Comments on: GOP downplays Palin book ban flap

By: David W.

David W. — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 02:20:26 +0000

Sarah Palin is a FRAUD! The U.S.A. needs to know EVERYTHING she has EVER done and/or said. WE can NOT permit the GOP to continuously espouse the lies they tell Americans! Palin’s homophobia is a BAD, BAD, BAD sign for ALL Americans: African-Americans, Jews, Veterans, Progressive Christians, et al. “McCain-Palin: Ticket to NOWHERE!”

By: George

George — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:21:27 +0000

“She knows what EVERYONE is going through.”

Roger, EVERYONE (at least everyone who reads newspapers, or watches TV or Internet news) knows what America is going through (and WHY – namely W.). The fact of ‘knowing’ does not make her qualified to actually DO anything about “what EVERYONE is going through”.

What will she DO about the mortgage meltdown? What will she DO about $5 a gallon gas? What will she DO about Afghanistan. About Iraq? About the loss of Habeas Corpus? About the loss of privacy rights? About illegal wiretaps?About health care? About Guantanamo Bay? About that pesky equal protections clause? About teaching creationism? About women’s right to reproductive self-governing? About Isreal? About Iran’s nuclear threat? About the new Russia? About jobs fleeing America? About the environment? About climate change?

We ALL “know” about these things. At least I do as I’m sure YOU do, and I am in no way qualified to be President.

Like the threat to ban books she doesn’t like and fire people who don’t fire her ex-brother in law, Palin’s resume reads like exactly what she is – that of a small town, small minded housewife. You want THAT for a President?

Scary.

I could never understand why you would want to vote for (let alone elect) someone who is just like themselves. Used to be a time when you wanted the smartest, brightest, most experienced person in the country. Now you want one that can properly cross-dress, ooops, I mean “field dress a moose”. As if THAT is a Presidential qualification.

How the mighty have fallen.

By: Trace

Trace — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:24:18 +0000

Quasi, I’m not able to find information to verify or disprove your comments on anything other than far left websites. As I give them as much credence as the far right websites, I won’t utilize them as sources. It’s really odd that law makers would not be all over the press about not having their clearances to vote.

And if they did not have the information, why would you vote? If there were not enough members to vote they would never receive quorum. So essentially, what you are saying is that those that voted were irresponsible.

By: Quasi

Quasi — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 04:41:21 +0000

December 09, 2007 at discourse.net, the following was found and also a quote of President GWB:

“The question of security clearances is the murkiest part of the story. The Bush administration has consistently taken the extreme position that it never has any legal duty to tell Congress anything. It claims the power to ignore subpoenas. It says that the President is the only judge of what he has to do, and any attempt to compel him is unconstitutional. As early as 2001 the administration unilaterally revoked the security clearances of 91 Senators, arguing as GW Bush put it “it’s not in the nation’s interest” that they have access to information they could leak.”

So it seems that the members of Congress did not have the information they needed before the votes on the Patriot Act.

By: Trace

Trace — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 03:06:47 +0000

All Senators have Security Clearance, Quasi. There are three levels of Clearance. All might not have the highest level, but all had the information to make a vote. If they did not, they should not have voted.

You’ll have to remember that the move to remove Iraq was supported by a variety of other nations. You’re saying that they were duped as well?

Man, you are giving the Bush Administration a whole lot more credit for ingenuity than I would ever dream of.

By: Quasi

Quasi — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 02:29:56 +0000

Only select members have the clearances you mention, and then mostly those who are chairmen of the military and security committees. Not all congresspersons and committee members have such clearances, and most have to rely on the testimony of those who do and who have looked at the documentation. Don’t you remember all the closed door hearingsd and Buch meeting with only selected members of Congress in 2002/2003?

When this all happened the Republicans were in control of Congress, and Frontline specifically documented that most of the Congress had to rely on those who bowed to Bush and his administrators and they (nearly all Republicans) also lied and deceived just the same. Remember, the party in the majority is in control of what is said and done in the name of the people. If you also remember, Frist threatened the “nuclear option” to change the Senate debating rules, in place for over 200 years, in order to FORCE the Democrats into voting the Republican agenda. They squelched any Democratic filibustering, but demand the same abilities today, making them really bad hypocrites.

I am not happy about Reid bowing to their bull$#!+, and Pelosi has no backbone either. Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment, but they were ignored by Pelosi.

It says at impeachment.kucinich.us :

“So says Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley in an interview with MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann about Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s 35 Articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush – a document that Olbermann calls “a remarkably lengthy and THOROUGH record of high crimes and misdemeanors” (my emphasis added.)

By: Rick

Rick — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 02:15:51 +0000

I must say that I have disagreed with Quasi on a few points posted, but not where the lies that duped the support for the Iraq war are concerned. It has been proven that data was manipulated and invented to provide an ironclad justification to go to war, evidence that would substantiate the support of any person who spoke affirmatively on the action. Fact: Trace’s quotes from those supporting the war predate conclusive evidence that false information was used to substantiate the war.

Facts are a bitch, aren’t they Trace?

By: Trace

Trace — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 01:51:44 +0000

Quasi, do you think that members of Congress and Senate do not have access to the documents that they are voting on? Do you honestly believe that someone in an opposing party would not stand up and say that they were not permitted the ability to review documents being presented? And by the way, the members of the House and Senate have security clearances. They are able to call for closed chambers and review “classified” documents.

Bush may have been cheerleader number one for ousting Hussein, but there was a whole squad of Democrats helping him out.

By: Quasi

Quasi — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 00:49:38 +0000

So the Bush-ites used their influence and power (paid for by the US public) to create false evidence and made everyone believe it, at least until there was an investigation. They called all of their falsified evidence “classified” and made Congress accept it, and would not let them see it until Bush had his certainly unpatriotic “Patriotic Act” a law. They called anyone who disagreed with him “unpatriotic” and “un-American”. He used Nazi tactics, fear and perhaps even terrorism to bully the US into this war. He and his cronies are disgusting. Even Scott McLelland, the press secretary wrote about it in his book. And he was there to hear the lies and was forced to repeat them in public to the news and media.

I predicted, before Bush was elected in 2000 that he would go into Iraq and complete what Daddy Bush would not do. Remember, Daddy bush also went to war, albeit to stop a supposed invasion of Kuwait. You see, Sadam Hussein was once an crony of the Republicans, and they gave him big bucks and arms in the 1970′s to take over the country. When S.H. did not “walk their walk”, and he began acting like he had some initiative of his own (not a very nice man though), they decided to depose him. It was never about WMD, or his genocide. It was about getting even and taking punishing S.H. and his family.

By: Trace

Trace — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 23:27:31 +0000

Quasi, so your evidence that Republican’s are war mongers is the Bush Administration? You are citing this war that most Democrats supported and gave glowing approval of?

Sen. Rockefeller (D-WV): “There Is Unmistakable Evidence That Saddam Hussein Is Working Aggressively To Develop Nuclear Weapons. And Will Likely Have Nuclear Weapons Within The Next Five Years. And Then Could Have It Earlier If He’s Able To Obtain Materials On The Outside Market Which Is Possible. Difficult But Possible.” (Sen. John Rockefeller, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, Pg.S10306)

Sen. Clinton: “In The Four Years Since The Inspectors, Intelligence Reports Show That Saddam Hussein Has Worked To Rebuild His Chemical And Biological Weapons Stock, His Missile Delivery Capability, And His Nuclear Program. … It Is Clear, However, That If Left Unchecked, Saddam Hussein Will Continue To Increase His Capability To Wage Biological And Chemical Warfare And Will Keep Trying To Develop Nuclear Weapons.” (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10288)

Rep. Pelosi (D-CA): “Saddam Hussein Certainly Has Chemical And Biological Weapons. There’s No Question About That.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 11/17/02)

# Sen. Kerry: “According To The CIA’s Report, All U.S. Intelligence Experts Agree That Iraq Is Seeking Nuclear Weapons. There Is Little Question That Saddam Hussein Wants To Develop Nuclear Weapons.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, pp. S10172-10173)

Sen. Levin: “The War Against Terrorism Will Not Be Finished As Long As [Saddam Hussein] Is In Power.” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 12/16/01)

Facts are stubborn things

The same Bush that almost every Republican has distanced himself from? That’s quite a specious argument there.