Monday, July 17, 2006

Morality Flip-Flop? In May, McCain Appeased The Relgious Right. Now He Risks Their Scorn By Speaking To Playboy

Did John McCain (R-AZ) just bite the hand that might have fed him?

McCain is seen as a likely front-runner to be his party's 2008 presidential nominee. In an effort to appease the religious right, McCain in May spoke at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University -- four years after McCain blasted Falwell, along with Pat Robertson, Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton, as "agents of intolerance" who were "corrupting influences" in American politics.

It's a step one has to do to win during primary season. Republicans move to the right, Democrats move to the left, and hopefully, everyone moves to the center come November. (Note: It didn't work so well with the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue ...)

But whatever steps McCain made to erase the long memories of Christian conservatives will now fly out the window, once copies of this month's Playboy Magazine begin reaching the populace.

That's because, in the same issue featuring a pictorial called "The Real Girls of Orange County," McCain is featured -- one of several people who penned articles about the Iraq War, and why we need to be there.

Can you say right topic, wrong venue?


Did McCain just commit the ultimately morality flip-flop? Did he destroy his chance at the 2008 Republican presidential nomination?

Not so fast. Conservatives have a ready-made answer, and ironically, it was provided more than five years ago.

According to a 2001 piece in the right-wing editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) chided Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) for implying that granting an interview to a magazine is "akin to advocating that publication's views."

Brownback, the Journal reported, reminded "Biden of Al Gore's Playboy interview."


Still, appeasing Christian conservatives wasn't a key part of Gore's 2000 campaign strategy. It appears to be a part of McCain's for 2008.

And the truth is, the words "Republican" and "Playboy interview" are not often uttered together. Do a Google search trying to link other 2008 Republican presidential candidates with their respective Playboy interviews is, for lack of a better word, hard.

Over the past decade, very few Republicans have sat down for interviews with the magazine. Several years before he became California governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger gave several interviews. Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson was interviewed by Playboy in 2000. Fox News Channel's Shepard Smith talked to the magazine this year.

But those guys aren't running for president.

Four years after the fact, McCain tried to make amends with Falwell. What can he do for an encore -- if anything -- before the 2008 primary season?


Anonymous gratuitous said...

McCain? Held accountable? Surely you jest

Yeah, yeah, "don't call me Shirley."

No, John McCain is the media darling, Mr. Straight Talk, Mr. Maverick, the former POW who can Get the Job Done. McCain is just awaiting his annointment as the next savior of the nation. He can flip, he can flop, he can say the stupidest things, and the media will completely forget all about it by the next news cycle, don't you worry. Hell, the guy could probably even do an interview with Playboy magazine and not realize any negative repercussions.

{Checks link}


11:32 AM  
Anonymous skipos said...

He is a fake moderate who would do anything to get elected

I am more worried about who his VP pick would be if he was nominated, since he would be the oldest president ever elected. His health isn't great either.

11:32 AM  
Anonymous orangepeel68 said...

he didn't have a chance

he completely sold out because he wanted to, but somebody like Frist or Brownback would take him out in the primary the same way (and with the same sleazy methods) that bush did.

11:33 AM  
Anonymous MADem said...

It's a closer fit than the fundies, actually.

But we will just have to see who is in the GOP field. If it's Allen and/or Romney, they'll fight dirty. They'll wedge like mad with the fundies.

11:50 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

David R. Mark said...

"McCain is seen as a likely front-runner to be his party's 2008 presidential nominee."

Not by anyone who really counts. He's not so much a fake moderate, as he is a fake conservative, at least in some areas. I do appreciate his support of the war on the Islamo-facists though. I just don't want him to be our candidate for the presidency.

11:51 AM  
Anonymous dbaker41 said...

Anything's OK if you are a Republican

No way this will hurt McCain. Even the fundies will rationalize it.


2:20 PM  
Anonymous MrToffeeLovesYa said...

So what if McCain did an interview with Playboy? Wake up and smell reality, liberal America. Produce something showing McCain is a Playboy centerfold, and then you can start complaining.

It's like Brownback said: just because you associate with a publication, that doesn't mean you should be associated with that poublication.

Face facts, liberals. I'm sure McCain has written editorials for the New York Times, but no one would associate him with liberal media bias. He's appeared on Jon Stewart's show, but no one would associate him with irreverent liberal pokes directed at the Bush Administration. He's thrown out pitches at Arizona Diamondbacks games, but no one would associate him with the baseball team. He was kissed by President Bush, but no one would associate him with the inner-workings of the Bush Administration. C'mon liberals.

It won't matter if someone like Pat Robertson denounces McCain. Did anyone listen after he denounced Orlando? Do the math, liberals. Orlando is a lot bigger than John McCain.

And like my buddy Trinity said, no one who "really counts" thinks McCain is the front-runner.

This story unfairly labeled McCain the front-runner in a headline two weeks ago. It's another example of the liberal media trying to help someone who's popular and wrong, rather than someone who's unpopular, like the president. Pow!

4:22 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

MrToffeeLovesYa said...
"It's another example of the liberal media trying to help someone who's popular and wrong, rather than someone who's unpopular, like the president. Pow!"

Pow, schmow! How utterly annoying.

And I know your use of the word "liberal" when referring to the media is tongue-in-cheek on your part, pal, but it's accurate nonetheless.

And the only reason that the media is trying to help McCain is because they do like him. And the reason they like him, since you guys cannot seem to figure it out, is because he is not conservative, and often times he will vote against conservative issues.

And McCain loves being the media's darling, and being thought of as "moderate" by the elites, which is why he has become almost more of a media hound than people like Chucky Schumer. It's very dangerous to get between some of these people and a tv camera.

6:58 PM  
Blogger Wally Banners said...

Screw Macin. No Senator ever makes a great President. The office has no time to comprimise, but must act with speed and wisdom. Senators are the most courpt. As far a Bushs g8 summit Shit coment. I prefer a Presdient that uses cuss words than a coward of a president that sticks cigars in interns vaginas like old yellowstain Clinton did. Most of you democrats are cowards at least this generation of democrat assholes. YOU Whine like women and hide from the duty of your nation like snakes. I pity you democrats it must suck to look in a mirror and see yourselves for what you are.

7:12 PM  
Anonymous MrToffeeLovesYa said...

Trinity, once again you have hit the nail on the head.

Wake up, liberals. As my amigo advises, McCain is a creation of the liberal media elite. The media followed him on his Straight Talk Express because they had it in for Bush. Nothing more, nothing less. And the anti-Bush media keeps going back for more. The fact that the Washington Times has annointed McCain the front-runner for 2008 calls into question its credibility -- not the conservatives who read it.

Conservatives don't care how often McCain votes in step with the Bush Administration. Or how ardently he supports the Iraq War. Or that McCain is pro-life or favors amendments to ban gay marriage. Do the math, liberals. McCain is no Rick Santorum or Tom DeLay.

Radio host Mark Levin knows to see without McCain-colored galsses, right Trinity? The media calls McCain a "maverick" because "maverick" is code for "liberal," and "Straight Talk" is code for "not in line with Bush."

Don't believe the hype, Liberal America. John McCain served a key role in 2004 when he buried the hatchet, let President Bush kiss him on the forehead, and became the loyal soldier campaign for the Bush-Cheney ticket. But conservatives say that sort of loyalty should be rewarded with a handshake, not a promotion to the White House. Pow!

11:04 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

Huh. MrToffee's link ...

"This story unfairly labeled McCain the front-runner in a headline two weeks ago."

... is to a Washington Times article, and it's linked to by GOPUSA.

The item mentions that Phil Gramm is on the McCain bandwagon, and that President Bush might support McCain, too.

Trinity, are you sure that no one who counts thinks McCain is the perceived front-runner? It sure seems like at least a few conservatives do.

2:30 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
"Trinity, are you sure that no one who counts thinks McCain is the perceived front-runner? It sure seems like at least a few conservatives do."

Cutiepie, the people who count are the voters, and I know that most true conservative voters do not like McCain. Some would say that President Bush is not really a conservative either on many issues.

So, perhaps I'm just indulging in some wishful thinking when I say that McCain won't be our candidate. I don't know. Read this column by Paul Weyrich, and it may give you some insight into how people like me feel.

12:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

McCain or whomever the Republican candidate doesn't really matter. After eight years of Bush, a Republican doesn't stand a chance of being elected the next president.

4:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess time will tell, right, Anonymous? ;)

2:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To anon above:
I don't think anyone will want to elect the Party of the Worst President in History.
We have Rethugs living in la la land begging, praying that some how things will improve in the Iraq/Middle East to somehow reverse Bush's misfortunates.
It's hasn't happened yet. There's absolutely no reason to believe it still can.

11:06 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Sorry, Anonymous. That was my post above. And I repeat, time will tell.

Just because the Republicans have not had an easy time of it, doesn't mean that the majority of Americans will suddenly decide that the Democrat Party would be a refreshing change with extraordinary leadership that will solve all of the very real problems that our nation is facing. In fact, even typing that sentence out made me laugh.

And to Cutiepie, here's a new Gallup poll that found that 4 out of 10 Republicans would not find McCain an acceptable candidate for '08.

That's what I meant when I said that the people who count are not behind McCain. Phil Gramm and President Bush, even if they do back McCain, only get one vote apiece.

12:07 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

P.S. Yes, indeed, President Bush is a really terrible, despicable man for trying to surround Iran, the real villain and terrorist puppetmaster behind all the violence in the Middle East, with democratic free societies that will hopefully result in spreading freedom and peace throughout the region and the world. What a shit that guy is to even entertain such hateful ideas! :rolleyes:

12:15 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Trinity, Bush should have surrounded/invaded/dealt with Iran and Syria three years ago, when he said he wanted to end state-sponsored terrorism and break the backs of terrorism.

Then, as now, there were obvious (not clandestine) links between Iran and Syria and Hamas and Hezbollah. As Condi Rice said a few days ago, Hamas and Hezbollah didn't sprout up yesterday.

If Bush had done the logical, rather than follow through on the neocon gameplan of 1998, the world would look a lot different.

Had there never been a 9/11, the policy of regime change against a despot like Saddam would have been debatable. We had him contained, but he still posed a possible threat, for all the reasons the administration laid out (possible ties to Al Qaeda, possible desire to reconstitute a weapons program, previous bad deeds against the Kurds, support of families of Palestinian suicide bombers.)

But after 9/11, Bush should have looked at the reality of Iran and Syria, rather than try to pump up some indirect relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. He should have looked at the legitimate threat posed by Iran and Syria, rather than try to beef up the possible threat posed by a contained Saddam.

Long-short: Iraq was a problem, but after 9/11, Iran and Syria were more immediate problems, if the U.S. wanted to proactively deal with state-sponsored terrorism. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration is only now seeing a ramification of its earlier decision.

12:35 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"Trinity, Bush should have surrounded/invaded/dealt with Iran and Syria three years ago, when he said he wanted to end state-sponsored terrorism and break the backs of terrorism."

Rob, my guess would be that there would have been nothing that the Bush Administration would have loved to do more than to deal harshly with Iran and Syria three years ago.

See, this is the problem with many on the left, and I am not directing this at yourself really, because I get the impression that you, unlike many others who post here, may actually be somewhat reasonable, and capable of actually looking at issues in a more fair manner than the more radical libs. At least, sometimes I do get that impression of you. I think you are capable of acknowledging a valid point made by someone on my side of the debate. I could be wrong. ;)

But back to the issue. If leftists, both American and worldwide, had a problem with our going into Iraq for the purpose of regime change, when it was our nation's policy to do so, (Iraq Liberation Act passed under Clinton) and after Saddam Hussein thumbed his nose at the world by violating a dozen and a half U.N. resolutions placed upon him as terms of the ceasefire agreement he signed after the first Gulf War, then how in hell was the world going to react to Bush's taking agressive action against countries like Syria and/or Iran???

No. That argument is completely disingenuous imo. The answer is, nobody would have supported Bush doing that. I know it, and if you'd only think about it objectively, you should know it too. It's a case of Bush being damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't, pure and simple. I don't even think it's arguable.

1:06 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Trinity, Bush was able to get universal support -- from Democrats and Republicans -- to have the ability to go into Iraq, based primarily on the WMD argument, the fear (as Rice said) of a mushroom cloud, and the indirect ties Saddam had with terrorists.

Had Bush gone before the American people, after we had begun to go after Afghanistan and root out Al Qaeda, and said that we must now address the problem of state-sponsored terrorism, because this is the battleground of the future, and we can't naively think that Al Qaeds is the only terrorist organization that could attack us, he would have gotten the same level of support.

The American people, and Congress, were willing to take whatever measures necessary in the wake of 9/11. I think you are underselling how terrified much of the country, and the sense of unity and national purpose that resulted, in the weeks after 9/11. That's why even Democrats will admit that when Bush stood on the 9/11 rubble, arm around a firefighter, and said we'd find out who did this and take care of business, all the partisanship of the 2000 election went by the wayside.

It was an obvious move to go after Afghanistan. It was less obvious to go after anyone else, other than Saudi Arabia, given its connections to the 9/11 terrorists.

But had Bush said we know clearly that Iran and Syria are state sponsors of terrorism -- it would be an easy claim to make -- and that these countries could easily manufacture the next wave of terror attacks against us, Europe, Israel, NATO, etc., the American people would have rallied behind him. He would have gotten Congressional support, just as he did for going after Iraq.

The idea that Bush is damned if he does is how disappointed a majority of Americans are with how Bush and his administration have managed the Iraq War. The fact that we didn't find WMD doesn't help matters.

All the bad-mouthing by former generals, the ill taste Americans have about Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the ongoing insurgency, etc. The fact that Bremer and various generals said we needed more troops, in real time, and apparently were ignored, or that Rumsfeld's comments about looting and the resulting insurgency look stupid, or that Tenet was given the medal of freedom even after his "slam dunk" comment proved to be completely false. All these things weigh heavily on the American people, and that's why 55%-60% of Americans -- not just liberals, but a much wider swatch of Americans -- say they are upset with how the adminstration has managed the war, want to have a gameplan for getting out of Iraq, still want to see us find Osama and bring him to justice, etc.

Sorry if I'm rambling.

Like I aaid, the need for regime change in Iraq should have been put on the back burner after 9/11. The front burner should have been Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, and then a solid argument could have been made for state-sponsored terrorist states like Iran and Syria ... and even Saudi Arabia.

It wasn't disingenous then, and it isn't disingenous now. Bush chose the 1998 gameplan, rather than the post-9/11 gameplan. As a result, yes, Saddam is out of power, and eventually there will be a better Iraq. But Al Qaeda remains a problem, and now we have this second mess in the Middle East. The world is not a safer place.

1:28 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

It's time to call a spade a spade.
There's very little evidence Iraq "will eventually be better."
And I read a report this morning the Taliban have regained two towns in Afghanistan, which like Baghdad has fallen into complete chaos.
So we have (a) a missed opportunity to douse the fuse of a REAL powder keg in Iran and Syria (b) a missed opportunity to quelch a REAL threat with the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan (c) a quagmire in Iraq and(d) an illusion that even the dubious prospect of a bright and shiny Democracy in Iraq would do anything to help (a) and (b).
We end up with (d) a real stretch of the imagination to fathom how the Administration could have more incompetently handled middle eastern policy.
Like Condi Rice the other day, the administration will continue to hide behind irrelevant 9-11 sound bites whenever facing criticism.
Why does diplomacy all of a sudden seem so appealing to the Bush Administration. It knows its follies in Iraq have so weakened us militarilly while robbing away our respect as a super power that the U.S. has no other options.
The country and the entire world suffers at the hands of the Bush administration's learn-as-you-go foreign policy.
It's foolish to think there's little hope for change as long as these fools remain in power.

5:50 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"But had Bush said we know clearly that Iran and Syria are state sponsors of terrorism -- it would be an easy claim to make -- and that these countries could easily manufacture the next wave of terror attacks against us, Europe, Israel, NATO, etc., the American people would have rallied behind him. He would have gotten Congressional support, just as he did for going after Iraq."

I'm afraid I do not share your belief that everyone would have supported anything of the kind, Rob. If it's not a question of your being disingenious in making that argument, then it is surely a matter of your being naive.

If Iraq's multiple deliberate violations of U.N. resolutions wasn't reason enough to go into Iraq, nor the fact that Iraq's military regularly tried to shoot down our pilots, as well as those of Great Britain, in the no-fly zone, nor Saddam's failed attempt to assassinate Bush 41 in Kuwait, nor the fact that Iraq was training foreign terrorists on their soil.....if all of those actions were not enough to get the world's approval for us to go into Iraq, then why oh why would you think that we would have had support for taking action against Iran and/or Syria??? Sorry, but it simply would not have been the case.

As far as WMD, and our "not finding" them, the fact is that your side keeps moving the goal posts. Of course Saddam Hussein had WMD. I'm so tired of this dumbass argument. There was a damn good reason that Saddam was in material breach of multiple U.N. resolutions, and that was because he was busy hiding and deceiving the U.N. weapons inspectors.

But I don't even want to argue that point any more. We've found plenty of chemical WMD already, and the rest we can be pretty certain were transported to Syria and the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon. But if you would re-read the speech that President Bush made where he laid out the reasons for going into Iraq, you would see that WMD were only one of several reasons for doing so. People forget.,2763,806800,00.html

But Al Qaeda remains a problem, and now we have this second mess in the Middle East. The world is not a safer place.

This "second mess" in the Middle East is nothing new whatsoever. This is simply a continuation of the ongoing 58 year war that Muslims have declared on the Jewish people.

Here's how the story goes. The Jews are convinced by the rest of the world to give back land so they can have peace. They get out of Southern Lebanon, Hezbollah continues to attack them from there. The Jews in good faith get out of Gaza, and Hamas lobs more bombs from there.

There will NOT be peace, the world will NOT be a safer place, until Israel is allowed to finish the job it has now started. In case you weren't aware, many Arab states, in an extremely rare instance, (very 1st time actually) have made statements condemning Hezbollah for attacking Israel.

In any case, I wish people would come to grips with the fact that it's the radical Islamists who want this war. And it's not just Israel they want to destroy. Israel, to them, is "little Satan". The U.S.A. is "big Satan". Israel is not only defending her very existence in fighting back Hezbollah, she's also doing the entire world one gigantic favor, and we should be there at her side ready to put pressure on countries like Iran and Syria to stop their instigating, or face the consequences.

6:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Despite the factual and historical inaccuracies in the above essay I'm just too plumb exhausted to spell out yet again for another Bush apologist who wouldn't listen anyway, I got to the bottom of the piece without coming across any explanation how Bushie policies are doing anything to help the situation.

12:32 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Good. So we both agree that it's useless to respond to one another.

2:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, I found it rather useless to to argue with someone who twists and distorts facts about the WMD issue etc. to fit into their Bush apologist revisionist views.

8:33 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Anonymous said...
"Yes, I found it rather useless to to argue with someone who twists and distorts facts about the WMD issue etc. to fit into their Bush apologist revisionist views."

Oh please. People such as yourself have a corner on the cognitive dissonance market, Anonymous.

You obviously have some great personal need to believe that Bush lied about WMD, and you will never permit facts and evidence to the contrary to affect that belief.

Just continue to confine your reading to left-wing blogs and media that slant the news the way you like it, Anon, and you'll remain happy as a pig in shit.

9:12 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.".....Ronald Reagan

4:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, you mean that Ronald Regan the implementer of the Iran-Contra scandal. See below from Wikipedia:

"The Iran-Contra Affair (also called the Iran-Contra Matter and Irangate) was one of the largest political scandals in the United States during the 1980s. [1] It involved several members of the Reagan Administration who in 1986 helped sell arms to Iran, an avowed enemy, and used the proceeds to fund the Contras, an anti-communist guerrilla organization in Nicaragua. [2]
After the arms sales were revealed in November 1986, President Ronald Reagan appeared on national television and denied that they had occurred.[3] But a week later, on November 13, he returned to the airwaves to affirm that weapons were indeed transferred to Iran. He denied that they were part of an exchange for hostages."

8:42 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Anonymous said...
"Oh, you mean that Ronald Regan the implementer of the Iran-Contra scandal. See below from Wikipedia:"

Yes, I do mean that great man, Ronald Reagan, who championed the cause of freedom for oppressed people all over the world, may God rest his soul.

Naturally, individuals, no matter who they are, and no matter how noble their motives may be, have to face the consequences for the things they do.

Having said that, however, the thing that I most remember about Iran-Contra was the way our cowardly Congress passed the Boland Amendment, which in effect suddenly pulled the funding out from under the Reagan Admistration's support of the Contras.

The Boland Amendment put a lot of very decent men in the extremely difficult position of either pulling their support and abandoning the Contras to the Communist-led Sandinistas, or finding ways to get around the fickle Congress. They decided to risk the legal consequences and do the latter, in the name of liberty.

Your obvious disdain does nothing to diminish my admiration of people like President Reagan and Col. Oliver North, et. al., who were, as always, on the side of good. Your side, on the other hand, consistently supports the wrong side of these freedom issues and betrays innocents, as they did in the aftermath of the Vietnam War as well as the shameful abandonment of the Cuban people in the Bay of Pigs incident. And of course, now as well, in the fight for the liberty of the Iraqi people.

What is it about leftists that they so strongly object to helping the oppressed peoples of the world to gain their freedom?

4:57 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

To Trinity - You try to make cogent arguments for your case on these post, but most of the time you are giving a cogent repeat of Republican spin. When someone questions your facts, you resort to the typical republican game plan of attack, attack and then play the game of "republicans are ok, but liberals are not ok".
On your argument about WMDs. You are right about the fact that Chaney and Rumsfeld knew that Saddam had WMDs at one time and how much WMDs he had because they were instrumental in the sell of weapons and weapons technology for $billions while they worked in Reagan's Administration. Just like you, Saddam said Reagan was the best US President ever( no doubt why). It was during Reagan's tenure that Saddam gassed the Kurds and all Reagan said was basically "You should not have done that" and then continued to sell Saddam about anything he wanted because Reagan wanted Saddam to defeat Iran in their on going war.
When I worked in Geophysics we used Landsat imagery for Oil exploration and the resolution was 3 meter square. About 1983 a new Landsat was sent up that had 1 meter square resolution. By the time of the first Gulf War I know the Landsat imagery capability was even more greatly improved to the point that the resolution could read the license plate number on a vehicle. By 2001 there were even more improvements. So it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that this data could be used to track every inch of Iraq many times over so that our intelligence would know what Saddam was doing with his WMDs. There are books written now and more will be written in the future once this administration is no longer in power stating that there was substantial knowledge that Saddam no longer had WMDs by 2001 because of the first Gulf War, because of Sanctions, because of inspections and the destruction of his WMDs and because of the No-fly zone ( in which none of our Aircraft were ever shot down- instead we shot out the radar everytime they locked onto one of our aircraft). One the above mentioned books is "Cobra II" co-authored by a retired military intelligence general named Bernard Trainor. He has many references in his book about the knowledge of no WMDs by 2003 invasion. One thing in the book was that Saddam told his generals in late 2002 that Iraq had no WMDs. One of the generals told the Russian Ambassador who then told others. Bernard Trainor said that one of Saddams generals asked Saddam why he had tried to convince the world he still had WMDs. One reason why Saddam fought the new UN inspections, he did not want the world to know of his weakness. The general said Saddam said he did not want Iran and his own people to know this fact for fear of an invasion by Iran or an uprising by his own people. Trainor said Saddam never really believed the US would invade Iraq because he had no connection to Al Quiada and to 9/11. Maybe this is the same reason Bush had to invade before the UN finished its inspection. They would find no WMDs and then what would Bush/Chaney do?
Have you ever wondered why Chaney said we would be greeted as liberators and they will be throwing flowers at us and not WMDs? Was it maybe he knew that Saddam did not have any more WMDs. Why did Rumsfeld think the war would last days, weeks maybe, 3 months at the most. What did they know beforehand? Are they just dumbasses?
On your contention that they have found WMDs. You are right about that. They all have been delapadated skeletial remains of old equipment. Were they worth 2555 lives and $300 billion plus?

I amamased that the "terrorist" can spend $10,000 to instill fear in us while and have us start giving up some of our liberties, fight among ourselves over facts or opinions and spend billions and billions to pretend that we are safe.

I am also perplexed on how Republicans can claim the high moral ground on patriotism when so few enlist in the military to give actionable support for boastfull rhetoric for support for a "war on terrorism"! If over 59,000,000 voted for Bush in 2004 saying they support his policy and only a measly 1% of those were to enlist, that would be an additonal 590,000 more troops. So would Trinity and Mr T please tell me how I am to believe the Republicans are more patriotic than Liberals. I will not ask my son to go fight a cause that even the most ardent Republicans will not do ( not even a measly 1%).

5:07 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares