60 Minutes

Off Topic
41

You have named one of a handful of people. If you honestly think that Bush wont get a VAST MAJORITY of the Military and Intelligence vote than you are deluding yourself, and I hope to god that people running the Kerry campaign are as gullible as you.

The white house has less reason to lie than someone making a multimillion dollar book deal, someone who was on call and stood watch in a prominent intellgence position as the greatest terrorist attack in our country took place. I am sure Mr Clark has no reason to try and make sure his name doenst go down in history as a complete and total failure

42

so the WH press release provides people with FACTS? Oh, if I only knew truth was this easy to come across!!

43

“The white house has less reason to lie than someone making a multimillion dollar book deal”

Um, they don’t? You don’t think they have far more at stake, provided the allegations hold an ounce of merit?

Can any more heads fit in that gutter?

44

Do you really believe the White House has less reason to lie?

Now THATS gullible.

I never said the Repubs won’t win a majority of the military vote - don’t go pulling a Coulter-like contortion of statements.

45

RightSideUp,

You wrote: “Moisture, should we not be knocking on Bilt’s door?”

I checked his source. I checked his facts. They are verifiable from other sources. That is the rub. Liberals (especially in this election cycle) just throw out “feelings.” Brittle has told you where he got the information. It’s hard to argue with facts. As I have indicated, the Liberal platform seems to be heavy on smoke and mirrors. Again, it saddens me. I think that everyone benefits from thoughtful analysis of the issues. Unfortunately, you can’t take John Kerry seriously. His voting record is in the public domain and it shows a startling lack of consistency.

I noticed that you didn’t refute his post’s content. You just tried to raise suspicions about the source. If you are trying to push the Liberal agenda, you are going to have to do much better than that. Try arguing the points. Make links to substantiate your arguments. Or are you just another, “Anybody but Bush” moron?

I believe you also (to paraphrase) asked me why I only go after guys like Kuri.

Same reason as above. Kuri, for example, will not even do you the courtesy of looking at your responses. For instance, Kuri tried to imply that Rice won’t testify because she has something to hide. I sent a link that shows exactly why she won’t testify in front of the cameras. She has already testified to the commission for over four hours. She offered to testify for however many more the commission asks for. She is fighting for the principle of Executive Priviledge. This Priviledge allows the President to receive confidential advice not subject to the political grandstanding you are seeing in Washington. Kuri, and his ilk, always assume this automatically means that the Republicans are hiding something. Ask yourself, if she has already given them cooperation and offered to come back at their convenience, how much do you really think she is hiding?
Unfortunately, Kuri didn’t even bother to read it or apologize for his error. I understand that some people swallow the Democratic platform whole. Then they spit it out, undigested. It makes good soundbites. Sadly, it seems more and more to be short on substance. It certainly makes it nearly impossible to have a good discussion of the issues.

46

Just to practice what I preach:

Please read this whole article:

www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/29/rice.testimony/index.html

I try to use liberal biased web sites when I defend a political position taken by Republicans. It makes it much harder for Democrats to employ their “impugne the source not the content” strategy. Or you could be like Kuri and refuse to read the article. Either way, it’s hard to make the argument that Condi Rice is hiding from anyone or anything. I would go farther and assert that the Republicans are acting in a principled and responsible way. They are standing up for the seperation of the branches of government so clearly indicated in our Constitution. In fact, it shows courage to stand up for this principle regardless of the political heat that it engenders. I categorically reject the argument that that automatically means that the President’s team is “hiding something.” Again, read the article and tell me whether these are the actions of someone who is hiding something.

47

“I checked his source. I checked his facts. They are verifiable from other sources.”

----->Would you accept it if I posted what Kerry’s (or anyone else’s) website said and claimed it as fact? The White House press release is defending itself. Duh! I still say, how horribly naive.

“If you are trying to push the Liberal agenda, you are going to have to do much better than that. Try arguing the points. Make links to substantiate your arguments. Or are you just another, “Anybody but Bush” moron?”

----->Trying to push the Liberal agenda? You’ve given me credit for way too big of a task! I’ve done no such thing.
Okay, let me get it straight, argue points, substantiate with links…GOT IT! Whew, that was tough…I’ll do better.
I guess if saying anybody but Bush makes me a moron, then I proudly accept the title. I would say, however, that if you’re so blindly in support of Bush and leave no room for his administrations error, then you’re a simpleton!

“She has already testified to the commission for over four hours.”

----->Not under oath.

“Unfortunately, Kuri didn’t even bother to read it or apologize for his error.”

----->You seriously want an apology? You really need an apology? Suck it up dude.

Lastly, you keep referring to my “arguments” and my “points” (when I’m not even particularly making any) and questioning me about my views, etc…
Let’s start from scratch: What would you like to know my views or arguments on? Which points would you care to debate? Start the thread, ask me the question, and I’ll be as candid and honest as can be.

48

RightSideUp,

Thank you for responding. I do not like the tenor of some of your recent posts. You seem very defensive and occasionally vulgar. If you do want a civil debate, just say so and I will spend my precious time elsewhere.

You wrote: ----->“Would you accept it if I posted what Kerry’s (or anyone else’s) website said and claimed it as fact? The White House press release is defending itself. Duh! I still say, how horribly naive.”

Please read my posts. I said quite clearly that I had checked the facts the White House released from various other sources. Did you catch that? I said I CHECKED THE FACTS FROM OTHER SOURCES. Don’t call someone naive if you haven’t done them the courtesy to listen to what they have said.

You wrote: “I guess if saying anybody but Bush makes me a moron, then I proudly accept the title. I would say, however, that if you’re so blindly in support of Bush and leave no room for his administrations error, then you’re a simpleton!”

Again, the whole name calling thing has to go. Perhaps I’m a little spoiled. No one in my discussion group calls me any names to my face. It might have something to do with my physical size. However, even though you can’t see me, I would ask you to refrain from the insults in the name of common courtesy.

I’m not sure where you came to the conclusion that I support everything the administration does or says. I told you I’m a proud moderate and have views that do not match up exactly along any party’s lines. However, I do think that George W. Bush is right on in many of his assertions.

You wrote: >Not under oath.

Check the news. Do the Democrats know exactly who they are trying to intimidate? Please check Condi Rice’s resume. Frankly, I can’t wait for this. This whole farce of an investigation is about to be lectured by a master. I hope fumbling Ted Kennedy tries to pull his usual partisan crap. Did you guys see when he tried to bully Rumsfeld? I’ll post the link sometime.
Back to the topic on hand. Bush is rightly trying to protect executive privilege. This privilege allows him to have confidential discussions with his closest aides without having these discussions subject to the sort of political circus you are now seeing in Washington. I strongly contend that this would have been FAR more effective had the cameras been turned off. Instead of this hysterical search for someone to blame, we should be focused solely on what we can learn from 2001 and before.

You wrote: “Lastly, you keep referring to my “arguments” and my “points” (when I’m not even particularly making any) and questioning me about my views, etc…
Let’s start from scratch: What would you like to know my views or arguments on? Which points would you care to debate? Start the thread, ask me the question, and I’ll be as candid and honest as can be.”

OK. You asked for it.

Question #1: Are your parents lifelong Democrats?
Question #2: Are they going to vote for John Kerry?
Question #3: Does the dozens of military and intelligence cuts that John Kerry voted for bother you?
Question #4: Do you understand the concept of deterrance? In particular, do you understand that our invasion of Iraq was directly responsible for Gadhaffi voluntarily relinquishing his weapons of mass destruction stockpile?
Question #5: We may need a new thread for this, however, what exactly could George Bush have done differently after 9/11? What exactly bothers you? Please, before spouting off feelings and slogans, present me with some facts and go from a to b to c. If Bush had done this, then this probably would have happened, etc…

Thanks.

49

<<<<You wrote: “I guess if saying anybody but Bush makes me a moron, then I proudly accept the title. I would say, however, that if you’re so blindly in support of Bush and leave no room for his administrations error, then you’re a simpleton!”

Again, the whole name calling thing has to go. Perhaps I’m a little spoiled. No one in my discussion group calls me any names to my face. It might have something to do with my physical size. However, even though you can’t see me, I would ask you to refrain from the insults in the name of common courtesy.>>>>>

You called me a moron if I held a given position. I called you a simpleton if you hold a certain position…what’s wrong with that?

50

“OK. You asked for it.”

--------------->Uh oh! “I’m shaking in my spaceboots.”

“Question #1: Are your parents lifelong Democrats?”
--------------->Which position on which issue are you seeking here? Is this a republican-like tactic to discredit me? I’ll bite, and I’ll be honest, as promised. Yes, they are. They are middle class people and my father writes for a union. They are for the working man and for workers’/Americans’ rights. My father is also heavily indoctrinated, and I often disagree with his approach to many issues. I consider myself far more objective (though less informed that he).

“Question #2: Are they going to vote for John Kerry?”
----------------->Again, despite this question’s irrelevance, I’ll bite: Most likely, since he won the bid and by the time the primaries hit FL, Kerry was the man. Pops still voted for Edwards, though.

“Question #3: Does the dozens of military and intelligence cuts that John Kerry voted for bother you?”
------------------>Unfortunately, I don’t know enough to respond to this. I think a strong military is crucial, though. And, Moisture, I’ve said time and time again, stop asking me to defend Kerry - that is not my wish or my place.

“Question #4: Do you understand the concept of deterrance? In particular, do you understand that our invasion of Iraq was directly responsible for Gadhaffi voluntarily relinquishing his weapons of mass destruction stockpile?”
------------------>Deterrance? Yes, I get it, thanks for asking. As for the latter part of your question, I’d say that I suppose it’s possible that Gadhaffi (?) gave up his weapons because we invaded weapon free Iraq. But, it is also possible that he gave them up because he lost a bet to an Eskimo on a dog sled race. I don’t know enough about those geo-political relations to comment here, and I think you ought to watch it yourself…if you think you understand these things fully, you should probably state the credentials that qualify you to make that claim.

“Question #5: We may need a new thread for this, however, what exactly could George Bush have done differently after 9/11? What exactly bothers you? Please, before spouting off feelings and slogans, present me with some facts and go from a to b to c. If Bush had done this, then this probably would have happened, etc…”

------------------->This is more along the lines of the types of questions I expected from you, but it needs to be rephrased. Why? Because you want me to SPECULATE on all of the possible alternatives. I don’t have the time, inclination, position, or reason to do such a futile task. What is the purpose or value of saying “He should have done this, and this would’ve happened.” There are a very few select people that could come close to accomplishing such a task, and I’m not one of them. When did I say I had experience in creating foreign policy?!

“Thanks.”

--------------------->No problem. I’m a bit disappointed in your questions, though (save for most of your last one).

51

Well, do you care to follow up?

52

Well, do ya…punk?

J/K…but, where you at?

53

And the list grows:

New Evidence Bush Pushed Iraq War Right After 9/11

The White House continues to deny that the president immediately began planning an invasion of Iraq in the days after 9/11, calling such charges “revisionist history” (1) and claiming Iraq was “to the side”(2)immediately after the attacks. But new revelations by a former top British official confirm that, immediately after 9/11, President Bush started
planning to use the terrorist attacks as a justification for war in Iraq, despite having no proof that Iraq had any connection to Al Qaeda or 9/11. (3)

According to a report in the new edition of Vanity Fair, former British Ambassador to the United States Christopher Meyer said that President Bush made clear at a dinner (4) with Prime Minister Tony Blair nine days after the 9/11 attacks that he wanted to confront Iraq. The assertion is corroborated by the Washington Post,which reported that President Bush personally signed a two-and-a half page directive on September 17th, 2001 ordering the Pentagon to begin drawing up Iraq invasion plans. (5)The assertion is also corroborated by CBS News, which reported on September 4, 2002 that, five hours after the 9/11 attacks, “Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq.”(6) The account by the former British Ambassador confirms similar accounts by former Bush counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke and former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill.

The result of President Bush’s preoccupation with Iraq has been dramatic: the diversion of critical resources to Iraq and away from the hunt for Osama bin Laden/Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. As reported by USA Today,
“In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq.” (7) Similarly, Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) reported that, in February 2002, a senior military commander told him, “We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq.” (8) That has left many dangerous terrorists still at large, and the UN now reporting that the country is “in danger of reverting to a terrorist breeding ground.” (9)

Sources:

  1. White House Press Briefing, 3/23/04,
  2. “Neither Silent Nor a Public Witness,” Washington Post, 3/26/04,
  3. " Doubts cast on efforts to link Saddam, al-Qaida," Knight-Ridder,
    3/2/04,
  4. “Report Details Bush-Blair Meeting on Iraq,” Associated Press,
    4/4/04,
  5. “U.S. Decision On Iraq Has Puzzling Past,” Washington Post,
    1/12/03,
  6. “Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11,” CBS News, 9/4/02,
  7. Shifts from bin Laden hunt evoke questions," USA Today, 3/28/04,
  8. Senator Bob Graham Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations,"
    Council on Foreign Relations, 3/26/04,
  9. “UN warns on Aghanistan reverting to terrorism ,” Financial Times,
    3/28/04,