Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

You know, I really wish that Bush had been a more prominent figure when he was younger because I bet we’d have a lot more to say about him.

For instance, we could probably talk about his flip flops… you know he used to drink and drive, but he’d probably be against that now if you asked him.

From all personal accounts I’ve read, he used to be quite the womanizer, but now he’s a staunch supporter of abstenance. I just wish there were old taped interviews we could refer to about these things. Too bad he wasn’t worth interviewing.

So for all you people that seem to get upset about Kerry’s so called ‘flip flops’ over the years, hold Bush to the same standards and see who comes out on top.

And don’t stop there; take a look at yourself. Do you ever change your mind? Are you better off when you stubbornly stick to failing policy, or adapt to better ones?

I work on Capitol Hill and recently overheard a conversation at a nearby Starbucks about Bush having an illegitimate child from his womanizing years. Might not be true, but if it is then Bush has some explaining to do.

>What Al Gore and John Kerry seem to have in common is having to reinvent themselves in order to try to get elected

I can’t believe that this tiresome, unfounded cliche about Gore “reinventing” himself still has currency. Such is the power of a big lie. Obviously a lot of politicans shade their beliefs one way or another when they run for office, but Gore did not undergo some sort of dramatic transformation.

As for Bush, not many people realize that he was pro-choice when he ran for Congress in 1978. To quote the Lubbock Avalance-Journal, “Bush said he opposes the pro-life amendment favored by Reese and favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question.” Now I for one am willing to believe that Bush sincerely changed his mind by the time he ran for Governor of Texas in 1994. People do that.

How can anyone deride a man who did 2 tours in a warzone and then upon his own conviction, you question his patriotism! What a bunch of republican filth merchants!

This isn’t a man who had to go to Vietnam but out of his own sense of duty he himself enlisted, and that is called honor, republicans! And so what if he questioned our nation’s position on Vietnam, he is an American citizen and has every right in the world to do so. As well as he earned that right morally by his service to this country.

So what if he didn’t throw all of his medals over the fence, he earned those medals, those are his and he can do with them what he pleases. And if through his own conviction he protested to stop what he saw as wrong he has that right to do so.

And those are guts that pampered boy Georgie Junior never possessed or displayed ever in his life(and shots of Jim Beam boiler-makers don’t count).

And if you have any examples of courage on GW’s part that you would like to hold up and make claim to that are equal to Kerry’s service to this country, I’d love to argue it.

Oh wait you might say but he exagerated…George Junior got us into a multi billion dollar war on his exagerations, oh wait nooo…they were..uh..intelligence failures, Yah riiiiiight!

One question; Why is it that we as a nation excuse George junior on the things he has done in office as if any of it is remotely normal?

He did thing both his father, George senior and Ronald Reagan would have never considered prudent or expedient to do policy-wise. And why does populist media typify these policy behaviors as sane?

The war in Iraq has been a shoe-string endeavor relying on both wing and prayer to pull off effectively with no exit strategies or greater fore-thought. Thinking that we will be welcomed with ope arms by all of these religous and tribal factions. We will pay for all of this with oil revenues. What about the writing of blank checks out to corrupt corporations S.A. MCI Worldcom, Dyncorp (prostitution ring involvement), Unocal, Chevron, Halliburton KBR (bribery and overbilling). His father would have had the good sense to know that those corporations would come back to bite him in the posterior politically as well as bilk our nation. This is a retrograde back to the 400 dollar hammers and 200 dollar lugnuts that got the pentagon in so much trouble before.

This war reminds me of that line from Raiders of the lost ark that goes..”Plan?!! I’m making this up as I go along!” And that now suffices as pentagon strategy. how the hell did the Whitehouse talk these people into this, people who have been involved in foreign policy and military intervention for decades?

They were relying on intelligence and information given to them by Chalabi a crook who ran away with our money in the 90’s. The defunct I.N.C. was our information gatherer on the open arms horsedung undoubtedly and we bought it. You know it’s a bad sign when the CIA comes out and says there is no evidence of WMD’s and that this is a bad idea to go into Iraq. The CIA rarely addresses anyone publically and they publically hit CNN’s airwaves(and other news services).

This stuff that Bush jr. is engaged in is not normal so why do we pretend it is? This dummy and his circus needs to go!

Not to split hairs, but that’s David S. Broder of the Post, not John Broder of the New York Times.

It’s actually a pretty powerful column from a guy whose been known to give and take equally with both sides. (Just because someone writes for a certain paper, in this case the Post, doesn’t mean he necessarily reflects the overall tone of that paper.) To my mind, that column represents a better-informed opinion reflective of the overall perception of Kerry among Americans who don’t know him.

In the past few weeks, Kerry has allowed the brilliantly vicious Bush Campaign to distort his record and paint a picture of Kerry that is far from flattering. In a recent story about swing voters in battleground states, one potential swing voter quoted the Bush Campaign’s misleading flip-flop charge over Kerry’s vote for the war and against funding the troops. Another swing voter’s 10-year-old son absorbed the flat-out lie from the Bush campaign ads that claim Kerry supported a 50-cent hike in the gas tax.

In politics, when people don’t have the time or inclination to check the facts out for themselves, perception is reality.

Kerry’s challenge in the next six months is to redefine himself to America and especially to those swing voters in the battleground states. Unfortunately for Kerry, redefining yourself to people with a skewed preconception of you is more difficult than defining yourself with the benefit of a blank page. So his already-uphill battle continues to get steeper.

A lot can happen in six months. Kerry still hasn’t named a running mate, the conventions have yet to happen, and there have been no one-on-one debates.

But it’s doubtful that the Bush Campaign is going to let up on their attacks; basically because Bush has very little positive to tout about his own performance in the White House. And so far their tactic of keeping Kerry on the defensive while painting him as a flip-flopping liberal fraud is preventing Kerry from letting people know who he really is.

Bush did the same thing in 2000 by running as a compassionate conservative, that is, by making himself look socially liberal. Why? Because he want to appeal to social liberals.

Kerry is doing the same, trying to appeal to those who are more hawkish on defense, but liberal on other things.

Craig, I think this is one of those issues that really isn’t an issue when put in the context of standard politics. Candidates always try to appeal to political moderates, because they’re a larger part of the population.

Besides, articles I’ve read say they agree that ribbons are called medals as well, and that some medals are given as both a ribbon and a metal, so this whole ruckus could very well be nothing more than the Republicans capitalizing on the Public’s lack of knowledge of military jargon, and not a true issue.

I don’t really see this as a substantive issue. This is just distraction from real, weighty foreign policy questions.

These preceding comments tell it all. Kerry, likewise had no answer to these questions. He returned to questioning GW(the merciful and compassionate)’s guard service.

Confronted with video this morning that leaves the impression that Kerry threw his medals away in 1971 and not as he has said for years, just his ribbons, he lashed out on “Good Morning America” and raised questions about the president’s attendance in the National Guard. -fox news

ABC is now apparently part of the Republican attack machine as well.

The Kerry campaign treats the medal issue as a “Republican smear.” But they say they welcome it and consider it an opportunity because “it reminds voters of Vietnam and George Bush can’t compete,” said Cutter.

The president “can’t prove his attendance in the Guard” during Vietnam, and Dick Cheney said he had “other priorities,” said Cutter.

Headline: “Kerry needs to define himself, experts say”

Que? Define himself? Hasn’t he done that already?

Kerry hasn’t detailed how he would cut the federal deficit in half as promised while expanding federal spending and raising taxes only on those making more than $200,000 a year. Bush seized on that to charge that Kerry would have to raise taxes on the middle class to meet his promises. In retreat, Kerry said he’d scale back his spending promises if necessary to cut the deficit.

One thing’s for sure, he’ll vote for it before he votes against.

On foreign policy, Kerry hasn’t made clear how he differs from Bush on bringing peace to Iraq. He said in a new ad this week that he would “immediately reach out to the international community in sharing the burden” in Iraq. He didn’t say how he’d get that help. On Israel, Kerry echoes Bush’s support of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

He certainly hasn’t explained how he will win over their support besides getting on his hands and knees and kissing Jack Chirac’s ring finger and admitting that America is arrogant and wrong and should be punished for it’s excesses - via the Kyoto protocal.

Kerry also has struggled to reconcile his agenda with his record. He criticized special interests, but had to release a list of meetings with lobbyists after it was reported that he accepted more money from them in the last 15 years than any other senator. He vows better energy efficiency, but this week was lambasted by Bush for owning a gas-guzzling SUV.

After insisting explicitly that he did not own an SUV, he lamely tried to say his ‘family’ owns one.

Kerry insisted, “I don’t own an SUV.”

When pressed about a Chevrolet Suburban, the mother of all SUVs, kept at the Heinz Kerry abode in Idaho, Kerry said: “The family has it. I don’t have it.”

Kerry has now closed the distance between nuance and flat-out deception.

And that’s without mentioning the other gas-guzzlers this candidate and his family enjoy, all the while posturing about reducing the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and fuel efficiency.

At last count, there were eight “family” cars and SUVs, including the 1995 Suburban (15 mpg highway, 12 mpg city), a 1993 Land Rover Defender (12 mpg highway, 10 mpg city), a 1989 Jeep Cherokee (20 mpg highway, 16 mpg city), a 1994 Jeep Grand Cherokee (20 mpg highway, 15 mpg city), a 2001 Audi Allroad (21 mpg highway, 15 mpg city), a 2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser (25 mpg highway, 20 mpg city), a 1985 Dodge 600 Convertible (26 mpg highway, 23 mpg city), and a 2002 Chrysler 300M (26 mpg highway, 18 mpg city). Kerry, however, only owns up to the latter two.

Then there’s the 2002 Harley Davidson (his), two powerboats (one his, one hers), a power inflatable 2001 Novurania (his), and a Gulfstream II private jet (hers). -boston herald

He appears to be a poor liar. He should bypass Naomi Wolf and hire Bill Clinton for lying lessons.

Kerry wants to be seen as a centrist on such issues as gun rights and the federal deficit, but he spent the primary season campaigning with liberal icon Ted Kennedy. “Having Ted Kennedy on the stage with him did more to establish him as a liberal than anything Bush did,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Institute at the University of Pennsylvania. -twincities.com

“John Kerry’s problem is not that people don’t know him. It’s that people do.”

Eric, let me get this straight, so you are saying that we should all vote based on attempted deception over an SUV registration when we have a man in office who decieved a nation as to weapons of mass destruction and urgency to invade a nation. Decieving us on them having an exit strategy. Decieving us on intelligence that the CIA told us before the invasion wasn’t there.

Wait a minute you are right, how dare he decieve us on motor vehicle ownership! That bastard! You call that deception Mr. Kerry!!!

We need lies like “Yeah it will only cost 87 billion” and “Yellow cake was sold”. Eric you are right Kerry has such weak deceptions, Bush is a heavy-hitter, none of that fancy-lad deception stuff about war ribbons. We need a leader who can potentially start world war three, remove us from international allies and decieve with the big leagues. Bush, now there’s a deception expert! You won’t hear little candy-assed deceptions out of him, no siree. Just the big stuff!

Craig,
You Republicans got lucky that all of these petty distractions over Kerry’s fibs, fell into a barren news cycle. I gotta a hunch the coming slaughter in Fallujah will soon wipe all this off the front burner.

It’s great to see you Conservative writers finally found something, instead of avoiding defending Bush’s policies, both here and abroad.

Unfortunately, these credible charges pale in comparison to the deceptions unearthed by everyone from O’Neill to Woodward.

Last, how impactful are these charges when a clear majority of Americans believe Bush has no clear plan for Iraq or the economy?

That makes him a liar, I believe.

>>>”..hire Bill Clinton for lying lessons”

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha..ha.

Oh Eric you are so right we don’t need a leader who tells little lies about recieving hummers in the oval office. We need a big time liar, with “Iraq is an immediate threat” kind of stuff. Woooo you are on a roll. I mean let’s get a liar who can circumvent going before the 9-11 commision publicly we don’t need that kind of personalresponsibility to the public. We need a big obfuscator and a party that can spend millions to find out whether Bj’s go on in the whitehouse. And what a great use of those monies that was, huh? It accomplished so little, them’s the works of the big liars not the small timers like Kerry and Clinton.

Really now.

Could this race get any more nitpicky? It’s down to what kind of car the guy drives? Correction: the kind of car his wife drives?

Yes, my fellow Americans, it has come to this. The next leader of the free world will be decided based not on an exhaustive analysis of his positions and qualifications, but on his miles per gallon. Does a candidate get points off if he uses Regular instead of Premium?

We’ve already spent the last couple of days debating the semantics of whether a ribbon is a medal. We’ve been through the Jane Fonda hoaxes and “Communiongate.” And now this.

Am I going to turn on my TV next week and see a repentent John Kerry addressing America, tearfully begging our forgiveness and admitting that, “Yes, America, I do own an SUV.”

I mean, this guy’s wife drives a Suburban and he wants to be president? Where does he get off?

I know. The point is that Kerry is supposed to be a friend to the environment and he has the gall to own a couple of gas guzzlers among his extended family’s six or so cars. And when pressed on it (no attempted entrapment here), he balked and tried to pass the “blame” on to his family. So the Boston Herald hacked him up for lunch and the conservative media devoured it and gleefully spit it out.

And Rush and Hannity rejoiced…

Look, if MPG is the issue deciding this race, the only logical choice is Ed Begley, Jr. That ought to be some motorcade on inauguration day, eh? At least we’ll finally get the answer to the age-old question: How many Secret Service Agents can fit in an electric car?

The fact that this issue is even an issue reaffirms how masterful Bush’s people are at running a campaign. Totally devoid of conscience and fair play, they latch on to minutiae and pummel their opponent relentlessly with meaningless charges that move the spotlight far away from where it could really illuminate— on this Administration’s miserable performance on almost every issue that matters, for example.

And since people get bored easily with the actual issues, the media jumps on every trumped-up charge, then they trample each other to report it to the populace. As often and in as many different ways as they can.

(Time out: I’m amazed that people on the Right can still call the media “liberal” without breaking into a smirk. The American Media is about as liberal as Strom Thurmond in 1952. Okay, back to my rant.)

And now Kerry, taking hits from all sides, has to weakly try to respond by drumming up the old charges about Bush’s service record in the guard. I don’t see how it’s going to work. With nothing new to add to the story, I doubt that Kerry will be able to turn the heat back on Bush over an issue that’s been put to rest in the minds of most Americans. But in this election season, where a candidate’s choice of automobiles is a campaign issue, anything is possible.

By the way, did you see the tie that Bush wore at his press conference? Talk about a lack of judgment? This guy wears a tie like that at such an important event and he wants me to trust him to run the country. As if…

Eric,
Excellect commentary! Your two critics must be excellent at the game twister because they really have to twist around reality to come up with their responses to your piece. The truth is that I, and most normal people are very interested in the fact that John Kerry can not seem to find a truth that he is willing to tell. He does not just lie about big issues, he lies about everything. Frankly, I am shocked that democrats are not shocked about this.
Are you so anxious to get a lib back in the White House that you are willing to allow someone to lie, cheat, and steal to get there? Oh I forgot, you are the people who voted for Bill “I did not have sex with that woman” Clinton.
Furthermore, I challange any one of you to point out a single lie George Bush told about Iraq. These issues you raise are not lies. The US intellegence community said the weapons were there, the British Intellegence said they were there, the French said they were there, the Dutch said they were there, the Spanish said they were there, the Russians said they were there, the Germans said they were there, and guess who, Bill Clinton, and the entire Clinton Defense establishment said there were there. Huh? So who told the lie???
Next lets look at the threat matrix. Saddam used WMD against his own people, he tried to assisinate an American President, and clearly stated his goal to harm America and its interests. You do not believe this constitutes a threat? How might you define a threat. The fact that no WMD have been found does not alter the fact that Saddam had the ability to produce such weapons, and clearly had the incentitive and the willingness to sell such technology. How do we know this? Well it is in the defense assessment the Clinton Administration gave to the Bush Administration. Bill Clinton himself indicated that the goal of this country had to be regieme change—Aparently Clinton thought that there was a threat or did he lie?
Finally, the exit stratagy. Could you please point out the specific phrase that you are calling a lie, not the dem talking points, but the specific statement on the part of the president that you are calling a lie—there is no such statement. Bush has consistently called this a difficult mission, and a war that will come with advances and setbacks, but a war that must be won.
In the end I have a man with whom some disagree following a course that he firmly believes to be a true and correct policy course. Clearly I have to remind you that the fact that you do not agree does not mean it is a lie. On the other hand we have a man who can not remember where his medals went, or who owns the cars in his driveway. I know who I would rather vote for—how can you, with a straight face suggest anything else?

Oh Bryan Burrito, thank you for your wonderfully enlightened statement.

That is so true, we do need to know whether someone got a hum-job in the oval office that is so much more vital to national issues than, say, whether a country should be invaded on false pretext. One hummer is more important than the lives of thousands of people. Yeah I mean who cares about that silly unilateral war-stuff, we need to know what John Kerry drives and how much fuel that absorbs. And then mention it really hypocritically as if Air Force One isn’t extremely oversized for any of Bush’s travel needs.

You are a light to the world, Bryan Burrito, your words are like chasms of dip-shittery beating the shores of logic and reason and other stuff.

And you know what else America cares about, Bryan? American Idol winners so I don’t give your sentiments much creedence.

Bryan I’ll respond to your querry:

Prior to us going into Iraq the CIA took to the airwaves months prior saying that it was doubtful that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or that they were working with Al Qaeda. How’s that?

Why is it a lie because intelligence didn’t claim what the Bush administration was touting as evidenced. Remember Cheney’s statements about Iraq and their claimed connection? The CIA was at that time saying exactly the opposite, that would make that a lie wouldn’t it? The CIA was stating that it was doubtful that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Bryan, on what do you base your statement that “Kerry can not seem to find a truth he is willing to tell”?

On the fact that he balked when asked if he owned an SUV?

On the charge that 33 years ago he stammered an answer about throwing away his medals— not an untruthful answer, just one in which he didn’t volunteer information that wasn’t asked?

What other “lies” has John Kerry told?

And please don’t quote to me from the RNC site, because I can refute every single one of those charges. Or actually, please do, so I can show you just how viciously effective the RNC and the Bush-Cheney crew are at taking an issue, twisting it around, and convincing the impressionable and the uninformed that it’s absolutely, positively the God’s honest truth so help me God.

Bryan B.,

A quick question…

Which do you believe was more actionable? The now discredited Intel on Iraq’s WMD and nuclear capability, or the indisputable evidence of Al Queda’s actions in the U.S. before Aug ‘01?

Skunkbud: the CIA did NOT say that it was “doubtful” Iraq had WMD—specific and narrow issues were disputed by some lower level analysts, but George Tenet, a Clinton-appointee if anybody’s keeping track, said (and this is direct quote from the Woodward book) that it was “a slam dunk.”

The “Bush lied” schtick is wearing pretty thin, but the good news if polls can be believed is that voters just aren’t buying the Democratic talking points anymore.

Also, I hope Democrats will continue to make the failure (so far) to find WMDs the centerpiece of their anti-Bush line. The polls have already absorbed the idea that thay they won’t be found, so there’s little if anything to gain from harping on the point—but what happens, just out of curiosity (beside the whole world crashing down around John Kerry) if they are found?

Not impossible, since every intelligence agency in the world says they were there at one time (and despite Kay, Tony Blair for one still insists Iraq had stockpiles). There has certainly been “increased chatter” to this effect of a major breakthrough in the news lately.

Exhibit A:

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/05/11/World/Investigative.Reportsaddams.Wmd.Have.Been.Found-670120.shtml

when we have a man in office who decieved a nation as to weapons of mass destruction and urgency to invade a nation. Decieving us on them having an exit strategy. Decieving us on intelligence that the CIA told us before the invasion wasn’t there.

Here’s where your charges break down. There was every reason to believe that Saddam had WMD. No intelligence was fabricated, no intelligence was lied about or made up. In law enforcement terms it’s called probable cause. You democrats are going to have to pick up on some of these things if you’re going to be sticking to the law enforcement route in the war on terror.

Unfortunately, these credible charges pale in comparison to the deceptions unearthed by everyone from O’Neill to Woodward.

Touched a chord have we? Again, where is the deception on the part of the administration? If you look at all of the intelligence, the reports from defectors, the interviews of Saddam’s own generals who believed there were WMD, any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion. He had them, he wanted them, he took steps to hide them.

Exactly what deceptions did O’neil unearth? What a joke. All the evidence liberals need to convict a conservative is the word of moderate-liberal.

Brian, right on, exactly my point.

Jerome, SkunkBud, Bert,

You can’t seem to look at this without the rose colored glasses of your party affiliation. Put aside your partisanship for a moment and ask yourself what kind of person cannot give straight answers to simple yet embarrasing questions. All politicians are learned in the art of dodging a question. But Kerry seems to have gone out of his way to plainly lie about something that was essentially inconsequential.

Kerry lied about not being at the meeting where one of his later campaign volunteers proposed killing US senators. Then his campaign called witnesses and told them their memories needed correcting and that they should call reporters and tell them they were wrong.

Kerry lied when he said he threw his medals over the fence. Again, purely for political gain. Then, because he may have thought in his mind later that it might not look good to have thrown his medals, so he says he threw some one elses medals.

Kerry lied, “I don’t own an SUV.” That is to say, the family may own some SUV’s but I don’t. Sure, perhaps I can cut John F. some slack here. After all it’s not his money.

Like I’ve said before… I’ll quote myself this time because I think these were two great paragaphs:

The more I think of it the more it occurs to me that the most telling symbolic action Kerry took during that time was throwing other men’s medals over the fence onto the White House lawn. (At least that’s what he said he did.)

Here is a man with ambition. A man willing to throw away the honor and valor of others, but still retain his own medals. Symbolic, I think, of the craven unprincipled politician willing to sacrifice others to get and keep power.

Assume you are interviewing someone for a job. You catch them in several small lies about simple things. Do you hire him anyway because they are inconsequential issues? Or do you wonder why someone would be so ready, willing, and able to lie about things so easily checked.

Kerry lied. If he can’t be trusted with little things, then he cannot be trusted with big things. He’s an opportunist.

Bert,

The now discredited…

You’ve hit the nail on the head. If you believed something to be true and it turned out not to be true, do you consider that a lie?

Which do you believe was more actionable? The now discredited Intel on Iraq’s WMD and nuclear capability, or the indisputable evidence of Al Queda’s actions in the U.S. before Aug ‘01?

Unfortunately for your argument, there was more evidence showing Saddam as a proven threat than there was evidence pointing to planes flying into the pentagon, and both world trade towers. It is the height of hypocrisy for anyone to suggest on the one hand Bush should have preempted 9/11, but had no business doing so in Iraq.

Yellow cake was in fact found in Iraq by the way. The Niger story was not in anyway, except in partisan minds grasping for straws, proved false. Where did Saddam get the yellow cake that was found in Iraq?

ERic, do you think that the issue of what he owns vehicle-wise is more of an issue than say economy or foreign policy? Also that his medal throwing being an issue higher on the food chain than say, national security or economic issues? I personally would like to see Kerry stop being interupted by these Inconsequential fussing points and get down to the issues. And the ones who are trying to derail the greater discussion is the populist media and not really the republicans at all.

It was CNN’s 360 with Gloria Vanderbilt’s son(I can’t remember his name at the moment). Who innitially brought up the vehicle thing based on some press release, released over the wire by some group(RNC perhaps?)and the press ran with it as filler being that they do such a shlock job at real investigative journalism anyway. We are now in an age of Geraldo-ism in journalism and this sort of vulture BS gets airplay. And it is delineative of what should be discussed. But it obscures Kerry’s message. And now he is left trying to reconcile with the inconsequential vehicle BS.

Now with the medals and his exagerated statements, please he was 27 and in need of bringing an issue to light he may have exaggerated but I’m sure there were many instances of those things occuring in that war. And many vets have come back with stories that confirmed what he was saying although it may not have happened to him or perhaps did I don’t know.

And as for him not throwing his medals over the fence. Those medals have very personal value I’m sure and we don’t know if he was alone in throwing only ceremonial ribbons over that fence.

But to criticize anyone who did not have to serve but did, I honor that. He could have opted out or left the country but instead fought for his country when many of his peers of similar financial status didn’t, I admire that. And he didn’t take a desk job either.

The Bush administration did engage in deceptions. But let’s talk about the cutting of counter-terrorism budgets in 2001. I agree with you that to rehash these “liberal” talking points could be a never-ending Kungfu fight with no victors but more partisan bickering. So let’s talk about Bush cutting the counter-terrorism budgets in 2001, okay I’ll start.

Why did Bush cut the counter terrorism budget in 2001? Did he have a back-up plan for his cuts and if so what were they? What percentage of those monies were earmarked to go to the FAA?

I’ll let someone else engage those questions of Bush administration deceptions. You can’t seem to call what Bush did deceptive, okay then it was upfront right? Everything was laid out in plain sight? Ari Feisher wasn’t embroiled in trying to deflect people from knowing what was going on in detail? Are you people stupid enough to believe that Saddam was involved with Al Qaeda even after Saddam killed Abu Nidal? Maybe you are dumb enough to believe that I don’t know but I wasn’t buying their story nor were most Democrats at the time, and we were right, not the dems on the hill but us. Unscom’s Scott Ritter was right about them not having these weapons but you couldn’t be bothered with that. I actually am glad we went in but the pretext was false.

I’ll leave it at that.

Martin,

Pardon my glibness being it’s 4:40 in the morning but let me quickly answer your claims.

A: Clinton had some sloppy appointees Tenet being one of them, Freeh and Reno being others.

B:The CIA, low level or not were saying on national airwaves that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

C:No buddy of terrorists would kill a high level terrorist involved in “the jihad”, if you will, that being Nidal.

D:THe truth is that the CIA is involved in extensive monitoring of Iraq as is Nato, the UN inspectors and many others. Why Bush and co. didn’t listen to any of them remains a mystery other than it was a distinct myopia on that administrations part that wanted nothing less than an invasion.

E: If Bush sent in inspectors instead of his ten month build up we probably would have found something but the emphasis was on US/British military build-up in the gulf and in Saudi territory. Not searching is an odd way of finding evidence of WMD.

F:The article I will eventually read, but it’s late.

G. I’m sure there is lots of chatter, that’s what media does and I’m sure I could find plenty to the contrary.

H. Thank you for not bringing up who is responsible for 9-11 that could get really involved.

George Tenet, a Clinton-appointee if anybody’s keeping track, said (and this is direct quote from the Woodward book) that it was “a slam dunk.”

It’s interesting that Tenet came out and publicly stated that he never said it was a sure thing that Saddam had WMDs. He says he always used qualifiers when he talked to the president.

Eric, don’t you think you (and everyone else keeping this non-story alive) are placing much too much weight on whose medals Kerry threw? Isn’t it possible that he threw someone else’s medals because (as he claims) other vets who agreed with his position couldn’t be there, so they asked him to do it? Isn’t it also possible that he didn’t have time to jet from Washington to Lowell, Massachusetts, so he could get his own actual medals to throw?

In the interview when he was asked about whether he threw his medals, what would you have had him do, give an inventory? They asked if he threw his medals, he said he did. He couldn’t remember how many. Where is the story? And more importantly, what on earth does it have to do with the man’s competency to be President of the United States?

This all ignores, of course, the fact that he was a 27-year-old kid whose actions apparently had a significant impact on the course of our worst war. Those who don’t like Kerry fail to give him the slightest credit for trying to do something to change the direction of the Vietnam War— after coming home from actually fighting in it.

Where was Mr. Bush while this was going on?

Look, I understand that when you pile these little inconsistencies together, you can use that as evidence to point to Kerry as someone who can’t take a stand. Add in the RNC’s non-stop hack job of his 18-year record in the Senate and it paints a perfectly ugly picture for those who are looking for one.

Kerry is disappointing me right now, not because he’s done anything wrong with regards to his medals or his wife’s choice of vehicles. My problem is that he hasn’t handled well the little traps and obstacles that the media and his opposition keep setting for him. If he’s going to have a chance in November, he’ll need to get much better at that part of the campaign (an area where Clinton was the master.)

A final point that’s perhaps a bit off topic, but relevant since you brought it up. Why is it that Republicans, conservatives, and people who support Bush— I list all three because you can be in one group without being in all three— reflexively assume that if a person supports Kerry or opposes Bush, that person is automatically a “lib” or a “Dem”?

You make that assumption when you mention “the rose-colored glasses of my party affiliation.” As it happens, I’m affiliated with no party and haven’t been for most of my years as a voter. I actually found this blog while looking for a forum for independents to discuss the election.

Is it that incomprehensible to you that someone who isn’t a liberal or a Democrat could support Kerry? That someone who prefers to vote based on the candidates and their individual stands, rather than on the principles espoused by a major policital party, would find this administration’s performance lacking in nearly every way?

If that’s the case, then I’d ask who is the one wearing the rose-colored glasses?

I personally would like to see Kerry stop being interupted by these Inconsequential fussing points and get down to the issues.

Do you really feel these are inconsequential? For just a moment pretend this was Bush who had said these things, who had directly ‘contradicted’ himself. I rather think that you’d be using it as supreme proof he is a liar. Be honest.

Now with the medals and his exagerated statements, please he was 27 and in need of bringing an issue to light he may have exaggerated but I’m sure there were many instances of those things occuring in that war. And many vets have come back with stories that confirmed what he was saying although it may not have happened to him or perhaps did I don’t know.

Are we at the point where making up stories is ok as long as it serves a greater good? So Kerry had no direct proof that atrocities were being committed, although he claims to have committed some atrocities. He feels perfectly fine with accusing his fellow soldiers with atrocities even though he didn’t see them or have proof of them, only propaganda.

One wonders why you have a double standard here. The greatest sin of all, according to the left, is that Bush ‘lied’ to go to war. (The intelligence was not correct, that doesn’t = a lie.) But Kerry lied, plainly impugning the character of fellow servicemen. That’s ok, because you think it ws a good cause.

Unscom’s Scott Ritter was right about them not having these weapons but you couldn’t be bothered with that. I actually am glad we went in but the pretext was false.

Scott Ritter also received funds from Saddam Hussein. $400,000 in fact to make his movie about how Saddam had no more weapons. How do you conveniently ignore these little facts?

Jerome,

Is it that incomprehensible to you that someone who isn’t a liberal or a Democrat could support Kerry? That someone who prefers to vote based on the candidates and their individual stands, rather than on the principles espoused by a major policital party, would find this administration’s performance lacking in nearly every way?

If that’s the case, then I’d ask who is the one wearing the rose-colored glasses?

I apologize for my assumption. No it’s not incomprehensible. Many of the independents here are Green party members, or ‘liberal-moderates’, or moderate to liberal independents? There are Republicans in congress who are very liberal. In the sense that democrats describes liberals and liberal moderates, it boils down to who you support and what your philosophy is.

In general I think you can break down most people into two general categories. Liberal and conservative. You have all kinds of crossover issues, so on any one issue I do realize one could support a liberal candidate without being a liberal and vice versa.

The intelligence was not correct, that doesn’t = a lie.

You’re right. But we don’t claim that he lied simply because the intelligence was wrong. We claim he lied because it’s been shown that his administration changed intelligence to intentionally deceived America, Congress, and the UN.

That’s why the claim that he lied has stuck, despite your claims to the contrary. You’ve been attacking another straw man.

Re: Conservative v. Liberal

Someone elsewhere offered a link to a quiz from the Christian Science Monitor entitled “Are You a Neo-Con?” I took the test and was told I’m a “Realist.” It’s a correct tag, in my opinion, and one I can live with (though I prefer “Pragmatist,” if only because it sounds better).

We claim he lied because it’s been shown that his administration changed intelligence to intentionally deceived America, Congress, and the UN.

That’s why the claim that he lied has stuck, despite your claims to the contrary. You’ve been attacking another straw man.

What intelligence did they change?

Jerome,

Will you think you will be voting for Kerry? and for what reasons/issues?

Quite a bit: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp_moveon/

The reports about the “mobile labs” were changed. So was the analysis of the aluminum tubes.

If it’s Bush vs. Kerry, no question I’ll be voting for Kerry.

Reasons? How long do you have?

The fact is that Kerry and I share the same view on many of the issues that matter to me. Based on Bush’s positions and his performance, he and I share almost nothing.

On Iraq, I argued from the outset with my many hard-core Republican friends and family that it was a mistake to go it (essentially) alone. Not because the U.N. or anyone should tell us what to do or when we should defend ourselves, but because the political and military ramifications of invading a sovereign nation without absolute proof of its necessity and without the full support of a global consensus would leave us in a no-win situation. Which is where we are now, in my opinion. And which is what Kerry spoke out against in his October 9, 2002, speech on the Senate floor.

(For the record, I’ve said here and elsewhere that I think the Bush Administration’s initial response to 9/11 with its invasion of Afghanistan was well-conceived and perfectly executed. The problem is, in my eyes, they’ve done nothing right since.)

Kerry’s position on the environment is consistent with my own. Kerry understands that a balance between economic and environmental issues has to be struck to protect both. Bush, it seems to me, has given over responsibility of protecting the environment to the very people who damage it— the energy companies, the logging companies, the development community, and so on. Not that I have anything against those industries; it’s just that when the threat of strict regulatory enforcement is not in place, these (and many other) industries have proven that profit motive outranks environmental protection every time. There’s a happy medium that Kerry is much more likely to promote than Bush.

I’m confident that Kerry will adequately fund the next highway bill, a program (if fully funded) that I consider to be the most worthwhile thing to come out of Congress under this administration. Bush threw money at everything else, but refuses to adequately fund the program his father started in 1991 (Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991) and Clinton continued in 1997.

Tax cuts are nice, but not at the expense of putting this country into the kind of deficit situation we’re now in. It smacks to me of the failed trickle-down theory all over again. I’m not for raising the federal income tax— I own a small business— but I’d rather give back the few hundred bucks I saved in federal tax than pay twice as much in higher real estate, state, and local taxes. Not to mention gas prices, milk prices, etc…

People talk a lot about Kerry not being trustworthy, but the back-alley dealings by Cheney with the energy companies and Bush (allegedly) with the Saudis seem far more underhanded than anything Kerry has ever done. This administration has convinced much of America that they’re straight shooters who make a decision and stick with it, all the while working the system to promote their (I hate to use this term, but am at a loss for another) “special interests”— e.g., Halliburton, energy companies, big banking, oil. I’m all for capitalism, but to me, these guys are sleazier than Clinton ever was (from a political perspective, anyway).

Bush was strong-armed into supporting the No Child Left Behind legislation, then went around touting it as his success while failing to adequately fund it. I think Kerry will do a much better job on education.

Bush’s Medicare plan is an absolute giveaway to the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. It tosses the bone of prescription drug benefits to seniors, but then throws them into the morass of managed care in 2010. This was yet another misdirection by the administration— claiming they were doing something to help a group of people, while actually harming them.

I’ve long believed that the onus for health care needs to come off the backs of business and I think Kerry’s proposed plan for universal health care is at least a step in the right direction.

I believe that Bush’s hardheaded foreign policy approach has damaged America’s relationships with our allies and further compromised our position with most of our enemies (the jury is still out on North Korea). A fresh start with Kerry will not only help give us an exit strategy in Iraq, but it’ll get us back to the point where the outcry against the U.S. isn’t as loud and broad-based. And that is the way to fight a war on Terrorism— in cooperation with other victims of it— not to tell them we know what’s right and they don’t know anything. It’s not our War, it’s a global war. Bush seems to forget that and I believe Kerry won’t.

Kerry’s position on abortion is similar to mine. I think abortion’s is a terrible thing, but a “regrettable option” that should not be outlawed in the Constitution. Frankly that’s a minor consideration to me when I cast my presidential vote. McCain is anti-abortion, but I would have almost certainly voted for him in 2000 had the Bush campaign not railroaded him with its vicious, shameful attacks on everything about the guy.

In a lot of other ways, Kerry and Bush are similar. And as you know, there’s only so much the president can do to change things (especially a president from the party that doesn’t control Congress).

And that’s another reason I’m voting for Kerry. I think the Republicans will hang on to Congress and I actually prefer it when neither party has control of the executive and the legislative branches. When that dynamic is in place, only the worthiest legislation gets through and the damage our elected officials inflict on our country is minimized.

This is how I see the issues and why I’ve made the choice I’ve made. I could be wrong about any or all of the details of the issues I’ve listed above, and if I am, feel free to correct me. But I’ve checked out the facts behind each of these issues myself (as opposed to simply going to the respective campaign web sites, the respective party web sites, or listening to one partisan side or the other) and reached my conclusions with as much information on them as I could find.

Eric, you said…

Unfortunately for your argument, there was more evidence showing Saddam as a proven threat than there was evidence pointing to planes flying into the pentagon, and both world trade towers.

The so-called ‘evidence’ against Saddam was so flimsy and full of holes, that it caused the only member of the Bush team with actual military service and experience, to refer to the neo-Cons as ‘fascists’! It came with what is called a ‘caveat’- a warning that the evidence was far from accurate and confirmed.

I agree that Bush had no intel about specifically flying planes into buildings. But, there was intel of Al Queda simply using planes! Thats not actionable?

As for the rest of your argument, skunkbud and Jerome wrote impressive and articulate responses!

I agree that Bush had no intel about specifically flying planes into buildings.

Actually, Bert, there were a couple different intel reports about flying planes into buildings from different sources.

The problem is that the CIA didn’t know the flight numbers, so Bush decided there was nothing he could do and took off for some fishin.

LawnBoy,

Welcome, MoveOn members, to Salon! Our new Washington bureau brings you this report from within the belly of the Bush administration beast — an eyewitness account of how radical ideologues hijacked the American government along the road to war in Iraq. -salon.com/OPINION

I have been told that Fox News isn’t a credible news source. I’m sorry but you’ll have to excuse me, when your source starts out, “Welcome, MoveOn members…” it isn’t exactly something I will look at with an open heart. It’s also in the opinion folder, if you’ll look at the URL which you cited.

Jerome,

It sounds as though you have found your candidate. Congratulations. You are a liberal though, based on your positions.

I could be wrong about any or all of the details of the issues I’ve listed above, and if I am, feel free to correct me. But I’ve checked out the facts behind each of these issues myself (as opposed to simply going to the respective campaign web sites, the respective party web sites, or listening to one partisan side or the other) and reached my conclusions with as much information on them as I could find.

I hope we will have the time to debate these issues and many others. When we do, I may say that you are wrong, but don’t take it personally. I’ve been told I’m wrong more times than I could count.

I disagree with Bush on several points. He campaigned as a compassionate conservative and as a result has shown a lack of initiative in cutting spending domestically.

Any democratic candidate, Kerry included, will not cut spending on the social justice/welfare programs. Clinton’s cuts, for instance, are virtually all military. A continuation of post-cold war policy started by HW Bush (to be overly fair).

On Iraq we had more than ample evidence of Saddam’s failure to abide by the simple surrender agreement his generals signed. He failed to account for his WMD. He failed to allow inspectors to account for his WMD. He shot at our planes patrolling the no-fly zones which protected his own people from himself. He tried to assasinate a US President. He killed perhaps upwards of a million muslims. Does any of this matter? He harbored terrorists. He funded palestinian homicide bombers. Saddam did in fact seek revenge for the Iraq war and planned a host of terrorist attacks.

Just one of these things is enough to warrant decisive action by the world community. Yet, they did literally nothing. After 9/11 George Bush is the one who said this must be dealt with.

After, 12 years of sanctions, it was the Iraqi people who suffered. Who benefitted? Saddam still lived as he did before. The UN and officials involved with it made money off of the oil for food program. It’s the same kind of internationalism Kerry will peddle which looks away when other liberal internationalists are on the take, or sell an entire people into slavery.

Now you tell me who was lying? Folks are fond of trying to make Cheney and Halliburton an unholy alliance for war. This is rank slander. It doesn’t even require a thought to utter. But the real truth is that it is the UN who sold blood for oil.

I believe that Bush’s hardheaded foreign policy approach has damaged America’s relationships with our allies and further compromised our position with most of our enemies

If, as I believe, these allies had a conflict of interest in this matter, isn’t their indignant protestations and professed disdain and hatred of Bush evidence of their guilty consciounce rather than Bush’s inaccuracy? At least consider the possibility.

Bert,

The so-called ‘evidence’ against Saddam was so flimsy and full of holes, that it caused the only member of the Bush team with actual military service and experience, to refer to the neo-Cons as ‘fascists’! It came with what is called a ‘caveat’- a warning that the evidence was far from accurate and confirmed.

I agree that Bush had no intel about specifically flying planes into buildings. But, there was intel of Al Queda simply using planes! Thats not actionable?

So rumors of well known facts are actionable? It amazes me that anyone could attempt to blame Bush, even indirectly, for not stopping 9/11; castigating him for not taking action before the evidence was complete and irrefutable. When they turn around and use the opposite argument to say that all of the mountains of intelliegence, probably filling entire rooms somewhere, about Iraq and it’s malevolent designs were not just unproven, but lies!

Welcome, MoveOn members, to Salon! Our new Washington bureau brings you this report from within the belly of the Bush administration beast — an eyewitness account of how radical ideologues hijacked the American government along the road to war in Iraq. -salon.com/OPINION

I have been told that Fox News isn’t a credible news source. I’m sorry but you’ll have to excuse me, when your source starts out, “Welcome, MoveOn members…” it isn’t exactly something I will look at with an open heart. It’s also in the opinion folder, if you’ll look at the URL which you cited.

Eric, I congratulate you on moving past straw men attacks. Unfortunately, you’ve simply moved to ad hominem attacks, so we still haven’t really gotten anywhere.

There’s substance there you completely ignored, both in my post and in the article. The article is in Salon, not on MoveOn.

How about Iraq on the Record?

How about changing the intelligence from the CIA? How about the aluminum tubes? How about the “mobile labs?”

I know we’re beating a dead horse, but as long as you insist that there was no deception involved in getting the US to the mess we’re facing in Iraq, we’ll never be able to have a real debate about how we got into this mess and who should lead us out of it.

Here’s another site: A Chart of Bush Lies about Iraq. You’d be right if you claimed that these links are from people who don’t like Bush. I challenge you to rise above ad hominem reflexes and actually read what there. If you disagree, then disprove it, don’t just discount it.

Eric, if, as you say, people are either liberal or conservative, then I suppose I’m a liberal. Though I wonder what it is, in your mind, that makes me a liberal (other than not being in agreement with your conservative positions). [Comment deleted for critiquing the Messenger, not the Message - WatchBlog Manager]

I find it interesting that the Right, much more than the Left, feels a need to attach these labels to a person’s political ideology. I hear commentators from the Right snarl and call someone “a liberal” with the venom formerly reserved for descriptors like “criminal” or “murderer.” The Left has resorted to a bit of tit-for-tat with “Neo-con,” but the frequency of its use and the vitriol behind it seem to pale in comparison.

Maybe that’s a topic for another article. Since I’m not signed on as an editor, however, I’ll have to leave it up to someone else to write.

And I don’t mean to jump into a private squabble between Eric and Lawnboy, but I can see Eric’s point about the question of Salon’s credibility as a source. I’m immediately skeptical when I see sources such as Salon, TownHall.com, Commondreams.com, National Review, and New Republic. They all carry a clear bias that calls into question everything they publish. Not to say some or most of what’s written isn’t true, at least on some level. But you can’t read them without knowing in the back of your mind that the information comes with a preset agenda. Best to find another, possibly more objective source (good luck) to substantiate the information.

Maybe another topic for another article.

Of course Eric has a point that MoveOn is biased. MoveOn has an obvious agenda, so it makes sense for anyone on either side of the aisle to take what is said with a grain of salt. Similaryly, I am very skeptical of anything from Fox or NewsMax, as Eric suggests. However, if there are facts in the article, then the facts should be addressed.

It seems that Eric may have discounted the article on Salon because I used a link that referred to MoveOn. That’s an ad hominem attack that ignores the substance of the article because of the source. Maybe the facts of the article are wrong, but I think they are consistent with other sources. Dismissing this article due to the source (which was Salon, not MoveOne) before addressing the facts means that the debate doesn’t really happen.

Here’s another link to the story that doesn’t refer to MoveOn. It’s still in opinion for some reason, but it’s not related to MoveOn.

The larger point stands - there is a lot of evidence that the Bush administration lied to build support for the Iraqi war.

LawnBoy,

It seems that Eric may have discounted the article on Salon because I used a link that referred to MoveOn. That’s an ad hominem attack that ignores the substance of the article because of the source. Maybe the facts of the article are wrong, but I think they are consistent with other sources. Dismissing this article due to the source (which was Salon, not MoveOne) before addressing the facts means that the debate doesn’t really happen.

I know it was on Salon. I didn’t intimate that it wasn’t. I merely quoted the article itself, and pointed out that it was in the OPINION section of SALON.COM.

A straw man argument is when a different position is substituted for your actual argument. Have I changed your position?

Ad hominem? I am questioning the credibility of the left’s own ad hominin attacks. Much of what passes as proof of Bush’s lack of credentials for office consist of his wrong views of the issues, his incompetence, his stupidity, his malevolence, a purported nazi affiliation, rascism, sexism, and vast neo-con plans for hegemony. The very article you site as proof is one long ad hominem attack.

LawnBoy, did you even read this article? It’s long on accusation and short on proof. Most of it is devoted to trash talking the new adminstration. Sounds like sour grapes mostly. The only substantive assusations are on the first half of page four.

First he disparages the fact that the administration kept changing the talking points, and even took things off them which didn’t have enough corroborating evidence! This is particularily damning don’t you think?

First was the deletion of entire references or bullets. The one I remember most specifically is when they dropped the bullet that said one of Saddam’s intelligence operatives had met with Mohammad Atta in Prague, supposedly salient proof that Saddam was in part responsible for the 9/11 attack. That claim had lasted through a number of revisions, but after the media reported the claim as unsubstantiated by U.S. intelligence, denied by the Czech government, and that Atta’s location had been confirmed by the FBI to be elsewhere, that particular bullet was dropped entirely from our “advice on things to say” to senior Pentagon officials when they met with guests or outsiders.

Did Mohamed Atta go to Prague? Yes he did. This is one of the points that the Bush adminstration chose not to put foward.

What is interesting is the fact, unpublicized until now, that three days after this Prague visit, tens of thousands of dollars were transferred from several accounts to Atta’s own American and German bank accounts (officials have not made public the precise amount, and it is not available from unofficial sources).

The CIA is convinced that Atta’s terrorist group must have been led by professionals from an intelligence service, perhaps Iraq’s. U.S. experts believe that during the two aforementioned Prague visits, the execution of the terrorist action was to be confirmed. Atta was to visit Prague a third time in April 2001. The Czech secret service received from one of its informers a warning that Al-Ani, the Iraqi consul, was to meet with a “distinguished Arab student” from Hamburg—this is information that up until now was top secret. BIS monitored the meeting: The men met in a Prague restaurant on the evening of April 8. To this day, it remains unclear whether this “Hamburg student” was Atta. Yet again, three days after that meeting, $100,000 arrived in Atta’s Florida account. -World Press

I should put up a page on my web site so I can refer to it rather than writing it over and over again.

Here you have another liberal ‘retiring’ from the executive branch. The opinion of a man who disagrees with the administration and it’s policies, is more than likely a liberal democrat who would have written the same article about the perverted values of the Bush administration regardless of Iraq. An article that Salon.com puts in the opinion section. This is proof?

First, I want to apologize and clarify why the Watchblog Manager deleted part of my above post (at my request, by the way). I made an unfortunate choice of words that I regretted soon after hitting the “post” button. It wasn’t an attack on the messenger, but an ill-advised jest. If only Kerry had the Watchblog Manager following him around to edit out some of his more regrettable comments, his poll numbers might be better.

This is a rare online forum in that most opinions are at least somewhat informed, and debates and disagreements are argued reasonably and respectfully. I didn’t want my comment to diminish that— even with a stupid smiley face after it.

Since I’m writing, I have another question for you Eric. Are you saying these lifelong Republicans or Republican appointees— Paul O’Neil, Richard Clarke, Eric Schaeffer, John Dilulio, John Dean, et al— are all liberals?

One thing that has struck me about the Bush Adminstration is how many people have defected from it for various reasons. My guess is that it’s part of an underlying conflict within the Republican party about the administration’s policies— I expect fiscal conservatives are concerned about the deficit and excess spending, while social conservatives may feel he’s not doing enough to promote their agendas, such as those espoused by the pro-life and Conservative Christian movements.

Anything to that, Eric, in your opinion?

(Okay, now let’s read this one real carefully to make sure there isn’t anything outrageously stupid in it…)

Ad hominem? I am questioning the credibility of the left’s own ad hominin attacks. Much of what passes as proof of Bush’s lack of credentials for office consist of his wrong views of the issues, his incompetence, his stupidity, his malevolence, a purported nazi affiliation, rascism, sexism, and vast neo-con plans for hegemony. The very article you site as proof is one long ad hominem attack.

Kwiatowski reported on her own experiences, reporting what she personally had seen fo political appointees changing intelligence for political gain. It’s not an ad hominem attack. Your discounting it earlier based solely on the fact that Salon had a specific link for moveon and welcomed them was an ad hominem attack.

LawnBoy, did you even read this article? It’s long on accusation and short on proof.

What standard would convince you? This is a first-hand account from someone involved in an office where administration deception occured, but the details are classified, so she can’t go into a lot of the details. That doesn’t mean she’s lying.

She talked about a lot more than just bullet points.

…products of this office … talking points on Iraq, WMD and terrorism. These internal talking points seemed to be a mélange crafted from obvious past observation and intelligence bits and pieces of dubious origin. They were propagandistic in style, and all desk officers were ordered to use them verbatim in the preparation of any material prepared for higher-ups and people outside the Pentagon.

Creating propaganda talking points of dubious origin.

OSP was used to manufacture propaganda for internal and external use, and pseudo war planning

…well understood by staff officers and the defense intelligence community was that senior appointed civilians were willing to exclude or marginalize intelligence products that did not fit the agenda.

So, does this one article prove my point? No. But it is one small piece of a large body of evidence that the Bush administration hasn’t been honest with America, Congress, or the World.

I also presented a few other links. What about those? Would anything short of a tape of Bush saying “I’m going to lie now” be sufficient?

Eric,

You said…
So rumors of well known facts are actionable? It amazes me that anyone could attempt to blame Bush, even indirectly, for not stopping 9/11; castigating him for not taking action before the evidence was complete and irrefutable. When they turn around and use the opposite argument to say that all of the mountains of intelliegence, probably filling entire rooms somewhere, about Iraq and it’s malevolent designs were not just unproven, but lies!

‘…rumors of well known facts…’? Is that what you’re calling the info from the FBI and CIA in the Aug ‘01 PDB?

My intention is not to blame Bush for not stopping 9/11. At the very least, a heighten level of security (already executed by Clarke in the previous summer) could’ve saved lives!

The ‘mountains of evidence’ against Saddam came with caveats from our allies and from total fabrications by Shalabi - now under investigation.

Jerome,

I read that part of your post already, there was nothing wrong with that. It would be pretty hard for you to offend me anyway (in a personal sense).

I have noticed the defections. They are all ‘moderates’. Every moderate I’ve met in person had much more in common with Democrats than Republicans. I suspect that the term is near synonymous with liberal.

Are any of these guys conservatives?

So if the question is, are moderates more liberal, and do liberals have less compunction about defecting from conservative administrations and then critizing it? I’d say yeah. That’s pretty much my take on it.

They should be treated exactly as Gary Aldrich was treated by the media.

LawnBoy,

This is exactly what I mean.

Creating propaganda talking points of dubious origin.

The Valerie Plume affair had me almost convinced, but now that I know that Bush created propaganda points of dubious origin, I am changing my vote from Bush to Kerry.

Well I guess that just doesn’t roll off your tongue like, “Bush lied!” does it?

Most of the accusations in this opinion piece is fluffery and gossip. It sounds more like the author doesn’t like the people she is talking about.

Part of her proof is that they took out some points when they couldn’t prove them. That is actually counter to what you are alleging.

Bert,

That’s exactly what the PDB is. It didn’t state anything a high school student couldn’t put together from public news sources. In other words, general knowledge. Kind of like Saddam having WMD, it was general knowledge.

…Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and “bring the fighting to America.”

After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a …(redacted portion) … service.

Here it details how Clinton stoked the fires of hatred by resorting to violence. Is it any wonder that they are waging jihad against us? Clinton actually made them more mad! (You have to be careful with sarcasm in print. People can’t hear it sometimes.)

Although Bin Ladin has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Ladin associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

…Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives. -wapost

Patterns of suspicious activity. Prepares years in advance. 70 full field investigations. What was being done was what had to be done, law enforcement investigation.

Here you have pre-9/11 Bush relying on the FBI to do their job and get the information. This is what liberals want to limit the war on terror to, field investigations. Gather enough information to get a warrant and then proceed to make a case that can be prosecuted. This is just an instance where it was too little too late.

Your politics don’t seem to brook dissension. If they aren’t agreeing with you, if they aren’t as partisan as you, your theory is that they’re not conservative. I wonder whether they’d agree. I can be fairly certain that such moderates, especially given the ones you spoke about, would probably seek your head on a stick if they heard you painted them with the brush of a CIA mole. Your definition of treason seems rather over generalized.

The fact that somebody in the administration was either stupid or unscrupulous enough to break our espionage laws by outing a NOC agent like Plame should be troubling to you. It is in fact that person whose behavior equates with that of Aldrich Ames, because like that double agent, they have revealed sensitive intelligence information, and compromised sources and operations by what they did.

If you consider a moderate Republican more of a security threat than a person who compromises the identity of our agents overseas for political gain, then I think you’ve let your ideology triumph over your good sense.

However new or old the information is in the PDB, a number of things are important,

First, was Bush setting up his administration in such a way that he was getting the information he need to make decisions? The structure of the Executive branch is a result of Bush’s decisions. He did not have to restrict access to himself the way he did.

Second, given what information Bush was recieving, was there reason to take at least generalized actions, if not ideal ones?

And Third, was he marginalizing counterterrorism willfully, believing that other policy concerns, real or artificial, deserved more attention. In corollary to that,another question is: does the evidence support that prioritizing or not in the same time frame as the terrorist threat that the evidence was hinting at?

But all that aside, I’ll tell you what this liberal believes: you’re not getting anywhere if you don’t have the facts first. Investigations, criminal or not, are not an end in themselves, but are the critical element to achieving any end. Whatever fate awaits them, we can only deliver them to it if we know where they are and what they’re doing.

That’s the whole point. Seek and you shall find. Sit on your butt and wait for actionable intelligence and the terrorist will have the advantage. The Terrorists were trained by our own CIA, and Al Quaeda is reputed to be one of the tightest organization in terms of espionage and counter-espionage. They aren’t going to just tell us what what we need to know. Investigation is a necessity. We need to track down the leads, search out the information, and then we are free to use whatever methods are at our disposal, and so confidently, but not falsely so.

Confidence alone will not defeat our enemies, not unless it is backed by the strength of the truth, and the truth itself is not always obvious, there to be just scooped up off the ground. Sometimes we need to dig, to mine even.

This is about making the best possible use of our policy, and not falling into the traps of bad assumptions and unreliable facts. Our investigations are the strength in the steel that will allow us to keep the edge we need to cut through our enemies. Otherwise, mistakes and disgust with those mistakes will dull that edge.

Yeah, Stephen. I’m getting pretty tired of conservatives letting Bush slide because he didn’t know the terrorist’s flight numbers. If that information was available, we would have all “moved mountains”, or taken some more pertinent action, like show up at the terminal guns drawn.

Apparently, Eric is one of those people who doesn’t expect much of President Bush, and is willing to give him a break. His argument seems to be that, since Bush isn’t so bright, Clinton should have done more to stop the 9/11 attacks for him.

I prefer my presidents to be a quite a bit smarter and a little more serious about the job.