Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

posted on wrong thread

This just in, GWB in diguise - be on the lookout!

Yup!
(P.s....has anyone noticed that this forum is rather like Monica Lewinsky...it goes down a lot.)

I think that calls for a whole new server called "Lewinsky."

Blewinsky.

I'm guessing you posted this to the wrong discussion.

Nice try on misrepresenting my argument. Here's a tip: Any time you find yourself telling me what I mean, you can assume that you are twisting my words. There's no need to tell me (or anyone else) what I mean when I'm right here telling you myself.

I have pointed out the claim that has been made by the Brits. I have not asked anyone to prove that something did not happen, I have asked if anyone can show that the claimed intelligence sharing rule does not exist. If we assume that there are rules guiding the sharing of such intelligence, then citing a rule or guideline to the opposite would do this, just as citing text stating that bike riders should ride on the right side of the road would disprove the claim that bike riding was not permitted. If you want to argue that intelligence sharing rules must be different than the Brits are arguing, that is something that could be positively proven if true.

I have not asked that anything be proven beyond a doubt. Those are your words, your fabrication. What I asked is there for anyone to read. I have not asked anyone for "dead certain knowledge" or any of the other silliness you throw out.


No, I don't, and that is evident in my previous comments, so why do you ask? I have stated that the Brits have made this claim, and asked for any evidence which would suggest that it is not true. (Perhaps I should have asked for evidence either way.)


You seem to be suggesting that if it would be useful to tell a lie, we know that the lie was told. Is that just for Bush and people you don't like, or for everyone? I don't think Bill Clinton killed Vince Foster, but your argument seems to suggest that if he stood to gain from the death and stated that he did not kill Foster, we can reasonably assume that he did in fact kill Foster.


Here you assert the existence of a mountain of falsehoods, without specifying what they are, and then hang on that as your proof. EVERY ADMINISTRATION tells half-truths and falsehoods. Some of these are self-serving, and some are necessary to the function of government. But lets assume that Blair tells more lies than any other politician in history. Fine. That still tells us nothing about this statement. You can infer that he is lying if you like, based on your own bias (and that bias may have merit for all I know, but it is still a bias). I neither assume he is lying or assume he is telling the truth. I only know what he and Straw maintain, and that you and others want to toss their statements aside without giving any real reason for doing so. I understand that you don't believe him, but that's a very different thing than showing me that he has lied.

scrat

You do amaze.

Hello,
Here['s a bit of political satire that real does make good sense.
It is all about SPIN and the Doctors of that fine art.

If only Bill Clinton had had the right people around him back in 1998 he
might have escaped impeachment and the taxpayers would have been spared
part of the $70 million plus bill that Ken Starr, the pious pornographer,
ran up trying to hang him.

Try to imagine:

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, appearing on CBS' Face The
Nation yesterday, said the president was technically correct in saying: "I
never had sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," even though he later
admitted that he did.

"It's obsessive to focus on those nine words," Ms. Rice told Bob Schieffer,
"when there is so much more to the story. People trying to make a mountain
out of this molehill have been quick to assume that the president initiated
this incident, which may or may not have happened, I might add.

"What is more, if it did happen, and I'm not saying it did, it may very
well have been a matter of Ms. Lewinsky having sex with the president
rather than the other way around, which, as I pointed out, makes his
statement technically correct."

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer refused to be drawn into the debate.
"If the president said he didn't do it in the first place then that's it
regardless of what he might have said later," Fleischer said. "It's time to
move on."

Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, appearing on Meet the
Press, told host Tim Russert that intelligence sources, which he declined
to identify for national security reasons, had assured him that Lewinsky
was not even in Washington on the days that she and the president were
alleged to have been together, and that her claims -- and those of her
friend Linda Tripp -- to the contrary had been passed on by British
intelligence sources to CIA Director George Tenet, who failed to verify them.

Russert, citing an earlier interview in which he suggested that Clinton's
presidency was part of God's plan for the universe, agreed, saying that if
the president said he hadn't had sex with that woman, that was good enough
for him and that it should be good enough for anyone who presumes to call
himself or herself a God-fearing American. Tenet, he added, should be
ashamed of himself for putting the president's credibility at risk.

Informed of Rumsfeld's remarks and Russert's displeasure with his
performance, Tenet issued a statement taking full responsibility for what
he called his agency's failure to save the president from himself. And he
offered to resign or step in front of a commuter train.

When told of Tenet's offer, the president said "I've got confidence in
George Tenet, and I have always trusted the CIA. I get darned good
intelligence from them.

"Nobody's perfect," the president added. "What I said at the time about
that woman may not have been true but I believed that it was and that's
what counts. And anybody who says otherwise is just a historical
revisionist. As far as I'm concerned this case is closed and I'm not going
to talk about it anymore.

This is simply too stupid for words.

This is an interesting article. Republicans are donating money to Dean's campaign. They think if he is chosen to run for president in 2004, it'll make Bush's re-elction a sure thing.

http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_6309.shtml

I don't necessarily approve of this strategy, but I do love the sweet irony of Tartarin working together with these Republicans to help ensure that Bush gets re-elected.

Scrat -- I have also a bridge to sell you.

Just trying to have a little fun. No offense intended.

Oh, and I could use a bridge. Do you ship?

The Washington Dispatch writer notes: "Dean is the only one of these nine that is willing to admit he is on the left fringe." I don't know where he got that. Dean is definitely not "left fringe." He is much more conservative fiscally than the present administration; he held tight reins on the environmental lobby in Vermont, driving liberals mad. Etc. etc.

But I don't want to leave you with a downer. You'll feel better when you read who the contributors are who keep the Washington Dispatch in business:

Dan Abbett
Chad Allen
American Life League
Rob Barrabee
L. Brent Bozell III
Jerry Brooks
Pat Buchanan
Nick Burn
Steve Chapman
Jon Connolly
Shane Cory
Cathryn Crawford
Steve Farrell
Harvey Greenfield
Garfield Jones
Martin Kelly
Uriah Kriegel
Greg Lewis
Michelle Malkin
Peter McKay
Oliver North
Robert Novak
Bob Parks
CK Rairden
Bill O'Reilly
Patrick Rooney
Frank Salvato

I've got to agree with you here. Not about Dean--I don't know enough about him to peg him on the political scale. But the author tells us that Dean admits he is on the left fringe, but the author does not offer us a single citation of a single statement by Dean that would support this claim. That makes it just the author's own opinion. It also diminishes the value I can give the rest of the piece.

An excerpt from an MSNBC article.

What do Democrats really want? Five hundred likely Democratic primary voters nationwide were asked which is more important: that the Democratic Party nominate a presidential candidate who voted to support the war with Iraq, or a candidate who opposed the war with Iraq on principle. And the result? Forty-two percent said it's important the candidate supported the war, versus 37 percent who said the nominee should have opposed the war on principleThe rest of the article.
---------------
Comments on the article?

----------------------------
About Dean being on the left fringe... He has many conservative stands. A lot more than I was aware of. I'll read back and see if you guys have discussed them. Gave big business several tax breaks to lure them to Vermont--just like a good Republican. :wink:

I don't like the way the article spins the poll results. The pollsters have presumably interviewed hundreds of Democratic voters, each of whom had a different, but consistent political opinion. It's a mystery to me how this adds up to "schizzophrenia, angst and fickleness guide voters". But I'm seeing quite a lot of conservative spin on MSNBC, so it's not a very interesting mystery.

Based on my own discussions with Democratic friends, my impression is that Democrats feel very strongly that the Bush administration is a hazard that has to be gotten rid of. They also feel strongly, though not quite as strongly, that the war in Iraq was a diplomatic failure Bush sold to the public with ficticious arguments. In other words, all liberals I know sympathise with the Dean agenda. As pragmatic people though, they also know that the Democrats can only win the 2004 elections if they win over some conservatives. So the sacrifice their opposition to the war in order to get rid of Bush.

I believe this picture is consistent with the poll results quoted in the article, but MSNBC doesn't seem to have posted a link to the raw data so I can't be sure.

-- Thomas

Interestig, Thomas. Polls can say almost anything you want them to. The current favorite republican pollster for the repubs - Mark Penn - is chock full of doom and gloom for the democrtas. A favorite theme seems to be that Bush is weakening on all fronts, but the democrats can't win because they are the poor, befuddled masses. And candidates like Lieberman perpetuate this ad nauseum.

Who will be the democratic candidate is - right now - anybody's guess. But what so many seem tempted to overlook is that Dean s not a fringe left (whatever that means). He's not only quite conservative and centrist in many of his ideas, he's got some actual acts as a rep and a governor to prove it. But he's done some very important things. He's recognized, tapped into, and used a great well of anger held by the democrats - going from the 2000 robbery through all the lies and deceits on so many things under this president, to the very real economic troubles in this country that seem to go unrecognized by the administration. But not all the people are sheep who can be so easily led around. Some of them are aware and waiting for a leader. John Kerry appears to be waking up to this same recognition, and some others are beginning to grasp bits and pieces of it. But democrats are becoming energized all over.

But there is an anger among democrats. There is an informed sense of something very wrong with the Afghanistan and Iraq pictures. And there is a worry that we are being downgraded as a respected country in so many parts of the world. To use that anger, to turn it into a positive force - that's the key.

Re the Washington Dispatch - this is only one of many publications and other stuff that come together under the umbrella Townhall. When you run down the list of affiliates (and the online Newsmax.com belongs here), you can easily see that there is a strong partisan bent to this, so that must be taken into account when reading anything from any of their publications. Take a quick look. Anncoulter.com, olivernorth, and some publications you'll recognize - all bound together by this group that is strictly paryisan.

http://www.townhall.com/citizens/

I agree. For this outsider at least, the portrayal of Howard Dean as a left winger is another one of those mysteries. If you go to the candidates' websites and compare their actual programs, Gephardt seems at least as far to the left, if not more -- just look at his proposals for universal health care and the international minimum wage. He never gets this nonsense about non-electibility.

Howard Dean does -- and as far as I can see, there's only two reasons for that. One, he is the only candidate who had the courage to oppose the war on Iraq when it was popular. Two, he is the only candidate who wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts completely. Both proposals are perfectly sensible. The war on Iraq, which had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no threat to the United States, was the most scandalous scam in recent US history. Certainly more scandalous than Watergate. As for repealing the tax cut, the 2000 budget surplus is gone. The US just doesn't have a trillion dollars to be handed out in tax cuts any more, and neither does it have a trillion dollars to be handed out in increased government spending. Howard Dean offers the closest thing to fiscal responsibility any candidate has to offer. I just don't understand how that makes an otherwise pragmatic liberal a left-wing candidate

<shaking head>

-- Thomas