Heres where you left wing loonies don't get it.

PatPatriot · Nov 7, 2004

[size=+1]Daley praises GOP, slaps Democrats[/size]
<SMALL>Chicago Tribune ^ | 11/7</SMALL>

Daley praises GOP, slaps Democrats

Published November 7, 2004

CHICAGO -- Mayor Richard Daley backed John Kerry for president, but Daley had some admiring observations about the Republican Party after last week's elections and some chastening words for his fellow Democrats.

"I think there is political change in this country," Daley said. "You talk about Roosevelt. You talk about Kennedy. And you have to talk about Bush. You have to give credit to his discipline, to the message he stayed on line. People made fun. They underestimated him all the time. He showed them all."

"Elitists" in the Democratic Party in Washington have underestimated the religious right, Daley said.

"They don't like people who have different beliefs than they do, who maybe read the Bible, read the Koran. ... They were shoved out, not to be respected."

And the mayor decried the "hatred" on both sides of the campaign, fingering at one point billionaire financier George Soros, a Kerry supporter who funded anti-George Bush ads. "A lot of one-issue people," Daley said. "When I see a guy like George Soros spending $33 million--why doesn't he get a life and give money for scholarships? Why doesn't he get a life and give money to [poor] people in communities? Just because you hate one individual--I really worry about that.

(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...

<HR noShade SIZE=1>

JudgeWapner · Nov 7, 2004

I agree that Soros could do a lot better things with his money. many good causes out there that could use that kind of cash. Could really make a difference.

PatPatriot · Nov 7, 2004

Thats the problem they are so blood thirsty for power they don't do anything that they claim their all about.
Its so funny and hypocritical its actually sad.
Instead looking themselves in the mirror.
They whine and complain and expouse the usual gloom and doom.

docmercer--banned · Nov 7, 2004

That is funny ...

Roosevelt & Bush in the same breath???

Ghees, what a way to disgrace the memory of Roosevelt ...

This kills me ... Bush has bankrupt this country ... has this country in a war that was built on lies ... Health care is out of control ..

I find the comparison disgusting

RobFunk · Nov 7, 2004

that guy is right on the money in his article but hindsight is 20/20. who the hell knew morals would be 20+% on exit polls?! in any event the GOP had the better campaign and if bush did better in the debates they would probably would have won by more.

PatPatriot · Nov 7, 2004

That is funny ...

Roosevelt & Bush in the same breath???

Ghees, what a way to disgrace the memory of Roosevelt ...

This kills me ... Bush has bankrupt this country ... has this country in a war that was built on lies ... Health care is out of control ..

I find the comparison disgusting

Keep repeating this vitriol.
And remember that your in 2nd place.

JudgeWapner · Nov 7, 2004

Pat,I have to agree. No way you can compare Jr to FDR.

PatPatriot · Nov 7, 2004

I wouldn't either in reality.But Bushes story is not complete yet.

But I got a question.

Why did FDR ignore all the warnings before Pearl Harbor?

Why was D-Day in many ways a military failure?

Is Fdr a NAZI for putting Japenese in prison camps right here in the US?

In FDR's first couple of years why was the country in such a economic depression that all economic downturns ar compared to it?

lander · Nov 7, 2004

Clearly, Pat is right -- Iraq, despite their decade of sanctions and weak military, posed the same threat as Nazi Germany ....

Right.

peskypup · Nov 7, 2004

no way man

No way can Iraq be compared to Nazi Germany in 1939:

1935 marched into Rhineland in defiance of Versailles
1936 annexed Austria
1938 Czechoslovakia
1939 Poland

(dates may be a little off)

Throughout this time, they built up their Navy in direct contravention of Versailles, not to mention the Luftwaffe & Army. There was a clear intent to wage war beyind German borders, and this intent had been backed up by actions in expanding those borders.

Now I have to say I was 100% behind Gulf War 1. It was obvious that Kuwait was just the first step on the road to furhter expansion, and it had to be stopped at first base. The casualties were a price worth paying.

But now? It has been clear since we actually went into the country that the UN inspectors were correct all along. Iraq posed little more threat to the democracies than my pussycat, albeit the gangster regime posed a great threat to a substantial minority of Iraqis.

It seems to me that whether you agree with Bush or not one of the following 2 statements is true:

1. CIA pre-war intelligence was woefully lacking in the true state of Iraq's readiness for war.

2. CIA intelligence accurately reported the woeful state of Iraq's military, this was then "sexed up" by politicians on both sides of the Atlantic who had already decided on war regardless of whether we were fighting a pussycat or a tiger.

GAMEFACE · Nov 7, 2004

We are dealing with NUKEs now, totally different times. We don't wait until buildings fall anymore, it was beyond time to deal with Saddam.

PatPatriot · Nov 7, 2004

Game you prick you beat me to it.

NAZI germany did not have nuclear capabilities,but if Ted Kennedys father while he was ambassador to England at the time had his way.Germany would have had them eventually....Joe Kennedy was an appeaser...and also lost his job along with Neville Chamberlin because oof it.

Ted Kennedy,John Kerry et al. had his way Saddam would still be in power with every attempt at aquiring nuke capabilities.

Along with the now destroyed 400,000 tons of ammunition not the 350 tons that Kerry tried to make as another faux issue.

Salsantorre · Nov 7, 2004

f...you

peskypup · Nov 7, 2004

utter crap

Since I work at one of the most nuclear facilites in the world, I think I am qualified to talk about the possible nuclear capacity of Iraq.

To make a bomb is BIG industry. You need:

1. Fuel fabrication plant, normally about 100m long and 20m high.

2. Centrifuge or similar isotope separation facility, as per item 1.

3. A full-scale reactor, typically 50m to 100m high.

4. A reprocessing facility, typically 200m long and 50m high.

5. Storage ponds, normally at least 100m long.

6. Machining plants for the beryllium shield and so on, these are generally 100m long and 50m high or so.

Now I am the first to accept that the CIA's intelligence capabilities - according to the Whitehouse - were little better than my grannies before we invaded.

But surely somewhere along the line we would have spotted these facilities if they existed? Was Saddam hiding them under his bed or what?

Nuclear is nothing like biological or chemical stuff which can be made in small-scale plants little different from a small pharma outfit.

If any of you guys doubt this, take a visit to one of your own site like Savannah River. They are MASSIVE places, not even major chemical refineries come close to the sheer scale of plants needed to produce half-decent nuclear weapons.

Anyone who has been told that Iraq had nuclear potential was lied to, it is that plain and simple. The UK Gvt. was very clever at the time, coming as near as damnit to planting that idea in folks' minds but NEVER actually stating it.

At the time I thought the entire thing was probably massively exaggerated and nothing the troops have discovered in Iraq has caused me to question this view.

GAMEFACE · Nov 7, 2004

peskypup said:
Since I work at one of the most nuclear facilites in the world, I think I am qualified to talk about the possible nuclear capacity of Iraq.

To make a bomb is BIG industry. You need:

1. Fuel fabrication plant, normally about 100m long and 20m high.

2. Centrifuge or similar isotope separation facility, as per item 1.

3. A full-scale reactor, typically 50m to 100m high.

4. A reprocessing facility, typically 200m long and 50m high.

5. Storage ponds, normally at least 100m long.

6. Machining plants for the beryllium shield and so on, these are generally 100m long and 50m high or so.

Now I am the first to accept that the CIA's intelligence capabilities - according to the Whitehouse - were little better than my grannies before we invaded.

But surely somewhere along the line we would have spotted these facilities if they existed? Was Saddam hiding them under his bed or what?

Nuclear is nothing like biological or chemical stuff which can be made in small-scale plants little different from a small pharma outfit.

If any of you guys doubt this, take a visit to one of your own site like Savannah River. They are MASSIVE places, not even major chemical refineries come close to the sheer scale of plants needed to produce half-decent nuclear weapons.

Anyone who has been told that Iraq had nuclear potential was lied to, it is that plain and simple. The UK Gvt. was very clever at the time, coming as near as damnit to planting that idea in folks' minds but NEVER actually stating it.

At the time I thought the entire thing was probably massively exaggerated and nothing the troops have discovered in Iraq has caused me to question this view.

OK, whatever. North Korea, Pakistan and Iran somehow fooled the IAEA. I'm sure you know way more than their experts.

PatPatriot · Nov 7, 2004

with every attempt at aquiring nuke capabilities.

Attempt is the operative word there pup.

f...you

Nice comeback Sal. Thats why John Kerry is a footnote in history now.

How do you like your Daddy GW in Ohio?

Thank your fellow Ohioans for me.

peskypup · Nov 7, 2004

hello wooden head!

I think some posters here have heads made of wood. Any attempt to obtain nuclear weapons which are available for practical use requires the construction of plants 50m high and at least 100m if not 200m long.

Iraq has no such facilities and indeed never has had after the IAEA dismantled the main ones during the 90s. As far as I know no-one in the White House or 10 Downing Street has attempted to pretend otherwise.

Hence not only did Iraq not possess any credible nuclear threat. It was not attempting to either.

If it had been attempting to, I would have thought even your dozy army would have been able to find a 100m by 50m building at some point in the past 18 months.

Everyone knew about Korea, Iran and for that matter South Africa, Israel, Pakistan & India as soon as they all got started. Any half-decent spy satellite can spot a 100m long building, especially as the infrastructure needed to interconnect with proper nuclear facilities is no small beer.

I say again, just wander along to Savannah River, Idaho Falls or the other major parts of your own weapons programme. Even the ultimate Bible bashing, rabid right-wing bigot would have to admit that it would be impossible to conceal such massive facilities.

Your Government has lied to you if you have been told that Saddam had - or could have had - credible nuclear weapons.

GAMEFACE · Nov 7, 2004

Ok, whatever, Iraq meant no harm. Iran, NK and Lybia were not building Nukes either according to the IAEA. You seem to know all the technology and facilities needed but the IAEA doesn't.

xpanda · Nov 8, 2004

I believe I said immediately that Kerry was a bad choice. Here's a man who voted for the war, plays the corporate campaign machine equally as well, and threw his own religion card on the table. In short, the Dems picked a man who would appeal to defecting Republicans and forgot that they're supposed to be the liberal party. The Repubs played to their base, the Dems turned from theirs.

And the mass involvement by musicians and other über-narcissists just makes them look stupid. This is politics, not MTV.

However, despite the ineptitude of the Dems campaigning, the fact that Americans came out in record numbers due to the overwhelming emotion related to this election is only going to serve to fuel the divide, IMO. When Bush says that he's willing to work with anyone who 'agrees with our goals', he is effectively saying (and to his own people now) 'you are either with us or against us.' If this attitude has even half the impact it had on the international community, you're going to have an awful lot of marginalised citizens on your hands.

peskypup · Nov 8, 2004

it will work for a while

I am with the last poster. In the view of Bush if you are not with him you are against him, there is no middle road.

Thatcher was like that in the UK. It works well for a while since you can more easily get things done if you ignore any views you don't think are relevant. But in the end things went badly for her.

After 10 years she had sacked all her best people or they had resigned. She believed herself to be infallible and she made a lot of blunders. Her party axed her, but in doing so split itself from top to bottom. Now 10 years further on it looks like they are still to weak to beat a very unpopular Labour party next year.

In Bush's case at least he is limited to 8 years, that is a plus. Also he still has most of his best folk around him. But on the minus side, he has started making big blunders at a much earlier stage.