Annika,

You believe that tragedies are prevented by Bush's vigilance and attention to the details of the national security program? You know I live in Brooklyn and right outside my window there is a large stone and cable edifice I could offer you if Blu's offer is not accepted.

If W were to leave government tomorrow and not tell anybody and President Logan took over with a different makeup job, nobody would notice. He contributes nothing except bad diction, poorly rehearsed hand and arm motions, sophomoric intensification of his speech to make it sound more earnest, and a weak intellectual grasp of the issues that preempt his ability to talk off the cuff about anything. Remember the blubbering nonsense he kept spewing when he tried to explain the need for changes to Social Security?

Or how about last week when he hoped nobody would notice when he harped on the word "ordered"? Declaring that although Chaney repeatedly said their was indisputable evidence connecting Saddam to 911, he never used the phrase "Saddam ordered 911", as a defense against the charge of deception? Who do these people think they are talking to? the kindergarteners that had to sit while the dumfounded and irrelevant President sat contemplating how irrelevant he was to the leadership of the nation even as it was attacked.

He is still irrelevant and if the committees start REAL investigations after the leadership changes, the nation will be the richer for it and hardly less safe.

Well, you don't like Bush. But my point is, I didn't like Clinton. I think the lesson of the Lewinsky scandal is, a president who is fighting impeachment is a distracted president. Now, before my Republican friends go all nuts, yes, I know Clinton's judgment on matters of National Security was flawed, even when he wasn't distracted (c.f. Jamie Gorelick?! et al.). But the man might have been able to see the light if he wasn't continually fighting for his life over shit that FDR and JFK etc. did with impunity.

Annika,

Yes, we have discussed the damage the impeachment proceedings had on Clinton’s presidency and I agree. I also think that Clinton had the ability to engage in and lead the process of government whereas, regardless of whether I like W or not (he might be a good drinking buddy or so I'm told) I firmly and objectively believe W is not part of the process. I look in his eyes, I listen to the childish complexity and vocabulary of his speech, his religious faith (more childish mythology) his wisecracking good old boy frat house demeanor in his unguarded moments, his professed anti-intellectualism, and I come away convinced his presidential qualities extend no further than his suit and haircut and that America is ruled by fear.

"I also think that Clinton had the ability to engage in and lead the process of government whereas, regardless of whether I like W or not (he might be a good drinking buddy or so I'm told) I firmly and objectively believe W is not part of the process."

Oh yeah, Clinton was a fucking genius. Why? Because he was a good public speaker. Clinton was a disaster of a President. He crippled our military and was responsible for 9/11 and for ignoring the Islamo-fascist threat. Now, Ronald Reagan was also a great public speaker. In fact, Reagan was much, much better than The Pervert. But, I'm betting you don't think Reagan was a genius, right Straw? In fact, if Al Gore had invented the internet in the 80's instead of the 90's and this sort of forum existed, you'd be writing about how stupid Reagan was and about how communism wasn't really a threat, and how Reagan was a puppet, and how our actions were actually making things worse in the world, and how America was the problem not the communist butchers. See the pattern, Straw? You are always wrong about important issues. Bush isn't dumb. Not even close to being dumb. Like Reagan he sees and understands the bigger picture; and unlike Clinton, Kerry, Carter (name your favorite left-wing idiot), he understands the difference between right and wrong. The job of the President is to set policy at a very high level - to provide a vision. From what I hear, Clinton and Carter loved to discuss policy at a detailed level. Well, so what? They are two of the worst Presidents we have ever had. While Reagan defeated Communism and Bush will be know in history for being the first to recognize the threat of militant Islam, Clinton will be know as the guy who banged 20-year olds in the White House and Carter will be known as a very inept old man, who liked to build houses.

You just don't like his vision as you are more comfortable with the world view of Chairman Mao, and Castro [insert your favorite commie dictator/murderer].

Blu,

You sure got religion, Blu, no doubt about it. You just don't have an accurate view of history or the tip of your nose.

I don't wih to engage you in the historical bullshit about geniuses and dolts, best or wort presidents, or if Al invented the internet or Ronnie Raygun defeated communism. All water under the bridge (one that may be yours someday).

Fact is you Bush is by all outward appearances an idiot and you, here's the religious part, have faith, (not supported by fact) that he is a bright fella with a strong moral grip and focus on what is right and wrong and not an emotionally crippled alcholic, brow beaten by an unaffectionate overbearing father compounded by being the fuck up in a family of achievers, propped up by an over zealous religious faith, who's shirking and shady past and present are non issues.

You want to do everything but talk about the man and the product of his policies. You want only to place him in the context of those whose self serving portraits you paint then react to. You sound just like the Germans defending Hitler in the early 30's for his vision and strength. His prescience in knowing what caused the hadships in Grmany and who the current threats were. You've swallowed the bullshit from the Goebbles' of this day. (911 on ABC accompied by teachers kit explaining Clinton was the inadvertant architect of 911 and leaving out the "...determined to attack/vacation memo and that Iraq had no part what so ever in 911)

What's the point in talking? You've got your Fuhrer, you have been told what to think, you are happy, now watch your (our) empire crumble as this cabal continues to disrupt the balance of world politics adversely. They are like a man in a hornets nest that thinks flailing will scare the hornets into retreat and future respect.

Your premise is fucked. The Clintonistas were/are/and always have been hopelessly self-serving, thus incapable of acting in the interest of the nation.

Dubyah has demonstrated strength of character through sacrifice, and the strength to be unswayed by the wailing and gnashing of teeth, of the chattering classes.

Before he's done, he's going to hang those cocksuckers down in Gitmo. After a fair trial of course.

Casca,

Explain whose sacrifice? His? I don't see his daughters in fatigues. Yours? Mine?

Unlike your communist paradises, we have a volunteer army, Straw. So, whether his daughters wear fatigues is really not terribly germane, now is it?

As for your previous post, I like your very original Bush = Hitler comparison. You come up with that on our own, or did your steal it from Koz et al? The comparison demonstrates both a lack of a moral compass (but then again you are a communist sympathizer so that's expected) and astounding historical ignornace. A mind is terrible thing to waste, Straw. Try college.

"The Clintonistas were/are/and always have been hopelessly self-serving, thus incapable of acting in the interest of the nation."

And that doesn't describe virtually every politician (including those of the Bush ilk)...? Come on, politics hasn't remotely been about statesmanship since probably the mid-nineteenth century (with rarer and rarer exceptions). At this point in the game it's just holding our breath and praying that whatever party-line clone is in power, doesn't step on the wrong land mine (literal or otherwise) and blow the whole country to bits. Really, can you justify putting trust into even one modern politician, and, if so, how? If all you have to go on is the person's *earnest assurance* that he/she cares about you, the citizen... well, the world sure must look pretty all decked out in rose like that.

It's not 911. It's a date not a telephone number. At least get that much correct in your inane ramblings, strawman.

CCS178,

Thanks, I didn't know. I knew it had something to do with some sort of emergency and I just guessed 911. So it's what? 9-11 or 9/11 or 9\11. Please Chris just put up a finger 1,2 or 3.

Blu Boy,

I do think its germain. If this conflict is the "most important" of the 21 century and (I have this on good authority) anybody fit and able can join the fray, why aren't the able bodied daughters wearing fatigues? If my dad had told me about the incredible threat to the world , my way of life and the security of my nation Nazism presented and i was of age, you bet I'd join up, just as he did in '42

The Nazi=Bush only nearly as stupid as BinLaden=Hitler speach the dim wit gave earlier in the week.

I suppose Blu, you haven't noticed how the bullshit has been ramping up as the elections near. Fear, fear, and more fear to keep the sheep in their corral.

Give it up guys you can't actually have a debate with a left wing dipshit like Straw. You see, no matter what you say he already thinks your stupid, brainwashed, and living in fear.

His insistence that Bush is stupid is just part of his whole life. You see, it makes him feel so much better about himself to be so smart and cool and with it, and we poor plebes just don't get it.

It is comforting for him, except that the idiot Bush has this uncomfortable way of always handing his left wing buddies their ass, Just like that other dunce Reagan used to do.

His is that make believe world where socialism is great, it just has never been tried correctly.
Wars can all be avoided if you only have smart liberals in charge. All people who have any sort of spirituality are the enemy, probably because they trust in something other than omnipotent government. And one day they will be so few of them left, He and his buddies can just round them up and put them into re-education camps.

I'll bet he thinks that Mother Jones and The Nation are the epitome of high-brow reading. He probably thinks that Paul Krugman is the greatest living economist. And He never misses Jon Stewart, or Bill Mahr, (Oh! aren't those guys funny!)

I have known many jackasses like him, all puffed up with their own intellect, but in reality they are all a bit unsure of themselves, that is why they prefer big government over the rough and tumble of the free market.

Good job twisting my words, and meaning LF... or is that an example of your ability to reason?

Kyle,

FWIW, I have owned and operated a business in the "free Market" for over 30 years. Tell me what you know from your experiences in the "free market?

casca... not sure how I'm "twisting" your words... you didn't mean to imply the Clintons are untrustworthy/money-grubbing politicos? If not, my apologies.

Of course I did, that's the half you got right. However if you see no difference between these two administrations, you're either a fool, or intentionally obtuse.

Well there is a third option. You may simply be ignorant of current events, which in this busy world I understand, but don't excuse on the part of the pseudo-intelligent.

"You see, no matter what you say he already thinks your stupid, brainwashed, and living in fear."

I'm afraid political debate is like this on both sides, and especially the further one gets away from the center.

"A Democratic Congress will be bad, no question about it."

I can't embrace this opinion, though it may be valid for the potential changes to the causes you support. I'm ready for more balance to our government. If I had my way, 1/3 would be Right Wing, 1/3 would be Moderates/Independents, and 1/3 would be Left Wing. That way, cooler heads would prevail in virtually every situation. It appears we may yet be headed for that mix.

The only good thing about the G.O.P. losing a house is that they might finally become limited gov't/fiscal conservatives again. Unfortunately, this would lead to gridlock on national security and foreign policy issues.

Regarding Iraq, the Dems have no real alternatives on how to fight the war and achieve victory there. Between the foreign policy realists and the "to Hell with them" hawks, the only potentially successful options to win, or at least to salvage the effort, are coming from the Right.

"The Nazi=Bush only nearly as stupid as BinLaden=Hitler speach the dim wit gave earlier in the week."

Oh really? Bin Laden and Hitler actually shared the same dream of world domination and annihilation of the Jews. I suspect they also share the same views about homosexuals and religious sects (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses). It's actually quite easy to compare these two in a number of ways. So, no, it is not a stupid comparison. It is rather appropriate. Your Bush = Hitler/Nazi, however, is very, very stupid without a shred of support. Do you have even an inkling of what Nazi Germany was like, Straw? To compare America 2006 to Germany in the 30's and 40's is unworthy of a serious, thinking person.

Blu,

Please, stop whipping me with the lash of serious and thinking, I just can not abide it any longer.

I do know a great deal, since I have met and been aquainted with many who lived in Germany in the thirties (have you figures out my cohort yet?), as opposed to you who went to college and studied the history second hand. How many hands with numbered forearms have you shaken Blu? How many of your friends parents were guests of Dachau or Thereiesenstadt? A friends father died last week who was an escapee during the war and ran a band of Jewish resistors in the woods of Poland that broke Jews out of camps

It (fascism) didn't happen over night. It is a creeping sort of thing full of rationalizations about how necessary it is to constrict personal freedom to protect and perserve the order and security of the nation. It may not continue to its conclusion in America as it did in Germany, but it surely has opened the back door and is sitting at the kitchen table. Fear is the great annihilator of freedom. And our president and his cabal are oblivious to the trend they have started.

Straw,
With the due respect your age and experience grant you, none of what you wrote changes anything. You weren't in Germany during the time-period. You've heard second-hand stories - just like me. You don't like Bush, so you write a lot of silly things to prop up your anger with him. Sometimes it's even interesting stuff that you write. But, again with due respect, it's not serious. It's just the anger of a political Lefty who has a losing streak on important matters of national security. So, you keep pretending America is going the way of Germany circa 1930, and the rest of us will pray that people living in the real world can keep another 9/11 from occuring.

Clinton had the ability to engage in and lead the process of government..

Straw - my experiences and observations from the Pentagon and NSC through the latter end of the Clinton administration gives me pause on your comment - at least with respect to foreign policy and national security. Clinton had a weak SecDef in Cohen (who basically was building up the networks for his private sector company) and a weak Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The result was the balance of civilian control tilted dangerously toward the Service Chiefs. In exchange for accepting reduced budgets and force structure, Clinton/Cohen essentially gave those Gen/Adms free rein on how to mold the post-Cold War military. The result was the intellectually bankrupt 97 QDR and resulting force development that was at odds with Clinton's own larger National Security Strategy.

Sandy Berger was as adept as managing the NSC as he was removing documents from the national archives. Madeline Albright did Clinton no real favor as Secretary of State. The initiatives Condi Rice is advocating (see her 18 Jan 06 speech at Georgetown) are ones Albright should have started a decade ago based on Clinton's Security Strategy and foreign policy.

I think Clinton did have the ability to engage, but not the ability to lead. He disadvantaged himself even more with his inability to manage his own libido, especially given his party didn't control the legislative branch.

Annie - I think in some aspects, Clinton did see the light..unfortunately, he couldn't get his cabinet and staff for the most part to realize the vision he had. I think the current President suffers from a similiar, although not quite the same, problem..

Steveo, you don't know these guys. Clinton couldn't bring thought to action because he didn't really care. They were only words to him.

Bush on the other hand cares deeply, but has to fight the bureaucracy, the MSM, the D's, AND the enemy. So, I don't hold him to a standard of perfection.

Interesting comments.

I have only once or twice in my life seen "the tattoo," and it stopped me short each time. I think one time happened way back when I worked in retail and I was helping an old lady, who up until that point was just another old lady. But then, you catch a glimpse of that number, and wow. It's like you get a lump in your throat and everything changes. Every stranger you meet has their own story, and most of the time you don't get to know what it is. But when you see the tattoo, you suddenly know something about the person, that they've experienced a thing you only studied in school and can never fully understand the way that person standing in front of you does.

We're losing holocaust survivors every day, the same as WWII veterans. I hope someone's writing down their stories too, before they're all gone.