not an expert on politics. But I have heard that the challenger must have a good lead 60 days before the election in order to have a chance.

Bush misled everyone on Iraq, Kerry included. There have been many Congressmen/women that voted for the war, but now have changed their minds. Just look at polls on Iraq support, they have changed greatly since the war began in early 2003. Originally there was great support when it seemed like there was plenty of justification for the war, but once the truth came out, things changed. I myself originally supported the war, but knew it truly wasn't right once it turned out that all of the reasons for invading were bogus.

560761[/snapback]

 

Bush did not mislead anyone, he and every other member of congress (including JOHN KERRY) based their decisions on intelligence received from the CIA which at the time was headed by a democratic George Tenet who was appointed by none other than William Jefferson Clinton. You can blame the intelligence failures on the CIA and George Tenet, not Bush.

 

I don't support the war in Iraq, however I am still voting for George Bush.

Bush could have chosen to replace Tenet...

 

 

... but he didn't.

With this frightening news on Iraq I believe Kerry is back in the mix as long as the silly military record debate gets off centerstage (right where Bush wants it).

Kerry takes the lead and ties in the latest Wall Street Journal and Pew polls

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...fp/us_vote_poll

Bush misled everyone on Iraq, Kerry included. 560761[/snapback]

 

The plain truth is - the Democrats badly miscalculated that opposing Bush would've led to them being crushed in the mid-term elections and in this year's election. They knew Bush was lying about Iraq, as did every Republican. The difference is that a lot of the Republican base really didn't (and don't) care if he was lying, because they just relished the chance for us to kill more Arabs as payback for 9/11 regardless of whether they had anything to do with it.

 

560942[/snapback]

 

Wow... :lol

Ya, thats taking it a little too far fish. Who is to say Kerry doesnt invade Iraq as well?

Kerry takes the lead and ties in the latest Wall Street Journal and Pew polls

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...fp/us_vote_poll

561295[/snapback]

 

IMO, it's James Carville pulling off another miracle. As soon as he came on board, Kerry's become more aggressive with his attack on Bush while before it was nothing but happy sappy fluff. With this aggressive streak he's begun to take control of the debate which he lost during swift boat. When he can take it to Bush's record in the past 4 years, he wins. If Bush can take control of the debate and put it on Kerry flip flopping it's dynamite for Kerry.

 

If he kees this aggressive streak up and continues to push the debate on Bush, he's in extreamly strong position to do some major damage.

If Kerry would just say that he didn't want to undercut Bush while he was trying to make his case to the U.N. but decided to vote against the funding once he had no international support - it would be a logical, sensible answer that would shut everyone up. But that would make too much sense for the Kerry campaign. They're finding every way possible to screw this campaign up.560942[/snapback]

Why is that logical? I know it's not very political to say this, but he'd look quite frankly like a huge p***y for not saying anything even though he "believed otherwise". Do you really think that the American people would elect someone who admits to being a wuss as their president? Meh.

Ya, thats taking it a little too far fish. Who is to say Kerry doesnt invade Iraq as well?

561317[/snapback]

 

I dont think there is any chance Kerry invades Iraq. He would have invaded Afghanistan as that is what the people wanted post 9-11 but would have had no reason to see Iraq as a greater threat than other nations, as the intelligence community stated.

Bush did not mislead anyone, he and every other member of congress (including JOHN KERRY) based their decisions on intelligence received from the CIA which at the time was headed by a democratic George Tenet who was appointed by none other than William Jefferson Clinton. You can blame the intelligence failures on the CIA and George Tenet, not Bush.

561170[/snapback]

 

He may have been appointed by Clinton, but Bush is his boss. The intelligence that came from the CIA wasn't worth crap, because Bush directed them to slant their intelligence to come up with the conclusion that implicated Saddam. To believe or think otherwise is the mark of a very dim bulb.

If Kerry would just say that he didn't want to undercut Bush while he was trying to make his case to the U.N. but decided to vote against the funding once he had no international support - it would be a logical, sensible answer that would shut everyone up.? But that would make too much sense for the Kerry campaign.? They're finding every way possible to screw this campaign up.560942[/snapback]

Why is that logical?

 

Because he'd be admitting that he was trying to help keep up a united front at a very sensitive time in this country, but went with his convictions when it was no longer necessary to keep up that front.

 

 

I know it's not very political to say this, but he'd look quite frankly like a huge p***y for not saying anything even though he "believed otherwise". Do you really think that the American people would elect someone who admits to being a wuss as their president? Meh.

561392[/snapback]

 

They did it twice with Bill Clinton. He waffled WAY worse than Kerry on practically every issue, and beat Bush Sr. and crushed Dole. After talking about Universal Healthcare during his 2000 campaign (and making it one of his big issues), he quickly abandoned the idea the second it met with any resistance.

 

I find all of this waffling/conviction talk to be silly, though. If given the choice between a guy who makes stupid decisions, but sticks with them no matter how bad the consequences (Bush); and a guy who will change his mind on an issue when he sees that his intial instincts were wrong or would abandon his ideals when they meet with stiff resistance (Kerry) - give me the second guy every time. The second guy won't screw things up anywhere near as bad as the first guy.

 

Screw convictions! I just want someone who's going to be an effective manager of the government and not infringe on my freedom, and Bush has already shown he's incapable of that.

If Kerry would just say that he didn't want to undercut Bush while he was trying to make his case to the U.N. but decided to vote against the funding once he had no international support - it would be a logical, sensible answer that would shut everyone up.? But that would make too much sense for the Kerry campaign.? They're finding every way possible to screw this campaign up.560942[/snapback]

Why is that logical?

 

Because he'd be admitting that he was trying to help keep up a united front at a very sensitive time in this country, but went with his convictions when it was no longer necessary to keep up that front.

 

 

I know it's not very political to say this, but he'd look quite frankly like a huge p***y for not saying anything even though he "believed otherwise". Do you really think that the American people would elect someone who admits to being a wuss as their president? Meh.

561392[/snapback]

 

They did it twice with Bill Clinton. He waffled WAY worse than Kerry on practically every issue, and beat Bush Sr. and crushed Dole. After talking about Universal Healthcare during his 2000 campaign (and making it one of his big issues), he quickly abandoned the idea the second it met with any resistance.

 

I find all of this waffling/conviction talk to be silly, though. If given the choice between a guy who makes stupid decisions, but sticks with them no matter how bad the consequences (Bush); and a guy who will change his mind on an issue when he sees that his intial instincts were wrong or would abandon his ideals when they meet with stiff resistance (Kerry) - give me the second guy every time. The second guy won't screw things up anywhere near as bad as the first guy.

 

Screw convictions! I just want someone who's going to be an effective manager of the government and not infringe on my freedom, and Bush has already shown he's incapable of that.

561978[/snapback]

I agree fully. These are politicians people.

Bush did not mislead anyone, he and every other member of congress (including JOHN KERRY) based their decisions on intelligence received from the CIA which at the time was headed by a democratic George Tenet who was appointed by none other than William Jefferson Clinton.? You can blame the intelligence failures on the CIA and George Tenet, not Bush.

561170[/snapback]

 

He may have been appointed by Clinton, but Bush is his boss. The intelligence that came from the CIA wasn't worth crap, because Bush directed them to slant their intelligence to come up with the conclusion that implicated Saddam. To believe or think otherwise is the mark of a very dim bulb.

561976[/snapback]

 

 

there is no proof whatsoever and to make a claim like that is the mark of a very dim bulb as you say. The CIA and most other govt agencies (such as te former INS, which i worked for) do not act as puppets to the current admin. in fact the CIA and all other law enforcement and intelligence agencies do not change their tactics as president admin's change. So in fact the pure show of ignorance in intelligence gathering matters on your behalf is astonishing. The CIA dropped the ball and provided faulty intelligence, which was used by the Bush admin and Congress in order to start the war. Would kerry have gone into iraq? Maybe, maybe not, but had he received the same intelligence bush did, kerry would have acted to solve the iraq problem that seemed eminent. His solution may not have been war, but he would have acted nonetheless, and kerry himself has said that given the intelligence available he would have also invaded iraq, but with more foreign support.

there is no proof whatsoever and to make a claim like that is the mark of a very dim bulb as you say.

 

No proof of that? Bush's ex-counterterrorism chief (his name escapes me right now) came out and said that Bush was pressuring him to find some tie to Saddam Hussein!

 

 

The CIA and most other govt agencies (such as te former INS, which i worked for) do not act as puppets to the current admin. in fact the CIA and all other law enforcement and intelligence agencies do not change their tactics as president admin's change.

 

So, because you work at INS, that makes you an expert on the CIA? Maybe I can get my postman's opinion on that. He's also a federal employee, and probably has about as much insight into the upper echelons of the intelligence community as you do working for INS. On second thought, maybe I should ask my friend who works with the SEC. He should be able to tell me what's up with the pres.

 

 

The CIA dropped the ball and provided faulty intelligence, which was used by the Bush admin and Congress in order to start the war.

 

Yes, because we all know how dangerous satellite photos of trucks are. :lol

 

They don't exactly hire idiots at the CIA, and it's not like they're hurting for funding, so it's highly unlikely that a screw up THIS huge could be all their fault. This isn't exactly an accidental bombing of a building because the landscape of a city changed.

there is no proof whatsoever and to make a claim like that is the mark of a very dim bulb as you say.

 

No proof of that? Bush's ex-counterterrorism chief (his name escapes me right now) came out and said that Bush was pressuring him to find some tie to Saddam Hussein!

 

 

The CIA and most other govt agencies (such as te former INS, which i worked for) do not act as puppets to the current admin. in fact the CIA and all other law enforcement and intelligence agencies do not change their tactics as president admin's change.

 

So, because you work at INS, that makes you an expert on the CIA? Maybe I can get my postman's opinion on that. He's also a federal employee, and probably has about as much insight into the upper echelons of the intelligence community as you do working for INS. On second thought, maybe I should ask my friend who works with the SEC. He should be able to tell me what's up with the pres.

 

 

The CIA dropped the ball and provided faulty intelligence, which was used by the Bush admin and Congress in order to start the war.

 

Yes, because we all know how dangerous satellite photos of trucks are. :lol

 

They don't exactly hire idiots at the CIA, and it's not like they're hurting for funding, so it's highly unlikely that a screw up THIS huge could be all their fault. This isn't exactly an accidental bombing of a building because the landscape of a city changed.

562008[/snapback]

 

 

Government agencies do not work as puppets of the current admin. I dont site my work for the former INS as the reason for knowign this, I'm just citing the example that ALL of the govt agencies from the state dept., to the treasury, or the DOJ do NOT adapt to the whims of the president, they continue their operations as usual. And what youre talking about is Tenet (or w/e his name was) who jumped on Bush to defend the CIA's credibility not to blame bush for the faulty intelligence. THERE IS NO PROOF THAT BUSH MADE THE CIA CHANGE THE EVIDENCE SO HE CAN ATTACK IRAQ, HAD HE DONE THIS THERE WOULD BE AN IMPEACHMENT HEARING CURRENTLY FOR ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, BUT THERE ISNT. Your thinking that this is the case is unwarrented and to insult someone who actually uses factual evidence to make claims as a 'dim bulb' is absurd

Government agencies do not work as puppets of the current admin.

 

 

No more than corporate employees work as puppets of executive management. :whistle

 

 

I dont site my work for the former INS as the reason for knowign this, I'm just citing the example that ALL of the govt agencies from the state dept., to the treasury, or the DOJ do NOT adapt to the whims of the president, they continue their operations as usual.

 

 

At the lower levels you can say the same thing for just about any company that hires a new CEO (with the exception a hatchet man that comes in just to downsize).

 

 

And what youre talking about is Tenet (or w/e his name was) who jumped on Bush to defend the CIA's credibility not to blame bush for the faulty intelligence. THERE IS NO PROOF THAT BUSH MADE THE CIA CHANGE THE EVIDENCE SO HE CAN ATTACK IRAQ,

 

I'm not talking about George Tenet, I'm talking about Richard Clarke who came out and said that Bush pressured him to connect 9/11 to Saddam.

 

 

HAD HE DONE THIS THERE WOULD BE AN IMPEACHMENT HEARING CURRENTLY FOR ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, BUT THERE ISNT.

 

 

You can't be serious when you say this. A Republican is in the White House with a Republican House and a Republican Senate - and you seriously expect them to bring up an impeachment hearing on Bush? Seriously, who are you trying to kid?

 

 

Your thinking that this is the case is unwarrented and to insult someone who actually uses factual evidence to make claims as a 'dim bulb' is absurd

562014[/snapback]

 

What factual evidence? Other than your analysis of the Patriot act, you haven't provided one shred.

I dont remmeber the exact # but there are enough dems in the house to push for impeachment, they may not be able to actually impeach him, but they have enough for an impeachment hearing.

Legacy, I doubt there are enough for impeachment. In addition, the lack of substanative proof doesnt mean there isnt some circumstantial basis. Bush is very well insultated. Im suprised you isolate him from the CIA.

 

As far as administrations goes, you might be right in terms of the actual employees but the management and heads tend to go with the philosphy of the president. Ive talked to a lot of attorneys at the EPA who've hated this administration because the people appointed above them have done what they can to curtail enviromental enforcment. Theyve had to do it backdoor.

 

But the CIA is very independent. Im sure the people up there lean more to the views of the hawks than the doves. Who knows how 9-11 effected George Tenet.

 

I find all of this waffling/conviction talk to be silly, though. If given the choice between a guy who makes stupid decisions, but sticks with them no matter how bad the consequences (Bush); and a guy who will change his mind on an issue when he sees that his intial instincts were wrong or would abandon his ideals when they meet with stiff resistance (Kerry) - give me the second guy every time. The second guy won't screw things up anywhere near as bad as the first guy.

 

 

:thumbup Well frikkin said.

Ya, thats taking it a little too far fish.? Who is to say Kerry doesnt invade Iraq as well?

561317[/snapback]

 

I dont think there is any chance Kerry invades Iraq. He would have invaded Afghanistan as that is what the people wanted post 9-11 but would have had no reason to see Iraq as a greater threat than other nations, as the intelligence community stated.

561813[/snapback]

 

agreed. I know Kerry jumped to answer a question about knowing we've found no WMDs would you still have voted for authorization but I don't think he would've gone in. If for no other reason, Kerry presumably would not have had a team of neo-cons behind him who were pushing for war in Iraq LONG before 9/11. So there would be no reason to rush off to war based on shaky intel, drum up panic from the public with speeches about mushroom clouds, and run to the U.N. with a crappy PowerPoint presentation.

Ya, thats taking it a little too far fish.? Who is to say Kerry doesnt invade Iraq as well?

561317[/snapback]

 

I dont think there is any chance Kerry invades Iraq. He would have invaded Afghanistan as that is what the people wanted post 9-11 but would have had no reason to see Iraq as a greater threat than other nations, as the intelligence community stated.

561813[/snapback]

 

agreed. I know Kerry jumped to answer a question about knowing we've found no WMDs would you still have voted for authorization but I don't think he would've gone in. If for no other reason, Kerry presumably would not have had a team of neo-cons behind him who were pushing for war in Iraq LONG before 9/11. So there would be no reason to rush off to war based on shaky intel, drum up panic from the public with speeches about mushroom clouds, and run to the U.N. with a crappy PowerPoint presentation.

562074[/snapback]

 

Would kerry have done anything about iraq given the intelligence presented to him?

what specific intelligence are you referring to?

Anything? Yes I think he would have done something. I don't believe he would've gone to war over it unless he was certain the intel was accurate and he almost certainly would NOT have been surrounded by people pressing for war, unless there was clear evidence of WMDs. I think he would've continued with inspections, & tried to put more & more pressure on Iraq to submit to inspections. U.N. troops for example, could be used with inspection teams to force sites to allow inspections. I realize that's not enough for some of you, just saying I think that's the kind of thing he may have done.

 

At SOME POINT I think he may have used military force, but not at that stage, not with that info, and not unilaterally.

 

In contrast, I don't think the Bush team was interested in the accuracy of their intel, just that it was there & they could make speeches about it. Too many of the Perle/Wolfowitz/Cheney types were pushing for war & took any opportunity to jump at it.

Anything? Yes I think he would have done something. I don't believe he would've gone to war over it unless he was certain the intel was accurate and he almost certainly would NOT have been surrounded by people pressing for war, unless there was clear evidence of WMDs. I think he would've continued with inspections, & tried to put more & more pressure on Iraq to submit to inspections. U.N. troops for example, could be used with inspection teams to force sites to allow inspections. I realize that's not enough for some of you, just saying I think that's the kind of thing he may have done.

 

At SOME POINT I think he may have used military force, but not at that stage, not with that info, and not unilaterally.

 

In contrast, I don't think the Bush team was interested in the accuracy of their intel, just that it was there & they could make speeches about it. Too many of the Perle/Wolfowitz/Cheney types were pushing for war & took any opportunity to jump at it.

562084[/snapback]

 

I think the iraq issue should have been dealt with using special ops and such. But to me the UN support is unnecessary b/c you have to remember that the opposition we had came form france and russia, who were owed billions of dollars by iraq

I think the iraq issue should have been dealt with using special ops and such. But to me the UN support is unnecessary b/c you have to remember that the opposition we had came form france and russia, who were owed billions of dollars by iraq

 

 

If you're expecting other countries to help you out with the aftermath (like Bush said he wanted to do with NATO/UN forces helping with the stabilization of Iraq), then you damn well better get UN support.