Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I realize you don't really say you endorse this view, so maybe this question is not worth the time, but after Bush I's experience in 1991, why is this a lie?

Not Club, but I do remember 1991. Last time, SH invaded Kuwait. Other arab countries had a problem with that as did the rest of the world.

In 2003, other arab countries didn't want us building a democracy in the middle east because of what the implications are for their own totalitarian regimes. France and Russia and Germany didn't want to stop the money they were illegally making off the oil for food program.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I realize you don't really say you endorse this view, so maybe this question is not worth the time, but after Bush I's experience in 1991, why is this a lie?

I think lie is too strong a word. But after all of those resolutions and the negotiations leading up to war, I don't think it credible that others would have joined if we had only waited.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
Yes, and I understand that makes it hard to do with a job like we have. So you can buy yourself a car that gets better gas mileage. Or don't. Keep funding terrorism if you like.

I agree that car pools generally only work for those with defined hours. But even those types rarely bother to use car pools. Ya know why? Because gas is cheap in this country. If it were expensive, many people would either have to live closer to where they work, or they would have to do things like car pool or take public transportation.

Upping the taxes on gasoline will help to win the war on terrorism. Can't do it all at once too fast because of how that would affect those who live far away from where they work.

Can I just say, except for the snotty and repetitive attack in the last line of your first paragraph, 2.

I am all in favor of raising the the gas tax and implementing a national "vehicle-weight miles-travelled" tax. And I think the idea of paying as you go is at the core of what is Right.

Which is to say, even if you are not me, you can still be partly Right.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
As far as I can tell Senor is no longer employed by the admin. He has a relationship with the campaign under which the campaign refers interviewers to him. So it's the GOP equivalent of Wes Clark (without the crazy eyebrows, presumably) writing the speech.

The WaPo article I linked earlier (search for Senor) says he's with the campaign.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The WaPo article I linked earlier (search for Senor) says he's with the campaign.

LAT says that the campaign denies that Senor is in their employ, but admits it does funnel interviews his way. Who knows which liberal news outlet to believe. Either way, it wasn't a case of the DoD scrubbing the remarks for nat security issues.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
LAT says that the campaign denies that Senor is in their employ, but admits it does funnel interviews his way. Who knows which liberal news outlet to believe. Either way, it wasn't a case of the DoD scrubbing the remarks for nat security issues.

So it seems, but perhaps he was being paid as a political consultant (that is, if he is really not with the campaign).

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think lie is too strong a word. But after all of those resolutions and the negotiations leading up to war, I don't think it credible that others would have joined if we had only waited.

Diplomacy is an art, and I believe that if Bush had carefully built both his case and the trust of foreign leaders, he could have persuaded a much broader coalition to assemble.

There is a second underlying problem for Bush, even if he were able to build the relationships with foreign leaders that would let him lead, which is that there may have been shortcomings to the case he could have built without misleading people. That, of course, is the collossal mistake problem he has.

As it stands today, however, with General Powell telling people he wished he never opened his mouth in front of the UN, there's a big question as to how much credibility Bush has the next time he wants to build a coalition.

[Gattigap]

Business Week? Holey moley. How do they expect Rove to win the spin game when they're breaking ranks like this?

That's usually the way Bush comes across -- a likable Joe, sincere in his beliefs, and comfortable in his own skin. ... Besides that, he's the President and has led the nation at a time of enormous peril and uncertainty (some of it, arguably, of his own making). Love him or detest him, he sits at the desk where the buck makes its last stop.

But in Coral Gables, Fla., last night, Bush looked -- at least for the first half of the debate -- like Elmer Befuddled, a commander-in-chief not in command.

Perhaps what was so unnerving was that Bush found himself in a foreign-policy debate with a seasoned politician who was espousing the same sort of measured, internationalist approach to a dangerous world that was the hallmark of his father's Presidency. Debating the security and future of the nation on live national television isn't easy -- but debating your Dad is downright scary.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Go here and see the first three posts. Kerry bragging about being a metrosexual? I don't think so. That could only be Penske.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Go here and see the first three posts. Kerry bragging about being a metrosexual? I don't think so. That could only be Penske.

Apparently, it's a "regrettable error". At least the folk at Fox can admit they've made a mistake.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Do you not think that there are legitimate reasons why what he says should be coordinated? National security reasons perhaps?

LOL!!

Yeah-- THAT'S WHY THE GUY DOING THE REVIEW AND COORDINATING WAS FROM THE REELECTION CAMPAIGN AND NOT THE CIA.

You try hard, club, but that was rich.

S_A_M

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Even the original JFK wrote a book or something on it, about "While We Slept". At least, I think he did.

Originally posted by taxwonk
I'm pretty sure that was Churchill.

JFK's book was "Why England Slept" -- he wrote it in 1940 as a thesis for a class at Harvard, and (if memory serves) Walter Lippman heard about it, read it, and was so impressed by it that he found a publisher for it.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Diplomacy is an art, and I believe that if Bush had carefully built both his case and the trust of foreign leaders, he could have persuaded a much broader coalition to assemble.

There is a second underlying problem for Bush, even if he were able to build the relationships with foreign leaders that would let him lead, which is that there may have been shortcomings to the case he could have built without misleading people. That, of course, is the collossal mistake problem he has.

As it stands today, however, with General Powell telling people he wished he never opened his mouth in front of the UN, there's a big question as to how much credibility Bush has the next time he wants to build a coalition.

Kerry is playing politics. You are just naieve. Who would you have wanted in the coalition that wasn't (and that did participate in 1991)? France and Germany? Sorry, that just wasn't happening. France had too many interests in Iraq and Schroeder need the anti war stance to get reelected.

[sgtclub]

Is erupting!

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Go here and see the first three posts. Kerry bragging about being a metrosexual? I don't think so. That could only be Penske.

If only CBS was so quick and forthcoming in their retractions of false stories....