How far will the repubs go...(nsr)

[natty dread]

to get dumbfuck Shrub elected?
Well apart from a recent ad campaign in swing states by the RNC stating that Kerry will" ban the bible," they'll go this far:

NYT:

An Un-American Way to Campaign

Published: September 25, 2004

President Bush and his surrogates are taking their re-election campaign into dangerous territory. Mr. Bush is running as the man best equipped to keep America safe from terrorists - that was to be expected. We did not, however, anticipate that those on the Bush team would dare to argue that a vote for John Kerry would be a vote for Al Qaeda. Yet that is the message they are delivering - with a repetition that makes it clear this is an organized effort to paint the Democratic candidate as a friend to terrorists.

When Vice President Dick Cheney declared that electing Mr. Kerry would create a danger "that we'll get hit again," his supporters attributed that appalling language to a rhetorical slip. But Mr. Cheney is still delivering that message. Meanwhile, as Dana Milbank detailed so chillingly in The Washington Post yesterday, the House speaker, Dennis Hastert, said recently on television that Al Qaeda would do better under a Kerry presidency, and Senator Orrin Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has announced that the terrorists are going to do everything they can between now and November "to try and elect Kerry."

This is despicable politics. It's not just polarizing - it also undermines the efforts of the Justice Department and the Central Intelligence Agency to combat terrorists in America. Every time a member of the Bush administration suggests that Islamic extremists want to stage an attack before the election to sway the results in November, it causes patriotic Americans who do not intend to vote for the president to wonder whether the entire antiterrorism effort has been kidnapped and turned into part of the Bush re-election campaign. The people running the government clearly regard keeping Mr. Bush in office as more important than maintaining a united front on the most important threat to the nation.

Mr. Bush has not disassociated himself from any of this, and in his own campaign speeches he makes an argument that is equally divisive and undemocratic. The president has claimed, over and over, that criticism of the way his administration has conducted the war in Iraq and news stories that suggest the war is not going well endanger American troops and give aid and comfort to the enemy. This week, in his Rose Garden press conference with the interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, Mr. Bush was asked about Mr. Kerry's increasingly pointed remarks on Iraq. "You can embolden an enemy by sending mixed messages," he said, going on to suggest that Mr. Kerry's criticisms dispirit the Iraqi people and American soldiers.

It is fair game for the president to claim that toppling Saddam Hussein was a blow to terrorism, to accuse Mr. Kerry of flip-flopping and to repeat continually that the war in Iraq is going very well, despite all evidence to the contrary. It is absolutely not all right for anyone on his team to suggest that Mr. Kerry is the favored candidate of the terrorists. And at a time when the United States is supposed to be preparing the Iraqi people for a democratic election, it's appalling to hear the chief executive say that loyal opposition gives aid and comfort to the enemy abroad.

The general instinct of Americans is to play fair. That is why, even though terrorists struck the United States during President Bush's watch, the Democrats have not run a campaign that blames him for allowing the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to be attacked. And while the war in Iraq has opened up large swaths of the country to terrorist groups for the first time, any effort by Mr. Kerry to describe the president as the man whom Osama bin Laden wants to keep in power would be instantly denounced by the Republicans as unpatriotic.

We think that anyone who attempts to portray sincere critics as dangerous to the safety of the nation is wrong. It reflects badly on the president's character that in this instance, he's putting his own ambition ahead of the national good.

[rip]

Jesus: wrong on the issues, wrong for America

Vote Bush in 04

[glademaster]

Dubya, Cheney, Rummy, basically the whole administration and IMHO, the entire Republican party are crooked, lying, cheating, bastards. Plain and simple. Recently in a history class, my teacher said something to the effect of disagreeing with political figure's views, but not disliking them as a person. I subsequently raised my hand and launched into my rant about how I truly and honestly dislike/hate Dubya and his cronies as people. Needless to say, that shut my teacher up.

I have always been unabashedly liberal (I hesitate to call myself a democrat), but the last 4 years have made me truly despise the Republican party, conservatives and anything associated with them. Say what you will about 15 year olds and political thought, but if you know me, you know that I am more knowledgeable on topics of politics and government in this country than many people 3 times my age.

[end rant]

[L7]

t
It reflects badly on the president's character that in this instance, he's putting his own ambition ahead of the national good.

I trust this isn't a new revelation for anyone!

[mr_gyptian]

Not quite as far as criticizing one of our strongest and best allies Australia(btw, the only ally that has stood with us in every war since the Spanish American!!) as making their country more unsafe by standing by the US in the war on terror. Not quite as far as calling Ayad Allawi illegitimate.

Definitely not as far as warning about the upcoming reinstatement of the draft by the Bush Administration. Excuse me what the fuck?? the only people dumb enough to put their names on that legislation are Dem clowns like Chuck Rangel.

Natty, recycle that Cheney quote again. you've got to hang on to something.

[Blurred]

http://brawl-hall.com/gallery/data/m...nteresting.jpg

[natty dread]

Not quite as far as criticizing one of our strongest and best allies Australia(btw, the only ally that has stood with us in every war since the Spanish American!!) as making their country more unsafe by standing by the US in the war on terror. Not quite as far as calling Ayad Allawi illegitimate.

Definitely not as far as warning about the upcoming reinstatement of the draft by the Bush Administration. Excuse me what the fuck?? the only people dumb enough to put their names on that legislation are Dem clowns like Chuck Rangel.

Natty, recycle that Cheney quote again. you've got to hang on to something.

What about the charges of Hastert and Hatch? It's not just tricky dick. And talking about my recycling doesn't negate the fact that Cheney has said it repeatedly and repub wackos like you seem to believe it.

There is no way you could say a draft is out of the question--this is going to be a long war and already recruitment levels are below what they should be as people see Bush's insane use of our military and choose not to sign up. Of course Bush doesn't want a draft, so his lovely daughters can continue to parade around in the latest fashions and go to all the cool parties (how about toning it down a bit ladies, we are at war) as their peers are killed by their draft dodging dad in a war he mislead us into that has not made us safer.

And he didn't "call allawi illegitimate" (although he was installed by the US)--this is just more BS repub rhetoric, Kerry simply questioned Allawi's Bushsucking assessment of the situation on the ground. Kerry's concerns are echoed by the recent CIA analysis (which dumbfuck Bush called, astoundingly, just "guesses.") But to these "patriots," who opposed the dept of homeland security and the 9/11 comission til it became politically untenable (talk about flip flops), any questioning of their policy or world view is unpatriotic. Unbelieveable that shrub is using a foreign leader that he installed to try to get him reelected and then saying that he should be immune from questioning. Actually with these guys, it's quite believeable.

[mr_gyptian]

No Kerry said it and his chief adviser Joe Lockhart(who by the way is apparently vetting sources for 60 minutes) did too.

You get back from Burning Man and criticize a couple of girls for getting drunk. come on.

Yeah and putting Tom Harkin up to both question Bush's service and defend Kerry's service. Brilliant move. 12 years ago he was fleshed out about his own bald faced lying regarding Vietnam service.

Karzai did the same thing as Allawi(you should read up on him. that limp he walks with is from 20 years ago when some of Saddam's henchmen came into his home and tried to hack him to death).

Afghanistan, as it happens, is not doing to bad.

http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2004_09_1...01319970239588

And if you want to read how Kerry's philosophy on multilateralism works read this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/25/opinion/25brooks.html

[freshie247]

Afghanistan, as it happens, is not doing to bad.

That is subjective!It depends on what your definition of bad is.Poppy & Heroin production is up 40% over last year again.Yes the streets of Kabul are fairly safe,but just about everywhere else that doesn't have a contingency foreign troops is a free for all.This comprises most of the country.The Warlords & the Taliban control most of the country directly or indirectly,& it is almost as fractionalized as it was after the Soviets left & before the Taliban took over.

The Taliban is much more our enemy than the Iraqies could ever be! We should have installed all of our troops into Afganistan & caught Bin Laden & Mulah Omar.Problem is,These people gave legitimacy to W's(I should say Cheney's) fucked up presidency,& Cheney has given the terrorists legitimacy in the Islamic world.These fucking assholes need each other to be credible!If the republicans wanted a credible leader in office,THEY WOULD'VE BACKED McCain !!!! I'm an independant & would have voted for him.But the fact of the matter is,they didn't want anyone with integrity to "lead" their party,they wanted a stupid puppet that would do what he was told.Bush didn't pick Cheney,Cheney picked Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!To press home the point about what full of shit hatchet men this admin is full of,They attacked McCain's patriotism in the '00 primary.Talk about brazen BS!!!!!It's hard to believe that a draft dodging ,dumbass,ex-alky, would have the temerity to try & discredit a guy that spent years in a prison camp,& not only get away with it, but then to have republicans totally forget about it!

Fact of the matter is,Osama & islamic terrorists want Bush in office cause it furthers their master plan,East-West/Muslim-Christian WAR!

[Dr. Gaper]

Dubya, Cheney, Rummy, basically the whole administration and IMHO, the entire Republican party are crooked, lying, cheating, bastards. Plain and simple. Recently in a history class, my teacher said something to the effect of disagreeing with political figure's views, but not disliking them as a person. I subsequently raised my hand and launched into my rant about how I truly and honestly dislike/hate Dubya and his cronies as people. Needless to say, that shut my teacher up.
[end rant]

Why did you stop at the Republican party? You're naive if you think you're not going to get swindled by the other "team". The lesser of two evils mindset is bullshit, because in the long run, it's still evil.

No one for president!

Oh, and by the way, you need a new teacher. If you shut him up that easy, he is a fraud.

[natty dread]

Of course the repubs will just bash the writer without addressing the substance of the article...

Dance of the Marionettes
By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: September 26, 2004

It's heartwarming, really.

President Bush has his own Mini-Me now, someone to echo his every word and mimic his every action.

For so long, Mr. Bush has put up with caricatures of a wee W. sitting in the vice president's lap, Charlie McCarthy style, as big Dick Cheney calls the shots. But now the president has his own puppet to play with.

All last week in New York and Washington, Prime Minister Ayad Allawi of Iraq parroted Mr. Bush's absurd claims that the fighting in Iraq was an essential part of the U.S. battle against terrorists that started on 9/11, that the neocons' utopian dream of turning Iraq into a modern democracy was going swimmingly, and that the worse things got over there, the better they really were.

It's the media's fault, the two men warble in a duet so perfectly harmonized you wonder if Karen Hughes wrote Mr. Allawi's speech, for not showing the millions of people in Iraq who are not being beheaded, kidnapped, suicide-bombed or caught in the cross-fire every day; and it's John Kerry's fault for abetting the Iraqi insurgents by expressing his doubts about our plan there, as he once did about Vietnam.

"These doubters risk underestimating our country and they risk fueling the hopes of the terrorists," Mr. Allawi told Congress in a rousing anti-Kerry stump speech for Bush/Cheney, a follow-up punch to Mr. Cheney's claim that a vote for John Kerry is a vote for another terrorist attack on America.

First the Swift boat guys; now the swift dhow prime minister.

Just as Mr. Cheney, Rummy and the neocons turned W. into a host body for their old schemes to knock off Saddam, transform the military and set up a pre-emption doctrine to strike at allies and foes that threatened American hyperpower supremacy, so now W. has turned Mr. Allawi into a host body for the Panglossian palaver that he believes will get him re-elected. Every time the administration takes a step it says will reduce the violence, the violence increases.

Mr. Bush doesn't seem to care that by using Mr. Allawi as a puppet in his campaign, he decreases the prime minister's chances of debunking the belief in Iraq that he is a Bush puppet - which is the only way he can gain any credibility to stabilize his devastated country and be elected himself.

Actually, being the president's marionette is a step up from Mr. Allawi's old jobs as henchman for Saddam Hussein and stoolie for the C.I.A.

It's hilarious that the Republicans have trotted out Mr. Allawi as an objective analyst of the state of conditions in Iraq when he's the administration's handpicked guy and has as much riding on putting the chaos in a sunny light as they do. Though Mr. Allawi presents himself as representing all Iraqis, his actions have been devised to put more of the country in the grip of this latest strongman - giving himself the power to declare martial law, bringing back the death penalty and kicking out Al Jazeera.

Bush officials, who proclaim themselves so altruistic about bringing liberty to Iraq, really see Iraq in a creepy narcissistic way: It's all about Mr. Bush's re-election.

As The Chicago Tribune reported, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage alleged that Iraqi insurgents have stepped up their bloody attacks because they want to "influence the election against President Bush."

At a recent G.O.P. fund-raiser, House Speaker Dennis Hastert claimed that terrorists would be happier with a Kerry presidency. "I don't have data or intelligence to tell me one thing or another," he said, but "I would think they would be more apt to go" for "somebody who would file a lawsuit with the World Court or something rather than respond with troops."

Faced with their dystopia, the utopians are scaling back their grand visions for Iraq's glorious future.

Rummy suggested last week that a fractional democracy might be good enough. "Let's say you tried to have an election, and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country, but some places you couldn't because the violence was too great," he said at a hearing on Capitol Hill, adding: "Nothing's perfect in life."

At a Pentagon briefing on Friday, Rummy also blew off Colin Powell's so-called Pottery Barn rule that if we broke Iraq, we own it. "Any implication that that place has to be peaceful and perfect before we can reduce coalition and U.S. forces, I think, would obviously be unwise, because it's never been peaceful and perfect," he said. "It's a tough part of the world."

As he said after the early looting in Iraq: "Stuff happens."

[Dr. Gaper]

An Arab editorial . . .

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&sect...=24&m=9&y=2004

Iraq: Why US Shouldn’t Cut and Run
Amir Taheri, Arab News

What was bound to happen, has happened: Sen. John Kerry has decided to adopt Sen. Edward Kennedy’s slogan: Iraq is another Vietnam!

For months, the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, resisting the temptation of following the senior senator for Massachusetts, continued to defend his initial support for a war that destroyed one of modern history’s most barbarous regimes. By last week, however, it had become clear that Kerry could not be both pro-war and anti-war in this campaign. Having made his calculations he decided to recast himself as a more sober version of Howard Dean, the early champion of the anti-war faction.

Kerry’s shift should be welcomed by those who want the presidential campaign to deal with the substance of issues rather than conspiracy theories, real or imagined heroics in the Mekong Delta, and real or forged National Guard documents, dating back 30 years.

In the larger scheme of things, Iraq per se may not be the ur-issue of future global politics. If Iraq has any importance it is as the first major test of American power in reshaping the Middle East in the post-Cold War era.

The two positions now on offer differ on four issues: The genesis of the war, the results of the war so far, future actions, and an exit strategy.

First, let us deal with the genesis of the war.

President George W. Bush’s position is well known. He claims that Saddam, having started two major wars, violated more than a dozen United Nations resolutions, hosted 23 international terror organizations, and adopted a threatening posture toward the US and its allies, was, in the words of President Bill Clinton in the year 2000, “a time-bomb” that had to be defused. Bush’s view is supported by many across the world, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a majority of the NATO allies, and most members of the European Union.

Kerry’s position is the opposite.

He asserts that Saddam, though an unsavory fellow, was no threat, at least not to the United States, and that there was no legal basis for toppling him. Kerry’s view in this regard is supported by many, including UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who has just decreed the war illegal, France’s President Jacques Chirac, and Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa.

Kerry’s analysis strengthens Annan’s claim that the US has no right to go to war without the express permission of the UN.

Next, we have the results of the war so far. Again Bush’s position is clear. The president claims that the toppling of Saddam and his Baathist terror machine made Iraq and the world better places. This view is shared by a majority of the Iraqis who fought the Baathist tyranny for three decades with no prospects of victory until the US-led coalition arrived. That Iraqis are happy that Saddam is gone is illustrated by the return of virtually all Iraqi refugees from neighboring countries. As for the Middle East being a better place without Saddam, all one has to do is to ask Iraq’s neighbors, especially those that had suffered from his wars of aggression.

Kerry’s position is the opposite: Not only Iraq is not a better place without Saddam, but the toppling of the despot has also worsened the situation in the Middle East and, by diverting American resources from fighting other terrorists, made the US less safe. Kerry’s analysis is shared by many, including the UN, the French, some Arab governments, anti-American lobbies across the globe, and Bush-bashers inside the United States.

Thirdly, the American voter now has a clear choice of future policies.

Bush’s policy is summed up in the phrase “staying the course.”

Tony Blair agrees. Last week he described Iraq as “the crucible in which the future of global terrorism will be determined.”

The Bush-Blair analysis is based on the assumption that the last area of the world to breed anti-West terrorists is the Middle East, a region unaffected by the wave of democratization that began with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The argument is that since democracies do not breed terrorists, the only way to ensure the long-term safety and security of Western democracies, including the United States and the European Union, is to democratize the Middle East, by force if necessary.

Bush and Blair see Iraq as the first building bloc of a new democratic Middle East which could emerge as a zone of stability and peace rather than one of war and terrorism.

Kerry’s rejects that. He believes that it is none of the United States’ business to meddle in other people’s affairs, especially when this involves the use of force. All the US need to do is to strengthen its domestic anti-terrorism defenses, and be prepared to retaliate if and when attacked.

Taking pre-emptive action against potential adversaries, even in the name of self-defense, is a form of “neo-imperialism”.

Finally, there is the issue of an exit strategy.

Kerry claims that Bush has none. This is not quite accurate. Bush’s exist strategy was clear from the start and has been endorsed by the two latest resolutions of the UN Security Council. It envisages the US-led coalition staying in Iraq until a freely elected Iraqi government asks it to leave. This gives the Iraqi people, provided they adopt democracy, a direct say in deciding whether or not they need foreign troops on their soil. At the same time it makes the withdrawal of coalition forces conditional on the establishment of a democratic system that will not breed terrorism.

Kerry’s exist strategy, on the other hand, reflects his belief that Iraq is another Vietnam. He is not proposing a “last chopper from Saigon” strategy that would not look good on television. Kerry’s exist strategy could be described as “cut and whistle your way out.”

Kerry has laid out four steps in his exist plan: Repair alliances, train Iraqi security forces, improve reconstruction, and ensure elections. And then, “we could begin to withdraw US forces starting next summer.”

The four steps suggested by Kerry were adopted as US policy over a year ago. What is new in Kerry’s position is that he sets dates for bringing American troops home, regardless of whether or not US strategic goals are achieved. It is in this sense that, if Kerry is elected, Iraq could, indeed, become another Vietnam.

It is important to remember what happened in Vietnam.

The US made huge human and material sacrifices to enable the people of South Vietnam from falling under a Communist dictatorship sponsored by the USSR and China. The American effort was successful in military terms and, after the Tet Offensive, there was little doubt that the Communist threat in Vietnam had been contained as it had been in the Korean Peninsula two decades earlier. Nevertheless, the US did cut and run, abandoning the people of South Vietnam, not because the Vietcong had won the war but because American public opinion adopted the “cut-and-run” strategy” which John Kerry, then a young veteran, advocated.

The rest is history. Communist tyranny was imposed over the whole of Vietnam which, rather than developing a vibrant industrialized democracy like South Korea or Taiwan, became a poor and captive nation in a system rejected by history.

America’s “cut-and-run” strategy in Indochina emboldened the USSR and gave it a new lease of life. It encouraged the Soviets to expand their empire into Africa and Asia while strengthening stranglehold over half of Europe.

A new version of “cut-and-run” in Iraq could embolden those whose strategic aim is the destruction of the West and its current standard-bearer, the US. Were the US to cut and run in Iraq, such people will receive a tremendous boost. And that would be deadly news for Americans, regardless of who sits in the White House.

There is one big difference between Vietnam and Iraq.

The enemy in Vietnam, ultimately the Soviet Union, played the classical game of building an empire and extending its glacis. It could be contained in the context of a balance of thermonuclear terror deterrent. Open to détente, it would not send suicide-bombers to kill thousands of civilians in the heart of the United States.

[Plakespear]

Poppy & Heroin production is up 40% over last year

Alright! Hopefully this translates to lower prices on the street for skag. I'm getting tired of fencing car stereos to pay for my junk.

[supercow]

to respond to the dowd column the kidnappings and behedings are a tragedy, I'm not going to overlook them, however I hardly think the scale is anywhere near millions. The US has lost some 1000+ citizens over in Iraq, my condolences to every family that lost someone. During the battle of Gettysburg 51,000 Americans were lost in 3 days. The US lost 1,015 during the first WEEK of the Tet offensive. I'm sorry as a 24 year old I really DON'T get our nations hangup on Vietnam and the effect it still has on this country. Bill Clinton didn't go, Bush didn't go, Kerry went, Gore went, Dean didn't, my mother in laws brother died, my father in law didn't go, my dad went who the hell cares anymore. 9/11 and the world after it is a WHOLE new ballgame I really could give a fuck what happend in the jungles of SE Asia 40 freakin years ago. If Clinton could get elected and send troops into battle and they went and fought then theres NO reason that there should ever be a problem with anyone elses Vietnam record. I'm not sure what to think about Vietnam, that era has ended, there is no great Communist menace, I hardly think that Osama and his goons will ever rise to control their own state, the whole idea of a Pan-Islamic nation or nations just sounds too farfetched for me, there are too many inherent conflicts in the Islamic faith, it would be similar to seeing a Lutheren-Catholic state its almost impossible because there is no way that Iran will allow a Sunni dominated Islamic theocracy to rise to dominate the Middle East and conversly theres no way that Osama and his guys are gonna get buddy buddy with the Shi'ite Clerics of Iran. Thats the real battle thats going on. The US involvement there is mearly the proxy for allowing this kind of action to go on without condemnation from the world community at large.

[freshie247]

We're in Iraq for 10 years minimum,no matter who's president.Our course in Iraq is irreversable.Muslims always have been very fluid with their alliances.Bribery is not dishonest,it is a way of life."Marriages of convenience" politically are a part of their culture.The warlords that we are currently fighting in Afganistan,helped us overthrow the Taliban.The Islamic fundamentalists that blew up the Twin towers were trained & funded by the US to fight the Soviets in Afganistan.The Muslims we saved from ethinic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia are fighting us in Iraq.Ansar Al Islam are Kurds now aligned with Sunnis that oppressed them in Iraq.These people know few alliances that aren't immediately expediant.The central figure of their religion was a militant & it permeates a huge proportion of their communities & philosophies.I think it is a definite possibility that if Pakistan is taken over by Islamic fundamentalists ,that they'd give Atomic weapons to any Islamic group that would use it against the US.Same for Iran if they thought we were going to invade them.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Bill Clinton didn't go, Bush didn't go, Kerry went, Gore went, Dean didn't, my mother in laws brother died, my father in law didn't go, my dad went who the hell cares anymore. 9/11 and the world after it is a WHOLE new ballgame I really could give a fuck what happend in the jungles of SE Asia 40 freakin years ago. If Clinton could get elected and send troops into battle and they went and fought then theres NO reason that there should ever be a problem with anyone elses Vietnam record.

When it was Clinton it was supposed to be a character issue that made him unfit for the presidency, according to the Redumblicans. With George it doesn't matter that he was AWOL and used daddy to get him out of Vietnam and honorably discharged (after dishonorably defending Texas). It's not service in Vietnam that matters (although those who denigrate Kerry's service are guilty of smearing a vet, something they wrongfully accuse Kerry of having done), but the Republican hypocrisy is galling.

[Trackhead]

but the last 4 years have made me truly despise the Republican party, conservatives and anything associated with them. Say what you will about 15 year olds and political thought, but if you know me, you know that I am more knowledgeable on topics of politics and government in this country than many people 3 times my age.

[end rant]

Good news: The voting age is being lowered to allow eleven year olds to vote.

[Blurred]

http://brawl-hall.com/gallery/data/m.../frontpage.jpg