conservatives to vote for Kerry - The Nation.

POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 3, 2004 16:00
VIEWED: 2239
PAGE 1 of 1

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 7:17 PM

... so if conservatives are voting for Kerry, what does that say about Bush?

The Nation has been Conservative Americas traditional source of news and commentary since 1865.
http://www.thenation.com

Things are getting serious in the USA.

100 Facts and 1 Opinion
The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration
by Judd Legum

IRAQ

1. The Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq.

Source: American Progress

2. The Bush Administration sent troops into battle without adequate body armor or armored Humvees.

Sources: Fox News, The Boston Globe

3. The Bush Administration ignored estimates from Gen. Eric Shinseki that several hundred thousand troops would be required to secure Iraq.

Source: PBS

4. Vice President Cheney said Americans "will, in fact, be greeted as liberators" in Iraq.

Source: The Washington Post

5. During the Bush Administration's war in Iraq, more than 1,000 US troops have lost their lives and more than 7,000 have been injured.

Source: globalsecurity.org

6. In May 2003, President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit, stood under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," and triumphantly announced that major combat operations were over in Iraq. Asked if he had any regrets about the stunt, Bush said he would do it all over again.

Source: Yahoo News

7. Vice President Cheney said that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." The bipartisan 9/11 Commission found that Iraq had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks and no collaborative operational relationship with Al Qaeda.

Source: MSNBC , 9-11 Commission

8. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said that high-strength aluminum tubes acquired by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," warning "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The government's top nuclear scientists had told the Administration the tubes were "too narrow, too heavy, too long" to be of use in developing nuclear weapons and could be used for other purposes.

Source: New York Times

9. The Bush Administration has spent just $1.1 billion of the $18.4 billion Congress approved for Iraqi reconstruction.

Source: USA Today

10. According to the Administration's handpicked weapon's inspector, Charles Duelfer, there is "no evidence that Hussein had passed illicit weapons material to al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, or had any intent to do so." After the release of the report, Bush continued to insist, "There was a risk--a real risk--that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons, or materials, or information to terrorist networks."

Sources: New York Times, White House news release

11. According to Duelfer, the UN inspections regime put an "economic strangle hold" on Hussein that prevented him from developing a WMD program for more than twelve years.

Source: Los Angeles Times

TERRORISM

12. After receiving a memo from the CIA in August 2001 titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack America," President Bush continued his month long vacation.

Source: CNN.com

13. The Bush Administration failed to commit enough troops to capture Osama bin Laden when US forces had him cornered in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan in November 2001. Instead, they relied on local warlords.

Source: csmonitor.com

14. The Bush Administration secured less nuclear material from sites around the world vulnerable to terrorists in the two years after 9/11 than were secured in the two years before 9/11.

Source: nti.org

15. The Bush Administration underfunded Nunn-Lugar--the program intended to keep the former Soviet Union's nuclear legacy out of the hands of terrorists and rogue states--by $45.5 million.

Source: armscontrol.org

16. The Bush Administration has assigned five times as many agents to investigate Cuban embargo violations as it has to track Osama bin Laden's and Saddam Hussein's money.

Source: Associated Press

17

JAYNEZTOWN

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 8:27 PM

what a terrible job this adminstration has done

HJERMSTED

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 8:41 PM

Great article, thanks for posting!

Quote:
The Nation has been Conservative Americas traditional source of news and commentary since 1865.
http://www.thenation.com

I always found The Nation to be quite progressive. Just curious... which definition of conversative are you using?

mattro

CREVANREAVER

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 8:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hjermsted:
I always found The Nation to be quite progressive.

Yeah, The Nation is by no means a conservative periodical. It's a pretty blatant leftist propaganda piece. Hell, Christopher Hitchens left the paper because of its bias after 9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nation

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 9:01 PM

^^^ omfg.

About Wikipedia
Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia written collaboratively by contributors from around the world. The site is a wiki, which means that anyone can edit articles, simply by clicking on the edit this page link.

Great... information anyone can create. Jebus save me.

The Nation is a conservative magazine.

Really.

Not a brain teaser here.

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 9:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hjermsted:
I always found The Nation to be quite progressive. Just curious... which definition of conversative are you using?

Why is it this BBS is usually about defineing basic terms?

I don't know Hjermsted - the sort who have brains and don't go around supporting murdering, lying, torturing, bombing, morons just because they are leading thier party?

The Nation is Americas oldest political magazine - it's conservative but not partizan. Call that progressive if you like.

The Nation will not be the organ of any party, sect, or body. It will, on the contrary, make an earnest effort to bring to the discussion of political and social questions a really critical spirit, and to wage war upon the vices of violence, exaggeration, and misrepresentation by which so much of the political writing of the day is marred.
-- from The Nation's founding prospectus, 1865

DARKJESTER

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 9:59 PM

I'm sorry Ghoulman, but I believe you are mistaken on this one. The Nation is a progressive magazine with a strong liberal slant. It's where I first read Molly Ivins. They are big on social justice, rooting for the little guy and pointing out government corruption. They are non-partisan - they'll blast a Democrat as soon as a Republican for being stupid or for double-talk. But they are not conservative.

Edited to add:
Can I suggest reading this link ( http://thenation.com/thebeat/index.mhtml?bid=1&pid=1960)
and checking out the description of their "The Beat" segment, located on the right of the page?

MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."

GEEZER

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 1:09 PM

Al Kamen, the political columnist for the Washington Post sure considers the Nation "Super-lib" and "Bush-hater central."

Quote:
Victory at Sea -- for Someone

By Al Kamen
Wednesday, November 3, 2004; Page A13

Loop kudos today to two courageous groups -- one conservative, the other liberal -- who had the temerity to schedule major oceanic parties right after the election. One will be throwing a big celebration; the other will be watching members throw themselves into the sea.

So top folks at super-lib magazine the Nation have scheduled their seventh annual, week-long Eastern Caribbean Cruise, setting off on Dec. 5 with stops in the Bahamas, St. Maarten and Tortola.

Publisher Victor Navasky says a record of about 500 libs -- double the early years' efforts -- have forked over as much as $6,000 for two for the best accommodations to spend the time in deep contemplation of important socio-political matters with the likes of author Calvin Trillin, law professor Derrick A. Bell, and party animal authors Jonathan Schell, Molly Ivins and Robert Scheer.

"If [Sen. John F. Kerry] loses," Navasky said, then the cruise "will be a constructive solidarity session," though at times solidarity in this crowd has been a scarce commodity.

The first two or three cruises saw near-mutinies over whether there were enough women on the panels, drawing a comment from comedian Al Franken that almost sparked a riot.

But this is Bush-hater central, and if President Bush wins, it might be best to put up netting to deter dives into the Caribbean. If things are not that dire, there still "may be a vote to take the next cruise to New Zealand," Navasky said, maybe check out some real estate opportunities.

On the other hand, he noted, this is not a real pro-Kerry crowd. "There is a lack of enthusiasm for Kerry," he said, "largely because of his Iraq war statements. If he's elected and stays the course [in Iraq], there will be a very early disillusionment."

Remember though, Navasky said, "these are vacations in the guise of seminars. People stay up too late and drink too much and some," though we find it hard to believe, "even gamble."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21055-2004Nov3.html

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GHOULMAN

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 4:00 PM

^^^ That article is ...weird.

Quote:
Originally posted by DarkJester:
I'm sorry Ghoulman, but I believe you are mistaken on this one. The Nation is a progressive magazine with a strong liberal slant. It's where I first read Molly Ivins. They are big on social justice, rooting for the little guy and pointing out government corruption. They are non-partisan - they'll blast a Democrat as soon as a Republican for being stupid or for double-talk. But they are not conservative.

Edited to add:
Can I suggest reading this link ( http://thenation.com/thebeat/index.mhtml?bid=1&pid=1960)
and checking out the description of their "The Beat" segment, located on the right of the page?

It's funny - the definition of what is conservative seems to have changed.

When did conservatives become heartless Nazis who don't care about the poor or pointing out corruption?

Great article, thanx!

Quote:
Even Republicans Fear Bush
10/31/2004 @ 10:01am

The most divisive election campaign in recent American history has not merely split the nation along party lines, it has split the Grand Old Party itself. Unfortunately, most Americans are wholly unaware of the loud dissents against Bush that have begun to be heard in Republican circles.

If the United States had major media that covered politics, as opposed to the political spin generated by the Bush White House and the official campaigns of both the Republican president and his Democratic challenger, one of the most fascinating, and significant, stories of the 2004 election season would be ...

Is conservative now to mean brainless knuckle-dragging Nazi killers who eat children and torture old women?

Yes. I guess that's what it means... in the USA.

You're right, The Nation is a liberal magazine, because liberal and conservative are black and white terms.

America is a dark, fearful, place.