Teddy Kennedy in hot water for "Vietnam" remarks

[Merf]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&e=1&u=/ap/powell_kennedy

Powell Cautions Kennedy on Iraq Remarks
1 hour, 5 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) cautioned Sen. Edward M. Kennedy to be more careful in criticizing the war in Iraq (news - web sites) after the Massachusetts Democrat called the conflict "George Bush's Vietnam."


Kennedy "should be a little more restrained and careful in his comments because we are at war," Powell said Tuesday on Fox News Radio's "Tony Snow Show."


Powell said debating the Iraq war was appropriate and an important part of American democracy. But, he said, "this is the also the time that we rally the nation behind the challenge that we face in Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites)."


Powell acknowledged that he did not see Kennedy's speech because he was in Haiti, where he met with the country's interim government.


Kennedy said Bush misled the public about the war, the economy and education, compromising America's reputation at home and abroad.


"In this administration, truth is the first casualty of policy," said Kennedy, a prominent supporter of fellow Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites)'s bid for the White House.


Kennedy spokesman David Smith said the senator "has an enormous amount of respect for Secretary of State Colin Powell and he understands why the secretary feels the need to defend the president's policies."

[strandinthewind]

Politics Politics Politics from all involved, even though I think Gen. Powell tells it like it is when he is not forced to support W.

[gldstwmn]

Powell better watch his mouth or someone might start bringing up his involvement in the Mai Lai (sp?) massacre.

[CarneVaca]

I'm sure Teddy is terrified of Colin Powell. Let's get Harry Belafonte back out here to set him straight.

[dissention]

Ted Kennedy is the only Democrat with a backbone and that scares everyone, including other Democrats. Kerry needs to take a cue from his good pal and start screaming bloody murder.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Politics Politics Politics from all involved, even though I think Gen. Powell tells it like it is when he is not forced to support W.

Pfft. Powell is the one who sold himself to the company store, so he's just as much to blame as ChimpCo. A few years ago, I had a decent amount of respect for the man, but he's just become another puppet and I think he's positively pathetic. Talk about someone throwing their independence and intelligence out the window. He doesn't tell it like it is because he supports this admin. at all costs, no matter what. He's the one who lied to the UN; if he had any principles or morals, he would have resigned before this fiasco. He gets no sympathy and I hope he burns right alongside his other lying, scum-sucking comrades. I could care less how many medals he wears on his jacket, he's a traitor.

But, I'm just a hateful person, as the Repugs would say. Or, rather, a socialist pig. :laugh:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Pfft. Powell is the one who sold himself to the company store, so he's just as much to blame as ChimpCo. A few years ago, I had a decent amount of respect for the man, but he's just become another puppet and I think he's positively pathetic. Talk about someone throwing their independence and intelligence out the window. He doesn't tell it like it is because he supports this admin. at all costs, no matter what. He's the one who lied to the UN; if he had any principles or morals, he would have resigned before this fiasco. He gets no sympathy and I hope he burns right alongside his other lying, scum-sucking comrades. I could care less how many medals he wears on his jacket, he's a traitor.

But, I'm just a hateful person, as the Repugs would say. Or, rather, a socialist pig. :laugh:

I wouldn't call you a pig....hateful, maybe.;)

Rob:cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
I wouldn't call you a pig....hateful, maybe.;)

Rob:cool:

:laugh:

But, here's the thing: I don't deny having hate for these people. I have lots of it, my man. If I didn't have such strong convictions when it comes to the death penalty, I'd like to string them all up my their throats and kill them. These people have run our country down the toilet and I find them to be embarassing, so much so that I'm ashamed to call them Americans. So, yup, I have plenty of venom and hate for these people. We should ship them all off to Iraq and let the Shiite's do what they want with them. :nod: But, I'm probably the only one who will clearly admit to such hate. :laugh:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
:laugh:

But, here's the thing: I don't deny having hate for these people. I have lots of it, my man. If I didn't have such strong convictions when it comes to the death penalty, I'd like to string them all up my their throats and kill them. These people have run our country down the toilet and I find them to be embarassing, so much so that I'm ashamed to call them Americans. So, yup, I have plenty of venom and hate for these people. We should ship them all off to Iraq and let the Shiite's do what they want with them. :nod: But, I'm probably the only one who will clearly admit to such hate. :laugh:

Isn't it great to live in a country where you have the freedoms to express your opinions?:D

Misguided as they may be...:D ;)

Rob:cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
Isn't it great to live in a country where you have the freedoms to express your opinions?:D

Yup, and I can proudly express them with the full knowledge that this administration is doing nothing to protect them. :D ;)

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Politics Politics Politics from all involved, even though I think Gen. Powell tells it like it is when he is not forced to support W.

Sorry, but I don't think the word "forced" applies here. He makes his choice every day.

- Jake

[Rob67]

Don’t have the time to look all of these up but I know at least some of them are accurate having heard the statements. Interesting how quickly statements are forgotten when a campaign gets rolling!! :rolleyes:

Rob:cool:

______________________

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb
18,1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." > - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19,
2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept.
27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct.
9,2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW EVERY ONE OF THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY!

[strandinthewind]

True and I think it will hurt some of them. The problem to me is the American public en masse is not in tune enough to catch the difference. Pres. Clinton and his team did not lead us into a war where they knew the most inciting info. (the Niger nuclear stuff) was flatly false. W did this. Without the Niger stuff, no one would have "gone for the war." So, to sell the war as an exigent and necessary one, W lied. That is my problem with W as opposed to Clinton.

[CarneVaca]

I hate to agree with a raging conservative, but Rob67 has a point. The Democrats are wimps. They're Republican Lite.

Still, it took the maniac in chief George Weed to bomb the feces out of a country that could barely feed its population. Now that takes guts: Get a 7-foot, 300-pound son of a gun to kick a ragged child in the ribs.

As for Colin Powell, I've never understood the attraction. He's shown time and gain that when the pressure is on, he will lie his posterior off to tow the line. I mean, this guy was an apologist for Vietnam long after everybody pretty much had concluded it was a terrible mistake.

Colin Powell is a disgrace.

[Johnny Stew]

In my opinion, pointing to "supportive" comments made by other politicians is merely smoke-screening.
Many people made up their minds based on information we were lead to believe, by the Bush Administration, was trustworthy.

So the question isn't whether or not anyone else agreed with the war in Iraq (and need I remind anyone, that voicing an opposing opinion to this "conflict" was being regarded as damn-near treasonous by many, just as recently as last year), but whether or not our involvement in Iraq, as pushed for by the Bush Administration, was/is justified.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
In my opinion, pointing to "supportive" comments made by other politicians is merely smoke-screening.
Many people made up their minds based on information we were lead to believe, by the Bush Administration, was trustworthy.

So the question isn't whether or not anyone else agreed with the war in Iraq (and need I remind anyone, that voicing an opposing opinion to this "conflict" was being regarded as damn-near treasonous by many, just as recently as last year), but whether or not our involvement in Iraq, as pushed for by the Bush Administration, was/is justified.

AND - it is not even that I do not think ousting SH is or was justified - I do; it was the lying and circuitous route the liar known as W took to get there when IMO and the opinion of the UN for 11 years, he did not have to take it. But, he did. That is why IMO he should not be elected. :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Moreover (can you tell I am into it today :laugh: ) - All politicians use this smoke creen crapola. It is the nature of the beast. ;) :D :cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
True and I think it will hurt some of them. The problem to me is the American public en masse is not in tune enough to catch the difference. Pres. Clinton and his team did not lead us into a war where they knew the most inciting info. (the Niger nuclear stuff) was flatly false. W did this. Without the Niger stuff, no one would have "gone for the war." So, to sell the war as an exigent and necessary one, W lied. That is my problem with W as opposed to Clinton.

I understand that side of it but I still contend that the CIA and other intelligence agencies have to convey the same information to the Legislative Branch as they do to the Executive Branch. If Bush lied purposefully to lead us into war then he should answer for it, I agree. But there is nothing that leads me to believe that this was more then an intelligence lapse. Did the Bush administration act on it? Sure. Was it the only means of justification?? Absolutely not. It was a part of their overall case.

Again, do we not have a current probe into the lack of action leading up to 9/11? Isn’t the main criticism that nobody did anything about the intelligence ahead of time? I would look at Iraq this as preemptive action based on the intelligence at the time. And, I am for it.

I say let us learn from Neville Chamberlain and never fall prey to appeasement again.

Rob:cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Rob67
But there is nothing that leads me to believe that this was more then an intelligence lapse.
Rob:cool:

On the contrary, the press has consistently been reporting that Dick Cheney and several other WH big wigs were told the information was false PRIOR to the State of the Union address in which W HEAVILY relied on that bit of false information. The WH admits now, after the fact, that "oops - they were wrong" - and then they say "well, it does not really matter because SH was a bad guy." True, SH was a bad guy, but W and Blair could not have sold this war to the American people and/or the world without making the threat immediate and direct. The only way to do that was to keep the nuke stuff in even though they all knew and now admit was bogus.

Originally posted by Rob67
I say let us learn from Neville Chamberlain and never fall prey to appeasement again.

Rob:cool:

We were not appeasing SH, we were controling his every movement, apparently successfully, unlike Hitler.

:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I hate to agree with a raging conservative, but Rob67 has a point. The Democrats are wimps. They're Republican Lite.


I always admitted to being Conservative but I am hardly “raging!!” For one thing, I hold no religious affiliation, I’m completely against censorship.

I think those are two traits that have to be associated with the “raging” right. If that is considered “raging” around here then maybe the problem is that some of us are too far to the left! I have my fair share of battles with the religious right.:D

I am most definitely a moderate Conservative, I wouldn’t even classify myself as a Republican. I do this crazy thing called thinking outside the party lines…;)

Rob:cool:

[estranged4life]

Originally posted by Rob67

I do this crazy thing called thinking outside the party lines…;)



Ditto for me...And I have/will until the day I die (Probably of Boredom)

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
I always admitted to being Conservative but I am hardly “raging!!”

I am most definitely a moderate Conservative, I wouldn’t even classify myself as a Republican. I do this crazy thing called thinking outside the party lines…;)

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Thanks, I needed a laugh. :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

I cry foul (HEY :laugh: its been about a week since I cried it and YOU said it last :cool: :wavey: )

Based on what I have seeen in his posts, I think Rob does not tow the R party line.

If I may, I think Rob. like a lot of other R's, sees his party hijacked by the religious right and no longer for a less intrusive and smaller govt. W certainly is not for those formerly R ideals. Rather, he is a big spender and wants to shove his religion down the throats of all Americans. Interestingly, most D's have demonstrated in the way they vote that they want W's ideals as well.

Long live the Liberitarians!!!!

:cool:

P.S. just becuase someone is not wildly liberal does not mean they cannot be a mild R :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
True and I think it will hurt some of them. The problem to me is the American public en masse is not in tune enough to catch the difference. Pres. Clinton and his team did not lead us into a war where they knew the most inciting info. (the Niger nuclear stuff) was flatly false. W did this. Without the Niger stuff, no one would have "gone for the war." So, to sell the war as an exigent and necessary one, W lied. That is my problem with W as opposed to Clinton.

Karen Hughes was still spewing the nuclear b.s. on Larry King last night.

[estranged4life]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Long live the Liberitarians!!!!


I thought I read your quote as "Long live the librarians" :laugh: :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Karen Hughes was still spewing the nuclear b.s. on Larry King last night.

I know - I watched it. I do not think like her, but she is good, I'll give her that.

I think the intelligence over 11 years did suggest SH was attempting or had attempted to build a nuclear bomb. So, she was correct on that point. It is the Niger info. that was the blatant lie to sell the war.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I cry foul (HEY :laugh: its been about a week since I cried it and YOU said it last :cool: :wavey: )

Based on what I have seeen in his posts, I think Rob does not tow the R party line.

I think Rob. like a lot of other R's sees his party hijacked by the religious right and no longer for a less intrusive and smaller govt. W certainly is not for those formerly R ideals. Rather, he is a big spender and wants to shove his religion down the throats of all Americans. Interestingly, most D's have demonstrated in the way they vote that they want W's ideals as well.

Long live the Liberitarians!!!!

:cool:

You just had to interrupt my Randi Rhode's listening to reply to this. :rolleyes: :laugh:

If he sees his party being hijacked by the religious right, tough ****. He's the one that voted for Dubya and it's Dubya's agenda. I have no sympathy. Dubya is a part of the religious right and is practically their leader, to say otherwise would be pure horse****. The Repubs haven't been for smaller government for YEARS. For YEARS, Jason. You'd have to be living under a rock to think that they did. So, if he sees Dubya shoving all of this down the throats of Americans, why the full support? :confused:

I'm a raging liberal, I won't try to deny it. And, as a raging liberal, I'm of the mind that any Shrub supporter is coked out of their gourd. ;) :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by estranged4life
I thought I read your quote as "Long live the librarians" :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Yes, it was an intentional and subliminal message to our handsome and talented resident librarian Johnny Stew!!!!!

LONG LIVE JOHNNY STEW!!!!!!!!

:cool: :cool: :cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Karen Hughes was still spewing the nuclear b.s. on Larry King last night.

KAREN HUGHES IS F*CKING CRAAAAAAAZZZZZZZZYYYYYYY!!!

I watched her last night with my jaw on the floor! I was shocked at how stupid, insane, ignorant, and self-serving she came across as! What a nut job!!! We don't hear from the crazy sow for two years, but now that she's coming out with a book, it's Karen Hughes TV!!

:rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
You just had to interrupt my Randi Rhode's listening to reply to this. :rolleyes: :laugh:

If he sees his party being hijacked by the religious right, tough ****. He's the one that voted for Dubya and it's Dubya's agenda. I have no sympathy. Dubya is a part of the religious right and is practically their leader, to say otherwise would be pure horse****. The Repubs haven't been for smaller government for YEARS. For YEARS, Jason. You'd have to be living under a rock to think that they did. So, if he sees Dubya shoving all of this down the throats of Americans, why the full support? :confused:

I'm a raging liberal, I won't try to deny it. And, as a raging liberal, I'm of the mind that any Shrub supporter is coked out of their gourd. ;) :laugh:

Well, I know that. I was just saying that not all people who vote for a R candidate believe all the religious crapola that goes with it. I think and pardon me Carne;) , most Americans vote for the lesser of two evils as they see it. For a moderate R, that probably was W over Gore because W, at least in rhetoric, was closer to the R prociples than Gore. N'est pas?

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Well, I know that. I was just saying that not all people who vote for a R candidate believe all the religious crapola that goes with it. I think and pardon me Carne;) , most Americans vote for the lesser of two evils as they see it. For a moderate R, that probably was W over Gore because W, at least in rhetoric, was closer to the R prociples than Gore. N'est pas?

I get that, but what I'm saying is that if someone who supports Dubya complains about his religious agenda, tough tacos. Vote for another candidate that won't do that. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
KAREN HUGHES IS F*CKING CRAAAAAAAZZZZZZZZYYYYYYY!!!

I watched her last night with my jaw on the floor! I was shocked at how stupid, insane, ignorant, and self-serving she came across as! What a nut job!!! We don't hear from the crazy sow for two years, but now that she's coming out with a book, it's Karen Hughes TV!!

:rolleyes:

Most Americans like and believe her. Again, I knew what she was doing, but most Americans see her as smart and to the point - sort of like you view Teddy K. - if that helps :cool:

P.S. My fav. is how quick she was to align herself to the Clinton admin. to give validity to W regarding the WMD. However and not suprisingly, she failed to mention Clinton never lied about it to bring America into by W's own logic, and unnecessary war with Iraq.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
I get that, but what I'm saying is that if someone who supports Dubya complains about his religious agenda, tough tacos. Vote for another candidate that won't do that. ;)

I agree. But, the problem to me is the D are pretty much just as guilty at the Religious stuff as the R's a la the Defense of Marriage Act. So, that issue is kind of moot. Perhaps things will hopefully change and the D's will find a spine instead of just reacting.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Most Americans like and believe her. Again, I knew what she was doing, but most Americans see her as smart and to the point - sort of like you view Teddy K. - if that helps :cool:

P.S. My fav. is how quick she was to align herself to the Clinton admin. to give validity to W regarding the WMD. However and not suprisingly, she failed to mention Clinton never lied about it to bring America into by W's own logic, and unnecessary war with Iraq.

Thankfully, I see her as an opportunistic bitch. ;)

And every semi-tough question that that softy Larry King asked was responded to by blame to everyone else BUT ChimpCo.

What I don't understand is how the American people can take this ****. Do they actually believe that ChimpCo isn't responsible for anything, like the WH is saying? It defies logic!

[estranged4life]

a religious agenda are as attractive/appealing to me as Al Gore & Dick Cheney doing the "full Monty"...Absolute BARF-AGE!!!!

Religious agenda's dont get my vote.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I agree. But, the problem to me is the D are pretty much just as guilty at the Religious stuff as the R's a la the Defense of Marriage Act. So, that issue is kind of moot. Perhaps things will hopefully change and the D's will find a spine instead of just reacting.

ITA - like I said earlier, the Dems need to take some cues from Ted Kennedy. He's the only one with a backbone.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by estranged4life
I thought I read your quote as "Long live the librarians" :laugh: :laugh: Well, I'm all for that!!! ;) :D

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
I get that, but what I'm saying is that if someone who supports Dubya complains about his religious agenda, tough tacos. Vote for another candidate that won't do that. ;)

You two are doing an admirable job speaking on my behalf :laugh: but let me jump in and just mention that *most* conservatives lie somewhere just right of the middle. I look at the far Religious right (as most do) as nothing more then the Ying to the far left’s Yang; i.e. mostly irrational and also minorities in their respective parties. Do I think that the party is being hijacked? Not entirely. Of course they will try to push their agenda, as would the far left extremists.

The main reason I support Bush is that I agree with his proactive approach to the war on terror and regardless of the Left’s spin, I think he acted admirably after 9/11. This is the pressing issue of our time. Economies always go up and down regardless of who is in office and I don’t hold Bush (or any president, for that matter) personally accountable for jobs. If anything, 9/11 had a tremendous negative impact on our economy. I have felt it in my family. In light of that, I think we are doing quite well economically given what has happened.

And, Kennedy is a blowhard. Always has been. Talk about some off the wall statements. I even heard him say something to the effect that “Bush’s spending makes Democrats look fiscally sound!” Didn’t he admit that Democrats are huge spenders?

And, I agree with conservative economics and have concerns with the Admin’s spending. Tax cuts have been great, though.

As for my vote…there isn’t a better candidate running then Bush, IMHO. Otherwise, I would vote for him/her.;)

Rob:cool:

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Yes, it was an intentional and subliminal message to our handsome and talented resident librarian Johnny Stew!!!!!

LONG LIVE JOHNNY STEW!!!!!!!!Doggoneit, Jason... I'm running out of money to keep paying you for these ego-strokes! You'll either have to stop, or start working quid pro quo! :p :laugh:

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by Rob67
The main reason I support Bush is that I agree with his proactive approach to the war on terror and regardless of the Left’s spin, I think he acted admirably after 9/11. This is the pressing issue of our time. Economies always go up and down regardless of who is in office and I don’t hold Bush (or any president, for that matter) personally accountable for jobs.

As for my vote…there isn’t a better candidate running then Bush, IMHO. Otherwise, I would vote for him/her.;)I'm sorry, but I still firmly believe that ANY president in a Post-9/11 world will HAVE TO BE strong on the war on terrorism.
Bush is not the be-all and end-all of go-to guys when it comes to something of that magnitude.

And, in all honesty, I really think that to vote for him on that one single point... when he has been absolutely ineffectual on everything else that matters... is very short-sighted.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I'm sorry, but I still firmly believe that ANY president in a Post-9/11 world will HAVE TO BE strong on the war on terrorism.
Bush is not the be-all and end-all of go-to guys when it comes to something of that magnitude.

And, in all honesty, I really think that to vote for him on that one single point... when he has been absolutely ineffectual on everything else that matters... is very short-sighted.

That's not the only thing, it's the main thing. And couldn't it be short sighted to THINK he was "ineffectual" on everything else?:confused:

Alas, we must agree to disagree...

Rob:cool:

[strandinthewind]

W has been effective in the war on terror. He got Al-Q to where they are no longer a state sponsored organization and are on the run for the most part. That is a good thing even though he has yet to produce OBL. Although SH had no relation to Al-Q, W got rid of the head of state terrorist SH (even though I think he should be impeached for the way he did it :mad: ). So, IMO those are to positive things he did even if he pissed off most of the world and at least half of America by doing the latter in the manner he did it.

As for the rest of his administrative efforts, they do not hold up so well. First, the "No Child Left Behind Act" has yet to see funding and probably will nefver see adequate funding. Moreover, while I agree it is noble in its intent, it does not effectively reach that goal in that states do not the resources to implement it in an adequate manner. So, that grade is a D or F.

Next, the medicare reform deal. When I saw what they sent my parents about Rx coveraged I literally laughed out loud. YEs, it helps some people - some rich people that is. You have to pay something like $1,500 to get $2,000 worth of benefits. That is not much and is nothing to people who have no money but have a house and therefore do not qualify for most state sponsored medicaide. Then, the negotiated rates for drugs under the Medicare Rx plan are outrageous. Finally, the R who spearheaded the bill (B. Tauzin - La.) was simultaneously fencing job offers in the millions of dollars a year range. So, that grade is a D or possibly a C because it does help some people even though it, despite any benevolent intent, is a boon to the drug companies.

Finally, the economy - ITA that the economy goes up and down and there is little the Fed. and ther Fed. Gov. can do to stop that cycle. But, W has done nothing he said he would do. Every job numbering he has promised has had to be revised. The economy is picking up, but not a significant pace. W is openly for taking American jobs form American people and moving them overseas. While I get that in the long run, that means "better" jobs here for Americans, that is little solace to the father of two who needs to put bread on the table today. Moreover, he cut taxes to the point where not enough money can ever come in to fill the deficit left by his outrageous spend, a significant percentage (maybe 70%) of which goes to special interest groupd a la Hallibutron (to pay for a war we did not have to fight and could not afford to finght) and the drug companies (via the mdicare Rx bill). So, I think W gets a D or D+ on the economy, possibly when 9/11 is factored in.

So, this begs the question can Kerry do better. Who knows. I say he cannot do any worse and at least Kerry will not try to make the only people that matter white, heterosexual, male, middle class to rich fundamentalist Christians.

That is why I am voting for Kerry.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Most Americans like and believe her.

I can't stand the bitch. Haven't liked her since day one, when she was the only one who would come out and talk to the press while the coup was in progress. She's as Stepford as they come.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
W has been effective in the war on terror. He got Al-Q to where they are no longer a state sponsored organization and are on the run for the most part.

Come on, let's get the truth out. They're funded by the Saudi's and they still are. They're not running from us. They brazenly blew up a railway in Spain. We can't find them.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Come on, let's get the truth out. They're funded by the Saudi's and they still are. They're not running from us. They brazenly blew up a railway in Spain. We can't find them.

They're just as active as ever, it just isn't being promoted by the mass media! We haven't been keeping track of them and we haven't for over a year. Iraq is what they were after and they don't care about Al-Q, with the exception of Osama (who they embarassingly LOST). If they did, something would be done about them...and nothing has. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Come on, let's get the truth out. They're funded by the Saudi's and they still are. They're not running from us. They brazenly blew up a railway in Spain. We can't find them.

I am not saying what we did in Afganistan was the end of Al-Q. What I am saying is that clearly, without a state in which to work unfettered, the strength of Al-Q is significantly lessened and even more so by our capture and/or killing of the vast majority of their top people and the seizing of their accounts :shrug: So, yes, although it is still present, it is weakened. W did well on that account even though he did not capture or kill OBL, which he should have done.

Regading the Saudi's, I am unsure if the Saudi state officially or even unofficially sponsors Al-Q. But it really does not matter too much because they effectively do not lift a finger to stop Al-Q or any other terrorist organization. But, they have king oil so no politician (and I mean no politician) will raise their hand to them. If they did, the American companies and people would never forgive them because it would send our economy into a tailspin. Pity IMO. But, we are beholden to fossil fuel and until that changes . . . :cool:

[strandinthewind]

So there is no confusion, I am not saying W did anything anyone else could not have done in Afganistan. In fact, I think others could have done it better. All I am saying is the job done there was not bad. In fact it was pretty good and Al-Q is weakened because of it. I mean they lost something like 80% of their top people, that we knew of of course.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I'm sorry, but I still firmly believe that ANY president in a Post-9/11 world will HAVE TO BE strong on the war on terrorism.
Bush is not the be-all and end-all of go-to guys when it comes to something of that magnitude.

To paraphrase Bill Maher regarding the invasion of Afganistan "anyone could point to this country and say to the world's greatest army 'destroy this'" :cool:

Interestingly, has anyone notices that the R screamed from here to hell about how the US armed forces went to hell in a handbasket because of Clinton's neglect. Yet, W and his administration made no significant changes to the military (pay, budget, equipment, etc.) until after 9/11 and the whole Afganistan "event" was essentially over by the time any of those changes could possibly have taken place.

One more example of a politician telling you everything but how it really is :rolleyes:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
To paraphrase Bill Maher regarding the invasion of Afganistan "anyone could point to this country and say to the world's greatest army 'destroy this'" :cool:

Yeah, all this admin had to do was kill the Afghani's by polluting them with depleted uranium, too. ;)

[jwd]

strandinthewind:

So, yes, although it is still present, it is weakened. W did well on that account even though he did not capture or kill OBL, which he should have done.

THAT should have been done YEARS ago my friend.

[jwd]

strandinthewind:

So there is no confusion, I am not saying W did anything anyone else could not have done in Afganistan. In fact, I think others could have done it better.

If only Clinton were still in office. :rolleyes: :)

[jwd]

dissention:

ITA - like I said earlier, the Dems need to take some cues from Ted Kennedy. He's the only one with a backbone.

That dude has to have a lot of backbone....his head is HUGE! :D

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by Rob67
That's not the only thing, it's the main thing.An honest question... if his "war on terrorism" isn't the only reason you'll be voting for Bush in November, what are the other reasons?Originally posted by Rob67
And couldn't it be short sighted to THINK he was "ineffectual" on everything else?:confused:I don't find it to be short-sighted, since I don't merely "think" he's been ineffectual on virtually everything else... I've seen the proof.
Jason has already pointed out many of the things I was going to cite, so I won't bother to reiterate... and even most Bush supporters are only able to say he's "tough on terrorism" when discussing why he should be re-elected.

(By the way, Joe... Clinton may have bungled matters when it comes to Osama Bin Laden, but Bush hasn't brought him in yet either... and he's supposedly been actively hunting him for three years now. To quote Tom Petty, "I can't decide which is worse....")

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by jwd
If only Clinton were still in office. :rolleyes: :)

Actually, I was referring to letting Collin Powell run the military operation instead of Rumsfeld. But, that is my opinion and I know others differ.

Plus, all of the testimony before this 9/11 panel and the WH and its minions all admit Cllinton was never attacked like we were attacked on 9/11 nor do they have disparaging remarks about Clinton on this issue (including the Cole and other bombings - they all concur actual hard proof is needed before war can be waged) as opposed to every other issue. Plus, the Clinton administration successfully stopped a major Y2K terrorist attack. W has stopped none despite the advance warning from Clinton and two Federal Agencies having the information but apparently letting ego get in the way. So, Clinton's record comparatively is not that bad :shrug: But, people IMO are so enraged by 9/11 (as they should be mind you) that they blindly throw support to W and his campaign in the war on terror, even though he now has us spending billions on a preemptive strike on a nation that, despite his lying, was not an immediate threat to the US. IF your employee made this big of a mistake, wouldn't you fire them? I would.

Also, many assert Clinton was soft in not getting OBL. While this may be true in hindsight, OBL and Al-Q have eveolved. In 1992, they were not as important. Also, Bush I could have removed SH in 1991 but did not because the Saudi's (the root of almost all evil on this issue IMO) would have admonished him for doing so. So, I think we can blame Bush I for the current mess in Iraq if you go by the same reasoning that most assert on Clinton failing to get OBL. That is why I think gldstwmn is right in that W should be judged on being W, which is, at best, a D+ IMO and for the reasons stated earlier in this thread.

My $0.02 :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by jwd
That dude has to have a lot of backbone....his head is HUGE! :D

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: ROTFLMAO

esp. when he incoherently is babbling with whiskey breath and his large head is listing to one side

:eek: :eek:



:wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind

Also, many assert Clinton was soft in not getting OBL. While this may be true in hindsight, OBL and Al-Q have eveolved. In 1992, they were not as important. Also, Bush I could have removed SH in 1991 but did not because the Saudi's (the root of almost all evil on this issue IMO) would have admonished him for doing so. So, I think we can blame Bush I for the current mess in Iraq if you go by the same reasoning that most assert on Clinton failing to get OBL. That is why I think gldstwmn is right in that W should be judged on being W, which is, at best, a D+ IMO and for the reasons stated earlier in this thread.

My $0.02 :cool:

Amen, brother.:nod: :nod: :nod:

[jwd]

Johnny Stew:

(By the way, Joe... Clinton may have bungled matters when it comes to Osama Bin Laden, but Bush hasn't brought him in yet either... and he's supposedly been actively hunting him for three years now.

True, but you have to agree that it would have been a "whole lot easier" if we had brought him in THEN as opposed to looking for him now. ;)

[jwd]

strandinthewind:

So, Clinton's record comparatively is not that bad

I guess getting Slick Willy to testify under oath before the 9/11 Commission wouldn't mean a thing....considering his record.

[jwd]

strandinthewind:

esp. when he incoherently is babbling with whiskey breath and his large head is listing to one side


:lol: :lol: :lol: OMG, the vision in my head. That was good strandie!


:wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by jwd
I guess getting Slick Willy to testify under oath before the 9/11 Commission wouldn't mean a thing....considering his record.

Do you think ANY politician would tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth :laugh:

Moreover, Clinton may have lied about getting a hummer from a fat chick because he something to hide from his ballbreaker of a wife, but I submit for the reasons set forth above his terrorism dossier is pretty good. Plus, the R's are not about to lambaste him anymore because they need him to give them credibility regarding the phantom but previously assured WMD in Iraq :shrug:

Yep - ole Teddy boy is always fun for humor!!!! :cool:

[jwd]

strandinthewind:

but I submit for the reasons set forth above his terrorism dossier is pretty good.

Considering he let Bin Laden get away, I think it SUCKS. :)

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
I guess getting Slick Willy to testify under oath before the 9/11 Commission wouldn't mean a thing....considering his record.

:rolleyes:

Your idols Shrub and Dick won't even testify under oath. Or in public. Or alone. And according to what the 9/11 commissioners have said, Clinton's been the best one who's testified. They said that they were shocked that he didn't just come in and defend what his admin did; he openly conceded to what he did wrong. ;) I have more respect for that than what ChimpCo is doing to the commission. They're stonewalling it, they fought for the commission not to be formed and then only extended the commission's time when the public reacted badly to his saying no.

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
Considering he let Bin Laden get away, I think it SUCKS. :)

They let bin Laden get away last year when they had him cornered in a cave.