U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
60%↑
40%↑
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 13, 2006 08:00 AM UTC
60 Comments
Perlmutter campaign attacks Independent Media
Quote from “The Hill” Publication
“Danielle Radovich Piper, Perlmutter’s campaign manager, complained when The Hill reported during a Perlmutter fundraising trip to Washington that Lamm was considered the front-runner on the basis of two polls Perlmutter disputed.”
Poor Danielle. All she can do now days is complain that independent media won’t cooperate with her feeble attempts to run Perlmutter’s campaign.
An article from Denver Post online today regarding Beauprez’ profile:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/columnist/0,1299,DRMN_23972_106,00.html#bio
Three guys probably looking for real jobs these days.
So how easily can the missing Denver Election Commission records be used for voting fraud, assuming they’ve fallen into the wrong hands?
MAK-
Ha, why is Ed keeping this nut around. Cut her loose Ed, cut her loose. Maybe she’s on Lamm’s payroll…
Kevin,
More than half have been recovered; 87,000 to be exact. They were misplaced and not reason to be believe that they were stolen. However, the records still missing are for those who registered between 1989 and 1998 and fraud is still possible.
Is the Peggy crowd really so callow as to sit around and attack Ed’s campaign staff? Seriously now, I don’t think people read this blog to hear people lob attacks at campaign workers. We may want to consider that Mrs. Radovich-Piper is knowledgable enough about campaign poltics to actually work in the field, rather than just post needling comments on blogs. To state the obvious, I’m sure you all would do a muuuuch better job than her, right?
You’re basically criticizing her for proactively defending her candidate’s position. If Peggy or Merlino behave in that fashion, they’re “fighters” with lots of “spine” who won’t take things lying down. The double standards, as always, are at least entertaining.
Ruby-
I would hardly say she’s defending her candidate’s position. She’s whining that all these polls are comming out saying her candidate is down. Instead of supporting her claim that Ed has all the support with real, actual evidence, she complains that every single public poll is jaded and inaccurate.
Instead of standing up for what Ed believes in or supports, she claims that the people of the 7th CD are igonrant regarding the difference between Dottie and Peggy Lamm. I think we may also want to consider that those folks are knowledgeable enough as well.
Ruby,
Just because I’m not a professional campaign manager doesn’t mean I’m not going to call them as I see them.
The Ed shills have been given every opportunity to demonstrate their man actually has the support to win. THEY CAN NOT! They have plenty of excuses:
-The polls are deceiving! Ed has the support of the people! (Where are the ‘accurate’ polls showing Ed’s strength?)
-Ed has more money! (Don’t you wish you could just buy the votes and not be required to rely on voter will?)
-But…but…Ed’s campaign staff is more knowledgable than you! (And the Rockies play better baseball than me and my bridge club…but they’re still a last-place team!)
Here’s a word for you Ed shills–FACTS. Look it up, then don’t keep cheerleading for Ed here unless you have some facts on your side.
Alan, I hear your money is drying up and that support in DC has evaporated. You?re a smart guy, how did you get involved in this train wreck? Not even Udall would come to bail you out now.
Is the Denver Democrat Party worried about an investigation of their bingo games?
I see that the same company now under investigation supplied the Denver Democrat Party. I also see that the charges made by the Denver Democrat Party Treasurer are very similar to the conduct now being investigated by John Suthers. Suthers is a bulldog.
Thanks for the link truthbetold, great article.
Facts, you say? Here are some facts that the Lamm-ites love to avoid:
Total Receipts: $706,726
Latest Cash On Hand: $444,085
Debts Owed By: $0
Committees Included:
PERLMUTTER FOR CONGRESS
C00410639
Through: 03/31/2006
………………………………
Total Receipts: $407,460
Latest Cash On Hand: $216,058
Debts Owed By: $0
Committees Included:
PEGGY LAMM FOR CONGRESS
C00411041
Through: 03/31/2006
http://www.fec.gov
Sorry if anybody took offense, but I still think it’s fairly weak play to armchair quarterback with these campaigns. It seems everybody’s got the answers when they’re posting on an anyomous blog.
Commenting on how you think the Perlmutter campaign should be handling the situation is one thing, sitting back and ripping at the campaign manager is another.
“Alan, I hear your money is drying up and that support in DC has evaporated. You?re a smart guy, how did you get involved in this train wreck? Not even Udall would come to bail you out now.”
Well, you ‘heard’ that, not terribly exciting. I heard Peggy doesn’t live in CD7, endorsed Bill Owens, owns serious oil shares, has barely any donations from within the district, and had to pay people to collect signatures for her. All old news. I think the only time Alan ever bothered with this blog was when a bunch of Peggy shills were posting some falsehoods about him and he had to set the record straight.
Where “Over for Ed” wrote:
“Don’t you wish you could just buy the votes and not be required to rely on voter will?”
Be honest, doncha wish that? If it weren’t for those pesky ignorant voters and this damn democracy, Ed would be king. King!
Are you guys really suggesting that money doesn’t matter in terms of electoral success? I suggest you go to your local library and check out some basic studies on elections. Or we could just say that Ed is somehow anti-democracy because his campaign is better financed? I retract my previous apology, some seriously uninformed comments are starting to circulate, once again. This reminds me of the Peggy shills suggesting that labor support is insignificant in elections as well.
I think the sentiment of the post is that votes matter more than money.
Perhaps the poster is simply “uninformed” and your continued well-reasoned, fact-based posts will help them see the light.
Interesting development in CD5 race … the Bremer & Crank campaigns have sent a joint letter to Lamborn calling on him to apologize for his dirty campaign tactics and for lying about their records in campaign releases. Lamborn is in trouble …
Lamborn’s in trouble? Sounds to me like Bremer and Crank are finally smelling the coffee and realise they have no chance of winning. They figure it is now best to pool resources not to ensure one of them wins, but just to make sure Lamborn does not.
Ruby,how much success do you expect to have by saying everyone else is stupid. As more and more people see the light and move away from Perlmutter, do you really think you can get them back by telling them the only reason they’re doing so is that they’re uninformed and ignorant.
Do you really think that some people think Lamm is ahead because they haven’t spent enough time at their local library studying elections? Is there ANY chance people are determining that by looking at the BEST AND ONLY AVAILABLE DATA?
Or is everybody besides you just too stupid?
rubyblue and everyone else too-
read Freakonomics, especially the section on elections. money is needed in elections, but having vastly more money doesnt matter as much as people think.
and yes, very interesting in CD5. lamborn’s negativity will certainly not help him at this point.
DENVER (AP) – Republican lawmakers asked the governor to call a special session Tuesday in hopes of overturning a state Supreme Court ruling that disqualified a proposed ballot issue to deny most state services to illegal immigrants.
http://9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=cde395bf-0abe-421a-01e9-958fd2e6e526&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf
Re: Thomas
Crank can sign all the papers we wants but who’s gonna believe him when he has supported so many other tax hikes in the past? I can’t believe you guys are trying to get away with reinventing your liberal local lobbyist Jeff Crank.
Good luck.
CD5 has one good candidate-Jay Fawcett. All of the others owe their soul to Dobson and his ilk. Fawcett KNOWS military affairs, from where it matters, his heart, his experience. All of the others are flacks who pledge support for military to win elections. The general also has experience but still icky close to Dobson. He did buy a print of volleyball players in Leadville.
RubyBlue, sounds like you’re just green with envy. You can point to the cash on hand numbers as much as you’d like, but most of that reflects an early advantage for Perlmutter that has since evaporated, and Peggy’s already paid for a poll which, if Ed ever does one, will take out a good chunk out of his COH.
As for $?’s point about freakanomics and money, he/she’s absolutely right, and this is why a name ID poll is so valuable. More people who know Ed dislike him than like him, 12 to 15. More people who know Peggy like her, at 24 to 19. As the campaign progresses these numbers show that when people get to know Ed they don’t like him, while people who know Peggy DO like her. Both Ed and Peggy will have enough money to get out their message, and the name ID poll shows that when people know both candidates they are more likely to support Peggy than Ed.
And can one of the dead guv’s please fix that post with the long web address that’s screwing up the formatting on this page?
Why didn’t Bush speak about FREEDOM OF SPEECH today?
If Bush’s ideas of ideology change is such a good idea … no matter if it is for oil, for democracy, or for whatever the cause, (rather than using a PEACEFUL diplomatic method) then why don’t we start attacking other countries tomorrow for his similar justifications?
WAR IS WRONG … certainly so if it can be avoided !!!
I firmly disagree in the approach (policy) of his administration. His disregard for the innocent lives that have been lost in the process should not be forgotten. Bush fails to recognize the great number of innocent lives lost in the war in Iraq, and he has stood morally ignorant to the wrongs of revenge, assimulation of culture or the rights of those who can no longer speak for themselves (those lives have been lost).
I remain steadfast in my belief that we were morally unjustified in attacking Iraq, that Bush has continually lied in a waring process (GOP foundations), that could have been avoided and prevented from the outset of the conflict.
Patriot, how did you sleep when Clinton was bombing Yugoslavia? Did he have any justification for that? I mean morally of course? How about Somalia?
Trick —
Mohandas Gandhi said, “I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.” Indeed, in many ways this statement correcting affirms my inner gut position. Gandhi said many quotes that still stand against the repeating pattern of war, innocent lives lost in the suffering of mankind. If I had my magic wand, I would put an end to weapons and add peacekeepers with food and water in their arms.
Generally, people and societies fight because of poverty and a lost of understanding, communication and education. If we were able to solve those items, war would end. However, in some instances, whereby an out-of-control leader must be stopped, to protect the world from his power, war can be the objectionable only alternative.
Gabriel Kolko wrote: “War, in essence, has always been an adventure intrinsically beset with surprises and false expectations, its total outcome unpredictable to all those who have engaged in it.” President Clinton had also found out the truth of war. In the war against Yugoslavia, his decision was only objectionable (perhaps) by those who witnessed the hundreds of thousands of refugees, civilians killed by NATO bombs, the captured U.S. Soldiers and a harmful cold-war feel with Russia.
Milosevic was also a brutal leader. His troops in Bosnia committed acts of genocide. He appeared for a time like Hitler with ferocity in Kosovo. Indeed, when we see places like Rwanda and the Sudan, the International community needs to find a methodology that acts – successfully. Together, we must prevent or resolve human rights crises around the world.
Often, war and conflict places countries and people into a saving face “situation room.” President Clinton and other leaders have often found this repeating element. You are right, and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Clinton went after Yugoslavia when Milosevic stuck up his evil finger at the world. Our consequences, for not acting or losing face in that situation or carrying on the threats are usually ignored or never ever calculated, at least so, after one side wins or loses the contest. Unfortunately, innocent people are already dead or soon to be caught in the middle of war and battle. However, I believe answers to the issues of going to war could be solved peacefully. We really have done little or nothing in support of using neutral countries and their peacekeepers to ward off conflict.
Another issue is that the United States and NATO have never supported nonviolent resistance movements. The reason is unfortunately the economic motivation. Clearly, the war machine can bring about a financial reward in the short-term and a continual immoral pattern that we have still today.
We would have been better to flood the region with International peacekeepers than to bomb the region. However, because of our dependence on using our war machine, the economic pressure and political pressures, we remain on the same path of using violence to stop violence.
Russia and China were likely to veto any military action into the region. Thus, we were once again facing the “send in the bombers” and the breaking of International Law. We also intentionally avoided the Security Council. NO declaration of war existed from Congress in that regard as well, but Congress supported the President’s decision, none-the-less.
Four liberal Congressmen objected to the war – not too many. The protest from the liberals at that time was only ONE, Barbara Lee of California. In the Senate, just three: Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Fritz Hollings of South Carolina, and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico.
Bill Clinton’s justifications for the bombing were paltry. In his speech, he claimed it was necessary since World War I stated in the Balkans. Well, that doesn’t seem to me as a great reason for the use of bombers, rather than PEACEKEEPERS. Unfortunately, war just seems more glorified and exciting for many … I suppose.
We continually talk about these “moral imperatives” to prevent human right abuses around the world, but we fail to begin a process in the development of PEACEKEEPERS with the arms of food and water … which has been proved as a catalyst toward conflict.
It is often amazing to me that when a natural disaster strikes somewhere in the world, we rush in with the hypocrisy of warships with food and water supplies, to thwart any further loss of life and the potential of civil unrest, but when it comes to the political imbalances, the saving of face, we decide to become “bullies” and “aggressive” to solve the problem.
Question, “Why should it be any different to send in peaceful men and women into a region that is cast as third world nation because of starvation, or a country that has a leader that has decided to ignore the wishes of one country or another? Well, that answer is found in the economics of war, and the fact that some people and leaders simply look forward to their glory and revenge.
Diplomacy simply doesn’t sound as good to a GENERAL or a leader who enjoys the selling of more improved and better killing machines and weapons – a human fault of morality.
WE NEED PEACEKEEPS … not war minded men and machines.
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_3932642
“Ruby,how much success do you expect to have by saying everyone else is stupid. As more and more people see the light and move away from Perlmutter, do you really think you can get them back by telling them the only reason they’re doing so is that they’re uninformed and ignorant”
Suggesting that people either aren’t understanding or choosing to ignore all the factors at play in this election is not the same as calling them stupid. I’ll be frank – if people really think that money isn’t going to be a factor – then yes, I think that’s pretty dumb. I also think it’s misinformed to suggest that a well-funded campaign is somehow ‘buying’ votes. If trying to raise as much money as possible for your campaign is undemocratic, then every politican in history is guilty.
So far as how much “success I expect,” I’m not even sure what you mean. My only purpose is to put forth my own opinions on the subject. If you think this blog is winning over any significant numbers of voters, well, I’ll keep my opinions on that to myself. Everybody’s here to say their piece, not beat the campaign trail, although I have my doubts about some of the Peggy fanatics.
And so far as people seeing the light, what do you mean? That more people are shifting to Peggy support in the district? That doesn’t make much sense in respect to the fact that you all were claiming even higher numbers with the Ridder-Braden and Lake polls. If the 9News poll is the new benchmark, then Peggy’s support has actually disipated. So which is it?
“RubyBlue, sounds like you’re just green with envy”
I wouldn’t say countering some of the comments on a blog is really an indicator of envy, but you’re free to make all the personal assumptions about me that you like. It’s all very entertaining.
To address your comment, however, if I were running the campaign there is no way that I’d trade Ed’s party support, finances, and roots in the district for Peggy’s higher name ID. On my scorecard he’s still ahead in plenty of categories that matter. He also doesn’t have that pesky little interview floating around waiting to be broadcast in some commercials. Or a record that includes flipping on his party and supporting Bill Owens. Food for thought.
“As for $?’s point about freakanomics and money, he/she’s absolutely right, and this is why a name ID poll is so valuable. More people who know Ed dislike him than like him, 12 to 15. More people who know Peggy like her, at 24 to 19.”
Freakanomics is an interesting book, it’s also not a definitive review of campaign politics – it’s airport bookshop fodder. The vast majority of the political world is still going to give an edge to candiates with 2-1 financial lead. I’ll stick with established academia for the time being. That being said, Freakanomics is a great book.
So far as people knowing and liking/disliking candidates, are you suggesting the people polled actually know the candidates? That was a braod sample which covered both parties across the disctrict and didn’t even target likely voters. It is not likely that they ‘know’ either candidate. It may not be straight up “Dottie confusion” as some have suggested, but when your last name is that of one of the most famous political families in the state, well, lets just I don’t put a a lot of stock in it.
I’d be curious to see something targeted amongst likely Dem voters in the JeffCO area, in and around Ed’s senate district. JeffCo is by far the largest number of voters, and that’s where Ed is strongest. That probably won’t happen, but no worries, the Perlmutter campaign is well aware of it. As I’ve said before, this newest poll is a great fundraising tool for Peggy and Merlino, but I’m certain they’re not breaking open the champagne over it.
“I think the sentiment of the post is that votes matter more than money”
I read it as “money doesn’t matter, name ID is everything!” Money matters because it can buy media to correct the name ID problem, and block out an opponent’s media as well. It has been a long standing tactic around here to suggest that any advantage Ed has doesn’t matter for campaigns. The angle has been applied to union support, party support, local roots, you name it, the Peggy shills have discounted its merit in this election.
I would bet green money that if Ed were tied or leading in the name ID poll, the Peggy shills would be harping about how unreliable they are and how Perlmutter is just riding his old tenure in the senate, but Peggy has all the real support. OR they’d discount the latest and keep beating on the older polls. It’s just posturing.
Committee recommends Churchill be fired
The stories:
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_3932642
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4771570,00.html
The final report:
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/pdf/churchillfinalreport.pdf
WOO HOO……………! Goodbye worthless mind ruining dickhead!
Gecko —
Ward Churchill is a nut … just like Pat Robertson, Ann Coulture and especially Rush Limbaugh. People need to be more respectful and certainly follow what our US Constitution says … like with what our forefathers designed: Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech … etc.
It will be great when Iraq has control of their country again, but we could have avoided the war with the truth — rather than Bush and his Administration being anything less than truthful with WE THE PEOPLE …
🙂
US ‘biggest global peace threat’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5077984.stm
People in European and Muslim countries see US policy in Iraq as a bigger threat to world peace than Iran’s nuclear programme, a survey has shown.
The survey by the Pew Research Group also found support for US President George W Bush and his “war on terror” had dropped dramatically worldwide.
Goodwill created by US aid for nations hit by the 2004 tsunami had also faded since last year, the survey found.
The survey questioned 17,000 people in 15 countries, including the US.
The latest in a series of annual polls by the Pew Global Attitudes Project interviewed respondents between 31 March and 14 May 2006.
Its release coincides with a surprise visit by President George W Bush to Baghdad in an effort to shore up support for US policy in the region.
‘Fading goodwill’
The latest survey shows the worldwide reputation of the US continues to suffer over its prosecution of the “war on terror”.
Sharp declines in the public perception of the US were particularly apparent in India, Spain and Turkey.
Goodwill towards the US had fallen from 71% to 56% in India, from 41% to 23% in Spain and from 23% to 12% in Turkey.
A majority of people in 10 of the 14 countries outside the US surveyed said the war in Iraq had made the world a more dangerous place.
Some 60% of people in the UK, which is the US biggest ally, felt the Iraq war had made the world less secure, while some 30% said it had made the world safer.
According to the survey:
Worldwide support for the “war on terror” has remained the same or declined
European confidence in Mr Bush has sunk even lower than it was last year
A majority of people in most countries feel the US will not achieve its goals in the “war on terror”
The survey also found little remaining evidence of the goodwill the US had earned over its aid for victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.
In Indonesia, a major recipient of US tsunami aid, favourable opinions of the US had fallen from 38% in 2005 to 30% this year.
“Last year we saw some good news in countries like Russia and India,” Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Centre, told the Associated Press news agency.
“That good news being wiped away is a measure of how difficult a problem this is for the United States.”
PRESIDENTIAL JOB APPROVAL … THE COUNTRY ISN’T HAPPY WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION …
CBS 6/10-11/06 33 60 7 -27
.
USA Today/Gallup 6/9-11/06 38 56 6 -18
.
AP-Ipsos * 6/5-7/06 35 63 -28
.
Cook/RT Strategies RV 6/1-4/06 37 57 6 -20
.
USA Today/Gallup 6/1-4/06 36 57 6 -21
.
Quinnipiac RV 5/23-30/06 35 58 7 -23
.
Pew 4/27 – 5/22/06 33 56 11 -23
.
Diageo/Hotline RV 5/18-21/06 37 61 3 -24
.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 5/16-18/06 35 56 8 -21
.
CBS 5/16-17/06 35 60 5 -25
.
CNN 5/16-17/06 36 57 7 -21
.
ABC/Washington Post 5/11-15/06 33 65 2 -32
.
Newsweek 5/11-12/06 35 59 6 -24
.
Gallup 5/8-11/06 33 61 6 -28
.
CBS/New York Times 5/4-8/06 31 63 6 -32
.
CNN 5/5-7/06 34 58 8 -24
.
USA Today/Gallup 5/5-7/06 31 65 5 -34
.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 5/2-3/06 38 53 9 -15
.
AP-Ipsos * 5/1-3/06 33 65 -32
.
CBS 4/28-30/06 33 58 9 -25
.
USA Today/Gallup 4/28-30/06 34 63 3 -29
.
Cook/RT Strategies 4/27-30/06 36 59 5 -23
.
NBC/Wall Street Journal 4/21-24/06 36 57 7 -21
.
CNN 4/21-23/06 32 60 8 -28
.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 4/18-19/06 33 57 10 -24
MARINE SINGS ABOUT THE ENJOYMENT OF KILLING INNOCENT CIVILIANS (CHILDREN) IN IRAQ …
http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 6/13/06) – The U.S. Marine Corps today said it agrees with a prominent national Islamic advocacy group that a video posted on the Internet apparently showing Marines cheering a song that glorifies the killing of Iraqi civilians and children.
Hey Gecko, what do you think of this video? Don’t you think it is a great song? 🙂
Song about Marine killing Iraqis draws ire
Video appears to show GI singing about gunning down family in вЂHadji Girl’
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13300342/
Updated: 3:12 p.m. ET June 13, 2006
WASHINGTON – A music video posted to the Internet, telling a tale about a U.S. Marine killing members of an Iraqi family, is being condemned by an Islamic group and investigated by the Marine Corps.
A VERY GOOD ARTICLE — I AGREE WITH HILARY CLINTON …
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2071803&page=1
“Now that there is a new Iraqi government, something that many of us have been waiting for and pushing for, then this Iraqi government needs to be told they have to take responsibility for their own security and stability,” Clinton said.
“There must be a plan that will begin to bring our troops home … because they have to take the priority of making sure that they have a unified government that stands up to the militias, stands up to the death squads. That is not the job of the American military,” she added.
Clinton didn’t specify exactly how she would begin to bring the troops home if she were commander in chief, but she did rule out two options in what, perhaps, can be considered her search for a Clintonesque third way.
“I do not think it is a smart strategy either for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment, which I think does not put enough pressure on the new Iraqi government, nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain. I do not agree that that is in the best interest of our troops or our country,” Clinton said.
Clinton also decried the Bush administration for what she said was a rush to war, a refusal to allow inspections to continue, and “blunder after blunder,” which has “undermined America’s leadership in the world and put at risk the long-term war on terrorism.”
Hey Patriot: Why are you reveling in the poor taste of one marine?
Lauren —
You call it “poor taste?” I would have a much stronger word for the enjoyment of killing innocent people — I call it murder. And what in the world did you read from my post that suggests that I enjoyed watching such a video? You seem to have a real issue about the fact that war is WRONG and unless the world comes together against such aims, the human race will not survive as a species.
Lauren, are you in favor of war and killing or not? For me, I don’t think war is the solution, except when in the extreme case when the world decides (together) that war is necessary. Oh, and by the way, Bush’s war against the Middle East never needed to be fought … no WMD were ever found in that country. So, Lauren, why did we go there?
Oil perhaps? Economic perhaps?
I don’t revel in the murder of innocent civilians or in the war against a country that had no involvement in 911. I hope that we as a Nation, can begin to use law … to seek out terrorists with the help of the International community. However, we did not take that course … it seemed as if we used 911 to attack a neighboring country for other reasons …
If we were truly seeking the “terrorists” of 911, then explain to me “why” we did not attack Saudi Arabia for the reasons that most of the terrorists were from that country?
Lauren —
I found it interesting that Bush says that we must stay in Iraq to keep Iraq from becoming a terrorist haven. Yeah, and Mr. President, why is that possibility now created? Yep, we all know that answer … because of the created hatred for our pathetic wisdom of your thinking, “that war will bring peace.” Well, Mr. President, I don’t know if you leaned much at Yale with your Law degree, but morally, many people have said repeatedly that war creates a lasting memory of lost life … and on your philosophical ideology of going from one nation to the next to create “peace” with war, will only embolden the people of the next country against your creazy ideas. I simply don’t buy into your concept Mr. President, that war brings peace … nor do I enjoy watching a country ripped at its seams for over a decade for some ruthless plan against the innocent people there … unless that original plan used a “loving” tactic … like making such that the babies had enough food and water to drink …
But then again, “bombs” are much better than providing “milk, eggs, water … etc.”
Question, “When will the people of the Earth stand up against war that has no other said purpose than for personal gain, economic gain or something other than the protection of innocent lives?”
WAR IS SIMPLY WRONG … IT IS MURDER … IT IS UNJUST. THE BIBLE SAID SO TOO …
“THOU SHALT NOT KILL” … remember?
IF we continue on this path, mankind will not survive. I have little doubt.
What the hell?…………………………..I never even got a chance to start writing and my screen posted an error. Then I see 15 messages from me?
Whoa……….
I’ll finish my thought in awhile………..
Gecko —
Try not to press the enter key so many times … and don’t try to ignore my previous post. I will repeat for you …
Lauren –
I found it interesting that Bush says that we must stay in Iraq to keep Iraq from becoming a terrorist haven. Yeah, and Mr. President, why is that possibility now created? Yep, we all know that answer … because of the created hatred for our pathetic wisdom of your thinking, “that war will bring peace.” Well, Mr. President, I don’t know if you leaned much at Yale with your Law degree, but morally, many people have said repeatedly that war creates a lasting memory of lost life … and on your philosophical ideology of going from one nation to the next to create “peace” with war, will only embolden the people of the next country against your creazy ideas. I simply don’t buy into your concept Mr. President, that war brings peace … nor do I enjoy watching a country ripped at its seams for over a decade for some ruthless plan against the innocent people there … unless that original plan used a “loving” tactic … like making such that the babies had enough food and water to drink …
But then again, “bombs” are much better than providing “milk, eggs, water … etc.”
Question, “When will the people of the Earth stand up against war that has no other said purpose than for personal gain, economic gain or something other than the protection of innocent lives?”
WAR IS SIMPLY WRONG … IT IS MURDER … IT IS UNJUST. THE BIBLE SAID SO TOO …
“THOU SHALT NOT KILL” … remember?
IF we continue on this path, mankind will not survive. I have little doubt.
Ha ha……I never even had a chance to write yet alone press the enter key….
I watched most of the video and had two thoughts. One was that the sound did not match the lip motion. That leads me to believe that it was faked or forged.
Two was… are we sure this wasn’t staged to get the exact responce it is getting?
But if it does turn out to be real, this is a free country so far and we do have free speech. We don’t have to like what is being said but they have the right to say it.
Where is the uproar with the left when Churchill was defending his right to call innocent Americans, Nazi’s? What about the uproar with the left when that Denver area high school teacher was calling Bush degrading names?
I think what was being sung is pretty sick but my opinion is fuck it, don’t watch it.
Example: I have tried to get my wife to watch the movie “HOSTEL”. A very gross brutal fucked up movie and I loved it. She won’t even let me talk about it yet alone watch it herself.
That is her right. Not to watch it. The movie maker has the right to make gross movies whenever he wants.
Same goes for whomever made that video.
But neither here nor there. I think it was staged.
Love,
Gecko
Gecko —
Good point. It is possible to do most anythinig with the technical aspects of film making and editing. I will agree to wait on the details. However, I also know that many military men have the eagerness for blood on the battlefield. As you just proved, you enjoy the killing in a movie “hostel,” even though you know it is WRONG and unjust under the faiths of Jewish, Christian and Muslim. I understand you BS, you don’t believe in a supreme being (possibly) and so you have no conscience in watching innocent people die — or in war.
Yeah, I understand Gecko — you’re one of those Columbine types. *wink*
“Hey Gecko, what do you think of this video? Don’t you think it is a great song?”
Posting your war ditty link twice and taunting Gecko with it looks like reveling to me and looks like you are trying to dog on the troops. What was your point? I fully understand your objections to the war, because you post about it every day. I’m not sure why you continually post on Colorado Pols instead of a blog more suited to national politics, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
I’m not a big fan of war either, but I’d avoid the Bible if I were you when defending your position. It was the God of the Bible who commanded Moses to kill the Midianites (every man, woman and child, save the female virgins, which they could save for themselves Numbers 31:17 & 19) and the God of the Bible who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24&25) The Bible is replete with examples of God killing and ordering the Isrealites to kill.
Mankind will survive, as the Bible says, “There will always be war and rumors of war”.
Patriot
Naw, not that bad. I will go out of my way to not run over a squirrel. And my three dogs are my world, so I don’t fall into the shoot ’em up scene. But I do enjoy brutal movies. Hostel is one of the best/worst. It is based on a hostage/hotel where people pay to torture innocent people. Sick huh? I loved it even though it makes ya cringe.
We’ll see on that video. I think it was staged, but that is my humble opinion.
On the supreme being thing,
ever since my dog died a real nasty death of heart worm when I was like 7 years old, I decided there is no god. And if there really was, he would have to prove it to me. So far he/she/it hasn’t……
Gecko —
I’m glad to hear that you are not one of those Columbine types. We need people who are respectful and seek solutions to man’s continual pattern of disrespect, murder etc.
Lauren, as far as the Bible … and God’s commandments of killing … I would not begin to speak for him. He brings on terrible hurricanes and storms of all kinds when we do wrong things in his eyes. A Son of god, they say, named Jesus Christ believed in a much different way. I stand with him in his faith of TEACHING people the right ways of living. AND, I’m certain, that Jesus Christ would have stood right in the path of the war between these three religions, asking for more education, more food and water, more forgiveness, more love, more joy, more humility.
I don’t think Jesus Christ liked war either … as I do not. Again, I stand with Jesus … HE was right.
Lauren —
I don’t agree with your statement, “There will always be war and rumors of war.” Mankind has the wisdom to stop fighting and killing. We just need teachers and GOOD leaders (Presidents) that follow this path. This is why I embrace the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, because the teach of restraint and wisdom to seek peace without war and more killing. I don’t know of anything wrong with that principle.
Patriot: I think you are probably right about Jesus being a man of peace, given the preponderance of quotes attributed to him, but the Bible can be pesky when taken as a whole, as is evidenced in Jesus’ quotes, often used to advocate and defend war and violence:
“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34&36)
“I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled!” … “Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three.”… (Luke 12:49,51-53 NASB)
And on “war and rumors of war”, it wasn’t my statement, it was from the Bible. The point is, there have been wars since the beginning of recorded time and there will continue to be wars. Aggression is biologically driven, and so difficult to overcome. It would be great if all humans had the ability to overcome their aggressive nature and live in peace, but until that happens, war is a fact of life. Democrats and Republican alike will continue to wage war and will continue to justify their actions. Regardless, mankind will survive.
Lauren —
Great quotes! However, I still disagree with your statement that wars will no doubt continue. I strongly believe that if we were to TEACH rather than PREACH, we could create PEACE. Yes, those are my words and my ideas!!! I suggest that everyone get to know those THREE concepts! 3.
Thus far, mankind has not done a very good job at teaching. We attend church, but few actually read the simple passages of the Bible and learn what the Ten Commandments truly means. I think the problem is covered in the truth behind our troubles over accepting freewill in the matter of respect for “others” and their right of choice. As an example, all three major religions have differences of opinion on how to lead our lives in the matter of love making (sex). Well, I don’t see the benefits of fighting about it, going to war about it, and thus breaking a much worse commandment over IT (ie. killing, war). These decisions are best left for individual Ideology, Countries, Societies, Peoples, States and Jurisdictions to decide. That is why we need to follow the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. When we break those rules, then we harm our ability to TEACH, and PREACH our differences of opinion.
IF we wish to survive as a species, then we must CLEARLY become RESPECTFUL of different opinions. The reason for this is because some people are simply not ready to accept certain levels of faith, ie standards of living that are more strict. As an example, some might refuse a way of life that promotes an elimination of any sex in their lives. However, that is not to say that either side is right or wrong. For some, their decision to live a life that has none, may be required to be a Priest or a Nun. So, does that mean that everyone should become Priests or Nuns? I think not.
Clearly, on some places around the world, they are different than us. Does that mean that they are wrong and we are right? Who is right to judge? Should we break the Ten Commandments to inflict our way of thinking upon them by going to war and killing their people for our differences? I say NOT.
That is where the word RESPECT comes to mind, humility too. The objective of our lives should be in helping others to understand our differences of opinon without violence. That is truly the answer that will bring peace.
Again, TEACH, not PREACH, for PEACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND ALLOW PEOPLE TO GROW WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF OTHERS, HELPING THEM TO BECOME BETTER PEOPLE WITHOUT FORCING THEM TO DO SO … FORCED RELIGION STINKS ALL THE WAY TO HEAVEN !!!
IT IS ALL SO VERY SIMPLE … 🙂
AND ENJOY LIFE … LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THY SELF. 🙂
AND BY GOD, PROTECT MOTHER EARTH …
Lofty and noble ideals Patriot, unfortunately, reality gets in the way. Can teaching stop the killing in Darfur? Would it have worked in Kosovo? Did Hitler and Saddam just need a good teacher to lead them down the right path to peace? As long as you have aggressive human beings who do not respect the rights or lives of others, you will have military action and war. You can argue the right and wrong of it for each act of aggression, but it is a reality.
Should we, as a super power with vast military means, ignore the plight of human beings killed by their own leaders? Should we help an ally if they are attacked, or should we only defend ourselves when we are attacked and our own rights and freedoms are on the line? Helping people to become better people without force only works if they want to be helped, and the people and countries in my examples didn’t want to learn that lesson.
I would agree that peace is always preferable, but I’m not convinced it can be always be achieved without force or threat of force.
Lauren,
You bring up good points, eg “Should we, as a super power with vast military means, ignore the plight of human beings killed by their own leaders? Should we help an ally if they are attacked, or should we only defend ourselves when we are attacked and our own rights and freedoms are on the line?”
My main problem with US foreign policy is that we definitely pick and choose when we decide it’s time to go to war against oppressive and murderous regimes. Genocide happens again and again around the world, currently in Darfur, and we do nothing about that, just like we did nothing for East Timor, Rwanda and Cambodia. That leads to the conclusion that we get involved only when it’s in our national interest.
“I would agree that peace is always preferable, but I’m not convinced it can be always be achieved without force or threat of force.” What an unfortunately true statement. The only periods of sustained peace in history have come when one major power held hegemony over everyone else (Pax Romana).
Patriot, I agree with your sentiments and hope that if we were to truly adapt your principals they would work. But I don’t have as much faith in human nature. Keep the faith, brother.
Lauren —
Using the threat of military might is one thing … but lying about it hurts even worse in the long run. That is what we are experiencing now. Bush failed to consider what many former people in his administration had warned. Now on the reality side … we have a very serious International problem overseas … hear my words, “WE HAVE LOST ALL ELEMENTS OF RESPECT FOR THE UINTED STATES IN ONLY 6 YEARS!” And if that is not serious enough, we are spending ourselves into great economic trouble. IF we don’t begin ultilizing some very thoughtful alternatiives, in cooperation with the rest of the world, we are in a process where after we solve one problem, worse problems are no doubt right around the corner after that problem is solved. We are creeping along in time, while it is runniing out, with worse ends in the NEAR future.
REALITY sets in when we begin to consider the realities over the need of oil in the ground, that the Chinese will no doubt go to war over if necessary (in my opinion). Indeed, other countries may very well be in a path of needing oil as much as our economy needs it. What we must do, is begin an IMMEDIATE change over to alternative fuels for our transportation, becoming self sufficent and self aware of our own problems and then begin to be able to solve other problems around the world without war. What we need is a plan that defeats the use of military might as our only alternative … and rather have the ability to send in food and water to those areas of conflict that need it.
Most of the time in the world, what we see is a conflict over sending in a helping hand with food and water, which in some situations can actually help a nation that wishes to continue a tyrant theme. However, they would likely not be a tyrant nation if they were not tempted at building forces against their neighbors. Problem: we do a losy job at having a balance force of military versus peaceful men and women in these regions. Solution: establish the needs of the people in a region, with food and water, without the concerns of economic warfare, using the threat of war over politics, with the desire of control, and then threaten to remove our helping hands.
If we wish to be successful in the world, what we must do (I believe) is to seriously consider abandonment of using the military as a first alternative … rather, we use peaceful alternatives FIRST. Then, if peaceful alternatives don’t work as a world of nations, then TOGETHER we consider war as a last resort.
Iraq should TEACH a lesson … a lesson that war should never be conducted with the decisions of one President or individual. War must only be managed under the flag of ALL our allies … because war is simply too costly over the precepts of peaceful alternatives!!!
President Bush once said it would be easier as a tyrant if he was the tyrant. Well, I submit that that is exactly where our mistakes are found. If we would have followed what our US Constitution said, to go to war only under the majority opinion of the US Congress, then we would not be in this current situation.
SO, ultimately, you can blame the Republican Congress just as much as President Bush, since they did not follow the rules of engagement in making the decision of going to war in the first place.
Today, NOW, we must begin a change from Republican theory, to a DEMOCRATIC one … which begins in November, with a complete overall of all the GOP Congressmen, to a Democratic majority. Indeed, we do need good Republicans … not all Democrats, but the world is watching with their influences of dollars and other controling items …
We have few alternatives … we must win in Iraq and we must prove to the world that we will never make these mistakes happen ever again … (my opinion) … and that PROOF begins in November.
Lauren —
Furthermore —
President Bush should have been honest with the world about our needs of oil … then, we would not be fighting over it now. We could have convinced Saddam with worldwide pressure, providing examples of why we need the resource to keep the world from an energy disaster in the future. However, we could have done the same things, with a focus on alternative energies, but the GOP decided against such a plan, because they were angled in their greed of the $$$ in Iraq and in rebuilding it after using the Marshall Plan. However, the Bush Administration was never concerned about the loss of innocent life it seems … and went forth with the conflict under many a lie and mistruths …
Lying to go into a war is a very bad game.
I agree Aristotle, we have been uneven in our approach to foreign policy, and it doesn’t help our position.
Patriot: I don’t; however, buy the “Bush lied for oil” line, nor do I think we chose to go to war first. Saddam was given many opportunities over many years and with the Bush administration to comply. He gambled, he lost. And giving Bush the authority to go to war was bi-partisan. Many of your Dem heroes jumped on board because public opinion favored it, then pulled out the “Bush lied” card for cover. Not buying that either.
I won’t argue that going to war was the right thing to do. In retrospect, Saddam posed no threat to us and the loss of life is tragic. Having said that, I’m not sorry Saddam is gone and I hope the Iraqi people create a free society. We weren’t in danger when Clinton dropped bombs on Kosovo either, but I’m also glad Milosevic is gone. I wish I had the wisdom of Solomon and could know with absolute clarity which path is best. Alas, I don’t, but I concur with Aristotle, “keep the faith, brother”.
Lauren —
Come on! I distinctly remember several of Hanz Blix (including Hanxs Blix) weapons inspectors on CNN, expressing the fact that Iraq has NO WMD in the country, just before we invaded. Furthermore, Saddam did send in hundreds of documents that spoke of all his “weapons” programs. I also remember Saddam in a belly laugh in one of his oval rooms, speaking about the fact that “they did not have any WMD, most everything was destroyed in bombing them for 14 years!’
So, explain to me where Saddam was asking for it? Maybe the reason was the fact that Saddam had tried to attack former president’s father in Kuwait? The revenge factor cannot be dismissed … going to war for oil cannot be dismissed …
We obviously did not follow a peaceful plan … ultilizing peaceful alternatives first … since we had constantly placed pressure on the region. The reason is clear, we wanted access to the oil, even if we could eventually break down the political elements in Iraq and in other countries. I think it is possible that Saddam had decided NOT to agree to sell the oil on the open market … thus, this created the issues over “peak oil” demands and our need to alter our inability to control and dominate world energy in the region.
I’m convinced that our plan after the 1970’s (oil embargo) was to use whatever means necessary to create the level of dominance over world energy, even if that meant to bomb, steal and lie about it. It is morally wrong and that is why we have an insurgency in Iraq today.
I can go along with the revenge factor as coloring Bush’s perceptions, as well as the sociological phenomenon of “group think”, made famous with Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs. I think Bush wanted to believe Saddam had WMD’s, and with British and US intelligence corroborating his beliefs, he filtered out information that negated his beliefs. I don’t believe he lied and I don’t believe he invaded Iraq for oil, so we can just agree to disagree on those points. I think it is important to remember that we all color facts with our perceptions and prejudices. You judged Bush harshly for poking fun at a blind guy, when in fact he called the guy and apologized that day when he discovered the man’s disability. I seriously doubt if you would have so harshly judged Clinton, Kerry, or Michael Moore for the same infraction. Bush isn’t Hitler, or Saddam, or Osama. Demonizing should be reserved for truly evil individuals.