true_blue_bill

"Ridiculous," "out of control" and just plain "goofy" If the Republicans were losing the religious right already, this certainly isn't going to help: David Kuo, who worked as second in command in George W. Bush's Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, is out with a new book in which he says that Bush administration officials shined on the faithful for political gain. As "Countdown" producer Jonathan Larsen reports, Kuo says that top evangelical leaders were known as "nuts" in Karl Rove's office. "National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous,' 'out of control,' and just plain 'goofy,'" Kuo writes. Goofy, but useful. Kuo says that RNC chairman Ken Mehlman, who was then Bush's political director, used the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives to sponsor "nonpartisan" events that were, in fact, designed to motivate religious voters in close congressional races. "Ken loved the idea and gave us our marching orders," Kuo writes. http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

It does explain why he thought we would be welcomed with open arms.

Good post, and I'd just like to add to what I think, Bush thinks. I was very keenly interested in the Panama invasion--I was actually in Panama on Howard AFB just before the invasion--and Gulf War One, which I watched on TV every minute of everyday it happened. I just found out Pete Williams the Pentagon spokesperson who was on TV so much then was gay. Anyway, I think W saw how easy it all was. He saw the conscript Iraqis surrendering in droves. He thought all Iraqis were like that. Panama looked like a pushover and no one asked any questions when it was over. He didn't factor in Israel's invasion and occupation of Lebannon and the disaster that was or the barracks bombing there in 83. He just thought it would be easy. The guy is a dim bulb all around.

I can only address the points you made towards me. You are very wrong about that article you posted. Did you even read it? It didn't say the news department 'supported' Bush on the war, they explained that they accepted too blindly the propaganda they were fed by them. They said clearly they wished they had been more careful about the sources they were fed. That's pretty clear. Opposing the war from me had nothing to do with whether there were WMD or not. I thought he probably had something, but Jesus Christ only an idiot would a thought he was building a nuke and we wouldn't know where it was. If he was building one we could of bomb the place. I felt our troops would have been victims to nerve gas or something during the invasion. Thank God they were not subject to that! And I find your reliance on Wilson's foreign policy as very puzzling. It was much simpler than that to figure out why Iraq would n'tbe a democracy. Forget history and use math. 20% of the nation controlled the ignorant, super religious Shiittes and then there were the Kurds who wouldn't be part of the nationa anyway, and had been fighting each other also. Why would the Sunnis ever submit to slavery [democracy] under the Shiites? That blew my mind people thinking that would happen. Of course they wouldn't accept that. Oh, and on the music, you skipped the other evidence I floated. The music was mentioned to show others wanted revenge and Bush could be the same way. You seem to place this very stupid man abbove that because...well...he is President. What did Thomas Jefferson try and teach us about the Presidency? And do you really think his pictures looking for WMD were taken out of context???? OMG!! Please post something that proves me wrong. Please! Out of context? I mean the guy was joking about a mssion in which men he sent were dying. Bill O'Reilly even had the mother of the kid who died that fvcking very day on. Of course he was rude to her But ok.

You obviously were not following the thread. I was mocking the notion that now the American people are stupid, but when we started this mess they were somehow enlightened. I don't have a lot of time right this second, but you are wrong about the NYTimes. Friedman may have supported this fiasco, but the Times editorial board did not. Judith Miller obvioulsy did also, but she is another story. And Wilson's foreign policy doen'st help us on this war now. Sure it adds insight into how the nation was coupled together but so what? I think you are simply trying to sound pedanic. And does a president want to wage war? Did Bush? If you think people don't enjoy war on some level then the study of human history has been lost on you. You see his Saddam trophy? How much fun he had being the 'Wartime President.' Ya, he wanted a war to make himself feel tough. Go listen to some country music songs that were written before the war and how this was all about revenge, then tell me people don't enjoy war. And that comes back to my point, if the people are stupid now for wanting to leave as a previous poster said, then they were just as stupid during the rush to war in 2003. Have a good day

Ya, it was that easy. Bush stirred up the stupidest among us[American Idol Crowd?] and said we were in mortal danger if we didn't invade. He still says is was a necessary war. LOL, that's funny, and sad. Has he found those WMD under the table he was joking about the same day men died actually looking for them? You remember that joke by the President? Probably not. Mark Foley? Go drink another one. The American people are right, this war was a mistake and those who wanted a war so bad, just to have a war, because it made them feel good at the very least should feel ashamed, but of course they don't. They are happy with the war. Its a war and that just makes them happy. The Iraqis will have their Civil War, we had ours, God bless them, just get our boys out of there.

Yup, so true! We went into this thing that way. It was all going to be an easy job. The mob wanted a 'splendid little war' and got it. Let's face it, Saddam had personally flown all four of the planes on 9-11 and he had to be punished! But in all seriousness, staying accomplishes nothing.

Says the smiley face!

And I believe something like 80% of Iraqis want us to leave, too http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...em/itemID/13414 - More adults in the United States believe the coalition effort should come to an end, according to a poll by Gallup released by USA Today. 37 per cent of respondents think the U.S. should enact an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, up six points since June. In addition, 30 per cent of respondents believe the U.S. military should stay the course, while 26 per cent suggest a gradual withdrawal of soldiers. The coalition effort against Saddam Hussein’s regime was launched in March 2003. At least 2,741 American soldiers have died during the military operation, and more than 20,600 troops have been wounded in action. In December 2005, Iraqi voters renewed their National Assembly. In May, Shiite United Iraqi Alliance member Nouri al-Maliki officially took over as prime minister. On Sept. 30, the Washington Post reported that, according to a new book written by Bob Woodward, White House chief of staff Andrew Card attempted to persuade Bush to fire defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld after the 2004 presidential election, and replace him with former U.S. state secretary James Baker. On Oct. 1, Rumsfeld said his relationship with national leaders has not been affected, adding, "They don’t seem to pay a lot of attention to it, mostly you do. That’s all you (reporters) do is read these books, you ought to

Ya, you are a Republican! My neighbors are lesbians and some idiots drive by late at night tossing firecrackers at their house. Real funny. Wouldn't mind arrianging an 'accident' for them

Here is a nugget from Salon.com, for what ever its worth. I post it for the last part about the GOP expecting to lose the House Is Hastert's future a "moot point"? In a Survey USA poll out today, a whopping 26 percent of Americans say they think Dennis Hastert should stay on as speaker of the House in the wake of the Mark Foley scandal. Twenty percent think he should resign from the speaker's job and 45 percent think he should resign from Congress entirely. Hastert says he's not going anywhere. And even though Republican House members continue to dump him from their campaign appearances, they're not exactly clamoring for Hastert to step aside, either. Why not? Bob Novak has one theory: Hastert will be kicked out of the speaker's office anyway in January because Democrats are going to take back the House in November. "It's really moot," Novak quotes an unidentified Republican as saying. "We are sure to lose the House, and Denny never would want to be minority leader."

I thought that was the whole point of this? The 'Moral Values' crowd got busted not enforcing some of the most important moral vales. They basically won the 2004 election by bashing gays--and calling fake terror alerts--and now it turns out they are hiding a gay guy who hits on kids at the very least. Gees!

Anyone remember how he predicted the 10 and 1 New York Jets would lose their last five games, and they did! Funny!

Talk to 16 yr olds often, they are VERY young people. And part of this is using thier ambition against them. These kids are obviously looking to rise in the world and Foley was powerful. This is simply dispicable. Someone posted this list on another web site and gees, does anyone see a patern? http://sandiego.craigslist.org/pol/215136845.html

You obviously have studied this more than I have, but the fact that struck me the most was the number of GOP seats in the North East that are in trouble. The Dems sweep those alone--no easy task I know--and they win on that strength. Throw in Floey's seat and a few more outside the region and they have a good shot. I'd be really surprised if the Dems took the Seante. If Allen can hang on with all the dirt they dug up on him how can anyone beat these people? On turn out, I read today, maybe in NYTimes, that the Dems have copied many of the successful strategies the GOP was using to increase turnout on election day by targeting individual voters instead of areas of consentration.

Probably talking about Jeff Gannon the 'Reporter'

LOL! 16 year olds are children. What's really disgusting is that fat pig Hasert doing nothing about it. A man using his influence to sexually harass children is bad enough. Being able to stop and doing nothing is horrible.

Two things, I don't understand why this would fire up the Democratic base. It's already pissed off as hell and ready to vote. I see this benefitting the Dems because it suppresses the Repub;lican base. This is what they are all about. Moral values is half their appeal. This is a spear to the chest for them. Hell, Bush wouldn't have won in 2004 without the Gay Marriage crap, which the GOP shelved right away, lol. So much for gay bashing. Also, I thoght the Dems would win the House anyway. The Republican are the most corrupt bunch this country has had in a while and something needs to be done to restore checks and balances. Neither of these two parties should run all three branches. That just doesn't work well. I think the Senate is well less than 50% shot, maybe 35%. I think George Allen will stiull win in Virginia. Who cares if he is a pathelogical racist, this is Virginia we are talking about. The Dems will make it close, though. 51-48 with an independent who leans left. Then on to 2008, and both parties will run people no one likes. GOP can't run a decent person like McCain or Rudy G., because they are too liberal, the South hates that. Hillary is a shoe in for Dems. Damn!

Last week that reciever dropped the ball late in the game. That was a break.

YAAAAAA!!! The Comeback is on!!!!

What??? Dude!

Sure, defend that baby rapers!

They are great! Fun team to watch

The party of 'Moral Values' caught with their hand down kids pants. Horrible! Hope they toss some of these sickos in jail. http://buffalonews.com/editorial/20061008/1033841.asp Democrat Jack Davis has opened a significant lead over Republican incumbent Thomas M. Reynolds in a congressional contest fueled by Reynolds' association with the Mark Foley sex scandal. Davis leads Reynolds 48 percent to 33 percent in a new Zogby International poll conducted for The Buffalo News, prompting pollster John Zogby to conclude that Davis poses a genuine threat to the longtime powerhouse from Clarence. "There is no other way to look at these numbers except to say Tom Reynolds is in trouble," the Utica-based Zogby said. The poll surveyed 402 likely voters in the 26th Congressional District on Wednesday and Thursday (with a margin for error of plus or minus 5 percentage points). It showed that 325 respondents were following the Foley story, with 57 percent disapproving the way Reynolds handled the situation after he found out last spring Foley had sent an e-mail that made a former page uncomfortable. And then 10 days ago, it was revealed that Foley had sent sexually explicit instant messages to other former pages. Only 25 percent of the poll respondents said they approved of how Reynolds handled the situation. In addition, the national attention focused on Reynolds over the past week has led many voters to consider him in a different light. Only 2 percent of those surveyed said they view the congressman more favorably since news of the scandal broke, while 50 percent said they think less favorably of him. Those whose opinion remains unchanged stand at 47 percent. But the numbers show growing dissatisfaction with the four-term incumbent, aside from the Foley incident. Fifty-one percent of the respondents rate Reynolds' job performance as fair or poor, while 43 percent call it good or excellent. Only 32 percent say he should be re-elected, while 58 percent believe it's time for someone new. "That's extremely low," Zogby said. "And that's what we see in Republican districts all over the country - a very low re-elect number."

I'm going to go wash my truck