Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Senator Kennedy Accuses President Bush
Topic Started: Sep 19 2003, 06:46 PM (422 Views)
benetil
Unregistered

Senator Kennedy says that President Bush and his administration's case for going to war against Iraq was fraudulent - and that the Bush administration is paying foreign governments to participate in the war/reconstruction effort in Iraq.

A few months ago, I thought that President Bush's popularity was high enough to withstand any questions about his "motives" for going to war with Iraq. But the recent polls that I've seen show that President Bush's poll rating have fallen to/below 50% approval. I'm beginning to think that President Bush is vulverable (2004 campaign issue) on the Iraq issue. I thought he was 100% immune from any negative effects on this issue until just recently.

THINGS THAT PRESIDENT BUSH SHOULD BE WARY OF (my opinions):
*that more and more of the American public begins to view the mission in Iraq to be a money pit - I've seen estimates that say the total costs for the operation in Iraq could approach $1 trillion dollars before stability is established
*continued attrition of our troops - speaking for myself, I can hardly tolerate hearing about the nearly-daily reports for American kids being sniped, blown-up, etc. as they try to carry out a very difficult mission that our government has sent them to carry out

I think what Senator Kennedy has done is to test (a year in advance) the value of the Iraq issue as a 2004 campaign issue. If the test passes and gains steam among the American public, it will probably pave the way for the Democratic presidential candidates who have been most negative on the war - Gov. Dean, Gen. Clark.
| Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
First Senator Kennedy should clean his own family house before accusing others for passing fraudulent information.

THINGS THAT AVERAGE PERSON SHOULD BE WARY OF (my opinions):

*that no one ever said the Iraq problem was going to be cheap. They should stop fooling them selves about it. They where so gung-ho before the check came in and now they don’t want to pay it - well they have to deal with that, and stop shifting the responsibly. People can be so illogical when it comes to money - they cannot have their cake and eat it too.

*That this is war, people die in war we should all be happy that the number of people that die in a day is not any where near what we have seen in past wars. It bothers me that people are dieing there too (on both sides) but I hope this president doesn’t make the same mistake as the last president did. If he does, the deaths would be for nothing and that would be truly sad.

Some democratic candidates where for the operation in Iraq. I would find it in bad caricature if they back peddled just to win the big seat. That too would devalue the people who are dieing.

The Iraq war /occupation /rebuild should be an issue now/ for the 04 election / and far beyond. But it should be brought up to fix problems and make things the best they can. It should not be an issue to put a democratic candidate into the white house for the sack of having a democratic president.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Dante is right... Ted Kennedy needs to clean the skeletons out of his own closets before accusing someone else of lying.

"Let he who is without sin, Ted!"

Sorry, Benetil, but the anti-war crowd don't stand a chance. They are seen as TOO anti-American. 70% of America support what we've done in Iraq, and if you do a little research you'll find out a lot of things that aren't reported by ABC/CBC/NBC/CNN/NYTimes et cetera.

An anti-war example. Look at those worm turds from moveon.org. They are COMMUNISTS. Look at "Not in our Name". COMMUNISTS again. Most of Howard Dean's supporters are either 60s radicals or college students fed tripe by radical left faculty at their schools.

There's an interesting book I recommend (actually I have a BUNCH of books I recommend everyone read, but this one in particular): "The Death of Right and Wrong" by Tammy Bruce. I also recommend "Treason" by Ann Coulter, but I don't know one Democrat who say's he/she'll read it.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

Dandandat
Sep 19 2003, 07:25 PM
I would find it in bad caricature if they back peddled just to win the big seat. That too would devalue the people who are dieing.

Dandandat: I agree with you on this point - and that is what I was trying to say is part of Senator Kennedy's reason for bringing up the "fraud" issue. If the question resonates with a certain percentage of the American public and if the question gains steam with the American public, then I think we'll see the Democratic party lean toward having Gov. Dean or Gen. Clark as its candidate. If the question flops (possible) then we'll probably see Sen. Kerry (who voted to authorize the war) lead the Democrats in the 2004 election against President Bush.

I could be all wrong about Senator Kennedy's motives - I'm just guessing.
| Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Sep 19 2003, 08:21 PM
Dante is right... Ted Kennedy needs to clean the skeletons out of his own closets before accusing someone else of lying.

"Let he who is without sin, Ted!"

Sorry, Benetil, but the anti-war crowd don't stand a chance. They are seen as TOO anti-American. 70% of America support what we've done in Iraq, and if you do a little research you'll find out a lot of things that aren't reported by ABC/CBC/NBC/CNN/NYTimes et cetera.

An anti-war example. Look at those worm turds from moveon.org. They are COMMUNISTS. Look at "Not in our Name". COMMUNISTS again. Most of Howard Dean's supporters are either 60s radicals or college students fed tripe by radical left faculty at their schools.

There's an interesting book I recommend (actually I have a BUNCH of books I recommend everyone read, but this one in particular): "The Death of Right and Wrong" by Tammy Bruce. I also recommend "Treason" by Ann Coulter, but I don't know one Democrat who say's he/she'll read it.

Admiralbill_gomec: three or four months ago, I didn't think that the "anti-war" stance would ever stand up to the nearly invincible popularity ratings that President Bush enjoyed at the time (I'm remembering his heroic appearance on the deck of that aircraft carrier). But things have changed - I'm starting to think that the "fraud" message could take sprout and drive President Bush's approval ratings down to a point where he is very vulnerable (as far as re-election goes).

Just for the record - those "60s radical tripe" types are really pushing Governor Dean to the top, aren't they? Apparently, they have quite a bit of money to throw his way, too (he seems to be doing quite well compared to his peers).

I've seen Ann Coulter peddling her book on many of the talk shows - I'm not quite in a frame of mind to read it - the premise, as I understand it, is that all non-conservatives are traitors of the United States. I love to see Ann Coulter on TV - she is a no-holds-barred pundit, highly intelligent and extremely well-spoken - she always makes for an inspiring conversation on TV.

I'll take a look at the other book that you mention - I'm sure it will be thought provoking, if not inspiring.

Take care - nice weekend.
| Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
Sooner or later President Bush's rating numbers had to drop. We are at the start of a presidential election cycle and there is no way the Democrats can appear to support an opposition party President. So they have to decry what he has done and said, even in areas that they do agree with him. Remember that many Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq and are still not willing to suggest that they made a mistake in their support. They are only willing to claim that they were misled or in some way bamboozled by a man they have viewed as being the village idiot.

These guys had access to much of the same intel that Bush based his decision to go to war on and think it is credible to claim they were misled. Kennedy in particular has been around so long there is probably very little that he does not find out if he wants to know the bottom line on a topic.

Pundits predicted that Bush's popularity would come down to a realistic level as we get into the election cycle, this is what is happening. IT still boils down to our economy, if people feel that we are doing fine and they still do not object to Bush's handling of Iraq and the war on terror, then he will easily win reelection. If the economy is weak still come election day '04, then he has a hard fight and it is possible that he could lose.

The Democrats have to attack him to have a chance at regaining the White House. It's going to be ugly and until the public makes it plain that dirty pool has to go, we'll have to live with the usual routine.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

Swidden
Sep 20 2003, 02:27 AM
. . . Remember that many Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq and are still not willing to suggest that they made a mistake in their support. They are only willing to claim that they were misled or in some way bamboozled by a man they have viewed as being the village idiot . . .

. . . The Democrats have to attack him to have a chance at regaining the White House. It's going to be ugly and until the public makes it plain that dirty pool has to go, we'll have to live with the usual routine . . .

Swidden: since so many Democrats did vote to support the attack on Iraq, I think that is why the Democratic party is trying to decide whether to go with someone like Sen. Kerry or Sen. Lieberman (both supported the attack) or someone like Gov. Dean or Gen. Clark (both have been critical of the war).

As far as dirty pool, I have to confess that I kind of enjoy watching the fur fly. Most Americans say they insist on clean campaigns, but down deep I think a lot of people see politics as a form of entertainment - especially when their candidate is the one giving rather than receiving.

Case in point - the instant that Senator Kennedy's "fraud" statement was aired, conservatives immediately started bringing up the Cappaquiddick incident and his (Kennedy's) heavy drinking reputation.

Another incident that pops into my mind involves Rev. Jesse Jackson. He (Jackson) was pretty vocal about President Bush (the disenfranchised voters in Florida) in the very early days of his presidency. Suddenly the press mysteriously came out with stories about Rev. Jackson's personal life - how he was using tax exempt, not-for-profit funds to support his mistress and his illegitimate child. Rev. Jackson fell largely silent as far as his attacks on President Bush were concerned. President Bush never once (as far as I can remember) responded to Rev. Jackson's attacks in public. - never once acknowledged Rev. Jackson's attacks directly - but the "leak" about the mistress and the child was a knock out punch that clearly determined the victor.

Issue related? Not really. But it was politics as its best (I think). And it is terribly effective.

Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright's book talks about the "dirty pool" tricks that go on during political campaigns. I guess if you want to witness some rib-splitting humor that comes from pulling masterfully executed practical jokes, politics is the field to enter into.

Of course there will be many issues that do find their way into the presidential election. I think you're right about the economy and Iraq being two of the issues. Up until recently I thought that the economy was going to work against President Bush and that Iraq was going to work for him - now it seems that the economy may not be the liability (for President Bush) and Iraq may not be President Bush's trump card.
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
The economy is growing at a 3.5 percent rate and is supposed to be between 3.5 and 4.0 percent next year. Good, well above average numbers, but not booming.

I'm reminded of a parallel. Ronald Reagan inherited Jimmy Carter's "malaise" when he took office in 1981. By 1982, the Teamsters had a sign shown on the evening news (done up like a billboard at a ballfield) saying something like, "President Reagan, 10,000,000 are unemployed." ABC/CBS/NBC continually harangued the adminstration about things like deploying Pershing II missiles in Germany, the so-called "nuclear freeze" movement (which was actually funded by the Soviet Union's own KGB), and high interest rates. There was also the killing of 245 marines at their barracks in Lebanon, the liberation of Grenada from Cuba, and the oil glut.

Not much has changed in twenty years, at least from the networks.

(Reagan was re-elected in a landslide in 1984. Remember the slogan, "It's morning in America again.")

I see the same thing happening, especially as the Democrats fight and claw amongst themselves. Wesley Clark doesn't know which way the wind blows (on 9/18 he said he'd probably have voted for the War in Iraq, and on 9/19 he said he wouldn't... in 2001 he raised money for Republicans and in 2002 he was a registered Independent), Howard Dean tries to be the anti-Bush (Howie... roll down your sleeves... you look sweaty, not ready for action). The only electable Democrat will not get the nomination (Lieberman).

Let's look at Joe Lieberman for a minute. He is the most centrist of the Democrats, and his support for the war would draw Republicans to his side. He was chosen by Gore in 2000 because he had the experience in government... and because he was a centrist. He's a bright guy, even if he sounds like Willie Tanner from the ALF television series. BUT, he's unelectable because he looks like a basset hound. Too bad.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Swidden
Sep 20 2003, 03:27 AM
They are only willing to claim that they were misled or in some way bamboozled by a man they have viewed as being the village idiot.

Who is the more foolish - the fool or the fool who follows?

That’s a great way to put it Swidden
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Admiralbill_gomec
Sep 20 2003, 10:57 AM
The economy is growing at a 3.5 percent rate and is supposed to be between 3.5 and 4.0 percent next year. Good, well above average numbers, but not booming.

Again it amasses my how illogical people are when it comes to money. I do not understand how any one can expect to see the same numbers we saw in the mid to late 90s when we all know now that those numbers where influenced by illegal and wrong actions, and on the backs of companies that never stud a chance in the long run.

When will people relies that in order to get a good picture at how our economy is doing they need to look over the last 30-40-50 years and make average comparisons to the situation. When done like that our economy might not look the best, but we are doing just fine (average).

People have to forget about the money they made in the mid to late 90's - it was all fluff and never really existed, so in truth they never really lost much when it all went into the crapper they just opened their eyes.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Dandandat
Sep 20 2003, 10:17 AM

When will people relies that in order to get a good picture at how our economy is doing they need to look over the last 30-40-50 years and make average comparisons to the situation. When done like that our economy might not look the best, but we are doing just fine (average).

Economic growth, averaged out over the past century, has been 2.5%. So, we're doing better than average.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Sep 20 2003, 09:57 AM
. . . Let's look at Joe Lieberman for a minute. He is the most centrist of the Democrats, and his support for the war would draw Republicans to his side. He was chosen by Gore in 2000 because he had the experience in government... and because he was a centrist. He's a bright guy, even if he sounds like Willie Tanner from the ALF television series. BUT, he's unelectable because he looks like a basset hound. Too bad.

I think you're right about Joe Lieberman being a moderate centrist - and that he might appeal to "liberal" Republicans at the same time that he would appeal widely to nearly all Democrats. I like him, his manner and most of his politics. But I agree with you that it is doubtful that the Democrats will send him to run against President Bush.
| Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Sep 20 2003, 09:57 AM
. . . Wesley Clark doesn't know which way the wind blows (on 9/18 he said he'd probably have voted for the War in Iraq, and on 9/19 he said he wouldn't... in 2001 he raised money for Republicans and in 2002 he was a registered Independent) . . .

hmm - a two-faced, play-both-sides, self-interest-serving individual - - sounds like the perfect politician to me :)
| Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

On Tim Russert's program this morning (Sunday morning) I heard a panel of journalists offer what I thought was a great characterization of the Democratic Presidential candidate field at this point.

The Democratic hopefuls were divided into two groups along the Iraq issue.

1) those candidates who say we shouldn't have done it, period

and

2) those candidates who say we were right to do it, but we should have done it differently

Interestingly, to me, the "fraud" statement by Senator Kennedy was highlighted as being a significant force that is parting the Democrats into the two categories.

In just a few days' time, General Clark has taken the lead in polls over Governor Dean. Who will the Democratic candidate be? Will Senator Clinton get in the 2004 race (she voted to support the attack on Iraq). I eat this stuff up - great entertainment.
| Quote | ^
 
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
benetil
Sep 21 2003, 06:38 PM
On Tim Russert's program this morning (Sunday morning) I heard a panel of journalists offer what I thought was a great characterization of the Democratic Presidential candidate field at this point.

The Democratic hopefuls were divided into two groups along the Iraq issue.

1) those candidates who say we shouldn't have done it, period

and

2) those candidates who say we were right to do it, but we should have done it differently

Interestingly, to me, the "fraud" statement by Senator Kennedy was highlighted as being a significant force that is parting the Democrats into the two categories.

In just a few days' time, General Clark has taken the lead in polls over Governor Dean. Who will the Democratic candidate be? Will Senator Clinton get in the 2004 race (she voted to support the attack on Iraq). I eat this stuff up - great entertainment.

what......is Clarke leading Deane in the polls already ?????

is that what you meant ?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus