Clusterheadaches.com Message Board
        (http://www.clusterheadaches.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        New Message Board Archives >> 2004 Posts >> Scare tactic of the republican party (non-CH)
        
(Message started by: Carl_D on Sep 11th, 2004, 7:21pm)
Title: Scare tactic of the republican party (non-CH)
Post by Carl_D on Sep 11th, 2004, 7:21pm
Dick Cheney recently stated that, "If John Kerry is elected President, there will be another attack on America."

I may be wrong, but isn't this a BS scare tactic to get us to vote for George W. again? I made that mistake in 2000. I WON'T be repeating that mistake again this year. I know I am part of a minority on this, but I also consider myself well informed, and weighed my decision heavily.

Peace,
Carl D
Title: Re: Scare tactic of the republican party (non-CH)
Post by Lizzie2 on Sep 11th, 2004, 7:29pm
I'm not voting.  I'm disgusted.

Yeah..flame me if you will, but I just want no part in it.  I dont' want to be in part responsible for the next disasterous 4 years.

I'm tired of the political arguing and the dirty politics on tv.  It all makes me feel that I wouldn't want either Bush or Kerry to be running my country.

I'm just so sick of how corrupt and horrible it is, that I've decided I'm just not going to partake.  Oh well...  Call me un-American if you will.  Give me a candidate worth voting for, and I'll vote.  Just tired of it.

Lizzie
Title: Re: Scare tactic of the republican party (non-CH)
Post by don on Sep 11th, 2004, 7:30pm

Quote:
"If John Kerry is elected President, there will be another attack on America."


Thats not what he said.
Title: Re: Scare tactic of the republican party (non-CH)
Post by JDH on Sep 11th, 2004, 8:34pm

on 09/11/04 at 19:21:58, Carl_D wrote:
Dick Cheney recently stated that, "If John Kerry is elected President, there will be another attack on America."



on 09/11/04 at 19:30:37, don wrote:
Thats not what he said.



Quote:
On Tuesday, Cheney told supporters in Iowa that there's a danger the United States will be attacked again "if we make the wrong choice" on Election Day.


Not too much difference. I'm assuming that "Dr No" is speaking of John Kerry as the "wrong choice" instead of him and Dubya.

Jim


Title: Re: Scare tactic of the republican party (non-CH)
Post by IndianaJohn on Sep 11th, 2004, 9:02pm

on 09/11/04 at 19:30:37, don wrote:
Thats not what he said.


But thats exactly what he meant.

I too, am sick and tired of dirty politics of the GOP.  It never fails, they have outstanding members that would serve our country much better.  They have individuals that I believe are true statesmen, McCain, Powell and Lugar come to mind and then they pick the worst ones.  Dubya and his ilk are dividers NOT a uniters.  And they use fear, morallity and anything else they can come up with to divide us all.
Title: Re: Scare tactic of the republican party (non-CH)
Post by Gator on Sep 11th, 2004, 9:21pm

Quote:
Posted by: Lizzie2 Posted on: Today at 18:29:08
I'm not voting.  I'm disgusted.

Yeah..flame me if you will, but I just want no part in it.  I dont' want to be in part responsible for the next disasterous 4 years.



Not flaming you, Lizzie.  Just hoping you'll understand what i say here.  You can't get out of it that easily, hun.  If you don't vote, you are allowing someone else to choose your destiny for you.  In your abstention, you are just as responsible for whoever gets elected as those who did vote.  Yours may be the deciding vote that guides us into the future or that dooms us all to hell.  A heavy responsibility?  You're damned right it is.

Forget the rhetoric and everything that you see and hear on this board and on television.  Forget what happened before either of these men were in actual positions of authority for this country.  What have they done for us lately?  Study the candidates.  Go to the congressional record and read the decisions made by Kerry.  Study the events of the past 3+ years and the decisions Bush has made.  Read the actual words - not the media translation.  How have they done their jobs?  Have they done their jobs?  What have they done and what choices have they made?  How has their actions and their decisions affected the people they have represented?  What are their intentions if they are elected?  Why do they want to be president?  Study the facts and let your own conscience be your guide.

Don't let someone else choose your destiny.


As far as the statement by Cheney, we are at risk of another attack, regardless of who gets elected.  What's important is how will the person who gets elected handle the attack?  We already know Bush will stand up and fight.  How will Kerry handle it?  Will he do as he has stated and bow down at the alter of the UN in hopes of getting a coalition to defend us?  Or will he do as the previous Democrat President and just take a pass?  Can we afford it if he does either?  



Gator
Title: Re: Scare tactic of the republican party (non-CH)
Post by JDH on Sep 11th, 2004, 9:44pm

on 09/11/04 at 21:21:46, Gator wrote:
We already know Bush will stand up and fight.  Gator


Now THAT'S funny.
As long as his ass isn't on the line he's willing to "stand up and fight" but when it was his turn he had his daddy get him in the Texas ANG.
And as far as I'm concerned he isn't even "standing up and fighting" the right people.
BTW, whatever happened to Osama bin Laden?
I have no problem going after those who are a threat to our country but Sadaam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and Iraq was never a threat to us.

Jim
Title: Re: Scare tactic of the republican party (non-CH)
Post by IndianaJohn on Sep 11th, 2004, 9:50pm
If dubya was serious about going after nations that posed a threat from WMD's, he would have gone after Iran or North Korea.  Those two nations are much further along in their quests for that kind of technology.  Iraq was pretty much crippled by 10 yrs of sanctions.

And where in the world is Osama?

btw, Pakistan has turned out to be, imho, our most staunchest ally in the war on terrorism.  They have done more things that have had concrete results in this fight than any of our "allies".
Title: Re: Scare tactic of the republican party (non-CH)
Post by Cerberus on Sep 11th, 2004, 10:24pm

Quote:
whatever happened to Osama bin Laden?


Excellent question...Betcha Kerry has no clue either ::)


Quote:
I have no problem going after those who are a threat to our country but Sadaam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and Iraq was never a threat to us.


Nope Iraq wasnt, but Saddam himself probably was in ways we may never know. Besides, he's gone now and Iraq can have back what he stole from the people.


Quote:
If dubya was serious about going after nations that posed a threat from WMD's, he would have gone after Iran or North Korea.

What makes ya think he isnt gonna?


Quote:
And where in the world is Osama?

Still betcha Kerry doesn't know either...

LOL
RAmon
Title: Re: Scare tactic of the republican party (non-CH)
Post by Charlie on Sep 11th, 2004, 10:58pm
Well, the thing is, the last time we were attacked by terrorists, George Bush & Company were there protecting us from evil. This doesn't come up in their campaign speeches.

The ins are running a campaign based on fear. and it looks like it's working.  Thinking about what these people will do if they solidify their grip on power scares me to death.

Charlie
Title: Re: Scare tactic of the republican party (non-CH)
Post by Jaime on Sep 11th, 2004, 11:15pm
Dubya wasn't actually elected the first time. He was appointed by the Supreme Court.  I'm doing everything I can to make sure he isn't elected this time.

I can tell you that if he stays president,  I think the American Experiment in Democracy is probably over,  and that I plan on becoming an ex-pat, if Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark or Brazil will have me.  Those are my choices, in order.

The very same right-wing religious republicans who claim that the U.S. was founded on christian principles have never done any scholarship about the Iroquois Confederacy. Our constitution, right down to the Bill of Rights, is plagiarized from the Articles of the Iriquois Confederacy - So our form of government is actually based on pagan principles.

Lizzie, allowing the election to unfold without your active participation does not absolve your responsibility as a human on this planet. By refusing to participate, you just let others make the choices for you.  You lose your right to complain about it.

Rather than refusing to participate in a broken system, I would like be part of a system that works. Why vote the bastards out when you can leave them behind?  Unfortunately, no one in national leadership in the U.S. is operating from that principle, except perhaps for Oprah Winfrey.  Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.  That way leads to hope instead of despair.
Title: Re: Scare tactic of the republican party (non-CH)
Post by Gator on Sep 12th, 2004, 12:13am

Quote:
BTW, whatever happened to Osama bin Laden?  


Assuming he's actually even alive (and even if he isn't), he's being hunted by troops from America and other countries.  If I had his money, I would challenge you to find me if I didn't want to be found.  Even without it.


Quote:
I have no problem going after those who are a threat to our country but Sadaam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and Iraq was never a threat to us.  


Saddam Insane was a threat to stability in the Middle East and to all of mankind.  He already proved he would use weapons of mass destruction against people.  He even did it on his own countrymen.  There have been mines and artillery shells discovered in Iraq with enough poison gas to kill about a half a million people. (sounds like mass destruction to me)  Funny how before the war, every major intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had them and said so.  After booming stockpiles were not immediately found, George Bush is a liar for depending on that intelligence.

It has been recently admitted by the very people Saddam was trying to get nuclear materials from that he was indeed attempting to do so.  Too bad the liberal media hasn't seen fit to report this.  

It has also been proven that representatives from Al Quaeda met with Iraqi authorities.  There were also terrorist training camps in Iraq.


Quote:
If dubya was serious about going after nations that posed a threat from WMD's, he would have gone after Iran or North Korea.  Those two nations are much further along in their quests for that kind of technology.  Iraq was pretty much crippled by 10 yrs of sanctions.


You haven't been paying attention.  Bad boy.  It's not as much about who has the weapons as it is about who has shown the propensity for using them.  Saddam Insane is the only one of the above mentioned leaders that his done this.  Don't think that just because nobody is talking about it that no one is looking hard at both countries.


Quote:
Well, the thing is, the last time we were attacked by terrorists, George Bush & Company were there protecting us from evil. This doesn't come up in their campaign speeches.  

The ins are running a campaign based on fear. and it looks like it's working.  Thinking about what these people will do if they solidify their grip on power scares me to death.

Charlie


Had the previous administration been doing it's job, Osama & Company would be behind bars or dead.  Had Clinton & Company showed a little backbone we might not be having this discussion.  Sandy Burglar even went in and stole documents that show just how much Clinton & Company knew and when.  

Thinking about what the alternative might not do if he stays true to his long record of stripping this country of the ability to defend itself scares me worse.

Oh, and it's amazing how when a draft dodging, dope smoking, wh0remonger (damned filter) runs for president, military credentials don't mean anything.  When a two (or more) faced, war criminal, Audie Murphy wanna be runs, it's all about "who was there" and who wasn't.   If John Kerry is the best the Democrats can come up with, I'd be thinkning about a different party.


Gator
Title: Re: Scare tactic of the republican party (non-CH)
Post by JDH on Sep 12th, 2004, 12:47am

on 09/12/04 at 00:13:54, Gator wrote:
Assuming he's actually even alive (and even if he isn't), he's being hunted by troops from America and other countries.  If I had his money, I would challenge you to find me if I didn't want to be found.  Even without it.


Seems to me that 200 billion + we're spending to rebuild Iraq 'cause we blew the shit out of it would have went a long way towards finding him.



Quote:
Saddam Insane was a threat to stability in the Middle East and to all of mankind.  


Maybe the Middle East but all of mankind?
We can't police the world...and even if we could who are we to do it?


Quote:
He already proved he would use weapons of mass destruction against people.  He even did it on his own countrymen.


That's old news.
That was part of Dubya's argument to declare war. Again, who are we to police the world?


Quote:
There have been mines and artillery shells discovered in Iraq with enough poison gas to kill about a half a million people. (sounds like mass destruction to me)  Funny how before the war, every major intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had them and said so.  After booming stockpiles were not immediately found, George Bush is a liar for depending on that intelligence.

It has been recently admitted by the very people Saddam was trying to get nuclear materials from that he was indeed attempting to do so.  Too bad the liberal media hasn't seen fit to report this. 

It has also been proven that representatives from Al Quaeda met with Iraqi authorities.  There were also terrorist training camps in Iraq.


Where did you get that information?
Especially the part about Aal Quaeda meeting with Iraq authorities?



Quote:
You haven't been paying attention.  Bad boy.  It's not as much about who has the weapons as it is about who has shown the propensity for using them.  Saddam Insane is the only one of the above mentioned leaders that his done this.  Don't think that just because nobody is talking about it that no one is looking hard at both countries.


Considering that there are troop reductions in South Korea I don't think anyone is paying attention to North Korea and they are already a bigger threat than Saddam ever was.



Quote:
Had the previous administration been doing it's job, Osama & Company would be behind bars or dead.  Had Clinton & Company showed a little backbone we might not be having this discussion.  Sandy Burglar even went in and stole documents that show just how much Clinton & Company knew and when.


Blaming it on the previous administration is old news too. The Bush administration knew of the threat.



Quote:
Thinking about what the alternative might not do if he stays true to his long record of stripping this country of the ability to defend itself scares me worse.


I still don't understand why blowing up Iraq is considered defending America.


Quote:
Oh, and it's amazing how when a draft dodging, dope smoking, sleepermonger runs for president, military credentials don't mean anything.  When a two (or more) faced, war criminal, Audie Murphy wanna be runs, it's all about "who was there" and who wasn't.   If John Kerry is the best the Democrats can come up with, I'd be thinkning about a different party.


Gator


So vote for the AWOL, cokehead, drunken cowboy......your choice.
Just as long as you vote  ;)

Jim
Title: Re: Scare tactic of the republican party (non-CH)
Post by vig on Sep 12th, 2004, 12:56am
The reason they use this tactic is because they KNOW it will work.
Title: Re: Scare tactic of the republican party (non-CH)
Post by clarence on Sep 12th, 2004, 2:48am
Damn, do I really want to get into this...

IndianaJohn:


Quote:
I too, am sick and tired of dirty politics of the GOP.


What about the dirty politics of the DNC? Why are republicans the only ones who do dirty politics?  I read websites like moveon.org, and others and I get sick with the unsubstantiated accusations that they hurl at Bush and the republicans.  These are all soft money groups (527's) and yet somehow it is ok for them to spend over $60 million to fund ads attacking Bush, but the Swift Boat Vets get slammed for spending a few hundred thousand.  


Quote:
If dubya was serious about going after nations that posed a threat from WMD's, he would have gone after Iran or North Korea.


We just might go into North Korea after today.  Unconfirmed reports of a huge explosion and a mushroom cloud...could be nuclear tests:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040912/ap_on_re_as/nkorea_explosion&cid=516&ncid=716

JDH:


Quote:
and Iraq was never a threat to us.


This statement is dubious at best.


Quote:
Maybe the Middle East but all of mankind?  
We can't police the world...and even if we could who are we to do it?


No, we can't.  But isolationism is not a responsible option.  We tried the UN route, but they backed off of their own resolutions.


Quote:
Where did you get that information?  
Especially the part about Aal Quaeda meeting with Iraq authorities?


I believe that the 9/11 commission found links between Iraq and Al Quaeda, though not between Iraq and 9/11 specifically.


Quote:
Blaming it on the previous administration is old news too. The Bush administration knew of the threat.


It may be old news, but it is still true.  Clinton could have dealt with many of these issues. The Bush administration knew of the threat, but not of 9/11.  


Quote:
So vote for the AWOL, cokehead, drunken cowboy......your choice.
 

Name calling is so unappealing.

Jaime:


Quote:
Dubya wasn't actually elected the first time. He was appointed by the Supreme Court.  I'm doing everything I can to make sure he isn't elected this time.


The truth is that he was elected the first time.  He won the election, he gained the necessary electoral votes, the vote was certified...The Supreme Court put an end to Gore's attempt at a flawed recount in a flawed voting system.  Gore, all democrats, and you need to get over this.  I don't think that I have seen one study in the past four years that says they recounted all the votes and Gore would have won.  Even if there was, it doesn't matter.  George Bush was elected president by a majority of electoral votes.  Period.  I am glad that you are doing everything you can, though, to make your political voice be heard this election.


Quote:
I can tell you that if he stays president,  I think the American Experiment in Democracy is probably over,  and that I plan on becoming an ex-pat, if Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark or Brazil will have me.

The fact is that if he is elected again, democracy has functioned properly.  You can't say that democracy has failed if your candidate doesn't win.  That doesn't even make sense.
About moving to another country if Bush wins, dude, if that's the way you feel, its not that I don't like you or anyhting, but good riddance.  And please take Alec Baldwin, Kim Basinger, and all the others who have made this promise but never fulfilled it with you.[smiley=hurl.gif]

Casey
Title: Re: Scare tactic of the republican party (non-CH)
Post by clarence on Sep 12th, 2004, 3:42am

Quote:
If dubya was serious about going after nations that posed a threat from WMD's, he would have gone after Iran or North Korea.


Look who's getting tough on potential WMD in Iran: France and Germany...Britain is in on this too.  


Quote:
AP: Europeans to Set Nukes Deadline for Iran

Saturday, September 11, 2004

BERLIN — Europe's major powers have agreed to set a November deadline on Iran (search) to meet demands meant to resolve concerns that it is secretly trying to make nuclear weapons, in a confidential document made available Saturday to The Associated Press.

The draft resolution was prepared by France, Germany and Britain for Monday's start of a key meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (search), the U.N. nuclear watchdog. Tehran is trying build the nuclear bomb.

Up to now, the European countries have resisted U.S. attempts to have Iran hauled before the Security Council (search) or even hint on a date for such possible action.

Iran says its nuclear program is solely for energy production.

The draft says Iran must suspend all activities related to nuclear enrichment -- including manufacturing of centrifuges -- and must meet all requirements posed by the IAEA in its probe into Iran's nuclear activities before IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei reports to the board again in November.

On the basis of ElBaradei's report, the board will "probably" make a "definite determination on whether or not further steps are required," the draft said.

"This is a 'trigger' that can be pulled if the November board deems it necessary," said one diplomat.

While the last board meeting in June censured Iran for past cover-ups and warned it has little time left to disprove it has a nuclear weapons program, it didn't impose a deadline or even indirectly threaten sanctions.

But since then, Iran's earlier commitments to stop some uranium enrichment and related activities have eroded -- alienating the three European nations.

Enriched uranium can be used to generate electricity or make nuclear weapons. Iran last year agreed to freeze enrichment programs but has since resumed testing, assembling and making centrifuges, a key component of such activities. Last week, it confirmed an IAEA report that it planned to convert more than 40 tons of raw uranium into uranium hexafluoride, the gas put into centrifuges for enrichment.

Iran's original suspension pledge came in a deal with Britain, Germany and France but fell short of European demands that Tehran scrap enrichment.

Iran is not obliged to halt enrichment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, but Tehran has been under international pressure for more than a year to fully renounce enrichment to counterbalance suspicions generated by nearly two decades of clandestine nuclear activities that came to light only two years ago.

On Tuesday, it offered to re-impose a partial freeze on some of those activities, in an apparent move to deflect growing international exasperation ahead of Monday's meeting.

But diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the AP they had not heard of a concrete agreement with the IAEA on that issue by Saturday. The text of the draft had no reference to any commitment by Tehran to re-impose its enrichment freeze.

The draft has some positive language. It notes "the general positive ... Iranian cooperation" with the IAEA, while asserting that "the process of providing information needs, in certain instances, to be accelerated."

But it notes "with serious concern ... that Iran has not heeded repeated calls from the board to suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities."

It "deeply regrets" that Iran's partial freeze of enrichment and related programs falls "significantly short" of what the IAEA wants "and also that Iran has since reversed some of those decisions."

The draft expresses concern about Iran's plans to convert its raw uranium into hexafluoride. And it "urges Iran to immediately and verifiably to suspend all enrichment-related activities, notably the manufacture of centrifuge components, the assembly and testing of centrifuges, and the production of feed material."

It asks ElBaradei to present a comprehensive review of his two-year investigation into Iran's nuclear programs, a record of Tehran's cooperation and a judgment on Iran's willingness to fully suspend "all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities."


I don't think that anybody's forgetting about Iran.


Casey
Title: Re: Scare tactic of the republican party (non-CH)
Post by clarence on Sep 12th, 2004, 4:12am
Me again.

JDH, above you posted this:


Quote:
On Tuesday, Cheney told supporters in Iowa that there's a danger the United States will be attacked again "if we make the wrong choice" on Election Day.


Just wanted to say that here is what Cheney actually said, in context.  It seems to me that taken in context, the remarks take on a completely different conotation than how they have been characterized on this board and in the press:

from - http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040907-8.html


Quote:
We made decisions at the end of World War II, at the beginning of the Cold War, when we set up the Department of Defense, and the CIA, and we created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and undertook a bunch of major policy steps that then were in place for the next 40 years, that were key to our ultimate success in the Cold War, that were supported by Democrat and Republican alike -- Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower and Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon and Gerry Ford and a whole bunch of Presidents, from both parties, supported those policies over a long period of time. We're now at that point where we're making that kind of decision for the next 30 or 40 years, and it's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.

emphasis added

The point he is making is not that the election of Kerry will bring about an attack, but that in the event of an attack the wrong person as president (in his opinion Kerry) will make the wrong policy decisions.  His view is that Kerry will move backwards to a policy of attacking only when attacked, viewing terrorist attacks as events to be policed, while Bush would enforce a policy of actively pursuing terrorists before more attacks happen.

Disagree with the rhetoric if you want, that is fine.  But at least read what he actually said in the context in which he said it.  It interests me that most of the news media, and especially Kerry's campaign, was quick to pick this up as Cheney saying that an election of Kerry will bring another attack.  That's not what his comments seem to say at all.

Casey

<formatting>
Title: Re: Scare tactic of the republican party (non-CH)
Post by Charlie on Sep 12th, 2004, 7:16am
Oh my....


Quote:
Had the previous administration been doing it's job, Osama & Company would be behind bars or dead.
None of the countless Bush screwups is ever his mistake. Good thing Clinton is there or he would have to blame his Republican Congress. Whew....


Quote:
it's amazing how when a draft dodging, dope smoking, wh0remonger
I'm pretty sure a comparison of drug use between the two would show Bush as the major-leaguer. No one ever needed a blow job more than George Bush.


Quote:
What about the dirty politics of the DNC?


Petty stuff compared the the RNC's 310 hours a week of screeching radio morons.


Quote:
No, we can't. But isolationism is not a responsible option.


George Bush campaigned on isolationism. He made it a point during the 2000 campaign.


Quote:
I believe that the 9/11 commission found links between Iraq and Al Quaeda, though not between Iraq and 9/11 specifically.


Just the opposite. They found zero relationship.


Quote:
The truth is that he was elected the first time. He won the election,  


Gore won the popular vote by 500,000 votes. It isn't the first time such a horrible mistake has happened but this time the error has done an incredible amount of harm. Gore got out of the way quickly. Bush's brother (no one could have written a better horror story) and friends disenfranchised thousands over technicalities to assure the electoral tally would favor Bush. Just goes to show you how important Supreme Court appointments can be.


Quote:
Name calling is so unappealing.


You're killing me  :o


Quote:
Just wanted to say that here is what Cheney actually said, in context. It seems to me that taken in context, the remarks take on a completely different conotation than how they have been characterized on this board and in the press:


That's why Cheney retracted a lot of what he said. So far every Republican I've heard agrees that it was excessive.


Quote:
The point he is making is not that the election of Kerry will bring about an attack, but that in the event of an attack the wrong person as president (in his opinion Kerry) will make the wrong policy decisions.


Once again, I repeat that Bush and Cheney were the ones who failed to keep the terrorists out. It was Bush's call and Bush's mistake, not Democrats.

You might want to consider that weak kneed Democrats were in office at the start of WWI, WWII, Korea, and JFK and Johnson at the first Vietnam escalations.  No one is perfect but Democrats prosecuted the world wars very effectively. It was the GOP that fought FDR tooth and nail every time he tried to prepare us for a war that he knew was coming. The 1940 draft was passed by one vote.

The GOP has nothing on Democrats when it comes to defending the country.

Charlie
Title: Re: Scare tactic of the republican party (non-CH)
Post by clarence on Sep 12th, 2004, 8:40am

Quote:
Petty stuff compared the the RNC's 310 hours a week of screeching radio morons.[/quote[

You guys are so full of double standards.  Its ok for Dems, but not for republicans...I'm sorry, I don't get it.  I am not for dirty politics, but if you condemn one side, condemn both...


[quote]
George Bush campaigned on isolationism. He made it a point during the 2000 campaign.


I guess I don't remember this, can you refresh my memory?


Quote:
Just the opposite. They found zero relationship.


In an article from CNN:
The commission has said it has seen no evidence to suggest that then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's government was involved in the attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people.

In a report released last month, the commission concluded that though there were numerous contacts in the 1990s between Iraq and al Qaeda, those contacts did not result in a "collaborative relationship."

I think that is exactly what I said above, and more than zero.

Also see the 9/11 commission's report:
Rice’s chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad,concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda.The memo found no “compelling case”that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports,including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event.Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak,the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein’s regime.Finally,the memo said,there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons. p. 334.

Again, relationship, but not to the 9/11 attack.


Quote:
Gore won the popular vote by 500,000 votes. It isn't the first time such a horrible mistake has happened but this time the error has done an incredible amount of harm. Gore got out of the way quickly. Bush's brother (no one could have written a better horror story) and friends disenfranchised thousands over technicalities to assure the electoral tally would favor Bush. Just goes to show you how important Supreme Court appointments can be.


There is a thing in the US called the "Electoral College."  It is election law.  The president is not decided by the popular vote of the nation, and I don't believe ever has been.  If you do not like this law the solution is to work to change the law, not the election results of the 4 year ago election.  Bush won by law, simple as that.


Quote:
That's why Cheney retracted a lot of what he said. So far every Republican I've heard agrees that it was excessive.


I don't think Cheney has retracted any of it, though he did clarify.  From an AP report:

In an interview published Friday in the Cincinnati Enquirer, explaining that he wanted to "clean up" the controversy he sparked this week, Cheney said the country must brace for a potential terrorist attack no matter who is elected president.

On Tuesday, while campaigning in Iowa, Cheney said: "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."

Electing Democratic candidate John Kerry does not mean the United States will be hit again, Cheney told the Enquirer.

"I did not say if Kerry is elected, we will be hit by a terrorist attack," he said. "Whoever is elected president has to anticipate more attacks. My point was the question before us is: Will we have the most effective policy in place to deal with that threat? George Bush will pursue a more effective policy than John Kerry."

The quote is above in my previous post, you decide for yourself.  It seems very clear to me.  And, although the White House declined to agree with the statement, possibly because it has been completely removed from its context, I haven't read anybody besides the Kerry-Edwards camp call it excessive.  Gore called it blackmail, Edwards called it un-American.  But it was taken out of context.  What republican has called it excessive?  


Quote:
You might want to consider that weak kneed Democrats were in office at the start of WWI, WWII, Korea, and JFK and Johnson at the first Vietnam escalations.  No one is perfect but Democrats prosecuted the world wars very effectively. It was the GOP that fought FDR tooth and nail every time he tried to prepare us for a war that he knew was coming. The 1940 draft was passed by one vote.
The GOP has nothing on Democrats when it comes to defending the country.


I never said that the democrats were weak kneed or that they were soft in times of war.  However, I do think that Bush's policies of proactivness might have something to them.

This is kinda fun,
Casey
Title: Re: Scare tactic of the republican party (non-CH)
Post by Tom K on Sep 12th, 2004, 9:07am

on 09/11/04 at 23:15:40, Jaime wrote:
that I plan on becoming an ex-pat, if Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark or Brazil will have me.  Those are my choices, in order.
 You lose your right to complain about it.
... except perhaps for Oprah Winfrey.


This pretty much sums it all up.  I really didn't want to go there, but the door has been opened.  Go.  Leave.  Don't let the door hit you on the way out.  It doesn't bother me one bit.  

You vote so you can complain?  Or if you don't vote you have no rights?  I don't get it.

Okra Windbag, there is someone who is in touch with reality.  When she sat on jury here in the People's Republic of Chicago, she said that, "I didn't realize that this(murder) was such a big problem."  When was the last time you read a newspaper or saw a TV, Okra?  

I've had family in every major war in the country since the Civil War.  I would have been in the Corps, but got bounced for CH.  These people have fought for your freedom to leave, bitch, look to Okra as a God.  Do me a favor, on your way out, a simple Thank You to a Vet would be appreciated.
Title: Re: Scare tactic of the republican party (non-CH)
Post by catlind on Sep 12th, 2004, 9:20am
Where is Osama?  Let me ask you this.  How long did it take to find Elizabeth Smart?  That was just one child, being hidden by only ONE man, in ONE mountain range.  How long did it take?

When you ask where is Osama, whether you intend it or not, your inference is that Bush is not doing his job - and our military is not doing their job.  On the contrary, the feet on the ground, are constantly out on missions to find Bin Laden and his Al Queda operatives.  The mountains in Afghanistan are unforgiving, they are littered with cave complex's that are a nightmare to get through.  Bush gave the order to find him, now the men and women in the service are doing their best to carry out that order.  Do you know that for Operation Anaconda, the convoy to get the troops to Shah E Kot was done in warm weather, and when they reached their final destination it was well below freezing and they were above the snow line?  That makes logistics very difficult.  You can't shoot at anything that moves because there's local tribes that live in those mountains - our men and women don't know if it's a tribesman or Taliban.  Would you want to go searching for that toothpick in those circumstances?  

Please do not slam our service members for doing their job the best they can, Bush is not the one looking for Osama, your brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, friends and neighbours are, and they are doing a damn fine job.

As you were...
[smiley=twocents.gif] from a military spouse whose hubby was there.

Cat
Title: Re: Scare tactic of the republican party (non-CH)
Post by don on Sep 12th, 2004, 10:09am
Osama is scheduled to be captured approximately 2 weeks before the election.

At that time our forces will be given the "correct" information on his whereabouts.


Clusterheadaches.com Message Board » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1!
YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved.