Hey, We Found our Party!

by Matt Martin | 40 Comments

Senate Majority Harry Reid is sounding better every day. We usually stay away from national stuff, but this is just too great of a clip to not post it:

April 20, 2007, 2:44 pm | Category: Misc. National Politics |

40 Responses to “Hey, We Found our Party!”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address
  • Midwest Meg
    April 20, 2007 at 9:55 pm

    Go Harry Go! Give ‘em hell! Hit’im with the chair.

    More of this, please!

    And thanks for posting the YouTube link!

  • Chris
    April 20, 2007 at 11:14 pm

    Yeah that’s exactly what I want to hear — Harry Reid telling our troops and the terrorists that we have lost the war in Iraq. He’ll go down in history with the likes of Benedict Arnold and Tokyo Rose. Keep it up, Democrats - I see George McGovern days ahead.

  • wtm
    April 21, 2007 at 1:23 pm

    Disgusting.

  • Richard
    April 21, 2007 at 6:47 pm

    I agree wtm, this administration’s actions have been disgusting. Although there isn’t enough time to impeach allowing the world court to bring war crimes charges against Bush and company will go a long way to healing the damage in the region and give the US some credibility again on the world stage.

  • Chris
    April 21, 2007 at 8:25 pm

    Richard,

    You hate America and I am ashamed that you are an American.

  • Chris
    April 21, 2007 at 10:09 pm

    Richard,

    If we have no credibility on the world stage and everyone hates America, why is it that Nicolas Sarkozy, a pro-American and friend of Rudy Giuliani, is leading the polls in the French elections?

  • Richard
    April 21, 2007 at 10:42 pm

    He is often described as an Atlanticist, but he too was against the war in Iraq.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3673102.stm

    Not sure how that applies but since defending the Bush’s policy on Iraq must be incredibly difficult, it’s understandible why one would want to change the subject. It’s not really accurate to say America is hated abroad. In Germany the feeling amoung the people I met was a strong, viseral, disagreement with the current administrations actions. How many more US dead? How many more Iraqi dead? How many more dismemberments? It’s past time for the Iraqi’s to decide on their own, what kind of country they want.

  • Chris
    April 21, 2007 at 11:38 pm

    Richard,

    You are so ignorant. You ever read the liberal Salon.com? I guess it’s not far left enough for you or funded by George Soros. Read this article:

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/04/21/french_rudy/

    Pay particular attention to this paragraph:

    An avowed Americanophile, Sarkozy paid Giuliani an informal yet well-publicized visit in the summer of 2002, right at the beginning of his first tenure as minister of the interior. Although no one knows what they talked about for an hour and a half (and Sarkozy denied at the time that he had come to “copy” the New York model), many of his techniques as interior minister bear an uncanny similarity to those used by Giuliani as mayor.

  • wtm
    April 22, 2007 at 10:10 am

    No, Richard, Reid’s statement and the Democrats’ actions regarding the war have been deplorable. If your party truly believes the war is “lost,” then it has a moral obligation to de-fund the war immediately. But, that’s really not the point, nor has it ever been the point, because a vast majority of Democrats have treated this war as a political football, flip-flopping at will on depending on which way the political wind is blowing.

    Impeach Bush? No, condemn Reid.

  • Richard
    April 22, 2007 at 10:48 am

    The Democratic party has a moral obligation to get the troops home as soon as possible. You cannot possibly defend Bush in this. This is his war of choice and he must pay the consequences. There must be a full accounting of why Iraq was invaded and why the post war reconstruction was botched so badly. The party of “personal responsibility” must take responsibility, personally. I agree the Democratic party’s actions regarding the war have been deplorable. But with the impeachment of Bush and Cheney and the bringing of criminal charges for both and their imprisonment, the country can begin healing itself. We can begin recovering from our fascist nightmare. Once the Democratic party does this then it will have accomplished something. But reality dictates more time is necessary for the process and Bush will fill out his term. By November of ‘08, Bush’s poll numbers will be in the low 20’s and his administration will have more top officials under indictment then Reagan’s. This will give Bush the honor of having the most corrupt administration in US history. Bush and his neocon handlers have destroyed the GOP for a generation. America’s experiment will fascism is finally coming to an end.

  • Chris
    April 22, 2007 at 11:19 am

    Richard,

    The only criminal here is you.

  • Richard
    April 22, 2007 at 11:53 am

    No need to ask what crimes I’ve committed but the Bush administration and it’s cronies are going to have an extraordinarily difficult task ahead of them, explaining their actions. Henry Waxman, Carl Levin, Pat Leahy are all going to demand a full accounting of administation decisions over the last 6 years. War profiteers like Haliburton and Blackwater are already being brought to task and hopefully we’ll see some CEO’s being led away in handcuffs. The investigations have only just begun.

  • wtm
    April 22, 2007 at 12:14 pm

    Richard,

    You mention responsibility, yet turn a blind eye to the irresponsibility of your own party regarding its conduct to the war.

    Lest you forget, many members in your party voted to authorize the war in Iraq in 2002. If the war in Iraq was such an awful idea, many of them could have voted against its authorization, but chose not to do so.

    Four years later, your party now controls the legislative branch, which has the power to fund (or de-fund) wars. Thus, if it wants, your party can choose to not fund the war, as a means to end it. But, alas, it has chosen not to.

    Now, we have the Senate Majority Leader stating the war is “lost.” If that’s the case, then why confirm Petraeus, whose military strategy is contrary to that assertion? Moreover, why not quit being intellectually dishonest and just vote to de-fund the war? After all, if it’s “lost,” what’s the point of wasting more lives and money on it?

  • Richard
    April 22, 2007 at 12:50 pm

    So the congress is to blame because they believed the lies of the administration. And the Democratic party is to blame because it can’t immediately reverse the course of events started by this administration. And finally Harry Reid is to blame because he is the majority leader of the party that confirmed the President’s man for the post. Does the president have any responsibility here? Isn’t he the decider? Were I king of the world, the troops would be on the plane tomorrow, but you know, as well as I do, that’s not the way the world works. A phased, orderly withdrawl of troops will give the Iraqi’s the message, “it’s now your mess, do with it what you will.” Let them fix Bush’s mess.

  • wtm
    April 22, 2007 at 1:19 pm

    Somehow it’s “lies” when the Bush administration uses the same intelligence data the Clinton administration used? Is that really why, to use her own words, Hillary Clinton voted “with conviction” to authorize the Iraq War? Do you think she might have been thinking of that same intelligence data her husband saw when he was President when she made that speech, when she emphatically supported the war? Could it be that there’s more than meets the eye on some of this? Regardless, if you’re going to play the blame game, then, yes, there’s plenty of blame to go around, Democrats included.

    The President has staked out his position, as he has since 2002. Democrats have not staked out a position, other than to oppose what the President proposes. Now that the Democrats are the majority party, as the majority, they have a responsibility to implement their plan. But, unfortunately, they’ve made it very clear that they don’t have a coherent plan, other than opposition to President Bush.

  • Richard
    April 22, 2007 at 3:30 pm

    In the words of the last great president, perhaps the greatest president of the last century, “That dog just ain’t gonna hunt.” Was there some question about WMD and Iraq? Absolutely. And if the inspectors had been allowed to finish their job, it would’ve been known Iraq had no viable weopons program. The indisputable fact of history is that Bush launched a war of choice against a state that was no threat. Now, 4 years later, we’re closing in on 4000 US dead, tens of thousands US wounded, and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. The vote you are so keen on bringing up was not a vote for war but a vote giving the president authorization to wage war. The vote was taken at a time when the president was maintaining war would be his last option. The intelligence presented to congress was cherry-picked and misleading, also, the timing of the vote, just prior to an election made it very difficult to vote against. Thankfully, we in Minnesota had Wellstone. He displayed extraordinary courage and moral conviction to vote against that resolution. You obviously have to agree then, Wellstone got it right.

  • Chris
    April 22, 2007 at 4:38 pm

    Richard,

    Saddam kicked out the U.N. Weapons Inspectors during Clinton’s watch and they were out of Iraq for years. Then, under the threat of force (authorized might I add by the U.N.), Saddam invited them back. But he never cooperated with them and he limited where they could go and what they could see. Not only that, Saddam had a duty under International Law (which you liberals worship like it’s scripture) to disclose his weapons and disarm.

    You people hate Bush and your country so much that it clouds your feeble little minds. Honestly, why was it that Clinton didn’t lie when he said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was a threat to this country but Bush is a liar when he says the same thing? Why is it that Bush is a criminal targeting innocent civilians when he invades and bombs Iraq but when Clinton bombed the holy hell out of Iraq over the course of eight years, he’s not a war criminal? The reason is that you are a thoughtless, mindless hater of the worst kind. There is no logic in your mind because you don’t care about logic. All you care about is destroying Bush and you don’t care if you bring our troops or our country down with him.

    As for Congress, they received the same independent intelligence briefings as Bush received. To say Bush cooked intelligence is just assenine.

  • Richard
    April 22, 2007 at 6:31 pm

    So you’re arguing Bush had no choice. That he could’ve done nothing else but launch a preemptive strike against a nation that poised a clear and imminent threat. The deaths of nearly 4000 US service people and 100’s of thousands of Iraqis were unavoidable. The permanant maiming of a million people was unavoidable. Sorry, I’m buying it. Too many people have made too much money for this to all have been accidental. Let’s have an agressive, non partisan investigation into the lead up to the invasion of Iraq and the consequences of that invasion and figure out what went wrong. Because something went ridiculously wrong. Those responible have to pay.

  • Chris
    April 22, 2007 at 6:47 pm

    Richard,

    I wish you had as much of a drive to make the terrorists who have killed Americans in Iraq, in America and all over the world pay as your drive is to make that evil Bush pay. It’s really pathetic.

  • wtm
    April 22, 2007 at 7:04 pm

    Richard,

    Unless you believe Clinton’s bombing of Serbia and Iraq and invasion of Haiti were premised on illegitimate grounds — the halting of genocide, the prevention of the development of weapons of mass destruction, and the institution of a democratic government — then you cannot argue, in an intellectually honest manner, that the Iraq War was premised on illegitimate grounds, either. Otherwise, Clinton’s actions in each of those instances, most importantly, Iraq (because of the shared premise with the current Iraq War — halting the potential development of WMDs) are, according to your argument, grounds for impeachment. And if you believe faulty intelligence disqualifies the current Iraq War, then it disqualifies the prior ten years of military action conducted by the Clinton administration because the intelligence was essentially the same. Finally, the Congressional vote to authorize the war in 2002 does matter because, post-Vietnam, the President cannot commit the nation’s armed forces to a conflict indefinitely without Congressional approval. In other words, the purpose of the President seeking that vote before going to war was precisely to gain Congress’ approval so as to not have to curtail the military action once it commenced.

  • Richard
    April 22, 2007 at 8:23 pm

    In the case of Serbia and Haiti, US forces provided stabilizing elements to the region. Specifically in Serbia, Milosivic was seriously destabilizing all of Eastern Europe making the transition from Soviet rule to a more open market enviroment much more difficult. Haiti being in this hemisphere is a whole nother problem. Next to a vacation paradise, Haiti’s government collaspe had to be dealt with quickly and efficiently. How many thousands of US troops died while being deployed to this theaters? Not a thousand, not even a hundred, 25 by the most agressive accounting. As far as the intelligence goes, yes the community was telling both Bush and Clinton essentially the same thing. It’s what Bush and Clinton heard differently that makes the differance in outcome. Clinton didn’t take the idiotic course that Bush did because, well, Clinton isn’t an idiot. Now we’re assuming we were told the truth about the invasion of Iraq and that’s something I’m not prepared to do. I’m prepared to believe Bush has done exactly what he intended to do. For the benefit a few special interest groups, big oil and big defense, he’s purposely waged war. He’s gotten the US involved in a regional dispute that it will be several generations before we can extract ourselves. His crimes on the world stage involves the reckless disregard for human life and inside our country, if it can be proved he lied to congress with his presentation for the war resolution act, that would classify as a high crime and would be an impeachable offense. I don’t see Bush being removed from office though. Not enough time but, since the GOP will not be a viable party for 20 years, we can let you guys tear him apart in history.

  • Chris
    April 22, 2007 at 10:03 pm

    Richard,

    You might want your country to lose the war, but the country isn’t behind you. The Democrat party is turning into the party of McGovern and you haters are going down in November of 2008. If the country is with you, I’d like to know why Giuliani and McCain lead Hillary Rotten Clinton and Barack Obama.

  • SeanH
    April 23, 2007 at 3:33 pm

    “Then, under the threat of force (authorized might I add by the U.N.), Saddam invited them back. But he never cooperated with them and he limited where they could go and what they could see.”

    That is patently false.

    “Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.”

    …”In my 27 January update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, most importantly prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure. This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that had never been declared or inspected, as well as to Presidential sites and private residences.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,895882,00.html

  • Richard
    April 23, 2007 at 5:38 pm

    “Am I the only guy in this country who’s fed up? We should be screaming bloody murder. We’ve got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we’ve got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can’t even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, “Stay the course.” So let’s shake off the horseshit and go to work. Let’s tell ‘em all we’ve had enough.”
     — Lee Iacocca, upset with the Bush bastards

  • Chris
    April 23, 2007 at 9:09 pm

    Sean,

    It’s amazing the lengths you go to defend Saddam Hussein. Under U.N. resolution, Saddam had an obligation to disclose his weapons programs and disarm. He had an obligation to account for all of the weapons of mass destruction the U.N. and other countries said he had. He didn’t do it.

    Those quotes, from Hans Blix, are a joke. Blix was a joke who didn’t take his responsibilities seriously.

  • SeanH
    April 24, 2007 at 6:27 am

    I’m not defending Hussein. I am pointing out that you don’t know what you are talking about. It’s funny how the die hard Bush supporters can’t separate the two.

    The FACT is Hussein was allowing the inspectors unfettered access to wherever they wanted whenever they wanted.

    You consider those quotes a joke because reality doesn’t mesh with your world view. Funny how someone you claim “didn’t take his job seriously” hit the nail right on the head about Hussein’s WMDs.

    The joke is people who continue to make the same claims long after they have been debunked.

  • wtm
    April 24, 2007 at 10:24 am

    I still have yet to read a justification for the eight to nine years of no-fly zones and occasional bombings of Iraq conducted by the Clinton administration if, in fact, Iraq never had WMDs there to begin with.

  • SeanH
    April 24, 2007 at 10:47 am

    “I still have yet to read a justification for the eight to nine years of no-fly zones and occasional bombings of Iraq conducted by the Clinton administration if, in fact, Iraq never had WMDs there to begin with.”

    You must not have looked very hard.

  • Chris
    April 24, 2007 at 11:53 am

    SeanH,

    You worship the altar of the UN. Read their resolutions. Saddam had a duty to disarm and disclose. He threw the inspectors out after six years. Don’t you think over six years that Saddam would have the opportunity to hide the WMD programs? Allowing so-called unfettered access after six years of no inspections does not comply with the UN resolutions.

  • Richard
    April 24, 2007 at 12:28 pm

    Saddam’s violations of UN resolutions. That’s worth the lives of 4000 US service people? That’s worth the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s? You simply have no shame.

  • SeanH
    April 24, 2007 at 12:40 pm

    Here we see Chris doing the famous neocon dance. When proven wrong throw in a baseless ad hominum attack then move the goalposts.

    Do not let this little obfuscation two step hide the FACT that Chris was WRONG about Hussein preventing the inspectors access.

  • wtm
    April 24, 2007 at 12:46 pm

    And what about the 7,500 lives of U.S. Service people who died during the Clinton administration? Was invading Haiti, bombing Iraq, and bombing Serbia worth their lives? And what about the civilian populations who suffered under those bombs?

    Get off your frickin’ high horse, dude. Your cavalier dismissal of the traditional reasons why the U.S. military is being used now and has been used in the past — to halt genocide, prevent development of weapons of WMD, and engender democratic forms of government — reveals your knee-jerk partisanship and hatred of President Bush, and nothing more.

  • SeanH
    April 24, 2007 at 1:17 pm

    “And what about the 7,500 lives of U.S. Service people who died during the Clinton administration? Was invading Haiti, bombing Iraq, and bombing Serbia worth their lives?”

    Yet another debunked conservative talking point. How many of those 7,500 were killed in action in Serbia, Haiti and Iraq? That 7,500 consists of ALL causes of death, which include accident, homicide, hostile action, illness, suicide, and terrorist attack, while the numbers mentioned in the current gulf war are virtually all combat deaths.

    So you are comparing TOTAL military deaths under Clinton to deaths in Iraq under Bush. The comparison holds no water.

    Lets look at some numbers shall we?

    BILL CLINTON
    1993 1,849,537 1,213
    1994 1,746,482 1,075
    1995 1,661,928 1,040
    1996 1,613,675 974
    1997 1,578,382 817
    1998 1,538,570 827
    1999 1,525,942 796
    2000 1,530,430 758

    It is worth noting that total military deaths from any single year when Bill Clinton was president are lower than the total deaths from any of the previous 13 years.

    Now look at these:

    GEORGE W. BUSH
    2001 1,552,096 891
    2002 1,627,142 999
    2003 1,732,632 1,410
    2004 1,711,916 1,887

    And that is just up till 2004.

    Next?

    Sources:

    http://journals.democraticunderground.com/top10/280

    http://brooklynite.livejournal.com/tag/essays

  • SeanH
    April 24, 2007 at 1:21 pm

    For the record, the number of deaths under Clinton due to hostile action or terrorism is 76.

    http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/02/21/colon/index.html

  • Richard
    April 24, 2007 at 5:33 pm

    The neocons can do nothing but lie and distort. That’s because they’re little fascist hero worshiping wannabe’s. Wtm and Chris, if you feel so strongly that the freedom of Iraq is worth so much then march your pointy little heads over there and man up. If the Army won’t take you then Blackwater will. Blackwater is always looking for more grist for the mill.

  • Chris
    April 24, 2007 at 9:37 pm

    Sean,

    You’re exactly right. Al Qaeda isn’t a threat. The Bush administration lied about 9/11. They crashed the planes into the twin towers, bombed the Pentagon and used explosives to implode WTC building number 7. In fact, Cheney even controlled one of the airplanes by remote.

    On top of that, they have antagonized Iran and Syria. If we only had a different administration, brought the troops home and apologized, nobody in the middle east would be mad at us and we could all join hands and sing songs around the campfire.

  • Chris
    April 24, 2007 at 9:38 pm

    P.S. Sean,

    I can’t wait for November 2008. I see another George McGovern trouncing ahead.

  • Chris
    April 24, 2007 at 9:40 pm

    Hey Richard,

    If it wasn’t for the neo cons, you’d be speaking German today. Only a mental midget would throw words around like fascist when you don’t even know what it means.

  • SeanH
    April 25, 2007 at 8:29 am

    “

    Sean,

    You’re exactly right. Al Qaeda isn’t a threat. The Bush administration lied about 9/11. They crashed the planes into the twin towers, bombed the Pentagon and used explosives to implode WTC building number 7. In fact, Cheney even controlled one of the airplanes by remote.

    On top of that, they have antagonized Iran and Syria. If we only had a different administration, brought the troops home and apologized, nobody in the middle east would be mad at us and we could all join hands and sing songs around the campfire.

    “

    Unable to form an actual response to being proved wrong, the neocon resorts to creating Strawmen.

    “

    Hey Richard,

    If it wasn’t for the neo cons, you’d be speaking German today. Only a mental midget would throw words around like fascist when you don’t even know what it means.
     ”

    FDR Was a NeoCon? Have you even SEEN a history book?

  • Richard
    April 25, 2007 at 12:30 pm

    Amazing, we’re talking about what a failure Bush’s Iraq policy is, about how Bush lied us into this mess, about Bush cynically connecting Iraq and 9/11 over and over again. Then Chris says:

    You’re exactly right. Al Qaeda isn’t a threat. The Bush administration lied about 9/11. They crashed the planes into the twin towers, bombed the Pentagon and used explosives to implode WTC building number 7. In fact, Cheney even controlled one of the airplanes by remote.

    All of the above having absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. But that’s all these fascist little thugs can do. When it’s proven to them over and over again that they’ve been lied to and used badly, they attack patriotism and the love for country, they invoke 9/11, they do anything they can to keep their vicious little minds into accepting the fact that their man is a criminal and belongs behind bars.

Leave a Reply