February 8th, 2008 at 07:39am Matt Margolis
Watching President Bush deliver his speech at CPAC. People were lining up at 5 am to get in line to see him. The crowd is loving him, shouting “We love you, George!” and “Four more years!” Great speech so far, gonna continue watching.
Entry Filed under: CPAC 2008
Blogs For Victory is privately owned and maintained. All contributors are volunteers unaffiliated with any campaign or political party.
Material published and opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the individual authors of this site.
© Copyright 2008 Blogs For Victory. All rights reserved.
Blixed WordPress Theme | Design by Sebastian Schmieg . Icons by Kevin Potts . Powered by WordPress . Site Admin
76 Comments
1. Canadian Observer | February 8th, 2008 at 8:46 am
In every society there are individuals with masochistic tendencies. George W. Bush is like a magnet for these folks. Four more years!!! Yeah, keep the pain coming.
2. Sunny | February 8th, 2008 at 8:49 am
How can anyone with an ounce of common sense want four more years of George W. Bush? Unbelievable.
3. searp | February 8th, 2008 at 9:13 am
from AP: “It’s almost as if people can barely stand the thought of President Bush and Congress anymore. Bush reached his lowest approval rating in The Associated Press-Ipsos poll on Friday as only 30 percent said they like the job he is doing, including an all-time low in his support by Republicans.”
4. searp | February 8th, 2008 at 9:17 am
“Prosperity and peace are in the balance,” the president said
President Bush = no peace
President Bush = no prosperity
‘Nuff said.
5. coulterfan | February 8th, 2008 at 9:32 am
President Bush = no peace
President Bush = no prosperity
‘Nuff said.
Huh?!?!?
You think we have peace and prosperity???
I thought we were in the midst of a long war against ‘Islamofascits’? I thought we were having a HUGE credit crunch, the sub-prime mortgage mess, record deficits, and blown budgets?
Long live King George! Vote for Bush’s third term. . . Vote for McCain!!!
Up is down and down is up, I guess!
It’s all very Orwellian.
6. Some Assembly Required | February 8th, 2008 at 10:12 am
CO,
The low approval ratings GW get are mostly from Evangelical Christians which in itself is frightening. I still struggle with believing people in the supposedly civilized world are capable of such extremist beliefs which in my opinion are the opposite side of the coin of extremist Muslims. Maybe not in practice (i.e. 9/11), but in theory (i.e. God Wills it!).
7. neocon | February 8th, 2008 at 10:13 am
coulter,
The only thing Orwellian is your conspiracy minded delusion. I would welcome another four years of Bush if only to push the lefties over the edge. It’s amazing how one man can completely ruin their lives, revealing how little of life they actually have.
I feel sorry for people who look towards government to improve their lives and/or make them happy.
Do you cry when Obama speaks like Chris Matthews does? LMAO.
8. coulterfan | February 8th, 2008 at 10:25 am
>>I would welcome another four years of Bush if only to push the lefties over the edge.
Hey, maybe the American people could vote for Bill Clinton versus George Bush.
I wonder how that one would go?
>>I feel sorry for people who look towards government to improve their lives and/or make them happy.
Yeah, me too. Which is why we need to STOP ‘No Bid Contracts’, NOT give Federal contracts to companies which are not US-based (like Halliburton, which moved to Dubai), not build ‘Bridges to Nowhere’, and above all- not throw money at rebuilding Iraq. . . can’t those people do ANYTHING for themselves over there? Geez, we took out their dictator- stop sucking the teet of the American people DRY!
What was Bush’s last budget. . . oh yeah, 3.1 TRILLION! With a 400+ BILLION deficit. It seems like only yesterday those ‘tax and spend liberals’ in the CLinton administration had a SURPLUS!!!
>>Do you cry when Obama speaks like Chris Matthews does?
Yes, sometimes. Are you heartless, or what? Even the Boehner gets teary eyed! Of course usually he’s sad about his pork-barrel earmarks getting removed from the budget!
And GW is always tearing up as well (probably has to do with money, though).
9. Retired Spook | February 8th, 2008 at 10:27 am
You think we have peace and prosperity???
coulter, let’s put that question in perspective. Do you think raising taxes and leaving the ME in chaos, as both Obama and Hillary are almost certain to do, will enhance the prospects of peace and prosperity?
Yes, we are seeing a downturn in the economy right now — no question about it. Is it because of any specific policies of George Bush? You’d be hard-pressed to come up with a valid rationalization for that. Much of the blame is on the Federal Reserve for not only lowering interest rates to an historically low level, but keeping them there for waaaaaay to long. On top of that you can blame Congress (and yet, to some extent the Bush Administration) for pushing lending institutions (in the name of universal home ownership) to make unacceptably risky loans. And, given that our corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world, it’s a miracle we ever have any prosperity at all. It speaks well to American ingenuity, entrepreneurial spirit and can-do attitude that we have prospered in spit of the anti-business attitude of so many people in this country.
10. Retired Spook | February 8th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Wow, I’m usually a pretty good proof reader. It should have been “and yes, to some extent…” and “prospered in spite of…”.
Sorry keefer, my bad.
11. SteaM | February 8th, 2008 at 10:38 am
hahaha, neocon, you’re either messing with us or you are an idiot.
No one, and I mean generally speaking, (except those five people at CPAC) want even another 4 more minutes of bush let alone 4 more years. That would be devistating for our Democracy.
12. coulterfan | February 8th, 2008 at 10:39 am
>>Is it because of any specific policies of George Bush?
Of course! He’s been President for the past 8 years and has gotten nearly everything he wanted. . .
If you think HE hasn’t caused chaos in the ME, you haven’t been paying attention. If you think that MASSIVE deficits, bloated budgets, cutting taxes during wartime, sub-prime loans, bank deregulation, ‘free trade’, etc haven’t caused our current crises- well, you are clueless!
Even Alan Greenspan has been against the ‘permanent tax cuts’ Bush has been pushing for years! Remember, the Clinton administration brought us out of a recession (caused by the same ‘trickle-down’ financial policies of George HW Bush and de-regulation- which was started by Carter, but continued under Reagan and Bush, both deficit spenders)
Those nasty liberal economic policies led to a HUGE economic expansion in the US during the 1990s! And, coincidentally, the most liberal states (California, NY, etc) have the biggest economies in the US! Meanwhile, the most ‘conservative’ states take most of the Federal tax ‘welfare’.
We’ve tried it your way for 8 years, I think most Americans would like to return to some fiscal discipline. The ‘Big Government’ philosophy is now embodied in the GOP (except for Ron Paul).
It’s time for competence again.
13. neocon | February 8th, 2008 at 10:43 am
>>>can’t those people do ANYTHING for themselves over there? Geez, we took out their dictator- stop sucking the teet of the American people DRY! - coulter<<<<
Way to rebuild that world standing thing coulter. I don’t know if building allies will be your strong suit.
I also just love the revision of history liberals constantly promote. The following link should provide some insight for you coulter, and remember it took the Republican House and Senate to help Clinton with those projected surplusses in the final years of his Presidency.
Jack Murtha is also king of the earmarks, just FYI.
Good job on being proactive with Keef, Spook.
14. neocon | February 8th, 2008 at 10:47 am
coulter,
Are speaking of the Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi competence? You’re fun to toy with. Our own little ignorant, deluded liberal who crys and needs government to improve his life. You crack me up.
15. LiberalMind | February 8th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Unbelievable.
These “supporters” want a king, not a democracy.
16. neocon | February 8th, 2008 at 10:58 am
That’s it LiberalMindless,
No delusion there. Do you cry like coulter when Obama speaks of the Kingdom?
17. Retired Spook | February 8th, 2008 at 11:15 am
We’ve tried it your way for 8 years, I think most Americans would like to return to some fiscal discipline.
coulter, If you honestly think you’re going to get fiscal discipline with either Obama or Hillary, you’re beyond deluded. You have apparently forgotten Hillary’s statement last fall:
And she’s only the 16th most liberal Senator. Obama was just rated THE MOST LIBERAL Senator. You think he’s going to be fiscally disciplined? Get real! Actually the only person in the race who has a fiscally conservative record is John McCain. He’s taken virtually NO PORK, and has rung the “cut spending” bell until the cows come home. It’s one of the few areas where I strongly agree with him.
I think Conservatives who post here are virtually unanimous on our condemnation of the growth of government and spending the last 7 years, but historically, the Democrat Party has never, I repeat NEVER been known for fiscal discipline. The ONLY reason Bill Clinton achieved that status is because a Republican Congress held his feet to the fire for the last 6 years of his administration. Limbaugh used to play a funny parody of sound clips from Clinton (only a couple years before the budget was balanced) saying, “I think we can balance the budget in 7 years, no, 9 years, no 6 years, no 10 years, no 7 years.” Meanwhile, the GOP Congress just kept whittling away on spending, got Clinton to sign the bill that cut the capital gains tax, and the money started pouring in. Left to his own devices, Clinton would have NEVER balanced the budget.
18. coulterfan | February 8th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Have any of you ever watched an Obama speech? I know that he may use some big words and speak grammatically correct English, something you’re probably not used to.
Still, he doesn’t speak about our divisions. . . he is not a blind partisan. He appeals to our sense of unity, optimism, and our pride in America! Really good speakers can make you laugh, make you feel, make you cry. Heck, even terrible ’speakers’ like GW Bush have made me tear up when he talks about military families who have lost their loved ones. Maybe I just am a pussy for loving this country & the American people so much that I’m sometimes moved to tears. . .
What happened? Where did all the GOP’s optimism go? At least Obama’s message is “Yes We Can” confront the difficult challenges before us.
You guys seem to think “No, We Can’t” become energy independent, improve the climate, be a beacon of freedom again to the world, etc. What happened when the GOP’s big message is ALWAYS being devisive and negative (’Flip-Flop”, “Demoncraps want to surrender to Bin Laden!”, etc)
Reagan was optimistic and inspired America (sometimes even to tears like after the Shuttle disaster, again I guess I’m a pussy!) This is a quality Obama shares, in contrast to the GOP’s constant message today of fear, pessimism, 100 years more war, torture, warrantless wiretaps, etc.
Good luck in the fall.
19. DM | February 8th, 2008 at 11:19 am
”No one, and I mean generally speaking, (except those five people at CPAC) want even another 4 more minutes of bush let alone 4 more years. That would be devistating for our Democracy.” - SteaM
Bet you thought the same thing in 2004. What a lame comment!
20. neocon | February 8th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Yes,
You just described the qualities of a motivational speaker, and Obama would make a great motivational speaker. But not a good President.
21. coulterfan | February 8th, 2008 at 11:29 am
>>I think Conservatives who post here are virtually unanimous on our condemnation of the growth of government and spending the last 7 years, but historically, the Democrat Party has never, I repeat NEVER been known for fiscal discipline
Funny, but the Conservatives have never been known for economic growth. Historical analysis of economic growth and stock market growth always favors Democrats. In fact, most of the economic recessions (and the Great Depression) were started by ‘Conservative’ presidents.
You’re delusional to think that ‘laisez faire’ capitalism would ever work. With that system, we “let the market decide”. If people can make money selling crystal meth on the street, hey “let the market decide”, right! Porn on network TV? “If you don’t like it, turn it off!”, right?
FDR saved unregulated capitalism from itself. Have you ever been to a REAL capitalistic city? I was in Hong Kong prior to the turnover to China. There was porn, prostitutes, and drugs for sale openly on the streets. We stepped over passed-out elderly folks living in the subway. If you don’t think we have an interest in the common good for the American people, we have a disagreement.
If you think selling our country off, piece-by-piece, to Saudi Arabia, Dubai, and Red China is good for America, we have a HUGE disagreement!
22. coulterfan | February 8th, 2008 at 11:34 am
>>But not a good President
I beg to differ. He’s a VERY intelligent, thoughtful man who is able to bring people together to work through issues. He would not CRAM things through without listening to opposing viewpoints and attempting comprimise. He has even said that he may have Republicans on his cabinet.
Stubbornness, incompetance, putting ‘friends’ and ‘donors’ into high positions they are not qualified for, invading countries without trying to understand the culture, going to bed at 8pm, taking extended vacations, ‘Cowboy diplomacy’ etc. These are the signs of a good president?
23. coulterfan | February 8th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Wait, did neocon just imply that Reagan would have been a better motivational speaker than President?
Or maybe the last 8 years of teleprompter-read stumbling speeches, idiotic responses at debates (”It’s hard, hard work”, “I try to love her as best as I can”, gynocologists “practicing their love with women”) and town meetings (”You work 3 jobs? Good for you- isn’t that uniquely American?”) has got you thinking Obama is OVERQUALIFIED?!?!?
24. Joe | February 8th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Neocon: remember it took the Republican House and Senate to help Clinton with those projected surplusses in the final years of his Presidency.
Spook: The ONLY reason Bill Clinton achieved that status is because a Republican Congress held his feet to the fire for the last 6 years of his administration.
So the Republican Congress “helped” Clinton reach those surpluses. So was it the Republican Congress that “helped” Bush delve us dangerously close to a recession? Or… since you and others on this site say how sound and great our economy is going, why do you say Bush did it? Shouldn’t it have been the Congress?
Just want to know the rules here so I am clear on who to thank or blame.
If it is a President you hate, then anything good in the economy was due to the Republican Congress. If it is a President you idolize, then a good economy is due to the President? Do I have that right?
25. Joe | February 8th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
And regarding this neon quote…
Way to rebuild that world standing thing coulter. I don’t know if building allies will be your strong suit.
Did you see this? Nothing like Bush pissing off another nation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/08/AR2008020801245.html?hpid=moreheadlines
26. SteaM | February 8th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Retired spook,
You really truely believe that Bush has nothing to do with the economy tanking?
I bet that since our economy is based on oil and oil has gone from $28 to $100 since Bush has been in office and mostly because he decided to attack a soverign nation.
27. LiberalMind | February 8th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
As poor a president Bush’s father was, I would gladly take him over the last eight years of this reckless, destructive, abusive, pathological administration.
I even for a brief moment reflect and remember that as bad as Ronald Reagan was for this country, he was not nearly as destructive as Bush and criminal gang.
Let me repeat: As incompetent Reagan was and as two faced Bush 41 was, this current president is the absolute worst that America will ever have to suffer, hopefully.
28. NeoClown | February 8th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Those are all Democrats shouting “we love you George.”
George Bush is the best thing that’s happened to the Democratic Party in 30 years.
Atta’ boy George!
29. MikeB | February 8th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Coulterfan wrote, “Those nasty liberal economic policies led to a HUGE economic expansion in the US during the 1990s!”
Coulter…you really have no understanding of how the economy works, do you?
The reason for the economic boom of the 90’s had absolutely nothing to do with Clinton, his liberal policies, or Greenspan.
It had everything to do with what RetiredSpook stated earlier…”It speaks well to American ingenuity, entrepreneurial spirit and can-do attitude that we have prospered …”
If I had the time I would go in to detail how it could be argued that Clinton and Greenspan were responsible for the burst of the tech bubble by not addressing what they knew to be an overheating economy. Instead, they allowed the economy to continue at an unsustainable pace knowing it would eventually have to correct.
But why should Clinton worry…he was going to be out of office soon and figured…”I’ll just let the next guy deal with it.”
-MB
30. TheHarbinger | February 8th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
It’s all clear now.
It’s Clintons fault!
(laughing)
31. SteaM | February 8th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Loving President George Bush for continuing to push through failed policies even now that we know how badly they have failed and why is just shameful.
By the I mean, we know how badly his policies have screwed things up. I know that’s a general statement but it’s also true. We know. It’s documented all over the place: the web, studies, polls, novel after novel aftr novel, congressional investigations, quotes, videos, documentary after documentary has been produced laying it out in terms anyone can understand.
To refuse to accept this knowledge is to deny the truth.
To deny the truth, willingly, and to refuse to accept or research these things is to essentially “give up” ones powers as a citizen of a country that is by the People and for the People.
You people who still, even with the knowledge at hand, follow every thing that our President does and says without questioning it are a danger to our Democracy.
32. The Bane | February 8th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
MikeB,
Don’t bother explaining economics to these buffoons, whereas I can have an intelligent conversation with “Georgia Frog” and “robert”and disagree; and Spook and Ricorun and others can discuss irrational exuberance and the historic nature of post war recessions, these ignorant boobs run down the list of Presidents looking for R’s and D’s to keep score.
If you doubt the inherent stupidity of these statements, read this one again, “FDR saved unregulated capitalism from itself.” Ya’ just can’t argue with logic like that!
33. Some Assembly Required | February 8th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Well said SteaM.
Generations from now when they look back I fear the only question they will ask is ‘why?’. When did peace get traded for oil and freedom for material possessions. The blame cannot solely be placed on the bush administration and republicans. I mean 8 years before, Clinton was impeached because of a sexual favor he received while he was married, yet the Bush administration blatantly lying a country into war can go without repercussions.
I’m sure there will be many studies and each more complicated and in depth then the next but the simple truth of the matter is no one stopped it. No Democrat, no Republican, no Christian or Muslim.
P.S. I predict when Bush is out of the white house, gas prices will drop maybe even that same week.
34. Retired Spook | February 8th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Just want to know the rules here so I am clear on who to thank or blame.
If it is a President you hate, then anything good in the economy was due to the Republican Congress. If it is a President you idolize, then a good economy is due to the President? Do I have that right?
First of all, Joe, let’s get one thing straight. I don’t “idolize” George Bush. Do you honestly believe that the last half of the 90’s would have played out the same if the Dems had held onto control (not only control, but operational control) of Congress? Do you believe they would have balanced the budget and passed welfare reform? If so, on what do you base that belief?
Let me repeat what I said earlier:
Is it because of any specific policies of George Bush? You’d be hard-pressed to come up with a valid rationalization for that.
Personally, I think that most of the blame for our current situation can be laid at the feet of Congress and the Fed. But if you view the fact that Bush didn’t veto any of the pork coming out of Congress as “policy”, then, sure, he shares the blame. Good people can disagree on whether or not we should have gone into Iraq, but the fact remains that the majority of Dems supported it. There’s plenty of blame to go around.
I actually think that, of the remaining 4 candidates, McCain is most likely to get a handle on spending which is going to be crucial to the economy going forward. The kinds of programs that Obama and Clinton are touting will only make things worse. Can you name even one specific program that either Dem candidate has advocated that would have a positive effect on the economy?
I bet that since our economy is based on oil and oil has gone from $28 to $100 since Bush has been in office and mostly because he decided to attack a soverign (sic) nation.
SteaM, do you have a credible source that supports our liberation of Iraq as the primary reason oil has quadrupled. Everything I’ve read indicates that the increase has been primarily due to increasing demand from China, India and other rapidly developing nations, our inability to tap much of our known reserves in Alaska and offshore (thank you Democrats) as well as manipulation in the futures market.
35. bozo the neoclown | February 8th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
ROFLMAO, let ole georgie speak in front of average Americans say, at a townhall meeting that is not hand picked and let’s see what a “warm reception” he receives.
36. Dennis | February 8th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
“There’s another philosophy, and it’s advanced by decent people who see the world differently,” Mr. Bush said of the Democrats.
“They tend to think Washington has the answers to our problems. They tend to believe our country only succeeds under the expansive federal government. They tend to be suspicious of America’s exercise of global leadership — unless, of course, we get a permission slip from international organizations.”
A splendid example of gobbledygook - he essentially is defending the federal government doing nothing for its own, but indiscriminately pouring out the people’s treasury in bungled wars, bullying and torturing at will, under the euphemism of “global leadership”.
This is what passes for conservatism nowadays - which is why lifelong Republicans like Susan Eisenhower, Ike’s granddaughter, now support Barack Obama.
37. Dennis | February 8th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Spook, you speak pretty glibly about “our liberation of Iraq.”
Since when did “liberation” create millions of refugees who never will be able to go home again? How does ethnic cleansing figure into the liberation concept, not to mention the long-term destruction of essentials like security, medical care, electricity and clean water?
And where are all the Christians in Iraq now? Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox churches coexisted peacefully with Islam in Iraq until Mr. Bush’s war - maybe you could expound on what “liberation” has done for them.
38. Retired Spook | February 8th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Spook, you speak pretty glibly about “our liberation of Iraq.”
I did nothing of the sort. I simply pointed out that it has bipartisan support in Congress, and, if you want to use that as an Administration policy that had a negative effect on our economy, there is plenty of blame to go around. I also aksed SteaM if he had any credible evidence to suggest the the liberation of Iraq was the primary cause of the increase in the price of oil. Not sure where you get “glib”.
I find it rather ironic that the Left routinely defends communist tyranny by saying “you have to break a few eggs to make an omlet”, but when a “few eggs” are broken in the defeat of tyranny, the Left goes apoplectic.
In the overall scheme of world politics, the short-term speed bump that is Iraq is but a grain of sand on the beach. But, of course, if everything goes down the toilet, we can always fall back on the favorite excuse of the Left: “well, at least we tried”.
39. bozo the neoclown | February 8th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
““They tend to think Washington has the answers to our problems. They tend to believe our country only succeeds under the expansive federal government.” interestingly enough, the federal government has grown exponentially under the crawford coward’s occupation of the white house
40. Retired Spook | February 8th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
You can tell it’s Friday afternoon. My mind is somewhere else. That should have been: “had” bipartisan support.
41. SteaM | February 8th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I suppose that Debaathification was also an awsome example of the so-called “liberation” as well?
When the Iraqi Army were all fired?
When the professionals that ran all aspects of their government were fired?
And who knows what kind of horrible atrocities have occured regarding hired mercenaries like those who work for Blackwater.
42. Retired Spook | February 8th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
interestingly enough, the federal government has grown exponentially under the crawford coward’s occupation of the white house
You’re preaching to the choir on this, bozo. If you want the trend reversed, vote for McCain. If you want it to continue to grow “exponentially”, vote for the Dem.
43. Retired Spook | February 8th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
And if you want it to grow even faster, do your part to ensure that the Dems control the WH and both houses of Congress - pull the Democrat lever straight across.
44. coulterfan | February 8th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Hey, if Bush has been such a great President. . .
Will he be campaigning for McCain?
BTW, McCain recently said that he “doesn’t really understand economics”… Just what we need at this time in our history!
That would put him on par with the rest of you GOPers!
45. bozo the neoclown | February 8th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
“You’re preaching to the choir on this, bozo. If you want the trend reversed, vote for McCain.”
::::::roll eyes:::::: yeah, voting republican in the last two years surely has proven that.
46. bozo the neoclown | February 8th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
the last two presidential election cycles that is
47. bozo the neoclown | February 8th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
“And if you want it to grow even faster, do your part to ensure that the Dems control the WH and both houses of Congress - pull the Democrat lever straight across.”
HHHHmmmmmm, i recall this exponential growth happened while the republicans controlled both the white house and congress.
48. Brian G. | February 8th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Four more years? Ha! I honestly think I’d cry if that happened…and I’m not even a liberal!
49. Retired Spook | February 8th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
::::::roll eyes:::::: yeah, voting republican in the last two years surely has proven that.
Yeah, but McCain’s not a Republican.
HHHHmmmmmm, i recall this exponential growth happened while the republicans controlled both the white house and congress.
I’m not disputing that, although the Dems have controlled both the House and Senate for the last year. If you think the Dems in control both the executive and legislative branches are going to spend less, then you really are naive.
50. bozo the neoclown | February 8th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
“Yeah, but McCain’s not a Republican.”
this ought to be good. then what exactly does that little (r) next to his name in the senate rollcall represent?
51. SteaM | February 8th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Case in point re: Blackwater killing civilians and how this undermines our reputation as “liberators”…
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4256679&page=1
52. Retired Spook | February 8th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
then what exactly does that little (r) next to his name in the senate rollcall represent?
I’d say “maverick”, but that starts with an “m”. How about Republicrat?
53. Dennis | February 8th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Spook, here’s where I thought you were glib in post 34: “SteaM, do you have a credible source that supports our liberation of Iraq as the primary reason oil has quadrupled.”
You used the word “liberation” as if this concept is a given.
And I note that you completely stepped around the questions I asked in post 38, diverted to a straw man argument and said you have to “break a few eggs” to defeat tyranny.
It’s clear those questions expose a dilemma for you. Mr. Bush’s war has created a worse tyranny than the one he thought to overthrow. And it’s looking less and less likely that will ever change.
You speak (also a bit glibly, in my esitmation) of Iraq being a mere speed bump - I am not sure it feels that way to the millions of refugees who will never be able to return home. We exacted terrible revenge for our three thousand killed on 9/11 - this war has killed many multiples that number.
Forgive my persistence, but could you please tell me, once we’re over this “speed bump” do you foresee a time when Christians in Iraq will enjoy the freedom to worship in their own churches, and operate businesses alongside Muslims, as they did before our war of liberation?
54. bozo the neoclown | February 8th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
“I’d say “maverick”, but that starts with an “m”. How about Republicrat?”
stress on the RAT
55. sleepygene | February 8th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
How did the book signing go boys?
56. SteaM | February 8th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Did you guys enjot Ann Coulter calling Edwards a woman and saying that the best thing that happened to the “B. Hussein Obama” campaign was that he was born “half black”?
How sad. Maybe if she were actually funny it might be different. But to real people she just seems like a sad playground bully that has serious issues.
57. TheHarbinger | February 8th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
When you saw W, did you scream and wet your pants?
58. SteaM | February 8th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Ask ole “W” why he is cutting funding for low income education projects while increasing funding for the Defense department in the new budget!
What a good guy! I’d like to have a beer with him!
59. plainjane | February 8th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Bush and the neocons twisted a screwdriver into the conservative movement the past six years. CPAC shouldn’t even have let him in the door. Didn’t listen to the speech. What part where they cheering; the nation building, borrowing billions from China to spend in Iraq, illegal immigration reform, wire tapping of their phones without a warrant, the huge deficits, the recession bail out, increasing the size of government, the three trillion dollar budget?
60. phil | February 8th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
I understand that he apologized to the true conservatives at CPAC on behalf of his administration and the late Republican Congressional Majority for, in his words, “presiding over an orgy of profligacy, an astounding amount of wasted spending that will cost Americans, not to mention their children and grandchildren, for years. We increased spending on earmarks by an order of magnitude (that’s ten times for those of you who aren’t math majors or maybe had too many martinis) in my first term alone. Geez, we’ve fiscally screwed the pooch…er…screwed the people…uh…screwed up, big time.”
61. Retired Spook | February 8th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
You used the word “liberation” as if this concept is a given.
It is a given. I’m only using the terminology that was in the original 1998 Act by Congress - “The Iraq Liberation Act”, signed by Bill Clinton and overwhelmingly supported by Congressional Democrats. If you want to criticize some, criticize Slick.
And I note that you completely stepped around the questions I asked in post 38, diverted to a straw man argument and said you have to “break a few eggs” to defeat tyranny.
I “completely stepped around your questions because none of them was legitimate.
It’s clear those questions expose a dilemma for you.
No, because they are all bogus.
Mr. Bush’s war has created a worse tyranny than the one he thought (sic) to overthrow.
Not sure how you figure that. At best it’s your opinion.
And it’s looking less and less likely that will ever change.
Again, your opinion. Many people of varied political persuasions would disagree with you.
You speak (also a bit glibly, in my estimation) of Iraq being a mere speed bump - I am not sure it feels that way to the millions of refugees who will never be able to return home.
About 2 million Iraqi refugees according to the most recent news reports I could find. Conflicts result in refugees. Just in the recent past 4 million refugees fled the civil war in Sudan, 2.5 million were displaced by the civil strife in Angola, 1.6 million in the Congo and 1.5 million in Colombia. Over 1 million fled Vietnam after our Democrat-controlled Congress abandoned them, and scattered across the globe, never to return to their homes. Another million were imprisoned without charges in reeducation camps where 165,000 died. Over 2 million died next door in the killing fields of Cambodia. History will look at the liberation of Iraq as a minor speed bump — sorry if you don’t like that term.
We exacted terrible revenge for our three thousand killed on 9/11 - this war has killed many multiples that number.
That’s offensive — Iraq had virtually nothing to do with 9/11, other than Al Qaeda has made it the central front in their war with us.
Forgive my persistence,
Fu*k you!!
do you foresee a time when Christians in Iraq will enjoy the freedom to worship in their own churches, and operate businesses alongside Muslims, as they did before our war of liberation?
You mean like this
62. Darva Conger | February 8th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
A vote for McCain is a vote for four more years of Bush. That is ALL we Dems need to repeat until November.
Case closed.
63. Retired Spook | February 8th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Matt or Mark, I know your blog software doesn’t like multiple embedded links, but have you disabled the link capability completely? I mess one up once in a while, but I’ve never messed the same one up three times in a row. Just curious.
64. David.B.Schmidt | February 8th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Spook,
Kick back & have another glass on me. Love your responses as they are factual and to the point. The facts confuse the liberals, and the whining from the liberals about President Bush (who is not running) by both the trolls on this blog & the candidates prove that they are looking back while the rest of us are looking forward.
Don’t exactly agree with Sen. McCain; however, he is the closest by far to even being a moderate. I am waiting to see his VP pick. Nonetheless, I know who is getting the top of my ticket so far this year and it is neither the truly corrupt Sen. Clinton, nor Sen. “Chicago Politics” Obama. Left & farther Left that pair.
The liberals here remind me of waterboarding. More examples of waterboarding were done by the very people that oppose it than the CIA has done. Arguing about and “torturing their own” over something over five years gone.
65. John Ryan | February 8th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Yeah things are going great in Iraq !!
When the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down,
That was my all time favorite slogan What’s yours ?
66. Mark Noonan | February 8th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Geesh, right on cue…told Matt that “four more years” would unhinge the lefties…
Why do you guys hate so much? Its really rather sad…
67. Dennis | February 8th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Spook, thanks for the response. You used “liberation of Iraq” in a literal fashion and I wanted to understand how this concept applies literally to the Iraqi people.
I doubt the stats from other wars bring any comfort to the victims of the Iraq war. It seems a moral copout to take refuge in how much worse the Khmer Rouge was. Using similar logic Saddam Hussein could have argued his tyranny was employed to avert far greater chaos and bloodshed - I’m not buying it.
I know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, yet 9/11 was used to sell the war to the public. Many US troops in the initial offensive carried 9/11 memorabilia with them to psyche them up for battle. Offensive perhaps - but many Americans saw the war as revenge. It seems Mr. Bush may have, as well.
The church denomination I was raised in had a thriving membership and infrastructure in Iraq before the war. I know this because I had relatives who lived for decades in the ME, some of whom worked for the church. All is gone now, and that denomination was just one of many.
From conservatives who preach accountability and “a culture of life” it seems strange to hear the excuse “someone else was worse” to justify what we’ve done to Iraq.
Of course as you said, that is all just my opinion.
68. LiberalMind | February 8th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Deleted - off topic
69. NeoClown | February 8th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Deleted - off topic
70. bozo the neoclown | February 8th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Deleted - off topic (Ed. Note: You should know that certain people ’round here have an autistic brother and don’t take kindly to idiots making insulting comments about such things).
71. Retired Spook | February 8th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
The liberals here remind me of waterboarding.
Good point, David. More people drowned in Ted Kennedy’s Oldsmobile than ever drowned being waterboarded.
it seems strange to hear the excuse “someone else was worse” to justify what we’ve done to Iraq.
I don’t believe I said that, Dennis. I merely made the point that displaced people are an inevitable byproduct of conflict. For what it’s worth, I am sorry for the people from your former church. Perhaps someday Iraq will welcome them back.
72. searp | February 8th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
I hope McCain and President Bush campaign together.
73. NeoClown | February 8th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Deleted - off topic
74. neocon | February 8th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Dennis,
If we could just go back to the secular haven, free from terrorism days of Saddam right?
75. james allegro | February 9th, 2008 at 1:38 am
God bless you President George W. Bush, the greatest president in american history.
76. phil | February 9th, 2008 at 8:31 am
THIS JUST IN…The CPAC convention was apparently infiltrated by a large band of Islamic terrorists bent on the destruction of the United States! Unmistakable evidence of this is that, when Bush entered the hall a chant of “Four More Years” arose from some of the convention attendees. Since it is overwhelmingly clear that nothing would destroy the country more swiftly or surely than another four more years of a Bush administration, one can only conclude that this is the work of terrorists. BEWARE you CPAC attendees!