<strong>I thought it was common knowledge that Bush would seek political gain in 2004 from the "War on Terrorism." <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/28/bush.2004.ap/index.html"; target="_blank">CNN reports</a> that it indeed tops Bush's re-election agenda.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually CNN doesn't report it, AP newswire does, they just picked it up and repeated it.
However when you look at it, it reflects the type of shoddy journalism that reflects the liberal bias of the press that many Republicans complain about.
Here is the White House explanation..
[quote] The document lists 10 issues starting with the "War on terrorism (Con't)" and "Protecting the homeland (Con't)." There is no further elaboration, but the abbreviation for "continued" also is noted with the next four issues: health care costs and access; legal reform, faith-based services and education,Higher education, Social Security reform, tax reform and immigration reform round out the list.
White House officials, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity about the list obtained by the AP, said the document was not intended to rank issues in any priority. They said it was produced by a White House aide -- whom they wouldn't identify -- in an effort to make sure the 2003 and 2004 agendas did not conflict. <hr></blockquote>
Now let's see who's statements they get on this.
First we have White House communications director Dan Bartlett. The person to actually answer about this.
Then we have...
Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.
Democratic Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont, a presidential candidate
Joe Lockhart, press secretary in the Clinton White House.
The ever popular...White House officials, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity.
So we have one Republican response. Then we have two Democratic presidential candidates, one Clinton press secretary, and unnamed sources.
Sounds like a balanced and credible story to... well someone I suppose. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Hmm. The US has a huge army, we shouldn't need a draft. However, if there's one war I absolutely wouldn't fight in if called to, it would be this one. It's just a case of Bush making the worst possible decisions to be popular. Look at what he's done so far:
1. He was lazy enough on the job to let a huge terrorist attack slip through our intelligence organizations.
2. The economy sucks (not entirely because of Bush, but it's not like he didn't have anything to do with it).
3. Our foreign relations suck (perhaps because of his "Axis Of Evil" speech).
4. We're spending billions of dollars on the missile defense system. Which has been repeatedly proven not to work, and even if it did, we have no need for it.
5. Unless of course we get into a war with a nuclear enemy. Which will likely happen if his warmongering continues.
6. While I'm criticizing Bush, I may as well point out that he's an idiot too.
<strong>Hmm. The US has a huge army, we shouldn't need a draft. However, if there's one war I absolutely wouldn't fight in if called to, it would be this one. It's just a case of Bush making the worst possible decisions to be popular. Look at what he's done so far:
1. He was lazy enough on the job to let a huge terrorist attack slip through our intelligence organizations.
2. The economy sucks (not entirely because of Bush, but it's not like he didn't have anything to do with it).
3. Our foreign relations suck (perhaps because of his "Axis Of Evil" speech).
4. We're spending billions of dollars on the missile defense system. Which has been repeatedly proven not to work, and even if it did, we have no need for it.
5. Unless of course we get into a war with a nuclear enemy. Which will likely happen if his warmongering continues.
6. While I'm criticizing Bush, I may as well point out that he's an idiot too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. Yes those nice attacks on the U.S.S. Cole, our embassy in Africa and of course the bombing of the World Trade Center with a van were proof of who being lazy? Come on... this is not one persons fault, be they Democrat or Republican.
2. The economy has probably had the most slight recession ever on record. I'm not even sure we even had two real quarters of contraction unless you count the quarter after 9/11. The economy isn't growing at the fastest clip, but it isn't contracting either.
3. How have our foreign relations changed since Bush was elected? We were after North Korea about their nuclear program before Bush. We were periodically lobbing missles at Iraq. To add to that we also had to go into Haiti and Croatia. Anyone remember us going into Somalia? My goodness we have a short memory.
4. The fact is that missle defense is still being developed. To say something incomplete "doesn't work" is obvious enough. Going to the moon "didn't work" until 1969 and we spent billions on it starting in 1962.
5. When you have enemies that want weapons to kill you with, is that really warmongering? Bush wasn't just looking for a war for no reason. People who say this must be the most callous of all because we had two buildings go down and the pentagon badly damaged. We had people die on 4 planes and in three buildings. This is like saying President Roosevelt was warmongering because Pearl Harbor was attacked.
6. I think this personal attack doesn't really deserve a response.
You can't claim "liberal bias" just because an article includes the democratic perspective. If you look again, those republican white house officials spoke on a condition of anonymity, so both perspectives were included. It's not "shoddy journalism" just because the conservative side doesn't look the greatest when the democratic perspective is included.
The fact is that Bush indeed plans to campaign on the War on Terrorism.
You can't claim "liberal bias" just because an article includes the democratic perspective. If you look again, those republican white house officials spoke on a condition of anonymity, so both perspectives were included. It's not "shoddy journalism" just because the conservative side doesn't look the greatest when the democratic perspective is included.
The fact is that Bush indeed plans to campaign on the War on Terrorism.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I stated quite plainly why I considered it liberal bias. I wasn't just pulling it out of the air. One named Republican source and three named Democratic sources is no where near balanced. When you also consider that two of the three are also going to be running for president, it gets even worse. That isn't the "democratic perspective" it is ganging up.
Now as for "running" on the War on Terrorism. Bush has answered all critics with regard to his actions. He has sought approval of congress and the U.N. Inspectors have gone in and we are following the timelines and deadlines.
When Bush is running for re-election, are we to honestly believe no one is going to ask or care about terrorism. Do we believe that it is not going to be part of the criteria by which the public will decide if he has done an effective job?
I certainly believe the Democratic candidates will state how they will handle the possibility of terrorist acts returning to the U.S. If they do not, then 2004 will be so bad for them that they will recall the good ol' days of the 2002 elections. It is something that has to be addressed. It is not because Bush has made it an issue. It is because of four planes being hijacked and hitting three buildings.
In case you weren't aware of it, that wasn't a political act. It has to be addressed and attempting to do isn't politics.
If the Democrats didn't take that lesson away from the 2002 elections, they will learn it again the hard way in 2004.
Because it's immoral, illegal and just plain sick to kill thousands of innocent people directly or indirectly because you want to be reelected.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, I guess we have a different idea of what it means to "politicize" it.
I am referring to using his ideas on combating terrorism as a campaign platform.
No Democratic politician is staging conveniently timed "wars" to win midterms and garner advantages in Congress. What we do have is one Democratic congressman calling for mandatory draft reinstatement so that the White House won't be so quick to use their war political tool. Although the White House clearly has the upper edge on this one. The fact is that Bush has polticized the "WOT" and plans to do so in the future.
Because it's immoral, illegal and just plain sick to kill thousands of innocent people directly or indirectly because you want to be reelected.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is why we need to make term limits 1 term. Lengthen the presidency to six years, reps to 4, and keep senators as is. Then maybe these politicians could actually do what they believe in instead of doing what will get them reelected.
While we're at it, let's abolish political parties.
This is why we need to make term limits 1 term. Lengthen the presidency to six years, reps to 4, and keep senators as is. Then maybe these politicians could actually do what they believe in instead of doing what will get them reelected.
While we're at it, let's abolish political parties.
I'de take it a step further and lengthen the term to 8 years. That should give a president plenty of time to deliver on his promises and if not, he can be properly vilified (rightfully so) during and after his term.
<strong>No Democratic politician is staging conveniently timed "wars" to win midterms and garner advantages in Congress. What we do have is one Democratic congressman calling for mandatory draft reinstatement so that the White House won't be so quick to use their war political tool. Although the White House clearly has the upper edge on this one. The fact is that Bush has polticized the "WOT" and plans to do so in the future.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually Clinton was accused of quite a few "wag the dog" scenarios with regard to elections and scandals.
My memory could be different than yours but last November the news of troop deployments in Afghanistan was not being covered anymore. (sad but true) The actions with Iraq were no further along than they are now. It consists of U.N. inspectors looking for proof, not military action.
As for your "facts" repeating it over and over doesn't make it a fact. We have no current military action occuring with Iraq. When we do it will not have been timed with the mid-term elections. It has not been politicized. You might be able to begin building a point if we were currently fighting and Bush was up for election.
However we are so far removed from what you are accusing that you sound strangely conspiratorial and paranoid. That isn't a personal attack. It is the judgement I make about someone who takes a piece of paper with a bulleted phrase and turns it into an entire theory of election for a man that isn't up for re-election for two more years.
I say this because I asked you a direct question which you simply ignored. I asked when Democratic presidential candidates have to address what steps they will take to prevent a future terrorist attack on the U.S. are they "politicizing" the issue. You won't answer it because it doesn't rest well with your conspiracy theory.
It will be an issue on everyones agenda. Everyone will address it. To do so is not politicising it, it is simply doing one of governments primary functions and that is to defend and protect.
Having gone back and read the direction of this thread I find the twin attack tactics of people with leftist political views a little humorous.
If Bush doesn't pre-emptively stop all attacks (as with the WTC) he is incompetent. When he does seek to deal with countries or groups who would take terrorist actions against us, he is "warmongering."
As far as I know, Bush is taking action against 3 of the 4 countries or groups named as the "axis of evil" in his State of the Union address almost a year ago. To me it seems like he is simply following through on dealing with the various rogue states/governments that quite simply wish to see us dead.
What supposed middle ground is there to deal with this that isn't "politicized", "warmongering", or "incompetent inaction."
As for your "facts" repeating it over and over doesn't make it a fact. We have no current military action occuring with Iraq. When we do it will not have been timed with the mid-term elections. It has not been politicized. You might be able to begin building a point if we were currently fighting and Bush was up for election. </strong><hr></blockquote>
This is just 100% not true. We don't have to be in an active conflict for the "war" to be politicized. Thinking that way is just a joke. Once the actual conflict has begun, the politicization is basically over. The actual conflicts don't last very long, not long enough to politicize. They've been politicized long before any shots are fired. I think you'd have to be naive to see things the way you've described.
This is just 100% not true. We don't have to be in an active conflict for the "war" to be politicized. Thinking that way is just a joke. Once the actual conflict has begun, the politicization is basically over. The actual conflicts don't last very long, not long enough to politicize. They've been politicized long before any shots are fired. I think you'd have to be naive to see things the way you've described.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And again, you can claim "naivity" (is that a personal attack?) but what you can't claim to put forth is a solution.
Every critic here who has claimed that Bush has made this political has not said what sort of action would not make it political. Having the War on Terrorism on an agenda of important items to deal with is not politicizing it. This again, from Shawn's link was the full list.
[quote] The document lists 10 issues starting with the "War on terrorism (Con't)" and "Protecting the homeland (Con't)." There is no further elaboration, but the abbreviation for "continued" also is noted with the next four issues: health care costs and access; legal reform, faith-based services and education.
Higher education, Social Security reform, tax reform and immigration reform round out the list. <hr></blockquote>
Again the accusing, and criticism but never solutions.
When a Democratic candidate addresses the War on Terrorism, is it politicizing it?
How about when a Democratic (back to the original point) threatens to try to start drafting people when we have a large enough army already. He does this out of hope that you will "care" more about the issue.
Rangel has no solution to this problem. His proposed legislation is nothing but pure spite that is nothing but pure politics. He does it not because it will bring about a solution, but simply to scare people into voting for what he wants.
Scaring people for no reason, that is politization of an issue in my book. Acting on an ongoing plan to combat terrorism that you stated after the attacks on 9/11 and also in your State of the Union address is not playing politics, it is doing the job you were elected to do.
Again for the final time, what do you "or the Democrats" propose to do to solve this? There is no plan, there is just fear and criticism. Bush has answered the criticism. He has not pre-emptively struck Iraq. He asked for and got a stronger U.N. sanction. The inspectors are doing their job.
The most sickeningly hypocritical things about all of this is that Clinton launched missles for 4 days (over 200 cruise missles) at Iraq. The 4 days just happened to be the days he was being impeached by Congress. Clinton did not go to Congress. He did not go to the U.N. He simply declared that Iraq was in breach of the U.N. compliance and started firing away.
When the impeachment votes were done, so was the bombing. No lead up, no lead out, no speeches before or after. It is obviously pure politics.
There is no Democratic alternative to what Bush is doing. That is why Dems lost the midterms. Now since they are upset about Bush taking action, they propose to involuntarily force young men into being drafted in an attempt to scare people into voting for them.
That just like the impeachment bombings, is pure politics.
You, nor Shawn can state the plan the Democrats would put forward to stop terrorism because they don't have one. You can't even answer the question of them addressing it because in your mind, addressing it is politicizing it.
Bush is doing his job. Amazingly enough the public likes it when you do your job and that leads to a positive result. That in and of itself is not politicizing something.
So I ask again, and I am sure you will throw up more insinuations and dust.
What is the Democratic plan for dealing with possible terrorist attacks on the U.S.? (They don't have one)
When a Democratic candidate for president addresses the War on Terrorism, are they politicizing the issue? (By the Bush criteria you have stated,(which means having a plan) yes they are)
<strong> And again, you can claim "naivity" (is that a personal attack?) but what you can't claim to put forth is a solution.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, it wasn't intended as a personal attack. I questioned using the term, but in the end I decided that it best described what I thought and wasn't negative (although it can be taken as such.)
I've been trying to find a link I posted in FC/Egg Nog, but I don't know if the thread still exists. Actually, I can't get search to work now at all. I posted something similar to SPJ's, but I want to go back and see if they were the same, similar, or if my link was (as I remember, right or wrong) less ambigious. If I can find it I'll revive it.
It was wrong for the republicans (Lott?) to claim that the democrats aren't interested in the security of the nation. That's almost a direct quote. It's wrong of the republicans to equate success or failure in war with either party.
Comments
<strong>I thought it was common knowledge that Bush would seek political gain in 2004 from the "War on Terrorism." <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/28/bush.2004.ap/index.html"; target="_blank">CNN reports</a> that it indeed tops Bush's re-election agenda.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually CNN doesn't report it, AP newswire does, they just picked it up and repeated it.
However when you look at it, it reflects the type of shoddy journalism that reflects the liberal bias of the press that many Republicans complain about.
Here is the White House explanation..
[quote] The document lists 10 issues starting with the "War on terrorism (Con't)" and "Protecting the homeland (Con't)." There is no further elaboration, but the abbreviation for "continued" also is noted with the next four issues: health care costs and access; legal reform, faith-based services and education,Higher education, Social Security reform, tax reform and immigration reform round out the list.
White House officials, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity about the list obtained by the AP, said the document was not intended to rank issues in any priority. They said it was produced by a White House aide -- whom they wouldn't identify -- in an effort to make sure the 2003 and 2004 agendas did not conflict. <hr></blockquote>
Now let's see who's statements they get on this.
First we have White House communications director Dan Bartlett. The person to actually answer about this.
Then we have...
Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.
Democratic Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont, a presidential candidate
Joe Lockhart, press secretary in the Clinton White House.
The ever popular...White House officials, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity.
So we have one Republican response. Then we have two Democratic presidential candidates, one Clinton press secretary, and unnamed sources.
Sounds like a balanced and credible story to... well someone I suppose.
Nick
1. He was lazy enough on the job to let a huge terrorist attack slip through our intelligence organizations.
2. The economy sucks (not entirely because of Bush, but it's not like he didn't have anything to do with it).
3. Our foreign relations suck (perhaps because of his "Axis Of Evil" speech).
4. We're spending billions of dollars on the missile defense system. Which has been repeatedly proven not to work, and even if it did, we have no need for it.
5. Unless of course we get into a war with a nuclear enemy. Which will likely happen if his warmongering continues.
6. While I'm criticizing Bush, I may as well point out that he's an idiot too.
<strong>Hmm. The US has a huge army, we shouldn't need a draft. However, if there's one war I absolutely wouldn't fight in if called to, it would be this one. It's just a case of Bush making the worst possible decisions to be popular. Look at what he's done so far:
1. He was lazy enough on the job to let a huge terrorist attack slip through our intelligence organizations.
2. The economy sucks (not entirely because of Bush, but it's not like he didn't have anything to do with it).
3. Our foreign relations suck (perhaps because of his "Axis Of Evil" speech).
4. We're spending billions of dollars on the missile defense system. Which has been repeatedly proven not to work, and even if it did, we have no need for it.
5. Unless of course we get into a war with a nuclear enemy. Which will likely happen if his warmongering continues.
6. While I'm criticizing Bush, I may as well point out that he's an idiot too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. Yes those nice attacks on the U.S.S. Cole, our embassy in Africa and of course the bombing of the World Trade Center with a van were proof of who being lazy? Come on... this is not one persons fault, be they Democrat or Republican.
2. The economy has probably had the most slight recession ever on record. I'm not even sure we even had two real quarters of contraction unless you count the quarter after 9/11. The economy isn't growing at the fastest clip, but it isn't contracting either.
3. How have our foreign relations changed since Bush was elected? We were after North Korea about their nuclear program before Bush. We were periodically lobbing missles at Iraq. To add to that we also had to go into Haiti and Croatia. Anyone remember us going into Somalia? My goodness we have a short memory.
4. The fact is that missle defense is still being developed. To say something incomplete "doesn't work" is obvious enough. Going to the moon "didn't work" until 1969 and we spent billions on it starting in 1962.
5. When you have enemies that want weapons to kill you with, is that really warmongering? Bush wasn't just looking for a war for no reason. People who say this must be the most callous of all because we had two buildings go down and the pentagon badly damaged. We had people die on 4 planes and in three buildings. This is like saying President Roosevelt was warmongering because Pearl Harbor was attacked.
6. I think this personal attack doesn't really deserve a response.
Nick
You can't claim "liberal bias" just because an article includes the democratic perspective. If you look again, those republican white house officials spoke on a condition of anonymity, so both perspectives were included. It's not "shoddy journalism" just because the conservative side doesn't look the greatest when the democratic perspective is included.
The fact is that Bush indeed plans to campaign on the War on Terrorism.
<strong>Trumptman,
You can't claim "liberal bias" just because an article includes the democratic perspective. If you look again, those republican white house officials spoke on a condition of anonymity, so both perspectives were included. It's not "shoddy journalism" just because the conservative side doesn't look the greatest when the democratic perspective is included.
The fact is that Bush indeed plans to campaign on the War on Terrorism.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I stated quite plainly why I considered it liberal bias. I wasn't just pulling it out of the air. One named Republican source and three named Democratic sources is no where near balanced. When you also consider that two of the three are also going to be running for president, it gets even worse. That isn't the "democratic perspective" it is ganging up.
Now as for "running" on the War on Terrorism. Bush has answered all critics with regard to his actions. He has sought approval of congress and the U.N. Inspectors have gone in and we are following the timelines and deadlines.
When Bush is running for re-election, are we to honestly believe no one is going to ask or care about terrorism. Do we believe that it is not going to be part of the criteria by which the public will decide if he has done an effective job?
I certainly believe the Democratic candidates will state how they will handle the possibility of terrorist acts returning to the U.S. If they do not, then 2004 will be so bad for them that they will recall the good ol' days of the 2002 elections. It is something that has to be addressed. It is not because Bush has made it an issue. It is because of four planes being hijacked and hitting three buildings.
In case you weren't aware of it, that wasn't a political act. It has to be addressed and attempting to do isn't politics.
If the Democrats didn't take that lesson away from the 2002 elections, they will learn it again the hard way in 2004.
Nick
By the way, you agree with me over the fact that Bush indeed plans to politicize the "War on Terror."
<strong>
By the way, you agree with me over the fact that Bush indeed plans to politicize the "War on Terror."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why shouldn't he?
If the shoe was on the other foot, do you think that a Democrat incumbent President would not?
<strong>
Why shouldn't he? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Because it's immoral, illegal and just plain sick to kill thousands of innocent people directly or indirectly because you want to be reelected.
<strong>
Because it's immoral, illegal and just plain sick to kill thousands of innocent people directly or indirectly because you want to be reelected.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, I guess we have a different idea of what it means to "politicize" it.
I am referring to using his ideas on combating terrorism as a campaign platform.
Geez!!
<strong>"In case I wasn't aware of it" is an attack of personal nature. I won't respond in kind.
By the way, you agree with me over the fact that Bush indeed plans to politicize the "War on Terror."</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not so I'm glad you didn't.
Here is what I said.
It has to be addressed and attempting to do isn't politics.
I also said this...
I certainly believe the Democratic candidates will state how they will handle the possibility of terrorist acts returning to the U.S.
Simple question for you, when they state how they will deal with this... are they politicizing it?
Nick
[ 01-02-2003: Message edited by: trumptman ]</p>
<strong>
Because it's immoral, illegal and just plain sick to kill thousands of innocent people directly or indirectly because you want to be reelected.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is why we need to make term limits 1 term. Lengthen the presidency to six years, reps to 4, and keep senators as is. Then maybe these politicians could actually do what they believe in instead of doing what will get them reelected.
While we're at it, let's abolish political parties.
[ 01-02-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</p>
<strong>
This is why we need to make term limits 1 term. Lengthen the presidency to six years, reps to 4, and keep senators as is. Then maybe these politicians could actually do what they believe in instead of doing what will get them reelected.
While we're at it, let's abolish political parties.
[ 01-02-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'de take it a step further and lengthen the term to 8 years. That should give a president plenty of time to deliver on his promises and if not, he can be properly vilified (rightfully so) during and after his term.
<strong>No Democratic politician is staging conveniently timed "wars" to win midterms and garner advantages in Congress. What we do have is one Democratic congressman calling for mandatory draft reinstatement so that the White House won't be so quick to use their war political tool. Although the White House clearly has the upper edge on this one. The fact is that Bush has polticized the "WOT" and plans to do so in the future.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually Clinton was accused of quite a few "wag the dog" scenarios with regard to elections and scandals.
My memory could be different than yours but last November the news of troop deployments in Afghanistan was not being covered anymore. (sad but true) The actions with Iraq were no further along than they are now. It consists of U.N. inspectors looking for proof, not military action.
As for your "facts" repeating it over and over doesn't make it a fact. We have no current military action occuring with Iraq. When we do it will not have been timed with the mid-term elections. It has not been politicized. You might be able to begin building a point if we were currently fighting and Bush was up for election.
However we are so far removed from what you are accusing that you sound strangely conspiratorial and paranoid. That isn't a personal attack. It is the judgement I make about someone who takes a piece of paper with a bulleted phrase and turns it into an entire theory of election for a man that isn't up for re-election for two more years.
I say this because I asked you a direct question which you simply ignored. I asked when Democratic presidential candidates have to address what steps they will take to prevent a future terrorist attack on the U.S. are they "politicizing" the issue. You won't answer it because it doesn't rest well with your conspiracy theory.
It will be an issue on everyones agenda. Everyone will address it. To do so is not politicising it, it is simply doing one of governments primary functions and that is to defend and protect.
Nick
If Bush doesn't pre-emptively stop all attacks (as with the WTC) he is incompetent. When he does seek to deal with countries or groups who would take terrorist actions against us, he is "warmongering."
As far as I know, Bush is taking action against 3 of the 4 countries or groups named as the "axis of evil" in his State of the Union address almost a year ago. To me it seems like he is simply following through on dealing with the various rogue states/governments that quite simply wish to see us dead.
What supposed middle ground is there to deal with this that isn't "politicized", "warmongering", or "incompetent inaction."
Nick
<strong>
As for your "facts" repeating it over and over doesn't make it a fact. We have no current military action occuring with Iraq. When we do it will not have been timed with the mid-term elections. It has not been politicized. You might be able to begin building a point if we were currently fighting and Bush was up for election. </strong><hr></blockquote>
This is just 100% not true. We don't have to be in an active conflict for the "war" to be politicized. Thinking that way is just a joke. Once the actual conflict has begun, the politicization is basically over. The actual conflicts don't last very long, not long enough to politicize. They've been politicized long before any shots are fired. I think you'd have to be naive to see things the way you've described.
<strong>
This is just 100% not true. We don't have to be in an active conflict for the "war" to be politicized. Thinking that way is just a joke. Once the actual conflict has begun, the politicization is basically over. The actual conflicts don't last very long, not long enough to politicize. They've been politicized long before any shots are fired. I think you'd have to be naive to see things the way you've described.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And again, you can claim "naivity" (is that a personal attack?) but what you can't claim to put forth is a solution.
Every critic here who has claimed that Bush has made this political has not said what sort of action would not make it political. Having the War on Terrorism on an agenda of important items to deal with is not politicizing it. This again, from Shawn's link was the full list.
[quote] The document lists 10 issues starting with the "War on terrorism (Con't)" and "Protecting the homeland (Con't)." There is no further elaboration, but the abbreviation for "continued" also is noted with the next four issues: health care costs and access; legal reform, faith-based services and education.
Higher education, Social Security reform, tax reform and immigration reform round out the list. <hr></blockquote>
Again the accusing, and criticism but never solutions.
When a Democratic candidate addresses the War on Terrorism, is it politicizing it?
How about when a Democratic (back to the original point) threatens to try to start drafting people when we have a large enough army already. He does this out of hope that you will "care" more about the issue.
Rangel has no solution to this problem. His proposed legislation is nothing but pure spite that is nothing but pure politics. He does it not because it will bring about a solution, but simply to scare people into voting for what he wants.
Scaring people for no reason, that is politization of an issue in my book. Acting on an ongoing plan to combat terrorism that you stated after the attacks on 9/11 and also in your State of the Union address is not playing politics, it is doing the job you were elected to do.
Again for the final time, what do you "or the Democrats" propose to do to solve this? There is no plan, there is just fear and criticism. Bush has answered the criticism. He has not pre-emptively struck Iraq. He asked for and got a stronger U.N. sanction. The inspectors are doing their job.
The most sickeningly hypocritical things about all of this is that Clinton launched missles for 4 days (over 200 cruise missles) at Iraq. The 4 days just happened to be the days he was being impeached by Congress. Clinton did not go to Congress. He did not go to the U.N. He simply declared that Iraq was in breach of the U.N. compliance and started firing away.
When the impeachment votes were done, so was the bombing. No lead up, no lead out, no speeches before or after. It is obviously pure politics.
There is no Democratic alternative to what Bush is doing. That is why Dems lost the midterms. Now since they are upset about Bush taking action, they propose to involuntarily force young men into being drafted in an attempt to scare people into voting for them.
That just like the impeachment bombings, is pure politics.
You, nor Shawn can state the plan the Democrats would put forward to stop terrorism because they don't have one. You can't even answer the question of them addressing it because in your mind, addressing it is politicizing it.
Bush is doing his job. Amazingly enough the public likes it when you do your job and that leads to a positive result. That in and of itself is not politicizing something.
So I ask again, and I am sure you will throw up more insinuations and dust.
What is the Democratic plan for dealing with possible terrorist attacks on the U.S.? (They don't have one)
When a Democratic candidate for president addresses the War on Terrorism, are they politicizing the issue? (By the Bush criteria you have stated,(which means having a plan) yes they are)
Nick
<strong> And again, you can claim "naivity" (is that a personal attack?) but what you can't claim to put forth is a solution.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, it wasn't intended as a personal attack. I questioned using the term, but in the end I decided that it best described what I thought and wasn't negative (although it can be taken as such.)
I've been trying to find a link I posted in FC/Egg Nog, but I don't know if the thread still exists. Actually, I can't get search to work now at all. I posted something similar to SPJ's, but I want to go back and see if they were the same, similar, or if my link was (as I remember, right or wrong) less ambigious. If I can find it I'll revive it.
It was wrong for the republicans (Lott?) to claim that the democrats aren't interested in the security of the nation. That's almost a direct quote. It's wrong of the republicans to equate success or failure in war with either party.