Uh, you are twisting what I said, and if you are comfortable doing that I am not comfortable with trying to hold a reasonable convo with you.
Terrorists are the focus of this discussion, the citizens of terror supporting countries are not. Syrians should rise up and remove the cancer themselves, but if they will not then who will? The US of course.
Since the terrorism is aimed primarily at the US, that has forced the US to deal with it in one way or another. Terrorism has reached a level that it must be beaten down lest it effects world affairs. It already has thus it is past due IMO.
maybe I am twisting what you wrote? I don't know. There are just words on the screan at my end.
Okay, I agree with you. Syrians should rise up and remove the 'Cancer'. But if the US is to do the removing, then they(the US Administration) have got to be transparent, honest and just. And that has certainly not happened thus far in this conflict. There is certainly more to this than 911 or WMD or SH. I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with oil, maybe not, I don't know. But continual crap (lies, deception, coverup) comming from the 'Coalition of the Willing', makes me feel extreemly cynical about the motives behind this so called 'War on Terror'
This whole 'thing' maybe legitamit but I have certainly not seen any empiracal or prima facie evidence that justifies the unilateral declaration of war against a sovereign state.
Why hasn't the US administration decided to go into North Korea. Why didn't someone go into Ruwanda when 1000000 people were butchered.
This whole affair is as watertight as a collander.
Anyway, I may not agree with some of your views, but I certainly have common ground with you.
maybe I am twisting what you wrote? I don't know. There are just words on the screan at my end.
Okay, I agree with you. Syrians should rise up and remove the 'Cancer'. But if the US is to do the removing, then they(the US Administration) have got to be transparent, honest and just. And that has certainly not happened thus far in this conflict. There is certainly more to this than 911 or WMD or SH. I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with oil, maybe not, I don't know. But continual crap (lies, deception, coverup) comming from the 'Coalition of the Willing', makes me feel extreemly cynical about the motives behind this so called 'War on Terror'
This whole 'thing' maybe legitamit but I have certainly not seen any empiracal or prima facie evidence that justifies the unilateral declaration of war against a sovereign state.
Why hasn't the US administration decided to go into North Korea. Why didn't someone go into Ruwanda when 1000000 people were butchered.
This whole affair is as watertight as a collander.
Anyway, I may not agree with some of your views, but I certainly have common ground with you.
From HERE --but you need to sign up and take Saolon Premium before ou get to that page so I'll post an ineteresting part of the article:
Quote:
CLAIM #1: "Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to." - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending Al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says "principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. - White House Press Release, 3/21/04
CLAIM #2: "The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I've learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11." - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: If this is true, then why did the President and Vice President repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11? President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11." Similarly, Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 that "It is not surprising that people make that connection" between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said "we don?t know" if there is a connection.
CLAIM #3: "[Clarke] was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things." - Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh, 3/22/04
FACT: "Dick Clarke continued, in the Bush Administration, to be the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and the President's principle counterterrorism expert. He was expected to organize and attend all meetings of Principals and Deputies on terrorism. And he did." - White House Press Release, 3/21/04
CLAIM #4: "In June and July when the threat spikes were so high?we were at battle stations?The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11." ? National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: "Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's ?Strategic Plan? from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism ?the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.?" - Washington Post, 3/22/04
CLAIM #5: "The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11." ? National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: "In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks." ? Washington Post, 3/22/04
CLAIM #6: "Well, [Clarke] wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff?" - Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/22/04
FACT: "The Government's interagency counterterrorism crisis management forum (the Counterterrorism Security Group, or "CSG") chaired by Dick Clarke met regularly, often daily, during the high threat period." - White House Press Release, 3/21/04
CLAIM #7: "[Bush] wanted a far more effective policy for trying to deal with [terrorism], and that process was in motion throughout the spring." - Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh, 3/22/04
FACT: "Bush said [in May of 2001] that Cheney would direct a government-wide review on managing the consequences of a domestic attack, and 'I will periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts.' Neither Cheney's review nor Bush's took place." - Washington Post, 1/20/02
So Dick Cheney is making the rounds claiming that Clarke was "out of the loop" in the administration's counter-terror efforts. Therefore, Clarke doesn't know what he's talking about and anything he says should be instantly discounted.
It's amazing that Cheney does not seem to realize what he is actually saying: That the Bush administration's top expert on terrorism was not consulted about their counter-terrorism efforts. This presents several unpalatable choices:
1. Cheney is lying for political gain. If the public picks up on this, the backlash could be out of all proportion to the damage Cheney is trying to control.
2. The administration deliberately ignored its in-house expert, with September 11 being the result. This eliminates one more scapegoat, since the White House cannot simultaneously blame Clarke for failing to stop 9/11 while claiming he was "out of the loop" on counter-terrorism.
3. Assuming Cheney speaks the truth, it actually bolsters Clarke's claim to Cassandra-hood. Cut out of the loop, his warnings went nowhere and were ignored. That, too, is pretty damning of the administration.
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told the commission that President Clinton and his team "did everything we could, everything we could think of, based on the knowledge we had, to protect our people and disrupt and defeat al-Qaida."
--------------
Bush intially continued the same approach as Clinton did---both working from conventional wisdom. Spining all of this for politcal gain is simplistic and intellectually dishonest.
Halfway down this page, a Real Media clip of Clarke talking about the Bush admin.
Unbefcukin' leivable.
OMFG! Un-fvcking-believable! What kind of country do we live in when the chief terrorism expert is "out of the loop", "off his rocker" and a "bitter ex-Clintonite".
OMFG! Un-fvcking-believable! What kind of country do we live in when the chief terrorism expert is "out of the loop", "off his rocker" and a "bitter ex-Clintonite".
He was not the "leading" or "Chief" expert as you keep saying, he was one of many. But his big thing was that cyberterrism was going to be the next big attack, not flying planes into the world trade centers.
OMFG! Un-fvcking-believable! What kind of country do we live in when the chief terrorism expert is "out of the loop", "off his rocker" and a "bitter ex-Clintonite".
Don't forget: TWO of the people that held that position in the Bush admin are speaking out against the admin's lack of attention to terrorism.
I can't stress this enough. It's not just Clarke; we also have Rand Beers who resigned at the beginning of the Iraq war from the exact same position, Bush's counter-terrorism advisor at the NSC, who is now working in the Kerry campaign and speaking out against Bush.
I can't stress this enough. It's not just Clarke; we also have Rand Beers who resigned at the beginning of the Iraq war from the exact same position, Bush's counter-terrorism advisor at the NSC, who is now working in the Kerry campaign and speaking out against Bush.
This explains why they are speaking out only about Bush's failures according to them. No big surprise there.
Oh yeah, if Kerry does win look at those two to be reworded by gaining a spot in that administration. I'd bet big money on that if I were a gambling person.
Oh yeah, if Kerry does win look at those two to be reworded by gaining a spot in that administration. I'd bet big money on that if I were a gambling person.
Let's hope so.
But as someone (I don't remember who) pointed out yesterday, it's extremely foolish to believe that Beers and Clarke resigned from as high a position as one can have without being a cabinet secretary, after working under multiple admins of both parties for ~30+ years each, all so they could possibly get appointed to a similar position in an administration that only has a 50% chance of winning.
Not to mention the obvious thing that shatters your theory: what was Bush's appoval rating when Rand Beers resigned and joined Kerry? Hell, in addition to that, what position was Kerry holding in relation to just the other democrats at the time?
So you really have nothing to stand on when claiming that is the motivation. Not by ANY stretch of the imagination.
Oh yeah, if Kerry does win look at those two to be reworded by gaining a spot in that administration. I'd bet big money on that if I were a gambling person.
Yeah . . . let's discount the allegations that our country was both lead astray and into a miasma and that his lame as pre-occupation with Iraq crippled our attention on terrorism as well as excacerbating our relationship to terrorism in general . . . including swelling their support internationally . .
.. are these big words?
simply put: dismissing all of this under the guise of 'personal gain' for someone of Clarke's stature and political leanings is just plain BLIND and STUPID!!!
But as someone (I don't remember who) pointed out yesterday, it's extremely foolish to believe that Beers and Clarke resigned from as high a position as one can have without being a cabinet secretary, after working under multiple admins of both parties for ~30+ years each, all so they could possibly get appointed to a similar position in an administration that only has a 50% chance of winning.
Not to mention the obvious thing that shatters your theory: what was Bush's appoval rating when Rand Beers resigned and joined Kerry? Hell, in addition to that, what position was Kerry holding in relation to just the other democrats at the time?
So you really have nothing to stand on when claiming that is the motivation. Not by ANY stretch of the imagination.
You are assuming that they resigned for reasons any of us know about.
The possibilities are endless. And don't go quoting articles about what they said. We all know that may not match the real reasons.
Yeah . . . let's discount the allegations that our country was both lead astray and into a miasma and that his lame as pre-occupation with Iraq crippled our attention on terrorism as well as excacerbating our relationship to terrorism in general . . . including swelling their support internationally . .
.. are these big words?
simply put: dismissing all of this under the guise of 'personal gain' for someone of Clarke's stature and political leanings is just plain BLIND and STUPID!!!
WAKE UP!
But what you say is blind and stupid is ok when it applies to bush. Read your post again, because it makes you look extremely partisan. You seem to be calling yourself blind and stupid if you fairly apply your convictions.
Oh yeah, if Kerry does win look at those two to be reworded by gaining a spot in that administration. I'd bet big money on that if I were a gambling person. [/B]
So let me get this straight. Clarke is full of shit because he might want a job in the white house...a job he already had...errr....ummm....and even when he says he WILL NOT endorse Kerry and has ZERO PLANS to work for the Kerry administration (if there is one)...then he's a liar.
And aren't the Republicans the "liar" watchdog group? Interesting how it's completely out of bounds to insinuate that the president "lied", but it's cool to use broad sweeping strokes to tarnish a good man's reputation and brand him a liar.
The hypocrisy astounds!
For a grownup's perspective Josh Marshall has an excellent and LEVEL HEADED examination of the issue. I recommend everyone read it.
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
Uh, you are twisting what I said, and if you are comfortable doing that I am not comfortable with trying to hold a reasonable convo with you.
Terrorists are the focus of this discussion, the citizens of terror supporting countries are not. Syrians should rise up and remove the cancer themselves, but if they will not then who will? The US of course.
Since the terrorism is aimed primarily at the US, that has forced the US to deal with it in one way or another. Terrorism has reached a level that it must be beaten down lest it effects world affairs. It already has thus it is past due IMO.
maybe I am twisting what you wrote? I don't know. There are just words on the screan at my end.
Okay, I agree with you. Syrians should rise up and remove the 'Cancer'. But if the US is to do the removing, then they(the US Administration) have got to be transparent, honest and just. And that has certainly not happened thus far in this conflict. There is certainly more to this than 911 or WMD or SH. I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with oil, maybe not, I don't know. But continual crap (lies, deception, coverup) comming from the 'Coalition of the Willing', makes me feel extreemly cynical about the motives behind this so called 'War on Terror'
This whole 'thing' maybe legitamit but I have certainly not seen any empiracal or prima facie evidence that justifies the unilateral declaration of war against a sovereign state.
Why hasn't the US administration decided to go into North Korea. Why didn't someone go into Ruwanda when 1000000 people were butchered.
This whole affair is as watertight as a collander.
Anyway, I may not agree with some of your views, but I certainly have common ground with you.
Thanks for the lively discussion.
Please reply, but for now I am off to bed...
Originally posted by orange whip
maybe I am twisting what you wrote? I don't know. There are just words on the screan at my end.
Okay, I agree with you. Syrians should rise up and remove the 'Cancer'. But if the US is to do the removing, then they(the US Administration) have got to be transparent, honest and just. And that has certainly not happened thus far in this conflict. There is certainly more to this than 911 or WMD or SH. I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with oil, maybe not, I don't know. But continual crap (lies, deception, coverup) comming from the 'Coalition of the Willing', makes me feel extreemly cynical about the motives behind this so called 'War on Terror'
This whole 'thing' maybe legitamit but I have certainly not seen any empiracal or prima facie evidence that justifies the unilateral declaration of war against a sovereign state.
Why hasn't the US administration decided to go into North Korea. Why didn't someone go into Ruwanda when 1000000 people were butchered.
This whole affair is as watertight as a collander.
Anyway, I may not agree with some of your views, but I certainly have common ground with you.
Thanks for the lively discussion.
Please reply, but for now I am off to bed...
Your right that was a good exchange.
Good night, sleep well.
From HERE --but you need to sign up and take Saolon Premium before ou get to that page so I'll post an ineteresting part of the article:
CLAIM #1: "Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to." - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending Al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says "principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. - White House Press Release, 3/21/04
CLAIM #2: "The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I've learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11." - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: If this is true, then why did the President and Vice President repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11? President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11." Similarly, Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 that "It is not surprising that people make that connection" between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said "we don?t know" if there is a connection.
CLAIM #3: "[Clarke] was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things." - Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh, 3/22/04
FACT: "Dick Clarke continued, in the Bush Administration, to be the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and the President's principle counterterrorism expert. He was expected to organize and attend all meetings of Principals and Deputies on terrorism. And he did." - White House Press Release, 3/21/04
CLAIM #4: "In June and July when the threat spikes were so high?we were at battle stations?The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11." ? National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: "Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's ?Strategic Plan? from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism ?the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.?" - Washington Post, 3/22/04
CLAIM #5: "The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11." ? National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: "In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks." ? Washington Post, 3/22/04
CLAIM #6: "Well, [Clarke] wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff?" - Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/22/04
FACT: "The Government's interagency counterterrorism crisis management forum (the Counterterrorism Security Group, or "CSG") chaired by Dick Clarke met regularly, often daily, during the high threat period." - White House Press Release, 3/21/04
CLAIM #7: "[Bush] wanted a far more effective policy for trying to deal with [terrorism], and that process was in motion throughout the spring." - Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh, 3/22/04
FACT: "Bush said [in May of 2001] that Cheney would direct a government-wide review on managing the consequences of a domestic attack, and 'I will periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts.' Neither Cheney's review nor Bush's took place." - Washington Post, 1/20/02
It's amazing that Cheney does not seem to realize what he is actually saying: That the Bush administration's top expert on terrorism was not consulted about their counter-terrorism efforts. This presents several unpalatable choices:
1. Cheney is lying for political gain. If the public picks up on this, the backlash could be out of all proportion to the damage Cheney is trying to control.
2. The administration deliberately ignored its in-house expert, with September 11 being the result. This eliminates one more scapegoat, since the White House cannot simultaneously blame Clarke for failing to stop 9/11 while claiming he was "out of the loop" on counter-terrorism.
3. Assuming Cheney speaks the truth, it actually bolsters Clarke's claim to Cassandra-hood. Cut out of the loop, his warnings went nowhere and were ignored. That, too, is pretty damning of the administration.
From Atrios
Halfway down this page, a Real Media clip of Clarke talking about the Bush admin.
Unbefcukin' leivable.
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told the commission that President Clinton and his team "did everything we could, everything we could think of, based on the knowledge we had, to protect our people and disrupt and defeat al-Qaida."
--------------
Bush intially continued the same approach as Clinton did---both working from conventional wisdom. Spining all of this for politcal gain is simplistic and intellectually dishonest.
Originally posted by Harald
You just have to see this.
Halfway down this page, a Real Media clip of Clarke talking about the Bush admin.
Unbefcukin' leivable.
OMFG! Un-fvcking-believable! What kind of country do we live in when the chief terrorism expert is "out of the loop", "off his rocker" and a "bitter ex-Clintonite".
Originally posted by Northgate
OMFG! Un-fvcking-believable! What kind of country do we live in when the chief terrorism expert is "out of the loop", "off his rocker" and a "bitter ex-Clintonite".
He was not the "leading" or "Chief" expert as you keep saying, he was one of many. But his big thing was that cyberterrism was going to be the next big attack, not flying planes into the world trade centers.
Spin to the extreme, Rumba anyone?
Originally posted by Northgate
OMFG! Un-fvcking-believable! What kind of country do we live in when the chief terrorism expert is "out of the loop", "off his rocker" and a "bitter ex-Clintonite".
Don't forget: TWO of the people that held that position in the Bush admin are speaking out against the admin's lack of attention to terrorism.
I can't stress this enough. It's not just Clarke; we also have Rand Beers who resigned at the beginning of the Iraq war from the exact same position, Bush's counter-terrorism advisor at the NSC, who is now working in the Kerry campaign and speaking out against Bush.
Originally posted by giant
I can't stress this enough. It's not just Clarke; we also have Rand Beers who resigned at the beginning of the Iraq war from the exact same position, Bush's counter-terrorism advisor at the NSC, who is now working in the Kerry campaign and speaking out against Bush.
This explains why they are speaking out only about Bush's failures according to them. No big surprise there.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Oh yeah, if Kerry does win look at those two to be reworded by gaining a spot in that administration. I'd bet big money on that if I were a gambling person.
Let's hope so.
But as someone (I don't remember who) pointed out yesterday, it's extremely foolish to believe that Beers and Clarke resigned from as high a position as one can have without being a cabinet secretary, after working under multiple admins of both parties for ~30+ years each, all so they could possibly get appointed to a similar position in an administration that only has a 50% chance of winning.
Not to mention the obvious thing that shatters your theory: what was Bush's appoval rating when Rand Beers resigned and joined Kerry? Hell, in addition to that, what position was Kerry holding in relation to just the other democrats at the time?
So you really have nothing to stand on when claiming that is the motivation. Not by ANY stretch of the imagination.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Oh yeah, if Kerry does win look at those two to be reworded by gaining a spot in that administration. I'd bet big money on that if I were a gambling person.
Yeah . . . let's discount the allegations that our country was both lead astray and into a miasma and that his lame as pre-occupation with Iraq crippled our attention on terrorism as well as excacerbating our relationship to terrorism in general . . . including swelling their support internationally . .
.. are these big words?
simply put: dismissing all of this under the guise of 'personal gain' for someone of Clarke's stature and political leanings is just plain BLIND and STUPID!!!
WAKE UP!
Originally posted by giant
Let's hope so.
But as someone (I don't remember who) pointed out yesterday, it's extremely foolish to believe that Beers and Clarke resigned from as high a position as one can have without being a cabinet secretary, after working under multiple admins of both parties for ~30+ years each, all so they could possibly get appointed to a similar position in an administration that only has a 50% chance of winning.
Not to mention the obvious thing that shatters your theory: what was Bush's appoval rating when Rand Beers resigned and joined Kerry? Hell, in addition to that, what position was Kerry holding in relation to just the other democrats at the time?
So you really have nothing to stand on when claiming that is the motivation. Not by ANY stretch of the imagination.
You are assuming that they resigned for reasons any of us know about.
The possibilities are endless. And don't go quoting articles about what they said. We all know that may not match the real reasons.
Originally posted by Harald
You just have to see this.
Halfway down this page, a Real Media clip of Clarke talking about the Bush admin.
Unbefcukin' leivable.
Level headed articulate, smart and, if he is honest, NOT politically motivated at all
This needs to be seen by anyone who is still licking Bush's anus!
Originally posted by pfflam
Yeah . . . let's discount the allegations that our country was both lead astray and into a miasma and that his lame as pre-occupation with Iraq crippled our attention on terrorism as well as excacerbating our relationship to terrorism in general . . . including swelling their support internationally . .
.. are these big words?
simply put: dismissing all of this under the guise of 'personal gain' for someone of Clarke's stature and political leanings is just plain BLIND and STUPID!!!
WAKE UP!
But what you say is blind and stupid is ok when it applies to bush. Read your post again, because it makes you look extremely partisan. You seem to be calling yourself blind and stupid if you fairly apply your convictions.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Oh yeah, if Kerry does win look at those two to be reworded by gaining a spot in that administration. I'd bet big money on that if I were a gambling person. [/B]
"I am not going to return to government"
-Richard Clarke, BBC interview, link cited above
Originally posted by FormerLurker
"I am not going to return to government"
-Richard Clarke, BBC interview, link cited above
We'll see won't we.
If bush wins he won't. If Kerry takes it, I think he will.
And aren't the Republicans the "liar" watchdog group? Interesting how it's completely out of bounds to insinuate that the president "lied", but it's cool to use broad sweeping strokes to tarnish a good man's reputation and brand him a liar.
The hypocrisy astounds!
For a grownup's perspective Josh Marshall has an excellent and LEVEL HEADED examination of the issue. I recommend everyone read it.
Capitol. A few footsteps later, he comes running down the stairs.
Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them]
[audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[murmurs]
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]