"the economy" is and will continue to be an issue especially when it concerns jobs, and stats will not turn the tide because its the perception of the voters about their own jobs that has greater meaning. as far as Iraq goes, that issue remains up in the air with some of the Bush team asking for more boots on the ground and some wanting to decrease boots on the ground prior to electioneering time. So the question will be does Bush want more boots on the ground to help with Iraq security issues or does he want fewer boots on the ground to help with re-election issues. time will tell.
Time will tell, Dys, that's for sure. I know its not agreeable to some, but none the less, I doubt very seriously that The Current Administration would subordinate the effectiveness of the war effort to domestic political concerns. I do, however, see a gradually decreasing US military occupation presence over the next few month, due to increased Iraqi capabilities in the matter of their own security. Indeterminate is the question of resolving the matter of the person of Saddam himself. I have my doubts there; he may never be found, he could be found later this evening. An undeniably dead or captured Saddam would be an immense boost to Bush the Younger, and a quieting factor in Iraq, but it is a very much less sure thing, IMO, than growing stability in Iraq, and really is more of a nicety than a necessity.
Ditto Osama, too.
Saddam
Quote:I doubt very seriously that The Current Administration would subordinate the effectiveness of the war effort to domestic political concerns.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
If Saddam is found he will most likely be assasinated. Hmmm...why would that be the case?
If he is assasinated that will only increase Iraqi resistence because the Iraqies will then feel more secure in opposing the West.
Stupid Clark remark
Quote:" ... all Americans, even if they're from the South and 'stupid,' should be represented."
Democratic Presidential Candidate Hopeful Wesley Clark, Nov 6, 2003
I won't say a thing. I don't see much need to.
Oh, what the hell. I suppose now he'll apologize to all Southerners who are not stupid.
Lightwizard wrote:Where did I say Bush said the war was "over?" Get over yourself.
You were whining about an inexact quotation of a Gore statement being used to gore Gore, I was just pointing out that you liberals are doing the same thing only worse everyday.
I'm sure the Southern vote is now safely in the Dem column...
PAH!
Just to fire an opening salvo in tearing Gore's speech apart, I am aware of NO instance wherein our country, the President, or anyone involved in the Iraq war claim that we were "invading Iraq" to "get at Osama Bin Laden".
Of course, Gore chooses his loaded words well when penning these little fictions, but they really only appeal to those too ignorant or indoctrinated to reason around them.
Gore lies, and liberals lap it up.
Gore never said that the US president said that. Does that mean you are lying too?
AP via Yahoo
Quote:Kerry May Decide to Reject Public Funds
WASHINGTON - Look for a decision this week from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) on whether he will reject public campaign financing now that rival Howard Dean (news - web sites) has decided to turn aside taxpayer money and the spending limits that come with it.
"We're going to make our decision over the course of the next day or so," Kerry told CBS' "Face the Nation."
Dean is certainly in the driver's seat. I doubt Kerry will be able to shove him out the door. The rest are just along for the ride, now.
General Clark's thoughts regarding Israeli/Palestinian situation
U.S. can't walk away from its role
By Wesley Clark
As a cadet at West Point, I learned that a state
cannot survive for long unless it alone controls
the use of force. The story that most vividly
illustrates this point started back in 1948. It is
the story of the State of Israel.
In June of that year, a ship
named the Altalena dropped
anchor off the coast of Tel
Aviv. The vessel was loaded
with weapons, ammunition and
volunteers for a paramilitary
movement. David Ben-Gurion,
the head of Israel's new
government, knew the
just-declared cease-fire in
the War of Independence would be wrecked if the
Altalena was allowed to off-load. They had no
choice but to order their defense forces to
sink the ship. It fell to a young colonel to
carry out those orders. That officer was
Yitzhak Rabin.
By scuttling the Altalena, Rabin took a giant
step toward statehood for the Jewish people. In
1993, he took another step forward by signing
the Oslo Accords. Ever since Rabin shook hands
with Yasser Arafat, the world has been waiting
for the Palestinian authorities to take a
similar step by disarming their own militants.
That moment has yet to come. It will take bold
leadership from the Palestinians and Israelis,
and a staunch commitment from the United
States.
Unfortunately, the Palestinians have yet to find
their Rabin. But I still believe Israel will
one day thrive side by side with a Palestinian
state. Until that day, the Israeli government
has a duty to defend its people from the
constant onslaught of bombers who attack
innocent civilians.
I firmly believe this is the least that any
society expects of its leadership. We should
never question Israel's right to self-defense.
Indeed, we must continue to provide Israel with
the resources - both financial and diplomatic -
to aid its search for peace.
Currently, Israel is building a security fence -
not because it wants to, but because terrorism
has forced its hand. The fence is not a barrier
to the peace process. No country can negotiate
if the other side believes it has no
alternatives. The fence will help contain the
terrorist onslaught. It will warn other parties
in the Middle East that they need to start
negotiating - now. But it is not a sustainable
substitute for peace. A strong, democratic
Israel is the key to the future of the Middle
East.
For 50 years, Israelis stood side by side with
Americans in fighting against communism and
terrorism. We forged a unique relationship
based on common interests and a common
dedication to the principles of democracy. In
the aftermath of September 11, and with
Israelis facing a fresh campaign of suicide
bombings, this relationship is more firmly
founded then ever before.
Every president since Harry Truman has kept
America's commitment to the security of Israel.
At Camp David, President Bill Clinton helped
the parties come close to peace, but Arafat
balked and chose violence. Upon assuming
office, the Bush administration decided to
disengage. That strategy didn't work. So, under
pressure from some allies, the administration
reversed course and sent powerful emissaries to
the region. Sadly, this positive step was too
little too late.
Leading a real peace process is a responsibility
the United States cannot walk away from - and
it is a responsibility that starts in the White
House. Negotiations must proceed along a
multifaceted track. The Israeli government
should not be forced to make further
territorial concessions until the Palestinian
Authority acts decisively to dismantle
terrorism. But to get negotiations back on
track, the next administration must make peace
for Israel one of its top priorities.
Other states must do their part, too. Currently,
Palestinian militants are aided and Palestinian
civilians are used by regional powers that
stoke the violence to vent their own domestic
tensions. That has to stop, and we have to stop
it. Road maps to peace cannot be successful
when others impose roadblocks. We must use
every available tool to ensure that the
governments of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt,
Lebanon and others are facilitating rather than
obstructing the peace process.
We cannot wage an effective war against
terrorism while permitting Iran to subsidize
suicide bombers. The world cannot unite against
al-Qaida while condoning Hamas and Hezbollah.
If peace has a future, we must stop the
teaching of hatred to future generations. We
must use economic, diplomatic and other tools
to ensure that curricula, textbooks and state
media do not incite bigotry and violence. The
terrorist infrastructure must be dismantled.
States that sponsor and fund terrorism must be
isolated and condemned.
Ending conflict in the Middle East also entails
fostering a real peace between Israel and its
22 Arab neighbors. That means full diplomatic
relations, cultural exchanges, trade, tourism
and, above all, recognition of Israel's right
to exist as an independent Jewish state. This
is the kind of permanent peace that must be the
end product of the negotiating process.
If you had asked someone 10 years ago whether
Muslims and Serbs and Croats could live in
peace and relative stability in Bosnia, they
would have said, "That's impossible." But when
I was helping negotiate the Dayton Peace
Accords, I learned that when the U.S.
government really throws its weight behind a
peace process, impossible things become
possible.
Craven de Kere wrote:Gore never said that the US president said that. Does that mean you are lying too?
ROFLMAO! What happened to you Craven????
I never
said that Gore said that the President said that, so does that mean that
YOU are lying, Craven?
(This is fun, but it will probably get old pretty quickly.)
Well Scrat, Gore never claimed Bush said that and you claimed he lied, so while I agree that this is a silly game that can go on forever I'll note that it's a game of your initiation and that the futility of it was something I had intended to point out.
Oh, I don't think Scrat initiated it ... its been going on a while. You two just started playing it yourselves. You've got plenty of company out there on that field. :wink:
YEs, Scrat didn't initiate the accusations of lying. But he did try to assert some convoluted logic as a proposed criteria for accusations of lying. The criteria seems to have been intended only for accusations leveled against Bush as he has made no effort to dignify his proposed criteria with any consideration.
Scrat initiated the irony herein by calling someone a liar based on the very thing he was doing at the very moment.
Recap:
Gore implies that the war in Iraq was used as a diversion from catching Osama.
Scrat accuses Gore of lying because Bush never said the war in Iraq was about catching Osama.
Fair enough, but since Gore never claimed Bush said that Scrat is doing the very thing that he is accusing Gore of.
Great! I'm sure all the Democratic Candidate wannabees are relieved we resolved that. Well, gotta go do some realworld stuff. Catch you folks later.
Just for the record Gore's rhetorical trick is something I disagree with. It's a nice sounding ploy but invading Iraq was an idea that had been circulating before Osama became a household name.
But it's a politically sound ploy, and truth has nothing to do with politically sound. In effect it is indeed misleading. But Scrat's post was just a lil' too ironic to pass up.
There's quite an interesting article about Claark in the latest New Yorker - well, at least for extraterr ... ehem ... for readers from outside of the USA :wink:
GENERAL CLARK'S BATTLES
Look forward to that one ET I mean Walter! Did you see the article on Clark in the New York Review of Books (online, and previously mentioned here)?
Yes, since you mention it, Tartarin, I saw it.
You've probably also had some interesting things to say about Clark -- which I've missed. Any thoughts?
