Nov 19 2006
More Anti-Bush Republicans Political Suicide
The Anti-Bush Reps don’t seem satiated with losing Congress. They are now out to lose 2008, thinking naively that distancing themselves from the only Conservative in a position of power will win influence with said position of power. It seems the anti-Bush republicans have not finished self destructing. Well that is all well and good. The more they raise up their heads and announce themselves, the easier it will be to relegate them to the political wastelands. I have no intentions of supporting Reps who let their frustrations get the bettter of them. If they cannot show self control they are not showing leadership qualities. When will the Anti-Bush Republicans realize they are alienating the Bush conservatives, and this will not a be a rift that can be repared. Demonstrating a penchant for only failure is not a way to create political influence.
Sorry Steve, when the media freely says they are giving the dems 15 points they are miss leading the public as to what is true. When the MSM is willing after a week in Afghanistan to say we are in a quagmire, is this another Viet Nam, they are not reporting the news but trying to sow seeds of doubt in the most horrific way possible. Many years ago I could read the LA Times, on the front page would be 2 or 3 articles on the same subject, from different points of view. It was possible to make up your own mind as to what was true or not. Our local paper gets all its reporting from Reuters, AP or the New York Times period. We all know what their point of view is. The President is not the best communicator, I agree, he is not slick, but he is honest. It is not a communication problem, it is a press problem. There is not one person in this country that can’t understand what he is saying, if only it was printed and not editorialised to the point of not being recognisable.
Terrye..
Yes the MSM stinks, but what has the Republican party been giving them to talk about?
Duke Cunningham
Foley
Bob Neye
Republicans want to start winning again, start talking about those big Conservative ideas that show people they are better off with Republicans in charge, not this other crap.
By the way those ideas are not; Gay Marriage, Abortion, controlling what’s on Pay TV or any of the other sc driven issues. Which is not to say that nothing should be said about those issues, they are part of the Republican lexicon, just not all.
For all you know Saddam moved those weapons out of there between 98 when Clinton bombed Iraq and 2000 when Bush came to office.
Left by Terrye on November 19th, 200
In response to the Times story an international security Web site run by Ray Robinson published a translation of a story that ran on the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Seyassah’s Web site on September 25. Citing European intelligence sources, the Al-Seyyassah report claims that in late 2004 Syria began developing a nuclear program near its border with Turkey. According to the report, Syria’s program, which is being run by President Bashar Assad’s brother Maher and defended by a Revolutionary Guards brigade, ‘has reached the stage of medium activity.’
The Kuwaiti report maintains that the Syrian nuclear program relies ‘on equipment and materials that the sons of the deposed Iraqi leader, Uday and Qusai. transfer[red] to Syria by using dozens of civilian trucks and trains,
before and after the US-British invasion in March 2003.’ The report also asserts that the Syrian nuclear program is supported by the Iranians who are running the program, together with Iraqi nuclear scientists and Muslim
nuclear specialists from Muslim republics of the former Soviet Union. The program ‘was originally built on the remains of the Iraqi program after it was wholly transferred to Syria.’
Read the rest here
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1391
Terry
About those WMD
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1391
In response to the Times story an international security Web site run by Ray Robinson published a translation of a story that ran on the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Seyassah’s Web site on September 25. Citing European intelligence sources, the Al-Seyyassah report claims that in late 2004 Syria began developing a nuclear program near its border with Turkey. According to the report, Syria’s program, which is being run by President Bashar Assad’s brother Maher and defended by a Revolutionary Guards brigade, ‘has reached the stage of medium activity.’
The Kuwaiti report maintains that the Syrian nuclear program relies ‘on equipment and materials that the sons of the deposed Iraqi leader, Uday and Qusai. transfer[red] to Syria by using dozens of civilian trucks and trains,
before and after the US-British invasion in March 2003.’ The report also asserts that the Syrian nuclear program is supported by the Iranians who are running the program, together with Iraqi nuclear scientists and Muslim
nuclear specialists from Muslim republics of the former Soviet Union. The program ‘was originally built on the remains of the Iraqi program after it was wholly transferred to Syria.’
Read the rest at the link above
Strata
(Bush) the “only Conservative in power.” ???You lost the conservatives right there. Capital or small “c.” Granted , you might have retained the attention of a hapless few site-sheep who believe they are conservatives…but you lost the C(c)onservatives at that point in the post.
Why hasn’t Saddam been waterboarded to find out what he knows?
He’s one of the most evil men in history… it’s okay to waterboard underlings, but not him? Why? He’s killed hundreds of thousands and we waterboard(ed) men who killed less.
Is it because it’s too rough? They why waterboard anybody?
AJStrata has this idealized stylized version of Bush that serves him well, but speaking as someone who is a huge fan of George W. Bush to the point of extolling him in public to the point of being threatened with violence by leftists and proceding anyway, I think that he doesn’t understand the man.
I think George W. Bush is a very good man — but he isn’t conservative in the same sense that AJStrata is or that many Republicans are. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, just it’s a fact.
The President gave the MSM plenty to talk about. He talked about the economy, where we were 5 years ago, the problems we have had along the way and why many of us are employed, have more money in our pockets that we could save or spend, how many more people own homes etc. etc. How was it reported? The wealthy have more then ever the middle class is suffering.
He explained why the war in Iraq was so important, what would be the cost if we lost our will, to be patient etc. etc. How was that reported, the President is in denial, Murtha says bring the troops home now. They didn’t say the rest of what Murtha said which was that we need to bring the troops home now because it is costing money we could spend on medical care, tuition and helping the middle class.
He talked about the programs that he had instituted after 911, that he felt had kept us safe and why each were important. Did any newsperson explore the possibility that we had been kept safe because we know who is calling to this country connected to terrorists. No, they continued to describe the NSA program as domestic surveillance. Did they explore what would be the consequences of calling the people picked up on the battle field POW’s instead of unlawful combatants? No they put Dems on who said we were ruining the reputation of our country. Did they tell the public why the President used rendition? That President Clinton had also used rendition. No, they described it as torture camps.
What I am saying is that they never gave air time to the intention of the Presidents thinking. They gave the air time over and over again to some politico who’s intention it was to make the president look like he was grabbing power for power sake, or taking this country down a road to make this nation look bad. How many times did you hear we are not safer now, the President is making us less safe. Well what does that mean? No one ever asked.
I don’t think you can say the Republicans didn’t have a message. They had a local message and a national message. What came from the Presidents lips and what was reported was designed to defeat the President and they did.
Kathie,
We then, if there was such a great message of accomplishment and competent leadership, why did Republicans get a “thumping”?
The Republican party has become devoid of ideas, well except “We Suck Less”, and do what ever it takes to stay in power.
So I guess we disagree.
Steve, yes we do. And MSM have vilified a President of enormous integrity, great courage and noble intention, who has been faced with great problems and was seldomly given a break. I think history will tell a very different story then what has been written so far. To hear MSM talk about how great a president Clinton was tells it all.
Talking about shooting yourself in the foot. Charlie Rangel on Face the Nation said today that he will introduce legislation to re-instate the draft. Do you suppose the Dems would get the blame? Some way the Formerly MSM will find a way to put it on the Repub.
I thought it was rather funny that he said this war was approved on ‘such flimsy evidence’ . And it was approved by both houses, you suppose he was saying the Senators and Representatives are gullible. The Senate being in the Custody of the Dems at the time. Don’t let that go unnoticed.
Kathie…
What favor is that “Flavor Aid” you have been swilling ?
I think Bush has been a decent President, much vilified for sure, but
he’s not a great president. Reagan was a great President, his Father was a real war president and great on international relationships, but GW will probably end up in the same bin as Truman.
Steve, and what was wrong with Truman, he did drop the bomb and Fired McArthur, took a strong pres to do both those. He also ran a lot of commies under cover.
GWB, you better be thankful we had him on 9/11 had it been Algore or Jon Carry we would probably have just said “it must’ve been an accident, we’ll give them another chance. It took a strong pres to do what GWB did. Popular decisions are easy to make. Ask Bill Clinton. Unpopular decisions, like going to war, take a strong minded person to do. GHWB was a real war president. Not many of those around. Reagan was one also. Don’t forget Pres Bush volunteered to go to Viet Nam as a fighter pilot and was turned down because he didn’t have enough flight hours. Pilots had a tough time over VietNam, it says a lot that he volunteered to go. Give him credit
Kathie
Lying about WMDs and assuming an easy walk-over after which
no one would care if they were found or not, isn’t “great.”
Failing to heed the warnings of the State Department and others
of a likely insurgency during occupation,isn’t “great.” Ordering staffers to deny to the public there was an insurgency many months after being told by generals there was, isn’t “great.”
Making a country LESS safe according to leaked CIA reports
and the worldwide analysis of terror experts isn’t “great.”
Christolph
You are right about Strata’s idealization, but what on earth do
you believe Saddam can tell us–true he helped organize the insurgency but it is long out of his hands. And most of his
victims were made so when he was our tacit ally agaisnt Iran…
Ken, talking about lying, where is your list of countries that left the British Empire while Churchill was PM?
Don’t you get tired of never being right about anything. Must be hell to have your head in a cloud.
And the countries are?
1.
2.
3.
etc.
You don’t want to be right?
Kathie, just for a reference, it’s a waste of time to address Ken. He is a fly by instigator, makes unsubstantiated statements and flys away.
For Enforcement is a liar whom, upon being provided a link from
USA Today with quotes denies the existence of the quotes.
We are talking here about Rummy, Cheney, Wolfy and other Bushies
who pre-war predicted a short war.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2738089.stm
Here is yet another (BBC) article quoting Rummy in 2003…six months war predicted and For Enforcement (and Strata) still excuses
Rummy et al and hopes people like me never quote them.
Rather futile considering Strata and FO only have 31% of the
people remaining in their war corner .
There’s Ken again quoting his ‘foreign’ sources. Well, he went a little overboard saying that the British Empire crumbled under Churchill. So far he has not been able to name even one country that left the Empire during Churchill’s reign, Believe me, if Ken knew of one, he would be tooting his horn. once again he has succeeded in being 100 % wrong.
Ken you must have missed it, I went back and lifted and pasted ever single quote from that USA paper you linked to and asked you which one was forecasting a short war. None of them were, of course. Any reason you have chose to ignore it. Of course, it’s because you, as usual, were your normal 100% wrong.
Ken is the only person I know that we can certify to be 100% wrong, 100% of the time, Certifiable.
ENFORCEMENT—–you are 100% correct.