And the Iowa winner is................

[dissention]

I just want to say that I admire Gephardt for his continued strength in running and I wish him the best in whatever endeavor he embarks on when he retires. He fought a good fight and emerged with his dignity intact. Kudos to him!

[strandinthewind]

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Dean looked very unpresidential. He's done. His 15 minutes are up.

I'm no fan of Dean's, but what's the big deal here? So he got a little passionate. He should be passionate about what he believes in. Does acting "presidential" mean showing no emotion? He needed to rally the troops after such a loss, and he did. Why are people saying this hurts him? If I were an undecided Democrat, I would appreciate his enthusiasm and not turn my nose up at him for it.

I rolled my eyes when he was asked to comment on it during last night's debate. PUH-LEEZE. Yeah, that's a really important campaign issue FOR SURE.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by sodascouts
I'm no fan of Dean's, but what's the big deal here? So he got a little passionate. He should be passionate about what he believes in. Does acting "presidential" mean showing no emotion? He needed to rally the troops after such a loss, and he did. Why are people saying this hurts him? If I were an undecided Democrat, I would appreciate his enthusiasm and not turn my nose up at him for it.

I rolled my eyes when he was asked to comment on it during last night's debate. PUH-LEEZE. Yeah, that's a really important campaign issue FOR SURE.

I would hope that the president would have a modicum of decorum. I'm assuming you saw the whole performance. I agree with Senator Simpspon's assessment of "a prarie dog on speed." Someone else mentioned professional wrestling. Yeah.

[gldstwmn]

One more reason not to support Dean:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/23/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

Dean: Greenspan should be replaced

Democratic presidential contender says Fed chairman was 'too political' in supporting tax cuts.
January 23, 2004: 10:36 AM EST


LONDONDERRY, N.H. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean said Friday that he thought Alan Greenspan had become too political and should be replaced as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

"I think Alan Greenspan has become too political. If he lacks the political courage to criticize the deficits, if he was foolish enough -- and he's not a foolish man -- to support the outrageous tax cuts that George Bush put through, then he has become too political and we need a new chairman of the Federal Reserve," Dean said in response to a question from an audience at a town hall meeting in Londonderry."

[Rob67]

An interesting look at Kennedy and his recent statements....

Rob

______________________________________

Responding To Irrationality

American Daily
Raymond Green,
01/22/04

If one needs to be convinced that Democrats ought not to hold significant power within our government, one need only look at how they behave when they lose the power they did have. Like a hysterical adolescent mildly punished for already inappropriate behavior, Democrats are screaming irrationalities and inaccuracies because they’ve been asked – by the voters – to step aside and let Republicans handle the war on terrorism and the economy. These demented irrationalities are almost so illogical that some believe they need no response – almost.

For instance, on January 14 Ted Kennedy spoke out. He stated that the president violated the “founding ideals” by failing to “protect the fundamental trust between the government and the people.” Let us be clear right off, the founding ideals of our country included a fundamental distrust between government and the people – hence the Constitution, House of Representatives, Senate, and Supreme Court in addition to the Executive branch to all check each other. Our Founders struggled to enact the existence of a federal government at all. Needless to say a “fundamental trust” was born and held only by naïve progressives from the beginning. On the other hand, even if there were a trust between the two, one must ask why, if Kennedy does indeed trust the people, he advocates an ever expanding government to remedy problems people can handle themselves.

He went on to label the war in Iraq a “political product” that “has made America more hated in the world…And it has made our people more vulnerable to attacks both here and overseas.” Logically evaluated, the statement contradicts itself. We would have to believe that Bush created a political product in order to be more hated in the world and leave our country more vulnerable to attacks. The war itself is a political liability, not a political benefit. As a calculated risk, there was more to be lost than there was to be gained by the administration. The probability of sustained failure was much higher than the probability of a prompt success. In other words, the odds were against Bush in most every aspect.

There are other aspects of the “political product” theory that are unclear. For example, if Iraq was a political product, was it also a political product when the United Nations passed at least 17 related resolutions condemning Iraq for repressing the Iraqi population, “the consequences of which threaten international peace and security ” and for Iraq’s “clear violations ” of previous UN resolutions? Was it a political product when Congress passed House Joint Resolution 114 (H.J.Res. 114) authorizing military force to “enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ”? Giving such scenarios much consideration for plausibility is incredibly ridiculous because in order to devise such a scheme, one would have to be a genuine mastermind and Democrats have made it clear that Bush doesn’t possess those abilities.

Furthermore, Kennedy fails to elaborate on one very critical point: The terrorist attack we experienced on 9/11 was a direct result of the prior administrations defense and intelligence policies – which Kennedy himself supported. 9/11 gave Bush an opportunity to revamp, revise, and reform those policies towards a more proactive approach (what Republicans had been advocating for a number of years prior to 9/11). Since those policies have been allowed to take effect, America is indeed less vulnerable than it was before. To intelligently dispute this, one must be prepared to provide evidence that our homeland has been more susceptible to attack because of Bush’s policies. There is no such evidence because no terrorist attacks have occurred on our homeland since Bush’s policies have taken effect. The absence of terrorist attacks on our homeland serves not only as proof that we are safer, but also brings to light how the truth tends to be little more than an obstacle for Democrats like Kennedy to overcome and suppress.

The Bush administration intends on transferring sovereignty of Iraq to Iraqis this summer. According to Kennedy, this is merely a political ploy to enhance Bush’s chance of reelection in November. To clarify, Kennedy believes that Bush went into Iraq as a ploy to drum up support for Republicans and also believes that Bush is now leaving Iraq as a ploy to drum up support for Republicans. The irony is worth taking note of, but hardly worth stewing on. Instead, I pose the following question: Who cares if leaving Iraq is political? Iraq has been made a political point of contention by Democrats, not Republicans. It is Democrats attempting to seize on the failure or success in Iraq in order to take control of the White House. What would be wrong with Bush firing back by also politicizing the issue? Furthermore, Kennedy has created a catch-22 by criticizing Bush for doing precisely what Kennedy wants (and concurrently what Bush had intended on doing from the start): Withdrawing from Iraq and transferring power to the Iraqis.

The idiocy of such statements leads me to give careful consideration to two possibilities of a larger Democrat strategy: (1) That Kennedy is in bed with the engineers of the Democrat Party and is speaking out as an invincible senator during an election period to move the Party further to the left leading to an inevitable victory for Bush and setting up a 2008 run by Hillary Clinton; or (2) Kennedy is blindly pursuing radical ideology and sincerely wants the Party to move further to the left evidencing a significant divide within the Party and a family feud of sorts. In either case the results are the same: Bush wins, therefore America wins and Iraq wins.

[CarneVaca]

Rob, a piece of advice if you want to be taken seriously in a political discussion. First, use sources to back up your statement that are credible. Stick with provable facts. When you inject into the debate this kind of thing:

Originally posted by Rob67
If one needs to be convinced that Democrats ought not to hold significant power within our government...

These demented irrationalities are almost so illogical...

The idiocy of such statements...

For starters, the author of this opinion piece is immediately excluding people who disagree with him from seriously considering his argument, so he is essentially preaching to the choir. You don't generally pull people into a discussion by insulting them right off the bat. Saying Democrats should not hold significang power in government is already telling Democrats they are essentially worthless. How does a constructive discussion follow from that?

Terms such as "demented irrationalities" and "idiocy" don't contribute much to a healthy debate either.

I'll be the first one to admit that I often use hammer diplomacy in the discussions in which I participate. But if I am going to cite sources, I'm going to stick with sources that at least come across as credible.

What we have here is a very lame attempt by you to try to prove your position is the correct one. But you ain't going to prove anything by quoting Rush Limbaugh types who cannot make a rational argument without resorting to insults.

If you want to be taken seriously, try again.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by sodascouts
I'm no fan of Dean's, but what's the big deal here? So he got a little passionate. He should be passionate about what he believes in. Does acting "presidential" mean showing no emotion? He needed to rally the troops after such a loss, and he did.

I agree. So he got carried away. Big hairy deal. Didn't the media keep knocking Al Gore for being too wooden? And before you knew it, average people were calling Al Gore too wooden in their discussions about who should be president. Now we see this same phenomenon applied to Dean.

Who cares if the guy nearly ripped a vocal chord? Was it pretty? Hell no. Does it mean he can't govern? Hell no.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.workingforchange.com/arti...m?itemid=16315

Joe Conason
The New York Observer
01.21.04


What's Bush hiding from 9/11 commission?
Administration doesn't want truth out before the election


In an election year, a Republican President seeking his second term can be expected to propose more tax cuts and, in this era of right-wing profligacy, considerably more spending as well. Informed critics calculate the costs of George W. Bush’s latest proposals in the trillions of dollars -- a vague yet substantial sum that will come due sometime during what budgetary jargon denotes as "the out years," meaning long after Mr. Bush has departed the White House. .



Excessive spending and tax breaks always elicit more applause than controversies over the global "Axis of Evil," Niger’s phantom yellowcake and Iraq’s weapons of mass disappearance. So do such perennially popular topics as improved health care, the protection of heterosexual marriage and, in the immortal words of the President’s father, jobs, jobs, jobs. Estimates of future deficits depend on whether the President actually tries to send astronauts to live on Mars and the moon, or abandons that vision in deference to disapproving poll numbers. In short, bread and maybe circuses.

What Mr. Bush understandably chose not to highlight, however, is his administration’s continuing determination to undermine, restrict and censor the investigation of the most significant event of his Presidency: the attacks on New York and Washington of Sept. 11, 2001.

The President is fortunate that until now, the bipartisan National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States has received far less attention than controversies over the design for a World Trade Center memorial. At every step, from his opposition to its creation, to his abortive appointment of Henry Kissinger as its chair, to his refusal to provide it with adequate funding and cooperation, Mr. Bush has treated the commission and its essential work with contempt.

In the latest development, the President’s aides refused additional time for the 9/11 commission to complete its report. Although the original deadline in the enabling legislation is May 27, the commissioners recently asked for a few more months to ensure that their product will be "thorough and credible."

Earlier this month, Thomas Kean -- the former New Jersey governor who has chaired the commission since Mr. Kissinger recused himself -- explained why the commission needs more time. As the genial Republican told The New York Times, he is only permitted to read the most important classified documents concerning 9/11 in a little closet known as a "sensitive compartmented information facility" (or SCIF). He cannot photocopy the documents, and if he takes notes about them, he must leave the notes in the SCIF when he leaves.

Other recent statements by Mr. Kean, which he subsequently modified, suggest that the White House has ample reason to worry about what the commission’s report will say. In December, he told CBS News that he believes the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented -- and that incompetent officials were at fault for the failure to uncover and frustrate the plot.

Following the creation and staffing of the commission, many months passed before the administration agreed to let Mr. Kean look at any of those crucial documents. The commission still has hundreds of interviews to conduct, and millions of pages to examine, before its members begin to draft their conclusions.

But the President’s political advisers, concerned about the political impact of the commission’s report, are unsympathetic to its requests for additional time -- and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who would have to approve an extension, is perfectly obedient to his masters in the White House. According to Newsweek, the administration offered Mr. Kean a choice: Either keep to the May deadline, or postpone release of the report until December, when its findings cannot affect the election.

Mr. Bush doesn’t want his re-election subject to any informed judgment about the disaster that reshaped the nation and his Presidency. But why should such crucial facts be withheld from the voters? What does the President fear?

Perhaps inadvertently, Mr. Kean provided a clue to the answers in his Times interview. Asked whether he thinks the disaster "did not have to happen," he replied, "Yes, there is a good chance that 9/11 could have been prevented by any number of people along the way. Everybody pretty well agrees our intelligence agencies were not set up to deal with domestic terrorism …. They were not ready for an internal attack." Then, asked whether "anyone in the Bush administration [had] any idea that an attack was being planned," he replied: "That is why we are looking at the internal papers. I can’t talk about what’s classified. [The] President’s daily briefings are classified. If I told you what was in them, I would go to jail."

But the commission’s final report may well indicate what the President was told in his daily briefing of Aug. 6, 2001, when he was sunning himself in Crawford, Tex. -- as well as the many warnings he and his associates were given by the previous administration. That kind of information could send him back to Crawford for a permanent vacation.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=4199124

EX-Arms Hunter Says Iraq Had No Banned Stockpiles

Sat January 24, 2004 01:32 AM ET

By Tabassum Zakaria
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - "Former chief U.S. weapons hunter David Kay has concluded Iraq did not have stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, which could embarrass President Bush abroad and offer ammunition to his election-year Democratic rivals at home.

Undercutting the White House's public rationale for the war on Iraq, Kay told Reuters by telephone shortly after stepping down from his post Friday that he had concluded there were no such stockpiles to be found.

"I don't think they existed," Kay said. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s," he said.

"I think we have found probably 85 percent of what we're going to find," said Kay, who returned from Iraq in December and told the CIA that he would not be going back.

"I think the best evidence is that they did not resume large-scale production and that's what we're really talking about," Kay said.

In his annual State of the Union address Tuesday, Bush again insisted that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had actively pursued dangerous weapons programs right up to the start of the U.S.-led invasion in March.

"Had we failed to act," Bush said, "the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day."

Kay's statements were certain to reopen debate in the United States -- particularly among the field of Democratic candidates vying for the right to take on Bush in November -- about the administration's motives for launching the war..."

[Rob67]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Rob, a piece of advice if you want to be taken seriously in a political discussion. First, use sources to back up your statement that are credible. Stick with provable facts. When you inject into the debate this kind of thing:

For starters, the author of this opinion piece is immediately excluding people who disagree with him from seriously considering his argument, so he is essentially preaching to the choir. You don't generally pull people into a discussion by insulting them right off the bat. Saying Democrats should not hold significang power in government is already telling Democrats they are essentially worthless. How does a constructive discussion follow from that?

Terms such as "demented irrationalities" and "idiocy" don't contribute much to a healthy debate either.

I'll be the first one to admit that I often use hammer diplomacy in the discussions in which I participate. But if I am going to cite sources, I'm going to stick with sources that at least come across as credible.

What we have here is a very lame attempt by you to try to prove your position is the correct one. But you ain't going to prove anything by quoting Rush Limbaugh types who cannot make a rational argument without resorting to insults.

If you want to be taken seriously, try again.

Sorry, I am laughing too hard to respond to this seriously....

First of all, I didn't set it up as anything other then an op-ed piece. Secondly, I cited who wrote the article and where it was from. And thirdly, aside from being so offended because the guy thinks a statement was idiotic, do you disagree with his takes on Kennedy's statements? I thought he made some valid arguments.

"Terms such as "demented irrationalities" and "idiocy" don't contribute much to a healthy debate either."

You may be right...but comparing Bush to Hitler doesn't either. The ****e comes from both sides.

This isn't the first op-ed piece that has been posted on these pages and I don't think that discredits them. I felt the guy made some good points and thought I would share. Besides, I could be offended by your condescending post but I realize If yah can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen, my friend!!

Oh yeah, and what position am I lamely trying to prove by this article again???

Rob

[gldstwmn]

I wasn't really sure why you posted it on this thread in the first place. Ted Kennedy isn't running for president. If you don't like him and you happen to live in Massachusetts, don't vote for him. Otherwise, what's the point?

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I wasn't really sure why you posted it on this thread in the first place. Ted Kennedy isn't running for president. If you don't like him and you happen to live in Massachusetts, don't vote for him. Otherwise, what's the point?

You know..you're right. Sorry, It was meant for the "SOTU" thread but apparently that one digressed into a discussion about whether or not Conservatives are good lovers.

Should I have perhaps posted it in "the Reagans" thread after the Haliburton article?

Rob

PS. Well...the point is as relevant as anyone else's points in these discussions. Kennedy has made some statements criticizing Bush policies and I found them to be a little off, to be PC about it. I thought this guy gave a good critique.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
.

Should I have perhaps posted it in "the Reagans" thread after the Haliburton article?

Same players, different president.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
You know..you're right. Sorry, It was meant for the "SOTU" thread but apparently that one digressed into a discussion about whether or not Conservatives are good lovers.

Yeah. I did notice you were in on that one.