| Author | Message | ||
     newjerz Citizen Username: Newjerz Post Number: 17 Registered: 5-2003 |
I think the only way Democrats have a chance of defeating Bush in 2004 is if they nominate Joe Leiberman or a similar "conservative Democrat". I think the majority of Americans would vote for someone who doesn't pander to the wealthy as much as Bush seems to, but only if that person doesn't have the sort of cultural agenda that most Democrats seem to have. Most Americans will support an agenda that favors giving back to the most disadvantaged among us, but only if they don't get the impression that their values are under attack. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 4843 Registered: 5-2001  |
Bush is definitely beatable. Like the post-war support for Bush I, we will see an erosion for Bush II, especially if he continues his disastrously radical economic policies that value wealth above work. | ||
| duncanrogers Citizen Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 589 Registered: 12-2001  |
"All of you MOL poster's seeking to find something that will stick to the wall and discredit or harm Bush's chances for re-election." Zoe you are absolutely right. There has never, I mean NEVER, been any attempt by the conservatives in congress to find something that would stick to the wall and discredit a democratic president. NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE 21st Century. with loving apologies to Mr. Kenneth Starr | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 310 Registered: 5-2001 |
Face it...the only quote from Bush that made any sense about WHY we had this war was: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad." Democracy...WMD...terrorism...all nice excuses to get people on board, but no where near reality. http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/ | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1041 Registered: 5-2001 |
Here's the always-reliable Ari F. today: So, then, the idea that Saddam might be putting nukes together is all of a sudden no big deal? MSNBC reports today that, "Forty-five percent of Americans say the Bush Administration misinterpreted intelligence reports that proved Iraq was hiding banned chemical or biological weapons before the war, says a new Newsweek poll. And while a significantly smaller number—38 percent—believe the administration purposely misled the public, President Bush’s approval ratings have declined significantly in recent months, the poll shows." Got that? 38% of Americans believe they were purposely misled into the war. That's an awful lot of people to have believe you lied to them. Now I'll bet in about 10 minutes zoe or straw or mrt is going to come on and say, "see, it's not even a majority!" But I'll tell you what, if 38% of the people you worked with thought you'd made a lie of this magnitude, you'd be in trouble. | ||
| ml1 Citizen Username: Ml1 Post Number: 1095 Registered: 5-2002  |
I'm just waiting for someone to admit that in hindsight, all of us who were ridiculed a few months back for doubting the WMD "evidence" were actually right to be skeptical. but I suppose Satan will be cross-country skiing in Hades before that happens... | ||
| newjerz Citizen Username: Newjerz Post Number: 20 Registered: 5-2003 |
One of the major reasons why it seemed likely to most Americans that Saddam had WMD was that he refused to completely cooperate with the weapons inspectors. If he had nothing to hide, why would he not allow complete and total access to any site and any scientist? Although, I am concerned that no WMD have been found yet, I believe that there must have been something worth hiding for Saddam to risk a war with the U.S. I think that 3 months of very unsettled occupation (where security is more important than looking for WMD) is too short a period of time for you skeptics to feel vidicated just yet. | ||
| Tommy Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 231 Registered: 1-2003  |
Refusal to comply with inspections is not proof of guilt. Tom Reingold | ||
| ml1 Citizen Username: Ml1 Post Number: 1097 Registered: 5-2002 |
so skeptics should have been ridiculed? I and others were called "appeaseniks," "dupes," and "Saddam lovers" because we thought the WMD evidence looked shaky all along. as of now, skepticism appears to have been a perfectly reasonable position to take. even if something is found in Iraq in the future, it's clear a good number of the Bush and Blair claims were completely bogus. Given that, taking a questioning position was a legitimate response, and worthy of at least respect, if not agreement. | ||
| newjerz Citizen Username: Newjerz Post Number: 21 Registered: 5-2003 |
Tommy: Refusal to comply does not prove guilt, just as refusing to take a breathalizer does not prove guilt of DUI. However, it makes most people suspicious. I think this, combined with Iraq's financial capability, played a bigger role than GWB's claims about uranium from Niger in convincing most Americans that there was enough risk to warrant preemptive action. (Also refusal to comply is a violation of the treaty to end Gulf War I, which should have been reason enough to go in again.) Ml1: I would not worry about people who resort to name-calling like "Saddam Lovers" etc. That is immature and non-productive. I also agree that skepticism is generally a good approach to take. The real question should not have been whether one should be skeptical or not, but rather whether the costs of determining absolutely Saddam's capabilities outweighed the risk of Iraq actually having WMD and doing nothing. So I don't think skeptics should have been ridiculed, but those who refused to admit any possible need to go to war and those who thought war was the only option should be criticised for being irresponsible. Also, I don't think that it is fair to say that "a good number" of the US and British inteligence claims were completely bogus. That is an exageration. | ||
| ml1 Citizen Username: Ml1 Post Number: 1098 Registered: 5-2002 |
newjerz, I don't worry about the name-callers. I'm just amused that the people on MOL who are the most vehement in their posting are also the LEAST likely to ever admit they may have been wrong. Also, if you look above, I said "Bush and Blair claims," not US and British intelligence claims were bogus. From the start, the US and British intelligence agencies were complaining that the politicians were "cooking" the reports. We may disagree to what extent the President's claims were "completely bogus," but no doubt some of them were. Also, reasonable people can disagree on what costs and risks were worth taking when we were apparently "guesstimating" what WMD Iraq really possessed. I believed then and I believe now that the risks were not justified given the questionable nature of the evidence. I must say though, that your measured and reasonable response seems oddly out of place on Soapbox.  | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 10118 Registered: 10-2001  |
I love how all of a sudden 11 years of suspicion, suspense and broad concern spanning multiple American governments has suddenly disappeared as well. Talk about rewriting history. If these things did not exist, why the hell was the Clinton administration concerned? Why did so many Democrats support a strong policy towards Iraq during the Clinton years? It's so wonderful to see how this thing has played out. Bush is a liar now. Those folks in Iraq were never ever a threat. They had no weapons. The UN inspectors demanding more and more and more and more time was just to waste money I suppose. After all, what were they looking for if nothing existed? ---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <---- | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 312 Registered: 2-2002 |
 | ||
| duncanrogers Citizen Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 590 Registered: 12-2001 |
sbenois of all people.. you should be ashamed of yourself. Resorting to that hyperbole. You know as well as I that 11 years of policy is NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. The result is not what is being argued here. The means to the end is what is being argued. I expect better, if often faulknarian, arguments from you. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 4846 Registered: 5-2001 |
Is Sbenois taking over for Ari Fleischer?  The part about the inspectors' mere presence being proof of WMD existence is Fleischeresque | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 10119 Registered: 10-2001 |
First, I am far smarter than Ari Fleischer. Second, I am completely comfortable with the rationale used to justify going into Iraq. African uranium or not. I could care less. The world feels safer today than it was eight months ago when the UN Debating Society was deciding whether more inspectors would do the trick. There is tangible progress being made in the Middle East and most of it is because we have a military presence in the region. It is tragic and terribly sad that our brave soldiers are being attacked. God willing we will see it end soon. Third, I take strong offense at the selective memory being used to attack this President. Some of you act as if the last 11 years of Iraqi tomfoolery did not take place. All of a sudden there is a question about uranium and it's see, they had no weapons. Wrong. They had weapons. If you can't or won't believe it when Bush says it then why don't those of you who have doubts simply reread that speech I posted about three weeks ago, the one where Bill Clinton made the case for disarming Saddam in 1998. Numero four, while I'm at it: I am GLAD that an aircraft carrier was named after President Reagan. He deserves it. He served this country for eight years and even though I did not agree with most of his policies, I have complete respect for the man, the office and the fact that he was elected to it by my fellow countrymen. Some of you really ought to take your partisan blinders off. ---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <---- | ||
| duncanrogers Citizen Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 591 Registered: 12-2001 |
Some of you really ought to take your partisan blinders off. Thats a bit of the pot calling the kettle black ole boy. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 4847 Registered: 5-2001 |
I was for going into Iraq, but I'm against our president lying to us in the process, thus becoming a lot like the regimes we're invading. | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 10120 Registered: 10-2001 |
Not really Duncan old chap. Because like you, I'm a Democrat. ---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <---- | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 10121 Registered: 10-2001 |
We are NOTHING like the regimes we "invaded" ---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <---- |
