0
   

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

 
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 11:56 am
nefarious actions, at best :sad:
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 03:02 pm
This is an amoral crowd. Just ask John McCain.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 03:38 pm
If we replace Bush, does that mean Ashcroft goes out the door at the same time?
******************************************
Travesty of Justice
June 15, 2004
By PAUL KRUGMAN

No question: John Ashcroft is the worst attorney general in
history.

For this column, let's just focus on Mr. Ashcroft's role in
the fight against terror. Before 9/11 he was aggressively
uninterested in the terrorist threat. He didn't even
mention counterterrorism in a May 2001 memo outlining
strategic priorities for the Justice Department. When the
9/11 commission asked him why, he responded by blaming the
Clinton administration, with a personal attack on one of
the commission members thrown in for good measure.

We can't tell directly whether Mr. Ashcroft's post-9/11
policies are protecting the United States from terrorist
attacks. But a number of pieces of evidence suggest
otherwise.

First, there's the absence of any major successful
prosecutions. The one set of convictions that seemed fairly
significant - that of the "Detroit 3" - appears to be
collapsing over accusations of prosecutorial misconduct.
(The lead prosecutor has filed a whistle-blower suit
against Mr. Ashcroft, accusing him of botching the case.
The Justice Department, in turn, has opened investigations
against the prosecutor. Payback? I report; you decide.)

Then there is the lack of any major captures. Somewhere,
the anthrax terrorist is laughing. But the Justice
Department, you'll be happy to know, is trying to determine
whether it can file bioterrorism charges against a Buffalo
art professor whose work includes harmless bacteria in
petri dishes.

Perhaps most telling is the way Mr. Ashcroft responds to
criticism of his performance. His first move is always to
withhold the evidence. Then he tries to change the subject
by making a dramatic announcement of a terrorist threat.

For an example of how Mr. Ashcroft shuts down public
examination, consider the case of Sibel Edmonds, a former
F.B.I. translator who says that the agency's language
division is riddled with incompetence and corruption, and
that the bureau missed critical terrorist warnings. In 2002
she gave closed-door Congressional testimony; Senator
Charles Grassley described her as "very credible . . .
because people within the F.B.I. have corroborated a lot of
her story."

But the Justice Department has invoked the rarely used
"state secrets privilege" to prevent Ms. Edmonds from
providing evidence. And last month the department
retroactively classified two-year-old testimony by F.B.I.
officials, which was presumably what Mr. Grassley referred
to.

For an example of changing the subject, consider the
origins of the Jose Padilla case. There was no publicity
when Mr. Padilla was arrested in May 2002. But on June 6,
2002, Coleen Rowley gave devastating Congressional
testimony about failures at the F.B.I. (which reports to
Mr. Ashcroft) before 9/11. Four days later, Mr. Ashcroft
held a dramatic press conference and announced that Mr.
Padilla was involved in a terrifying plot. Instead of
featuring Ms. Rowley, news magazine covers ended up
featuring the "dirty bomber" who Mr. Ashcroft said was
plotting to kill thousands with deadly radiation.

Since then Mr. Padilla has been held as an "enemy
combatant" with no legal rights. But Newsweek reports that
"administration officials now concede that the principal
claim they have been making about Padilla ever since his
detention - that he was dispatched to the United States for
the specific purpose of setting off a radiological `dirty
bomb' - has turned out to be wrong and most likely can
never be used in court."

But most important is the memo. Last week Mr. Ashcroft,
apparently in contempt of Congress, refused to release a
memo on torture his department prepared for the White House
almost two years ago. Fortunately, his stonewalling didn't
work: The Washington Post has acquired a copy of the memo
and put it on its Web site.

Much of the memo is concerned with defining torture down:
if the pain inflicted on a prisoner is less than the pain
that accompanies "serious physical injury, such as organ
failure," it's not torture. Anyway, the memo declares that
the federal law against torture doesn't apply to
interrogations of enemy combatants "pursuant to [the
president's] commander-in-chief authority." In other words,
the president is above the law.

The memo came out late Sunday. Mr. Ashcroft called a press
conference yesterday - to announce an indictment against a
man accused of plotting to blow up a shopping mall in Ohio.
The timing was, I'm sure, purely coincidental.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/15/opinion/15KRUG.html?ex=1088302553&ei=1&en=5ef7befc9c31edaa

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2004 09:15 am
Interesting story, North is at it again:

Quote:


http://globalresearch.ca/articles/STA406A.html for more.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2004 09:41 am
The Kerry campaign has just announced that it has raised $100 million in the last three months, including $26 million in May. From the press release:

Quote:
Shattering all grassroots fundraising records, 75 percent of the funds Kerry has raised since Super Tuesday have been from grassroots fundraising - online $44 million, direct mail and phones $31 million. The average grassroots contribution at johnkerry.com was $108, the average via direct mail and phones was about $70.

For the third straight month, Kerry out-raised Bush. May's Kerry Campaign total was more than double the Bush-Cheney campaign's May total of $13 million. Kerry beat Bush's total by $15 million in April ($31 million to $16 million) and by over $17 million in March, when the Kerry campaign raised $43.4 million. The Kerry Campaign has receipts for well over $140 million for the presidential primary cycle, breaking Bush's 2000 record for a non-incumbent, according to the FEC report Kerry will file on June 20th.


To emphasize, Bush's May take was $13 million, Kerry's was $26 million.

Now we need to see the cash on-hand numbers. It'll be interesting to see how much more money Bush has misspent in his futile and expensive ($100 million and climbing) attempt to raise Kerry's negatives.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2004 09:46 am
Most of which seems to be based on lies. I wonder if Bush supporters are aware of these lies, and if so, how can they continue to support him?
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2004 03:02 pm
The plot thickens:

Quote:
Prison Officer Says He Felt Heat

WASHINGTON, June 18, 2004
(CBS/AP) An Army intelligence officer claims the abuses at Abu Ghraib took place after interrogators came under pressure from Bush administration officials.

In a sworn statement to Army investigators obtained by USA Today, Army Lt. Col. Steven Jordan, the top military intelligence officer at Abu Ghraib when abuses occurred, said he was under intense pressure from the White House, Pentagon and CIA last fall to get better information from detainees.

He also said he had worked out a procedure with CIA interrogators to hide five or six inmates from Red Cross inspectors in October, the newspaper reported in Friday editions.

Jordan's statement said he was reminded of the need to improve intelligence "many, many, many times" and the pressure included a visit to the prison by an aide to White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, the paper reported.

To rebut Jordan's account, the White House arranged an interview with White House homeland security adviser Fran Townsend before, but in anticipation of, the newspaper's publication.

Townsend, who last fall was Rice's deputy for combating terrorism, told The Associated Press she visited Abu Ghraib and even walked through a cellblock but "we never discussed interrogation. We never discussed interrogation techniques. That wasn't the focus."

"I did not go there to pressure them to do anything they weren't doing," Townsend added. "I really wanted to understand how they were taking the information they had and what they were doing with it so that I could ^=… think through how we could make that dissemination of information most effective."
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 06:16 am
These guys must be gotten rid of.

Quote:
WASHINGTON, June 20 - The Bush administration, which cut off its share of financing two years ago to the United Nations agency handling population control, is seeking to isolate the agency from groups that work with it in China and elsewhere, United Nations officials and diplomats say.

Pressed by opponents of abortion, the administration withdrew its support from a major international conference on health issues this month and has privately warned other groups, like Unicef, that address health issues that their financing could be jeopardized if they insist on working with the agency, the United Nations Population Fund.

The administration also has indicated that it hopes to persuade the United Nations' Latin American caucus to back away from a common position on population and development that was adopted in Santiago, Chile, in March on the grounds that the document's discussion of reproductive rights could be interpreted as promoting abortion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/21/politics/21popu.html
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 02:34 pm
I've always enjoyed the phrase 'cognitive dissonance'.

It's quite often used to refer to the feeling one gets right after they have bought a new car, and essentially goes like this:

"Oh my God, is this right?" Also known as: "Did I make the wrong choice?"

But cognitive dissonance is actually a much more complex state of mind, and to apply its definition only to pre-purchase or post-purchase anxiety does not do the application of understanding the psychology a favor.

Consider the more clinical definitions:

Quote:
The realization of contradictions in one's own attitudes and behaviors.


Quote:
The anxiety that occurs when there is a discrepancy between a person's knowledge and beliefs.


Quote:
An unpleasant emotional state that is felt when there is a logical inconsistency among cognitive elements.


Quote:
The cognitive process whereby an individual's values and beliefs are challenged. The challenging process is necessary in moral reasoning to wrestle with moral dilemmas.


So the experience of cognitive dissonance occurs anytime there is a contradiction between one's knowledge, usually newly acquired, and one's belief system, rationalizations and justifications.

I bring all of this up because it has become obvious to me that there are scores of thousands of Republicans experiencing cognitive dissonance associated with voting for George W. Bush in November.

Those of us with open minds and who have been paying attention know that Bush has, shall we kindly say, been less than forthright about a great many of his assertions, and not just the ones regarding Iraq and the war.

We know Cheney is full of it.

So why the dissonance, exactly? Why do so many Republicans simply refuse to be enlightened?

Here's a handy explanation from a social psychologist writing in Newsday:

Quote:
...With a middle ground made less likely, it forces us as the recipients of both positions to make a choice. In a rational world, people can make an assessment about the motives of a member of the administration in a re-election year versus a bipartisan commission that is not involved in the election. In a rational world, the credibility of the commission on this point would be virtually unassailable.

As we know, though, people are not always rational. The need to reduce our dissonance is one of the forces that compromise our rationality. People who identify with Bush and Cheney for any number of reasons will have difficulty resolving dissonance by dismissing their position.


Maybe this could explain the Harris poll numbers:

Quote:
Many Americans believe al-Qaeda may have worked alongside the regime of Saddam Hussein, according to a poll by Harris Interactive. 69 per cent of respondents believe the deposed Iraqi leader supported the terrorist network, while 22 per cent disagree.


In the end, those that can't take the dissonance will tune out the facts -- or they will stop voting for the Republicans.

Bush's -- and Cheney's and Rice's and all of the rest of the prevaricators' -- behavior puts the latter option in play. Cool
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 02:48 pm
Quote:
"Many Americans believe al-Qaeda may have worked alongside the regime of Saddam Hussein, according to a poll by Harris Interactive. 69 per cent of respondents believe the deposed Iraqi leader supported the terrorist network, while 22 per cent disagree."

That's the reason why I've continued to make the differentiation between "relationship" and "contact." Bush keeps saying "relationship" for obvious reasons, and it's working.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 03:11 pm
Just like, he abhors torture but will not disavow the use...........
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 03:22 pm
Bill, There's a slight difference; he says we follow US laws. US laws happens to be whatever his legal-begals tell him it is. Never mind human rights' violations, the Geneva Convention, or what the International Red Cross have witnessed. No matter the 37 unexplained deaths in the US prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not torture - according to Bush, Rummie and Ashcroft. I'd like to see them in there and treated the same as those prisoners. Forced to be naked, forced to masterbate, and forced to be in a human pile.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 03:26 pm
Actually, I'd like to see them in a court of law saying they depended on this or that lawyers opinion - as the judge hands down the sentence, he points out the real law and that opinion is just that, leadership is selecting what is right from what you want it to be Exclamation
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 08:36 pm
Bush is at least as vulnerable to the alternative candidacies of the Libertarian and Constitution Parties as Kerry is to Nader (if not more so):

Quote:
Moses Murphy was as Republican as they come. The 27-year-old former Marine always voted a straight ticket and his Jeep Cherokee sported three "Bush-Cheney '04" bumper stickers.

But two months ago as the Boardsman, Ohio, resident was surfing the Internet, he came across the Web site for the Constitution Party, a small, conservative group still struggling to be on the ballot in every state. Off came the Bush paraphernalia and now Murphy's Jeep is plastered with stickers for Michael Peroutka, the Constitution Party's little-known presidential nominee.

Media attention has focused on Ralph Nader as a potential spoiler to presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry, but President Bush could face a similar threat from third party candidates on the right. The Constitution and Libertarian parties believe they could siphon away enough disenchanted conservatives to tip a close election.

For Murphy, Bush's proposal to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants living in the United States was the final straw. "We can't keep letting illegals come in; we need troops on the border," Murphy said in a telephone interview. "(Bush's) views no longer reflect my views, and I need to vote my principles."

The party occupying the White House is typically more prone to disgruntled ideologues bolting for a third party, said Lawrence Jacobs, director of the 2004 Elections Project for the Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota. And hardline conservatives have no shortage of gripes with the president they helped elect. Topping the list is the dramatic increase in federal spending, especially the $500 billion new Medicare entitlement for prescription drugs Bush pushed through Congress, said Paul Weyrich, head of the Free Congress Foundation and a leading conservative activist.

Weyrich said grassroots conservatives "have a real problem with this administration's out of control spending."


Third parties on right could be problem for Bush

Heh, heh, heh... Cool
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 09:15 pm
We must keep reminding the conservative camp that Bush promotes illegal aliens to become citizens, and his $500 billion drug bill. He just wants votes from illegals and seniors - in direct contradiction to the conservative purpose of limited government spending. That's gotta be a more powerful message than Nader to Kerry. Otherwise, the GOP has lost sight of their core beliefs.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2004 07:46 am
The Republicans don't want us to see the results of Bush's War.

From Yahoo! News:

Quote:
The U.S. Senate on Monday backed the Bush administration's ban on media coverage of the flag-draped caskets of dead soldiers being received at Dover Air Base, despite complaints that the policy was an attempt to mask the rising death toll in Iraq.

Republicans who control a Senate majority defeated an amendment pushed by Democrats to make the Pentagon write new rules to allow media coverage of the return of the remains of soldiers to the United States...

The Clinton administration made exceptions, but President Bush reimposed the ban when the Pentagon issued a directive on the eve of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

As a result, "The over 830 service men and women who died in Iraq passed through a politically imposed void hiding the truth," Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, said in floor debate on the issue last week.

Instead of protecting the soldiers' families, Lautenberg said, "This policy has everything to do with keeping the country from facing the realities of war, shielding Americans from the high price our young service people are paying."


It's actually 846 U.S. war dead, but shhh... we don't want anyone to know.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 09:50 am
Quote:
Americans in Kabul hold fund-raiser for Kerry presidential campaign
- MATTHEW PENNINGTON, Associated Press Writer
Friday, June 25, 2004

(06-25) 06:25 PDT KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) --

With armed Afghan guards at the gate and a Democrat donkey mascot chewing leaves in the shade, dozens of American expatriates held a fund-raiser in Kabul on Friday for U.S. presidential hopeful John Kerry ...

... "It's important to show that there are Americans everywhere, even in Afghanistan, who want a change of leadership in the United States," said organizer Karen Hirschfeld, of Winchester, Mass., who is helping Afghans get ready for this year's national elections.

"For the future of Afghanistan, Iraq and America, we need someone with a more rational foreign policy who will work with the international community. We think John Kerry will be a good leader." ...

... None of the thousands of U.S. military personnel based in Afghanistan to hunt for al-Qaida and Taliban rebels turned up for Friday's event ...

To be fair I must say the US Embassy personnel were asked, due to security concerns, not to attend. From an email from an acquaintence who is there, however, I understand there was no order preventing US military from attending, in fact there was no mention at all of the event in any military communication, though computer-printed posters and fliers were in abundance for several days preceeding the bash.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 11:14 am
What are you trying to imply with this post?
Quote, "... None of the thousands of U.S. military personnel based in Afghanistan to hunt for al-Qaida and Taliban rebels turned up for Friday's event ... " If they are hunting for al Qaeda and Taliban rebels, they're doing their job. They are also at risk for their lives, and attending some political rally in the middle of a war zone is not too smart.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 11:37 am
The troops have off-time, c.i. In-and-around Kabul, plenty of the troops are desk-borne admin types, with a fair amount of liesure time, not security forces or line combat troops, and while attendance at a political rally while in uniform would be proscribed, while on own-time and in own-clothes, nothing prevents military personnel from attending rallies or otherwise participating in the political process, so long as they do not make their military status a feature of that participation. Off-duty military personnel in civilian clothes are just people with short haircuts. There isn't much nightlife in Kabul, of course, but what there is ... a few better restaurants, some semi-private clubs, a couple of discos, is eagerly enjoyed by military folks in civilian garb.

What I'm saying is that Kerry appears to have little draw for the folks doing the job.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 11:39 am
Anybody read French?
http://img32.photobucket.com/albums/v97/imposter222/French_label.jpg
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 03/14/2025 at 02:15:49