I have a question for Republicans....

[Marshmallow]

This is for Republicans (and I guess some Dems) who think George Bush did the right thing and is doing a great job.

 

If Al Gore was president....

 

And he told us that Iraq had WMD's......but none were found. (regardless of if he lied or was given bad info)

And he told us that Iraq had something to do with 911....but no proof was found. (regardless of if he lied or was given bad info)

And he spent Billions of dollars and the lives of over 1000 American Soldiers on the war Iraq.

And he has completely turned the world against us.

Yet...still hasn't found Osama...

And...still hasn't a secured our borders, nuclear plants or shipping yards.

 

Would you honestly say that he was doing a great job?

 

I'm not a political geek, so I'm not going to be able to spar with you. Just becasue you have more bullet points doesn't make you right. I'm just asking a question. That's all. Just curious.

 

For the record....I am an independent but mostly lean left. And if Gore was president, I would still be furious.

 

 

Goo

[Wacka]

If Al Gore was president....

 

And he told us that Iraq had WMD's......but none were found. (regardless of if he lied or was given bad info)

They did have WMD- the UN "inspections" gave him enough time to ship them out of country or bury them in the desert.

And he told us that Iraq had something to do with 911....but no proof was found. (regardless of if he lied or was given bad info)

Bush never said that. He said that Sadam was in cahoots with AQ. What he said is we had to stop Iraq BEFORE it became an imminent threat.

And he spent Billions of dollars and the lives of over 1000 American Soldiers on the war Iraq.

Just one step in the long War on Terror. It is us or them. Over 4000 people have given their lives to stop this worldwide scourge since 9/11.

And he has completely turned the world against us.

Everyone loved us on 9/10-right. If they don't outright hate us, they are jealous of our success.

And...still hasn't a secured our borders, nuclear plants or shipping yards.

I'll give you the borders-I'm mad at that, but how do you know about our nuke plants or shipping yards?

Goo

40904[/snapback]

[UConn James]

I'll give you the borders-I'm mad at that, but how do you know about our nuke plants or shipping yards?

 

HUH? About 5 percent of cargo containers are checked. Steve Croft on 60 Minutes, *walked into* a chemical plant -- open gates! -- with a reporter in Penn. who did a story that many plants around the country were the same way. Tests of nuclear plant security are done by the same security company who know the details beforehand, and they don't release the results, pro'ly b/c they aren't good. Several governors have called for increased security at nuclear plants and got none. This is a matter of record.

 

And yeah, if Gore were pulling the same stuff as Bush, he probably would have been impeached, drawn and quartered last year for lying to the country when all of his promises were considered false by all but the True Believers. And yeah, when it's a matter of some gravity, I believe the President should be considered "Under Oath" when he's speaking to us.

[OnTheRocks]

This is for Republicans (and I guess some Dems) who think George Bush did the right thing and is doing a great job.

 

If Al Gore was president....

 

And he told us that Iraq had WMD's......but none were found. (regardless of if he lied or was given bad info)

And he told us that Iraq had something to do with 911....but no proof was found. (regardless of if he lied or was given bad info)

And he spent Billions of dollars and the lives of over 1000 American Soldiers on the war Iraq.

And he has completely turned the world against us.

Yet...still hasn't found Osama...

And...still hasn't a secured our borders, nuclear plants or shipping yards.

 

Would you honestly say that he was doing a great job?

 

I'm not a political geek, so I'm not going to be able to spar with you. Just becasue you have more bullet points doesn't make you right. I'm just asking a question. That's all. Just curious.

 

For the record....I am an independent but mostly lean left. And if Gore was president, I would still be furious.

Goo

40904[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

this is a trick question.

Regardless of any of the info listed above....Al Gore still would have had his thumb up his ass and not done anything. And yes...that would have made me furious.

[JimBob2232]

George Bush said Iraq had WMD. So did his son. So did Clinton, Gore, Tony Blair, Schroeder and Chirac. So did putin and virtually every world leader, and member of the US congress. My opinion still stands that Iraq had and possesed WMD, and somehow managed to either hide them really really well, or ship them out of the country (more likely). Bush or Gore, the same scenario would exist provided that Gore actually went into Iraq, to confront the threat that WMD posed to the US.

 

I think God George W. Bush was elected in 2000. Gore simply would not have been strong enough to handle the post 911 events with such leadership and conviction. I do not believe gore would have handled this war in the manner it needs to be handled; taking the fight to the enemy before they take the fight to us. This is my problem with Kerry as well. He is too worried about what the world thinks of us, rather than our national security. I do not think the world hates us for one. Russia is now talking about pre-emptive strikes against chechnyan rebels to protect their own interests. Let the terrorists strike berlin paris and see if france and germany change their opinion. I bet it would.

 

If Bush or Gore spent millions of dollars and thousands of lives in Iraq, my criticism would be the same. Not because this war wasnt necessary, it is. But because of the way it has been run. Make no mistake about it, Iraq is a mess. Bush is running for election, and is afraid to take the necessary actions in iraq. WHY IS AL SADR STILL ALIVE? We had him. We had him trapped, and let him go because bush was too afraid to take out the mosque he was in. Political pressure has forced bushs hand in iraq, and for that he is to blame. However as i stated earlier, gore wouldnt even be there. So its a half-assed effort, or no effort. Great choice huh?

I'll give you the borders-I'm mad at that, but how do you know about our nuke plants or shipping yards?

Well, i'll tackle this, since I live a mile from one of the largest shipping yards on the east coast, and coincidentally work in a nuclear plant. More can be done. I see great strides being taken (at the nuc plant), more emphasis on checking IDs, reinforced barriers, more drills are taking place, counter-terrorism briefings and more armed guards to name a few. From outside, you wouldnt notice many of these changes, but the workforce is far more prepared to deal with such an attack.

As far as the shipping yard goes, I have seen no visable changes, but I know they have spent millions of dollars on radiation detection equipment, suervaillance cameras, fence improvements, etc. Yes, more can be done. Is bush the right guy? Probably not. Is kerry? Doubtful.

 

The point here is that, while I did vote for GWB in 2000, I will not be voting for him in 2004. I will also not be voting for kerry. I will be voting for a yet to be decided 3rd party candidate. Not because i think they can win, but because I feel we need to end this 2 party monopoly on our political system. It is detrimental to our country.

[Marshmallow]

They did have WMD- the UN "inspections" gave him enough time to ship them out of country or bury them in the desert.

 

Bush never said that. He said that Sadam was in cahoots with AQ. What he said is we had to stop Iraq BEFORE it became an imminent threat.

 

Just one step in the long War on Terror. It is us or them. Over 4000 people have given their lives to stop this worldwide scourge since 9/11.

 

Everyone loved us on 9/10-right. If they don't outright hate us, they are jealous of our success.

 

I'll give you the borders-I'm mad at that, but how do you know about our nuke plants or shipping yards?

40921[/snapback]

 

Okay...just like I said there's no proof Bush lied or was given bad info, there's no proof that WMDs were shipped out or buried. I personally think Bush lied to take advantage of our fears and Patriotism for a war he wanted. But that's not important either. No proof.

 

I call BS on the next statement. Bush linked Sadam and AQ so often, something like 90% of Americans think Sadam had something to do with 911. It's clear that was the plan. Americans would not have given him the green light to go with to war with a country that didn't have ties to 911 before we took care of those who did. Again, personally, I think he made the connection so he could go to war. Not important. That wasn't the question.

 

Security issues with Nuke Plants and Shipping Yards are reported at least once a week by major news stations.

 

yes, they do outright hate us.

 

Maybe I'll ask it this way....

 

All things being equal....if Gore was pres, would you think he was doing a great job?

[MichFan]

If Al Gore was president....

 

And he told us that Iraq had WMD's......but none were found. (regardless of if he lied or was given bad info)

And he told us that Iraq had something to do with 911....but no proof was found. (regardless of if he lied or was given bad info)

And he spent Billions of dollars and the lives of over 1000 American Soldiers on the war Iraq.

And he has completely turned the world against us.

Yet...still hasn't found Osama...

And...still hasn't a secured our borders, nuclear plants or shipping yards.

 

Would you honestly say that he was doing a great job?

 

First, I'm not saying Bush is doing a great job. I think he is doing the best he can dealing with a very difficult situation and I give him credit for that.

 

If Gore were president today under the same circumstances, I would be glad he went into Iraq because I would still believe that you can't make the reforms we all realize need to be made in the Middle East with Saddam in power. He would face more scrutiny from me than Bush does because there would be the direct connection to the inactivity of the Clinton administration re: terrorism. As proof that many Conservatives would see this differently, look at Black Hawk Down. Conservatives weren't mad about the mission to capture a warlord, they were mad about the lack of availabiltiy of devastating support for pulling off the mission.

[JimBob2232]

Security issues with Nuke Plants and Shipping Yards are reported at least once a week by major news stations.

 

Are these the same major news stations who report on forged documents. Are these the same major news stations that called the 2000 election wrong, not once but twice? Are these the same major news stations that are more concerned with sensationalizing the news and gaining ratings than reporting the news? I think it is.

 

I hate to say it, but it almost seems as if you cant even trust the news in this country anymore.

[UConn James]

Are these the same major news stations who report on forged documents.  Are these the same major news stations that called the 2000 election wrong, not once but twice?  Are these the same major news stations that are more concerned with sensationalizing the news and gaining ratings than reporting the news?  I think it is.

 

I hate to say it, but it almost seems as if you cant even trust the news in this country anymore.

41225[/snapback]

 

OK, Jimbob. Why don't you put the blindfold on and reach out to have Ari Fleisher and Dan Bartlet lead the way.

 

Media is only as good as the sources who come forward. CBS got taken hook, line, sinker. It happens when you think someone's being square with you. We thought Bush was being square with us in his Saddam-is-getting-uranium-from-Africa speech. His source for this was Chalabi(?) who is in jail for myriad offenses.

 

To blame all media (and especially since this is TV news, which let's face it....) for a CBS schlump is dangerous for our democracy. That's what the first amendment was for; so we'd be able to learn all of the facts. Guess what? The first amendment worked here. Those Framers really knew what they were doing, huh?

 

And just b/c they're retracting it, doesn't mean that Bush was Audie Murphy reincarnate. Did he get favors b/c of his name? Pro-bab-ly. A lot of guys did. Does it matter? Not all that much. Maybe we can have some real debate about the future.

[JimBob2232]

OK, Jimbob. Why don't you put the blindfold on and reach out to have Ari Fleisher and Dan Bartlet lead the way.

 

Media is only as good as the sources who come forward. CBS got taken hook, line, sinker. It happens when you think someone's being square with you. We thought Bush was being square with us in his Saddam-is-getting-uranium-from-Africa speech. His source for this was Chalabi(?) who is in jail for myriad offenses.

 

To blame all media (and especially since this is TV news, which let's face it....) for a CBS schlump is dangerous for our democracy. That's what the first amendment was for; so we'd be able to learn all of the facts. Guess what? The first amendment worked here. Those Framers really knew what they were doing, huh?

 

And just b/c they're retracting it, doesn't mean that Bush was Audie Murphy reincarnate. Did he get favors b/c of his name? Pro-bab-ly. A lot of guys did. Does it matter? Not all that much. Maybe we can have some real debate about the future.

 

I am not quite sure why the antaganizing lead...we seem to be on the same page here. I am all for the first amendment and freedom of the press. However, i view the vast majority of the media as entertainment rather than a news source at this point. I base this on the over sensationalizing of stories for the sole purpose of increasing ratings.

This is not a conclusion I came upon because of the Dan Rather story alone. But one over many years of watching the news. Remember all the shark attacks one year? It was no more than any other year. Why the media frenzy over it? One year they went crazy with child abductions. Was it more than normal? No. But it got the attention of the public and they ran it to death. Then there was the disease era. Remember smallpox, sars, west nile and monkeypox? What happened to them? did they just go away? No. Its just not a story that gets ratings anymore.

The urge to be the first one supporting a story, superseeds the underlying accuracy of the story. This is wrong.

While I fully support the media, and freedom of the press, the press is not doing its intended job. They are giant profit producting corporations producing television programs, with the sole purpose of making money for their stakeholders. While I am also not against the profit motive, the two collide, and do a net disservice to the american people.

[PastaJoe]

Conservatives weren't mad about the mission to capture a warlord, they were mad about the lack of availabiltiy of devastating support for pulling off the mission.

 

This sounds like what McCain, Hagel, and Graham have been saying lately about Bush and Iraq.

[UConn James]

I am not quite sure why the antaganizing lead...we seem to be on the same page here.  I am all for the first amendment and freedom of the press.  However, i view the vast majority of the media as entertainment rather than a news source at this point.  I base this on the over sensationalizing of stories for the sole purpose of increasing ratings.

This is not a conclusion I came upon because of the Dan Rather story alone. But one over many years of watching the news.  Remember all the shark attacks one year?  It was no more than any other year.  Why the media frenzy over it?  One year they went crazy with child abductions.  Was it more than normal? No.  But it got the attention of the public and they ran it to death.  Then there was the disease era.  Remember smallpox, sars, west nile and monkeypox?  What happened to them? did they just go away?  No.  Its just not a story that gets ratings anymore.

The urge to be the first one supporting a story, superseeds the underlying accuracy of the story.  This is wrong.

While I fully support the media, and freedom of the press, the press is not doing its intended job.  They are giant profit producting corporations producing television programs, with the sole purpose of making money for their stakeholders.  While I am also not against the profit motive, the two collide, and do a net disservice to the american people.

41320[/snapback]

 

What's antagonizing about the lead? It was a simple question. You think you can get the real story from a PR firm? which is what the White House Press Office is. You want to distrust all media and simply want them to report/broadcast the Official Approved Version, you're free to, but it's not much different than listening to that hilarious Iraqi Information Minister.

 

I actually majored in journalism. I'm also in Phi Beta Kappa -- read: Top 1% of graduates, so you're not dealing with a dumb a$$ (I'm sticking to the graphic design, but I did all the aspects). Yes, we all know about the problems of the media, and it's a pretty consistent rate of flubs in every newsroom, CBS, FOX, the Pat Robertson Network, whatever. 99 percent of reporters do not intentionally try to skew news. 100 percent are suseptible to reporting the opinions of people who are lying or have an agenda. They'll be set straight eventually, in the process noted before.

 

Sensationalism.... Yep, sometimes, dead horses are beat. That's under the auspices of "Giving people what they want" when a lot of old newspeople don't *know* what people want. Some themes are hyped, as you say. (I don't know what you're watching (tho it's better to READ your news!) but the "disease era" reporting never went away, and for good reason.) Just b/c you don't see it in the Buffalo News this week doesn't mean it's not being covered somewhere. There's a finite space in a newspaper or 30 minute broadcast. Editorial decisions are made. If you think you can do it entirely w/o criticism, man, feel free to try! B/c everyone's intent on shooting the messenger these days when they don't like what the news is. Sometimes it's warranted, many times not. Do I look over your shoulder at your job and yell that you're cooking my steak wrong?

 

'Well, it's like the prostitute once said - it's not the work, it's the stairs.' -- Elaine Stritch

[JimBob2232]

Well, since we are comparing academic credentials, I have an BS in Chemical Engineering with a Master of Business Administration and am currently working as a Nuclear Engineer. I am a member of Tau Beta Pi (an engineering honor society). I dont know why this matters...but since you brought it up...

 

The point im trying to make here, isnt that the media shouldnt be allowed to do what it does, nor is it that we need a new "reformed media" if you will. Instead I just wish that the majority of people would view particularly television media for what it is. Entertainment with a news backdrop. Its reality tv programming. We might as well as viewers, vote off the story we dont like every week so we dont have to hear it again.

 

I agree with you on print media. It is much better. Radio is also reasonable, but you have to weigh through the partisan twist everything on radio is exposed to. Though usually you know the twist the host is trying to place on a particular story. The problem is, people like dan rather who are partisans, and who are actively campaing and raising money for the democratic party, then come on and do the nightly news and try to be fair. Its not just dan rather either. Tom brokaw was even on some peoples list to be Kerrys VP choice! But I digress...

 

I understand editorial decisions are made. They have to be. Editorial decisions are based first on what people want to hear. Then on what people need to or should hear. For every story about Lacy Peterson or Kobe Bryant, there is a story about something more important and meaningful to our everyday life. Something more worthy of making the editorial cut, but it wont because people want to know whats going on in those stories. People mistake these stories for news. It should be on E! or Entertainment Tonight. Unfortunatly people who want the real news will not find it on CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, or dare I say, Fox News.

 

This leads to an uninformed electorate, who is tasked with making some very very tough decisions here in the next couple months. People like you and me, who take the time to become informed on a plethora of key issues, can formulate an educated opinion on tax reform, Iraq, social security, health care, etc. But people who rely on the alphabet channels do not have access to the kinds of information they need to make these vitals choices. I just wish they would realize they are being fed a bunch of garbage, and go out looking for their own answers to issues instead of relying on Dan Rather to tell them what to think. I hope this scandal will go a long way to helping this cause.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

Bush never said that. He said that Sadam was in cahoots with AQ. What he said is we had to stop Iraq BEFORE it became an imminent threat.

 

Yes, but DICK CHENEY sure did; I saw it on the news here in Europe the other day!!! I was laughing so hard at the time, because it sounds so ridiculous now.

 

 

Thursday, September 18, 2003

 

Bush: No Iraq link to 9/11 found

President says Saddam had ties to al-Qaida, but apparently not to attacks

 

By SCOTT SHEPARD

COX NEWS SERVICE

 

It was just weeks after the terrorist attacks that the first link between Saddam and al-Qaida was alleged by the administration. It came from Cheney, who said it had been "pretty well confirmed" that Mohamed Atta, the man held responsible for masterminding the Sept. 11 hijackings, had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in April 2000, an allegation congressional investigators later dismissed.

 

Sunday, Cheney began the group of Bush administration officials denying any ties between Saddam and Sept. 11. He said "we don't know" whether Saddam was connected to the attacks, but admitted, "It's not surprising that people make that connection."

 

The vice president also said: "If we are successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good, representative government in Iraq that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

 

Sounds like a massive implication to me by Cheney, and then a change in the story..... nice. I wonder why Congress got fleeced by these guys.... crazy!!

[ExiledInIllinois]

Yes, but DICK CHENEY sure did; I saw it on the news here in Europe the other day!!! I was laughing so hard at the time, because it sounds so ridiculous now.

41507[/snapback]

 

It sounded ridiculous two years ago. Then again, the snapperheads here found the need to flame such arguments.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

It sounded ridiculous two years ago.  Then again, the snapperheads here found the need to flame such arguments.

41521[/snapback]

 

Ohh I know it... present clear, solid evidence of these statements from the past, and there is nothing but umm well, and what about, and he didn't mean, or lemming, etc. Kerry has done some pretty inane things and said some crazy things, but fanning the flames with implications like his gets people killed for no reason. Hell, there are a lot more terrorist havens NOW since Iraq was invaded! Who are we fighting, Ma and Pa Kettle?!?!

[Marshmallow]

First, I'm not saying Bush is doing a great job.  I think he is doing the best he can dealing with a very difficult situation and I give him credit for that.

 

If Gore were president today under the same circumstances, I would be glad he went into Iraq because I would still believe that you can't make the reforms we all realize need to be made in the Middle East with Saddam in power.  He would face more scrutiny from me than Bush does because there would be the direct connection to the inactivity of the Clinton administration re: terrorism.  As proof that many Conservatives would see this differently, look at Black Hawk Down.  Conservatives weren't mad about the mission to capture a warlord, they were mad about the lack of availabiltiy of devastating support for pulling off the mission.

41224[/snapback]

 

 

See. I don't get that. Because hatred for Americans didn't start with Clintons. It didn't start with Bush I. It didn't even start when Regan sold Saddam WMDs or when he turned his back on Osama in the war against Russia. So why would you hold that against Gore if he was Pres...because honestly, they're all guilty. Even GW Bush. He had plenty of time to get up to date.....10 mos (counting the last part of the Clinton Admin when he was being briefed) If Bush W thought what Clinton had done was so horrible, perhaps he would have put more thought into protection our country. Perhaps he wouldn't have ignored security briefings. It would have been his number one priority. Instead he went on vacation for 3 months during his first 8 months in office. He didn't seem too worried, did he? Does he not deserve some of the blame?

 

Conservatives weren't the only ones mad about Black Hawk Down. And that's exactly my point. That's why I asked the question. If people can't put their party aside when they really feel that something that's happening is wrong, then they care more about their party then their country.

 

I think you passed the test with flying colors. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the Gore thing.

[MichFan]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the Gore thing.

The reason I think Clinton/Gore would have gotten more flack if Gore were president is that they were in office for most of the big terrorist attacks launched against us by Islamic militants, and they have taken the most criticism for either turning tail or providing a weak response at best. Reagan did the same thing in Beirut, so i agree that each party had their pre-9/11 skeletons. But I think Bush gets some credit for being new to the scene and having a rough transition due to Florida/2000 election that Gore would not have been allotted.

[_BiB_]

Just out of idle curiosity, in your view, who is supposed to secure the chemical plants?

[Marshmallow]

Just out of idle curiosity, in your view, who is supposed to secure the chemical plants?

42391[/snapback]

 

I certainly don't have the answer to that. But I bet the 130 Billion dollars we spent in Iraq would more than cover the bill.