Misdirection is the most fundamental of stage magic arts. When you want to accomplish something that you don’t want the audience to see or understand, you distract their attention elsewhere.
It was something that GWB thoroughly mastered in his first four years. Using misdirection to draw the public’s attention away from his failure to find bin Laden, he and his Neocons used Iraq in what Jon Stewart correctly referred to as “Operation: Re-elect Bush.” To draw the public’s attention away from the fact that Iraq was not a threat to the US, he managed to say “9/11” and “Saddam” in the same breath so many times that the majority of Americans became convinced they were linked. Misdirection. He waved his right hand widely and sweepingly and drew America’s attention away from his true motivations neatly tucked in his other hand. And it worked.
But now we’re into bad misdirection. Because his recent speech could have been delivered a year ago, as if the ongoing war (it’s not an insurgency; it’s a war. Let’s call it what it is) hadn’t happened. As if dead Americans weren’t piling up like cordwood, and weren’t going to be doing so for the foreseeable future. Now the problem is that instead of being distracted by the deftly moving right hand, people are starting to say, “Wait…what’s he got in his left hand?” Bush’s response? A speech that basically shouts, “Look at my right hand! See? Right hand, over here! Look at it, look at it!” His attempts to link 9/11 and Iraq yet again, at a time when more and more Americans are starting to realize that there is no link, are more pathetically obvious than ever before. His manipulation of a shell-shocked America and his naked politicizing of the terrorist strike at the WTC by using it to support a long-standing Neocon war initiative remains one of the most ugly moments in recent presidential history. I think it ironic that Democrats get slammed for invoking Nazi Germany while Bush and his pals continue to invoke 9/11 to support everything from a flag burning amendment to an unnecessary war.
The absolute lowpoint was the following:
“Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: “This Third World War is raging” in Iraq.”
Am I the only one who finds this a hoot? What the hëll has the world come to when we consider this: The credibility of the President of the United States is so non-existent, that if we won’t take his word for it that the Iraq war was a necessary strike against terrorism, certainly we’ll take the word of a murdering sociopath with the blood of three thousand Americans on his hands. Yes, that’s right, kids: George W. Bush apparently believes that the words of Osama bin Laden have more street cred than his own.
Bush will always have his apologists, of course. Those who embrace the oldest rationalization of all, namely that the ends justifies the means. Karl Rove can try to shift blame to the Democrats all he wants. But the trickery is becoming more obvious, the misdirection more obvious, and the curtain more frayed.
Most people can quote Lincoln saying “It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all the time.” But what is less known is the sentence right before that: “If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem.”
Presto.
PAD
• 
“So what?”
You implied that it was solely an American mission. You lied.
Like most current Democrats, Peter David has no solutions of his own whatsoever.
1) It’s more of a plan than bush has
2) Do YOU have a solution?
‘Just because they involve an “assumption of getting fûçkìņg shot” doesn’t mean we should simply accept it when our planes ARE attacked. It’s called fighting back.’
And you’re right. If the Americans were getting shot at, they had all the right in the world to shoot back. Invading the country (again) and under false pretenses this time is a completely different issue. Iraq shooting at American planes is not a threat to American domestic security. It may be constituted a threat to American military security in the Middle East, but that’s a different kettle of fish.
NOTHING is a plan?
I support Bush, that’s my plan.
Bill said:
“I find some of the support for McCain and Powell surprising. If Bush truly “lied” about Iraq it was Powell who was usually the mouthpiece. And McCain is very very conservative. If he were anyone else I think he’d be just considered another “Neocon”.”
I also think of McCain – not necessarily as a Republican whom I could vote for for president, but at least as one I could live with, and perhaps even like as president. Speaking for myself at least, and perhaps explaining some of the others’ thoughts ….
John McCain is one of the very few (VERY few) Republicans (as in “elected officials/leaders,” not “people registered in the party”) whom I actually respect. (For the record, the Democrat list dwindles these days, too ….) He actually seems as though he has integrity, principals to which he adheres – though he did admit to caving and allowing negative campaigning in one of his state primaries against Bush. But, he apologized for it, admiting that it was a mistake, and one which he regretted – unlike many modern Republicans, who seem to revel in smear campaigns. And, also unlike much of the Republican heirarchy, he doesn’t seem as though he’d be in it just for the power. Granted, one has to have great ambition and even ego to want to be President of the United States, but unlike some candidates – from both parties, I’m willing to concede – he doesn’t seem as though he would want to be President just to ensure the reign of his party over the country.
However, between the remarks about his conservatism, and the fact that EVERY Democrat or Democrat-leaning person on here (since the question was “whom from the opposite party could you vote for …”, I’m making this assuption of the “McCain” people) seems to come up with McCain, I do start to wonder. Has McCain been mentioned so many times as an acceptable candidate/admirable Republican that we just think “he must be okay,” without thoroughly thinking it through for oursleves? I would have to thoroughly investigate McCain’s stance on issues important to me if I ever considered voting for him; and, honestly, a Democratic candidate would probably have to be incompetant, holding several stances in opposition to my beliefs, and/or evil, and his/her Republican opponent would have to be an excellent candidate, in agreement with me on all important issues, and thoroughly out from the thumb of the far right and ultra-evangelical wings of their party for me to even consider voting for a Republican presidential candidate, based on my perception of the agenda, ideology, and spirit of the modern Republican Party leadership.
All I can say is that I hope no one ever attacks someone near and dear to you people.
What if someone attacked your mother?
While she was screaming, you’d be giving a monologue on how we must understand the attacker’s motivations.
And as she bled to death, you’d be calling for restraint in dealing with the person who beat your mother to death.
Later, you’d blame someone else for not protecting her, and curse evil America for letting it happen.
As to the quesiton which Republican could you vote for. As a person living in Indiana, Lugar would be a no. The guy has been no help to this state in years and he helped get a non-resident elected governor. Yes our governor did not have any residence in IN until after he was elected an no one decided to question him on it or stop him from running.
McCain I would have had no problem voting for before 2002, now though he suffers from the same thing as Powell in my opinion. They have bent over and taken it up the rear from Bush, selling out their integrity and intelligence in supporting Bush. Rove is the one who started all types of malicious rumors during the 2000 race on McCain like he was gay and whatever else. And since then McCain has been nothing more than a whørë for their machine.
Powell the same way, I don’t care if he stood up for sense behind the scenes, he still went in front of the world and lied willingly.
Maybe if Rudy ran I’d vote for him, but he’s made a few comments that make me even question him.
“The CBS Evening News and NY Times are proven liars (Jayson Blair/Rathergate),”
Unlike Fox News who always tells the truth!
(thats sarcasm for those playing at home)
Lest we forget that it wasn’t Iraq that attacked us on 9/11, here’s something else that will make X-Ray pissy and cause him to change subjects once again (since, you know, he does that every time he’s proven wrong):
We learned a lesson September the 11th, and that is, our nation is vulnerable to attack. The best way to secure America is to get the enemy before they get us, and that’s what’s happening in Iraq.
— Bush from Crawford, Texas, Aug. 8, 2003
He actually seems as though he has integrity, principals to which he adheres –
Not that it did him alot of good (or Kerry for that matter), but he’s a former member of the military. That can do alot for you if you don’t go and do something stupid.
I still can’t believe the total disregard and disrespect that some Republicans have shown (and gotten away with) toward those such as McCain and Kerry, regardless of what their records show.
Because, at the very least, these guys actually served their county, in a war, overseas.
Unlike that lot in the Bush Administration.
So, I think that’s perhaps one major reason why I would give thumbs up to McCain or Powell.
This is a desperate tactic by Bush, replacing facts (no exit plan, mission far from accomplished) with an appeal to the sentiment of 9/11 (which happened on Bush’s watch, BTW) while ignoring the numerous probes that found no link between Hussein and Bin Laden. (Just like before, Bush’s people made sure Bush doesn’t directly connect them but uses both in as many sentences as possible, so people remember “Iraq… Bin Laden; Iraq… Bin Laden”). So when this appeal fails, as polls already show it failing, the next step is…
GAY MARRIAGE SUPPORTERS WANT TROOPS BACK FROM IRAQ
Under mounting pressure to declare a timetable for leaving Iraq, and increasing American casualties, President Bush stated that only gay marriage supporters want to leave Iraq. “Our soldiers have been fighting bravely, effectively, and heterosexually,” said Bush, “and these corrupters of family values want the soldiers back stateside to have their wicked way with them. We must remain in Iraq to protect the country, and protect the áššëš of our brave men and women (mainly men) from those who would destroy family values, weaken the sacred institution of marriage, and attack this Christian nation (thereisnosuchthingasaseparationofchurchandstate). Remember: Every time a soldier takes it in the ášš, the terrorists win. God bless, and good night.”
Unlike Fox News who always tells the truth!
(thats sarcasm for those playing at home)
Those playing at home would like you to site a SPECIFIC instance of Fox News telling a lie.
“here’s something else that will make X-Ray pissy and cause him to change subjects once again … ‘We learned a lesson September the 11th, and that is, our nation is vulnerable to attack. The best way to secure America is to get the enemy before they get us, and that’s what’s happening in Iraq.’ — Bush”
Why should that make me pissy?
Sadaam WAS an enemy of this country, and he SHOULD have been overthrown.
>>>>>dramatic lightining flash
Bush promises new evidence on Iraq
President adds to case against Saddam, outlines domestic plans
By Alex Johnson
Reporter
MSNBC
WASHINGTON, Jan. 28, 2003 – President Bush promised to reveal new evidence about Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s intransigence Tuesday night as he sought to strike a delicate balance in his State of the Union address between Saddam’s “utter contempt” for world opinion and the public’s unease over the stagnant economy.
……
And finally, he said, “Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida.”
***************************************
Rewriting History
In his debate with John Edwards, Ðìçk Cheney had a brand-new version of the events that led to war
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 4:32 p.m. ET Oct. 6, 2004
Cheney’s claims about an “established relationship” between Iraq and Al Qaeda were always a principal part of the administration’s case for war, cited by Powell at the United Nations and, most forcefully, by Cheney in numerous speeches and TV interviews before and after the invasion. But it is also a contention that has been seriously undermined by a series of recent U.S. government reports, including the September 11 Commission report, which concluded there was no “collaborative operational relationship” between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Another is a recent CIA analysis, disclosed for the first time this week, raising questions about whether Jordanian terrorist Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, had been harbored by Saddam’s regime before the war.
Cheney said last night that Zarqawi, who once ran a terror camp in Afghanistan with loose links to Al Qaeda, had “migrated to Baghdad” after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 and “set up shop” there, overseeing a “poisons facility” at Kurmal, in northern Iraq.
In fact, U.S. intelligence officials tell NEWSWEEK, after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Zarqawi went first to Iran—a country that many officials have long believed had far more consequential relationships with terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, than Saddam’s regime. And while the new CIA report confirms that Zarqawi unquestionably did later move to Baghdad—and received medical treatment there before the war— there is still no hard evidence on whether he was being supported or assisted by Saddam’s regime.
***********************************************
Cheney blasts media on al Qaeda-Iraq link
Says media not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting ties.
Friday, June 18, 2004 Posted: 2:25 AM EDT (0625 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Vice President Ðìçk Cheney said Thursday the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were “irresponsible.”
*********************************************
Bush stands by al Qaeda, Saddam link.
Tuesday, June 15, 2004 Posted: 6:06 PM EDT (2206 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Bush repeated his administration’s claim that Iraq was in league with al Qaeda under Saddam Hussein’s rule, saying Tuesday that fugitive Islamic militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ties Saddam to the terrorist network.
“Zarqawi’s the best evidence of a connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda,” Bush told reporters at the White House. “He’s the person who’s still killing.”
U.S. intelligence officials have said al Qaeda had some links to Iraq dating back to the early 1990s, but the nature and extent of those contacts is a matter of dispute.
Vice President Ðìçk Cheney, in a speech Monday in Florida, raised eyebrows by reasserting claims that Saddam “had long-established ties with al Qaeda.”
*************************************************
Rice: Iraq Providing Shelter, Chemical Weapons Help to Al Qaeda
Thursday, September 26, 2002
Fox News:
WASHINGTON — President Bush’s national security adviser has alleged a connection between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terror master Usama bin Laden that many had thought impossible to back up.
And Condoleezza Rice also insisted she could back up her assertion with proof.
Rice on Wednesday accused Saddam’s regime of sheltering members of the Al Qaeda terrorist network in Baghdad and helping bin Laden’s operatives in developing chemical weapons
************************************************
BBC News, March 19, 2002; “US says Iraq linked to al-Qaeda:
We clearly know that there were in the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of Al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time,” Rice said.
**************************************************
And Bush sends somebody else out to fall on the sword for him……
No proof links Iraq, al-Qaida, Powell says
Chief weapons inspector reportedly about to quit
NBC, MSNBC and news services
Updated: 8:11 p.m. ET Jan. 8, 2004
WASHINGTON – Secretary of State Colin Powell reversed a year of administration policy, acknowledging Thursday that he had seen no “smoking gun [or] concrete evidence” of ties between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.
Powell, speaking at a news conference at the State Department, stressed that he was still certain that Iraq had dangerous weapons and needed to be disarmed by force, and he sharply disagreed with a private think tank report that maintained that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States.
“I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I do believe the connections existed,” he said.
*************************************************
I think that about covers it and then some. My last post on the subject before I get kicked off for overloading the server. 🙂
That covers exactly nothing.
I hate to ask you to use your OWN brain, but would you mind simply expressing, briefly, what the hëll you are trying to say?
Don’t bother, let me do it FOR you…
BUSH SUCKS!
*************************************************
NBC, MSNBC and news services
Updated: 8:11 p.m. ET Jan. 8, 2004
WASHINGTON – “Jerry” admitted today that he lives in fear of being thrown off the internet for violating international law. Jerry likes to half-quote people, and to invent half-truths. “I think that about covers it and then some,” Jerry agrees. Jerry promises his recent rant is his “last post on the subject before I get kicked off.” BUSH SUCKS!!
*************************************************
*************************************************
Didn’t we already go over this? http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-20-filibuster_x.htm?csp=34. He apologized back in May.
“I meant no offense.” You call that an apology? Bûllšhìŧ. You know what’s missing from his “apology”? Words like “sorry.”
Stop saying that about Santorum. I think he’s an idiot and would prefer not to keep defending him.
Then stop defending him.
The guy says something stupid every 3 or 4 days, there should be plenty of legit material to use.
Hey, I have to live with this áššhølë representing me in the Senate, which is now doubly bad what with Specter having one foot in the grave. I’m not going to let up until Casey Jr. kicks his ášš in 2006.
“I support Bush, that’s my plan.”
Well, that’s turned out swimmingly so far…
And McCain is very very conservative. If he were anyone else I think he’d be just considered another ‘Neocon’.
No, McCain is a real conservative who actually believes in a balanced budget, unlike neocons like Karl “deficits don’t matter” Rove. I don’t agree with everything McCain believes in, but I get the impression that he says that he believes. And when he works on a problem, he puts concrete ideas on the table instead of vague talk like “I think about Iraq everyday.” Gee, I’m glad you think about it.
“PAD also said: “[Bush] managed to say “9/11” and “Saddam” in the same breath so many times that the majority of Americans became convinced they were linked.”
But Bush has never said the two were directly linked, except that they were both fronts in the war on terror. Therein lies the lie.”
**************************************
“If he’s such a LAIR, then why not post a Bush “lie” that’s NOT based on “reporting” from the untrustworthy CBS Evening News and NY Times?”
Your statements, X. Now you have two posts full of Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc. saying, in their on words, everything they could to link Saddam, Iraq, 9/11 and Bin Laden into one lump for the American people. And sited sources that even include Fox News. But, when faced with facts, you change your stand as fast as Bush, shut your eyes to the facts and dodge the issue at hand.
To continue to argue the point that Bush and crew did not do this and to continue to call PAD or any of us liars for pointing out a fact shows only that you are and idiot or a liar. Or maybe both.
PAD:
“PS–Guys…why bother responding to the sucker?”
Sorry. Went a whole week on the “no feeding the troll” rule. I got weak. I guess I just have a soft spot for dumb animals and the braindead. I’ll see if I can go for at least two weeks this time but they’re just so dámņëd cute when they look up at you from the blog with those brainless but sure of themselves looks in their eyes. You just wanna throw ’em a crumb and watch ’em run headfirst into the wall. Oh well.
Those Democrats who think Hillary is unelectable are probably the same Democrats who thought Dean was unelectable, and felt Kerry was a better choice. A lot of moderate Republicans I’ve talked to actually respected Dean, and might have considered voting for him as opposed to Kerry. Passion means a lot to people. In some ways, to some voters, it doesn’t matter what the candidate believes, as long as it sounds like they truly believe it, and aren’t just saying what the polls tell them to say.
Hillary will get out the LIberal vote. Those who hate her with a passion are mostly conservatives who wouldn’t be voting for her anyway.
I suspect the hatred of Bush among Liberals is no different than the hatred of Hillary among Conservatives. But Bush still won.
The key will be the moderates. The fact that Hillary supports the war in Iraq won’t lose the Liberals. (Who are they going to vote for? Don’t tell me Nader. Not after suffering 8 years of Bush.) It might get her a few moderates.
I think I’ve figured it out… bear with me… our new thickheaded friend is secretly W. himself, trolling on the internet.
Think about it: when confronted with evidence, he either prevaricates, streches the truth to encompass his terms, or ignores it completely. When asked a direct question, he answers with a complete dodge or a condescending remark. And he’s clearly mastered the “I know you are but what am I” school of ‘debate’, such as it is.
Seriously, gang, why are any of you wasting your time with this windbag? There’s no chance in hëll you’ll change his mind, an even smaller chance that he’ll change any of your minds, and he’s yet to bring anything substantive to any discussion on any thread (unless you consider namecalling, clouding the issue, or belittling remarks ‘substantive’). He’s not open to anything anyone has to say except for what comes out of his own mouth, and it seems clear to me that he’s only here to stir the pot to his own ends. Why bother sinking to his level?
I mean, outside the whole ‘kicking a puppy’ thing, what’s the appeal?
PAD wrote: I’d vote for Arnold Vinick. Now, granted, he’s a fictional candidate. Then again…aren’t they all?
By the same token, if there were real Jed Bartletts running the opposition, I would be a Democrat.
Seriously, I’d likewise consider either Powell or McCain, depending upon who the Democratic candidate was.
Bush was actually my third choice in 2000– I preferred Liddy Dole and John McCain. (What I really wanted was a Dole-Powell ticket and for the Dems to run two southern white guys again. I think it would have been amusing.) Unfortunately I tend not to really have a choice to make after about February of each election year, because the few Democrats I actually admire crash and burn — Tsongas, Lieberman– and by the time North Carolina’s primary rolls around, my vote is moot anyway. By the time the general electoin rolls around, I’m usually left with a Democrat I can’t stand and a Republican whom I didn’t get to help pick, but whose views match mine better than any Democrat to win a nomination in my lifetime. That’s still enough for me to have a strong preference, but it’s suboptimal.
Bill M: “And McCain is very very conservative. If he were anyone else I think he’d be just considered another ‘Neocon’.”
Like Den says, “I don’t agree with everything McCain believes in, but I get the impression that he says that he believes.” Sure, McCain is very conservative. To my mind, he’s more of a paleoconservative, which while being enough of a different political stripe than mine to count, is still a hëll of a lot closer to my political views than any of the neocons currently running things.
Plus, there’s the whole “he actually served in ‘Nam, and got paid for his troubles by ending up a P.O.W.” thing. A far cry from Bush II’s ‘military service,’ I might point out. If anybody has a right to the cowboy machismo agenda that Bush is trying to push, it’s McCain. Hëll, McCain may have pushed us to Iraq, too, but I’d bet real money he would’ve had a bona-fide exit strategy in place before committing the country to that path. I’d also be willing to bet he wouldn’t be as mamby-pamby-mushmouthed as Bush is being about it, either.
TO THE TROLL KNOW AS X-RAY:
Here is what Gonzo has to say about your precious war:
“If we get chased out of Iraq with our tail between our legs, that will be the fifth consecutive Third-world country with no hint of a Navy or an Air Force to have whipped us in the past 40 years.” Hunter Thompson
“It is hard to ignore the prima facie dumbness that got us bogged down in this nasty war in the first place. This is not going to be like Daddy’s War, old sport. He actually won, and he still got run out of the White House nine months later.. . The whole thing sucks. It was wrong from the start, and it is getting wronger by the hour.”
so true.
i’d like to point out, to anyone with liberal or even moderate tendencies who would consider voting for McCain, that in a 1999 interview he stated that he’d like to see Scalia as Chief Justice.
the guy has more integrity than 95% of politicians, but i couldn’t vote for him unless the opposition was truly awful.
“Those Democrats who think Hillary is unelectable are probably the same Democrats who thought Dean was unelectable, and felt Kerry was a better choice. A lot of moderate Republicans I’ve talked to actually respected Dean, and might have considered voting for him as opposed to Kerry. Passion means a lot to people. In some ways, to some voters, it doesn’t matter what the candidate believes, as long as it sounds like they truly believe it, and aren’t just saying what the polls tell them to say.
Hillary will get out the LIberal vote. Those who hate her with a passion are mostly conservatives who wouldn’t be voting for her anyway. “
You (to quote GW) misunderestimate the raw hatred that is still out there for Hillary amongst not just the right, but in the center as well. Not the political junkie center, but the center that only pays cursory attention to politics and only has memories of Hillary being too vocal as first lady, and Bill playing hide the salami with way too many unattractive broads.
I think Hillary is a great candidate, but you also underestimate some of the hatred for her on the left as well. Remember she was, and is, a very vocal supporter of the war in Iraq. She lost a lot of liberals that were already disenchanted with the Clinton adminstration once she did that.
I thought Dean was unelectable simply because he didn’t have the charisma to appeal to middle America. I liked his willingness to kick the šhìŧ out of anyone and everyone, but I can see how that wouldn’t appeal to some. That said, I would have FAR preferred him as a candidate over Kerry.
“If we get chased out of Iraq with our tail between our legs, that will be the fifth consecutive Third-world country with no hint of a Navy or an Air Force to have whipped us in the past 40 years.” -Hunter Thompson
James, that’s not true. We kicked total ášš in Grenada…
Hey! You forgot Panama!
“I meant no offense.” You call that an apology? Bûllšhìŧ. You know what’s missing from his “apology”? Words like “sorry.”
I agree it’s a piss poor apology but that’s pretty much what passes for apologies these days. Durbin’s was equally pathetic but I think people should just accept it and move on and if it was good enough for Durbin it’s good enough for Santorum. Jeeze, THERE would be a choice from hëll, imagine if those two idiots ran.
Stop saying that about Santorum. I think he’s an idiot and would prefer not to keep defending him.
Then stop defending him.
Um, no. At least not from what I see as unfair attacks, which only serve to weaken the EFFECTIVE attacks against him. I’ll be glad to see Santorum removed from the Senate and the leadership of the REpublicans, so I’d rather not see the Democrats blow it. Again.
Here’s a fun little example of Fox lying. Is it a big lie? Not really. But it’s like the old saw regarding “a thousand tiny cuts…” This is off a very pro-liberal website, so I’ll just get that out in the open.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200410070008
“Hume defended Cheney with lie about Kerry weapons-system cuts
FOX News Channel managing editor and chief Washington correspondent Brit Hume bolstered a deceptive Bush-Cheney ’04 campaign attack on Senator John Kerry’s voting record on military spending by drawing a false distinction between Kerry’s Senate votes to cut military spending and Vice President Ðìçk Cheney’s proposals to cut spending during his time as President George H.W. Bush’s defense secretary. Hume claimed that while Kerry voted for cuts during the Cold War, Cheney proposed similar cuts only “at a much later stage” after “the Berlin Wall had fallen and the world was a different place.” In fact, the votes that Republicans have used to malign Kerry’s voting record (often misleadingly and with the assistance of conservative pundits, as Media Matters for America has documented) occurred after the Cold War ended, and during or after Cheney’s tenure as defense secretary.
On the October 6 edition of FOX News Channel’s Special Report with Brit Hume, National Public Radio national political correspondent and FOX News Channel political contributor Mara Liasson questioned the effectiveness of President George W. Bush attacking Kerry’s voting record on military spending. She suggested that to fend off attacks, Kerry can point out that “when Cheney was the secretary of defense, he wanted to cut some of the same systems.” Hume suggested a possible Cheney response, but his proposed response was false:
LIASSON: I think the “global test” is potentially much more damaging to Kerry than the record in the Senate … for which he’s had plenty of time to come up with an answer about — he can say that when Cheney was the secretary of defense, he wanted to cut some of the same systems.
[…]
HUME: Yes. But that — Cheney, I suppose, would argue with that, “Look, that was at a much later stage. The Berlin Wall had fallen and the world was a different place.”
As Media Matters for America has previously explained, the Bush-Cheney ’04 campaign’s claims (for example, in a February 22 Republican National Committee research brief and a Bush-Cheney ’04 television ad released April 26) that Kerry has repeatedly voted against important weapons systems rely overwhelmingly on Kerry’s votes against Pentagon appropriation or authorization bills in 1990, 1995, and 1996. The Berlin Wall fell in November 1989. Cheney was secretary of defense from March 1989 to January 1993.
And regardless of the chronology of the votes, the attack on Kerry for allegedly voting against “weapons systems” is grossly misleading. MMFA has previously noted that according to Annenberg Political Fact Check, “Kerry’s votes against overall Pentagon money bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996 … were not votes against specific weapons. And in fact, Kerry voted for Pentagon authorization bills in 16 of the 19 years he’s been in the Senate.”
— G.W.”
Durbin actually said the words, “I’m sorry.”
Besides, as I said before, he was actually comparing apples to apples, while Santorum was comparing apples to orangutans.
Brak: Man, my bad. That was a total military triumph.
And as to the whole ‘puppy kicking’ thing: What can I say, I’m weak.
X-ray wrote: “Sadaam WAS an enemy of this country, and he SHOULD have been overthrown.”
At the risk of sounding like a smart-ášš, which is not my intent, if we attempted to overthrow all of our “enemies” we’d be the worse for wear. It’s only a matter of time when the school yard bully (US if we go attacking all “enemies”) will get beaten up by the other kids ganging together.
How many countries do you think are wondering “Are we next?” and “Maybe we should attack the US before they get us” It’s not a very comforting thought. As a New Yorker, I am not looking forward to any other “premptive strikes” from those that think we are the enemy.
I don’t think you’d find many fans of SH here, and I do think Iraq will be better off without him. But the time to do that was back when Bush Sr. was in office and we had ALL of our allies with us.
Unfortunately, the way “junior” handled it cause more hard feelings with other countries… including our allies. Not exactly the wisest course of actions, especially if we want to be welcome in the playground…
James, that’s not true. We kicked total ášš in Grenada…
wow. The only remaining Military Hyper-power kicked the butts of people who thought the ox-cart was a technological masterpiece.
And it is still a good quote.
There are a whole lot more here.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hunter_S._Thompson
I vote we all refer to Bush as “The Child-president” from now on. See if we can give X-ray a stroke.
I vote we all refer to Bush as “The Child-president” from now on. See if we can give X-ray a stroke.
How about the boy emperor? I’ve seen this one used in various places.
As for the puppy/x-ray comparisons, I think he’s more like a puppy chasing it’s tail: He goes around in circles, accomplishes nothing, gets laughed at, and keeps repeating the entire process.
Don’t be so hasty, James. Have you ever seen a pìššëd øff ox?
And you’re right, it is a dámņ fine quote.
I would post something in response, but I just had a stroke.
>>>>>dramatic stroke-having!
“As for the puppy/x-ray comparisons, I think he’s more like a puppy chasing it’s tail: He goes around in circles, accomplishes nothing, gets laughed at, and keeps repeating the entire process.”
Right. And then you kick him.
“Don’t be so hasty, James. Have you ever seen a pìššëd øff ox?”
“Right. And then you kick him.”
Knuckles,
I like the way you think. A lot.
Before my stroke renders me unable to speak, I would like to note that Peter David has issued a plea to ignore me … the 15th time he has responded to me since declaring he was “donne with me.” (Yes, I am counting.) Thank you to those who ignored this plea, namely everyone!
>>>dramatic stroke-inducing lightining flash!
indestructibleman,
Who would you like as Chief Justice? Look at the recent decisions such as Kelo where the liberal wing of the court decided that it was okay for cities to use eminent domain for economic reasons. I hope your city doesn’t want to build a mall or sports stadium in your area any time soon.
A lot of attention got paid to the conflicting 10 Commandments decisions, but Kelo is one of the most dangerous to come down in a while. None of those Justices should be made Chief, either.
So when this appeal fails, as polls already show it failing, the next step is…
Actually, there was an article on Yahoo earlier today that quoted a Republican Congressman blaming Democrats and the media for our “losing” the war in Iraq and continue failure to meet recruiting goals, that it’s helping the terrorists.
To which, I say, Bush did that all on his own by wanting to invade Iraq in the first place.
And then, following in step with Bush, the Congressman suggested that it would be great if more kids signed up for the military. (Just as long as it isn’t his kids.)
A lot of moderate Republicans I’ve talked to actually respected Dean,
It must be the radical Republicans then that are the ones jumping for joy that Dean would even consider running again, because they (the radicals) automatically assume he can’t win.
But then, as you say, passion brings out alot in people, and I think alot of people on both sides have forgotten that, particularly with Dean.
I think Hillary is a great candidate, but you also underestimate some of the hatred for her on the left as well. Remember she was, and is, a very vocal supporter of the war in Iraq. She lost a lot of liberals that were already disenchanted with the Clinton adminstration once she did that.
Yet, I don’t doubt that if she ran, she would get the nomination and the Republicans would be left with “Oh šhìŧ”.
I also don’t doubt that, if Bill Clinton could run again in 2008, the Republicans might not even make an effort, knowing that they wouldn’t win.
People on both sides may hate some of the stuff Clinton did, but most would still vote him back in office. And I think most of the same group would do the same for Hillary.
Pad said:
Most people can quote Lincoln saying “It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all the time.” But what is less known is the sentence right before that: “If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem.”
Except, according to recent revelations, he may well not have said that; it’s another of those incorrect attributions (Like “I do not agree with what you say, but…” is attributed to Voltaire).
However, Spike Milligan once said (this was in the LBJ years, i think) “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, which is just about long enough to get elected President of the United States.”
Nuggets for X-Ray:
1. I’m probably just obtuse (I’m having fun with that one, thanks), but when has PAD directly addressed you in the past two or so weeks? I might be missing something, but I don’t think he’s addressed you since the whole “exponential” nonsense. He’s spoken ABOUT you to other people a dozen or so times — advising people to ignore you, as you note — but that’s not the same as “responding” to you.
So I suggest you’re mistaken. Note: I’m not calling you a liar. Two different things.
2. You seem to have missed Craig Reis’ point, as to why he figured you’d be “pissy.” You’ve said that President Bush has made no correlation between Iraq and al-Qaeda/9-11 other than as twin fronts in the war on terror. But Mr. Ries posted an excerpt from a speech in which he appears to have done just that. Any rate, PAD’s original point, if I recall correctly, wasn’t that Bush was DIRECTLY linking the two, but that he creates the perception that they’re linked by mentioning them in almost the same breath. Every now and then we see polls come out that show a substantial percentage of the populace are under the impression Iraq was at least partially responsible for 9-11. Where are they getting that from if not from the president’s insinuations?
3. “I support Bush. That’s my plan.” Hey, if you believe his approach is the best one for the situation, I can respect that. My question, though: Do you support him blindly? Do you ever question ANY of his approaches? I hope I’d never be obtuse enough to blindly support ANY political leader, Democrat or Republican — the best way to view polticians is with a heaping helping of skepticism. I always thought that actual “conservatives” — which I’ve been accused of being from time to time, which is occasionally correct depending on the issue — believed the same thing.
4. Weird thing is, you’ve made one or two good points this whole go-round. Too bad you have to ruin it by adding offensive, ad-hominem stuff like “Do you hate our pilots that much?” To paraphrase a famous refrain: Classic. But not that funny.
Oh, look, he’s chasing his tail again! Poor stupid Dog, he doesn’t realise it’s attached till he bites it.
Stop it, stupid! *kick*
Hey, I like this, kick the dumb puppy!
“Except, according to recent revelations, he may well not have said that; it’s another of those incorrect attributions (Like “I do not agree with what you say, but…” is attributed to Voltaire).”
The Voltaire one I knew about. That it was not Voltaire who said it but instead a woman who wrote a major work ABOUT Voltaire. She summarized his opinions on free speech by stating that Voltaire’s attitude was such that he would have disagreed with what you had to say, but fought to the death for your right to say it. And somehow the phrase became ascribed to Voltaire himself even though he never actually phrased his sentiments in that way.
But my Bartlett’s…which, admittedly, is a few years old…attributes the “All of the people” quote to Lincoln. Or, more specifically, a book about Lincoln published in 1904. So if you’ve got specific new info, I’d be interested to see it.
PAD
Here’s another interesting quote, author anonymous:
“Historians, it is said, fall into one of three categories:
Those who lie.
Those who are mistaken.
Those who do not know.”
I’d say presidents fall into that category as well…and Bush into all three.
PAD
Nuggets for L. David Wheeler:
1.PAD … He’s spoken ABOUT you to other people a dozen or so times … but that’s not the same as “responding” to you.
Yes it is. Absent my posts, there would be no need for such “non-responses.”
2. Mr. Ries posted an excerpt from a speech in which he appears to have done just that.
“APPEARS” is the right word!
A substantial percentage of the populace are under the impression Iraq was at least partially responsible for 9-11. Where are they getting that from if not from the president’s insinuations?
Perhaps they are (gasp) thinking for themselves.
3. Do you support [Bush] blindly?
No. I disagree with some of the things he’s done.
4. Weird thing is, you’ve made one or two good points this whole go-round. Too bad you have to ruin it by adding offensive, ad-hominem stuff like “Do you hate our pilots that much?” To paraphrase a famous refrain: Classic. But not that funny.
To the contrary, it’s QUITE funny! I enjoy lambasting our host, who is too haughty to respond to me directly, but who has responded to me obliquely at least 15 times so far!
“Historians, it is said, fall into one of three categories:
Those who lie.
Those who are mistaken.
Those who do not know.”
I’d say PAD falls into the first category.