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

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Same players, different president.

So, true. Actually, some of Nixon's people are in there as well. Wasn't ole Rummy in the Nixon Administration?

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind




So, true. Actually, some of Nixon's people are in there as well. Wasn't ole Rummy in the Nixon Administration?

Yes. He was, although I can't rmember exactly what he did.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Yes. He was, although I can't rmember exactly what he did.

Here is an intersting article/commentary - boy how things change!!!!!

Blast from the Past: Rumsfeld: Nixon's Loathesome Dove

"A new generation of American antiwar critics may decry Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld's moves in Iraq. But there was a time when other critics -- such as President Richard M. Nixon and then-national security adviser Henry A. Kissinger -- saw him as an incorrigible peacenik, an annoying White House dove, according to a most interesting article in the November Atlantic Monthly by James Mann.

Using the Nixon Tapes -- the gift that will forever keep on giving -- Mann found Nixon one night fretting about "the Rumsfeld problem."

Rumsfeld, then a former congressman working on the White House domestic policy staff, was "becoming a troublesome anti-war advocate," Mann writes in this excerpt from his upcoming book "Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet."

In an April 7, 1971, chat, Nixon, Kissinger and then-Chief of Staff H.R. "Bob" Haldeman talked about the war in Vietnam. "I think Rumsfeld may be not too long for this world," Nixon said, a few minutes later suggesting, "Let's dump him."

In a generally conservative administration, Rumsfeld had been on the moderate-to-liberal wing, credited by some with saving President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society anti-poverty program, the Office of Economic Opportunity. His assistants there included two young fellows, Dick Cheney and Frank Carlucci.

At a staff meeting earlier that day, Rumsfeld had pressed Kissinger on why the administration couldn't move faster to get out of Vietnam. Nixon worried later that Rumsfeld would quit.

"He's ready to jump ship," Nixon said in his meeting with Kissinger and Haldeman.

Haldeman disagreed. "I doubt if he ever would, just because [staying on] serves his interests more than not."

"He's just positioning himself to be close to The Washington Post and the New York Times," Kissinger said. (This is what the shrinks might call "projection.")

"Well then, let's dump him after this" speech to the nation that evening, Nixon said. "Good God, we're sending him . . . on a two-month holiday to Europe. . . . For what purpose?"

"To get him out of town," Kissinger said. Mann notes that Kissinger then "gently reminds his boss that Rumsfeld's 'holiday' in Europe had originally been their idea."

And when Rumsfeld returned from that trip, he brought some vague political dirt with him, saying that one U.S. ambassador "gave us a pile of bad stuff about [potential Democratic challenger Edmund S.] Muskie and his extracurricular activities." It apparently amounted to naught, however." (Al Kamen, The Washington Post, October 10, 2003)


http://www.loper.org/~george/archives/2003/Oct/950.html

[gldstwmn]

I'm sure the Nixon administration viewed anyone who differed from their prescribed policy to be the enemy. However in reading the O'Neill book, Rummy had become an ideologue on the issue of Iraq. While I know that the previous administrations had plans to do away with the Hussein regime, this administration was actively looking for a way to implement it unilateraly in the first 10 days.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I'm sure the Nixon administration viewed anyone who differed from their prescribed policy to be the enemy. However in reading the O'Neill book, Rummy had become an ideologue on the issue of Iraq. While I know that the previous administrations had plans to do away with the Hussein regime, this administration was actively looking for a way to implement it unilateraly in the first 10 days.

The current administration's plan for regime change is not what bothers me. What bothers me is the hatred beween the two parties caused the current administration to ignore the outgoing Clinton administrations' warning that Al-Q was the clearest and most present danger.

Here is a link to a site that is radical in its views, but contains interesting stuff for conspiracy theorists

http://democrats.com/elandslide/peti...m?campaign=911

[gldstwmn]

Thanks for the link! My belief has always been that flight 93 was shot down. They found one of the jet engines 8 miles from the crash site.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Thanks for the link! My belief has always been that flight 93 was shot down. They found one of the jet engines 8 miles from the crash site.

I kind of thought that as well. But, no one saw it, the radar doesn't support it, and the black box conversations they released, all of which I grant could have been altered , indicate otherwise. Still, its just a little too convenient.

[gldstwmn]

Also, what, if anything, do you make of the "I hit the trifecta" comment?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Also, what, if anything, do you make of the "I hit the trifecta" comment?

I think it was his way of getting at the Social Security funds. I also think it is another example of his Dean like foot in mouth speech.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Yeah. I did notice you were in on that one.

Always will challenge that claim!!

Rob

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Rob67
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.

This isn't the first op-ed piece that has been posted on these pages and I don't think that discredits them.

Far from being offended, I just pointed out you're wasting your time if you think this kind of thing backs your position. My point wasn't to discourage people from posting op-ed pieces; rather I was trying to explain to you that hurling insults doesn't tend to get too far in persuading people of anything. So when you use a column that does just that, all you are doing is alienating the people you seem to be trying to reach. If you want to preach to the choir, which is all that type of column is good for, perhaps you're targeting the wrong audience.

[jwd]

CarneVaca:

Far from being offended, I just pointed out you're wasting your time if you think this kind of thing backs your position. My point wasn't to discourage people from posting op-ed pieces; rather I was trying to explain to you that hurling insults doesn't tend to get too far in persuading people of anything. So when you use a column that does just that, all you are doing is alienating the people you seem to be trying to reach. If you want to preach to the choir, which is all that type of column is good for, perhaps you're targeting the wrong audience.

I'm assuming(I know assume, hehe) you believe this holds true when an op-ed piece from the left is posted that hurls insults at the right too?


Joe

[gldstwmn]

Very encouraging!

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040124/nysa010a_1.html

Newsweek Poll: Campaign 2004
Saturday January 24, 11:12 am ET
Kerry Leads Dems With 30 Percent; Edwards Follows at 13 Percent; Dean Slips, Even With Clark at 12 Percent
52 Percent of Voters Don't Want to See Bush Re-Elected (44% Do), 37 Percent Strongly Want to See Him Re-Elected, 47 Percent Strongly Do Not
But a Large Majority (78%) Says That it is Very Likely (40%) or Somewhat Likely (38%) That he Will Get a Second Term


NEW YORK, Jan. 24 /PRNewswire/ -- Senator John Kerry has taken the lead nationally among Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters over Vermont Gov. Howard Dean in the race for the Democratic nomination, according to the latest Newsweek Poll. Kerry leads the field with 30 percent, followed by Sen. John Edwards with 13 percent. Howard Dean falls to 12 percent from 24 percent in the last Newsweek Poll two weeks ago, and is even with General Wesley Clark, also at 12 percent.
Kerry also leads the pack of Democratic contenders among registered voters as the candidate who would have a better chance of beating President George W. Bush if the election were held today. A Kerry-Bush match-up would have Kerry up by 49 percent to Bush's 46 percent. A Clark and Bush match-up would be a close race, with Bush at 48 percent and Clark at 47 percent. Bush would have an edge over Edwards (49% to 46%). Yet, with a plus or minus margin of error, these match-ups result in a statistical dead heat. And the President would beat Dean (50% to 45%) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (49% to 45%).

And Democrats and Democratic learners also think Sen. John Kerry has the best chance (48%) of defeating Bush in November, and is the candidate mostly likely to do so (43%). Howard Dean follows at 26 percent (a drop from 38% in the 12/11-12/03 Newsweek Poll). Only 15 percent think Dean would most likely defeat Bush. In third is Wesley Clark at 23 percent, and John Edwards at 22 percent. Only 14 percent say Joe Lieberman has a good chance of beating George Bush.

And more registered voters (54%) and Democrats and Democratic leaners (74%) have a favorable opinion of Kerry followed by Lieberman with 48 percent of registered voters, but only 56 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaners. Edwards follows with 60 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaners, but only 46 percent of registered voters. However, 42 percent of registered voters have an unfavorable opinion of Howard Dean, though a 57-percent majority of Democrats and Democratic leaners has a favorable opinion of the Vermont Governor.

And the combination of Democrats considered the best ticket to beat Bush in November among Democrats and Democratic leaners would be Kerry-Edwards or Kerry-Clark, both at 21 percent, followed by Kerry-Dean (19%).

Meanwhile, a week after President Bush's State of the Union address, his approval rating has fallen to 50 percent from 54 percent in the last Newsweek Poll (1/8-9/04). Yet, a 52-percent majority of registered voters says it would not like to see him re-elected to a second term. Only 44 percent say they would like to see him re-elected, a four-point drop from the last Newsweek Poll. (Of that, 37% strongly want to see him re-elected, and 47% strongly do not). However, a large majority of voters (78%) says that it is very likely (40%) or somewhat likely (38%) that Bush will in fact be re- elected to a second term in office. Only 10 percent believe it is not too likely or not at all likely (10%).

With 52 percent of registered voters saying they are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the U.S. this year, the issues that are very important in helping them determine who they will vote for are: the economy and jobs (83%); health care (75%) and education (74%); the situation in Iraq and terrorism and homeland security (70%). The least important is the appointing of new Supreme Court justices and federal judges (42%).

A 53-percent majority of Democrats and Democratic leaners say they are more inclined to vote for the candidate who comes closest to their way of thinking on the issues rather than the candidate with the best chance of defeating President Bush (39%). And the large majority (71%), says it's very important that the Democratic presidential nominee has clear-cut alternatives to Bush on issues like Iraq and taxes; can attract young people and other first-time voters to turn out and support the Democratic ticket (70%); understands the concerns of working families because he grew up in one (64%); has foreign policy and national defense experience (56%), and comes across as even-tempered and appeals to voters in the South (54%).

For this Newsweek Poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates International interviewed 1,006 adults aged 18 and older on January 22-23, 2004. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points. This poll is part of the February 2 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, January 26).

[strandinthewind]

Cool and thanks for posting. It certainly seems like the tide is turning within the D party and out of it as well. Maybe this change can be sustained for the next ten months.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Cool and thanks for posting. It certainly seems like the tide is turning within the D party and out of it as well. Maybe this change can be sustained for the next ten months.

Let us hope so.