| Author |
Message |
    
extuscan
Citizen
Username: Extuscan
Post Number: 335
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, October 4, 2004 - 12:20 pm: |     |
Bait:
I am all for political arguements... I'd hate it if everyone agreed... and I dont treally think there is such thing as a "negative campaign". If your opponent is a jerk, you should point that out. No arguement is off bounds.
BUT there is one element of Kerry's campaign that hurts me. Kerry proposes that as the body count in iraq increases, Bush is doing a worse job. The "worse a job" bush is doing the more you should vote for Kerry, Kerry says. By bashing Bush on war casulties. Kerry is basically saying that every time another soldier dies, he's closer to winning the election.
Bad news for america around the world is good news for the kerry campaign. Thats disgusting. This shouldn't be part of Kerry's campaign against Bush. You can't watch another soldier die and assume the more that do the more likely you are to get the job you wanted.
John |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 171
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 4, 2004 - 12:26 pm: | |
How about Cheney saying a vote for Kerry is a vote for a terrorist attack?
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2520
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 4, 2004 - 12:28 pm: | |
A good point, if only Cheney actually said that. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 3993
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 4, 2004 - 12:31 pm: | |
Why doesn't an increasing body count amount to an increasingly compelling argument to vote Bush out?
Turn your argument around and ask if Bush is maximizing deaths to increase his chances at winning. Of course he's not. My feeling, however, is that he is not doing enough to minimize or eliminate them. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 172
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 4, 2004 - 12:37 pm: | |
Dick Cheney: "If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2522
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 4, 2004 - 12:45 pm: | |
He's talking about reverting back to a policy of treating terrorism as a matter of law enforcement. He didn't say that if and only if Kerry is elected will we get hit again, because Bush's team has maintained the view that it's only a matter of when -- not if -- we get attacked again.
The reason this is true is because it hasn't stuck at all as a point of attack in the Kerry campaign as it would have been if Cheney's statement was as damning as you portray it. |
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 28
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 4, 2004 - 1:24 pm: | |
This is called corporate “SPIN” control. In true slithery corporate style, Dick Cheney is now claiming that he was "misinterpreted"
Cheney clarifies comment about terrorism risk
September 11, 2004
Milwaukee -- Vice President Dick Cheney sought to clarify comments earlier this week that the "wrong choice" in November would risk another terrorist attack.
"Whoever is elected president has to anticipate more attacks," he said in an interview published Friday in The Cincinnati Enquirer.
Explaining that he wanted to "clean up" a controversy, Cheney said a remark he made earlier this week -- that "the wrong choice" in November could lead to another terrorist attack -- did not mean the United States would be hit again as it was in 2001 if voters elected Sen. John Kerry.
Cheney had said in Iowa: "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."
In the newspaper interview, Cheney said: "I did not say if Kerry is elected, we will be hit by a terrorist attack. My point was the question before us is, will we have the most effective policy in place to deal with that threat? George Bush will pursue a more effective policy than John Kerry."
 |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 175
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 4, 2004 - 1:27 pm: | |
Cheney is as subtle as Bush is ponderous. He knew exactly what he was saying. More importantly, any American with any sense knew what he was saying. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 395
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 4, 2004 - 1:27 pm: | |
He's talking about reverting back to a policy of treating terrorism as a matter of law enforcement.
We got hit when Bush and Cheney abandoned that policy in favor of a focus on things like the missile defense shield. You don't pursue a stateless terror organization by invading a bunch of states. Not every problem can be solved militarily. I'm sure al Qaeda is here in America right now...why don't we invade ourselves? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2527
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 4, 2004 - 1:30 pm: | |
This corporate attorney here rests his defense. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 397
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 4, 2004 - 1:38 pm: | |
This corporate attorney here rests his defense.
I'm not a lawyer, but isn't that generally done once the defense has actually been made? |
bobk
Citizen
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 6258
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, October 4, 2004 - 1:59 pm: | |
So does Bush. Am I the only one who has noticed that over the last few weeks the Army has started giving out enemy body count information? This is something we have avoided doing since Vietnam when it became a joke both within the military and with the news media. Is this an attempt to show that yeah, while we lost 1,000, the "evildoeers" lost 10,000?
The creaps me out. |
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 29
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 4, 2004 - 2:36 pm: | |
10,000? How many bodies were innocent Iraqi's? Again women and children are involved. |
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 30
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 4, 2004 - 2:38 pm: | |
Cheney is as subtle as Bush is ponderous. He knew exactly what he was saying. More importantly, any American with any sense knew what he was saying.
With the exception of "Bush" followers & the FoxNews bunch. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2529
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 4, 2004 - 2:42 pm: | |
Paranoid people with a weak candidate who are prone to conspiracies are the only one's left seizing upon this statement. |
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 31
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 4, 2004 - 3:10 pm: | |
Oh, are you speaking about yourself?
I guess after that "lickin" Bush took the other day left him prettty "weak." |
Duncan
Real Name
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 3081
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, October 4, 2004 - 3:44 pm: | |
cjc, your parsing of what Cheney said is reminiscent of "what the definition of is, is." It is another notch in the "scare the hell out of em" belt that both Bush and Cheney wear out of a collective fear that they might lose their jobs, which is indeed possible given the new polling data. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 208
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 4, 2004 - 5:04 pm: | |
I feel like Bush and Cheney are playing good cop/bad cop. Cheney makes all kinds of inflammatory statements, which make Bush look like he's more moderate. From what I've seen, Bush may be a decent guy, in over his head. Cheney is just evil. |
luv2cruise
Citizen
Username: Luv2cruise
Post Number: 243
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 4:25 am: | |
cjc....buy a clue! |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page