Washington Post: Kerry may want to run in 2008

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last
  1. Banned
    Nullifidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,741
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    32
    Lv. Percent
    14.57%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    I like MacCain's economic policies. Unfortunately, I hate his stance on steroids. The only way to gain power in this country is to be a part of a special interest group who votes only on 1 issue and that 1 issue alone.

    Well, it is high time we had a pro-anabolics special interest group. Hence, from now on I will ONLY be voting on this issue.

  2. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    588
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    15.41%

    Young people don't vote. You know what 'Rock the Vote" did? It mobilized the conservative base that weren't going to vote.
    Would it be a good thing if young people or anyone for that matter listened to puffy or eminem for political advise? I love how rock the vote is supposedly non partisan yet it's transparently obvious who they want to win the election. MTV and thinking are the antithesis of each other.
  3. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    588
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    15.41%

    I like MacCain's economic policies. Unfortunately, I hate his stance on steroids.
    Which are liberal. They guy is a media whore. He jumped in front of juice bandwagon because he saw it gaining momentum and he could keep his name in the paper. Maybe we will see a mixed ticket with McCain and Biden running together.
    •   
       

  4. Banned
    Nullifidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,741
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    32
    Lv. Percent
    14.57%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Nonetheless, if any of us are going to get anabolics legallized we need a lobby. In order to have a lobby there needs to be a special interest group backing it. We need to vote ONLY on this issue if we are to have any voice at all. There is no anti-steroid special interest group that I know of, so we'd have no direct opposition. The only opposition would be from people who vote on more issues than just steroids. If the pro-steroid group gets large enough and more importantly gets active enough in voting, then you can be darn sure they will change the laws. Just look at gun control. Every member of Congress who voted for the assault weapons ban didn't get re-elected. The NRA did that. They vote only on gun control. That's why when the ban came up for renewal everyone let it die even though the overwhelming majority of America was for the ban. Those Congressman knew they could get away with letting the ban die and still get votes from all those people because those people vote on other issues but if they voted to renew the ban they would be guaranteed to lose the votes from the NRA.


    I strongly urge to others on this board, if you want the demonization of steroids to end, then vote pro-steroid and ONLY pro-steroid. Make it known, spread the movement.
  5. Registered User
    Strateg0s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Age
    39
    Posts
    754
    Rep Power
    511
    Level
    22
    Lv. Percent
    25.42%

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    MTV and thinking are the antithesis of each other.
  6. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2849
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    88.95%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    McCain is basically a democrat who supports the military. His campaign finance reform bill is totally unconstitutional. He is a total media whore, which is why you see him throwing himself in front of the baseball steroid scandal. I don't like the guy at all.
    I second this! I cannot stand McCain!

    And, ROFLMAO @ MTV quote!!
  7. Professional Member
    size's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Age
    42
    Posts
    4,232
    Rep Power
    2270
    Level
    44
    Lv. Percent
    93.32%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    I read about Newt making a run.
  8. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    588
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    15.41%

    I read about Newt making a run.
    I guess anything is possible but he has been demonized so much I can't see him getting the nomination. The press hates him as well.
  9. New Member
    Number 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    181
    Rep Power
    239
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    0.07%

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    ??????????? The left loves Hillary and she sure as hell is not conservative at all or perceived as one.
    If you want to know what the liberals think then listen to Air America: http://www.airamericaradio.com/listen.asp , the liberal talk radio channel - you won't find anyone that supports Hillary there.

    Her senate voting record is moderate, quite similar to that of Joe Lieberman actually. And the young people did turn out to vote in record numbers. The problem was that other demographics also turned out to vote in record numbers and thereby negated the youth votes contribution to Kerry. Still, it bodes well for the future.

    -5
  10. New Member
    Number 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    181
    Rep Power
    239
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    0.07%

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    I agree with you that democrats need to keep putting up liberal candidates, because they will keep loosing.

    <snip>

    They will probably wait awhile for jeb to run. There is some talk that Rudy or McCain will run. McCain will probably run judging by the way he likes to keep his name in the paper. Arnold is trying to run in 08 as well. The problem with all three of them is that they are all liberal republicans and will have a difficult time getting the nomination. There has also been some talk of Mitt Romney running in 08.
    The trick is to choose someone that is liberal but does not come across as such. Take Wesley Clark for example. He's a liberal, yet I doubt the average American perceives him that way, and furthermore there's no voting record that the Republicans could use against him.

    I like the guy a lot and he has a lot of charisma to boot. His only problem is height, or lack thereof - I think he's just 5'6" - there's never been such a short president.

    As for Rudy, he's tainted now by the Kerik incident - he cannot be trusted if he'd appoint people like that to important positions. Some say Rove let Rudy burn on purpose because he was too liberal to follow the Bush mold.

    I like McCain, but he's getting old. I wonder what would happen if Americans elected a younger (possibly non-caucasian) guy (or woman) for a change.

    -5
  11. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2849
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    88.95%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 5
    .... I wonder what would happen if Americans elected a younger (possibly non-caucasian) guy (or woman) for a change.....
    Colored presdient....pfft! Never gonna happen!!

    J/K Alot of the republicans would like to see Conaleeza Rice attempt the job. At the moment, I have a good opinion of her, too, so I have no objections.
  12. New Member
    Number 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    181
    Rep Power
    239
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    0.07%

    Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    Colored presdient....pfft! Never gonna happen!!

    J/K Alot of the republicans would like to see Conaleeza Rice attempt the job. At the moment, I have a good opinion of her, too, so I have no objections.
    Problem is that Rice is either hopelessly incompetent or pathological liar - probably both.

    ---------------------------------------------------------

    Condoleezza Rice's Credibility Gap

    A point-by-point analysis of how one of America's top national security officials has a severe problem with the truth

    March 26, 2004
    Download: DOC, RTF, PDF


    Pre-9/11 Intelligence

    CLAIM: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 5/16/02

    FACT: On August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." In July 2001, the Administration was also told that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles. [Source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01]

    CLAIM: In May 2002, Rice held a press conference to defend the Administration from new revelations that the President had been explicitly warned about an al Qaeda threat to airlines in August 2001. She "suggested that Bush had requested the briefing because of his keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]

    FACT: According to the CIA, the briefing "was not requested by President Bush." As commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed, "the CIA informed the panel that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]

    CLAIM: "In June and July when the threat spikes were so high…we were at battle stations." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

    FACT: "Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's 'Strategic Plan' from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism 'the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.'" Meanwhile, the Bush Administration decided to terminate "a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04; Newsweek, 3/21/04]

    CLAIM: "The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

    FACT: President Bush and Vice President Cheney's counterterrorism task force, which was created in May, never convened one single meeting. The President himself admitted that "I didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism before 9/11. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; Bob Woodward's "Bush at War"]

    CLAIM: "Our [pre-9/11 NSPD] plan called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets -- taking the fight to the enemy where he lived." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

    FACT: 9/11 Commissioner Gorelick: "There is nothing in the NSPD that came out that we could find that had an invasion plan, a military plan." Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: "Right." Gorelick: "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership'?" Armitage: "No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04]

    Condi Rice on Pre-9/11 Counterterrorism Funding

    CLAIM: "The president increased counterterrorism funding several-fold" before 9/11. – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/24/04

    FACT: According to internal government documents, the first full Bush budget for FY2003 "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism." [Source: New York Times, 2/28/04; Newsweek, 5/27/02]

    Richard Clarke's Concerns

    CLAIM: "Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

    FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says "principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. [Source: CBS 60 Minutes, 3/24/04; White House Press Release, 3/21/04

    CLAIM: "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

    FACT: "On January 25th, 2001, Clarke forwarded his December 2000 strategy paper and a copy of his 1998 Delenda plan to the new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice." – 9/11 Commission staff report, 3/24/04
    Response to 9/11

    CLAIM: "The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

    FACT: "In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04]

    9/11 and Iraq Invasion Plans

    CLAIM: "Not a single National Security Council principal at that meeting recommended to the president going after Iraq. The president thought about it. The next day he told me Iraq is to the side." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

    FACT: According to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." This is corroborated by a CBS News, which reported on 9/4/02 that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq." [Source: Washington Post, 1/12/03. CBS News, 9/4/02]

    Iraq and WMD

    CLAIM: "It's not as if anybody believes that Saddam Hussein was without weapons of mass destruction." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/18/04

    FACT: The Bush Administration's top weapons inspector David Kay "resigned his post in January, saying he did not believe banned stockpiles existed before the invasion" and has urged the Bush Administration to "come clean" about misleading America about the WMD threat. [Source: Chicago Tribune, 3/24/04; UK Guardian, 3/3/04]

    9/11-al Qaeda-Iraq Link

    CLAIM: "The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I've learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

    FACT: If this is true, then why did the President and Vice President repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11? President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11." Similarly, Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 that "It is not surprising that people make that connection" between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said "we don't know" if there is a connection. [Source: BBC, 9/14/03]

    from:http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=40520
  13. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2849
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    88.95%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Unfortunately, none of those statements are uncommon for somebody in American politics.

    However, that doesn't change my position. Not that I'm stubborn about it, it's just that you could type in any major politicians name into Google, click search, go to a website which holds oppositve views and find publishings like this. Does John Kerry ring a bell

    Interesting read though...
  14. USA HOCKEY
    CEDeoudes59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    3,928
    Rep Power
    3204
    Level
    48
    Lv. Percent
    8.24%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Kerry was a such a joke. Shame on the democrats for nominating him.
    My Little Site about Hair Loss & Anabolics-
    hair loss from steroids dot com
  15. New Member
    Number 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    181
    Rep Power
    239
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    0.07%

    Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    Unfortunately, none of those statements are uncommon for somebody in American politics.

    However, that doesn't change my position. Not that I'm stubborn about it, it's just that you could type in any major politicians name into Google, click search, go to a website which holds oppositve views and find publishings like this. Does John Kerry ring a bell

    Interesting read though...
    Okay, my problems with Rice are the following:

    1. Blind loyalty: She knowingly lies to pimp Bush's policies as shown in my previous post, and she played a key role in scaring the people into supporting the invasion of Iraq. Do you remember her mushroom cloud statements? "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he [Saddam] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." [Rice]

    Also, I wouldn't pick just any website from a google search. The source I used in my earlier post, Center for American Progress, is a high quality and honest, though liberal, nonpartisan organization.

    2. Incompetence: Bush put her in charge of post-war Iraq and the rebuilding of Afganistan. Those have been a miserable failure, yet she has not been held responsible. [Reading: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...ce-iraq_x.htm]

    3. I'm not aware of a single success she's had as the national security advisor, but I'm open to learn, please point out her big accomplishments.

    -5
  16. Banned
    EastCoaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    32
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    2
    Lv. Percent
    43.33%

    I much rather have John Kerry as leader of the worlds greatest country... or is it?

    Its hard for me to believe that George Bush is the best we could come up with?

    Hell, if John Kerry was president I'd be saying the same thing.


    Is this really all we've got left?
  17. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    588
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    15.41%

    The trick is to choose someone that is liberal but does not come across as such. Take Wesley Clark for example. He's a liberal, yet I doubt the average American perceives him that way, and furthermore there's no voting record that the Republicans could use against him.
    So your plan would like be the Trojan horse. Some one who is a liberal but will lie and deceive the country into thinking that they are not?
    I don't know how liberal Clark really is. At one point he was going to get rid of all taxes for people that make under 50 k(?). I am not sure if that was the right number or not but it was something like that. Clark was used by the Clintons to knock Dean down a peg or two.
  18. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    588
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    15.41%

    I wonder what would happen if Americans elected a younger (possibly non-caucasian) guy (or woman) for a change.
    You could have voted for Al Sharpton.lol You can vote for the anti christ in 08 she's a woman.
  19. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    588
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    15.41%

    Okay, my problems with Rice are the following:
    Why don't you just say it's because she is conservative
    1. Blind loyalty: She knowingly lies to pimp Bush's policies as shown in my previous post, and she played a key role in scaring the people into supporting the invasion of Iraq. Do you remember her mushroom cloud statements? "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he [Saddam] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." [Rice]

    Also, I wouldn't pick just any website from a google search. The source I used in my earlier post, Center for American Progress, is a high quality and honest, though liberal, nonpartisan organization.
    Did have have a problem with Blind loyalty with anyone in the Clinton Administration?
    2. Incompetence: Bush put her in charge of post-war Iraq and the rebuilding of Afganistan. Those have been a miserable failure, yet she has not been held responsible. [Reading: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/...ice-iraq_x.htm]
    Rice alone did not plan for post war Iraq. There are many people involved in that.
  20. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    588
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    15.41%

    If you want to know what the liberals think then listen to Air America: http://www.airamericaradio.com/listen.asp , the liberal talk radio channel - you won't find anyone that supports Hillary there.
    Al Frankin loves the Clintons. If they have turned against her it's to give the impression that she isn't the far left ideologue that she is.
    Her senate voting record is moderate, quite similar to that of Joe Lieberman actually. And the young people did turn out to vote in record numbers. The problem was that other demographics also turned out to vote in record numbers and thereby negated the youth votes contribution to Kerry. Still, it bodes well for the future.
    The reason her voting record is making a U turn to the right is because she is running in 08 and wants to change the perception of her being a communist. ( which she is)There is your trojan horse for 08 #5.
  21. New Member
    Number 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    181
    Rep Power
    239
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    0.07%

    VG, I liked Clinton because he was competent. 8 years of peace and prosperity. Also, I did not see blind loyalty in the Clinton administration. Far from it. When Clinton admitted to the BJ affair, Al Gore was reportly furious and did everything he could to distance himself from Clinton in his 2000 run. Many democrats did the same. The Clinton Whitehouse was also full of leaks so obviously there were many disloyal people around - but at least they were competent. Bush has chosen loyalty over competence.

    As for Rice, I actually don't know how conservative she is. I don't know her positions on economic or social issues. She just irks me because she stonewalled the 9/11 commission and made serious mistakes on her part of the post-war Iraq planning, yet she still got promoted because of her loyalty i.e. she was willing to tell absurd lies to advance the Bush agenda - not healthy. If Bush was running a business, it would be bankrupt right now.

    As for Wesley Clark, you can take a look at his positions on this site: http://www.issues2000.org/Wesley_Clark.htm

    At the bottom they have a nice diagram that summarizes things. You can also read the details on how they rated the given politician. They rate all the big name politicians so you can compare them.

    I used to consider myself a moderate liberatian; socially liberal, economically conservative, but now I'm so sick of Bush and the neocons that I identify increasingly with the liberals - I just want change. Also, Badnarik was too far out for me. In the end though, I value competence the most of all (especially on economic issues) regardless of whether the politician is conservative or liberal for what those labels are even worth.

    I don't know whether Hillary is trying to make a U-turn or if the Rightwingers are just saying that because they love good ol' Clinton bashing, but she is not the choice of the liberals, and I have not seen one single positive editorial about her potential candidacy. The New Republic has outright said that she cannot win and that nominating her would be insanity. I hope that either the Leftwingers or the Rightwingers succeed in cutting her legs from underneath her before she can run in the primaries because otherwise we'll have another four years of Republican domination in 2008.

    -5
  22. Board Supporter
    The Experiment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    29
    Posts
    290
    Rep Power
    267
    Level
    15
    Lv. Percent
    67.35%

    I think dems have a good shot at it in 2008, but a lot can change in 4 years.
    Unlikely, unless the Democrat is a moderate. Hillary is not a moderate. Her record is that way because she's been planning this Presidency since hell, probably when Bill was in office. People will always remember her plan to bring up socialized health care. She gives a lot of ammunition to Republicans and if she tries to go up against them, she's going to be obliterated by whoever the Republicans put out. People don't think the situation in Iraq is that bad. I'm sure people got to see the poll results where there is still a good percentage of people that think that there are both WMD's in Iraq currently and that Iraq and Al-Qaeda have ties. Plus if the people who get elected in Iraq tell the US to get the hell out (possible but not probable), then Democrats will have even less for them to go on.

    Young people don't vote
    Why do you make these dumbass assumptions? More people got out to vote because 2004's election was seen as critical. It had no impact on Rock the Vote, Vote for Change, or any other ******* Democrat tactics. This happened in 1984. People saw it was a critical election and people came out and voted...Republican. Democrats have got to give up that there's a secret society of Democrats who are going to vote for them. They're just not there. As for Republicans, its another issue. These people come out when needed. Even my parents, who never voted in their lives, voted Bush. They're certainly not hicks. This is why Liberals don't get elected in important positions.

    If there was a change, it was because people don't like to be told who to vote for. People see celebrities as stuck up millionaire pricks and these people await almost daily to see their downfall. Janeane Garofalo telling people to vote Kerry is probably going to cause three more people to run out and vote Bush. Its what happened. Celebrities don't get it. Its too bad but for Republicans, its always a good thing. As long as celebrities keep talking, Republicans will rise to power.

    They will probably wait awhile for jeb to run
    I'm confident that if there's a Jeb Bush/Rudy Giuliani or George Pataki combination, Republicans will grab at least 400 electoral votes next election. People liked George W. Bush (enough for 60 million people to vote for him) and people like Jeb Bush from what I gather. I don't like McCain but he's got a lot of recognition. I think a Conservative Republican President and a Moderate Republican Vice President will be the likely combination for 2008. Democrats really have nobody to go with except for Hillary, maybe John Edwards, and an outside chance of Wesley Clark. Maybe my state's governor but I have to admit, he's pretty useless. I have no idea why I hear some Democrats suggesting that he be in a position of power.

    Chuck Hagel is another person who has chosen to run. He would be crucial for the Midwest, seeing as how he is a Nebraska Senator. Either way, Republicans have a lot of people to chose from for 2008 and Democrats have well, Hillary. Maybe if the Democrats concede for 2008, they can make it easier on themselves.
  23. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    588
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    15.41%

    VG, I liked Clinton because he was competent.
    No he wasn't competent at all. If your definition of competent is letting Bin Laden go several times, giving North Korea materials/ technology to make nuclear weapons, selling more technology to China that can be made in to nukes for campaign contributions, and illegal campaign contributions from enemies of the United States, than I guess he is. The fact is the Clinton administration was one of the most corrupt incompetent in history.

    I don't know whether Hillary is trying to make a U-turn or if the Rightwingers are just saying that because they love good ol' Clinton bashing, but she is not the choice of the liberals, and I have not seen one single positive editorial about her potential candidacy. The New Republic has outright said that she cannot win and that nominating her would be insanity. I hope that either the Leftwingers or the Rightwingers succeed in cutting her legs from underneath her before she can run in the primaries because otherwise we'll have another four years of Republican domination in 2008.
    That's great 5 but if you look at Hillary's past she is about as left as you can get. An example of this that has been given several times is socialized medicine. If you look at what Hillary did since she has been elected to the senate it is apparent that she is running for president. She raised boat loads of money for many people. This of coarse means that they owe her. Hillary has the nomination when she wants it. Why do you think she made such a big stink about not giving a speech at the DNC? Why do you think she was the one that made the speech at the opening of the Clinton Library and not Bill?
    What has most likely has happened is that some democrats realize that the Clintons don't give a crap about the democrat party and they only care about them selves. There is a spit in the party. Whether or not they can pull off taking power out of the Clintons hands is another story. I have never heard another democrat talk publicly negatively about the Clintons. As I have said before Al Frankin loves them and he is host of air America. If he is talking negative about them it's to give the perception that she is a moderate. Frankin is a kool aide drinking borg for the DNC. Hillary can win. If she does run you will see an ultra conservative third party candidate running as well. That was the only reason Bill won both times he ran. They could be derailed though. One of the people associated with her senate campaign has just been indicted. This is the beginning of yet another Clinton scandal. I am sure the press will do it's best to spike it though.
  24. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    588
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    15.41%

    She gives a lot of ammunition to Republicans and if she tries to go up against them, she's going to be obliterated by whoever the Republicans put out.
    It's important not to underestimate the Clintons. If they put up a conservative third party candidate it will split the republican vote. Many republicans scoffed at the idea that she would get elected to the senate but she did. Also, if she does run they will pull out all the stops with vote fraud as well.
    People don't think the situation in Iraq is that bad. I'm sure people got to see the poll results where there is still a good percentage of people that think that there are both WMD's in Iraq currently and that Iraq and Al-Qaeda have ties. Plus if the people who get elected in Iraq tell the US to get the hell out (possible but not probable), then Democrats will have even less for them to go on.
    Allot can change in four years. We haven't been in Iraq for very long in 4 years if we are still there the politician climate could be much different. Iraq has a pretty good chance of blowing up in the republicans faces.
    Democrats really have nobody to go with except for Hillary, maybe John Edwards, and an outside chance of Wesley Clark. Maybe my state's governor but I have to admit, he's pretty useless. I have no idea why I hear some Democrats suggesting that he be in a position of power.

    Chuck Hagel is another person who has chosen to run. He would be crucial for the Midwest, seeing as how he is a Nebraska Senator.
    Biden will prob. make a run as well.
  25. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    588
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    15.41%

    As for Wesley Clark, you can take a look at his positions on this site: http://www.issues2000.org/Wesley_Clark.htm
    Clark got in trouble for flip flopping allot during the campaign. At they end of his run he was going to cut out taxes for the middle class. So, who knows were he stands. You can bet the next time he runs whoever is running against him will pull out Michael Moore's endorsement and use it against him. He also ordered UN troops to attack Russians when he was the commander.
  26. Board Supporter
    The Experiment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    29
    Posts
    290
    Rep Power
    267
    Level
    15
    Lv. Percent
    67.35%

    Biden will prob. make a run as well.
    Screw Biden. Not because started the PH bill but because he is a complete *******. I see him all the time on Fox News and he always seems bitter about something and shouts down the hosts if they don't 100% agree with what he's saying (kind of like O'Reilly). Thats not Presidential material. I'm sure he'll enter in the election but will probably be one of the first to step out of the race.

    No he wasn't competent at all
    I thought Clinton was a pretty good President. As for Bin Laden, that was a screwup by Bush and Clinton. I recall Clinton wanting to go after Bin Laden but Republicans accused him of using Al Qaeda as a distraction to his Lewinsky scandal. I think it was called "wag the dog" or something like that. I don't know the whole thing; just that Clinton wanted to pursue Bin Laden but he didn't get the support necessary. I think Clinton gets a lot of credit though because he ran at a time where America was doing really great and that was more because of the byproduct of Reaganomics than anything else.

    I was pretty young but what happened with Dole and Clinton in 1996? I tried Wikipedia and they gave out no information about the election. I was curious as why Dole lost or what Clinton did right.

    What has most likely has happened is that some democrats realize that the Clintons don't give a crap about the democrat party and they only care about them selves
    I heard this too. Dick Morris I think is the name of the guy who was Clinton's advisor who pretty much hates them now. Kind of like George Stephanopolous (I slaughtered that one).

    It's important not to underestimate the Clintons. If they put up a conservative third party candidate it will split the republican vote. Many republicans scoffed at the idea that she would get elected to the senate but she did. Also, if she does run they will pull out all the stops with vote fraud as well.
    I know not to underestimate them but it comes down to the people. The people don't like Hillary Clinton unless she does something amazing to win the hearts and minds of the people. She does very well with the Socialist Left in polls but not very much with others. I don't think she has a chance of getting elected. I figured she could win in New York because its about a 65/35 split of Democrats and Republicans. For the entire nation of America, its a whole other story. I think she'll be another Michael Dukakis: win the electoral votes of the die hard Democrat states and lose everywhere else. If Iraq wasn't so shaky, Kerry's outcome would have been the same. The only way she could get more votes is to have a great VP who can try to appeal to the states that aren't completely Democrat. Not sure who'd that be because it would require a Moderate to do the job and probably a moderate from the south.

    Allot can change in four years. We haven't been in Iraq for very long in 4 years if we are still there the politician climate could be much different. Iraq has a pretty good chance of blowing up in the republicans faces.
    I agree. I think the only thing that can get a Republican to lose in 2008 is if Iraq is a complete disaster. I'm sure we'll be done by the time 2008 rolls around. I somewhat hope that the new government tells the US to take a hike or at least get more international cooperation so US numbers can be lessened significantly. We need to move on because Iraq is getting too tiring anymore. Its pretty standard: attack a city, play defense. Rinse and repeat.
  27. New Member
    Number 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    181
    Rep Power
    239
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    0.07%

    What about Mark Warner for the dem 2008 nomination?

    People are starting to talk about him and he looks good on paper for winning an election. He may be a little too conservative to win the dem nomination, but they may decide that he's their best bet, even though not liberal enough for the true believers.

    Mark Warner is Governer of VA (red state?). He's a moderate i.e. conservative for a democrat. Here's about his policies: http://www.issues2000.org/Mark_Warner.htm

    pic: wife:

    -5
  28. New Member
    Number 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    181
    Rep Power
    239
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    0.07%

    I did a google search on the guy above, and he seems solid. he is a little too conservative on social issues for my personal taste (anti-drugs and anti-internet porn i.e. favors more enforcement & tougher penalties), but he's fiscally conservtive, pro-globalization and seems very competent, especially in economic matters, which is the most important quality for me in a president.

    His main problem though is that people describe him as a little dry. He's no Clinton I guess.

    Below is a describtion from some site that sums it up pretty well. I believe the info is accurate because I saw similar things repeated by other sources including some very reputable ones such as the Washington Post.

    from: http://www.centristcoalition.com/blo...es/001475.html

    Since I live in VA. this brings me to Mark Warner - Warner a moderate democrat has somewhere around a 63% approval rating, with solid support among rural and moderate republicans. He's turned a 1 billion dollar deficit that he inherited by our last governor(a republican "tax cutter") into a 1 billion dollar surplus. He downsized state government first, then restructered Virginia's tax system, which generated revenue, while cutting tax burderns for the middle class. He did this with help from a Republican majority in the state sentate. Governing magazine recently named Warner Public Official of the year for 2004. Warner has stayed away from hot botton social issues - and no one could call him a "out to the loop liberal"

    So what are his positives? First he comes from the private sector, and unlike Bush, Warner was succesful as a business man. In the late 70's Warner helped to star a cell phone company that eventually became Nextel. The rest was history. As a venture capitalist he has had a hand in creating literally millions of jobs in VA before entering politics. During his campain for Governor, the right-wing attack dogs had a difficult time labeling Warner as a liberal pro-tax free market hater, for obvious reasons. Warner has also shown he is dedicated to improving mental health services, child health care coverage, and a myraid of other social/healthcare issues. So Mark Warner truely could tout that he is a real "compassionalte conservative".
    Also Warner has loads of cash (net worth somwhere around $300 million), so as a Presidential canidate he could at leats not have to worry about funding during say the primary season)
  29. Board Supporter
    The Experiment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    29
    Posts
    290
    Rep Power
    267
    Level
    15
    Lv. Percent
    67.35%

    He would be a good candidate for the Democrats to select but it will never happen or at least he'll be a Vice President. The most influential person in the Democrats is not the Clintons but George Soros, a socialist who is worth $7.4 billion. He gives Democrats the most money out of anyone. He flexed his nuts last month by saying he's pretty much in charge of the Democrats. So whoever probably kisses Soros's ass the most or has views that are similar to Soros will be the best candidate. Thats why I'm certain the the 2008 President will be a member of the Socialist Left (Hillary Clinton) of course things change up. Possible but not probable that the President will be a moderate again. Clinton was selected only because in 1992, Bush was doing so well in approval ratings that most of the big league Democrats were too scared to run, allow B-list Democrats a chance.

    The only way B-List Dems will be allowed is if George W. Bush does a lot better in the approval ratings, setting up a 2008 Republican blowout. I'd say Warner is definitely a B-List Dem because I never even heard of him up until you brought him up.
  30. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    588
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    15.41%

    I thought Clinton was a pretty good President. As for Bin Laden, that was a screwup by Bush and Clinton. I recall Clinton wanting to go after Bin Laden but Republicans accused him of using Al Qaeda as a distraction to his Lewinsky scandal. I think it was called "wag the dog" or something like that. I don't know the whole thing; just that Clinton wanted to pursue Bin Laden but he didn't get the support necessary.
    Clinton was in office 8 years bush was in office 8 months. The Sudanese offered to give us Bin Laden and Clinton declined the offer. Bubba denies this ever happened but he was caught on tape explaining why he turned down the offer. We also had intelligence of the date, time, and location of were Bin Laden would be. Clinton however, didn't act on it because we just accidentally bombed a Chinese embassy and Clinton was worried about what the world would think. Those of coarse are separate issues from taking foreign campaign money in return for technology which is treason.
  31. New Member
    Number 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    181
    Rep Power
    239
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    0.07%

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    Clinton was in office 8 years bush was in office 8 months. The Sudanese offered to give us Bin Laden and Clinton declined the offer. Bubba denies this ever happened but he was caught on tape explaining why he turned down the offer. We also had intelligence of the date, time, and location of were Bin Laden would be. Clinton however, didn't act on it because we just accidentally bombed a Chinese embassy and Clinton was worried about what the world would think. Those of coarse are separate issues from taking foreign campaign money in return for technology which is treason.
    The Sudan offer wasn't real. I can look up the details later, but if I recall correctly, the guy who supposedly was offering up bin laden was some sudanese private sector businessman who now happens to work for fox news.

    I heard Richard Clarke interviewed by a number of people who put tough questions to him. He had clear answers to everything, and in general sounded completely credible; Clinton got high marks from him. In fact, Clinton had formed a serious plan to fight terror, which Clarke passed on to Bush (or he passed it on to Rice who passed it up), but Bush sat on it until 9/11, completely ignored the Al-Qaeda threat and stonewalled the 9/11 commission. The last fact suggests to me that Bush had dropped the ball on terrorism, otherwise he would not have been afraid of the commission or of testifying under oath (preferably without Dick Cheney).

    The rest of your accusations are the same half-truths that were circulated endlessly by the right-wingers during Clinton's presidency. There's little point to rehash everything now, I'll just say that the Republicans spent millions investigating the Clintons and all they came up with was that he lied about a blowjob.

    As for Mark Warner, I have a feeling we'll hear a lot more about him in the days to come. He'll be on the A-list pretty soon.

    -5
  32. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    588
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    15.41%

    The Sudan offer wasn't real. I can look up the details later, but if I recall correctly, the guy who supposedly was offering up bin laden was some sudanese private sector businessman who now happens to work for fox news.
    It was and your aren't recalling it correctly. I can post the transcript of the first impeached president commenting on it himself if you want.
    I heard Richard Clarke interviewed by a number of people who put tough questions to him. He had clear answers to everything, and in general sounded completely credible; Clinton got high marks from him.
    He changed his story several times on many issues. If you recall he got in trouble for giving several conflicting answers on whether or not he supported the war in Iraq or not.
    In fact, Clinton had formed a serious plan to fight terror, which Clarke passed on to Bush (or he passed it on to Rice who passed it up), but Bush sat on it until 9/11, completely ignored the Al-Qaeda threat and stonewalled the 9/11 commission. The last fact suggests to me that Bush had dropped the ball on terrorism, otherwise he would not have been afraid of the commission or of testifying under oath (preferably without Dick Cheney).
    What year did the first attack on the world trade center happen? What did he do about the attack on the Cole. I guess it he needed another term to implement his serious plan. That is what Dick Morris is currently raking him over the coals for......... doing nothing to very little to fight terror.
    The rest of your accusations are the same half-truths that were circulated endlessly by the right-wingers during Clinton's presidency. There's little point to rehash everything now, I'll just say that the Republicans spent millions investigating the Clintons and all they came up with was that he lied about a blowjob.
    Again that is simply not true. The Buddhist Fund raiser sponsored by China and the Clintons connections to the Raidy family ring any bells? How about having FBI files of all your political enemies? Oh wait........ that was just a "bureaucratic snafu". You are even missing the point with the BJ. He didn't get impeached for getting Head. He was impeached for perjury, subornation of perjury, and abuse of power. Did you know that every woman that can forward again Bill was audited by the IRS? Clinton is a first class scumbag.
  33. New Member
    Number 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    181
    Rep Power
    239
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    0.07%

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    It was and your aren't recalling it correctly. I can post the transcript of the first impeached president commenting on it himself if you want.
    i'd like to see it, with the full context included if you don't mind - not that i doubt you - i've heard this mentioned before, but i want to take a good look for myself.

    He changed his story several times on many issues. If you recall he got in trouble for giving several conflicting answers on whether or not he supported the war in Iraq or not.
    again, i'll take a look if you have a credible critique of the guy - preferably something from a reputable publication rather than some rightwing site (also WSJ editorials don't count, though their news section is of high quality). i'd like to see what the conservatives are saying about him. at the time he came out i just remember charges that he was only doing it for the money and such, which he easily rebutted.

    What year did the first attack on the world trade center happen? What did he do about the attack on the Cole. I guess it he needed another term to implement his serious plan. That is what Dick Morris is currently raking him over the coals for......... doing nothing to very little to fight terror.
    according to clarke and many others, direct action was not viable at the time because of various issues - i don't remember the details clearly, but i think one of the problems was that they did not have direct evidence linking bin laden to those attacks until later. when did bin laden claim responsibility for those attacks?

    Again that is simply not true. The Buddhist Fund raiser sponsored by China and the Clintons connections to the Raidy family ring any bells? How about having FBI files of all your political enemies? Oh wait........ that was just a "bureaucratic snafu". You are even missing the point with the BJ. He didn't get impeached for getting Head. He was impeached for perjury, subornation of perjury, and abuse of power. Did you know that every woman that can forward again Bill was audited by the IRS? Clinton is a first class scumbag
    yeah, the rightwingers keep saying these things, but the clinton admin has denied these allegations and his supporters have offered plausible explanations for all these events. as i understand, bill clinton also has made his presidential files available (before he needed to) when he opened his presidential library.

    to be honest with you, i don't know the truth about these allegations, so i view them as just allegations until there's some proof or legal charges.

    however, bill was good at his job. US enjoyed 8 years of peace and prosperity on his watch, he balanced the budget, other countries loved the US while bill was in charge, he had good environmental policies, his military venture in the balkans was a huge success and he mornernized the military to the point where afghanistan and iraq were easily invaded in just days (note that bush's military budgets had not taken effect yet at the time of those invasions).

    pretty much all the critique about bill concerns either personal stuff or these corruption charges that are neither here nor there. i'll back up some of the stuff i've said above with some intersting details in a few days, but i don't have the time right now.

    -5
  34. Board Supporter
    The Experiment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    29
    Posts
    290
    Rep Power
    267
    Level
    15
    Lv. Percent
    67.35%

    Clinton was in office 8 years bush was in office 8 months
    Yeah but when there was the first attack, it was much easier to call it a random terrorist act than anything else. However, after further Al Qaeda threats and attacks, Clinton should have come up with a plan on the spot. If he wasn't getting the encouragement, he should have made an executive order. I know they are not popular but its not like Clinton cared about the effects of his powers (note: Pardoning of Marc Rich) I also heard that Clinton chose to play golf over getting Bin Laden too but I'm not sure when this was. Clinton's last two years in office were complete failures if you ask me; the only good thing was the balanced budget that paid back $380 billion. We need more of these years. The national debt levels right now are pretty high.

    As for Mark Warner, I have a feeling we'll hear a lot more about him in the days to come. He'll be on the A-list pretty soon.
    To paraphrase Dick Morris, Clinton's nomination is hers if she wants it. She's been planning this **** for, like I said, probably when her husband was in office. The only way she will back out is if she is involved in a huge scandal, so embarrassing that there's no way she could recover. She pushed for socialized medicine in 1993-1994 but suddenly is a moderate? Please. Warner might be someone for 2012 or 2016 but not for 2008. Warner would make for a good Vice President, kind of like what Joe Lieberman was to Al Gore in 2000.
  35. New Member
    Number 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    181
    Rep Power
    239
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    0.07%

    Quote Originally Posted by The Experiment
    To paraphrase Dick Morris, Clinton's nomination is hers if she wants it. She's been planning this **** for, like I said, probably when her husband was in office. The only way she will back out is if she is involved in a huge scandal, so embarrassing that there's no way she could recover. She pushed for socialized medicine in 1993-1994 but suddenly is a moderate? Please. Warner might be someone for 2012 or 2016 but not for 2008. Warner would make for a good Vice President, kind of like what Joe Lieberman was to Al Gore in 2000.
    i wouldn't put too much stock in what Dick Morris says. If you remember he was a Clinton aide that got caught having sex with a protitute. She revealed that he had a foot fetish and told her confidential info. The guy got the boot, but recently made his comeback as the Ex-Clinton aide who bashed Kerry every chance he got - most of his articles were completely ridiculous to boot. No he has a job at FOX news as a republican commentator I believe.

    Bottomline: Dick says what he's paid to say these days. it's got nothing to do with truth, he's just cashing in on his Ex-Clinton aide status as long as possible.

    Problems with Hillary & why I doubt she'll get the nomination:
    - unqualified; she's only been a senator in (liberal) NY for 1 term, where she got elected only because her husband was president
    - the right-wing hates her guts with a passion
    * 40% of voting Americans would automatically vote
    against her (according to the New Republic)
    - liberals think she's either too conservative or unelectable
    * Senators from liberal blue states are out of favor right
    now as potential presidential candidates
    - she supported the WMD claims, voted for war with Iraq, supported patriotic act, Bernie Kerik, and so forth; not popular with the base
    - no southern accent, low likeability, a lot of people (even in the blue states) think that she's a cold and calculating bitch.

    Okay, those are the negatives I can think of right now. On the positive side she has the best name recognition of all potential candidates, she has a fine record in the senate, Bill Clinton is still popular - but she's too vulnerable to attacks.

    I honestly do not think she'll make it through the primaries if she runs because her opponents will just say what I just said, and the dem base will say, okay she's unelectable, doubts would creep in like they did with Howard Dean.

    -5
  36. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    588
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    15.41%

    again, i'll take a look if you have a credible critique of the guy - preferably something from a reputable publication rather than some rightwing site (also WSJ editorials don't count, though their news section is of high quality). i'd like to see what the conservatives are saying about him. at the time he came out i just remember charges that he was only doing it for the money and such, which he easily rebutted.
    Your asking me for a credible source when you previously posted a web site that called Chris Mathews right wing? The information is there if you want it 5. In fact it's still going on. A member of Hillary's election team has just been indicted.
    according to clarke and many others, direct action was not viable at the time because of various issues - i don't remember the details clearly, but i think one of the problems was that they did not have direct evidence linking bin laden to those attacks until later. when did bin laden claim responsibility for those attacks?
    It was a terrorist attack wasn't it? The first world trade center bombing happened in 93. Yet according to you, Clinton had a "serious plan to fight terror". Would you care to give any details of it? Was it a secret plan that no one can know about?
    yeah, the rightwingers keep saying these things, but the clinton admin has denied these allegations and his supporters have offered plausible explanations for all these events. as i understand, bill clinton also has made his presidential files available (before he needed to) when he opened his presidential library.

    to be honest with you, i don't know the truth about these allegations, so i view them as just allegations until there's some proof or legal charges.

    however, bill was good at his job. US enjoyed 8 years of peace and prosperity on his watch, he balanced the budget, other countries loved the US while bill was in charge, he had good environmental policies, his military venture in the balkans was a huge success and he mornernized the military to the point where afghanistan and iraq were easily invaded in just days (note that bush's military budgets had not taken effect yet at the time of those invasions).
    What is the Clinton administration going to say they are true? He also cut the military not modernized it. Black hawk down was a huge success? 5 if you want to be a kool aid drinking liberal borg that's fine but the fact is the Clinton administration and the Clinton's them selves are corrupt and he was not a good president.
    i wouldn't put too much stock in what Dick Morris says. If you remember he was a Clinton aide that got caught having sex with a protitute. She revealed that he had a foot fetish and told her confidential info. The guy got the boot, but recently made his comeback as the Ex-Clinton aide who bashed Kerry every chance he got - most of his articles were completely ridiculous to boot. No he has a job at FOX news as a republican commentator I believe.

    Bottomline: Dick says what he's paid to say these days. it's got nothing to do with truth, he's just cashing in on his Ex-Clinton aide status as long as possible.
    You're right 5, the Clintons are known for their honesty and Morris is an evil liar. Dick Morris isn't on just on FOX 5 . He is on many other Broadcasts. The Clintons also asked him back when the lewinski scandal hit. He worked for the Clintons for 20 to 30 years and knows them better than anyone else. He also wasn't just an aid , he was their top political advisor. He pointed out the many lies that were in both Bill and Hillary's books and wrote counter books. What did he say that was completely ridiculous and not true? The fact is that if you look at what the Clintons did after Hillary was elected to the senate it is obvious that she is running for president. They installed Terry McAuliffe as DNC chairman. He is a Clinton puppet , which means they control the money. They have said they want Harold Ickeys as the new Chairman. If they get Ickeys or another stooge in they will control the DNC. This means they will have a lock on the nomination.
  37. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    588
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    15.41%

    Ex-President Clinton's Remarks on Osama bin Laden
    Delivered to the Long Island Association's Annual Luncheon
    Crest Hollow Country Club, Woodbury, NY
    Feb. 15, 2002


    Question from LIA President Matthew Crosson:

    CROSSON: In hindsight, would you have handled the issue of terrorism, and al-Qaeda specifically, in a different way during your administration?

    CLINTON: Well, it's interesting now, you know, that I would be asked that question because, at the time, a lot of people thought I was too obsessed with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

    And when I bombed his training camp and tried to kill him and his high command in 1998 after the African embassy bombings, some people criticized me for doing it. We just barely missed him by a couple of hours.

    I think whoever told us he was going to be there told somebody who told him that our missiles might be there. I think we were ratted out.

    We also bombed a chemical facility in Sudan where we were criticized, even in this country, for overreaching. But in the trial in New York City of the al-Qaeda people who bombed the African embassy, they testified in the trial that the Sudanese facility was, in fact, a part of their attempt to stockpile chemical weapons.

    So we tried to be quite aggressive with them. We got - uh - well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan.

    And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

    They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

    So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.

    We then put a lot of sanctions on the Afghan government and - but they inter-married, Mullah Omar and bin Laden. So that essentially the Taliban didn't care what we did to them.

    Now, if you look back - in the hindsight of history, everybody's got 20/20 vision - the real issue is should we have attacked the al-Qaeda network in 1999 or in 2000 in Afghanistan.

    Here's the problem. Before September 11 we would have had no support for it - no allied support and no basing rights. So we actually trained to do this. I actually trained people to do this. We trained people.

    But in order to do it, we would have had to take them in on attack helicopters 900 miles from the nearest boat - maybe illegally violating the airspace of people if they wouldn't give us approval. And we would have had to do a refueling stop.

    And we would have had to make the decision in advance that's the reverse of what President Bush made - and I agreed with what he did. They basically decided - this may be frustrating to you now that we don't have bin Laden. But the president had to decide after Sept. 11, which am I going to do first? Just go after bin Laden or get rid of the Taliban?

    He decided to get rid of the Taliban. I personally agree with that decision, even though it may or may not have delayed the capture of bin Laden. Why?

    Because, first of all the Taliban was the most reactionary government on earth and there was an inherent value in getting rid of them.

    Secondly, they supported terrorism and we'd send a good signal to governments that if you support terrorism and they attack us in America, we will hold you responsible.

    Thirdly, it enabled our soldiers and Marines and others to operate more safely in-country as they look for bin Laden and the other senior leadership, because if we'd have had to have gone in there to just sort of clean out one area, try to establish a base camp and operate.

    So for all those reasons the military recommended against it. There was a high probability that it wouldn't succeed.

    Now I had one other option. I could have bombed or sent more missiles in. As far as we knew he never went back to his training camp. So the only place bin Laden ever went that we knew was occasionally he went to Khandahar where he always spent the night in a compound that had 200 women and children.

    So I could have, on any given night, ordered an attack that I knew would kill 200 women and children that had less than a 50 percent chance of getting him.

    Now, after he murdered 3,100 of our people and others who came to our country seeking their livelihood you may say, "Well, Mr. President, you should have killed those 200 women and children."

    But at the time we didn't think he had the capacity to do that. And no one thought that I should do that. Although I take full responsibility for it. You need to know that those are the two options I had. And there was less than a 50/50 chance that the intelligence was right that on this particular night he was in Afghanistan.

    Now, we did do a lot of things. We tried to get the Pakistanis to go get him. They could have done it and they wouldn't. They changed governments at the time from Mr. Sharif to President Musharraf. And we tried to get others to do it. We had a standing contract between the CIA and some groups in Afghanistan authorizing them and paying them if they should be successful in arresting and/or killing him.

    So I tried hard to - I always thought this guy was a big problem. And apparently the options I had were the options that the President and Vice President Cheney and Secretary Powell and all the people that were involved in the Gulf War thought that they had, too, during the first eight months that they were there - until Sept. 11 changed everything.

    But I did the best I could with it and I do not believe, based on what options were available to me, that I could have done much more than I did. Obviously, I wish I'd been successful. I tried a lot of different ways to get bin Laden 'cause I always thought he was a very dangerous man. He's smart, he's bold and committed.

    But I think it's very important that the Bush administration do what they're doing to keep the soldiers over there to keep chasing him. But I know - like I said - I know it might be frustrating to you. But it's still better for bin Laden to worry every day more about whether he's going to see the sun come up in the morning than whether he's going to drop a bomb, another bomb somewhere in the U.S. or in Europe or on some other innocent civilians.
  38. New Member
    Number 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    181
    Rep Power
    239
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    0.07%

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    Ex-President Clinton's Remarks on Osama bin Laden
    Delivered to the Long Island Association's Annual Luncheon
    Crest Hollow Country Club, Woodbury, NY
    Feb. 15, 2002


    Question from LIA President Matthew Crosson:

    CROSSON: In hindsight, would you have handled the issue of terrorism, and al-Qaeda specifically, in a different way during your administration?

    CLINTON: Well, it's interesting now, you know, that I would be asked that question because, at the time, a lot of people thought I was too obsessed with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

    And when I bombed his training camp and tried to kill him and his high command in 1998 after the African embassy bombings, some people criticized me for doing it. We just barely missed him by a couple of hours.

    I think whoever told us he was going to be there told somebody who told him that our missiles might be there. I think we were ratted out.

    We also bombed a chemical facility in Sudan where we were criticized, even in this country, for overreaching. But in the trial in New York City of the al-Qaeda people who bombed the African embassy, they testified in the trial that the Sudanese facility was, in fact, a part of their attempt to stockpile chemical weapons.

    So we tried to be quite aggressive with them. We got - uh - well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan.

    And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

    They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

    So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.

    We then put a lot of sanctions on the Afghan government and - but they inter-married, Mullah Omar and bin Laden. So that essentially the Taliban didn't care what we did to them.

    Now, if you look back - in the hindsight of history, everybody's got 20/20 vision - the real issue is should we have attacked the al-Qaeda network in 1999 or in 2000 in Afghanistan.

    Here's the problem. Before September 11 we would have had no support for it - no allied support and no basing rights. So we actually trained to do this. I actually trained people to do this. We trained people.

    But in order to do it, we would have had to take them in on attack helicopters 900 miles from the nearest boat - maybe illegally violating the airspace of people if they wouldn't give us approval. And we would have had to do a refueling stop.

    And we would have had to make the decision in advance that's the reverse of what President Bush made - and I agreed with what he did. They basically decided - this may be frustrating to you now that we don't have bin Laden. But the president had to decide after Sept. 11, which am I going to do first? Just go after bin Laden or get rid of the Taliban?

    He decided to get rid of the Taliban. I personally agree with that decision, even though it may or may not have delayed the capture of bin Laden. Why?

    Because, first of all the Taliban was the most reactionary government on earth and there was an inherent value in getting rid of them.

    Secondly, they supported terrorism and we'd send a good signal to governments that if you support terrorism and they attack us in America, we will hold you responsible.

    Thirdly, it enabled our soldiers and Marines and others to operate more safely in-country as they look for bin Laden and the other senior leadership, because if we'd have had to have gone in there to just sort of clean out one area, try to establish a base camp and operate.

    So for all those reasons the military recommended against it. There was a high probability that it wouldn't succeed.

    Now I had one other option. I could have bombed or sent more missiles in. As far as we knew he never went back to his training camp. So the only place bin Laden ever went that we knew was occasionally he went to Khandahar where he always spent the night in a compound that had 200 women and children.

    So I could have, on any given night, ordered an attack that I knew would kill 200 women and children that had less than a 50 percent chance of getting him.

    Now, after he murdered 3,100 of our people and others who came to our country seeking their livelihood you may say, "Well, Mr. President, you should have killed those 200 women and children."

    But at the time we didn't think he had the capacity to do that. And no one thought that I should do that. Although I take full responsibility for it. You need to know that those are the two options I had. And there was less than a 50/50 chance that the intelligence was right that on this particular night he was in Afghanistan.

    Now, we did do a lot of things. We tried to get the Pakistanis to go get him. They could have done it and they wouldn't. They changed governments at the time from Mr. Sharif to President Musharraf. And we tried to get others to do it. We had a standing contract between the CIA and some groups in Afghanistan authorizing them and paying them if they should be successful in arresting and/or killing him.

    So I tried hard to - I always thought this guy was a big problem. And apparently the options I had were the options that the President and Vice President Cheney and Secretary Powell and all the people that were involved in the Gulf War thought that they had, too, during the first eight months that they were there - until Sept. 11 changed everything.

    But I did the best I could with it and I do not believe, based on what options were available to me, that I could have done much more than I did. Obviously, I wish I'd been successful. I tried a lot of different ways to get bin Laden 'cause I always thought he was a very dangerous man. He's smart, he's bold and committed.

    But I think it's very important that the Bush administration do what they're doing to keep the soldiers over there to keep chasing him. But I know - like I said - I know it might be frustrating to you. But it's still better for bin Laden to worry every day more about whether he's going to see the sun come up in the morning than whether he's going to drop a bomb, another bomb somewhere in the U.S. or in Europe or on some other innocent civilians.
    VG, thanks for the info. that was a good read. so it boils down to the fact that Clinton could possibly have caught BL in 1996, but according to him there was no legal basis for it, and the bombing attacks were both unsuccessful and highly critisized by his opponents.

    the WTC attack did happen in 1993, but bin laden was not behind that. (the terrorists who were behind it have been tried and convicted). The USS Cole bombing took place in 2000, but immediately connected to al-qaeda.

    Dick Morris has gone gay for pay. if you do a search on the articles he's written about Kerry, then i'm sure you'll see what i mean. i'll try to dig some of them up over the weekend, and i'll address your other comments over the weekend as well...

    meanwhile, i'd still like to see your Richard Clarke critique. I don't mind rightwing sites as long as they are factually accurate. Credible does not mean unbiased, okay. I just have a problem with some rightwingers, such as Rush, Hannity and Drudge because they often get the facts wrong, or report rumor as fact.

    Also, if you find a WP, LAT or some other mainstream news source which wrote a critique of Clarke then I'd like to see it because that would imply that there might be something to it.

    -5
  39. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    588
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    15.41%

    VG, thanks for the info. that was a good read. so it boils down to the fact that Clinton could possibly have caught BL in 1996, but according to him there was no legal basis for it, and the bombing attacks were both unsuccessful and highly critisized by his opponents.
    Not really. Clinton is now denying he ever said this or that it happened. Of coarse the media is going along with him. He also could have killed him but declined to bomb were he was because of the screw up in bombing the embassy.
    the WTC attack did happen in 1993, but bin laden was not behind that. (the terrorists who were behind it have been tried and convicted). The USS Cole bombing took place in 2000, but immediately connected to al-qaeda.
    I don't know much about the first wt bombing. I do know that there was some talk the master mind behind the attacks had links to Al Queada. It might have been after the bombing though. The point is it was a terrorist attack. Clinton should have made it more a priority after the first bombing of the world trade center.
    Also, if you find a WP, LAT or some other mainstream news source which wrote a critique of Clarke then I'd like to see it because that would imply that there might be something to it.
    His changing position on the war in Iraq was all over the network news.
  40. Board Supporter
    The Experiment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    29
    Posts
    290
    Rep Power
    267
    Level
    15
    Lv. Percent
    67.35%

    i wouldn't put too much stock in what Dick Morris says
    Who cares if he screws a hooker. He's been with the Clintons for years and knows them inside and out. He probably knew that Hillary has been planning this for a while. Its not like Morris has been the only person who was an ally of Clinton that later turned an enemy; George Stephanopoulos was, along with James Carville, Clinton's 1992 political advisor who now despises Bill. Maybe the Clintons just piss certain people off?

    Problems with Hillary & why I doubt she'll get the nomination:
    Yes but she's doing all this because the people of America supported these issues. Her base doesn't care if she's pretty much the top dog there. Lieberman did all this but it didn't stop him from becoming Vice President. There's a reason why the right hates her. She's a cold and calculating; she's been planning this for years now and you can tell she's just not going to throw it away. She will be in the 2008 Democratic selections although supposedly if Howard Dean is chairman of the DNC, Hillary will lose out. Not sure why but I'm damn near 100% confident that Hillary is going to be running for President at 2008.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 213
    Last Post: 04-08-2008, 07:43 PM
  2. I want to run faster
    By csunkramer in forum Exercise Science
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 06-27-2007, 09:36 AM
  3. I want to Compete in my First Contest, Can Anyone Help?
    By IronMarc in forum Exercise Science
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-06-2006, 01:29 AM
  4. i want to run just a m4ohn cycle few ?
    By bigrich954rr in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-23-2005, 12:57 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in