Comments on: Closing in on the KO

By: Don Myers

Don Myers — Mon, 03 May 2004 19:48:54 +0000

I agree with you about the debates, Jasn—and I’ll be amazed if Bush agrees to any. Did you see the pitiful performance he gave at his last press conference? The man is utterly inarticulate—totally at sea unless someone is feeding him lines. In a real debate—”unscripted, unrehearsed, with no idea beforehand what the topics will be”—Kerry would eat Bush ALIVE.

And while I am a bit on the arrogant side—just ask my ex—please don’t call the Dems “my party.” I tend to find them slightly less horrifying than the GOP, but I’ve got “none” listed as my party affiliation.

BTW, my mother claims that she hasn’t voted FOR anyone since Truman.

By: JasnTMason

JasnTMason — Mon, 03 May 2004 01:25:10 +0000

No thanks, Don. I’d rather hear it from the horse’s mouth. It’s far too easy to have someone write a position paper for you. Debates are what we need. Unscripted, unrehearsed, with no idea beforehand what the topics will be. And the instant one of them tries the old tactic of transmogrifying the answer into a prepared off-topic rant, their microphone should be cut off.

There’s huge problems with both of them, which is why I’m sticking to only voting *for* someone. And contrary to Dems’ opinions, voting for Kerry because he’s not Bush is not really voting *for* Kerry. I voted against Dukakis in ’88, against Clinton in ’96, and couldn’t bring myself to vote for either candidate in ’92 or 2000. I won’t participate this year unless one of the them steps up and tells me why he should get my vote. Denigrating the other candidate(s) simply won’t cut it.

BTW, your claim that better-educated people are leaning toward Kerry reeks of the same arrogance that cost both Dukakis and Gore an election each should have won handily. Nothing short of a proven grasp for what this country needs will win the day. Hopefully, this time your party will learn this lesson before it’s too late and the finger pointing blame game begins anew?

By: Robert McClelland

Robert McClelland — Sun, 02 May 2004 02:25:14 +0000

UNSCAM OR FANTASYSCAM?

By now you’ve probably run across at least one reich whinge rube who is propagating the ridiculous and unsubstantiated allegations that the UN allowed, and was party to, Saddam using the Oil for Food Program to bribe anti-war supporters. These rubes have taken a list of names and built themselves quite a web of specious charges against the UN that makes Chimpy’s accusations of Saddam’s WMDs look like a slam-dunk case.

But in typical reich whinger fashion, these rubes have not even taken the time to examine the incredulity of the claims. Not a one of them has taken even a moment to crunch the numbers in order to see how ridiculous the list–that is the only evidence of wrongdoing–really is.

For example, the list claims the Russian state received 1.366 billion barrels of oil. At pre-war production levels of 2.5 million barrels per day, this one entry alone on the list represents 1-1/2 years of Iraqi oil production. Since the Oil for Food Program was in operation for only 9 years–from April/94 until the start of the war–that one entry on the list represents 18% of Iraq’s total oil production from the entire time. Add in the many other names and amounts on the list and you can see that the numbers are so asinine as to make the whole affair stretch the bounds of credulity to the point where only a grade A moron reich whinger could even begin to accept it as fact.

Wayne Madsen has more on this outrageous lie by the neocons.

Al-Mada said it showed some documents from the Iraqi Oil Ministry that it used to create its list to the Daily Telegraph of London. That neocon outlet was already caught last year disseminating disinformation about documents its Baghdad correspondent “found” in the ruins of the Iraqi Intelligence Ministry. They suggested that British Labour Member of Parliament George Galloway had received bribes from Saddam. The documents were later proven to be crude forgeries. In the case of the list, Agence France Presse reported from Baghdad that Al-Mada’s management “refused to disclose how the daily procured the documents.”

Of course, you’ll never hear about any of this from the dishonest reich whingers who are now taking the list and subsequent web of lies built around it to be the gospel truth about the UN and the people named on the list.

Despite the absurd nature of the list and the obscene and expected falsehoods being peddled by the reich whingers, the UN has convened an independent panel to look into the allegations of corruption in the Oil for Food program. I doubt however, that this will satisfy the lying right whinge thugs, who are still crying over the fact that the UN wouldn’t rubber stamp Bush’s war in Iraq, and they will continue to smear the reputation of this institution with their delusional allegations. I also have no doubt that unless the panel arrives at conclusions that are in total agreement with the reich whinger’s fantasies, it will be ignored by the rubes who will continue to believe their web of lies.

By: Don Myers

Don Myers — Sat, 01 May 2004 19:10:00 +0000

Actually, Jason, Kerry has said a great deal about what he would do. Check out his website for a few dozen position papers. Since his plans are ofter longer than a sound-bite, you won’t hear about them in the right-wing controlled media.

While his plans as listen on his website are not nearly as detailed as I would like—politicians tend to be maddenly vague six months from Election Day—but it’s hardly ‘nothing.’

there are some pretty big problems with Kerry’s record, Jasn, but they pale compare to Dubya’s shameful record of corporate malfeasence and outright lies both in Texas and in Washington.

BTW, there are a lot more than 3 books blasting the cuurent regime—I’ve read half a dozen, myself. So far the best of the lot is THE BOOK ON BUSH by Alterman and Green. While there is no shortage of pro-bush tomes—Hughes and hannity have both released books lately—it seems that the better-educated people have a big problem with Dubya. Why do you think that is?

By: JasnTMason

JasnTMason — Sat, 01 May 2004 03:36:41 +0000

And yet, strangely enough Don, Kerry has not said word #1 about what *he* would *do.* Anyone can sit back, do nothing, and complain about the idiot who’s in office.

Condider that with all the free publicity Kerry got while steamrolling to the nomination, the negative publicity with a constant stream of Bush’s officials testifying in front of the 9/11 commission, and 2 separate books blasting the administration over Irag, Kerry doesn’t have a double digit lead in the polls. I think it’s because he hasn’t resonated with the country. Maybe he needs to find his own pulse before he’ll capture the country’s?

Here’s a good question: Why hasn’t Kerry run based on his Senate voting record? He’s been there for what, 20 years? — doesn’t he have *anything* he’s proud of voting for or against? The networks and the Dems are looking for something… anything… and yet they’re left wanting.

I know what I want. I want Kerry to tell us what he thought, pre 9/11, about terrorism… what he thought, pre-Iraq War, about Saddam and his WMDs… what he thought, pre-economy decline, about the state of the union. And with the voting record to back it up, BTW. Then, I’d like to hear his plans for the future on all these topics. No rhetoric, no blaming Republicans for everything but the end of the dinosaur age… straight answers. Does anyone think he (still) knows how to do that?

By: Venomous Kate

Venomous Kate — Fri, 30 Apr 2004 21:29:19 +0000

Obviously, I don’t agree about Kerry being the lesser of two evils. What I do see is that any politician in office – regardless of party affiliation – pushes forward with plans and policies which he or she believes is right, while members of the opposing party condemn the plans/policies because they share a different agenda. Period. As a result, with our two-party system, each time one party attempts to advance its agenda the opposing party works to thwart it.

The result – more often than not – is a watered down compromise replete with pork barrell agreements, and far from the original plan. Then, the party who blunted the original intent and burdened it with pork says “What a failure! What a waste! It should never have gone through!”

Of course, neither party ever wants to admit that their insistence on compromise and watering-down might be the very reason for the failure.

Does that amount to “lying”? I don’t think so. It amounts to politics.

And I’m getting sick of them.

By: Don Myers

Don Myers — Fri, 30 Apr 2004 17:53:22 +0000

Y’know, I’m not a big fan of John kerry (he was my fourth or fifth choice for Dem nominee), but the desperation of the GOP is sickening to behold.

Ribbons and medals? Haircuts? Is that the best they can come up with?

Meanwhile, their guy: lied about the reasons for war, sunk us with a massive deficit, gave giant tax breaks to zillionaires while sticking it to the lower and middle class, lied through his teeth about “No Child Left Behind,” eviserated the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, and has declared war on a woman’s right to choose.

Kerry is—by far—the lesser of two evils.

By: JasnTMason

JasnTMason — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:56:35 +0000

Huh? Dean, are you talking about the Republican primaries? I was only 11 in 1980 and I remember *everyone* thinking Reagan was going to win… and in a landslide. With or without the fork/steak sauce, Carter was done. What did he win — maybe 6 states? Is this revisionist history striking again?

By: Dean Esmay

Dean Esmay — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:40:38 +0000

See, I’m still surprised to hear Republicans talking this way, since Kerry is still neck and neck with Bush in the polls. and a few of Bush’s numbers are troubling.

You know, no one thought Reagan had a prayer back in 1980.

By: Shem

Shem — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:30:42 +0000

This post from the woman who just made the “what happened with Vietnam 40 years ago doesn’t matter” post.

Interesting.