OT: Just Do It: Impeach Bush!
-
The Weekenders
- Posts: 10300
- Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: SF East Bay Area
'Mr. Dean, in a Dec. 1 interview on National Public Radio, was asked about claims that Mr. Bush is suppressing information that he was warned about September 11.
"The most interesting theory that I have heard so far," Mr. Dean said, "is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis."
Asked if he had reconsidered the remark six days later on "Fox News Sunday," Mr. Dean said that "we don't know" whether the theory is true or not'.
Dean seems determined to destroy his chances of getting elected.
His comment that our finding Saddam won't make America
safer will get considerable play in Republican campaign ads.
The Bush administration is hoping Dean will
be the Democrat nominee.
"The most interesting theory that I have heard so far," Mr. Dean said, "is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis."
Asked if he had reconsidered the remark six days later on "Fox News Sunday," Mr. Dean said that "we don't know" whether the theory is true or not'.
Dean seems determined to destroy his chances of getting elected.
His comment that our finding Saddam won't make America
safer will get considerable play in Republican campaign ads.
The Bush administration is hoping Dean will
be the Democrat nominee.
Let's not forget Wesley Clark, who with apparent clairvoyance claimed "If I'd been president, I would have had Osama bin Laden by this time". But seriously, while Dean's comments seem pretty strange I would not take anything for granted. Much can change between now and next November. While I support GWB, he has been known to talk before he thinks as well.jim stone wrote:
Dean seems determined to destroy his chances of getting elected.
His comment that our finding Saddam won't make America
safer will get considerable play in Republican campaign ads.
The Bush administration is hoping Dean will
be the Democrat nominee.
-
mjacob
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 8:52 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Portland, Maine
- Contact:
I think its great they got Saddam, he was a bad guy no doubt, and I think getting him may make Israel safer, which is great. But make the usa safer? I'm skeptical.
Lieberman would be a disaster. I'd never vote for him. First of all, this country is not ready to elect a conservative jew. Too much prejudice. And if they did, anti-semitism would skyrocket all over the world. Think of it- the former vp of malaysia is not the only one that believes in some jewish conspiracy crap, but putting lieberman in the most powerful office in the world? I know what they would be thinking, its pretty obvious.
Any chance of mideast peace talks would go down the toilet so fast- The bias towards Israel would be too obvious, we'd have even less credibility than we do now, and that's saying something.
But hey, otherwise, he's ok I guess. Boring I think, I've seen more exciting corpses honestly.
Lieberman would be a disaster. I'd never vote for him. First of all, this country is not ready to elect a conservative jew. Too much prejudice. And if they did, anti-semitism would skyrocket all over the world. Think of it- the former vp of malaysia is not the only one that believes in some jewish conspiracy crap, but putting lieberman in the most powerful office in the world? I know what they would be thinking, its pretty obvious.
Any chance of mideast peace talks would go down the toilet so fast- The bias towards Israel would be too obvious, we'd have even less credibility than we do now, and that's saying something.
But hey, otherwise, he's ok I guess. Boring I think, I've seen more exciting corpses honestly.
-
StewySmoot
- Posts: 735
- Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: NYC
I agree, but then I am not a Democrat. While to me Lieberman's ideas (of the nine) seem the most balanced and acceptable to the whole country, not just Democrats, this also makes him less attractive in a primary where the party line now is more to the left. He also is strongly pro-Israel, which does not seem to mirror what I read from many liberals, who while generally not overtly anti-Israel are not very happy with Israel either.jim stone wrote:Leiberman would be better.
Lieberman is the Democratic candidate who, while I wouldn't be exactly thrilled with him, I also wouldn't lose much sleep if he were in the White House. This of course probably means he doesn't have a snowball's chance.
-
The Weekenders
- Posts: 10300
- Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: SF East Bay Area
Between the rabid Bush hatred and Demo disarray, it's a very strange political time now. Dems were over-exposed in debates, Hillary hangs there like a specter, Gore bows to Dean, BClinton dissin' Dean (apparently) by sending his operatives to support various other candidates. And Saddam turns up. A poli-sci's dream!
I have thought, since Clark entered, that we were in for a surprise draft of Hillary/Clark ticket in the Spring. Somebody said vice versa (Clark/Hillary) on the RWHR (Right Wing Hate Radio) last night. I dunno. So much of the talk revolves around 2008 that I wonder, given terrorism etc., if that is not a huge mistake of assumptions. By 2008, we might have a military figure from THIS engagement emerge as a hero for succeeding Bush, then where will Hillary be?
BUt the more Dean spins, the more patriotic Lieberman looks to me. Thank God. The guy has some real cosmetic issues but at least he is standing by as Loyal Opposition instead of rabid seditionist while our soldiers (and other nations' kids) are dying for a cause that some of us find noble and right.
If Dems could find and present a cogent alternative vision, it would go better for them. I can still hear the echoes of "Let the Inspectors Do Their Jobs!" as their solution. Time has passed. instead of just rippin at Bush, while he is probably chuckling in the Oval Office, they need to calm down and unify. It feels like roulette though, and I don't know which number will be the final one.
I have thought, since Clark entered, that we were in for a surprise draft of Hillary/Clark ticket in the Spring. Somebody said vice versa (Clark/Hillary) on the RWHR (Right Wing Hate Radio) last night. I dunno. So much of the talk revolves around 2008 that I wonder, given terrorism etc., if that is not a huge mistake of assumptions. By 2008, we might have a military figure from THIS engagement emerge as a hero for succeeding Bush, then where will Hillary be?
BUt the more Dean spins, the more patriotic Lieberman looks to me. Thank God. The guy has some real cosmetic issues but at least he is standing by as Loyal Opposition instead of rabid seditionist while our soldiers (and other nations' kids) are dying for a cause that some of us find noble and right.
If Dems could find and present a cogent alternative vision, it would go better for them. I can still hear the echoes of "Let the Inspectors Do Their Jobs!" as their solution. Time has passed. instead of just rippin at Bush, while he is probably chuckling in the Oval Office, they need to calm down and unify. It feels like roulette though, and I don't know which number will be the final one.
I mean that Lieberman would stand a better chance
of being elected than Dean will. The latter seems
to be determined to be eaten for breakfast.
On related fronts: it seems likely now that Bush will
back a constitutional amendment defining marriage
as a relation between a man and a woman.
But he won't back one that bans civil unions, too.
This will anger some of his supporters on the
right, but not too much. The debate has been
raging fiercely on the right as to whether a
more extensive amendment, forbidding civil unions, too,
is feasible. This settles it.
Savvy politics. Apparently Americans oppose gay
marriage 2 to 1, reacting partly to recent court
decisions. The Democrats are already attacking
Bush on the constitutional amendment, thereby
positioning themselves far to the left of
the middle. Not healthy.
If the economic recovery goes on and there;s
no horrible upset overseas, well....
But it's absolutely true--nobody can be
complacent. Best
of being elected than Dean will. The latter seems
to be determined to be eaten for breakfast.
On related fronts: it seems likely now that Bush will
back a constitutional amendment defining marriage
as a relation between a man and a woman.
But he won't back one that bans civil unions, too.
This will anger some of his supporters on the
right, but not too much. The debate has been
raging fiercely on the right as to whether a
more extensive amendment, forbidding civil unions, too,
is feasible. This settles it.
Savvy politics. Apparently Americans oppose gay
marriage 2 to 1, reacting partly to recent court
decisions. The Democrats are already attacking
Bush on the constitutional amendment, thereby
positioning themselves far to the left of
the middle. Not healthy.
If the economic recovery goes on and there;s
no horrible upset overseas, well....
But it's absolutely true--nobody can be
complacent. Best
Last edited by jim stone on Thu Dec 18, 2003 10:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Wizzer
- Posts: 478
- Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Yonkers, NY
Im for impeaching the lying b*****
When I saw what my nephew has put up with in Iraq. How ill prepared they were. I cannot understand why Rusmfeld, Wolfowitz and Bush have not been called to task for ordering the troops to push ahead and not secure or destroy ammo and weapons dumps. Now those same ammo and weapons are being used to kill the young people sent there to do a job that they country has requested.
They pinned medals on the Chests of the General who fought the war from Florida. Those who forgot that their duty was to their men, Those slapped each other on the backs to celebrate the great military victory. Well we have 199 dead soldiers since the aircraft carrier landing and each one should be weighing heavy on the fools who's lack of respect for those who serve has cost these young people their lives.
My nephew will be coming home in a few months but I have another one being deployed in a few weeks.
It shameful that the ideals of these young people who are tying to give something back to this great country that we live in are been spent on the lies and deceptions of this administration..
They pinned medals on the Chests of the General who fought the war from Florida. Those who forgot that their duty was to their men, Those slapped each other on the backs to celebrate the great military victory. Well we have 199 dead soldiers since the aircraft carrier landing and each one should be weighing heavy on the fools who's lack of respect for those who serve has cost these young people their lives.
My nephew will be coming home in a few months but I have another one being deployed in a few weeks.
It shameful that the ideals of these young people who are tying to give something back to this great country that we live in are been spent on the lies and deceptions of this administration..
Crafty! (ducking and running)
eww, deja vu.-
The Weekenders
- Posts: 10300
- Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: SF East Bay Area
Wizzer: With all due respect, I hafta tell ya that the rule of thumb is that the generals usually are inept, all through our history. It is no consolation to the guys on the ground but if you read a lot of historical accounts of battles, you usually scratch your head and wonder how anybody won anything...
I just finished reading a decent bio of John Paul Jones. Though his vanity planted the seeds of disloyalty among his sailors, the guy had brilliant battle plans but his immediate inferiors and fellow fleet captains continually failed to execute them. It's maddening to read NOW, 200 years later.
Now I am reading a new bio of JFK. Turns out the PT boat thing was a huge blunder, in terms of their vaunted but ultimately deficient abilities. Men died needlessly on the things and JFKs ordeal was actually hyped in some degree to save some credibility. The book paints the command in pretty unflattering terms, especially MacArthur!
Despite my defense of this President and this effort, I hate to pose as an apologist. But our military was reduced and reduced under Clinton and we are basically spread as thin as can be in terms of numbers and readiness.
Once reduced, I reckon Congress is loath to approve huge new numbers for any President, especially an upopular one.
But we have all allowed this reduction and transition to a supposedly "smaller and smarter" defense, so its not just on Clinton. I am sorry that our soldiers are paying dearly for it. My thoughts are with them this holiday, especially.
I just finished reading a decent bio of John Paul Jones. Though his vanity planted the seeds of disloyalty among his sailors, the guy had brilliant battle plans but his immediate inferiors and fellow fleet captains continually failed to execute them. It's maddening to read NOW, 200 years later.
Now I am reading a new bio of JFK. Turns out the PT boat thing was a huge blunder, in terms of their vaunted but ultimately deficient abilities. Men died needlessly on the things and JFKs ordeal was actually hyped in some degree to save some credibility. The book paints the command in pretty unflattering terms, especially MacArthur!
Despite my defense of this President and this effort, I hate to pose as an apologist. But our military was reduced and reduced under Clinton and we are basically spread as thin as can be in terms of numbers and readiness.
Once reduced, I reckon Congress is loath to approve huge new numbers for any President, especially an upopular one.
But we have all allowed this reduction and transition to a supposedly "smaller and smarter" defense, so its not just on Clinton. I am sorry that our soldiers are paying dearly for it. My thoughts are with them this holiday, especially.
-
Zubivka
- Posts: 3308
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Sol-3, .fr/bzh/mesquer
These are meak conspiration theories.
The Muslim Body Snatchers is so obvious no-one sees it
1) They first got every male American circumcized, so as to better hide undercover ayrabb agents.
2) The current administration is 100% made of such undercover mudjahiddins, infiltrated to make provocatations, and hence a radicalization of Islam throughout the world.
The worst is that, so far, it works
The Muslim Body Snatchers is so obvious no-one sees it
1) They first got every male American circumcized, so as to better hide undercover ayrabb agents.
2) The current administration is 100% made of such undercover mudjahiddins, infiltrated to make provocatations, and hence a radicalization of Islam throughout the world.
The worst is that, so far, it works
It's true: I read it on Internet.