Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
It was there and we knew it was there.

You've got your facts wrong. They sent troops to secure the site but the troops couldn't find anything.

[sgtclub]

Bill Kristol, who many of you have previously indicated you respect, seems to believe that Krauthammer was on to something last week:

LAST FRIDAY, Charles Krauthammer argued in his column, Sacrificing Israel, that the currency with which a Kerry administration "would pay the rest of the world in exchange for their support . . . is obvious: giving in to them on Israel." Krauthammer pointed out that Kerry has emphasized over and over again his desire to move closer to our allies and to re-engage with the "international community." The easiest way to do this would surely be to accommodate other nations' distinctively less friendly view of Israel, and their desire for the U.S. to pressure Israel into concessions for the sake of the "peace process." So, Krauthammer concluded, "If Kerry is elected, the pressure on Israel will begin on day one."

Pro-Israel Kerry supporters protested vigorously. Kerry is pro-Israel, they said. Krauthammer is making a hypothetical argument, drawing a speculative inference. Kerry will be as supportive of Israel's security as Bush has been.

Unfortunately, they forgot to tell the man who is perhaps Kerry's top foreign policy adviser and surrogate, Richard Holbrooke. Appearing on The O'Reilly Factor Friday night, Holbrooke warned of a possible "Iran-type clerical dictatorship" in Iraq: This would be "very dangerous for Israel, the U.S. and the world." Then Holbrooke segued into an account of how Kerry would improve the situation in the Middle East: "He [Kerry] has said already he would start intense talks with the allies . . . and he would reach out to the moderate Arab states. He'd put more pressure on Israel, Syria, Saudi
Arabia above all."

"He'd put more pressure on Israel." Holbrooke, perhaps Kerry's top foreign policy spokesman, confirms Krauthammer's prediction. So there is a real difference between Bush and Kerry on Israel. Isn't there, Sen. Kerry?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/832kszfc.asp

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You can discreetly and considerately mention Rehnquist's illness. That was my point.

Tact is all in how you say it, not what you say.

I completely disagree 100%. The consideration is for Rehnquist, and talking in someone's presence as if they were already dead is inconsiderate. When your parent go in for cancer surgery, would you start arguing about who benefits most from the will while they are in the recovery room (oh, and ma, I really hope ya make it!)?

In any case, at least agree that this is a matter of judgment (upon which we can disagree). And the 10 or 50 or 90% of the country who would find your suggested speech tactless, are not necessarily all democrats or republicans. Which is to say, you are likely to piss off some portion of your own constituency along with the opposition. The last thing anyone, but particularly Kerry, wants to be doing at this time.

Bet?

Hello

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
You've got your facts wrong. They sent troops to secure the site but the troops couldn't find anything.

Cite, please.

[Replaced_Texan]

For those who haven't seen the wolves ad

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I completely disagree 100%. The consideration is for Rehnquist, and talking in someone's presence as if they were already dead is inconsiderate. When your parent go in for cancer surgery, would you start arguing about who benefits most from the will while they are in the recovery room (oh, and ma, I really hope ya make it!)?

In any case, at least agree that this is a matter of judgment (upon which we can disagree). And the 10 or 50 or 90% of the country who would find your suggested speech tactless, are not necessarily all democrats or republicans. Which is to say, you are likely to piss off some portion of your own constituency along with the opposition. The last thing anyone, but particularly Kerry, wants to be doing at this time.

Bet?

Hello

Nobody is talking as if somebody were dead. Did you read my suggested text? The trick is to bring up Renhquist's illness as a mere example of the general fact that no one on the Court is immortal. I'd hammer that fact home to women, particularly young women. Only mention Rehnquist as an aside, but make sure you get that little nugget of evidence in there. Saying the Supremes are old is a prediction which can be discarded - noting that one got sick makes the listener pay attention.

Oh, you're right... someone will get pissed off no matter what you say, but I think this fact is too important not to be at least cited. I'd normally agree that the press will take care of that for Kerry, but from what I read about the voting populous, they aren't reading too many stories about the Supremes. I'm a little Atwaterish in that regard.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Cite, please.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=195905

At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives were intact. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

oh wait...

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Nobody is talking as if somebody were dead.

Are you trying to get into ABBA's pants, or her liquor cabinet?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
Exactly. And it is not GWB they are criticizing. It is the guy in the field.

Why would the guy (or woman) in the field leave 400 tons of explosives? My guess is that his services were more urgently needed elsewhere. Maybe there weren't enough boots on the ground . . . .

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

OK, all you self-styled conservatives, I'd like your reaction to this one:

Linky

Especially interesting is the endorsement by McConnell, editor of the American Conservative, and Lee Iaccoca.

So, is Bush disturbing enough as a conservative to cause any of you to vote for Kerry? There are clearly some principled conservatives out there read to pull Kerry's lever.

In other earth shattering news, I have decided to cast my first ever vote for a Republican in a local race. I thought you'd all like to know.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Cite, please.

• Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said U.S.-led forces searched the Al-Qaqaa facility after the invasion.
  
  ''Coalition forces were present in the vicinity at various times during and after major combat operations,'' he said. ''The forces searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings at the facility, but found no indicators of WMD (weapons of mass destruction). While some explosive material was discovered, none of it carried IAEA seals.''

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/299/...Iraq_%3A.shtml

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/299/...sives%3A.shtml

So it is unclear when they were moved. They could have been moved before the troops got there to inspect them. Regardless, the troops didn't find them when they inspected the area.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Nobody is talking as if somebody were dead. Did you read my suggested text?

This?

>>His unfirtunate illness does remind us that the Supreme Court, made up of some of the wisest minds, who have come to their wisdom partly through age, are not getting younger, and God forbid illness should befall any of them, or they decide to retire, the next president will be able to shape the Court for decades to come. Ladies and gentlemen, do not forget that the most activist righist jurists on the panel - the ones Bush admits favoring the most - are also the youngest. Should Bush get to appoint another of like mind, there could be a Scalia/Thomas dominated court.<<

This is arguing about the will while Mom is sleeping. Do you think people would hear this and not think that you are talking about the potential results of Rehnquist's illness? You can have the last word, I think we are boring people again.

Hello

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Why would the guy (or woman) in the field leave 400 tons of explosives? My guess is that his services were more urgently needed elsewhere. Maybe there weren't enough boots on the ground . . . .

Read the BG links I posted. Either they were moved before the troops arrived to inspect, or they were there and the troops didn't find them.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Are you trying to get into ABBA's pants, or her liquor cabinet?

Depends what she has in the cabinet.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me

• Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said U.S.-led forces searched the Al-Qaqaa facility after the invasion.
  
  ''Coalition forces were present in the vicinity at various times during and after major combat operations,'' he said. ''The forces searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings at the facility, but found no indicators of WMD (weapons of mass destruction). While some explosive material was discovered, none of it carried IAEA seals.''

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/299/...Iraq_%3A.shtml

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/299/...sives%3A.shtml

So it is unclear when they were moved. They could have been moved before the troops got there to inspect them. Regardless, the troops didn't find them when they inspected the area.

The failure to secure the facility is inexcusable, seeing as how twe knew the explosives were there before the war. Too bad Rumsfeld's incompetence is leading to further American deaths. I don't see why you Rs put up with this guy.