Discussion

• December 11, 2006

  7:51 AM

  Anonymous writes:

  So if I want special protection at work instead of working hard all I need to do is act gay?

  In an already hyper-sensitive corporate environment anyway?

  Anyone see anything wrong with these Dem values?

• December 11, 2006

  8:18 AM

  Anonymous writes:

  Dems? Values? That is a oxymoron.

• December 11, 2006

  9:08 AM

  Anonymous writes:

  Time to raise taxes, defend illegal immigrants, and criminalize religion.

• December 11, 2006

  9:33 AM

  Ben Franklin writes:

  Hey Dems, How about traditional American core values instead of fringe leftist social engineering legislation?

• December 11, 2006

  9:59 AM

  Typical Liberal writes:

  Franklin, americans have always emcbraced killing babies, gay sex, high taxes, rampant socialism, a world without god, science, anti corporations, and being equally poor! shame on YOU for being anti american.

• December 11, 2006

  10:46 AM

  am 760 writes:

  Are all you #$%^%$# people retarded. Do you get you talking points from Rush LImbaugh on a daily basis. Im on the left and I don't believe in killing babies, gay sex, etc... Im certainly not anti-american. The most patriotic and compassionate thing people can do is what accountability in their government and justice for all, not just straight, white,rich republicans.
  You people are so brainwaished that you have become demophobes.
  Why don't you tune into AM 760 for one week and see what we on the left really think and feel. It isn't want the Rush LImbaughs and Fox news people say.
  What have you got to lose. You may find that those on the left want the same things as you on the right but want our govenrnment to help and not just hand it over to private corporations.
  Have some guts and just tune you radio to AM 760 for a week, if your open minded enough and can handle the truth.

• December 11, 2006

  10:57 AM

  Anonymous writes:

  Nine Ways Republicans Are Ruining the Country

  By Larry Beinhart

  Say it loud, say it often, "Republicans are bad on national security." Every Democrat running for national office -- and local offices too, why not? -- should say, "I'm running because Republicans are bad on national security."

  Then they should go on to say, here's why I'm saying it:

  1. 9/11 happened on their watch. Of course, we can't say, absolutely, that it would not have happened if they had not been asleep at the wheel. But we can say that they did not do all they could have done to prevent it. We can say that Bush literally pushed away the warnings.

  2. George Bush and the Republicans failed to get Osama bin Laden. We got both Hitler and Hirohito in less time than we've been chasing bin Laden. Every day that bin Laden's out there, he's proof that you can attack the United States and get away with it. That's a bad message to send, and believe me, people in the terrorist world have heard it loud and clear. That's very bad for national security.

  3. George Bush and the Republicans gave Osama bin Laden what he wanted. Bin Laden wanted the US to get into a quagmire. He wanted our troops tied down in an Islamic country so that an insurgency could do to them what the Afghanis did to the Russians and to the British before them.

  A modern, hi-tech army is very good at invasions. It's also good for fighting back against other armies. But a modern hi-tech army is not good at occupying a country against the will of the population. Even if the army is as violent and ruthless as the Soviet occupiers of Afghanistan were.

  4. George Bush and the Republicans squandered America's power and prestige. Before 9/11 most people in the world probably thought that America's intelligence services were able and astute, agencies to be feared. The Bush administration has made them appear bumbling and inept. They did this, first, by ignoring their warnings and then, second, by making them the fall guys for 9/11.

  After 9/11 most of the world feared America's wrath and America's might. By failing to get bin Laden and his gang, then by attacking the wrong country, unleashing chaos, and getting our armed forces into a situation that they can't win, the administration showed the world they have less to fear than they imagined.

  5. The Bush administration empowered Hezbollah. The 'insurgency' in Iraq was Hezbollah's textbook and their inspiration. If Iraqis could do that to Americans, surely they could do the same to the Israelis. And they have. It's not yet on the record, but it's clear from everyone's conduct, that the administration encouraged the Israelis to 'unleash' their forces against Hezbollah. They probably thought Israel's modern hi-tech armies would quickly smash their enemy.

  6. The Bush administration radicalized Hamas. Hamas was elected. Sworn to the destruction of Israel or not, they should have been encouraged to become responsible players with carrots as well as sticks. Instead the administration put them up against the wall, hoping to starve the Palestinian people into voting for a different group. Would that work if someone tried to do it to us?

  7. Bush and the Republicans tied down our forces in Iraq while Iran and North Korea invested in nuclear technology. That made North Korea feel secure enough to test ICBMs. If they had been successful, they would have had a delivery system for their nuclear weapons. That would be incredibly bad for national security. Iran, with American forces tied down in Iraq, feels secure enough to defy the UN as well as the US. Very bad for national security.

  8. By the way, every major European nation has had successful arrests and real trials of real, dangerous terrorists. People on the level of this group that the British just took down. The most ferocious terrorist arrested in the United States since 9/11 has been the shoe bomber. Ten, twenty, forty, a hundred billion dollars, a trillion dollars, and the best we have to show for it is the shoe bomber?! Republicans are bad on national security.

  9. We have trashed the bill of rights. We have trashed the Geneva conventions. We have a president and a vice president willing to go the mat to fight for the right to torture people.

  We have spent a fortune on illegal wiretaps.

  We have spent a fortune on collecting everyone's telephone data.

  And what have we achieved by all of this?

  A quagmire in Iraq. Dishonor. Debts. An empowered al Qaeda. A new war in Lebanon. The inability to stand up to Iran and North Korea. Osama bin Laden at large, an inspiration to extremists everywhere.

  Republicans are unimaginably bad on national security. Say it loud. Say it often, it's the truth, Republicans are bad on national security.

• December 11, 2006

  10:58 AM

  Anonymous writes:

  There was a time on this blog when there were those on the right who could intelligently discuss an issue without insults or proganda-puking. No myths, no fairytales, no bumper sticker slogans, no hostility...just good, semi-factual discussion of the issues. Where have all the smart ones gone?

• December 11, 2006

  12:12 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  New demobrat talking points and what they actually mean:

  "To build the best public schools in America"

  You mean Increase teachers' and administrators' salaries with no accountability.

  "To become the renewable energy capital of the world"

  To subsidize big energy upgrades to their system and pass the increased costs on to consumers.

  "To bring health care to all Coloradans"

  Make the middle class citizens pay for healthcare for illegals.
  

• December 11, 2006

  12:42 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  "Our agenda is ambitious: To build the best public schools in America, to become the renewable energy capital of the world and to bring health care to all Coloradans,"

  Great! Get to it it despite the war mongering Republicans to to keep the middle class down.

• December 11, 2006

  12:54 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  "war mongering Republicans"

  Yes, I thought I saw Dick Cheney flying one of those planes in the WTC on 9/11.

  And it was republicans who participated in oil-for-food to give Saddam Billions for weapons materials.

  And there have never been any Al Queda in Iraq.

  Republicans have been punishing the middle class with those nasty tax cuts.

  Time give the middle class what they want. Higher taxes to pay for entitlements they will never ever see.

  I know it breaks my heart when I see a paycheck deposited into my bank account knowing Democrats could spend that money better on gays, illegals, or any other cause more worthy than I.

  Rock on Colorado Dems!

• December 11, 2006

  12:58 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Morons, Demobrats are historically the ones with more money dumbass. Try reading Mr. I'm to stupid to read so I get all my info from Am 760. Only a complete dunce could chastise others for listening to right wing radio while openly stating the Am 760 is a source of truth. In the words of Bugs Bunny "what a maroon"

• December 11, 2006

  1:18 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  I ask again. Where have all the smart ones gone.

• December 11, 2006

  1:56 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Moved out of state where they don't get taxes to death.

  That's the eventual outcome. Taxes + business costs (health care, unemployed/worker's comp, social security, real wages to pay for housing, more taxes, etc...) get too high people and businesses leave.

• December 11, 2006

  2:04 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  There was a time on this blog when there were those on the right who could intelligently discuss an issue without insults or proganda-puking. No myths, no fairytales, no bumper sticker slogans, no hostility...just good, semi-factual discussion of the issues. Where have all the smart ones gone?

  Posted by on December 11, 2006 10:58 AM

  See what happens when a lonely liberal realizes that his policital party is a bunch of idiots?

• December 11, 2006

  2:24 PM

  gr8fuldude writes:

  You can tell a lot about a person by who they quote. Treehugger quotes classic movies and rock n roll lyrics. Hogar quotes scripture. Jay posts links.

  12:58 (harry)quotes Bugs Bunny. 'nuff said.

• December 11, 2006

  2:34 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  More truth and wisdom in Bug Bunny's quotes than on AM760!

• December 11, 2006

  2:42 PM

  Jesus H. writes:

  The Democratic platform inherently discriminates against white American families. Supporting Affirmative Action, open unsecure borders and the subsequent third world hordes entering the U.S.A., social benefits and programs for illegal aliens, desegregation policies and practices, wealth redistribution to "minorities" and immigrants legal or illegal. If we let some of the leftist elite in the Democratic Party grant Amnesty in any shape or form to illegal aliens, this willl be the beginning of the Latin-Americanization of the USA. Yea, that is real vision and highly intellectual.

• December 11, 2006

  2:52 PM

  Real World writes:

  The Aztlan movement is very real and growing in size thanks to liberal public education policies that feel compelled to teach it in our schools as a racial feel-good band-aid. Liberal policies in general are undoing America.

• December 11, 2006

  2:56 PM

  am666 writes:

  Anyone who would wear am760 on his sleeve like that lefy moron deserves the derision. He'll be sitting on a lounge chair in the Himalayas waiting for the global warming melt to create a moat around Everest.

• December 11, 2006

  2:58 PM

  The Jamb writes:

  Pretty funny: liberals fussing about climate changes that could alter weather patterns and crop yields in one or two hundred years while terrorists and illegal aliens are making more significant changes in their backyards while they ponder a new pair of Birkenstocks.

• December 11, 2006

  3:11 PM

  Humble writes:

  I was adding classes to minor in Spanish at Western NM. University and was forced into taking Chicano Studies class as a requirement. If their ever was a racist class this was definitely it. It was blatant and overt, and sanctioned by the WNMU. If white sudents were doing what these Chicanos were doing and saying, it would have been a huge controversy and probably criminal. Since they were brown and WNMU is a "Hispanic serving institution" they could be racist, ethnocentric and hateful to white people. The institution was over 50% brown, and my blood would boil every time I had to walk past the Affirmative Action office, which handed out my tax money to essentially encourage discrimination against myself.

• December 11, 2006

  3:18 PM

  futureman writes:

  America wakes from the nightmare known as republican rule. Already the reicht wingnuts are frothing like a pack of rabid dogs. All the problems they did not, could not, or refused to solve are now the democrats' fault. Thank god for evolution because the failure to adapt will cause the wingnuts to lose all power in the arena of public affairs and they will soon become as inconsequential as their comrads, the fascists, the communists, and the monarchists.

• December 11, 2006

  3:22 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Yea, Good Idea! Let's spend our few available education dollars on flags of all the countries for each class room. Then when the CSAP scores are way low, we can point to the flags and talk about the diversity and understanding we are teaching instead of the three R's.

• December 11, 2006

  3:29 PM

  Geof writes:

  It has to be said, the only thing the 'Pubs do well is to remain oblivious. Hey, RepubliKlowns, the main reasons you have a chance to make a living wage, have health insurance in any form and some sort of hope for your dismal future has more to do with progressive thought than it will ever have to do with your anal babbling. So while you bitch and whine about how tragic things are for you, we got your back. Now sit tight, very shortly here it will become apparent that your biggest enemy, other than yourselves, struts around the White House talking to his God.

• December 11, 2006

  3:30 PM

  Anon Y. Mous writes:

  There was a time on this blog when there were those on the LEFT who could intelligently discuss an issue without insults or proganda-puking. No myths, no fairytales, no bumper sticker slogans, no hostility...just good, semi-factual discussion of the issues. Where there ever any smart ones on the left?
  

• December 11, 2006

  3:33 PM

  Anon Y. Mous writes:

  Dear Mr. Geoff. Only stupid people think liberal is a bad word. Don't use the word 'progressive' when you mean 'liberal'.

• December 11, 2006

  3:43 PM

  Pat writes:

  If the Dems try any weird liberal laws in this state they will be voted out, period.

  Republicans did screw a lot of things up, but history shows us the destruction liberals can inflict.

  The reason why Dems won this year was due to GWB and the war. If libs want to read it as a victory for a progressive/socialist agenda, so be it, they’ll be out quicker then you can say 08.
  

• December 11, 2006

  3:51 PM

  JW writes:

  "Where there ever any smart ones on the left?"

  Statistically, the more educated you are, the more you are likely to vote Democrat.

  I personally dont consider that the left (centrist Dems anyone?) but all these ultra right wing mouthpieces do. Of course, you can tell the majority of them never even saw a college, let alone attended.

• December 11, 2006

  3:59 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  12:54

  Iraq didn’t fly planes into buildings in New York nor were they tied to the group that did. Bush has stated this as a fact so you can quit using this lie because you just look stupid and ill informed. This rhetoric is just stupidity so please do the world a favor and quit repeating this idiotic lie that you apparently have bought hook line and sinker. If you wish to continue to use it there are some people in Africa that would like to make you rich. Just look for their letters and input your banking numbers.
  

• December 11, 2006

  4:16 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  "Statistically, the more educated you are, the more you are likely to vote Democrat."

  Just because you have been under the spell of liberal educators longer and not out in the real world, does not make you any smarter.

• December 11, 2006

  4:27 PM

  jay writes:

  Actually the "we lost the election because of Iraq" talking point has no merit.

  Here are the post election rankings of issue by importance according to post election polling by CNN:

  1. Corruption

  2. Terrorism

  3. Economy

  4. Iraq

  The Republicans lost because they did a poor job running the country, not because of Iraq...although presiding over the worst foreign policy failure in history didn't help.

• December 11, 2006

  4:39 PM

  JW writes:

  "Just because you have been under the spell of liberal educators longer and not out in the real world, does not make you any smarter."

  You dont have to be liberal to want to know, rather than just think. And if by "smarter" you mean more informed, less ignorant, less moved by propoganda, and subsequently better able to make rational decisions... yes, it does.

• December 11, 2006

  4:46 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  "more informed, less ignorant, less moved by propoganda, and subsequently better able to make rational decisions"

  Like the people who believe that the pentagon was hit by a cruise missle and the twin towers were destroyed by a bomb planted by the government. Those highly educated people?

• December 11, 2006

  5:09 PM

  JW writes:

  "Like the people who believe that the pentagon was hit by a cruise missle and the twin towers were destroyed by a bomb planted by the government. Those highly educated people?"

  Are those people highly educated, or are you trying to make a point where there is none to make?

  The unibomber was a PhD as I recall. Timothy McVeigh was..not.

• December 11, 2006

  6:13 PM

  Anon Y. mous writes:

  Most of the Dhimmicrats I know are as stupid as jay and JW here are. Sad and pathetic is being polite to decribe them, like jay and JW.
  Everytime jay and his buddy JW post a reply, the world is a dumber place.

• December 11, 2006

  6:21 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  "Here are the post election rankings of issue by importance according to post election polling by CNN:

  1. Corruption

  2. Terrorism

  3. Economy

  4. Iraq "
  ________________
  Only a Dhimmicrat poll would have #2 and #4 separated. That is exactly what the Dhims do not get. I don't see totals for these but combined, it would probably be #1. Leave it to Commie News Nuts to skew a poll. Color me surprised.

• December 11, 2006

  6:24 PM

  jay writes:

  Actually, the vast majority of the American public don't associate the war on terror and Iraq. Sorry. Your point is not valid.

• December 11, 2006

  6:40 PM

  Anon Y. Mous writes:

  There you go again jay, the world is dumber.
  But I will play. Remember the WMD that you cry foul about incessantly for our reason to go into Irag? That is a tool for terrorism. Don't do the liberal math of 1+1=3, be smart. WMD=terrorism

• December 11, 2006

  6:43 PM

  Omar the Inman writes:

  Dubya made a mistake when he was polite to Muslims and didn't call the 'war on terrorism' the 'war on radical Islam', cause that is what it is.

• December 11, 2006

  6:58 PM

  jay writes:

  Anon...I don't know where you've been...but Iraq had no WMD's, no link to Al Qaeda, no link to 9/11 and nothing to do with the global war on terror in general. That's why the majority of Americans don't associate Iraq with the larger war on terror, think the war has made us less safe and believe that the Iraq war has hurt the war on terror. Pretty simple really....for most folks that don't let blind partisanship cloud their judgement.

• December 11, 2006

  7:20 PM

  Anon Y. Mous writes:

  jay, I always find it funny when you libs cite 'the majority of Americans' when it suits your agenda. And I bet you don't think you're a partisan either.
  Follow along here- when we went into Irag, we believed there were many WMD's, correct? The answer is yes, just trying to help you along. Saddam had lied, cheated and hid everything he could to mislead everyone (google 'Iraq Clinton 1998' and you will see what your buddies believed but now forget. There is Al Queda in Irag now. Follow me here jay, Dubya is one of the good guys, the terrorists in Irag, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi, Iran are the bad guys.

• December 11, 2006

  7:25 PM

  Anon Y. Mous writes:

  jay, just because the MSM ignores reality doesn't mean you should. Put your own BDS aside and look at the big picture, if Irag had gone better even if you didn't want it to, a free Irag would be a stable influence in the middle east and Dubya would be hero. But, you and your ilk, don't want the guy who stole the election in 2000 to be a hero. You want him to crawl away in disgrace like Slick Willy should have.

• December 11, 2006

  8:32 PM

  JW writes:

  "You want him to crawl away in disgrace like Slick Willy should have."

  Slick Willy got a bj, and the Republicans wasted a ton of my tax dollars forcing him to admit it. Yes, the man lied, and thats bad. Repubs spending millions on the proceedings involved is TOTALLY FUCKED. I couldnt care less about the damn thing, EXCEPT FOR THE MONEY.

  
  Bush had my backing. I thought the guy was great. I wasnt sure about an Iraq Al Qaeda connection, but I was ok with going in anyway. He wasnt lying about the WMD. He believed it was there. Tennet believed they were there. Clinton believed they were there.

  The problem with Bush is that hes a god damn idiot. Generals on the ground, who had experience with nation building, told the dumb ass what to do. But his ideology was more important, so he fired them and put a politician in charge, who did exaclty as Bush wanted.

  The quagmire we currently see is the result.

  There is simply no comparison between Bush and Clinton. Clinton was a FAR better president. Not because hes a Democrat and Bush is a Republican. Clinton was a far better president because asside from one stupid mistake that hurt no one but himself and his wife, he was smart and didnt totally screw anything up. Bush is a mental midget with an ideological axe to grind, and cost the nation in so many ways you cant count them all.

• December 11, 2006

  9:19 PM

  jay writes:

  Wrong Anon.

  Not all of us believed the hype about WMD's...including many of our own intelligence experts...as confirmed by the NIE and the Senate Report on the matter. W may have believed it.....but that doesn't make it fact. This administration had credible evidence to contrary but chose to highlight the intelligence they had that bolstered their position. Do a little reading on the matter...I'm not making this stuff up...which is why the majority of Americans believe that the republicans misled the country into war. If you have statistics showing public support for your positions, please feel free to share them.

  In the meantime, remember there was hardly a consensus, even among our own intelligence agencies, as to whether or not Iraq posed an imminent threat. We brought Al Qaeda in force to Iraq...not the other way around.

  No WMD's.

  No link to 9/11.

  No link to Al Qaeda.

  No imminent threat.

  Worse foreign policy decision in modern history...no matter how hard you try to spin it.

• December 11, 2006

  9:29 PM

  Anon y. Mous writes:

  jay and JW, you two need to get a life. Are you two on this 'blog' 24/7 or what.
  Now you throw in the word 'immiment' and add it to the 'threat'. How many UN resolutions did Saddam avoid? How much time did we give him to comply?
  You two bozos use semantics to make yourselves look smart.
  You.
  are.
  not.
  There were WMD's, that's why the UN had inspectors there to verify the dismantling of the programs. Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds. He would have restarted the WMD programs given half a chance.
  I saw on a previous thread that Saddam didn't compare to Japan or Germany in WW2. Did you forget that he invaded Kuwait in '90? oh. yeah. You forgot.

• December 12, 2006

  9:56 AM

  jay writes:

  Well Anon...as much as I know you'd like to believe W...the facts say differently. This is no longer a debate...it is simply your dissent...spawned from your inability to deal with the reality of the situation.

  I know this is a difficult reality to deal with...particularly if you just can't get your mind around the fact that you were fed a bill of goods and you've been wrong about the war since it began. Get used to it. This scenario isn't changing in your favor. If you are in the 21% of the population that still believe W has done a good job in Iraq....I pity you. There's nothing wrong with calling out incompetence and outright deception when you see it....in fact...that is what being a patriot is all about. Don't sit by and blindly eat what you're fed by the government...it makes you a fool.

• December 12, 2006

  11:55 AM

  Anonymous writes:

  Nothing could make Osama more happy than having guilt ridden policitally correct Dems take over Congress.

• December 12, 2006

  12:08 PM

  jay writes:

  The old "terrorists want the Dems to win" talking point isn't valid either. They've had more success and greater expansion under W's policies than ever before. He gave up the search for the people that attacked us on 9/11 and went int to Iraq instead. Bush's agenda has been excellent for the terrorists....they've made us less safe. I imagine the last thing they want to see is leadership in Washington that dictates that we get back to fighting the true threat posed on 9/11 and secure our homeland in the meantime....and stop wasting our time on nation building.

• December 12, 2006

  12:45 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  jay, you are a windbag.

  What is it with you and the word valid? The Islamofascists are thrilled that you and your Dhimmis won. I know you don't understand it, but try. Don't let the facts get in your idealogue way.

• December 12, 2006

  1:09 PM

  Tom writes:

  Jay You Ignorant Slut:

  The greatest accomplishment of the terrorists was to infiltrate our sovereign land and turn several jets into navigable bombs. That plan was organized and put into motion under a Democratic administration.

  Don't think for a moment that they will not again take advantage of the pathological idealology of your party to infiltrate our society once you guys reverse the tough security measures including criminal profiling that has your buds at the ACLU flogging themselves about.

  You are a clueless ideologue.

• December 12, 2006

  1:17 PM

  jay is a JW sockpuppet writes:

  "The old "terrorists want the Dems to win" talking point isn't valid either. "
  It is valid and always will be.
  Today- http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061212/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan_1

  The money quote- " The leader of the Hezb-e-Islami militant group also touted the Republican Party defeat in last month's midterm elections as a victory for militants fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

  "It seems that every bullet that mujahedeen had fired toward the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan has turned into a vote against Bush," Hekmatyar said in the undated video statement received by AP Television News in Pakistan.

  "There is no doubt that is a great victory and success for Afghan and Iraqi mujahedeen," he said. "I am convinced that the fate Soviet Union faced is awaiting America as well."

  And don't say these 'militants' aren't terrorists, that they are freedom fighters. Don't do it, it's too predictably un-american.

• December 12, 2006

  2:41 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  You know why the terrorist like it when dems win. Because the dems will talk and negotiate with them. Its called dipolomacy, something that this adminstration had never tried. Dems use common sense, cons just care about profits and could care less about our troops being killed.
  
  This admin. would rather just have an on going war and use our troops as cannon fodder so their cronies in the defense contract industry can get richer.

  I see Harry is posting as a bunch of different people so to make it appear there are a bunch of neo cons here who are like minded.

  Sorry LOSER your in the minority, one of the 30%'s who still think neo cons are good for this country. Get out of the 50's dude, its 2006.
  

• December 12, 2006

  3:13 PM

  jay writes:

  Your tired talking points are perfect examples of what happens when those wearing ideological blinders miskate the opinions of Rush and Rove for facts. Poor little foot soldiers.

  Here they are in case you've been out of the country for several years:

  We are less safe now than before the war in Iraq began--according to the NIE report put together by our intelligence agencies.

  We are losing the war in Iraq--according to Robert Gates...our new Secretary of Defense.

  According to the National Intelligence Council, Iraq has become what it wasn't before we invaded...a terrorist “training ground” and is breeding a new generation of “professionalized” terrorists.

  We have pulled personnel and resources away from the pursuit of those responsible for 9/11...in other words...we let them go.

  We have yet to find, prosecute and punish the people responsible for 9/11...in other words...they got away with it.

  We still have yet to secure our borders, ports or cargo holds.

  According to statistics released by the Department of State, 2003 saw the highest incidence of terror attacks in over two decades, and then, in 2004, that number tripled. The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism reports that this trend continued in 2005, with attacks up by an additional 51 percent.

  In the four years following 9/11, less nuclear material was secured than in the four years prior to the attacks...that means the WMD's are out there...just not in Iraq.

  On the Bush Administration’s watch, North Korea has withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, kicked out international inspectors monitoring rods containing nuclear material, and quadrupled its nuclear arsenal. Experts estimate North Korea’s stockpile has grown from one to two weapons to at least eight and perhaps as many as 12 weapons. The Administration has been unable to develop a coherent policy toward North Korea. As a result, the North Korean threat has grown and America has been made less secure....ditto with Iran.

  Opium production levels (in Afghanistan) have hit new records and the industry is now the largest single source of funds for global terrorism. So much for tracking Saudi bank transactions, huh?

  Did I mention we are losing the war in Iraq to the tune of 2 Bill a week while the Taliban is in the process of taking back control in Afghanistan?

  Now, knowing what we do about how successful the terrorists have been under Republican rule...why would they want a change in leadership? They should be contributing to the RNC.

  
  

• December 12, 2006

  3:19 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  jay claims:
  Experts estimate North Korea’s stockpile has grown from one to two weapons to at least eight and perhaps as many as 12 weapons.

  Link please, or is this another of your time honored unsubstantiated blanket statements?

• December 12, 2006

  4:12 PM

  jay writes:

  I don't make unsubstantiated blanket statements because I can always back up my statements with FACT...something you should try once in a while.

  From the Washington Post in 2004:

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A47833-2004Apr27¬Found=true

  Highlights:

  The United States is preparing to significantly raise its estimate of the number of nuclear weapons held by North Korea, from "possibly two" to at least eight, according to U.S. officials involved in the preparation of the report.

  Intelligence officials also have broadly concluded that a separate North Korean uranium-enrichment program will be operational by 2007, producing enough material for as many as SIX ADDITIONAL WEAPONS A YEAR, one U.S. official said.

  From Global Security Organization:

  http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke.htm

  Highlights:

  As of February 2005 Defense Intelligence Agency analysts were reported to believe that North Korea may already have produced as many as 12 to 15 nuclear weapons. This would imply that by the end of 2004 North Korea had produced somewhere between four and eight uranium bombs [on top of the seven or eight plutonium bombs already on hand]. The DIA's estimate was at the high end of an intelligence community-wide assessment of North Korea's nuclear arsenal completed in early 2005. The CIA lowballed the estimate at two to three bombs, which would suggest an assessment that the DPRK either had not reprocessed a significant amount of plutonium from the 8,000 spent fuel rods removed from storage in early 2003, or had not fabricated a significant number of weapons from whatever amount of plutonium had been reprocessed. The Department of Energy's analysis put North Korea's stockpile somewhere in between, which would be consistent with the roughly 7 or 8 plutonium bombs that could be produced from all existing plutonium stocks, with no uranium bombs.

  If one assumes that the DPRK produced sufficient plutonium for eight bombs, and expended one of these bombs in a test in Pakistan in 1998, then as of 2005 their plutonium bomb inventory would be seven weapons. Taking the mid-point of the DIA's estimate of between four and eight uranium bombs, the plausible uranium bomb stockpile as of early 2005 would be six weapons, increasing at a rate of one bomb every two months. Thus the early 2005 stockpile would be 13 weapons, growing to about 20 weapons by the end of the year.

  Any questions?

• December 12, 2006

  4:24 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  jay is still unable to come up with anything less that almost two years old. Proof that he still has no clue wtf he's talking about.

• December 12, 2006

  4:35 PM

  jay writes:

  Poor little foot soldier. I really do feel kind of sorry for you. Kind of. I know it's probably tough seeing your ideological standards shot down in print. I'm sure it's not a pleasant experience having your erroneous beliefs systematically shot down on a daily basis. No doubt your frustration has led to the hostility seen regularly on this blog.

  If these estimates are two years old...(the second is less than two years old by the way) and they say that NK had between 8 and 12 nukes THEN...and our NK policy is STILL INEFFECTUAL...what do you think they have now?

  Your logic is as bad as your sources (nonexistent in both cases).

  Lay off the Rush, he is not helping your intellect.