How can GWB be leading in the Polls???

The BBQ Pit
181

Big story coming out of Woodward’s book: Tenet in a briefing says the WMD case is a “slam dunk” and Bush, wise sage that he is, isn’t convinced.

What the press forgets to mention: that this was in the winter of 2002, after many MONTHS of Bush and his team asserting with few qualifications that there were WMD’s in Iraq, that they could attack us at any time, and a whole host of things that we know the CIA said they could not really support.
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction [and] there is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.”-Cheny in Aug 27,2002
“Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.” - Bush with Blair on Sept. 7, 2002
"The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more. And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given.” - Bush on Sept 27, 2002, repeating a line that Tenet at the time had already advised the President was irresponsible and based on a single and highly untrustworthy source
Rice at the time was on about the magic tubes that make nuclear bombs (which the CIA quietly said was, what else: nonsense)

In other words, the “story” which gives the impression of a cocksure Tenet and an unconvinced Bush makes no sense at all. But no one in the mainstream media has even yet to mention the oddity of Woodward’s anecdote in light of, you know, context and history. At the very least, the President privately saying he’s unconvinced should call into question his utterly unequivocal statements about WMD in the past.

Moral: this is the liberal media that’s supposed to explain why, if Kerry can’t get a fair hearing, it’s just because he’s not very good, since the media is so favorable to liberals?

182

Can I get a cite for this? Specifically, in that what I’ve read (which does include the book itself) the Woodward story differs from your account in two key points.

  1. It does not say that Bush remained unconvinced by Tenet, only that he was initially unimpressed with his presentation.

  2. It does not say that Bush did not believe that Iraq had WMD. Only that he thought the evidence presented by Tenet was unlikely to convince the public.

Of course, if my impression is true, your entire post falls apart, so I’m asking you to back up your particular version.

Sample Link

183

I always thought you were an ass, this confirms it. Yeah that’s a real hoot there, watching 50% of the country freaking out, let’s go make some popcorn. :rolleyes:

Go follow some lemmings you fucktard.

184

Not to mention that Bob Woodward has been known to make up stories and publish them as fact from time to time.

I know that some of his latest book has been confirmed by the White House. Much of the rest of it has not.

Regards,
Shodan

185

Knorf-

I see you provided a host of links to show what Kerry’s (more) detailed plans will be. I wonder how long it took you to Google for them to find them out. I wonder why you couldn’t just sum up in your own words what Kerry’s plans were. Anyway, I read the links you provided and I admit partial defeat. I did learn some new things about Kerry’s plans. A Presidential race involves too many issues to write a summary of all the links right now so I will focus on the big issue – the War.

What I won’t do is focus on Kerry’s statements which criticize either who President Bush is (as a person) or what his administration has done wrong in the past. Remember I am looking for what are Kerry’s plans for the future (his possible presidential administration). So right off the bat 90% of the speeches and interviews you provided links to are meaningless to me since Kerry spent almost all of his time bashing Bush.
So in reading the material you provided I learned the following about Kerry’s plans for the future in regard to the Iraq war:

(the numbers refer to the links you provided, the * indicates a separate idea)

#1 *Get International support
#2 *Iraq = Vietnam. *Wants to get “international support,” but doesn’t say how he will do that. *Says that NATO and the UN must be inserted into Iraq but when Russert asks him how to do this he has no idea. *When asked how he will get the UN to support his administration he doesn’t give an answer, instead he says that Bush’s Secretary of State looks bad in Woodward’s book.
#3 *Wants to convince NATO to do something which they will never do – period. Gives no contingency plan for when that idea fails. *Calls for timetable in Iraq but doesn’t lay out even an outline of a timetable.
#4 Bad link – sorry I’m not signed up for WP
#5 *Exact same speech as #1, introduction is changed to fit audience.
#6 Bad link
#7 *Iraq=Vietnam. *Calls for timetable in Iraq but doesn’t lay out an outline of a timetable. *In regard to the war repeats the end of the speeches in links #1 and #5 verbatem.
#8 *Wants to restore diplomacy – doesn’t say how. *Wants to “internationalize” the Iraq occupation – doesn’t say how.
#9 *Says he’ll be a good diplomat.

None of the preceding information is meaningful in any way – it is all just a bunch of silly rhetoric. He gives no detail, no explanation on how to do these things, and no explanation for why those things must be done other than that it is the opposite of what he perceives Bush as doing. Most of the ideas listed above simply can not be done – they are impossible in reality.

But wait!

I did learn some things, and some ideas that I wasn’t very clear on have been made clearer. Following is a list (same format as above) of things that I have learned about Kerry’s future plans in Iraq:

#1 Increase the size of the military in general by some unknown means, try Saddam with both an Iraqi and international trial although he doesn’t say how to pull that off.
#3 Put more forces in Iraq. Turn Iraq over to the UN and Non-American leadership.
#8 Turn over Iraq to the UN and Non-American Leadership.

Not a very impressive list. I already knew that Kerry wanted to turn over Iraq to the UN but after reading his material I now know that he really is serious about doing this regardless of the situation, which is why I list it here. I’m assuming Kerry means to start a draft to increase the size of the military – he doesn’t say how he’ll do this – maybe he’ll use his super-powers of diplomacy to talk American teenagers into joining up. Maybe he can use his super-diplomacy to talk the Iraqis into letting some “justices” from the Hague come down to Iraq and try Saddam and then put him in a country-club prison.

So in conclusion your links actually confirmed my suspicions that Kerry is nothing but a “not-Bush.” Almost all of his talk in your links was outright Bush bashing. When Kerry actually talked about himself I learned almost nothing, and what I did learn make me believe even more that he would be a disaster in the White House.

186

Do you read for context, or just knee jerks, fucktard? Which lemmings am I following?

And yea, watching 20% (it’s not even close to 50%, don’t delude yourself) of the population go absolutely nuts, wailing and knashing teeth, promising to move to Canada, predicting the Apocalypse, just because their guy didn’t win is quite definitely amusing, just like watching the Pubbies go nuts because most people didn’t care that Clinton busted a nut in the Oval Office was amusing.

187

Divisiveness, ill-feeling, half the country freaking out…check.

And this is to be averted if Kerry gets elected, gotcha.

Except, of course, for those unenlightened, pissed off folks over there, who don’t matter, 'cause they ain’t us. :rolleyes:

Accusations of divisiveness here depend entirely on whose ox is currently getting gored, folks. And I hate to say it, but a little hurt feeling is a useful thing, sometimes.

The Democratic Party is in terrible condition, nationwide. Where once they dominated the statehouses and governors’ mansions, today they have lost tremendous ground to the Republicans. They used to hold power perennially in Congress, now they don’t. They may get it back, true, but they won’t hold it for a generation ever again.

A true liberal Democrat hasn’t been elected to the White House since 1976, and his presidency was a miserable failure. Both of Bill Clinton’s victories were achieved with a major spoiler candidate running, and by co-opting many Republican issues. John Kerry is not pursuing this last strategy.

This should be a signal that many Democratic positions aren’t ones that Americans in general share. If these questions are laid to rest as essentially settled issues in American politics, I believe there would be a resurgence in the fortunes of the Democrats, and a more healthy debate on national issues.

One of these issues is gun control. Americans don’t want or need anything more than what is already out there, and could actually stand the repeal of certain laws in some places. A strong assurance from the Democratic Party that they respect the rights of gun owners and the culture of outdoorsmen would do wonders for the party’s competitiveness. In places where individual Democratic politicians take pains to do this, like Pennsylvania, they do very well.

Another issue is a strong national defense. Americans want it, despite protestations from the pacifists on this board. Democrats used to have tremendous credibility on this front, with their own experts and heroes to look to. Unfortunately, these figures are now dead, and available to us only in the history books.
If the Democrats were to produce another generation of George Marshall, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, John Stennis and Scoop Jackson, the Republicans wouldn’t be able to ding them on this issue all the time. The debate would then move on to other areas of policy.

If this point ever came, I probably still wouldn’t vote Democratic, because of honest policy differences. But I wouldn’t fear for my country if an election were to not go my way once in a while.

188

Hopefully the ones going off the cliff.

[sub]a cliff of love with extra fluffy pillows at the bottom, of course.[/sub] :rolleyes:

Yeah, watching all the mudslinging and polarization as our country heads down the crapper is a real fucking hoot!

189

Quoth the person who also wrote the following (not to mention the above) to me:

:rolleyes:
Yeah, you’re a paragon of civil discourse alright.

190

Okay, you don’t like Bush, hate his domestic policies, and are afraid for the long-term damage his Supreme Court appointee’s may cause.

But … you might consider voting for him nonetheless simply because you hate the people who will be voting for Kerry.

Makes sense.

Just tell me, if this is what you end up doing in November, what type of knife will you use to cut off your nose?

191

GWB is leading because the USA public is Scared and Cowards who like to live in CAVES instead of standing UP to the Evil their country does. USA public will Revote Bush even if Bush Loses he will still be President and Attempt to colonize Iraq and Make it a New State. Mexico will Not abide by this.

192

You want to answer the question, or are you going to continue to sit there and blow smoke up my ass?

193

Erm…cite?

:rushes back into his cave and slams the bison-hide flap:

194

Jesus you’re fucking stupid, let me say it real slow for you.

I…wasn’t…saying…you…follow…people… like… a…lemming…
I…was…suggesting…that… you …go…jump …off…a…cliff

Lemmings jump off cliffs, go follow one, get it?

195

So, you’re suggesting that I kill myself because I don’t want to join your liberal circle jerk, yet I’m the one who is incapable of civil discourse, is that it? Man, you give fucked up people a bad name.

196

Good lord.

Thank Og he didn’t suggest that you play in traffic.

197

Bwahahahahahaha!!!

<wiping tears>

Best laugh I’ve had all day.

I think NDP put it nicely.

198

He’s suggesting that since you would vote for a president to piss people off, you have no understanding of the obligations of a citizen in a democratic country and should either expatriate or die. Of course, since you said that you do realize that Bush + Appointing Supreme Court Justices = Much Badness, you aren’t a person who would vote for a president to stir up shit, but this is the Pit, and we’re discussing politics. Expect mud.

199

The thing that amazes me about this thread, and the countless others like it is that many liberals/leftists/democrats can’t seem to wrap their minds around a simple fact: There are people out there who don’t agree with their politics. It’s not because they’re stupid, or ignorant, or don’t care, or have evil or malice in their heart. It’s because they have an honest difference of opinion.

Okay, you don’t like Bush. You think he’s fucked up majorly as president. I get it. You’re entitled to hold that opinion and vote or not vote however you see fit. But don’t get all indignant that everyone else doesn’t think the same way as you. They are entitled to hold whatever opinion they choose and vote or not vote however they see fit.

And please don’t respond to the above by sputtering “But Bush is Evil[sup]tm[/sup]!” or “Bush is taking this country to Hell in a Handbasket[sup]tm[/sup]!” Those are matters of opinion. And not everybody shares your opinion. And in a democratic society you have to accept that sometimes you’re not going to like your elected officials.

The way the more vocal liberals on this board talk I have to wonder if they really believe in Democracy. When it goes their way, it’s a good thing, it’s the will of the majority and that’s a Good Thing[sup]tm[/sup]. But when it doesn’t, it’s horrible and people are stupid and ignorant for voting the way they did.

[disclaimer]
Personally, I’m not a Republican, never have been, nor expect to be anytime in the foreseeable future. I don’t support Bush and probably won’t vote for him, but I haven’t decided. But it’s even less likely that I’ll be voting for Kerry.
[/disclaimer]

200

The newest reason? There were several reasons why we went to war. The neo-libs just locked on to the one that made their Chicken Little party look good. Revisionist history, chuckeroo. It’s so cute.

Because he’s saying that his idea is better than Bush’s?

Or are you admitting that Kerry’s sole campaign point actually is “I’m not Bush”? Wow. That’s rather honest of you, 'Lucy. How unusual.