Setting the Record Straight

-

I’ve learned that a writer who calls him or herself “Influence Peddler” is using my post here as a jumping off point for his/her argument that Democrats will suffer in the 2008 elections because of Iraq. Neither the argument, posted at The Weekly Standard, or his/her characterization of me or this blog passes the smell test. Needless to say, I’m not happy about it.
Here’s how s/he starts:

The writers at The Washington Note lean decidedly Democratic. Today, Scott Paul of Citizens for Global Solutions warns that maybe–just maybe–in their zeal to bug out of Iraq ASAP, the Democrats are coming off as isolationist and patronizing:

First, the opinions I share here are my own – I am not representing Citizens for Global Solutions in this forum. Second, my organization is nonpartisan, and, as I’ve said, I’m committed to giving props and criticism to both parties from my perch here at TWN. I want the U.S. to have a smarter, more multilateral and engaged foreign policy, and I’ll be pushing both parties to get us there.
The title of The Weekly Standard post gets it right: I am issuing a friendly warning to Democrats. However, its content conveniently ignores my characterization of Republicans and then goes off in its own direction, which has nothing to do with my post.
Influence Peddler writes:

Mr. Paul is far kinder than I would be. I have argued (over here), that in turning the Iraq conflict into a replay of Vietnam, Democrats are setting themselves up for post-Vietnam syndrome. After Vietnam, the voters were unwilling to trust Democrats on national security until the end of the Cold War. The only time they won the White House in that era was a quickly-corrected fluke.
In 2008, the Democratic nominee for president will find that voters do not trust him (or her) on national security issues.

In their race to end the war and further discredit a president who will never again run for office, Democrats are damaging their own future electoral prospects.

That’s not only unrelated to my post, it’s dead wrong. Democrats owe much of their margin of victory in 2006 to their superiority on national security issues. It’s no accident that this ascent has coincided with the Democrats’ decision to more clearly and strongly articulate their alternative vision, instead of posturing to sound tough or trying to convince voters that they are as inclined to use the military and military threats as their opponents. They are winning because they aren’t being shy about discussing their own ideas for keeping the nation and the world safer and more prosperous.
The Weekly Standard writers are drawing conclusions that most political observers would scoff at. In 2008, the Democratic candidate – no matter who – will enter with a clear advantage on foreign policy. And standing up to Bush on Iraq is clearly enhancing – not damaging – the Democrats’ electoral advantage.
The takeaway from my piece should be simply that the few Democrats who have here and there given in to casual or opportunistic use of isolationist rhetoric need to stop. How that could be interpreted as slamming Democrats or commenting on their electoral chances is beyond me.
–Scott Paul

Comments

43 comments on “Setting the Record Straight

  1. Pissed Off American says:

    “Hmmm. That’s why I said Saul Alinky’s GROUP.”
    Yeah, well, what “group” would that be, MP? The church Obama worked for in Chicago? They weren’t connected to Alinsky. What “group” are you referring to?

    Reply

  2. yahaddasayit says:

    MP,
    Your response now, finally, settles on “bad judgement” and “willfully bad”. Now I’ve already covered the “willfully bad”, so you want me to allow “bad judgement” for getting the Iraq War question “wrong”? Let’s say someone kills you for no good reason. Are you granting me permission to offer “bad judgement” as an excuse? I gave you a link which showed all that information available to not kill the innocent. That information was available to everyone by using just a little effort. If they didn’t seek it out and still promoted the war they were “willfully bad”. If they did seek out information and still reached a warring conclusion, they were either “stupid”-or “willfully bad”.
    Bad judgement? You don’t ask much of life, I guess.

    Reply

  3. MP says:

    POA writes: “Really? Care to shoot us some links that describes how he has converted that alleged “commitment” into positive governmental policy? Or are we just supposed to take your word for it?”
    As far as I know, his legislative record is pretty slim. That’s a count against him, I agree. I would prefer he had more experience. None of them, except Biden, Dodd, and Richardson especially, have a lot of experience. Richardson, per his experience, is probably the most qualified for the job.

    Reply

  4. MP says:

    Sorry for the typo. Here it is better…
    Yahada writes: “I don’t know if this will help you personally, but here’s a link from GG providing evidence of why people(I’m being soft now) shouldn’t have been just “wrong” about the Iraq war.”
    My principal point about Dowd was that I was happy he had had a change of heart. The more defectors, the better. However, I didn’t put him up on a pedestal, nor did I say that his bad judgement should be forgotten or even forgiven. In fact, it should be remembered, and he should be judged on it should he ever circle around again into the public square. I think I was pretty clear on that–if not, then here it is. The only people I demonize are the ones whom I feel are willfully bad.

    Reply

  5. MP says:

    Yahada writes: “I don’t know if this will help you personally, but here’s a link from GG providing evidence of why people(I’m being soft now) shouldn’t have been just “wrong” about the Iraq war.”
    My principal point about Dowd was that I was agreed he had had a change of heart. The more defectors, the better. However, I didn’t put him up on a pedestal, nor did I say that his bad judgement should be forgotten or even forgiven. In fact, it should be remembered, and he should be judged on it should he ever circle around again into the public square. I think I was pretty clear on that–if not, then here it is. The only people I demonize are the ones whom I feel are willfully bad.

    Reply

  6. MP says:

    POA writes: By the way, MP. Saul Alinsky died in 1972. Obama is currently 45 years old. Would you care to enlighten us as to what Obama was doing for Alinsky at the ripe old age of 10 years?”
    Hmmm. That’s why I said Saul Alinky’s GROUP. Always helps to read. As to the AIPAC innuendo…you’d be wrong about that. The WaPo had a reasonably long profile on him and his community activism.

    Reply

  7. yahaddasayit says:

    P O’d,
    From what I remember, so far Obama at least raised some eyebrows in the AIPAC crowd. Sometimes you have to give a little to…..
    -Neville
    9/15/38

    Reply

  8. yahaddasayit says:

    Off Topic,
    MP,
    I don’t know if this will help you personally, but here’s a link from GG providing evidence of why people(I’m being soft now) shouldn’t have been just “wrong” about the Iraq war.
    http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3062

    Reply

  9. Pissed Off American says:

    “No platitudes here. Read his biographical material. He was a community organizer for Saul Alinksy’s group.”
    By the way, MP. Saul Alinsky died in 1972. Obama is currently 45 years old. Would you care to enlighten us as to what Obama was doing for Alinsky at the ripe old age of 10 years?
    Something tells me you are far more enraptured by Obama’s fawning subservience to AIPAC and Israel than you are to any alleged community activism he may have been involved in.

    Reply

  10. Pissed Off American says:

    “Obama: A long-standing commitment to, and involvement with, social justice. Not a bad start.”
    Posted by MP
    Really? Care to shoot us some links that describes how he has converted that alleged “commitment” into positive governmental policy? Or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

    Reply

  11. yahaddasayit says:

    Carroll,
    I was thinking perhaps South Korea?

    Reply

  12. Carroll says:

    Regarding becoming an isolationist nation.
    Like I said I am for a certain brand of isolationism. As in.. no one elected our congress or president to run the universe for the benefit of the elites and fascist. They were elected to run the US for the benefit of the US citizens. There is such a thing as getting too big for your britches..and we have gotten way beyond that.
    As for the world not wanting America to drop out?
    Someone point out to me one place that we have inteferred with that has changed a country for the good, freed people, made them independent and prosperous or brought any lasting peaceful goverment.
    Just one.
    We haven’t done jack sh*t that turned out worth a sh*t for any one since the Mashall Plan 60 years ago.
    THAT was the last time America was American.

    Reply

  13. MP says:

    … writes: “…i think most people around the globe would prefer if the usa didn’t try to solve others problems.. they have a really bad success rate at present and as an example – iraqi citizens surely didn’t ask for this kind of help.”
    All true. But give it time. The world never wants the US to remain isolationist for very long. The US is, I believe, being eclipsed by other nations, but we haven’t been yet.

    Reply

  14. MP says:

    … writes: “…instead of the platitudes that mp quotes…” No platitudes here. Read his biographical material. He was a community organizer for Saul Alinksy’s group. Moved away from corporate law to help poor people. Not the longest bio, but it certainly shows his values and his commitments.

    Reply

  15. ... says:

    mp quote >>The only problem is that the rest of the world expects us to help solve their problems (because, in their view, we helped create them). <, the usa is the problem… i think most people around the globe would prefer if the usa didn’t try to solve others problems.. they have a really bad success rate at present and as an example – iraqi citizens surely didn’t ask for this kind of help.

    Reply

  16. ... says:

    poa- you raise an excellent question regarding obama… instead of the platitudes that mp quotes, what exactly has the guy done and who is backing him? the media made him a candidate.. why him and not someone else?

    Reply

  17. MP says:

    Carroll writes: “And most people I know are leaning toward isolation, (sorry Scott) because we have got to put the lid on these flaming selfserving political whores screwing the US around the world any further.”
    True. The only problem is that the rest of the world expects us to help solve their problems (because, in their view, we helped create them). So, as soon as we retreat, we’re accused of supporting the often corrupt status quo.

    Reply

  18. MP says:

    Obama: A long-standing commitment to, and involvement with, social justice. Not a bad start.

    Reply

  19. Carroll says:

    And here’s a little something for ya.
    New York-based Public Agenda and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), found that nearly six in 10 respondents doubt the government is being honest with them about foreign policy – a 10-point increase from just six months ago.
    The latest edition of the CFPI, which is published by CFR’s Foreign Affairs magazine, queried 1,013 randomly selected adults who were broadly representative of the national population in terms of such variables as age, region, political affiliation, education, income, race, and religion.
    “In dealing with Iran, in particular, 44 percent of respondents said they preferred diplomacy to establish better relations, while 28 percent opted for using economic sanctions. A mere 13 percent said Washington should either threaten (eight percent) or actually take (five percent) military actions against Tehran, while 11 percent said they thought there was no need to do anything.
    “Military options are off the table,” said ret. Adm. Bobby Inman, a former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), who serves on Public Agenda’s board of directors. “It’s pretty striking (and) probably a reflection of overall dissatisfaction that the military option was the prime option in Iraq.”
    “On a scale of 0 to 200, where 0 connotes complete confidence and 200 panic, the findings six months ago fixed the indicator at 130. At that time, Yankelovich had said that public dissatisfaction with Bush’s performance in Iraq had reached a “tipping point” that signaled major political consequences. Indeed, in November’s mid-term elections just a few weeks later, Democrats ousted Republicans from power in both houses of Congress.
    According to the latest survey, however, the indicator has risen to 137. The increase reflected primarily the sharp rise in the number of respondents who said foreign policy is on the “wrong track” and more modest increases in those who rated Washington’s contribution to a more peaceful and prosperous world either “fair” or “poor” (73 percent) and who described the world as becoming “more dangerous” (82 percent).
    Third, the public believes that the U.S. must do more to restore “its reputation and credibility with the rest of the world”, Yankelovich said, adding that 91 percent of respondents said the image of the U.S. is critical to its national security.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    I am always lerry of polls, but living in a traditional republican state but being basically a
    liberal type this jives with everything I hear from everyone I know, both dems and repubs. Everyone is disgusted with Washington. Really disgusted.
    And most people I know are leaning toward isolation, (sorry Scott) because we have got to put the lid on these flaming selfserving political whores screwing the US around the world any further.

    Reply

  20. yahaddasayit says:

    P O’d,
    The media builds up and exploits competition/conflict to sell their product. Not much either you or they themselves can/will do to change that.
    Maybe he’s “owned” by RJR. I have read that he smokes. Think of how much money they’ll make if he makes it to 1600 and THAT gets out! One picture will be worth…?

    Reply

  21. Carroll says:

    Truth:
    The dems won in 2006 by default. People voted for one thing..CHANGE…period. They ASSUMED the dems would get us out of Iraq and prevent an Iran attack.
    Here’s another TRUTH:
    90% of both parties can’t think straight and can’t get anything done for this country because they all have too many “side bets”..campaign money, getting relected, loyalty to Israel/AIPAC, you name it, they have “other considerations” in every decision they make for the US….
    Anyone who thinks that low 17% approval rating of congress doesn’t apply to both parties is seriously in partisan denial.

    Reply

  22. yahaddasayit says:

    serial catowner,
    You have a rather strange involvement with rationalization.
    Next thing you’ll be doing is sitting at the Lincoln Memorial smoking a peace pipe with Sitting Bull’s great great grandniece recalling how times haven’t really been so bad.

    Reply

  23. Pissed Off American says:

    Speaking about Obama, can anyone tell me just what the hell this guy has done that qualifies him for the presidency?
    To tell you the truth, he scares the shit out of me. He is obviously owned by someone or something that has tremendous clout with the media, because such media marketing of a complete unknown is remarkable.
    The real amazing part, to me, is that this guy is being marketed sans any references to actual qualifications. We are simply being told he is popular, and apparently thats all it takes to hoodwink a huge bloc of Americans.
    Who owns this guy?

    Reply

  24. Darryl Mason says:

    Your blog is becoming extremely influential in Washington, and in the newsrooms of America’s media. And for good reason. It is excellent, well-written, clear, precise and usually right on the money.
    Which is why, of course, you must now be portrayed by the mindgamers as sewing the seeds of a Dem defeat in 2008, with Iraq as the fatal bullet in the chamber.
    It doesn’t work at all anymore for the Weekly Standard (the Repulicons Pravda) to hammer the Dems by way of what Republican senators or commentators have to say anymore.
    They have to try and demolish the Dems by using Democratic/progressive voices of influence to sew the seeds of doubt and distrust.
    No doubt your influence and words will be used this way repeatedly between now and November 2008.
    Just take heart in the fact that virtually no-one outside of K Street gives two buckets of warm crap what the Weekly Standard thinks anymore. If they ever did.

    Reply

  25. Robert M. says:

    Oh, Scott,
    the Democrats will win the Presidency (& retain the Congress) by presenting a likeable, upbeat candidate who talks about all of us and how good we are, etc., and who is NOT tied to the still ongoing-Iraqi mess. All he/she has to say is “We’re going back to true American values in our foreign relations, including support of the Geneva Conventions” etc. In the context of the Bush-Cheney disaster, any Republican who tries to defend more than essentially an Eisenhower Internationalism, and so can be labled an Adventurous Neo-Con Who Will Get More of Your Sons & Daughters Killed, will lose on that issue. Period.
    No more “compelling foreign policy” is needed than “Your Kids Will Live.”
    Now, can Obama, Edward, Hilary articulate one? Sure, buts its going to start from “Back to the Future” positions and will only go so far as is needed to establish said candidate as Non-Bush & Non-Republican, which in this campaign, as Mitch McConnel fears so much, will be viewed by 55% of the voters as Bush=Republicans.
    Take the blinders off your professional orientation. Please.

    Reply

  26. Renee says:

    The Democrats indeed should not cower in fear in standing-up against the neo-con Bushies.
    The Mad King George has yet again stuck-his-finger-in-the-eye of the American people. When the despicable Bush could not get his corrupt nominee Swift-Boat pimp Sam Fox through the Senate for confirmation to be Ambassador to Belgium– this traitorous Bush abused a provision allowing him to use recess appointments (devised for emergencies) to push-through this crook-n-liar.
    Ergo, just as Bush had put John “Kiss-Up, Kick-Down” Bolton in place, despite the fact that he could not be confirmed by Congress– now, Bush is doing the same thing vis-a-vis Sam “Swift-Boat Pimp” Fox.
    Bush should be impeached and put on trial for treason… Bush is a loser- a liar- a traitor- and, a swaggering pig!

    Reply

  27. Scott Paul says:

    J –
    Point well taken. Democrats didn’t exactly win the 2006 elections on national security, but that’s almost certainly the basis on which Republicans lost it. Democrats will have to articulate a broad and compelling foreign policy if they want to remain in the majority in Congress or win the Presidency.

    Reply

  28. serial catowner says:

    It’s important to remember that the bad stuff in Vietnam was a result of our being there, not of our leaving.
    When we left, the dominos did not fall. Vietnam did not become a slave state to the Russians or Chinese. Vietnam did not become a communist state.
    Vietnam did, and does, have problems, resulting from the war in which two million Vietnamese died, in which we dumped munitions and poison on the land to kill Vietnamese of future generations, in which we blew up pretty much everything of value in the country, and destroyed their economy by destroying the agriculture, importing hundreds of thousands of cash-rich GIs, and building huge “P-X” warehouses that in reality served a black market.
    The next time you hear that “Defeat in Vietnam” line, remind them that no dominos fell, no communist slavery resulted.

    Reply

  29. J. says:

    “Democrats owe much of their margin of victory in 2006 to their superiority on national security issues.”
    As much as I’d like to believe that, I can’t see how you support that statement. What the Dems put out as “national security” in 2005-2006 was a mismash of vague and conflicting statements all trying to develop a platform of “we’re different.” I was unimpressed by any of the posturing. The Dems won in 2006 (and I voted Dem) because the Repubs dropped the ball so horrendously. It was the Repubs lack of results based on the White House “strategery” that won the election, as opposed to any more eloquent Dem version.
    Not saying that the Dems can’t do broad national strategy, but certainly they need to do a better job articulating one than they have to date.

    Reply

  30. JR says:

    On the integrity of the journalism going on over here.
    “Non-Partisan” means next to nothing in this town; everyone from the Brookings Institution to AIPAC calls themselves non-partisan. So let’s please avoid that defense.
    Second, anonymous writings represent the lowest form of scholarship, critique, or journalism.

    Reply

  31. JohnH says:

    Yes, the GOP shills are sweating bullets. Pelosi carried an Israeli message to the Syrians to defuse tensions, because Condi Rice and the State Department wouldn’t or couldn’t do it! Talk about dysfunctional.
    The Brits held hostage by the Iranians got released today AFTER NEGOTIATIONS!!! If the State Department had gotten involved, the
    Brits would have been held until January, 2009. In other words, the Iranians proved that you can negotiate with them. The message is that they are more reasonable than the Bush administration, which has refused to negotiate over and over again.
    The whole Middle East knows that the Bush administration is a one trick pony that only understands military force. And the countries there are filling the vacuum by involving others who have the skills and interest in moving things forward through diplomacy.

    Reply

  32. km4 says:

    Four Things Bush Doesn’t Want You To Know About Pelosi’s Syria Visit
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/4/122921/8438

    Reply

  33. km4 says:

    The GOP shills are sweating bullets.
    Case in Point: Pelosi so effective in Syria.
    Implications: Condi Rice & State dept worthless
    1. There’s no one in highest levels of Bush Admin that leaders in other countries want to deal with because they know Bushites are shills and/or incompetent
    2. They know Bush is Dan Quayle in cowboy boots
    according to Victor Gold, a decades long GOP insider in new book “Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Holy-Rollers and the Neo-Cons Destroyed the GOP.”
    “For all the Rove-built facade of his being a ‘strong’ chief executive, George W. Bush is the weakest, most out of touch president in modern times”
    3. They know Cheney really runs policy which is war war war and the world is sick of this psychopath.

    Reply

  34. Pissed Off American says:

    Gosh, the Weekly standard is spinning someone’s commentary to fit the right’s agenda? Who woulda thought it, eh?
    But hey, we see that here too. Case in point? Steve’s recent depiction of Hagel as “pro-impeachment”.
    Bottom line, twisting and spinning seems to be how its done these days. If Scott Paul is naive enough to be suprised by the Weekly Standard’s tactics, then he is undoubtedly in the wrong game. They’ll eat ‘im for dinner.

    Reply

  35. Den Valdron says:

    “The only time they won the White House up to the end of the Cold War was a quickly corrected fluke.”
    Jesus H. Christ, someone’s spending too much time on the crack pipe.
    Let’s recap: The only reason Carter didn’t kick Reagan’s ass was the Iran Hostage Crisis. Go back and read the polls from that era. Figure out what the results would have been without the hostage crisis. Reagan’s election was a fluke.
    Or maybe not such a fluke, if you believe the evidence and statements of prominent Iranians that Khomeini had a deal with the Republican party and that the subsequent Iran Contra dealings were payback.
    Reagan himself was never quite as popular and beloved as his sycophants would have. In fact, his poll numbers tended to lurch behind those of Clinton during appropriate parts of each others reign.
    As for the next two elections, we had the Democrats putting up Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. Nuff said!
    Fluke my shiny metal ass.

    Reply

  36. JohnH says:

    As I said before, there is absolutely no way that the industrialized world is going to stop trying to meddle in the affairs of the area that produces the energy that powers our civilization. So the “save them from themselves” argument suggesting that we should leave Iraq to its own devices makes Hillary sound as disingenuous or as stupid as a neo-con (your pick). It might have been better to criticize Democrats’ grasp of reality, rather than isolationist tendencies, as a prelude to your real message.
    The point of your post–that we should help them help themselves–is spot on. Given that we’ve been “helping” them for the better part of a century now, the industrialized world’s problem is 1st) to admit to itself that warmongering and domination is not the solution and, 2nd) making an offer of genuine help credible.

    Reply

  37. Marcia says:

    Scott Paul:
    I understand that you are not “worried,” but please do not let yourself get Swiftboated. It is their speciality.

    Reply

  38. Robert M. says:

    Scott,
    Not representing your org here? but you ARE, to these Spin Fascists. Your opinions/words here are only tools to be twisted for their own ends, as is your org associations, which is to “create their own reality”, the new themes & memes for consumption by the Base. The McRovists have learned well at the feet of their master–Goebbels. Start with untruths so you can build the Big Lie.
    And your position that “I am committed to giving props and criticism to both parties from my perch here at TWN…” Why, that’s Fairness! Of what import is it to them when creating Winning Reality is the Only Goal through Whatever Means at the very least? These are the same people who trashed habeas corpus!
    “I want the U.S. to have a smarter, more multilateral and engaged foreign policy” misses the point of the McRovists. Its not about Wonkiness, its about Winning Domestically. For you to have reality based wonkiness as the basis of American foreign AND domestic, you are going to have to chose sides. These brownshirts are giving you no choice. They have Conservepedia now to reinforce their own reality.
    To even THINK of “issuing a friendly warning to Democrats”, is to play into their hands by providing a so-called moderate cover as the SOURCE for the LIES that they intend to spread anyway. Why would you want to give them that kind of cover? By doing so, you are abetting the spread of those lies.
    And to end with “How that could be interpreted as slamming Democrats or commenting on their electoral chances is beyond me”, is just naive, naive, naive. Really–Tallyrand would have expected better from someone operating at your level. Its not about what you really meant. Its about how your words, as phrased, could be used for Other Means. Take three steps back and apply some historical background to this. The last few years of the Weimar Republic come to mind.
    Or if you are still confused and conflicted, may I recommend Screwtape’s memos to his nephew Wormwood, not for their religious content but rather for their strategic & tactical propaganda lessons–how to corrupt with words another’s beliefs and so their very own self.
    Rove and his Minyons must be opposed every step of the way because their True Believer posture can be used to cover a lot of LYING. A good BYU Mormon lying side-ways with over 100 “I don’t knows”. The lying, the spin, the subversive effort to create authoritarian one-party statism is STILL going on. Its going to take quite an effort & time to drive the stake through that Constitution-sucking vampire’s heart.
    For you, Scott, to advocate a true Fair & Balanced approach just plays into their hands. Draw the line in the sand as the rest of us are doing as its going to be a generation before there’s any true Republican party to talk to (if it survives). No more even pseudo-anti-Democrat words or phrases. Its just what the cadres composed of younger Kyle Sampsons and Monica Goodling want you to do. Its what Karl Rove is planning on using because he knows you’ll cough up “balanced phrases”. Open your eyes & ears and STOP GIVING THEM COVER.

    Reply

  39. bubba says:

    “lean decidedly Democratic?” Funny. I really enjoy the site that Steve has built here, and I have been reading it since very near its inception. However, ‘leaning decidedly Democratic’ would be one of the last descriptions that would come to my mind when describing this site.

    Reply

  40. Scott Paul says:

    Thanks. I’m not worried. It’s a useful opportunity for me to make some clarifications anyway – in particular that I’m not representing my org. here.

    Reply

  41. Carroll says:

    I wouldn’t worry about it Scott…it is a well known and typical ploy in the blogsphere to twist someone else’s opinion to bolester their own case.

    Reply

  42. Marcia says:

    This is the myth the “McRovists” zealots wish to instill in the mind of the public for the 2008 election cycle. It is appearing more and more frequently just as they repeat that the polls show a majority of Americans want to continue the occupation of Iraq.
    There is also a huge difference between the Vietnam era and the present. The economy that works very well for a tiny few at the top, gobalisation and outsourcing jobs, all the results of a planned Republican policy, the loss of civil rights and the build-up of a mercenary army. This is not like Vietnam. It is not like anything we have ever had.
    There is the well known band of underhanded brothers, Drudge, The Weekly Standard, Fox News, and their radio and TV loudmouths, Limbaugh and O’Reilly whose strategy is attack.
    Iraq was an invasion of choice, a Bush/Cheney choice, this is their killing field. They totally controlled Congress…They discredited themselves. They are the undertakers.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *