Do You Want To Re- Elect Bush For Presendent!
- Thread starter zonecontroller
- Start date
sentrido
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
- Messages
- 1,004
- Reaction score
- 0
IS A LIE BY OMMISION A LIE?
If Bush read the classified version of the NIE. The one with all the caviats.Either he mislead us, or didn't understand what he was reading, or didnt even read it. Bad crazyness.
If Bush read the classified version of the NIE. The one with all the caviats.Either he mislead us, or didn't understand what he was reading, or didnt even read it. Bad crazyness.
Hillary, Top Dems Still Would Have Voted for War
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Last week Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said, "We in Congress would not have authorized that war – we would not have authorized that war with 75 votes if we knew what we know now."
Story Continues Below
ABC’s Ted Koppel, host of "Nightline," decided to put the words of the senior Democratic member of the Senate Intelligence Committee to the test.
Koppel’s findings, which aired on ABC Radio late Friday night, directly counter Rockefeller’s suggestion that the Senate would not have strongly endorsed the war against Iraq.
Koppel reported: "We wanted to see whether the conclusions reached by the Intelligence Committee would have made any difference to the other senators who voted to authorize the war in Iraq, so we called them.
"Of the 42 we reached, only three said they would have changed their minds had they known then 'what they know now.'
Among those who say they would not have changed their minds, a number of prominent Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer and Tom Daschle."
Despite the media buzz last week that suggested the U.S. Congress may have been hoodwinked by the Bush administration and a politicized CIA into voting for the Iraq war, many leading Democrats apparently do not see it that way.
The 511-page report released last week by the Senate Intelligence Committee debunked much of what American intelligence had reported about Iraq.
As summarized by Republican senator and chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Pat Roberts:
"Here are some examples of statements from the key judgments. Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear program. Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. Iraq was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle, a UAV, probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents."
But the explosive committee report that lambasted U.S. intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, has not changed the mind of President Bush, who steadfastly maintained, "I chose to defend the country, and it’s exactly what I would do again."
Bush has consistently argued that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States.
But John Kerry’s position on Iraq has vacillated – and may have put him at odds with Senate Democrats who told ABC News they still would have voted for the war.
Kerry, along with his running mate, John Edwards, voted for the war.
But during the Demcratic primaries, Kerry began distancing himself from his war vote and claimed the Bush administration had lied to Congress.
Appearing on "60 Minutes" last weekend, Kerry told Leslie Stahl: "I think the president made a mistake in the way he took us to war. I am against the war – the way the president went to war was wrong."
At the same time, Kerry said he voted to give Bush the authorization to go to war "as a last resort." He added, "I believe, based on the information we have, it was the correct vote."
But Kerry did not say, as Koppel asked knowing "what we know now," if he would still have voted for the war.
Kerry again claimed to Stahl that "the way [President Bush] went to war was a mistake."
But if the war is such a mistake, the question remains whether Kerry would have changed his vote.
Already the Bush administration has seized on Kerry’s equivocating.
In a speech Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney chided Kerry for "simply trying to rewrite history for his own political purposes."
"When Congress voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein, Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards both voted yes," Cheney said. "Now it seems they've both developed a convenient case of campaign amnesia."
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Last week Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said, "We in Congress would not have authorized that war – we would not have authorized that war with 75 votes if we knew what we know now."
Story Continues Below
ABC’s Ted Koppel, host of "Nightline," decided to put the words of the senior Democratic member of the Senate Intelligence Committee to the test.
Koppel’s findings, which aired on ABC Radio late Friday night, directly counter Rockefeller’s suggestion that the Senate would not have strongly endorsed the war against Iraq.
Koppel reported: "We wanted to see whether the conclusions reached by the Intelligence Committee would have made any difference to the other senators who voted to authorize the war in Iraq, so we called them.
"Of the 42 we reached, only three said they would have changed their minds had they known then 'what they know now.'
Among those who say they would not have changed their minds, a number of prominent Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer and Tom Daschle."
Despite the media buzz last week that suggested the U.S. Congress may have been hoodwinked by the Bush administration and a politicized CIA into voting for the Iraq war, many leading Democrats apparently do not see it that way.
The 511-page report released last week by the Senate Intelligence Committee debunked much of what American intelligence had reported about Iraq.
As summarized by Republican senator and chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Pat Roberts:
"Here are some examples of statements from the key judgments. Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear program. Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. Iraq was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle, a UAV, probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents."
But the explosive committee report that lambasted U.S. intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, has not changed the mind of President Bush, who steadfastly maintained, "I chose to defend the country, and it’s exactly what I would do again."
Bush has consistently argued that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States.
But John Kerry’s position on Iraq has vacillated – and may have put him at odds with Senate Democrats who told ABC News they still would have voted for the war.
Kerry, along with his running mate, John Edwards, voted for the war.
But during the Demcratic primaries, Kerry began distancing himself from his war vote and claimed the Bush administration had lied to Congress.
Appearing on "60 Minutes" last weekend, Kerry told Leslie Stahl: "I think the president made a mistake in the way he took us to war. I am against the war – the way the president went to war was wrong."
At the same time, Kerry said he voted to give Bush the authorization to go to war "as a last resort." He added, "I believe, based on the information we have, it was the correct vote."
But Kerry did not say, as Koppel asked knowing "what we know now," if he would still have voted for the war.
Kerry again claimed to Stahl that "the way [President Bush] went to war was a mistake."
But if the war is such a mistake, the question remains whether Kerry would have changed his vote.
Already the Bush administration has seized on Kerry’s equivocating.
In a speech Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney chided Kerry for "simply trying to rewrite history for his own political purposes."
"When Congress voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein, Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards both voted yes," Cheney said. "Now it seems they've both developed a convenient case of campaign amnesia."
please don't tell me a right wing christian based news outlet could provide 2 sides of a story now .....sure they aren't speculating on both sides of an issue?sentrido said:
just like fox news too.
duh...........
sentrido
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
- Messages
- 1,004
- Reaction score
- 0
sentrido
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
- Messages
- 1,004
- Reaction score
- 0
Since it appers the most important thing concerning the president lately has been the gay marriage issue, I decided to look into these "Activist" judges in Mass. I keep hearing about. Turns out almost ALL of them were nominated by REPUBLICANS. Weird.
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Journalists 'Embarrassed' Bushies Cover Kerry Better Than They Do
When John Flip-Flop Kerry boasted to a group of fat-cat supporters in Boston that he and running mate John Edwards were "proud" they had voted against funding the troops they had voted to send to Iraq, you weren't supposed to hear that. Had it been up to the media establishment, you wouldn't have heard that.
So, why did you hear it? You can thank President Bush's re-election campaign.
Story Continues Below
The pro-Kerry New York Times fretted today that, taking a cue from "Bill Clinton's pioneering effort in 1992," the president's "operatives had somehow arranged for their own audio feed, they refused to say how, and were listening intently, ready to pounce on any opening for attack."
After the Bushies alerted the media to Kerry's latest gaffe, even the likes of the Washington Post, Boston Globe and the Times itself had to report the news or risk being upstaged by rivals.
Exposed and Humiliated
"Several journalists who cover Mr. Kerry later said they were too embarrassed to say publicly that it took the Bush operatives to spot what was notable in Mr. Kerry's remarks," the Times noted.
Don't worry, "operatives" of Big Media. The Republicans will keep helping you do the job you're too biased or lazy to do yourselves.
Journalists 'Embarrassed' Bushies Cover Kerry Better Than They Do
When John Flip-Flop Kerry boasted to a group of fat-cat supporters in Boston that he and running mate John Edwards were "proud" they had voted against funding the troops they had voted to send to Iraq, you weren't supposed to hear that. Had it been up to the media establishment, you wouldn't have heard that.
So, why did you hear it? You can thank President Bush's re-election campaign.
Story Continues Below
The pro-Kerry New York Times fretted today that, taking a cue from "Bill Clinton's pioneering effort in 1992," the president's "operatives had somehow arranged for their own audio feed, they refused to say how, and were listening intently, ready to pounce on any opening for attack."
After the Bushies alerted the media to Kerry's latest gaffe, even the likes of the Washington Post, Boston Globe and the Times itself had to report the news or risk being upstaged by rivals.
Exposed and Humiliated
"Several journalists who cover Mr. Kerry later said they were too embarrassed to say publicly that it took the Bush operatives to spot what was notable in Mr. Kerry's remarks," the Times noted.
Don't worry, "operatives" of Big Media. The Republicans will keep helping you do the job you're too biased or lazy to do yourselves.
TWAnr
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2002
- Messages
- 1,003
- Reaction score
- 0
Dude,
Stop perpetuating the Republican lie.
It was not $87 billion for funding the troops.
It was a bill to provide reconstruction grants for Iraq and to fund our troops . At least $20 billion of the total amount was an outright gift to Iraq. The Democrats wanted that aid to be in form of loans, to be repaid, instead of outright gifts.
The other point of contention was that the administration simply added that spending to the exploding deficit, instead of repealing some of the tax cuts to the very wealthy to fund it, and did not otherwise budget that expense.
It had nothing to do with patriotism and everything to do with prudent money management.
Stop perpetuating the Republican lie.
It was not $87 billion for funding the troops.
It was a bill to provide reconstruction grants for Iraq and to fund our troops . At least $20 billion of the total amount was an outright gift to Iraq. The Democrats wanted that aid to be in form of loans, to be repaid, instead of outright gifts.
The other point of contention was that the administration simply added that spending to the exploding deficit, instead of repealing some of the tax cuts to the very wealthy to fund it, and did not otherwise budget that expense.
It had nothing to do with patriotism and everything to do with prudent money management.
