Are you so partisan that you can’t imagine that my intent was that partisanship would be knee deep on both sides of the aisle? Republicans won’t ciritcize the president and Democrats won’t praise him.
Could happen. If you look at the difference between Clinton and Bush, though, most people had determined early on that Clinton was a typical lawyer, always parsing the truth (I tried it once, but didn’t inhale; etc.). And we never really got desensitized to it. Each lawyerly remark seemed to build on the previous ones. Bush, on the other hand, is generally seen as a sincere guy. Of course this could change if any of these current issues gets traction with the public. But it could just as easily backfire if the Dems are seen as
…if the Dems are seen as mean spirited.
Mace my man
No, you miss my point slightly.
The misspeaking may play into Bush’s own public image weakness, not lying and lawyering words, but being dim, a rube, unable to master issues, track facts… etc.
As I noted, if it appears Belief more than Reality drove the issue, that goes to existing perceptions and turns them negative.
hands Revtim a smaller paintbrush
Care to try with this one instead, it is not quite as broad as the one you’ve been using.
MeanJoe - One of “those” who belong to his party but happens to think for himself.
Yes, I would definitely agree with the assessment that it will take knee-deep partisanship to accuse the president of any wrongdoing:rolleyes:
Are you practicing to be a leaky cess pool or is this a gift from some higher power?
Do you know how to read? How did you get “accuse the president of wrongdoing” from “won’t praise him”. If you can’t tell why the latter is partisanship, but the former is not necesarily so, then I give up.
Agreed. If the Dems can actually get the voters to believe that Bush’s lack of analytical skills is damaging to the country, then they win. But that’s a very hard thing to do, and is as likely to backfire as it is to work.
Unless that brush is big enough to paint most people in both parties, it ain’t big enough for the job my friend.
SimonX another one of “those” who belong to his party but happens to think for himself, (and a couple of others).
I’m beginning to wonder about the likelihood of that strategy working. In the past, recent past, I’ve been pretty dubious of the idea that anything could derail the war party. However, I’ve recently had a conversation w/ a fella, who’s a longtime Rush listener, O’reilly fan. He’s also a WWII vet and in his mid-seventies. In the past year, he’s gone from an admant Bush fan and war supporter to a Bush detractor and has come to have grave reservations about the invasion of Iraq.
If he has changed his mind, then I suspect that others have as well. I’m still not sure if enough people’ll shange their minds to make a difference in Bush getting elected to another term as PotUS. But, i think that it is a gretaer probability than before.
Yes. The presence of anything left to inspect, or its significance as a threat to the US, is in doubt, though.
In fact, if the presence of the troops was having the desired effect, as you said in the previous damn sentence, yes. Why not? Are you seriously advancing the August 1914 Schlieffen Plan argument, that plans once started can’t be changed if it’s inconvenient?
Nor do UN resolutions normally - but that’s their call, not ours.
It isn’t your call either, or mine.
In effect, yes.
That depends on what the meaning of “meant” is.
iampunha
[Moderator Hat ON]
Cool it, iampunha.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Ah, my apologies John Mace et al. for that. Forgot myself for a bit.
I agree with this guy. I thought McClellan did a fine job of conveying Bush’s intended meaning when asked about the statement in question. No big deal.
There were plenty of other great reasons to oust Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. The fact that our primary stated reason for doing so turned out to be false or at best inconclusive doesn’t bother me at all. I’m in the camp that thinks it should have been done during the Persian Gulf War. Better late than never.
So if untruths were necessary to achieve the consent of the governed in reference to the invasion, you think that is an acceptable SOP for a presidential admin?
Would it be okay w/ you if a presidential admin had to have a misled public in order for the republic to consent?
Cynical as it may sound, the governed should have enough sense to not rely on politicians for unbiased information concerning the issues at hand. Behind every word lies an agenda, right?
I agreed with the administration that Saddam should be deposed - WMD’s or no WMD’s. Hussein was a despicable tyrant and I think it’s a Good Thing that he’s no longer in power.
Actually, the Niger deal was not the primary reason. It was one samll piece of the Nukes issue. Bio and Chem weapons were as much of a concern.
Note that the Brits are still saying that they do not disavow the Niger info.
Iampunha: Apology accepted. You might want to ask questions for clarification in the future rather than assume you know what someone else is thinking. But don’t sweat it. I didn’t take it personally.
The electorate’s responsibilities to vet information that they receive do not relieve the government of its responsibilities to the electorate.
As such, there still remains the question of whether or not you think it’s an acceptable for a presidential admin to mislead the public?
Yeah, but we elected them, so ultimately isn’t the electorate to blame? Get out and vote, people!
In this case, yes. Every situation is different, and therefore I am unwilling to provide the blanket generalization you are seeking.