Bush v. Kerry: The Official Elections 2004 Thread

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Darth Mischievous, Mar 2, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    I know a host of muslim worshippers whose services have been invaded by the FBI (not to mention some rather surly librarians) who would be happy to oblige you . As far as individual citizens go, well, it's hard to protest the actions of the government when they can search your home without your ever even knowing, isn't it ?

    V03, come on, this doesn't seem like you at all.

    If you want to carry this debate over to the Patriot Act thread, I would like to discuss it with you.

    For example, I can tell you right now that "sneek and peek" warrants did not originate with the Patriot Act, and they still have to conform with procedure.

    As for your other claims, as far as I know, they are nothing more than urban legends.

    For some reason, people believe that Ashcroft has the ability to suspend the Constitution, which is not the case at all.

    You can't stereotype law enforcement as a group of "civil rights violators," any more than you can stereotype doctors as caring about money more than patients.

    It isn't fair, and such a practice is born out of misunderstanding, more than anything.


  2. shinjo_jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 5
    Competely unscientific source.

    Did I ever say it was scientific :p

    Damn, you figured it out ;) :)

    Yep, it's at CNN. And it has changed, 76% now. :D
  3. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    All that tells us is that more democrats than republicans go to cnn.com.

    Not that that is bad or anything.

  4. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    Carter savages Blair and Bush: 'Their war was based on lies'
    By Andrew Buncombe in Atlanta
    22 March 2004
    Carter savages Blair and Bush

    Police commissioner calls for European anti-terrorist body

    'Bush ignored the al-Qa'ida threat before 9/11'

    Jimmy Carter: Stirring up a hornet's nest

    Andreas Whittam Smith: Floating voters in search of someone to support

    Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: We are living in fear. So what's new?

    Leading article: Towering failures

    Jimmy Carter, the former US president, has strongly criticised George Bush and Tony Blair for waging an unnecessary war to oust Saddam Hussein based on "lies or misinterpretations". The 2002 Nobel peace prize winner said Mr Blair had allowed his better judgement to be swayed by Mr Bush's desire to finish a war that his father had started.

    In an interview with The Independent on the first anniversary of the American and British invasion of Iraq, Mr Carter, who was president from 1977 to 1981, said the two leaders probably knew that many of the claims being made about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were based on imperfect intelligence.

    He said: "There was no reason for us to become involved in Iraq recently. That was a war based on lies and misinterpretations from London and from Washington, claiming falsely that Saddam Hussein was responsible for [the] 9/11 attacks, claiming falsely that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And I think that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair probably knew that many of the allegations were based on uncertain intelligence ... a decision was made to go to war [then people said] 'Let's find a reason to do so'."

    Before the war Mr Carter made clear his opposition to a unilateral attack and said the US did not have the authority to create a "Pax Americana". During his Nobel prize acceptance speech in December 2002 he warned of the danger of "uncontrollable violence" if countries sought to resolve problems without United Nations input.

    His latest comments, made during an interview at the Carter Centre in Atlanta, are notable for their condemnation of the two serving leaders. It is extremely rare for a former US president to criticise an incumbent, or a British prime minister. Mr Carter's comments will add to the mounting pressure on Mr Bush and Mr Blair.

    Mr Carter said he believed the momentum for the invasion came from Washington and that many of Mr Bush's senior advisers had long ago signalled their desire to remove Saddam by force. Once a decision had been taken to go to war, every effort was made to find a reason for doing do, he said.

    "I think the basic reason was made not in London but in Washington. I think that Bush Jnr was inclined to finish a war that his father had precipitated against Iraq. I think it was that commitment of Bush that prevailed over, I think, the better judgement of Tony Blair and Tony Blair became an enthusiastic supporter of the Bush policy".

    Mr Carter's criticisms coincided with damaging claims yesterday from a former White House anti-terrorism co-ordinator. Richard Clarke said that President Bush ignored the threat from al-Qai'da before 11 September but in the immediate aftermath sought to hold Iraq responsible, in defiance of senior intelligence advisers who told him that Saddam had nothing to do with the conspiracy.

    With an eye to November's presidential elections, Mr Bush sought on Friday to use the anniversary of the Iraq invasion to say that differences between the US and opponents of the war belonged "to the past".

    Speaking at the White House, he told about 80 foreign ambassadors: "There is no neutral ground in the fight between civilisation and terror. There can be no separate peace with the terrorist enemy."

    But in the US and Britain, and elsewhere, there is growing anger among people who believe the war in Iraq was at best a deadly distraction and at worst an impediment to the war against al-Qa'ida - diverting resources and energy from countering those groups responsible for attacks such as the train bombings in Madrid.

    Over
  5. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    See, whatdiditellya shinjo_jedi?

    :)

    ---

    Here's OWM, bringing Ol' Peanut Carter back into it.

    Carter is off the deep end of the loony left and one of the worst Presidents this nation has ever had.
  6. liberalmaverick Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 17, 2004
    star 3
    <guffaws>

    Carter....looney left.....

    [face_laugh] [face_laugh] [face_laugh] [face_laugh] [face_laugh]

    DM, on my political spectrum Carter is about a hair left of center. On yours, that spot must be filled by Ronald Reagan. :p
  7. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Be that as it may, I hope for his sake, Kerry doesn't let Carter start defining him...

    That would just be political suicide..

    (no offense to DS77...)
  8. TripleB Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 4
    Wow, Ted Kennedy goes after Bush yesterday, and today it is Jimmy Carter.

    Talk about the ALL LOSERS SQUAD
  9. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Help Support Al-Qaeda- Vote Democrat in 2004!


    Good to see your signatures are getting more asinine as the year goes on.

    E_S
  10. TripleB Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 4
    Ender_Sai said

    Good to see your signatures are getting more asinine as the year goes on.

    Ah, thank you so much. If it were not for the long part about me backing Obi-Wan in his quest to restore his original trilogy/kotor-like 2004 Election thread, I would have said "help support AL-Qaeda defeat America- Vote Democrat in 2004" or something like that.
  11. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    DM, on my political spectrum Carter is about a hair left of center. On yours, that spot must be filled by Ronald Reagan.


    Nah, I would say Joe Leiberman is a hair left of center.

    For you though, he (Joe Leiberman) probably would be as conservative as Ronald Reagan is and Reagan would be as far right as a dictator.

    Carter is in far left field, and he's going around the world constantly trashing the United States. He's pathetic, IMO, and not very well liked by the American public.

    ---

    TripleB, drop the issue.
  12. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    The blame game
    Cal Thomas
    March 22, 2004


    At least two things should raise suspicions about the motives of Richard Clarke, the former anti-terrorism advisor to four presidents, whose name, face and book were all over the newspapers last weekend and on "60 Minutes" Sunday night (March 21). One is that Clarke's book, in which he accuses the Bush administration of not heeding "warnings" from the Clinton administration about possible terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda, was available only to journalists and not to those in the administration on the receiving end of Clarke's criticism. This is according to an administration spokesman with whom I spoke.

    The other red flag that should make us cautious about Clarke's assertions is that his former deputy, Rand Beers, is now an advisor to the presidential campaign of John F. Kerry. Part of Kerry's campaign strategy is to persuade the public that President Bush has failed to effectively fight the war on terror.

    Clarke is right about one thing. He admits "there's a lot of blame to go around (for 9/11), and I probably deserve some blame, too." Yes, he does, and he can begin with the first World Trade Center bombing and continue with the bombing of the USS Cole and the attack on the American Embassy in Tanzania, all of which occurred on the watch of President Bill Clinton, whom Clarke was advising. Was Clinton not listening to Clarke's advice? Did Clinton "do a terrible job on the war against terrorism," the charge he levels against President Bush, who was in office less than nine months prior to 9/11?

    Responding to Clarke's allegations, a senior administration official told me that Clarke is engaged in a "flagrant effort to avoid responsibility for his own failures." He added, "The Clinton administration never gave the Bush administration a plan that included the possibility of hijacked airplanes used as missiles to be flown into buildings. Most of their advice was general in nature." Even if it had specifically warned the Bush people, he said, it probably would not have prevented Sept. 11, which was well on its way to the execution stage by the time the Bush administration took office.

    The official confirmed press reports that Al Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay are providing "good stuff that's reliable" and are helping to locate wanted suspects still in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Does he think there is a possibility Osama bin Laden will be captured or killed this year? "There are a lot of military and CIA people who are surprisingly optimistic he will be found this year," he said. Even so, he noted, capturing or killing Osama, while gratifying, will be mostly "symbolic," because others among "the death worshippers" will take his place.

    The senior official thinks press reports of nuclear suitcase bombs are exaggerated, but he cannot rule out the possibility.

    Where was Clarke while all of these threats were developing? He was the chief advisor to President Clinton on terror. The Clinton administration approached terror as a law enforcement problem, not a national threat, which is precisely the strategy Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry would pursue were he to become president. At least that is the strategy he says he will employ today. Who knows what he'll propose tomorrow or next week?

    The ineffective response to terrorism by the Clinton administration encouraged the terrorists to go for broke with such high-profile targets as the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the Capitol or the White House. We know that it was only because of the bravery of passengers on the fourth plane, which crashed into a field in Pennsylvania, that the horror was not greater.

    If Clarke wants to cast blame for 9/11, he should look in a mirror. It was he, not the Bush administration, who controlled the power, strategy and direction of U.S. policy toward terrorism for the last decade. That we were hit hard on 9/11 was not the fault of George W. Bush, but of William Jefferson Clinton and his chief advisor on terrorism, Richard Clarke.

    ©200
  13. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    For those of you that deny media bias:

    The Death of Journalistic Ethics

    There has been a subtle shift in opinion journalism in America in the past few years.

    Now, we have people working for newspapers and magazines who are devoted to getting certain polticians -- namely the left -- elected to office.

    While Rush Limbaugh and the right-wing talk show cadre are entertainers -- and describe themselves as such -- these people are embedded in the elite media and are not supposed to be political activists.

    In a stunning admission in Sunday's New York Times, the following people attended a meeting with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) in New York City:

    • Frank Rich of The New York Times

    • Richard Cohen of The Washington Post

    • Jonathan Alter of Newsweek

    • Howard Fineman of Newsweek

    • Jim Kelly of Time Magazine

    • Jeff Greenfield of CNN

    • Eric Alterman of The Nation



    Can you imagine if the President of FOX News Channel and the Editor of the Wall Street Journal met with President Bush in some apartment -- there would be outrage.
  14. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    From Kevin Drum

    CLARKE ON 60 MINUTES....Well, I saw the Richard Clarke interview on 60 Minutes and it seemed fairly devastating. Still, his main criticism was that Bush immediately focused on Iraq instead of al-Qaeda after 9/11, and I have a feeling this may turn out not to resonate all that much with the average guy. After all, the whole controversy over whether Iraq had ties to al-Qaeda or ties to terrorism in general has been hashed to death, and it's not clear if fresh evidence on this score is going to have a big impact.

    Still, it's going to have some impact and the attack machine is certain to start a smear campaign fairly quickly, just as it did with Joe Wilson and Paul O'Neill. Stephen Hadley, Condoleezza Rice's deputy, was on 60 Minutes to present the Bush administration side of the story, and he was pretty ineffective, mostly reduced to little more than insisting that Clarke was wrong and Bush was too focused on al-Qaeda. He wisely avoided any implication that Clarke was incompetent or grinding an axe.

    Others will do that, of course, but I'm not sure what tack they'll take. Clarke's primary reputation prior to 9/11, after all, was that he was too obsessed with terror, a veritable Chicken Little constantly warning that an attack was imminent. Under other circumstances there might be some mileage there, but not now. In fact, if you read his old speeches he sounds an awful lot like a hardline Bush administration neocon.

    Perhaps they'll whisper that he's bitter over being demoted? I guess they might try it, but it will be a mighty quiet whisper. After all, they really don't want to remind people that counterterrorism was a cabinet level position under Clinton and was downgraded by Bush immediately upon taking office.

    OK then, how about suggesting that he's just a partisan hack who worked for the Clinton administration? Sure, but he also worked for Reagan, Bush Sr., and then GW Bush. It's going to be hard to hang a partisan hat on him, as this AP report from last year indicates:

    Clarke was "a bulldog of a bureaucrat," wrote former national security adviser Anthony Lake in a book two years ago. He said Clarke has "a bluntness toward those at his level that has not earned him universal affection."

    ....Clarke managed largely to avoid Washington's finger-pointing over failures to anticipate the Sept. 11 attacks, even though he was the top counterterrorism adviser and he was replaced by the White House in that role less than one month later.

    "Dick in both the Clinton and Bush administrations was the voice pushing this forward, calling out about the dangers," said William Wechsler, a former director for transnational threats on the National Security Council.

    "There's an easy reason why no one is pointing the finger at him."


    Hmmm, maybe something about his cyberterrorism hobbyhorse? That's a possibility, since he spent a lot of time banging that particular drum and often seemed guilty of exaggeration and undue fearmongering ? especially since he never really turned out to be right about it. What's more, there are plenty of people in the high tech world who got tired of his Chicken Little act and probably have some less than flattering stories to tell. We might hear some of them in the days to come.

    Perhaps there are some specific missteps in his career that hurt his credibility? He's been working for the government for 30 years, so there are bound to be some. Expect to hear a lot about sonic booms over Libya, for example.

    For now, wait and see.


    *Edit*
    DM, where did you get that journalistic ethics thing from?

  15. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    Talk about the ALL LOSERS SQUAD

    Wow, an incredible analysis of the issues. And by the man who thinks Kerry winning the national election will be a victory for Satan, no less.
  16. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    Wow DM, there's a lot of people who worked with the administration we have to watch. Valarie Plame & hubby, Paul O'Niell, Richard Clarke. All of them give pretty consistent stories.

    But thank goodness we don't have to listen to them. Because the administration's side is what we want to hear, and that's better than 20 witnesses saying the opposite.

    EDIT: Oh excellent! Now we know Kerry and the media are in cahoots! Now we don't have to listen to ANY of the major news outlets WHATSOEVER! I am so incredibly proud of this discovery! Who needs thier blather littering up the landscape? Who needs thier lies? Who needs the lies of the people they interview.

    And, for the record, we were always at war with Eurasia.
  17. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    If Colin Powell were to say similar stories, he too would be dismissed. I don't know if it's fear following 9/11 or what, but the Most Honourable and Just Dubya cannot Ever be Wrong.

    E_S
  18. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5

    More on Richard Clarke from Kevin Drum

    Look, every bit of evidence indicates that the Bush foreign policy team didn't see foreign terrorism as a major problem before 9/11. What's more, it's hardly plausible that the administration's top counterterrorism guy was "out of the loop" on what was supposedly the administration's biggest counterterrorism initiative. And given his background and his known intensity toward fighting terrorism, it's also unlikely to the point of lunacy to think that if the Bushies had been planning a bigger and far more extensive anti-terrorism program than Clinton's ? no more "swatting flies"! ? that Clarke would have opposed it. He probably would have been dancing in the streets.

    But the Bush apologists can't be happy with simply suggesting that maybe Clarke misinterpreted what he heard, and in any case 9/11 was a wakeup call for all of us, wasn't it? That would be too subtle, too honest, too nuanced for them. Instead, they have to open up the throttle all the way and insist against all evidence that in reality they were working on the mother of all counterterrorism plans before 9/11 but their chief counterterrorism guy wasn't in the loop.

    It's really a pretty pathetic performance. The only thing they know how to do is attack and then attack even harder, and look where it gets them: a pile of federal investigations and stories that are spun so ludicrously that even their supporters are probably having trouble swallowing them. You'd think they'd learn eventually.


  19. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    My main objection is that people think Clinton caused 9/11, when in reality what Bush did up to September 11th was no different insofar as inheriting a policy of lax counterterrorism measures. Any fool can blame Clinton, but they're just that; fools.

    E_S
  20. TripleB Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 4
    Gonk said

    Wow, an incredible analysis of the issues. And by the man who thinks Kerry winning the national election will be a victory for Satan, no less.

    Note to mods, I did not say that, Gonk did. Not that I disagree with the above though.
  21. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    Note to mods, I did not say that, Gonk did. Not that I disagree with the above though.

    You did not say what I just posted? Au contraire, Triple B. If you turn to page 20 of this very thread, you will find the following, posted by you, and noted on that same page by myself (and others):


    It would be a victory for Osama Bin Laden and terrorists everywhere, it would be a victory for fringe left wing extremism everywhere, it would be a victory for Satan, yes, I will say it again.

    Care to qualify your claim that you didn't say it?
  22. 7-7-7 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 15, 2002
    star 4
    A vote for Bush is a vote For Terrorism

    Bush knew about a terrorist attack involving commercial jet liners in the weeks before 9/11, and ordered his staff to start taking private airline flights for their own safety (ABC News, 3-20-04)

    Bush knew about the threat that Al-Qaeda posed, knew that they were planning an attack, knew that they could be contained, and let the events pass (CNN 3-18-04)

    Bush did not sell, he Gave away critical national secrets, including the names and identities of secret agents working in rogue nations, including those which actively support terrorism against the United States and the West, to fulfill a political agenda. (KGO News, 11-4-03) This is called Treason and is punishable by death.

    Bush is a recovering cocaine addict, an unprosecuted AWOL perpetrator, a criminal, a supporter of terrorist (ever heard of Orrin Hatch?), a betrayer of the United States of America, a member of an occultist and paganistic society, a hedonist, and a self-proclaimed Texan. On top of that, he has placed some of the most reviled people in America on his staff, wants to enact constitutional amendments which conflict with the first, ninth, and tenth amendments, and I won't even get into how many sins he committed in trying to get Janice Rogers Brown placed on the ninth circuit court of appeals.

    I'm a moderate Republican, but Bush makes even Carder seem like a godsend, and Clinton like the second coming of Christ. And to think that I actually voted for him...
  23. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    Say hello to George Soros for me, 7-7-7.

    This statement is simply nothing other than stupid (I just can't put it any other way):

    Bush knew about a terrorist attack involving commercial jet liners in the weeks before 9/11


    Bush actually knew about 9/11 beforehand and didn't tell anyone. Sure. [face_plain]

    How stupid do you think we are?

    That's just simply more of the lunatic far-left's conspiracy theories, and quite insulting at that.
    I'm a moderate Republican


    Yea, right.

    You're probably someone's dirty JC sock.
  24. TripleB Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 4
    Gonk said

    You did not say what I just posted? Au contraire, Triple B. If you turn to page 20 of this very thread, you will find the following, posted by you, and noted on that same page by myself (and others):


    It would be a victory for Osama Bin Laden and terrorists everywhere, it would be a victory for fringe left wing extremism everywhere, it would be a victory for Satan, yes, I will say it again.

    Care to qualify your claim that you didn't say it?


    Oh, I fully 100% stand by that and I 100% believe in that statement too.

    It is just that I got banned specifically for making that statement for 48 hours a week or two ago when I made that statement again. Apparently there is some new policy about that.

    I just wanted the mods to know that I am not the one that brought that statement up again, that is was you, in the event KimballKinnison or Vaderize03 come across it and start throwing out a ban for that.

    edit- Specifically, I believe that they said it was the "Satan" reference or "Hitler" reference that they will ban for, just look back at some exchange between myself and jansons funny twin a few weeks ago. He went on a total 100% flame attack against me, that had about a half dozen Moderator Edits, whereas the only thing I said in the exchange was the above and got 48 hours for it.
  25. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    I swear I must be out of it, that made no sense to me... ?[face_plain]

    E_S
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.