The bald party

Well, at least I can count on one vote in Rhode Island!

(I think I better have a cup of cocoa first, then start my exploratory committee.)

Naome,
As well informed as they may appear it's Vermin Supreme for me..believe me..I got this one right!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE

Wow.

Who says you can't be a success with only a high school diploma?
That, and a proper hat will take you far, far away.

I'm thrilled to see people who look like me involved in politics.
Perhaps there should be a FrankenVermin ticket in 20216?

Dr. Carson looks like he would be awesome!

Only one problem Joe.....you want common sense cons.....welll ...there Aint none

In case you forgot the resolution for the Afgan war passed 420 ayes, 1 Nay, and 10 not voting in the House and 98 Ayes and two not voting/present in the Senate. I'd call that fairly good bi-partisan support. Right?

The Iraq war was 297 Ayes, 133 Nays and 3 no votes in the house, and 77 ayes to 23 nays in the Senate. The resolution does not pass without the Democratic party votes. The majority of Democrats in the Senate voted to go to war.

The Medicare drug plan? You're only telling half the story. Democrats (Ted Kennedy) had pitched a bill that was even more encompassing then the current one and would have cost twice as much according to the CBO.

The banking crisis? Both Parties share blame there. Look at the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that passed under Clinton or read up on the Glass–Steagall Act. Sure Bush did his share too but to try to pin it on one party is unreasonable.

This is the problem with America. It's us vs "them", on both sides. I can't let you do something good for the country because it could hurt me in the next election. If you want to pass a bill that gives everyone in the country a free puppy and a hundred dollar bill I have to do everything in my power to undermine you.

The real problem is career politicians. We have gotten away from electing the best man or woman for the job and we now elect the person with the most money. Then we point to everyone else's representatives and say "There's the problem right there.".

Very good Ted. If there was a "thumbs up" on here I would give it to you.

Where did you see me rite Democrat or Republican . I said Conservative !
I realize you're barely educated, but even you should understand that Shill. This is the problem with low education voters . They don't read anything but the headline.

Joe Souza writes about "low educated" voters, but yet he spells Write "rite". Personally I think Joe has a complex and his liberal bias shows through his writings. Joe needs a "chill pill" or take a break from reading civic related news. Forget the headlines Joe and look for articles which layout both sides of the issue, not just the one that makes you feel good.

Thank you, Ted.

The Democrats are just as guilty for the Bush years, as much as Bush and the Establishment Republicans who voted the "Borrow and Spend" instead of "Tax and Spend", which is what this country has now under George W. Obama.

Let's not forget the 2007 Iraqi troop surge, which Democratic House speaker Nancy Pelosi supported, along with the Democratic majorities in Congress. If the Democrats were so opposed to the war, why did they not cut the funding?

There was a time in America when the parties were not ruled by "one issue" fringe elements. We had moderate Republicans and Democrats supported by a healthy manufacturing base in the US.

People have to come to terms with the reality that our financial system is currently being held together with fiscal bailing wire, yet we still find ourselves being driven by the fringe.

The Feds are buying mortgage-backed securities at a pace of $40 billion per month to prop up the housing market, and additionally, buying our own Treasury securities at a pace of $45 billion per month.

We call this quantitative easing, but it's really a last ditch effort to convince ourselves that we really can support everything we want if we can just get over this little financial speed bump we find ourselves in.

Eventually, this house of cards will come to an end, and it's sooner than most people think.

Pam don't you know the progressives teach tolerance which means people must me tolerant to their view or they won't be tolerated they will be smeared, called racist,bigots, fascist homophobic, stupid and the list goes on. We must not sit down and shut up as they want us to do but we must be strong and fight to save our Country from destruction from within because that is the plan. It started a long time ago destroy the family using divorce, pornography and groups like woman's lib. Destroy the church. Take over the schools with their progressive brainwashing of our children. So what they have done is made what was once good and wholesome evil and what was evil look good. The've tipped everything upside down and inside out. We as a nation need to weed out this progressive movement from our Country before its to late. The Tower of Babel is about to fall. We need to get our families back to church in order for them to get some morality back in there lives..And let's not look for the perfect church because as soon as we join it it won't be perfect anymore. As in the Country We the people make it work not the leaders they are there to serve. God help us!

Right or left what does it matter Mike...we are all on the same sinking ship. (You accused me once of hating Hillary only because she was on the left. Do you hate me only because you percieve me to be on the right?)

Who said hate? seems you are awaiting for someone to help you.....It aint that bad...contrary to the naysayers.......This discussion .....here and many other places....opens eyes...right and left....and eventually things get into a more powerful flow

I stand corrected Mike...you did not use the word hate...you said that I just did not like her (Hillary.)

Mike says...seems you are waiting for someone to help you. No Mike, I said no one on the right , left or center can save/help us. It is up to each and every one of us.
Can you define a more powerful flow?

I'm sorry JAT, I forgot that your ability to psychically read the minds of 23 senators and then sum it up in one sentence constituted a fact.

Was Bush wrong about WMDs in Iraq? Absolutely. Was he lying to senators to get us to go to war? No. The intelligence they had at the time lead them to believe that there were WMDs. The same way President Clinton thought they had WMDs.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." — President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

The same way John Kerry thought they had them:
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." — Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D — MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

The same way Nancy Pelosi thought they had them:

The same way Nancy Pelosi thought they had them:

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." — Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

Notice all those dates predate Bush??? Your notion that a dimwit like Bush somehow pulled the wool over 23 senators eyes is almost laughable.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

That doesn't sound like a call to arms, over a pretext.
" Was he lying to senators to get us to go to war? No. The intelligence they had at the time lead them to believe that there were WMDs. The same way President Clinton thought they had WMDs."

Umm, no - not the same. The Iraqi building of myriad "igloos" which were pruported munitions caches was a deterrent to Iranian land attacks. This was not used to generate support for an invasion, as Iraq was still in check following they're
losses in Kuwait.

Under Rumsfeld, the tenous link between Al-queda (fundamentalist Shia) and the
secular Sunni-affiliated was refuted by CIA and later dismissed under Congressional review as a fabrication.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

This isn't something to sweep under the rug, it was an attempt at government stimulus by rolling out the war machine. It was a war that Cheney wanted.

Why?

Oil, guns and graft.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/15/105359/saddam-era-un-sanctions-lifted.html

"Oil, guns and graft"...they're opening next month for Pepperjack in West Roxbury.

The dems also voted to go ino Iraq also because they saw the same intel

..You know Ted that Jefferson Davis really screwed up..what was he thinking with Ft Sumter and all that..bad idea all around..and what was that darn Woodrow Wilson thinking when he tried to veto the Volstead Act...sheeesh

I notice how you fail to discuss the Afgan war after I pointed out it's bipartisan support. And the banking crisis... and medicare...

Anyways, enjoy your Cheney/puppet master conspiracy theory.

I actually always believed that Saddam's attempt on Bush 41 (after he was allowed to stay in power after Gulf 1 no less) was a huge motivator to take him out by Bush 43. Those types of people are very big on playing by the unwritten rules. OTOH, the WMD data was agreed by numerous intelligence agencies not just the US, and Saddam himself testified after his capture that he intentionally created the impression he had them in order to maintain military credibility and under the belief that he would never be invaded and the sanctions would eventually wind down. Those are facts of testimony directly by Saddam, so Bush-bashers beware, its not as clear cut as you may fantasize. My biggest problem with Bush is not the war (remember the above AND that we had a devastating unsolved anthrax attack showing what a few grams of WMD can mean) but rather his admins failure to oversee Fannie/Freddie and the banks, and the resulting banking crash.

Yes..Saddam was as stupid as the masked robber who uses a finger in his pocket to infer he has a gun, then gets shot by the clerk.

I am so sorry you are my namesake......as you can (or do not want to) see....the world has numerous 'religious' conflicts....both natural and stoked by energy interests.....I see few secular and green functions that threaten the existence of all of us.....but on the other hand.......give me that ol'time religin and some whisky....and burn the books with ma earth's oil. mmmmm

I think they figured out there isn't much oil in Afghanistan. Or Cheney figured it out and told Bush what to do.

"before our country decided to invade Iraq." Didn't you just get done telling me that Cheney decided to invade Iraq? Now the country decided? Make up your mind please.

Yep....sherrif.....what do these guys think? That it is a noble war for the freedom of all those Afghanis? Why were the Soviets mired there also? Maybe they are mistaken. Money.....Gas.....Money....Gas....et on infinitum

I'm sorry Sheriff, I'll correct my post:

<Sarcasm>I think they figured out there isn't much oil in Afghanistan. Or Cheney figured it out and told Bush what to do.<End Sarcasm>

Part 2

Sadam was always saying he had this he had that etc. Was he stupid? Our intelligence, Britain, France, Israel and many other agencies did believe him along with Congress, since both sides approved of it except then there were those who voted for it before they were against it, still haven’t figured out how that makes them against it. It’s like saying I stole your car and wrecked it, but I now know I should not have. Try that in Court lol.

I also wonder why some do not realize that, Obama as President did not need approval of Congress to pull out of both Countries’ the day after he took office. You see they were not declared wars. He is “Commander In Chief”, head of the Military and is the one who ultimately gives the orders per the Constitution. The Congress also could have ended these things anytime they wanted no matter who controlled the “House”. If the House does not fund it, like they did with Vietnam, well guess what, it’s “over” the troops come home.

The blame is pretty much equal on both sides on those wars period. They are a stark example of what happens when politicians tie the hands of our military yet again like LBJ did in Vietnam.

Part 3

I wonder why bringing up Bush to blame him for everything under the sun, and he does have blame for many thing, but really how does that affect what has to be solved today? Oh it was his fault for this or that, makes it ok to explain why the people in charge now have yet to solve a thing in the economy or end the wars? Rather they have kept it all going, they have increased and enhanced every single thing Bush did. Is that fixing something or the status quo? Who is (they), this Administration and Congress. Focus on the here and now to not repeat the past mistakes is the answer. Throwing out the old Bush blame game is meaningless in my opinion anyway.

In the end, in keeping with the article at hand lol. No-one named above is a capable or viable Candidates for me anyway. We have a long way to go before that can be an informed decision I believe.

"Obongo?" How immature you must be thinking your name calling is so very clever, like a first grade bully on the playground. And YOU talk about low educated voters? Time to grow up, buddy.

Well you have to be stoned to agree with him . Are you smoking from your Obongo bong ? We Can!

Shall we start all kinds of ethnic jokes? Joe you would be a proper brunt subject

We got attacked on 9/11. We have enough oil right here if we can get the green machine terrorists out of the way. Windmills and solar panels won't run our cars or fly our planes we tried this in the 70's when big govt subsidies stopped people stopped falling for the myth. The green machine is all about money grabbing and redistribution of wealth we need to wake up. Gas should be below what it was when Bush left $1.65. It's all about supply and demand we are letting theses progressives in both parties destroy us from within.

You're an embarassment to Tiverton, and that bar is set low.

You oppose socialism on one hand, but think the rest of the State should pay for
the Sakonnet Bridge - because you won't pay an 83 cent toll.

To call you an idiot would be an insult to actual idiots. What are you, twelve?

Actually the lack of nice hunks of Pork Fat" left on the chops after the stores trim them now, kinda ruins the whole "Shake n Bake" experience. Just saying

a case for congressional oversight committee maybe a little oinky for a congressman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7ye3iqTbko
I was sticking with the subject matter of the op-ed...okay no I wasn't I was just following the crowd into the enchanted forest.

I was or am sticking to the pork fat, because it sticks to your ribs, or single ab as the case may be lol.

Elizabeth,
I did it with sarcasm a forethought. When the thread started going to "bad war decisions", which was not part of the Curtis article and not cut off at that time, then a slight reference to the historic moments of "who said it was a good idea" was fair game. I think you'll notice it only happens when things turn to a soup sandwich quickly, it remains that way.
LRI