3
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 09:31 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
People who call supporters of Clinton "leftists" make themselves look like morons.

Like it or not, it is Hillary's nomination if she wants it. And just keep on underestimating her, you will be in for a big shock.

And only someone totally living in the past would bring up Hillary's optiion deal after all that has transpired with Frist, Abramoff et al.

Some of you really need to find a wormhole to escape that alternate sphere of reality that you inhabit.


Your opinion only. Moveon.org and the ACLU aren't leftists? They certainly aren't "right wing nuts" as Setanta loves to throw out all the time. If Hillary promises enough stuff and if enough people believe it, she might win. I hope not. Compared to New York or San Francisco or places like that, I guess Oklahoma would be a bubble, but so would those places be a bubble. I guess it boils down to whose bubble or "sphere of reality" is bigger.
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 09:44 pm
McGentrix wrote:
I can't hold your hand and guide your reading habits. It is obvious that you rely on liberal media sources for much of your ill-informed opinions. How else can you explain it?

Perhaps if you, and others of your ilk, expanded your reading and information gathering beyond the sources you and others are currently suckling from.



McG..... do you ever go back and read your rants? Just because someone holds your hand and guides your reading habits doesn't mean the entire world has to follow your lead. The reason I asked if you ever go back and read your own posts is because you post the same old garbage over and over. Oh yes, you rearrange the words from time to time but basically you sound like an old 78 RPM record stuck in an ancient groove.

I suggest that you should follow your own advice and expand your reading sources. Maybe if you pulled yourself away from Oxycontin Limbaugh and "I'm gonna save Christmas" O'Reilly, you might just be surprised at what you learn.

Notice that not a single Republican Congressman, nor Ken Blackwell, etc., turned up for bu$h's speech in Cleveland today? They all just happened to have other appointments!! LMAO.... They can't get away from ole George fast enough.

Maybe they knew he was going to tell another of his whoppers today!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 10:02 pm
I don't listen to Rush, nor do I watch O'Reilly, wanna try again?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 09:12 am
But is Bill listening to Hillary? More and more we're seeing a second 'co-presidency' looming on the horizon, and anybody the GOP puts up as a candidate in 2008 will be running against two opponents, not one.

But if you were Hillary Clinton, wouldn't you sort of resent the implication that you can't make it on your own merits but you have to depend on your husband to get you elected?

I'm boss, Hil tells Bill
Senator's word is now 'final,' says the ex-Prez
BY KENNETH R. BAZINET
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - After being surprised by her husband's role in the Dubai ports deal, Sen. Hillary Clinton has insisted that Bill Clinton give her "final say" over what he says and does, well-placed sources said.
The former President agreed to give his wife a veto to avoid his habit of making controversial headlines that could hurt her chances of returning to the White House, multiple sources told the Daily News.

"He knows it's Hillary's time now," said an adviser close to both Clintons who expects to play a key role in her likely 2008 presidential campaign.

Hillary Clinton's handlers are keeping a close rein on the former President's schedule to try to prevent another embarrassing screwup like their competing roles in the Dubai ports deal.

While she was blasting the Bush administration for allowing Dubai to run six of the country's ports, he was advising Dubai on how to sell the deal.

"Hillary has final say," said the adviser, and the ex-President's staff has been warned not to do or say anything without running it by the senator's handlers.

"That was true in the White House during the [2000] Senate campaign," recalled another longtime aide who stayed close to the ex-President after he left office. "If he said the sky was blue and she said the sky was purple, then the sky was purple."

Hillary Clinton's aides denied that her husband's comments have been a liability but concede she is calling the shots.

"Since she got elected five years ago and given their hectic schedules, it is more interesting how little there has been of this," said the senator's campaign spokeswoman Ann Lewis, referring to their contradictory statements.

"She is the elected official. She makes the ultimate decisions," Lewis said.

Bill Clinton's spokesman Jay Carson added, "Anyone who says he is doing everything he can to help her get reelected is absolutely right."

The Hillary camp recognizes the 42nd President's enormous political value to her race for the White House.

To boost his spouse's Oval Office bid, the former President is hosting several get-togethers around the country with ex-staffers and is planning some regional town hall meeting and panel discussions to talk about success stories from what Hillary Clinton likes to call "our administration."

Bill Clinton will cite expanding the earned income tax credit and balancing the federal budget, Clinton insiders say. He's also a star attraction at fund-raisers for his wife.

Still, the senator's advisers are trying to put a muzzle on her husband's more controversial comments and actions that have hindered her effort to paint herself as a national security hawk - a crucial part of her political makeover.

The Dubai port controversy was the latest episode that allowed her critics to charge she was being politically duplicitous. Because of their contrasting actions, the Clintons were lampooned by conservatives, and Hillary Clinton faded away as a leading voice of criticism for the ports deal.

The ex-President also sent his spokesman as well as his wife's handlers scrambling when he lashed out at President Bush during a speech in Dubai last November, saying the Iraq war was "a big mistake." Hillary Clinton has supported the war.

Bill Clinton jokingly admits he's a liability. "It's fun to be able to say what you want, and I do that, but I do try to avoid doing anything that complicates Hillary's life," he says in a now-routine line in his public remarks.

The senator's camp knows, however, when it's politically prudent to put her near her husband, like when they visited victims of Hurricane Katrina, the funeral for Coretta Scott King and in Israel at the anniversary of the assassination of Mideast peacemaker Yitzhak Rabin.

SOURCE
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 01:48 pm
Hillary is the idealogue. Bill is all about having a good time, and in the meantime has learned a few tricks on how to please who in terms of political policy. I think he agrees with her politically, but it doesn't matter to him nearly as much. She is driven to be something, to do something, to right wrongs, whatever she perceives them to be. Thats how I see it. Personally, I don't trust her very far at all. As bad as I thought Bill was for the country, I would prefer him I think.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 09:19 am
Just out of interest:

isn't there an "age limit" for young Republicans? (Here, depending on the party, it's between 30 and - at the conservatives - 40 years of age until when you can be a member of the "young" party branch.)

Quote:
http://www.champaigncountyrepublicans.org/admin/uploaded_files/large093152.jpg
We've documented an in-depth, and often critical, look at our organization, and tried to best identify a plan that allows us, as Young Republicans, to fill necessary voids in our county organization.

Source
(Apparently, the photo was taken during a meeting.)
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 10:23 am
You're only as old as you feel, Walter.
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 10:24 am
McGentrix wrote:
I don't listen to Rush, nor do I watch O'Reilly, wanna try again?


Not really............ you don't seem to be able to answer the simplest questions put to you so why should I waste my time trying to converse with you?

I am waiting to see what you post on behalf of the treasonous SOB's authorizing the leaks to the press about Valerie Plame.

Are you going to use that old Nixon quote, "if the pRes does it, it's not a crime" ?


0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 10:26 am
Magginkat wrote:
I am waiting to see what you post on behalf of the treasonous SOB's authorizing the leaks to the press about Valerie Plame.


You obviously don't read the news very carefully, do you MK?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 10:40 am
If you have your ear to the ground this week, it gets interesting. The Dems, including the congressional black caucus, are furious with Congresswoman McKinney for her ludicrous antics because they are dominating the current media attention. This means that the Dems can't get their licks in re Delay's resignation and the more current allegation that Libby somehow ratted out his bosses.

Sometimes it is almost fun. Smile
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 10:49 am
Lies and Damned Lies
Lies and Damned Lies

Well, Bush once told us he would get to the bottom of the Valerie Plame Wilson leak and the leaker would be punished. Corporate media are tripping all over theirselves to find a way to do damage control on behalf of the White House, but can't cover this one up.

The Mafia hit man-like named Scooter Libby is ratting out his corrupt bosses to save his own right wing butt as this deceitful drama unfolds.

Bush is going after leakers all over the government, but only those who leak in the public interest about obscenities our government is performing in our name. When the leak is for the purpose of dirty tricks, they are ignored. Richard Nixon informed us that "When the president does it, it is not illegal."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Lies and Damned Lies II

Tom Delay says he is leaving Congress now because he has a sudden urge to become a speaker before right wing groups, including fellow Christian fundamentalists with their warped god of hatred, greed and delusion.

"The Hammer" says this has nothing to do with recent admission by former aides that, well, they kind of took bribes in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scam, although Delay's announcement of resignation came 72 hours after his former deputy chief of staff, Tony Rudy, blabbed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sliding Toward Hell

Here is a excellent piece by Bill Moyers describing our culture of corruption in blistering detail, and suggesting a solution
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0406-29.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Voted for Bush Twice and Can't Figure Out Why I Have No Health Care

Don Monkerud asks why working class Americans vote against their own interests, again and again. Could it be they are confused by corporate media?
http://www.counterpunch.org/monkerud04062006.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Racism in Georgia

Today we go with a short piece giving a black perspective on the Cynthia McKinney altercation with the security guard in the Capitol Building and a related incident in Georgia. The worst racism occurring in the Land of the Free is usually overlooked by the corporate media or slanted (Here is a longer piece on the incident by Larry Chin for those who are unfamiliar with the incident http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_669.shtml ) --Jack

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

from The Black Commentator's Bruce's Beat

Finally, by now BC readers will have heard that last week Georgia's Cynthia McKinney was manhandled by a Capitol Hill police officer at a security checkpoint when hurrying to a floor vote. Amazingly, with only 14 black women in Congress, it seems that the Capitol Police were unable to remember McKinney's face. The whole incident reeks of racial profiling. Farfetched? The following Monday on the Wolf Blitzer show, McKinney related the story of a lesser known, but related incident.

During the Atlanta funeral of Coretta Scott King, when she lay in state under the golden dome of the Georgia state capitol, in McKinney's words "...the Georgia legislative black caucus was not allowed into the building to form a part of the procession. Why? .... the security at the Georgia capitol did not recognize them as duly elected members..."

On April 4th Democracy Now Atlanta Democratic state representative "Able Mabel" Thomas confirms McKinney's story.

For us [Georgia's black legislators] to have to not be allowed to go on what we call the second floor, which is where the rotunda is in the state Capitol, and basically be told that we had to wait upstairs, which is on the third floor where our chamber is, we think it was just really - it was just unheard of that we would be treated that way.

And basically what we did as legislators is we followed the protocol, because it was a sacred ceremony and we did not want to have the news coverage be about us, because we knew the news coverage was about the passing of a gentle and a strong warrior for our people. And so we know that, not only just in Washington, D.C., but in Georgia and probably throughout this nation, those persons, black elected officials, have not been treated with the type of dignity that they have been given by our constituents when they vote for us. But we have sort of had to bear it and just go along and get along, because we are trying to not be the news story. We're trying to impact our communities.

It seems that racial profiling impacts our communities every day, whether we are teenagers walking down a street, or properly suited and booted members of Congress or state legislatures.

Liberty Underground has permission to publish articles from the Black Commentator, the finest commentary existing in the African American community http://www.blackcommentator.com/
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 10:52 am
Ticomaya wrote:
You're only as old as you feel, Walter.


Thanks, Tico, as said, in Europe we are following stricter the biological age-line than organise party organisation's membership on sibjective feelings :wink: (Which has a lot to do with money foundings.)
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 07:32 am
Quote:
April 11, 2006
Media Selectively Recycles Old News
By Jack Kelly


We journalists are environmentally friendly. We recycle. We've been recycling old news all weekend, without, of course, telling you it's old news.

"A senior administration official confirmed for the first time on Sunday that President Bush had ordered the declassification of parts of a prewar intelligence report on Iraq in an effort to rebut critics who said the administration had exaggerated the nuclear threat posed by Saddam Hussein," reported David Sanger and David Johnston in the New York Times Monday.

For the first time? Here's the AP's Tom Raum on July 20, 2003: "The White House declassified portions of an October, 2002 intelligence report to demonstrate that President Bush had ample reason to believe Iraq was reconstituting a nuclear weapons program."

"The unusual decision to declassify a major intelligence report was a bid by the White House to quiet a growing controversy over Bush's allegations about Iraq's weapons programs," wrote Dana Milbank and Dana Priest in the Washington Post the day before.

Mr. Sanger and Mr. Johnston must have slept through that month. Why the recycling? In a court filing April 5, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald reported that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, told the grand jury that Mr. Cheney had authorized him to disclose portions of the National Intelligence Estimate to Judith Miller of the New York Times a couple of weeks before its general release.

The NIE was declassified to rebut charges by Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV that President Bush lied when he said in his 2003 State of the Union address that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa."

Mr. Libby has been indicted by Mr. Fitzgerald for lying to the grand jury about whether he told Ms. Miller that Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked at the CIA, and was responsible for dispatching him on his now famous trip to Niger.

Dafna Linzer and Barton Gellman of the Washington Post should be grateful no legal jeopardy is attached to lying to their readers. In their story Sunday they said: "the evidence Cheney and Libby selected to share with reporters had been disproved months before."

The opposite is true. In July of 2004, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded unanimously that it was Mr. Wilson who was lying. He had been sent to Niger by his wife, and he told the CIA officers who debriefed him that Iraqi officials had approached Nigerien officials about buying "yellowcake."

Also that month, a parliamentary panel which investigated British claims about Iraqi WMD, the Butler Commission, concluded that the statements that Saddam had tried to buy uranium in Africa were "well founded." Perhaps Ms. Linzner and Mr. Gellman slept through that month.

Most of the recycled stories this weekend described the release of portions of the NIE as a "leak," a word that was not used in July of 2003 when the NIE was made public. For good reason. A leak is an unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

"President Bush was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons," said the Washington Post in an editorial Sunday, one which noted the holes in Mr. Wilson's story which Ms. Linzner and Mr. Gellman somehow overlooked. "Presidents are authorized to declassify sensitive material, and the public benefits when they do."

The weekend's feeding frenzy was based on the little bit of news that Judy Miller had been briefed on the NIE before its general release. Hardly earth shattering or uncommon stuff. But many journalists saw an opportunity to imply the president had done something wrong, and to repeat charges made years ago which subsequently were proven false.

We're more reluctant to reexamine old news even when there are new developments, if the new developments run counter to journalistic memes. Here's a story you didn't read on the front page: Among the captured Iraqi documents recently released to the public is a March 17, 2001 memo from an Iraqi air force brigadier general soliciting volunteers from his command for a suicide mission to "strike American interests." Gee, in what sort of suicide mission would pilots have been useful?

Another document, released Friday, has not yet been translated from Arabic, but notations on it indicate it describes the movement of chemical and biological weapons.

But Saddam had no ties to terror groups, and he had no WMD. We told you so.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 07:41 am
Isn't about time to publish Abu Ghraib photos again? These usually resurface if there isn't another scandal of the week to put in the headlines. And it gives them cover to avoid any new news that contradicts the old news that they keep recycling.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 08:47 am
let sleeping dogs lie?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2006 05:21 pm
AOL is running an interesting comparison today as President Bush hits another approval rating low in the polls. (AOL is NOT a pro-Bush medium by the way.) I can't link the slide show AOL is showing but they cite a Gallup source for the lowest of the low in previous presidential administrations.

Today: George W. Bush - 36%.

Former presidents - approval rating - lowest point in polls:

Bill Clinton - 37%
George H.W. Bush - 29%
Ronald Reagan - 35%
Jimmy Carter - 26%
Gerald Ford - 37%
Richard Nixon - 24%
Lyndon Johnson - 35%
John F. Kennedy - 56%

Kennedy of course only had a 3-year presidency. Gerald Ford also did not complete a term in office but he pardoned Nixon which sealed his fate as never being electable to public office again.

Anyhow, I thought this was rather interesting.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Apr, 2006 04:26 pm
If people only did what was popular or trendy, hardly anything worthwhile would be invented or accomplished. People want leaders, not idols, even though they might not always admit it. Leaders do not moisten their finger, stick it in the air, and then head in the direction the wind is blowing. Leaders have more allegiance to principles rather than popularity. Not all politicians are leaders, or "statesmen." In fact, few are. Many statesmen were not popular until history evaluated their accomplishments.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2006 03:45 pm
Quote:
April 13, 2006, 7:43 a.m.
Dead-end Debates
Critics need to move on.
Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author, most recently, of A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2006 04:17 pm
"My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions - or bury the results."


- Marine Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, former director of operations at the Pentagon's military joint staff, writing in Time magazine. Newbold resigned four months before the invasion of Iraq, but has only now gone public with his criticism of the war.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2006 02:30 pm
There are also many that are currently executing the mission that do agree with the mission. Agreement and disagreement among people with military experience is characteristic of every war in the history of the country. Of the few generals now voicing their opposition to Rumsfeld and/or the war, we should also consider the many that are in support of the same.

It is also important to remember that a civilian commander-in-chief is basic to our system of government. We would not want it to be otherwise, at least I would not. And it should not be a pre-requisite for the job to have military experience although it is nice if they do, and in the case where the president does not have experience, we do not want that factor to hamper or alter his ability to make rational decisions to go to war or not to go to war. Such does not exempt the president from criticism of his decisions, but he or she nevertheless has the right and responsibility to send or not to send the military into harms way in the protection of the country.
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 0.04 seconds on 03/18/2025 at 04:18:31