Reading news reports from last night - Cheney says one thing, then it subsequently gets refined and revised, denying what was actually said whilst at the same time the original message is still out there - I can’t help but think this the next tactic from Bush’s brains trust. They must be having a lot of fun.
When are the debates anyway?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/07/cheney.terror/index.html
The way he puts it, you’d think that whoever was in power (Ie Bush) stopped an attack - that actually happened.
I thought that was the point about the 9/11 commision report - that no-one could have really stopped them. The Whitehouse was in a pre 9/11 state of mind too. I know it’s spin, and that the Slowtwitch Spokesman for the Republican Party will say he didn’t say what he did, but to me it looks like they have deployed another attack dog to get shameless scaremongering into the media…
It would be difficult for Cheney to be a SBVT, since he doesn’t exactly qualify under the “V” part of that, with his 5 deferments and “other priorities” during Vietnam.
On the other hand, things like the truth have never slowed him down.
It would be difficult for Cheney to be a SBVT, since he doesn’t exactly qualify under the “V” part of that, with his 5 deferments and “other priorities” during Vietnam.
On the other hand, things like the truth have never slowed him down.
There was a funny article about Cheney in Rolling Stone (ya, I know, Rolling Stone isn’t exactly the ultimate in investigative reporting, but whatever). It mentions how Cheney failed out or left Yale, then took a job as a worker on a telephone line crew. The minute the draft started up, he went back to school. When it became clear that being married would help keep him out of the draft, he got married. When they started drafting married men without kids, his wife immediately became pregnant (his first child was born 9 months and 2 days after the draft board began considering married men with no children). He found a lot of ways around the draft…and when he turned 26 and was no longer eligible, he immediately quit his “doctoral work” and moved on to other things.
Just curious, but what makes Rumsfeld untrustworthy? You may not like his policies or how he fights a war, but what makes him untrustworthy?
Not that’s it’s important (at this point, I’d rather see the politicians move away from questioning service records and onto issues), but the Boston Globe has an interesting article today about W’s service record:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/.
If I had to answer why Rumsfeld is untrustworthy, I think it may have more to do with his overall office than his personal statements. The DoD deliberately kept NGOs out of the rebuilding planning, and in fact did little post-invasion planning for the basic reason that any post-invasion arrangement is inherently challenging, and they simply didn’t want any more hurdles put up to their ultimate goal. This has been made clear by many, including Zinni. I would say that this form of duplicity makes him untrustworthy - the inability or unwillingness to put the issues out on the table is not a good formula for prosecuting a war.
As for Cheney, as weaselly and hypocritical as his stance toward the military has been, he’s somewhat better than Ashcroft, who had 7 deferments, for largely the same reasons, plus a couple for his “vital” role as a law professor at Southwest Missouri State.
This issue is taking on a second (third?) life as the AP comes out with its findings after getting everything under FOIA. And Ben Barnes is speaking on 60 Minutes II tonight regarding his wrangling of Bush into the Champagne Unit.
As much as I think this, the SBVT, is bullshit, Kerry I think has realized that he has no choice to fight fire with fire. Karl Rove may have made a mistake in unveiling his hatchet so long before the election. He would’ve been better served getting the SBVT out in October. But then again, he’s going to hell.
At least they’re facts, which is more than I can say for most of the RNC.
I’m not angry at anybody other than Karl Rove. I’m not angry at Bush. Rather, I think he is simply incompetent and that his presidency has been largely one of failure and selling out to his interests at the cost of the national interest.
So laugh you may, but neither you nor me will be getting the last laugh, I promise you.
Not that’s it’s important (at this point, I’d rather see the politicians move away from questioning service records and onto issues), but the Boston Globe has an interesting article today about W’s service record:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/
(trying to imagine the possible response from the Republicans)
But…but…Kerry wasn’t in Cambodia on Christmas!
What’s next? Vote Republican, or the bogey man will eat me?
This is an embarrassment.
This issue is taking on a second (third?) life as the AP comes out with its findings after getting everything under FOIA. And Ben Barnes is speaking on 60 Minutes II tonight regarding his wrangling of Bush into the Champagne Unit.
I’d like to see Bush and Kerry shake hands at the first debate and say “we’re past whatever happened in 1971” and both exert whatever control they have to get the 527’s and everyone else to GIVE UP all this crap about who served where/when, etc. I really don’t see how dragging up Bush’s service record AGAIN is going to help Kerry.
It’s time to talk about the issues, not where someone was on Christmas day in 1971 (or whatever year it was). Can’t these guys and their lapdogs see that?
I actually do think that dragging it up is the right thing to do.
Rove decided to set the ground rules by attacking Kerry’s perceived strength with a campaign of lies, getting him 3 or 4 points in the polls.
If turnabout is fair play, and attacking Bush’s failure to complete Guard service will help, then I’m all for it. It’s too late - the genie is out of the bottle. If Bush wants to play hardball, he doesn’t get to decide where the lines are. Frankly, I hope they come up with evidence of his old coke habit. That way, his whole “God in the White House” and “leadership” edge go flying out the window, with all of his war rationalizations.
Bush had the opportunity long ago to keep this on the issues. But since most of the country seems to believe it’s going in the wrong direction, suggesting that a referendum on him is not his best choice, he decided to make this a character/history contest. Well he can have it that way. He chose the low road, as he has done in the past. Now he’ll see if it works for him or against him.
When are the debates anyway?
http://www.debates.org/pages/news_031106.html
It’s unclear whether the second presidential debate will happen. Bush is balking, on the grounds that he doesn’t think the crowd will be composed of undecided voters, as advertised.
I think if Bush decides not to show up for the second debate John Kerry should end up with an hour of uninterrupted television time for him to answer questions from the audience. I bet once Bush caught wind of all the TV time Kerry would be getting he would do an about face on his statements about not showing up.
I think if Bush decides not to show up for the second debate John Kerry should end up with an hour of uninterrupted television time for him to answer questions from the audience.
Not likely. What makes you think the networks would televise a debacle like that?
It’s unclear whether the second presidential debate will happen. Bush is balking, on the grounds that he doesn’t think the crowd will be composed of undecided voters, as advertised.
Wow - my tax dollars at work. The vice presidential one should be a doozy, no? Do you think that will have any bearing on the election at all?
Yeah you’re probably right, maybe they could show a mix tape of “Bushisms” throughout the years, that might do a better job of getting him to show up. I just think it’s ridiculous he thinks he can pick and choose how the debates are set up so they work more to his advantage.
The vice presidential one should be a doozy, no? Do you think that will have any bearing on the election at all? No, and no.
I just think it’s ridiculous he thinks he can pick and choose how the debates are set up so they work more to his advantage. He can pick and choose how the debates are set up, to a degree. Just as Kerry can. I’ve never seen a presidential debate that was worth watching, mainly because the rules that both candidates negotiate are designed to stifle any real debate in the first place.
**Debates are necessary, but unfortunately they mainly play out as a race to the center (the center in the US is actually right-of-center, naturally). **“Right-of-center”? What the hell does that mean? Is there some fixed point that represents the center of the political spectrum? Socially, fiscally, diplomatically, or what? “Right-of-center.” Pfft.
Each side can declare themselves the winner and it makes little to no difference if the media doesn’t run with one being the clear winner. The problem with the debate isn’t that there’s never a clear winner, because there often is. Reagan vs Carter, for example. Reagan won, and it wasn’t because the media manipulated the results. The problem is that they never result in any substantive debate or conflict of ideas. What do you remember about that Reagan debate- the ideas, or the one-liner? The one-liner.