Motivations
Governor Blagojevich wants people to hurry up and sign up already for his massive government handouts:
While health insurance through the governor’s All Kids program will not be available until July, parents can begin pre-registering their children now.
At an appearance at a Chicago-area shopping mall on Wednesday to launch the pre-registration drive, Gov. Rod Blagojevich urged parents to act quickly.
"Parents can pre-register their children in All Kids today to help expedite the application process, so that this time next year, instead of worrying about how to afford their child’s health care coverage, they will be celebrating the holidays," he stated in a written release.
Of course he wants parents to sign up now. He wants them to be on his dole so they can vote for him next March and November. And he wants to start adding these folks to his campaign fundraising mailing lists ASAP.
(What’s that? You say that using those names for his campaign would be illegal? Since when has that stopped him?)
Cross-posted from Illinipundit.com.
11 comments:
You are a complete idiot. I am sorry, but your statements are slanderous and just plain false.
Slanderous is right. I suggest you consider retracting this statement. Pathetic.
Leave him alone. He has a right to his opinion.
"I am sorry, but your statements are slanderous and just plain false."
- You obviously don't know what legally qualifies was slanderous. Get an education before posting. That way you won't look AS stupid.
"Slanderous is right. I suggest you consider retracting this statement. Pathetic."
- I suggest you get a job outside Rod's Chicago office, or stop posting on the taxpayer's dime.
Oh please Santa give me what I really want for Xmas.This corrupt pretty boy governor indicted and in handcuffs.
"And he wants to start adding these folks to his campaign fundraising mailing lists ASAP."
So, in other words you have direct knowledge of this? I mean, you did say..."he wants...". That is not an opinion it is a statement of direct knowledge.
Sorry, not done yet. This just really ticks me off.
I mean do you even completely understand what sort of allegations you are throwing around?
Show some responsability. You give the rest of us bloggers bad names.
Great post IlliniPundit!
Anon Poster 8:58 & 9:08, I’m gonna go out on a limb and assume that you probably identify with the Democratic Party, who’s leaders are on TV every Sunday morning saying that the President knowingly lied and misled the country about pre-Iraq War intelligence. I have post on the Grand Old Partisanship Blog that you may want to ready before you get all bent out of shape over this being “slanderous” - http://gopartisan.blogspot.com/2005/11/guns-and-butter.html
GOP--
Ahem, I hate to point this out, but it isn't just Democrats who are saying that Pres. Bush misled the nation to war, Republican Pat Buchanan also said it on national t.v.
Regardless, the President did mislead the country, so why debate it? It's like debating whether the sky is blue.
They led America to believe Saddam was involved in 9/11, it was untrue. They led America to believe Saddam had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, it was untrue. They led America to believe Saddam was building nuclear weapons, it was untrue. They led America to believe securing peace in Iraq would be a "cakewalk", untrue. That reconstruction would be paid for with Iraqi oil, untrue.
Now, the White House can make every excuse they want now, but when they presented their arguments to the American people, the didn't say "based on the best available intelligence, we have reason to believe" I think Dick Cheney's exact words were "We KNOW where they are".
So the question is GOP, if I can admit that Bill Clinton misled the country when he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Even though by sexual relations he meant intercourse, to me, that's a lie. If I can admit that, a Yellow Dog Democrat, why can't you admit that President Bush and his administration have been lying to us all along? Or do you think it depends on what the definition of what "is" is?
Yellow Dog:
You’re right, it isn't just Democrats who are saying that Pres. Bush misled the nation to war, and it’s also not just Republicans saying that AllKids was a politically motivated public policy sham.
Please cite the speech or statement in which the President said Saddam was involved in 9/11. Yes, he did cite 9/11 a lot during the lead up to Iraq, but it was in the context of saying “look, this is what happens when you give American’s enemies the benefit of the doubt, ignore the warning signs, and wait till it is too late.” I think that was a very justifiable thing to do.
And it was not just Bush who led America to believe Saddam had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Clinton thought they had such stockpiles too, that’s why he created the policy of regime change. EVERYONE thought that Saddam had these weapons. Democrats need to stop rewriting history on that one.
Bush did lead America to believe Saddam was building nuclear weapons, which was true. Granted, he was not exactly in the final stages, but we have recovered evidence that he had a research program who’s goal was to figure out how to build one. The moment sanctions and inspections ended, he would have kicked that program into high gear. But the sanctions that were preventing this were also starving the Iraqi people and allowing Saddam and UN officials to get rich off the oil-for-food sham. Saddam was well on his way to bribing enough of the UN into ending the sacntions, which would have allowed him to rebuild all the weapons that we know he at least had at one time, because he used them against Iran and his own people (and don’t bring up the red-herring that Reagan sold him those weapons in the first place. Yes, he did, but we also sold weapons to Russia to fight Germany. Sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils at one point and then turn on your “ally” later).
Bush never, ever led America to believe securing peace in Iraq would be a "cakewalk". He repeatedly said that it would be a long and difficult process. And reconstruction would be paid for with Iraqi oil, eventually.
YDD, I can cite Democratic Senator after Democratic Senator after Democratic President after Democratic Presidential Candidate who saw the same intelligence data as Bush said the same things he was saying about Iraq, in many cases years before he even came to office. So if Bush was lying, what where they doing? The only differnce is that, in the wake of 9/11, Bush was unwilling to take a chance and hope for the best. He decided to be pro-active, instead of waiting and hoping the threat would abate on its own or through a system of inhumane and corrupt sanctions.
Post a Comment