Breaking news on Kerry

[dddooo]

Quote from Maverick74:

If Bush loses, it won't be because of the democrats, but rather republicans who no longer believe Bush anymore.

How about these reasons why he'll lose:
- He is a divider, not a uniter
- He is not conservative fiscally and not compassionate socially
- He left children behind
- He lost popular vote and arguably the elections (Florida), nevertheless he ruled as if he won with a landslide
- He is hands off, he delegates, but then refuses to take responsibility - like in CIA/Iraq situation
- He promised WMD in Iraq, did not find any
- He promised we'd be greeted as liberators, not occupants - not true
- He promised Saddam - Al-Quada ties - complete lie
- Our military did a wonderful job, but the government completely screwed up post-war restoration of Iraq, they did not seem to have any plan of what to do in Iraq socially, economically and politically.
- He created huge conflict of interests with Halliburton contracts
- He turned the country which was admired by the rest of the world first into a country hated by the rest of the world, and now with WMD debacle into a country laughed, ridiculed and despised by the rest of the world
- He did a great job in Afghanistan, but did not finish it and situation is getting worse over there on a daily basis
- He did not catch OBL
- He says the world is safer now, the world disagrees
- He says we went into Iraq to enforce UN resolution, UN disagrees
- He promised 2mln new jobs in 2003 - did not happen
- He promises 2.5mln new jobs in 2004 - will not happen
- Huge budget deficit, huge trade deficit, he spent all our money for years to come

I do not hate him, but the list above is way too long and it's by no means complete. In addition we cannot have a president whom nobody in this country and in the world can trust any more. He blames Iraq on CIA, he'll run the economy into the ground and blame it on congress and Greenspan, if god forbid we have more terrorist attacks he'll blame it on Homeland security. Somebody's got to let him know that the buck stops on his desk.

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from dddooo:

How about these reasons why he'll lose:
- He is a divider, not a uniter
- He is not conservative fiscally and not compassionate socially
- He left children behind
- He lost popular vote and arguably the elections (Florida), nevertheless he ruled as if he won with a landslide
- He is hands off, he delegates, but then refuses to take responsibility - like in CIA/Iraq situation
- He promised WMD in Iraq, did not find any
- He promised we'd be greeted as liberators, not occupants - not true
- He promised Saddam - Al-Quada ties - complete lie
- Our military did a wonderful job, but the government completely screwed up post-war restoration of Iraq, they did not seem to have any plan of what to do in Iraq socially, economically and politically.
- He created huge conflict of interests with Halliburton contracts
- He turned the country which was admired by the rest of the world first into a country hated by the rest of the world, and now with WMD debacle into a country laughed, ridiculed and despised by the rest of the world
- He did a great job in Afghanistan, but did not finish it and situation is getting worse over there on a daily basis
- He did not catch OBL
- He says the world is safer now, the world disagrees
- He says we went into Iraq to enforce UN resolution, UN disagrees
- He promised 2mln new jobs in 2003 - did not happen
- He promises 2.5mln new jobs in 2004 - will not happen
- Huge budget deficit, huge trade deficit, he spent all our money for years to come

I do not hate him, but the list above is way too long and it's by no means complete. In addition we cannot have a president whom nobody in this country and in the world can trust any more. He blames Iraq on CIA, he'll run the economy into the ground and blame it on congress and Greenspan, if god forbid we have more terrorist attacks he'll blame it on Homeland security. Somebody's got to let him know that the buck stops on his desk.

Blah, blah, blah, blah.

I gave you the reasons why he will either win or lose. Don't make this more complicated then it already is.

And please oh please tell me the last time a politician did something you liked. I mean come on, what you do want him to suck your dick for you?

And Bush is not the one writing legislation in Washington, your local Senators and Congressman are. Don't you think they have any responsibility in all of this? Why don't you get off your ass and start voting in your state wide elections. You have a voice, it's through your vote. Why don't you use it.

 

[ARogueTrader]

The Real Man
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: February 13, 2004


To understand why questions about George Bush's time in the National Guard are legitimate, all you have to do is look at the federal budget published last week. No, not the lies, damned lies and statistics — the pictures.

By my count, this year's budget contains 27 glossy photos of Mr. Bush. We see the president in front of a giant American flag, in front of the Washington Monument, comforting an elderly woman in a wheelchair, helping a small child with his reading assignment, building a trail through the wilderness and, of course, eating turkey with the troops in Iraq. Somehow the art director neglected to include a photo of the president swimming across the Yangtze River.

It was not ever thus. Bill Clinton's budgets were illustrated with tables and charts, not with worshipful photos of the president being presidential.

The issue here goes beyond using the Government Printing Office to publish campaign brochures. In this budget, as in almost everything it does, the Bush administration tries to blur the line between reverence for the office of president and reverence for the person who currently holds that office.

Operation Flight Suit was only slightly more over the top than other Bush photo-ops, like the carefully staged picture that placed Mr. Bush's head in line with the stone faces on Mount Rushmore. The goal is to suggest that it's unpatriotic to criticize the president, and to use his heroic image to block any substantive discussion of his policies.

In fact, those 27 photos grace one of the four most dishonest budgets in the nation's history — the other three are the budgets released in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Just to give you a taste: remember how last year's budget contained no money for postwar Iraq — and how administration officials waited until after the tax cut had been passed to mention the small matter of $87 billion in extra costs? Well, they've done it again: earlier this week the Army's chief of staff testified that the Iraq funds in the budget would cover expenses only through September.

But when administration officials are challenged about the blatant deceptions in their budgets — or, for that matter, about the use of prewar intelligence — their response, almost always, is to fall back on the president's character. How dare you question Mr. Bush's honesty, they ask, when he is a man of such unimpeachable integrity? And that leaves critics with no choice: they must point out that the man inside the flight suit bears little resemblance to the official image.

There is, as far as I can tell, no positive evidence that Mr. Bush is a man of exceptional uprightness. When has he even accepted responsibility for something that went wrong? On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that he is willing to cut corners when it's to his personal advantage. His business career was full of questionable deals, and whatever the full truth about his National Guard service, it was certainly not glorious.

Old history, you may say, and irrelevant to the present. And perhaps that would be true if Mr. Bush was prepared to come clean about his past. Instead, he remains evasive. On "Meet the Press" he promised to release all his records — and promptly broke that promise.

I don't know what he's hiding. But I do think he has forfeited any right to cite his character to turn away charges that his administration is lying about its policies. And that is the point: Mr. Bush may not be a particularly bad man, but he isn't the paragon his handlers portray.

Some of his critics hope that the AWOL issue will demolish the Bush myth, all at once. They're probably too optimistic — if it were that easy, the tale of Harken Energy would have already done the trick. The sad truth is that people who have been taken in by a cult of personality — a group that in this case includes a good fraction of the American people, and a considerably higher fraction of the punditocracy — are very reluctant to give up their illusions. If nothing else, that would mean admitting that they had been played for fools.

Still, we may be on our way to an election in which Mr. Bush is judged on his record, not his legend. And that, of course, is what the White House fears.

 

[ARogueTrader]

Posted on Thu, Feb. 12, 2004

Before things go down the memory hole

By Molly Ivins

Creators Syndicate

Just for the record, since the record is in considerable peril. These are Orwellian days, my friends, as the Bush administration attempts to either shove the history of the second gulf war down the memory hole or to rewrite it entirely.

Keeping a firm grip on actual historical fact, all of it easily within our imperfect memories, is not that easy amid the swirling storms of misinformation, misremembering and misstatement. But because the war itself stands as a monument to what happens when we let ourselves get stampeded by a chorus of disinformation, let's draw the line right now.

According to the large American team that spent hundreds of millions of dollars looking for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, there aren't any and have not been any since 1991.

Both President Bush and Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, now claim that Saddam Hussein provoked this war by refusing to allow United Nations weapons inspectors into his country. That is not true.

Bush said Sunday: "I had no choice when I looked at the intelligence. … The evidence we have discovered this far says we had no choice."

No, it doesn't.

Last week, CIA director George Tenet said intelligence analysts never told the White House "that Iraq posed an imminent threat."

Let's start with the absurd quibble over the word imminent.

The word was, in fact, used by three administration spokesmen to describe the Iraqi threat, while Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld variously described it as "immediate," "urgent," "serious and growing," "terrible," "real and dangerous," "significant," "grave," "serious and mounting," "the unique and urgent threat," "no question of the threat," "most dangerous threat of our time," "a threat of unique urgency," "much graver than anybody could possibly have imagined," and so forth and so on.

So could we can that issue?

A second emerging thesis of defense by the administration in light of no weapons is, as chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay said, "We were all wrong."

No, in fact, we weren't all wrong.

Bush said Sunday, "The international community thought he had weapons." Actually, the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency both repeatedly told the administration there was no evidence that Iraq had WMDs.

Before the war, Rumsfeld claimed not only that Iraq had WMD but that "we know where they are." U.N. inspectors began openly complaining that U.S. tips on WMD were "garbage upon garbage."

Hans Blix, head of the U.N. inspections team, had a crew of 250 people from 60 nations -- including about 100 U.N. inspectors -- on the ground in Iraq, and the United States thwarted efforts to double the size of his team. You may recall that during this period, the administration repeatedly dismissed the United Nations as incompetent and irrelevant.

But containment had worked.

Nor does the "everybody thought they had WMD" argument wash on the domestic front. Perhaps the administration thought peaceniks could be ignored, but you will recall that this was a war opposed by an extraordinary number of generals.

Among them was retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, who has extensive experience in the Middle East and who said, "We are about to do something that will ignite a fuse in this region that we will rue the day we ever started." After listening to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz at a conference, Zinni said, "In other words, we are going to go to war over another intelligence failure."

Give that man the Cassandra Award for being right in depressing circumstances.

Marine Gen. John J. Sheehan was equally blunt. Any serving general who got out of line, like Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, was openly dissed by the administration.

Suddenly the administration is left with the only good reason there ever was for getting rid of Saddam in the first place: He's a miserable SOB.

You will recall that this is precisely the argument that the administration rejected. Wolfowitz said that human rights violations by Saddam against his own people were not sufficient to justify our participation in his ouster.

Now, according to the president, Saddam is a "madman."

Oh, come on. An SOB, yes, but crazy like a fox -- always has been. It wasn't even crazy of him to have invaded Kuwait, given that April Glaspie, the American ambassador to Iraq at the time, told him, "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

For everyone who ever cared about human rights and longed for years to get rid of Saddam, this late-breaking humanitarianism on Bush's part is actually nauseating. All the Amnesty International types who risked their lives to report just how terrible Saddam's rule was always had one question about getting rid of him: What comes next?

I don't think there is any great mystery here about how this "mistake" -- such an inadequate word -- was made.

For those seriously addicted to tragic irony, consider that the most likely Democratic nominee is now Sen. John Kerry, who first became known 33 years ago for asking, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

 

[Error 404]

Quote from Maverick74:


There are three groups of people that will be responsible for Bush's re-election if he wins. One is the pro-life group. Two, are the people who don't want their taxes raised, and three, the people who want this nation to be protected from terrorism.

1: "Pro-life group"
....yes, they will vote for Bush before a Democratic candidate.

2: "People who don't want their taxes raised"
....who does want their taxes raised? Is it better to borrow and spend than it is to tax and spend? We can't fight a war on several fronts and not incur expenses. The bills have to be paid somehow. Besides, that 1% of the people at the top of the "tickle down" pyramid aren't enough of a factor to affect the outcome of an election.

3: "The people who want this nation to be protected from terrorism"
....Who does NOT want this? Do you really believe this is a Republican interest only? This is something ALL Americans, and virtually all of the civilized world wants. Implying that a vote against Bush is a vote against the war on terror is just like implying that Kerry raped a woman by saying it's possible. Completely off the wall.

You went a solid one for three.

Maverick, take ARTs advice. Try looking at issues from a different perspective. Imagine yourself as a "liberal" (if possible). You might amaze yourself. Think "EMPATHY". See if it does anything for you.

You would never make a good campaign director the way you are thinking now. I assure you that the professional campaign guys look at every issue from every angle. You seem to be afflicted with a horrible case of tunnel vision.

Peace,
RS

 

[bungrider]

Quote from Maverick74:

ART, why do liberals always use the argument that two wrongs make a right? Why do you people think like that? It's like saying Person A killed someone and person B molested a 5 year old girl. Well person B is innocent compared to person A. Bullshit, they are both guilty. Stop defending rapists. If Kerry did indeed abuse or rape this intern I hope they put this sick puppy away.

ART, your logic is so skewed and your ideology so blinding. You need to let go of the partisanship. I am a republican, but there is no excuse for what Newt Gingrich did to his wife and I think he is a pathetic piece of shit. I will never respect that man again.

You need to be able to set apart your blinding love for the left from people that commit crimes. I really feel sorry for you.

WHY do cons always make random things up about liberals?? It's like saying, "why are those liberals always out in their estates' backyards (because all liberals are really self-loathing, limousine liberals) humping their dogs?? ...I mean, the ACLU wants to make dog-humping legal! What's wrong with these people? Have they no god??"

The O'Reilly/McCarthy-style unfounded, Stalinist, blanket accusations at "liberals" grow old. Is the point of it to make the foolish masses think it's actually true?

I'm gonna sink to your level...I bet O'Reilly secretly takes it up the ass like McCarthy did...this is my stab at creating a BS rumor. But it seriously wouldn't surprise me if O'Reilly was an ass bandit.

Isn't the whole "two wrongs make a right" really an essential part of the neocon world view? I mean, like the whole, "...yeah, maybe we were wrong about saddam having WMDs, but saddam was a bad guy and the world is better off without him..." routine. Seems like a real integral part of neoconservative ideology that the end (or at least the intended end, however expensive and unattainable it may be) justifies the means, no??


"...i had that sucker hypnotized..." (zappa)

 

[Irma]

Quote from Maverick74:

You people keep talking about money. You can't buy an election. Believe me, Donald Trump tried to. Ross perot tried to. In the end, it's your vote that counts. If the American people come together and vote against him, they will throw him out of power. But if the American people vote for him, then their voice has been heard and democracy prevails.

And if this Bush family has so much money that they can buy elections, how do you explain George Bush Sr. losing to Clinton in 92.

There are three groups of people that will be responsible for Bush's re-election if he wins. One is the pro-life group. Two, are the people who don't want their taxes raised, and three, the people who want this nation to be protected from terrorism.

If Bush loses, it won't be because of the democrats, but rather republicans who no longer believe Bush anymore. They don't believe he will control spending, they don't believe he will continue to support socially conservative policies, and they don't believe he can improve our intelligence agencies enough to fight this war on terror. If that happens, it will be the right that throws Bush out of office, not the left.

All the money in the world can't change this.

...and family political connections...did you read my post? However, we may be approaching a time when elections really can be bought. More concentrated power in corporations and media consolidation. It's a sophisticated kind of corruption and it could work for either left or right. The right has the upper hand now.

Not sure the tax group will end up in Bush's camp. The way this administration is spending money...it will have to come home to roost.

Bush is there and he's representing those of us on the right, but I wish he wasn't. I can think of many others I'd prefer.

Irma

 

[Irma]

Quote from Maverick74:

Blah, blah, blah, blah.

I gave you the reasons why he will either win or lose. Don't make this more complicated then it already is.

And please oh please tell me the last time a politician did something you liked. I mean come on, what you do want him to suck your dick for you?

And Bush is not the one writing legislation in Washington, your local Senators and Congressman are. Don't you think they have any responsibility in all of this? Why don't you get off your ass and start voting in your state wide elections. You have a voice, it's through your vote. Why don't you use it.

Maverick74, you remind me of the people who remained loyal to Clinton no matter what. But like them your hero worship is starting to tarnish a bit and you are sounding a little faint-hearted.

I know there many people who LOVE Bush, but they are mostly religious fundamentalists types who believe GW is really a born again evangelical, something I just don't buy.

Would I rather have Kerry? No. But it might be better to have the Dems take the White House this year so they can take the blame for the coming economic mess.

Irma

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from Irma:

Maverick74, you remind me of the people who remained loyal to Clinton no matter what. But like them your hero worship is starting to tarnish a bit and you are sounding a little faint-hearted.

I know there many people who LOVE Bush, but they are mostly religious fundamentalists types who believe GW is really a born again evangelical, something I just don't buy.

Would I rather have Kerry? No. But it might be better to have the Dems take the White House this year so they can take the blame for the coming economic mess.

Irma

Irma, you never answered my question. Why aren't you placing any blame on your local elected officials. Why don't you get out and vote? Surely you don't really believe there is one man in Washington running everything? Stop trying to place blame where it is most convenient for you.

 

[Maverick74]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...ml&sSheet=/portal/2004/02/15/ixportaltop.html

'This won't go away. What happened is much nastier than is being reported'
By Adrian Blomfeld in Nairobi and Andrew Alderson
(Filed: 15/02/2004)


Alex Polier, the twenty-four year old journalist who could end Senator John Kerry's hopes of becoming the next president of the United States is alleged to have had a two-year affair with the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. Last night the rumours were in danger of becoming a full-blown scandal.

Alex Polier, 24, is alleged to have had an affair with John Kerry
"This is not going to go away," one American friend of Miss Polier said yesterday. "What actually happened is much nastier than is being reported."

The allegations come at a crucial time for the senator. Polls showed him leading Mr Bush by 52 per cent to 42 per cent, and aides will be anxious to see if the apparent scandal affects his standing among voters.

Miss Polier, a former intern who also spent some time in 1998 doing work experience at the Houses of Parliament in London, is in Kenya staying with Yaron Schwartzman, her fiance and a member of the country's fashionable young set. The couple have refused to make any comment on her alleged links with Senator Kerry, who is married to Teresa Heinz Kerry, an heiress to the food empire.

Senator Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran dubbed the new JFK, has vehemently denied any relationship with Miss Polier, and shrugged off allegations that he had a two-year affair with her from 2001. "I just deny it categorically. It's rumour. It's untrue. Period," he said.

Mr Kerry, 60, has won 12 out of the 14 Democratic primaries and has looked all but certain to seal the nomination to take on President George W. Bush in November's elections.

His aides have blamed a dirty tricks campaign for bringing the allegations about Miss Polier into the public eye; they first surfaced last week on a Right-wing internet site, the Drudge Report, which famously first broke the news of Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Miss Polier's parents, Terry and Donna, from Malvern, Pennsylvania, added fuel to the fire by claiming that Mr Kerry did pursue their daughter.

"I think he's a sleazeball. I did wonder if she didn't get that feeling herself," said Mr Polier. "He's not the sort of guy I'd choose to be with my daughter.

"John Kerry called my daughter and invited her to be on his re-election committee. She talked to him and decided against it."

The Drudge website also quoted retired Gen Wesley Clark, one of Mr Kerry's rivals for the nomination, as having told journalists off the record: "Kerry will implode over an intern issue."

Mr Clark later dropped out of the race and endorsed Mr Kerry.

Miss Polier, a journalist who once worked for Associated Press, is a graduate of Columbia University, New York. She apparently met the senator as she was beginning her media career. Miss Polier and her fiance were believed to be hiding yesterday at the Nairobi home of Mr Schwartzman's parents, who moved to Kenya from Israel.

She appears to have few friends of her own in Kenya: she has never lived in the country and makes only occasional visits. "She seemed perfectly nice, although she was a little cool," said a Schwartzman family friend.

"She didn't seem to be very willing to open up but whether it was because she was aloof or just shy, I couldn't work out."