Yes but what if 10 years from now the middle east still hasn't recovered from what they see as our intrusion into their part of the world? Terrorism is on the rise as payback? Also because of what we did nobody trusts us?
The most likely scenerio however is that not much will have changed. Petty dictators and religious leaders will still be spawning violence in the middle east much the same as they did 10 years ago.
And 10 years before that.
If that is the case then I will say I was wrong in my thinking.
Decades of pacifism and inspection did not change anything, nor did almost 9 years of clinton policy. In fact the argument can be made that it was because of that policy we arrived at 9/11.
You can criticize Bush till you're blue in the face. But at least give him credit for trying a different tack.
Oh what's the use...
Let's all just be honest with one another. Just preface what you say with "we hate Bush because he is an illegitimate president and Gore should have won. We are very bitter and we want revenge." That would at least be an intellectually honest statement.
And rank and file Republicans are comparing various Democrats, including Kerry, to Hitler.
So where's the disparity?
Who is doing that? I've not once heard that comparison.
lurker:
Quote:
"Falsified" implies that the intelligence was made up out of thin air. Not that I'd put it past BushCo, but I've seen nothing to suggest that. "Misrepresented" is more in line with my take on this.
I think that it's more a matter of deliberately ignoring certain elements of available intelligence (that did not support Bush's WoMD claims), and misrepresenting the reliability of the intelligence used to support the claim that WoMD's existed and were ready (or nearly ready) to be used.
There's no evidence of that. We've not seen any intelligence that says "Saddam didn't have WMD". You might suspect, but you have absolutely no proof that the Bush Administration misrepresented anything. Whatever was presented to Congress must have been pretty convincing, no?
chu_bakka:
Quote:
We essentially pulled out of Afghanistan to go after Saddam...
Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Qaida... our military is stretached thin because of Iraq... where we'll have tens of thousands of troops for many years to come. And that endeavour hurt our global standing, cooperation is much harder to come by... which is essential in combatting terrorism.
Well over 2 years after 9/11 we're again talking about getting Osama.
We should of never let up on him.
We didn't pull out of Afghanistan. Cooperation is not harder to come by. Cooperation from who? France? The Germans? This action was no unilateral in any sense of the word. The US is continuing to work with nations around the world, especially in situations like North Korea (where a decidely multi-lateral approach is being used).
As for Al-Qaeda and Iraq, you're probably right in terms of a direct connection. However, there is no question that Saddam at least tolerated terrorism....in fact he funded famlies of Palestinian suicide bombers. He DID have terror ties. He was at least pursuing WMD...even if he didn't actually have any. He also had unquestionable hatred of ths United States. This man openly praised 9/11, even as other "less than friendly" dictators expressed sorrow (i.e. Libya) This is where we differ: In the post 9/11 age, we could not afford to take the risk of a madman and mass murderer like Saddam helping a terrorist network arm itself with WMD.
You see Kerry testified in front of congress, that soldiers were regularly committing disgusting atrocities.
He and his campaign have backed away from that whole thing, with some lame thing like "that was just an angry young man trying to stop a war." crap.
If you are supporting Kerry you are supporting the very cherry-picking you decry.
That's all going to come out. Not only that, but Kerry has talked about PARTICIPATING in war crimes. It's actually on record.
Quote:
I'm firmly in the ABB camp, and if Kerry is our only chance to get Bush out of office, then so be it.
As far as Kerry and his past in Vietnam - he had the guts to speak out about what he saw (are you saying there were no atrocities commited by American soldiers in Vietnam?). As you might note above, I have great respect for Americans who exercise their patriotism by questioning the policies and actions of their elected officials.
Regarding cherry-picking, I should probably remind you which candidate completely REFUSES to discuss his past alcoholism, drug use, DUI, etc. (hint - it's not Kerry)
Well...see my above statement re: Kerry. And BTW, I'd have to disagree anyway. Kery didn't just reluctantly talk about his experiences. He was part of a radical anti-war group while we had soldiers in battle. There may have been atrocities, but Kerry made it seem as if they were commonplace. He did this, again, with soldiers dying on the battlefield.
As for Bush, you're simply wrong. Bush HAS talked about his past experiences with alcohol. He's told the story many times. Whether or not he was an actual alcoholic is in much dispute. He also talked about his DUI....he admitted it plainly, the day the story broke (by the way, that attack was personally ordered by Gore).
ABB: That concept amazes me. Do you honestly believe Kerry would make a better President than Bush? If so, why? What will he do differently? How will he "create jobs" and "have a strategy to win the WOT"? (his words). Why would you support him?
Well to be quite frank he's the president. He is responsible for many things. So I'd guess the criticism would flow into many areas. With his job you just can't get away from that. You know " The buck stops here " and all that.
I'm sorry if this bothers you but I did warn you a year and a half ago that once this starts to unravel it won't be pretty.
People seem to get down right angry when they sense that their president has done something wrong.
Just ask Bill Clinton.
You're missing the point: While I am criticized as being polarized, you and others truly believe that every action Bush has taken has been wrong. It's completely ridiculous. You give Clinton credit for the 1990's economy, and do not fault him for the recession...which began before he left office. You refuse to recognize that the economy is growing and in recovery despite low unemployment, high GDP growth and markets on the rise. You cannot accept that many of the previous admins polices have contributed directly to current affairs...especially North Korea and even Iraq.
I can at least point to Clinton and say he was intelligent and well spoken. He did some good things, even though I disagreed with him on nearly everything. Some frequent posters in this thread could never speak of Bush that way. Yet somehow, I'm the blind one. OK. Gotcha.
ABB: That concept amazes me. Do you honestly believe Kerry would make a better President than Bush?
Yes.
Quote:
If so, why?
Because I believe Bush is the worst president we've had in the last half-century, and I find it highly unlikely that Kerry could be worse. Heck, I think even Nader would be better...
It's the classic "lesser of two evils" scenario that our electoral system is so good at presenting to us.
wow Naples. You like that "satanic" rock and roll eh? I find it sad that you try to label anyone who disagrees or doesn't like Bush a "liberal",in a disparaging manner. Unless of course you mean the "liberal" label as a compliment. If you do, I am more than happy to accept it. Compared to you and SDW I definitely am.
Just for your info., I'm a registered Republican. I like to view myself as a McCain Rep. A moderate . However I'm not a fanatic and I can criticize an administration that I view as too extreme for the good of the COUNTRY. In fact ANY Democrat will get my vote and the votes of most of my friends this year.
SDW and Naples: do you guys agree with Perle, that "compassionate moderate" when he suggests in his latest book that we should "Regard Saudi Arabia and France not as friends but as rivals ? maybe enemies"?I have a feeling I already know the answer to that one.
Jeez... after all this you're STILL in denial about why we hate Bush. We hate Bush because he's a terrible president and he and his administartion are a bunch of dishonest, warmongering Judeo-Christian American supremists capable of neither social tolerance, socioeconomic empathy, nor environmental concern. Get a clue.
Well OK that is your revised version. But at least you admit that you hate him. At least you are being somewhat honest.
wow Naples. You like that "satanic" rock and roll eh? I find it sad that you try to label anyone who disagrees or doesn't like Bush a "liberal",in a disparaging manner. Unless of course you mean the "liberal" label as a compliment. If you do, I am more than happy to accept it. Compared to you and SDW I definitely am.
Just for your info., I'm a registered Republican. I like to view myself as a McCain Rep. A moderate . However I'm not a fanatic and I can criticize an administration that I view as too extreme for the good of the COUNTRY. In fact ANY Democrat will get my vote and the votes of most of my friends this year.
SDW and Naples: do you guys agree with Perle, that "compassionate moderate" when he suggests in his latest book that we should "Regard Saudi Arabia and France not as friends but as rivals ? maybe enemies"?I have a feeling I already know the answer to that one.
Wow, Gilsch I see you take everything that someone says about the democratic party personally, which makes me suspect your republican claim, but I guess that is neither here nor there. I disagree with the overall tone that the democratic party is emanating, I disagree with their visceral and venomous hatred for this president. The more you guys speak the more it is apperant. I disagree with the twisted mentality that they promote, namely, revenge for Gore's loss. Kerry has already brought it up in a campaign speech in florida. Studies have shown that bush would have won no matter how many times they would have recounted. I disagree with how every argument with a liberal democrat ends with "Well there are no WMD's so therefore GWB is evil, he needs to go". I disagree with the fact that GWB is evil but people like SH and UBL are just bad guys and most liberals will not identify them as evil. That fact actually is a little scary.
I have said many times, there is room for conservative and liberal thinking in politics as well as in real life, but both sides need to realize that the other provides checks and balances.
So as far as disagreeing with you, I am not sure we disagree about as much as you think, but your (meaning a lot of you here) tactics and methods are extremely divisive and wrong. I will rail against what I think is wrong. Get used to it.
Because I believe Bush is the worst president we've had in the last half-century, and I find it highly unlikely that Kerry could be worse. Heck, I think even Nader would be better...
It's the classic "lesser of two evils" scenario that our electoral system is so good at presenting to us.
Well I guess we'll just have to disagree. It's amazing that you don't think Clinton was worse than Bush. He's the man who sold nuclear technology to North Korea, refused to go after Al-Qaeda, tried to nationalize healthcare, raised taxes on the middle class by the largest percentage in history, cut military spending and went on TV to directly and unquestionably lie to American public.
Jeez... after all this you're STILL in denial about why we hate Bush. We hate Bush because he's a terrible president and he and his administartion are a bunch of dishonest, warmongering Judeo-Christian American supremists capable of neither social tolerance, socioeconomic empathy, nor environmental concern. Get a clue.
That's the kind of thinking I'm talking about. It's fine to disagree with policy, but when one makes statements like the above, one cannot be expected to be taken seriously.
wow Naples. You like that "satanic" rock and roll eh? I find it sad that you try to label anyone who disagrees or doesn't like Bush a "liberal",in a disparaging manner. Unless of course you mean the "liberal" label as a compliment. If you do, I am more than happy to accept it. Compared to you and SDW I definitely am.
Just for your info., I'm a registered Republican. I like to view myself as a McCain Rep. A moderate . However I'm not a fanatic and I can criticize an administration that I view as too extreme for the good of the COUNTRY. In fact ANY Democrat will get my vote and the votes of most of my friends this year.
SDW and Naples: do you guys agree with Perle, that "compassionate moderate" when he suggests in his latest book that we should "Regard Saudi Arabia and France not as friends but as rivals ? maybe enemies"?I have a feeling I already know the answer to that one.
I think you'd be surprised at some of my positions. And yes, I think Saudi Arabia and France should be treated as rivals, btw.
I think it's funny that they're going after Kerry for wanting to cut 1.5 Billion OVER 5 YEARS in fat from a 30 Billion intelligence budget in 1995... the 1.5 Billion was essentially a slush fund for defense contractors for a program that was already phased out. Also they claim he was the only sponsor, yet for 1995 there isn't any cut in intelligence bill only with Kerry's name on it.
In his Sept. 10 submission to the budget office, Mr. Ashcroft did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators.
Mr. Ashcroft proposed cuts in 14 programs. One proposed $65 million cut was for a program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants for equipment, including radios and decontamination suits and training to localities for counterterrorism preparedness.
It's good that now the blogosphere is so huge and Google so efficient that it only takes an army of fact checkers to find quotes and articles to counter the Bush's campaign mantras... reporters don't even have to work very hard, all they have to do is hit some blogs... read a few articles and boom they have their proverbial grain of salt... well bags of salt.
I suspect that Bush's 2001 budget closet has some cobwebs he'd rather not have found. His response will be... "But that was BEFORE 9/11!"
In his Sept. 10 submission to the budget office, Mr. Ashcroft did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators.
well . . . I guess they can say two things:
One: Ashcroft isn't Bush and you will be voting for Bush . . . um . . . we'll see about that liabil . . .i mean.. Aschroft fellow . .
Two: ok, ok, let's start this campaign over . . .. starting now!
I think it's funny that they're going after Kerry for wanting to cut 1.5 Billion OVER 5 YEARS in fat from a 30 Billion intelligence budget in 1995... the 1.5 Billion was essentially a slush fund for defense contractors for a program that was already phased out. Also they claim he was the only sponsor, yet for 1995 there isn't any cut in intelligence bill only with Kerry's name on it.
In his Sept. 10 submission to the budget office, Mr. Ashcroft did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators.
Mr. Ashcroft proposed cuts in 14 programs. One proposed $65 million cut was for a program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants for equipment, including radios and decontamination suits and training to localities for counterterrorism preparedness.
It's good that now the blogosphere is so huge and Google so efficient that it only takes an army of fact checkers to find quotes and articles to counter the Bush's campaign mantras... reporters don't even have to work very hard, all they have to do is hit some blogs... read a few articles and boom they have their proverbial grain of salt... well bags of salt.
I suspect that Bush's 2001 budget closet has some cobwebs he'd rather not have found. His response will be... "But that was BEFORE 9/11!"
Comments
Originally posted by jimmac
Yes but what if 10 years from now the middle east still hasn't recovered from what they see as our intrusion into their part of the world? Terrorism is on the rise as payback? Also because of what we did nobody trusts us?
The most likely scenerio however is that not much will have changed. Petty dictators and religious leaders will still be spawning violence in the middle east much the same as they did 10 years ago.
And 10 years before that.
If that is the case then I will say I was wrong in my thinking.
Decades of pacifism and inspection did not change anything, nor did almost 9 years of clinton policy. In fact the argument can be made that it was because of that policy we arrived at 9/11.
You can criticize Bush till you're blue in the face. But at least give him credit for trying a different tack.
Oh what's the use...
Let's all just be honest with one another. Just preface what you say with "we hate Bush because he is an illegitimate president and Gore should have won. We are very bitter and we want revenge." That would at least be an intellectually honest statement.
Originally posted by 709
That's rich coming from a guy who uses a Poison lyric as his sig.
I am not sure what that means. But you are the first to recognize the who the lyrics were from. Well done.
And rank and file Republicans are comparing various Democrats, including Kerry, to Hitler.
So where's the disparity?
Who is doing that? I've not once heard that comparison.
lurker:
"Falsified" implies that the intelligence was made up out of thin air. Not that I'd put it past BushCo, but I've seen nothing to suggest that. "Misrepresented" is more in line with my take on this.
I think that it's more a matter of deliberately ignoring certain elements of available intelligence (that did not support Bush's WoMD claims), and misrepresenting the reliability of the intelligence used to support the claim that WoMD's existed and were ready (or nearly ready) to be used.
There's no evidence of that. We've not seen any intelligence that says "Saddam didn't have WMD". You might suspect, but you have absolutely no proof that the Bush Administration misrepresented anything. Whatever was presented to Congress must have been pretty convincing, no?
chu_bakka:
We essentially pulled out of Afghanistan to go after Saddam...
Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Qaida... our military is stretached thin because of Iraq... where we'll have tens of thousands of troops for many years to come. And that endeavour hurt our global standing, cooperation is much harder to come by... which is essential in combatting terrorism.
Well over 2 years after 9/11 we're again talking about getting Osama.
We should of never let up on him.
We didn't pull out of Afghanistan. Cooperation is not harder to come by. Cooperation from who? France? The Germans? This action was no unilateral in any sense of the word. The US is continuing to work with nations around the world, especially in situations like North Korea (where a decidely multi-lateral approach is being used).
As for Al-Qaeda and Iraq, you're probably right in terms of a direct connection. However, there is no question that Saddam at least tolerated terrorism....in fact he funded famlies of Palestinian suicide bombers. He DID have terror ties. He was at least pursuing WMD...even if he didn't actually have any. He also had unquestionable hatred of ths United States. This man openly praised 9/11, even as other "less than friendly" dictators expressed sorrow (i.e. Libya) This is where we differ: In the post 9/11 age, we could not afford to take the risk of a madman and mass murderer like Saddam helping a terrorist network arm itself with WMD.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Do you support Kerry/ Is he your man?
You see Kerry testified in front of congress, that soldiers were regularly committing disgusting atrocities.
He and his campaign have backed away from that whole thing, with some lame thing like "that was just an angry young man trying to stop a war." crap.
If you are supporting Kerry you are supporting the very cherry-picking you decry.
That's all going to come out. Not only that, but Kerry has talked about PARTICIPATING in war crimes. It's actually on record.
I'm firmly in the ABB camp, and if Kerry is our only chance to get Bush out of office, then so be it.
As far as Kerry and his past in Vietnam - he had the guts to speak out about what he saw (are you saying there were no atrocities commited by American soldiers in Vietnam?). As you might note above, I have great respect for Americans who exercise their patriotism by questioning the policies and actions of their elected officials.
Regarding cherry-picking, I should probably remind you which candidate completely REFUSES to discuss his past alcoholism, drug use, DUI, etc. (hint - it's not Kerry)
Well...see my above statement re: Kerry. And BTW, I'd have to disagree anyway. Kery didn't just reluctantly talk about his experiences. He was part of a radical anti-war group while we had soldiers in battle. There may have been atrocities, but Kerry made it seem as if they were commonplace. He did this, again, with soldiers dying on the battlefield.
As for Bush, you're simply wrong. Bush HAS talked about his past experiences with alcohol. He's told the story many times. Whether or not he was an actual alcoholic is in much dispute. He also talked about his DUI....he admitted it plainly, the day the story broke (by the way, that attack was personally ordered by Gore).
ABB: That concept amazes me. Do you honestly believe Kerry would make a better President than Bush? If so, why? What will he do differently? How will he "create jobs" and "have a strategy to win the WOT"? (his words). Why would you support him?
Originally posted by jimmac
Well to be quite frank he's the president. He is responsible for many things. So I'd guess the criticism would flow into many areas. With his job you just can't get away from that. You know " The buck stops here " and all that.
I'm sorry if this bothers you but I did warn you a year and a half ago that once this starts to unravel it won't be pretty.
People seem to get down right angry when they sense that their president has done something wrong.
Just ask Bill Clinton.
You're missing the point: While I am criticized as being polarized, you and others truly believe that every action Bush has taken has been wrong. It's completely ridiculous. You give Clinton credit for the 1990's economy, and do not fault him for the recession...which began before he left office. You refuse to recognize that the economy is growing and in recovery despite low unemployment, high GDP growth and markets on the rise. You cannot accept that many of the previous admins polices have contributed directly to current affairs...especially North Korea and even Iraq.
I can at least point to Clinton and say he was intelligent and well spoken. He did some good things, even though I disagreed with him on nearly everything. Some frequent posters in this thread could never speak of Bush that way. Yet somehow, I'm the blind one. OK. Gotcha.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Who is doing that? I've not once heard that comparison.
Big surprise.
Originally posted by SDW2001
ABB: That concept amazes me. Do you honestly believe Kerry would make a better President than Bush?
Yes.
If so, why?
Because I believe Bush is the worst president we've had in the last half-century, and I find it highly unlikely that Kerry could be worse. Heck, I think even Nader would be better...
It's the classic "lesser of two evils" scenario that our electoral system is so good at presenting to us.
Just for your info., I'm a registered Republican. I like to view myself as a McCain Rep. A moderate . However I'm not a fanatic and I can criticize an administration that I view as too extreme for the good of the COUNTRY. In fact ANY Democrat will get my vote and the votes of most of my friends this year.
SDW and Naples: do you guys agree with Perle, that "compassionate moderate" when he suggests in his latest book that we should "Regard Saudi Arabia and France not as friends but as rivals ? maybe enemies"?I have a feeling I already know the answer to that one.
Originally posted by tonton
Jeez... after all this you're STILL in denial about why we hate Bush. We hate Bush because he's a terrible president and he and his administartion are a bunch of dishonest, warmongering Judeo-Christian American supremists capable of neither social tolerance, socioeconomic empathy, nor environmental concern. Get a clue.
Well OK that is your revised version. But at least you admit that you hate him. At least you are being somewhat honest.
Originally posted by Gilsch
wow Naples. You like that "satanic" rock and roll eh?
Just for your info., I'm a registered Republican. I like to view myself as a McCain Rep. A moderate . However I'm not a fanatic and I can criticize an administration that I view as too extreme for the good of the COUNTRY. In fact ANY Democrat will get my vote and the votes of most of my friends this year.
SDW and Naples: do you guys agree with Perle, that "compassionate moderate" when he suggests in his latest book that we should "Regard Saudi Arabia and France not as friends but as rivals ? maybe enemies"?I have a feeling I already know the answer to that one.
Wow, Gilsch I see you take everything that someone says about the democratic party personally, which makes me suspect your republican claim, but I guess that is neither here nor there. I disagree with the overall tone that the democratic party is emanating, I disagree with their visceral and venomous hatred for this president. The more you guys speak the more it is apperant. I disagree with the twisted mentality that they promote, namely, revenge for Gore's loss. Kerry has already brought it up in a campaign speech in florida. Studies have shown that bush would have won no matter how many times they would have recounted. I disagree with how every argument with a liberal democrat ends with "Well there are no WMD's so therefore GWB is evil, he needs to go". I disagree with the fact that GWB is evil but people like SH and UBL are just bad guys and most liberals will not identify them as evil. That fact actually is a little scary.
I have said many times, there is room for conservative and liberal thinking in politics as well as in real life, but both sides need to realize that the other provides checks and balances.
So as far as disagreeing with you, I am not sure we disagree about as much as you think, but your (meaning a lot of you here) tactics and methods are extremely divisive and wrong. I will rail against what I think is wrong. Get used to it.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Yes.
Because I believe Bush is the worst president we've had in the last half-century, and I find it highly unlikely that Kerry could be worse. Heck, I think even Nader would be better...
It's the classic "lesser of two evils" scenario that our electoral system is so good at presenting to us.
Well I guess we'll just have to disagree. It's amazing that you don't think Clinton was worse than Bush. He's the man who sold nuclear technology to North Korea, refused to go after Al-Qaeda, tried to nationalize healthcare, raised taxes on the middle class by the largest percentage in history, cut military spending and went on TV to directly and unquestionably lie to American public.
Originally posted by tonton
Jeez... after all this you're STILL in denial about why we hate Bush. We hate Bush because he's a terrible president and he and his administartion are a bunch of dishonest, warmongering Judeo-Christian American supremists capable of neither social tolerance, socioeconomic empathy, nor environmental concern. Get a clue.
That's the kind of thinking I'm talking about. It's fine to disagree with policy, but when one makes statements like the above, one cannot be expected to be taken seriously.
Originally posted by Gilsch
wow Naples. You like that "satanic" rock and roll eh?
Just for your info., I'm a registered Republican. I like to view myself as a McCain Rep. A moderate . However I'm not a fanatic and I can criticize an administration that I view as too extreme for the good of the COUNTRY. In fact ANY Democrat will get my vote and the votes of most of my friends this year.
SDW and Naples: do you guys agree with Perle, that "compassionate moderate" when he suggests in his latest book that we should "Regard Saudi Arabia and France not as friends but as rivals ? maybe enemies"?I have a feeling I already know the answer to that one.
I think you'd be surprised at some of my positions. And yes, I think Saudi Arabia and France should be treated as rivals, btw.
Originally posted by SDW2001
And yes, I think Saudi Arabia and France should be treated as rivals, btw.
Why should they be treated as rivals? What are we fighting over?
Originally posted by NaplesX
What part or where is Coatsville? I'm from a little town in the center of the state called Clearfield. near State College
Coatsville is in Chester County, nearish to West Chester.
As for myself I am literally on the opposite side of west chester...where the walls bleed orange...
.Rep Cole with supporting Kerry=supporting Hitler (also kerry=osama)
.Post article on dean=hitler
.Hitlery Clinton
.femi-nazis
.the old famous Clinton=Hitler (or have you forgotten?)
Not to mention:
vote for dems=vote for terrorists, terrorists support kerry, liberals=terrorists.
So where's the disparity? It's that dems and liberals don't use Goebbels-like tactics to drench the media with each and every incident.
But in 2001... this was going on too... via http://atrios.blogspot.com/ and http://www.rememberjohn.com/ashcroft.html
In his Sept. 10 submission to the budget office, Mr. Ashcroft did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators.
Mr. Ashcroft proposed cuts in 14 programs. One proposed $65 million cut was for a program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants for equipment, including radios and decontamination suits and training to localities for counterterrorism preparedness.
It's good that now the blogosphere is so huge and Google so efficient that it only takes an army of fact checkers to find quotes and articles to counter the Bush's campaign mantras... reporters don't even have to work very hard, all they have to do is hit some blogs... read a few articles and boom they have their proverbial grain of salt... well bags of salt.
I suspect that Bush's 2001 budget closet has some cobwebs he'd rather not have found. His response will be... "But that was BEFORE 9/11!"
Yeah and so was 1995.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
But in 2001... this was going on too... via http://atrios.blogspot.com/ and http://www.rememberjohn.com/ashcroft.html
In his Sept. 10 submission to the budget office, Mr. Ashcroft did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators.
well . . . I guess they can say two things:
One: Ashcroft isn't Bush and you will be voting for Bush . . . um . . . we'll see about that liabil . . .i mean.. Aschroft fellow . .
Two: ok, ok, let's start this campaign over . . .. starting now!
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I think it's funny that they're going after Kerry for wanting to cut 1.5 Billion OVER 5 YEARS in fat from a 30 Billion intelligence budget in 1995... the 1.5 Billion was essentially a slush fund for defense contractors for a program that was already phased out. Also they claim he was the only sponsor, yet for 1995 there isn't any cut in intelligence bill only with Kerry's name on it.
But in 2001... this was going on too... via http://atrios.blogspot.com/ and http://www.rememberjohn.com/ashcroft.html
In his Sept. 10 submission to the budget office, Mr. Ashcroft did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators.
Mr. Ashcroft proposed cuts in 14 programs. One proposed $65 million cut was for a program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants for equipment, including radios and decontamination suits and training to localities for counterterrorism preparedness.
It's good that now the blogosphere is so huge and Google so efficient that it only takes an army of fact checkers to find quotes and articles to counter the Bush's campaign mantras... reporters don't even have to work very hard, all they have to do is hit some blogs... read a few articles and boom they have their proverbial grain of salt... well bags of salt.
I suspect that Bush's 2001 budget closet has some cobwebs he'd rather not have found. His response will be... "But that was BEFORE 9/11!"
Yeah and so was 1995.
NAIL ON THE F'CKING HEAD!