Weekend.

1. KHM 9:29 AM

   I read yesterday (where?) that GWB's approval rating is at 28%, the all-time recorded low. Many historians are already saying his Presidency will stand as the worst ever and his Administration a complete failure.
   
   Surprise?
   
   I do not know how he has avoided impeachment. Really. It still makes so angry I want to curse loudly and frequently. UNbelievable. Completely. I think not even he tries to conceal his arrogance and incompetence these days.

    
2. KHM 9:33 AM

   Oh, by the way--your weekend sounds like perfection! Good for you! Those gigs sound fun, too! What are the odds you'll be playing with her again?
   
   Also, last week you mentioned the Japanese production; do you know what the status of that compilation is? Possible release of The Funky Supervillan abroad?

    
3. Carrie 9:46 AM

   A perfect weekend KHM? I think it was a little short on Milo and Mommy, but the next few days will be more Daddy time.
   
   I think the recent presidential polls show who is still defending Bush. I know it's early and the polls don't hold a lot of water, but McCain and Obama are not far apart. Anyone who votes for McCain is just asking for more of what we have with Bush, and it seems there are a lot of people out there who may vote that way. God help us if they do.

    
4. Don 9:55 AM

   You knew I couldn't pass on this.
   
   "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
   
   "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
   
   "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
   "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
   
   A lie is something you know to be a lie when you tell it. If you believe it to be true, it is not a lie.

    
5. Drew 10:31 AM

   Nor I...
   
   Isn't the approval rating of the Democrat-heavy Congress like 14% (make sure you click and read the "Bottom Line #4)?
   
   Maybe it isn't just the Bush Administration you should continually be upset with, but rather our entire federal government, Republican and Democrat alike?
   
   Has Bush been perfect? Hardly.
   
   Yet, wasn't it Nancy Pelosi who said in early 2006 about the mid-term elections, "With record gas prices, record CEO pay packages, record oil company profits, Speaker Hastert and the majority congress continue to give American people the empty rhetoric rather than join Democrats who are working to lower gas prices now." Gas was at $2.91 then.
   
   If Bush has lied, then so has the Congress (remember Democrat-heavy). If you want to place blame, start spreading it around. There is a large pile of it coming out of their mouths and it isn't just one side.

    
6. KHM 10:39 AM

   oooh--Carrie! I assumed you and Milo were playing along with the boys at volleyball, etc.
   
   
   Definitely. A perfect weekend has loads of wife and kid time!

    
7. Lyman 1:21 PM

   Don, I can interpret those quotes many different ways, none of them are obvious lies made up to further Bush's agenda.
   
   Drew, two wrongs don't make a right. I can talk about Bush's lies and debacles separate of Congress's. When it comes to the war he lied to us and lied to the rest of the gov't. If you don't want to hold him accountable so be it, I feel the leader of the free world needs to be put to task. If you'd like to complain about congress (which has been majority Dem. for only four years) so be it. This post was about Bush.

    
8. Drew 2:20 PM

   I read those quotes one way. They ALL believed that Saddam was a legitimate threat. So Bush was lying to Cohen in 1998?
   
   You are right, two wrongs don't make a right. Two wrongs give us a 28% approval rating for a president and a 14% approval rating for Congress. What I'm saying is that if you want the President to be put to task, then the Congress has to be put to the task as well. I do hold him accountable, but I also hold our Congress accountable. No matter how much people would like to solely blame the "Bush Administration" for all the ills of the world, Congress has a role in it too. It is our Congress that agrees to go to war no matter how much a president may desire it.

    
9. Drew 2:23 PM

   One last thing...
   
   WE are the leaders of the free world and we need to remember that they, our elected officials, work for US. All of them. President and Congress alike. They all need to be put to task.

    
10. KHM 3:02 PM

    Oh, that's rich, Drew. Thanks for the laugh.

     
11. Lyman 3:06 PM

    I'm not disagreeing, and since the War was voted on by Congress the people have spoken and a shift in power has occurred. Thanks for letting me see it in that light, you are correct.
    
    And while we are on the subject of gov't working for the people this also goes to show the discrepancy in approval ratings. The president's rating reflects his job while Congress's reflects hundreds of jobs by different people representing different parts of the country. The subject is much too broad to place blame on Democrats and say "14% approval rating for Congress=14% approval rating for Democrats."
    
    As far as Bush goes I'm sorry but his title is "Commander in Chief", in matters of war most of the responsibility is his. He fed politically motivated lies to the population and the rest of the gov't. You guys don't have to agree with me but you should really check out the writings of both journalists and former White House staffers that do.

     
12. Lyman 3:07 PM

    And Drew, it sounds like you are letting the President off the hook every time you bring up Democrats when he is criticized. This might not be your intent but it certainly appears that way.

     
13. Drew 6:31 PM

    I don't think I did, but I didn't mean to imply that 14% approval rating for Congress = 14% approval rating for Democrats. My point was that if a majority of the people believe that our Republican President isn't doing a good job and an even greater majority believe that our recently Democrat led Congress isn't doing a good job, then who IS doing a good job? One guy doing a bad job, that's easy to point at and say things need to change. Hundreds of people doing an even worse job is far more frightening to me.
    
    So if that is why it seems like I'm defending Bush, then maybe I am to some extent. I find it hard to point my finger at one man and his "administration" for all of our problems when there are hundreds of members of Congress who I find culpable too, as well as the journalists and White House staffers who are coming out now but did nothing then. If their accounts are true, then shame on them too for not making a bigger deal out of it then. I have no problem saying that things have not gone well under his watch, but to place blame entirely on one man in a government as large as ours is not realistic.
    
    Being the "Commander In Chief" gives him final responsibility, but he doesn't do it alone.
    
    Kathy, isn't that what "We the People" means to you?

     
14. KHM 7:07 PM

    Drew---I don't think my representatives in Congress know what I think; they probably know a lot about the District in which I live and the political climate here.
    
    But we all know they don't necessarily always vote their Districts' will; there are deals to be made, political capital to be bought and traded....
    
    Take them to task? Given the population associated with each Representative and Senator, the notion of voting them in or out really doesn't seem like much of an option. Fire them? That would be a neat trick...
    
    The fact is, "We the People" is historical idealism. Our representatives in Congress are so infrequently of the people, for the people that BY the people is just not happening.

     
15. Don 7:11 PM

    Actually it is Congress who authorizes any war, just as they did and it is Congress who funds the war. They stop funding, the war ends simple. The President is only responsible for executing the war.
    
    Lyman, how can you think President Bush lied, without thinking that Congress lied. They were saying the same thing. There are security committee in Congress getting the same intel as the President. Based on that intel, if the President lies, so did those quoted. If I am wrong, please explain how and not by just saying Bush lied. And please, if he lied, give me specific lies.

     
16. Lyman 10:32 PM

    Don, I was with you at first. President had bad intel, fed Congress bad intel; bad decisions were made.
    
    In light of the two latest books on the matter (sorry I don't have names offhand) it was reported that the President did indeed have accurate information but chose to believe what he wanted and therefore lied to everyone about it (specifically WMDs).
    
    I wish I could fail as badly as my job as he did and still have people make excuses for me.

     
17. Don 5:08 AM

    I would have to research further to know absolutely, but I believe that there are Senate intel committees who receive the same intel as the President. It is not filtered by the President, they receive it directly. They then analyze the data for themselves and come to their own conclusions. In the case of the war, they agreed with the President.
    
    If you think I am incorrect, give me a source that indicates that the intel to those committees is filtered.

     
18. Lyman 5:32 AM

    Why don't you give me a source that it isn't? ;)

     
19. Don 6:13 AM

    Please pay special attention to the second sentence in the last paragraph. Unless Senator Bond is also lying, I believe that I am correct when I say that the intel is unfiltered to the Committee.
    
    From the web page of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
    
    http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298783
    
    Thursday, June 5, 2008
    
    WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Kit Bond, Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, today admonished Democrats for playing politics with the final reports on prewar Iraq intelligence to score election-year points.
    
    “It is ironic that the Democrats would knowingly distort and misrepresent the Committee’s findings and the intelligence in an effort to prove that the Administration distorted and mischaracterized the intelligence,” said Bond.
    
    Today, the final sections of the Phase II report on prewar intelligence were released by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Bond pointed out that the partisan report not only violates the Committee’s nonpartisan principles but also rejects the conclusions unanimously reached in previous reports.
    
    In July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Iraq report, adopted by a unanimous vote, makes clear that flawed intelligence – not Administration deception – was the basis for policy maker’s statements and decisions. The report released today completely ignores this key finding.
    
    Bond also called attention to the Democrats’ hypocrisy in excluding any of their own statements in this final report. Democrats in the Senate examined the same intelligence as the Bush Administration, and they too characterized Iraq as a growing and dangerous threat to the United States. Bond pointed to the public record, which is replete with examples of statements by Democrat Senators making the same characterizations regarding Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction and links to terrorism.
    
    Makes the case that the Administration lied to Congress a little more difficult to believe doesn't it, at least if you are interested in the truth and not politics.

     
20. Don 9:11 AM

    Here is overview of the juridiction of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence", again from their web page
    
    Created pursuant to S.Res. 400, 94th Congress: to oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government, and to submit to the Senate appropriate proposals for legislation and report to the Senate concerning such intelligence activities and programs. In carrying out this purpose, the Select Committee on Intelligence shall make every effort to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive and legislative branches to make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation. It is further the purpose of this resolution to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States."
    
    Not only does it read as though Congress receives the same intel ans the President, it almost reads that the committee is actually responsible for the intel getting to the President so that he can "make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation."
    
    I take your lack of response as an indication that you have not been able to find anything to indicate that I am incorrect in my understanding.

     
21. Lyman 10:45 AM

    You can take my lack of response as me spending the morning with my son at the park.
    
    I think the Senator is lying.
    
    And in these times of the Patriot Act I think there is much about the traditional workings of the government that were bypassed.
    
    I'm still going to trust the guys who were there.

     
22. Lyman 10:52 AM

    Here's some reading on the point:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26030573/

     
23. Don 10:55 AM

    So now you are calling two people liars with no evidence against either of them. Did you even read the committee overview. Does it not state that the committee is responsible for providing intelligence information to the other branches of the federal government.
    
    This is your typical, "don't confuse me with facts, my might is already made up". You can deny it all you want, but the fact is the Senate, at least those on the Select Committee on Intelligence, had the same intel as the administration, and the came to the same conclusion.
    
    I hope you had a good time at the park. Enjoy those times before he is grown and gone from your home.

     
24. Lyman 11:30 AM

    I read it. You are ignoring the fact that the Patriot Act allows the Executive Branch to bypass quite a bit in the interest of 'national security'. I'm not going to ignore that fact.
    
    I also refuse to make excuses for George Bush. But you should keep doing it, he doesn't have many supporters left.

     
25. KHM 11:49 AM

    Well,I've given this some thought. Don often asks people for evidence to support their statements. The fact is,this blog, is Lyman's and reflects his opinions as do those that belong to others of us. It doesn't seem to me to be very courteous to ask someone to defend their opinions, their "reports of fact" in their own journal.
    
    Seems to me it gets to a point when pushing for substantiation becomes petulant and combative. Lyman thinks Senators and others have lied. I do, too. Its not our job to prove whether the journalists and insiders publishing books on the matter have done their due diligence... we obviously have our sources that we feel are trustworthy and rely on them in instances like these. Its our opinion and every one of us has the right to express that within limits of courtesy and respect... I think those limits are being pushed.
    
    Of course this is...only my opinion.

     
26. Don 12:13 PM

    So you are a "ditto-head" too, you just get your marching orders from the NY Times.
    
    Lyman insist that I give my sources yet he gets to pull things out of thin air. Hell he even me make me do his researching for him, "Why don't you give me a source that it isn't? ;". I do and because it doesn't support his point, he choices to call the source a liar.
    
    I would gladly have these discussions at my blog but he seems to prefer his where he can shutoff debate when he is losing the argument.

     
27. Lyman 12:14 PM

    Good point Kathy. A while back I posted an editorial about Obama and when I claimed the writer was off-base I was told that editorials don't need to be backed up. Well consider this an editorial.
    
    Plus, I'm not really communicating properly. The Bush Administration provided false intel and back-dated documents to help further their goals (as per the previous link).

     
28. Lyman 12:16 PM

    A losing argument?
    
    You, as you usually do, have ignored my mentioning the Patriot Act two times before. Its easy to claim yourself the 'winner' when you don't address the other side of the argument.

     
29. KHM 12:51 PM

    See, I'd prefer these were "discussions" more than arguments but there's inevitably a feeling of escalation.
    
    And Don, I would imagine Lyman doesn't read your blog because your remarks rarely bring him anything more than consternation. Why would he seek that out?
    
    No, I don't really go out and verify everything I read myself. If I'm going to make a big deal of something, I try to have more than one credible source (that's called reliability, reproducibility and a cornerstone of the research world) First, I don't have that access or those resources. Are you suggesting you only believe those things you've substantiated yourself? Just curious.

     
30. Lyman 1:41 PM

    That's another good point. If you want to find out why I think the way I do, cool. If you want to 'defeat' me or 'win' then what is the point?

     
31. Don 1:41 PM

    Poor choice of words, I should have used discussion rather than argument.
    
    Of course I don't verify everything I read or hear, but when someone points out a credible source for their position, a U.S. Senator on the Select Committee on Intelligence, and a passage from the committee web page backing up what the Senator says, I don't just call the source a liar.
    
    However, in a discussion such as this on a blog, I generally try to verify with another source anything I might state rather than just assume that the original source is correct, even when I am almost certain that I am correct. In the past when we discussed whether our form of government was a Republic or a Democracy, I looked at a couple of places before stating that in fact we are a Republic.
    
    Maybe Lyman should seek out more people who disagree with him rather than avoid places that cause him consternation. I believe we all should challenge what we believe by at least listening to what "the other side" believes. When you disagree, don't take it personal. Just except that you disagree. You might even change your opinion, I have.

     
32. Lyman 8:38 AM

    I don't think you're looking to be challenged, I think you're just looking to tell me how wrong I am and how my beliefs will lead to the "end of personal freedoms" in this country. I don't need to be told that to challenge what I think.
    
    We have fundamental ideological differences, that isn't going to change no matter how much we bicker. Every discussion we have comes back to those differences, I don't see how more arguing is going to help anything.

     
33. Lyman 8:41 AM

    Another thing, internet conversation is probably the least effective way of debating anything. In particular the selective responses and lack of response it fosters. I've told you now three times why I think your Senate Subcommittee passage is invalid with no response. I was told how offensive the joke I reposted was, addressed that in full, and have yet to receive one response.
    
    That just frustrates, it doesn't challenge anything.

     
34. Drew 9:16 AM

    You're right Lyman. We are just different in our ways of thinking and nothing is going to change it. Which is why I have officially given up trying and have been absent through most of the latter part of this because I could see it going the way it did.
    
    However, I think an internet conversation has its benefits. Yes, it has its problems that tone of voice is completely lost, but I don't know how many times during our debates I have said to myself, "that's interesting, I hadn't thought of that, I'm going to check his (or my) source". I couldn't do that face-to-face. It also allows us to step back from the situation and then calmly (hopefully) reply. If we were debating face-to-face, I might have said "are you out of your f-in mind?" or walked away from a conversation because it was getting too heated. Stepping back in an internet conversation allows us to find additional information to support our case that wouldn't be available face-to-face.

     
35. Don 10:28 AM

    "I've told you now three times why I think your Senate Subcommittee passage is invalid with no response." Please point me to those, or state them again, and I will respond.
    
    I have searched all my responses in this post, and I have yet to find one reference to anyone losing any personal freedoms.
    
    "I was told how offensive the joke I reposted was, addressed that in full, and have yet to receive one response.
    
    That just frustrates, it doesn't challenge anything."
    
    I have yet to receive a single response from you on anything I have posted on my blog. I at least engage with you on yours.

     
36. Lyman 7:29 AM

    Don, this is now the fourth time I've brought up the PATRIOT ACT and how I don't think those Senate Subcommittee rules necessarily are followed in these days of the PATRIOT ACT.
    
    When I made a post celebrating Obama's nomination you quickly told me how his presidency will mean the "END OF PERSONAL FREEDOMS". I find this incredibly ironic in the context of this particular argument as you are telling me now that the Commander in Chief isn't even responsible for going to war but when Obama gets in to office he will single-handedly turn our country into a fascist state.
    
    And you might think accusing me of calling somebody a homophobe and racist then not furthering the discussion when that accusation is responded to is "engaging" but its really just combative. Sorry, I'm not going to stop by your blog. I have to deal with enough sarcasm and selective debate on mine.

     
37. Don 5:31 AM

    Sorry I didn't respond earlier but believe it or not, I do have a life other than blogging. :-)
    
    I didn't respond to your Patriot Act comment because it is asinine. You can be for or against the Patriot Act, but to say that due to the Patriot Act, Senate committee rules are not followed, especially without any evidence, is as a said, asinine. In all the valid criticisms or discussions I have heard on the Patriot Act, I have never heard one hint of it involving anything to do with Congress. You can't just make things up in a debate. You are losing a debate and you just throw, "Yeah, well what about the Patriot Act". Where did that come from?
    
    No one has accused you of calling anyone a racist or a homophobe, the joke did whoever. And what does that have to do with this discussion?

     

Post a Comment