 767 with a full load of fuel would likely collapse. If a fully loaded 767 were to hit the Petronas Towerws in Kuala Lampur or the new tall building in Taipei they would likely collapse also.

    The WTC were revolutionary designs with the support largely at the exterior perimeter. The plane crashes destroyed much of those supports–it was a miracle they stood as long as they did afterward.

    Why in the world is a pancaked collapse indicative of anything other than the loss of internal loadbearing support?

    Seven WTC was shaken by the two immense collapses near them and was hit by debris. Fires ran wild in there when the firemen–(correctly) afraid of being in yet another building collapse, evacuated the place. The fire was made worse by a large fuel tank on the upper floors meant to serve financial trading ops up there.

    I fail to see anything to be suspicious about. Two large planes fully loaded with fuel crashed into office buildings at speeds of 600 miles an hour.

    Which buildings on the face of the earth won’t be impacted by that? Would you think that the sprinklers should have put out the fire and that everyone could escape unharmed? Would that that were possible.

  115. DT,

    You need to give up those sites and find Popular Mechanic’s rebuttal of all those "theories". Great stuff.

  116. –the evidence was cleared almost immediately. the single bggest sanitation of a crime scene in history. no investigation, no sampling. nothing.–

    Bullshit. It took a year to clean the site. It was cleaned quickly because the City could not live with that horrible sight, and because they wanted to quickly retrieve the human remains there,

    There were investigations, and as mahons says, documentation and investigation continued as all the debris was taken out over that calendar year.

    These thoughts ( "there was no investigation"! ) are part of an antireality. You sound like a smart guy, but you’ve been taken in by a cynical crowd about as interested in Truth as they are in the Man in the Moon. As Goebbels said, people will not believe a small lie as readily as they will a big lie. This technique has been used by many governments, but it has also been used by earnest young men with their conspiracy pamphlets.

    Please reconsider all of this. Not today, but in a calm moment, please reconsider these theories, these foolish,pernicious theories that are the epitome of the Big Lie.

  117. Okay, I’m going to be the only one here to say that I do not think President Bush is a dunce. I’m not sure how smart you have to be to be President, but I think President Bush is smart enough. And, I also do not believe he’s as bad a President as his father, who I blame for most of the current Iraq mess (the 2003 invasion was inevitable given the 1991 half-assed war and then Sep 11) or Jimmy Carter, who was pretty poor. I think the war in Iraq has been mishandled, clearly, but I also think it was a tricky one from the word go.

    {I should write more clearly, but it’s time to hit the hay so I’ll leave it at that.}

    By the way, someone above said something about only Republicans from the south and west being President, but the same holds true for the Democrats. The last northerner elected President was JFK in 1960. (Unless you count GB I, who was really from CT, but his political power base was in TX.)

  118. DT,

    Here I did the hard part for you. Read this.
    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

  119. Eagle

    Well, you must admit that he is inarticulate to the point of parody.

  120. Mahons posted at 8.27 pm:

    "Charles in Texas: I know you haven’t been this disappointed since Lee surrendered. The answer to the question what is the difference between "I did not have sex with this woman" and "Rumsfeld will be with me for two more years" is that in the first case we are talking about one guy lying about screwing some girl, in the second it is another guy lying about screwing the country.

    I nominate this for ATW post of the year, and I know there’s nearly two months left to go!

  121. Quote from Troll :
    "The man was also a failure in the vietnam war he failed as a pilot by getting shot down and he collaborated with the enemy by signing a confesion. He should have been tried for treason then instead of parlaying his failures into a Senate seat"

    lol just from that paragraph alone, I can see its pointless trying to respond to an ignoramus such as yourself, but I’ll try anyway! I guess those pilots who were tortured by the Iraqis in Iraq War I and forced to read statements on tv should be strung up as well!

    Your attitute to POWs is quite similar to Stalins as regards returning russian POWs being sent off to die in gulags.
    Well it just goes to show how similar all the loons of the world are in their views, righists or leftists!

  122. btw, I am not the same poster as Eagle in case anyone gets confused 😉

  123. Troll, thanks for the compliment at 9.22pm.

    What is koolaid? I’ve never seen it this side of the pond.

    McCarthy was a scoundrel.

  124. McCarthy was a patriot!

  125. "McCarthy was a patriot" lol. Well is his own deluded mind I guess he was David, just like our Under-the-bridge resident monster! 😉

  126. As Dr Johnston said:

    "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel!"

  127. "The man was also a failure in the vietnam war he failed as a pilot by getting shot down"

    I’d recommend that you don’t say something like that around active or retired US military. They don’t take kindly to comments like that from wannabees. Your comments are disgusting, unmanly, and Un-American.

    BTW, here are photos I took from Hoa Lo ( Hanoi Hilton ) Prison one year ago.

    http://vietnamview.blogspot.com/2005/10/hoa-lo-prison-hanoi-hilton.html

  128. a koolaid drinker… let me explain koolaid is a kids drink that you mix at home it has flavors like very berry, and laughing lime, and a grape flavor you mix it up with water and sugar…

    Well the expression comes from the Quianna Cult of Rev Jim Jones he had all his people that followed him blindly commit suicide by drinking cianide laced koolaid hundreds died in one night

    so the expression is applied to those who follow the idiology of the left or the right that aren’t interested in facts or the truth they just follow their cult leaders instructions and drink the koolaid. the term in the states has been applied to the left primarily for the last 10 or more years, and when you point out things to people that FACTS prove out not rhetoric and they still choose the rehtoric like McCarthy was a scoundral they are called koolaid drinkers Because the FACT that everyone that McCarthy went after was proven to be a communist and confirmed when all the documents were released at the fall of the Soviet Union means nothing to koolaid drinkers because the left has brainwashed you that he was wronge despite such trivia things like facts

  129. by the way Phantom I am an Air Force Vet so I don’t have to be a wannabee and Monica is an Army Vet so try again McCain was and is a failure and a traitor and as a VET i researve the right to say that…

  130. Troll posted:
    "Because the FACT that everyone that McCarthy went after was proven to be a communist and confirmed when all the documents were released at the fall of the Soviet Union means nothing to koolaid drinkers because the left has brainwashed you that he was wronge despite such trivia things like facts"

    Oh yeah?

    Try this, then drink some more lemonade, as we call it.

    "After winning re-election in 1952, McCarthy became chairman of the Permanent Investigations Subcommittee, a position he used to launch many of his investigations of government officials and agencies. He did not shy away from questioning the integrity of people such as George C. Marshall, or even President Eisenhower. The latter disliked McCarthy intensely but refused to "get in the gutter with him" and never denounced the senator publicly. However, by 1953 a seemingly out-of-control McCarthy was making many enemies. His investigation of the activities of an Army dentist, Maj. Irving Peress, eventually led to his downfall. In 1954, the Army launched its counterattack, charging that McCarthy was seeking preferential treatment for a consultant, David Schine, who in 1953 had been drafted into the Army. Eventually McCarthy’s own subcommittee decided to hold hearings on the matter, the Army-McCarthy hearings. The televised hearings fully exposed McCarthy as irresponsible and dishonest. In December 1954, the Senate voted to censure him. McCarthy never repented, but he quickly descended into irrelevance and alcoholism. He died of a liver ailment in Bethesda, Maryland, on May 2, 1957, at age 47."

    Link:
    http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/mccarthy/

  131. Troll

    Well shame on you.

    Especially as an Air Force Vet.

    You have the right to dishonor yourself with false assertions, because you disagree with some of McCain’s views or because he does not toe any party line imposed by those not fit to shine his shoes.

    You do have the right to say untrue things, so knock yourself out. McCain’s a traitor. Right.

  132. Phantom what part of he signed a confession while he was in the Hanoi Hilton don’t you understand I was in the service were you.

    If you were you are told to not sign those documents and yeah some guys do, they break and you can either judge them for that or not,

    but the MAJORITY of Vietnam Captives DID NOT SIGN CONFESSIONS so don’t make it out that McCain desearves credit for NOT holding up when others did

  133. Troll
    have you read "the elektric kool-aid acid test" by Tom Wolfe?

  134. whats not true HIS WORDS WERE HE WOULD GET RID OF THE FIRST AMMENDMENT HE SAID IT ON TV ON TIM RUSSERT

    THAT MAKES HIM A TRAITOR IN MY EYES AND THE EYES OF MANY OTHERS…

    as for his Vietnam record did he or did he not get shot down? did he or did he not sighn a confession? the answer to both questions is yes

    Were there other pilots that weren’t shot down? and were there other prisoners that did not sign a confession the answer is yes.

    There is also an excellant article by Hugh Hewitt about how this election was lost actually as a direct result of John McCain and his behaivior over the last 6 years undermining the administration with the McCain 14 which prevented a showdown on filibusters his distraction over trying to give constitutional rights to ILLEGAL Combatents and a whole slew of other issues that McCain went against the party and created problems.

    Now I don’t blame him for the loss but the man is a sham and I point out the above because I am not the only one that feels that way. Come primary time for the next presidential election you will see the lack of support the man has nation wide except for the press the base despises him…

  135. yes to the the elektric kool-aid acid test

  136. I served in the Navy.

    And I have the greatest possible respect for McCain, as do most with a military tie that I know. I hold him in very high regard.

    —-
    From the wikipedia entry on McCain:

    Once McCain arrived at the Hanoi Hilton, he was placed in a cell and interrogated daily. When McCain refused to provide any information to his captors, he was beaten until he lost consciousness.[2]

    Interview with McCain on April 24, 1974, after his return home.When the North Vietnamese discovered his father was the Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command, (CINCPAC), in charge of all US forces in Vietnam, he was offered a chance to go home, in an effort to embarrass the American military. Senior POWs had ordered there would be no return home unless all POWs were freed, and McCain, as did most POWs, followed orders and turned down the repatriation[citation needed].

    McCain signed an anti-American propaganda message which was written in Vietnamese, but only as a result of torture (to this day, he cannot raise his arms above his head, due to his shoulders being broken by severe beatings). It is that period during his capture that he most regrets. After McCain signed the statement, the Vietnamese decided they could not use it. They tried to force him to sign a second statement. This time, he refused. He received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal.[2]

    He was released from captivity in 1973. McCain was reinstated to flight status and became Commanding Officer of VA-174 Hellrazors, the East Coast A-7 Corsair II Navy training squadron. He then became the Navy’s liaison to the Senate. He retired from the Navy in 1981 as a captain. On the same day, he watched his father being buried next to his grandfather in Arlington National Cemetery. During his military career, he received a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, the Legion of Merit, the Purple Heart, and a Distinguished Flying Cross.

    His book, "Faith of My Fathers" is recommended.

  137. Phantom I thank you for your service also. You quote that he was beat and interogated daily, so were others that did NOT break

    I call McCain a traitor because he has attacked the most important element of the constitution period.

    I do not revere him for his military service I thank him for it and I can sympathize for his suffering but his service was not one of the accomplishments of a hero.

    someone that just survives by anymeans possible can be understood and even forgiven for doing what ever he had to do to survive but call that man a hero I think not

  138. so troll, don’t you think its better that we all drop acid and not bombs, or am I just a moonbat?

    seriously why did we attack Iraq, when we should have "stayed the course" in Afghanistan.
    Have we achieved anything on the war on terror by invading Iraq?
    Many reports show that the war on terror has been made harder after Iraq,
    hence it can be seen that invading Iraq was an act of revenge, not Justice as we were led to believe.
    with 1000’s dead.
    I’m mad as hell at the cock-up, and now we look bad allover the world. I’ve family in San Francisco, and been there myself on Haight-Ashbury 🙂

  139. "so troll, don’t you think its better that we all drop acid and not bombs, or am I just a moonbat?"

    Dropping acid never acheived anything except escapism all the drop out get high peace love and bobby sherman crowd sold out and only try to perpetuate the myth. Your Ted Turners and Abby Hoffmans and the rest discovered capitalism and became millionares while they spew marxist delusional pap to the "true believers"

    We attacked Iraq because we declared war on those that support and perpetuate terror, Iraq was made to order a regime that did both and provides us with a deep water port and a central location to attack anywhere in the ME.

    Iraq has not had an increase on the hordes of terrorists, it has brought the fight to them and in osamas own words it is there central battlefield.

    What we have achieved is 2 fold a bleeding of the fanatics who die in greater and greater numbers and this is the part that you can’t stomach the establishment of a free nation in the ME it ain’t pretty yet and it ain’t Britain or the US but it’s on the path of self determination and they will get there and it will take years but inspite of what you have chosen to read they are already on there way. I won’t cite numbers of schools that allow woman and teach things other than the koran and a million other successes because you are closed to them. The Iraqi people hopwever are not 85% of that country is peacfull and rebuilding but that is beyond your grasp or view.

    AS for how we look all over the world Ha who cares the world does’nt like us now nor have they ever in the past, Yet we are the ones expected to bail them out of every natural or un-natural disaster that happens.

    The war on terror exists because Fanatical Muslims want us all to convert or die. Not because the US buys oil, you people who point the finger of guilt at the uS are assholes….

    We were stirred into war it doesn’t happen that often with us, we will continue to fight. Now if Iran or N Korea nuke someone or Mohamed blows your grandmother up on a bus or a subway it is not the USs fault or the Jews Fault it’s the terrorists fault and probably yours also because you refuse to see the threat from the man with the towel on his head that says he wants you to die and instead see the threat from the man in the suit that wants to buy your goods and sell you his….

    Your sides whole pholosophy is stupid….

  140. –I call McCain a traitor because he has attacked the most important element of the constitution period–
    Well, then add me to the list of traitors. I support campaign finance reform. I think that neither corporations nor unions should be allowed to give to candidates or parties, and that there should be limits to what individuals give. Campaign donations from unions and companies are payment for influence, a dangerous thing for democracy. This has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Its a false comparison.

    –but his service was not one of the accomplishments of a hero.–

    McCain has never called himself a hero.

    He could have walked out of the Hanoi Hilton early, but he would not leave when his comrades were still there.

    He could have revealed secrets but did not.

    When he refused the offer to leave early, he was singled out for special treatment. Yeah, he signed the Vietnamese statement–big deal. So what.

    I think that 999 out of 1000 men would have signed at some point in five and a half years of torture. I am glad that he did. If he had not, he might be dead. Noone believed the statement, any more than they believed the confession from the members of the USS Pueblo.

    The US Navy has no problem with anything McCain did. They have awarded him some of the highest honors a military man can receive.

    If you disagree with him on campaign finance reform, that is fine, but for the little it is worth, I’d ask you to reconsider the name-calling.


    BTW, Cunningham

    One of the reasons I think that I went off on Bush, besides the fact that I do blame him largely for Tuesday’s nightmare, is the fact that Troll said the things he did about McCain.

    This brought me back to the debates of 1999, when I supported what I thought to be the vastly superior McCain, against many who were for the then undistinguished man from Texas. We had a far superior candidate who wanted the job, and we passed on him in order to nominate the former male cheerleader. Who was a better man than both Gore and Kerry, but there are many who are better men than Gore and Kerry.

  141. Phantom,

    I’m interested in your opinion of Long Island Congressman Peter King. I understand Chris Gaskin’s views based on King’s long standing pro-Sinn Fein position, but why do you think he didn’t run against Hillary in 2000 if he was so well-positioned to win? Mind you, as an Upstate Democrat I thought she would have had a fight on her hands if Giuliani was her opponent, but no other Republican I can think of had state-wide appeal that year.

  142. I think that he didn’t have the strong ambition for the office at the time, and empty-suit Pataki and the rest had no interest in someone as independent as King was, and is.

  143. PHANTOM if you are asupporter of Campaign Finance reform than you too have a misconstrued concept of freedom of speech. It would be better to show who gave what in real time with full disclosure than the sham of CFR.

    CFR did not take one dime out of politics alls it did was create an even larger loophole with groups that fall into the 527 exempt catagory like moveon etc etc, now even more money is poured in annonamously. That is political payment and coruption at its best, while at the same time restricting what people can say in response to an incumant 60 days before an election which is when most people pay attention. and your numbers are wronge 999 out of 1000 didn’t sign statements the overwhelming majority of prisoners didn’t.

    And don’t blame me because you dislike Bush. If you supported him(McCain) in 99 you were in the minority then just as you will be if you support him in 08. He does not represent republican values or positions.

    As for name calling I do not consider it such I call it the truth the constitution says congress shall pass no law infringing free speech and that is what he led the charge on.

    You yourself earlier said the republicans lost because they were not conservative enough well McCain is anything but a conservative so your support for him is a recipe for losing….

  144. CFR is not inherently a conservative or liberal issue. And it has ZERO to do with freedom of speech. Thats a lobbyist talking point. Its an influence buying issue, not a freedom of speech issue.

    Good night. Early morning ahead.

  145. Oh, last thing.

    I know the current CFR laws have loopholes. I want to close those loopholes, all of them. Might lead to some unemployed lobbyists but I can live with that

  146. bull it is a freedom of speech issue it curtails who can say what just before an election and thats a freedom of speech issue.

    Your statement proves my point that you have NO Concept or understanding of the constitution CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW INFRINGING FREE SPEECH and that is exactly what CFR does

    PS I never said it had anything to do with liberal or conservative it has nothing to do with ideolagy it is a blasphamy on the constitution maybe you should read it sometime

  147. McCain will never be voted in by the Republican voters in America.

    Maybe you could get him to switch to Dem. He might have a chance then. It’s the Dems who love McCain – not the Conservatives in America.

    McCain has been a huge problem the last few years. He is open to criticism just as anyone else is no matter if he was a POW or not.

    His statements that he wouldn’t mind seeing freedom of speech go by the wayside and the legislation that he put forward doing just that mean nothing to you Phantom. That’s a shame.

  148. oh here is a post you should read phantom

    http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/2006/11/election-message-lead-when-you-win-or.html

  149. I’ve probably missed the boat with this thread but I wanted to ask the conservatives here what influence, if any, the scandals of Foley and Haggard had on the republican vote?

  150. Andy,

    I’ve heard that Haggard had little impact, other than some in Colorado, where he was based. As for Foley, I think he was grouped in with other corrupt/scandal-ridden Republican Congressmen, all of whom did the party no favors.

  151. Andy,

    As a liberal from the USA, my observation is that sex scandals were less of an issue than money/influence peddling scandals. Republican Tom Reynolds from my area was in the spotlight over Foley and he kept his seat. Curt Weldon who is Troll and Monica’s Congressman is being investigated by the FBI to see whether he used his influence to secure lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter, and he lost his re-election bid.

  152. Thanks guys.
    I thought it may have contributed to stay at home feeling among some conservatives, but may be not significantly. I would be interested in Troll and Monica’s responses.

    cheers

  153. Peter: A belated thanks for the nomination. If David is offering prize money I will campaign heavily for that award. However, I suspect it will only be an autographed picture of Rumsfeld.

    Phantom: You are right about McCain, an inspiring story.

  154. Alan

    I don’t know about the corruption as a major issue.

    Sen Menendez (D) is as crooked as they come, and the NJ voters had no prolem with that.

    Alan Hevesi (D) won the office of NY Controller despite very large and public ethical failings.

    The public disdain is on competency and Iraq. Corruption is perfectly fine with the many voters, esp Democratic ones, provided it is their guy doing the stealing.

  155. I would guess corruption falls further down the list of priorities for most voters the closer their elected official is to their own political standpoint.

  156. Colm: Too true. Voters don’t mind a rascal if he is one of their own.

  157. Mahons,

    As my father once said about our former US Senator, Alfonse D’Amato: He may be slime, but he’s our slime.

  158. Eagle: Funny. I guess your father allowed D’Amato’s Republicanism to overcome his Itlaina-Americanism.

    You know the one about the old Irish- catholic woman whose doctor told her she had only a few months to live. She told him she was going to convert to become a Protestant. He was surprised and asked why? Better one of them die than one of us, she said.