HomePoliticsThank You, Thank You, Thank You… Thank You, Thank You, Thank You… Kevin February 8, 2005 Politics 44 Comments Democrats align behind Dean to champion party Darwin Award Nominee Disclosure We'd Like To See Related Posts The new ostriches Did Obama And Biden Forget That They Televise Debates? Bearding the Crystal Dragon – Thoughts on the ‘Deep State’ and Modern Conspiracies About The Author Kevin Kevin founded Wizbang in 2003. He still contributes occasionally and handles all the technical and design work for the site. 44 Comments Just Me February 8, 2005 And the liberals like to call us morons. It is going to be interesting to see Dean work hard to further marginalize the very people the DNC needs to be reaching out to. Lee February 8, 2005 How much you want to bet Pelosi encouraged Tim Roemer to run precisely because she knew he couldn’t win? An anti-abortion moderate has about as great a chance of heading up the DNC as Pat Robertson. If she is that crafty, you’d expect that she’d be blessed with at least a little common sense. I guess an ability to be manipulative in pursuing an agenda does not imply a capacity for introspection or an ability to honestly evaluate that agenda. Dan Patterson February 8, 2005 What kind of self-destructive impulse gene is at work here, DoktorDean? Ok, Ok. You REALLY feel strongly about socialism and labor unions, and about isolationist foreign policy, and you believe the redistribution of assets will bring about fairness and equality. But, DoktorDean, did you know that we are presently in the year 2005? I’m not kidding. 2005. Not, as you might believe, 1935. And no, you aren’t Huey Long. Take your medication, breathe deeply, and relax Doktor. We sane adults will make sure everything is taken care of. Dan Patterson bullwinkle February 8, 2005 You really gotta hand it to the democrats, it’s only fair since they’ve handed it to us for at least the 2008-2012 term. On a silver platter, and four years in advance. How very nice of them! Lee February 8, 2005 “Howard Dean’s job is to say the Bush approach to all of the areas is wrong — and to give a sense of why it’s wrong,” Doesn’t this just about sum up the entire Democratic platform? “Bush is wrong, Bush is evil, Bush is the devil, Bush dresses funny, Bush hates your kids, Bush took my milk money…” ad infinitem. If this is an accurate description of Deans’ new job, to give reasons why Bush’s approach to ALL areas is wrong, then they’ve got an uphill battle ahead of them that will ironically leave them in a very deep hole. It is difficult to be wrong about everything, even on purpose, and even more difficult to convince someone that another is that wrong without looking bad yourself. Those you don’t convince are left with a bad opinion of you instead. Even if you succeed in convincing them that someone is bad they are just as likely to decide that you’re an asshole as well. If the democrats make complete their transformation into the “Republicans are wrong” party, then they’re not just screwed, they’re gangbanged. Don Myers February 8, 2005 This is great news, because Dr. Dean might actually light a fire under the Dems. In 2004, the GOP only won by a couple of points against one of the most timid, milktoast campaigns I’d ever seen (and they still needed shenanigans in FL and OH to pull it off). In 2000, of course, the GOP lost the election by half-a-million votes and had to get installed by the Supreme Court. The point I’m trying to make here is that the Democrats don’t have that far to go in order to take back the white House in 2008, especially after another four years of skyrocketing deficits, war profiteering, and massive corporate welfare. Dr. Dean will make sure the Dems come out swinging instead of playing rope-a-dope with Kerry and Gore. Jon February 8, 2005 I like the comment by the republican, “he’s not Al Sharpton, but this is good.” It seems clear the base of the democrat party wants to go left. Republicans also want them to go left. So, it seems everybody is happy, except for the remaining democrat office holders and the party elite. Let’s hope this trend continues for a good long time. Jon February 8, 2005 Don, Dean will certainly fire up the democrat base. He will undoubtedly attract both money and enthusiasm. But, the cost will be losing the middle. The dems will end up with 10% fewer votes, but they’ll all be VERY ENTHUSIASTIC ones. So, I say good for them. This is where they want to go, well god bless ’em. Jay February 8, 2005 I question how much it actually matters who has that job. If the Republicans lack a viable candidate to field, and the Democrats have one, they can still win. While I’d love to see Hillary versus Condi in ’08, just for spectator sport, I am not convinced that there is anyone on the other side who can beat a properly positioned, centrist-talking Hillary. Jinx McHue February 8, 2005 Well, two things are guaranteed now: (1) DailyDean(Kos) will enjoy continued existence, and (2) the Democrats will continue to lose elections. Jon February 8, 2005 I think Hillary is very overrated. The dems always seem to think she will save the party, but I think she’ll be just as much of a loser as Kerry was/is. She automatically starts with 40% of voters hating her. She’s probably got 40% on the otherside too, but she’s got at least as much baggage as kerry, perhaps more. Once republicans go to work on her, her ‘moderate’ image will be trashed. utron February 8, 2005 My big concern here is that Dean might mismanage the party’s resources so disastrously that they dump him before the 2008 election. Of course, his replacement might well be someone like an out-of-office Barbara Boxer, who would serve just as well if you’re looking for someone to preside over a liberal meltdown. The Dems’ learning curve bears a srtiking resemblance to an ironing board. reliapundit February 8, 2005 I’m a lifelong blue state democrat – who voted for BUSH! This ain’t a Dean comeback; it’s a democratic deathwish! Dean is a LOSER, a loose cannon, and an egomaniac. Not that it matters much: If Zell and Lieberman handpicked the next chair the dems would still be in trouble. WHY? They have no core beliefs EXCEPT protecting the status quo and BIG government. BOTH are losing propositions – and they will fare worse and worse as Bush’s successes snowball. The extreme Leftwing McGvernite-Carter-Kennedyites may very well run the party, now. They will surely RUN IT IN TO THE GROUND later. NO…. sooner rather than later. Good riddance. giuliano February 8, 2005 “I love it when a plan comes together!” chortled Karl Rove, rubbing his hands with glee. ridgerunner February 8, 2005 I swear, This looks like Captain Ahab hopelessly entangled in harpoon lines beckoning alll to follow….all to follow. Yeah, heh heh sure does. Just Me February 8, 2005 I just have to giggle a bit, when anyone mentions Hillary as a candidate that can win. The only think the GOP likes better than the idea of Dean at the DNC helm, is Hillary in ’08. However I wouldn’t expect to see Condi as the nominee-although maybe as the #2 on the ticket. I almost think the GOP may move to the center in ’08 for its nominee, which will make it even more difficult for Hillary, since she is pretending to be at the center, most of us remember Hillarycare. Don Myers February 8, 2005 Wow—most of you would actively prefer a one-party system, wouldn’t you? patrick February 8, 2005 I think Dean will tell the democrats to start talking about the lies that Bush keeps saying and start an investigation on him as a war criminal. that would be a nice start. by the way, Cheney dresses funny, not Dubya. ridgerunner February 8, 2005 The Democratic party – Chuchill said it “their insatiable lust for power is equaled only by their incurable impotence in exercising it”. Dean? another Churchill gem-a fanatic cannot change his mind and is unwilling to change the subject. I think we have all the makings for a real star trek type time loop here. Better yet Groundhog Day every four years. Yipeeee! Jack Tanner February 8, 2005 ‘I think Dean will tell the democrats to start talking about the lies that Bush keeps saying and start an investigation on him as a war criminal.’ There’s a winning strategy. Rightwingsparkle February 8, 2005 I am not convinced that there is anyone on the other side who can beat a properly positioned, centrist-talking Hillary. Jay, as much as that scares me, I think you are right. Rod Stanton February 8, 2005 Actually Dr. Dean fits right in with Sens. Reid, Teddy, Boxer, JFK and Rep Pelosi. To us he seems extreme but to a Dem he is “middle of the road”. All depends on your point of view. Lee February 8, 2005 “I think Dean will tell the democrats to start talking about the lies that Bush keeps saying and start an investigation on him as a war criminal.” While I admit that’s a hell of an idea for an SNL skit, it stinks as a political platform, unless of course you’re actively attempting to sabotage your own party. As much as we keep hearing about the lies that Bush is telling, you’d think that we’d actually be hearing Bush tell some lies. I’ve yet to be presented with anything he’s said that can even be substantiated as a possible lie, let alone a likely one. Certain lies are as rare as hen’s teeth. I think Bush’s lying skills are in need of some work. Maybe he should start taking lessons from Khmer Rouge Kerry, whose next revelation will surely be that he participated in the October Revolution. mantis February 8, 2005 It seems clear the base of the democrat party wants to go left. Republicans also want them to go left. So, it seems everybody is happy, except for the remaining democrat office holders and the party elite. The democratic office holders? Who do you think is supporting Dean? I question how much it actually matters who has that job. Exactly. You all seem pretty quick to note this will be the end of the democrats or whatever, but how many of you credit Ken Mehlman with the successes of the Republicans? I’m a lifelong blue state democrat Sure you are reliapundit. “I love it when a plan comes together!” chortled Karl Rove So Rove engineered this? You sound like a moonbat. As much as we keep hearing about the lies that Bush is telling, you’d think that we’d actually be hearing Bush tell some lies. Ok, here’s some recent bs from the SOTU: “By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt. “ “We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing…” TheEnigma February 8, 2005 It might be wise for Republicans to refrain from making an issue of dean and his anticipated behavior at this time. Give him time to do his damage to the democrats – many near center contributors are considering withholding donations and his far leftist agenda will drive others out of the party. When election time arrives, remind the voters where the dean and the democrats stand on the issues; that the democrats are party of way out of the mainstream philosophy and beliefs. With the continued decline of MSM and their one-sided control of the news, more and more voters will rely on the internet for facts about both the democrats and the Republicans. As their knowledge of our beliefs increase, the Republican party will benefit. Patrick Chester February 8, 2005 Don, you really shouldn’t put words in other people’s mouths. Noting that the Democratic party is seriously destroying itself doesn’t mean you want a one-party system. One is simply stating what one sees. Shall I put words in your mouth and assume you think the Democratic party can’t be replaced and must be buoyed at all costs? patrick February 8, 2005 “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and is an inherent threat to the security of the United States” was one lie, “Social Security will be broke in 2019”, another lie, “I have a program to ensure education of our young called no child left behind”, a half truth since it is underfunded and the Bush budget calls for reduced education spending by almost 1% and to terminate 48 programs. an undelivered promise at best. Allowing torture to be performed while he is the commander in chief is a war crime. Veteran’s administration benefits face cuts even though they have more new customers than ever thanks to this war. I wish I woke up and this was an SNL skit. TheEigma February 8, 2005 Apparently patrick chooses to ignore: Years before George W. Bush became our president, most prominent Democrats wanted Saddam Hussein’s head on a platter. Now those same Democrats say that George W. lied to us and Hussein never had any WMDs, and the only reason president Bush went into Iraq was for the oil. The next time one of these “Demon-crats”, masquerading as a politician, start spewing their Verbal Weapons of Mass Destruction; send them a copy of this web page. “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998. “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998. “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998. “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998 “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. “Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. “There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001 “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002. “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 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 b elieve that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002. “He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002. “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002. “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003. SCSIwuzzy February 8, 2005 Unable to get Dr. Kevorikian, the Democrats turn to another doctor qualified to help them with an assisted suicide. Enter, Dr. Dean. McGehee February 8, 2005 This is great news, because Dr. Dean might actually light a fire under the Dems. And you know what happens when you light a fire under dead wood. bullwinkle February 8, 2005 Most of us would actively(?) prefer a one party system? I’m guessing that is supposed to say actually, but I’m thinking the DNC wants a one party system, and that one party aint democrat, judging by their choice of party chairman. Their problem in the last three elections was they keep moving to the left, so the general plan is to move even further to the left. What a great concept! If what you do is failing just do it a lot more, it’s bound to work….. Dan Patterson February 8, 2005 The Eigma has constructed an economy-sized Smack Down and I am happy to have read it. Thank you. Could one be assembled for the Social Security subject as well? Dan Patterson bullwinkle February 8, 2005 Referring to a then-recent poll revealing that “young people in the generation of the students here felt it was far more likely that they would see a UFO than that they would draw Social Security,” Mr. Clinton warned seven years ago about “the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security.” He acknowledged to the students that “every one of you know that the Social Security system is not sound for the long term.” Elaborating, Mr. Clinton argued: “This fiscal crisis in Social Security affects every generation. We know that the Social Security trust fund is fine for another few decades. But if it gets in trouble and we don’t deal with it, then it not only affects the generation of the baby boomers . . . when they retire; it [also] raises the question of whether they will have enough to live on by unfairly burdening their children, and, therefore, unfairly burdening their children’s ability to raise their grandchildren.” What did Mr. Clinton think about this? “That would be unconscionable,” he said, “especially since, if you move now, we can do less and have a bigger impact.” That was seven years ago. Mr. Clinton then listed the consequences of failing to address “the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security.” Addressing the students, he said: “If [we] don’t do anything, one of two things will happen — either [Social Security] will go broke and you won’t ever get [the benefits you are promised]. Or if we wait too long to fix it, the burden on society of taking care of [the baby boomers’] Social Security obligations will lower your income and lower your ability to take care of your children to a degree most of us who are your parents think would be horribly wrong and unfair to you and unfair to the future prospects of the United States.” http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050118-093611-1435r.htm bullwinkle February 8, 2005 “We have a great opportunity now to take action now to avert a crisis in the Social Security system. By 2030, there will be twice as many elderly as there are today, with only two people working for every person drawing Social Security. After 2032, contributions from payroll taxes will only cover 75 cents on the dollar of current benefits. So we must act, and act now, to save Social Security.” George W. Bush? No, William Clinton: February 1998. “Save Social Security first.” George W. Bush? No, William Clinton: State of the Union speech 1998. Americans cannot afford any new spending “before we take care of the crisis in Social Security that is looming when the baby boomers retire.” George W. Bush? No, William Clinton. The administration’s economical advancements cannot go forward as long as the U.S. is “threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security. We have a great opportunity now to take action now to avert a crisis in the Social Security system.” George W. Bush? No, William Clinton: February 1998. According to Byron York, National Review White House Corespondent, “In September 1998, Vice President Al Gore went to the Capitol for a Social Security pep rally with congressional Democrats, including House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, Sen. Edward Kennedy, Sen. Barbara Boxer, and others. “Gore said that in coming years — by 2032 — ‘Social Security faces a serious fiscal crisis.’ Everyone in the group stayed remarkably on-message as they warned that the future was dire. “’Save Social Security first,’ said Gore. “’Save Social Security first,’ said Gephardt. “’Save Social Security first,’ said Kennedy. “’Save Social Security first,’ said Boxer.” So, not only would the democrats gladly allow iraqis to suffer under Saddam they’d also let social security go broke rather than let a republican administration fix it. Hypocrisy from the party of dishonesty. patrick February 8, 2005 excellent weapons of mass destruction references, and a fine arguement but president Clinton believed that an inspection process would do the job and they did, unless you believe the lie that we were told by Mr. Bush that the weapons inspection is not working because saddam was not allowing them in the country. They were there and the program was working. After 9/11 democrats showed a willingness to work with President Bush and believed the “evidence” that he presented to them, of course most of the country backed the war on this point. President Clinton did not start a war because he probably did not feel that saddam was an emminent threat which he was not. He did however mention to Mr. Bush that Osama bin laden was a problem and Bush has caught him and brought him to justice. oops mission not accomplished yet. President Clinton said that about social security then he balance the budget and fixed it. It needs some tweaking now I agree but not an overhaul to send money to wall street. When is Mr. Bush of the fiscally responsible republican party going to balance the budget, not until 2009 when he is out of office and then only half way. so I guess that means never. Marty February 8, 2005 The expression on Dean’s face is the look of a guy who has just realized that he’s mixed up his hemmorhoid cream with Nancy Pelosi’s Botox goo. I’d hate to be his hamper after THAT wears off. bullwinkle February 8, 2005 “Americans cannot afford any new spending “before we take care of the crisis in Social Security that is looming when the baby boomers retire.”” SAo it’s only a crisis if we have a surplus? Ridiculous. Clinton balanced the budget? Ridiculous. Clinton fought the cuts that a republican led congress put in effect that balanced the budget, then stepped in to take credit for it, in typical dishonest democrat fashion. firstbrokenangel February 8, 2005 This is so ridiculous – Is this the best the Democrats could come up with? My gosh, I really didn’t think they’d be so stupid as to have this jerk take over Terry McC?????? place. Man, the Democrats have lowered themselves even further. Big Mistake. Cindy Bostonian February 8, 2005 Don Myers: “Wow—most of you would actively prefer a one-party system, wouldn’t you?” It would be great to have a viable second party, but the Democrats are not it. They’re not even trying to be serious anymore. They frame every disagreement as “Bush LIED,” they omit facts inconvenient to their arguments, they DO NOT LISTEN to the voters, and the press lets them get away with all of it. I voted for Democrats (almost exclusively) for 20 years. What I see now repels me, with very few exceptions. TheEnigma February 8, 2005 Dan Patterson I cannot take credit for the comments by democrats on WMDs. I missed noticing that I failed to include the site from which I obtained the information Democrat Comments on WMDs In the event my attempt to post the link fails http://www.jrwhipple.com/war/wmd.html Lee February 8, 2005 Patrick is bound and determined to see malice and deception where none exists. I personally believe that Iraq did have WMD. Why? Because all Saddam had to do to save his sorry butt from the USMC was act in good faith and allow the weapons inspectors to do their job. Not only did he not act in good faith when the inspectors were in Iraq, he kicked them out! If he didn’t have WMD then he’s got a talent for bluffing that would leave a card-shark in awe. Don’t forget that he had six months to dispose of his WMD while we were still pussy-footing around with the UN instead of bombing his punk ass into the stone age like we should have been doing. But, lets say for the sake of argument that Saddam didn’t have WMD. Does that now mean that Bush and company were lying? There is a difference between making a mistake and telling a lie. I’m assuming your mommy taught you the difference. Considering the great lengths that Saddam exerted to make it look like he had WMD, an honest mistake on the part of Bush (as well as everyone else) is not exactly suprising. As for social security, a predition is not a lie, it is an educated guess at what the future holds. When the weatherman gets it wrong, does that mean he lied? When he gets it right, does that mean he was telling the truth? My personal take on Social Security is that it needs to go away. I don’t care if I have to pay the taxes on it for the rest of my life and never get a penny back. As long as it is eventually laid to rest I’m happy. Social Security is the modern equivalent of the pension civil war veterans were paid, with the exception that the veterans eventually died off. Now I will admit that for any politician to claim to have a solution to our educational crisis is a lie, but it is one that all politicians seem to tell, some more than once. Our educational system sucks because it attempts to employ an assembly-line, one-size-fits-all approach to the task of teaching our children. This results in the lowest common demominator becoming the standard. I’m sorry, but some kids are going to be “left behind” because they are stupid, others because they are lazy, others because they are crazy, and some because they are all three. Our schools would do far better to worry about the education of the upper 50 percentile, and especially the upper 20th. These are the people for whom education is of benefit. Worrying about whether Forrest Gump Jr. can pass a proficiency test is an utter waste of time and money, especially when doing so is detrimental to everyone else’s education. The best way to help those with intellectual deficits is not to try and drag them along behind everyone else, but to honestly address their needs. To persist in this delusion that all children are capable of excelling does nothing but ensure that very few do, and those that manage to do so in spite of their education, not because of it. I’ve got issues with our educational system, can’t you tell? I’m also long-winded and opinionated, but then again this is the internet. patrick February 9, 2005 You can equate social security to the weather and you believe the WMD lie. our education sytem has obviously failed. now I want to stop being a government teacher and wash dishes again. My moomy by the way told me that if you lie and no one dies it’s not good but it’s better than tell a lie people die. The Enigma February 9, 2005 The same old tired lines keep appearing. democrats make the statements about hussein’s WMDs and those statements are accepted at face value. President Bush, relying on the same intelligence, makes the same claim about hussein’s WMDs and he lies. Even when faced with copies of the statements by demoncrats, some continue to say President Bush lied. Something is out of kilter. Would that be called selective intelligence or lack of intelligence? Judith February 15, 2005 Patrick–go **** a duck!