Washington Post: Kerry may want to run in 2008

Page 3 of 4 First 1234 Last

  1. 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.


  2. 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
    •   
       


  3. 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...

  4. 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

  5. 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
    •   
       


  6. 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?

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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

  18. 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)

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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

  22. 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.

  23. 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

  24. 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.

  25. 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
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 213
    Last Post: 04-08-2008, 07:43 PM
  2. I want to run faster
    By csunkramer in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 06-27-2007, 09:36 AM
  3. I want to Compete in my First Contest, Can Anyone Help?
    By IronMarc in forum Training Forum
    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
Log in
Log in