Who will be fired by the Democrats?
Since the Democrats have such a problem with Firings and selections from the president I say lets hear their list from the candidates. Are they going to fire anyone and who do they want in cabinet posts now not when they have already been elected. Bush fired 7 lawyers who serve at his discretion and selected people and judges that Democrats are making such a big deal about lets hear from Hillary and they rest on who are they going to fire and select now and let the lies fly.
This letter has not been edited.
"This letter has not been edited."
No kidding.
Posted by Jeff on August 31, 2007 02:17 PMThis letter reads like that nonsensical spam that you get that spits out a bunch of random words in sentence form in order to get past filters.
A monkey could've typed this.
Posted by Charles B on August 31, 2007 02:30 PMJoseph:
If you and your fellow cons did some research you would find that every prez fires all the lawyers and federal judges and appoint their own. What happened in Bushes case he fired his own in mid term be caused they failed to hurry investications on democrats to make them look bad for the elections. It makes me laugh when you compare apples to oranges. Like Clintons lie to cover up an affair that was no ones business but his and his wifes. And Bush lying about WMD's that sent this country to war and killed thousands.
And larrymc is the poster boy writer representing the libs? He doesnt know what the hell he is talking about.
Posted by on August 31, 2007 03:30 PM3:30,
Did Bush find the WMD's ? Do you know something the rest of the world doesn't know? Do you have them? The inspectors told us before hand there were no WMD's. But Bush is the Decider so he went anyway. Besides this really isn't about WMD's, Democracy's etc. It is about a strategic play for control of the 2nd largest oil reserve before the Chinese control it...
Posted by Mike D. on August 31, 2007 03:50 PMlarrymc - You really need to quit accepting everything you read at moveon as fact.
CB - You couldn't be more wrong. A monkey would use proper placement of periods and commas.
Posted by KW on August 31, 2007 04:05 PMMike D
Bullseye! While the WMD fears were fairly reliable having survived two presidents (Clinton along with many big profile Democrats warned of the WMDs long before Bush acted on the fear). Discounting what the not then completed inspections by the UN surmised wasn't difficult.
The real objective in play is protection of the oil reserves in the entire Middle East. The concern was not necessarily for American corporate profits, but to ensure the availability of the reserves into the future for the western world.
The Chinese had negotiated extensive drilling rights with Saddam during the late 90s and early 2000. The UN Sanctions prohibited them from following through. With the threat of the sanctions being lifted IF it was shown that Iraq was in compliance with the UN regarding WMDs, action "was indicated" as China was opening preparing to move in and operate the oil fields as previously arranged.
Now that we have stepped in and essentially invalidated the Saddam-Chinese agreements, we are left with the quandary of how to keep Iran from embroiling not only Iraq, but Saudi Arabia (who would move to counteract, not assist, Iranian control or undue influence) in a regional conflict which would leave all of the Middle East oil reserves under potential battlefields.
Hence, we are stuck with staying while we train, equip and prepare the Iraqi military to defend themselves. Even after we accomplish that objective, we will keep a very large military presence on the bases we are constructing there to ensure future "stability" in th region. This will happen regardless of who our next president is.
Posted by mongoose on August 31, 2007 04:14 PMWell stated Mongoose.
I've always questioned the RNC talking point "With the threat of the sanctions being lifted..."
By Who?!?!?
The UN security counsel,
Where we have veto power.
So with the PNAC gang in charge and having a hard-on for Saddam since at least 1998, what were the odds of that?
Posted by Repugnants are liars on August 31, 2007 06:10 PMmongoose:
The big differance is Clinton was letting the inspectors do their job and wasn't ready to thumb is nose at the UN and the rest of the world and play cowboy and yell charge.
larrymc
Read my post again. I neither defended nor condemned actions by either administration in this scenario. I just told you how I see it played out with all of the characters involved. If you feel the need to crucify Bush and send praise to Clinton, that's your own prejudices being inserted into the scenario based on self serving rationalization of your political allegiance. Personally, I happen to think both parties are corrupt and manipulative, sending our country right into the sewer.
If you feel that Hillary is going to be the salvation and pull us out of Iraq, I suggest you go back and carefully study her statements. In March she came out and said that we will always have a strong, longterm presence in Iraq. She has not contradicted that as of today. She states that she will get our troops out of the sectarian street fighting and leave that to the Iraqis. She doesn't address the longterm presence situtation.
Barrack Obama has also stated that we will have a long term presence -- just not an involvement in the daily military actions.
We're not totally leaving Iraq regardless of which party takes the White House. Don't delude yourself.
Your statements are nothing more than partisan chanting. Listening to your comments from the left's talking points is no more informative nor of more value than listening to Keith's parroting things from right's talking points.
Posted by mongoose on August 31, 2007 07:18 PMlarrymc
If you read what mongoose wrote you'd see that the action was going to happen regardless of there being any WMDs. In fact, he postulates that the action took place because it was feared that no WMDs would be found and the UN sanctions would be lifted. The military intervention was required before that could happen.
In other words, partisanship and Iraq having WMDs was not a big part of the equation -- the oil and some hope of Middle East stability was the focus.
Posted by darfor on August 31, 2007 07:24 PMmike d,kennedy,kerry,durbin,biden,murtha and the the clintons said saddam had W.M.D. They told the truth.Bush gets his intelligence from the leftovers from the corrupt clinton adm. telling him that Saddam has W.M.D.'S,Bush passes the information along to the American people .He's a liar.Mikey and all your liberal idiot friends are a bunch of dumb-asses,
Posted by Keith on August 31, 2007 08:53 PMAnd I suppose it's a good thing for China to control the world's oil? Once again the left proves how much they want to destroy America.
Posted by clyde on August 31, 2007 11:03 PMFire the guy (s) who are supposed to be looking for Osama bin Laden!
Whoopi Goldberg said it best..and I'm paraphrasinghere...
"They have satellites that can see a freckle on an ant's in a basement in Brooklyn but they can't find a seven foot tall Saudi guy in the desert in Aghanistan".
Hey..do any of you Bush loving republicans know where Osama is?
It's been almost six years!
Six years since 9/11...Five years that we've been in Afghanistan.
Didn't Bush swear up and down that he would find hm and punish him?
Well?
We're waiting.
Posted by Thomas on August 31, 2007 11:18 PMWhen the news first broke about the firing of DOJ attorneys, several things were pointed out including:
1) The attorneys work at presidential "whim"
2) Clinton, as many if not most presidents, including Bush, replaced all DOJ attorneys after being sworn in for his first term.
3) DOJ attorneys, once appointed, are supposed to be non-partisan.
The difference with what happened here is that it at least appears that attorneys who chose to go forward with investigations of Republicans, or didn't drop everything to go forward with investigations of Democrats IN THE RUN-UP TO THE 2004 ELECTIONS were let go, despite having previously been giving good to excellent work reviews. For those of you who choose to believe that everything the administration does MUST be acceptable, please remember that sooner or later the political pendulum will swing (as it always does). When that happens, will you accept that DOJ's job is to investigate Republicans only - or are you going to demand that DOJ attorneys do their job as they have prior to this administration in a non-partisan fashion? You can't have it both ways.
Posted by Mary on September 1, 2007 04:32 AMClyde,your right and they are taking our oil.We can't take our oil because of the dems.Mary ,you forgot that 2 of the attourney's fired were investigating clinton's Whitewater scandal.Just think we could of had clintom in jail where he and his wife belongs.
Posted by Keith on September 1, 2007 08:23 AMKieth- which two? or are you just talking out your nether orifice as the wingnuts are wont to do having ingested so much rush gas that flatulence is unavoidable and you all just think you're saying something.
Posted by patrick on September 1, 2007 09:23 AMKeith left Colorado and moved to Texas. The wind blowing all the time has made him a little touchy.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 1, 2007 10:26 AMIsn't it cute how Bill Clinton saying there were WMD suddenly makes him the model of credibility and veracity?
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on September 1, 2007 03:30 PMThomas-
You guys complained before we captured Hussein too. And after we got him it was,"so what,wheres Bin Laden?".
If Bush himself delivered Osama to your front doorstep in a wheelbarrow you would still bitch and moan about something else and you know it.
Why don't you manufacture some outrage for the fact it has been six years of dems doing everything in their power to thwart Americas war on terror?
Well?
We are waiting....
Posted by Get Real on September 1, 2007 03:32 PMThe RMN states:
"This letter has not been edited."
Why is that? Do they not care what gets printed in their own paper? Or, do they have such a low opinion of their readers that they do not care what gets printed?
I bet the RMN applies a bit more attention to a Paul Campos entry. Why is that? The man is a moron. I'd much rather read the opinions of most the posters here than any of his drivel.
Give me Mr. Campos' column. I'll show the RMN what a paid column should be.
Posted by John II on September 1, 2007 05:49 PMJohn II
After "fencing" with you as of late, I'll support your bid to replace Campos. While I may not agree with you a lot of the time, you do make more sense than Campos...
Posted by mongoose on September 1, 2007 06:52 PMmary,total idiot.clinton fired two attorneys doing there job,trying to bring him to justice,in other words taking him and his criminal wife off the streets.In other words,no 9/11,no corporate scandels,no gutting of our military and intelligence,no mass murders of people who could testified against him and his partner in crime,hillary.No taking credit for balancing the budget and welfare reform done by and only done by the Next Gringrich lead republican congress.No American tax payers financing of N. Korea's nuclear program.Basically all Americans losing respect around the world.I could write a thousand papges just like every other well in-formed,educated person.I'm obviously not a liberal or idiot.
Posted by Keith on September 1, 2007 10:17 PMIf Keith is so well-informed, maybe he should back up some of the garbage coming from his sewer with a real source, and I don't mean regurgitated material from Newsmax, Newsbusters, American Enterprise Institute, rushlimbaugh.com, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Lielly, the Fox Noise Channel, The Drudge Report, Savage Nation, or any of the other infinite number of Republican-backed sources out there. I'd like to see him site something he got from either a nonpartisan government sites (OEB or Congressional Budget Office) or a private, well-credentialed NONPARTISAN source. That'll obviosly never happen because Keith is nothing more than a wind-up parrot that spews out Republican and Bush administration talking points and smears of anyone that threatens them or who they disagree with.
Posted by pat on September 1, 2007 11:43 PMpat,and how is you spewing your lib crap any different? Tool.
Posted by on September 2, 2007 12:15 PMFunny how many on this thread refer to the oil under Iraq as "ours".
Alternative energy is the future, not trillion dollar wars for other peoples resources.
Let China choke on oil while we trail-blaze new forms of energy that aren't under countries controlled by dictators and monarchs.
The whole strategy Mongoose outlines is short sighted and a waste of resources and lives.
And yes, I understand he wasn't supporting the strategy, but he did a good job of outlining the players and their motivations.
Posted by Charles B on September 2, 2007 04:13 PMCharlie:--
Whip them out of your back pocket and let us have them to use now. Key word = now. It takes time to develop alt energy, we need energy now and until we develop it. Or do we suspend all economic activity immediately and not resume until we have your new back pock alt energy? Rather optimistic and short sighted I would say. Of course your pontifications usually are.
Posted by on September 2, 2007 07:10 PMWe have enough energy under our own soil to last long enough to complete the development of alternatives.
The advancement of wind/solar/hydrogen/biofuel technology is becoming exponential.
We are mired in a fifty-year strategy to secure oil that we simply won't need in fifty years.
Posted by Charles B on September 3, 2007 09:01 AMWe may have more that enough oil off the coast of Florida, Alaska and a few other pockets. The combined reserves are estimated to larger than the estimated reserves of the Middle East. However, the environmental lobbies have been successful in convincing enough politicians not to open access to the fields.
Many of the Democrats opposed to the war are also blocking access to the fields. And, yes, some Republican politicos along with the Democrats are accepting donations...err, check that, listening to the compelling arguments of the truly wise preservers of our pristine wilderness.
One could almost speculate that if politicians and environmental advocates truly had the nation's best interests, and reality, at heart we wouldn't have soldiers dieing in a sandbox to protect oil reserves -- almost.
Posted by mongoose on September 3, 2007 10:42 AMBased on precedent I guess the Democrat President will fire any appointees who refuse to harass and go after Republicans
Posted by on September 6, 2007 07:14 AM