http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002474.html
Nice, act II is the best, spin away :)
Printable View
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002474.html
Nice, act II is the best, spin away :)
13 more months. I simply can not WAIT till the republicans lose the majority and someone starts talking impeachment.
The shrub is simply too stupid to run the country. But not to ruin it.
Have you seen this?
http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2...-invade-p1.php
Don't bet on republican hawks losing power with people like this voting.
I have often argued the merits of the bush administration... usually fine points, not the entire admin. I don't think you can find a person on earth that would argue the fact that bush's pr folks are far beyond stupid.
OF course this isn't the first time a president has staged things... but that doesn't make this any less rediculous.
the dems are hawks to, just saying.Quote:
the amazing worldy intelligent aversion
Don't bet on republican hawks losing power with people like this voting.
I would just like, even just once, to see bush face a public that have not been rehearsed and hand picked. I'd like to see him go face to face with anti-war campaigners and explain himself, defend himself, just as politicians like Blair have done, in situations that they don't have control of.
I know that the American presidency is different to a British prime minister say, because the president's role is an executive one, whereas Blair gets up in Parliament and faces down his opposition every other day, and does get on television and answer unrehearsed questions from a belligerent audience.
I just think that politicians should have to do that, should be able to speak in public without rehearsal, defend their policies and think on their feet. It's reassuring, if nothing else, that they know what they're doing, know that opposition to what they're doing exists and have the guts to face it. Nothing good can come from locking a president away inside a hemetically sealed bubble. As bush himself says, he relies on his advisors for opinions, because they're the most objective people he knows...
Pretty funny. But even those people understand gas prices trippling and the republicans spending almost 4 trillion dollars for the privilage. They understand the sad sack way Katrina was handled and the lies since then. The largest segment of our population understands that the republicans are going to take away their retirement money.Quote:
Originally Posted by aversion
Hence the 'republican' bit. There are hawks on the democrat side, in the sense that a hawk is someone who pushes their agenda aggressively, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
I'm talking about republican hawks because they're the ones pushing the agenda that the kind of people in that video relate to, bombing the hell out of the middle east, even if they do end up in australia. They're the people out there pushing a war against terror, pushing terror, mentioning 9/11 forty times in a ten minute speech. Giving people what they want, set up the danger, then reassure people that we'll bomb the hell out of somewhere to solve it. Even if it never works.
Oh yeah, for sure, I certainly don't want to suggest this was typical of the american opinion or education. It looks like it was filmed at venice beach, not the hardest place to find a bunch of morons who think australia is north korea, or iran.Quote:
Originally Posted by iaskwhy
But come the next election the republicans will be doing the same thing they did in the last election, playing to people's fears, emphasising the threat and then suggesting that only republicans have the guts to blow other countries up. Typically the democrats have never won on security issues, and people like Karl Rove are so good at what they do that there will be no room for a domestic agenda in an election, unless it's to point out that the perjorative liberals hate tax cuts and that the deficit is obviously nothing to worry about.
The republicans might actually stand a chance to lose if the democrats actually offer a plan of their own. I don't think people will vote for something just to vote against something else.
oh sorry, I thought you meant hawk as in "war good, peace bad".Quote:
Originally Posted by aversion
To really find out how stupid they are, give them a choice of $3 per gallon or $1 per gallon, not a map where Australia is labelled as North and South Korea. Maybe they were bing nice to the dufus doing the poll? ;)
I think there definitely is a leadership vaccum on both sides. Whoever can produce the best leader soonest wins.
the dems just don't have the electorial expertise, people like Rove, evil monkey that he is, is such a pro at twisting an agenda and pandering to an electorate's fears. Hopefully he'll be in jail by the time the next election rolls around but I don't think the republicans have a lack of eminence grises.Quote:
Originally Posted by admedia
If they didn't have the expertise there wouldn't be so many in office. Hell Carville could take Rove, chew him up and spit out every little greasy peice. The dems are just a little devided. You have the voting public that either supports w or hates w... the problem with the dems in office is that most of them activily work with w. All except 1 or 2 dem senators voted for the war. Most have yes votes on every bit of legislation they claim the president uses to steal from the poor and give to the rich.Quote:
Originally Posted by aversion
Who was it that said "I don't belong to an organized political party, I'm a Democrat."
Can this be...? A truly political thread at in the CL without someone crying about x-bashing or biasis? Oh, happy day... :)
Being a modern day democrat is a tricky thing: as a minority party, your power comes mostly from blocking passage of legilation, not getting what you like to the table. However, the Repubs have already been so effective of branding the Dems obstructionist that it has hampered their ability to truely resist out of fears of proving the accusations true (much like the so-called 'liberal media').
TGLC is correct, of course, that Bush isn't the first President to script events - however, I think we have seen the U.S. population hit a saturation point with the practive, from reports of Bush only listening to a close-group of advisors and shunning independant info sources to tightly screened 'public access' events, to acts limiting the ability of people to see WH documentation (if you haven't heard of this, google it - Bush has declared that his internal documents will never be revealed, doing away with the full disclosure after 12 years rule).
2006 will be interesting: the Dems are due out with their own 'contract w/America' style doc soon, and I think we're about to see a full-scale Repub. revolt against Bush to cover their own butts - but I doubt we'll ever see an impeachment. Funny thing, though, if you look at the public support for impeachment now compared to Clinton a fews years back...
if you guys could go a day without starting a bush sucks/no he doesnt/yes he does thread that would be awesome
If bush adopts the tax reform plan from his committee he and any repub that doesn't condemn it is toast.Quote:
Originally Posted by japangreg
Not without a lot of new blood in the legislature. The majority of people in the senate and house are just as guilty as he.Quote:
but I doubt we'll ever see an impeachment.
I agree, I don't think it will be quite 'full scale' though. More of a 'shift' in focus and issues. Wishfully thinking... focus on Domestic Issues, Economy and Immigration... I don't think Bush is seen as a true conservative in alot of respects.Quote:
Originally Posted by japangreg
The problem is that the Repubs have made a huge issue out of loyalty to Bush in particular on most issues, especially the WOT and Iraq. It's looking more and more like those issues are a wedge with more traditional conservative thought (fiscal responsibility).Quote:
Originally Posted by admedia
The dialogue they've constructed and nurtured ('If you are not with us, your again' us!') is going to bite them in the ass unless the distance themselves from Bush. You have to do that gradually throughout the remaining period or you come across as a flip-flopper. If Bush becomes an albatross around their necks, which is looking more and more likely with each poll, they'll toss him right quick to save their own arses. He's a lame duck now, anyway. All the congressional Repubs have to do is protect him through the rest of the term from impeachment. They no longer have to coordinate their re-elections around his.
I don't think there will be any change with the policy with regards to Iraq. I think the only position either side can have there is to get it done ASAP but cannot really put a timeline on it... we just have to continue paying as we play in Iraq and hopefully create a situation worth withdrawing troops from.Quote:
Originally Posted by japangreg
Wait till after the elections next year. The reason it hasn't been brought up is that the ones who want it know it won't fly with a republican majority. That's going to change and I don't think there are many voters on either side that could honestly say it isn't deserved.Quote:
but I doubt we'll ever see an impeachment.
Only the neocons remain. The staunchest of the old conservatives are running from him.
I agree the policy really can't be altered at this point (certainly not by the Bush admin), but as public support for the war continues to fall, Repubs will find themselves more vulnerable than Dems on the issue, because they get hit with the double whammy of run-away govt. spending. Dems can always milk the 'vote for authority, not for war' line, where as the Repubs can't do so without looking like turn coats.Quote:
Originally Posted by admedia
I think we've already begun to see the seeds of it with Meirs; if anything pans out on the Plame case, it'll get steadily worse.
A majority of the public think he deserves it, if it can be proven he lied to get us in Iraq. It's a much higher percentage than wanted Clinton brought up on charges, but of course the Repubs had the majority to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by iaskwhy
If the power shifts, it's a possibility. But I don't think it would happen.
Before there could be an impeachment wouldn't there have to be a formal investigation or inquiry that concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the President knew there weren't any WMDs in Iraq prior to the invasion? I thought most people are still operating under the assumption that it was faulty intelligence.
Sorry, maybe that information is out there... I just haven't taken the time to read and research LR's footer yet. ;)
wide open throttle?Quote:
Originally Posted by japangreg
"if you are not with us, your against us" was purely about terrorism... well islamic terrorism to be specific.... when have republicans taken this stand at other times?Quote:
The dialogue they've constructed and nurtured ('If you are not with us, your again' us!')
* raises had!Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
I'm thinking the dems are going to get the majority next election. I think they are going to get it because most people now see the repubs in general siding with a bad president, no matter what. I also see that people are sick of this party line agenda and want it to change, no matter who is in office. Party, good or bad, is nopt what senators and congressmen are elected for, they are elected to protect this country from bad presidents, and people expect that.Quote:
Originally Posted by japangreg
If enough people want an impeachment, there will be one. It certainly is needed, to send the message to future presidents, if nothing else.
<Bush>Let's Roll!</Bush>Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
:D
The War on Terror(tm), of course.
It has permiated the national security discussion for years now - please don't tell me you haven't noticed? All of the talk about aid and comfort to the enemy by opposing the invasions, being anti-military because an investigation into abuses was called for, etc.Quote:
"if you are not with us, your against us" was purely about terrorism... well islamic terrorism to be specific.... when have republicans taken this stand at other times?
AD, the idea of faulty intelligence has been debated for a long time - my personal view is that it was the intelligence that was faulty, but the reports that were generated within a highly politicized environment that were. I can't link to specifics on this due to both time contraints and being very lazy (;)), but suffice to say that if you look into what people like Colin Powell, Joe Wilson and George Tenet have said about pre-war intelligence, it seems far more likely in my eyes that qualifiers and hedges from the actual intel were striped to make a better case for admin policy (much like the hack job they got caught doing on environmental reports to play down global warming).
IAW, recent polling data seems to suggest that most people currently want a Dem majority in Congress - however, a poll once said that a majority of people wanted a Dem as president, so take with a grain of salt. However, the desire for a switch in terms of congressional majority is the strongest its been in over a decade, which was roughly when the Repubs first ascended to power.
Even if the switch comes, which I think is likely but I wouldn't want to bet on, it gives them only 2 years to consolidate and attack for an impeachment. I don't think this can be done, at least not easily.
Although it would be nice to see, even if the charges end up being dismissed. Too many unanswered questions for my taste.
Ah sorry, I read from your email that "you with us or against us" was being used in terms of domestic policy etc etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by japangreg
To a much smaller degree, but I seem to remember Bush warning opponents to SS reform that they would face a politcal price at the polls for opposition. In most cases with domestic policy, they've been able to railroad the Dems anyway, so not being with them wasn't a problem. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
The main reason I have become such a government hater lately is that it doesn't matter what you are, republican or democrat. If your a politition, you dirty, your not trying to strengthen america, your trying to get closer to the money trough. I am really, really disgusted with all polititions right now, since not one of them dares to breath the word impeachment. Bunch of girly-man whimps, and they all need to go home.Quote:
Although it would be nice to see, even if the charges end up being dismissed. Too many unanswered questions for my taste.
Call for an impeachment. If you get laughed all the way back to your state, at least you stood for what is right.
it really is awful. im sure they will be selling us the fear and we have to blow things up again. if it wasnt for that dirty republican hawk Truman, we might not have to go through this. just awful.
I don't know... they can't even seem to indict Rove if that's the angle for impeachment... and as far as WMDs like I said, whether biased and/or planned or not it was faulty intelligence.
It seems with Nixon and Clinton, not sure about that other guy, anyone else? They had irrefutable evidence supporting the impeachment. I just don't see anything like that here. Seems they had more evidence from Iran/Contra to impeach Reagan than they do here.
So if they were to impeach, on what grounds and what is the irrefutable evidence from reliable sources?
maybe its kind of like dorthy in the wizard of oz. if you close your eyes, tap your feet together and keep saying 'impeach Bush' it will really happen. ;)
Let's see. Impeachement does not have to be tied to his obvious lies about the intel he got from the CIA. Oh, BTW, thaere seems to be plenty of evidence to prove that the shrub misrepresented the intel he did get for the purpose of convincing the congress to let him start a war. Saw it on C-Span. The CIA itself made that indictment in a congressional hearing not long ago.
Anyway, how about coming to office with a federal surplus and in less than 6 years turning that to a near 4 trillion dollar debit. How about the way he and his government handled Katrina after effects? How about any number of other mismanaged boon doggles he's been responsible for?
No, lying about WMD intel is not the only reason to impeach a bad president.
Rove may be the pin that sets the others into motion, we'll have to wait on that. Looks like the investigators are taking their time, so hopefully whatever happens will be done with the solid support of facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by admedia
But I don't understand that last part of your post: whether biased and/or planned or not it was faulty intelligence. So you're saying if someone knowingly alter intelligence reports to back up policy, that's okay? What appears to have happened is that Bush pushed Tenet for a case against Iraq, Tenet put the screws to the analysts and cherry picked information. Now if it turns out that Bush knowingly compelled Tenet to produce reports that were contrary to the consensus among the intel. community in order to support his invasion of Iraq (which has been a documented objective of many of his administration for years), is that alright with you?
The grounds that were floated in the latest survey were lying about the reasons for war in Iraq. Whether or not that would be the case made (I assume there are other possibilities as well, Plame being the most prominent) I don't know, but there seems to be plenty of evidence to suggest that's exactly what happened (various intel agents, Tenet and Powell, Downing Street Memos, etc.).Quote:
So if they were to impeach, on what grounds and what is the irrefutable evidence from reliable sources?
Many members of congress had access to all the intelligence bush had, not just the intelligence bush presented. That plus congresses dereliction of duty in regards to declaring war would make an impeachment over Iraq far messier than any congressmen hoping for reelection would want to touch.Quote:
Originally Posted by japangreg
i dont know about you guys, but i prefer that more of my money is locked up over the years in a federal account. we should go for a super, record high surplus. just in case. that way, when we need the money, we can rely on the government to gradually hand it back to us according to "need".