Presidential politics
 

Howart Kurtz, who doesn't do much for me usually (can you spell conflict of interest?) shows some real insght here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec17.html

In essence, he says some of the Democratic nomination candidates are now pouncing on Dean even though, with the exception of Lieberman, they had been attacking Bush for Iraq. This is particularly the case with Kerry and Gephardt, neither of which will ever become president now matter how many times they change their weasly positions.

Truly, the best person for the job is Dennis Kucinich, but he ain't got a chance. So Dean it is for me.

Re: Presidential politics
 

:laugh: all politicians change their positions :laugh:

We shall see after the primaries in the next four or five months. But, I agree Dean certainly has the best shot of getting the nomination.

:cool:

The problem is these spineless idiots are now handing Bush fodder to attack Dean in the general election. Will these morons never learn? I mean, after all, it is unlikely Willie Horton would have become a big issue in the Dukakis/Bush campaign had Al Gore not brought it up during the nomination fight. And in typical Gore fashion, he of course didn't have his facts straight.

Idiots!

I love Kucinich, but he'll never make it. Never.

My dream would be Braun and Kerry as running mates, but I'm just a silly dreamer.

I can't even stand to look at Dean, but if it comes to down to him and Bush, of course I'm going to vote for Dean. Anything is better than Shrub. The Republicans are just salivating at the thought that Dean will get the nomination because they'll crucify him. Like we talked about before, chances are that they know what's in his sealed records and they'll use it against him. They'll use his flip-flopping on Iraq against him, they'll use the fact that he turned his state into a tax shelter for Enron and Ken Lay, and they'll use his history of changing his mind against him (for example, the death penalty). He doesn't stand a chance.

I'm really hoping that Braun continues to do tours of high schools so that she can try to get the teens (of age) to the polls. She's had great success so far and could get a lot of votes if she keeps it up. :nod:

Re: Presidential politics
 

Dean changed his position on the war. I posted the article for you in The Reagans thread. I like Kucinich as well, who changed his stance on a woman's right to choose about a year ago.:)
I agreed with a lot of points in the article. I think the Republicans have already figured out what they're going to use against Dean. IMO, he's not the man for the job.

Hey, Goldie--

Did you see last nights episode of Whoopi? The Arab (*ahem* Persian) handyman ripped into Bush. :laugh:

"I want to tell you an Iranian fable...about a man named George Dubya Bush...

Once upon a time, Georgie took a rich country and he plunged it into debt...He couldn't even pronounce the word "terrorists." He called them tooooourists. And when Georgie couldn't find the weapons of mass destrustion, did he crawl under the covers in his cowboy pajamas and cry? NO! What did he do? He got up and...he put on a suit and...he faced the world like he knew what the HELL he was talking about!!!"

:laugh:

Re: Re: Presidential politics
 

No way am I going to go through that monster of a thread. Do you have the link otherwise?

No I missed Whoopi. Sounds great though. Shrub called Saddam a "raperum" (rapist?) in his speech after the capture.:laugh:

I know, I taped it! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

http://www.dubyaspeak.com is the BEST source for Bush-isms!

Re: Re: Re: Presidential politics
 

Sorry, it was on the Kerry/O'Reilly thread:

From John Kerry's website:

Kerry rips Dean for `flip-flop' on Iraq


December 12, 2003

Boston Herald
by Andrew Miga

Manchester, NH -

Charging there are ``several Howard Deans,'' Sen. John F. Kerry yesterday tore into the high-flying Democratic presidential front-runner for flip-flopping on the Iraq war to score political points.

By ``It seems to me like he tried to have it both ways,'' said Kerry. ``If you don't have to vote, you can run around and say a lot of things.''

Kerry (D-Mass.) cited Dean's support last fall for a congressional resolution similar to the one Kerry and three of his rivals voted for, giving President Bush war authority.

Kerry charged that Dean, who tapped a deep well of anti-war sentiment among party liberals to propel his candidacy to the front of the Democratic pack, straddled and misled voters.

``Howard Dean exercised the exact same judgment that the rest of us exercised,'' Kerry said. ``I'm saying there are several Howard Deans.''

But Dean, campaigning in Concord, brushed off Kerry's criticism. ``The difference is, I came out very early against the war,'' said Dean.

Kerry cited Dean's support of an alternative resolution, co-authored by Sens. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), requiring Bush to win United Nations approval for enforcing weapons checks in Iraq before going to war.

Bush also would have had to report to Congress by sending a letter before waging war. Dean insisted the Biden-Lugar measure could have prevented the war in Iraq. He said the resolution would have forced Bush to engage in more diplomacy - and to prove his claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

``Had the president done that, we would not have gone to war, because then he would have been forced to certify with his word . . . all the claims he made that were not true,'' said Dean.

Kerry, who has made similar charges in the past, said he was taking fresh aim at Dean because Al Gore had cited the former Vermont governor's anti-war views as the prime reason for endorsing him.

``If Al Gore is endorsing the Howard Dean who made the judgment at the same time as the rest of us, then he is endorsing the wrong Howard Dean,'' Kerry charged.

U. S. Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.), meanwhile, fired a stinging shot at Bush for failing to honor America's fallen soldiers in Iraq.

``Bush found the time to go to 34 fund-raisers since the war,'' Gephardt told a crowd in Berlin, N. H., ``but has not found time to go to one funeral.''

GOP officials have said the president wants to keep politics out of memorial services, and expresses his sympathy privately.

Kerry, meanwhile, insisted he would not be deterred if he fails to win New Hampshire, which most party insiders consider as a must-win contest for him.

``I'm running a national campaign and I intend to take my campaign nationally,'' he said

Here are some FAB ones:

Today, the unemployment rate dropped, as you may know, from 6 percent to 5.9 percent.
-- At that rate we'll be at full employment in two months, Halethorpe, Maryland, Dec. 5, 2003

As we hunt down the terrorists, we're committed to spending -- spreading freedom in all parts of the world, including the Middle East.
-- I think he got it right prior to correcting himself, Washington, D.C., Oct. 1, 2003

By making the right choices, we can make the right choice for our future.
-- Flawless logic, Dallas, Texas, Jul. 18, 2003

I think war is a dangerous place.
-- Washington, D.C., May 7, 2003

If America goes to sleep, the rest of the world is in trouble. If we blink, the rest of the world will close their eyes. So we're not blinking, and we're not going to sleep.
-- To summarize, Blinking: bad, Sleeping: bad, Los Angeles, California, Apr. 29, 2002

I wanna remind you all that I -- in, in order -- what -- in order to fight and win the war it requires a expenditure of money -- uhh, uhh -- that is commiserate with keeping a promise to our troops to make sure that they're well paid, well trained, well equipped.
-- It's official... Dubya doesn't know he's still using the wrong word, and his advisers are afraid to tell him, Washington, D.C., Dec. 15, 2003

Our productivity is high. I hope some of it has to do -- I know some of it has to do, I hope you understand some of it has to do with the fact that the role of government can help create growth.
-- Nicely put, Halethorpe, Maryland, Dec. 5, 2003

AND THE BEST ONE IN A LONG WHILE...

See, when a person has more money in their pocket, they're likely to come to Home Depot.
-- I think someone had better check the corporate campaign contributions list, Halethorpe, Maryland, Dec. 5, 2003

BTW, Carne, if you haven't already, watch Howard Dean in an un-soundbite forum like C-Span. It ain't pretty.

Dissention, I hate to tell you this, but Kerry ain't going to make it. Perhaps if he hadn't waffled so much, he might have had a chance. Besides, he's viewed as a Massachusets liberal, and we know how hard it has become to overcome that in presidential politics.

Dean wouldn't be my favorite, but I would pick him over Kerry without any soul-searching whatsoever. The reason Dean has picked up so much support is that he is perceived as a guy who says what he thinks. That's going to be very important in this election, considering the constant lying of the current administration.

Kerry should have had the courage to vote against the bill giving Bush carte blanche to do what he wanted in Iraq. Here's a decorated Vietnam Veteran who could have made a difference. The deaths of thousands in this needless war are on his head too.

See, I don't even understand his position. He's telling us Bush is wrong while voting for the war, then jumping on the bandwagon when Saddam is caught, which you agree is of little significance. But, wait, didn't he vote for that preposterous $87 billion package too? See why I'm confused about him?

Kerry's never going to make it because he was to busy dragging his feet...but one can hope. He was stupid to vote for the war (and I ripped him on it when I spoke with him last summer) and I suspect that it is costing him voters.

I understand why you're confused (I am as well) but I agree with him on many of his issues and platforms, whereas I don't with Dean. I don't think Dean really says what he thinks, I think he says what us far-left liberals want to hear, while making a fool out of himself in the process.

Kerry f*cked it up for himself early on and I'm just hoping he does something to fix it (even though that won't happen!).

It's also his biggest liability. He shoots from the hip. It's more than a little scary.

And here's one for the books...

The second pillar of peace and security in our world is the willingness of free nations, when the last resort arrives, to retain aggression and evil by force.
-- I hope that isn't what he meant to say, London, England, Nov. 19, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Presidential politics
 

Whew... wait a minute! I'm supposed to change my opinion of Dean because Kerry, very disingenuously, charges him with flip-flopping? Dean says we need to go to the UN before taking action and then when Bush doesn't, Dean opposes the war, and that's supposed to be flip-flopping!?

John Kerry is acting a lot like Al Gore did when he ran in primaries. By that, I mean, he's a lying a little, nyet? He should formulate a consistent agenda for himself and shut up about an opponent who obviously is far more exciting to the voters than Cardboard-Cutup Kerry could ever hope to be.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presidential politics
 

I'll bet you I could do a Lexis Nexis search right now and pull up all kinds of quotes from the Vermont papers refrencing Dean's stance on the war. Most people are under the impression that Dean was not for any war. I certainly don't expect you to change your opinion, I was just providing counterpoint for what you were saying.:)
I guess all the American people want out of a president is a little entertainment. At least that's what the polls say.

I will not make the mistake of calling Dean a liberal. He really is nothing close. I have serious issues with some of his positions, particularly Israel and guns. But I give him cudos for what he has accomplished in this campaign already. What Lieberman and Kerry are going to accomplish with their loser attacks is to keep people at home on voting day. That's bad all around.

If Dean has backed other wars, and I am sure he has, it doesn't surprise me. But his comments about going to the UN are not necessarily inconsistent with taking an anti-war stance. I was in favor of going to the UN as well, in the full expectation that the Security Council would not have approved this Iraq adventure. But if it had, I would have still been against the war, though perhaps not quite as vehemently. But the real question is would Dean have still been against the war? We'll never know. However, I am glad he has chosen to take an anti-war stance.

Here is an interesting commentary viewing the current Adminsitrations from a few angles.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2092791/

Also, I do not view Kerry as flip flopping. I think he, like he said, recognized the need to remove SH, but never expected the Bush Administration to fu*& it up this badly. :cool:

I guess I just don't understand the neeeeeeed to remove a two-bit dictator who has had no weapons to speak of since we stopped giving them to him. Meanwhile, there are far more dangerous mofos out there, some of whom have actually been involved in attacking us. Osama, anyone?

I think the WMD angle was sincere but was used more to leverage support, in the US, for the war. The "conflict" in Iraq was for reasons on a larger scale then just WMD or oil (ridiculous).

The right believes that by removing one of the more oppressive dictatorships in the Middle East and supplanting it with a democratic and free government accepted by the Iraqis will be a catalyst for religious, economic and political freedom for the surrounding areas. This is a long term strategy aimed at stabilizing the region.

I actually find this a refreshing policy, in the long run. Especially because everything else, including appeasement, hasn't worked over the last couple of decades.

Only time will tell if the Bush administration and the policy will be successful. Let's hope and pray.

Rob:cool:

I agree to an extent only SH was no "two-bit" dictator. He had attacked and tried to conquer a neighboring country. Also, I see all of the agruments for and against the exigency of our military action, but the bottom line is SH has no one to blame but himself for not complying with the UN's unanimous position for 11 years that SH had the burden to prove he no longer had these weapons. He got what he deserved. Unfortunately, the Iraqi people as well as our and the ally soldiers have paid a dear, dear price. This is why I think we should have ousted SH in 1991 or sooner than now. But, we did not. We played his game for far too long in my book.

Rob and Jason, you're far more trusting than I am, it seems. I see an administration that lied, distorted intelligence reports, changed its articulated motive several times and defied the will of the rest of the world to embark on a terribly ill-advised adventure with a very tragic outcome. Do you really think Saddam is more dangerous than the Saudis? Weren't the Saudis giving Al Qaeda most of its funding? (and probably still are) Why don't we attack them. Seems to me they have proven far more dangerous to our security than the Iraqis. No, instead we allow the only non-military flight on Sept. 12 out of the US full of Bin Laden family members on their way home to Saudi Arabia. Then we immediately start building the case for attacking Iraq, despite lack of evidence Saddam had anything to do with the attacks. Even the CIA was against this adventure until the agency was pressured by administration to sanction it publicly.

And as far as levels of tyranny, Saddam was not even close to being among the worst ever. Concurrently with the Iraq situation, there were far worse dictators committing unspeakable attrocities in Africa. Where is the outrage there?

Rob, do you really think democracy is going to flourish in a place where it is imposed by outsiders? Please tell me when such an endeavor has succeeded elsewhere. A sovereign people has to want a democracy. So far what we've seen in Iraq creates very real doubts. What you have is several factions fighting for power. If one overpowers the others, do you think they will extend democracy to them?

We should have learned our lesson from Vietnam and the countless instances of meddling in Latin America, Africa and elsewhere. When I think of the squandered chances for true democracies in Central and South America in favor of supporting ruthless dictators, it makes me sad and angry. Very angry.

Well...who's to say if Democracy will work, it hasn't been tried yet over there. The Japanese government seems to have flourished under a US backed Democracy. They have retained their culture and independance and regained a level of prominence in the world. Yes, the situation is volatile right now. But don't forget...it's only been months since the "conflict" began and they just finally caught SH. Give it time. I don't think that the Bush administration has handled the post conflict situation well. But regardless of what we do, it will take years before the results are fully realized. Besides, it is better then continually appeasing these countries.

Vietnam was a terrible tragedy and a mistake in hindsight. And I agree with you, we have supported dictatorships in the past that turned out to be major mistakes. I guess you have to look at it in context of the time and situation. SOmetimes you have to choose between the lesser of two evils.

I just don't buy into this feeling that the US is the great evil in the world and that we are the cause of all the worlds problems. If you look at our history, we have generally acted for the good of mankind. Of course there have been mistakes and we aren't perfect. But people take our freedoms and country for granted. I think this is the greatest country in the world. If I didn't, I wouldn't live here.

Rob:cool:

Rob, the US is a great country and Americans as a people are well-meaning folk. We tend to pick sh!tty leaders, though. Has this country done a lot of good? No doubt. But more often than not we have picked the wrong governments to back.

Japan and Iraq are very different situations. Let's not even compare them.

Hey, I hope you're right about the eventual outcome of this mess, but I'm pretty sure you're not. Time will tell indeed.

This whole Saddam thing is too much of a distraction, which I suspect is exactly what the Bushers had in mind in the first place. Look, today I have bigger concerns:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in589137.shtml

So the chairman of the 9/11 commission thinks the attacks could have been prevented? Why am I not surprised? Why does the administration's effort to keep this report under wraps make so much sense to me? And remember what I said about that peculiar flight on Sept. 12 (maybe it was the 13th)? I'm not into conspiracy theories, but man, there's just too much that doesn't make sense.

Very true but Japan is an example of a US backed and implemented Democracy that worked.

Yeah. They said the same thing about Pearl Harbor and there was a bunch of nonsense that FDR knew about the attack ahead of time. Unless I see unquestionable proof, I refuse to believe that Bush knew about it ahead of time. But I am sure Oliver Stone will make a movie about it. (Although, I did find JFK entertaining even though it was one big assumption.)

Anyway, if Clinton would have taken care of Bin Laden the first time around we probably wouldn't even be in the situation we're in.

Oh well...hopefully things will work out. In the meantime...I am anticipating the Mirage Tour DVD I got on eBay for a little escapism! ;)

Rob:cool:

I'm not suggesting Bush knew anything in advance. I'm simply wondering out loud about certain things. When you insist on secrecy, speculation tends to get out of hand, so it would behoove this administration to at least get that right. I'll tell you this: I wouldn't want the widows of the 9/11 victims pissed at me, but Bush & Co. don't seem to mind.

Mirage on DVD would be cool. I hope they expand it from the video, though.

Yeah, like why Bush sat there for 20 minutes after the second plane hit and continued to read a goat story to children in an elementary school while Ari Fleischer held up a sign in the back of the room that said "Don't say anything yet." He should have left immediately. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Perhaps he didn't want to frighten the kids?

How would that have made any difference to the situation?

Just curious...

Rob:cool:

LOL - Carne - you know you and I really are just about on the same page. I am, however, far more trusting, admittedly to my detriment most of the time. :laugh:

I think we should have gone after (militarily or otherwise) Saudi Arabia when we went after Afganistan on 9/12/01. I think the Saudis are far more culpable than their lap dogs the Bush family let us believe.

In his defense, not all of the facts were immediately known. I mean we all thought a small commuter plane had accidently hit the first building. That is what the news first reported for about 10 or 15 minutes, during which it bacame more apparent it was a larger jet. It was only when the second plane hit that it became apparent. The terrorists did not announce they were going to do this. So, I give W some slack because their was no clear indication it was a terrorist attack in the frirst 20 minutes.

He should have left immediately.

He stayed for 20 or so minutes after the second plane. He should have left immediately.
Edited to add: I could see if it was a plane striking some building but The World Trade Center? With the intelligence briefings that he'd had and the history of that building being a target, some alarm bells should have been going off in his head. I'll never forget the look on his face. He looked scared sh*tless, IMO and at a loss as to what to do. It's one of the reasons he's unfit to lead this country, IMO. Why shouldn't some of the responsibility rest on his shoulders? He's the man at the top. He wanted the job, he should accept the responsibility.

Oops, my bad - but he was reading a story about Stevie - right :cool:

Here is a cool article on what was known beforehand. Apparently Pres. Clinton will perhaps give live testimony.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106086,00.html

Thanks for the link.:) :wavey:

You do know that I love directing you to "Fox" news :cool:

Strand, I hate to tell ya, but that was lifted from a CBS report.
;)

You mean Fox would do something like that? :cool: As we say inthe South, "Bless their hearts!" :laugh:

You're so baaaaaad. Goat story. I just got it. LMAO. BTW, I just got the Brazilian Mirage dvd today and watched the drunken panty shot list/spin in your honor. It's still quite breathtaking. The subtitles are a hoot.