Political Punch

The democrates will stop short of anythng to win back the white house, bringing up the turkey masacure some one hundred years ago, was their ploy, since the could not defeat bush that away they will do anything to get their way back Shame shame on the democrates, this senator saying that this is being done to amuse Bush, HE NEEDS TO RESIGN NOW

Monicka and all the rest of libs where do you get your info? please let us know. Becasue you all wrong

The deficit is lowest its been 1.9%

The debt is lower then during clintons term

Why during Clintons term we were hit 9+ times under Pres Bush - NONE

NK is giving up Nukes
Libya gave up WMDs
50 million people freed

This is called Bush Derangment syndrome - ignore the facts and blame Pres Bush

Stark needs to resign NOW!

One more comment...tell George Will that this is not a "derangement of Bush hatred", it's very real sentiment of Dubya's administration.

I see nothing wrong with Stark's comments. If Bush can start an unnecessary war, divert us from the true terorist, get us into unprecedented national debt, why can't someone state in rather blatent terms the underlying truth about this horrible administration? If Democrats condemn his comments, they are once again shirking their responsibility to keep this radical administration in check.

Figures, the Dems can say anything to further their agenda, no matter how disgusting or denigrating to the values of the US. The terms of the first Gulf war mandated that Hussein comply with the weapons inspectors and give them free access...which he didn't do. Therefore, Clinton should have taken care of it...which he didn't do. Stark is an idiot, those that voted for him are also idiots. I'm wondering what the comments on the war would be like had John Kerry won in '04...or Al Gore in '00. They both would've had to deal with a post 9/11 world.

You guys continue to say that Bush picked the intelligence he wanted. I have said this before and I will say it again. Why aren't you as upset about President Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, Sen. John Kerry, former Sen. Tom Daschle, Sen John Rockefeller, Sen. Carl Levin, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and about 2 dozen other Democrats who said everything that President Bush said, and even more, about Iraq having WMDs -- three years BEFORE BUSH EVER BECAME PRESIDENT. You guys are cherry picking your own evidence to "prove" a lie, that was nothing more than faulty intelligence.

And for the third or fourth time, it doesn't matter whether Saddam Hussein actually had or didn't have WMDs. The cease fire in 1991 was predicated on Saddam Hussein complying with every UN Security Council resolution. For years Saddam Hussein failed to comply with these resolutions. And just ONE of the items was to fully disclose all of his WMD programs; AND if he no longer had WMDs he had to PROVE that he destroyed the WMDs. Saddam Hussein NEVER PROVED that he had destroyed the WMDs. Therefore he was NOT complying.

President Bush had the same intelligence -- the very same intelligence -- that the Democrats had in which Congress authorized regime change in 1998. After 9/11 President Bush decided that we would no longer wait to react to a perceived threat. Since the intelligence said that Saddam Hussein still had WMDs and since Iraq had begun harboring al Qaeda by 2002 -- allowing them to have a training camp in northern Iraq, we were not going to wait until Saddam Hussein gave WMDs or any of his long range missiles to al Qaeda. So since the UN Security Council refused to follow through on its FINAL ULTIMATUM, President Bush gave his own ultimatum. Saddam Hussein wanted the entire world, and especially his neighbors, to believe he had WMDs so he could bully them around. France and Germany had convinced him that the United States would not follow through on its threat of invasion. So he chose NOT to comply with the UN resolutions and then he chose not to comply with President Bush's final ultimatum. THAT IS WHY WE WENT TO WAR.

Now then as to the incident in the Philippines, President Bush was NOT detained by government officials because they believed he was a war criminal. There was a mass protest by a throng of everyday citizens that were chanting and burning American flags. They protested because it was they who believed President Bush was a war criminal. The protest got out of hand and this delayed by at least an hour President Bush's trip to Batasan where he addressed a joint session of the Senate and House of Representatives.

I am not aware of a single court of law anywhere that has ever convicted President Bush of being a war criminal. People, like yourself, may believe he is a war criminal, but just believing someone is a war criminal doesn't prove that he is. Interesting that your hatred for President Bush tosses out the "innocent until proven guilty" tenant that we Americans cherish so much.

Look, it's NOT legal to impose our constitution on other countries. The will of the people was "tainted" when he chose to pick and choose the information he made public, to start that War, By definition, that IS a high crime to lie to us about the Intelligence reports used to invade Iraq. Quit talking like you are an expert on other countrie's laws. This year Bush was held up at the Airport in the Phillipines, because, GWB was, by their definition a "War Criminal", and accordingly would be arrested legally by that country. Impeachment can be accomplished by many means, Lying during the State of the Union Address is one, it's a "High Crime" to lie to us. Furthermore, to streach the terms of the Constitution has never been addressed, I'm sure that falls under Impeachable Offenses. Sorry, but, all that goofy talk just assures me that you are defending that goofball, no matter what. By-the-way, you keep talking about the UN resolutions allowing the invasion, OK, where are those WMD's?

ididit4u wrote: "He (the President of the United States) IS required to do the will of those that elected him, penalty for not...IMPEACHMENT!"

Sorry, but that is NOT in the U. S. Constitution. Article II, Section 4 states: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Not fulfilling the will of the people is NOT an impeachable offense. And that is because the will of the people changes. The Iraq war is an excellent case. At the time that we invaded Iraq it WAS the will of the people. You can't run a war or every day duties by holding an election to determine exactly what the will of the people is for every decision. Remember this is a Republic. And as such we elect our officials and give them the responsiblity of making the decisions. IF the will of the people is NOT followed, the people have the opportunity to vote the officials out of office should they run for re-election. Now some jurisdictions do have recall options. But federal officers are NOT subject to recall. Only impeachment.

ididit4u, the question on the table was impeachment. If the U. S. Constitution allows something yet international law does not allow it, it is NOT an impeachable offense. There is the current debate about national sovereignty as to whether the world court can actually supercede a dispute that is entirely within a sovereign nation or do they only have jurisdiction in disputes that involve two or more sovereign states. If the former is ever set in stone, then individual sovereignties will evaporate and we will be, at least in effect if not officially, one world order.

Now here is a further clarification on President Bush's use of force against Iraq according to the 2002 Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. Sec. 3 (a) states:
"AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

So Congress gave President Bush the authorization to enforce ALL of the relevant UN resolutions, not just for regime change because Iraq was perceived to have WMDs. And even though their numbers weren't all that great, TWENTY-ONE other countries formed the coalition. So international law would have a difficult time convicting President Bush of war crimes since he and the others were acting on behalf of the United Nations Security Council.

Here's something to consider, The President IS LIMITED to the Constitution of THIS country. Anything done to foreign citizens is open to intrpretation. If this war is illegal by OTHER intrpretations, we would need to reconsider the BOUNDARIES of our Constitution. Bush is BY ANY INTERPRETATION A WAR CRIMINAL, if not by our laws, then at the very least, by the laws of the countries we are opressing. Some of you are playing with words, like because OUR CONSTITUTION allows it, IT MUST BE LEGAL, WORLDWIDE, and it isn't.

James, you forgot number three, the Bush administration was merely carrying out what became the official U.S. policy under the Clinton administration...regime change in Iraq. The Dems demanded a second 'hearing'on Iraq before the invasion so they could each stand up and make their speach in favor of using force, politically hard to make the whole impeachment thing stick when you personally asked the administration to 'sick em', and then say 'I was a dumbass like everybody on the whole freakig planet including the former administration and we were all fooled by this Texas Governor into setting up this war so he could make it happen for his jollies once he beats Al Gore'.

James Danley, your last paragraph describes a "pseudo-dictatorship". He IS required to do the will of those that elected him, penalty for not...IMPEACHMENT!

Bob, there are two reasons that the House of Representatives has not drawn up articles of impeachment against President Bush and Vice President Cheney. First, they realize that everything the President has done they (the Democrats) may one day want a Democratic president to be able to do. Besides, the only thing Bush has done is followed his oath to the U. S. Constitution in protecting and defending not only the Constitution but the people of the United States of America (more later). If you notice we have not had another attack. That is NOT a coincidence.

Secondly, is the political ramifications. The Democrats would never be able to simultaneously impeach both the President and Vice President. THAT would be interpreted as coup. And therefore, once one is impeached and convicted, he would be replaced. If the first was the president, the vice president would immediately become president; and he would nominate a replacement who would be subject to a Senate confirmation. Then when the new president is impeached and convicted, his newly confirmed vice president would immediately become president. Who would in turn nominate another replacement for vice president, subject to Senate confirmation. So you would then have a sitting Republican president and a sitting Republican vice president with one or both becoming the front runner(s) in next year's election. The Democrats really love the idea of not having to face a sitting Republican physically running against them (right now the Democrats can still run against the Bush & Cheney policies even if they are not in the race). That's because there are inbred advantages for incumbents. That doesn't mean they always work, because clearly they don't. BUT you have to fight even harder in order to overcome these advantages.

What offenses have Bush and Cheney committed that would be considered impeachable offenses? There are arguments that the Terrorist Surveillance Act is unconstitutional. But those arguments are unfounded and not supported by the constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects Americans against "unreasonable" searches and seizures without warrants. The founding fathers did not say "all" searches and seizures required warrants. Thus there are searches and seizures that ARE reasonable which do not require warrants. The question then becomes what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. I ask you, what could be more reasonable than during the time of war searching and seizing communications of the enemy? Yes even communications between the enemy and American citizens.

There are arguments that Bush lied about WMDs therefore the invasion of Iraq was illegal. I have said then numerous times, even several times in this blog. But I will repeat them again. President Clinton and the Democrats in 1998 used the same intelligence that President Bush used in 2002-2003. They all believed that Saddam Hussein still had his WMDs. You cannot say he never had WMDs, because Saddam Hussen used WMDs against the Iranians and against his own people. This is extensively documented by independent sources and the United Nations.

And there are arguments that President Bush refuses to listen to the American people and refuses to adhere to the will of the people. First of all, the President of the United States is our LEADER not follower. Our form of government is a Republic. It is not majority rules. The majority elects our public officials. But these elected officials are our representatives and rule and lead on our behalf. And therefore they are not subject to the will and whims of the majority.

So why did the Dem Congress not proceed with impeachment? If what you say is true the Congress is derelict and equally impeachable. I think to say that when Bush and Cheney are gone whats wrong with our Government will be cured is pretty niave. Whats wrong with the Federal Government is that it does thousands of things it is not athorized, while neglecting what is demanded by the Constitution of the United STATES.

Bush and Cheney are war criminals, plain and simple. Those are the words that should have been spoken and impeachment is the cure for what is wrong with our present government. To ignore this is the real Constitutional crisis.

Whatthe? Great comment!!

M, you misunderstand my comment. I will explain it differently. I am not against private medical health insurance for those who want it. Right now the claims are that 40 million out of 300+ million Americans do not have medical health insurance. The government wants to force these 40 million to have insurance (incidentally these numbers may be including illegal aliens). I certainly don't know the actual break down, but millions of these individuals do not want to have to pay $1,500 to $3,000 annually in premiums when the only visit a doctor once a year or maybe even once every 5 years. If the latter, that individual would pay between $7,500 and $15,000 in premiums in the five years while currently only paying about $150 every five years.

Right now you have the right to refuse medical care for whatever reason. But once the government steps in and becomes the sole HMO, it will be the government that decides whether you MUST have a procedure; or whether you even qualify for a particular procedure; when you can receive the procedure; and which doctor will perform it. Just look at the current proposals out there as part of the discussion on universal health care. Former Senator John Edwards (and others) propose to require mandatory annual physicals. Then you will have all 300+ million Americans trying to see their doctors. Now I know that the politicians are claiming that you will have plenty of choices, but that is only in the beginning. In due time, the government will begin placing limitations on those choices and eventually make one plan fit everyone.

Now then, many on the Left tout how well socialized "womb-to-tomb" universal health care is doing in Europe and Canada. That's because the individual goverments send out these great looking brochures and make it all look so great. But in reality, patients have to wait months for necessary surgery that is their government considers as "elective" surgery. Large numbers of Canadians are coming across the border and paying cash for procedures that Canada will not cover or for which they have to wait months if not years to schedule. The joke is already out there that if the United States goes to universal health care where will the Canadians get their health care?

As far as Stark, hes an idiot.
But I have a question about SCHIP. When did the Federal Governmet receive a mandate, or even Constitutional permission to force the health insurance they want on Americans? Why is money for a STATE insurance program taking the long road to D.C., eventually limping its way home, shrunken and emaciated, with enough Fedral strings attached to look like a mummy? Its your money people, if you want the children in your State covered it would be far more cost effective to administer the STATE program at the STATE level, no dollar ever escaped Washington un-scathed.

I was gone, and now I'm back. I see that you think that people wouldn't want health care. That's crazy, considering medical bills are the#1 reason for bankruptsy and high debt in the U.S. Think about how that affects the economy. Bankrupsy does more damage to businesses and the economy than providing health care for children. Get your priorities right.

Secondly, regarding your claim that back in 98 the Dems proclaimed Suddam a threat. Well that is true, but they also managed to air strike him, disabling any chance he had of becoming an actual threat to American soil. There was no need to go in and ground assault Iraq, spending billions to overthrow him and rebuild that country.

President Bush's amusment..its way out of line and wrong/but strong language has its day in court..I think Mr. Stark has chosen a time&place..his remarks are timely and this offer's a quick response//should none be in the making I quess Mr. Stark has wasted the people's time//usually Rush Limbaugh holds the platform on political "high dives"..if Mr. Stark was counting the seconds until the next wave broke on the cliffs--again--his posture awaits some comment..nothing from nothing..leaves--NOTHING.

My point in bringing up 1998 is that Democrats were adamant in their claims that Saddam Hussein had WMDs back then. So when President Clinton briefed President Elect Bush, Bush received Clinton's intelligence reports. I didn't just create this out of thin air. Congress DID give President Clinton the authorization for regime change in Iraq and WMDs was a part of the perceived threat. Google it! I just wish all of you who claim Bush lied about WMDs would at least recognize that Clinton and all of the Democrats lied about WMDs.

Now as for the House rules, apparently there is a time limit and a particular procedure for asking for remarks to be censured that was not followed. But Rep. Pelosi did condemn Rep. Starks remarks this evening: "While members of Congress are passionate about their views, what Congressman Stark said during the debate was inappropriate and distracted from the seriousness of the subject at hand -- providing health care for America's children."

There is no constitutional right to health care insurance. However, all states now provide emergency services to anyone regardless of whether they have insurance or the means to pay (even illegal aliens).

...wondering why nobody has said anything about the terrorists who are responsible for the death's of 4000 Americans and the majority of the 200K Iraquis.

As for Stark he's a tanglefoot anyway, as for childrens health care It would be good for children under the poverty level.

"Womb-to-tomb", Yes, I'm in favor of health-care, personal or governmental. Honestly, I don't know how you could LEGALLY disqualify ANY child, under 18, even one that has rich parents, isn't that discrimination?

GWB handpicked the intelligence directing us into this last Iraqi conflict, Yes, it does seem to be true, where are the Nuclear Warheads that were under the tarps before the invasion? This stuff about 1998, is your posting.

I was right, he was speaking about GWB's POLICIES....Fair Game! You MUST be a lawyer the way you want to play word games! The article even says,"Stark made a similar remark a few times, until a Republican Member of Congress objected. The Chair ruled Stark's comments were not out of order according to House rules."

ididit4u, we have a fundamential disagreement and that's fine! You seem to be in favor of government controlled "womb-to-tomb" universal health care for everyone. And that is your God-given and Constitutional right to that opinion. I just don't believe the federal government should take away a person's right to refuse medical treatment.

ididit4u, so you're going to stick with the claim that George Bush hand picked the intelligence in 1998 -- three years before he came into office?

Danley, get used to shameless politicians.....Foley, Craig, Vitter, Limbaugh, Ney, DeLay, Taft, etc.. By-the-way, I appreciate the 4 reasons you are against Improved Child Health Care, when I look at 150 billion, for Iraq, I think 36 billion is a small price to pay for the Health of the next generation, and I simply do not agree with them.

ididit4u, you wrote: "...we have 'freedom of speech', the floor of the Congress is NO EXCEPTION!" Actually the House of Representatives has strict rules which prohibit personal attacks on other members and the President of the United States. As a side note, members of Congress enjoy one Constitutional right that the rest of us do not have. They are immune from slander when they are speaking on the floor of the House. I am not complaining about that privilege, I actually agree with that being a necessary privilege.

Finally, if GWB didn't "handpick" the intelligence he put out, AND the pictures of "weapons under tarps" were really there, then why didn't we recover them during the War? Why didn't we bomb the Al-Quaeda camp? Are we safe from terrorists now that we've won in Iraq? Which freedoms are being saved in Iraq? Why are we "saving" the same people that cheer American Casualties? You think we are doing the right thing by saving these people, get off a plane in Iraq, with no bodyguards, no makeup. Lets see how safe you are, lets see how friendly they are, lets see how they show their gratitude for a trillion dollars spent "freeing" them.

ididit4u, you wrote: "According to your post, you disagree with the whole thing because THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY told them to lie?" No, I just pointed out that I thought it was shameless for the Democrats to do that. As for my opposition for the bill, I gave four clear reasons why I supported President Bush's veto of the new SCHIP bill.

Cory,IF THE WAR IS VIEWED AS ILLEGAL, then, ANY INNOCENT people killed, would be ILLEGAL. This is a free country, we have "freedom of speech", the floor of the Congress is NO EXCEPTION!

Number one, you aren't correct, I suppose you are talking about the kid the GOP "ganged-up" on. There ARE going to be kids NOT COVERED. I don't know where you came up with goofy articles like that, but, KIDS WILL BE DENIED! According to your post, you disagree with the whole thing because THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY told them to lie? You should be used to LIARS by now, Vitter, Craig, Noe, Ney, Bush, Cheney, etc.. Lets face it, your examples of shortcomings of Iraq's WMD's, were ACCUSATIONS, that never were proven, as for inspections, they proved they were doing their best, it wasn't good enough for GWB, so, that too ends up in the "never proven" list. PS_ Lots of children trying to go to college, some will be 25, when they graduate, I hope they have Healthcare.

ididit4u, the Democrats used children ALREADY COVERED by the SCHIP program. They used these children and had them lie, claiming that they would not be covered if the veto was not overridden -- when they already were covered. If the Democrats had to have children make this claim, the least they could have done was actually had children who were not currently covered -- like a few of the 25 year-olds that would have been covered had the bill been overridden.

M, explain to me how George Bush hand picked the intelligence when Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 giving President Clinton the authorization for regime change in Iraq? Section 2 (9) states: "Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to keay facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs."

AND during the debate for that resolution, most of the leading Democrats claimed that Saddam Hussein was a threat because of his WMD programs. And some of the Democrats went so far as to claim Saddam Hussein was an "imminent threat." THAT WAS IN 1998 -- three years before Bush would take office! Here is a list of Democrats who made claims that Iraq had WMDs: President Clinton (Feb. 4, 1998), Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (Feb 18, 1998), Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger (Feb 18, 1998), Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others signed a letter (Oct 9, 1998) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Dec 16, 1998).

You are correct that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. BUT the group that is responsible for 9/11 -- al Qaeda -- had a training camp in northern Iraq before we invaded Iraq. That is a fact!

I served in OIF I and III and I'm waiting for Rep. Stark to apologize for suggesting that I illegally killed innocent people. On second thought, I don't want an apology. I want him to resign immediately! His comments were easily the most despicable words that have EVER been spoken on the floor of Congress! Typical Democrat.

To James Danley,Your post read,------------Finally, the Democrats were shameless in their use of children already covered by SCHIP in commercials claiming that failure to override the veto would mean they won't be covered. -------------There will be MANY not covered by a Childrens Healthcare Increase. Don't you prefer they put LIVE children out there rather than the ones who'll die, or be crippled, let alone the ones that will be devastated by health issues? Dems don't seem to be hiding behind anything, I see them challenge this issue nearly every day. But, I couldn't help notice you hiding behind "U.N. Resolutions". Please tell me why these children should be burdened with paying back the trillion dollars to China, that was borrowed for the Iraqui War, yet, denied Healthcare FROM THE SAME PRESIDENT.

James said: "It makes no difference whether there was WMDs or not." OH YES IT DOES. I doubt that Congress would have authorized the war if the faulty intelligence hadn't been hidden from them by BUSHIE AND HIS CRONIES. It's been documented and proven that Bush hand picked his intellgence and that it was disproven that 1. WMD's existed 2. Sudamm had ANYTHING to do with 911.

OVER A TRILLION FOR IRAQ!!!!OBL STILL ALIVE. REPUBS WON"T SPEND 35BILLION FOR CHILDREN!!!

IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 911!!! FACE IT REPUB LOSERS.

Spock: We may still be in Afganistan, as you said, but not enough. How else do you explain the reimergence of Al Queda there? As far as 2 fronts go, WHY DO YOU INSIST THAT IRAQ HAS TO DO WITH TERROR??? IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 911

The invasion of Iraq was completely legal. First, UN Resolution 1441 was a final ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to comply with his disarmament obligation as outlined in UN Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986 and Resolution 1284. He failed to comply in each instance. When it became apparent that the UN was not going to follow through with its final ultimatum, President Bush gave his own ultimatum. When Saddam Hussein again failed to comply, with the authority of the U. S. Congress, President Bush ordered the invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein. It is that simple. It makes no difference whether there was WMDs or not. Saddam Hussein not only had the obligation to disclose his WMDs or prove that he no longer had WMDs, but he also was in violation of constructing prohibited types of missiles, purchasing of prohibited armaments and he continued to refuse to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by his troops in 1991. All of which was part of the terms for the ceasefire in 1991.

For those who want to ignore Saddam Hussein's continued failure to comply with the various UN resolutions, and claim that the United States did not have the right to invade Iraq, you are once again incorrect. Saddam Hussein fired missles at our planes on several occasions. Granted some of these were in the UN's no-fly zone which Saddam Hussein did not recognize. But he also fired a missle at one of our planes when it was in Kuwaiti air space. THAT was an act of war in and of itself.

Now as for the "veto with extreme prejudice a miniscule increase in children’s health care funding," there are a number of reasons for the veto. (1) The Democrats wanted to pay for the increase by raising the tax on cigarettes, which is an added tax on the poor who smoke; (2) The definition of children in this bill include individuals up to age 25; (3) The bill would open the door for families making as much as $82,000 to be eligible; (4) But most importantly, the Democrats wanted to expand the coverage to include individuals already covered by private health insurance.

Finally, the Democrats were shameless in their use of children already covered by SCHIP in commercials claiming that failure to override the veto would mean they won't be covered.

I can't stand George Bush and Im all for S-chip and against the war, but Stark disgusted me with his comments as much as many Republicans annoyed me when they criticized Bill Clinton when he was a bad boy with Lewinsky.

Nothing real will ever happen in Washington until the politicians of both parties start talking to each other, not at and about each other.

If anyone should apologize, it’s the entire lot of GOP Corporate Puppets who have squandered the precious lives of America’s finest and the many thousands of civilian Iraqi men, women, and children. They can spend a TRILLION dollars for GWB’s ILLEGAL INVASION while at the same time veto with extreme prejudice a miniscule increase in children’s health care funding. These self righteous, self-enriching will be shown the door in due time. WE THE PEOPLE applaud you Senator Stark.

I am an Independent, so, I need this explained to me...How are Republicans LESS HIPPOCRYTICAL, because of that post? Let's face it, to some people, these two subjects don't deserve to be in the same conversation.

Erie: >HYPOCRITES, TOTALLY MORALLY BANKRUPT! ! ! ! ! ! !< ???

Al Gore: Criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism

Clinton 11/15/1998: Cites the Reasons for signing the Iraq Liberation Act, said Saddam Hussein and his regime was a threat to his own people and to the "whole world".

Sandy Berger (the national security doc archive thief) Discusses letter sent to President Clinton by Dem & Rep. Senators in October 1998 urging him to get serious on the Iraq liberation act and Saddam's refusal to comply with U.N. security council resolutions relating to WMD.

Former Clinton Administration Secretary of Defense William Cohen: Links Osama Bin Laden To Saddam's WMD Program

The repubs can shell it out but they can't take it! After their vicious attacks on the 12 and 2 year old children and their families, they have some nerve getting their panties in an uproar over this. Stark was telling the truth, but no one is allowed to say a word about their BOY GEORGE, THEIR IMPERIAL PRESIDENT. WHAT A BUNCH OF LOSING HYPOCRITES, TOTALLY MORALLY BANKRUPT! ! ! ! ! ! !

Let's get back on topic.

Congressman Stark should retract his statement and apologize to the House, our Commander-in-Chief, and the families of our soldiers and commanders fighting terror overseas.

if you don't like "freedom of speech", you are the one that should move to a Dictatorship. This is a "free country". A bunch of cowards try to tell me that if I don't talk nice about this war, I'm working FOR THE ENEMY. this is still a "free country" for now. If you are so TERRIFIED of Iraq, go over there and do it yourself, or better yet, you can pay for it yourselves and quit dipping into my taxes to fund this debacle. The war is over, Bush declared Victory a long time ago. PS, Iraq was a "defeated nation" after the first "Gulfwar", what "glory" did we get from defeating a country with no Navy, No Air Force, and a cobbled Army still in disarray?

DK, the 8.1 million jobs created since August 2003 is a NET gain. And that number only counts non-farm payroll jobs that were created. There are millions of self-employed and contract workers who are not included in this total. The self-employed, however, are included in the unemployment rate. That is why you need to look at both figures.

So tired of the Libs railing against the President. So tired of the Libs whining 'Not me.' So tired of the Libs whining about WMD, 9/11. Old history. Issue is 'What are your plans for today?' No answers. Just more hate and divisiveness. If you think my country is so bad, why don't you leave it ? It churns my stomach to see supposed 'veterans' buddy up with the Starks and Murthas and Reids. A patriot is someone who defends his country, not denigrate and embarass it. In case some of the Libs haven't noticed, the elections were 7 years ago, and you lost. Twice. What is your plan for the future ? Have you one ? Or is all you have more hate speech and venom, but nothing you can be held accountable for ?
Just wondering.

Let's stick to the issue here; Starks remarks which border on treason.

Where is the vote to censure?

Hey Gene - Wheres the facts? Since Pres. Clinton also stated he had WMD's and got approval to remove him. There were 17 resolutions also.

Funny Clintons sweeping under the carpet and giving technology to China go us good,.

I do not know what is sadder the Libs pushing their lies or the libs that believe it.

The only thing I find wrong with Stark's statement is that his fellow congress people are not backing him up and agreeing with him. I agree with him - death, suffering and destruction seem to roll off GWB like water off a duck's back. Remember his bradoccia "bring em on" scream? Well, they did and our innocent kids and innocent Iraqis are dying for his bluster and ego trip. Stark is right - GWB is being amused by it all.

AlChemist - Correction for you workman's comp they are not against they are against Government paying for all this, they are for companies doing it.

Social Security - Well thats going broke because the Libs use the money for other intentions, Republicans are for private investing so you can pass your hard earned money to you inheritance.

I should say conservative not Republican

Less Government more Liberty!

Hello James Danley;

BZ . Great job. Your comment is correct. It is good to know that you and many others are out there.
The best thing about your comment is. It has no hate speak in it. Unlike the others that I have read.
Great.

What I find so amusing about right wing rants, is that if it wasn't for the social safety nets voted in by the Democrats over the last 75 years, many of the ranters would be homeless and broke:

Social security: Republicans violently against! It's Communism!!!!

Workmens' comp: Replicans opposed. It will cause all businesses to go broke.

Unemployment insurance: Republicans against it. Employers should not be forced to coddle workers. It's nanny state at it's worst.

Workplace right to know laws (the MSDS): Republicans opposed - it's another huge burden on business. Bosses should not have to tell workers about all the poisons being used in the workplace beause it will disrupt business.

The Limbaugh ditto-heads like to rant about what's wrong with America while they enjoy all the benefits of laws and programs passed by Democrats. Tres ironique, n'est pas?
(Very ironic, isn't that so?)

Spock, you sound like a fine fellow. Here's an idea that might work: solve the drug problem by arresting millions of the "druggies" as you call them and put them to work weeding the farm fields - with no pay of course - that lazy Americans won't do! And food prices will go down! See, there is a common ground, after all.

jason c - He told the troops that they are there for the amusment of Dying, I think you libs need to get your head out of the sand!

AlChemist - Where do I start
All the Lib propaganda, when someone disagrees with you lib, you go to an extreme level on absurdity
1 - When you set up these places is it saying you condone it. Now if we close the border that will solve 75% of the drug problem.
2 - Are you kidding, 11 year olds do not belong dating period, I do not even remember thinking of girls that way at 11, the whole aspect of giving an 11 year old the pill against parents wishes is sick, there is no defense to doing it, and I did not want my daughter dating until she was 60, but I had to relent and allow 16 supervised. Again by doing this will tell the kids it is condoned and it is ok.
3 - So your saying parents should not be involved in their kids education, well we need to allow school vouchers in this case.
4 - Stoned, no I will go for the electric chair
5 - First of tax money should not go for any private museum, and especially one that is being sposored by a heavy contributer to Clinton. Again you are way off here.
6 - So you believe it is ok to desacrate a church
7 here are fact for you for taxes -
1 - top 1% of earners pay 35% tax bill
2 - top 20% pay 85% of tax bill
3 - Pres. Bush has raised the exempt level for paying taxes from Clinton 14,000 to 20,000 (oh the dems want to get rid of this)

So all in all you have proven that you libs only read talking points put out by Stalin

First of all, we are still in Afghanistan. And we continue to search for Usama bin Laden. But according to all accounts he is across the border in Pakistan. We can't just invade Pakistan (in spite of Sen. Barack Obama's statement that as President he would do just that) as that would jeopardize our relationship with Pakistan. Gen. Perves Musharraf is barely holding control of his government. The warlords who are protecting Usama bin Laden have tremendous influence and power within Pakistan. Should Gen. Perves Musharraf's government collapse, individuals supportive of Usama bin Laden could gain control of the government. And if Pakistan's nuclear weapons ever got into the hands of al Qaeda, they would not hesitate to use them.

Now contrary to what MoveOn.Org and like groups and supportive individuals claim, al Qaeda was in Iraq BEFORE we invaded Iraq. Even prominent Democrats stated such during the debate on the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of our Armed Forces against Iraq. In fact, the resolution states that. There was an al Qaeda training camp in northern Iraq before the invasion.

M, you wrote: "Not to mention the out-of control spending by Bush." You think spending is out of control now, if the Democrats take the White House in 2008, spending will double by 2018. (And that's not even taking into account any potential terrorist attacks that might occur.) That's because the baby boomers have already begun to retire...and it is expected that up to 10,000 people a day will be signing up for Social Security over the next two decades. BUT in addition to that increase in Social Security (and Medicare) payouts, the Democrats want to provide universal health care coverage for every individual. And then you have all these new spending ideas that Sen. Hillary Clinton and others have tossed out there (i.e. $5,000 bond for all new born children). In order to pay for these massive increases in spending, the Democrats will greatly increase the income tax, raise the federal tax on cigarettes and even raise the federal tax on gasoline as much as $3-4 per gallon. Don't take my word for that...just go back to statements made by Democrats over the years. They want Americans to pay as much, in not more, per gallon of gasoline as the Europeans do.

You liberals gave President Bill Clinton all of the credit for balancing the budget and actually running surpluses. The truth is prior to 1994 President Clinton's budget forecast huge deficits with no end in sight. When the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, they reigned in spending. And the budget of 1998 was the first balanced budget since 1969. So it was the Republicans who deserved the credit for balancing the budget.

Finally, as I mentioned earlier, the primary constitutional responsibility of the federal government is to protect and defend the people of the United States. Deny it all you want, but the fact is we are at war with extremists who want to destroy Western Civilization. Fighting these extremists in the Middle East does not guarantee that the battle won't return to Main Street USA. But if we just pack up and leave Iraq without defeating them, that will hand the extremists a military victory. And it will embolden them to launch even more attacks around the world, including the United States. We are spending billions of dollars over there now, in hopes that we won't have to spend trillions of dollars rebuilding here at home later. One well placed nuclear bomb could immediately kill several hundred thousand, if not a million, Americans. And a million could die within months due to radiation exposure. But the attack doesn't even have to be nuclear. Several smaller chemical or biological attacks could kill nearly as many people. But they wouldn't cause the property damage that a nuclear device would cause. Should we ever experience attacks like these, what becomes of health insurance? Hospitals will be overrun with patients exposed to radiation or whatever chemical or biological agent used. The U. S. Economy will come to a screeching halt. The unemployment rate would immediately increase 10 fold and continue to climb exponentially. So I ask all of you, do we continue to invest in our national security now, or just wait until...?

Folks, you gotta recall. If insurance companies were not money grabbing thieves, we would not be in a position today of needing to nationalize health care. They are thieves, and they are chief supporters of the Bush Regime. The cigarette manufacturers are also Bush Idiots - this is probably the real reason why Bush won't sign for SCHIP. Don't let Bush lie to you. Wake Up!!!

An American, what did he say to disparage the troops? He did disparage the presdient who certainly deserves to be disparaged. I think people who continue to support Bush are disgusting, and that includes you. Who the hell are you to question anyone's patriotism? Why aren't you in Iraq? Americans not only have the right to criticize Bush, it is my opinion that they have a duty to oppose him and his assinine policies that are getting people killed.

Here's how the far right will fix all these problems cited by spock:
1. Arrest millions more drug users and lock them up permanently (after all, they're never cured, right?)
2. Require girls starting at age 11 to have zero contact with boys and men, not even teachers. None of this immoral dating, only arranged marriages are allowed. Hey, it works in Afghanistan - not too many pregant 11 year olds there!
3. None of these secular school activities nonsense - it only makes girls "worldly" and distracts them from their principal goal in life, which is to marry and obey their husbands.
4. Sex offenders must be stoned to death, as it says in the Bible.
5. Get rid of most all museums, since they are all swamps of immorality (how dare they show statues of nudes, even if they are 2000 years old!) We should have only art approved by the proper authorities, such as Fox news.
6. Churches: people should be required to attend church, like in the good old days. Then the atheists can't get out of listening to those annoying, boring sermons telling us we're all going to hell unless we give more money.
7. NO TAXES AT ALL FOR THE RICH! Make the poor pay them all, like the ancient Romans did.

To: An American;

Don't confuse the issue with facts!

Please give facts? of your lie.

So let me get this right your own libs say we need illegals because of needed jobs, but yet we have Americans as you say it out of work. So which is it, how many people do you know that are actively seeking employment that there benefits ran out?

An American - Got remember something the Libs think this should be a job of the police and the useless UN.

Heres some side info in the last week we have learned that libs want the folowing
1 - sites where druggies can use illegal drugs supervised
2 - Sex for 11 year olds is ok
3 - Parents can not be involved in their kids school activity without getting background checks that the teachers do not even get
4 - Rights for Sex offenders
5 - earmarks for a Hippie Museum
6 - desecration of a Christian Chuch
7 - HIGHER TAXES

well at least they created a so far 2.1 million dollar donation to military families, which i hope is making their skin crawl.

Do not forget No Healthcare for illegals, which is a lie because they already get it.

I hope they demand his resignation.
This is how the democrats really think though, so I doubt it. I bet he's kicking himself because he let "th