Time for Bill to go on Oprah & whine to his constitency-the brain-dead females who love John-boy Edwards.

Are you asserting that India acquired nuclear weapons under W's watch?

No, Chip. Maybe if you were a little well versed in current events, you'd have some clue as to what I'm talking about. Your great leader gave India the motherload, and what did we get? Imported mangos.

Here's a link:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-03-02-nuclear-pact_x.htm

...and how about his wonderful trip to China to negotiate against the trade deficit. What did he come back with? Nothing. In fact, Bush has NEVER been able to negotiate a deal beneficial to us on any level. So, in addition to being the worst President we've ever had, he's a lousy salesman, a terrible negotiator.

Still support him? Of course you do. The ignorant is always easily manipulated.

Have you seen the Code Pink people ?

If I had time I'd check spelling of Dem posters vs. Republican posters on this blog to disprove your point, but I've got to go have sex.

Let's take a different approach and think things through. Let's assume that Kerry is the totally useless, bumbling incompetent who claims medals he didn't deserve just like the Swifties claim. Then why should we care about Kerry when there are far, far more important elements that Bush supporters intentionally ignor? Think about it – if Swifties charges are true, this is one of the most condemning charges ever against the United States Navy. What Navy morons promoted him? What Navy morons gave him a ship to command? What Navy morons made him responsible for the lives of the crew? What Navy morons rated him better than half the other swift boat commanders? What Navy morons awarded him medals without any investigations? What Navy morons served with him and then, with one exception, stood by him during the Swifties charges? What Navy morons let him and those rated lower than him remain on duty? What Navy morons would want to appear with other Swifties who weren't rated as good as him?

Those who trash war hero Kerry should worry about the implications of their charges instead. Was the U.S. Navy full of morons at all levels as their charges indicate?

David.... the age is actually 67 already for those in my age group (late 30's). Lets see... health care for all Americans $ 110 billion.... Iraq war $ 500+ billion right now.

I think I would rather support Americans and make a healthy American workforce that save Iraq thank you very much.

It appears – and the jury is still out on this, unless you're a big fan of Gen. Fallon – that he may be slightly partisan. That would call his judgement into question.

Lastly, as a military wife, trust me when I tell you there are LOTS OF POLICTICS that TAKE PLACE AS AN OFFICER.

It's called "debating the issues". Look back at the posts I've responded to and explain how I'm the one who's combative.

Sigh...I can see that no one here is capable of honestly addressing the issues at hand, so this will be my last post about it.

1) Bill Clinton's claim that Republican outrage over the MoveOn ad stating that Gen. Patraeus was disingenous.

His "proof"? He offers none. NONE. Instead of directly addressing why Republican outrage was disingenuous, he changes the subject – a classic case of throwing out red herring arguments. It's absolutely no different than the old "he didn't rape her...look at how she dresses!" argument.

But what should we expect from the guy who's married to Hillary "There was no affair, it's a Right-Wing Conspiracy" Clinton?

2) A political ad about Max Cleland that was supposedly dishonest.

I have directly challenged his assertion with facts about both Cleland's military service and voting record. The political ad that ran about Cleland was attacking his voting record, not his patriotism. If you can prove otherwise, please do so.

And while you're at, please explain how it's relevant to the MoveOn ad controversy in the first place.

3) The claims of the SBVT that John Kerry is no war hero.

You claim it's not fair to make assumptions about how a defamation case against the SBVT would have played out. I don't have to make assumptions. Kerry was too scared to take the case to court. That tells me everything.

You claim that defamation is "difficult" to prove in court. I say, why don't you tell that to the Hollywood celebrities who are constantly suing magazines for libel and defamation...and winning.

If the SBVT were lying, Kerry could very easily have sued them for defamation of character. And in court, SBVT would have had to prove the their claims were accurate. But in their efforts to do so, they would have been able to get access to ALL of Kerry's military records and they would have been able to call Kerry supporters to the stand to testify under penalty of perjury about Kerry's actions in Vietnam. And that is what Kerry was terrified of happening.

And, oh by the way...please explain how it's relevant to the MoveOn ad controversy in the first place.

Bottom line: another dishonest, "pay no attention to them because their Republicans" Democrat regurgitation from St. Clinton. But hey, why shouldn't they keep using the same playbook? It's not like the leftist media are ever going to actually challenge leftist politicians on anything.

You wrote, "Just because a someone is a general in the army means everyone should listen to them blindly without questioning them? But at the same time you think it is ok to attack someones war record becaue they are running for office? You do not make any sence."

Paul, no – just because a General is testifying is not cause to accept every word or recommendation. THAT is why he is called before Congress – so our elected leaders can hear his testimony, question him, and come to a determination of how things are going.

However – for Moveon.Org to create the ad – calling the General a traitor, buy the space with the NY Times – all before the General gave one word of testimony is just plain wrong.

John Kerry, on the other hand, GAVE his testimony to congress 35 years ago – telling of attrocities commited by other US Vets and embellished his statements. John Kerry was running for the office of President and suggesting he was the BEST candidate and used his military record for political purposes. Those (Vets) opposed to Kerry had every right to challenge him, his statements, and to share THEIR opinions.

Honestly... if you can't see the difference – if you think non-military rich liberals personally attacking the patriotism of a 4-star General is the same as Vets crticizing John Kerry... then we can simply agree to disagree.

Tax and spend. That's the democratic moto. Who cares who gets hurt in the process.

As it is now you start drawing SSI at 65. The democrats, based on what they said during the debate, want to up the age to 67. That's $14,952 a retired person will not have because of the democrats if they get their way.

If Hillary gets into office it won't be just the republicans whining and you won't be savoring any of it.

Exactly how did he "oversee" this... the sanctions were imposed by the U.N.

Saying that... I could say... that Bush has overseen the slaughter of over 150,000 Iraqis... and 7,000 U.S. citizens (9/11, military losses).

So that makes Bush the larger mass murderer... and he was more directly responsible.

Republicans... so easy to defeat in any logic battle.

Thats going to have to happen anyway since there is this thing called the national debt which you republicans will never talk about. BTW you've increased it over 3 trillion dollars while Bush has been in office.

"you won't be able to draw on social security until you're 67."

This is already the case so whats your point?

"All losers"

Agreed... problems still won't be solved... but it will be fun listening to republicans whine for the next four years about Hillary... I will savor every minute of it.

Corporate America saw manufacturing firms taking advantage of the global market place. It wasn't long before the tech industry started following suit. Some financial research groups predict that 3.3 million high tech jobs will be outsourced to an overseas country.

Ross Perot, whom everyone loved to laugh at, prophetically predicted the mass exodus of jobs from the United States when he said NAFTA would create a "giant sucking sound."

You can't blame Bush for sending your job overseas. It started long before he got into office.

I don't think the republicans are going to bring the troops home sooner, but then I don't subscribe to the cut and run mentality.

Social security would not be an issue at all if the past presidents, including Bill Clinton, had not raided the fund to pay for pet projects. I'm not defending what Bush has done but all you people who keep saying Clinton was the best president in history should actually do a bit of research.

He has no place calling other politicians names. He's just as bad as the rest of the lot.

Rvastar; your OPINIONS prove nothing. Way to go rvastar, the rvaster, the rav! Cool name you rvastar! You deserve a cookie for creativity (for the name and your "facts".

Wow! So many words to say absolutely nothing! Well done, chris Haynes!

As I said before...long on indignation, short on facts.

To Wynter:

The report "was" damaging.

Really, Wynter? In what universe?

Is the "damaging" report responsible for the upswing in polling numbers that's occurred over the last few weeks for General Patraeus? President Bush? The Surge? The Iraq War? The War on Terror?

Is the "damaging" report responsible for the utter collapse of Democrat anti-war efforts and resolutions?

You mean that "damaging" report?

Now look who is attacking a distinguished veteran? The man served and didn't lose his legs by using a can opener wrong.

How – exactly – does telling the truth about a) the manner in which Cleland sustained his injuries (as opposed to Democrat obfuscation on the matter in order to score political points) and b) his voting record on national security matters (abysmal) equate to "attacking" him?

"rvastar, you are so gone at this point I don't think there is anything to respond to."

well, you didn't logically respond to anything in the first place, so why should your inability to frame an argument here be a surprise?

"Anyways, it was stated in another comment that your so full of it. Read this comment by Hooligan"

They admitted under grilling from Admiral Crowe that they, dare I say it, LIED!!!

Really? They did?

Prove it.

And while you're looking that non-existent "fact", why don't you take a stab at answering my question from earlier? A question non of this threads lil' leftists want to touch?

Why would an "honorable" war veteran like Kerry – who, thanks to his marriage to Mrs. Ketchup, has unlimited funds at his disposal – allow people like Thurlow [and McNeill and Hoffman] to publicly slander and defame him in the worst possible way and do absolutely nothing about it?

Hmmm, Wynter?

Just because a someone is a general in the army means everyone should listen to them blindly without questioning them? But at the same time you think it is ok to attack someones war record becaue they are running for office? You do not make any sence. A mouthpiece for the whitehouse who is testifying before congress about a war we were lied to about , shouldnt be blindly followed either.
You cant treat one differently from the other because of political alliances.
About Clinton:
He cheated on his wife , he didnt invade a country on false information , illegally wiretap his own citizens , or put his unqualified buddy in charge of fema causing a natural disaster to turn into a national crisis.

You didn't really lob cruise missles at Muslim nations to distract an investigation of the fact that you were doing the Hokey Pokey with the hired help, did you?

Because you really DIDN'T perjur yourself, did you? Those eeeeeeevil Republicans MADE you lie under oath, right?

Those villainous Republicans (cue "Snidely Whiplash" music here), why, they MADE you tell other people to lie under oath for you, didn't they.

I know they're sneaky, those eeeeeevil Republicans.... tricking you into committing perjury and tricking you into suborning perjury.

I'm a little confused, though... how can eeeeeevil, dastardly Republicans, pullers-of-the-strings in all sorts of sinister kook conspiracy theories, simultaneously be window-licking, crayon-chewing, knuckle-dragging imbiciles?

I mean, make up your minds... either Bush is Hitler or he's a rider of the proverbial short bus. But he can't be both.

First of all you are a very combative poster to this forum. Frankly, I feel that if we want our politicians acting with more decorum, respect and bipartisanship, we posters need to do the same.
On the Max Cleland issue, He was awarded the Silver Star and the Bronze Star for valorous action in combat, including during the Battle of Khe Sanh on April 4th, 1968. Though he may have been disabled by his own errant grenade that fell off while he was getting off a helicopter, he is still a war hero for the medals that he earned. So what if he might have been going to get some beer 4 days after the Battle of Khe Sanh (I’d be doing the same thing), when he was injured. That doesn’t make him less of a hero for his honorable service in ‘Nam.
As for the Kerry issue, sorry but that isn’t fair to make an assumption about the supposed outcome of a case that was never waged in court. Defamation of character is notoriously difficult to prove in court. The main problem with proving defamation of character is the protection of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. Of course, if he had brought a libel suit against SBVT, I imagine the conservatives would howl about how he was being a sore loser. In the end, the facts haven’t changed; SBVT still told lies about Kerry to impugn his military record.

Ryan, if SBVT aren't lies, site some examples please.

Maybe if you weren't so busy writing your hateful comments, you would see the sarcasm in Tom from MA's comments because regulars here know he's a conservative. As much as I usually disagree with his comments, I'll give him an 'A' for effort for even fooling a like-minded buddy with sarcastic humor.

Also, you say in 34 years you've never met a liberal who makes sense. Wow, what kind of places are you hanging out in? With your one way rhetoric, what reasonable person would even want to have a conversation with you?

I'm an independent who would mostly be defined as "liberal" (because I care about more than just myself), but I still listen to other points of view and will sometimes concede a point from a conservative. You might want to try opening up your mind a little bit. Open discourse is better than repeating the same crap over and over again.

That goes for everyone!

The CLINTONS are pure evil

So is Bin Ladin; last time please answer since you know what you are talking about ....

Why did a republican give weapons to an evil man like Bin Ladin?

Please log off..

Perhaps you need to go back and reveiw your history at the young age of 34 I doubt if you have lived mucj of it. I was sitting on the tarmac at Fort Campbell when the Iranian Embassy was seized, I was deployed to a forward base in Germany when Charlie Beckworth made his attemp at rescue of the hostages. Swift Boats attacked John Kerry's military record, by claiming it was falisied, the same record that they proclaimed showed that President Bush had completed his military obligations proclaiming it as proof. Kerry had individuals taht served with him standing by his side, have they found anyone that ever servived with our President. And Reagan and Bush gave weapons to bin Laden, he was fighting the Russians in Afganistan, after all the enemy of of my enemy is my friend right, the same reason that our government backed Saddam right up to the day he made the error of invading Kuwait. Son one of us needs a sever leason in American history.

Then watch how Wolf Blitzer spins it (as shown crooks and liars dot com).

Blitzer does his own distracting by treating Clinton's words like a tirade, then turning the conversation toward the grudge match of Hillary vs. the neo-cons!

SHAME ON WOLF BLITZER.

SHAME ON CNN.

Shame on anyone who makes ad hominem attacks on Bill Clinton because his logic can't be refuted.

1). "This was classic bait and switch — focus on that as opposed to focusing on what's happened," the former president said."
rvastar states:
The point of the supposed "bait and switch" that Clinton's talking about would be to divert attention off of a damaging report from Gen. Patraeus' ("the surge has failed") and focus instead on the MoveOn ad.
The only problem is that the report wasn't damaging…quite the opposite. Why would the Republicans want to avert attention from something that positively supports their interests? So Clinton's rhetoric is completely meaningless. Got it?
Response:
– The report "was" damaging. The comments by the senators demonstrated that. MoveOn's ad simply pointed out that the messenger, albeit an honored military general, still is voicing Bush's talking points. See Katie Couric video to see what I mean. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9XXUyWTA1g). The issue of whining about the ad is a diversion to take the focus off of the message that we are still bogged down in Iraq.
2)."These are the people that ran a television ad in Georgia with [former Sen.] Max Cleland — who lost half his body in Vietnam…"
rvastar states:
Talk about "disingenous" and a "bait and switch"!!!
The only reason anyone's ever heard of Max Cleland is because of the Dems "disingenous" attempts to fool the American people into thinking that they actually support the military. They would roll him out at every Dem event, saying "look at what this Democrat sacrificed in Vietnam and how horribly >the evil Republicans have impugned his sacrifice with that ad!", implying that the horrible wounds he'd suffered were the result of combat and that the ad was questioning his patriotism.
The part they conveniently left out was that Cleland wasn't injured in combat, but by picking up a hand grenade that was lying on the ground while he was on his way to drink beers with his buddies. And the purpose of the ad in question was to make the very sound – and true – point that, in the wake of 9/11, Cleland voted 11 time against Homeland Security measures because his union supporters were unhappy with some of the provisions. IOW, Cleland was all for increased homeland security…as long as it didn't interfere with the donation checks.
Response:
- Now look who is attacking a distinguished veteran? The man served and didn't lose his legs by using a can opener wrong. Here is how he lost them...
On April 8, with a month left in his tour, Cleland was ordered to set up a radio relay station on a nearby hill. A helicopter flew him and two soldiers to the treeless top of Hill 471, east of Khe Sanh. Cleland knew some of the soldiers camped there from Operation Pegasus. He told the pilot he was going to stay a while. Maybe have a few beers with friends.
When the helicopter landed, Cleland jumped out, followed by the two soldiers. They ducked beneath the rotors and turned to watch the liftoff. Cleland reached down to pick up the grenade he believed had popped off his flak jacket. The blast slammed him backward, shredding both his legs and one arm. He was 25 years old...
3). "But it was okay to question [Massachusetts Sen.] John Kerry's patriotism on a blatantly dishonest play that had dishonest claims by people that didn't know what they were talking about."
rvastar states:
Poor, innocent, denigrated, John "Lerch" Kerry! Those mean "Swift Boat" ad people were lying about him! Then you'd think that this noble warrior would want to clear his name, right?
Wrong. All he had to do was file suit for libel and defamation of character, but he didn't – in fact, he let the statue of limitations on defamation run out in all the jurisdictions that he could filed suit, including the long, 3-year statute of limitations for doing so in Massachusetts.
Why? Because he knew he'd get hammered in a court room where lying is illegal and you can't count on the leftist media to carry water for you. Witnesses would actually be deposed under threat of perjury…makes them a little less certain in their selective "recollections".
Response:
rvastar you are so gone at this point I don't think there is anything to respond to. Anyways, it was stated in another comment that your so full of it. Read this comment by Hooligan.
You have heard that the Swift Boat vets were "outed" two years ago by ONI, right?!
They admitted under grilling from Admiral Crowe that they, dare I say it, LIED!!!
They cut up $330,000 to produce a commercial. All funded by the friends of the program in Texas, headed up by none other than T. Boone Pickens, who funded McCain's assassination in South Caroline in 2000.

She has more experience than everyone else on every subject (Biden and Richardson were never first lady).

She would never pardon criminals.

She would never hire a felon for Chief of White house security that would end up getting his hands on FBI files on those mean Republicans.

She would stop any politician from investing $1000 and making $100,000 overnight as that would be insider trading.

She will stop the Shrub from stealing gifts from the WH on his last day.

She will not stand for all of the US attorneys being fired for political reasons.

There will not be a list of people that will say she raped or had affairs with her.

She would not stand for the secret serviceman being told to "Shut the bleep up and don't even look at me".

She loves GQ magazine and restaurants that have her daughters picture hanging.

She respects women that stay home and bake cookies.

She detests women that stand by their man even if they cheat.

She would not fill her travel office with corrupt friends by firing good, hard working people.

She has always been against the war.

She reads all reports that are important.

She checks into major donors, unlike other campaigns.

She TOTALLY believes in gay rights.

Her love for illegal immigrants, as ALL of them are just here for work.

She will not stand for our embassies being bombed, our ships or our World trade centers; she will treat them as terrorist acts and not criminal ones.

She will defend us even if her decision is not popular.

If she ever goes in front of a grand jury, she would never say "I don't recall" 100 times.

She will be the best duster in the history of the WH, and no billing records will show up years later as the place will be spotless.

She will explain how she was named after famed beekeepers Sir Edmund Hillary and why.

I love this woman, and there is no reason why any sane person would not vote for her and that wholesome, truthful husband who would make a great ambassador that would bring more women into the political theatre.

Bush sucks.

January 2009 can't get here fast enough.

Posted By Tom Dedham, Mass : September 27, 2007 1:21 pm

Tom,,

You are completed nuts dude,,,everything you wrote was a complete lie,,I thought it was a joke when I read it,,,Go do your homework or go play some video games , this blog is for adults. The CLINTONS are pure evil

again I ask ... why did Reagan give weapons to Bin Ladin??

You have heard that the Swift Boat vets were "outed" two years ago by ONI, right?!

They admitted under grilling from Admiral Crowe that they, dare I say it, LIED!!!

They cut up $330,000 to produce a commercial. All funded by the friends of the program in Texas, headed up by none other than T. Boone Pickens, who funded McCain's assassination in South Caroline in 2000.

nice crowd you support!

Posted By Hooligan, Everywhere, America : September 27, 2007 11:47 am

Total LIE LIE LIE LIE,,,,Swift Boat for Truth was exactly that the TRUTH,,,John KERRY was and is A BIG TIME Fraud,,,I have never understood why the liberals get their panties in a bundle about this,,,I know the truth hurts but deal with it.

My taxes, never were decreased, because GWB let my IT job go to India, now I make pennies, but I can at least buy safe toys from China for pennies ???
Do you think a republican is going to bring troops home sooner? How about we try now. Who brought us there in the first place??
Lastly, social security ?!?!?!??? That calls for a triple - Ha Ha Ha - so sad

Maybe you should be the one shutting up. If Ronald Reagan would have done his job when we lost almost 300 marines when Hezbollah attacked our barracks in the 80's, maybe we would not be fighting them in the middle east right now. Instead like a coward, he withdrew our troops after the attack.

Posted By sanderson : September 27, 2007 11:26 am

No moron that was caused by another incomptent democratic president Jimmy Carter, remember the guy that got pushed around by IRAN his whole presidency. I am sorry your memory of history is so bad and you run away from the truth like a typical liberal. Is there any liberals out there that have any common sense???? I am 34 and still never found one, Bill Clinton is PATHETIC