Tuesday, February 03, 2004

Senator Edwards is the projected winner in the South Carolina primary.

General Clark is the projected winner of Oklahoma.

Well, well..Look what's hit the mainstream
For the Record
Bush's Guard Service In Question
Democrats Say President Shirked His Duty in 1972

It only took them four years.
Wonder if they'll ever mention this?
Or this?
There's always this...and this.
That he received an honorable discharge is not a testament to his honorable service, but rather one that indicates that he received preferential treatment not available to those being charged with AWOL and desertion today.

Woman gives up her career to be
First lady

Why couldn't Judy Dean have been so lame?
on the trail
From the Mouths of Babes
General Clark's son speaks out about the corrupt political press

By Chris Suellentrop
"Of politics, he says, "It's a dirty business, filled with a lot of people who are pretending to be a lot of things they're not."
"It's not the media's job to get his message out. The media's job is to sell advertising."
The media's horse-race coverage is all that matters, and by skipping Iowa, Clark got left out of the horse race. "It's all horse-race questions," he says. "My favorite was Dad wearing a sweater in New Hampshire one day. Maybe he was wearing a sweater because he was cold."
But why has the president gotten positive coverage while the Democrats have gotten negative coverage, in his opinion? "It's about access. You know that you'll be denied access if you actually cover things honestly."
"I'd like him to win today. If he doesn't win, I don't want him to stay out there," and "What did we get on the news for this weekend? A speeding ticket in Oklahoma. You gotta be f*cking kidding me."

JWR/Jeff Dunetz
Groundhogs and human rodents

Why should Punxsutawney Phil get all of the attention?

These are strong words. I think we owe them a good listening and we should heed the pain that lies behind the cutting wit. How can we, as American citizens, become healers in our own right?
..Phil is just one example. All across the world there are ceremonies just like the one in Punxsutawney — ceremonies, where people trust animal behavior to indicate the future....There is the one that takes place in Ramallah on the West Bank. The Ramallah rodent is named Palestinian Yassir.....Yassir the Moneyhog is worshiped in Europe, because his primary role is killing Jews...Another ceremony that uses a rodent as a seer is the one in France .The animal in this one has had many names. The latest is Judenphobe Jacques. If Jacques poke his head out of his hole and sees Jewish people living in peace, we will have six more years of horrible anti-Semitism....
During the UN Party, all the delegates gather around a small hole and out pops Kantseenuthing Koffi. If Koffi sees Jews dying he goes back into his hole and closes his eyes.....There are so many other events that people don't know about, there is Mousears Michael who is so afraid of being recognized as Jewish, he pokes his head up from a tree atop of a castle and if he sees a Jewish shadow he runs from his background and we have 6 more months of ABC News' anti-Israel Bias...... One of the newest prognosticators is known as Passiveagressive Powell. Passiveagressive he helps predict US Foreign policy. Passiveagressive Powell has been known to trade Israeli lives for Arab oil. Every time Israel ties to defend herself he pokes his head up from the fence between US and Mexico (that's a good wall) and if he needs something from the Arab world we get six days of condemnation.....
I have one comment---remember who Powell works for. I recall his performance at the U.N. to make the (suspected false) case for the attack upon Iraq, which not only set back the peace process, but endangered the people of Israel. At the time, I thought to myself: a very un-Powell performance. It was then I realized he had become the loyal and willing puppet of the Bush administration.
May I suggest BlastIraqatAnyCost Bush?
Pressure, pressure!!
James Carville said two
(of the "Big Five") should have gone after last week's primary....

It didn't happen, though. And I'm glad.
My state (New York-the one hit on 9-11) won't even have a chance to speak until March.
Our hero-attorney-general Eliot Spitzer's endorsement of Kerry (announced yesterday in New Mexico) is going to be one of Kerry's greatest endorsements.
Should Kerry succeed, I recommend Spitzer for the AG spot. Kerry will owe him big-time.

About the other candidates dropping out after two states....
Give us a chance to speak, Carville and McAuliffe!
Give us a choice.
There were 48 other states in America last time I checked.
You are for a healthy (small 'd') democratic race...aren't you, now!?
CARVILLE: I think of the big five, two will be gone tomorrow. Whether they drop out -- whether you drop out or not doesn't matter -- but if two people finish far behind here, it's going to be pretty hard for them to raise money; it's going to be hard for their supporters to stay with them.

And there's a great sense among everyday rank-and-file Democrats, "Hey, if somebody does really well here, let's get, all get behind them and make this person nominee." And by the same token, these guys have been working hard -- Sen. Edwards and Dean -- you can't force people out of this thing too early, but somebody has to show ability to get votes in order to stay in this thing. You can't just stay in this thing forever.

Thomas Friedman says....
"Personally, I don't believe the Bush team will pay a long-term political price for its faith-based intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Too many Americans, including me, believe in their guts that removing Saddam was the right thing to do, even if the W.M.D. intel was wrong."

I wonder how we might reconcile that opinion with the President's approval rating, which has dropped from the 60s to the 40s since capturing Hussein? How does that jibe with the fact that, on the most recent poll taken of the president's performance on Iraq, the disapproval rate rose from 36 to 53?

Making a case for Bush/Justifying War:
Who Said This?

"You're talking about delivering the arsenal he has...he might still have all of those barrels of evil stuff, the biochemical weapons...chances are he has those weapons but he doesn't have the power to deliver them...It is particularly in light of what happened on September 11, 2001 and the fear that there are evil people out there, some of whom may have consorted with Saddam Hussein in the past, that would get together and use some of these chemical weapons -- if they're in Iraq -- on U.S. citizens....
September 11, 2001 was not hypothetical, nothing hypothetical at all...We know there are people out there willing to do the dirty deed and we also know Saddam Hussein has had contacts with these people in the past. ...
We know from Czech intelligence. Czech intelligence says that an Iraqi met with Mohammed Atta twice. ...
The FBI and CIA say the situation is not clear but Czech intelligence says it is. And why it is that the only person, only Arab leader that Usama bin Laden likes and approves of and speaks highly of is Saddam Hussein, why?
We talked to representatives of Al Qaeda here in 1998 shortly after the bombings of those embassies in Africa. The only Arab leader -- I spoke to them personally, the only Arab leader they were willing to praise, not to condemn, was Saddam Hussein. Why?
[The case has] been made not only by Usama bin Laden himself but by representatives of Al Qaeda to me personally on air. We've got the tape. I can show it to you...
They both want the destruction of the United States. You don't think they do? You don't think Usama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein want the destruction of the United States?
That's the point, the fact that Usama bin Laden has had, or is suspected to have had contacts, well, just a suspicion when thousands of American lives are at risk. Isn't a suspicion alone enough to really act upon?
You don't have to be told who lost the war in 1991. Who lost? It was Saddam Hussein. He signed these agreements as a result of his loss so that he could keep his nation in power. The conditions laid out by the U.N. were agreed to by the Iraqis. 95 percent was destroyed but five percent could not be accounted for.. That's a lot of potential biochemical weapons...for a madman like Saddam Hussein, to have 5 percent of that arsenal is still a dangerous thing...
...it would take six months to rebuild those facilities. So they could have built that. They could have built that four, six times over... isn't that a risk that we have to be particularly cognizant of, and if the Iraqis won't allow our inspectors unfettered access, isn't our only option to go in there and take out Saddam? Richard Butler was a spy for the United States, not an independent U.N. weapons inspector? The United States has admitted that they used Richard Butler as a pawn in an intelligence operation thwarting the neutral interests of the United Nations? Knowingly allowing them neutral reputation of the United States -- United Nations to fall by the wayside in order to work with United States intelligence is nothing that he's ever admitted to...
They say they want death and destruction for the United States. The vice president of Iraq said it is the duty of Arabs anywhere in the world, anywhere in the world, to attack U.S. interests and U.S. individuals. This is the vice president of Iraq. You just admitted it is a dictatorship. We have clear rhetoric coming from Iraq. Arabs have the duty to attack and kill Americans even on U.S. soil. They are saying that. It is conceivable, is it not, that they have created in the four years since we have been there quite a stockpile of chemical [and] biological weapons. Why do you think it is that they did that?
Who do you trust more, President Bush and the case he is making against Saddam Hussein, or the rhetoric coming out of Iraq? Coming out of Iraq or that coming out of President Bush?
Why it is that we should not believe Richard Butler who was chief weapons inspector, or believe people like the former nuclear scientist who worked on Saddam Hussein's campaign who says he still has an active policy to get a nuclear weapon and has other capabilities -- why should we not believe all of these other people and believe you?"

*answer below..in comments section*