Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Nine Ways Republicans Are Ruining the Country

By , BuzzFlash. Posted August 17, 2006.


Republicans are unimaginably bad on national security. Say it loud, say it often, it's the truth.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Say it loud, say it often, "Republicans are bad on national security." Every Democrat running for national office -- and local offices too, why not? -- should say, "I'm running because Republicans are bad on national security."

Then they should go on to say, here's why I'm saying it:

1. 9/11 happened on their watch. Of course, we can't say, absolutely, that it would not have happened if they had not been asleep at the wheel. But we can say that they did not do all they could have done to prevent it. We can say that Bush literally pushed away the warnings.

2. George Bush and the Republicans failed to get Osama bin Laden. We got both Hitler and Hirohito in less time than we've been chasing bin Laden. Every day that bin Laden's out there, he's proof that you can attack the United States and get away with it. That's a bad message to send, and believe me, people in the terrorist world have heard it loud and clear. That's very bad for national security.

3. George Bush and the Republicans gave Osama bin Laden what he wanted. Bin Laden wanted the US to get into a quagmire. He wanted our troops tied down in an Islamic country so that an insurgency could do to them what the Afghanis did to the Russians and to the British before them.

A modern, hi-tech army is very good at invasions. It's also good for fighting back against other armies. But a modern hi-tech army is not good at occupying a country against the will of the population. Even if the army is as violent and ruthless as the Soviet occupiers of Afghanistan were.

4. George Bush and the Republicans squandered America's power and prestige. Before 9/11 most people in the world probably thought that America's intelligence services were able and astute, agencies to be feared. The Bush administration has made them appear bumbling and inept. They did this, first, by ignoring their warnings and then, second, by making them the fall guys for 9/11.

After 9/11 most of the world feared America's wrath and America's might. By failing to get bin Laden and his gang, then by attacking the wrong country, unleashing chaos, and getting our armed forces into a situation that they can't win, the administration showed the world they have less to fear than they imagined.

5. The Bush administration empowered Hezbollah. The 'insurgency' in Iraq was Hezbollah's textbook and their inspiration. If Iraqis could do that to Americans, surely they could do the same to the Israelis. And they have. It's not yet on the record, but it's clear from everyone's conduct, that the administration encouraged the Israelis to 'unleash' their forces against Hezbollah. They probably thought Israel's modern hi-tech armies would quickly smash their enemy.

6. The Bush administration radicalized Hamas. Hamas was elected. Sworn to the destruction of Israel or not, they should have been encouraged to become responsible players with carrots as well as sticks. Instead the administration put them up against the wall, hoping to starve the Palestinian people into voting for a different group. Would that work if someone tried to do it to us?

7. Bush and the Republicans tied down our forces in Iraq while Iran and North Korea invested in nuclear technology. That made North Korea feel secure enough to test ICBMs. If they had been successful, they would have had a delivery system for their nuclear weapons. That would be incredibly bad for national security. Iran, with American forces tied down in Iraq, feels secure enough to defy the UN as well as the US. Very bad for national security.

8. By the way, every major European nation has had successful arrests and real trials of real, dangerous terrorists. People on the level of this group that the British just took down. The most ferocious terrorist arrested in the United States since 9/11 has been the shoe bomber. Ten, twenty, forty, a hundred billion dollars, a trillion dollars, and the best we have to show for it is the shoe bomber?! Republicans are bad on national security.

9. We have trashed the bill of rights. We have trashed the Geneva conventions. We have a president and a vice president willing to go the mat to fight for the right to torture people.

We have spent a fortune on illegal wiretaps.

We have spent a fortune on collecting everyone's telephone data.

And what have we achieved by all of this?

A quagmire in Iraq. Dishonor. Debts. An empowered al Qaeda. A new war in Lebanon. The inability to stand up to Iran and North Korea. Osama bin Laden at large, an inspiration to extremists everywhere.

Republicans are unimaginably bad on national security. Say it loud. Say it often, it's the truth, Republicans are bad on national security.

Digg!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A patriot who hangs onto delusions of democracy....
Posted by: lindavanballen on Aug 17, 2006 4:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nine ways? Good grief...what a short list compared to the numerous desecrations to our Constitution and Democracy. Just how are we going to explain this administration to our grandchildren? How do we explain them to ourselves? To the world?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It'll Be A Lot Easier..... Posted by: sirossisofliver
» RE: It'll Be A Lot Easier..... Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: It'll Be A Lot Easier..... Posted by: meetmeineleusis
» They gave Osama what he wanted... Posted by: Disconsolate Chimera
WAR PRESIDENT
Posted by: larry278 on Aug 17, 2006 6:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
W & his handlers style him as a War President. Voters bought that image in 2004. W was allegedly re-elected. W has now passed Jefferson Davis, former president of former Confederate States of America, in ineptitude, bungling & incompetence; Richard M Nixon in corruption & Millard Filmore as least effective chief executive of USA. It is an amazing & depressing record for a Yalie & Harvard MBA.
One wonders if W will die while in office under strange conditions as Warren G Harding did; drink himself to death as another failed War President, Lyndon B Johnson, did after leaving office or resign as Richard M Nixon did to avoid impeachment. Will W live as long as Nixon lived after resigning in disgrace, have ghost writers craft books & creep into the White House by a back entry as Nixon did? It is to be hoped that no murderer is able to get close enough to make an attempt on W's life for W isn't made of the stuff to become a deeply mourned martyr War President as Lincoln was. W's massive failures wouldn't allow W to drift into the obscurity of Garfield or McKinley & W, like Dan Quayle, isn't the tragicly flawed Jack Kennedy by any means.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: WAR PRESIDENT Posted by: willymack
Ammunition for the Upcoming Elections
Posted by: seekins on Aug 17, 2006 7:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for this article. We can already see that the Republicans are hoping to use the "Democrats (or people who oppose the Iraq war) are weak on national security" line again for the 2006 elections. It's maddening, because there are so many reasons why the Republicans are the ones who are weak on national security. It seems like the thing they've been able to do best is to frame debates successfully. With well-articulated, to-the-point arguments like the ones you've made here, we can start fighting back with some rhetorical ammunition of our own.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This stuff's for us alright – but now the way you think.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Aug 17, 2006 8:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the article:
"We have spent a fortune on illegal wiretaps.
We have spent a fortune on collecting everyone's telephone data.
And what have we achieved by all of this?"

For the war on terror: almost nothing. For surveillance of the american people, for being able to track americans who might decide to revolt in the future if the neocons continue to get their way: plenty.

And that is the real goal. The paranoia of these people must be witnessed up close to be believed; everyone who does not toe their line is suspect, and that includes you and me.

Also, keep in mind that DARPA, the Pentagon's research department, is working on non-lethal crowd control weaponry such as high-amplitude audio devices and narrow-beam microwave "guns" – both of which can make life so uncomfortable that you'll wish you were dead – to handle large unruly crowds. Since this administration cares not one bit about killing just about anyone in Iraq, why should we believe that these non-lethal weapons are for our foreign enemies?

Oh, yeah, and don't forget that Halliburton has been given more than $250 million to build detention centers around the country – our country – with their function "to be determined by future scenarios" (I wonder if this is how the Nazis referred to the building of camps at Aushwitz, Buchenwald and elsewhere?)

Yesser, folks, with the Patriot Act, loss of Constitutional freedoms, constant fear-mongering, internal spying, etc., etc., etc. it is beginning to add up – and the total could be a total loss for innocent americans. That's you and me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Republicans have failed us all
Posted by: sheena2u on Aug 17, 2006 11:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Republicans have been useless when it comes to protecting America! The Democrats have protected America, and kept it safe, at peace, and prosperous. Don't I remember once upon a time when the federal budget was in the black? And, then the Republican's inherited this surplus, and like spoiled, greedy, useless children gave us the deficit we have today, and the instability we have today in America and the world.

The Repubican's have done almost everything wrong so that we have now lost standing in the world, and we are less safe. The Republican's rushed us into an unwinnable war, based on lies, that has cost our country much too dearly in lives and in treasury, and this has made us less safe. In so many ways, the Republicans have failed utterly.

When it comes to keeping America safe the Republicans have failed spectacularly!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bad
Posted by: rsaxto on Aug 18, 2006 1:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, Republicans are bad on national security and the reason this is true is that they attack the wrong people with the wrong weapons. They can't get anything right because they have the wrong, primarily selfish motives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Republican-bashing ignores real problem
Posted by: Moonray on Aug 18, 2006 1:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I dislike Republicans as much as anyone, but this kind of finger-wagging overlooks the broader issue, which is the enormous influence of the U.S. military-industrial complex and our viciously materialistic, self-obsessed culture.

The MI Complex doesn't really care who holds Congress or the White House, because it controls both, all the time. Republicans just do its bidding with more alacrity.

Does anyone think our domestic or foreign policy will be significantly different with a "centrist" Democrat -- the only kind who can get elected -- as president? Please. Every four years we entertain these fantasies, and even when we win the White House occasionally we get very disappointed.

Now the MI Complex has its own media empire -- Fox News and countless imitators -- so the consolidation of war-mongering interests has accelerated. The arms peddlers-national security trolls now actively seek our quagmires such as Iraq because they produce enormous profits, and the War on Terror (whatever that is) is a war-monger's wet dream: It never ends and the enemy is whoever we say it is at any given moment.

No, choosing a new leader (from the same old pool of well-connected millionaires) will not solve our problems. Frankly, I don't think anything will solve our problems, except the painful grinding of history and the eventual collapse of the U.S. empire. Sorry to be so negative, but our electorate just keeps getting dumber and dumber, and our leaders more vapid, vicious and reactionary.

I'll probably vote in November anyway . . . just out of habit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: epublican-bashing ignores real problem Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: Republicrats and Demicans Posted by: DCostello
» RE: epublicrats and Demicans Posted by: drmflorida
» RE: epublicrats and Demicans Posted by: Benjaminsjw
» RE: epublicrats and Demicans Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: epublicrats and Demicans Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: epublicrats and Demicans Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» it's REPUBTARD bashing Posted by: marklar
E-voting machines controlled by Repubtards is the first and most destructive way
Posted by: marklar on Aug 18, 2006 4:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until we get rid of E-Voting machines nothing else matters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» hand ballots vs. voting machines Posted by: doctorsquared
Michael Townes Watson
Posted by: michaeltwatson on Aug 18, 2006 5:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The nine failures are a given. Two things are still left to be understood: (1) the failures that they could have attained if not somewhat checked by a few voices of reason, and (2) the failures they will add if left in power.
In the first category are immigration reforms, social security reform and their healthcare reforms. Ironically, those three are also in the category of failures they will achieve if left in power. They have tried them all and will be back for more if we do not throw them out.
Chief among my concerns is their proposal of "National Healthcare Week," which consisted of trying to pass legislation protecting insurance companies from having to compensate victims of medical error. That legislation would have left the 1.5 million people who are injured each year by medical error, and the loved ones of the 190,000 people killed annually by hospital error, without any access to the justice system. These bills were under the radar, becuase the insurance-beholden legislators did not want their voters to know what was going on. 48 senators voted for it, and the democrats who voted against it are on the hit list. They will be back, just like on social security, immigration, and every other major issue they want change on. They won't do anything to encourage medical safety. More people are killed each week by hospital error than were killed in 9/11, but talking about that is not good politics for them. Michael Townes Watson, author of America's Tunnel Vision--How Insurance Companies' Propaganda Is Corrupting Medicine and Law. www.StopMedicalError.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Michael Townes Watson Posted by: meetmeineleusis
» RE: Michael Townes Watson Posted by: radicalman
As long as we accept 9/11 as the Defining Moment -- we're f*%ked!
Posted by: AdamSelene40 on Aug 18, 2006 7:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's really that simple: as long as we believe that 9/11's are NEVER supposed to happen, and that something dramatic must be done when they do ... in fact something must be done BEFORE they do ... then the United States devotes the greatest part of its energies to war and the preparation for war ... evolving into a Warrior Empire while the rest of the world concentrates on productive activities.

In the short term: we get to watch the Englightenment go dark and the Democratic experiment come to an end. Our grandchildren will have desperate lives of 'anxious obedience' as debt slaves of a corporate oligarchy.

In the long term: the oil runs out ... the sea levels rise ... life will go on 'some other way.'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Our educated Public! Posted by: aussidawg
You Left Out Some Facts
Posted by: CW4RETIRED on Aug 18, 2006 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The 9/11 plot had been in planning stage for years

There have been no successful terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11

Terrorist attacks against americans have taken place under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Carter, Bush Sr., and 6 attacks during the Clinton administration.

In November, 1979, 52 Americans were taken hostage in Iran during the Carter administration. They were released 444 days later just hours after Reagan was sworn in as President.

In July, 2002, the associated press reported that about a dozen Congressmen had been convicted of crimes in criminal courts since the 1970's. Eleven of those were Democrats and two were pardoned by Clinton in 2000.

In 1969, Ted Kennedy left a party with a woman that was not his wife, ran off a bridge, and the girl drowned. The next day, he contacted his lawyers, and THEN contacted the police to report the incident.

Seems to me that members of both the Republican and Democratic parties can't be trusted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You Left Out Some Facts Posted by: gltirebiter
» Amen on Liberty Posted by: harpy
Great Article! It's clear for all to see ...
Posted by: rightisright on Aug 18, 2006 8:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... why moronic, clueless Leftists cannot be and should not be trusted to get anywhere NEAR the levers of national security power in this country. Nearly every word written in this article is wrong - congratulations for your consistency. Is it any wonder why the Left hasn't put together a sizeable majority to elect the Commander-in-Chief since 1964? Abject cluelessness and spinelessness regarding the nature of the threats to our collective security AND about how to realistically deal with them. Keep it up!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ignorance is Strength Posted by: doctorsquared
What a real President did against terrorism
Posted by: Perry Logan on Aug 18, 2006 11:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it permissible to look at the record--or is that a liberal trick?

Here's what a real President did against terrorism:

# PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
# Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
# Bill Clinton brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
# Bill Clinton did not blame the Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.
# Bill Clinton named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
# Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
# Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
# Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for better tracking of explosives used by terrorists. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
# Bill Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
# Bill Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
# Bill Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries.
# Bill Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
# Of Clinton's efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama".
# Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Bill Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden.
# Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Bill Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You Also Ignored These Facts Posted by: CW4RETIRED
» RE: You Also Ignored These Facts Posted by: CW4RETIRED
Cutting and Running
Posted by: DennisDalrymple on Aug 18, 2006 11:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lest we forget: The Bush Administration cut and ran from the mountains of Tora Bora when they had Osama within their grasp, then they veered off about 800 miles and attacked Iraq instead. Either the Bushies are as dumb as they appear, or there's a conspiracy theory emerging.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FOR ONCE Alternet & SamFox are on
Posted by: SamFox on Aug 18, 2006 11:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the same page. I agree with almost all the lead article as far as it went.

You can't, however, forget that Bill Clinton had a 'shot' a Bin Ladden & he too missed.

My only problem with the lead is leaving out the Dems. If all we do is trade Repub RINOs for Dems, we will always be on the path to fullfilling the main goal of 'both' parties: to assimilate the USA into the NWO's North American Union, complete w/Ameros re-placing dollors. Both Lib D & R 'Conserv' presidents have signed treaties that allow the outsourcing of jobs & industry. Both have allowed big oil to have monopolistic control over oil-are in the hip pocket of special intrests-both have left the borders open for several decades-both voted to go to Bush's war-both have ignored the Constitution in that regard & in many other ways. Both over spend, allow the trade deficit & national debt to get out of hand, allow the buy up of US debt to forgien intrests. The fiasco with the ports was only the tip of the ice-berg. (Clinton's balanced budget was just a sham numbers game. How could BC balance the budget while the US continued to allow the buy up of US debt & trade deficits continued to balloon? Though lower then, the Nat. Debt was still very high. If the Nat. Debt is not payed off how can the US have a balanced budget?) Neither party says anything about the private bankers owner ship of the mis-named 'Federal' Reserve & the un-Constitutional printing by the private bankers of what we now call money. Larry McDonald, a real Patriot, called for Congressional investigation of the IRS & 'Federal' Reserve. He coincidentley(??) died abord KAL-007.

Both "parties" must be held accountable. We need a real party, un-controlled by the NWO cabal, that will return to the US Constitution.

On another thread I suggested the Constitution Party. Some num-num called it the American Taliban. I say num-num because the poster offerd no altertitive.

If we the people do not re-gain control of our Government, the USA will continue to be sold out by treasonous gov. on Cap. Hill. If not the Constitution Party, then who? We absolutly cannot trust either of the two currant 'parties'.

SamFox

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

stanimal
Posted by: drfun on Aug 18, 2006 7:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What else can you expect from a A.W.O.L, convicted drunk driver, insider trader, won't disclose the last time he's done cocaine Dybua. And Dick, a 5 time deferred Vietnam coward, twice convicted drunk driver, trigger happay face shootin fat old gimp with a bad heart.
The whole former and present Bu$h administration should be impeached and trials for Treason should be handed down. Then turn over these unpatriotic dweebs to the Hague for War Crimes trials, and have them serve their life sentences at Gitmo!
Their illegally amassed fortunes should be confiscated and given to U.N. humanitarian projects in Afghanistan and Iraq.
It's over fifty years of misguided republican foreign policy shenanigans that have the U.S. in its current delima in the M.E. today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: stanimal Posted by: Craig C
re number 7 sickofsleaze
Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com on Aug 19, 2006 11:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At risk of being called all kinds of things, I question whether N Korea and Iran would have been so aggressively nuke of not for Bush's Karl Rove inspired rant after he crawled from under the bed of AF 1 and finally got the guts to face the nation to make his infamous Axis of Evil speech? I am not sure how many it takes to make an Axis but to me Bush and Blair make a pretty scary Axis of Evil. N and S Korea were making much progress toward settlling their division so disrupting the peace process gave Bush a chance to revive Ronnie's fool Star Wars and of course accusing Iran was the path to the oil riches

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Number 10
Posted by: sofla100 on Aug 19, 2006 6:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
#10 The Republicans are the party of the rich corporate elite and do their bidding. This was exemplified in recent bills like bankruptcy reform (a giveaway to big banks) and large tax credits to rich oil companies for off short oil development. The Republicans are bought and paid for by corporate lobbyists. The Republicans do the bidding of the rich elite thru legislation that allows for lucrative contracts for weapons developers and for companies re-building the infrastructure in Iraq. The Republicans favoring corporations also have legislated for free trade which allows companies like Wal-Mart to import cheap goods at the expense of Chinese sweat shop slave labor and at the expense of lost jobs in the USA manufacturing sector. Republican legislation is always at the expense of the consumer as they allow insurance companies to charge exorbitant rates and make obscene profits. It goes on and on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Another uninformed Posted by: rick1000
» You are uninformed Posted by: sofla100
An opinion that is all
Posted by: rick1000 on Aug 20, 2006 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any educated person knows these comments to be opinions and that is all.
It is typical however for a leftist to project an opinion as though it is fact in truth.
Truth is, many completely disagree with your opinion.
I do believe however that eventually you will get what you want, in fact the bible makes it clear for it is written of the last days “ By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper in his hand”

While the right may be accused of deceit and propaganda it is the left that is perfecting it through the MSM. It was not a republican that lied under oath in a sexual harassment case and for the most part got away with it and a complete pass by the left and the MSM to boot!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Craig C
Posted by: Craig C on Aug 20, 2006 11:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Republicans have been pretty bad, but the Dems set the table under the Clinton administration. If Ol' Billy Boy had taken Bin Laden off the hands of the Sudanese government, 9/11 would probably not have happened. In addition, the Dems didn't do anything about the first WTC attack, or the bombing of the USS Cole. Both sides have been bad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Too hung up on party affiliation.........
Posted by: pinchpro on Aug 20, 2006 1:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, 9/11 happened on Bush's watch....this is merely a matter of timing and dumb "luck." Has nothing to do with Bush's competence or incompetence. The intelligence information that has to be filtered is staggering; correct interpretation has as much to do with luck as anything else. Scary but true and anyone who doesn't realize that is a LOT more naive than I!

Yes, Bush and his people have failed to bring in Osama bin Laden. The killer of the Black Dahlia has not been brought to justice either.

I agree that we are making little or no progress in Iraq....innumerable mistakes have been made. Rumsfeld should already be gone. I NEVER believed a democracy was possible in Irag.....I have been over there. Have NO desire to go back.

Yes, Bush has squandered America's power and prestige. Countless mistakes have been and continue to be made. I am a registered Republican (and proud of it!) and voted for Bush.....but his team has made LOTS of mistakes. NOT impressive.

Yes, we helped make Israel look incompetent as it went after Hezbollah in Lebanon. The fallout among the Israeli leadership is only NOW beginning.

There probably was NO correct and effective tactic in handling Hamas in Palestine. Anyone who has ever been over there will tell you that these people are not logical and cannot be negotiated or bargained with. They understand ONLY a good, old-fashioned BUTT whipping!

Yes, our military power is being squandered in Iraq and we are accomplishing very little.

Yes, our "successful" prosecution of terrorists had very little to brag about. We are doing a pitiful job with Sadam in Iraq, too. I am sure Sadam is quite amused by our efforts.

As far as our "record" with the Bill of Rights and the Geneva Conventions is concerned....terrorists don't deserve any rights and anyone in this country who has nothing to hide has nothing to worry about with recent legislation. The Geneva Conventions only work for those that we are at war with.....none of our opposition pays any attention to them anyway.

Making this entirely the fault of the Republicans is subscribing to the myth that EITHER party has the best interests of the people in mind. Look at John Kerry. He can't even decide where he stands on the war on terror and how we should go about it. He is totally and vocally FOR something one day and the next day will explain in detail why it's a bad idea. He is a PERFECT example of a VERY POOR Monday morning quarterback. A leader he is NOT. Almost ALL politicians in DC are solely concerned with ONE thing.....that is, getting re-elected and raking in as many dollars in campaign contributions as humanly possible. The general incompetence in DC is absolutely staggering. The main concern of the Democrats is to distribute as many of our tax dollars as possible to people and projects that will guarantee almost no return. Actually, the ignorance (stupidity?) of the Democrats is ALMOST mind boggling. They distribute millions (billions!) to constituencies that generally don't vote anyway. Personally, I am pretty disgusted with both parties and am firmly convinced we need a viable third party. However, most voters can only "see" Republicans and Democrats. That is EXACTLY one of the deficiencies that Larry Beinhart exhibits. Larry.....BOTH parties are incompetent and disconnected!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Easy
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Aug 20, 2006 3:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Geprge Bush
2. Dick Cheney
#.Donny Rumsfeld
4.Condi Rice
5. Al Gonzolaz
6.Tommy Franks
7.Iraq
8.FEMA
9. KATRINA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: asy Posted by: Aisie
» 10.Clarence Thomas Posted by: neutral1
NEVERENDING STORY
Posted by: Aisie on Aug 20, 2006 4:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a waste of time to just point a finger. People think that if they catch bin Laden every terrorist sect would just stop. If anything they'll be more prepared to carry off their fallen general's orders. You can lock up a terrorist, but you can't stop the terror. It's sad that we have to face a harsh truth these days.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bin Ladin is a Saudi, that's why "we" won't try to get him.
Posted by: neutral1 on Aug 20, 2006 5:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]