Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sen. Kennedy hammers Bush admin.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sen. Kennedy hammers Bush admin.

    here's a link...I expect the jokes about his personal troubles and struggles as weak rebuttals, but this liberal warrior lays out a very compelling case vs. Bush...

    http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/stateme...2004305633.html
    The Dude abides.

  • #2
    No hammering from me...........I just ignore Teddy........
    AKA reddevil
    AKA davel a devil

    [COLOR=red'][/COLOR]

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Moe_Szyslak@Mar 6 2004, 11:40 AM
      here's a link...I expect the jokes about his personal troubles and struggles as weak rebuttals, but this liberal warrior lays out a very compelling case vs. Bush...

      http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/stateme...2004305633.html
      It's obviously a one-sided look at the situation as you'd expect from any politician.

      But Kennedy quotes Paul O'Neill extensively! That guy isn't credible enough to base a large part of your argument on.
      "Need some wood?" -- George W. Bush, October 8, 2004

      "Historians will judge if this war is just, not your punk ass." -- Dave Glover, December 8, 2004

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by davel@Mar 6 2004, 11:43 AM
        No hammering from me...........I just ignore Teddy........
        I would too if you are a Bush fan. It'd be hard to refute anything he says in this speech.
        Dude. Can. Fly.

        Comment


        • #5
          kennedy quoted O'Neill as his main source. Of course, I did not see this quote included. I wonder why.

          That started what O'Neill described to NBC's "Today" show as a "red meat frenzy that's occurred when people didn't have anything except snippets." "People are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration," O'Neill said. "Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq." O'Neill said, "I'm amazed that anyone would think that our government, on a continuing basis across political administrations, doesn't do contingency planning and look at circumstances."

          or this one.
          Retired Army Gen. Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he saw nothing to indicate the United States was close to attacking Iraq early in Bush's term.

          Shelton, who retired shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, said the brass reviewed "on the shelf" plans to respond to crises with the incoming Bush administration.

          But in the administration's first six months, "I saw nothing that would lead me to believe that we were any closer to attacking Iraq than we had been during the previous administration," Shelton told CNN.


          Was it just an oversight by Kennedy? or willful deceit?
          Un-Official Sponsor of Randy Choate and Kevin Siegrist

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by phantom+Mar 6 2004, 11:45 AM-->
            QUOTE(phantom @ Mar 6 2004, 11:45 AM)

          • #7
            Originally posted by SLUBLUE+Mar 6 2004, 11:58 AM-->
            QUOTE(SLUBLUE @ Mar 6 2004, 11:58 AM)
            Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 11:45 AM

          • #8
            Originally posted by davel+Mar 6 2004, 12:01 PM-->
            QUOTE(davel @ Mar 6 2004, 12:01 PM)
            Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 11:58 AM
            Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 11:45 AM

          • #9
            Originally posted by lazydaze@Mar 6 2004, 11:56 AM
            kennedy quoted O'Neill as his main source. Of course, I did not see this quote included. I wonder why.

            That started what O'Neill described to NBC's "Today" show as a "red meat frenzy that's occurred when people didn't have anything except snippets." "People are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration," O'Neill said. "Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq." O'Neill said, "I'm amazed that anyone would think that our government, on a continuing basis across political administrations, doesn't do contingency planning and look at circumstances."

            or this one.
            Retired Army Gen. Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he saw nothing to indicate the United States was close to attacking Iraq early in Bush's term.

            Shelton, who retired shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, said the brass reviewed "on the shelf" plans to respond to crises with the incoming Bush administration.

            But in the administration's first six months, "I saw nothing that would lead me to believe that we were any closer to attacking Iraq than we had been during the previous administration," Shelton told CNN.


            Was it just an oversight by Kennedy? or willful deceit?
            "Getting Hussein was now the Administration's focus. From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country. And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The President saying, 'Fine. Go find me a way to do this.'"
            Yeah, that's the policy Clinton was following - "find me a way to do it." :rolleyes:

            There's a HUGE difference between contingency plans and "find me a way to do it" ...
            Dude. Can. Fly.

            Comment


            • #10
              Originally posted by phantom+Mar 6 2004, 12:06 PM-->
              QUOTE(phantom @ Mar 6 2004, 12:06 PM)
              Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 12:01 PM
              Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 11:58 AM
              Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 11:45 AM

            • #11
              Of course it's a partisan view...anyone want to discuss the substance?

              Lazy, the PNAC clearly had Iraq at the top of the agenda for years. To put pre-emptive invasion on Clinton's watch is absurd. To peg it to 9/11 is just as absurd, if you buy Kennedy's premise.

              And David Broder, the dean of Washington political columnists - with no left or right bias, claims Paul O'Neill is one of the straightest shooters he's ever known. That's enough for me.

              Moe
              The Dude abides.

              Comment


              • #12
                Lazy, the PNAC clearly had Iraq at the top of the agenda for years. To put pre-emptive invasion on Clinton's watch is absurd.
                Yes it was, as it was on the top of the federal governments agenda for just as many years. No specific committee, bipartisan. We went to war in 92, had been enforcing sanctions and no fly zones. Pre-emptively bombed them in 98. Devised the "Iraq Liberation Act" which authorized support for regime change.

                To claim Saddam was not perceived as our #1 enemy and priority previous to the bush administration is absurd. Look at the actions and words of every politician regardless of affiliation.


                To peg it to 9/11 is just as absurd, if you buy Kennedy's premise.
                I do not buy Kennedy’s premise. If 9/11 had not occurred, we probably are not at war with Iraq. 9/11 was a wake up call to what lack of action or progress on suspected security concerns can result in, particularly those with known ties to terrorism, and unstable political and economic enviroments.

                Paul O'Neill is one of the straightest shooters he's ever known. That's enough for me.
                That started what O'Neill described to NBC's "Today" show as a "red meat frenzy that's occurred when people didn't have anything except snippets." "People are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration," O'Neill said. "Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq." O'Neill said, "I'm amazed that anyone would think that our government, on a continuing basis across political administrations, doesn't do contingency planning and look at circumstances."
                Un-Official Sponsor of Randy Choate and Kevin Siegrist

                Comment


                • #13
                  >>David Broder, the dean of Washington political columnists - with no left or right bias<<

                  Thanks for the laugh.
                  And, frankly, it has never occured to me that "winning" a debate is important, or that I should be hurt when someone like Airshark or kah, among others (for whom winning a pseudo debate or declaring intellectual superiority over invisible others is obviously very important) ridicule me.

                  -The Artist formerly known as King in KC

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X