Dean seemed more relaxed and presented issues better than at any time in recent memory.

I hope the neoCons keep Mehlman on because he is doing them damage. Soon the republican moderates will want him gone to avoid catching the damage themselves.

The moderate revolt in the republican party is a good thing for everyone.

Hillary is a nut case for saying her vote for the war was the right thing to do. Does she disagree with bu$hit about anything current and important?

Or is Hillary a George Bush Democrat?

I notice a stong theme with tel the truth. I thought he did a great job and I see the beginnings of a rallying point.

Dean in full BS mode.

Russert blew him out of the water, and he started stuttering and making stuff up. Unfortunately, Russert didn't drive the point on home.

Telling the truth, yeah sure, telling the truth selectively is no better than lying Dean.

He claimed that Bush claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11, Russert nailed him, and then Dean went into "well, he left the impression, bla bla" yeah whatever Dean. He said something about the American people believing before the war, 60% or something, that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

Yeah, and 78% believed exactly that on September 13, 2001. Before the announcement had been made that Osama bin Laden was responsible.

In other words, people believed less and less that Saddam was involved over the course of the administration making its case.

That doesn't exactly square with Dean's inaccurate and false presentation of the history leading up to the war, now does it?

For more related to this see this: http://www.seixon.com/bl.../11/playing_hardbal.html

"That doesn't exactly square with Dean's inaccurate and false presentation of the history leading up to the war, now does it?"

well it's a hell of a lot better then dubya's false claims of (do i really need to say it again? some fools just don't get it, do they?) wmd's, intent to attack the usa, collaboration with al qaeda, intent to attain nuclear weapons . . . .

why did building 7 come down anyway??? no steel building has EVER been destroyed by fire!!!

hey-- "pull it"

#1 Dredd --- I must admit I've distrusted Hillary Clinton in a major way since she was on the board of directors of Wal-Mart and her legal firm represented it.

Please, please please...no more corporate Democrats. They are not good for the country.

By the way, speaking of moderate Republicans, "The Revolt of the Elders Coalition" is an interesting development. I can't find a good link, but here is a slightly outdated one. I believe they are still working to unseat those they consider to be "DeLay" Republicans (including my embarassment of a congressman, John Doolittle.)

For those of you too young to remember, Pete McClosky was a good friend of the anti-war movement in the Vietnam years as well as a strong environmentalist. His goal - and that of the others in the coalition - is to bring "virtue" into the Republican Party. As are many of the true workers for peace, he is a combat veteran. (By the way, he served with Pat Robertson, whom he accused of being spared combat duty due to the intervention of his father, a U.S. senator.)

I'm not sure they've gotten themselves well-organized yet, but it might be interesting, Brad, to interview Pete sometime.

(BTW, is Seixon nuts?)

Hey, Seixon, this is from Junior's infamous state of the union speech:

Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Nailed by Russert? What are you talking about? Should I google Cheney's blatant lies for you? OK, from MTP:

We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

I don't know how you people keep the doublespeak and doublethink straight. Must have picked it up in your adolescent obedience training, I suppose...

Excellent interview.. Though, Russert is a dillhole if you ask me.

And those polls.. One, who cares.. Two, doesn't it seem ODD that when Dems stand up and say "we want to make sure everyone in this country is fed and has health care and access to education", Repugs say "yeah, but what's your position?.. what do you want to do?".. I guess being braindead is a requirement for being a hard-core Repug. And people think Dems are "more morally unsettled", yet it's Repug after Repug that's being indicted for heinous crimes right now? I'm thinking the polls are being taken from pools of Repugs cause that just doesn't make sense (well, you also have the fact that the MSM isn't doing it's job so most people don't know what's going on.. which is -exactly- what the morally bankrupt Repugs want).

And Hillary is a nut-job anyway.. I've never liked that woman, and have no respect for someone who stays with a cheater just for the power.. talk about desicrating marriage.. Working with Repugs on various measures? Unless you're comatos you can tell there's some shifty hand shaking going on, and I dislike that too. Getting "help" on one bill from a Rethug means you are giving up a LOT on other bills, that's the way they work.. massive profits are all that matter, and in the trade for "support on a bill", the same law applies. It scares me to think what she might be doing behind the scenes, what she's doing to the American Public. I don't trust her as far as I can spit.. You can't wallow with the pigs and not get dirty..

I think with all the stigma, it's time for an entirely new party. Too many people don't like Dems just because they swallow the pap from Rethugs about "they give your money to dirtbags who don't want to work, they piss it away on big government (nevermind the truth about this administration and the Rethugs pissing away all this money), they don't like military . . . etc etc".. Yet, the Rethugs do nothing but piss that SAME money away, but to the richest folks in the country.. and most people seem to live vicariously through that.. in that they hope to be rich some day... being rich is "admirable" but being poor isn't.. so giving money away to rich people is ok (talk about twisted logic). We need a party that will stand up to corperations and say "Your money is no good here, we're passing laws that stop your fleecing of America".. something like a Labor party from overseas.. a party that is TRUELY about taking care of "most Americans" and not just the richest 1%, or the top 10%, or hell, the top 20% who own well over 90% of all the resources in this country. It's time we had a party that told companies, who are NOT "people", who only exist on permission of the STATE, who are currently not really accountable (not in any significant way), they need to be told "look, you're killing this country and shitting on millions of Americans.. that stops now. Your board members will only be allowed to receive salaries that amounts to no more than 50 times the median/average salary (for large corperations.. scale it based on number of employees). Bonuses will be at most 1/5 of your salary every year. Either bring down the prices of your products (good for the masses), or increase the salaries of your employees (good for people working at very successful companies). Fleecing stops now!". I also think we need to start disolving boards (the head of a company) when they engage in criminal activities.. stop letting them move from company to company for 10s of millions in signing bonuses (then firing bonuses too, in most cases). We've let them set up a "club" of guys/gals that are sucking the life out of this country, and that needs to stop to. We need to examine the Stock Market as well, find a way to stop letting that be a bastion for rich people to suck up more resources while excluding 40% of our society (the same group the Government is trying to defund on all their programs, thanks to the Repugs).

Anyway.. didn't mean to rant on.. just wanted to say that Dean did a very good job, Russert is a dink, and the American Public that thinks "blowing shit up is the only way to be strong" are a bunch of hormonal emotional nit-wits. Talk about not having much capacity for higher thought.. sheesh..

The troll "modus operandi" is well established. They hit every blog site immediately to establish themselves as the topic of conversation throughout the site to prevent any furtherance of telling the truth. Usually there is more than one of them and they talk back and forth to each other in their "talking points" a/k/a lies.

Hillary is on the wrong track, and she should come before the American people and state emphatically that she had been misled, and was wrong.

I like Dean. He's standing up against the big bad Russert just fine!

Seixon.. perfect example of how not educating people and teaching them to LISTEN is a problem in this country.

Russert said "many people said Bush said Saddam was involved with 9/11, but Bush never said that.. what do you say about that?".. Uh.. See? Dean is NOT the one that said it.. and, as was pointed out by Dean (which you seem to be not hearing, or, more likely, dismissing because it doesn't support your twisted position), "It's not that Bush said Saddam was involved, it's that he left that impression, he was dishonest"..

now, we can get into hours and hours of trying to dig up what comments we can about who said what and play games on the "technicallity" of who said what and what was merely implied.. but you morons think it's wrong to be misleading about a blowjob, but not misleading about a war that killed 2060+ troops (and counting) and 10s of thousands of Iraqis.. When they claimed Al Qaeda took out the towers, then claimed (despite KNOWING it was A LIE) Saddam was "tied to Al Qaeda", they IMPLIED that Saddam, at least through complicancy, was involved in Sept. 11, 2001. Why? Because they NEEDED THAT LIE to help point the finger at where they ALREADY KNEW THEY WERE GOING TO WAR, BEFORE!!!! Sept. 11, 2001.

What's with you morons not seeing how the fix was in? how the lies were built on more lies? how YOUR boy is a treasonous criminal who is systematically destroying this country and it's credibility around the world? And you don't care?? For the $350/yr in tax breaks you got? MORON? Or are you more "upper crust" and got back $650/yr? woooooooo.. you would be pissing that away in a few weekends partying, or perhaps in a few days on coke?.. yet, that same money would feed a family for months.. and you don't care.. let them starve, right? And kill those soldiers, who cares.. right? they "chose" to go in the military? Nevermind there not being "other jobs" out there, right? Nevermind them dying over an ILLEGAL INVASION, right? Nevermind .. a fuckit.. nevermind.. Stupid assholes like you are a dime a dozen, and keep coming here spitting bullshit and venom for no good reason.. don't provide any proof of your allegations, fabricate small victories in your head based on fucked up logic.. Congratulations, you must feel a little less pathetic in your own mind now.. but trust me, you're still a waste of space/air/life.. You, and the ilk like you, are killing the planet and killing humans for your own gains. You have no conscious, no morality (despite being the platform of all Repugs.. more lies, but what do you expect from souless powermongers who don't mind killing so they have just a tiny bit more extravagance that they don't need).

#7 "...when Dems stand up and say "we want to make sure everyone in this country is fed and has health care and access to education", Repugs say "yeah, but what's your position?.. what do you want to do?"

That's one of the Repug talking points (aka garbage, as well) = "What's your plan?" (in any form.)

When any host, announcer, moderator, or viper, asks a Democrat that question it is to throw them off track, and that Host, et al, is a Neocon Bush supporter.

Seixon is being disingenuous when he says:

Yeah, and 78% believed exactly that [Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks] on September 13, 2001. Before the announcement had been made that Osama bin Laden was responsible.

The Time/CNN poll Seixon cites was the only one in the days following 9/11 to specifically link Saddam to the attacks. (It was preceded by a similar question linking Osama Bin Laden to the attacks; 92% of respondents said they thought OBL was behind the attacks.)

This was a badly designed question. Emotions were running high at the time, so naturally if you feed someone the name of a repressive dictator, they'll bite. Kim Jong Il would have scored high on the same question, I bet.

And note that while the Time/CNN poll asked directly "How likely is it that OBL / Saddam was personally involved in the attacks?", other polls employed far more circumspect language, e.g. "Given that OBL has been named as a suspect, do you support military action against him?" No other survey even mentioned Saddam.

But would people still have suspected him even when his name wasn't singled out? No, as this Christian Science Monitor article shows:

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year [2003], attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.

Nice try at hand-waving, Seixon.

And.. to add.. weren't 15 of the "hijackers" from Saudi Arabia? -most- of them were from an "allied country".. yet, we've done NOTHING about that.. isn't that strange?

Forgive me Brad for what I am about to do:

Saddam Hussein, September 11th, Saddam, Saddam, September 11th, poison gas, mushroom clouds, September 11th, Saddam Hussein, Saddam Hussein, September 11th, Saddam, Saddam, terrorists, war on terror, Saddam Hussein, Saddam, Saddam, September 11th, Saddam, September 11th, September 11th, Saddam, weapons of mass destruction, Saddam, torture chambers, September the 11th, terror came to our shores on September 11th, mushroom clouds, weapons of mass destruction, Saddam, war on terror, terrorists, Saddam, September the 11th, danger, biological and nukular weapons, Saddam Hussein, September the 11th, September 11th, fear, war on terror, Saddam, Saddam, September 11th, Saddam Hussein, September 11th, Saddam, Saddam, September 11th, poison gas, mushroom clouds, September 11th, Saddam Hussein, Saddam Hussein, September 11th, Saddam, Saddam, terrorists, war on terror, Saddam Hussein, Saddam, Saddam, September 11th, Saddam, September 11th, September 11th, Saddam, weapons of mass destruction, Saddam, torture chambers, September the 11th, terror came to our shores on September 11th, mushroom clouds, weapons of mass destruction, Saddam, war on terror, terrorists, Saddam, September the 11th, danger, biological and nukular weapons, Saddam Hussein, September the 11th, September 11th, fear, war on terror, Saddam, Saddam, September 11th,Saddam Hussein, September 11th, Saddam, Saddam, September 11th, poison gas, mushroom clouds, September 11th, Saddam Hussein, Saddam Hussein, September 11th, Saddam, Saddam, terrorists, war on terror, Saddam Hussein, Saddam, Saddam, September 11th, Saddam, September 11th, September 11th, Saddam, weapons of mass destruction, Saddam, torture chambers, September the 11th, terror came to our shores on September 11th, mushroom clouds, weapons of mass destruction, Saddam, war on terror, terrorists, Saddam, September the 11th, danger, biological and nukular weapons, Saddam Hussein, September the 11th, September 11th, fear, war on terror, Saddam, Saddam, September 11th, Saddam Hussein.

Yah right. No suggestion whatsoever. Tim Russerts a partisan ass and a divider. Save our planet, neuter idiots. Idiots shouldn't breed.

Here's something to think about.. Seems when you give billions and billions to big oil, pass laws that help corperations screw americans, start illegal wars, and destroy social programs, you're "left" now..

Or so, that's how these pandering shit-bags are trying to spin it.. Bush is "left" now? WTF kind of crap is that? The ONLY thing "left" about this shit head is the bigger government, but that bigger government is in ABSENSE of social programs.. not sure how we have a "bigger government" now, but that's something I heard charged.

Though, no one has ever explained to me how "big government" is inherantly "bad".. Is it that there are more jobs for our citizens? Is it that Republicans don't want people making sure our country is safe, our intelligence agencies are functioning, our dispersal groups are getting funds to those that deserve it (and keeping it from those who would cheat to get money they don't have coming to them), record keeping groups tracking all our laws/documents? It takes PEOPLE and JOBS to keep a country running, I fail to see how it's "bad" to make sure you have adequate personel to make sure everthing is working as expected.

WOW... this would be cool

#14 Savantster --- That's pretty funny --bu$h moving to the "left".

I think the current problem is a lack of popular government. The so-called "government" can be (and is) immense, monstrous, invasive but if it is simply a practical arm of corporate interests, can we really call it a government? USA, Inc.? Viguerie (from your link) will always be benighted and useless because of a huge blind spot. The "popular" conservatism he espouses is a fiction. What really matters is blocks of power, and (if he would really be a populist) checks on the potentials - really certainties - of abuse from that power. It's never ceases to amaze me how little "conservatives" understand of the principles of our government (or the lessons of history, for that matter.)

There is one cure for what ails us --- real government.

Bush never said "immanent" either. But he implied it and Fleisher did use the word, as did Rumsfeld and other key administration members.

Like (here)

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

etc, etc.

Yeah, and 78% believed exactly that on September 13, 2001. Before the announcement had been made that Osama bin Laden was responsible. In other words, people believed less and less that Saddam was involved over the course of the administration making its case.

It is understandable people would not have known the truth in the early days after 911. The problem is time after that, as the nation "thought" it was "deciding" if it needed to go to war with Iraq.

It would have been what, maybe 95%, knowing the TRUTH had the Child King and his pack of thugs not intentionally decieved the nation. Had they expressed the truth and not manipulated language to decieve the nation, more would have known. After all that time and still that many are full of lies.

There is a reason you are capable of rationalizing that half the nation still being wrong as a positive thing.

You are in a cult my friend. You can't see it, but you have been trained to rationalize away reality to protect the cult. The only people on the planet who do not take Bush and the new "conservatives" for liars and cultic frauds are the people who are snagged into the cult. the recruits. Like you.

There are reasons the cult of conservatism has a false sense of reality- believing things like Al Queda and Saddam were big buddies. They have spent billions training you to only believe certain sources of information and those sources are the ones lying to you. It is how cults operate, it's a form of information control.
Get it?

Dean seemed nervous to me, so we are still screwed!

Savanster #14, thanks for the LINK. Here's a tidbit from that article:

I just have to LAUGH!!!

"Republican candidates yesterday paid the price for President Bush's move to the left exhibited by his expansion of government programs, power and spending at the expense of personal, religious and economic freedom. He has not been in sync with conservatives, who are the mainstream of American voters, on immigration and too many other policies," said Richard Viguerie, whose ConservativeHQ.com recently surveyed 5,305 conservative activists and donors.

Sixty-nine percent polled said that President Bush is not governing as a conservative, and gave him a grade of D for "controlling government spending."

Please read my LINK on a previous thread in which this Conservative untruth is exposed.

Please remember --- the GOP has been exposed for trying to accuse the Democrats for their own failure and/or shortcomings. It truly is the Orwellian way!!!

A snip from my LINK above:

I was researching the Republican myth about their disdain for big government and ran across this blog with 2 excellent links to follow and well-linked info at the sites. Very good for debunking.

And still more republican myths debunked ---

[**MORE**]

I used to like Tim Russert. What happened to him?

oops!
I use to like Tim Russert. What happened to him? I always thought he was fair and unbiased. My opinion of him has totally gone south.
#13- exactly!

#14 and #21 - Repubs have always been for big gov't spending as long as it is for the military, space programs, and tax breaks for the rich. But if the gov't spending is for social programs, well, that's when they start to get quite "unChristianly".

Dems need to start framing the issue of social programs (and the environment, and fiscal responsibility among other things) in terms of what our (we the American people along with our elected representatives) moral obligations and responsibilities are. The truth is a nice thing, but they need to go way beyond that.

careful there #3. Disagree with the neo-libs and they'll call you all sorts of names they learned in the 3rd grade. That's as far as their rhetorical skills go. They even think "bushitler" is cute disgracing the memory of the victims of the true holocaust.

Thank you for this video. I was looking for it earlier. Dean did great. I love how he handles the press. He's getting so much more comfortable with interviews. I'm proud that he's the party chairman and doing a great job.

Poor Castro... back to trolling and distracting from the ponit.. You and your brain dead friends can't spin this any more.. your hero is a treasonous prick and America is waking up.. Must sting to see that all the sheeple you had duped aren't quite as ignorant as you had hoped, eh?

aw, shucks, I wouldn't want to distract from your "ponit" because I know with all that you're spewing there must be a ponit in there somewhere.

Here's Castro the braindead trollop:

Castro's many identies at Bradblog:
Izzy
Bubba
Darnelle
Rev Goober T. Bass
Mullah Gomer
geeter
Old Jones
bonczaar
Cletus
Junior Johnson
Mary Beth

What a freakin' Loser.

The GOP's Red Dress has a huge and horrific stain on it, that will take decades to remove, if ever.

No.. really Castro.. point out my typo.. it makes you right and all the facts wrong.. Good for you!

Savanster #14 said: "Though, no one has ever explained to me how "big government" is inherantly "bad".. Is it that there are more jobs for our citizens? Is it that Republicans don't want people making sure our country is safe, our intelligence agencies are functioning, our dispersal groups are getting funds to those that deserve it (and keeping it from those who would cheat to get money they don't have coming to them), record keeping groups tracking all our laws/documents? It takes PEOPLE and JOBS to keep a country running, I fail to see how it's "bad" to make sure you have adequate personel to make sure everthing is working as expected."

That's how it works under Democrat Presidents. This admin. is flagrant with its crony/nepotism. I wager most of them haven't even read their job descriptions (as in heckuva job Brownie.)

Emily,
I think he is doing a good job also.
On fund raising I thought Russert was way off. I never gave a dime to political parties before and now I'm on the monthly Democratic bond program Dean came up with. I also like the 50 state thing he's doing. Of course the Dems never have as much money as the repubs. Hard working people have less to spare than the stuffed shirts do, but Howard is managing to shake some change from our threadbare pockets. :0)

Jo #33.. exactly.. I was glad to see Dean set that straight.. Most people just don't understand the fact that "we have the best government money can buy".. problem is, it's only working for those who bought it, not those who voted for it. Repugs have always had a lot more money tossed at them.. Duh?? Rich people want to protect their assets.. makes sense to spend a few dozen million to keep a few hundred million out of reach of the Tax Collector.. right?

Since Jan 2001, we Americans have not seen even one single good thing done by Bush Administration, NOT EVEN ONE!! Not even one damn good thing! Not only that, Bush made us, Americans be hated so much in the world. What right and position do rethugs think they have to criticize Clinton and Democrats while the people now sitting up there picked by these braindead are thieves (stole 2 elections too!), liars, hypocrite, deficit makers, war criminals, traitors - exposed our own secret agent's identity DURING THE WAR TIME! (Who is the real terror?)

Do I need to tell you how much I hate these rethugs after they did and they are still doing so much harm to our country??? Do I? If I don't hate them, I am truly UNAMERICAN! And shut up, rethugs, don't you dare to ask Dems EVERYTIME after you guys screwed up something - do you have a plan? Yes, we have a plan - first, terminate the crime planners!

Hey FURIOUS! I'm furious too!!

Lookee here --- we non-Republicans have a PLAN! It's easy to remember --

[From Inflatable Dartboard]

I submit the following Plan, or Message, that we can lay as the foundation to build upon:

As a unified party, our primary focus is to undo the damage caused to this Nation, and the World, by the Bush Administration.

Pretty simplistic isn't it? From that foundation we can pledge to present a Presidential candidate and Senatorial candidates that will sign on to this plan and work towards reversing the decay this administration has allowed and encouraged to take hold and spread.

... Let's take the hood and electrodes off this wonderful Nation and look forward with the resolve to install measures that make sure we don't get hijacked again. **MORE**

"According to the Treasury Department, from 1776-2000, the first 224 years of U.S. history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions, but in the past four years alone, the Bush administration borrowed $1.05 trillion."

SAY WHAT?????

Where's ken mehlman?

*Savantster's Rant*

I can translate your rant to just 6 words:

Break The Monotony --- Bust The Corporatocracy!!

And you're right --- we need a new party. We need ... a Revolution!!

*blares Judas Priest*

Savantster #14

You said no one has ever explained to me how "big government" is inherantly "bad"..

It does not take much analysis to show that so much of the fundamental ideology of the neoCons and neoConvicts is contrived, half baked, and imaginary.

The size of government must be in constant flux because the size of the United States is in constant flux. The population and other factors tied to it change constantly. Most of the time it increases, but sometimes ... during war and catastrophe it decreases.

So, the only informed dialogue must be about percentage. Government size must be based on a percentage of the population. We could say that there is a norm, a percentage range that is neither "big" nor "small".

We could then go on to say that when the percentage is above the norm we have "big government" or when it is below the norm be have "small government".

By definition both small and large government would be prima facia "bad". We could also hypothesize that "good government" must fit within the percentile we call the norm ... normal.

However if we do that, then we would be remiss if we did not also stipulate that "quality of government" is not just a function of its size.

Quality of government in this model, then, would also be dependent on the character (honesty, openness, fairness) and ability (competence, experience) of those in government, no matter what the size.

The overly simplistic notions of neoCons and neoConvicts seem to be one liners designed to fool only the fools. Intellectual analysis is not their style nor intent.

Your restraint toward swallowing what anyone in government says without question is the approach citizens must have.

That is the main part of good government.

Tim Russert interviews Howard Dean about what Bush said or didn't say, implied or didn't imply, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

Russert should have interviewed Richard Clarke and (former Treasury Secretary) Paul O'Neill instead. Both were in a perfect position to know, and both said the Bush administration was planning to invade Iraq before 9/11. Whether Bush actually said Saddam was connected to 9/11, implied it, or neither said it nor implied it, is beside the point.

Howard Dean wasn't at the cabinet meeting (before 9/11) at which the plans to invade Iraq were discussed. Paul O'Neill was there. Does anyone think he was canned because John Snow was better qualified to hold the job of Treasury Secretary? Snow...a man who ran a railroad that lost money in nine out of the preceding ten years, yet took out millions for himself every year?

Come on, folks. Once and for all, this isn't about Democrats and Republicans. At least, it shouldn't be. What Tim Russert is doing here is creating a Republican vs. Democrat battlefield as a stage for a war that is really between truth and lies.

RLM #39 Well said.

Reminds me of a quote I read recently:

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd." (Bertrand Russell)

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth is revolutionary." (George Orwell)

(link here)

It also reminds me of what a republican president one said:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public". (Theodore Roosevelt, "Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149 May 7, 1918)

BUSH MUST BE A GENIOUS. HE WAS THE ONLY ONE IN THE WORLD THAT KNEW SADDAM DIDNT HAVE WMD'S.

re #41 --- LOL! Not exactly! There were plenty of people in the world who knew that Saddam didn't have WMDs ... Hans Blix was one of them and Scott Ritter was another and I was one of them too. No big achievement on my account --- all kinds of people all over the world knew Saddam didn't have WMDs! The ONLY people who thought he did were Americans who were ONLY paying attention to American media. Anyone, anywhere, who was making an effort to get some news from virtually any other source in the rest of the world knew what was going on ...

I was listening to Hans Blix virtually every night on Radio Sweden [which was interviewing him virtually every day at the time] and he was saying virtually the same thing every day:

"No problems. They let us go wherever we want. They let us see whatever we want. The only problem we've been having is that we can't find anything."

What did this so-called administration do about that? They tried to smear Blix and then they tried to pretend he didn't exist --- just like they've done with everyone else who has tried to tell the truth about what was going on in Iraq --- and then they went ahead and waged war anyway, as they had always planned to do. So don't give us any more of this revisionist bullshit because we aren't buying it.

note to newer BradBlog readers: The troll who calls herself "Medium Right" has been lying to us through her teeth ever since she first appeared, calling herself "Medium Left" and trying to convince us that the problem was US, we were too radical, no reasonable person could ever support the Democrats as long as we were hanging around this blog and telling the truth every day, and blah blah blah ... And even though this is a blog where we welcome all points of view, we also like to tell the truth; and that means we like to call things by their proper names.

She and the other loser who sometimes calls herself "Castro" are simply accessories after the fact.

They are trying to cover up enormous and hideous crimes. In my opinion, this fact should be stated clearly whenever they try to insinuate their despicable little talking points into our conversations.

Angrier #6

I could not find the words you indicate appear in the 2002 state of the union speech. On this Blog we try to be accurate. From time to time trolls show up to try to change our honest practices.

So, could you provide a link to support your purported quotes? Otherwise I will be suspicious of your post.

Medium Right #41

False. He was not even the only person who did not care whether or not Iraq had WMD's ... neither Cheney nor Rummy cared either. They did not care because they had made their minds up while they were at camp PNAC. Google it to free yourself from slavery to foolishness.

I must be a genius because I knew Iraq had no WMD!

This is from http://www.washingtonpos.../11/AR2005111101832.html

But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.

In the same speech, Bush asserted that "more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power." Giving a preview of Bush's speech, Hadley had said that "we all looked at the same intelligence."
But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country.
In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release. For example, the NIE view that Hussein would not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a corner was cleared for public use only a day before the Senate vote.

This is from the AP
Almost six in 10 now say Bush is not honest, and a similar number say his administration does not have high ethical standards.

Hillary Clinton, if she is the best the MSM/dems. can do, we need a third party for sure. Didn't know she was on the board of Wal Mart(upthread). The Clinton's were friends with the owner of Tyson's Chicken as well. In the Appalachian mountains of N.C. where there is some real hard core poverty, there are empty chicken houses dotting the landscape.Tyson did to the chicken producers what walmart did to small businesses. Bill pushed NAFTA and welfare reform when there were no jobs for the welfare moms to go to. The democrats are in trouble because they are almost republicans. Just aren't into killing and torturing so much. THIRD PARTY