What Bush has really shown is that electing a president that aligns himself so completely with one political party is just not good for the country. This country needs a good moderate president.
Like?
and we can argue about moderate v. "moderate," but this guy wouldn't be a disaster:
You mean someone that actually served in Viet Nam? The Swift Boat Vets will eat him for breakfast. Americans obviously prefer someone with a good line of shit, than someone that ever did anything of substance.
Americans obviously prefer someone with a good line of shit, than someone that ever did anything of substance.
If that were the case then Kerry would be in the Withe House. That is, if he could have kept his line of shit straight.
Kerry sucks. Always did. Some masshole rich kid who married the heinz fortune bitch. I can easily see his ass on vacation in the hamptons while NOLA drowns.
Honestly politics is so rediculous right now its not even funny. Theres no dialog, no real reasoning skills, either parties position on any given issue depends entirely on what the other guy thinks. We get it, you dudes are against eachother. Now ditch the celebrity game and hire some people who know what they're doing.
Honestly politics is so rediculous right now its not even funny. Theres no dialog, no real reasoning skills, either parties position on any given issue depends entirely on what the other guy thinks. We get it, you dudes are against eachother. Now ditch the celebrity game and hire some people who know what they're doing.
Quite true except that while these games are being played here the world is suffering and dying how nice...
sabadabadabadababa-c'mon man...you gotta admit that bush and his posse are the ultimate liars. who gives a shit about kerry right now...he's not the president. bush has faked his way through life being an elitist pig and now claims to be a man of the people. LIE!!! he isn't even from texas. and his family has way more wealth than kerrys family ever did. if anyone is an elitist from the east coast its bush...c'mon man don't front!
I have never understood the "he seems like a good guy--the kind of guy you'd want to drink a beer with!" voting rationale. Hey, lots of my friends are great folks. Exactly the type of people you'd want to drink a beer or three with. But I don't want any of 'em running the country. You know who I want running the country? A fucking nerd. A policy wonk. Somebody who gets excited over the drudgery of governing. Somebody who has spent the better part of his adult life learning about government. Somebody who can be presented with incredibly complex situations, make sense of them, and figure out appropriate action.
In other words, I want competence at the very least. After all, look what a mere five years of incompetence has wrought.
amen
Did someone just call?
1. What makes you think I'm a fan of Jimmy Carter? And more importantly,
2) What makes you think Carter's blunders over 20 years ago in any way, shape, or form excuse Bush's horrific (and decidedly lethal) screw-ups today?
As for the NASCAR dads thing...I do remember seeing one NASCAR driver--I wanna say Waltrip, but I'm not positive--say, "Well, all you need to know about the election is that John Kerry lives in a mansion and George Bush lives on a ranch." That statement may have broken the world's record for most things gotten wrong in the least amount of words.
Actually, I think he would be. While not a 'Bush'-scale disaster, McCain is no prize.
If the Dems have any sense, they will start backing Warner starting now, and really get behind a politically moderate, entreprenurial candidate like Warner. His biggest opposition are anti-gun Dems who need to get off that issue.
Bush was a terrible manager of the country before 9/11, he made a terrible decision to invest his entire legacy (not to mention BILLIONS of US tax dollars)in an unwinnable war, and now he wants to spread the blame. Can't say I blame him.
As for the NASCAR dads thing...I do remember seeing one NASCAR driver--I wanna say Waltrip, but I'm not positive--say, "Well, all you need to know about the election is that John Kerry lives in a mansion and George Bush lives on a ranch." That statement may have broken the world's record for most things gotten wrong in the least amount of words.
I remeber that how shamefully wrong and stupid. But this is the country yall live in the republicans take a much better demographic approach to electorate then democrats. although demography is bad. The democrats shouldve catered to the blacks and latinos more...
As for the NASCAR dads thing...I do remember seeing one NASCAR driver--I wanna say Waltrip, but I'm not positive--say, "Well, all you need to know about the election is that John Kerry lives in a mansion and George Bush lives on a ranch." That statement may have broken the world's record for most things gotten wrong in the least amount of words.
I remeber that how shamefully wrong and stupid. But this is the country yall live in the republicans take a much better demographic approach to electorate then democrats. although demography is bad. The democrats shouldve catered to the blacks and latinos more...
Please to stick to topics that you know something about....you sound very ignorant.
As for the NASCAR dads thing...I do remember seeing one NASCAR driver--I wanna say Waltrip, but I'm not positive--say, "Well, all you need to know about the election is that John Kerry lives in a mansion and George Bush lives on a ranch." That statement may have broken the world's record for most things gotten wrong in the least amount of words.
I remeber that how shamefully wrong and stupid. But this is the country yall live in the republicans take a much better demographic approach to electorate then democrats. although demography is bad. The democrats shouldve catered to the blacks and latinos more...
Please to stick to topics that you know something about....you sound very ignorant.
Not very well phrased i suppose (i was hesitating to press continue I do deserve an ) forget the comments on demography. Loose idea of having polarized liberal minorities (bush doesnt care about black people) being a counterweight for the polarized south/republican supporters. I study in polisci but i am ashamed of that last quote (3h of sleep and struting)
Decoding Mr. Bush's Denials To avoid having to account for his administration's misleading statements before the war with Iraq, President Bush has tried denial, saying he did not skew the intelligence. He's tried to share the blame, claiming that Congress had the same intelligence he had, as well as President Bill Clinton. He's tried to pass the buck and blame the C.I.A. Lately, he's gone on the attack, accusing Democrats in Congress of aiding the terrorists.
Yesterday in Alaska, Mr. Bush trotted out the same tedious deflection on Iraq that he usually attempts when his back is against the wall: he claims that questioning his actions three years ago is a betrayal of the troops in battle today.
It all amounts to one energetic effort at avoidance. But like the W.M.D. reports that started the whole thing, the only problem is that none of it has been true.
???
Mr. Bush says everyone had the same intelligence he had - Mr. Clinton and his advisers, foreign governments, and members of Congress - and that all of them reached the same conclusions. The only part that is true is that Mr. Bush was working off the same intelligence Mr. Clinton had. But that is scary, not reassuring. The reports about Saddam Hussein's weapons were old, some more than 10 years old. Nothing was fresher than about five years, except reports that later proved to be fanciful.
Foreign intelligence services did not have full access to American intelligence. But some had dissenting opinions that were ignored or not shown to top American officials. Congress had nothing close to the president's access to intelligence. The National Intelligence Estimate presented to Congress a few days before the vote on war was sanitized to remove dissent and make conjecture seem like fact.
It's hard to imagine what Mr. Bush means when he says everyone reached the same conclusion. There was indeed a widespread belief that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. But Mr. Clinton looked at the data and concluded that inspections and pressure were working - a view we now know was accurate. France, Russia and Germany said war was not justified. Even Britain admitted later that there had been no new evidence about Iraq, just new politics.
The administration had little company in saying that Iraq was actively trying to build a nuclear weapon. The evidence for this claim was a dubious report about an attempt in 1999 to buy uranium from Niger, later shown to be false, and the infamous aluminum tubes story. That was dismissed at the time by analysts with real expertise.
The Bush administration was also alone in making the absurd claim that Iraq was in league with Al Qaeda and somehow connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That was based on two false tales. One was the supposed trip to Prague by Mohamed Atta, a report that was disputed before the war and came from an unreliable drunk. The other was that Iraq trained Qaeda members in the use of chemical and biological weapons. Before the war, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that this was a deliberate fabrication by an informer.
Mr. Bush has said in recent days that the first phase of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation on Iraq found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence. That is true only in the very narrow way the Republicans on the committee insisted on defining pressure: as direct pressure from senior officials to change intelligence. Instead, the Bush administration made what it wanted to hear crystal clear and kept sending reports back to be redone until it got those answers.
Richard Kerr, a former deputy director of central intelligence, said in 2003 that there was "significant pressure on the intelligence community to find evidence that supported a connection" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The C.I.A. ombudsman told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the administration's "hammering" on Iraq intelligence was harder than he had seen in his 32 years at the agency.
Mr. Bush and other administration officials say they faithfully reported what they had read. But Vice President Dick Cheney presented the Prague meeting as a fact when even the most supportive analysts considered it highly dubious. The administration has still not acknowledged that tales of Iraq coaching Al Qaeda on chemical warfare were considered false, even at the time they were circulated.
Mr. Cheney was not alone. Remember Condoleezza Rice's infamous "mushroom cloud" comment? And Secretary of State Colin Powell in January 2003, when the rich and powerful met in Davos, Switzerland, and he said, "Why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment needed to transform it into material for nuclear weapons?" Mr. Powell ought to have known the report on "special equipment"' - the aluminum tubes - was false. And the uranium story was four years old.
???
The president and his top advisers may very well have sincerely believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But they did not allow the American people, or even Congress, to have the information necessary to make reasoned judgments of their own. It's obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein's weapons and his terrorist connections. We need to know how that happened and why.
Mr. Bush said last Friday that he welcomed debate, even in a time of war, but that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." We agree, but it is Mr. Bush and his team who are rewriting history.
Actually, I think he would be. While not a 'Bush'-scale disaster, McCain is no prize.
I'm split on mccain. what kind of disaster do you think he would be?
If the Dems have any sense, they will start backing Warner starting now, and really get behind a politically moderate, entreprenurial candidate like Warner. His biggest opposition are anti-gun Dems who need to get off that issue.
whoa he's anti-gun? I didn't know that.
guns are a stupid wedge issue that dems shouldn't be justifying with a response. "anti-gun" dems are pawns in a game...
Actually, I think he would be. While not a 'Bush'-scale disaster, McCain is no prize.
I'm split on mccain. what kind of disaster do you think he would be?
If the Dems have any sense, they will start backing Warner starting now, and really get behind a politically moderate, entreprenurial candidate like Warner. His biggest opposition are anti-gun Dems who need to get off that issue.
whoa he's anti-gun? I didn't know that.
guns are a stupid wedge issue that dems shouldn't be justifying with a response. "anti-gun" dems are pawns in a game...
read that . Warner is very pro-NRA, it's one of the reasons he was able to mobilize so much support in a state live VA. He's not able to be painted in that stupid stereotype Republicans love to use, the 'mushy-headed liberal'. I wish he had more political experience, but a Governor doesn't have a complecated voting record to haunt him, so it's not all bad.
Actually, I think he would be. While not a 'Bush'-scale disaster, McCain is no prize.
I'm split on mccain. what kind of disaster do you think he would be?
If the Dems have any sense, they will start backing Warner starting now, and really get behind a politically moderate, entreprenurial candidate like Warner. His biggest opposition are anti-gun Dems who need to get off that issue.
whoa he's anti-gun? I didn't know that.
guns are a stupid wedge issue that dems shouldn't be justifying with a response. "anti-gun" dems are pawns in a game...
read that . Warner is very pro-NRA, it's one of the reasons he was able to mobilize so much support in a state live VA. He's not able to be painted in that stupid stereotype Republicans love to use, the 'mushy-headed liberal'. I wish he had more political experience, but a Governor doesn't have a complecated voting record to haunt him, so it's not all bad.
He could run on "I put VA back on track after a GOP idiot fucked everything up (Gilmore) and I'll do the same for the country."
read that . Warner is very pro-NRA, it's one of the reasons he was able to mobilize so much support in a state live VA. He's not able to be painted in that stupid stereotype Republicans love to use, the 'mushy-headed liberal'. I wish he had more political experience, but a Governor doesn't have a complecated voting record to haunt him, so it's not all bad.
Comments
You mean someone that actually served in Viet Nam? The Swift Boat Vets will eat him for breakfast. Americans obviously prefer someone with a good line of shit, than someone that ever did anything of substance.
If that were the case then Kerry would be in the Withe House. That is, if he could have kept his line of shit straight.
Kerry sucks. Always did. Some masshole rich kid who married the heinz fortune bitch. I can easily see his ass on vacation in the hamptons while NOLA drowns.
Honestly politics is so rediculous right now its not even funny. Theres no dialog, no real reasoning skills, either parties position on any given issue depends entirely on what the other guy thinks. We get it, you dudes are against eachother. Now ditch the celebrity game and hire some people who know what they're doing.
Quite true except that while these games are being played here the world is suffering and dying
how nice...
1. What makes you think I'm a fan of Jimmy Carter? And more importantly,
2) What makes you think Carter's blunders over 20 years ago in any way, shape, or form excuse Bush's horrific (and decidedly lethal) screw-ups today?
As for the NASCAR dads thing...I do remember seeing one NASCAR driver--I wanna say Waltrip, but I'm not positive--say, "Well, all you need to know about the election is that John Kerry lives in a mansion and George Bush lives on a ranch." That statement may have broken the world's record for most things gotten wrong in the least amount of words.
Actually, I think he would be. While not a 'Bush'-scale disaster, McCain is no prize.
If the Dems have any sense, they will start backing Warner starting now, and really get behind a politically moderate, entreprenurial candidate like Warner. His biggest opposition are anti-gun Dems who need to get off that issue.
Bush was a terrible manager of the country before 9/11, he made a terrible decision to invest his entire legacy (not to mention BILLIONS of US tax dollars)in an unwinnable war, and now he wants to spread the blame. Can't say I blame him.
I remeber that how shamefully wrong and stupid. But this is the country yall live in the republicans take a much better demographic approach to electorate then democrats. although demography is bad. The democrats shouldve catered to the blacks and latinos more...
Please to stick to topics that you know something about....you sound very ignorant.
I study in polisci but i am ashamed of that last quote (3h of sleep and struting)
good day
Decoding Mr. Bush's Denials
To avoid having to account for his administration's misleading statements before the war with Iraq, President Bush has tried denial, saying he did not skew the intelligence. He's tried to share the blame, claiming that Congress had the same intelligence he had, as well as President Bill Clinton. He's tried to pass the buck and blame the C.I.A. Lately, he's gone on the attack, accusing Democrats in Congress of aiding the terrorists.
Yesterday in Alaska, Mr. Bush trotted out the same tedious deflection on Iraq that he usually attempts when his back is against the wall: he claims that questioning his actions three years ago is a betrayal of the troops in battle today.
It all amounts to one energetic effort at avoidance. But like the W.M.D. reports that started the whole thing, the only problem is that none of it has been true.
???
Mr. Bush says everyone had the same intelligence he had - Mr. Clinton and his advisers, foreign governments, and members of Congress - and that all of them reached the same conclusions. The only part that is true is that Mr. Bush was working off the same intelligence Mr. Clinton had. But that is scary, not reassuring. The reports about Saddam Hussein's weapons were old, some more than 10 years old. Nothing was fresher than about five years, except reports that later proved to be fanciful.
Foreign intelligence services did not have full access to American intelligence. But some had dissenting opinions that were ignored or not shown to top American officials. Congress had nothing close to the president's access to intelligence. The National Intelligence Estimate presented to Congress a few days before the vote on war was sanitized to remove dissent and make conjecture seem like fact.
It's hard to imagine what Mr. Bush means when he says everyone reached the same conclusion. There was indeed a widespread belief that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. But Mr. Clinton looked at the data and concluded that inspections and pressure were working - a view we now know was accurate. France, Russia and Germany said war was not justified. Even Britain admitted later that there had been no new evidence about Iraq, just new politics.
The administration had little company in saying that Iraq was actively trying to build a nuclear weapon. The evidence for this claim was a dubious report about an attempt in 1999 to buy uranium from Niger, later shown to be false, and the infamous aluminum tubes story. That was dismissed at the time by analysts with real expertise.
The Bush administration was also alone in making the absurd claim that Iraq was in league with Al Qaeda and somehow connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That was based on two false tales. One was the supposed trip to Prague by Mohamed Atta, a report that was disputed before the war and came from an unreliable drunk. The other was that Iraq trained Qaeda members in the use of chemical and biological weapons. Before the war, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that this was a deliberate fabrication by an informer.
Mr. Bush has said in recent days that the first phase of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation on Iraq found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence. That is true only in the very narrow way the Republicans on the committee insisted on defining pressure: as direct pressure from senior officials to change intelligence. Instead, the Bush administration made what it wanted to hear crystal clear and kept sending reports back to be redone until it got those answers.
Richard Kerr, a former deputy director of central intelligence, said in 2003 that there was "significant pressure on the intelligence community to find evidence that supported a connection" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The C.I.A. ombudsman told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the administration's "hammering" on Iraq intelligence was harder than he had seen in his 32 years at the agency.
Mr. Bush and other administration officials say they faithfully reported what they had read. But Vice President Dick Cheney presented the Prague meeting as a fact when even the most supportive analysts considered it highly dubious. The administration has still not acknowledged that tales of Iraq coaching Al Qaeda on chemical warfare were considered false, even at the time they were circulated.
Mr. Cheney was not alone. Remember Condoleezza Rice's infamous "mushroom cloud" comment? And Secretary of State Colin Powell in January 2003, when the rich and powerful met in Davos, Switzerland, and he said, "Why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment needed to transform it into material for nuclear weapons?" Mr. Powell ought to have known the report on "special equipment"' - the aluminum tubes - was false. And the uranium story was four years old.
???
The president and his top advisers may very well have sincerely believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But they did not allow the American people, or even Congress, to have the information necessary to make reasoned judgments of their own. It's obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein's weapons and his terrorist connections. We need to know how that happened and why.
Mr. Bush said last Friday that he welcomed debate, even in a time of war, but that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." We agree, but it is Mr. Bush and his team who are rewriting history.
I'm split on mccain. what kind of disaster do you think he would be?
whoa he's anti-gun? I didn't know that.
guns are a stupid wedge issue that dems shouldn't be justifying with a response. "anti-gun" dems are pawns in a game...
read that . Warner is very pro-NRA, it's one of the reasons he was able to mobilize so much support in a state live VA. He's not able to be painted in that stupid stereotype Republicans love to use, the 'mushy-headed liberal'. I wish he had more political experience, but a Governor doesn't have a complecated voting record to haunt him, so it's not all bad.
He could run on "I put VA back on track after a GOP idiot fucked everything up (Gilmore) and I'll do the same for the country."
oh whoops my bad, that's what I thought
populist dems finna take over...