The Democrat Desperation

[Apeman81]

Matt has requested I not copy this to separate threads. To meet this request, I start a new thread. The question here is not the veracity or lack thereof of these and other assertions advanced, retracted, dropped and renewed, but rather the lemming-like actions of so many who seem hell bent on desperately trying to make something stick while openly ignoring the obvious conclusions against those that are leading this charge, and the affect on their party.

I sincerely hope that you here on this board, and especially the democrat leadership, continue to focus their attention on attempting, by any means, to search desperately for any chink in Bush’s legal armor.

I want you all to bleat and mewl about how “Bush lied” about the same Intel that congressional democrats like John Kerry read. I hope you keep up the din about Bush’s “Illegal” wiretapping. The Part about U.S. citizens is a nice, if not accurate, touch. The fact that leading Democrat Senators like Rockefeller knew about, and did nothing about it for years, is a bonus for me.

You see, Bush is never going to run for president again. Never. But Kerry wants to. And won’t his speeches about Saddam’s WMDs just be a gas to playback? And what kind of answers will Rockefeller provide we he’s asked about having written about his misgivings of the wiretapping while doing absolutely nothing to follow up on them.

Ride Bush like he was wearing a saddle. Continue to ignore any progress in Iraq. Continue to call it an illegal war. I mean, after all, no leading Dem did anything to stop it. Oh, some whined and mewled about it, but when given the chance to vote to pull out our troops from Bush’s illegal war, they voted to allow it to continue.

So please. Concentrate on Bush. Continue to spread demonstrable half-truths and make groundless assertions of criminal acts. Really, the American people will always side with those that make accusations they can’t back up. They love hearing about purported criminal activity that slowly dies away as nothing sticks.

Keep up the good work. I’ll sit back and watch as the current democrat leadership moves the party further and further into obscurity. Maybe then the old democrat values will resurface. But I doubt it.

[RickSp]

So after being asked not to repeat the same garbage in multiple threads, you start a new thread to repeat the same tired garbage? What a pathetic joke.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp So after being asked not to repeat the same garbage in multiple threads, you start a new thread to repeat the same tired garbage? What a pathetic joke.

You don't really comprehend very much of what happens around you, do you?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 You don't really comprehend very much of what happens around you, do you?

LOL. From you ape that is especially funny.

[bishop]

someone ought to inform the professor that nothing lasts forever and that the dems had some big wins during the most recent elections...

this thread's crap... nothing more than some fruity attempt by a bushbot to attack the other side and try to divert attention away from all of bush's scandals.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: bishop someone ought to inform the professor that nothing lasts forever and that the dems had some big wins during the most recent elections... this thread's crap... nothing more than some fruity attempt by a bushbot to attack the other side and try to divert attention away from all of bush's scandals.

Bush scandals. That's the point.

Name a Bush scandal. Any number of recent assertions can be named. Now name one that has demonstrated to have any value to it. The room falls quiet.

So name one. Then tell us all that the claim hasn't faded to insignificance.

Bush Administration "Outs" a CIA covert Agent! But the focus of the accusation was not a covert CIA agent. The law cited as the reasons for investigation is found not to apply.

Bush Orders illegal wiretapping of U.S. Citizens! But the targets were not U.S. citizens and the practice has been occurring since 1979 and was adjudicated as legal in the early 80's by Federal court. And a leading democrat knew about it and did nothing to stop it.

Bush "lied" about WMDs to launch an “illegal” war! And yet the same intel was used by political leaders around the world, including John Kerry and Bill Clinton, to vilify Saddam. Clinton used the same intel to launch attacks against Iraq. And when given the opportunity to stop the “illegal” war, the vote to withdraw troops was crushed by all.

You want Bush to be the villain? Fine! I could care less. But you’re not doing a damn thing to promote intelligent discourse nor advance the platform of your party. What do you stand for? Your actions suggest little beyond “hate Bush”.

[bishop]

[Apeman81]

In other words, Bishop, you have no cogent argument to offer.

Continue, please, your self destructive path of sycophantic adherence to all that flows from the mouth of such luminaries as Ted Kennedy and Michael Moore. There's a place right next to Disco music for your party in its current form.

[Sean]

Apeman, this is a debate forum. If you cannot post anything more than a few partisan topics that just insult the opposing party and praise your obvious party favorites then perhaps a debate forum is not what you are looking for...

This site is not a soapbox for partisan PR from either side.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Apeman81 Bush scandals. That's the point. Name a Bush scandal. Any number of recent assertions can be named. Now name one that has demonstrated to have any value to it. The room falls quiet. So name one. Then tell us all that the claim hasn't faded to insignificance.

I don't recall anyone claiming that Bush was involved in a scandal, at least not the traditional kind. I have merely voiced my dissatisfaction at virtually every one of his policies. You name it, Bush has screwed it up: job outsourcing, the war, the economy, the environment, the national debt, the budget deficits, illegal immigration, the massive new and redundant government agency, his attacks on the Bill of Rights, his view on torture, his expressed view on the Constitution, his appointment of an AG that views the Geneva conventions as "quaint", his no-bid contracts to corporate buddies, his secret prisons, American citizens thrown into military jails and denied the most basic rights, the list goes on and on. You're absolutely right, any number of "assertions" can be named. It's pretty tough to find something to praise him on when the only thing that comes to mind is his minor tax cut that mainly benefitted the rich. I didn't vote for Bush so he could "bring democracy to Iraq", I voted for him to do something for THIS country, something he has yet to accomplish.

Quote by: Apeman81 Bush Administration "Outs" a CIA covert Agent! But the focus of the accusation was not a covert CIA agent. The law cited as the reasons for investigation is found not to apply.

Then why does one member of his administration face possible jail time for this?? Please cite a source for your claim

Quote by: Apeman81 Bush Orders illegal wiretapping of U.S. Citizens! But the targets were not U.S. citizens and the practice has been occurring since 1979 and was adjudicated as legal in the early 80's by Federal court. And a leading democrat knew about it and did nothing to stop it.

How do you know who the targets were? And even if it has been done since 1979, does that make it right? So what if a "leading democrat" knew about it? It's still illegal. Please cite a source that judges it legal, as you claim.

Quote by: Apeman81 Bush "lied" about WMDs to launch an “illegal” war! And yet the same intel was used by political leaders around the world, including John Kerry and Bill Clinton, to vilify Saddam. Clinton used the same intel to launch attacks against Iraq. And when given the opportunity to stop the “illegal” war, the vote to withdraw troops was crushed by all.

I don't really give a damn about who believed the "same intel". Bush is the only one to start a war based on it.

Quote by: Apeman81 You want Bush to be the villain? Fine! I could care less. But you’re not doing a damn thing to promote intelligent discourse nor advance the platform of your party. What do you stand for? Your actions suggest little beyond “hate Bush”.

I don't want Bush to "be the villain". I want him to put the Constitution and the needs of THIS country ahead of Halliburton, big oil, mega-farming corporations, and Iraq. I don't "hate Bush", I only hate what he has done to America. The hundreds of billions of dollars wasted "bringing democracy to Iraq" (to say nothing of the lives wasted there) could have been used instead for research into alternative energy sources that would free us of any involvement in the middle east.

You seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with Bush is a liberal and a democrat. You really need to get such polar views out of your mind. The democrats are just as bad. As bad as I believe Bush has been for America, I think Kerry would have been even worse. I only hope that we can maintain a few of the basic principles that this country was founded on for the next 25 years or so, but I am not too optomistic. We almost were able to throw one liar out of office, but now we have a large segment of the population condoning and even defending another.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Apeman81 I sincerely hope that you here on this board, and especially the democrat leadership, continue to focus their attention on attempting, by any means, to search desperately for any chink in Bush’s legal armor.

I'm not a democrat but you simply seem to care whether or not Bush is sufficiently "armored" legally over this (gee, and then people wonder why there's so much political conflicts when even the description of a politicians stance sounds ready for war). If we were going to play partisan politics, we might believe Clinton when he said he never had sex. Yet whether or not he was technically legally correct means little except the law obviously would be defining sex incorrectly if it agreed with this definition.

The point is that what began as a search for justice regarding the 9/11 attacks turned into a general War or Terrorism, then it progressed into a war on the government of Afhganistan and Iraq, including setting up a new government there and nation building (which I specifically remember Bush saying we weren't going to do). So things have progressed from trying to track down Osama and buddies, as well as some known terrorist operations in Afghanistan to a general war worldwide war in some ways (remember the "You're either for us or against us" declaration Bush made to the world?). On top of this, these additional excursions (including some operations in the Phillipines and elsewhere) were largely tolerated simply because the propaganda being handed out was that we'd be grabbing terrorists with stashes of WMDs that were likely threats to the U.S.

Even before Bush got into office, people were saying to watch and see because we'd be in a war in the mideast and he'd be handing out money to his buddies. He topped that and even added the largest increase in social spending we've had in a long time. He's put in new government agencies for espionage, and even trumpets torture as a great tool for government to use and so I hardly care what he says anymore. The only concrete positive thing that still stands out would have been the tax cuts but they are meaningless if they still spend a ton of money and just print it up and inflate away everyone elses buying power.

Though I'm not a social conservative really, has he even given social conservatives anything to thank him for? And it's even harder to see how economic conservatives could support much of what's happened under his watch. Has he even vetoed a single spending increasing yet? He's been in for almost two terms now! The only time he vetoed anything was in a fit over not being allowed to torture people. I can't see how much of anyone, except a police state proponent would want to see the guy stay in office. He's been an embarrassment to the Republican party. Maybe he really did mean well by his actions, and though I don't think legal actions need to pursue him, he'd be doing people a favor by stepping down simply because of the controversy and lack of faith he's instilled in so many people. I remember even thinking if Clinton really wanted to do the right thing over his court appearances, he'd have resigned simply as a courtesy and that's minor in comparison to the impact of Bush's policies (agenda).

When you refer to Bush being legally "armored". It sounds like he prefers fighting. Maybe that's what's been the problem all along with his presidency - too narrow in his thinking, too few correct answers and instead statements that prove to be not well thought out, false, if not deceptive, conflicting and destructive.

It hardly matters whether he's violated any laws. His first sworn duty is to defend the Constitution. We have a separation of powers in the U.S. We don't need Congress ruling over the president but we do need to assure his actions are in accordance to the Constitution. So we should instead begin by looking at what actions have been unconstitutional ... after he gets out of office, we can worry about legalities.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Sean Apeman, this is a debate forum. If you cannot post anything more than a few partisan topics that just insult the opposing party and praise your obvious party favorites then perhaps a debate forum is not what you are looking for... This site is not a soapbox for partisan PR from either side.

What better debate can there be then to question and examine the motivation and techniques used in the debate?

[Matt W]

What better debate can there be then to question and examine the motivation and techniques used in the debate?

What, like copying and pasting the exact same opinion into every thread you come across? :rolleyes:

[Apeman81]

. "Then why does one member of his administration face possible jail time for this?? Please cite a source for your claim"

The person in question faces charges of giving false testimony. There are no charges in relation to the actual crime of "outing" a CIA agent. Check your facts.

“I don't really give a damn about who believed the "same intel". Bush is the only one to start a war based on it."

A war the permission for which was given by an all but unanimous vote from all parties.

“You seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with Bush is a liberal and a democrat. You really need to get such polar views out of your mind”

You are mistaken. It was, however, to them that I addressed the thread as they are indeed doing their best to imply that the executive branch unilaterally took all action with no support from the democrats in the legislative branch. Nothing exposed on this thread has done anything to change that fact.

I address this to democrats because they are the ones bent on making this war a “George Bush only” war. Thereby seeking to de-legitimize it. Thus making our soldiers dupes and pawns of an illegal tyrant, who should be stopped as their efforts are illegal. In essence, our soldiers are criminals. If you don’t think our enemies will see it that way, then you are again mistaken.

And why? Why do these ardent adherents of everything anti-Bush do this? A damn fine question, the answer of which I seek.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Apeman81 And why? Why do these ardent adherents of everything anti-Bush do this? A damn fine question, the answer of which I seek.

I gave you a whole bunch of reasons. Do you need them repeated?

[Jack]

Personally, I find the "Bush has never made a mistake" crowd as tiresome and inaccurate as the opposite "Bush is a criminal and ought to be shot" camp. Both groups are extremists who have managed to polorize any reasonable attempt to run this country. Neither group offers any constructive ideas, all they want to do is whine and complain.
You're no different and no better than those you attack.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Zeebadee I gave you a whole bunch of reasons. Do you need them repeated?

I reread your earlier post. Reason was not evident

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Isherwood Personally, I find the "Bush has never made a mistake" crowd as tiresome and inaccurate as the opposite "Bush is a criminal and ought to be shot" camp. Both groups are extremists who have managed to polorize any reasonable attempt to run this country. Neither group offers any constructive ideas, all they want to do is whine and complain. You're no different and no better than those you attack.

Interesting that you should say that. For I have not asserted that Bush never made a mistake. In fact, I called for level headed investigation instead of blind obeisance.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Apeman81 I reread your earlier post. Reason was not evident

"I have merely voiced my dissatisfaction at virtually every one of his policies. You name it, Bush has screwed it up: job outsourcing, the war, the economy, the environment, the national debt, the budget deficits, illegal immigration, the massive new and redundant government agency, his attacks on the Bill of Rights, his view on torture, his expressed view on the Constitution, his appointment of an AG that views the Geneva conventions as "quaint", his no-bid contracts to corporate buddies, his secret prisons, American citizens thrown into military jails and denied the most basic rights, the list goes on and on."

I assume that most people who oppose Bush do so for similar reasons. Why don't you give us a list of what you consider his major accomplishments?

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: Apeman81 Keep up the good work. I’ll sit back and watch as the current democrat leadership moves the party further and further into obscurity. Maybe then the old democrat values will resurface. But I doubt it.

I think the whole problem the Democrats have is the party has elected lots of Dean like people to power who really believe most of America shares their 20% view.

What are the positions of Democrats and what are their stated goals outside of blocking everything Republican or any success our soldiers are getting?

They have no plan for anything beyond trying to play political tag with Republicans and over the war issue that is political suicide.

I came from a family of Kennedy Democrats who all converted toward Republican because of the big left turn the party took back then.
A liberal used to still care in Kennedy's time about the good of our country and our people. You don't see that today as much by them and they seem to crave power over everything.

Had the Democrats shut the hell up, not brought out Murtha and tried to push up Sheenhan or been against the war, they would have gained a few seats in 2006.

IMO they have now set themselves up for major defeats to lose lots of seats everywhere and Hillary took a stake in the heart with her vote on the Patriot Act.

Her own husband's administration did far worse stuff during peace time and Hillary probably knew about it, so how can the Democrats complain in war about what the Clintons did in peace time?

I reference the issue below regarding Bill Clinton during peace time for your consideration.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/221452.shtml

Clinton NSA Eavesdropped on U.S. Calls
During the 1990's under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon.

On Friday, the New York Times suggested that the Bush administration has instituted "a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices" when it "secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without [obtaining] court-approved warrants."

But in fact, the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.

In February 2000, for instance, CBS "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft introduced a report on the Clinton-era spy program by noting:
"If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency."
NSA computers, said Kroft, "capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world."

Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told "60 Minutes" that the agency was monitoring "everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs."