lily-livered liberals

[Sparrowhawk]

I'm Sparrowhawk, and I approve this message lol


You know your campaign is in trouble, when the most liberal newspaper in America throws up its arms in frustration over the most liberal US Senators in America failure to display any moral ground.


PS "lily-livered liberals" I wonder who first used that label... LOL






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,6259345.story
EDITORIAL
Kerry-Edwards Stonewall

July 13, 2004

If not murder, John F. Kerry and John Edwards have accused President Bush of something close to criminally negligent homicide in Iraq. "They were wrong and soldiers died because they were wrong," Kerry said of the Bush administration over the weekend.

This is strong language, but not unjustified. Last week's Senate Intelligence Committee report adds to the pile of studies and reportage that has undermined the key reasons Bush gave for going to war: Saddam Hussein's imperial designs, links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, weapons of mass destruction and so on.

The trouble is, both Sens. Kerry and Edwards voted yes on the resolution authorizing the war in Iraq. And now they refuse to say whether they would have supported the resolution if they had known what they know today. Both say they can't be bothered with "hypothetical questions."

But whether it is a hypothetical question depends on how you phrase it. Do they regret these votes? Were their votes a mistake? These are not hypothetical questions. And they are questions the Democratic candidates for president and vice president cannot duck if they wish to attack Bush on Iraq in such morally charged language.

After all, the issue raised by the Senate Intelligence Committee report is not whether the Bush administration bungled the prosecution of the war, or whether there should have been greater international cooperation, or whether the challenges of occupying and rebuilding the country were grossly underestimated. When Kerry says "they were wrong," he is referring to the administration's basic case for going to war. Kerry supported that decision. So did Edwards. Were they wrong? If they won't answer that question, they have no moral standing to criticize Bush.

Reluctance to answer the question is understandable. If they say they stand by their pro-war votes, this makes nonsense of their criticisms of Bush. If they say they were misled or duped by the administration, they look dopey and weak. Many of their Democratic Senate colleagues were skeptical of the administration's evidence even at the time. If Kerry and Edwards tell the probable truth — that they were deeply dubious about the war but afraid to vote no in the post-9/11 atmosphere and be tarred as lily-livered liberals — they would win raves from editorial writers for their frankness and courage. And they could stop dreaming of oval offices.

Kerry and Edwards are in a bind. But it is a bind of their own making. The great pity will be if this bind leads the Democratic candidates to back off from their harsh, and largely justified, criticism of Bush. The Democrats could lose a valuable issue, and possibly even the election, because the Democratic candidates were too clever for their own good.

In the past, Kerry has dodged the question of his pro-war vote by saying that he intended to give Bush negotiating leverage and to encourage multilateral action, not to endorse a unilateral American invasion of Iraq. Unfortunately, what he may have intended is not what he voted for. Furthermore, a vote in favor of the war resolution was unavoidably a statement that the various complaints against Hussein did justify going to war against him, if all else failed, whatever caveats and escape hatches were in any individual senator's head.

Kerry and Edwards would like to fudge the issue by conflating it with questions about how the war was prosecuted. Or they say that what matters is where we go from here. It is true that "what now?" is the important policy question. But that doesn't make it the only question. How we got here affects how we get out. And even if it had no practical relevance to our future Iraq policy, hearing how Kerry and Edwards explain their votes to authorize a war they now regard as disastrous would be helpful in assessing their character and judgment.

Their continued refusal to explain would be even more helpful, unfortunately.

[Sparrowhawk]

PS

It has not been confirmed that the union of Rosie and Moore will produce another Hillary.

---

Rosie & Moore


Rosie Takes Shot At Bush During Gay-Friendly Cruise
Cruise To Stop In Key West Later This Week

PORT CANAVERAL, Fla. -- On the eve of a possible U.S. Senate vote to make gay marriages unconstitutional, Rosie O'Donnell spoke out against the Bush administration's plans to ban same sex unions during a stop on a gay-friendly cruise, according to Local 6 News.

Rosie Promotes Cruise, Discusses Possible Gay Marriage Ban

"I think this cruise comes at the perfect time, when they're considering an amendment making it illegal for us to have families," O'Donnell told Local 6 News partner Florida Today.

O'Donnell, who is a strong advocate of gay marriage and adoption, railed against President George W. Bush and the administration, according to the report.

"It will be the first time, except for prohibition, that bigotry has been added to the Constitution," O'Donnell said. "That the prevention of rights and exclusion of rights takes paramount over some religious ideology. And, supposedly, that is what we are fighting in Iraq -- A religious extreme government that is not letting people live freely."

---

The Democrats and Straightjacket Politics
by Vincent Fiore
11 July 2004

Nothing has been off-limits in this most hate-filled political season in anyone’s memory.


Imagine being driven by the very opposite of emotions you once supposed most prevalent in an enlightened society; that answering the call to a civic responsibility is not heeded out of duty and necessity, but out of conspiracy and distrust.

Imagine that the purpose you feel in competitive strivings is born of hate and fear and not of belief and trust, and the deadliest enemy in your life is not the terrorist who has bloodied this nation, but the president that leads that nation.

Imagine no more.

Today's hard left of the Democratic Party has trafficked heavily in advancing the absurd. Further, they delight in dictating such reprehensible and squalid demagoguery as to give the adjective, Machiavellian, a whole new meaning.

With four months to go until election Tuesday, progressive leaders and a surprisingly large minority of the party faithful have begun to break the confines of their political straitjackets.

Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 is celebrated among the left as a documentary of truth and faith, inasmuch as Christians celebrate the Gospel. Moore is so stupendously wrong in his entire cut-and-paste Bush-bashing that even noted liberal soothsayers had to abandon the premise of Moore’s movie being "just an opinion.”

Newsweek's Michael Isakoff and Mark Hosenball use nearly 2500 words to take apart Moore's documentary, and further expose just how transparently mendacious some members in the Democratic Party are in their zealous and overreaching attempts to steer an election for Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry.

Even Richard Clark, the former Bush terrorism czar-turned-Bush-critic, cannot save Moore on his claim that Bush allowed prominent Saudi officials, and members of the bin Laden family, to fly out of the United States in the immediate days after 9/11. Moore's assertions, says Clark, is "a mistake… it didn't get any higher than me."

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen’s latest piece says it all in its title: "Baloney, Moore or Less." Cohen has made his living trashing Republican administrations. For him and others like Vanity Fair columnists Christopher Hitchens, the Boston Globe’s Ellen Goodman, and the New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof, hanging Moore out to dry was the equivalent of journalistic cannibalism.

Nevertheless, as difficult and odd as this may seem to most leftists, tossing Moore over the side has taken on a sense of urgency; for the elite in-the-know members realize that for their side, this election ceased to be about politics quite some time ago, and more about the phantasmic and grandiloquent killing of President Bush.

Nothing has been off-limits in this most hate-filled political season in anyone’s memory. Enraged leftist Democrats, and those who embrace the “anybody but Bush” campaign, have even penned a short litany in book form that describes multiple ways on how one would literally kill George W. Bush.

On August 24, Nicholson Baker will debut a 115-page novella titled Checkpoint, a sickening and shocking tale of how the book’s main character, “Jay,” tells his friend, “Ben,” that he is going to assassinate President Bush. Though this is mere fiction, the author’s feelings regarding his “discontent” with Bush are insanely real. The reader will be treated to such engaging and penetrating prose as: “I’m gonna kill that bastard,” and “He’s one dead armadillo.”

It is amusing to hear Washington liberals lament that all civility in political discourse is lost upon hearing vice-president Cheney tell the Senate’s most notorious partisan, Vermont Senator Pat Leahy, Democrat, to “F*** yourself” during the annual Senate photography session. Lost in scandalous thought over this, the media tsk-tsk’s the raging flames of incendiary hate set in every medium by raving segments of the Democratic Party while it decries the minor flair-up in the oft-times cynical United States Senate.

The rabble supporting “anybody but Bush” for president has put John Kerry in a difficult position: He can either denounce what has been going on in the name of “democracy,” which he has not done, or continue not to notice the wild-eyed and growing liberal presence that has begun to cast a large shadow upon his campaign. If he turns away from the democratic fringe loudly and publicly, he will lose a good percentage of their support and money. If he continues to tactfully wrap a quasi-embrace around this rabble, the majority of the electorate will rightly conclude that a Faustian mentality has pervaded his campaign.

In 1958, the rise of the John Birch Society (JBS) had many believing that this was the face of conservatism. Led by Robert Welch Jr., the society became very influential in the early sixties, aiding Barry Goldwater’s run for the White House in 1964. But along the way, the JBS became rife with conspiracy theorists and extremism. By 1965, the JBS was generally considered radical and reactionary.

Around this time, a young, modern conservative named William F. Buckley stood athwart the JBS and in 1965, denounced and largely ended the Birch Society’s influence in conservative politics through his popular magazine, National Review. Calling the JBS claims “paranoid and unpatriotic drivel,” Buckley righted the conservative movement, thereby steering conservatism toward the mainstream of the country’s beliefs.

Who will be the Democratic Party’s version of William F. Buckley? Who will stand opposite today’s liberal mob, yelling “Stop?” As the loons gather and infest the political landscape this election, who will step up and tell the party of FDR and Kennedy that they sound about as rational and believable as a deacon caught in a ***** house with his pants off.

Meanwhile, cooler heads among the electorate will continue to denounce them and their words for the unhinged twaddle that it is.

Vincent Fiore contributes commentary for several web sites on a weekly basis, and occasionally has commentary posted on NewsMax.com. Your comments are always welcomed.

[d c taveapont]

i'm going to be the pain in the rear end...did the CiC say that we did not find the tons of WMDs YET...but we were right in going into iraq and removing saddam....and by removing him we are safer...BS...not when the terrorist have and are already here...was removing him worth the loss of lives both military and civilian...hell no... the fight is with the terrorist and where we find them which doesn't mean to go to war with every damn country that they are in....sit back and think about what has happened to our governament and those who are in charge...i for one had my doubts about iraq and still do...until some one shows me the TONS of WMDs....

[HardJedi]

hmmmm well, DC, it's a sketchy line isn't it? a preemptive war? 900 dead for us, and how many because of those 900 dead will now live longer and safer lives? who knows? ther is, of course, no way of knowing.

I have said this before though. We, America, that is, have a MORAL RESPONSIBILITY to protect those who cannot protect themselves, and whenever possibleto end the riegn of tyrants, in order to protect the innocent. you wanna know more about this, or in more detail? Just ask, I am almost never at a loss for words.

OH! and one MORE thing. There ARE no TERRORISTS. There is only the ENEMY! ( said that before too.)

[enviro]

Oh it's real easy to sit back and criticize all of the measures taken to prevent terrorists actions from happening. But if we didn't do anything and terrorists were having their will with us on OUR HOMELAND, you'd be the first to criticize how not enough was done.

A prime example is a neighborhood where cops are heavily present. Crime is being prevented. Some will say it's a waste of money having all of those cops there. Let's take the cops away and see how many of them gripe because they were robbed - "Where were the police?" they scream.

Plain and simple - we have taken the war to their doorstep. Lives will be lost by the men and women who make sure we can sleep in peace every night.

WMD's? That was one out of 14 reasons for going to Iraq. This SOB bombed and gassed his own people, attacked Iran, invaded Kuwait, threatened us many times with his weapons, paid suicide bomber's families $25,000 cash for killing Americans and Isrealies, defied UN resolution after UN resolution, harbored terrorists, and gave terrorists money to kill Americans. You know, D.C. I guess you're right - we should have left this poor man alone.

Where we find them which doesn't mean to go to war with every damn country that they are in? So they can get a free ride anytime they want, huh? You voted for Clinton didn't you? That's the same assanine way of thinking that made 9-11 possible. If you sponsor terrorists, you are an enemy. They have been warned.

Sad to say - but you are the type of person that a terrorist would love. You are saying all of the things they want to hear. I know Saddam would embrace you and call you a genius. He'd still be in power and terrorists could roam freely across the world if you were in charge.

[Sparrowhawk]

Saddam Hussein ordered the assassination of President George H. W. Bush, while he was in Kuwait in April of 1993.

Now, I really don't care if it was Clinton, Carter or Reagan. An assassination was planned by Iraq against a former US President, who represents American, and in the end Americans.

That alone was reason to take out Sadam Hussein.

As it were Clinton only send off a handful of Tomahawk guided missiles at the Iraqi hintelligence headquarters in Iraq in the middle of the night and killed a couple of janitors, some two months afterwards, and then he only did it, because the press was going to release information that Iraq was responsible for the assassination attempt.

It was a very weak response by a sitting president, and our nation like other terrorist acts committed against us during the Clinton era was seen as slow to respond and even slower at holding anyone responsible.

[yellowwing]

It looks like Rosie won,

WASHINGTON (CNN), July 14, 2004
McCain: Same-sex marriage ban is un-Republican
..."The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans," McCain said. "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."

He and five other Republican stood up to the 'Yes men' and reminded them that the Rebulican Party is about less Federal Governemt

But I am very disappointed that my boy John Kerry didn't wote at all on this issue.

[Sparrowhawk]

that he has been straddling the liberal fence line so much, I think I'll send him a new voter registration form, so he can go ahead and register as a Democrat.

[enviro]

[Sparrowhawk]

that pic is a keeper

[Sparrowhawk]

Slim-Fast pulls Whoopi's ads over raunchy anti-Bush rant




Goldberg is seen in an ad for Slim Fast's 'Big Loser' campaign in a picture released December 30. (Slim Fast Foods/Reuters)



Comedian Whoopi Goldberg will no longer appear in ads for diet aid maker Slim-Fast following her lewd riff on President George W. Bush name at a fund-raiser last week, the company said on July 14, 2004.

Florida-based Slim-Fast said it was 'disappointed' in Goldberg's remarks at last Thursday's $7.5 million star-studded fund-raiser at Radio City Music Hall in New York.


The company disavowed the barbs by Goldberg, who repeatedly made a sexual pun on Bush's surname at a celebrity concert in New York attended by presidential candidate John Kerry and his running-mate John Edwards.


A statement said Goldberg's monologue Thursday at Radio City Music Hall "does not reflect the views and values of Slim-Fast" which made the sassy comedienne its spokeswoman "because of her commitment to losing weight."


"We are disappointed by the manner in which Ms. Goldberg chose to express herself and sincerely regret that her recent remarks offended some of our consumers," the company said. "Ads featuring Ms. Goldberg will no longer be on the air."


Scathing anti-Bush tirades by Goldberg and other celebrities had already drawn the ire of the Bush campaign, which called the concert a "star-studded hate fest" and demanded the Democrats release videotape of the event.


Kerry said nothing at the concert about the comments but praised all the performers as representing the "heart and soul" of the country. His campaign later distanced itself from some of the insults.

[Sparrowhawk]

Americans allergic to the subtle Democratic flavor of Heinz ketchup can now plunge their 'freedom fries' into a 100-percent guaranteed, patriotic alternative: 'W Ketchup'(AFP/HO)

[thedrifter]

Might as Well Face It, You're Addicted to Love

"This is the first time I've appeared anywhere without John Edwards in the last four days. I'm feeling this withdrawal."--John Kerry, quoted in USA Today, July 13


Ellie

[thedrifter]

'Doonesbury' Artist Trudeau Skewers Bush

NEW YORK - Cartoonist Garry Trudeau, who has skewered politicians for decades in his comic strip "Doonesbury," tells Rolling Stone magazine he remembers Yale classmate George W. Bush as "just another sarcastic preppy who gave people nicknames and arranged for keg deliveries."


Trudeau attended Yale University with Bush in the late 1960s and served with him on a dormitory social committee.


"Even then he had clearly awesome social skills," Trudeau said. "He could also make you feel extremely uncomfortable ... He was extremely skilled at controlling people and outcomes in that way. Little bits of perfectly placed humiliation."


Trudeau said he penned his very first cartoon to illustrate an article in the Yale Daily News on Bush and allegations that his fraternity, DKE, had hazed incoming pledges by branding them with an iron.


The article in the campus paper prompted The New York Times to interview Bush, who was a senior that year. Trudeau recalled that Bush told the Times "it was just a coat hanger, and ... it didn't hurt any more than a cigarette burn."


"It does put one in mind of what his views on torture might be today," Trudeau said.


Having mocked presidents of both parties in the "Doonesbury" strip since 1971, Trudeau said Bush has been, "tragically, the best target" he's worked with yet.


"Bush has created more harm to this country's standing and security than any president in history," Trudeau said. "What a shame the world has to suffer the consequences of Dubya not getting enough approval from Dad."


Rolling Stone was publishing the interview Friday.


Rolling Stone Article..... Doonesbury Goes to War

Garry Trudeau talks about Iraq, the coming election and his old classmate George W. Bush
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story?id=6298171


Ellie

[d c taveapont]

Enviro: You said that i'm the type of person that the terrorist would love...now how in the hell did you come to that conclusion...by what i posted...damn your wrong son...i spend a year hunting the VC in the jungles of Viet-Nam...now don't make me laugh....you know i read this once...The unwilling, lead by the unskilled, to do the Unnessary, for the Ungreatful...in some ways it reminds me of this war....and those fighting it...