Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Apr 1, 2004.
Well, there's only two reasons this would happen. Either there is nothing in there Team Bush can use to smear Clinton (which I highly doubt, seeing as how they can smear Kerry six ways against the middle with one vote he cast) or there is something in there that would embarass this WH. Something like the Clinton WH focusing on Islamic terror and UBL specifically and that focus being lost in the transition to 'compassionate conservatism'. The latter seems more likely, particularly in light of the revelation that Condi Rice's big national security speech scheduled for 9/11/01 did not contain a single mention of Islamic terror or UBL.
I received an email from the DNC about this. The link is to a petition related to forcing them to disclose documents.
as of today, they're releasing all of clinton's papers.
that's 2 flip flops this week.
But I thought the accusation was that Kerry was the one who was prone to flip-flops for political reasons...
If you haven't already seen it, the folks at the Center for American Progress have this nice list of Bush's changes of positions.
Now that's a keeper. I wonder if that list won't grow even longer... along with the President's nose.
It is a fairly impressive list of flips, especially from some one who ridicules Kerry for his supposed changes on positions. I hope there are more ads by Kerry, MoveOn.org, or others on this theme, because Bush shouldn't be able to get away with his "straight shooting" image crap that Rove keeps trying to manufacture for him.
Don't forget his flip flop on a patient's right to sue their managed care provider...
Actually, that wasn't a flip-flop, his support for patient's rights was simply a lie. But who's counting?
Nice collection of facts. All the more reason that my decision is getting harder.
I just grabbed one of these "quotes" randomly and did a bit of quick research. This is what Ted Kennedy actually said:
Ah, context. Typical hatchet job. Typical effort to change an unpleasant subject.
Point is, they all say what they have to say to make the masses follow them like sheep to the slaughter.
Then it doesn't matter who you vote for? I figured you were interested in how politicians stand on the issues.
Speaking for myself, I'm no sheep and and don't plan on being led to any slaughter.
Can't get past Bill Clinton can we?
Besides, this is just another misdirection effort by Frohickey so he doesn't have to talk about the current flip-flopper-in-chief.
Just some quotes that I found on the web about flip-floppers.
Well, I am interested in how they stand, but masses being a bigger term for the country, not wise individuals like yourself
They had to release them. If they didn't the 9|11 commission could have gone to Clinton for the papers. There are 2 duplicates of these documents. One is held in the Clinton archives and the other, if I'm remembering correctly, is held in the national archives. If Bush has said NO and the commission got the papers from another source it would look even worse then just dragging their feet on this subject.
The difference is that at the end of the day it was Bush that took us to war. It would have been political suicide to say no to Afgan and to a lesser extent Iraq. Anyone who voted nay would have been labeled unpatriotic, pro terrorism, and pro nuclear proliferation and only a few had the balls to say no. I'm proud to say Wellstone was one of them. God I miss that man.
Bush set the facts up. He and his cabinet tossed facts at the Senate as proof of Iraq's WMD program and in the end it was total, unfiltered BS. I don't give a crap who is president. Rep, Dem or Ind. If you are taking us to war you should be 100% certain that the facts are airtight. That is why the world wasn't with us. That is why we went in, nearly, alone into Iraq. The "Facts" presented to the world weren't overwhelming and in the end were faulty.
Makes one think we should listen to the world a little more don't you think?