SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Neocon who wrote (109064)7/31/2003 12:44:20 PM
From: michael97123  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
And now they all pander to the naderites in an attempt to stop Howard Dean by becoming howard dean. Shame on them all except Lieberman at this point. Please note how Sleazy Mfume landed on Lieberman specifically, for missing the NAACP shindig. Apparently Mfume thought that Lieberman was out of Lockstep. Mike
PS If the republicans did this crap i would land on them like a ton of bricks too. Do you remember an instance when republicans did this to pander to the right wing? Perhaps bush at bob jones u. is similar in nature but far smaller in scope.



To: Neocon who wrote (109064)7/31/2003 12:59:07 PM
From: Rascal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Sidestepping on Iraq

Throughout his political career, George Bush has been famous for sticking to a few issues, and repeating a few well-burnished talking points over and over. Wide-ranging news conferences do not play to his considerable strengths, and as president, he has generally avoided them. But having decided to make a rare exception yesterday, Mr. Bush should have been able to come up with better responses to two big and obvious questions: why he ordered the invasion of Iraq and why he pushed for tax cuts that have left the nation sinking into a hopeless quagmire of debt.

Mr. Bush's vague and sometimes nearly incoherent answers suggested that he was either bedazzled by his administration's own mythmaking or had decided that doubts about his foreign and domestic policies could best be parried by ignoring them.

Mr. Bush will simply not engage the issue of whether his administration exaggerated the Iraqi threat in the months leading up to the American invasion. When asked whether the United States had lost credibility with the rest of the world since neither weapons of mass destruction nor a strong Al Qaeda connection had been uncovered in Iraq, the president veered off into a tour through American history and the difficulty of coming up with an Iraqi version of Thomas Jefferson. He then skidded to a halt with the announcement that "I'm confident history will prove the decision we made to be the right decision."

Mr. Bush still hung onto his most well-worn buzzwords, however. Iraq was a "threat" — just as the tax cuts were "a job-creation program." The president and his advisers obviously still believe that the constant repetition of several simplistic points will hypnotize the American people into forgetting the original question.

Saddam Hussein was certainly a threat to his own people, and there is still an enormous amount to be gained if the United States can foster a prosperous, open society in Iraq. But that does not cancel out the fact that the primary reasons Washington gave for the invasion look increasingly suspect. That is a serious problem, both in terms of the nation's credibility and the reliability of American intelligence. Mr. Bush owes the nation more than a brushoff on these matters.

In the case of the economy, the president was stuck defending an indefensible strategy of piling up one unnecessary tax cut after another. Having helped to turn the promise of budget surpluses into the disappointment of rising deficits, Mr. Bush mimics his father's out-of-touch performance in the 1992 campaign by acting as if the country is in fine fiscal shape. It is hard to buy his assertion that his first concern is Americans who are out of work.

Given the rambling non-answers the president gave to questions about Iraq and the economy, it was interesting to hear how focused he was when someone asked how, with no opponent, he planned to spend $170 million or more on the primary. "Just watch me," Mr. Bush said concisely. There is one area in which the president's thinking is crystal clear.,

nytimes.com

Rascal @Texas2StepBushStyle.com



To: Neocon who wrote (109064)7/31/2003 1:16:50 PM
From: Neeka  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
He said, she said. They did, they didn't. This thread has become the GWB thread part II.

Foreign Intelligence Committee just finished closed door hearings this AM. Americans should not be surprised when hearing documents are made public.

In the mean time maybe......*finally*....... the UN will re-think it's world role?

smh.com.au

Democratic politicians......and some of the regular democratic folks.........are proven hypocrites.

Thanks for the post.

M



To: Neocon who wrote (109064)8/1/2003 1:15:07 AM
From: KLP  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Wonder how those folks could have been SO WRONG just a few years ago, and now so right....errrrrrrr...left? This is a classic post Neo!~!!!!



To: Neocon who wrote (109064)8/1/2003 8:03:01 AM
From: Sig  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 281500
 
Good heavens, it appears the entire Congress was in on the Conspiracy to deceive us by exaggerating the threats posed by Saddams WMD programs. I have never seen the Democrats and Republicans work so closely together before. (g)
That post was a lot of work, thanks.
And a question here: Do you use Notepad or its equivalent to accumulate the paragraphs as you collect them. ?
I sometimes do that so the entire Post does not vanish (as it sometimes does when typing)
Sig