A fine bit of unbiased reporting from the "liberal" media ... Bush Faults Kerry for Scare Tactics Oct 18, 2:05 PM (ET) By TERENCE HUNT ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE (AP) - President Bush on Monday accused Democratic rival Sen. John Kerry of "shameless scare tactics" by suggesting that the president would jeopardize Social Security for older Americans and bring back the military draft for young people. Bush, in an Associated Press interview, said of Kerry, "He's trying to scare our seniors. It is wrong to try to scare people going into the polls." The Republican incumbent said Kerry's charges were just "old-style politics." Kerry said Sunday that Bush was planning a "January surprise" attempt to privatize Social Security if re-elected. As for reviving the draft to replenish U.S. forces in Iraq, the Democrat told The Des Moines Register last week that, "With George Bush, the plan for Iraq is more of the same and the great potential of a draft." "One of the things that we obviously are being confronted with are shameless scare tactics," Bush told the AP. "My opponent has said to youngsters that if George W. is elected there will be a draft." The president pointed out that he said during the debate that he will not revive the military draft. Bush said it was inappropriate for Kerry to mention in the final debate that Mary Cheney, daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, is a lesbian in response to a question on whether homosexuality is a choice. "I thought it was over the line," the president said. The commander in chief declined to comment on the controversy surrounding a National Guard unit from South Carolina that refused to follow orders in Iraq, calling it a "lone example" and he has decided to "let the military look at the incident." The Army announced last week that it was investigating up to 19 members of a platoon from the 343rd Quartermaster Company, based in Rock Hill, S.C., after they refused to transport supplies from Tallil air base near Nasiriyah to a location north of Baghdad. Three months before Iraq holds its first free election, Bush said the United States would have to live with whatever the outcome is. Asked if the people of Iraq choose an Islamic fundamental government someday, Bush said, "I would be disappointed but democracy is democracy. If that's what the people choose, that's what the people choose." Bush said the United States will remain "on alert" about the possibility of a terrorist strike on U.S. soil before the election, but said, "we have no specific threat information on that. Otherwise, we would have let people know." "The United States and other countries have been concerned about the possibility of an election-related terrorist strike ever since the Madrid bombings," said the president, who added that he had taken part in a National Security Council meeting earlier in the day to talk about threat information. Last March, 191 people in Madrid were killed in terrorist bombings just three days before Spain's elections. In the AP interview, the president also said he hoped that that there would not be a repeat of the Electoral College mess four years ago that required a long recount and a decision by the Supreme Court before the winner of the race was decided. Laughing, he said, "I hope not," when asked about the possibility of another impasse. The Republican said he was trying to turn out as many voters as possible to prevent that occurrence. With a little more than two weeks to the election, Bush was campaigning in New Jersey, a reliably Democratic state that was hit hard when terrorists struck the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. Campaigning in Marlton, N.J., Bush accused Kerry of having a pre-Sept. 11 view of the world, a mind-set that he called dangerous. Kerry's approach to terrorism would permit a response "only after America is hit," he said. "This kind of Sept. 10 attitude is no way to protect our country," Bush said, echoing many lines from his debate appearances and campaign speeches. He called the Clinton administration's approach to terrorism "piecemeal and symbolic." Terrorists saw this as a weakness and most Americans still felt then that the threat from terrorists was something distant. "That is a time that my opponent wants to go back to ... a time when we still thought terrorism was only a nuisance," Bush said. The Bush campaign unveiled a new TV ad that sought to portray Kerry as weak on terrorism - "either we fight terrorists abroad or face them here" - and accuses the Democrat of opposing President Reagan "as he won the Cold War." Nearly 700 New Jersey residents died when hijacked airplanes flew into the World Trade Center's twin towers, and polls show national security and terrorism are the top campaign issues among voters in the state. Democrat Al Gore easily won New Jersey in 2000, but voters' worry about another terrorist attack is a key reason why Bush and Kerry are locked in a tight race for the state's 15 electoral votes. Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart says New Jersey is an interesting place for the president to campaign because its two senators and former Gov. Thomas Kean, chairman of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission, have complained that Bush hasn't done enough to push the panel's recommendations into law. Before leaving for New Jersey, Bush signed a bill giving the Department of Homeland Security about $33 billion for the budget year that began Oct. 1. The tab was nearly $900 million more than Bush requested of Congress.
Just keep telling yourself that... It'll all be over soon The only way it will be over is if Bush loses, we get a more or less normal politician, Kerry, and this time the Republicans accept it. Not like with Clinton where they tried to impeach him from day one or last time where they stole the election. If Bush wins the divisiveness will only get worse as he continues not giving a damn whether he divides the coutnry or the world as he believes God directs him and he is thus error free.
are you really trying to argue that the democrats are blameless? if so, let me know, and i'll just stop paying attention to anything else you write.
I have no idea if they are blameless or not. But I will say shooting at offices isn't a normal democratic policy. It isn't so out of line for fringe groups that are outside of the Democratic party. I haven't seen one reason in that thread to believe that Democrats are behind it, but some of the perps might be D's. All I'm saying is there is nothing in the thread that leads me to conclude that they are. Are you realling saying that you are willing to assume blame D's for those incidents even though the only piece of evidence is that the actions were taken against Republicans?
we were talking about the general climate of divisiveness since the 2000 election. you seem to believe that the democrats are completely blameless in this regard.
Oh good heavens no. I was merely saying that the thread didn't show Democrats dividing. I definitely think the Dems are guilty of some of the divisiveness. I will say that Bush is running on divisiveness as part of his campaign, with the ban on gay marriage amendment. I will also say that Kerry has recently been guilty of using some scare tactics when he brought up the draft. There is no way that either party can claim to be blameless.
"It is wrong to try to scare people going into the polls." Reading in between the lines, GWB is saying that it is not fair when the Democrats adopt Republican tactics, especially those that work well. Hypocrite.
Something I've said before, and would like to repeat: Bush and Kerry are a couple of douchebags who have far more in common with each other than they have in common with any of us. Have you noticed that every time one side has a somewhat valid complaint against the other side, that the counter-argument usually shows that the accuser is just as guilty as the accused? There's a reason for that. The partisan junk in this forum frequently amounts to little more than the sides criticizing each other for faults that both sides have in abundance. It's not a question of ethics, it's a question of timing - who's going to accuse the other first? Since both sides are guilty in most cases, what we're really arguing about is who accuses with the most speed and the loudest voice. So, in this particular case of "who accused who first?" - I don't give a damn. It's just a tiny crumb from a much larger sandwich. Partisan bickering ain't debate. Partisan bickering is my-side-vs.-your-side and the victor is dependent upon rational thinking in the same way that winning the lottery is dependent upon rational thinking. True debate would never preclude the possibility that both sides are wrong, that the process is wrong, and that the whole damn system which allows idiots like this to wield power is very, very wrong. Maybe we've reached the point where, instead of supporting the altenative-to-Kerry or the alternative-to-Bush, we should be searching for the alternative to our current method of selecting our leaders, and maybe even an alternative to our entire system of government. Okay...rant over.
I doubt that its possible that any political system that allows, multi billion dollar, year long campaigns based on borderline libelous negative ads for months will ever lead to an outcome where a significant portion of the populace wouldn't say "well, I have reservations about both these guys" You could send Mother Teresa up there vs. Mary Poppins, and once the Roves and Dick Morrises and the rest get hold of them and toss them into the media spin cycle, it would be Selfish b**** vs. Delusional Harpy in the eyes of most of the public. In the end, we have ourselves to blame for allowing this kind of thing to happen. It's our system, after all, and we're the ones who let ourselves be dumbed down so that the Swift Boat Morons or the shysters of CBS news have an affect on us. The american voter always b****es about the system, but hell, we are the system. I'm not just talking about voting or not voting either. It's more than that.
I would argue that the "general climate of divisiveness" began LONG before 2000. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, the GOP was at Clinton's throat from day one, culminating in an impeachment based on sexual activity that it could be argued was engaged in by at least half of the presidents in office since 1960. The divisiveness didn't START in 2000, it merely continued.
I think Jr should talk to his VP before he starts accusing Kerry of scare tactics... ----------------------- Cheney: Terrorists May Bomb U.S. Cities 36 minutes ago By ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS, Associated Press Writer CARROLL, Ohio - Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday evoked the possibility of terrorists bombing U.S. cities with nuclear weapons and questioned whether Sen. John Kerry could combat such a threat, which the vice president called a concept "you've got to get your mind around." "The biggest threat we face now as a nation is the possibility of terrorists ending up in the middle of one of our cities with deadlier weapons than have ever before been used against us — biological agents or a nuclear weapon or a chemical weapon of some kind to be able to threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans," Cheney said. "That's the ultimate threat. For us to have a strategy that's capable of defeating that threat, you've got to get your mind around that concept," Cheney said. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=703&e=2&u=/ap/20041019/ap_on_el_pr/cheney
anyone seen those commercials for ready.gov where that little girl is listing all the things you need in case of a terrorist attack. One of the things she says is a whistle. HTF is a whistle gonna help you? Then they say to get an emergency kit (saw WalMart selling one for $25). I guess the Duct Tape manufacturers need some more help. Of course the thing that Americans should be frightened of, flu season, is being dismissed as not a big deal by Tommy Thompson and the administration.
