0
   

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 06:02 am
blatham wrote:
This 'larger war on terror' is, of course, merely a subset of the 'even larger war on evil'. Which points out the problems that accrue when you go to war with a word.

I usually disagree with blatham, but this is an exception. Nobody would have forgiven Johnson if he had actually invaded a country as part of his "war on poverty". I would be majorly alarmed if America started attacking Mexico as part of its "war on drugs". The "war on terror" is no different in this regard. War doesn't work against terror, any more than it works against, drugs, poverty, and illiteracy -- to name just a few things that recent US presidents have declared war on.

Bad metaphors make bad politics.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 03:22 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Bushs-Hardball.html

Quote:
Newsview: Cross Bush, Face Payback
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: March 27, 2004


Filed at 2:02 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush is playing supercharged hardball in going after his own former anti-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke. It's a risky strategy that shows the single-mindedness of Bush and his re-election team in trying to deflect politically damaging criticism.

Loyalty is a hallmark of Bush's administration, with the president and his top lieutenants quick to turn on those who stray from the fold.

A week after a broadside that questioned Democratic rival John Kerry's commitment to U.S. troops and fitness to be president -- standard operating procedure for the general election campaign -- Bush's re-election machine unleashed a shock and awe campaign designed to discredit Clarke.

Bush's leadership after the Sept. 11 attacks is the guiding theme of his re-election campaign, intended to suggest the nation is safer with him as president. Clarke's claim that Bush ignored the threat from Osama bin Laden and waged a pointless war against Iraq's Saddam Hussein directly challenges that argument.

In his book ``Against All Enemies,'' Clarke predicted retribution from a White House ``adept at revenge.''

But Bush and his chief political adviser, Karl Rove, are essentially following the same game plan that the late Lee Atwater -- an early political mentor of Rove's -- used to get the first President Bush elected in 1988: define and undercut an opponent early with a fusillade of negative attacks.

``This team is tough. You cross them and they go after you and raise questions about you and your credibility rather than what you have to say,'' said Thomas Mann, a scholar with the Brookings Institution.

Others who have fallen out of favor over Iraq include former economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni and former Army chief of staff Gen. Eric Shinseki. All voiced concerns about either the expense or number of troops needed to occupy Iraq. All were treated dismissively by the White House. All are gone, but their estimates proved accurate.

Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV drew the administration's wrath by suggesting Bush exaggerated Saddam's nuclear capabilities. A federal grand jury is investigating whether a White House official illegally disclosed that Wilson's wife was a CIA officer to get back at him.

On the domestic front, Paul O'Neill was fired as Treasury secretary in December 2002 after publicly questioning the need for additional Bush tax cuts -- another core campaign issue for Bush.

Administration officials now are waging a behind-the-scenes campaign to discredit Richard Foster, a Medicare accountant who publicly said he was forbidden by his superiors from sharing with Congress a higher -- and more accurate -- cost estimate for the administration's Medicare program.

John DiIulio quit as director of Bush's office of faith-based initiatives in 2002, telling Esquire magazine that ``Mayberry Machiavellis'' led by Rove were basing policy only on re-election concerns. He later apologized for making what he said were rude remarks.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., stood on the Senate floor last week to urge Bush to stop the ``character attacks'' on Clarke, saying they recalled scorched-earth tactics that Bush and his allies used to defeat Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona in the GOP presidential primary in 2000, and Democratic Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia in the 2002 midterm elections.

The risk for Bush in aggressively challenging a former member of his own administration is that it could backfire. Clarke's book instantly became a best seller, and the White House counterattack is helping to give the allegations even wider circulation.

But administration defenders said it was important to rebut the charges quickly to ensure that they wouldn't linger unanswered.

``I think the American people do not believe that the president of the United States is pursuing a folly in the war on terror,'' and it is important to drive that home, said Bush National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Not every White House attempt at damage-control works. Last summer, White House officials tried to pin the blame on CIA Director George Tenet for not waving Bush off his State of the Union claim that Saddam was seeking uranium in Africa for nuclear weapons.

Political analysts rushed to proclaim Tenet a goner, but those obituaries proved premature. CIA memos suddenly surfaced showing that Rice and her top advisers had, in fact, been given just such a warning by the CIA -- months before Bush's speech.

Tenet, a politically wily Clinton administration holdover, remains on the job.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 11:45 am
From the above article posted by BillW:
Quote:
But Bush and his chief political adviser, Karl Rove, are essentially following the same game plan that the late Lee Atwater -- an early political mentor of Rove's -- used to get the first President Bush elected in 1988: define and undercut an opponent early with a fusillade of negative attacks.


Here's a little something sent to me by a friend from a blog thread he participates in:


Quote:
Quote:
"My opponent clearly has strong beliefs -- they just don't last very long."
--- George W. Bush, remarks at Fundraising Lunch on March 8, 2004

Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it. * Bush is
against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it. * Bush is
against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it. * Bush is against an Iraq
WMD investigation; then he's for it. * Bush is against nation building;
then he's for it. * Bush is against deficits; then he's for them. * Bush
is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against
them again. * Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli
Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian
State. * Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is
for changing the constitution. * Bush first says he'll provide money for
first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't. * Bush
first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts
benefits * Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin
Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't
care. * Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly
starts drilling on Padre Island. * Bush talks about helping education
and increases mandates while cutting funding. * Bush first says the U.S.
won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will * Bush goes to Bob Jones
University. Then say's he shouldn't have. * Bush said he would demand a
U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action
against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote * Bush
said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush
later admits it was his advance team. * Bush was for fingerprinting and
photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush, after meeting with Pres. Fox, says he's against it.


Good point, I think. I wonder why the Dems don't use this strategy against Bush. I know they're trying to run a positive campaign, and I think this is wise............we need to hear who Kerry is, rather than what Bush is not. However, negative campaigning from Bush calls for a few answers as well. Oh well, glad I'm not in charge. I'd be frantic by now.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 11:55 am
Quote:
``I think the American people do not believe that the president of the United States is pursuing a folly in the war on terror,'' and it is important to drive that home, said Bush National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.


I think Rice and Co protest too much. I wonder why they didn't just say, "oh bother, it's not true" and be done with it. By over reacting, they do indeed look guilty, as I believe they are. Funny how lies can be revealed by denial of them.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 12:14 pm
Lola wrote:
Quote:
``I think the American people do not believe that the president of the United States is pursuing a folly in the war on terror,'' and it is important to drive that home, said Bush National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.


I think Rice and Co protest too much. I wonder why they didn't just say, "oh bother, it's not true" and be done with it. By over reacting, they do indeed look guilty, as I believe they are. Funny how lies can be revealed by denial of them.

True. But note that at least in this sentence, Rice isn't denying that the United States is pursuing a folly in the war on terror. She only says Americans don't believe it, and that this is important -- both of which is true. Wink
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 04:01 pm
Good point Thomas, and another illogical tactic of the Bushites - pure obfuscation, their favorite tactic....
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 07:19 pm
This is pretty funny.

Be sure and wear something brown on Thursday.

From Democracy Means You:

Quote:
National "I'm Embarrassed by My President" Day, April 1st, 2004

Wear a Brown Ribbon to protest the BS
(No, this is not an April Fool's day joke...)
Gathering in D.C. at 4:30 on April 1st
At the corner of 15th and Eye Street to protest in front of the White House

Are you embarrassed by the arrogance, greed, shortsightedness, selfishness, and outright lies told by George W. Bush and his administration?

Join tens of thousands of others across the country and world and wear a brown armband or ribbon to symbolize all the BS coming out of the White House.

It's not just that I disagree with the current administration. I'm outraged. And I'm downright embarrassed to talk to anyone from another country. I'm embarrassed to have a President so arrogant, so dishonest, so hawkish, that in three years he has nearly destroyed any good relations we had before he took office, and worsened those that were already bad.

I find myself apologizing to my friends both in this country and abroad while trying vainly to explain the sheer idiocy and illogic of the current administration's policies.

So this April 1st, April Fools day, join tens of thousands of others who are wearing brown armbands or ribbons to signify the bullshit flowing down from Washington.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2004 07:46 am
I continue to believe John Kerry is the lesser evil in the upcoming election, but he sure is evil.

Recently, John Kerry's speech writer wrote:
I'll use real diplomacy to do what George Bush hasn't - pressure OPEC to start providing more oil," Kerry told a rally in San Diego. "We'll stop diverting oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve until gas prices get back to normal. We'll simplify the patchwork of rules on gas all over this country so that we can reduce costs and make fuel supplies while keeping our air clean.

Source: CBS Marketwatch

1) A liberal shouldn't be in the business of telling Third World nations that rich American consumers expect rebates on their exports.

2) America shouldn't be in the business of pushing other countries around. If I wanted that, I'd be supporting George Bush.

3) The federal government shouldn't be in the business of telling the states how to regulate gasoline. If there was a compelling case for tighter standardisation, states could easily adopt each other's standards, or negotiate new ones.

4) Instead, Kerry should point out that Americans already pay gas prices which are ridiculously low compared to those in the other advanced countries. He should ask Americans to stop being such crybabies, and to stop whining about gas prices.

With alternatives like these, what's the point in voting?

Okay, rant's over.

[Edit: remove two embarrassing grammatical errors]
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2004 08:08 am
Quote:
With alternatives like these, what's the point in voting?


Well, thomas, as much as I respect your knowledge of economics, I'd contend that there are rather a lot of very good reasons aside from that particular sphere of policy which differentiate the Bush administration and what a Kerry administration is likely to look like.

John Dean, former White House counsel under Nixon, expresses some notions in the attached link which I think are not in the least bit incredible, and clear cause for alarm... http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/31/dean/index.html
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2004 08:23 am
Blatham -- I know. That's why "I continue to believe John Kerry is the lesser evil in the upcoming election", as I said in my first sentence.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2004 08:28 am
Well, it was a long post, and you ought not to expect a reader to remember sentence one when he gets to the end of sentence eight.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2004 08:47 am
Fair point, Blatham. No problem.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2004 09:21 am
Thankyou. I do find I get on in life very well with people who have low standards. Particularly true for me in dating.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2004 10:31 am
Low expectations. That's the key to happiness. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2004 10:33 am
Laughing
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2004 10:39 am
I expected that.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2004 11:45 am
Blatham - I read the teaser for the Dean piece you linked. (No time for the full shebang right now.) I was curious about this statement of Dean's:
Dean wrote:
To say that the [Bush-Cheney] secret presidency is undemocratic is an understatement,...

I'm having a hard time getting my head around the concept of what would constitute a "democratic presidency" (outside the notion of being democratically elected, of course), so the idea of a presidency being undemocratic is lost on me. Or is it this thing that Dean is calling a "secret presidency" that he feels is--perhaps due to its secret nature--undemocratic.

Not sure whether you can shed some light on this for me. Likely I just need to read the whole article.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2004 12:31 pm
I read it Scrat ... didn't clear things up much for me. Probably a problem with my own point of view ... Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2004 12:40 pm
Dys the accurate expector. Laughing
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2004 12:50 pm
The Leggy One wrote:
Dys the accurate expector. Laughing



Ahhhh ... yup. Seems like. Got a chuckle outta me, anyways.

<expectorates>

Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/18/2025 at 07:11:10