John Lott, sock puppets, and other random stuff

Before you think of pulling the lever for Kerry this Election Day you should consider the damage that the left has done to our country this campaign. Also consider that the only way to repair that damage may be to give the president an over whelming victory.

Take the fact that the liberals are calling President Bush a liar because he said that he felt there were WMDs in Iraq. They screech that he lied to us. We all know that the United Nations, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and even the professional Viet Nam veteran thought that the WMDs were there. Their claim is at best disingenuous. Most Americans do not have the time or take the time to really study the issues so many will only hear that Bush lied us into war.

What will happen if we get credible intelligence that there were WMDs but that they were moved to Syria? The responsible action would be to go in and neutralize them but would the second Bush administration be as stalwart as the first after the undeserved bashing they took on Iraqi WMDs? Even a slight hesitation could spell disaster. The only reason the left screamed liar was for political gain. No thought was given as to how promulgating a known lie would adversely affect our country.

Then there is Halliburton. Anyone who takes the time to look into it knows that the Cheneys would not loose a dime if Halliburton went broke or make anymore if they tripled their profits. There simply is no connection between the administration and Halliburton. The Kerry campaign knows it but they really don’t care. It’s all about politics and power to them.

Here’s the problem with that. Halliburton got no bid contracts because they were the only US firm that could do what was required. It would be as if your child needed an emergency operation and there was only one surgeon that could perform it. Would you put the operation out to bid or would you just say do it? Do you think that if Halliburton was needed again the Bush Administration might rightfully be hesitant? So who won and who lost? By making claims that the left knew to be false they may have won a few points but our troops may pay.

Kerry voted for the war, said that thousands of terrorists were flooding across the borders into Iraq and stated that our thousand fallen soldiers died fighting the war on terrorism. He now says that it is only a diversion and the wrong war at the wrong time.

How does that affect the morale of our troops? How does that affect our standing with our allies? Kerry doesn’t care. Kerry’s whole campaign is about disagreeing with the President regardless of the truth, and what is really scary regardless of the consequences. Shouldn’t the liberals put their country’s well being before their own for once?

If it became necessary to send troops into Syria or Iran would our allies stick with us? Would our troops be behind the decision? Would the American people? I care. You should care. Kerry and the left don’t.

The war on terror is job one right now and for a whole slew of reasons. Not just to save American lives but to deny the murdering bastards the satisfaction of another 9/11. Remember how much damage was done to our economy by 9/11. Hell, the airline industry almost flat lined. There is also the trauma to our national psyche and pride. All the other concerns real or imagined raised during this campaign pale by comparison.

The bottom line is that only President Bush has demonstrated the determination and resolve to take the fight to the terrorists. Kerry has admitted as much. He promises that he would react. Bush will and has preacted.

The only way we have to at least partially repair the damage done by the reckless Kerry campaign is to give the president a mandate. We have to reelect him in a convincing manner and put the lie to the entire Kerry effort.

If you are leaning towards Kerry I would ask you to reconsider our priorities and reconsider who has demonstrated the ability to achieve them. I’ll give you a hint. Kerry started clueless and is equally clueless today but being clueless can be forgiven however being cavalier with our security cannot. If you must, hold your nose and vote for the president. If you have to hold you nose and take a shower afterward you need to vote for the president. President Reagan didn’t carry 49 states with just Republican votes. The American people did the right thing and then and Reagan went out and won the cold war. How about doing the right thing now?
Mark

Shorter Mark:

If you call BushCo liars and thieves, boy will you all be sorry

Practice saying "It's just like Nixon, only worse", Mark. It's going to be devastating to the republican party. Maybe this time they'll learn not to listen to Zombies like you, Mark.

Oh, and BTW, Fat and Brown really is appropriate. But "labs" really is stretching credulity. An asshole isn't a lab and a sewage collection plant isn't a research facility.

"Your message of fear, uncertainty and doubt isn't welcome here. Even if Bush manages to be reselected, he won't be in office for long."

No, no, very welcome. If only it had something to do with the topic at hand. I guess he cut and pasted it from a brochure somewhere. I wonder if he's actually literate.

Anyway...

"Before you think of pulling the lever for Kerry this Election Day you should consider the damage that the left has done to our country."

The Bush administration has thrown away 225 years of American foreign policy, and for what, a bunch of manipulative gobbledygook. (More on that in a minute.) George Bush actually signed an order permitting the US military to arrest an American citizen on American soil and hold him indefinitely without access to an attorney. The Supreme Court, which contains seven judges appointed by Republicans and as we know, five responsible for placing Bush in the White House in the first place, voted 8-1 that the Bush administration was trying to act as a dictatorship.

Bush put it most succinctly when he said, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative, Bush-friendly judges on the court, who goes duck hunting with Dick Cheney, said, "Where does he get that power?"

Newsweek:

"The power of a president to wage war, Scalia said, is like 'the George Washington-like' power to command armies in battle. 'It doesn't mean he has the power to do whatever it takes...' "

Our poster wrote: "...The only way to repair that damage may be to give the president an overwhelming victory."

Let's go back to Ron Suskind for a moment, since he's got access to a few more White House insiders than I do. A "longtime senior media advisor to Bush," Suskind wrote, gave us a very compelling reason that people support Bush:

"They like the way he walks and the way he points..."

I'm sold.

Our poster (or copy/pasterer) wrote:

"Take the fact that the liberals are calling President Bush a liar because he said that he felt there were WMDs in Iraq. They screech that he lied to us. We all know that the United Nations, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and even the professional Viet Nam veteran thought that the WMDs were there. Their claim is at best disingenuous. Most Americans do not have the time or take the time to really study the issues so many will only hear that Bush lied us into war."

You're an idiot, sorry. Most Republicans don't take the time to understand the difference between voting to authorize the president to use force if necessary, and sending troops to war. Here's how it works, see? Kerry has favored for YEARS applying pressure to Iraq to get him to allow inspectors. So, he voting to give Bush the power to pressure Saddam. Bush pressured Saddam. The inspectors came in. They told us Saddam had no nuclear program (seriously!). Unfortunately, "Most Americans do not have the time or take the time to really study the issues," so they just repeat obtuse Bush campaign propaganda that suggests Saddam didn't let the inspectors in, or that the inspectors were clueless. The weapons inspections kept Saddam free of these weapons after 1991.

The problem here is that our friend Bush did several monumental FLIP-FLOPS.

1. He said, "The most important thing for us is to find Osama bin Laden." That's clear, straightforward. Unfortunately, a few months later he said, equally unambiguously, "I don't know where [bin Laden] is. I have no idea and I really don't care." OK, fair enough. He only killed 3000 innocent American civilians. Water under the bridge.

2. OK, so the president decides he'd rather go on a foreign policy adventure his friends had been advocating since the 90's (see, i.e. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm and http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm ). Sounds fun enough, right? Bin Laden was getting frustrating for Bush. Bush likes to win. Gail Sheehy summed up this phenomenon quite well in a 2000 article. She quoted the mother of Bush's best childhood friend:

"If he wasn't winning, he would quit. He would just walk off... It's what we called Bush Effort: If I don't like the game, I take my ball and go home."

Besides, as Bush's Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells us, "There are lots of good targets in Iraq." It would be a travesty to waste all of our "shock and awe" potential on a country like Afghanistan that doesn't even have a Mercedes dealership or a shiny new Mosque.

In 2001 Colin Powell told us with a smile,

"[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."

Condoleezza Rice added helpfully,

"We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

No, no, this won't do at all. From a report by Congressman Henry Waxman:

"Congress began debate on the Iraq war resolution in early October 2002 and voted on the measure on October 10 and October 11, 2002. During the 30 days between September 8 and October 8, 2002, [the main members of the Bush team] made 64 misleading statements [about Iraq] in 16 public appearances."

Well, I'm sure Waxman missed a few, but 64 isn't too bad.

So Bush misled a bunch of people into thinking there was, as he put it, "A much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined." Indeed, Senator Bill Nelson cited the Bush administration's claims that Saddam could deliver weapons of mass destruction to US East Coast cities. "I thought there was an imminent threat," Nelson said.

Regardless, Bush reassured everyone that, no worries, just give me the authorization to use force so I can compel Saddam to allow the inspectors. I'll exhaust all non-military options, and if I do go to war, no worries about that either. I'll build a wide-ranging coalition. "OK, sure, that sounds relatively reasonable. We can work with you on that."

So the weapons inspectors went and checked out Iraq. They encountered "relatively few difficulties." They said, "Access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect." And, "Individuals have been consenting to being interviewed without escort and without a taped record." And, "After three months of intrusive inspections," they said, they had found not even a "plausible indication" that Saddam had revived his nuclear program.

That's pretty much the way Cheney said it a few weeks later.

"...We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons," Cheney said, more or less summarizing nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei's report.

Our helpful poster continues, "What will happen if we get credible intelligence that there were WMDs but that they were moved to Syria?"

Then I guess you can go to Syria and check it out for us. I'll buy you a one-way ticket.

"...Would the second Bush administration be as stalwart as the first after the undeserved bashing they took on Iraqi WMDs?"

Stalwart? Listen, if you want to fight three simultaneous wars, why don't you round up YOUR OWN MILITIA. Two is enough for me.

"The only reason the left screamed liar was for political gain. No thought was given as to how promulgating a known lie would adversely affect our country."

Right, promulgating known lies.

"Anyone who takes the time to look into it knows that the Cheneys would not loose a dime if Halliburton went broke or make anymore if they tripled their profits. There simply is no connection between the administration and Halliburton. The Kerry campaign knows it but they really don’t care. It’s all about politics and power to them."

Well it's certainly a fortuitous coincidence, anyway, that Halliburton, which Cheney was running just a few years ago, managed to secure $2 billion worth of contracts from the very beginning.

"Here’s the problem with that. Halliburton got no bid contracts because they were the only US firm that could do what was required."

They were the only US firm that could overcharge US troops in Iraq for meals?

"Do you think that if Halliburton was needed again the Bush Administration might rightfully be hesitant?"

Rightfully? If they're rightfully hesitant, what's the problem? It would certainly be tragic if Halliburton had to walk away after only securing several billion taxpayer dollars. I will grant you, however, they certainly are the only US firm previously run by Dick Cheney that was capable of overcharging the US for services in Iraq -- services like driving trucks.

"Kerry voted for the war," said copyman.

There was no vote for "the war." There was a vote to give the president the authority to make that decision if need be. The need never came around. The president thought he'd be a cowboy.

"After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad," Bush said.

Our friendly poster wrote, "How does that affect the morale of our troops? How does that affect our standing with our allies? Kerry doesn’t care."

No, Kerry, who once volunteered to serve in the military, doesn't care about troop morale. I'll stipulate that.

Reuters:

"U.S. soldiers in Iraq were plagued by low morale... Army officials disclosed some of the suicide findings on Wednesday, including a suicide rate of 17.3 per 100,000 soldiers among soldiers in Iraq, much higher than the overall Army rate. Crow said this compared to a rate of 15.6 per 100,000 during the Vietnam War and 3.6 during the 1991 Gulf War."

Yup, that was Kerry's fault alright.

"How does that affect our standing with our allies?"

Put down the crack pipe and get some help! Our standing with our allies?

!!

Our friend wrote, "The war on terror is job one right now and for a whole slew of reasons. Not just to save American lives but to deny the murdering bastards the satisfaction of another 9/11."

The murdering bastards. Right. Would that be the leaders of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri? Or perhaps the man who sheltered them, Mullah Omar of the Taliban? Oh, no wait, "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]," Bush said just a few months after 9/11. There was, however, a target that did strike Bush's fancy. A country that had been sitting quietly in the Middle East for over a decade, and which was not collaborating at all with al-Qaeda. "I am deeply concerned about Iraq," Bush said. "And so should the American people be concerned about Iraq." And so it was that the American people like yourself -- you know, the ones who "take the time to really study the issues," or at least the ones fed to them by the Bush PR team -- happily focused on their new public enemy, having forgotten all about that Osama bin Laden ugliness.

"Of course we're after Saddam Hussein -- I mean bin Laden," Bush said.

"The leader of the opposition Northern Alliance...lay dead, his murder ordered by Saddam Hussein -- by Osama bin Laden," Rumsfeld said.

And he droned on, "The bottom line is that only President Bush has demonstrated the determination and resolve to take the fight to the terrorists. Kerry has admitted as much. He promises that he would react. Bush will and has preacted."

Bush has preacted alright. Here's what his reckless War for Terror has yielded so far (and it's early yet):

- "hostility toward America has reached shocking levels" in the Middle East, according to the State Department

- "in a recent poll, 40 percent of Canadian teens said the United States is a force for evil in the world," said Fox News

- "both the number of [terrorist] incidents and the toll in victims increased sharply [last year]," the State Department tells us

- "I can tell you it has played hell with our ability to get people behind us on Iran," said a diplomat

- "no foreigner trusts US intelligence to get it right anymore," said CIA analyst Ken Pollack

Like I said, it's still early. Though it's also worth noting that many Europeans now consider the US to be a rogue nation. That's helpful.

Our loyal Bush ostrich copied/pasted, "The only way we have to at least partially repair the damage done by the reckless Kerry campaign is to give the president a mandate. We have to reelect him in a convincing manner and put the lie to the entire Kerry effort."

I guess you would get along pretty well with Donald Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld: "Well, um, you know, something's neither good nor bad but thinking makes it so, I suppose, as Shakespeare said."

Just keep thinking it hard enough and it will come true.

Otherwise you can try Rumsfeld Plan B:

"If I know the answer I'll tell you the answer, and if I don't, I'll just respond, cleverly."

Our Karl Rove Echo said, "If you are leaning towards Kerry I would ask you to reconsider our priorities and reconsider who has demonstrated the ability to achieve them. I’ll give you a hint. Kerry started clueless and is equally clueless today but being clueless can be forgiven however being cavalier with our security cannot."

How does the riddle go? If the person who's explaining the concept is clueless, then does that mean you take the opposite of what he says? I don't know, let's try it.

"Kerry started clued-in and is equally clued-in today but being clued-in can be forgiven however being cavalier with our security cannot."

Yeah, that does work.

"If you must, hold your nose and vote for the president. If you have to hold you nose and take a shower afterward you need to vote for the president."

Or you could just vote for the candidate who actually has a vague clue how to run a country. Either way.

"How about doing the right thing now?"

For once, we agree.

Now that's a response. Many thanks.

HTR,
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ I am sorry but you put me to sleep. Could you be a little more succint?
Mark

Ashcroft/Rumsfeld08

Ah, the rapier like wit.

What can you do, right?

As Mark apparently knows from first-hand experience, "Most Americans do not have the time or take the time to really study the issues..."

I can't say he didn't warn me.

I think I was ruining his faith-based mojo with an unwanted reality-based vibe...

Mark seems like the classic megaphone. He doesn't want to argue or discuss, just merely wants to blast his meme onto the airwaves in a desperate (and rather pathetic) attempt at swaying those who are clueless. Any real engagement results in the standard response Mark gave above, or (more likely) in a stream of profanity and thinly veiled threats.

Still, I enjoyed your response.