Friday Democratic Talking Points

[ Posted Friday, September 28th, 2007 – 17:12 UTC ]

Time for another round of Democratic talking points, for the benefit of whoever's going to be on this weekend's Sunday morning talk shows (or for any Democrat anywhere in front of a television camera, for that matter).

I must admit it's been kind of a frustrating week. There are a few things Democrats did this week which are just indefensible, in my opinion. They are beyond my power to spin, in other words. So, to follow a cardinal rule ("never give your opponents an opening"), I'm just not going to mention any of them here, I'll just say Congressional Democrats who voted for such nonsense should be ashamed of themselves. You know who you are, and you know what I'm talking about.

Luckily, on one of these issues, Rush Limbaugh has given Democrats a lifeline. After both houses of Congress voted on a non-binding resolution which was carefully worded not to mention (but which was aimed straight at them), Limbaugh has now provided an avenue of counterattack. On his radio show two days ago, Rush had the following exchange with a caller [Media Matters has the whole exchange up on their site, if you're interested]:

CALLER: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.

Got that? Any soldier who serves in a war and then comes home and speaks out against the president's war policy is, according to Rush Limbaugh, a "phony soldier." This from a man who got a deferment from serving in Vietnam because he had a pimple on his rear end.

This is handing Democrats ammunition, on a silver platter. Democrats should immediately introduce their own resolution in both houses which condemns such language strongly, and beat Republicans at their own demagoguery. At the very least, they should use Limbaugh's comments as a blunt instrument this Sunday to show that "Republicans are more interested in protecting Bush's hand-picked Generals than they care about actual front-line soldiers. Mr. Limbaugh's comments are disgusting, offensive to everyone who wears the uniform of the United States, and I call on all Republicans to strongly condemn such remarks, or prove themselves hypocrites by staying silent."

I mean, that one just writes itself. Go back over Republicans' comments from last week and just turn the same language around on them. Force the issue, the same way they did. Democrats can't lose on this one... unless they fail to bring it up, of course.

But this week, other than condemning Rush Limbaugh, the most important thing for Democrats to talk about is health care, so all the talking points this week will be on the subject of the SCHIP legislation, which will soon be on President Bush's desk, and which he has promised to veto.

Again, this is an easy target for Democrats. Bush is on the wrong side of the issue. His own party is deserting him in droves. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), not generally known as a socialist or liberal, recently said "It's unfortunate that the president has chosen to be on what, to me, is clearly the wrong side of this issue." Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), also not known for being a liberal, when asked if Bush was holding the bill hostage, replied "Yes."

The bill passed the Senate with a veto-proof majority, although I was sad to see that Barack Obama and Joseph Biden did not vote. Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd apparently took time off from campaigning to vote, but not Obama and Biden.

However, the bill does not have a veto-proof majority in the House, although dozens of Republicans did vote for it. If Bush vetoes it, a further two dozen or so Republican votes are needed to overturn Bush, so the outcome is not certain. Which means Democrats need to hammer on it this weekend.

The bill itself has only one glaring problem with it, but other than a few Republicans from tobacco states, this argument is largely being ignored by the GOP (for now, at least). I refer to the fact that the money for the expanded program is going to come from taxing cigarettes. Since a higher percentage of lower-income citizens smoke, this is taxing the poor to pay for children's health for the poor. But smokers are such a pariah group politically these days it may not make a difference (image what Republicans would say if it was a tax on alcohol, for instance, since a much higher percentage of Americans drink).

That aside, however, there are all kinds of good arguments to make in support of this bill. So without further ado, here are this Friday's talking points.


Democratic Talking Points


(1) Frame the issue correctly from the get-go:

Insurance company profits

"President Bush obviously cares more about insurance company profits than he does about children's health. We think that's wrong. I guess all that "compassionate conservatism" talk was a lie, huh?"


(2) This one is a generic term to throw around throughout any interview:

The Republican elite and elitist Republicans

"The Republican elite thinks they know best for American families. It is truly astounding how out of touch with average American families elitist Republicans are. They have proven over and over again that they care about money more than they care about this country. Rudy Giuliani made millions giving speeches after 9/11, and he resigned from the 9/11 Commission to have more time to do so. The White House Press Secretary had to 'take out a loan' to live on $168,000 a year salary, and then he quit serving his country at the White House when 'his money ran out.' Elitist Republicans show America time and time again how blind they are to average Americans trying to live their lives -- most of whom would be overjoyed to make $168,000 a year."


(3) Variation on the same theme:

President Bush doesn't care about poor people

"President Bush is the biggest elitist in the bunch, which is probably why he is resisting this bill so strongly. To show you how oblivious Bush is to the health care crisis in this country, let me read you what he said recently: 'No one goes without health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room.' The ignorance and indifference this shows is just stunning. I guess Jim Hightower was right when he said 'George Bush was born on third base thinking he had hit a triple.' "

Seriously, that quote from Bush should be tattooed on the brain of every Democrat who appears this weekend. That quote should be repeated so often we all get sick of hearing it. Over and over and over again. It shows the massive gap between how Bush sees health insurance, and how normal Americans do.


(4) Attack the Republican bugaboo head-on:

Ask your parents whether they like Medicare

"Republican elitists are using the scare tactic of saying 'socialized medicine' over and over in an attempt to convince Americans that this bill would be a bad idea. You know what? We already have socialized medicine in this country. It's called Medicare. I challenge voters to ask their parents or grandparents what they think of Medicare. Would they give it up, in order to try to get this wonderful private health insurance the Republicans are promoting? Or would they fight to keep the Medicare coverage they currently have? I defy Republicans, if they think 'socialized medicine' is so evil, to immediately introduce legislation to get rid of Medicare. If they won't do that, then they are flat-out hypocrites."


(5) Hit Republicans where they live:

Republicans obviously don't believe in the free market

"Republicans' answer for just about everything is to 'let the free market decide,' but now they're arguing that letting parents choose -- that's important, not 'forcing parents' but 'letting parents choose' -- whether to sign up with SCHIP or not is going to destroy the free market or some such nonsense. But for years, they've been telling us that the free market will let the best win and the worst lose. So if this plan is as bad as they say, then nobody will sign up for it -- and the free market has won again. But Republican elitists are terrified that the free market would show that this plan is better than private health insurance, so insurance companies will lose profits. I wish they would just come out and say the free market doesn't work, if that's really what they believe."


(6) Another phrase to repeat over and over again:

This is a bi-partisan bill

The word "bipartisan" should be on the lips of every Democrat this weekend. The GOP is going to try to paint this as some Democratic big-spending issue, but Democrats have lots of political cover on this one (for once). "Republican Senators Orrin Hatch and Charles Grassley have not only supported this bill strongly, but have also called on the White House to stop its obstructionism on it. 43 state governors, many of them Republicans, are for this bill. As a matter of fact, so many people are for this bill, its hard to find anyone outside of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue who is against it. This is a bi-partisan piece of legislation, and it deserves to be signed by President Bush."


(7) Show Republicans the knife:

If we can't get this bill passed, we will be using it in next year's elections

From the Washington Post article: "Americans United for Change, a group closely allied with the Democratic leadership, will begin airing television ads this week in Kentucky, accusing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) of abandoning his state's children." Put all Republicans who vote against this bill on notice -- especially the ones in the House -- that this will be used in a massive advertising campaign throughout next year's election. It's pretty hard to explain why you voted against health care for kids, and Democrats should let every Republican who votes against it know that it will indeed come back to haunt them. Republicans are already terrified at their prospects in 2008, so hammer this point home.


Cross-posted at The Huffington Post


-- Chris Weigant


61 Comments on “Friday Democratic Talking Points”

  1. [1] 
    Michael Gass wrote:

    Ah yes, Rush...

    I say, condemn Rush on Monday...

    On Tuesday, condemn Ann Coulter.

    On Wednesday, Bill O'Reilly.

    On Thursday, Glen Beck.

    On Friday, Melanie Morgan.

    On Monday, Michelle Malkin.

    You beat them over their heads with this over and over and over until they finally STFU.

    (Cue Michale defending Rush...)

  2. [2] 
    benskull wrote:

    Hey MG, ever see the documentary Outfoxed? about Fox and R Murdoch? Great piece on Bill OReilly. What a monster. They should call it The Fox Conservative Propaganda Network. That guy had the nerve to yell at a guy whos father died in 9/11, who was against the war. He wouldn't even let him talk and then took him off the air, saying in respect for your father. I wanted to reach through my TV screen. He even insulted the kid a couple times weeks and months later. He reminds me of the news guy in the movie V for Vendetta. Monster :) I hope all the Dems read Chris's site. They need the help. That healthcare bill is an amazing one up. It really is simple, poor children, or insurance companies?

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:


    Actually I never listen to Rush, so I can't defend him.. But it is interesting to see how you SAY you are against censorship, but yet you want to silence those who disagree with you.. You apparently are all about free speech as long as the speech is only what you agree with.

    Now, I am not into name-calling. That is your forte.. But the word 'hypocrite' does come to mind.


    I think that, if the Dems were to attack Rush in the manner you describe, it would backfire..

    Now, I can't, don't and WON'T speak for the GOP, but if I were the GOP, my response to a hypothetical attack by the Dems of that nature would be:

    "Oh, I don't think Rush and that caller were talking about soldiers who come back from Iraq and protest the war. I am sure Rush and the caller were talking about those lusers who LIE about things in Iraq that the Democratic Party parades around as "proof" of how bad things are. Those are the "PHONY SOLDIERS" that Rush and the caller were talking about, I am sure.."

    That could be the GOP response and it would put things squarely back in the Dems lap and label the Democratic Party as the party of liars and cowards who will use any lie to further their political agenda..

    That's my take, anyways...


    I would ask you to reconcile some "facts"..

    1. The vast majority of Americans are against the war in Iraq and against the Republicans..

    2. Fox News is number one in news and information amongst the Cable networks, across the board...

    If Fox News is the "Fox Conservative Propaganda Network", as you claim, how can you reconcile it's popularity with the Democratic Party claim that "everyone" is against the war and against the GOP..

    It would seem that the above two "facts" are mutually exclusive..

    Please explain..


  4. [4] 
    Michael Gass wrote:

    And... here is Michale, making the EXACT GOP talking point argument I knew he would... "Oh, Rush wasn't talking about REAL REAL soldiers..."


    That has the audio of Rush's show... listen to it.

    In his "non-apology" he names... BY NAME... Rep. John Murtha (or Jack, he goes by both).

    Murtha is a 37-year retired Marine veteran. He started enlisted and retired a Colonel. He's a "phoney soldier"????

    Now... for the slow (Michale)... Rush NAMES Murtha, BY NAME, as a "phoney soldier".

    Once again, Michale is shown to be WRONG and the talking point rubutted.

  5. [5] 
    CDub wrote:

    (4) Attack the Republican bugaboo head-on:

    Ask your parents whether they like Medicare

    And don't forget to ask your doctor. Doctors love Medicare because it's the only insurer that pays on time and never tries to find ways to deny coverage.

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Murtha is a scam artist, a hustler and simply a dishonest man...

    He is one of the most dishonest men in Congress and that says a lot...

    As I said, I don't listen to Rush and I really don't give a rat's ass what he says... I was simply stating how I would respond. With the Democratic Party's penchant to trot out ANY soldier who spouts off against the war, whether that soldier is telling the truth or not..

    Do you deny this?? Of course you do, because by all accounts of your postings, you are factually challenged...

    As to me being wrong?? I wasn't making a point or stating any facts. I was merely giving my opinion.

    For someone who has made it a point (over and over ad nasuem) that you were just going to ignore me, I sure do consume a lot of your time and energy..

    Strange how that is, eh?? :D


  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    I suggest you go to Media Matters and check out the transcript. Rush was talking to a caller, which is what set him (and the second caller) off. The caller repeated over and over again that he was a Republican (not a Democrat) and that he had military experience. Rush just flat-out could not believe that (1) there were Republicans who didn't agree with him (he kept saying "you're not a Republican.") and that (2) anyone with military experience would say such things. In other words, attack the messenger. Refuse to face facts when they're right in front of you.

    The Media Matters article also goes into the seven soldiers who wrote an article for the New York Times which was critical of the war (two of whom are now dead). So I ask you, is every soldier who speaks out against the war just some tool of the Democrats? Even if they self-identify as Republicans? Are soldiers who feel the need to speak out to be condemned? Or should we listen to what they say?


  8. [8] 
    Michael Gass wrote:

    well Michale,

    You try to ignore the gnat buzzing around... and then... you just have to swat it to make it go away.

    As for all of those troops that the Democrat's keep trotting out... like, Jon Soltz... oh wait, he's with VoteVets... like Paul Reickhoff... oh wait, he's with IAVA...

    Who does the Democratic Party trot out again????

  9. [9] 
    benskull wrote:

    Michale, for one, how could you defend this statement, after all the things you said about moveon, anti USA? Where's you patriotism? Was it CW that had an article recently talking about the GOP convention wearing purple bandaids to make fun of Kerry and his purple heart medals? Do you defend that too? Hypocrite comes to mind. If the republican party had souls they would be wasting our time and tax money to condemn Rush. Period. Obviously the moveon debacle was simply a sneaky tactic to tie a controversial statement to the democratic party. I know I know, hard to believe that the repubs would be so one sided. Its ok, sit down, take a deep breath and a sip of water, and then, consider voting democrat, you'll sleep better at night :)oh and as for the majority being against the war? i think the 66% disapproval rating is evidence enough. I believe the number specifically pertaining to the war is higher. I'll look for it. But 66% is pretty accurate, considering that all bush has done in office is iraq, besides trying to ruin our education system, and neglect our infrastructure, and auction our country off to the highest bidder. And as far as Fox, well, I really doubt that you believe there statement of Fair and Balanced, you decide. Watch Outfoxed. Seriously. Oh and Bill O'Reilly is NOT a journalist. An entertainer at best. Fair and balanced means when you bring someone on your show that has a different view, you listen to it, rather than tell them to shut up and cut their mic.

  10. [10] 
    benskull wrote:

    Here Michale, check this out.

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Look people, I am not defending Rush or his statements.. I am simply saying how the GOP would turn this around to make the Democrats look bad.. LIKE THEY ALWAYS DO...

    It's a bona fide FACT that the Dems cannot handle the PR war as good as the GOP..

    I am a veteran of two different services and many combat actions. To denigrate soldiers *SOLELY* because they disagree with a conflict is despicable, I agree...

    However, MY whole point was that the Democrats seem to latch onto ANYONE who will speak against the war, without confirming their bona fides... Like the guy who spoke out against the war and it was learned he had never served in Iraq or Afghanistan.. Or the author of the "Baghdad Diaries" which turned out to be a load of crap.. Do ya'all deny this??

    If the Democrats want to actually WIN the PR war, they first have to learn how to fight.. Sadly, that's been the Democratic Party's problem for a lot longer than just this issue...

    As far as FNC and "fair and balanced" that is completely irrelevant to my question, Benskull.. And I suspect you know that.

    All I asked is, if the vast majority of Americans (according to the Dems) are against the war and against the GOP and FNC is just a GOP mouthpiece, how can Fox have the top-rated and top-viewed news shows across the board??

    FNC's claims of "fair and balanced" are completely irrelevant to this question...

    As to the cutting off the mic incident. That was with Neil Cavuto and was only done because the guests were being rude and were talking over each other.. Indeed, that is a perfect example of FNC **BEING** fair and balanced. Allowing both sides to be heard without interruption from the other... Now, if that had been a DEM function or interview, the guest that was on the GOP side would have been escorted out by goons and thugs... How is THAT "fair and balanced", benskull??"

    I have no opinion of Rush as I never watch or listen to him..

    >So I ask you, is every soldier
    >who speaks out against the war
    >just some tool of the Democrats?


    To the Democrats, that is all that kind of soldier is.. A tool..

    To me, most of them are honorable men who have been thru hell on earth and decided that it wasn't worth it.. I can respect that..

    But to the Democratic Party, they are simply tools.. Regardless of whether or not those soldiers are telling the truth (which many of them were not), they were simply tools of the Democratic Party.

    Or, more accurately, they were weapons of the Democratic Party. Nothing but baseball bats that the Dems can use to bash Bush over the head with.

    To the Democrats, that is all they are...

    >Are soldiers who feel the need to
    >speak out to be condemned?

    Depends on why they are speaking out.. Are they speaking out because they want to bring down the army, as the Baghdad Diarist did?? Are they speaking out because they want their 15 minutes of fame as one guy did..

    Are you suggesting that THOSE types NOT be condemned???

    >Or should we listen to what they say?

    I think we should listen to what ALL the *REAL* soldiers have to say...

    But, it seems like the Democrats only want to listen to the soldiers who want to bash the war.. Apparently, soldiers who want to speak of THEIR opinions of the war, are escorted away by Dem goons and thugs..

    So, you ask, "should we listen to what they have to say?". I agree completely.. The REAL soldiers who have something to say should be heard.. REGARDLESS of what they have to say...

    And yet, those who do speak up in favor of their mission are ridiculed by the Left as "war mongers", "psychotics" and "baby killiers".. How is this any different then what ya'all are castigating Rush for??


    >Who does the Democratic Party
    >trot out again????

    Pvt. Scott Beauchamp
    Lying about his experiences and exaggerating three specific stories in an attempt to shed a negative light on other soldiers and the war effort.

    There were several other soldiers that the Dems trotted out that spoke out against the war, but later it was learned that they hadn't even served in Iraq or Afghanistan..

    You see, Gass.. This is your problem. You pretend that the Democratic Party is as pure as the driven snow when you trot out all the missteps of the GOP. But what you simply cannot fathom is that the Dems are no different than the GOP...

    Once again we see a prime example of the central issue here.. You are seen as trying to impose your will, saying that you cannot possibly be wrong..

    I merely am saying (and providing facts to support) that you could be wrong...

    That is why you cannot win in such a debate.. Because your opponent is not trying to being right. He is simply pointing out that you could be wrong..


  12. [12] 
    benskull wrote:

    What a joke. The dems using soldiers as tools? What about Bush and the GOP using them as tools in Iraq? Risking there lives for "the spread of democracy". In my opinion, passing on stories of unsuccess would be to end an unnecessary conflict, which they've been trying to do all along. That is a good thing. And as far as O'Reilly, that is certainly not the only time he has told a guest to shut up. You really should watch outfoxed. And that link I sent you was of Rupert Murdoch telling a reporter that he was trying to push the country to war. Watch it.
    And frankly it says something that the Dems aren't as good at the PR game. They are more concerned with doing there jobs, then convincing people that the other side is bad. Not that they are innocent. But they seem to be spending time trying to pass positive bills, like the child healthcare one that you won't comment on michale, and ways to end the conflict in Iraq, rather than banding together under their leader and just vote no vote no vote no and veto everything that comes to the table. Or comdemning advertisements. Its sad that politics is where it is. Hard to find any altruism in it. PR is not what we pay taxes for. If everyone in washington spent more time telling us the truth, and actually acknowledging issues, and less time building an image, the world would be a better place.

  13. [13] 
    benskull wrote:

    In fact, i think that should be an ammendment. No more tax dollars on advertising or PR for politicians. They get allotted time on the major networks to explain the issues that are important to them, and what they think of the issues that are important to us, and what theyll do with them, and if they want to do all the other crap that cheapens elections, they can pay for it themselves. Without it being donated from, say ...... Rupert Murdoch. :)

  14. [14] 
    benskull wrote:

    oh, saw your other comment and your disagreement on blocking the healthcare bill. :)

  15. [15] 
    Michael Gass wrote:

    So... let's see... you are equating a diarist (Pvt. Scott Beauchamp) and a magazine (The New Republic) with the Democratic PARTY. Amazingly, a google search doesn't bring up any quotes from the Democratic PARTY, Senators or Congressmen.

    You say "there were several"... so... once again... what "phoney soldiers" have the DEMOCRATIC PARTY trotted out? Name the soldiers AND the DLC rep, Democratic Senators, Congress men and/or women, who trotted them out.

    YOUR problem is that your "facts" are mere GOP talking points that I continually destroy.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:


    >The dems using soldiers as tools?
    >What about Bush and the GOP using
    >them as tools in Iraq?

    The difference is that the Dems are using soldiers as POLITICAL tools.. The Commander In Chief is fulfilling his duties and using the soldiers as they are meant to be used.

    That is not to say that the GOP'ers in Congress are innocent in using the troops as tools as well. Jessica Lynch comes to mind.

    In this regard, there is no difference between the Dems and the GOP.. Your problem is you castigate JUST the GOP and are blinded by partisanship to the fact that the Democratic Party is just as guilty if not more so..

    A perfect case in point..

    >Without it being donated from, say
    > …… Rupert Murdoch. :)

    Or George Soros???

    This is exactly what I am talking about. You castigate the Right for it's Rupert Murdoch while conveniently forgetting that the Left has it's George Soros..

    That is the whole problem with YOUR side of the debate.. You think your side is as pure as the driven snow and everything bad and evil is from the Right. I, on the other hand, am completely non-partisan. I recognize that both the Left AND the Right suck purple panther piss..

    >Amazingly, a google search doesn't
    >bring up any quotes from the Democratic
    >PARTY, Senators or Congressmen.

    Your google searches are obviously as flawed as your personal attacks..

    A simple search showed many articles on sites such as and other Democratic Party affiliated web site.

    Face it, Gass.. Every time you make personal attacks on me, you simply validate my position on things. You have offered nothing in the way of facts or evidence, but rather simply post personal attacks.

    That is the extent of your "destroy"ing which is, pretty much, all in your head. :D

    As I said, you simply cannot win here because your position is one of impossibility. That the Democratic Party is all pure and right and the Republican Party is all evil and wrong.

    You cannot conceive that you could be wrong and therefore, everything you spout IS wrong..

    But, by all means, keep trying.. It amuses me.. And I always come back here for a good laugh. :D


  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:


    >oh, saw your other comment and your
    >disagreement on blocking the healthcare
    >bill. :)

    The fact of the matter is that, with the exception of ONE issue (self defense and national security) I am probably the most liberal one here..

    Much more liberal than say, Michael Gass and CDub types, who pound on the idea that they and they alone are right, that they could not POSSIBLY be wrong and that anyone who disagrees with them could has absolutely no merit whatsoever..

    My idea of a liberal is a person who listens to another person's argument and then says, "Well, you may be right, but consider this...."

    With regards to the Iraq issue, the simple fact is that NONE of us have ALL the information about what is really going on.. That being the case, how can ANYONE claim to have the "right answer" when we don't even know many of the questions??

    That is why I have to laugh when people come right out and state completely and unequivocally that BUSH IS WRONG when they haven't the first clue as to what is going on..

    But regardless, you can rest assured that if we were to discuss anything else but Iraq, Military matters or self-defense issues, I would be more liberal than you are.. :D

    I even oppose Bush on his Global Warming BS....


  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    I also find it interesting that NOT ONE OF YOU addressed the question..

    Should the Democratic Party listen to soldiers that have a DIFFERENT opinion of the Iraq war than the DP does??

    The fact that ya'all DIDN'T answer that question pretty much answers that question..

    Here's another one for ya'all to ignore..

    Should a soldier's testimony that is PRO Iraq Action be given the same weight as a soldier who's testimony is ANTI Iraq Action??

    Your {NON} answer will speak volumes...


  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:


    One point.. Media Matters is the "Bill O'reilly" of the Left... It's hard to take ANYTHING the print or post seriously.. Benskull was castigating the right for the Rupert Murdoch influence.. Well, MediaMatters is simply a propaganda outlet for George Soros...

    But, regardless, I wanted to ask..

    Have you ever seen any of your talking points make the Sunday talk shows?? :D Just curious...


  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dems suggest a 156 percent increase in cigarettes to help fund children's health coverage expansion plan,2933,298663,00.html

    Now THIS is a plan that I am ALL FOR!!!

    I am 1000% behind this...

    Wonder how others feel about it, eh???

    CDub?? Gass??? Et al???

    Ya'all ready to pay double and triple for your smokes?? :D


  21. [21] 
    benskull wrote:

    I guess the only problem I have is that you say Bush is doing his duty and using the soldiers as they're meant to be used. While they are there, on their on volition, to serve the country in times of war, it is Bush's duty to take that VERY seriously. I don't believe he has fulfilled his duty of exhausting diplomacy prior to going to war. I know I know, diplomacy with Saddaam? No. Although, I'm sure it was possible, seeing our close relationship with him in the past, nonetheless, i see it plainly, that Iraq, was unrelated to 9/11. Period. That was our priority. National Security. Terrorists. Al Quaeda. Our intelligence bureaus are not full of idiots. They are capable of catching this guy. Had the resources and funding and attention been put towards him, we could have completed that mission. There is certainly alot of evidence out there that clarifies our reasons for being in iraq. These soldier are not tools for profit. I heard Greenspan talking a few times on NPR, he said that had Saddaam gained full control of the oil in Iraq, it would have reeked havoc on the world economy. When asked whether he knew that, per geneva convention, it was illegal to invade another country for its resources, he backpeddled and tried to say that everyone was really surprised that there were no wmd. Interesting.
    Some good points, honestly I dont even know who soros is. Will look him up. Although, the completely non partisan comment, Im not so sure about. It would be nice if there were more parties. Not sure how that would make things. Maybe the Whig party can be resurrected.
    Hey Michale and CW, what do you think about blackwater? and have either of you read anything about naomi kleins book? What do the two of you think about all the privatization going on in the country? Privately owned highways, mercinary armies, etc?

  22. [22] 
    CDub wrote:

    Of all the tobacco users I know, I can only think of one that has children, and I think it's perfectly fair that he should pay more in taxes in return for his children's health care.

    I wondered why Orin Hatch would back this legislation, and then it dawned on me, he represents non-smokers, and his average supporter probably has 20+ grandchildren, and 20+ million in the bank.

    It amounts to taxing the poor to benefit the rich.

    I'm all for taxing tobacco to make it too pricey for people to consider addiction, but I'd rather see it made legal to grow, but illegal to sell. This accomplishes the same goal without punishing poor people.

    I'm all for children's health care, but it should be a tax on milk that pays for it, so people with children kick in their share.

  23. [23] 
    benskull wrote:

    hey michale, in that fox cover of the health plan you linked, did you notice that fox did not mention once that there were many repubs who were behind the deal?

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    With regards to the discussions about "Free Speech"...

    Seems that even is in the "censorship" business as well..'s thin skin

    So, I guess ya'all believe that censorship is GOOD and OK if it comes from the Left, right?? :^/


  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:


    Two points..

    One.. You are correct. It DOES seem strange that Bush would put so much effort into the Iraq campaign when we had Afghanistan on our plate and the Iraq/Al Qaeda connection, while there, was tenuous. However, (to be objective) you must allow for the fact that we don't know all the facts. Perhaps there were very good reasons for it that we simply cannot know. However, there WERE WMDs in Iraq. Saddam used those on his own people. That's a documented fact... My point is, we don't know the whole story. So how can we say with any degree of certainty whether or not Iraq was a good idea or not.

    Now, if you were to phrase it as, "Based on what we know now, going into Iraq was a stoopid and bonehead move." I could 1000% agree with that statement..

    As to the Greenspan comment, I think his comment was miscontrued.. Most likely intentionally..

    What I believe Greenspan had meant was that for Saddam to remain in power and be able to use OIL as a weapon would have wrecked the world's economies. IN that regard, it doesn't violate the Geneva Convention as we did not invade Iraq for possession of it's oil per se, but rather to insure that the oil properly flows...

    This is another good argument for invading Iran and removing Ahmen-dood... Because he HAS threatened specifically to use his OIL as a weapon...

    My personal feeling is that cigarettes should be outlawed and treated as the dangerous drugs that they are... Possession, distribution all illegal and worthy of jail time...

    But that's just me... :D


    While the article doesn't come right out and say it, it surely intimates it in several passages.

    Democrats, who wrote the legislation and provided most of its votes, generally portray themselves as champions of the poor.

    ...and both political parties seem inclined to pay for it through a tax on an unpopular group, cigarette smokers.

    etc etc...

    Ya'all gang up on FNC for being biased... Can you show me any major news organization that is NOT bias??

    CNN, NBC, CBS, NY Times and scores and scores of others wear their liberal bias on their sleeves. They are PROUD of their liberal bias and do whatever they can to emphasize it..

    Castigate FNC all you want. But of the major news organizations they are the MOST fair and balanced.. This is undeniable and is reflected in their popularity...


  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:


    On another note.. You are on record as castigating Rupert Murdoch for his evil influence over the GOP..

    I wonder if you are willing to praise him for his company's work in the area of countering Human Caused Global Warming..

    Using bio-fuels is ridiculous, as they are a worse polluter than gasoline, but you must concede that FOX is trying to do something...


  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    What did I tell ya!!!??? :D

    Now, how much you want to bet that the Democrats will back down from this and hope it quietly goes away??

    The Democratic Party is on the record as being completely and unequivocally Anti-US Troops that there is simply no way they can carry this off...

    Add to that the simple fact that Murtha is THE most dishonest person in Congress and I think you will find that the Democrats will not be able to sustain any sort of righteous indignation for longer than a news cycle or two...

    As I predicted, this is going to come back and bite the Democrats squarely on the ass...

    God, I hate being right all the time....


  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    The BEST defense is a good offense...

    This is why the Democrats just cannot compete in the PR field...

    Mon Oct 01 2007 15:16:57 ET


    Mr. KINGSTON submitted the following resolution


    Commending Rush Hudson Limbaugh III for his ongoing public support of American troops serving both here and abroad. Recognizing Mr. Limbaugh for his relentless efforts to build and maintain troop morale through worldwide radio broadcasts and personal visits to conflict regions.

    Whereas the need to show support for American troops serving and fighting both here and abroad during a time of global conflict has never been greater, with the need to communicate an uplifting message of encouragement to American soldiers eternally important, in addition to the morale-boosting value of personal visits to region by highly-regarded individuals;

    Whereas daily radio broadcasts reaching tens of millions of civilians and soldiers both in America and abroad by way of the Armed Forces Radio Network are conducted five days a week by Rush Hudson Limbaugh III;

    Whereas Mr. Limbaugh has consistently used his broadcast time to praise American troops and support them during their ongoing efforts to secure peace in a troubled world;

    Whereas Mr. Limbaugh made a week-long visit to meet with troops based in Afghanistan in 2004;

    Whereas Mr. Limbaugh has raised and donated millions of dollars to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation, which provides college scholarships to the children of Marines and veterans of other branches killed in action;

    Whereas Mr. Limbaugh’s website features an “Adopt a Soldier” program which provides them with free subscription access to his online program features;

    Whereas during the original invasion in 2003, pilots of five different aircraft flew an American flag in Mr. Limbaugh’s honor during their bombing and refueling runs; and

    Whereas Mr. Limbaugh’s commitment to American troops serving both here and abroad remains as strong as ever: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

    (1) recognizes Rush Hudson Limbaugh III for his support of the Marine Corp Law Enforcement Foundation and for providing free subscriptions for active-duty servicemembers;

    (2) recognizes Mr Limbaugh’s desire to see American troops achieve a successful outcome in Iraq, Afghanistan and wherever soldiers are stationed; and

    (3) commends Mr. Limbaugh’s tireless public support for American troops and their families through radio broadcasts, fundraising and other public support.


  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have to wonder though...

    With so many Democrats screaming and yelling that condemning is a waste of time, will they now jump on the "Castigate RUSH" bandwagon, proving themselves to be hypocrites???

    Like I said at the beginning.. This can only end bad for the Democrats and they should have left it alone..


  30. [30] 
    benskull wrote:

    How did they mess up? In my opinion they should have spent the time explainin the repubs hypocrisy for not immediately jumping on Rush themselves for his comments, considering there postion against Nonetheless, what they asked for was an apology, and for his employer to publicly announce that rush's comments aren't supported. So? And how are they anti us troops? They want the troops brought home, thats support. So settle down tiger.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here is another name for ya, Gass..

    Looks like he was trotted out by the VERY organization that you mentioned, Iraq Veterans Against the War...

    The organization has since disavowed Macbeth, but before they found out he was a "phony soldier", he was their great white knight on a shiny steed..

    Now, I ask you.. Should the likes of Macbeth or Beauchamp be applauded or condemned???

    Anyone??? Anyone??? Beuhler???

    The silence is deafening....


  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:


    The simple fact is the last week or two, Democrats have been going on and on about how the is a waste of Congress's time and it is a diversion from the REAL business of Congress..

    Then they prove themselves to be hypocrites by playing tit-for-tat and bring up this RUSH nonsense..

    It's just like Iran playing the PR game and declaring the US Army and the CIA as terrorist organizations..

    After declaring that playing such a game is childish, then turning around and PLAYING the game simply shows what hypocrites the Democrats are...

    Ignoring for the moment that there ARE "phony soldiers" out there that the Democrats have paraded around certainly seems to prove Limbaugh's contention...

    Or are you of the opinion that those soldiers who lied about things in Iraq should be commended in the same manner as REAL soldiers, doing the REAL job???



  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not to mention the fact that now, to solidify their attack on Limbaugh, the Democratic Party are going to be forced to either condone and accept the "phony" soldiers such as MacBeth and Beauchamp as "real" soldiers or else join Limbaugh in decrying those types as "phoney" soldiers...

    Either way, it's another PR win for the GOP and the Democrats are left looking either incompetent, ball-less or Anti-American..

    Most likely, all three....


  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    And now we see the desperation appearing in the Democratic Party's personal attacks...

    Senator Harkin D-IA
    "Well, I don’t know. Maybe he was just high on his drugs again. I don’t know whether he was or not. If so, he ought to let us know. But that shouldn’t be an excuse...

    And here I thought that the Democratic Party was the "compassionate" party who termed that all drug addicts are "victims" of their addiction and should be helped and not further victimized..

    Once again, we see the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party... They are acting just like the GOP....


  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's rather ironic that Harry Ried is leading this Anti Limbaugh charge..

    Let's examine some of the quotes Ried has made in the past...

    "the war is lost"

    "General Peter Pace is incompetent"

    "General David Petraeus is out of touch with what's going on."

    "I will not believe anything but disaster reports coming from Iraq"

    Yea... Harry Reid sounds like a real friend of the military... :^/


  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    A partial list of the "phony" soldiers that permeate the ranks of the Democratic Party "heroes"....

    *Jesse Macbeth, 23, Tacoma, Washington, sentenced today in connection with his fraudulent claims of military service. Macbeth sought medical benefits claiming to suffer from PTSD related to service in Iraq and Afghanistan, in fact, Macbeth was discharged from the Army about a month after he joined. Macbeth never traveled outside the U.S. with the Army. Macbeth duped reporters, claiming to be a decorated Army Ranger who had witnessed war crimes.

    *Reggie Buddle, 60, Puyallup, Washington, sentenced July 30, 2007, for Unlawful Wearing of United States Military Medals and Decorations. Buddle posed as a decorated Marine Corps Chaplin presiding over weddings, funerals and baptisms. Buddle was sentenced to 500 hours of community service and two years of probation.

    *Larry Lewis Porter, 52, Seattle, Washington, sentenced April 19, 2007, for Mail Fraud in connection with a scheme to fraudulently obtain disability benefits from Veterans Affairs. Porter was sentenced to 37 months in prison. Porter claimed he suffered PTSD from experiences in the Navy, however investigation revealed the events were fabricated. Loss Amount: $134,000

    *Roy J. Scott, 71, of Port Angeles, Washington pleaded guilty August 31, 2007, to Use of an Altered Military Discharge Certificate to obtain VA Compensation and Medical Benefits, and Unlawful Wearing of United States Military Medals and Decorations. Scott claimed he had served in the Marine Corps in Korea, that he was wounded in combat in Korea, and that he had been awarded the Korea Defense Medal, Korea Star Medal, and a Purple Heart (due to alleged gun shot wounds sustained during combat in Korea). Scott claimed to be honorably discharged, when in fact, he never earned those medals, never served in Korea or any foreign country and was Court-Martialed out of the Marine Corps. Loss Amount: $21,960.

    *Merrick K. Hersey, 64, of Vancouver, Washington, Hersey was indicted August 1, 2007, for Use and Possession of Forged or Altered Military Discharge Certificate and False Statements. Hersey is a fugitive and is being sought by law enforcement. Hersey applied for benefits claiming he served in 1967-68, was awarded two Purple Hearts (for wounds sustained in active combat) and the Bronze Star (awarded for heroism). Hersey claimed he suffered from PTSD and sought benefits. In fact, Hersey never served in the Marine Corps at all. Loss Amount: $2,688.

    *Michael D. Heit, 58, of Harrington, Washington, pleaded guilty yesterday (September 20, 2007) in U.S. District Court in Spokane, Washington to Use and Possession of a Forged or Altered Military Discharge Certificate and False Claims of Military Medals. Heit claimed he was a Vietnam vet who was held as a prisoner of war. He claimed to have been awarded three Purple Heart medals and the Silver Star. None of that is true. Loss Amount: $3,500

    *Elvin J. Swisher, 70, of Idaho, is charged with Wearing Unauthorized Military Medals, False Statements, and Theft of Government Funds. Swisher falsely claimed he was wounded in Korea and that he had been awarded the Silver Star, Purple Heart and other medals for valor. Loss Amount: $95,000.

    *Carlos Riosvalle, 83, of Portland, Oregon, was sentenced April 9, 2007, in Multnomah County for multiple counts of Theft by Deception. Riosvalle collected benefits claiming to have been “shot down while a pilot in World War II.” In fact Riosvalle never served in the armed forces. Loss Amount: $22,818.

    Now, will the Democratic Party stand up and castigate these "phony" soldiers???

    Time will tell.....


  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why the Democratic Party's attack on Limbaugh will fail and cause MORE PR problems for Democrats.
    Well known ANTI-Military group. Makes personal un-deserved attacks on popular active duty military commander. Condemned by the vast majority of Americans, all of the GOP and most Democrats..

    Rush Limbaugh
    Well known PRO military radio personality. His philanthropy towards ALL military (whether they agree with his politics or not) is well documented and clear. Makes personal DESERVED attacks against "phony" soldier who make claims that just are not true..

    Now, do ya'all see the difference?? is well known for being against the military. Personal attacks against military commanders is the norm for them. It's what is all about. It's their only reason for existence...

    Now, enter in Limbaugh.. To make personal and unwarranted attacks against active duty military commanders is completely out of character for him..

    My guess is that this feigned outrage by Reid et al won't last the day.. You watch and see. By the end of the day, Reid will be all, "Rush who?? Never heard of the guy" and will be PRAYING that this all goes away...

    As I said before all this kicked off, this is an issue that will come back and bite the Dems on the ass.. Like many of their PR stunts do... It's just not in their character to be united on ANYTHING within their own party..


  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting article on how the Left treats soldiers..,2933,298842,00.html

    Thank god that not ALL on the Left are like this and to those who are not (you know who you are), it's a shame that you get lumped in with the majority of bad apples...


  39. [39] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Sorry, I've been busy with writing chores so I haven't had as much time to address comments as I normally do.

    Two things I have to address quickly, though (you make many points, but I don't have time to address them all yet, I will try to get back to them soon).

    Number one is, I listen respectfully to all soldiers who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are the "first person" reporters of history, and I always try to go to the source to see what is really going on. I am interested in everybody's take on the situation, and listen to all, then weigh what they have said against other facts and reports I have access to. I don't automatically respect their reporting just because they're in the military, though (just to be crystal clear here), I automatically respect their reporting because of what they have seen. They were THERE, not me, in other words, so it's worth it for me to hear them.

    Having said that, though, neither the right or the left is innocent in promoting soldeirs' opinions which bolster their respective political positions. The right certainly isn't above using soldiers as "tools" either, in other words. Look into what Ari Fleischer has been up to recently if you need some proof.

    As for whether I've seen my talking points show up on Sunday, well, not yet. A few have gotten remarkably close at times, and sometimes they come up with better ways to frame the issue than I did. Hopefully this weekly Friday column will grow in influence until all Democrats in Congress are under my mind-ray's control MWAH-hah-hah!! Ahem. Sorry, the mad scientist in me couldn't resist!

    Seriously, though, I figure if I keep putting what I consider good ideas out there, eventually someone will take notice....

    benskull -

    Privatization is an enormous subject that I have not tackled as of yet. The entire concept disgusts me, especially since taxpayers pay an OBSCENE amount of money for these private soldiers, as opposed to (say) paying a Marine to do the same job. It is a subject worth looking at, and one I'm not sure I could do justice to, but it is definitely on my radar.

    Thanks to everyone for commenting, and I promise I'll try to get better about addressing these here.


  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:


    In my verbal diarrea above, I do make mention of the fact that the GOPs in Congress are as guilty of using the troops as tools as the Dems are.. I used the example of Jessica Lynch..

    But considering the amount I had posted, you can be forgiven for missing it. :D I told you.. I really need a life.. :D

    I fully agree that the Dems do not corner the market on using the troops as political tools..

    As to listening to "real" soldiers, you hit the nail on the head with this phrase "listen respectfully to all soldiers who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan."

    The "phony" soldier that Limbaugh was referring to had not fought in Iraq or Afghanistan. He was a liar and a cheat who was paraded around by the Left Wing Anti-war groups, even after they had learned that he hadn't served at all and was booted out of the Army before even making it thru boot camp..

    Even IF a soldier had served in Iraq and Afghanistan but turns around and lies about things to serve some twisted political agenda, I would have a hard time considering him a "real" soldier..

    In short, there ARE "phony" soldiers out there. And the Democrats, in their zeal to find an issue comprable (in their minds) to the disgusting ad, have painted themselves into a corner (AGAIN) by not acknowledging this... And the Democrats don't want to acknowledge this, because (as I predicted before all this kicked off) it would dump the whole issue of these 'phony' soldiers lying to further the Democratic Party's anti-war agenda...


  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:


    Senate Democrats say they plan no similar resolution of to Udall's {House Resolution} because, as one Senate Democratic leadership aide said, to do so would only give Limbaugh "the kind of attention he craves.",2933,298999,00.html

    Dem Senators make all sorts of unsubstantiated personal attacks against Limbaugh yesterday. Today, they are shying away from a Senate Resolution.. Further only 41 Democrats signed on to the Clear Channel letter.

    Like I predicted, Dems are just hoping this all goes away...


  42. [42] 
    benskull wrote:

    Good reminder, on those disgusting ads by ari fleischer. He should be sued for false advertising. Its one thing to use an injured soldier to tell people that not continuing the war would mean that he fought for nothing, but to have a clip of the planes hitting the world trade centers and underneath it saying, "they attacked us". That really makes me angry. Its like the polls of FOX and how 70% still beleive that iraq was connected to 9/11. NO WONDER! Cause thats the s*@t put on television. Probably half the people that see that ad will beleive that Iraq attacked us, cause thats what that ad says. Scary.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like the CEO of Clear Channel just stuffed the Senate Democrats...

    Once again, we see the Democrats losing another PR battle..

    While I have to give them an 'E' for effort, they have simply emphasized their utter impotence once again.


  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Personally, I cannot believe Senator Harkin would even stand up and castigate Limbaugh for the "phony soldiers" comment??


    Because Senator Harkin IS one of those phony soldiers who make false military claims for political purposes...

    Once again, the Democrats over extend themselves and get slapped back down.. One would think that they would either quit stepping on their wee-wees or else learn to actually DO PR stuff properly...


  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Castigating Rush Limbaugh for being "Anti-Troops" is like castigating Hillary Clinton for being "" or being against the MediaMatters group she and Soros started...

    It's ridiculous bordering on absurd...


  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, did Rep Udall ever get that resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh to the House Floor??

    I have read all sorts of articles that he INTENDED to, but I haven't found one that actually confirmed that the did...


  47. [47] 
    benskull wrote:

    Or like castigating for being anti troops. A joke. "bring our troops home" how anti.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:


    Because bringing them home before they complete their mission is NOT supporting the troops..

    Do I really need to post all the links that show how has smeared and attacked US troops at practically every opportunity?? I suppose making personal and disgusting UN-TRUE attacks on the commanding general is "supporting" the troops??

    Least you not forget. Bush is a "troop".. You can't claim to support the troops if you don't support the commanders. You can't say, "I will support PFC "A", but I don't support SGT "B"..

    You either support the troops or you don't.. does not...

    The simple fact is that this was a political stunt.. Pure and simple.. It was a childish tit for tat..,2933,299219,00.html
    (CW, I think you would like this ^^^ article...)

    Which would be "OK" if it weren't done so stupidly and half-assed...

    Ignoring for the moment the validity of the attack on (objectively speaking) vs the utter BS of the attack on Limbaugh, the simple fact is that the Democrats blew it.. Look at the time frame of the PR blitz.. Almost 2 weeks, we heard NOTHING but attacks Patreaus.. Almost 2 weeks!!

    Now, look at the Democrats attack on Limbaugh.. It sputtered out in a day or so... No one is even sure what happened to the resolution...

    You see my point?? Regardless of the validity or childishness of the condemnation, the simple fact is the Democrats blew ANOTHER chance for a PR win... 3 days later and the condemnation of Limbaugh is already old news...

    Compare that to almost 2 weeks of the condemnation of

    We don't even have to mention that the "phony soldiers" story ran on ABC News about a week or so before Limbaugh mentioned it. Where was the condemnation then??

    Face it, the Democrats chose poorly. This was not a proper response to the business.. This PR stunt was half-assed and poorly executed..

    The Democrats are constantly losing the PR war...


  49. [49] 
    benskull wrote:

    YOU ARE WRONG. Of course they support the troops. There is no longer a feasable mission in iraq. None that will occur through force. Diplomacy is the solution. Wanting them home, is support. That is a pathetic argument. Bush is a troop? If you don't beleive in the administration you dont support the troops? that doesn't even make sense, you are SO reaching on that one. Obviously Bush doesn't support the troops if he can make fun of Kerry's stint in viet nam if that is the case. And you contradict yourself. If supporting the troops is an all or nothing thing, than limbaugh was guilty, and so are you for defending him, or at least not supporting the attack on him. BOGUS michale. Blowing the pr doesnt say anything about moveon.

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    >There is no longer a feasable mission in iraq.

    Here is another one of the BS statements that you try to pass off as fact..

    All the commanders in Iraq say that there IS a way to win in Iraq..

    So, who are we to believe.. Anti-America nutballs who just can't wait to see the USA fail in Iraq?? Or the commanders on the ground who KNOW..

    Like it or not, the troop surge IS working.. Like it or not, there IS a chance for victory in Iraq..

    >Wanting them home, is support.

    No it's not.. At least not before they complete their mission..

    >If you don't beleive in the administration
    >you dont support the troops?

    I am really getting sick and tired of having words put in my mouth. If you can't argue what I SAY, then just concede the point and move on.. Don't change what I say, just so you can have a counter point..

    What I said is that Bush is the Commander In Chief.. HE is a "troop" whether you like it or not. General Patraeus is the commanding general in Iraq. He is a "troop" whether you like it or not.

    So, tell me, how is calling for Bush's assassination (which many on the Left have done) supporting the troops?? How is falsely impugning the integrity of the commanding general in Iraq "supporting the troops"?? You don't have to "believe" everything or even AGREE with everything.. But if you claim that you "support the troops" you better damn well SUPPORT THE TROOPS...

    >he can make fun of Kerry's stint in
    >viet nam if that is the case.

    Oh please... Kerry is a liar, a traitor and a coward... He is one of those "phony" soldiers.. Just like Senator Harkin. Or that MacBeth guy.. Or that Beauchamp guy...

    It's funny how those on the left will support THOSE kinds of soldiers, but won't support the REAL soldiers on the ground....

    >If supporting the troops is an all
    >or nothing thing, than limbaugh was
    >guilty, and so are you for defending
    >him, or at least not supporting the
    >attack on him.

    Oh com'on now.. Now yer just being facetious and reaching for straws... I suppose you say we should support those soldiers who raped that 11 yr old and killed her family, right??

    Try and use some common sense.. Of course we are not going to support those soldiers who do things like that. Or lie about their service, as Kerry, Harkin, MacBeth and Beauchamp have done...

    >Blowing the pr doesnt say anything about moveon.

    Yer right. But's constant attacks on the troops and it's constant anti-USA activities DOES...


  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    And we STILL don't have any definitive word from the Democrats regarding their condemnation of Limbaugh...

    Did I call this or what!!??? :D

    However, credit where credit is due.. CW did call the fact that the Democrats WOULD use it.. Or SHOULD use it.. :D


  52. [52] 
    benskull wrote:

    Now your just getting wierd. You said this.
    >Least you not forget. Bush is a "troop".. You can't claim to support the >troops if you don't support the commanders. You can't say, "I will support >PFC "A", but I don't support SGT "B"..
    >You either support the troops or you don't..
    and then
    >Oh com'on now.. Now yer just being facetious and reaching for straws… I >suppose you say we should support those soldiers who raped that 11 yr >old and killed her family, right??
    >Try and use some common sense.. Of course we are not going to support >those soldiers who do things like that. Or lie about their service, as Kerry, >Harkin, MacBeth and Beauchamp have done…

    See the contradiction? A good way to make someone whos against the war look bad in the first statement by using the all or nothing approach, but then contradicting it in the next comment.

    And as far as Kerry is concerned, I dont know enough about it, but I read this testimony, which doesn't seem so controversial, just him wanting to end an endless war that was killing many many americans.

    and I know very intimately one of the front runners of the Vets against Kerry movement, and I wouldn't trust much of what he says. Seems more like one of those, "anti war people are P***y's, and against the soldiers because they are against the war" things. Their sites don't offer much either. It is interesting though, the way the right will do anything to destroy the character of those against the war and try to make them look like comunists or "Al Quaeda Supporters". It really is a slimey tactic. However I will read more on Kerry, both sides of course.

    And I will tell you this, disagreeing with the reasons behind a war, and disagreeing with the commander in cheif and not trusting his reasons, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SUPPORTING THE TROOPS. That is republican propaganda plain and simple, and you have fallen for it hook line and sinker. It is EASY to see that somone can be a great supporter of the troops, and thankful for them and there service, and yet not agree with a war being waged. The troops don't wage the war, they just do their duty, what their told to do.
    And the "anti american nutballs who want to see the usa fail in iraq" statement is just evidence of an argument lacking in intelligence.

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    >See the contradiction?

    No, I do not see any contradiction.. You are doing the exact same thing you accuse Limbaugh of doing.. You are NOT supporting some troops because of their political leanings...

    You ARE correct, though. Stating unequivocally that one should support ALL the troops regardless is too all encompassing of a statement..

    I should have said that one should support ALL the troops who haven't lied about their service or their medals to please a certain political agenda or who haven't committed rapes and/or murders.. I would have thought such a distinction should not even need to be made, but... here we are...

    I misspoke.. You are correct in that.. :^/

    But the simple fact is, the Democrats parade these "phony" soldiers around as "true heroes" when they are nothing but liars and fakes..

    Tell me, do YOU support MacBeth or Beauchamp??

    My beef against Kerry stems from his lying to Congress about his fellow troops during the Vietnam War. Lies that the enemy used to further their own propaganda... Plus the fact the he put himself in for medals he did not deserve...

    As for Harkin, he did the same thing as that MacBeth ass.. Lied about his military service for political ends...

    >And I will tell you this, disagreeing
    >with the reasons behind a war, and
    >disagreeing with the commander in
    >cheif and not trusting his reasons,

    Funny.. That's JUST what I said..

    You can disagree with Bush and not trust his reasons, but if you don't support him, you CANNOT claim that you "support the troops"...

    Just as you can disagree with General Patraeus and not believe in his reasoning, but if you don't support him, you simply CANNOT claim that you "support the troops"...

    It's that simple...

    >And the "anti american nutballs who
    >want to see the usa fail in iraq"
    >statement is just evidence of an
    >argument lacking in intelligence.

    Really?? I saw an article yesterday (can't find it today) where Democrats are saying that it would be better for the world if the USA "lost in Iraq"..

    That is about as Anti America nutball as you can possibly get...

    Anyone who has such an opinion is an anti-american nutball who is hoping for more death to US troops..


  54. [54] 
    benskull wrote:

    >I should have said that one should support ALL the troops who haven't >lied about their service or their medals to please a certain political agenda >or who haven't committed rapes and/or murders.. I would have thought >such a distinction should not even need to be made, but… here we are…HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA and yet you support BUSH?!!!???!!!???!!! INSANE.
    He has continuously lied to the people. How about his denial of testimony during the 9/11 commission? and finally conceding to talk to the leaders of the group, behind closed doors with cheney present? Whats he hiding?
    Here is the pres you support.

    >Funny.. That's JUST what I said..
    >You can disagree with Bush and not trust his reasons, but if you don't >support him, you CANNOT claim that you "support the troops"…
    That is the same contradiction. and nonetheless, it is UNTRUE. YOU CAN SUPPORT THE TROOPS AND NOT SUPPORT BUSH.

    Thats the whole "your either with us or against us" mentality. A joke. A statment invented to confuse the public. And you have fallen for that one too.

  55. [55] 
    benskull wrote:
    Here's another of your wonderful honest president. At least Kerry went to Nam.

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    You bring up Dan Rather as a bash against Bush!!???

    Surely you jest... :D

    >He has continuously lied to the people.

    You keep saying that but yet to have ANY factual evidence to back it up..

    I keep saying you are wrong and provide the **fact** that three different commissions (2 US bi-partisan commissions and 1 British commission) have laid to rest that hysterical Left piece of BS...

    >Thats the whole "your either with us
    >or against us" mentality. A joke.

    And yet, you provide NOTHING FACTUAL to counter it..

    Just more hysterical Bush bashing..

    You are right, though.. I do support Bush. Just as I supported Clinton... He IS the President Of The United States...

    A fact that you simply fail to acknowledge...


  57. [57] 
    benskull wrote:

    You missed the point entirely, as expected, which contradicts your statement about lefty's supporting those types of "soldiers", while obiously you are doing the same. Didn't read the part about pulling strings to avoid going to Nam on Bushs part? Or then many years later as governor of texas repaying the guy that helped him with that contract?

    As far as factual evedence. what do you need? Your either with us or against has no fact to it. I can be a die hard patriot all day long and disagree with the current adminsitration and their decision making. What kind of fact do you need to understand that the with us or against us statement has no legitamacy?

    And what has been laid to rest about 9/11? We still haven't a good explanation about all the warnings that were ignored, or why the two chosen to run the commsion were bush allies, one being Kissinger himself, who stepped down due to business relations with the BIN LADENS, and the next guy, who continued to hide documents from the rest of the commision per the white house, many unanswered questions, like the one I rose before about Bush and Cheney. And maybe youve seen the testimony from good ol Condee.
    And beleive me, i do acknowledge who our president is, and I don't believe he is serving the country with OUR best interests in mind, I do see countless examples of his decision making going against the people, which again contradicts his postion. And yes, I cant wait till he is out of office, so that hopefully, someone can come in and clean up his mess.

    And as far as some LIES, here's a few. Enjoy. (notice in this one, Bush uses the IAEA, yet when Iran uses the IAEA, Bush tries to discredit them.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    >What kind of fact do you need to understand
    >that the with us or against us statement
    >has no legitamacy?

    In some cases it does...

    Regarding Child Molestors..

    You are either with Law Enforcement or with Child Molestors..

    Regarding Terrorism..

    You are either with the US or you're with the terrorists...

    Now look who is guilty of making all encompassing statements..

    >And beleive me, i do acknowledge
    >who our president is,

    That's good.. Because many on the hysterical Left won't even acknowledge that Bush is president.. Your thoughts??

    >and I don't believe he is serving the
    >country with OUR best interests in mind,

    And I don't have a problem with that. That is your opinion and it is your right to state it...

    My only beef comes in where you try to pass off your opinion as fact..

    And I simply won't let you do it..
    Old news (2003). Already disputed and refuted by the two US and one British commissions...
    Again old 2003 news. Refuted by the US and British commissions who PROVED beyond any doubt that Bush did not lie..
    More of the same...

    When are you going to understand that being wrong is not "lying"...

    If you really want people to take you seriously, you need to stop with this Chicken Little THE SKY IS FALLING/BUSH LIED syndrome...

    I won't even bother reminding you of the fact that, as POTUS and CnC, Bush has the responsibility to safeguard America.. Do you truly and honestly believe that a President can do that by telling the truth ALL THE TIME!???

    Please tell me you are not THAT naive...

    Sorry, but I don't do youtube on this workstation, so I can't look at your other links..


  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whatever happened to that House Resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh???

    Anything?? Anyone?? Buehler??


  60. [60] 
    benskull wrote:

    Where are the disputes?

  61. [61] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, I'm finally catching up on my comments.

    Benskull -

    I've been a big fan of free airtime for elections for a long time. Air America is conducting an experiment this year by doing so duing an upcoming week (don't have details handy, sorry). They're giving each Dem candidate a block of time to do whatever they want. They are scheduling a week soon after that for Republican candidates as well. I fully support this effort, and wish that all broadcast media were forced to do this by the FCC (the people own the airwaves, remember). Anyway, I think this is happening in October...

    Michale -

    I have to commend your phrasing. This is a wonderful statement:

    "I recognize that both the Left AND the Right suck purple panther piss."

    Nice alliteration, nice use of imagery, all around an excellent phrase. No, I'm not being sarcastic -- I loved it!

    Sadly, you may be right about the Dems losing another PR fight. But they put it aside for a winning PR issue - SCHIP - so I guess it's not as bad as it seems.

    On "Bush is/is not a troop." --

    Firstly, with my Grammar Police hat on, "troop" does not equate to "soldier." Troops (plural) is a collective noun, but so is troop (singular). "A troop" is like saying "a group."


    Secondly, even though Bush is C-in-C, he is definitely not military personnel. He is a civilian, which is enshrined in our system of civilian control of the military. True, he seems like military since he can order them to do anything, and since he is the only civilian a military person would ever salute, but he is definitely a civilian.


    Michale -

    You say:

    "Regarding Terrorism..

    You are either with the US or you're with the terrorists…"

    But what happens when the US is with the terrorists?

    And finally, I think none of the Rush bills went forward. Reid had his letter, and I assume Nancy Pelosi shut down both the pro-Rush and anti-Rush bills, because I haven't heard anything about them since. I could be wrong, though.

    Whew! OK, on to the next article.


Comments for this article are closed.