C'mon guys, haven't you heard 9/11 was Bush's fault too?

And he killed Cock Robin. But that's not what we're discussing here.

Maybe in Georgia, but not here. This was a completely different campaign season. I was watching former Governor Dupont, from Delaware, on PBS tonight. He was saying pretty much the same thing, in that he was amazed how different this campaign season was from anything he'd ever seen.

Yet you knew who Obama was the day after he was elected. Riiiiight.

Not his fault but he was warned and chose to ignore it.

I was incorrect. The Dems held the house, so I guess More Americans did not agree with you.

Huh? Do I need to go running off to the news sites? The Dems barely held the Senate, it wasn't even close for the House.

The Dems held the Senate.

I figure if most (more than half) of Americans agreed, the pubes would have take the senate, too. They didn't, so they don't.

Excuse me: the dems held the Senate

It's the R's turn again... If they don't get "it" done, they'll be out next election.
Political patience of the people seems to be at near zero.

Not to mention that bit of exquisite legerdemain where he managed to conflate 9/11 and his old family friend Bin Laden with Al Quaida and Iraq. That was sweet.

They were saying on the radio this morning that this is another pendulum swing of the large moderate group who is just dissatified with the the way things are and reacts against who is in power hopeing for seomthing better.

I guess next time it will be a competetion as to who can claim credit for anything good that happens, unemployment falling, or pin the blame on the other guys for anything bad, house prices still in doldrums.

Maybe this will bring back more fond memories:

Published on Wednesday, January 15, 2003 by the Times/UK
The United States of America Has Gone Mad
by John le Carré

America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this is the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse than the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War.

The reaction to 9/11 is beyond anything Osama bin Laden could have hoped for in his nastiest dreams. As in McCarthy times, the freedoms that have made America the envy of the world are being systematically eroded. The combination of compliant US media and vested corporate interests is once more ensuring that a debate that should be ringing out in every town square is confined to the loftier columns of the East Coast press.

The imminent war was planned years before bin Laden struck, but it was he who made it possible. Without bin Laden, the Bushjunta would still be trying to explain such tricky matters as how it came to be elected in the first place; Enron; its shameless favouring of the already-too-rich; its reckless disregard for the world s poor, the ecology and a raft of unilaterally abrogated international treaties. They might also have to be telling us why they support Israel in its continuing disregard for UN resolutions.

But bin Laden conveniently swept all that under the carpet. The Bushies are riding high. Now 88 per cent of Americans want the war, we are told. The US defence budget has been raised by another $60 billion to around $360 billion. A splendid new generation of nuclear weapons is in the pipeline, so we can all breathe easy. Quite what war 88 per cent of Americans think they are supporting is a lot less clear. A war for how long, please? At what cost in American lives? At what cost to the American taxpayer s pocket? At what cost because most of those 88 per cent are thoroughly decent and humane people in Iraqi lives?

How Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America s anger from bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the great public relations conjuring tricks of history. But they swung it. A recent poll tells us that one in two Americans now believe Saddam was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. But the American public is not merely being misled. It is being browbeaten and kept in a state of ignorance and fear. The carefully orchestrated neurosis should carry Bush and his fellow conspirators nicely into the next election.

Those who are not with Mr Bush are against him. Worse, they are with the enemy. Which is odd, because I m dead against Bush, but I would love to see Saddam s downfall just not on Bush s terms and not by his methods. And not under the banner of such outrageous hypocrisy.

The religious cant that will send American troops into battle is perhaps the most sickening aspect of this surreal war-to-be. Bush has an arm-lock on God. And God has very particular political opinions. God appointed America to save the world in any way that suits America. God appointed Israel to be the nexus of America s Middle Eastern policy, and anyone who wants to mess with that idea is a) anti-Semitic, b) anti-American, c) with the enemy, and d) a terrorist.

God also has pretty scary connections. In America, where all men are equal in His sight, if not in one another s, the Bush family numbers one President, one ex-President, one ex-head of the CIA, the Governor of Florida and the ex-Governor of Texas.

Care for a few pointers? George W. Bush, 1978-84: senior executive, Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration, an oil company; 1986-90: senior executive of the Harken oil company. Dick Cheney, 1995-2000: chief executive of the Halliburton oil company. Condoleezza Rice, 1991-2000: senior executive with the Chevron oil company, which named an oil tanker after her. And so on. But none of these trifling associations affects the integrity of God s work.

In 1993, while ex-President George Bush was visiting the ever-democratic Kingdom of Kuwait to receive thanks for liberating them, somebody tried to kill him. The CIA believes that somebody was Saddam. Hence Bush Jr s cry: That man tried to kill my Daddy. But it s still not personal, this war. It s still necessary. It s still God s work. It s still about bringing freedom and democracy to oppressed Iraqi people.

To be a member of the team you must also believe in Absolute Good and Absolute Evil, and Bush, with a lot of help from his friends, family and God, is there to tell us which is which. What Bush won t tell us is the truth about why we re going to war. What is at stake is not an Axis of Evil but oil, money and people s lives. Saddam s misfortune is to sit on the second biggest oilfield in the world. Bush wants it, and who helps him get it will receive a piece of the cake. And who doesn t, won t.

If Saddam didn t have the oil, he could torture his citizens to his heart s content. Other leaders do it every day think Saudi Arabia, think Pakistan, think Turkey, think Syria, think Egypt.

Baghdad represents no clear and present danger to its neighbours, and none to the US or Britain. Saddam s weapons of mass destruction, if he s still got them, will be peanuts by comparison with the stuff Israel or America could hurl at him at five minutes notice. What is at stake is not an imminent military or terrorist threat, but the economic imperative of US growth. What is at stake is America s need to demonstrate its military power to all of us to Europe and Russia and China, and poor mad little North Korea, as well as the Middle East; to show who rules America at home, and who is to be ruled by America abroad.

The most charitable interpretation of Tony Blair s part in all this is that he believed that, by riding the tiger, he could steer it. He can t. Instead, he gave it a phoney legitimacy, and a smooth voice. Now I fear, the same tiger has him penned into a corner, and he can t get out.

It is utterly laughable that, at a time when Blair has talked himself against the ropes, neither of Britain s opposition leaders can lay a glove on him. But that s Britain s tragedy, as it is America s: as our Governments spin, lie and lose their credibility, the electorate simply shrugs and looks the other way. Blair s best chance of personal survival must be that, at the eleventh hour, world protest and an improbably emboldened UN will force Bush to put his gun back in his holster unfired. But what happens when the world s greatest cowboy rides back into town without a tyrant s head to wave at the boys?

Blair s worst chance is that, with or without the UN, he will drag us into a war that, if the will to negotiate energetically had ever been there, could have been avoided; a war that has been no more democratically debated in Britain than it has in America or at the UN. By doing so, Blair will have set back our relations with Europe and the Middle East for decades to come. He will have helped to provoke unforeseeable retaliation, great domestic unrest, and regional chaos in the Middle East. Welcome to the party of the ethical foreign policy.

There is a middle way, but it s a tough one: Bush dives in without UN approval and Blair stays on the bank. Goodbye to the special relationship.

I cringe when I hear my Prime Minister lend his head prefect s sophistries to this colonialist adventure. His very real anxieties about terror are shared by all sane men. What he can t explain is how he reconciles a global assault on al-Qaeda with a territorial assault on Iraq. We are in this war, if it takes place, to secure the fig leaf of our special relationship, to grab our share of the oil pot, and because, after all the public hand-holding in Washington and Camp David, Blair has to show up at the altar.
But will we win, Daddy?
Of course, child. It will all be over while you re still in bed.
Why?
Because otherwise Mr Bush s voters will get terribly impatient and may decide not to vote for him.
But will people be killed, Daddy?
Nobody you know, darling. Just foreign people.
Can I watch it on television?
Only if Mr Bush says you can.
And afterwards, will everything be normal again? Nobody will do anything horrid any more?
Hush child, and go to sleep.

Last Friday a friend of mine in California drove to his local supermarket with a sticker on his car saying: Peace is also Patriotic . It was gone by the time he d finished shopping.

I could see it both ways. The democrats still hold the senate and Obama is still in the White House so if the tea party can convince people that they couldn't do anything because of that, it may work in their favor.

Also, many moderate democrats got the boot so this upcoming 2 years should be even more polarized. I am interested to see what they will do with the budget.

Apparently John le Carré can't remember the war that has been going on in America since the 1960s, the war on poverty. We've been losing that war ever since it was declared, and now the United States as a whole is impoverished. We've actually been going crazy since the early 20th century when the progressives started making small changes that are now so implanted that it may be too late to survive.

Right and Obamacare is just another step in trying to keep the peasants alive after we've used them up, instead of letting nature take it's course and returning them to the soil, as god intended.
Ridiculous, do we call the Vet for hens that stop laying, cows that stop milking, mules that stop pulling? Of course not, they then become soylent soup or renderings.

I really cant even read that shit anymore. Its a losing battle. And depressing as hell. The United States will get what it deserves, just like Carlin joked about.

The beginning of the end...

It doesn't matter Classic. That silly hen has been showing her foolishness for years, but she will be re-elected by the San Francisco libs who smoked their brains in the 60s.

Wow - I must have been really tired last night - I have NO IDEA why I posted that.
Sorry.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz14K5BSaWy

... and Obama's is to get re-elected. big whoop.

The only way Obama can get re-elected is to do what the voters want. The only way for the repubicans to make Obama a one term president is to prohibit Obama from doing what the voters want. In other words, the repubicans want to screw the voters.

Cite, please.

and

ABC

I'm sure Obama would love to have a second term, and I would be very surprised if he didn't run a second time, but he's at least giving lip service to the idea that his focus is not on getting re-elected.

no need. Thats the #1 goal of any politician - to remain employed.

I agree with that part. and I don't disagree that what you first quoted him as saying SHOULD be true, but I'm too pessimistic about politicians to actually believe it.

He's been talking every day for two years, and you can't find such a cite. glatt finds one that says exactly the opposite. You latch onto glatt's opinion "lip service" as congruent to your own.

That's ok, it's sad to see you're so cynical and pessimistic that you let your prejudice close your mind. I hope you feel better soon.

You're wrong, by the way. Not all politicians have reelection as their highest priority. There are some, a lot, that believe that doing good is more important than getting re-elected. These people also know that to govern, one must first be elected. But being elected is a means to an end, to govern. Don't despair.

There's a significant difference between the president and all the other politicians.
The president, once elected (or assumes the office through other means), is set for life. Other politicians leaving office, still have to whore to corporate interests, or foreign entities, to make a living.

I guess if you feel people are the same as farm animals, you would enjoy Obamacare, until it came to your turn on the rendering truck.

I understand your opinion and beliefs, but I still maintain mine as well. Agree to disagree.

Ron Burgundy: Discovered by the Germans in 1904, they named it San Diego, which of course in German means a whale's vagina.
Veronica Corningstone: No, there's no way that's correct.
Ron Burgundy: I'm sorry, I was trying to impress you. I don't know what it means. I'll be honest, I don't think anyone knows what it means anymore. Scholars maintain that the translation was lost hundreds of years ago.
Veronica Corningstone: Doesn't it mean Saint Diego?
Ron Burgundy: No. No.
Veronica Corningstone: No, that's - that's what it means. Really.
Ron Burgundy: Agree to disagree.

Yes, spud, anything you say.:rolleyes:

spud drank the Kool-Aid a looooooong time ago. bye bye spud.

This post is full of Kool-Ade, but I refuse to drink it. It smells like bullshit.

... but it tastes so sweet. :)

Personally I prefer Kool-AID, not that knock off shit kool-ADE. See your problem spud is the wrong brand.

My brand doesn't smell like BS, yours does. Don't know about the taste, I've never been foolish enough to drink it.
Doesn't matter how you spell yours, it's still the same old shit.

Sugar coated lies always tastes better than the truth.

Gonna have to disagree with you there B...

This is America, your choice, enjoy.

As an avowed extremist, you are constantly posting cheapshots at those who expose your agenda. Hate is a factor so common to extremists. Who do we hate this month? Last month it was all Muslims.

You owe morethanpretty an apology. That means you will not post hate. As an extremist, hate justifies anything. Cheapshots are what you use to prove overt lies. So you will not apologize.

So, are Jews scheduled to be hated next month? Or does your political party warn you who you will be hating next?

So you admit that you drink someone's kool-aid or ade. Really smell and taste have nothing to do with quality sometimes.

Personally I don't drink the powdered sugary drinks at all.

I found this article interesting, even if it is from cracked.com:
6 Things You Won't Believe Can Brainwash You On Election Day

First, it was morethanpretty who gave the cheap shot. However,
TW is right for once. I need to apologize to morethanpretty. Her Kool-Aid isn't full of BS, its ingredient is a slow death.
But TW is wrong on everything else he says, because I have no political party to teach me what to think. But then, unlike you TW, I was never foolish enough to think Obama was a libertarian. I don't know who gives you your marching orders or talking points, and I don't care. As far as I know, you're the only one who believes them.

Cheap-shot? It was a joke. Your perceptions are way off.

Personally I don't give a rat's ass about you. You're clearly entrenched in your beliefs, so why try discussing with you? You don't even seem to have basic debate skills so it wouldn't even be a mental exercise.

After re-reading some of these posts, it seems it was Bri who did the first Kool-Aid reference, but it was just embellished by MTP. My apology only for totally blaming MTP for the insult.

I just heard this was all a joke. Well foolish meI thought it was more insults. Well I guess this whole thread must be a joke too. Ha ha. Good bye.

They were, and it hasn't. Admittedly, I live in a Navy town and drop in on the local American Legion post at the other end of town fairly regularly.

But even old NavVets like me, long out of the service, are getting "Thank you for your service" and a handshake, at random times and places around town.

Let's see: destruction of unfreedom -- happened when Saddam went fugitive, was later captured, and later hanged. Check.

Replacement of unfree social order with a democratic one. Check. (Corruption problems? Common in Third World countries. Undesirable, the same way measles are undesirable. Not necessarily lethal to the body politic, nor necessarily a reduction thereof, is it?)

And is not liberty a birthright of mankind, attributable to God if you're a believer, however weakly?

Don't sweat the patriotism angle: this was obedience to God, as Ben Franklin put it lo these many years ago.

And some people -- if they really are people and not some kind of possessed meatpuppets -- object to that.

You still wearing the uniform?

Maybe he is just showing off his tatoo.

Oh dear, Bruce. Was NavVet an unfamiliar term? Means Navy veteran. You hear recruiters using it mostly. 1977-86. You do seem to have missed the "long out of uniform" phrase.

My Navy retiree wife has more tats than I do. Which is easy, since I haven't any. She thinks it would be cool if I did get one. She got all two of 'em after she retired.

Oh fuck you, I know what navvet is.
How the fuck do they know if you're not wearing your uniform, or telling of your thrilling peacetime sagas.

In the telling. Do I need to spell everything out for you? I suppose I do; had you taken the oath of service and worn the uniform, you'd understand these matters exactly.

Oh, so they realize you're a vet but don't realize you're a dick until after the handshake?

I mean, I thank vets all the time, but not if they're dicks.

I'm starting to think that UG is a leftwing shill set up to piss people off with the right.

No one could be that bad at promoting their side.

The question is which side of Poe's Law he is on.