1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Democrat's support Bush!!!

Discussion in 'The Dungeon' started by Steve Karson, Mar 29, 2004.

  1. Steve Karson

    Steve Karson Tcasby is my Bitch !!

    cut-n-paste from elsewhere


    Remarks by Georgia Senator Zell Miller at Democrats for Bush Rollout
    Washington, D.C.

    SENATOR MILLER: Thank you, Marc. I appreciate your kind introduction, and I appreciate even more your efforts to re-elect President Bush.

    Like me, Marc was a governor and he understands the importance of strong leadership. He’s doing important work over at the campaign, making sure that America has a strong and steady leader for another four years.

    I am honored to stand squarely with President George W. Bush as he leads America at this defining moment in our history. The road that brought me here today is paved with a lot of frustration, but also a lot of hope.

    I was born a Democrat and I expect I’ll be a Democrat until the day I leave this earth. But I have grown mighty frustrated with the direction my party has taken over the last few years. National Democratic leaders today are moving further and further away from the principles that made our party great.

    On tax cuts, on education reform, on adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, and most importantly on the war against terror – some national Democratic leaders are so eager to defeat George Bush that they don’t realize he’s acting on the ideals we have supported for years: promoting prosperity and equal opportunity; giving help to Americans who need it most; defending America’s security and promoting freedom.

    Frankly I’ve had it up to here with the politicians who claim to represent my party but really represent nothing but special interest groups and their own partisan agendas.

    I’d like people to know that all Democrats are not like the people they see squawking on their TV attacking the President. There are a lot of good, honorable Democrats all across America – even some here in Washington, DC – who are doing the work that made this party great – fighting for opportunity and freedom for all men and women, here in America and around the world.

    Luckily, Democrats like me have a courageous and honorable leader that we’re proud to support. It just so happens that he has a little R” next to his name.

    President George W. Bush is the leader America has needed over the last three years – and he is the leader America needs for the next four years.

    President Bush has led America in a time of recession, terrorism, and war. But through it all he has never forgotten his charge to protect our nation’s security and promote opportunity for every American. He is guided by the right principles – aided by his strong faith – and I know that my family and the people of my state are more secure with George W. Bush in the White House.

    I have also known John Kerry for several years and I’ve considered him a friend. He served our country honorably in Vietnam, and he has served our party admirably through much of his tenure in the Senate.

    But after listening to Senator Kerry over the last year or two – after hearing the agenda he’s laid out for our country – I cannot support him in his race for the presidency. There are too many issues about which John Kerry and I disagree. And there are too few similarities between John Kerry and the great Democratic leaders I’ve known.

    Consider one of our greatest Democratic Presidents: John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

    Back in 1963 President Kennedy proposed a 13.6 billion dollar tax cut. At the time, it would have been the largest tax cut in history.

    Part of President Kennedy’s plan was to cut the top tax rate by 26 percentage points – and our party stood with him.


    A few years ago, President Bush proposed cutting the top tax rate by 6 percentage points, and a lot of Democrats howled with outrage.

    President Kennedy also proposed cutting the lowest tax rate to 14 percent. President Bush went even further and asked us to cut that bottom rate to 10 percent, so that the people who are working hard to make ends meet have a little more breathing room at the end of the month.

    All told, President Kennedy’s proposed tax cuts equaled more than 2 percent of the national economy. President Bush’s proposed tax cuts – the tax cuts that some Democrats said would gut the federal government – they represented 1.2 percent of the economy.

    John F. Kerry may have the same initials as John F. Kennedy, but he has a far different view of what the government should do to help families prosper.

    Senator Kerry doesn’t make any secret of the fact that he wants to bring more money into Washington so that he can decide how to spend it.

    In his first one hundred days in office, John Kerry’s massive health care plan would force him to raise taxes by as much as $900 billion. And the only way he’s going to get that kind of money is if he reaches into the wallet of every man and woman in America.

    His spending and tax plan would stifle our economy and stall our recovery.

    I was proud to co-sponsor President Bush’s tax relief plan in the Senate. That bill ultimately sent $1.3 trillion back to the hard-working men and women who earned it.

    That tax relief has been flowing through the economy. People have been using it to pay the bills or get the kids some new clothes or start a little savings plan for themselves. Small businesses are investing in new equipment and expanding their operations. As a result, this economy is on the upswing.

    We’ve had nine consecutive quarters of economic growth. And in the second half of last year the economy grew at its fastest rate in nearly 20 years.
     
  2. Steve Karson

    Steve Karson Tcasby is my Bitch !!

    PART 2

    Jobs are coming back, too. More than 350,000 jobs were created in the last six months, and more are on the way.

    These are good signs, and I don’t want John Kerry to roar into the White House raising taxes and rolling back the progress the American people have made.

    John Kerry is also out of step with our party’s greatest leaders on foreign policy.

    I remember when most Democrats were in favor of projecting America’s power abroad, because we believed that America was a great force for good over evil.

    President Harry S. Truman recognized early on that Communism was a source of evil and a danger to our way of life – and he acted forcefully to meet the threat.

    In 1946, even before the Soviet threat was clearly evident, President Truman forced a showdown with Stalin that pushed the Red Army out of occupied positions in Iran.

    In 1947, when Communist insurgents threatened to overthrow the government of Greece, Truman rallied America and the world, announcing the new Truman Doctrine. He committed $400 million to protect ‘free peoples’ from ‘totalitarian regimes.’

    From 1948 to 1949 President Truman stood down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin – not by appeasement, but by flying in supplies and saving the city from Soviet encroachment. Thanks to his actions, West Berlin became a beacon of hope and liberty for people in the Eastern Bloc who were yearning for freedom.

    And in 1950 President Truman committed U.S. troops to defend South Korea and drive the North Koreans back across the 38th parallel. While Harry Truman was on the watch, free people everywhere knew they had a friend in the United States of America.

    For decades, the Democratic Party maintained peace through strength. We worked with Republicans to ensure that freedom and democracy would not falter in the face of any threat.

    These days it seems like some people in my party are motivated more by partisan politics than by national interest.

    John Kerry has the wrong idea about how our country should respond to the threat of terrorism. He says the war on terror should be mainly a law enforcement action.

    Now I know that an army of lawyers can be scary sometimes, but it does not compare to the Army of the United States – not to mention the Marine Corps, the Navy, the Air Force, the Coast Guard, and all of our reservists and National Guardsmen who are fighting under the flag of the United States of America.

    But you don’t have to take my word for it. I’m an old history professor and I know that when history teaches you a lesson, you ought to listen.

    We tried John Kerry’s approach to fighting terror over the last decade.

    I was disgusted when our government did nothing after terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993.

    I was amazed in 1996 when 19 U.S. servicemen were killed in the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia – and still, we did nothing.

    In 1998 our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania came under attack, killing 224 people, and our only response was to fire a few missiles into an empty tent.

    Is it any wonder that after a decade of weak-willed responses to terror, the terrorists thought we would never fight back?

    I hate that it took the awful tragedy of September 11, 2001, to wake us up to reality. But I’m sure glad we did wake up. And I’m grateful that George W. Bush was leading America exactly when we needed a steel spine and a clear head in the White House.

    President Bush immediately took the fight to the terrorists – clearing out their base of operations in Afghanistan and toppling one of their biggest fans in Iraq. It’s funny: The terrorists certainly realize that our efforts in Iraq are a major part of the war on terror, but some Democrats still don’t get it.

    John Kerry has said that the United States should have waited for United Nations diplomats to decide when we could take action in Iraq, rather than standing up for our own right to protect our security and promote democracy.

    But I can’t imagine the great Democratic Party leaders of past generations waiting with their hands in their pockets while a bunch of dithering diplomats decided the future of the world.

    Remember it was President John F. Kennedy who told the world: ‘We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.’

    I think John Kerry made the right decision when he voted to authorize the war in Iraq. But then he went out on the campaign trail and started spending too much time with Howard Dean. And he came back to Washington and voted against the $87 billion the troops need for protective armor, combat pay, and better health care. That’s the worst kind of indecisiveness, and the wrong leadership at this critical moment in history.

    Today, because George W. Bush took decisive action in Iraq and Afghanistan, liberty is thriving as never before. Fifty million more people are living in freedom, including 25 million women and girls who can leave their homes, go to school and to work, and participate in the political process. That is a legacy of promoting liberty that all Americans can be proud of.

    Throughout his presidency, George W. Bush has acted with integrity and a clear sense of purpose. He goes to work everyday thinking about what he can do to keep Americans safe and lay the foundation for prosperity all across our country. And he’s willing to work with anyone who will help him do it.

    I’ve been proud to work with President Bush because he shares the same beliefs that support the foundation of my career in public service – and the same ideals that the greatest leaders of my party have held for decades.

    I’ve got an old mantra that I pull out now and then: ‘It’s not whose team you’re on, it’s whose side you’re on.’

    In this election, I’m on George Bush’s side because he’s on the side of the American people. I’m grateful for his service to America, and I’m confident that he’ll be re-elected in November.

    May God bless our President, and may God bless America.
     
  3. WeaselBob

    WeaselBob Well-Known Member

    Re: PART 2

    NY Times
    This Isn't America
    By PAUL KRUGMAN

    Last week an opinion piece in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz about the killing of Sheik Ahmed Yassin said, "This isn't America; the government did not invent intelligence material nor exaggerate the description of the threat to justify their attack."

    So even in Israel, George Bush's America has become a byword for deception and abuse of power. And the administration's reaction to Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies" provides more evidence of something rotten in the state of our government.

    The truth is that among experts, what Mr. Clarke says about Mr. Bush's terrorism policy isn't controversial. The facts that terrorism was placed on the back burner before 9/11 and that Mr. Bush blamed Iraq despite the lack of evidence are confirmed by many sources — including "Bush at War," by Bob Woodward.

    And new evidence keeps emerging for Mr. Clarke's main charge, that the Iraq obsession undermined the pursuit of Al Qaeda. From yesterday's USA Today: "In 2002, troops from the Fifth Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures."

    That's why the administration responded to Mr. Clarke the way it responds to anyone who reveals inconvenient facts: with a campaign of character assassination.

    Some journalists seem, finally, to have caught on. Last week an Associated Press news analysis noted that such personal attacks were "standard operating procedure" for this administration and cited "a behind-the-scenes campaign to discredit Richard Foster," the Medicare actuary who revealed how the administration had deceived Congress about the cost of its prescription drug bill.

    But other journalists apparently remain ready to be used. On CNN, Wolf Blitzer told his viewers that unnamed officials were saying that Mr. Clarke "wants to make a few bucks, and that [in] his own personal life, they're also suggesting that there are some weird aspects in his life as well."

    This administration's reliance on smear tactics is unprecedented in modern U.S. politics — even compared with Nixon's. Even more disturbing is its readiness to abuse power — to use its control of the government to intimidate potential critics.

    To be fair, Senator Bill Frist's suggestion that Mr. Clarke might be charged with perjury may have been his own idea. But his move reminded everyone of the White House's reaction to revelations by the former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill: an immediate investigation into whether he had revealed classified information. The alacrity with which this investigation was opened was, of course, in sharp contrast with the administration's evident lack of interest in finding out who leaked the identity of the C.I.A. operative Valerie Plame to Bob Novak.

    And there are many other cases of apparent abuse of power by the administration and its Congressional allies. A few examples: according to The Hill, Republican lawmakers threatened to cut off funds for the General Accounting Office unless it dropped its lawsuit against Dick Cheney. The Washington Post says Representative Michael Oxley told lobbyists that "a Congressional probe might ease if it replaced its Democratic lobbyist with a Republican." Tom DeLay used the Homeland Security Department to track down Democrats trying to prevent redistricting in Texas. And Medicare is spending millions of dollars on misleading ads for the new drug benefit — ads that look like news reports and also serve as commercials for the Bush campaign.

    On the terrorism front, here's one story that deserves special mention. One of the few successful post-9/11 terror prosecutions — a case in Detroit — seems to be unraveling. The government withheld information from the defense, and witnesses unfavorable to the prosecution were deported (by accident, the government says). After the former lead prosecutor complained about the Justice Department's handling of the case, he suddenly found himself facing an internal investigation — and someone leaked the fact that he was under investigation to the press.

    Where will it end? In his new book, "Worse Than Watergate," John Dean, of Watergate fame, says, "I've been watching all the elements fall into place for two possible political catastrophes, one that will take the air out of the Bush-Cheney balloon and the other, far more disquieting, that will take the air out of democracy."
     
  4. THE D.O.C.

    THE D.O.C. Guest

    Terrorism was on the back burner? Ummm okay. Use our brains now and figure out what event brought it to the front burner. Go ahead...... Think real hard. :up:

    That argument is so stupid. That's like home security wasn't your top priority, so you'll let a criminal rape your wife and murder your kids. :rolleyes:

    Liberals.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 30, 2004
  5. Joe Morris

    Joe Morris Off The Reservation

    Brad, have you been reading this stuff? I know you disagree with criticism of Bush but take the time to read it. If you've got the time go right to the source 9-11 Commission reports . I think Bush is doing a fabulous job spinning this stuff because I think the reports are even more damning than the partisan shots being flung in the press.
     
  6. mtk

    mtk All-Pro Bike Crasher

    Only if you give Clarke's testimony any credence.

    OK, make that "Clarke's second testimony" since his book directly contradicts his previous testimony.

    The man is a disgruntled employee and nothing more.
     
  7. Joe Morris

    Joe Morris Off The Reservation

    You haven't followed the link or even the developments with the Congressional Committee if this is your point of view. Clarke is one witness of many. Educate yourself before commenting.

    9-11 Commission Reports
     
  8. mtk

    mtk All-Pro Bike Crasher

    I have. So far, the only thing that is clear is that Clinton dropped the ball, on multiple occasions, when he was offed Bin Laden several times.

    Instead, we're treated to a neverending stream of bullshit about how 9/11 is all Bush's fault. Nevermind the fact that he'd been in office for nine months and Clinton had been too busy pumping interns during the previous eight years to do something. Unless you consider blowing up an aspirin factory (to deflect attention from Monica's testimony, no less) as "something." The World Trade Center was attacked in '93; Clinton banged an intern. The USS Cole was attacked; Clinton banged an intern. The US Embassy was attacked in ______ (I forget at the moment); Clinton banged an intern. Yet, 9/11 is all Bush's fault because he failed to prevent it.

    All the rest of it is Monday Morning Quarterbacking with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
     
  9. mtk

    mtk All-Pro Bike Crasher

    The New York Times has an article on this subject today, in fact. It must be on the wire because it's in today's Pittsburgh Post Gazette.

    At any rate, the article has an interview with Franklin C. Miller, who happened to work alongside Richard A. Clarke in the White House. In the article, he claims that Mr. Clarke's version of events, while they might make for a good movie, are not accurate. He even went as far as to say one paragraph of his book was a total fabrication. He also said that some of the quotes Clarke credited to him were things he would never have said.

    And yet, some folks continue to give this joker credibility.
     
  10. Joe Morris

    Joe Morris Off The Reservation

    When did Clinton drop the ball? At what point did he not give the power to the appropriate government entities to find and kill Bin Laden? Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a Clinton fan, but he did a much better job in this regard than I'd expected. The outcome was that each Bin Laden assassination plan was nixed but none were held up waiting for Clinton's endorsement - he'd already given it. From my reading so far it seems the CIA was the entity that was the most cautious with regards to the assassination attempts and Tenet kept his job during the administration change. So did members of CENTCOM who were also cautious but as with the CIA they are not elected.

    As far as handing over Bin Laden, this is the only thing I've found so far in the Congressional Report: "3
    During
    the winter and spring of 1996, Sudan’s defense minister visited Washington and had a
    series of meetings with representatives of the U.S. government. To test Sudan’s
    willingness to cooperate on terrorism the United States presented eight demands to their
    Sudanese contact. The one that concerned Bin Ladin was a request for intelligence
    information about Bin Ladin’s contacts in Sudan.
    These contacts with Sudan, which went on for years, have become a source of
    controversy. Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to
    the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We
    have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.
    " It goes on a bit more with detail but it gets a bit long to paste. Try this link and reference section "Usama Bin Laden, 1996" on page 3.

    Why Bush chooses to blame the Clinton administration is beyond me. He should really avoid any comparison IMHO.
     
  11. Joe Morris

    Joe Morris Off The Reservation

    I ASSume your referring to me. While I believe Clarke alot of his comments cannot be verified for various reasons. To many sources both inside and outside the administration seem to paint a picture where Clarke's claims fit for me to dismiss him. If you are comfortable in dismissing Clarke's claims then thats your opinion.
     
  12. mtk

    mtk All-Pro Bike Crasher

    I wasn't referring to you, but to the world at large.

    Clarke has at least two stories and they don't agree. Which one do you believe? The one he gave when he was an employee or the one he gave when he was an author pimping his book? One that doesn't agree with testimony of others and has people claiming things that make no sense.

    The things that have come out that directly conflict with his "recollections" give me no reason to give him ANY validity whatsoever, given that he's clearly pissed off about being demoted from his post not too long into the Bush Administration.

    For example, he claims that Mr. Miller came into the White House Situation Room on 9/11 and said "I guess I'm working for you today." Given that they were on the same level and competing for the same positions in the Administration, that accusation makes no sense from a logical standpoint and Mr. Miller has flat out said "I would never say that." He said, "I would have said, 'How can I help?'" Clarke's version makes him sound like The Messiah come to save us all. Mr. Miller's version sounds much more realistic.

    Also, I've heard audio tape of Bill Clinton himself going on and on about how they couldn't get Bin Laden because they had no reason to hold him, yadda yadda yadda. As such, I have every reason to think that Clinton totally dropped the ball on Bin Laden. At that time, we knew of the connection between Bin Laden and the '93 WTC attacks, the Embassy attacks, and I think even the USS Cole (wasn't that '96). So, Clinton was completely full of shit in his claim that we had no reason to hold him. I've also seen quite a bit of stuff claiming that the CIA/NSA/whoever brought multiple plans to whack Bin Laden to Clinton and he torpedoed every one.

    That puts WAY more blood on his hands than Bush could ever possibly have in regards to 9/11. After all, he'd only been in office nine months.
     
  13. Joe Morris

    Joe Morris Off The Reservation

    I haven't read Clarke's recollections about this incident so I won't comment.

    Hmmm...I'm really uncomfortable defending Clinton on anything but I think what he was referring to was the lack of an indictment to hold Bin Laden on any charges. That didn't happen until 1999 if my memory serves (remember this stuff was handled by the Justice Department at that time). But that didn't stop assassination plans or the political pressure applied to Sudan, Afganistan, Pakistan, UAE, and Saudi Arabia to extradite Bin Laden. Regime change in Pakistan didn't help matters any but I have a hard time believing that plan was going anywhere once Bin Laden and the Taliban became entrenched in Afganistan. My problem in reading the commission reports is that after reading 10 pages of the work the Clinton administration did to combat terrorism you get one paragraph on the Bush administration which in a nutshell says they did nothing. I keep reminding myself that this commission is comparing 8 years of Clinton to 8 months of Bush but even with that in mind it seems so lopsided. I don't care if all Clinton accomplished was 8 years of futility (and bangin' some interns) but he did something which is better than Bush pre-911 which seems close to nothing with regards to terrorism.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2004
  14. Yamaha Fan

    Yamaha Fan Well-Known Member

    Clinton did not drop the ball? he continuously dribbled it! Come on your views and ability to apply reason to the shaded and slanted hyperbolic statements is sophomoric… Lets be real about Clarks testimony, read what HE has written in the past, he impeaches his own credibility it is OBVIOUS what is going. Lie to yourself if it makes you feel better, it in no way changes the truth. People on either side of this political football that do what he has done deserve nothing less than to be drawn and quartered.

    You act as if the 911 attack was conceived, planned, executed and carried out in the 8 months Bush was in office(again lie to yourself if it makes you feel better it in no way changes the truth). It almost (ALMOST) makes me wish Gore had been elected…. How would that change the dynamics of the current political climate? Anyone (both sides of the fence) that thinks ANYTHING in the way of true fact-finding is going on at these hearings is partaking in a personally executed proctology exam.
     
  15. Joe Morris

    Joe Morris Off The Reservation

    Wow, you've converted me with a mixed metophor -- who knew..... :rolleyes:

    Get serious and do some reading. Your spouting TV anecdotes as if you've found some wisdom there. Wise up! As long as people feed you a distilled version of the truth you will know nothing but their opinion. The closest the general public can get to the truth of these matters is the Congressional Commission Reports and the transcripts of the testimony given which I've linked several times. You can argue until your blue in the face that these are biased but unfortunately its as close as we can get to raw data that we can form our own opinions around. Richard Clarke testified. So did George Tenet, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powel, and now Condoleeza Rice (pending) from the current administration. The Clinton administration has also testified. The results of the testimony have been compiled into reports that read like a history book of the things the public didn't know the last 10 years about terrorism. I find it fascinating. Its also led me to some conclusions that I didn't expect. The talking heads and agrandizing editorialist can interpret whatever they want however they want and it really doesn't influence me. On some occassions it has made me revisit my readings but they've not been able to sway my views. In fact mostly I find their interpretations as "sophmoric" (when they cite a reference I can read) as you find my views. So go ahead and pat yourself on the back that you've got it all figured out by watching your TV -- congratulations.

    If your interested I'm a Republican. I supported McCain and never really took a liking to Bush although I was happy to have a Republican in the White House. After 3 years with Bush I'm sure I don't like him and I don't much care for Kerry so this puts me in a strange position. I can't figure out for the life of me how the most powerful nation on earth is left with such a sorry lot of candidates but that's beside the point. I'll vote for one of them. Reading the congressional reports on terrorism pre 9/11 its clear that the Bush administration didn't even do as good of a job as the Clinton administration and that's just awful. I'm pissed at Bush and I'm pissed at the party for nominating him (but that's just an old grudge resurfacing). At the same time Kerry doesn't inspire me to cross party lines. On the one hand Bush has made some bad decisions that continue to haunt us and he doesn't even see them as mistakes. On the other hand Kerry has never had the power to f*ck up on the same scale as Bush but he doesn't give me confidence he can do any better. So I keep reading and hoping to find the reason to vote for Bush. :(
     

Share This Page