Next Show: ...loading...

Surrender in Iraq

May 30, 2004

(archived broadcast )
First the US converted a contained Iraq to a Terrorist State
And now Bush is letting the terrorists win…

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

  • Skip May 31, 2004 1:31 am

    Mark’s email wasn’t working (during the show) and my phone wasn’t working, so here I am blogging away.
    My viewpoint is a little different than Michael’s. I think Kerry is appropriately paranoid of the whore media after what happened to Howard Dean. All Dean had to do was to say that he would break up the media monopolies and all of a sudden he was pronounced “crazy” to the world. Sound familiar? I bet John McCain would have something to say about that. Bush even got the republican governor (Jane Hull) in AZ to say so back in 2000. The powers behind the GOP certainly do keep their “reaction words” simple, you are either crazy or kinky if you resist them.

  • Gordon May 30, 2004 10:29 pm

    WWII Memorial
    White granite Stonehenge
    with sculpted bronze panels
    and a wall of gold stars
    centered by a fountain spraying
    the water of life,
    displaying the cost of war,
    when confusion amasses a grievous scale
    of man’s inhumanity to man,
    when God’s Son separates
    into nation states
    of insanity
    thinking the answer can be attained
    through tyranny.
    Horror so huge
    it can’t be imagined;
    yet, so sublime in its memory.
    A disease so consuming;
    don’t glorify this pain.
    Realize another way.
    The end inherits the means.
    Future generations are reminded
    don’t become the enemy fought before.
    With forgiveness shooting forth
    from everyone’s hearts,
    with peace, replace war.
    Life’s lessons will be learned
    either with pain or joy;
    let it be joy, Dear Lord.

  • Michael May 30, 2004 8:16 pm

    Thanks Mark for allowing me on the show. I just wanted to make an additional comment about the Al Gore speech.
    One thing I wanted to follow up on was my very strong feelings that people do not want some bland centrist running for president. They want a candidate like the candidate that Al Gore would be if he were running and made that speech. It’s a little hard for Kerry to criticize Bush when he doesn’t seem that much different. This leads to the “lesser of evils” argument.
    Kerry needs to pick a progressive issue (or several preferably) and champion it passionately. If he continues to try to play both sides against the middle, BushCo’s spindoctors will continue to paint him as wishy-washy and a waffler. Better to be labeled a “liberal” and actually passionately stand for something than stand for nothing while coming across as a Republican-lite.
    You can’t build a successful campaign based on simply criticizing the incumbent. And if you are going to criticize the incumbent, why not criticize the foundation upon which his administration was built?
    Here’s an issue for Kerry to champion passionately:
    Bush is nothing but a corporate whore, and if Kerry wants to take an issue to heart, he should attack corporate interference in Washington. He should attack Bush’s foundation. He should say “Look, here’s the problem, and I’m going to clean it up!”
    Not only would a lot of progressives flock to him, but I guarantee he would win over 90% of Ralph Nader and the Green Party’s votes.