I don't know about Woofer, but I would have prefered to increase our forces in Afghanistan, insure the stability of the Karzai government (which mostly controls Kabul and little else), and if Pakistan will not control the Tribal Areas... and it can't, not the least of which is the threat from India... then hell yes. Let loose the Special Forces in the area with all the backup they need. The Pakistani government would make noises in protest and would be secretly pleased. Gosh, we're tied up elsewhere. Pity.
Dude... Seriously. We are up our A## holes trying to keep the public calm about Iraq, do you really think attacking thesite of holiest shrines to the second largest religion in the world will let USA rest in peace... That would seriously raise some debatable questions (CRUSADES anyone)... and if they attacked Pakistan, I say IF, Pakistan would defend itself by all means, and you have to remember this country does have Nucleur weapons
How could you understand what an independant is thinking given your blinded by the right tunnel vision? Every independant I know, myself included, is not thinking of Bush in a positive way.
If that's how you choose to see it... so be it. BTW - It will also win... again. Somebody call the waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahmbulance.
Bush has to run on 9/11. What else can he do. Claim to be a "uniter not a divider again? hehehe He can't run on job creation. the economy or the environment or education. It is interesting to see how dirty the Repubs will be on the patriotism thing. Still pretty amazing for a bunch of chickenhawks. You have to wonder if big media and the Democrats will let them get away with this.
The Dean's capaign response. *************** Bush Attacks, You Respond Friday, November 21, 2003 Campaign Manager Joe Trippi sent the following email to more than 503,000 online supporters of Howard Dean today. This weekend, the Republican National Committee is launching its first television ads for George W. Bush. The ads show the fear-mongering that George Bush and Karl Rove are going to use, with their $200 million in special interest money, to try to distort what we are fighting for in this election. There is only one way to stop them -- and that is by standing up and telling the truth about what this president has done to our country. To do that, we’ve put up the bat on our website. Our goal is to raise $360,000 by Tuesday at midnight -- $5,000 for every hour they are going to lie to the Americans people with their ad. We need to show that we’re not going to allow the administration to wage an air war on the American people: http://www.deanforamerica.com/contribute The ad shows George W. Bush giving his last State of the Union address, and then the screen flashes with the words that “some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists.” This is the same State of the Union address in which Bush misled Congress and the American people with the false claim that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium in Africa -- the famous sixteen words that helped drive our country into an unnecessary war. And the war with Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorists who attacked the United States on 9/11. We can’t let them get away with this. The ad urges viewers to tell Congress “to support the president's policy of pre-emptive self defense." But the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war is wrong for America. It is costing us in blood and money, and in our nation’s standing around the world. But the facts have never gotten in the way of the Bush administration’s agenda -- and the facts aren’t going to get in the way of their reelection strategy. This ad is about distorting Howard Dean’s opposition to the war with Iraq. They say that those who opposed the war oppose defending our nation from terrorism. But the war in Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda or the war on terrorism. The president’s misleading statements -- and the war they led us into -- are making us less safe. You have built the only campaign strong enough to take on George Bush and the $200 million he is raising to destroy his Democratic opponent. Help us prepare for battle. Contribute whatever you can afford, and reach out to others and ask them to join us. Our country is at stake: http://www.deanforamerica.com/contribute Thank you for everything you do. Joe Trippi Campaign Manager Dean for America link
Glynch, I appreciate your postings, but as we get into the campaign, I think we should be careful about posting direct links to candidate fundraising on this board. Maybe a paraphrase of the Trippi email and a link to it instead of the contribute link would be appropriate. Otherwise, we get into just being a parrot of the respective party/candidate web sites and I don't think anyone wants that (from either side), especially as the primary season gets more intense. I've got no problem with posting stuff Dean or anyone else says... I just think we should steer clear of the fundraising angle. Just my 2 cents.
Rimrocker, I sort of agree with you and sort of not. It is rare for me to not agree virtually totally with one of your posts. I can see how you could be a little put off by the fund raising angle. My purpose in posting the link was not to actually encourage people to contribute to Dean, though, given my recent decision to back him, I think that is a good thing. I had thought about editing that out, but thought it was ok for everyone to see it and get the flavor of the Dean site. It was the first time I had looked at Dean's website and I was immediately struck by the fact that they were referencing this ad by the Republicans that accuses those who don't back Bush in Iraq of supporting terrorism. I thought it was interesting to see how the Dean campaign was combatting this attack, which will probably be Bush's main campaign theme. Despite the fund raising appeal (and I didn't like the style of that particular one) I think it is ok to link to the official campaign sites of the candidates and to encourage people to take action in support of their beliefs. I certainly am critical of the Democratic Party which I believe has been almost as beholden to big money special interests as the GOP. Dean is a bit too conservative in some ways for me. That said, I have always believed that the purely intellectual approach to politics is not the way to go. One must decide and take some action in the real world. I thus have objected for many years to what I will call the professor types who almost pride themselves in never supporting a candidate, a party or even a political group because the can distinguish some aspect that they don' t think is ideal.
Well, this independent might have fallen for the stuff the ad says, right up until they use that phrase.. Using the excuse of securing security by the "pre-emptive doctrine" just scares the hell out of me. If it is ok for us to attack pre-emptively, why would it not be ok for other countries to use it also? Am I the only one that sees that slippery slope as a bad thing?? Dont presume to speak for independents...I hate it when Dems do it...and it certainly doesnt sit well when Reps do it either. Especially since at least the Dems dont try to ram their core values down my throat like a evangelical preacher.
A wonderful memo I received today via email: Dear Trader_Jorge, What another great week for the American people. This week Congress came to agreement, and brought to the House and Senate floor, historic Medicare and energy legislation. But some Democrats are continuing their policy of protest, pessimism and obstruction. Instead of attacking the challenges we face, the Democrats are attacking Republicans and these positive policies. They are filibustering the energy legislation in the Senate, and they are even attacking seniors and seniors organizations like the AARP who support this historic Medicare prescription drug legislation. Today, the RNC announced we will be begin airing ads around the Democratic presidential debates to highlight the stark contrast on important policies. After 10 months, the Democrats running for President have coalesced around policies that are wrong for America. They unanimously oppose the President’s policy of pre-emptive self-defense. They unanimously support massive tax increases. Absent their own positive agenda, they are trying to distract the American people with political hate speech and angry rhetoric, and we will begin to highlight the bright lines between the two parties that will provide the American people with a clear choice in the next election. The first ad is scheduled to begin running Sunday in Iowa. In Congress, the Medicare agreement reached this week is a historic achievement in our nation’s efforts to provide affordable prescription drug coverage for seniors and improve the Medicare system. For the first time in Medicare’s history, a prescription drug benefit will be offered to all 40 million seniors and disabled Americans in Medicare to help them afford the cost of their medicines. Beginning next year all beneficiaries will receive 10 to 25 percent off the cost of most medicines through a Medicare-approved discount card. Starting in 2006, those who do not have coverage will be able to roughly cut their monthly bills in half for a $35 monthly premium. Moreover, under this new plan seniors who are happy with their current coverage can stay where they are. The legislation reforms the system to so it is there for the next generation allowing seniors to choose the health care plan that best suits their needs rather than having the government choose it for them. The AARP and other seniors organizations support this Medicare bill because it is good for our nation’s seniors. But some Democrats want to stop these positive changes from taking place. Pundits and Democrat strategists speculate they must oppose the policy to preserve the political issue for the 2004 elections. The House of Representatives passed 21st century energy legislation with by an overwhelming majority, but Senate Democrats are filibustering the bill. The legislation that Congress is completing reduces our dependence on foreign oil; it will modernize our energy production and distribution systems; it will promote conservation, environmentally sound production and new technologies; and it will strengthen our economy and create new jobs. On Thursday it was reported that despite his support for the bill Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle will not use his position to encourage other wavering Democrats to support the bill. This is important legislation that needs to be passed and Democrats are trying to stop it.
Of course, the energy bill was written by the energy companies and the Medicaid bill was written by the pharmaceutical companies. In addition, if the support for these bills was truly "overwhelming" as opposed to being supported by the majority party, a filibuster wouldn't be possible as it only takes 60% of either house to kill a filibuster. If this is the quality of the news you receive, it is no wonder you are a partisan shill. Open your mind and you won't have to be a puppet anymore.
Candidates Plan Responses to G.O.P. Commercial on Terrorism By JIM RUTENBERG, NYTimes DES MOINES, Nov. 23 — The campaigns of Senator John Kerry and Howard Dean said on Sunday that they would begin showing television commercials in Iowa heavily criticizing a new Republican Party advertisement that portrays the Democratic presidential candidates as undermining President Bush while he fights terrorism. The plans for the two Democratic spots were evidence that the Republican advertisement served at least one of its intended purposes. It drew the Democrats into a debate on national security, which Republican Party officials believe to be the president's strong suit. But the Democratic response to the advertisement, which began running here on Sunday, also shows the risks of that strategy. Much of the Democratic reaction has pointed to problems in Iraq, where attacks on American troops are seen as an increasing liability for the president, and the new advertisements hit that theme hard. In Mr. Kerry's advertisement, to appear on stations in Iowa on Monday, excerpts of the Republican spot are shown on the screen as an announcer says: "George Bush's ad says he's being attacked for attacking the terrorists. No, Mr. President, America's united against terror." The announcer continues, "The problem is you declared `mission accomplished' when you had no plan to win the peace," as the screen flashes to the "Mission Accomplished" banner posted on the carrier Abraham Lincoln when the president stood on its flight deck and declared the end of major combat in Iraq. The announcer also criticizes the administration for its handling of reconstruction contracting, saying that it "handed out billions in contracts to contributors like Halliburton." The administration has said its contracting process in Iraq has been proper and above board. The spot ends with Mr. Kerry speaking to the camera, calling for the United States to get more allied help in Iraq and then saying, "We shouldn't be cutting education and closing firehouses in America while we're opening them in Iraq." Dr. Dean's commercial also features an excerpt from the Republican advertisement, in which the president warns of the perils that unconventional weapons pose to the nation. An announcer then says of Mr. Bush, "He misled the nation about weapons of mass destruction, and we went to war when we shouldn't have. Howard Dean is committed to fighting terrorism and protecting our national security." Dean campaign officials had asked supporters on Friday to donate $360,000 by Tuesday to pay for the advertisement. Officials with the president's campaign had no comment, and officials with the Republican National Committee did not respond to a request for comment.
Here's the thing,...There would be no, I repeat no... Pre-emptive self defense IF we wouldn't be attacked from terrorists, or donkey kong countries that are openly and blantantly friendly to terroristic activity...The latter example is Iraq pure and simple, as bad as North Korea is, at least they are not embracing terroristic endeavors...The only way to fight terror is to go for the throat...Fighting terrorism only works when you utilize offensive tactics...The war on terrorism is unlike any conventional conflict...Comparing it to conventional wars is baseless We are not picking our choice of who we want to attack in a random nature...It's ill-governed nations that embrace the terroristic ideology that must beware...as they should...Nations need to get responsible about squashing cells and the like, otherwise chaos runs amock...
I disagree. The only way to keep terrorism in check is with a sound strategy based on the ideas that founded the United States and gave hope to the world throughout the 20th Century. Offensive tactics are short term solutions to short-term problems and, as we see in Iraq, may also lead to longer-term problems. One of the great failings of this administration is they have become way too consumed with tactics which has left our long-term strategic advantages greatly diminished.
I heard on MSNBC that the Bush ad used excerpts from his SOTU address. The interesting point was that the people who created the commercial had to fix Bush's SOTU flubs in order to use them. I guess there is no misunderestimaing the lengths the Bush campaign will go
Right you are NW... __________ Technological Dub Erases a Bush Flub for a Republican Ad By JIM RUTENBERG, NYTimes DES MOINES, Nov. 24 — It may be called the Case of the Disappearing Pause. When President Bush laid out the potential threat that unconventional weapons posed in Saddam Hussein's hands last year in his State of the Union address last year, he became tongue-tied at an inopportune moment. The line read, "It would take one vial, one canister, one crate, slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." But Mr. Bush stumbled between the words "one" and "vial." And when at the word vial, he pronounced the "v" as if it were a "w." Yet in a new Republican commercial that borrows excerpts from that speech, Mr. Bush delivers that line as smoothly as any other in the address, without a pause between "one" and "vial," and the v in "vial" sounds strong and sure. Republican officials acknowledged yesterday that the change was a product of technology. The line, they said, was digitally enhanced in editing "to ensure the best clarity." The difference between the speech and excerpt was noticed by strategists for former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont. They saw it as they put together their own advertisement attacking the spot, which presents the Democratic candidates as undermining the fight against terrorism. Word trickled back to Democratic officials, who retrieved the tape and confirmed that there was, indeed, a difference. The Democrats asked whether the Republican National Committee had gone to the White House with sound equipment to have Mr. Bush recite the line anew for what was the first Republican commercial of the campaign season here. That might have meant that the party was not being truthful when it said it had not coordinated with Mr. Bush when it made the advertisement, a possible violation of law. The Republicans said there were no such doings. "The audio that you hear is from the State of the Union address, the video that you see is from the State of the Union address," a spokeswoman for the national committee, Christine Iverson, said. Party officials said the line in question was "cut and pasted." Still, Democrats were ecstatic over the perceived chink in an advertisement that they have criticized for days as unfair. "Audio cutting and pasting is `Bush speak' for them having doctored their own ad," Jim Mulhall of the Democratic National Committee said. Ms. Iverson said the Democrats were not exactly aboveboard when they made an advertisement this year that featured an excerpt from the State of the Union address in which Mr. Bush said, "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," a statement that was reported to have been based on questionable intelligence. She noted that the Democratic advertisement had left out the beginning of the sentence, "The British government has learned that. . . . " A Republican strategist said it was not uncommon for specialists to rework candidate's speeches to sound better in spots, just as newspapers do not tend to include "umms" and "uhs" in quotations. Douglas E. Schoen, a Democratic pollster who worked for President Bill Clinton, said that making an alteration in the State of the Union address was different. "The distinction I would make," Mr. Schoen said, "is what the president says at the State of the Union is an essential part of the historical record." Martin Kaplan, associate dean of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California, was less concerned. "Changing the sense of something is a serious issue, this isn't that," Mr. Kaplan said. "But it does change the sound of leadership. It's relevant for a president whose narrative is that he's inarticulate."
