Maybe Newsweek will get some of their crack investigative reporters on the Oil for Food scam — of wait, it could help Bush, never mind. Back to trying to get that Koran to go down the toilet — I wonder if anyone at Newsweek asked themselves how exactly would you flush a book down a toilet?

This is yet another attempt to sell the big lie through the MSM. They keep trying it, because it does work on a large number of people–such as those that scoff at the idea that CBS might be biased. It has been working at least since the early ’70s, and maybe before that. Only now, it does not always work well enough to succeed.

Remember the “scandel plagued” administration of Bush 41? Well, there were a lot of *charges* of scandel by Democrats. Remember the terrible economy that amazingly got better when Clinton was elected?

Most of what gets said about Christian fundamentalists is in this vein as well, and has been for at least a decade. Knowing the pattern is more important than any particular issue, because then one knows when to dig deeper.

That is an excellent point. They disguise their anti-Americanism by directing their angry rhetoric towards President Bush. But listen carefully, and it becomes obvious that these individuals are contemptuous of any check and balance political system which hesitates to hand power over to them. These activists perceive themselves as virtuous and brilliant. Anyone standing in their way—must therefore be a scum bag of the lowest caliber and deserves to be treated accordingly.

I love the latest talking point the left is presenting on the Iraqi election. The present it as Bush didn’t want the election and Sistani forced him to concede. Even if you but this line of crap,Bush and Sistani never disagreed on the need for speedy elections, just the exact date. They never mention that the vast majority of the left,Kerry, the editorial boards of the major newspapers, and most of the Bush-Hitler crowd, were ridiculing Bush for having the early election, they claimed it was a sign of how stubborn Bush was, how he wouldn’t listen to people who knew better(them) and it was widely predicted that it would be a failure. Of course it was a success so what do they do? They pretend that their cry’s to delay the election untill the security situation was better never happened and they have the balls to think that people would forget how stupid they were and we would forget that they were screaming to stall the elections. It is the sign of a great propagandist to deny reality and pretend that the past can be erased and no one will take note.

http://www.rightviews.com/article.php?id=305

http://www.RightViews.com

The Republicans, in fact, may be victims of their own success in Iraq and the GWOT: by 2008, it’s possible that Iraq will be largely settled and the GWOT dormant, leading to another 1992-style election driven by domestic issues.

Anyway, I hope you’re right. But I have my doubts.

True, and I was going to point that out but I believe all those you mentioned would beat her and the only thing that would jepeordize Jeb Bush would be “Bush fatigue” and a rejection of a dynastic sense in having 3 out of the last 4 President’s being a Bush. I will tell you Jeb would be a very strong candidate he is a very good politician. I’ll add that none are as flawed as Hillary, her Senate career for New York gives her a cover she will lose when she runs, she has many pecadillo’s she has yet to answer for.

I wake up to the following in the Washington Monthly penned by Joe Biden under the title… “Credit Bush’s rhetoric not his actions”…

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0505.biden.html

An example of what I am talking about…

If we have reached a true tipping point, it seems to have been generated by recent events that had little or nothing to do with the Iraqi invasion: Arafat’s death, the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, terror attacks in Saudi Arabia, and the increasingly vocal protests in Egypt. And in Iraq, while it cannot be denied that the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein was a necessary precondition, it was Ayatollah Sistani who insisted on early elections against the wishes of the White House. President Bush decided to accede to Sistani’s wishes and deserves kudos for showing firmness in sticking to the schedule.

Little or nothing to do with the Iraqi invasion? Sistani was given the very opportunity to do the right thing because of Bush and his Iraqi invasion! Then assassination of the Lebanese Prime Minister and the other events occurred due to the desperation the terrorists because of Bush’s action, not his rhetoric! Yes credit Sistani and every other person that has done the right thing but if what Joe Biden is saying is correct who has done the right thing and been more the catalyst of the proactive cause and effect for the better more then Bush himself?vvIs Joe Biden being cute? Let’s see he says… it cannot be denied that the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein was a necessary precondition

Yet he titles his piece “Credit Bush’s rhetoric not his actions”…

Taking out Saddam and the doctrine of going after terrorist states is by far the most critical catalyst and Joe implying that such actions are subservient to other events like the Lebanese assassination or even Sistani’s cooperation is Joe Biden doing exactly what is very predictable from him.

Joe Biden and Tom Friedman are more sane liberals then most, but in the end they both tend to do the very same thing. They reshuffle facts and present the story in ways that demean our part, play down Bush’s positive role and treat the reaction and events due to Bush’s actions as if they were the cause of positive progress but they both know what they are doing and it is called SPIN. Yes Joe you have it backwards, most of these events are subservient to our President’s actions and not the other way around.

With Biden’s logic September 11th would be the catalyst that deserves the ultimate credit. It is true that September 11th changed many of us but fortunately for us the person it most changed was President Bush. Of all Americans changed by the event the most I am grateful he happened to be President Bush. Of all the people to react properly to events Sistani and the rest stand in Bush’s shadow and feed off of the catalistic energy created due to his policies, trying to reverse the order of importance may make Joe feel better but Joe isn’t going to convince people to follow Democrats with such weak rhetoric, unfortunately this is the best Dems can do.

When Joe says… it was Ayatollah Sistani who insisted on early elections against the wishes of the White House. President Bush decided to accede to Sistani’s wishes and deserves kudos for showing firmness in sticking to the schedule

I could mimic the same with…

it was George Bush who insisted on regime change against the wishes of just about everybody. The world decided to accede to Bush’s wishes and deserves kudos for showing firmness in sticking to the schedule

I guess it is just who one wants to credit isn’t it? Truth has little to do with it I guess, spinning the facts does. The funny thing is that for me, a former nuanced liberal, if I were to title anything on this topic it would be inverted and read…

Credit not Bush’s rhetoric, but his actions.

HA, I work in the tech industry. Most of my coworkers are bright people. And at a recent luncheon, a number of them not only asserted that Bush plotted 9/11, but that he’s planning a similar attack on the same scale to shore up his sagging poll numbers. These are intelligent, well grounded people – but on this topic they simply are not rational. Talking with them is like trying to talk with a Holocaust denier or a believer in UFO abductions. At work, I fight their attempts to politicize every conversation and every public forum; otherwise, I hope – and, yes, pray – that some will be cured in time.

Seems like he’s lucky to have a job.