Ho hum, "Illegal war", "Quagmire","no WMDs". Straight out of Ted Kennedy's playbook.
No nuclear threat? Not so fast on that one,Michael.It is now coming to light that Saddam was trying to purchase the raw materials for developing nuclear weapons. We'll have to wait and see,but you and Ted Kennedy may have to update your playbook.

Tell us what a great job our goverment in Raleigh is doing. Can they not spend our money on something other than PORK PORK PORK. ( Bill Faison high speed internet sham to put his rich friends in business at our expense) and Homestead, Jamestown. Just to name a few.I not a Bush fan myself, howerever I get tired of reading this same BS every day in the NR. I would like to read about Black and Basnight how they use our tax dollars for their pet projects. Of course I will not hold my breath until I read it in the NR.

Yard Dog,

You always seem so bored to read the letters here. Yet, you are interested ehough to tell the rest of us how bored you are. Why?

Additionally, The letter writer speaks truth. Why, now it's coming to light that Karl Rove, Bush's Brain, committed Treason, and is admitting to it. But, I suppose you'll be bored with that too.

Jim, When I read Michael's letter,it is almost the same thing word for word that Teddy and the rest of the libs yak about endlessly on CNN, CBS,ABC,etc. Nothing new! The only thing missing here is he forgot to sprinkle his letter with "Bush lied" a dozen times. To answer your question why, I don't want let this forum turn into a TOTAL Bush bash.
As for Karl Rove, we'll see where the investigation leads. If it leads to him outing a cia agent(altough it be the wife of a partisan hack)he should be handled according to law.
As for telling the rest of"us" how I feel, I thought that was what this forum was for. I read every day how someone else feels and as long as I pay my taxes I have that right too.

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Welcome back jim!!! I'm glad to see you made it back from the pit where you were stuck!!!!! Don't worry, I won't tell them your little secret!!!!

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Since the left hasn't been able to touch Bush they've targeted Rove. Rove must be removed as a political player or else the 2006 elections are going to be a further demise for the democratic party.

IMO, this whole Plame/Wilson/Rove issue will be proven to be a bunch of manufactured nothing, and in the end there will be charges of perjury for those who lied about it.

There is an ongoing investigation and the press is calling for Rove's head based on an allegation from one person. And the investigation isn't even completed--no findings of fact! The collusion between the DNC and the press on this matter is despicable.

Hey Satan, how about cooling it with the excessive HAHAHs, maybe only a dozen or so? It's skewing the board margins.

Thanks,
hugh.

Hugh, notice how the Dems wanted Tom DeLay's head on a platter a month or so ago and now you never hear anything about him? Their fine spokesman Howard "yyyyeeeeeaaahhhh" Dean said DeLay needed to go back to Texas and serve his jail sentence.

The Dems realized nothing was there so now it's Rove's turn. I wonder who will be next?

Agreed, Yard Dog, same ol' playbook every day, no new ideas, just whining.

Why is this letter entitled 'Conservatives should pay more attention'? There are those of us who are anything BUT conservative who feel the Iraq war is justified. I won't go into all of my opinions yet again as to why I feel it was necessary to invade Iraq...it has already been hashed and rehashed.

The thing that really burns my butt these days is how many times I hear Liberal or Conservative. Put a cork in it already. Most of us are all looking to make this country a better place to live, we all just have different opinions on the right way to proceed.

Instead of focussing on all of the differences, or on 'Bush said and Clinton did' blah blah blah, focus on working together. For crying out loud...those are our elected officials up there in DC. If they can't do the job we hired them to do, fire them in the next election!

Yard, Dan, It has gone even further than you state. It is a fact that the wife of Wilson was not a covert CIA agent. It is on the record that she was not. There is nothing to charge Rove with except being very good at what he does and there in lies the rub. The Dems can't sting Bush so they go after his advisers.

Actually I hope the libs and Dems keep it up. This is a great distraction of the media from what Bush is really working on. The problem here is that President Bush is a fox and the libs simply cannot out fox him. They try and try and always are left laying on the side of the road, licking their wounds.

Michael, you need to either re-read Mr. Gregory's letter or get some glasses. Apparently you had some problem understanding the words in his letter.

" It is a fact that the wife of Wilson was not a covert CIA agent. It is on the record that she was not."

Hi Mac... since this fact is on the record, could you provide us with a source to back up your claim? Thanks!

It seems to me that if anyone would know her status, it would be the CIA, and if she wasn't covert, then isn't it a bit odd that the CIA would initiate an investigation of the matter?

Regardless of whom it is directed toward, hatred is very blinding. Hatred for Bush keeps people from listening and accepting what is actually said. The Bush administration does not say that Iraq was involved in 9-11. They say that there was a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. There is a plethora of information for those who are objective to see that that connection. Just because 9-11 and Iraq are used in the same speech does not mean there is some conspiracy to link the two specifically.

As far as the Rove issue goes, it comes down to one thing. Was Plame a covert operative or not. If not then the whole discussion is moot.

Michael, I don't care that you don't have health insurance. That is your problem. The fact that you think my tax dollars could be spent better on providing you health insurance is insulting.

Gaytony is correct, let's drop the political labels and have intelligent thoughtful discussion in here. Not every position has to be cloaked in political clothing.

Dang fellas- When Christopher Hitchins says Bush is right about the war, it is time to let it go. The invasion in Iraq worked! It is done.

When you keep whining about it, it becomes evident you are simply against Bush, not his foreign policy.

In Bush you have the Anti-Clinton. He means exactly what he says. He does what he beleives is right, rather than following polls. He stays on message. He tells the truth.

You'd do better to focus on the economy, the enviroment and other issues that Dems care about, because... BUSH IS RIGHT about the war...

Yo Mikey- why don't you have health isurance? Are you insurable? If you are, (I hope you are well), you should buy a policy. If you can't afford it, there are Gov programs to help.

However, if you are simply avoiding the expense in lieu of other things you deem more important, you should be ashamed for complaining about it. In America, we don't depend on the Government to do for us what we can do for ourselves.

Repubs and Dems want more affordable health care. There's a banner you can wave. Where is Bush and where are the Dems on this?

What exactly was our goal from invading Iraq, again? It keeps changing: first it was about WMDs, then about getting rid of an evil dictator, then about stabilizing the region and "nation-building" (something that Bush promised not to do in the 2000 campaign, by the way). There have been no WMDs found and if we are going to remove Saddam, then morally we are also committed to toppling the regimes of communist China and North Korea... regimes that have been FAR more dangerous a threat to the United States than Iraq ever was. Or is that too hard for us to do?

It's easy to say now that the war has been a victory. But dare to look at this twenty or even ten years from now. I would say that then, the Iraq war is going to be seen as a costly mistake and all those who supported it, as fools. Maybe then we'll have understood that we shouldn't have even built up the regimes of Iraq (and the Taliban in Afghanistan it turns out) in the first place.

Regarding Rove/Plame: so far the response from the Republicans has been practically word-for-word what the Democrats were responding with in 1998 when it was about Monica Lewinsky, a cigar and a blue stained dress. I thought the Democrats were outlandish and shrill then and I think the Republicans are being outlandish and shrill now. Which is why I don't categorize things as "Democrats versus Republicans" or "conservatives versus liberals" anymore: they are ALL the same, with NO discernable difference at all in that they are after the very same goal: absolute power over the American people.

They are supposed to be our servants, not our sovereigns. When are we going to end this childish bickering and start slapping ALL their hands away from the cookie jar?

Mac
I may not be hanging on every word about this case but I seem to have missed this fact she was not a covert CIA agent.
And far as Rove claim that he only mentioned her but not her name I will place that beside Clintons ever so famous quote "I smoked but didnt inhale comment" as another comment from a politician,in this case an advisor, who chooses to questions my common sense.

And as far as Bush being the fox the dems cant catch that sort of reminds me of the fox named Clinton the repubs could never catch. I guess that means both sides now know how the other has felt.
There must some justice in all of this for someone somewhere!!

It must be wondered, though, why a "decent, Christian man" that Bush is supposed to be would have anything to do with a professional character assassin and amoral dirty trickster like Karl Rove. It used to be that a man stood for himself, without having someone specializing in filthy shenanigans defining him for him.

No one will answer that, I'm sure.

JC writes: "The Bush administration does not say that Iraq was involved in 9-11."

But they did.

"They say that there was a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

And the 9/11 Commission disagrees.

Rove is not as you describe. What are you talking about? Being mean is not calling the liberal response to 9/11 weak. Everything said about Kerry during the election was spot on. Even the Swift Boat Vets' claims were proven true.

Why do you guys cry about character attacks while mocking Bush's faith?

Christopher asks: "What exactly was our goal from invading Iraq, again?"

Don't you remember?

Rove's entire professional career has been one of dirty tricks. Ever hear of the time he stole letterhead from an opponent's campaign office, then used it to print fliers promising free food and money for all homeless people that showed up at the office? He was also fired by George H.W. Bush for leaking info to the press through, of all people, Bob Novak. And since you brought it up, just about everything said about G.W. Bush and his avoiding service in Vietnam has also been "spot on".

Just what do you mean by "you guys" anyway? See, you're of the mindset that EVERYONE is either (a) conservative or (b) liberal. Reality isn't that way at all, my friend. You can't play intellectual shallowness by pretending that every one can be shoehorned into one or the other of two camps. I detest dirty tricks and conniving schemes no matter where they come from. Just because some happened to come from the Republican camp is no reason to pat yourself on the back for a "job well done".

America is becoming a nation of bullies, as well indicated by the tone of your response.

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Sorry Hugh, there is no "cool" here!!! It's just hot baby!!!!

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

As we watch the Rove/Wilson drama play out, it rises to the theater of the absurd. If you believe Amb. Wilson, Karl Rove is this Darth Vader like character executing plans to destroy the enemies of the evil President Bush. Colorfull, but unfortunally for Democrats untrue. Here are the facts:

Amb. Wilson used his wife to obtain a position he was not qualified for - investigating a British intel report that Saddam was trying to buy nuclear material from Niger.

After a few interviews in his hotel lobby, he produces a scathing report critical of the Bush administration at the same time becoming a consultant to the Kerry campaign.

He then engages in a series of lies.

He stated that Vice President Cheney initiated his investigation - he did not.

He stated Dir. Tennet signed off on his report - he did not.

He stated his wife had nothing to do with him getting the job - internal CIA memos shows that he did.

Karl Rove, in a phone call initiated by Matt Cooper of Time, when asked about these allegations simply stated that he had "heard" that Wilson's wife was CIA. He did not use her name or position. And what has now come to light instead of outing a covert operative, Wilson's wife had not done any covert work for over six years. Moreover Robert Novak, the reporter who broke this story, has publicly stated that in the Washington social scene everyone knew she was CIA.

This was nothing more than Amb. Wilson trying to position himself if Sen. Kerry won the election. The height of irony here is that the bi-partison Select Intel Committee has verified the validity of the initial British report. Saddam was trying to buy nuclear material from Niger.

Hey Chris, what part of flying an F-104 in preparation for combat did the media cover?

And where was it proven that the copies of "supposed" NG documents were real? OH, you mean your taking Dan Rather's word for it? Baa....Baa...

Chip,
You're right, Bush was right about the war. LOL, I mean look at all the WMD's we've recovered.

Cons, dance around the issues, but Iraq is not where our troops need to be.

Roch101,
how do you put those neat links into you postings?

Roch, don't you get embarassed at being wrong all the time:

"Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission. 'There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.'"
Source:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/780plthl.asp

Will all you libs be devastated when this Karl Rove bullshit blows up in your faces? Or will you continue to bury your heads in the sand and pretend the country really likes you guys?

In the first place, Plame was not a covert agent under the legal definition. She had not worked overseas in a covert capacity in the past 5 years. So no one can "break the law" by speaking her name in the same sentence with the words CIA.
Secondly, Rove did not learn of her identity from classified sources, so he did not break the law there. He learned it from a reporter, and it was common knowledge in Washington that she worked in an overt capacity for the CIA.
Why aren't you liberals calling for an investigation of the reporter that leaked Plame's identity to Rove? That's the real issue here...where did the info come from? It sure didn't come from Rove.

Stephen, when you see a single sentance quoted, try to find the rest of the conversation. The context and additional conversation may be illuminating.

Brian, see this: http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_links.asp

I find it interesting that WMD and the Wilson issue is brought up here in the same thread.

One of the results of the Wilson trip to Africa was a statement that Saddam didn't need any more Yellow Cake Uranium. He already had 500 tons of the stuff.

Don't you think that may qualify as WMD? It would only make about 20 nuclear bombs.

Stephen, you ask will all the libs be devastated when all this BS blows up in their face. Of course not! Next month it will be someone else who has gotten the libs riled up who will be crusified. No problems with Karl Rove until he laid the truth out for all to see about the libs and their 9/11 reaction.
Just seen on the crawler on tv that Wilson and senator Chucky boy Shumer(spelling)have called a "press conference" for this afternoon. What is this? Wilson aligning himself with the dems? Thought he was non political? As I said earlier, I'll wait on the investigation to run it's course. But this smells like a scandal cooked up by the democrats to me.
One more thing, can't resist this. We are approaching a most important date in our country's history. That's right! The anniversary of Teddy Kennedy's rescue attempt of that poor girl at chappaquiddick.

Stephen
I just wonder in all your self-rightousness how do you explain the rest of the report that Roch points out. The comment you use was not even refering to 911 and later Kean said there was no connection found with 911. Just wonder how you come to grips with that twist of the truth.

And while I will take Yard Dog position and wait for the final outcome with Rove the question is what will you do if this blows up in repubs faces?
I mean Bush has been extremely quiet lately which seems odd given he owes this man in political career.

And you are talking like 90% country is like you; maybe you should go back and look at the numbers and polls. You are talking like your favorite basketball team won a 50 point blow out when in realilty it was a 2 point finger nail biter. Huge difference there!!

Thank you, Will Summers and the overwhelming majority of those who also added comments in support of my original letter and who destroyed the appeasement ilk, moveon.org talking points letter of Michael Northuis.

For those honestly in search of the truth please read the article linked here, "The Mother of All Connections," by Stephen Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn, which appears in the July 18th issue of the Weekly Standard. This piece provides new evidence of collaboration between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda.

Fred, the "evidence" cited in that article is a litany of claims made by military prosecutors that have not been vetted in open court. As the article's authors note: "It's possible, of course, that the evidence presented by military prosecutors is exaggerated, maybe even wrong.

Furthermore, if a person's citizenship is enough to implicate a country as having ties to Al Queda, then the activites of US Citizens Yaser Hamdi, Jose Padilla and Wadi al Hage would allow one to say that the US had ties to Al Queda.

I sometimes get amused at the double standard Democrats use. At a press briefing, Joe Wilson and Sen. Chuck Schummer are calling for the firing and prosecution of Rove. If this is the case Sen John Kerry should resign immediately. Durring the John Bolton nomination, Sen Kerry reading from a confidential transcript gave the name of a real CIA covert operative on national television. Mr Bolton, in his response, had to remind Sen. Kerry that this operative was being refered to as Mr. Smith, not his real name.

Where is the Democratic outrage?

Wonder if anyone asked if perhaps the CIA might have outed Plame. It is rare, but occasionally one who has outlived their usefulness and is posing a possible danger to others or the agency itself will be outed. Could it be that the reporter is covering for a source with the CIA itself?

Roch told a lie, I busted him.
Roch said that the 9/11 Commission found no connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda, and that's not true. Roch lied to try to sway people to his view of the truth.
I gave him the exact quote, in which the chairman of the committe said there were links between them.
Research it yourself, you'll see Roch for the liberal liar he is.

Andy, the incident you're speaking of was debunked here by Michelle Malkin, of all people. The agent's name was already made public in several media accounts. No outrage necessary.

Stephen,
Are you new here or something? Come on, grow up, get a grip dude, name calling is for those who lack native intelligence as yaller puts it. Everybody who has been on here for any length of time takes much of what Roch says with a grain of salt anyhow.

Stephen,

Roch101 left a link to an article I wrote above which shows that the one line by Thomas Kean is being taken out of context. He's not "lying."

But I doubt that you'll find it "illuminating" since you appear to be unreasonably partisan, and, therefore, unreachable.

Christopher asked: "What exactly was our goal from invading Iraq, again?"

I don't know could it have had something to do with enforcing these:

3 Apr 1991 Security Council resolution 687 (1991), Section C, decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept, under international supervision, the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of its weapons of mass destruction

11 Oct 1991 Security Council resolution 715 (1991), establishes that Iraq shall "accept unconditionally the inspectors and all other personnel designated by the Special Commission".

27 Mar 1996 Security Council resolution 1051(1996),demands that Iraq meet unconditionally all its obligations under the mechanism and cooperate fully with the Special Commission and the Director-General of the IAEA.

12 Jun 1996 Security Council resolution 1060 (1996), It also demands that Iraq grant immediate and unrestricted access to all sites designated for inspection by UNSCOM.

21 Jun 1997 Security Council resolution 1115 (1997), demands that Iraq allow UNSCOM's team immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any sites for inspection and officials for interviews by UNSCOM.

23 Oct 1997 Security Council resolution 1134 (1997), demands that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission,

And the final: Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002 Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,
Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions... in particular through Iraq's failure to co-operate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency).

To afford Iraq, by this resolution, A FINAL OPPORTUNITY to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the council.

Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

(all caps were my emphasis)

It's funny how the repugnicans cite all these UN resolutions, yet say we should exit the UN and kick them out of America.

Face it, you only cite UN specifice when they are in your favor. (although most you cited are quite old and have since been terminated)

Ahhh, when you lose the WMD angle, you'll try to pull anything out of your butt.

I ask this every once in a while for the fun of it. Maybe it'll be answered this time.

What is a conservative anyway? Lots of folks claim the name.

Marshall,

I heard an older definition that was something like this: A conservative is someone who prefers to change society, laws, goverment policy, etc, slowly, thinking through all the ramifications and possible results, both positive and negative, of the change.

It seems to me that conservatives these days want to change things rather quickly to more restrictive and religion-based values.

I hope others express their definitions.

Ron Brynaert, thank you. I don't mind going head-to-head in a discussion with someone, I've even been know to capitulate when evidence is presented that contradicts my opinion. However, "Stephen's" childish name-calling is unproductive and it's encouraging to know that some people recognize it for what it is -- and thanks for stopping by, keep up the good work.

Trish, two questions:

1) Do you have a link to the the source of the material you cite?

2) Which of the UN resolutions do you content Iraq was in violation of?

(Musical tune)

"na na na na ....na na na na.... hey hey hey, goodbye!"

Later Karl Rove! bubye now!

What a piece of _ _ _ _ this guy is. How morally bankrupt this guy is to be the source of the CIA leak. And now the White House is even sidestepping this issue. HAHAHAHAHA!

More proof that the current administration is not telling us the truth.

Ron,

I read your article and the funny thing is you stated: “Since there is no "fact-based conclusion" there is no reason for the media, liberal or otherwise, to apologize for asserting that the 9/11 Commission failed to find a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.”
However that is technically not true. Here is what Kean said: “"While we don't know about weapons collaboration, particularly chemical collaboration, there was a suspicion in the Clinton administration that when they fired that bomb at that factory, that if, in fact, there were chemicals there, they may have come from Iraq. So there was a relationship. Having said that, we have found no relationship whatever between Iraq and the attack on 9/11."

Now correct me if I’m wrong, he said no relationship between Iraq and the attack on 9/11. I do not see where he says no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Kean again interview with PBS:

“But the staff in their investigation has found that, yes, there were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there. But as far as any evidence that Saddam Hussein was in any way involved in the attack on 9/11, it just isn't there.”

MARGARET WARNER: And Mr. Hamilton, you agree with that, do you?
LEE HAMILTON: Yes, I do.
Mr. Hamilton then says: I don't think there's any doubt but that there were some contacts between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden's people. But our finding relates to a collaborative effort, the lack of evidence for a collaborative effort to attack the United States. We're not saying that there were no contacts of any kind or description. We're quite sure on the basis of the evidence we have that there was not an operational tie between Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government on the one hand and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida on the other with regard to attacks on the United States."

Now again correct me if I am wrong but did he say “effort to attack the United States” or did he say there was no connection?

Here is another interview given:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: This is a development a lot of people will find clarifying is that there was no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
THOMAS KEAN, 9/11 COMMISSION CHAIRMAN: Well, that's what our staff has found. Now, it doesn't mean there weren't al Qaeda connections with Iraq over the years. They're somewhat shadowy, but I think they were there. But with 9/11, no, our staff has found no evidence of that.
LEE HAMILTON, 9/11 COMMISSION VICE CHAIRMAN: All we can do is state as clearly as we can what the evidence is that we have found. We have found no operational collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden with regard to attacks on the United States. That conclusion is a very firm one that we have reached.
What the governor referred to is also true. There are all kinds of ties. There are all kinds of connections. And it may very well have been that Osama bin Laden or some of his lieutenants met at some time with Saddam Hussein lieutenants. They had contacts, but what we did not find was any operational tie with respect to attacks on the United States."

Once again both state that found ties, but not operational ties with attacks to 9/11.

Also, let me ask you if there were no ties between Saddam and Al Quedia how do you explain these:

1) Clinton's Justice Department prepared an indictment of al-Qaida's leader, Osama bin Laden, in which a prominent passage located in the fourth paragraph reads:
"Al-Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al-Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
2) memos found by a report for the Toronto Star: "The purpose of the trip was "to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden," according to the final page of the Iraqi document, a handwritten letter dated Feb. 19, 1998."

These are from the 9/11 commission staff report:
3) "The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin to cease [support for anti-Saddam Islamists in Northern Iraq] and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda.
"A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded." [Staff Statement No. 15, Page 5]
(of course we don’t know for sure just apparently)

4) "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."
Now once again how do they know that? Well this time they answer with this:
"Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq,"
So now we are going to take the word of a terrorist.

5) "With al Qaeda at its foundation, Bin Ladin sought to build a broader Islamic Army that included terrorist groups from Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Oman, Tunisia, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Somalia, and Eritrea. Not all [terrorist] groups from these states agreed to join, but at least one from each did." [Staff Statement No. 15, Page 3]

so in other words, at least one terror group from Iraq did form an alliance with bin Laden. Did I read that right?

So Ron do you still stand behind your statement that "9/11 Commission failed to find a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda"?

Roch:

1) Do you have a link to the the source of the material you cite?

All of the resoultions( except 1441) I quoted came from the UN website: http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm

Resolution 1441 from the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2412837.stm

2) Which of the UN resolutions do you content Iraq was in violation of?
Well according to the UN: Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001)

However for me it would be just "By its resolution 687 of 3 April 1991, the United Nations Security Council established the terms and conditions for the formal cease-fire between Iraq and the coalition of Member States co-operating with Kuwait"

He failed to meet those terms he agreed to. Which in effect null and voids the cease-fire agreement.

hey stephen

the link you set you set to michel malkins site was not her web page. Has the liberal wing of the Democratic party lost any message that it hast to link bogus web sites to makes its points.

d

Brian stated: "It's funny how the repugnicans cite all these UN resolutions, yet say we should exit the UN and kick them out of America."

You are right Brian there Brian. If nothing else look at how many warnings Saddam got. The UN is worthless because it can't even enforce it's own Resoultions. So what good is it?

But it's you leftist who keep harping on WMD's when in reality we went to war because Saddam was not compling with the UN Resoultions which in effect null and voids the cease-fire agreement.

Marshall ask: "What is a conservative anyway?"

Off the top of my head:

My simple definition: Conservatives believe that people are intelligent enough to take care of themselves, opposite of liberal: people are too stupid to take care of themsevles and they need us (as in liberals/government) to do it for them.

Long version: Conservatives believe in States rights, less government, strong defense and military.

Trish, thank you -- a prompt and direct response to a legitmate question. Your answers allow one to contemplate your point of view without being pulled off track by extraneous arguments. Well done.

Roch,

Thank you for that. I should have posted the links to begin with and thought about doing so. But I have been called to the carpet for my long post which turn into novels so I was trying to get it down a couple of lines! LOL

Trish
What I find missing in your definition of a republican is Jesus and christianity. Since Bush and every other republican sells this party as the party of God,my words here, and the dems as satan worshippers, I find the omission interesting.

And since Jesus is about caring, helping the poor and those who cant help themselves and not blaming those for their troubles how do you, and even other repubs balance this little contradiction with the logic "people are intelligent eough to take care of themselves". Also Trish I know some very hard working and intelligent people who were dealt some very bad hands and went through some trying times and needed to some government assistance and would take a great offense in your suggestion they are stupid or not intelligent enough.

And why is being COMPASSIONATE about the concerns and needs of people in bad times such an EVIL thing in this current CONSERVATIVE atmosphere. I have never understood that about some conservatives. They walk around with the bible and speak his name every five words but I know some athiest who do better job of practising what he preaches. Yes there are people who abuse the system and there are lazy people but there are many with legitimate problems who need help.

And your reference to liberal government programs,"they dont need us,liberal/government...". This would actually mean something but with one glaring contraction. There are to many governmental programs out there signed on by republicans; you could probably find some co-written and even written by republicans and I am sure without looking there are many republicans who use and abuse these programs as any liberal does.

So please in your condemnation of liberals and government programs lets not ignore your own republicans are just as dirty.

You will notice that even though I consider myself as a moderate republican I speak here as the republicans in a "they" reference. I do this because you feel moderates,from another blog, are traitors so that means I am a traitor and now I am one of THEM

Dont get me wrong I dont take it personal;actually I will wear the "triator" label with honor and enjoyment.

BWAHAHAHA! AP is reporting that Rove told the grand jury he was informed that Plame was a CIA agent from a journalist. Rove then shared that information with other media. BWAHAHAHA!

Yep, good call, hugh. Rove was not the leak, he didn't commit any crime, and he's not guilty of anything. So why are the Dems demanding his resignation? Because they lost power and they'll do anything to destroy the Republican administration even if they have to destroy the country in the process.
Rove also gave both Miller and Cooper permission to cite his conversations with them ONE YEAR before they both refused to testify in order to "protect" Rove. Neither had to do that, Rove had waived protection. It was a liberal media ploy to ratchet up the interest in this bogus story.

This thread is way too partisan for me .. but I'll add this:

Karl Rove and Tom "The Hammer" Delay may or may not be guilty of crimes - but they are both still bullying slime balls. I certainly would not use either as an example of the kind of person best representing the America I love.

P.S.: The fact that Delay is in a position to and therefore wrote a law to allow him to set up a non-profit "Childrens" fund - which can keep hidden all the money laundering - and enabled him to contribute to the campaigns of all but two senators - may be a reason it has quieted down. All the congress has been touched by slime.

What troubles me about this thread is the effort spent arguing old points while terrorism and political corruption continues to grow and the middle class is gutted. I do not understand how we can worship the folks doing this to us.

Hayes:

"What I find missing in your definition of a republican is Jesus and Christianity":

Don't know why, I said my definition, which means as it pertains to me. I am not a very religious person. Not to mention my definition was of a conservative, not a Republican, which is what Marshall asked.

"helping the poor and those who cant help themselves and not blaming those for their troubles":

Again, I said it was my definition. I am a Republican and a Conservative but I do not preach about God or Jesus, does this means Hayes that I cannot of my own free will be a Republican or conservative because of it? Oh and as to your friends it is not my suggestion they are stupid that would be the Democrat party. Not only am I talking about government programs I am talking about taxes, (they know how to spend their money better then you), the lottery in NC (you know we have to look out for those stupid poor people who are too dumb to realize they will never win), smokers, SUV drivers, social security (no you can't invest that money we need to have control of it) etc. etc.

But more on the point of blaming them. I do not blame them. I feel that private organizations do a better job of helping those in need way better then the government.

COMPASSIONATE: Once again Hayes my definition as it pertains to me. You see, you and everyone else see Conservatives as religious nuts, however I am not one nor have I ever been one. So I guess that means you are stereotyping a group of people right? But then how do you explain that the Democrat party has a wing of the religious themselves (Catholics and Jews) yet they are never called "the religious-left"?
Oh and Hayes on the COMPASSIONATE note, is it not compassionate to think that people can provide the necessary help in the form of private non-government programs. Tell me Hayes is it COMPASSIONATE to have generation after generation after generation raised on nothing but government welfare?

liberal government programs:, Again where did I say programs? My definition came from my history and political science professors (although they didn't use the term stupid, they went with the more pc term of "the people need to be taken care of because they are unable to do it themselves". And so we can be clear here, this was referenced to talks of socialism, not people who are down on their luck, this is in general and pertains to all the people. My political professor also said that where you fall on the line all goes back to Plato and Socertess. Although I will have to look back at my notes on these from what I remember one thought that man was capable of talking care of themsevles and the other thought man was unable.

Hayes please when you read something I've said, don't put your own spin on it. You see the question asked and answered was about conservative not Republican.

moderate republican: Actually Hayes what I said is that the Republican party does have RINOs (and I referenced McCain, Graham etc.) and then I went on to say that they betray the people who voted for them and that makes them traitors. However as far as I know you are not a politician so how can you betray people who haven't even voted for you?

HA! Grand Jury leak reveals Novak as a source who told Rove "Plame works for the CIA", after Rove had heard it from two other journalists.

This thread is going to run longer than this latest DNC hatchet job. Spin control till Monday, then it's onto the next bogus, outrageous, dishonest, disingenuous, deceitful and pathetic attack on the Adminstration.

And some on this board, CK, have blinders on to target Rove as a character assassin and accept the DNC attack as having more charcter than Rove. HA!

U.S. Senator Richard Burr
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-0001
---
U.S. Senator Elizabeth Dole
555 Dirksen Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
---
U.S. Representative Virginia Foxx
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-0001

Re: Rove, Plame, and Morality in Government

Dear Members of Congress:

I am very upset about the Karl Rove / Valerie Plame matter.

Regardless of whether Mr. Rove: intentionally / unintentionally / knowingly / unknowingly / was / was not involved in any criminal wrongdoing - with all the colors legal distinctions which slippery lawyers can devise (which sounds too much like "It depends on what the definition of is, is", btw) -- the bottom line is a woman is in jail and America is less confident of its leadership because Karl Rove does not have the decency to come clean and neither our President nor my senators or representative are requiring him to do so.

Of course this woman, Judith Miller, is infamous for bolstering of the administration's case for the Iraq war, using "intelligence" help from Ahmad Chalabi, and we all know how that turned out. Perhaps she WANTS this jail time as penance for zeal. I doubt that, but there must be some circle-of-strife connection.

Karl Rove is intelligent, reportedly gracious and humble, and yet also a master in the junkyard dog style of character assassination. He might be your friend, Senator Dole, and he certainly gets his sponsor elected, but his "insidious whisper campaigns" are at best slimy and at worst a danger to Americans and American politics.

As an average Joe, I certainly don't know the whole story here - and certainly you don't either - but this administration is in a noticeably very-nervous mode over this issue. The fact that they are anxious about this, rather than many other unapologetic blunders (I can list a dozen off the top of my head - so can you), must mean it smells really bad, and the administration fears serious political fall out.

At best this situation slides this administration further down the slippery slope of lost integrity. This "leadership" has featured eternal rhetorical claiming the moral high ground, yet they clearly lack openness, and deal heavy-handed nastiness to those that dare to question their absolute authority.

You can be sure there will be a stall tactic on this - as with Tom Delay - waiting for the American people turn to the other diversions so this can fade in the dust. You can join the partisan queue in Rove's defense but I ask you to look in the mirror: Does personal strength come from blind support for this (or any) administration, or from a higher standard. Let me suggest: Do the right thing for your country.

P.S.: The last time I wrote to you three (Re: Real Solutions for Social Security and National Security), Senator Dole sent back a form letter that was at least on topic. Senator Burr sent me two form letters, neither on topic, so clearly neither he nor his staff read my concerns (you're 0-for-1, Richard), and Congresswoman Fox returned a letter that was not only on topic, but clearly not a form letter. Ms. Fox gets kudos for at least listening to her constituency.

PPS: Isn't the RNC's insistence on compiling partisan talking points (a Classic Rove Strategy, by the way) a lot like the Pot calling the Kettle black: http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=50217

Trish,

I'm responding to your email with one comment.

And since I am responding to you with one comment does that mean there is a connection or a relationship between me and you?

I mistakenly wrote email.

Andy,

"the link you set you set to michel malkins site was not her web page. Has the liberal wing of the Democratic party lost any message that it hast to link bogus web sites to makes its points."

That was me who linked to Malkin's webpage, to debunk your claim about Kerry outing an agent. And I'm not sure what you're talking about... how do you figure that that isn't her webpage? What basis do you have for saying that? It's the first result if you search Google for her name, and is listed as "The official web site and commentary archives of syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin".

Trish
I stand corrected about the traitor thing; I had forgotten how you had put that into context.

I also stand corrected on the use Republican instead of conservative but with a BUT here.

I think it is assume in todays red/blue mentality conservative translates into republican as liberal does into democrat. So my jump in words was maybe wrong but there was least a logic to it.

And no Trish I wasnt stereotyping about conservatives all being religious nuts I know most are not but to many here blogging as well on other blogs seem to feel liberals are godless soles out to take away religion from our society.

But I will say my biggest apology to you is this. My post was in reality a reaction to many other past post and statements. I hear and see to many contradictions from so many who profess god as their guide but seem to lack compassion and yet feel in the position to judge others.

Deep down I felt you were writing from your own opinion so how I wrote should have been written in a way reflecting this. But you are one of the few who would answer back to my questions. Next time I will direct them at someone more deserving.

But quickly to some points;
1There are dems who are baptist,methodist and j as well repubs who are catholics and jewish.

2.liberal government does quickly translate into programs when you listen to republicans speak

3Compassionate: No it is not wrong but I feel it is also not wrong for the government to help as well and I agree there are people who abuse the system

4Stereotyping:Just a question here since you dont like stereotyping. Why is it anyone who condemns Bush you almost instantly label liberal? Maybe not always but often. Others do it here worse than you without question and I know many republicans/conservatives who condemn Bush.

5. Last about your professor: I dont him or her and he/she can be a genius for all I know but you referred to him/her often; Could he/she be wrong?
Again I was wrong to direct my questions at you; I stand by my question and comments BUT they should have been directed elsewhere.

Yo! JDR, How do you feel about today's news that Rove got his super top secret information from a news paper columnist?

You reckon Rove twisted Bob Novak's arm to make him talk? Use some of those terrible Gitmo tactics to get him to spill the beans? Surely there is something here you guys can pin the tail with!

Mac
First just for the record I did write that this should play out before making judgement.

And Rove saying he got this from Novak at the moment at least clears his name. But even if he is cleared NOvak has said this name came from two high up officials which means someone in the Bush administration did break the law so this is far from over.
And if not Rove then maybe Novak or people around Bush need to give up that name.

NOvak has said this name came from two high up officials which means someone in the Bush administration did break the law so this is far from over.

Hayes,
As I posted earlier, have you ever thought that the person who leaked the info to Novak may have been CIA? It does happen! Just think about it before going off and making charges that we really don't know are true or not.

Mac:

Frankly, I don't care whether or not' Rove got his information Novak. I won't even mention that Rove was fired by GWB for leaking to Novak.

IMHO - and if you read my letter (mailed today to my congress-people) it doesn't matter what the meaning of is, is. Rove is a dangerous bully, and not the American I would present as a standard for the world.

I REALLY don't understand why a small handfull of "men" have such a fervent following - clearly a cult.

My God - the world as we know it is changing so rapidly and this "cult" that treats these things like a sporting event - "My politicians can kick the crap out of yours".

I agree the Dem's are useless, but cults are downright dangerous.

.... oops, I meant GWB's daddy fired the leaky Karl.

Good point, Mr. Rockefeller...
"Karl Rove needs to be fired because...well...we don't like him!"

Ron asked: "is a connection or a relationship between me and you?"

What does that have to do with you stating:
"Since there is no "fact-based conclusion" there is no reason for the media, liberal or otherwise, to apologize for asserting that the 9/11 Commission failed to find a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda."

When in fact the 9/11 Commission said they didn't find any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda with regards to attacks on the US. And more to the point I thought the commissions job was "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks" So where was it the commissions job to look into intelligence in regards to Iraq other then the 9/11 attacks? Why would they look to see if Iraq and Al Qaeda were working together on other projects? Also if the report was conclusive when it comes to connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda why would the chairman say this:

"John Lehman, a 9/11 commissioner, spoke to The Weekly Standard at the time the report was released. "There may well be--and probably will be--additional intelligence coming in from interrogations and from analysis of captured records and so forth which will fill out the intelligence picture. This is not phrased as--nor meant to be--the definitive word on Iraqi Intelligence activities."

Once again are you going to correct your article because in fact the commission did not say what you stated, whether you agree with it or not the fact remains you left off the important part of "in regards to attacks on the United States".

Hayes:

translates into republican: Hmm that could be true but for me conservative is an ideology whereas Republican has more to do with policy.

contradictions: I know and that is why when I responded I said my definition, anyone else could have stated what they see as conservative.

1 True so tell me why then religious conservatives called "radical rightwing religious" but the left is never called "radical leftwing religious"?
2.Yes liberal government does quickly translate into programs but I like to simplify (even though I write novels) what is the point of government programs? To take care of the people and why do they feel they need to take care of people? Well because they feel people are not capable of doing it themselves. They do not have faith in mankind.
3Compassionate: I respect your opinion even if I disagree.
4Stereotyping: I can't answer for somebody else, but I do feel that for a lot it has to do with all the shrill hatred at is spewed from the far-left (which has taken over) the Democrat party.I don't think that everyone who disagrees is a liberal. Heck I don't agree with Bush all the time and I am nowhere near being a liberal. However there is a big difference in disagreeing and out right hatred.
5. I suppose they could be wrong, although both had doctoral degrees in their field. My political science professor (who by the way described herself as a picko-leftist-commie, her words not mine) has been in this field for more then 30 years. I asked a quesiton her answer was that policy is different from ideology and where someone falls on the political ideology line goes back to the teachings of Plato and Socrates. I haven't studied in depth Plato/Socrates but I know their basic teachings and it seems to follow pretty well with each sides ideology.

MrP
I agree wholeheartedly about waiting. I have my opinion about Rove some bad and some with respect but I have learn to wait in the issues to let the BS from both sides clear to allow some relevance of truth emerge.
I would find a little odd if it came from the CIA given the combative nature of the relationship between them and Bush and I dont see them outing one of their own. But if they did then they have committed the crime.

Whoever did it should be punished.

Trish
Due to having to work on this beautiful saturday morning here I will reply only to some of the less important points now.

Idealogy vs policy: I would agree with the professor about the difference but lets not forget it is your idealogy that drives your policies.So the two are strongly connected.

Hate:Yes it is true for some dems I admit that but will you admit it is just as bad from teh right as well?

That's not what I said, Paulie, keep your spins in your own writings, please. I said Rove was a "danger to Americans and American politics."

Have you seen "Million Dollar Baby"? A subtlety is that the Swank charactor lost her final match. The opponent cheated once, was called for it, then cheated again, this time taking out the Swank charactor - and was not called for it, in fact winning the match with this "low blow".

They say in Kentucky horse racing there are cheaters and there are losers.

I was raised to play a clean game, may the best person win, etc. Watching the zeal that parents throw into their kid's sporting events - cursing the umpire, etc., (what an example they set!), I'm obviously not in the majority , but it does trouble me that this same group of people hangs a Christian banner, and lots of Christians never see past the cloth, in fact as noted above - politics has become a sporting event - umpire cursing and winner take all (and they are TAKING).

The first posts " ... you and Ted Kennedy may have to update your playbook." makes this point nicely.

Its only politics, I guess ... but it's much more, which is why, imho, so many American are upset.

Trish
The reason for the question about your professor is this. First BY NO MEANS am I making a comparison here.

On Oprah years ago there was a black professor at Columbia(I think) and her proof as to why whites wanted to be black were 1.we are always trying to get tanned but the best was 2. We drink chocalate milk,ie the cocoa beans

Then a girl in the audience yelled "d##n right".

Yeah, Mr. Rockefeller, you Dems really impress me with your "clean game"...like bribing winos with cartons of cigarettes and taking them to the polls to try and corrupt an election.
You guys hate Rove because he's good at what he does, and he's helping run an administration in which your ilk have no power. You're not about fairness or anything else but getting power back in the hands of the Dems, even if you have to destroy this country to get it.
You deserve nothing.

Paulie
Either you really believe the republicans do no wrong or you choose to close your eyes to how dirty they play.
In todays win at all cost power politics both sides have stoop to unbelievably pathetic levels to win including your sqeaky clean republicans.

I will admit I dont like Rove for many reasons and just to save you the liberal attack I am not, but I also know that for all those who attack him that if giving a chance they would want him on their team and for that I respect what he can do.

But please it is getting extremely tiring of one side tearing down the other side as if their side is above it all: they simply are not.

I would really love for any side to provide one thing their side has not done but the other has.

Idealogy vs policy: True for the most point, however there are policies that do not follow ideology. My biggest example is why Jews (not all but the majority) vote democrat when democrats are less likely to support Israel. From what I was told it is because ideology trumps policy.

Hate: To a point Hayes and here is the difference: Yes there was hate during the Clinton years but it is nowhere near the level that is directed at Bush. I don't remember the RNC chairman stating that only the lazy down and out vote democrat because of welfare or that the left is nothing but a bunch of mixed raced atheist. This is the leader of the party Howard Dean spewing this stuff and his party embraces it. As for everyday people, I never once saw a bumper sticker that said "Anybody but Clinton". I never saw comparison of Clinton to Stalin. I do not remember the republican party going to states and suing to get Perot off the ballot. I never once heard someone on the right say that our soldiers in Mogadishu deserved what they got, but I did read where the blogger of KOS said those contractors who were strung up deserved it. I have said before that the GOP as a whole during the Clinton years was going through what the DNC is now (although not at the same level) the difference is when Clinton was reelected the GOP for the most part, moved on got over it but the DNC is still wallowing in it. Even more to the point I remember the Republicans attacking the politicians (Clinton and gain)but not the everyday people of the deomocrat party.

Hayes:

about your professor: Oh I agree. I will say this in having seen what my daughters are being taught, hearing about all the left-wing colleges, I was surprised for the most part in my professors and how there was no slant. Although other students talked about it wasn't so for some of the ones they got. I guess for me is I am not one to sit by and not question. My political science teacher and I had some very good discussions. Another thing that really surprised me was how many conservative students there were. Seeing the whole MTV and Hollywood promoting the democrats it surprised me that so many young people identified themselves as conservatives and Bush supporters. Another fun experiment was driving around the parking lot and seeing a lot of Bush stickers and then going into the faulty parking lot and seeing not one Bush sticker but tons of Kerry stickers.

Hayes

"one side tearing down the other side as if their side is above it all: they simply are not."

I agree Hayes, all politicians are liars, that is a given. But I think the point you are missing is the Democrats side gets all the airtime. The only time the Republicans get any notice is when they do something wrong, however let the Democrats do something wrong and well you barely hear about it. As an example the whole Clinton sex scandal, Isoff had that story for a year but never reported it (until Drudge got wind of it and spilled the beans then he released his story) however before all the facts are in about Rove, well the Democrats call a press conference and say he needs to be fired (not just once but twice I might add).

Another more important example Clinton admits on tape and camera that he decided not to take Bin Laden. How many people know this? Hardly any because it didn't make the NY Times, the News and Record, CBS etc headlines. But reverse that can you imagine if Bush had admitted that, heck we would be having impeach hearings right now.

The point being is the Republicans are drug through the mud by the MSM but the democrats get a pass.

More to the point does the public in general care about Rove or what is going on at Gitmo? I know I don't. I'm more worried about terrorist trying to kill us, illegal immigrants swarming over the border and that I might be working till I'm 90 and never see a penny of my money going into social security. Yet according to the democrats and the press I should be more worried about who leaked some woman's name who might or might not have been an agent, who the majority of people already knew was, who by the way decided to play politics thus forfeiting any claim from political retaliation. Once she decided to play political games from her job, she ran the risk of people taking similar measures to fight back. It's the nature of politics.

Trish
Must make this quick going to a grill
Jewish Vote:where do you get that from. Republicans are pro-Israel without questioning and to my knowledge they are heavily supported by the jewish votes for it.

Clinton: I did see bumper stickers comparing him to the devil. The republicans were just as hard on clinton as the dems are today.

As far as the blog about the men got what they deserve. I can only say I condemn in the strongest way any comments like that. You know i disagree with the war but none of our people have ever deserve that

Paulie: you have no idea if I am a democrat, a republican, a Libertarian, an Independent, or a ???. Please - second time I've asked - stick to what you know.

Trish: You are very bright and write well, but I have no clue why you make some statements:

"My biggest example is why Jews (not all but the majority) vote democrat when democrats are less likely to support Israel." This is true - but it's interesting to not it flipped dramatically after Harding was elected. Maybe it was something he did - I've heard he was "the worst president" but really do not know anything about Harding.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html

"... there was hate during the Clinton years but it is nowhere near the level that is directed at Bush" Also true - my guess only is that Clinton really did nothing for 8 years. Bush has done a fair amount - but (start your screaming at me) - I can 't think of much he's done that I agree with, meaning "Good for the America I Love". I have my ear plugs in.

"I don't remember the RNC chairman stating ... "

... yea, but Mad Dog Miller sure got some rag time.

"I never once saw a bumper sticker that said "Anybody but Clinton"." Well I've sure seen some nasty one's - perhaps we drive dirrerent roads.

"I never saw comparison of Clinton to Stalin." You might want to look closly at some of the crap Rove has put out over the past 20 years ..

"I do not remember the republican party going to states and suing to get Perot off the ballot." You might want to look closly at some of the crap Rove has put out over the past 20 years ..

"I never once heard someone on the right say " ... bloggers are bloggers - there is blood and dishonor on both sides.

"I was surprised for the most part in my professors and how there was no slant." Jeeze - maybe the Leftist College Crap is not true!

"... I think the point you are missing is the Democrats side gets all the airtime." Well that is certainly not my experience. The right has 100% of AM radio (certainly in this area anyway), and whil FOX is 100% R, CNN is only 80% D, and NPR is probable only 60% D. Those are my numbers - go ahead and critique.

"As an example the whole Clinton sex scandal .." I've commented on this before - so Clinton is a liar - how many terrorist in Leeds did that inspire? I'm not saying it's a direct connection, but sorry, my friend, I don't thi this is a good example of the relative media coverage vs. the importance of the crime.

"Clinton admits on tape and camera that he decided not to take Bin Laden. How many people know this?" Most in this blog, I'm sure.

"The point being is the Republicans are drug through the mud by the MSM but the democrats get a pass." See above.

"More to the point does the public in general care about Rove or what is going on at Gitmo?" Not enough, clearly.

"Illegal immigrants swarming over the border ... " tell that to Mr. Bush - I think he is about at left as possible on this one, and is doing it as art of an enrich the rich scheme. (Just my opinion.)

"I might be working till I'm 90 and never see a penny of my money going into social security." A long time problem - and the Pres' proposal does Nothing to stop that - it does no address the reall issue - Below I'll post my earlier letter to congress (but it will be nothing you havn't heard from me - but at least I did write a real letter.

U.S. Senator Richard Burr
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-0001
---
U.S. Senator Elizabeth Dole
555 Dirksen Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
---
U.S. Representative Virginia Foxx
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-0001

Re: Real Solutions for Social Security and National Security

Dear Members of Congress:

I totally agree with the President: we face a Social Security crisis. Unfortunately, the President's spendthrift plan ignores interrelated and very real issues: the crushing national debt and too few decent American jobs with the interconnected foreign trade deficit.

Led by clever marketers, Americans now define themselves as consumers. This was OK when American wages supported social security and other national programs, but overseas jobs contribute nothing to America.

Near-sighted Corporations receive US Government incentives to eliminate the American factory, outsourcing to assure high executive pay with an unspoken bonus: lordly dismissal of the annoying American worker. The result is a Wal-Mart economy and America's indisputable decline into a third-world status: raw materials out, and value-added products back. Americans have literally lost the shirts off their back.

Social Security is currently a regressive plan, meaning the well to do are exempt from full contribution (but are entitled to fully collect). Examples include Cheney, who earned $1.3 million last year and was "done" contributing to social security by February, and Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern who were both "done" Jan 9th. With leaders like this, no wonder we have a crisis.

Part of the solution would include living wage jobs for hard working Americans, with real manufacturing making items critical nation security along with other wigets. America has won every war it tried to because we [used to be able to] out-make the world, but America can no longer make that claim.

Another part of the solution is to treat greed as the sin it is and tax accordingly, as it was done at the beginning of the IRS. Require a fair progressive system. Answer these questions: How much is too much? How much is not enough?

Thank you and God Bless America.

Hayes asked: "Jewish Vote:where do you get that from."

Other then it is just common knowledge:

Exit Poll Results from the 2004 election according to the textbook "American Government Continuity and Change Alternate 2004 edition"

Jewish who voted for Kerry: 74%
Jewish who voted for Bush: 25%

According to the same textbook: "Catholics and even more so, Jews are predominantly Democratic in affiliation. Republicans can now sometimes claim up to 25 percent of the Jewish population and nearly 40 percent of the Catholics."

No Republicans are not heavily supported. Also I am somewhat surprised that this surprises you. Most people, even Jews themselves know where their political ties are and it is not with the Republicans for the majority. See this is where the whole "ideology" comes in. Like I said it confused me because you would think with the strong support that Republicans give to Israel that there would be a bigger showing in the party, but it is simply not true. However the Democrats had a big part of the Catholic vote, but that has been shifting more to the right with Bush getting 52% of the Catholic vote as opposed to Kerry's 47.

Hayes:

Clinton: Yeah but were the Republican leaders also attacking your everyday average democrat. (Aww remember John Edwards great words: "I'd say if you live in the United States of America and you vote for George Bush, you've lost your mind.") I do not know what stragtey he was using but I'm sure it won a lot of people over to his side huh? Insult them and they will flock to my party.

Say what you will, I admit the GOP when through a period of hate for Clinton but no matter how you look at it, it is nothing compared to what is coming out of the leadership of the DNC. And more to the point the GOP moved on, do you see the DNC moving on?

the blog: the most amazing thing about the blog Daily Kos and him saying that is that the leadership of the Democrat party actually post there: "And yet mainstream Democratic politicians are desperately trying to ingratiate themselves with Kos and his audience. A Who's Who of top tier Democrats have written "diaries" for the site, including Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and Ted Kennedy." Now are you kind of getting a picture at what I am talking about? When you have Paul Begala stating that Republicans:"They want to kill me and my children if they can. But if they just kill me and not my children, they want my children to be comforted -- that while they didn't protect me because they cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money they inherit," Begala said. "That is bulls*** national defense, and we should say that."
And when even MoveOn.org activist's finally figured out that advertising your hate (as in leave their "Bush is a liar" shirts at home) isn't the way to go about it, you know there is a problem.

James: I have no clue why you make some statements: Maybe you would understand why I made some comments if you actually read them all. Hayes and I were discussing ideology vs policy. The Jewish vote was an example.

I have my ear plugs in: You know James you are entitled to your opinion. However it seems to me that the more hate that spews forth from the DNC, the more seats it seems the Democrats lose.

Mad Dog Miller: I have no idea who Mad Dog Miller is, so you will have to provide me with quotes that are on the same playing field as Dean.

bumper stickers: Really? And what did these nasty ones say?

Rove: what has Rove got to do with this? Do you have quotes from Rove comparing Clinton to Stalin?

Rove: Again what does Rove have to do with this, unless of course you have some links to where Rove sued to get Perot off the ballot.

blogs:True but can you show me where the Republican leadership post at these blogs?

Leftist College: yeah especially since Charlie Rangel but a bill in to bring back the draft, and of course that was laid at Bush's feet. Not to mention the indoctoration our kids get today in the public school system. Oh and when you have professors who say: "the 9/11 victims are "little Eichmanns" or that soldiers should shoot their officers or when a Principal of a local school refuses to allow a Marine to come talk to the kids who wrote to him while he was in Iraq, oh and let us not forget the whole "Vote or Die" from MTV and all those wonderful leftist elitist Hollywood stars who are so knowledgeable in politics. Is it any wonder why someone would think the majority of kids would have a slant to the left?

media: The right has 100% of AM radio, you don't know how to stream radio on the computer? Also who listens to talk radio? Do many liberals especially since it is 100% conservative. What about Air America, is it the right's fault that liberal talk radio goes nowhere because oops they here everything already in the MSM? FOX is 100% R? Really? So out of the 3 primetime line-ups we have O'Reilly who is an independent who horror of horrors disagrees with Bush, we have Hannity and Combs and Greta who came from CNN.So out of the three primetime shows 1 guy is a Republican, wow that is 100% whatever. Also there was a study done that showed the Democrats who come on Fox get more airtime then the Republicans, but yeah Fox is right wing. CNN don't watch it, NPR never listened. But let's see you left out all of the big newspapers and even the News and Record, why? And you also left out the MSM of ABC, NBC and CBS. Again why? Because could it be that the MSM where most people use to get their news is horror of horrors biased. Not to mention that a poll done of journalist found that something like 90% identified themselves as liberal.

relative media coverage: I was stating an example of how the media covered up for one President, but oh when the same journalist has some "goodies" on Koran flushing he rushes right to press before having all the facts. Oh and James, that is just your opinion on what you find important, shouldn't the public at least be given the chance to decide for themselves? Oh and said journalist sure did find it important to release his info after drudge went public.

The tape: oh they know it but don't believe it because they didn't hear it come out of Dan Rathers mouth. So try to minimize this all you want the fact remains that if Bush had said that you better believe the impeachment would have been in full swing.

See above: yes why don't we see above and let's use your logic tell me how many people died because Rove supposedly linked a name of a desk clerk at the CIA? Real important news there, that sure is keeping me safe.

tell that to Mr. Bush: I already have thank you very much.

social security: yeah the real issue is it is another failed government program and the thing needs to be scrapped and let the people have their money to invest it. Oh and his answer to the problem may not help it, but at least I have the opportunity to have a little say in where my money is going unlike the current program.

Trish
The Catholic voting is not new to me but I still say the jewish voting does. I am not questioning your numbers or point but for personal reasons would like to look at some stats on that.

My impression is the jewish vote has been greatly influenced by the candidates position on Israel, though not only, and though pretty much all presidents of the last 30 years have been pro-israel republicans are seen as more so,Reagan and current Bush especially, with the exception of Bush sr.

Bumper stickers:Could it be you read the same stickers but since you agreed with them you fail to see same crap as the stickers today against Bush. I also remember some harsh stickers against Clinton;cant give you them now to long ago

Moving on:Yes the republicans moved on; they won the White House; but they didnt move on during the eight years clinton was in office and again I see NO differences between what the repubs did under Clinton as what the dems now do to BUsh.
Maybe different words and topics but the basic style of attack the same.

And admittedly the dems wont move on until they are in the WH but you can bet your sweet bottom dollar the repubs will turn into the monsters the dems are today.

And Trish you keep down playing what the repubs have done while demonizing the dems even though I see almost no difference it what the two did,have done,do and will do. Could it be you downplay it because they are your party and you give them some forgiveness or understanding you are not giving the dems? Also can you name one act the dems have done that the repubs have not thus putting them on some highter pedestal of honor?

Trish: You're correct, I had not fully read your ideology vs policy discussion.

I'm not sure "hate" from the DNC has much to do with the seats the D's lose. The D's are clearly not organized, but I'm not sure the "R" organization has always been positive for America.

Mad Dog Miller is Senator ZELL Miller. I'm not sure where Dean's coming from - he's not MY guy.

re: ... comparing Clinton to Stalin ....

"The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the whisper campaign against Ann Richards that questioned her sexuality, the attacks on John McCain's mental health in South Carolina, and the questioning of his environmental record in the New York primary were all products of the fastidious work of Karl Rove." Let's not forget Sen. Max Cleland.

"Cleland, who left two legs and an arm in Vietnam, discovered that he was being called unpatriotic by his Rove-advised opponent, Saxby Chambliss, who never served in the military. A TV advertisement morphed Cleland's face with those of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein." Close enough.

"Look, I don't attack people on their weaknesses," Rove once told reporters in Texas during a campaign. "That usually doesn't get the job done. Voters already perceive weaknesses. You've got to go after the other guy's strengths. That's how you win."

That's the point - it's about winning for your candidate (winning the power, then enriching those that financed the campaign that put you in power). It should be about Winning for Americans.

blogs: ".... show me where the Republican leadership post at these blogs" I get e-mails from Ken Mehlman - close enough!

Who listens to talk radio? Many folks. You already know my position on O'Reilly / Hannity and the like. "There was a study done that showed the Democrats who come on Fox get more airtime then the Republicans ..." could be if you're selectively counting minutes. " ...but yeah Fox is right wing." Trish, if you don't see this, you just lost a point with me.

"CNN don't watch it" .. that's fine, I don't much either.

"NPR never listened." You should, imho. These best radio out there, newswise anyway. Your milage may vary.

I don't do too much MSM .. Jim Lehrer News Hour is as close as I get - it's Tivo'd so I catch it when I can.

My unproven theory is "90% [of journalists] identified themselves as liberal" because they are more informed than the average Joe.

"Shouldn't the public at least be given the chance to decide for themselves?" Totally agree. Too bad MSM serves them so poorly.

" ... tell me how many people died because Rove supposedly linked a name of a desk clerk at the CIA?" Plame is a desk clerk? From what Idot-log did you get that sound bite?

" ... tell me how many people died ... " Ask me in 20 years. Iraq and America may ultimately be a whole lot better off, but there will be years of strive ahead. The terrorist's are taking GWB's advise, and "bringing it on". I'm lumping it all together, admittedly, but think Iraq was a terrible mistake; your milage may vary. Of course, now we need to finish it, but I'd sure what that means and I'd like a plan beyond "The hate us for our freedoms", which is such a crock of crap.

Social security is another failed government program - but everyone for the past 50 years is to blame, and Of course, Medicaid / Medicare are in a worst position ... but let's just ignore that. I had written Bush earlier and suggested he instead urge and reurge folks to use their 401k's to have say in there money. I don't have a solution other than that. I can tell you the rich are getting richer and the not-rich are loosing their rugs.

50 years ago, corporations paid 26% of the federal tax bill, now it's closer to 10%. 50 years ago, citizens paid about 7% of the federal tax bill, now it's closer to 31%.

In 1991, the top 1% (wealth) own 61% of the business assets in this country, the next 9% picked up 30%, leaving as crumbs for the rest of us only 9%.

Have a nice day. I'm headed to the ocean for a week with laughing kids, no computer or media, and a couple good books. I have packed "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History", and "Abe Lincoln - The Last Great Hope of Earth"

James:

ZELL Miller.: Miller happens to be a Democrat, so how does that prove that the head of the RNC attacks everyday democrats?

comparing Clinton to Stalin: Old play book game. I asked if you have any proof that Clinton was at any time referred to as Stalin. Also I would love to have "concrete proof" that Rove was behind the SBVT. Because remember just because we have conversations between Iraq and terrorist doesn't mean we have proof of collaboration.

blogs: So Ken Mehlman posted that four contractors that were burned, beaten and strung up on a bridge deserved it and again which Republican leadership posted to this?

News: First off radio, anybody is free to start a show, you have to have listeners to support said show. If the majority of people don't listen to left wing talk radio, then I suppose that means the majority of people who listen to radio are not liberal. So how do you place blame for radio being rightwing? Go out and get some leftwingers to listen and support it. But why should they, they have the NPR and they don't have to actually buy anything.

Fox: say what you want about Fox News, it is the highest rated cable news show. That says something. 1) either the majority of people in this country are conservative and all rightwingers or 2) The majority of people feel they get a better balance with Fox. Now call into question whatever you want, again the ratings show otherwise. People make up an audience and it seems to me the people are saying they prefer Fox to say oh CNN, MSNBC. What do you suppose that is?

NPR: I have no need for NPR, I listen to streaming radio on the computer, many local shows (not NC shows but LA, Phoenix, DC, Memphis and Jacksonville FL)

"My unproven theory is "90% [of journalists] identified themselves as liberal" because they are more informed than the average Joe." Oh so you are going with the John Edwards/liberals theory that conservatives are stupid? Ever heard the saying: "If you are young and conservative you have no heart but if you are old and liberal you have no brain"? The fact remains that as people age they learn more hence the reason more people become conservative as they get older, not the other way around.

Plame: From Wilson himself: "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity". From the Washington Post: "She is a case officer in the CIA's clandestine service and works as an analyst on weapons of mass destruction." From the LA times: "An internal CIA review concluded that her exposure caused minimal damage, mainly because she had been working at headquarters for years, former officials familiar with the review said." From a brief filed by lawyers representing 36 media firms: "Plame was not given 'deep cover' required of a covert agent...She worked at a desk job at CIA headquarters, where she could be seen traveling to and from, and active at, Langley. She had been residing in Washington not stationed abroad-- for a number of years. As discussed below, the CIA failed to take even its usual steps to prevent publication of her name." Do you need anymore, I can keep going if you like.

Rich getting richer: I have no jealously for rich people. The fact remains that anyone is free to work hard and become successful. Immigrants do it everyday. Anyone is free to "become rich". I feel that what is yours is yours, I have no right to request "wealth distributio" because I happen to have less. You want to be rich, then you go out invest your money start your company and make it profitable. It is not the government's job to provide you with a job that is your responsibility. I do know that when I pay close to $4000 dollars a year in taxes (all taxes combined I do not pay into federal because I"m "poor") takes away $4000 dollars that I could otherwise spend on my family.

Have fun and hope you have a safe trip.

Hayes:

Trish
Jewish vote: Like I said I am surprised you didn't know this. Try working the polls on election day in a heavily Jewish district, that was fun!

Bumper stickers: I don't think so like I said, I have never seen a sticker that said "Anyone but Clinton". I did however have a bumper sticker on my car that said "Honk if Clinton thinks you are rich" But see the difference I was attacking policy not Clinton.

Moving on: No the republicans moved on after Clinton won re-election. That doesn't mean they didn't stop attacking his policies but they stopped the personal attacks. Big difference from attacking policy vs attacking person. That is where the democrats are going wrong. Ha! They might turn into monsters but you can bet your sweet bottom the MSM will not report it. Oh they will report "what meanies those republicans are" vs "the democrats stated that Bush is a liar". See the difference, republicans are so mean but the democrats why they are just voicing their dissent.

I am not downing playing it Hayes. It is out there for anyone to see. When you have the leadership of the democrat party attacking the general population of the country because they happen to be republican and when you have high profile democrats stating that republicans want to kill him and his children, when you have a VP candidate calling the public stupid because who they vote for, basically you are going to turn off those people you are trying to get to vote for you.

"Also can you name one act the dems have done that the repubs have not thus putting them on some highter pedestal of honor?"

How's this Republicans have never attacked our military personnel:

Dubin: "If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control," he said, "you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings."

No RNC chairman has ever attacked your everyday democrats:

Dean: "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for."

"Republicans are a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party."

"The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people"

Republicans "have never made an honest living in their lives."

Can you find me any quotes where a leader of the RNC has made these kinds of attacks on democrats in general?

Or can you find me one Republican who ever stated that democrats wanted to kill us or our children:

Paul Begala speaking to college students about Republicans:
"They want to kill me and my children if they can. But if they just kill me and not my children, they want my children to be comforted -- that while they didn't protect me because they cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money they inherit," Begala said. "That is bulls*** national defense, and we should say that."

Or can you find me any quote where a republican VP or VP candidate has very said the following:

John Edwards: "I'd say if you live in the United States of America and you vote for George Bush, you've lost your mind.

So Hayes there are my examples. See if you kind find me like kind quotes from Republican leadership who have made any remarks about democrats (your everyday, public democrats).