Whitehead may not think Iraq is a big issue…

…But he definitely has an opinion on it. Here’s what state Sen. Whitehead had to say to Politico.com:

“I’m certainly not a cut-and-run person. I don’t know how we can go along with trying to be friends with people who have no objective in the world but to kill us. I can assure you there will be battles over here if we don’t keep it over there.” [Source: 4/11/2007 Politico.com article “Whitehead Positioned to Win in Georgia State Race”]

It’s funny…I’ve never heard a single Democrat say that we need to be friends with terrorists. In fact, I’ll go as far as to say that Democrats, just like Republicans, want to keep this country safe from more terrorist attacks. That’s why all six of Georgia’s Democratic members of Congress voted to fund Homeland Security while the Georgia G.O.P. “Gang of Six” voted against it [5/9/2007 House Roll Call #318].

But, to get back to Sen. Whitehead’s statements, he seems to continue to insinuate that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. The facts are clear on this…the people responsible for 9/11 were al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Osama bin Laden; and quite frankly, because of the President’s failure to plan (which we all know is a plan to fail) for post-Saddam Iraq, that country has now become the exact thing that Bush was trying to prevent; Iraq is now a haven and breeding ground for terrorists and terrorism.

Instead of being in its “last throes”, al-Qaeda is making a comeback. The Taliban is making a comeback and Afghanistan is in a downward spiral. Osama bin Laden is still alive and he’s planning more attacks.

If President Bush’s plan was to reduce terrorism, then he has failed because global terrorism is up more than 25%, and if all Jim Whitehead is going to be is just another rubber stamp for Bush’s failed policies, then he’s not the person to represent Georgia in Congress.

67 comments

  1. Federalist says:

    You know, the best thing we can practice right now is the system of checks and balances that was installed into our Constitution. Whitehead is just going to be a rubber stamp for president bush, and this has been a problem in Congress since 2002. Opposing the president does not = supporting terrorism. Blindly supporting the president will lead to failure…particularly considering Bush’s record…politically and the days of his private enterprise.

  2. drjay says:

    very few members are jim marshall or chuck hagel or joe lieberman that do occasionally really differ from their party line to a signifigant degree–so yeah if the choice is whitehead or marlow–we are basically deciding which “rubber stamp” we are more comfortable w/ a bush one or a pelosi one–i am comfortable w/ that and would prefer giving it to w. at this point–so o.k.

  3. Jmac says:

    Federalist, I thought you swore Peach Pundit off?

    Still, I don’t necessarily dispute Andre’s central point, which is that Whitehead’s views on Iraq are pretty much in line with what has been a hit-and-miss policy conducted by the Bush Administration.

    It’s apparent that al-Qaida is gaining strength and, for the time being, the opposite of what Bush intended to happen in Iraq has happened. The question then becomes … does fighting them ‘over there’ accomplish anything? Granted, the struggle against Islamic extremism is going to be a long one, but is this particular method the appropriate one … especially seeing how it’s apparently driving people to join terrorist organizations.

    It’s probably time to address this manner with something that’s more tactful than the broad sword.

  4. Bill Simon says:

    Jmac,

    Boy! I sure hope you’re thinking what I’m thinking…pull-out and drop the Bomb and start over over there, right? One of those neutron bombs so we can still access the oil fields just after the last insurgent twitches away, right?

  5. Federalist says:

    Jmac,

    I must apologize, i did not log off my account and my youngest son jumped on my computer and embarrassed me greatly. I considered changing my name, but then nobody would remember me. If anybody was offended by the remarks that he posted, I sincerely apologize. The rubber stamp remark…I have not heard a remark from Whitehead that would indicate that he would think on his own, but Marlow is not a liberal. He may follow the Dems on the Iraq issue, but he has not been tainted by party politics yet…he has never been elected and exposed to it.

  6. bowersville says:

    Y’all having fun yet? I know I am. I’ve been reading all this about the paradoxical challenges of determining how many of us good ole boys and girls from the 10th that drive four door, 4wd, pickups have degrees from private liberal arts colleges.

    As soon as you determine whether or not us ole boys and girls from the 10th are in tune to you’re viewpoints, let me know will ya’.

  7. Kepper says:

    Taking issue with Andre’s statement:
    “But, to get back to Sen. Whitehead?s statements, he seems to continue to insinuate that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.”

    Where does he insinuate in that article that Hussein was involved with 9/11?

    Senator Whitehead makes some very valid points. We are engaged with Al Qaeda in Iraq and we are killing a lot more of them than they are us. As much as I want to bring our people home, I prefer to keep the war over there. Believe me, we will be fighting this scum on our own territory before long. When we do finally pullout, they will follow us back home.

    I got a chuckle from another part of Andre’s post: “It’s funny…I’ve never heard a single Democrat say that we need to be friends with terrorists.”
    Me either. However, actions speak louder than words. Remember Pelosi’s visit to Syria last month? What was she doing there? Dropping off a batch of cookies to be “neighborly”?
    It turns my stomach to think anyone in our government is discussing anything with Syria. They are directly responsible for costing us American lives in Iraq. They, in my opinion, are the Iraq insurgency(sp?).

    What really bothers me about this whole mess is that it was a Clinton that messed up our intelligence before 9/11. We finally have valuable assets in place only to have another Clinton to potentially tear it down again.

    God help us all.

  8. tony r says:

    Let’s just call this the way it is –

    Our republican president led us into a necessary and vital war. And he bungled it up.

    The dems, completely beholden to a bunch of sagging, pot head, 60s losers, are exploiting bush’s bungling to be the cowards they really are.

    These islamic fascist serial killers are evil. There is no negotiating or appeasement with these evil bastards. Pelosi, marlow and their kind want to talk to them and hug them and try to find common ground while they plot ways to fly airplan

  9. tony r says:

    Sorry….airplanes into buildings and kill our families.

    Yeah, we screwed up the job. Its time to man up, finish the job of building democracy in iraq, and kill those evil bastards.

    Yes, andre, I am clearly saying that if one advocates for immediate withdrawl or negotiating with iran that they are a damn coward.

    Freedom isn’t free. A helluva lot of people have shed blood – including those brave americans in iraq – to keep us safe and protect pelosi’s, marlow’s and your right to be a coward safe.

  10. tony r says:

    And yes, I feel better now. There was a time when dems and gopers let the politics stop at the border. The democrats today disgust me. They’re unworthy of leading and unworthy of the sacrifices made by our armed services.

  11. Demonbeck says:

    So would you say this statement is a “pimple” on Whitehead’s chances for success?

  12. SpaceyG says:

    I’d say it’s a mere pimple, but the kind of zit that makes him appear, intellectually, on par with your average acne-prone, clueless juvenile.

  13. Andre Walker says:

    Tony r,

    My response to your comments is this…

    …Seven years ago, George W. Bush said the following:

    “It started off as a humanitarian mission then changed into a nation-building mission and that’s where the mission went wrong. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. But in this case, it was a nation-building exercise. I don’t think nation-building missions are worthwhile.”

    Right now, all Iraq is is a “nation-building mission.” Our troops went in, fought the war, won the war, and deposed Saddam Hussein. Their job is over.

    The problems that we have now in Iraq stem from the fact that, as the President said, “a humanitarian mission then changed into a nation-building mission.”

    It’s up to the Iraqis to build their nation, not our armed forces.

  14. GOPeach says:

    NOW do you see WHY I am for PUAL BROUN?

    PAUL BROUN!!!!

    PAUL BROUN!!!!

    PAUL BROUN!!!!

    PAUL BROUN!!!!

    PAUL BROUN!!!!

    PAUL BROUN!!!!

    PAUL BROUN!!!!

    HE IS NOT A POLITIICAN!!!
    HE IS A CITIZEN WITH A BACKBONE!!!

    He will NOT walk in lock step.

  15. GOPeach says:

    Spacey-

    I have been saying that all along!

    He is a Whitehead – ” Offensive Lineman”!!!
    Big Woop!

    Does that matter???

    Vote for the Jock!!! right??? NO!

    VOTE for THE DOC not the JOCK!

    We need a DOCTOR in the HOUSE!!!

  16. Kepper says:

    Who let the kids out of school so early? The proactiv reference was funny… once… it gets kind of old after the 1000th time.

    @Andre: I didn’t read your link, but my response is simple: It’s her job, not Pelosi’s. She is a diplomatic liason to the White House.
    I think Pelosi did a huge disservice to our military by meeting with the very people who are directly responsible for killing American soldiers. It seemed more like she was pandering. There were no negotiations as far as I know.

    Can someone answer this: I heard that Paul Broun cannot practice medicine in any hospital in Georgia. Has anyone else heard this? I would be interested to hear that story.

  17. GOPeach says:

    Keeper-

    Paul Broun IS PRACTING MEDICINE is GA.
    He makes HOUSE CALLS!!

    He actually treats shut-ins with no healthcare.

    I suggest you stop this rumor because it is nasty and false.

  18. GabrielSterling says:

    Sorry to get away from the “politics” and back to the policy Andre.

    So if we go by what you say in your post, that al Qaeda and the Taliban are making a comeback, you and your democrat friends think the wise thing to do is exit the battlefield.

    All of these “strategic redeployment” and other terms all mean one thing. They mean that the dems are still the party of peace at any price, surrender and American defeat.

    Back to politics, getting back to politics, Whitehead knows and understands that the best defense against our enemies is a strong offense.

  19. Kepper says:

    @GOPeach:
    OH! I get it! Making stupid and childish jokes (i.e. proactiv and Whitehead) is ok, But, asking a question about a rumor is nasty? I didn’t know you had a standard set.

    Anyway, didn’t start a rumor. I overheard it at a fundraiser recently.

  20. CHelf says:

    I would just hope that Whitehead is not relying on his handlers and pundits for his own policy positions. We could start our own FactCheck with this guy. He’s already proven his top issue is poorly researched on his part. And since he seems behind on reading up on papers he might need to be told that the terrorists are already over here. Ft. Dix is just a snapshot of what is already here and what can potentially happen in the future.

  21. Andre Walker says:

    Gabriel,

    You’re not going by what I say; you’re going by what is becoming well-documented around the world.

    Osama bin Laden is still alive. al-Qaeda is planning more attacks against this country. The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan.

    But y’all want to keep fighting a war in Iraq that has nothing to do with terrorism…wait, now the war in Iraq has everything to do with terrorism because we’re creating the terrorists.

    The wise choice is to change course.

    Get our soliders out of Iraq and back on the hunt for Osama bin Laden and his terrorist goons.

    Fully fund our efforts to secure the Homeland instead of voting against it like Georgia’s Republican members of Congress did. Fully fund our intelligence community so that they have the proper tools to stop attacks while those attacks are still in the planning stages (something else the Georgia Republican Congressional delegation voted against).

    But let me pose this question to you…

    …On “Meet the Press” this past Sunday, Tim Russert asked Sen. John McCain the following question:

    “But, senator, the Iraqi parliament, a majority of the Iraqi parliament, has signed a petition asking for a date certain for withdrawal of American troops. If the Iraqi parliament wants it, a majority in the Congress want it…then why do you stand there and say, “No, you can’t have it”?”

    I pose that same question to you. If the Iraqi parliament adopts a resolution that says something to the effect of “we want American troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007”, do you believe that we should remain in their country against their wishes?

    I already know how John McCain answered the question. His answer was the equivalent of “I don’t give a f**k what the Iraqi parliament says, we’re staying until I say we’re ready to go.”

    What’s your answer?

  22. Federalist says:

    tony r sure does make up a lot of stuff. Nobody wants to kiss and make up with the terrorists, not Pelosi, not Kennedy, not Marlow, not Specter, nobody. There are different ways of accomplishing a goal though…in this case stopping terrorism. Fighting with bullets and bombs only creates more terrorism, and most of this so-called terrorism is becoming self defense. Hamas became a political party, the IRA is too, and my goodness what happened? Cease fires-Democracy wins. Evil begets evil tony r. If somebody shot at you wouldn’t you shoot back? This does not mean retreat or surrender, those are just words that the GOP uses to scare you into voting for them. These terrorist orgs seem bloodthirsty, but when you give them votes they stop using guns. Maybe we should be sending political consultants to Iraq instead of troops.

  23. IndyInjun says:

    I support Jim Whitehead emphatically. Jim is the kind of man with whom one can reason. In one of his first campaign mailers he laid blame at the feet of both parties for the morass that we are in.

    He is, however, too enamored of Bush, who is going down as the worst POTUS in US history. I am concerned that Jim Whitehead is not placing emphasis on his independence of thought and is risking being tied to failed policies and a corrupt political party. I have told him this and intend to repeat it.

    I have a blunt proposition for all of you pseudo-conservative GOP hacks on the subject of this war……….UNLESS you are willing to pay a 15% surtax to PAY for this $trillion (and growing) fiasco AND you are willing to institute universal military service to MAN this war, you should shut up and go away until the Dems finally get the courage to end it.

    Ultimately, those are the two questions that must be answered by those who wish to continue the war.

    What KIND of ‘men’ thump their chests as do the Bushies and their GOP enablers, while passing the cost of the war to the children and all sacrifice onto a small military of volunteers?

    My support for the GOP is OVER, but I still hold out hope when an honest, approachable man like Jim Whitehead runs under that lamentable party label.

    And I still hold out hope that the few good and honest people left in the GOP can take a good look at their stated principles and throw all of their incumbents out of Congress.

  24. CHelf says:

    Approachable is one thing. Claiming to be an expert or at least very knowledgable on an issue a reporter found was not the case is another thing. I don’t want nice committee titles. I want someone who has done their homework and can back up their platform and agenda with facts and some sort of legitimate plan. So far, Whitehead has failed to do so.

  25. Kepper says:

    @CHelf:
    Let’s see the factsheet. Where is it? What have you got? The Columbus Dispatch blunder? The “blow up UGA” comment? Is that it? If that’s all you have, then that’s a weak argument. Again, not to nitpick, but Senator Whitehead was the chairman of Homeland Security in GA… meaning he was privvy to way more information that any of the other candidates. All you are dong is throwing down cheapshots.

  26. RJL says:

    Well, now. It seems the Whitehead Wonder and allied Repubs have invented the Perpetual Conflict Machine: create/attrack Jihadist sufficiently to maintain the U.S. military in Iraq. Perpetually.

    As the President has acknowledged, there is no link between Iraq and 9/11; as the CIA and others have acknowledged there were, in fact, very few (emphasis on very) Al Qaeda in Iraq at the time of 9/11.

    But now — voila! — there are more. And more. And more. And the theory is that we should spend more and stay longer (perpetuity?) to fight them, there. Because “they” (and that’s all of “them”) will stay there if we will stay, there. And, we’ll need to stay there because they are, well, there.

    It’s genius! Almost as much as one comment on another post recently that we (U.S.) must simply stay there until we have stablized the Iraq government and then, and only then as a precedent, can we work on a political solution. But what about “them” that we must fight/keep over “there?” Can a stable Iraq accomodate both? If not, where will they go next so that we might fight them there?

  27. IndyInjun says:

    There are more than 1.5 billion Muslims in scores of countries around the world. There are militant elements similarly dispersed.

    At present the #1 locus of terrorism is Pakistan – a country that met ALL of the criteria cited for war on Iraq – yet we are giving them a couple of $billion in aid?

    Jim Whitehead wants to make the USA more secure in terms of borders and shutting down illegal immigration.

    Whitehead has the misfortune of launching a campaign in the midst of a massive citizen reevaluation of the GOP, in general, and the war in Iraq, in particular.

    He marries himself to the administration at his peril. I hope others among his supporters are telling him this, too.

  28. Kepper says:

    So, RJL, your solution is to just pullout now and call it a failure? That way, 5 years from now, you can line up with all your little liberal cronies and blame the Bush administration for the “failed” Iraq war and call it another Vietnam, blah,blah, blah, f*cking blah. That way, the dems can get the White House and take credit for ending the war and bringing our troops home….
    Here’s a reality check… All of that is probably true. Meanwhile, those “them” boys you refer to are still there, being re-supplied and re-trained by Syria and Iran. Then, you will see them filter into other countries (including ours) wearing their little bomb vests, killing innocent women and children. It won’t be a problem for us, at least from the democratic perspective, until we see another catastrophic attack like the one on 9/11. Then, we will stand united as a bi-partisan government and go “get those responsible” like we are supposed to do. The dems will get their little pat on the back for supporting the effort to stop the terrorists, all the while setting themselves up to criticize the other side when things go wrong. Hmmm.. sound familiar?

    I really wish I could live in that peaceful, loving fantasy world you liberals like to live in. But, sadly, my conscience won’t let me.

  29. IndyInjun says:

    Kepper-

    But self-same conscience has no problem sending kids off to Iraq to die for a demonstrably failed policy perpetrated by fools and it has no problem with allowing the Chinese to lend us $trillions to be repaid by our children, so we can keep our tax cuts?

    How do YOU propose that we pay for this war and man it?

    Or is it your strategy to bankrupt the country and break the back of the military with this ENDLESS occupation?

    When I see JW, these are the tough questions I will be asking him.

  30. RJL says:

    Dear Kepper — The last time I actually “lined up” was to board a troop transport home from Viet Nam – another fine insurgent war complete with suicide bombers (children), an unstable government, corruption and a succession of U.S. administrations, both Dem and Repub, who knew — knew — just as this administration knows, that the outcome would not be as planned yet continued to shovel young soldiers into the quagmire as cannon fodder.

    And I don’t wish to burst your bubble, but Jihadists are already here. If you’re in ATL, you can assume they are close by. Remember the “Patriot Act” and the NSA wiretapping? If you actually believe that “they” are only “there,” then it is you rather than liberals who is living in “that peaceful, loving fantasy world.”

    Terrorists, like assassins, must operate with singularity and only infrequent coordination. These are not targets for the military but rather the CIA, which was amply demonstrated in the early days of Afghanistan before our focus and resources were diverted to Iraq.

    It must be sorely frustrating to realize that you have been bamboozled into believing otherwise.

  31. CHelf says:

    Sorry Kepper. The man threw out all of his credentials espousing to be some expert on illegal aliens and voting. THEN wrote a letter to the editor calling out Cynthia Tucker for not reading papers. He made a false claim that liberal groups have registered Al Qaeda terrorists to vote citing some ficticious newspaper article. He made a very bogus claim and couldn’t even cite it, resorting to insulting Cynthia Tucker and claiming his source was an article that did not exist.

    No matter how you spell it out Kepper, Whitehead claims to be an expert but then on his top issue he cannot even make a case without lying about it and then distorting where he got the source.

    THAT is the facts. You have blamed his handlers even though HE was the one making the claim and writing a letter to the AJC pushing that claim. I’m sorry but if someone who supposedly has credentials and should be privy to the facts has to make up a newspaper article to make a false claim, I’d say those credentials amount to zero.

    Call it cheapshots. But fact is fact. If you’re going to flash committee titles and memberships and even go as far to take on Cynthia Tucker, please make sure you have an airtight and factual argument. The GOP is already suffering enough from misquotes, distortions, false claims, etc. We don’t need someone who makes WMD’s in Iraq and yellow cake look like child’s play. I’d hope the people would ask more from their member of Congress than to make such a careless mistake from something they champion is their strength.

  32. CHelf says:

    I’m a little curious about the argument that Iraq will turn into a terrorist haven and training ground and become an abyss of death once we leave. I hate to break it to you but it is already that with 160K US forces currently there. So I don’t know if saying the country will become an Al Qaeda breeding ground if we leave is such a smart defense of staying. The other side has a better argument in saying that if we left, the Maliki government would stop using us as a crutch and step up to protect their collective rear ends for self preservation. I’d venture as far as to say that the reverse argument could be that in the interests of survival this government would probably start cracking down with more force unless they all wanted to be dragged out into the streets and beheaded themselves.

  33. Kepper says:

    @IndyInjun:
    Believe me, I hear you. I have a nephew in high school and it terrifies me that he may have to go over there and fight someday. No one wants to see a family member go off to war.
    My point is that if there is any way at all to quell the threat now and prevent the same kind of violence in the future, then let’s stay in it kill as many as we can. Realistically, that’s just not going to happen. It’s just like dealing with cockroaches. You kill one terrorist, 10 more come out. The biggest disappointment I have is that after the lessons we learned in Vietnam, we still haven’t come up with a strategic way to fight and end this war. I blame Bush for that. I say that without having any intel on the situation over there. All I get for information is liberal media bias and Fox News and I don’t trust either of them.
    I know the economics don’t agree with my logic. To answer your question, I have to ask another question: Why aren’t the Iraqis paying for it? They should be generating enough oil revenue to pay us back, or at least part of it.

  34. Kepper says:

    @CHelf
    Were you paying attention to the Columbus Dispatch situation? He didn’t make up anything. He quoted what he thought was a valid article. It was a mistake on his part. It doesn’t discredit him. Besides that, there are several sources, including a US Senate (or House..i forget) investigation on that exact subject (illegal immigrants being registered to vote). There were two Al Qaeda members, at least, who we found to have registered to vote. Granted, they registered themselves, but they still did it illegally while being enemy combatants. Cynthia Tucker was way off base in her comments. Again, if she had her way, she would unite the US, Mexico, and Canada as one country. She could care less about the truth or our country. She only cares about skewing it.

    Re: Your Iraq comments:
    You are dead wrong about Iraq if we leave. There are several reports out there regarding the influence of Syria and Iran in the border regions of Iraq. If you don’t think the insurgency will scale up their effort, then you are nuts. The Iraqi government will fold inside of 6 months if we pull out now. The Iraqi Army just isn’t ready. I don’t know why the useless UN won’t propose to police the country until Iraq can protect itself.

  35. CHelf says:

    Kepper,

    I’ve called you out on this before and you’ve yet to answer me or show proof. Valid article? The article does not say a thing about his claim. Show me where what he said came even remotely close from the article.

    Whitehead made a claim that liberal groups were registering Al Qaeda terrorists to vote. Plain and simple. Those were his words. Where did he get that info? What groups were registering Al Qaeda terrorists? Go back and read his letter to the editor. Find me the article he sourced. I could care less what Tucker’s agenda is. I am speaking of a man who claims to have credentials on a subject he cannot even source properly. If someone privy to so much fact cannot even get a quote from a newspaper article right, what else can he screw up?

    So again, I will wait for you or Whitehead to specify what liberal group was registering Al Qaeda terrorists and where this article is that he sourced. I won’t hold my breath since my previous requests a few weeks ago still goes unanswered.

    As for my Iraq comments, I see you did not read my post well. I did not say this was my own position but the opposite to your logic. Other nations are already actively involved in the country. Insurgents have already stepped up their attacks. A British think tank just released a report that says the nation is as of now on the verge of collapse. This is after 4 years and billions of dollars invested there. So from a devil’s advocate position, it’s already as bad as people say it would get if we leave.

  36. RJL says:

    Kepper — I had prepared a response to your 3:04 comment and hit “submit,” but nothing has appeared for over 30 minutes. Perhaps it will turn up at some point.

    In the interim, I note your comment regarding Al Qaeda registering to vote. Wouldn’t that challenge the argument/value of fighting them “there” if they are already here?

    On 9/11 there were Al Qaeda cells in at least the U.S., Canada, Europe, Saudi, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and few renegades in Iraq. Almost six years and $500bn later, there are Al Qaeda cells in at least the U.S., Canada, Europe, Saudi, Afghanistan(returning), Pakistan, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Phillipines, Iraq and emerging in South America.

    If we are in a war on terror, please connect the dots and list our accomplishments in Iraq toward “defeating” Al Qaeda.

  37. Kepper says:

    @CHelf:
    First of all, you haven’t called me out on anything. Assuming you are one of the posters on the AJC, I made my arguments very clear.
    I don’t know how many times I can say this. You don’t seem to want to understand it. Maybe I can “moron” it down for you so you will understand it.
    In his response to the AJC/Cynthia Tucker attack, he made reference to a report by the Columbus Dispatch reporting that ACORN had registered illegal aliens/Al Qaeda members to vote. That nugget of information ultimately came from this article:

    http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41123

    I traced it back from this article after googling:

    http://www.democrats.com/node/19

    As it turns out, the Columbus Dispatch article made no reference to ACORN registering the illegals. Where did he (JW) get his information? My guess is from Michelle Malkin. Was it accurate? Obviously not. Did Senator Whitehead’s campaign make a mistake? Of course they did. Did he lie? NO! He used what he thought was accurate information. Again, I ask the question: Do you think he is going to blatantly lie about something that is so easily traceable? Give me a break. He made a bad judgement on using an invalid source. It doesn’t make him dishonest and it certainly doesn’t discredit his credentials.
    Try again Broun/Green/Marlow/whomever you work for.
    This is already old news.

  38. Kepper says:

    @RJL: Tell me something I don’t know. You can thank, in large part, Bill Clinton for ruining our domestic intelligence services. The terrorist cells have such a jump on us that we may never overcome it. After the 1994 WTC bombing, we should have picked up more clues. But, the White House didn’t want to listen. I guess he had a certain blue dress on his mind.
    Anyway, this is one of the reasons why illegal immigration is one of the hotbed issues. It’s not just ditch diggers from south of the Rio Grande that are a problem. It’s way more than that coming in. Look up the NAFTA Superhighway sometime. Look how easy we are making it for illegals to come in. Put that together with reports that Hugo Chavez (in Venezuela) is training terrorists to look like “Mexicans”, we have a real and imminent threat on our hands.

    I wish I could connect the dots for you, but they are already connected. We are winning the war on terror here at home. Notice we haven’t had any major attacks since 9/11. You can thank the FBI, CIA, and other federal agencies for that. In my opinion, no news is good news.

  39. CHelf says:

    Yes. I am one of the posters from the AJC as well. And you still have not spelled it out but no surprise there. I do not work for any of the candidates. Shocking that you assume that when your guy is called out on something substantive you automatically assume it comes from another camp. Nope. Not this time. Just a voter with high standards beyond what has currently gotten us into this mess we’re in.

    So let me get this straight. Whitehead makes a bold but false claim referencing the Columbus Dispatch but actually got the info from Michelle Malkin who mistakenly quoted the Columbus Dispatch. Just as you did on the AJC.com posts, you make your candidate out to be even worse by saying he didn’t even 1)reference the correct source 2)used a pundit for his info 3)didn’t even bother to check his source for reliability and accuracy. This is hard to believe coming from a man so privy to so much info and on so many infulential committees.

    Let me get this straight. He makes illegal immigration and voter fraud his top issues. He flaunts his credentials before the world on how plugged in he is on so many non-public sources of info. But when it came to challenging Cynthia Tucker on the issue, he digs up some Michelle Malkin article but only references the Columbus Dispatch and even then did not even check to see if this article even matched the claim.

    As I said, it just doesn’t make sense. Hard to believe the ‘plugged in’ and most experienced candidate would rely on Michelle Malkin for his info on his core campaign issue.

    You keep blaming his campaign and his handlers. Well after hearing many years of the lower levels being responsible for foul-ups at state and federal levels, I’d think that someone trying to break out of that mold would check his own words since it was his own letter to the editor that started this all. I’d also think his people (you) would be more up on not passing this off as a simple slip up and mistakes on the part of others.

    While you and others on Team Whitehead have knocked other candidates for far less issues citing their incompetency or lack of qualifications, I’d think you’d hold someone propping up their main issue and it seems the only one his district cares about with a little more care and regard. I’d like to think that someone who is so experienced in this area and so qualified would actually be able to use fact in his argument especially against Cynthia Tucker. If he relies on Michelle Malkin to prop up his campaign and his arguments, then the 10th is in serious trouble.

  40. Andre Walker says:

    Kepper,

    How long was Bush in office before the 9/11 attacks?

    That’s right, just under nine months.

    Now nine months isn’t a whole lot of time to rebuild the domestic intelligence services that you say Clinton ruined, but for the sake of argument, let’s say that that Clinton did indeed ruin our intelligence community domestically.

    If the CIA and FBI were in such dire straights, then how is it that on August 6, 2001, they provided President Bush with a intelligence briefing that said “Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S.”.

    The answer to that question is quite simple, really. They wouldn’t have been able to provide President Bush with that intelligence briefing if they hadn’t been working on it for months in advance.

    At the 2000 Democratic National Convention, then-President Clinton had this to say:

    “We’re working with Russia to destroy nuclear weapons and materials. We’re fighting head-on the new threats and injustices of the global age: terrorism, narco-trafficking, biological and chemical warfare, the trafficking in women and young girls, and the deadly spread of AIDS.”

    All then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush had to say was “they have not led, we will.”

    Terrorism was on Bill Clinton’s radar. Bush is the one who decided to ignore the proverbial hand-writing on the wall.

  41. Observer says:

    The more this race becomes about Iraq, the stronger Whitehead will be. Go ahead, Dems, drive up that Augusta military and veterans vote. Throw Whitehead in that briar patch.

  42. RJL says:

    Klepper, et al. — your arguments, collectively, on the subjects of terrorism, Iraq and national security are so void of knowledge of history and/or current events that any further discussion would be boring. It is like trying to discuss the aspects of a 100,000 year old human skull with a fundamentalist who believes that humans were created 6,000 years ago. To what end?

    The world is flat, the sun revolves around it, science is voodoo, they’re coming to get us, and it’s Bill Clinton’s fault.

    Alas, I note that my 3:32 comment to you has finally appeared, and I refer you to it.

    Last word is yours.

  43. Kepper says:

    @CHelf:
    This is really getting old. I have made my speculation very clear. I don’t know how Senator Whitehead got his information. I did a google search this afternoon and tried to backtrack through all of the articles regarding the Columbus Dispatch. If you had taken enough time to look through it, you would see it too. All i’m saying is it is an honest mistake on his and his staff’s part. I don’t care who’s fault it was and it doesn’t change my opinion of Senator Whitehead. He is still the best man for the job and that’s where i’m going to leave it.

    By the way, illegal immigration is one of his top issues, but he has never named voter fraud as part of his main platform as far as I know. You are trying to distort the facts.

    I have an idea, CHelf. Why don’t you Senator Whitehead yourself? He is real approachable from what I understand. It seems to bother you more than anyone else posting here. I’m sure he can give you the facts a lot better than I can.

  44. GOPeach says:

    Keeper & I Am Jack Posts –

    DR. BROUN MAKES HOUSE CALLS!!!

    See his LINK: http://www.paulbroun.com/

    Click on “My Story” :

    “Native of Athens, GA where he resides and practices medicine.

    Paul is the only doctor in Georgia whose practice is almost exclusively house calls.”

  45. Holly says:

    Actually, I think Broun said in a recent debate that all his patient visits were house calls. I’m trying to remember the exact wording, but it included the word “exclusively”, so that would mean to me that he saw all his patients at their houses. I find that neat. I certainly don’t know of any doctors in Augusta who do that.

    Now, that said, yes, Jason Winders has already pointed out quite emphatically in the Athens Banner-Herald that the source of the information was a Michelle Malkin article. I agree, it should’ve been further investigated. However, it was a mistake made early in the campaign, and the larger issue, I believe, is that illegal aliens are being allowed to register to vote. How is that happening? Even legal permanent residents aren’t extended that right.

    Something is amiss when our laws aren’t properly enforced.

  46. Bill Simon says:

    If all a doctor does is make housecalls, I wonder if that could point to that doctor possibly having a problem with NOT being able to work with a hospital or medical group of other doctors due to…something regarding his abilities and qualifications. Hmmmm…

  47. bowersville says:

    RJL, I must admit, you had me going for a while…stating well articulated points, building to a crescendo…and then you stumbled…you left out the closing argument…A SOLUTION!

    Federalist, glad you’re still around but you brought up Hamas and say “…terrorist orgs seem bloodthirsty, but when you give them votes they stop shooting. Since Fatah & Hamas have voted, why are they shooting at each other…NO SOLUTION!

    Andre, “Get our soldiers…back on the hunt for bin Laden…” Wow, as bin Laden is most likely in Pakistan I guess you’re advocating an invasion…NO SOLUTION!

    I would go on but there is no use, no minds will be changed. Politics as usual by those of the DemocratIC persuasion, all mouth and no @ss.

  48. CHelf says:

    Sorry Holly. I don’t buy the argument that this is just an early campaign mistake. After all, we’re told he’s experienced and has been in office of some level for years. Again you don’t tout your credentials as being mighty but then use a Malkin article about an article to source your argument. It may have been a mistake. but Whitehead used this like a giddy schoolboy to try and embarass Cynthia Tucker and prove his point to appeal to the passions of the issue. Someone “in the know” should know better than to quote a pundit rather than show us what his credcentials really are about. Do you want someone who shows us his credentials are fluffed and that he doesn’t bother to check his own arguments?

    He could have easily made his point using facts. But he tried to score political points by stirring up people both on the war on terror issues and illegal immigration while attempting to slam Cynthia Tucker. To use a football analogy that Whitehead understands, he was handed the ball and a huge gap in the line and he fumbled it embarassingly.

  49. bowersville says:

    Marlow, I know you’re reading P/P. You point out in your position statements your desire for “Iraq (to come) to an honorable end as soon as possible.” Fair enough.

    But, you point out an end game without stating the process on how you would get us there. Are you like all the rest or do you care to specifically articulate how we achieve that goal. Or will you continue to criticize with NO SOLUTION, other than end game rhetoric, on how we exit with honor?

  50. bowersville says:

    CHELF, what can I say? Don’t buy it…fine…go ahead and vote for you’re 3rd, 4th or 5th place candidate…It’s old news. But if you want to ride a dead mule, by all means, do.

    A defense of Cynthia Tucker and her leftist social agenda always works in the 10th.

  51. Holly says:

    Actually, I do want Jim to represent me. I don’t agree totally with his stance on illegal immigration, but I do agree with many of his other policies, particularly on nuclear energy, taxes, Social Security, and federal spending.

    Every single one of our politicians has done something that they want to take back. This is an instance that a handful of people are trying to keep alive because it fits their political agenda – to elect someone else – and that’s okay. It’s a free country, and you can do that. However, most people have quit paying attention to it, or they write it off as a mistake. I’ve certainly made similar mistakes, but that doesn’t make me an idiot. I’ve made worse mistakes, too. There are some things that most reasonable people are going to look at and think, “well, that was a dumb move,” and then they’re going to go on with life and not think twice about it. This is how it is to most people in this area who actually bothered to pay attention in the first place (which is a small, small percentage).

    From the people I’ve talked to, they’re far more worried about illegals being registered to vote than they are about Jim improperly quoting Michelle Malkin.

  52. CHelf says:

    Bowersville – strange how beating a dead horse or riding a dead mule (strange image) is wrong in some cases but convenient when you use it.

    Obviously you missed the obvious and what I pointed out. Not sure how I am defending Cynthia Tucker or the leftist view but I’m sure you could tell me. I in no way defended either. The point is do you want someone who can’t even take his top issue and argue it worthwhile? Do you want someone fighting illegal immigration who cannot even grasp the issue? Frankly I don’t. Strange that someone with credentials cannot even come up with a better source than a misquote of Michelle Malkin. You’d figure with all that info he’s ‘privy’ to he’d be able to throw volumes of proof at any who have the opposing viewpoint.

    Holly, again, this is not just a dumb mistake. If so, then Iraq is a dumb mistake as well. Katrina response is a dumb mistake. You don’t go telling the world and trying to win an office flaunting credentials on something you can only source with Michelle Malkin. YOU may call that a dumb mistake but I don’t. Strange that I have spoken with quite a few people who think this was far more than a dumb mistake. This proves he is not who he says he is. Obviously this is not old news since you feel the need to defend it here. Again, if it were insignificant, you’d ignore the facts and move on yourself. You tell me to move on but a few of you find the need to pass off a clear blunder on expertise as a simple gaffe. Keep in mind no one pushed him off on this. Whitehead took time to write a letter to the AJC. He took his time in writing his position and attempting to discredit someone on the opposite side. If after taking his time to formulate a stinging response to discredit the Left produces this – or better yet, if this was his best defense of his own position, the one he’s “well qualified and connected” on, then this is more than a simple mistake. I could forgive this as simple if he was in an interview and caught off guard. But this is his thesis – this is his chance to clearly state his position and argue with facts what the issues are. But instead in his attempt to score points by tying terrorism and illegal aliens to voting irregularities, he dropped the ball.

    A simple question to you is, if Whitehead makes such an obvious mistake with his main issue his rally cry so to speak, what else is he capable of? How can he look legitimate to argue the issue when he cannot even back up his position with fact?

  53. Federalist says:

    well bowersville, since you are the expert…how do we get out of Iraq? Bush had no plan, the GOP still has no plan, and every plan that the Dems come up with is lambasted by the GOP and their rhetoricians. I am sure you would rather nuke the place and kill all of those non-white/non-christian/non-American born people, but that is not a solution either. Hamas and Fatah will have their little spurts of violence, Democracy is still a new thing to these groups. Fighting is easy, you pull a few triggers, drop some bombs, whatever. What is truly American is to do the right thing and politically engage these people, especially Syria (the backdoor into Iraq and Israel). I know you would rather take the easy way out, but that is not going to work, it did not work in Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq (Desert Storm shenanigan)…we went to these places and killed people without giving them the option of creating a better life for their people…we gave up on diplomacy. Ask yourself how many wars we won with just bullets and bombs. Zero. Wars are won when diplomats meet at a table, diplomats from all sides. Germany was an instigator, so are these various “terrorist” orgs. Peace will not be possible without their involvement, just as peace after WWII would not have been possible without Germany at the negotiating table. I know that you do not want peace, bowersville, but there are not too many racists in America anymore.

  54. Holly says:

    CHelf, you make a good point. I will move on, regardless of questions you’ve asked me on the topic.

  55. CHelf says:

    I wonder what he thinks of this current bill? I wonder if he supports a national ID card since there is no other way to safely identify potential employees’ legal status, etc.

Comments are closed.