When did things change in Iraq? When bloggers went over around the first of the year and began to report the facts, just the facts. About the same time the parrot pulled out and Dingy announced all was lost in Iraq.

Way off base… I understand your point, but did make relevant comments. I actually follow Terrye’s comments regularly here and JOM. I do agree with her most of the time but reserve the right to criticize her at times… After all, wer are not all robots in the center or on the right – the left, I’m not so sure.

Supporting the war does not in itself make you right or left in political non-speak (of course, except in the wild left wing side).

You do seem to favor the more idealogical intervention of government in private lives (health, birth, and death), which I do not. I still believe that the government should be an insignificant factor in our daily lives.

I suppose since you have been involved in the health care field that you may have tendencies to want more government help in this area – understand, but do not agree in any way. That is the type of response that I disagree with.

If national government actually adhered to the constitution, there would be few complaints. Unfortunately, once any program is initiated within the federal government, it will never be eliminated – only expanded.

Oh so you think he was meeting with them to negoitiate? Hilarious. He wasn’t meeting with them to negoitiate anything except their support of his run for the Presidency.

Grover Norquist is his handler at all these events and if you don’t know who he is regarding pandering to muslims then its time to pull your head out of the dark areas so that you can be better informed.

Btw Rice meeting with Abbas is greviously dangerous for the welfare of Israel.

And most sane people do not want to make 1.6 billion Muslims the enemy.

Well the ones who want to overwhelm our society and are working diligently at doing just that are our enemy whether you want it or not.

Its in the koran don’t you know. Christians are not allowed by the example of the founder of our religion to take a sword to unbelievers. Muslims are specifically charged with doing so. Wow…sounds like the ones who take that crap to heart are our enemies.

It might shock you to hear this but most Americans are not that damn partisan. Most Americans want Republican presidents to work with Democratic Senators. They expect it. They think that the welfare of the country as a whole is more important than petty partisan warfare.

As far as Bush meeting with people, Rice has to meet with Abbas. All sorts of leaders have to meet with people they don’t like, it comes with the territory.

And most sane people do not want to make 1.6 billion Muslims the enemy.

Yea he worked with Kennedy to vastly expand the Education department because that department has done such a bang up job so far. He worked with Kennedy three times to subvert the immigration policies of the United States. He actually lied to the American people regarding amnesty…great guy. A real patriot…now he is doing his level best to stop the execution of a Mexican murderer. Thanks Bush.

The nightmare is in what has happened to this nation. Idiots on both sides of the aisle have become nothing more than jabbering monkeys, parrots repeating talking points and so completely out of touch with sanity that their complete world view is colored red or blue.

Ah yes it is much better to sit like a docile monkey and accept what the politicians give us.

The job evolved into something way over his head. If he wasn’t sufficiently competent to ask for help then, why should I trust him now at finger pointing?

After all he is the ONLY US Officer who is questioning the way this war is being fought…or maybe he isn’t. Oh well the rest of those louts must be Democrats.

Bush has not catered to Islam, that is in fact a nonsensical statement.

hehe…Terrye Bushbot supreme…

Presidential candidate George W. Bush and his political adviser Karl Rove meet with Muslim activist Abdurahman Alamoudi. The meeting is said to have been brokered by Republican lobbyist Grover Norquist. Little is known about the meeting, which will not be reported until 2007. At the time, Alamoudi is head of the American Muslim Council (AMC), which is seen as a mainstream activist and lobbying group. But Alamoudi and the AMC had been previously criticized for their ties to Hamas and other militant groups and figures (see March 13, 1996). Bush and/or Rove will meet with Alamoudi on other occasions (see (see July 2000, June 22, 2001, September 14-26, 2001). US intelligence learned of ties between Alamoudi and bin Laden in 1994 (see Shortly After March 1994); he will be sentenced to a long prison term in 2004 (see October 15, 2004).

See the picture of them meeting here Bush meets Islamic Terrorist

Then there is this…

March 12, 2000: Presidential Candidate George Bush Meets with Suspected Supporter of US-Designated Terrorist Groups
Laura and George W. Bush on the left, Sami al-Arian on the right. [Source: Al-Arian family via Associated Press]Sami al-Arian poses for a picture with George W. Bush and his wife, Laura Bush, while Bush is campaigning for president in Florida. Bush chit-chats with al-Arians family and gives his son Abdullah the nickname Big Dude. Al-Arian is a former Florida professor and Muslim political activist who has been under investigation for suspected ties to US-designated terrorist groups. [Washington Post, 2/22/2003] Al-Arian will later tell friends that he used the occasion to press Bush about overturning the Justice Departments use of secret evidence to deport accused terrorists, which is an issue for many Muslim Americans during the presidential campaign. Newsweek will later comment, ÔøΩIn those pre-9-11 days, Bush was eagerly courting the growing Muslim vote and more than willing to listen to seemingly sincere activists like al-Arian. [Newsweek, 3/3/2003] At the time, al-Arian is vigorously campaigning for Bush at mosques and Islamic cultural centers in the pivotal state of Florida. In a reference to Bushs tight margin for victory in Florida which wins Bush the presidential election, al-Arian will later say, We certainly delivered him many more than 537 votes. [Newsweek, 7/16/2001] Author Craig Unger will later comment, Astonishingly enough, the fact that dangerous militant Islamists like al-Arian were campaigning for Bush went almost entirely unnoticed. Bushs speechwriter David Frum will later write, Not only were the al-Arians not avoided by the Bush White House they were actively courted. The al-Arian case was not a solitary lapse That outreach campaign opened relationships between the Bush campaign and some very disturbing persons in the Muslim-American community. [We] Republicans are very luckywe face political opponents too crippled by political correctness to make an issue of these kinds of security lapses.ÔøΩ [Salon, 3/15/2004]

David Frum must be a sneaky Democratic operative…or maybe he is a far right loon. Cause President Bush is a stand up guy….you Bush bots are amusing.

And lets not forget all those marvelous visits to various Mosques and all those assurances from President Bush that Islam is the Religion of Peace.

But this one tops all the others…while the buildings are still smoldering and we are still binding our wounds that “compassionate” fool does this with our enemies:

September 14-26, 2001: Bush Makes Public Appearances with Suspected Terrorism Supporters
President Bush in front of the Islamic Center on September 17, 2001. Alamoudi is on the far right. [Source: Martin H. Simon/ Corbis]In the weeks after 9/11, President Bush makes a number of public appearances with Muslim leaders in an attempt to reach out to what is perceived as the moderate Muslim community. However, some leaders invited to appear with Bush are actually radical Islamists with suspected terrorism ties. For instance, on September 14, 2001, Bush appears at a prayer service dedicated to the victims of the 9/11 attacks with Abdurahaman Alamoudi, the president of the American Muslim Council. US intelligence had suspected Alamoudi of ties with bin Laden and other terrorist leaders since 1994 (see Shortly After March 1994), and in late 2000 the Bush campaign returned a campaign contribution from Alamoudi because of his controversial ties (see July 2000). Alamoudi also proclaimed his support for Hamas and Hezbollah, both officially designated terrorist groups by the US, at a 2000 public rally in Washington. Another invited attendee at the prayer service is Muzzammil Siddiqi, the spiritual leader of the Islamic Society of Orange County. Siddiqi said of the US government a year earlier, “If you remain on the side of injustice the wrath of God will come.” [Fox News, 10/1/2001] In the early 1990s, the “Blind Sheikh,” Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman, lectured about violent jihad at Siddiqi’s mosque while Siddiqi sat beside him to translate. Several members of an al-Qaeda sleeper cell, including Khalil Deek and Adam Gadahn, were regular attendees at his mosque. [New Yorker, 1/22/2007] “Former Secret Service officer Ron Williams says, “The intelligence community has known for sometime the association of Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi and Mr. Alamoudi and their association with terrorist organizations.” [Fox News, 10/1/2001] Agha Jafri, a Shia Muslim leader, calls Siddiqi part of a Saudi-backed “mafia” intent on crushing moderate Sufi and Shiite Muslims in the US and says, “They hate us.” [St. Petersburg Times, 3/11/2003] On September 17, 2001, Bush speaks before the Islamic Center, a Washington mosque. Alamoudi is again pictured with Bush. On September 26, Bush meets with 15 prominent Muslim leaders at the White House. Siddiqi sits next to Bush. Other Muslim leaders at these meetings have expressed support for Hamas and other officially designated terrorist groups. Influential Republican lobbyist Grover Norquist has been working to build a political alliance between the Republican Party and Muslim Americans since at least 1998 (see 1998-September 2001), and he is allegedly responsible for arranging these meetings and vouching for the attendees. [New Republic, 11/1/2001] Bush apparently does not make any more public appearances with Alamoudi or Siddiqi after a Fox News report in early October 2001 regarding their appearances with him. [Fox News, 10/1/2001] It will later come out that Alamoudi met with two of the 9/11 hijackers’ suspected associates in 2000 (see October-November 2000), and in 2004, Alamoudi will be sentenced to a long prison term for illegal dealings with Libya (see October 15, 2004). Siddiqi remains an imam in Orange County and denies any terrorism links. An FBI official will say in 2007, “We have a very strong relationship with Dr. Siddiqi.” [New Yorker

Great guy…

I don’t often agree with you but on this you are correct.

The one thing I will say is that I honestly believe that GWBs “compassionate conservative” principle was an attempt to break through the partisanship. Pre-9/11 he attempted to work with Kennedy et. al. on a number of compromises.

No matter your position on the issues he deserved an A for effort compared to everyone else. Trying to be a uniter not a divider ain’t so easy though when you’re trying to blend oil and water.

I thought that 9/11 might shake us up enough to create a lasting emulsion but I was wrong. I certainly don’t know where to go from here.

While it’s easy to say kick ‘em all out and start again, I doubt that there’s really any majority to break the “Yeah he’s a crook, but he’s our crook!” mentality.

LOL!!!

What a perfect pun to cover the point!

All Americans should be upset by Blackwater and Whitewater… all Americans should be upset by cash in the freezer of a Congressman, or yachts purchased from shady special interests. All of us should be outraged when politicans are caught being corrupt or when decisions are made that end up reflecting badly on the US as a nation (merc’s without accountability?!). Instead, people seem upset, but only if the crime happens on the other side of the aisle… or touches on a subject that they don’t agree with (the war etc).

Gah!

I have to agree. Let us leave aside, for the moment debates about the cost of the war, or the way it was first implemented. Let us not debate WMD’s or exporting democracy, let us assume that Democracy in Iraq would be generally a good thing for us and that an investment in Iraq (money, blood, time) may conceivably result in a stable ally.

We are still stuck in a nightmare scenario.

Not a nightmare of war, the war in Iraq is nothing compared to previous wars… the biggest change is in how the enemy attacks (and our rather low casualty rate). The nightmare is in what has happened to this nation. Idiots on both sides of the aisle have become nothing more than jabbering monkeys, parrots repeating talking points and so completely out of touch with sanity that their complete world view is colored red or blue.

That is a nightmare scenario for any democracy. If the people can no longer work together despite their differences, than ‘rule by the people’ will be a halting, haphazard, and hate filled rush from one extreme to the other, resulting in the crippling of our nation worldwide.

Bush, Cheney, Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, etc etc etc seem more likely to be remembered for harming our nation, far more than for saving anyone or anything. Our news providers are pundits, our pundits are screeching buffoons and our screeching buffoons are on Donnie Deutch trying to sell their latest books by dissing the Jews. At least they still know what they’re job is.

Partisan politics have always existed, sometimes they turn ugly… currently they appear as ugly, if not moreso than in recent history.

At the end of the day, the names of politicans will be remembered in history. Their faults will be laid bare (or hidden away depending on the writer) but the history books will likely fail to mention the people most responsible for the fucked up state of our union…

You and I, the electorate.