Kerry's Acceptance Speech

[IJ Reilly]

I thought it was pretty good. I'd give it a B+. He made the sale. The question is, was anybody watching?

[Mike Teezie]

I thought the speech was excellent.

He came out and was personable and intense. Like you said, lets hope some "undecideds" were wacthing!

[Thomas Veil]

I guess I'd also give it a B+...and only that low because Kerry's stiffness makes even Al Gore look like a party man. Still, for Kerry, it was a good speech. Took some nice pot-shots at Bush, Cheney, Powell and Ashcroft. :D

(So what was with the rest of those balloons still in the ceiling? They having a wedding there tomorrow night or something?)

[macsforall]

I watched it and indeed I believe it was a successful speech. There are problems however. He portrays himself as a centrist Democrat who would somehow cut taxes for the middle class while reviving social security, socialize healthcare and add 40,000 active duty troops while improving upon current military benefits and balancing the budget and lowering the deficit. Does this sound like a stretch to anyone? Sure, I'm all for it if was all possible, but it just doesn't seem feasible. Nevertheless, his speech was a success, I just wanted to point out some questions I had. :)

[Sayhey]

It was a good traditional speech. He doesn't have the ability to connect personally with people like Edwards and Clinton do, but he more than passed the test for what he needed to accomplish. I noticed he seldom looked straight into the camera, but he still felt like he was talking to a broad audience. If I had any complaint, I'd say the salute and line at the beginning was too corny by half. All in all, he set the bar very high for Bush to out do him.

Off topic, was anyone watching CNN? I heard they had a few very amusing technical foul ups at the end of the speech.

[jsw]

I watched it and indeed I believe it was a successful speech. There are problems however. He portrays himself as a centrist Democrat who would somehow cut taxes for the middle class while reviving social security, socialize healthcare and add 40,000 active duty troops while improving upon current military benefits and balancing the budget and lowering the deficit. Does this sound like a stretch to anyone? Sure, I'm all for it if was all possible, but it just doesn't seem feasible. Nevertheless, his speech was a success, I just wanted to point out some questions I had. :)

Well, obviously, he's going to tax the hell out of the rich. ;)

I thought it was a pretty good speech too. Perfect? No. But at least he understood all the words in it.

[dsharits]

I watched it, and i thought it was really funny that they showed a section of stereotypical Arabs holding Kerry signs. One question: Just who does this goofball think he is? He compared himself to the Wright brothers at Kitty Hawk, JFK and the space race, and the inventors of the computer (who was that again? Oh, yeah. Al Gore). What a pathetic loser!

Daniel

[Sayhey]

I watched it, and i thought it was really funny that they showed a section of stereotypical Arabs holding Kerry signs. One question: Just who does this goofball think he is? He compared himself to the Wright brothers at Kitty Hawk, JFK and the space race, and the inventors of the computer (who was that again? Oh, yeah. Al Gore). What a pathetic loser!

Daniel

I think he believes he is the candidate with the advantage in the polls. It is a long time until November 2nd, but if you have any real insight into how you know it will end, kindly let us know. But next time leave out the part about how funny it is to see "Arabs holding Kerry signs" - it is ridiculous, ignorant, and offensive.

[blackfox]

I found it to be much better than I had feared it might be...in fact, Kerry should be very pleased with himself...perhaps he was still not giving off the vibe of "Personal" but he was of "Presidential". I also admired the focus on what was going to be done (throughout the DNC) as opposed to attacks on the Bush Administration and GOP, and those criticisms that were levied were very respectful and relevant.

I believe Bush and the RNC will have a high standard to live up to come Sept. We shall see how they do...

One note...what is it with the fist with the thumb sticking up thing? How many Politicians use that? Edwards did, Kerry did...I remember Clinton did...just thought it was strange.

[letterbox]

I watched it, and i thought it was really funny that they showed a section of stereotypical Arabs holding Kerry signs. One question: Just who does this goofball think he is? He compared himself to the Wright brothers at Kitty Hawk, JFK and the space race, and the inventors of the computer (who was that again? Oh, yeah. Al Gore). What a pathetic loser!

Daniel


I believe that he mentioned these people and events because he was referring the previous greatness of the United States. He was saying, in plain English, "Hey look what these great Americans have done, they've revolutioned the way things go and I think I'm the kind of person who can take my great ideas and implement them and positively effect(affect? don't debate this, ;) ) the world".

[mgargan1]

i like how he said, "lets not say God's on our side, but lets say we're on God's side." I also like how the balloon guy kept cussing. Man, I think they'll be a job opening at CNN in Boston tomorrow morning.

[dsharits]

What great ideas? Oh, let's raise taxes and strip down the military so we can be attacked again, drive down the economy and blame it all on Bush. Gee, doesn't that sound like fun?

Daniel

[sorryiwasdreami]

What great ideas? Oh, let's raise taxes and strip down the military so we can be attacked again, drive down the economy and blame it all on Bush. Gee, doesn't that sound like fun?

Daniel

You seem to have a warped sense of reality. I can see this thread headed closer towards the wasteland every time you make another post.

[Sayhey]

What great ideas? Oh, let's raise taxes and strip down the military so we can be attacked again, drive down the economy and blame it all on Bush. Gee, doesn't that sound like fun?

Daniel

Funny, I heard him say he wanted 40,000 new troops, more special forces, and a commitment to give our troops the most modern and up-to-date weaponry. Just how does that translate into trying to "strip down the military"? Oh, and those tax cuts were limited to those in the highest 2% of income. Must have slipped your mind in your previous post.

Let me guess, Danny, you work for the Bush campaign?

[Bobcat37]

Let me guess... 80% of the posters in this forum, do you work for the Kerry campaign?

Let's be fair Sayhey... I doubt he supports Bush anymore than you support Kerry.

Anyway, uh, he gave a speech today? Oh shucks, I had to work... I could have used a good speech by him to nap by... ;)

(Seriously though, was he anymore energetic than usual tonight? Maybe next election you Democrats should pick someone with a tiny bit of spunk... makes things more fun)

[jelloshotsrule]

i watched it

i want to like him. i really do. i want to have faith that he'll turn our country around and not pull another clinton (lots of talk, little action).

i like some of the things he said, but disliked some too.

the problem is, the parts i liked, i could see gwb saying too. the kind of stuff *everyone* says but few people do it... for instance, "create tons of jobs, improve medicare", etc etc.

however, i liked that he implied some form of universal healthcare (though i'll believe it when i see it, and it was a little too vague for me)... but "healthcare is not a privilege, it's a right" rings true with me...

i didn't like his talking up of the military for nearly half the speech... and the silly nationalistic stuff

but i do want to like him

i'd say b

[dsharits]

John Kerry voted against the B-2, the F-117, the B-1, the F-15, the F-16, and the cruise missile- nearly every weapon that keeps our military the supreme power that it is. Think about where we would be if he had gotten his wish on every voting session in the Senate. We wouldn't have to worry about electing a president, because we would not exist as a nation. If Kerry won every vote, we would be speaking Russian, after our "cutting-edge" F-4's failed to do jack squat against the Mig's, and our 50,000 man military was taken over. With that record, how does he intend to build up the military? He thinks that he is so military minded, because he won three purple hearts. Get over it! His record in the Senate reflects exactly opposite of what he promises every time he opens his yapper. He even voted against health care! This guy can't decide where he stands on issues even from day to day. He is always sitting on the fence! Ask him if he voted for the war in Iraq, and he will give you all of his war stories, about how he got three purple hearts (woo-hoo!) and how thinks this and that should be done about the environment, and yatta yatta yatta. He always avoids the direct question!

Reporter: Where do you stand on the issue of abortion?
Kerry: Well, you see, I was raised by my grandparents, who had a refridgerator that they knitted, by themselves. It wasn't very cold, but it taught me a valuable lesson...

Daniel

[Bobcat37]

Reporter: Where do you stand on the issue of abortion?
Kerry: Well, you see, I was raised by my grandparents, who had a refridgerator that they knitted, by themselves. It wasn't very cold, but it taught me a valuable lesson...

Even though you guys will probably dismiss what substance Daniel said, the quoted portion above was pretty damn funny :)

Daniel- get the facts straight, life begins at conception.... but it's not considered a human until birth... or something like that... because Kerry said both... so they both must be true? *head explodes*

[Waluigi]

Great speech! I've watched John Kerry since January, and this was the best I've ever seen him. I think the thing he accomplished tonight is turning me from a Bush hater to a Kerry supporter. I was going to vote for Nader until tonight, because I hated bush, and thought kerry was just some shumck. Now I'm going for Kerry, not against bush.

Home Run Kerry!

--Waluigi

[zimv20]

John Kerry voted against the B-2, the F-117, the B-1, the F-15, the F-16, and the cruise missile
really? that's kind of odd. which bills were those (number and name please)? and what else was in those bills? was it those specific weapons systems against which kerry voted, or were there other things in the bills that may have influenced his vote? help me, i'm confused!

[pseudobrit]

you Democrats

You came here looking for a fight, not debate. Little by little your true attitude is being revealed. I'm convinced now.

[Bobcat37]

Too lazy to do your own research zim? :p

It's true, most of those weapons systems were on one bill, but technically he still voted against the bill, and thus them (admittedly, Republicans have twisted it a bit to make you think he has voted against those weapons systems individually at different times, which I find a bit disappointing. However it is odd that whenever Republicans bring this fact up to a Kerry-spokesperson, they never rebut/explain it... Why?). You can see names and numbers here (http://www.boycottliberalism.com/biographies/Kerry-votes.htm) (and don't waste your breath telling me that's a biased site, I'm just using it because it has all the specific voting data)

Here's Kerry's recent voting record

http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/cgi-bin/membervotes.cgi?&lang=&member=MAJR&site=congressmerge&address=&city=&state=&zipcode=&plusfour=&fullvotes=1

What bothers me most about that page is half of his votes in the last 1.5 years are "Not Voting"... not doing too great of a job of representing the people of Massachusets I guess?

Edit: pseudobrit, I was talking to Democrats specifically. You've totally lost me on what is so offensive about what I said. Last time I checked, Democrats are the ones who select the Democratic candidate? I mean, even Democrats admit he is more boring than Gore, I was just asking them to pick someone more interesting next time. Sorry if that offends you, but it is true :confused:

Nice try to get me to fight with you though... I'm afraid I have no "true attitude" to reveal.

[IJ Reilly]

really? that's kind of odd. which bills were those (number and name please)? and what else was in those bills? was it those specific weapons systems against which kerry voted, or were there other things in the bills that may have influenced his vote? help me, i'm confused!

Cut him some slack. Those details weren't in the TV ads.

[pseudobrit]

really? that's kind of odd. which bills were those (number and name please)? and what else was in those bills? was it those specific weapons systems against which kerry voted, or were there other things in the bills that may have influenced his vote? help me, i'm confused!

It's odd because the F117 was never claimed before. Which leads me to think he's making it up off the top of it head, and recalling it inaccurately from these (http://www.gop.com/RNCResearch/Read.aspx?ID=3936) GOP talking points.

Snopes nailed down this ************ claim a long time ago. linky (http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp)

The three votes cited — regarding S. 3189 (1990), H.R. 5803 (1990), and H.R. 2126 (1995) — were bills covering fiscal year Department of Defense appropriations, all of which Senator Kerry voted against. (Two of those three votes were not technically on defense appropriations per se, but on House-Senate conference committee reports for defense appropriations bills.) As the text of a typical defense appropriations bill shows, such bills cover the entire governmental expenditures for defense in a given fiscal year and encompass thousands of items totalling hundreds of billions of dollars — including everything from the cost of developing, testing, purchasing, and maintaining weapons and other equipment to personnel expenses (salaries, medical benefits, tuition assistance, reenlistment bonuses), medical research, hazardous waste cleanup, facilities maintenance, and a whole host of other disbursements. Members of Congress ultimately vote "yea" or "nay" on an entire appropriations bill; they don't pick and choose to approve some items and reject others.

[Bobcat37]

Am I a mirage or something?!?! I just posted all of what you just said!

Sheesh, I'm practically helping you guys out here and you ignore me :p

Seriously though, wouldn't it help Kerry if he just explained that all of those weapons were on three bills and give us a good reason that he voted against them (the bills)? I mean really, when he gives no reason, it's easy to assume that he did it because of all the weapon's systems... how would we know if he doesn't dispute it???

Come on Kerry, I'm trying to help ya here!

[IJ Reilly]

If I had any complaint, I'd say the salute and line at the beginning was too corny by half.

That gave me a twinge, too. I suppose it's one of those things you can get away with at the beginning of a long speech. Myself, I prefer to start off with a joke.

Did anybody else hear him say "hair pollution?"

[pseudobrit]

Edit: pseudobrit, I was talking to Democrats specifically.

you guys will probably

you Democrats

Yup. Sounds like you were talking to Democrats. Us Democrats.

What's that word... begins with a t and ends with a roll?

[Bobcat37]

It's what you're doing to me right now? Ever since I joined these boards you've been stalkin me, chill out.

I've posted several useful posts in this topic, why don't you read them and get off my back?

Now get back on topic (that's my Moderator-additude from the other boards I frequent, you're really buggin me right now :))

I'm done addressing you in this topic, as I don't want to get banned.

[pseudobrit]

That gave me a twinge, too. I suppose it's one of those things you can get away with at the beginning of a long speech. Myself, I prefer to start off with a joke.

I think the underlying message was a bit of a swipe at Bush (who, well, didn't report for duty [or at least can't prove he did because the Pentagon just happened to lose a few documents and some of them just happened to be his for the specific years in question]). Kerry reported for duty and is decorated for valor and Bush did a quick stint in the TANG.

Did anybody else hear him say "hair pollution?"

I can see the newsmax headline now... "Kerry's French accent revealed during speech"

[blackfox]

OK, Daniel and Bobcat, it would seem that neither of you like Kerry or even bothered to watch his speech tonight (which is what this thread is about BTW) and most certainly won't be voting for him in the fall.

That is your perogative(s)...but there is already a thread about Kerry to post to (that does not involve his speech). If you watched the speech, feel free to contribute to this thread, even if you hated all of it (of course, try to give reasonable reasons)...otherwise, are you guys just being disruptive?

Out of curiousity, there is another thread about why you like Bush...I would be curious to have either of you post in that thread the reasons for support fot "your" candidate.

I think you will find that in modern politics, there is a lot of room for hypocrisy, so if you insist on holding Kerry to a certain standard, I hope you would for Bush as well...

I look forward to your responses and please, (especially to Bobcat) remember the free advice I offered yesterday regarding trying to post in a way that you would like to see posted, although I admit, you were quite a bit of an improvement over Daniel's efforts...

Thanks.

[Sayhey]

That gave me a twinge, too. I suppose it's one of those things you can get away with at the beginning of a long speech. Myself, I prefer to start off with a joke.

Did anybody else hear him say "hair pollution?"

yeah, I heard it. His slip ups like this were few and didn't really interfere in effectiveness of the speech.

Bobcat, if you want to go on about this weapons systems bunk then I would recommend an old article that showed how stupid these accusations were when they first were put out by the Bush campaign.

Slate (http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127)

[IJ Reilly]

It's what you're doing to me right now? Ever since I joined these boards you've been stalkin me, chill out.

I've posted several useful posts in this topic, why don't you read them and get off my back?

Now get back on topic (that's my Moderator-additude from the other boards I frequent, you're really buggin me :))

I'm done addressing you, as I don't want to get banned.

I think you've been shown a lot of patience, considering your tendency towards an acid tongue. You've had a lot of friendly advice about how to behave around here, about how to avoid getting banned. You might want to consider taking it.

[Bobcat37]

Ok ok, I didn't change the topic to voting record... Daniel did, and then zim continued with it, so I responded to zim.

*stays on topic*

So uh... I heard his opening line, with the salute and all? Yeah, that was majorly corny, I can only hope Bush doesn't do something silly like that :D

That's the only part I head so far, but I assume there will be plenty of snips played back on the news for the days to come for me to catch...

Edit: Sayhey, already read the article... are you people completely ignoring me? Is it because I'm a Republican you don't read a word I said? I basically agreed with you guys on the weapons stuff, holy moly!

IJ- consider your posts towards me ignored.

[IJ Reilly]

yeah, I heard it. His slip ups like this were few and didn't really interfere in effectiveness of the speech.

True, but I have to admit, I laughed out loud when he said it. I'd wondered if I was the only one who heard it.

[pseudobrit]

So uh... I heard his opening line, with the salute and all? Yeah, that was majorly corny, I can only hope Bush doesn't do something silly like that

Bush makes a point of blatantly saluting on a regular basis.

That's the only part I head so far, but I assume there will be plenty of snips played back on the news for the days to come for me to catch...

The convention is being replayed on C-SPAN right now, unedited. Why watch the snippets? I'll watch Bush's speech on C-SPAN live.

[zimv20]

Edit: Sayhey, already read the article... are you people completely ignoring me? Is it because I'm a Republican you don't read a word I said? I basically agreed with you guys on the weapons stuff, holy moly!

IJ- consider your posts towards me ignored.
you've been here, what, two days? the victim stuff is already getting old. please increase your signal to noise ratio.

[IJ Reilly]

you've been here, what, two days? the victim stuff is already getting old. please increase your signal to noise ratio.

You try to be nice. Sometimes it's not worth the effort.

[Bobcat37]

The convention is being replayed on C-SPAN right now, unedited. Why watch the snippets? I'll watch Bush's speech on C-SPAN live.

I know Bush salutes a lot, it was the salute + corny line combo, lol...

And I appreciate the info... but it's 1AM so I'm gonna go to bed, lol... (and trust me, at this point even if it was Bush talking, I would go to bed... I've had a busy day at work)

Hopefully it will be replayed again before the RNC (what else does C-SPAN have to air anyway)... I'll do my best to catch it. And I'm glad you're gonna watch Bush's speech even if you do bash him afterwards (note word choice, I said "even if", I didn't say you WILL bash him...)

[zimv20]

Seriously though, wouldn't it help Kerry if he just explained that all of those weapons were on three bills and give us a good reason that he voted against them (the bills)?
how do you know he hasn't?

from here (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/30/opinion/30krugman.html)

Mr. Kerry proposes spending $650 billion extending health insurance to lower- and middle-income families. Whether you approve or not, you can't say he hasn't addressed the issue. Why hasn't this voter heard about it?

Well, I've been reading 60 days' worth of transcripts from the places four out of five Americans cite as where they usually get their news: the major cable and broadcast TV networks. Never mind the details - I couldn't even find a clear statement that Mr. Kerry wants to roll back recent high-income tax cuts and use the money to cover most of the uninsured. When reports mentioned the Kerry plan at all, it was usually horse race analysis - how it's playing, not what's in it.

On the other hand, everyone knows that Teresa Heinz Kerry told someone to "shove it," though even there, the context was missing. Except for a brief reference on MSNBC, none of the transcripts I've read mention that the target of her ire works for Richard Mellon Scaife, a billionaire who financed smear campaigns against the Clintons - including accusations of murder. (CNN did mention Mr. Scaife on its Web site, but described him only as a donor to "conservative causes.") And viewers learned nothing about Mr. Scaife's long vendetta against Mrs. Heinz Kerry herself.

There are two issues here, trivialization and bias, but they're related.

Somewhere along the line, TV news stopped reporting on candidates' policies, and turned instead to trivia that supposedly reveal their personalities. We hear about Mr. Kerry's haircuts, not his health care proposals. We hear about George Bush's brush-cutting, not his environmental policies.


i tend to agree w/ mr. krugman. the only way i find out about kerry's platform is to go to his site. i believe the news networks should provide some details every now and then...

[Bobcat37]

You try to be nice. Sometimes it's not worth the effort.

IJ- I love you :)

(dang it, why don't you guys have a kissing smiley here, it makes comments like that so much more fun)

Zim- I'm not registered at the New York Times (and not interested in registering there, lol), so I don't know what you posted. If that quote was from what you posted, I don't get the point, you didn't answer my concern.

For example, I've seen Sean Hannity bring up the weapons issue to SEVERAL Kerry supports and Kerry spokespeople, and none of them rebut it at all. Their only response it "well that's not true"... sorry, but technically it is true. They need to explain it, it's not that hard!

Ok I'm going to bed now, so you guys can say whatever you want behind my back... until I read them in the morning :D

[zimv20]

Zim- I'm not registered at the New York Times (and not interested in registering there, lol), so I don't know what you posted. If that quote was from what you posted, I don't get the point, you didn't answer my concern.

eh? of course it's from that link. are you being serious? if i URL-ize "from here" and have a quote... how could that be any more clear?

my point: the mainstream media is so poor at communicating real information that it's entirely possible kerry has addressed your "concern" and you simply didn't hear about it. just so happens mr krugman wrote a column about that today.

NYT registration is free, btw.

[blackfox]

You know out of approximately 40 posts, about half (19) were diverted off-topic from the subject of Kerry's speech, with another two partially off-topic but referencing his speech...

I guess someone is accomplishing something, huh?

I mean I like debate about a thread topic and all, so I'll be the first to applaud when it happens...

[Bobcat37]

*sigh*

I'm trying >_<

zim, sorry I thought at first you link was pointing to someplace where Kerry in fact did explain his vote on the weapons stuff... that was my fault for the confusion. As for NYT, now that I think about it, I think maybe I did register there long ago, I was thinking it cost money.

Now sheesh, to attempt at staying on topic, would someone fill me in on how long his speech was?

I've said twice I'm going to bed... third time is a charm... goodnight guys!

[pseudobrit]

You can peruse the GPO's records. Apparently Kerry didn't like something in here:

link (http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=1730226345+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve)

In English (almost) here (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d101:SN03189:@@@L&summ2=m&)

[davecuse]

I know Bush salutes a lot, it was the salute + corny line combo, lol...

How about "Mission Accomplished".

I think the speech was great, it really hit on a lot of solid points. My favorite part was the reference to Kitty Hawk and the Apollo program, the bit about creating an environment to promote the next big thing really got me. I turned off the tv thinking, that guy is on the same page I am.

[takao]

for those interested in the speech:

http://derstandard.at/?url=/?id=1744207

(starting after the ***)
coming from reuters

[3rdpath]

i'd give the speech a solid B+. if i was grading on improvement, i'd bump him up to an A-...kerry certainly showed more ooomph, passion or whatever you fancy to call it than in previous speeches of his.

i was impressed by his specific mention of cheney's oil/energy meetings and the misdeeds/shortcomings of the other members of bush's administration. i also like the way he refuted the misrepresentation of the bush tv ads.

the opening salute was corny but i guess he's earned that right as a decorated veteran. i would've liked a few more specifics about the iraq quagmire but i'm sure he's gotta save something for the debates.

anyway, i enjoyed it and certainly felt more kindred spirit to the cause( as a start of big changes...) than i have while watching any of the many previous speeches i've seen thru the decades.


and bobcat...welcome to my ignore list. to comment in a thread about a speech you didn't watch is just trolling. i'm always amazed by people who lack the social grace to understand why they are constantly corrected and admonished after failing to adhere/understand the rules of a new forum....ntm, failing to recognize and indulge the pre-existing social norm of a site. additional conservative viewpoints are needed in this forum( such as those by BTTM ) but your belligerent behavior adds nothing constructive to the discussion. adios.

[IJ Reilly]

One of the commentators on PBS, I think it was Mark Shields, said that the centrism in his speech made the Republican's job against Kerry more difficult. To attack him, they'll have to say that this speech wasn't the "real Kerry." And sure enough, this morning the LA Times ran an editorial cartoon from the reliably Republican Michael Ramirez, showing Kerry standing at the podium with the big screen behind him flashing LIBERAL. How desperate is that as a response? Well, at least now we know the GOP strategy -- whatever Kerry says, it's not what he really believes. It's going to be a long three months.

[katchow]

Quote:


Did anybody else hear him say "hair pollution?"


I can see the newsmax headline now... "Kerry's French accent revealed during speech"


since when have the french pronounced "H"'s?

[3rdpath]

(snip) And sure enough, this morning the LA Times ran an editorial cartoon from the reliably Republican Michael Ramirez, showing Kerry standing at the podium with the big screen behind him flashing LIBERAL....(snip)It's going to be a long three months.

i had to laugh at this mornings cartoon, not because it was funny but because of it's lack of depth. seriously, is that the best response michael ramirez can muster, calling kerry a liberal?

no need to refute anything...just call him a name. sadly, that also seems about the best some can do around here.

[IJ Reilly]

i had to laugh at this mornings cartoon, not because it was funny but because of it's lack of depth. seriously, is that the best response michael ramirez can muster, calling kerry a liberal?

no need to refute anything...just call him a name. sadly, that also seems about the best some can do around here.

Ramirez is incredibly shallow -- basically little more than a GOP squawk box. It's really beneath the Times to feature him, and not because he's a conservative, but because he consistently lacks insight, originality or wit.

Maybe you also noticed that the Times recently rejiggered the comic pages to include two conservative-oriented cartoon strips, Mallard Fillmore and another the name of which I can't recall. They were obviously put there to balance the more left-wing strips, specifically Boondocks and Doonesbury. Unfortunately, neither one is even remotely humorous.

This kind of tokenism at the Times is really starting to get on my nerves. I'm seriously considering canceling my subscription to the weekday edition at least, after something like 25 years of taking the paper. It was a sad day when this paper was bought by the Tribune. It's been going steadily downhill ever since.

[mischief]

Maybe you also noticed that the Times recently rejiggered the comic pages to include two conservative-oriented cartoon strips, Mallard Fillmore and another the name of which I can't recall.

Is it just me or has Mallard Philmore gotten more rabid of late? There actually used to be some thought involved... now it's just straight propoganda with no pretense of humor left in it. It's every bis as disturbing as watching Family Circus go Fundamentalist Christian in the last couple of years.

Sad really.....

[Dale Sorel]

Let me guess... 80% of the posters in this forum, do you work for the Kerry campaign?

Bingo :cool: :rolleyes: ;)

[zimv20]

It was a sad day when this paper was bought by the Tribune. It's been going steadily downhill ever since.
sorry 'bout that

[IJ Reilly]

Is it just me or has Mallard Philmore gotten more rabid of late? There actually used to be some thought involved... now it's just straight propoganda with no pretense of humor left in it. It's every bis as disturbing as watching Family Circus go Fundamentalist Christian in the last couple of years.

Sad really.....

I don't know, as I hardly ever saw the strip before the Times started running it a couple of months ago. I tried to give it a chance, but day after day it was simply regurgitating GOP talking points, so I finally gave up. Back when Jeff McNealy was drawing Shoe, we had a conservative-oriented strip on the comic pages that was often it not always clever and funny. Maybe since McNealy died they haven't been able to locate a conservative cartoonist with a sense of humor. My only other theory is that it's a liberal media conspiracy to make conservatives look bad. ;)

[takao]

from the newspaper:
http://images.derstandard.at/20040729/cart.jpg

Bubble on the right: "This guy definatly wants into the White House"
left: "Do we have a free place left for him ?"

(with 'free space' a job or position is meant i'm not sure if 'place' means the same in english ;) )

[IJ Reilly]

sorry 'bout that

Do you work for the Tribune, or just live in their home town? Either way, maybe you can explain what's going on at the LA Times.

[zimv20]

Do you work for the Tribune, or just live in their home town? Either way, maybe you can explain what's going on at the LA Times.
i just live here (though i did do some s/w consulting for them a few years ago). the trib is kinda a joke, imo. it's always been conservative, but more recently it's been more about not being controversial (to the public and its advertisers) and currying GOP favor, imo, than actual investigative reporting.

i've also got an inside story about how (and i'm being intentionally light on details) one media outlet decided to kill a story about the Trib's effect on papers its bought, specifically about staying in the GOP's good graces. it was killed because of similar kinds of politics.

again, sorry.

[Backtothemac]

IJ- consider your posts towards me ignored.

Um,
no. Don't. Consider it a warning.

[jelloshotsrule]

i had to laugh at this mornings cartoon, not because it was funny but because of it's lack of depth. seriously, is that the best response michael ramirez can muster, calling kerry a liberal?

no need to refute anything...just call him a name. sadly, that also seems about the best some can do around here.

not to mention, he's really *not* liberal. ;)

[IJ Reilly]

Um,
no. Don't. Consider it a warning.

Yes, and a friendly one, I would have thought. Ah, well.

[Colirio]

Just curious, but why is Bobcat being warned about going off topic when he was responding to others who had gone off topic? Seems more than a little unfair considering the MAJORITY of this page was also off topic from Kerry's speech...


Anyhow, I honestly didn't get a chance to see the entire speech. But, what little parts I saw, even though I didn't agree with the message, showed that Kerry is at least trying to overcome being so stiff looking.

George Bush's appeal is that he is just an average guy and his demeanor during his speeches tends to emulate that type of behavioral pattern. From what I have seen of John Kerry though including this speech we are refering to now, he doesn't seem to emulate the enthusiasm of the crowd or that of being "one of us." John Edwards does moreso, but, not so much with Kerry. Interesting...

I know that this speech was supposed to THE speech for Kerry, so, if this is all that he is able to muster in terms of charisma, how well will he do when debating Bush do you suppose?

[skunk]

Frankly, I think there's far too much warning going on. We need to encourage fresh members with fresh opinions here or risk our positions becoming stale. Most of these threads meander off topic at some point, but it's usually quite easy to bring them back again if the topic itself is intrinsically interesting.

[IJ Reilly]

Just curious, but why is Bobcat being warned about going off topic when he was responding to others who had gone off topic? Seems more than a little unfair considering the MAJORITY of this page was also off topic from Kerry's speech...


Anyhow, I honestly didn't get a chance to see the entire speech. But, what little parts I saw, even though I didn't agree with the message, showed that Kerry is at least trying to overcome being so stiff looking.

George Bush's appeal is that he is just an average guy and his demeanor during his speeches tends to emulate that type of behavioral pattern. From what I have seen of John Kerry though including this speech we are refering to now, he doesn't seem to emulate the enthusiasm of the crowd or that of being "one of us." John Edwards does moreso, but, not so much with Kerry. Interesting...

I know that this speech was supposed to THE speech for Kerry, so, if this is all that he is able to muster in terms of charisma, how well will he do when debating Bush do you suppose?

I could easily make this a leading question, but I won't. So I'll just ask you to explain in what way you think George Bush is "just an average guy."

Charisma is where you find it, and in any event, debates are about being in command of the facts and making logical arguments, not charm.

[blackfox]

...snip
Charisma is where you find it, and in any event, debates are about being in command of the facts and making logical arguments, not charm.
One can only hope...some fairly recent history make for a compelling rebuttal...

[skunk]

One can only hope...some fairly recent history make for a compelling rebuttal...
Just what I was thinking...

[Sayhey]

...Anyhow, I honestly didn't get a chance to see the entire speech. But, what little parts I saw, even though I didn't agree with the message, showed that Kerry is at least trying to overcome being so stiff looking.

George Bush's appeal is that he is just an average guy and his demeanor during his speeches tends to emulate that type of behavioral pattern. From what I have seen of John Kerry though including this speech we are refering to now, he doesn't seem to emulate the enthusiasm of the crowd or that of being "one of us." John Edwards does moreso, but, not so much with Kerry. Interesting...

I know that this speech was supposed to THE speech for Kerry, so, if this is all that he is able to muster in terms of charisma, how well will he do when debating Bush do you suppose?

Take the time to go to CSPAN and watch the whole speech, then come back and make an informed comment on Kerry's effort. I certainly think there is room for criticism, there always is, but if you start with a position based on limited information it isn't very persuasive.

It is hard for me to accept your characterization of Bush as an "average guy." We have a long history of Presidents coming from privileged backgrounds, but Bush sets a new standard. He comes to the Presidency with little to recommend him other than being the very pampered and privileged son of a former President and the grandson of a US Senator. The Democrats have had their share of sons of privilege, but FDR, JFK, or potentially Kerry also have a long history of accomplishments in their own right. Bush may believe his own carefully shaped image of a "regular" guy, but he hasn't a clue what that really means.

PS - Colirio, I'm convinced you are not the returning banned member I thought you were, so let me extend my welcome to you as I've already done to your friend, Bobcat.

[blackfox]

*generalization warning* ...read at your own risk.

To those who support Bush coming into the Election, I would like to point out what I feel is a major disparity between perceptions/expectations of the two Candidates. I freely admit that this is coming from a Liberal perspective, but I am also trying my best to be even-handed.

When you look at the perceptions of the two Candidates, they seem to be the effect of two things:
1. A dispersion and ubiquity of GOP talking points, both about our President and about Kerry.
2. The general shallowness and potential laziness of the Media. It may also be the business priorities of the Media, but same results, basically.

Whether this has come about by respect and deference to the position of Sitting President (ie benefit of the doubt), or because of constant repetition of these points, or an inadequate defense or media coverage of any Kerry rebuttal, I cannot say...

But it has resulted in some of these things:
1. That Bush is an average guy. A Texan, a Cowboy and a champion of the people.
2. That Kerry is "out-of-the-mainstream", Elitist and pessimistic about America
3. That Bush is representative of Christian Values, along with the GOP in general...
4. That Kerry and the Liberals are not.
5. That Kerry is a flip-flopper.
6. That Bush is not.
7. That Kerry is the most Liberal Senator
8. That Bush is a Centrist.
9. That Bush is a uniter.
10. That Kerry/Liberals are soft on Defense.
11. Bush is positive and optimistic more than negative and pessimistic
12. Kerry is the opposite of #11
...feel free to add...
Now all of these are false (with the possible exception of #5), but you have to go digging for the information to get to the truth. (in fairness, some are not completely false, but bely the fact that they involve more complexities than they appear to be. To not acknowledge this automatically discounts their ultimate accuracy)

However,the point is, this information, all inaccurate, nevertheless paints Bush in a positive light and Kerry in a negative one, leaving the implication that any attempt at reconciliation of the facts concerning the GOP by the Left is "negative", "pessimistic" and "unjustified" by the "facts", while reconciliation of the facts concerning Kerry are seen as "defensive", "dubious" "shifty" and the like. Also charges levied against Kerry are seen as "justified" or "revelatory".

It just not seem very fair to voters on either side of the aisle. Is it to much to ask to have a level playing field, and real information?

I would be happy to field questions about my claims to my #'d list, or augmentation or destruction of my hastily-constructed point(s).

Just a little annoyed is all...

[3rdpath]

not to mention, he's really *not* liberal. ;)

ya know, i really wish i knew what a liberal was...besides a label that has somehow become derogatory to a portion of the population.


in all seriousness, i would really appreciate a definition of what a liberal is, what they believe and how that manifests itself politically.

[Colirio]

PS - Colirio, I'm convinced you are not the returning banned member I thought you were, so let me extend my welcome to you as I've already done to your friend, Bobcat.
Thanks man! I'm having a blast so far!

I certainly think there is room for criticism, there always is, but if you start with a position based on limited information it isn't very persuasive.
You are absolutely correct! I honestly wasn't trying to persuade anyone, though as much as I was merely trying to give my point of view based upon what I had witnessed thus far. For all I know they had a big party at the end and John Kerry was hoisted upon the shoulders of the crowd. I probably won't watch the whole thing, though. I might read the text of it, however...


Blackfox, you raise a very interesting point! Even more interesting is the fact that I generally see things almost exactly the opposite in the media that I watch and read! (At least my perception of it is that way.)
I gave my own opinion of President Bush as being a "regular guy" based upon my own perceptions that I have gathered from his speeches. I generally am not one to sit around and listen to the media commentary on speeches and I very RARELY listen to the conservative radio commentators (Rush, Boortz, Hannity) because I find them to be too negative. So, honestly, my opinion is formed mostly of my own observances. What observances?

It might sound funny, but, Bush's stumbling over words I feel gives him that bit of "regular guy" tone. He's not nearly as polished as most politicians are in this area and I think people like that about him. The other thing about Bush is the way he looks at people when he shakes their hands and interacts with them. He seems very natural at it.

One of the things that creeps me out about Kerry is the way he acts around other people. With the exception of Edwards, it almost seems like Kerry is a bit uncomfortable around others and is trying too hard to impress onlookers by how much of a "nice guy" he is. ...As if he isn't being genuine...

Anyhow, I'm sure this isn't the educated answer you were hoping for to your arguments. Nothing but my own observances as to the points you were making.

[toontra]

ya know, i really wish i knew what a liberal was...besides a label that has somehow become derogatory to a portion of the population.


in all seriousness, i would really appreciate a definition of what a liberal is, what they believe and how that manifests itself politically.

When I first started visiting the US in the early nineties I was confused by the term "liberal" being bandied about; I wasn't quite sure of the implicit connotations but it was clearly being used (by media people, usually on talk-radio stations) as a term of abuse.

This confused me because in the UK the word liberal (with a small L) has generally positive associations, even noble, suggesting broad-minded and socially conscious.

I wonder how the word came to be hijacked by the right? Anyone know?

[IJ Reilly]

It might sound funny, but, Bush's stumbling over words I feel gives him that bit of "regular guy" tone. He's not nearly as polished as most politicians are in this area and I think people like that about him. The other thing about Bush is the way he looks at people when he shakes their hands and interacts with them. He seems very natural at it.

Closer to scary than funny, if you ask me. The reason Bush seems at a loss for words is because he's at a loss for knowledge. I will never forget the first time I heard him interviewed, by Jim Lehrer on the NewsHour, during the 2000 campaign. Lehrer asked Bush a fairly simple question about a foreign policy issue. It was clear that Bush was completely stumped. He fumphed around for a while and then out of desperation for an answer strung together a few disassociated canned speech cliches. It was a jaw-dropping performance from somebody who was running for the country's highest office. I was reminded of this again during Bush's last press conference, when he was asked yet another simple question and could only come up with a rambling non-answer. And it's not like these are isolated incidents.

So, people really like this about him? Please, please, explain this in a way I can comprehend.

[IJ Reilly]

I wonder how the word came to be hijacked by the right? Anyone know?

Well that's complicated, but I think it goes back to Newt Gingrich during the late '80s. He recognized that if you can hijack and debase the language you can take charge of the debate. He basically scripted his members in the House of Representatives to use certain terms exclusively to describe his political opponents. It was all amplified and repeated endlessly by Republican allies on talk radio. It was a very clever tactic, in a Machiavellian sort of way. It certainly worked. A generation of people have no idea what "liberal" means anymore.

[toontra]

Well that's complicated, but I think it goes back to Newt Gingrich during the late '80s. He recognized that if you can hijack and debase the language you can take charge of the debate. He basically scripted his members in the House of Representatives to use certain terms exclusively to describe his political opponents. It was all amplified and repeated endlessly by Republican allies on talk radio. It was a very clever tactic, in a Machiavellian sort of way. It certainly worked. A generation of people have no idea what "liberal" means anymore.

Thanks IJ - now I know!

[skunk]

Isn't the MR Glossary Service wonderful? :)

[takao]

hm
1. here liberal is also widly accepted as a positive word but it'S getting pressed into the political arena a little bit more in the last few years

2.i think the american 'regular guy tongue' was one of the reasons why bush had so much problems with his foreign diplomacy in europe (the other being Rumsfeld and impatience)

[skunk]

2.i think the american 'regular guy tongue' was one of the reasons why bush had so much problems with his foreign diplomacy in europe (the other being Rumsfeld and impatience)
What foreign diplomacy?

[takao]

What foreign diplomacy?

the "we-fly-fully-armed-stealth-bombers-without-allowance-across-other-countries-to- save-fuel-and-when-getting-photographed-by-interceptors-deny-such-things-ever-happend"-diplomacy

(it is even more funny when you say "intercepted by the half austrian airforce" because at that time there were only 4 planes were operational from the 24 we had 25 years ago...now only 2 planes are operational...and 1 second hand hercules cargo plane...at the moment we have more ships than airplanes ...;) )

[Colirio]

Well, I don't perceive an inability to speak well as a lack of intelligence, personally. I also don't feel that most people would as we all have different talents and abilities and I think people recognize this fact. Your assumption might have some merit and it might not. I personally tend to believe the latter, but, you could totally be correct.

My own thoughts as to why the public would have this same thought process lies with the fact that I believe most Americans like to be talked to and not lectured. A lengthy and heavily worded speech for instance would bore most people rather than excite them. Bush's speeches have a certain "friend to friend" manner about them. They are more along the lines of how most people generally would have a conversation with their buddies rather than actually being a "speech."

In psychology terms, they feel like he is "talking to them" and not "talking DOWN to them."

[skunk]

the "we-fly-fully-armed-stealth-bombers-without-allowance-across-other-countries-to- save-fuel-and-when-getting-photographed-by-interceptors-deny-such-things-ever-happend"-diplomacy
Oh, THAT "diplomacy". :rolleyes:

[kerb]

maybe I'm biassed being from a nation with typically more socialism injected into it than America, but I watched the full speech and some things struck me.

1. Kerry impressed me. The media has always portrayed him as a boring plank of wood. I thought he did a pretty good job of dispelling this to an extent.

2. I love the theatrics of American politics. The slogans and soundbytes and the repitition of things like America Can Do Better. It's extremely cheesy and entertaining but it's obviously what is required.

3. I was impressed also with his foreign policy plans, to support the Iraqi governing council but to get the hell out of there once they are secure. The USA (and the UK) have no place interfering in the Middle East. Let's sort out somewhere with an actual problem ie. Sudan and not target Communists and dictatorships as enemies.

4. DOMESTIC POLICY! Wow! Not heard any of that in a while. health care? tax cuts for normal people? education? I thought these words were replaced with terrorism and 9/11 in the political dictionaries. Nice to see Kerry appealing to 5 million swingers.

He isn't Bill Clinton no, sadly. I could write pages on why Bill Clinton is singularly the best President the USA has ever had but I won't. I hope however he can command to some extent the international respect that Clinton had as opposed to the international hate that Bush instills.

Kerry '04 :p

[zimv20]

So, people really like this about him? Please, please, explain this in a way I can comprehend.
will do.

remember in high school how there were always some people who hated you for your intelligence?

they're voting now.

[Sayhey]

Well, I don't perceive an inability to speak well as a lack of intelligence, personally. I also don't feel that most people would as we all have different talents and abilities and I think people recognize this fact. Your assumption might have some merit and it might not. I personally tend to believe the latter, but, you could totally be correct.

My own thoughts as to why the public would have this same thought process lies with the fact that I believe most Americans like to be talked to and not lectured. A lengthy and heavily worded speech for instance would bore most people rather than excite them. Bush's speeches have a certain "friend to friend" manner about them. They are more along the lines of how most people generally would have a conversation with their buddies rather than actually being a "speech."

In psychology terms, they feel like he is "talking to them" and not "talking DOWN to them."

I would agree with you that Bush's problem isn't that he is stupid. His problem is that he is disdainfully ignorant. Bush is a very capable politician as a candidate. He learned well, alongside Karl Rove, the skills that the master political strategist, Lee Atwater, taught them. He knows how to win a campaign with whatever tactics he deems necessary. He is not dumb, just dishonest and phony.

Of course, his skills as a candidate don't translate to knowing how to do the job of President. Here the tragic fact is the man isn't very good a learning the skills that are needed. Nor is he interested in complexities of world around him. None of this is a reflection of being a "regular" guy. It is a reflection of being the spoiled, smirking son of an elite that believes it is their birthright to have power.

[Colirio]

He is not dumb, just dishonest and phony.

Well, I think this point you made is exactly what it ALL boils down to:

a. Both candidates are being honest
b. One candidate is being honest and the other dishonest
or
c. Both candidates are being dishonest.

All the logic in the world, all the great speeches, and all the evidence can be presented. But, in the end, people are going to see the evidence pointing towards what they WANT to believe is the truth in one of these three categories.

So, the REAL question would be, "Who is able to look past their desires and see the actual TRUTH?"

[Sayhey]

So, the REAL question would be, "Who is able to look past their desires and see the actual TRUTH?"

I have great confidence that the American people can see past the lies and nonsense and see the truth. It is one of the reasons I'm growing more and more confident that Bush will lose on November 2nd. My only real concern is an "October surprise" of such a magnitude it may distract our nation from looking at the truth.

[blackfox]

According to the NYT, Kerry's speech did have some effect on voters...(bonus points for mentioning my home city [Portland] and my State [Oregon])..

One Speech, Two Dozen Voters: Guarded Thumbs-Ups for Kerry

By Dale Russakoff and Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, July 31, 2004; Page A01


LANCASTER, Pa., July 30 -- Here in heavily Republican central Pennsylvania, Carol Sprecher, a registered Republican who votes like an independent, looked disbelievingly at the television as John F. Kerry finished his acceptance speech. "I'm a little surprised," she said. "I kind of liked him."

Ed House, a Democrat watching Kerry in the suburbs of Portland, Ore., said Kerry seemed a bit stiff but more competent on complex issues than President Bush, whom House supported in 2000. "I would rather have someone remote and competent," he said.

Doug Maldonado, a Coast Guard crewman in a noisy Veterans of Foreign Wars post in Miami, seemed disengaged until Kerry called for equality for women and minorities. That grabbed him. "Why? Because I'm a minority," said Maldonado, a Mexican American.

The reactions weren't rousing, but they're just what the Kerry campaign wanted from one of the most coveted constituencies in America. Sprecher, House and Maldonado are undecided voters in states so closely divided that both Kerry and Bush consider them winnable. With the electorate sharply divided, the small fraction of voters who have yet to pick their candidate -- 6 to 10 percent in most polls -- could swing the election in as many as 18 states, and nationally, analysts say.

Washington Post reporters watched Kerry's speech Thursday night with about two dozen undecided voters in three states and at least among that small sampling, the Democrat clearly helped himself.

The men and women, selected unscientifically, began the evening seriously concerned about Bush's handling of the Iraq war but unsure that Kerry could be a commander in chief. When it ended, they all said they liked what they saw and now will consider him seriously as a candidate -- although none said he closed the deal.

Among eight Lancaster voters who watched the speech at a student center at Franklin & Marshall College, Kerry began with no outright supporters -- only a widespread disaffection with Bush that made them hungry for an alternative. None said they felt they knew "who Kerry is as a person," as Ronnie Burgess, 36, a travel counselor for AAA, put it. And they all said they had been affected by seeing numerous Bush campaign ads portraying Kerry as a flip-flopper.

But Kerry seemed to reach them almost as soon as he took the podium. They laughed at his joke of having been "born in the west wing" of a Denver area hospital. Three of the six women applauded when he pledged to fight for "full equality for all women." Sprecher, a sales and marketing representative whose son-in-law was denied release from the Army Reserve two years ago and is due to go to Iraq in January, exclaimed "Thank you!" when Kerry vowed to "end the backdoor draft" of National Guard members and reservists. And Alim Kamara, a 31-year-old social studies teacher, clapped loudly when Kerry said he would name an attorney general who upholds the Constitution.

All said they were impressed with Kerry's national security credentials, but they talked more about domestic issues. Kathryn Paolilli, 46, a mother of four who voted for Bush in 2000, said her main complaint about the president is his infusion of his Christianity into politics. She smiled widely and nodded when Kerry said: "I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, 'I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side.' "

Kerry's many references to struggling middle-class families struck a chord with all the Lancaster voters. They are solidly middle class, but most said they are losing ground financially -- Sprecher recently took a second job, and Burgess said, "I still have my dollars, but they're not going anywhere." And all said health insurance consumes more and more of their income.

The five black voters in the group were enthusiastic about the nominee's strong statements against discrimination. But Orlando Cleaves, 33, a bank manager who is a Democrat, said he does not trust what he hears from politicians, particularly since the 2000 election. "That turned me off because I voted and my vote didn't count," said Cleaves, who voted for Al Gore. "So Kerry said a whole lot, but it's what you want to hear."

The voters seemed not to lose interest throughout the 55-minute speech, watching Kerry's body language as well as his face. Burgess said she could tell Kerry loves his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry. Paolilli said she was impressed that he hugged his former crewmen.

Paolilli also said Kerry made her feel that she had a role to play as a citizen. "He seemed to be saying we all have to make this happen. Give me a shovel. I want to dig," she said. "With Bush, it's like he's going to take care of it and we're supposed to go about our business."

If the Lancaster voters take Kerry more seriously, they still have doubts. "He didn't explain how he'd do all these things," said Kristin Timanus, 24, a youth services coordinator.

"Do we trust this guy? I don't know," said Tricia Cleaves, 31. "I'm willing to hear what Bush has to say."


In Oregon . . .

Fifteen voters sat in rapt silence in a garden apartment and sponged up Kerry's spiel. When it was over, even the Republicans in the room agreed that the Democratic presidential nominee had done himself a world of good.

Sure, he was stiff -- they struggled not to laugh when Kerry, like Dudley Do-Right in a dark suit, saluted the convention and said he was "reporting for duty." But they agreed that he came across as sincerely stiff.

The surprise, they said, was Kerry's energy.

"He is not supposed to be full of energy," said Greg Maurer, 37, an intellectual-property lawyer and a Catholic Republican from a military family. "He was energizing me. I felt like I need to go out and do something for the country."

Maurer voted for Bush last time and said he would probably vote for him again -- yet Kerry's speech planted seeds of doubt. "You could picture him in the White House, and we would be proud he was there," Maurer said. "I never had that image of him before."

For this group the foreign policy issue that dominated Kerry's speech -- war in Iraq -- also dominated their reaction to it.

"I feel like we were misled going into the war," said House, 56, head librarian at Beaverton Library. Kerry's frequent references to his military service in Vietnam went down well with him. "He doesn't take war lightly."

In presidential salesmanship, there is only so far any candidate can go in a single speech before he risks sounding ridiculous, the voters said.

"Look at [former Vermont governor Howard] Dean and his weird speech in Iowa and what it did to him," said Melissa Hardin, 24, a flight attendant who is a registered Democrat. She voted for Gore in 2000.

Kerry, she said, succeeded in selling himself as a smart, not-too-negative alternative to Bush -- and he did it without sounding like a touchy-feely phony. "If he had come out and said 'Ooh, hug me,' it wouldn't have worked," she said.


. . . And In Florida

The South Beach VFW post -- an "only in Miami" kind of place at the base of a 33-story hipsters' condominium complex -- frowns on partisan displays, so Phyllis Garcia left her "Vote John Kerry" button at home. But when the Democratic nominee talked about insurance company bureaucrats making medical decisions, Garcia couldn't contain herself.

"That's true," she called out from behind the bar, where she volunteers.

"Yay, yay," she yelled, bouncing on her toes. "Yay!"

The room, like much of America, was filled with people who have made up their minds: Firm Bush supporters. Firm Kerry supporters.

But when Kerry spoke of Republicans and Democrats working together, Mike Dougherty, a Marine gunnery sergeant at the U.S. Southern Command, folded his arms and shook his head: "It's scripted," he declared.

When Kerry talked of stem cell research and finding cures for AIDS, Jennifer Godfrey, a 25-year-old Coast Guard crew member, rolled her eyes. "Look," she said, "he went from county to county and state to state and found out what people wanted to hear. That's what he's basing his speech on."

Amid the military crowd in the veterans post, party affiliation clearly influenced views of Kerry's emphasis of his service in Vietnam.

"He outdid himself," said J. Doug Morris, 66, the post commander who served in the Army in the 1950s and is an old-line southern Democrat. "He projected that he would be a strong leader of our country."

But Michael Morretti, a Republican and the commander of a Coast Guard cutter, was unimpressed: "He didn't win me over. I'm pretty open-minded. But he didn't win me over."

Not a home-run, but I think Kerry should be pleased...

[Neserk]

Oh, THAT "diplomacy". :rolleyes:

ahh, man, I've missed you!

[dsharits]

He isn't Bill Clinton no, sadly. I could write pages on why Bill Clinton is singularly the best President the USA has ever had but I won't. I hope however he can command to some extent the international respect that Clinton had as opposed to the international hate that Bush instills.


Oh, please do. I would love to see your reasoning behind that absolutely ludicrous statement. Clinton was nothing but an adulterous liar, who never had any respect for the office of the presidency or the United States of America. He made the nation an international joke, and he was far from being our best president (who happened to be Ronald Reagan, BTW). So please, write that paper for me, and I will give you a tripled number of reasons why Clinton was our worst president, and why the world would be a much better place if he had never been elected. Clinton absolutely made a mockery of this nation and the government, and I am almost ashamed to have been an American under his administration.

1. That Bush is an average guy. A Texan, a Cowboy and a champion of the people.
2. That Kerry is "out-of-the-mainstream", Elitist and pessimistic about America
3. That Bush is representative of Christian Values, along with the GOP in general...
4. That Kerry and the Liberals are not.
5. That Kerry is a flip-flopper.
6. That Bush is not.
7. That Kerry is the most Liberal Senator
8. That Bush is a Centrist.
9. That Bush is a uniter.
10. That Kerry/Liberals are soft on Defense.
11. Bush is positive and optimistic more than negative and pessimistic
12. Kerry is the opposite of #11


Wow, at least someone is close to the right idea (even though they weren't trying to make that point).

Daniel

[blackfox]

Oh, please do. I would love to see your reasoning behind that absolutely ludicrous statement. Clinton was nothing but an adulterous liar, who never had any respect for the office of the presidency or the United States of America. He made the nation an international joke, and he was far from being our best president (who happened to be Ronald Reagan, BTW). So please, write that paper for me, and I will give you a tripled number of reasons why Clinton was our worst president, and why the world would be a much better place if he had never been elected. Clinton absolutely made a mockery of this nation and the government, and I am almost ashamed to have been an American under his administration.



Wow, at least someone is close to the right idea (even though they weren't trying to make that point).

Daniel

Daniel...
A couple things...
1) Are you a conservative? Because if you are, you should be pleased with the progress Clinton made w/ regards to traditionally the Conservative Agenda...although I agree that his "improprieties" were a smear on the Office of President, the consequences of such were less than the activities of our current President imo...

2) The list of mine I quoted, I offered to back up my point, are you game?
Also, please give examples to bolster your assertion please...

3) As related to my last sentence above, you are entitled to your opinion, but please try to let us in on your reasoning/concrete examples for said opinions...otherwise I will be forced to conclude you have nothing meaningful to add to the discussion/are trying to be disruptive...in which case I will promptly ignore you...

[pseudobrit]

He made the nation an international joke

I agree. Bush has destroyed any international support we could ever hope to have.

who happened to be Ronald Reagan, BTW

Yeah, 'cause those guys like Lincoln and Washington and Jackson were all just jokers next to Reagan.

[IJ Reilly]

Well, I don't perceive an inability to speak well as a lack of intelligence, personally. I also don't feel that most people would as we all have different talents and abilities and I think people recognize this fact. Your assumption might have some merit and it might not. I personally tend to believe the latter, but, you could totally be correct.

My own thoughts as to why the public would have this same thought process lies with the fact that I believe most Americans like to be talked to and not lectured. A lengthy and heavily worded speech for instance would bore most people rather than excite them. Bush's speeches have a certain "friend to friend" manner about them. They are more along the lines of how most people generally would have a conversation with their buddies rather than actually being a "speech."

In psychology terms, they feel like he is "talking to them" and not "talking DOWN to them."

It's interesting that you chose this particular comparison. Just this evening I watched part of two stump speeches, by Bush and Kerry. Bush read a script from a podium and Kerry worked extemporaneously to the crowd with just a microphone. Which approach seems more "friendly" to you? In fact, as the campaign wears on, I think you'll find that Bush will rarely depart from prepared speeches. His handlers won't allow it, because whenever he does, he risks a verbal misadventure. That's also why he does so few press conferences.

I don't regard Bush's speaking problem as a lack of intelligence, I regard it as a lack of command of the facts and details.

[dsharits]

Quote:



Originally Posted by dsharits

He made the nation an international joke



I agree. Bush has destroyed any international support we could ever hope to have.


Go ahead, twist my words right under my nose. Do I really have to spell everything out for you??? Okay, FORMER PRESIDENT WILLIAM CLINTON AND FORMER PRESIDENT WILLIAM CLINTON'S ADMINISTRATION TURNED THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INTO AN AN INTERNATIONAL JOKE!!! Clear enough for ya?

Yeah, 'cause those guys like Lincoln and Washington and Jackson were all just jokers next to Reagan.

Just because a person isn't the best, it doesn't mean that they are automatically jokers. There is such a thing as being "one of the best" but not "THE best". I agree, Lincoln, Washington and Jackson were all very good presidents. However, IMO, Reagan was a perfect package of leadership, communication skills, morals, strength and international diplomatics. Saying that someone is the best does not make everyone else a non-contender. For example: Bill Clinton is by far the worst president we have had. That does not automatically make everyone else the best, or even good.

Blackfox, thank you for your civil, respectful reply. Yes, I am a Christian Conservative, and I can tell you for a fact that, if nothing else, Clinton did a ton of damage just by his immoral example. It is a proven fact that practices such as prostitution, adultery and drug use skyrocketed during the Clinton administration. (I can back that up if you want me to.) President Bush, being a Christian himself, is a wonderful moral leader, and is not even comparable to Clinton in that regard. Under the Bush administration, I am extremely proud to be an American, but I cannot say that about Clinton. I would like for you to back up your points also, and I will try to answer to each point accordingly. Thanks.

Daniel

[IJ Reilly]

We've got quite a few participants on this board from outside of the US. I think it might be interesting to ask them which of the last two presidents, Clinton or Bush, was more respected in their country.

[pseudobrit]

Go ahead, twist my words right under my nose...TURNED THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INTO AN AN INTERNATIONAL JOKE!!! Clear enough for ya?

Yup. Like I said, I totally agree with you about Bush on this one. We have no credibility left because of his unjust war.

However, IMO, Reagan was a perfect package of leadership, communication skills, morals, strength and international diplomatics.

Thomas Jefferson was an architect, scholar, spoke seven languages, wrote the Declaration of Independence and helped shape our Constitution and young nation into what it became. He also had the foresight to buy a little piece of land that doubled the size of our nation and donated the books that begat the Library of Congress. A foreign envoy, upon knocking at the White House door, was shocked to see it answered by Jefferson himself -- in his nightgown -- as he refused the trappings of luxury.

But Reagan was a saint, we know, 'cause he singlehandedly won the cold war.

Bill Clinton is by far the worst president we have had.

Worse than Harding? Because of a blowjob?

It is a proven fact that practices such as prostitution, adultery and drug use skyrocketed during the Clinton administration. (I can back that up if you want me to.)

Bring it.

President Bush, being a Christian himself, is a wonderful moral leader, and is not even comparable to Clinton in that regard.

Really? Clinton lied about oral sex and got impeached. Bush lied about a threat to our nation and started a war that's killed tens of thousands.

How the **** does this great presidential moral thermometer boil for a blowjob and shrivel for a war?

[zimv20]

Clinton did a ton of damage just by his immoral example. It is a proven fact that practices such as prostitution, adultery and drug use skyrocketed during the Clinton administration. (I can back that up if you want me to.)
yes, please provide the facts, studies and data, as presented and analyzed by a reputable source.

also, please provide an indication of what "skyrocketing" means in a statistical sense.

[pseudobrit]

also, please provide an indication of what "skyrocketing" means in a statistical sense.

Somehow I have a feeling that if any actual increase was 3%, that will be considered "skyrocketing."

Or that we'll see anecdotal reports of this "skyrocketing."

[blackfox]

But it has resulted in some of these things:
1. That Bush is an average guy. A Texan, a Cowboy and a champion of the people.
2. That Kerry is "out-of-the-mainstream", Elitist and pessimistic about America
3. That Bush is representative of Christian Values, along with the GOP in general...
4. That Kerry and the Liberals are not.
5. That Kerry is a flip-flopper.
6. That Bush is not.
7. That Kerry is the most Liberal Senator
8. That Bush is a Centrist.
9. That Bush is a uniter.
10. That Kerry/Liberals are soft on Defense.
11. Bush is positive and optimistic more than negative and pessimistic
12. Kerry is the opposite of #11

OK Daniel, I will do my best...

1. Bush is actually from Conn., like his Father, is Yale Educated and bought his ranch in Crawford during the 2000 election. He was Governor of Texas, however, had a share in the Texas Rangers and was involved in a Texas Oil-venture company (which failed)... , but that hardly makes him a man of the people, or a Texan. Much of this had to do with his family's connection to Energy mover-and-shakers than anything relating to geography (I am not making a judgement on his pre-Presidential life, just noting he is not a cowboy, Texan, or "average joe").

2. The "out-of-the-mainstream" comment is related to Kerry's voting record for 2003. Since Kerry missed many votes that year (a separate issue), he was judged merely on his economic voting record, which was very liberal. When you reference Kerry's total voting record over his career, he is a Centrist Democrat, certainly to the right of Kennedy, although slightly left of center. Also, judging him merely on the 2003 record, he shares his "most-liberal" position with 9 other Senators. Edwards is victim of the same deal, and he actually comes out as a right-of-center Democrat, in about the same position as Lieberman. This is from an independent Study, posted in the NYT...I posted this in another thread, if you need verification, I will provide a link. Also, as the polls show, like it or not, half the country leans Left, so you can hardly be out of the mainstream...BTW, by that same Study, Bush is more as extreme in his Party as Kerry and Cheney is more extreme than 90% of his colleagues (this was tabulated by Cheney's record as a Wyoming senator '79 to '88, and Bush's sitting in and declaring a position at roll-call votes as President)

3. This largely depends on what you define Christian values as. He is definitely not Christian in the sense of Jesus, nor are the GOP, and I would challenge you to prove otherwise. Bush is pro-life and anti Gay-marriage, but it is not very Christian to use your faith to seem morally superior. Carter was also a famously Christian President, and whatever you may think about his quality as a President, he embodied the faith, from the mention of Christian Love in his speeches, to the "Human Rights" Foreign Policy...Bush seems to use it as window-dressing. Denying services to the poor and going to war pre-emptively are not Christian values, even if you want to think that they were Political necessities. Neither is misleading, or giving the impression of misleading the People w/o explanation Christian.
Dealing in black-and-white/us vs. them is not Christian, we are a forgiving and embracing Religion.

4. I have seen nothing to suggest that Kerry is not a Christian, just because he does not show it...unless you want to say that being pro-choice automatically excludes you from being Christian...if you believe that, I challenge you to say that to the American People and see what they say...the point is, however, not for me (or anyone) to prove that Kerry or Liberals are Christian, but for Conservatives to decisively prove they are not. Also general Liberal tenets such as social programs and the like tend to be more Christian in nature than their absence, but I do not offer this as concrete proof.

5. As I mentioned in the original post, there is a chance that he has been one from time-to-time. This is hardly unique, however. Also, as someone who has been in government for two decades, people do change their minds with the addition of new information. It is called learning. It can often be politically embarrassing and open one up to charges of hypocrisy, but it can also be the sign of a responsible politician, as judgements need to be flexible...I find it hard for anyone who's lived life to dispute that, and the fact that sometimes you are wrong. To make amends is not a bad thing.

6. Here you go:
In September 2001, he said capturing bin Laden was "our No. 1 priority." By March 2002, he was claiming, "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important."

In October 2001, he was dead set against the need for a Department of Homeland Security. Seven months later, he thought it was a great idea.

In May 2002, he opposed the creation of the 9/11 commission. Four months later, he supported it.

During the 2000 campaign, he said that gay marriage was a states' rights issue: "The states can do what they want to do." During the 2004 campaign, he called for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

He supported CO2 caps, then opposed them. He opposed trade tariffs, then he didn't. Then he did again. He was against nation building, then he was OK with it. We'd found WMD, then we hadn't. Saddam was linked to Osama, then he wasn't. Then he was ... sorta. Chalabi was in, then he was out. Way out.

We didn't need more troops, then we did. We didn't need more money, then we did. Preemption was a great idea -- on to Syria, Iran and North Korea! Then it wasn't -- hello, diplomacy! Baathists were the bad guys, then Baathists were our buds. We didn't need the U.N., then we did.

This is from an op-ed from Salon.com
The point is not so much whether Bush is a flip-flopper, but think carefully of the criteria you judge Kerry by, when you judge Bush on topics above. Perhaps they are both flip-floppers, which almost makes the whole argument moot.

7.& 8. ...covered in #2.

9. Well, this seems obvious. Half the country is Democratic, and some do not support the War in Iraq. The issue over gay-marriage is not a uniter by definition (right or wrong), and Bush does not have the speaking abilities of Clinton to rouse the populace (regardless of what you think of Clinton). The relative secrecy of the Administration and especially of the VP Office do not help. Bush did unite the populace immediately after 9/11, but anyone would've, it was the tradgedy that united us more than who was President. Tax-cuts to the rich, while states were grappling with defecits and the country with recession did not help. Neither did the Patriot Act.

10. Frankly, that remains to be seen. If your case is about voting for military downsizing during the 90's, I would remind you that we were not at war then, and there was a Rebublican-controlled Congress for half the Decade. As for Democrats in general, do I have to remind you of the Democratic War Presidents (FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson)...

11. Bush's campaign ads speak for themselves. They talk very little about accomplishments or plans for the future term, and all about why the LIberals and Kerry are less-American or less-whatever. Hardly positive. Also, to ignore the fact that the US is not in great shape is not optimism, it is ignorance or blindness...we certainly could be better.

12. That the Liberals feel that the country could be doing better, that Bush has done the wrong thing, and is seemingly content with things, implies an optimism in a change...for the better. I see nothing inherently pessimistic about that. It is not unpatriotic to be against policies or the War, it is the right of any American to disagree with what is happening. Attacks on the Bush Administration are at least grounded in real-world current events. Kerry advertisements have largely been about him, his accomplishments and his policy ideas. You might think they are ************, but they are not negative.

OK? (anyone who wants to help me out, I'd appreciate it, I am not that smart)

[zimv20]

(anyone who wants to help me out, I'd appreciate it, I am not that smart)
i think you've got it pretty much covered

[Bobcat37]

[chomp]
In September 2001, he said capturing bin Laden was "our No. 1 priority." By March 2002, he was claiming, "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important."
[snip]
This is from an op-ed from Salon.com

[chomp]

Kerry advertisements have largely been about him, his accomplishments and his policy ideas. You might think they are ************, but they are not negative.

OK? (anyone who wants to help me out, I'd appreciate it, I am not that smart)

Point 1, I'm afraid I don't really trust salon.com as a reliable site, especially their op-eds (it's like moveon.org, it's a pretty blatantly liberal place) so I would really love to see that quote of President Bush's IN CONTEXT about Bin Laden... It seems like a fairly disturbing quote to me, so I'd love to see it it in full.

For all I know, the quote could have been this:

Reporter: Mr President, do you think Bin Laden is still in Afghanistan?

President Bush: I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. No matter where he goes, he can't hide from us. We will catch him.

That would change the meaning A LOT as you can see.

Point 2, the one thing that bugs me about Kerry is he almost tries to hard to trump up his accomplishments. I hate to use a Rush Limbaugh saying around here, but it goes something like "greatness does not need to be explained". Yet Kerry (and his spokespeople) explain his greatness pretty dang often (heck, even Jib-Jab.com made fun of it, with the 3 purple hearts thing. Honestly, I think most of us are sick of hearing he has 3 purple hearts. And don't twist my words, I am not dishonoring his service to his country, I totally respect him for that, but it seeems to me like he and his constituents boast about it far too much. Thoughts?)

[zimv20]

Point 1, I'm afraid I don't really trust salon.com as a reliable site
the piece in question was written by arianna huffington, salon merely re-"printed" it.


Point 2, the one thing that bugs me about Kerry is he almost tries to hard to trump up his accomplishments.
isn't all of campaigning about the sell? please tell me you don't believe bush doesn't trumpet his own "accomplishments" (sorry, couldn't resist the quotes)

[blackfox]

Bobcat, see my earlier post in this thread (#68) about why Kerry might feel the need to explain his accomplishments...as President, you get mucho coverage...as a Senator, not so much...all challengers to the Presidency have to go through a similar "gilding-the-lily" process...

As for Salon.com, are they more biased than say... Bush's re-election site?

[Bobcat37]

Come on guys, don't change the subject to biased-ness.

When some of you request stuff from me, I have tried to be fair and provide. I request the same respect when dealing with that quote... it could have been horribly taken out of context for all I know.

The burden of proof lies on you to show me it isn't now :)

I would really appreciate it blackfox. I took the time to research Kerry's voting record on all the weapons systems yesterday, and in the end found out I had been slightly mislead by some Republicans. You might have been mislead with a quote that was poorly taken out of context. Or maybe not, that is what we want to find out, no?

Heck I'd look myself for the original quote, but I'm going to bed now.

[IJ Reilly]

blackfox, you did great. You've got far more patience for this kind of thing than I do anymore.

One thing really struck me right in lower gut about these questions you've so patiently answered in such great detail. It was the Christian values issue. Are we to think more of George Bush because he advertises himself as a Christian? Would we conversely think less of someone if they were, say, Jewish? Or Muslim? Hindu? If (horror of horrors) they followed no faith at all, would they even be qualified to hold office in the eyes of the pious?

This is most definitely my read on that assertion.

"And crown thy good with brotherhood..."

What a long, long way we've got to go.

[blackfox]

Bobcat,

From sept. 17th 2001:

"I want justice," Bush said. "And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'"
Link:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_MAIN010917.html


From WH press conference march 13th, 2002
...SNIP... Q****Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden.**Why is that?**Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive?**Final part**--**deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of**--

THE PRESIDENT:**Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all.**Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time.**And the idea of focusing on one person is --**really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person.**And he's just**--**he's a person who's now been marginalized.**His network, his host government has been destroyed.**He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match.**He is**--**as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide**--**if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is.**You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.**I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did. ...SNIP...

Here is the link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

[Sayhey]

Excellent job, blackfox.

Bobcat, here is the source I think you are looking for -

Q****Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden.**Why is that?**Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive?**Final part**--**deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of**--

THE PRESIDENT:**Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all.**Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time.**And the idea of focusing on one person is --**really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person.**And he's just**--**he's a person who's now been marginalized.**His network, his host government has been destroyed.**He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match.**He is**--**as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide**--**if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is.**You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.**I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan.**There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly.**We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy.**We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Q****But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT:**Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him.**And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure.**And, again, I don't know where he is.**I**--**I'll repeat what I said.**I truly am not that concerned about him.**I know he is on the run.**I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country.**I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became**--**we shoved him out more and more on the margins.**He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore.**And if we**--**excuse me for a minute**--**and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things**--**part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

And we've got more work to do.**See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle.**I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not.**But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective.**And I can assure you, I am not going to blink.**And I'm not going to get tired.**Because I know what is at stake.**And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.

March 13, 2002 Press Conference (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html)

I think the events since then have proven that Mr. Bush was very wrong to not place the emphasis on destroying the al Qaeda leadership, and bin Laden in particular. He obviously moved his resources toward the impending war with Iraq and let the pressure off the search for bin Laden.

[Ugg]

Okay, FORMER PRESIDENT WILLIAM CLINTON AND FORMER PRESIDENT WILLIAM CLINTON'S ADMINISTRATION TURNED THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INTO AN AN INTERNATIONAL JOKE!!! Clear enough for ya?


You must have a very minimal understanding of what the world thinks of BC. Whether in Africa, Asia, Europe or the Americas, he was seen to reach out to the world. You should point your anger at Ken Starr and his goons if you want to see who it was that made the US into a laughing stock.

Perhaps you haven't seen the latest PEW trust survey of what the world thinks of the US? gw & co. have had the worst showing ever, even though the US had the highest rating EVER, after 9-11.

It's sad to see so much hate from a Christian...

[blackfox]

Sayhey, I got the quickness... :D

[Sayhey]

Sayhey, I got the quickness... :D

beat me by one minute! I must be slipping in my old age. ;)

[toontra]

We've got quite a few participants on this board from outside of the US. I think it might be interesting to ask them which of the last two presidents, Clinton or Bush, was more respected in their country.

As a Brit I'd like to contribute here!

Clinton was seen in the UK as an intelligent, engaging and largely successful president who made one trivial mistake in his private life, for which he was ruthlessly hounded by his political opponents. I think he was, and still is, respected by people from all UK political persuasions.

Bush, on the other hand, is generally perceived as an idiot. He isn't trusted or respected, has a track record of flouting international agreements whenever it suits his political interests, and has done more to harm relations with european "allies" than any US president in living memory and epitomizes all that is wrong with your political system (vested interests, family dynasties, financial elitism).

These are my personal views, but I can assure you they are shared by many people here, as I say, across the political spectrum and not just with the "liberals" (see other posts!).

[blackfox]

You know with regards to Clinton and Bush, there is an old political adage (of a sort) that I cannot remember exactly...but it goes something like this:

"when times are good, people happy and contented, they judge their leaders by issues of shallow character, much like one would judge a movie star...when times are bad, when a nation is in crisis, or at war, those considerations are no longer relevant...they judge their leader by his potential to lead, his competence, and character be damned..."

...that was of course, a piss-poor attempt at a reconstruction. The point being, is that we let some of our leaders get away with murder because we need the leadership, however poor in times of crisis...while when we are doing fine, no fault is left unturned.

The best thing that ever happened to GWBush was 9/11...it thrust him into the role of a leader by default, competency or character be damned.
The spikes in his approval ratings have all been War-related (9/11, War in Afghanistan, Beginning of War in Iraq, "mission accomplished" day, the capture of Saddam) and have otherwise steadily declined...

well, I got my glass of water, i'm going back to bed...perhaps I will regret having written this in the morning...

[kerb]

Oh, please do. I would love to see your reasoning behind that absolutely ludicrous statement. Clinton was nothing but an adulterous liar, who never had any respect for the office of the presidency or the United States of America. He made the nation an international joke, and he was far from being our best president (who happened to be Ronald Reagan, BTW). So please, write that paper for me, and I will give you a tripled number of reasons why Clinton was our worst president, and why the world would be a much better place if he had never been elected. Clinton absolutely made a mockery of this nation and the government, and I am almost ashamed to have been an American under his administration.

Daniel

Clinton did not make America an international joke at all. Under Clinton I respected America. He took great steps towards achieving peace in Northern Ireland and helped the people of Kosovo. He was seen as warm and friendly and VERY intelligent.

He committed adultery. That is a non-issue. It is between him and his wife and the Republican witch hunt that followed was ludicrous. At the end of the day what's worse? Lying about an affair or lying about weapons of mass destruction?

Ronald Reagan although very personable also has one of the worst records as President. He had no problems selling weapons to Middle Eastern dictators (coincidentally the ones you are now trying to get back). Plus he did that without even knowing what the weapons were, thus the need for a handy little illustration. Reagan was probably less intelligent than W Bush, he just knew had to talk.

[skunk]

Clinton did not make America an international joke at all. Under Clinton I respected America. He took great steps towards achieving peace in Northern Ireland and helped the people of Kosovo. He was seen as warm and friendly and VERY intelligent.

He committed adultery. That is a non-issue. It is between him and his wife and the Republican witch hunt that followed was ludicrous. At the end of the day what's worse? Lying about an affair or lying about weapons of mass destruction?

Ronald Reagan although very personable also has one of the worst records as President. He had no problems selling weapons to Middle Eastern dictators (coincidentally the ones you are now trying to get back). Plus he did that without even knowing what the weapons were, thus the need for a handy little illustration. Reagan was probably less intelligent than W Bush, he just knew had to talk.
Good summary. Anyone in the US who thinks that GWB & Co have improved America's standing in the world needs to visit a few other countries. Clinton, for all his faults, presented himself as warm, engaging, intelligent, compassionate and human. Bush, on the other hand, is seen everywhere as arrogant, foolish, puffed-up, swaggering and insensitive. America's international image has never been worse.

[takao]

i guess i can agree with toontra's comments and add additional things

1.bush is also refered as "a cowboy" ..not only in apearance but also in politics
and of course cowboy is anegative word here

2. the opinion about america decreased since he got elected (with a short spike going up on 11/9)

3. there are more jokes about americans around than back when clinto nwas president

4. the commen question is "how can americans vote for such a guy in the first place"

5. i haven't met a single person here who was impressed with bush as a good leader or as a 'good president'...or was impressed by him as a person

6.my italian (south tyrolian) friends refer to him as "that guy is like our one" followed by massive amount of eyerolling, a lot of insulting words towards berlusconi/bush and finally a sarcastical comment like "at least our idiot already had a 'facelift' "

7.generally any mentioning of bush is answered with :rolleyes: before saying a single word..similiar to others like Boris Jelzin, Michael Jackson,the austrian secretary responsible for our budget and Donald Rumsfeld

[Leo Hubbard]

Bush lied about a threat to our nation and started a war that's killed tens of thousands.


Does this mean you also think Kerry lied about the threat to our nation?
If you think Bush lied, then you also should think Kerry lied, they were basically saying the exact same things. Unlike Kerry, Bush acted on the information, that doesn't change the fact they were both saying the same things.

[toontra]

Does this mean you also think Kerry lied about the threat to our nation?
If you think Bush lied, then you also should think Kerry lied, they were basically saying the exact same things. Unlike Kerry, Bush acted on the information, that doesn't change the fact they were both saying the same things.

Kerry supported military action early 2003 based on the "intelligence" that the Bush administration gathered, vetted, preened and then presented to him (and others). As we all now know this was almost entirely rubbish, and new retractions are being made almost weekly (for example see this LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/31/international/middleeast/31inte.html?hp).)

Also, he wasn't the President at the time. I'm sure you appreciate that makes a difference!

Ergo, your argument makes no sense.

[IJ Reilly]

So it's unanimous then, Bill Clinton really did turn the United States into an international joke, and George Bush made us more respected in the world.

If they didn't see it before, perhaps now our international friends will understand what we're up against here in the US.

[toontra]

If they didn't see it before, perhaps now our international friends will understand what we're up against here in the US.

There have been posts in this forum by new members in the past few days which, quite frankly, stagger me.

Call me naive, but I wasn't really aware exactly how blinkered some of your fellow US citizens are. It's a bit like knowing that elephants exist conceptually, but it's not until you see one for yourself that you appreciate how big they are! I now understand the scale of the problem!

[IJ Reilly]

There have been posts in this forum by new members in the past few days which, quite frankly, stagger me.

Call me naive, but I wasn't really aware exactly how blinkered some of your fellow US citizens are. It's a bit like knowing that elephants exist conceptually, but it's not until you see one for yourself that you appreciate how big they are! I now understand the scale of the problem!

Yes and sadly one of the things many Americans are the most blinkered about is how much damage George Bush has done to our standing in the world. Americans can be quite insular and provincial in that way. Quite often I hear the internally contradictory whipsaw argument that on the one hand Bush has rescued our international image, but on the other (when faced with the facts), that "those people" hate us already anyway, so it doesn't matter how much offense we produce abroad in the pursuit of our interests. America has always had these tendencies, but I've never in my lifetime seen them writ so large.

[Leo Hubbard]

Kerry supported military action early 2003 based on the "intelligence" that the Bush administration gathered, vetted, preened and then presented to him (and others). As we all now know this was almost entirely rubbish, and new retractions are being made almost weekly (for example see this LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/31/international/middleeast/31inte.html?hp).)

Also, he wasn't the President at the time. I'm sure you appreciate that makes a difference!

Ergo, your argument makes no sense.
It makes no difference as to whether or not he was or is a liar or not.

[toontra]

It makes no difference as to whether or not he was or is a liar or not.

I don't understand. What's your point?

[IJ Reilly]

I'm not sure I get the drift of this particular threadlet, but I think it's worth keeping in mind that the President requested authorization to use force if necessary in Iraq. When asked for this authorization, I think it's a rare case when Congress says "no." Once given, it then become entirely the President's responsibility to exercise it responsibly.

Do I wish Congress had shown the nerve to deny him that authority? Yes, I certainly do. But at the same time, there's no doubt in my mind, and the facts entirely bear this out, that this president has utterly failed the responsibility test.

[zimv20]

It makes no difference as to whether or not he was or is a liar or not.
because the ends justify the means?

please explain yourself. are you
a) so scared you'll allow your gov't to get away w/ anything?
b) not really convinced that open democracy is worth it?
c) hero-worshipping bush et. al.?
d) so angry that you're happy to let your gov't kill whoever it says is bad?

[Leo Hubbard]

It makes no difference as to whether or not he was or is a liar or not.
Sorry I mistated this, I should make sure I actually wake up before I post here.
It makes no difference as to whether or not he was President or just a Senator as to whether or not either of them are liars. Even if he was simply a bum on the street it wouldn't apply. Because whether or not he is a liar has nothing to do with what job he was holding at the time he supposedly lied. Therefore, if you think Bush is a liar you must also think Kerry is a liar because they both were saying the same things. Which job each of them held has nothing to do with whether or not either lied.

[skunk]

It makes no difference as to whether or not he was President or just a Senator as to whether or not either of them are liars. Even if he was simply a bum on the street it wouldn't apply. Because whether or not he is a liar has nothing to do with what job he was holding at the time he supposedly lied. Therefore, if you think Bush is a liar you must also think Kerry is a liar because they both were saying the same things. Which job each of them held has nothing to do with whether or not either lied.
Oh come on! Your argument is nonsensical. Kerry voted to authorise action. Where is the lie? Bush made untrue claims based on skewed intelligence reports in order to justify a pre-emptive attack. This is lying.

[pseudobrit]

Does this mean you also think Kerry lied about the threat to our nation?
If you think Bush lied, then you also should think Kerry lied, they were basically saying the exact same things. Unlike Kerry, Bush acted on the information, that doesn't change the fact they were both saying the same things.

Bush used his bully pulpit to get Congressional approval from Congress.

Bush was the President. It's his job to tell Congress and the American people the truth. If Congress acts on his lies, they're not fully culpable for their actions. While I still think Kerry and the rest of the Democrats should not have fallen for Bush's ************, I cannot fully blame them. Bush took his case to the American people, scared the **** out of us, then put Colin Powell in front of the UN and made a multimedia presentation that was fully grounded in fiction to further scare us. I don't see how any Senator could have voted against the fog of fear that was churned out by Bush & Co.

As others have pointed out, Kerry did not make the case nor the decision to invade Iraq. This lie is directly on Bush's shoulders.

[IJ Reilly]

This obsession with "lying" is ridiculous, and I would say on both sides of this debate, misses the point. The recently released Senate report deliberately did not address the question of how intelligence was used by the White House, or if or how the intelligence community was pressured to deliver evidence to support their foregone conclusions.

[pseudobrit]

Sorry I mistated this, I should make sure I actually wake up before I post here.
It makes no difference as to whether or not he was President or just a Senator as to whether or not either of them are liars. Even if he was simply a bum on the street it wouldn't apply. Because whether or not he is a liar has nothing to do with what job he was holding at the time he supposedly lied. Therefore, if you think Bush is a liar you must also think Kerry is a liar because they both were saying the same things. Which job each of them held has nothing to do with whether or not either lied.

Sorry, but the President lying ≠ a bum lying.

Not all lies are created equal, which is what your point seems to be.

[Leo Hubbard]

Sorry, but the President lying ≠ a bum lying.

Not all lies are created equal, which is what your point seems to be.
Isn't this one of the things you said Bush lied about?

Videotape, October 9, 2002):

SEN. KERRY: Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing weaponizing of a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles, such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which would bring them to the United States itself.

In addition, we know they are developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents.

According to the CIA’s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that they are seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them.

In the wake of September 11, who among us can say with any certainty to anybody that the weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater, a nuclear weapon?


Of course Kerry was given the benefit of the doubt.

MR. RUSSERT: Were you misled by the intelligence agencies? Were you duped?

SEN. KERRY: No, we weren’t—I don’t know whether we were lied to, I don’t know whether they had the most colossal intelligence failure in history, I don’t know if the politics of the White House drove them to exaggerate. The bottom line is that we voted on the basis of information that was given to us, that has since then been proven to be incorrect. The bottom line is also, Tim, the president had an obligation to put the United States in the strongest position possible.

Why wasn't Bush?

SEN. KERRY: I don’t wish I’d been a naysayer from the start. I did the right thing. My vote was a vote for the security of the United States of America based in the information we were given. Tim, for seven and a half years, Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and we found them. We destroyed them. We knew they were there. We also knew there were some there that we hadn’t finished destroying, at which point the inspections stopped. For four years you had no inspections. During that time, we are told by our intelligence community and by the president the following things are happening:

he’s reconstituting, he’s building. We were even shown photographs: “Here’s what’s happening in this building, Senator.”

MR. RUSSERT: Where are they?

SEN. KERRY: That’s exactly correct. Now, we may find them in the next months. I don’t know the answer to that. What I do know is that it was right to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, absolutely correct. And anybody who doesn’t believe it wasn’t correct ought to go dig around in those graves or even make a judgment about what would happen if you left Saddam Hussein alone to do this.


Did John Kerry lie when he said 'If you don't believe that Saddam's WMD's and nuclear capabilities are a threat, then don't vote for me'? Did the U.N. lie when they said numerous time that Saddam had WMD's? Did France, Germany, and Russia all lie when they said Saddam had WMD's? Did Great Britian lie when they said Saddam had WMD's? Did Saddam himself, lie when he said he had WMD's? Did Iran lie when they said Saddam had WMD's?

[toontra]

Sorry I mistated this, I should make sure I actually wake up before I post here.
It makes no difference as to whether or not he was President or just a Senator as to whether or not either of them are liars. Even if he was simply a bum on the street it wouldn't apply. Because whether or not he is a liar has nothing to do with what job he was holding at the time he supposedly lied. Therefore, if you think Bush is a liar you must also think Kerry is a liar because they both were saying the same things. Which job each of them held has nothing to do with whether or not either lied.

OK. I'll try this once again.

Kerry voted the way he did after being shown intelligence reports stating that Iraq was an imminent threat to US & allies interests.

This "intelligence" was gathered, analysed and selectively edited by Rumsfeld's special ops dept. on behalf of the President.

It is now clear that this intelligence has been stretched to breaking point in order to justify military action, and that almost all of the claims made about WMD, Al Qaida links, etc, were untrue.

So you see, it would be entirely credible for Kerry to say that he had voted for war in good faith based on the intelligence he was shown.

I would say he, and many others, were hoodwinked into supporting the military action, which it now appears had been on Bush's mind for several years previously.

[Sayhey]

I was unaware that a US Senator can tell the Intelligence agencies what raw intelligence to highlight? I'm unaware of Kerry having a stated goal of military confrontation with Iraq in order to overthrow Saddam and advance a neoconservative reordering of the map of the Middle East - prior to taking office. I am aware of both of these things when we look at the Bush administration. The idea that Bush was some passive recipient of flawed data is laughable in the extreme. There was an agenda to invade Iraq and the intelligence was shaped to make that happen. There is no equivalence in the actions, flawed as they were, on the part of any member of Congress.

[toontra]

Did John Kerry lie when he said 'If you don't believe that Saddam's WMD's and nuclear capabilities are a threat, then don't vote for me'? Did the U.N. lie when they said numerous time that Saddam had WMD's? Did France, Germany, and Russia all lie when they said Saddam had WMD's? Did Great Britian lie when they said Saddam had WMD's? Did Saddam himself, lie when he said he had WMD's? Did Iran lie when they said Saddam had WMD's?

Leo, when you're in a hole it's a good idea to stop digging.

Your arguments don't hold water. You should respond to subsequent posts by others pointing out flaws in you argument rather than editing your earlier posts, thereby rendering them all the more obscure.

[kerb]

what always strikes me about Bush supporters is their blind faith in him. He is dragging the US further down everyday. As an outsider I can very clearly see this. Trashing countries such as France because they didn't want to fight a war doesn't help. Thinking you're the world's police force doesn't help. The UN has that job not the USA, but Bush needed a war.

I find it ridiculous though when people say statements like "I'm a conservative so I'm going to vote Bush". A lot of people have conservative values but to put your blind support for someone who supposedly stands for conservative values is ludicrous. Bush stands for wealth. Not your wealth. Him and his buddies. There's a reason why Bush has record PAC donations and it isn't based on his competence as Prez.

Although a clear difference is that I always think about Bush and compare him to President Blair. In fact however Blair ISN'T our head of state, he constitutionally just represents the monarch and his job isn't all that secure. In America you're instilled with the sense that the President IS the State. But of course constitutionally the President shouldn't hold as much power as he does.

Kerry isn't the best politician I've seen by a long stretch, but it is a case of "Anyone but Bush '04" as one forum member has in their signature.

[Leo Hubbard]

Leo, when you're in a hole it's a good idea to stop digging.

Your arguments don't hold water. You should respond to subsequent posts by others pointing out flaws in you argument rather than editing your earlier posts, thereby rendering them all the more obscure.
I hadn't finished my post I edited three or four times before checking to see if anyone had replied. It was a work in progress and I gathered information from three different sources to form the entire post. I'm sorry if you posted a reply before I was finished with it, we are talking less than 5 minutes in actuall time spent working on the thing.

I don't believe Bush edited the intelligence reports before the French saw them. I don't believe Bush edited the intelligence report before the UN saw them. I even don't believe Bush edited the intelligence report before Kerry saw them.

Those who call Bush a liar for saying things like Saddam had WMD's are hypocritacal for ignoring the others for saying the same things. Seems to me they are calling Bush a liar for acting on his information not for stating it, and that aint lieing.

[Leo Hubbard]

OK. I'll try this once again.

Kerry voted the way he did after being shown intelligence reports stating that Iraq was an imminent threat to US & allies interests.

This "intelligence" was gathered, analysed and selectively edited by Rumsfeld's special ops dept. on behalf of the President.

It is now clear that this intelligence has been stretched to breaking point in order to justify military action, and that almost all of the claims made about WMD, Al Qaida links, etc, were untrue.

So you see, it would be entirely credible for Kerry to say that he had voted for war in good faith based on the intelligence he was shown.

I would say he, and many others, were hoodwinked into supporting the military action, which it now appears had been on Bush's mind for several years previously.
Saddam did have WMD's. Kerry knew it, the UN knew it, British secret intelligence knew it that wasn't untrue.
While there weren't any provable links between Saddam and 9/11 there are proven links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Even the 9/11 commissions report states that there are links. More importantly there are even more proof of links between Saddam and other terrorist agencies.
And recently its been proven that Wilson lied about there not being a link between Saddam and possible shopping for nuclear weapons in Niger. In fact there is further proof that it is in fact true. Bush didn't lie. Like Kerry he relied on the best intelligence that was handed to him and he acted on that intelligence.

[toontra]

Saddam did have WMD's. Kerry knew it, the UN knew it, British secret intelligence knew it that wasn't untrue.
While there weren't any provable links between Saddam and 9/11 there are proven links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Even the 9/11 commissions report states that there are links. More importantly there are even more proof of links between Saddam and other terrorist agencies.
And recently its been proven that Wilson lied about there not being a link between Saddam and possible shopping for nuclear weapons in Niger. In fact there is further proof that it is in fact true. Bush didn't lie. Like Kerry he relied on the best intelligence that was handed to him and he acted on that intelligence.

You are factually incorrect on almost every point. There were NO links with Al Qaeda. There was NO attempt to import uranium from Niger - if you know otherwise please post links, otherwise kindly stop repeating discredited propaganda.

If you don't see the difference between Bush (who commissioned the reports) and Kelly (who was allowed limited access to an edited version of the intelligence) then I give up!

PS You keep mentioning that France, Russia, etc also believed Iraq had WMD. I'm sure it didn't pass your notice that they refused to join the invasion because, in their (and many others) estimation, Iraq didn't pose the kind of threat that required immediate military intervention. They were pushing for Blix to be given more time to finish his survay. Had that happened, we would have known the truth, and avoided the death of 10s of thousands, many at the hands of US troops!

[IJ Reilly]

You can believe what ever you like, but what you believe would be heck of a lot more persuasive if you had some facts to back it up.

We know already that the National Security Briefing was edited. Much of the qualified language was taken out of the draft and made to sound more certain about the existence of WMDs in Iraq. What we don't know -- yet -- is why it was done, or by whom. As I said before, the Senate explicitly avoided reporting on these questions, even though we've already got testimony on the books that the administration made very clear to the intelligence community what they wanted to hear.

But in a way, that's all beside the point. In March 2003, Bush kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq, so he could get his war done on an off-year. Had he allowed the inspectors to stay and complete their work, as most of the rest of the world community preferred, it would over time have become clear that Saddam did not possess WMDs. Then, whatever action was required to be taken against Saddam to prevent his obtaining WMDs could have proceeded as a far more unified, international effort. This could have become a model for how the world deals with rogue nations and the proliferation of WMDs. It was Bush, and Bush alone, who made the fateful decision to fight a war on a political timetable. The blame for this can be spread around some, but in the end, the decision lay squarely with Bush.

[skunk]

Saddam did have WMD's. Kerry knew it, the UN knew it, British secret intelligence knew it that wasn't untrue.
"Knew that it wasn't untrue"? What kind of statement is that? None of those people "knew" it, simply because it appears NOT to have been true. There is no point rehashing this argument: half a dozen old shells, probably supplied by one of our "civilized" countries, does not constitute a valid reason for invasion, occupation and mass murder. Assumption is not the same as evidence, and certainly not a proper basis for the slaughter of 10,000 people and the wholesale destruction of a country's infrastructure.

While there weren't any provable links between Saddam and 9/11 there are proven links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Even the 9/11 commissions report states that there are links. More importantly there are even more proof of links between Saddam and other terrorist agencies.
Either you are purposely misrepresenting and misusing the information (rather like your hero) or you have not read the Commission's report. A rejected approach is not a "link", at least in any meaningful sense of the word. Bush deceived the American people (and tried to deceive the UN, but they had more sense), just as Blair deceived the British.

And recently its been proven that Wilson lied about there not being a link between Saddam and possible shopping for nuclear weapons in Niger. In fact there is further proof that it is in fact true.
And even more recently Wilson has rebutted the charge. Anyway, all this talk of possibilities, probabilities and assumptions does not make a sound enough case for any country to go to war.

Bush didn't lie. Like Kerry he relied on the best intelligence that was handed to him and he acted on that intelligence.
He certainly misrepresented the truth. What do you call that but lying? Kerry got his information, like everybody else, only AFTER the WH and Downing Street had chosen what to release, and how to present it best to support their objectives.

You are presenting a shabby, tired and discredited argument. As Toontra said, why don't you stop digging?

[pseudobrit]

PS You keep mentioning that France, Russia, etc also believed Iraq had WMD. I'm sure it didn't pass your notice that they refused to join the invasion because, in their (and many others) estimation, Iraq didn't pose the kind of threat that required immediate military intervention. They were pushing for Blix to be given more time to finish his survay. Had that happened, we would have known the truth, and avoided the death of 10s of thousands, many at the hands of US troops!

This is the cornerstone of Bush's argument, and it's why the whole house falls down.

Bush told everyone that Saddam was capable of striking the US today, and that any delay in invasion would put us in immediate danger.

If the international community had access to the same information and analysis, why didn't they see fit to invade or at least support our invasion?

Answer: they had better (read: objective) analysis.

[blackfox]

Leo, I think you are missing the point here. Let's try an analogy.

Say the US is a publically-traded corporation. Bush is the CEO/Chairman. Kerry is a Dept. Head and member of a large Board. Let's say this corporation deals in Energy.

Now, the CEO naturally wants to make his company, himself and his stockholders dividends, so the company is looking around for a new energy source/process to differentiate itself from it's competitors. It seems that a team of scientists is coming close to perfecting a form of Fusion. It has been in all the scientific journals, and the scientific community is excited on a potential breakthough any day...armed with this information, the CEO makes a presentation to the board of the potential of this new technology, the need to invest in it's development, and the need to act quickly or lose the initiative to competitors and lose out on the windfall. Although some on the board and throughout the company raise the question of it actually not being complete as a technology or verified as such, the information presented from a wealth of journals and scientific advisors seems compelling...besides no-one wants to hold up the process.

The company goes ahead and invests a substantial amount of money into the process. Some time goes by, and little progress is made, some in the company become wary, yet the CEO is still optimistic. Eventually it comes out that the process they were funding is actually unfeasable. The scientist involved fudged a few numbers, as they were sure that with continued funding, they would eventually find a breakthrough...the scientific community is aghast...they had been duped, they cry foul, and some in the community now mention they had had doubts all along...

Back at the Corporation, stock prices plummet. Huge amounts of money have been invested, with little to show for it. Stock-holders are outraged...they feel duped by the CEO, and to a lesser extent, the board. The CEO defends himself by saying he genuinely believed the information bought to his attention on the subject. He also points out that the board voted on the measure also, and share responsibility. The Board and Dept. Heads counter with the fact that they trusted the position of the CEO to make sure this was a viable and realistic endeavor, and nevertheless, felt pressured by both the Higher Board Members, the CEO and the stockholders, whom were sent notices explaining the exciting potential for profit this technology holds.The man responsible for bringing the technology to the CEO's attention resigns.

Now...who should be fired? Did the CEO lie? Maybe...Did the CEO make a mistake? Yes. Did this mistake cost the stockholders lots of money? Yes.
Did the CEO make this mistake alone? No. Is the structure of the company such that he ultimately is held responsible for major decisions of the company, right or wrong? Yes. Does accountability need to happen to restore stockholder trust in the company? Yes.

Again, who should be fired?

[kerb]

British secret intelligence knew it that wasn't untrue.



that's actually incorrect. they knew that certain aspects of the intelligence were unsafe and made on out of date information.

Saddam did have WMDs but he got rid of them.

[Bobcat37]

We know already that the National Security Briefing was edited. Much of the qualified language was taken out of the draft and made to sound more certain about the existence of WMDs in Iraq.

Wait a sec... I was told in a few topics back that removing qualifiers was A-OK, well at least if Michael Moore does it to Condoleeza Rice is A-OK. Of course, I know it wasn't you who said this IJ (it was pseudobrit), but I sense a double standard. (For the record, I don't think qualifiers should ever be removed)

Also, some of you should be a little more responsible with your rebuttles (referring to Bush as Leo's "hero", yeah, that's responsible skunk, why do I imagine that if I referred to John Kerry as some of your guys "hero" I would get warned for potential flaming)

Debates can be pretty damn easy when it's like 7 on 1 I guess...

Just some observations, sorry to go off topic a bit.

[toontra]

Debates can be pretty damn easy when it's like 7 on 1 I guess...
.

Look, if someone comes on here and posts inaccurate information then people will respond to put the record straight. It's got nothing to do with ganging up. We don't operate as a pack here.

I take it you believe in members not posting factual inaccuracies, especially if they are inflammatory in nature?

[Bobcat37]

blackfox, thanks for the reply via the quote... after reading the whole script, in my opinion Bush does come off as a little bit too unconcerned about where Bin Laden is. However, I feel that nothing in that text even remotely resembles "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important." So either that quote is somewhere else, or someone took the liberty to practically make it up (even with some ridiculously heavy editing of that interview, I can't seem to create that quote)

Any thoughts?

[Bobcat37]

I take it you believe in members not posting factual inaccuracies, especially if they are inflammatory in nature?

Wow, how did you know!?!? :rolleyes:

You totally missed my point and instead posted a lame assumption that is in essence just a flame towards me.

[pseudobrit]

Wait a sec... I was told in a few topics back that removing qualifiers was A-OK, well at least if Michael Moore does it to Condoleeza Rice is A-OK. Of course, I know it wasn't you who said this IJ (it was pseudobrit), but I sense a double standard. (For the record, I don't think qualifiers should ever be removed)

This is different, and you know it. But you're apparently more interested in debating the tactics of debate rather than the issues themselves...

Also, some of you should be a little more responsible with your rebuttles (referring to Bush as Leo's "hero", yeah, that's responsible skunk, why do I imagine that if I referred to John Kerry as some of your guys "hero" I would get warned for potential flaming)

Debates can be pretty damn easy when it's like 7 on 1 I guess...

You're being more than a little antagonistic, nit-picky and smarmy.

Skip your little "observations" and stick to the debate, please.

[skunk]

Also, some of you should be a little more responsible with your rebuttles (referring to Bush as Leo's "hero", yeah, that's responsible skunk, why do I imagine that if I referred to John Kerry as some of your guys "hero" I would get warned for potential flaming)
Bring it on. You wouldn't get warned by me. I don't do warnings. You'd just get answered. That's what a debate is. I don't see anything offensive in calling Bush Leo's hero: he supports him without reservation and uncritically, and seems to think he can do no wrong, even when faced with compelling evidence to the contrary.

[takao]

i love this 'passing the blame' which now goes on...
everybody is to blame for this: the cia,the analysts,the army,"a few bad apples" here and there, saddam because he bluffed, old europe, john kerry, the bad weather, the french, the satelites, al quaeda, the french,iran, north korea, taliban, the french, mcdonalds for not being available in iraq, cuba, the democrats, 50 pounds of potatos in spain, the UN, weapon inspectors,greece winning the european soccer championship, the economy,putin and of course the french

everbody is to blame except the guys who are 'in charge'...

that rumsfeld and others are still doing the same job is unbelievable...i've seen secretaries/ministers resign for things which were tiny compared to the things which happen every 1-2 weeks in the US government

[skunk]

i love this 'passing the blame' which now goes on...
everybody is to blame for this: the cia,the analysts,the army,"a few bad apples" here and there, saddam because he bluffed, old europe, john kerry, the bad weather, the french, the satelites, al quaeda, the french,iran, north korea, taliban, the french, mcdonalds for not being available in iraq, kuba, the democrats, 50 pounds of potatos in spain, the UN, weapon inspectors,greece winning the european soccer championship, the economy,putin and of course the french

everbody is to blame except the guys who are 'in charge'...

that rumsfeld and others are still doing the same job is unbelievable...i've seen secretaries/ministers resign for things which were tiny compared to the things which happen every 1-2 weeks in the US government
You are absolutely right, of course, Takao. There seems to be an epidemic of raging hubris in the White House.

By the way, you forgot to mention the French... :D :D

[IJ Reilly]

You are absolutely right, of course, Takao. There seems to be an epidemic of raging hubris in the White House.

By the way, you forgot to mention the French... :D :D

No, he remembered to mention the French. But he forgot French Fries.

[IJ Reilly]

This is different, and you know it. But you're apparently more interested in debating the tactics of debate rather than the issues themselves...

Is Bobcat responding to me now? I put him on my ignore list the moment he said wouldn't read any of my posts.

[Sayhey]

Is Bobcat responding to me now? I put him on my ignore list the moment he said wouldn't read any of my posts.

Looks that way, IJ. So far Bobcat has an annoying habit of playing the martyr, but he also will read a post and respond with thoughtful questions and positions. I haven't put him on my ignore list -- yet.

[Bobcat37]

IJ IJ IJ... I said I loved you. What happened to the trust we had?

To clarify, I said I was ignoring that one post you made towards me, not all of them. So um, even though you probably can't see this, no hard feelings? Also, you might want to unignore me if you are interested in seeing my gigantic post in the stem cell topic.

Edit: Sayhey, glad to see I'm making some leeway with at least some of you. No need to ignore me, I swear I'm not trying to play martyr, it's just that you guys seem to get away with a few too many "Repubican-bashing side comments" that I doubt I would get away with. Then again maybe I would get away with them, but I dare not try at this point... I'll wait till you guys know me better and the threat of bannations is gone.

[Sayhey]

blackfox, thanks for the reply via the quote... after reading the whole script, in my opinion Bush does come off as a little bit too unconcerned about where Bin Laden is. However, I feel that nothing in that text even remotely resembles "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important." So either that quote is somewhere else, or someone took the liberty to practically make it up (even with some ridiculously heavy editing of that interview, I can't seem to create that quote)

Any thoughts?

My guess is that it is Huffington's paraphrase of Bush's statement. If I'm right, we can discuss whether it is appropriate to do so with quotation marks, but it sidesteps the question of the content of her criticisms. Did our President, who wishes to portray himself as constant in his policy, change his stated goal of getting the al Qaeda leadership (first and foremost, bin Laden), and move to a position of downgrading of that priority in order to focus on Iraq? That is a "flip flop" of enormous importance.

edit: LOL, "bannations" - you are creative, I'll give you that! No one on these forums can ban you other than the mods. Follow the rules and you will be fine.

[blackfox]

What no-one sees the obvious genius in my unwieldy corporate analogy?...

...guess my mom was wrong about me...now where is a paper bag to argue out of?...

on a more serious note, I think it is best if we try do defend our own positions, not make excuses for our ideological brethren...if you can argue competently, good, if not, then no amount of solidarity changes that...

[Bobcat37]

What no-one sees the obvious genius in my unwieldy corporate analogy?...

...guess my mom was wrong about me...now where is a paper bag to argue out of?...

Hehehe, let me be honest with you blackfox. I completely ignored your analogy. My suggestion-- less words. Just looking at it hurt my brain... so I stopped ;)

Seriously though, maybe I'll take the time to read it later, I'm still working on my stem cell reply here.

[Sayhey]

What no-one sees the obvious genius in my unwieldy corporate analogy?...

...guess my mom was wrong about me...now where is a paper bag to argue out of?...

on a more serious note, I think it is best if we try do defend our own positions, not make excuses for our ideological brethren...if you can argue competently, good, if not, then no amount of solidarity changes that...

Now, I wouldn't elevate it to genius, but I did complement you on your thoughtful response to Daniel. Don't feel unappreciated, blackfox, just because of one lame analogy! :D

Seriously, good stuff.

[blackfox]

Hehehe, let me be honest with you blackfox. I completely ignored your analogy. My suggestion-- less words. Just looking at it hurt my brain... so I stopped ;)

Seriously though, maybe I'll take the time to read it later, I'm still working on my stem cell reply here.

well, if not noted, I was joking...I largely am boycotting the use of smileys...

As far as length...I find the more words I use, the more it obscures the fact that I do not know what in the hell I am talking about...or...that complex issues often demand complex (and long) answers.

Depending on many factors including Political persuasion, I am sure most people conclude one of the above, if not both.

Sayhey, I wasn't fishing for appreciation, but I thankyou for the nod regardless. I've had good teachers in here...

[IJ Reilly]

My guess is that it is Huffington's paraphrase of Bush's statement.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't a clip of this quote used in F9-11?

[Leo Hubbard]

There was NO attempt to import uranium from Niger - if you know otherwise please post links, otherwise kindly stop repeating discredited propaganda.


Didn't claim there was an attempt to import uranium. Claimed there were inquires into Niger about purchasing of uranium.

Illicit sales of uranium from Niger were being negotiated with five states including Iraq at least three years before the US-led invasion, senior European intelligence officials have told the Financial Times.

Intelligence officers learned between 1999 and 2001 that uranium smugglers planned to sell illicitly mined Nigerien uranium ore, or refined ore called yellow cake, to Iran, Libya, China, North Korea and Iraq.

These claims support the assertion made in the British government dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme in September 2002 that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from an African country, confirmed later as Niger. George W. Bush, US president, referred to the issue in his State of the Union address in January 2003.

The claim that the illicit export of uranium was under discussion was widely dismissed when letters referring to the sales - apparently sent by a Nigerien official to a senior official in Saddam Hussein's regime - were proved by the International Atomic Energy Agency to be forgeries. This embarrassed the US and led the administration to reverse its earlier claim.

But European intelligence officials have for the first time confirmed that information provided by human intelligence sources during an operation mounted in Europe and Africa produced sufficient evidence for them to believe that Niger was the centre of a clandestine international trade in uranium.

However it was later proved (link provided in another post) that those documents weren't proven to be forgeries. Because Wilson lied about seeing the signatures and as such could not have known whether they were forgeries or not.

According to a senior counter-proliferation official, meetings between Niger officials and would-be buyers from the five countries were held in several European countries, including Italy. Intelligence officers were convinced that the uranium would be smuggled from abandoned mines in Niger, thereby circumventing official export controls. "The sources were trustworthy. There were several sources, and they were reliable sources," an official involved in the European intelligence gathering operation said.

The UK government used the details in its Iraq weapons dossier, which it used to justify war with Iraq after concluding that it corresponded with other information it possessed, including evidence gathered by GCHQ, the UK eavesdropping centre, of a visit to Niger by an Iraqi official.

However, the European investigation suggested that it was the smugglers who were actively looking for markets, though it was unclear how far the deals had progressed and whether deliveries of uranium were made.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1165465/posts
And here is a reprint from something I posted awhile ago showing proof that Wilson lied. Proven by a Senate committee reported by the Washington Post.

Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.

Still, it was the CIA that bore the brunt of the criticism of the Niger intelligence. The panel found that the CIA has not fully investigated possible efforts by Iraq to buy uranium in Niger to this day, citing reports from a foreign service and the U.S. Navy about uranium from Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse in Benin.

The agency did not examine forged documents that have been widely cited as a reason to dismiss the purported effort by Iraq until months after it obtained them. The panel said it still has "not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

[Leo Hubbard]

This is the cornerstone of Bush's argument, and it's why the whole house falls down.

Bush told everyone that Saddam was capable of striking the US today, and that any delay in invasion would put us in immediate danger.

If the international community had access to the same information and analysis, why didn't they see fit to invade or at least support our invasion?

Answer: they had better (read: objective) analysis.
Bush stated that Saddam was not an Immediate threat and that waiting for him to become an immediate threat would be short sighted and stupid. He also stated that Saddam and Iraq was a gathering danger and needed to be stopped before he became an immediate threat.

If you wait for someone to put a gun to your head before defending yourself then your dead. If you let the enemy choose the battlefield, then your dead. They can attack us anywhere in America or elswhere they so choose. We cannot protect everything. Those things that we do protect can be bypassed by our enemies because they don't go after military targets. Since we can't defend ourselves against them, we have no choice but to stop them at the source. Attacking Iraq brought the battle to a head, luring all those terrorists into Iraq all at once instead of sitting around wondering what they are going to blow up next. Yes it cost us around 100 troops so far, it would've cost us much more had we done nothing.

[Bobcat37]

Bush stated that Saddam was not an Immediate threat and that waiting for him to become an immediate threat would be short sighted and stupid. He also stated that Saddam and Iraq was a gathering danger and needed to be stopped before he became an immediate threat.

Dems always rag on Bush for saying Iraq was an "imminent threat" but he never said that...

"On February 24, 2002, he described Saddam Hussein's regime as an "imminent threat" in an interview on CNN. "I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.""

Who is he? Well take a guess... ironically, it is John Edwards!

Source- http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/396vvexd.asp (I wouldn't be surprised if some of you don't like the weekly standard, but oh well, the important part is the quote)

[Leo Hubbard]

You are factually incorrect on almost every point. There were NO links with Al Qaeda. There was NO attempt to import uranium from Niger - if you know otherwise please post links, otherwise kindly stop repeating discredited propaganda.

PS You keep mentioning that France, Russia, etc also believed Iraq had WMD. I'm sure it didn't pass your notice that they refused to join the invasion because, in their (and many others) estimation, Iraq didn't pose the kind of threat that required immediate military intervention. They were pushing for Blix to be given more time to finish his survay. Had that happened, we would have known the truth, and avoided the death of 10s of thousands, many at the hands of US troops!
I believe they refused to join us because they didn't want to destroy their valuable oil deals that they made with Saddam.


HANNITY: Well, Vice Chairman Hamilton says there was, and so does Tom Kean. They say there was. And in spite of the false news reports and biased media.

Here's what bothers me about these liberals in general, Stephen, and this is in part what you tried to point out with the truth in your book.

Hillary Clinton in 2002 said, "Saddam has given aid and comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members." She said that in 2002.

You have John Kerry, who said, "Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are a threat. We need to disarm him." He said that in 2003. He said, "Leaving him unfettered with nuclear weapons, with WMD's, is unacceptable. If you don't believe Saddam is a threat with nuclear weapons, you shouldn't vote for me."

You see they -- Now when George Bush says any of these things, he's the only one that said them. And George Bush is a liar and George Bush misled, because they politicized this war so that they can get their power back, at a time where Americans are being beheaded.

HAYES: Look, I think you're right. I mean, you can go back and look at the Clinton administration's statements from the late 1990s, and they linked an Iraq -- Iraq to an al Qaeda-linked facility, chemical weapons facility, in the Sudan, and they were rather emphatic about this. I mean, no fewer than six...

HANNITY: Hey, Stephen, forget the late '90s. In 2003, John Kerry said, "We need to disarm Saddam Hussein, a brutal, murderous dictator. Iraq's WMD's pose a real and grave threat to the U.S."

He said that in 2003. And now he criticized the president yesterday, saying that George Bush misled on this issue. And he made that argument one year ago. And the press is giving him a pass.

HAYES: Well, I think the press has given him a pass. I mean, I think this -- Like I said, I think the Kerry campaign, engaging so ferociously on this and the Bush campaign showing no sign of backing down, the White House showing no sign of backing down, it seems to me, we have reached a critical point in the campaign.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123289,00.html


also
[quote]
Leon E. Panetta appearing on C-SPAN's Washington Journal this Monday morning ( 10-28-03 8:20 AM EST ) said that he was in the White House and that President Clinton received the same intelligence information about the danger of Iraq's WMD's as President Bush did. He believes that President Clinton did what he thought was best and that President Bush did what he thought was best. Panetta was responding to a caller about the Iraq situation. He stated that either there was a massive intelligence failure or the intelligence community was lied to or both.
http://www.everythingiknowiswrong.com/2004/02/panetta_said_bu.html
This came from C-Span.

I don't think Hannity is misquoting Kerry.

[themadchemist]

Dems always rag on Bush for saying Iraq was an "imminent threat" but he never said that...

"On February 24, 2002, he described Saddam Hussein's regime as an "imminent threat" in an interview on CNN. "I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.""

Who is he? Well take a guess... ironically, it is John Edwards!

Source- http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/396vvexd.asp (I wouldn't be surprised if some of you don't like the weekly standard, but oh well, the important part is the quote)

So you're saying Bush sent us to war without thinking that Iraq was an imminent threat or trying to convince Congress that Iraq was an imminent threat? Wouldn't you say that's a fair bit worse than invading because he thought the country was a threat?

Instead of being single-minded, reckless, foolhardy, misguided, and wasteful, that would make Bush unjustified, irresponsible, despotic and totally, absolutely out-of-line.

Even I, a liberal, cut Bush more slack than that. In not so many words, he said that Iraq was an imminent threat (which, for many reasons, it probably wasn't) and did so because he runs an administration in which his staff feeds him what he wants to hear or faces dire consequences (read: Paul O'Neill). So I'll stick to Bush being single-minded, reckless, foolhardy, misguided, and wasteful, because I'm far more generous in my assessment of him than you are.

[Leo Hubbard]

So you're saying Bush sent us to war without thinking that Iraq was an imminent threat or trying to convince Congress that Iraq was an imminent threat? Wouldn't you say that's a fair bit worse than invading because he thought the country was a threat?

Instead of being single-minded, reckless, foolhardy, misguided, and wasteful, that would make Bush unjustified, irresponsible, despotic and totally, absolutely out-of-line.

Even I, a liberal, cut Bush more slack than that. In not so many words, he said that Iraq was an imminent threat (which, for many reasons, it probably wasn't) and did so because he runs an administration in which his staff feeds him what he wants to hear or faces dire consequences (read: Paul O'Neill). So I'll stick to Bush being single-minded, reckless, foolhardy, misguided, and wasteful, because I'm far more generous in my assessment of him than you are.
See post #160

[Leo Hubbard]

Bring it on. You wouldn't get warned by me. I don't do warnings. You'd just get answered. That's what a debate is. I don't see anything offensive in calling Bush Leo's hero: he supports him without reservation and uncritically, and seems to think he can do no wrong, even when faced with compelling evidence to the contrary.
I don't see anything offensive about it either.
However, he isn't my hero. I am simply arguing that people on this forum that use the words "Bush is a liar" aren't backing up their statements with facts and as such should stop. In fact the things they say he lied about witht he words they say he lied with are the same words Kerry, Edwards, and a multitude of others have themselves used with the same or different data at their disposal. I'm saying to my knowledge none of them lied about this. That is it. I do have other arguments about other things but this was the primary point when I first started posting in this thread to a comment made by someone who threw out there "Bush is a liar" as a part of his post.

I don't support Bush without reservation, I do have some, he's simply better than the alternatives. So far I havn't posted to any topics that contained information where I would criticize Bush for anything, not that there aren't any, there just no point in discussing them right now. At least not for me.

[pseudobrit]

I don't see anything offensive about it either.
However, he isn't my hero. I am simply arguing that people on this forum that use the words "Bush is a liar" aren't backing up their statements with facts and as such should stop.

For your satisfaction, a few lies out of the mouth of GW Bush:

"On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . it has developed weapons of mass death."

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.

"Today the world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq. A dictator who has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people must not be allowed to produce or possess those weapons. We will not permit Saddam Hussein to blackmail and/or terrorize nations which love freedom."

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

"He said he wouldn't have chemical weapons, he's got them."

"He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint."


"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

These are Bush's words. His staff lied much more clearly and frequently.

[skunk]

So I'll stick to Bush being single-minded, reckless, foolhardy, misguided, and wasteful, because I'm far more generous in my assessment of him than you are.
"Single-minded" sounds almost praiseworthy: you don't have to be THAT generous. I prefer "monomaniacal". :)

[skunk]

I don't see anything offensive about it either.

I'm glad. Thank you for saying that. :)

[Leo Hubbard]

For your satisfaction, a few lies out of the mouth of GW Bush:



These are Bush's words. His staff lied much more clearly and frequently.
I don't see any lies in those quotes.
Anyhow I ran accross this site http://www.demsextrememakeover.com/ it created a series of Kerry speaches that shows he was informed on his decisions as he made them. Including when he felt we should attack Iraq. Not because they were a threat to us, but because they were a threat to Kuwaitt, Israel and others in the Middle East. He says much more than that in those clips.
direct links to the videos for those who don't want to search the page for them are. real Player (rtsp://real.stream2you.com/RNC/RNC07200.rm) or windows media player (http://media1.stream2you.com/rnc/072304v2.wmv).

[takao]

I don't see any lies in those quotes.
Anyhow I ran accross this site http://www.demsextrememakeover.com/ it created a series of Kerry speaches that shows he was informed on his decisions as he made them.

i love your "ran across this site" phrase

have you looked at the bottom of the page ?

"Paid for by the Republican National Committee and
Bush-Cheney '04, Inc."

and yeah i loved the article with rolls royce ...

man this american election campaigns are so amusing and of course job saving for comedians and cartoonists...

[pseudobrit]

I don't see any lies in those quotes.

???

We found the weapons of mass destruction.

Where are they?

[Leo Hubbard]

???



Where are they?
Starting with the obvious, talking about those mobile laboratories. They looked like mobile weapons laboratories to me too. On satellite imagery, the few video we got our hands on it looked authentic. Thus completly understandable why Powell thought we finally caught them red handed. Especially when they tend to move them out the back door as UN inspectors head towards the front door. Ok so now we know they weren't. But you can't call him a liar on it. He was mistaken. Kerry made that same exact statement that powell did and it wasn't because Powell said it, it was because Kerry seen the same evidence Powell saw. Being imperfect and making mistakes doesn't make you a liar.

Additionally, either Saddam was trying to pull the wool over our eyes and convince us he had wmd's and did a great job of doing so, or he did a even better job at hiding them or redistributing them.

We have found Sarin gas in Iraq. We have found links between them and Al Qaeda. We have found a variety of factors like the centrifuge units, and long range missiles.

BTW if saying the Iraq has no WMD's is proof that Bush is a liar, then it is also proof that Kerry is a Liar, the UN are liars, the Brits are liars and it would be inconsistent of you to say otherwise. A liar isn't a liar by what he does based on information given to him. A liar is someone who purposely creates false statements. So either they are all liars or none of them are when it comes to this information anyhow.

[pseudobrit]

Starting with the obvious, talking about those mobile laboratories. They looked like mobile weapons laboratories to me too. On satellite imagery, the few video we got our hands on it looked authentic. Thus completly understandable why Powell thought we finally caught them red handed. Especially when they tend to move them out the back door as UN inspectors head towards the front door. Ok so now we know they weren't. But you can't call him a liar on it. He was mistaken.

All the quotes I posted were from Bush. This was not Powell's statement.

Kerry made that same exact statement that powell did and it wasn't because Powell said it, it was because Kerry seen the same evidence Powell saw. Being imperfect and making mistakes doesn't make you a liar.

Kerry didn't say it in front of national audiences and never recant.

Additionally, either Saddam was trying to pull the wool over our eyes and convince us he had wmd's and did a great job of doing so, or he did a even better job at hiding them or redistributing them.

Oh, it was Saddam trying to pull the wool over our eyes, huh? It looks like someone sure pulled the wool over our eyes...

We have found Sarin gas in Iraq. We have found links between them and Al Qaeda. We have found a variety of factors like the centrifuge units, and long range missiles.

We have found no evidence of an active chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons programme in Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War agreement. We have found no solid links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

BTW if saying the Iraq has no WMD's is proof that Bush is a liar, then it is also proof that Kerry is a Liar, the UN are liars, the Brits are liars and it would be inconsistent of you to say otherwise. A liar isn't a liar by what he does based on information given to him. A liar is someone who purposely creates false statements. So either they are all liars or none of them are when it comes to this information anyhow.

It is possible that two people saying the same inaccurate thing include one who is lying and one who is mistaken, you know?

The pathological nature of Bush's statements indicate he lied.

[IJ Reilly]

Starting with the obvious, talking about those mobile laboratories. They looked like mobile weapons laboratories to me too.

Well that's proof positive. Have you ever considered taking up a career as a weapons inspector?

This is simply another example of White House backspin. The CIA and other intelligence agencies always expressed skepticism about the so-called "mobile labs," but the administration consistently ignored this uncertainty and persisted in referring to them as evidence of a current WMD programs in Iraq, even when it became increasingly clear that they were not.

[pseudobrit]

Well that's proof positive. Have you ever considered taking up a career as a weapons inspector?

This is simply another example of White House backspin. The CIA and other intelligence agencies always expressed skepticism about the so-called "mobile labs," but the administration consistently ignored this uncertainty and persisted in referring to them as evidence of a current WMD programs in Iraq, even when it became increasingly clear that they were not.

Some people want to be lied to.

[blackfox]

Some people want to be lied to.
Only in the bedroom...

[skunk]

Starting with the obvious, talking about those mobile laboratories. They looked like mobile weapons laboratories to me too. On satellite imagery, the few video we got our hands on it looked authentic. Thus completly understandable why Powell thought we finally caught them red handed. Especially when they tend to move them out the back door as UN inspectors head towards the front door. Ok so now we know they weren't. But you can't call him a liar on it. He was mistaken.
He was more than mistaken, Leo. Those trucks were sold to Iraq by a British company and are exactly what they were when Saddam bought them: filling and launching equipment for artillery balloons. Powell knew that when he spoke at the UN.

We have found Sarin gas in Iraq. We have found links between them and Al Qaeda. We have found a variety of factors like the centrifuge units, and long range missiles.
Not nearly good enough, Leo. Half a dozen shells over 12 years old. No collaborative relationship with Al Qaeda, according to your Commission. No provable nuclear connection for any centrifuge, no "long-range missiles" except a few built to perform exactly according to UN restrictions: the fact that the maximum range was calculated WITHOUT A PAYLOAD obviously gave a slightly increased figure.

BTW if saying the Iraq has no WMD's is proof that Bush is a liar, then it is also proof that Kerry is a Liar, the UN are liars, the Brits are liars and it would be inconsistent of you to say otherwise. A liar isn't a liar by what he does based on information given to him. A liar is someone who purposely creates false statements. So either they are all liars or none of them are when it comes to this information anyhow.
Bush and Blair, with access to raw intel, had it presented in such a way as to deceive their respective political colleagues and their general population. From that point onwards, neither Kerry nor the UN would have made any difference. Personally, I prefer to say that both leaders chose to deceive their electorates by misrepresenting the balance of intelligence they had. On the basis of the actual intelligence they had, there was little, if any, case for war. Whether you call this lying or not is irrelevant.

Frankly, Leo, we've been over and over this subject again and again on this Forum, and it's getting a bit tedious. The intelligence services of both our countries simply had not got their acts together in Iraq as they should, which is why the standard of intelligence available was so poor, and undue reliance was placed on poorly-vetted informants. When subjected to the usual rigors of analysis, both intelligence services were careful to hedge their findings with clear caveats, which Bush and Blair chose to omit in order to make the situation appear more pressing than it was. Having been fed this skewed intelligence by their respective administrations, most politicians in both countries felt they had no option but to go along with it (although resistance was much stronger over here).

You do not appear to be willing or able to recognize this simple train of events for what it is, and you keep repeating the same old discredited sound-bites in place of a proper argument, while I am as certain as I can be that a grand deceit was knowingly practised on both our countries, and nothing you have said has changed my mind. Therefore it seems that further dialogue will be fruitless on this subject, don't you think?

[Chip NoVaMac]

So you're saying Bush sent us to war without thinking that Iraq was an imminent threat or trying to convince Congress that Iraq was an imminent threat? Wouldn't you say that's a fair bit worse than invading because he thought the country was a threat?

Instead of being single-minded, reckless, foolhardy, misguided, and wasteful, that would make Bush unjustified, irresponsible, despotic and totally, absolutely out-of-line.

Even I, a liberal, cut Bush more slack than that. In not so many words, he said that Iraq was an imminent threat (which, for many reasons, it probably wasn't) and did so because he runs an administration in which his staff feeds him what he wants to hear or faces dire consequences (read: Paul O'Neill). So I'll stick to Bush being single-minded, reckless, foolhardy, misguided, and wasteful, because I'm far more generous in my assessment of him than you are.

Amen, Bush is a dictator that is the puppet of the RNC. He surrounded himself with those that are relics of the cold war. And when they spoke out, they were dismissed, when possible.

[toontra]

You do not appear to be willing or able to recognize this simple train of events for what it is, and you keep repeating the same old discredited sound-bites in place of a proper argument, while I am as certain as I can be that a grand deceit was knowingly practised on both our countries, and nothing you have said has changed my mind. Therefore it seems that further dialogue will be fruitless on this subject, don't you think?

Thanks for the comprehensive research and summary, skunk. As you say, there seem to be several new members here in the last week all preaching from a strictly pro-Bush propaganda sheet, and they seem unable to tackle the basic facts of the Iraq "intelligence" fraud head-on, and dialogue in that situation is probably fruitless.

I am wondering if this forum has become the subject of a coordinated pro-Bush targeting in the run up to the November elections. Either that or a remarkable coincidence has taken place.

[Neserk]

Only in the bedroom...

ROFLMAO, so very true ;)

[Leo Hubbard]

it seems that further dialogue will be fruitless on this subject, don't you think?
I think we are at an impass until new and up to date information is retrieved and released. The latest new information I've heard is how Wilson lied about seeing the dates and signatures thus his information that they were forgeries was incorrect.