ABC Declares War on Bush Campaign

[Drachasor]

About Shinseki, point on when his retirement plans were announced. That was still used to descredit him, they just wanted it done earlier (because Rumseld has a personal grudge against Clinton-era generals). They still ignored his advice as an expert in peace keeping situations though, Even when the Secretary of the Army backed him up:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/13/column.novak.opinion.army/index.html

This is consistent with the Administration routinely ignoring people that disagree with them. There was evidence supporting the fact that Saddam had no WMDs, but the administration ignored it because they didn't like what it said.

Kerry's main thrust was on the White House descrediting the general (which they did do in interviews after his statement as well as the retirement before), despite the General's expertise. Another main thrust was that the administration does not listen to dissenting views. None of this can be denied as true.

In related news, the White House is now saying Kerry things terrorism is like gambling. This is after Kerry said that he thinks terrorism is a number one threat and needs to be brought under control. He said we'd never get rid of it, but we can make it so that it isn't an everyday threat to our livelihoods. We can bring it down to the level of gambling or prostitution.

Full story:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/bush.kerry.terror/index.html

So, the Bush Administration is now doing the same kinds of distortion again. This time by declare that Kerry's *future* goal for diminshing terrorism is his present perception.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

About No Child Left Behind:

Yes, it is my opinion it is underfunded, as it is the opinion of many teachers and principals that have to implement it.

It is apparently the Bush administration's opinion that the money will spontaneously come from somewhere.

Perhaps I made a mistake when I was talking about it, but that doesn't change the fact that almost everyone involved in No Child Left Behind thinks it is underfunded.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

I like how Ogie has totally ignored the major problem with the newly created jobs. The fact that they are paying less and providing far fewer benefits than the jobs they replace. That the higher payer ones are largely part-time or temporary. That during some periods of "job growth" the total number of hours worked in America didn't change much or went down, yet the number of jobs went up, in other words, full-time jobs became part time.


Like the Bush administration, he pretends the job news is all rosy, when it is far, far from it.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

coalition

n 1: an organization of people (or countries) involved in a pact or treaty [syn: alliance, alignment, alinement] [ant: nonalignment] 2: the state of being combined into one body [syn: fusion] 3: the union of diverse things into one body or form or group; the growing together of parts [syn: coalescence, coalescency, concretion, conglutination]

A Coalition was formed to go into Iraq and remove Saddam. That's the Coalition. The Iraqis are the people we are helping out, and they are not part of the Coalition; they are the people the Coalition is *helping*. Seperate entities.

I see you totally ignored that the Iraqi forces are also poorly equipped and largely poorly trained. Yes, their sacrifice is noble and should not be forgotten, but it is expected that they will day in greater numbers because they aren't orgnized as well or trained as well as the Coalition forces.

The issue was one of the Coalition and how large it was going into and in Iraq. Poland has now decided to remove itself from Iraq over the next year. The Coalition is getting smaller, not larger. Kerry's point stands firm.

Oh, and I'd also note that all Media Outlets and the military also recognize that the Coalition doesn't include the Iraqi security forces.

-Drachasor

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drachasor
I like how Ogie has totally ignored the major problem with the newly created jobs. The fact that they are paying less and providing far fewer benefits than the jobs they replace. That the higher payer ones are largely part-time or temporary. That during some periods of "job growth" the total number of hours worked in America didn't change much or went down, yet the number of jobs went up, in other words, full-time jobs became part time.


Like the Bush administration, he pretends the job news is all rosy, when it is far, far from it.

-Drachasor

Drachasor, I think there is a national trend to reduce pay and benefits that are forced on us by foreign competition. Actually, this is not new, and has been going on for decades. Think of the 1970's for example. The Big Three automakers had most of the US market. They made high-priced, low-quality, gas guzzlers. Then along came Honda and Toyota during the price-controls-created gas shortage that demonstrated that one could actually build low priced, high quality, fuel efficient cars. The Big Three took an enormous hit to their market share, and Chrysler almost went out of business.

Needless to say, the auto industry lost thousands of jobs to offshore automakers. To stay competitive, the US companies adapted, held US wages and benefits down, while expanding their parts operations outside the US in order to compete.

Now that was in the '70s and early 80s. But it is just one example out of many. In the same timeframe, the Japanese almost put Intel out of business, and did put a lot of pressure on the US semiconductor industry. But they survived by cutting costs and becoming more efficient.

What is going on now is not new at all.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo

On the basis of factcheck.org as well as the admission of Mr. Drachasor.

In other words, you're making **** up?

If I am then so is factcheck.org.

"Kerry claimed the "the president has underfunded [the No Child Left Behind law] by $28 billion," but that's an opinion and not a fact.

Actually, as we reported last March, funding for the federal Department of Education grew a whopping 58% under Bush during his first three years, and Bush proposed another 5% increase for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, including sizeable increases in spending for children from low-income families and for special education for disabled children. Even the Kerry campaign's own data -- which they provided to FactCheck.org at our request -- shows funding for programs specific to the No Child Left Behind law have increased by $2.7 billion, or 12%, since the new law was enacted.

What Kerry is referring to is an often-repeated Democratic charge that Bush broke a "promise" to fund the law at the maximum Congress allowed, or authorized. Though Kerry said Bush's funding falls short of that maximum by $28 billion the figure usually given by Bush critics is $27 billion. And actually, Bush made no such promise. What he did promise was to "provide the resources necessary." Many state officials and education experts do argue that even more funds are needed to provide resources necessary to meet the ambitious goals and standards set by the No Child Left Behind Act. Still, what's "necessary" is a matter of opinion."

Funny that whole disclosure of financial since in the Kerry household the majority of earnings for Mr. & Mrs. Kerry get a pass on scrutiny.

He's not demanding tax cuts on his wife's income.

No, what he is not doing is having his wife fully disclose her income tax statements when the household income is largely hers. I find it more than a bit interesting that Kerry would choose to highlight anything in Laura and George's income taxes when he or Teresa feel the need to hide theirs.

Reconcile these facts.

Shinseki announces/plans retirement
Admin announces replacement

10 months later Shinseki gives his 'offhand' assessment of needed troop strengths. The announcement predated his controversial statements by 10 months. I suppose the arguement is that the admin knew that Shinseki was going to go public 10 months in the future and decided to pre-emptively revenge him. Puhhhlease.

You didn't read what I posted. Again:
"the story of Shinseki's replacement was leaked "in revenge" for Shinseki's position on troop requirements, which he was already expressing in private."

Note the "in private" part.

Shinseki was criticizing the admin's actions, so the admin. screwed him. It's that simple.

I noted that and that simply entails office rumor. I find that extremely hard to reconcile vs. positive clams by Kerry as:

Initially a) Shinseki was fired
b) whoops shinskeki was retired by the admin
c) now finally he was marginalized as an object lesson to any other dissenters

Especially when point c relies on rumors and implied suppostion of motive and the previous two claims a&b are patently lies.

Funny you mention diplomatic support as that was exactly my point.

Dunno what diplomatic support has to do with playing the race card about an innocuous statement.

You'll note I purposely avoided your little troll regarding race card. If you would care to explain where I was being racist, I'll a) be happy to dispel such a myth, and b) avoid in turn calling you a racist, looking to pin racist motives on my personage where none exists. See unlike you, I refuse to resort to name calling at the hint of meaningful debate.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Drachasor
About Shinseki, point on when his retirement plans were announced. That was still used to descredit him, they just wanted it done earlier (because Rumseld has a personal grudge against Clinton-era generals). They still ignored his advice as an expert in peace keeping situations though, Even when the Secretary of the Army backed him up:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...rmy/index.html

:LOL: Your going to say that because Rummy got a bit miffed and then decided not to fire White that is proof positive.

This is consistent with the Administration routinely ignoring people that disagree with them. There was evidence supporting the fact that Saddam had no WMDs, but the administration ignored it because they didn't like what it said.

Kerry's main thrust was on the White House descrediting the general (which they did do in interviews after his statement as well as the retirement before), despite the General's expertise. Another main thrust was that the administration does not listen to dissenting views. None of this can be denied as true.

I believe Colin Powell dissented was given his shot at diplomacy via the UN. He told the pres, that you break it you bought it, wrt Iraq etc. As far as I know Powell is still Sec State and most likely to be asked on for a second go 'raound if GWB wins.

In related news, the White House is now saying Kerry things terrorism is like gambling. This is after Kerry said that he thinks terrorism is a number one threat and needs to be brought under control. He said we'd never get rid of it, but we can make it so that it isn't an everyday threat to our livelihoods. We can bring it down to the level of gambling or prostitution.

Full story:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/bush.kerry.terror/index.html

So, the Bush Administration is now doing the same kinds of distortion again. This time by declare that Kerry's *future* goal for diminshing terrorism is his present perception.

-Drachasor

You have no idea how little I care what GWB and team are doing wrt capaigning. My beef has always been with Kerry and the pass he gets from MSM.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Drachasor
coalition

n 1: an organization of people (or countries) involved in a pact or treaty [syn: alliance, alignment, alinement] [ant: nonalignment] 2: the state of being combined into one body [syn: fusion] 3: the union of diverse things into one body or form or group; the growing together of parts [syn: coalescence, coalescency, concretion, conglutination]

A Coalition was formed to go into Iraq and remove Saddam. That's the Coalition. The Iraqis are the people we are helping out, and they are not part of the Coalition; they are the people the Coalition is *helping*. Seperate entities.

I see you totally ignored that the Iraqi forces are also poorly equipped and largely poorly trained. Yes, their sacrifice is noble and should not be forgotten, but it is expected that they will day in greater numbers because they aren't orgnized as well or trained as well as the Coalition forces.

The issue was one of the Coalition and how large it was going into and in Iraq. Poland has now decided to remove itself from Iraq over the next year. The Coalition is getting smaller, not larger. Kerry's point stands firm.

Oh, and I'd also note that all Media Outlets and the military also recognize that the Coalition doesn't include the Iraqi security forces.

-Drachasor

Which way do you want it? The coalition was to go in and remove Saddaam. Well that was completed with around 100 ish casualites. End of the war right?


Well not so fast as everyone here is so want to jump Bush on his Carrier PR stunt when he said mission accomplished, the war is not over ehhh. It now means pacifying the illegal elemnets in insurrection. Hmmm.... That now means the legally recognized Iraqi governement comes into play.

As to the poorly equipped Iraqi's, puhlease, we are supposedly to be led to believe that Kerry would have fared any better. But I forget the coalition and diplomacy mastery of Kerry, I suppose all those French and German troops into Iraq to help train them would have doen teh job. Oooops forgot both France and Germany say under no circumstnaces would they commit troops now or in the future. That leaves the task to sending Iraqis out of Iraq for training. Something that the French and Germans likewise have yet to agree to.

I find it interesting that Monsieur Kerry is more than willing to hold up Gulf War 1 as an example of coalition building and a tribute to a just war whenin fact he voted against Gulf War 1 on the grounds we didn't have a strong enough coalition. Damn that slanted Global test we keep failing.

[Ned]

Ogie, it interesting that Kerry insists on a global test before going to war, and may insist on UN authorization as well. Bush I had both for Gulf War I and STILL Kerry voted no.

If there is any man running for president who is a two-faced liar, it is not Bush.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Drachasor
I like how Ogie has totally ignored the major problem with the newly created jobs. The fact that they are paying less and providing far fewer benefits than the jobs they replace. That the higher payer ones are largely part-time or temporary. That during some periods of "job growth" the total number of hours worked in America didn't change much or went down, yet the number of jobs went up, in other words, full-time jobs became part time.


Like the Bush administration, he pretends the job news is all rosy, when it is far, far from it.

-Drachasor

Come out and play. Please provide said data link.

I'll give you my info from the BOL

Total Private

Sep 2001 - Ave wage rate - $14.68/hr
Sep 2002- Ave wage rate - $15.10/hr 2.86% increase
Sep 2003- Ave wage rate - $15.44/hr 2.25% increase
Sep 2004- Ave wage rate - $15.80/hr pending 2.34% increase

Sep 2001 - Ave weekly wages - $500.59
Sep 2002 - Ave weekly wages - $516.42 3.16% increase
Sep 2003 - Ave weekly wages - $520.33 0.75% increase
Sep 2004 - Ave weekly wages - $530.88 pending 2.03% increase.

Your only point is that the increases in weekly take home don't keep pace with average wage increases and so there is less time on the job. I would think that would be welcomed especially in light of increased weekly take homes and low to nonexistant inflation. More time away from the job for more pay is generally well recieved. Now yes I realize things like health care etc., have taken a bite out of pockets.

In any event you'll find me one of the beleivers that Prez's have little impact on overall jobs creation except for taxation policy, governmental spending, deregulation where possible, and cheerleading. I see no credible evidence to think Kerry capable of improving the situation except to create gridlock to prevent future deficit growth and hence increased interest rates.

[Ramo]

If I am then so is factcheck.org.

Nowhere does factcheck.org prove that Kerry's statement was meant to be a fact, rather than an opinion.

No, what he is not doing is having his wife fully disclose her income tax statements when the household income is largely hers. I find it more than a bit interesting that Kerry would choose to highlight anything in Laura and George's income taxes when he or Teresa feel the need to hide theirs.

You're missing the entire point of Kerry's statement, which was about Shrub's claims vis a vis small business taxe breaks. Not about Shrub's personal finances.

I noted that and that simply entails office rumor.

On what basis do you say that this information is unreliable?

You'll note I purposely avoided your little troll regarding race card. If you would care to explain where I was being racist, I'll a) be happy to dispel such a myth, and b) avoid in turn calling you a racist, looking to pin racist motives on my personage where none exists. See unlike you, I refuse to resort to name calling at the hint of meaningful debate.

Nowhere did I say that you were racist. However, your inane rants about how we supposedly measure the worth of the Iraqi people were impugning bigotted motives on us. So drop this self-righteous horse****.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo

If I am then so is factcheck.org.

Nowhere does factcheck.org prove that Kerry's statement was meant to be a fact, rather than an opinion.

Let go to the tape Jim,

"KERRY No Child Left Behind Act, I voted for it. I support it. I support the goals.

But the president has underfunded it by $28 billion."

This represents statement of fact. No where does he otherwise imply an opinion otherwise it would be stated as such. Such as "In my and by almost every other expert's opinion on the matter, the president underfunded it by $28 billion". Nope it simply was the pres underfunded by 28 billion, "factual" no item for debate.

No, what he is not doing is having his wife fully disclose her income tax statements when the household income is largely hers. I find it more than a bit interesting that Kerry would choose to highlight anything in Laura and George's income taxes when he or Teresa feel the need to hide theirs.

You're missing the entire point of Kerry's statement, which was about Shrub's claims vis a vis small business taxe breaks. Not about Shrub's personal finances.

I am by no means missing the point. You on the otherhand choose to ignore my point that there has been a significant double standard when it comes to DeKerry. By drawing attention to the Bush family household income it signals a man throwing stones. But given no opportunity to uncover the dirty little secrets Teresa may or may not have he has all the cover he needs to snipe.

I noted that and that simply entails office rumor.

On what basis do you say that this information is unreliable?

Until named sources are quoted, I'll allow the media their little games as guesses into the insights and motives of pentagon back office politics. If one relies on the equivalent of gossip collumn articles to substantiate your(kerry) spin on things in front of a national audience, you'll pardon me my skepticism. I would prefer a bit more tangible evidence (you know that same stuff you seem to cry about wrt WMD in Iraq).

You'll note I purposely avoided your little troll regarding race card. If you would care to explain where I was being racist, I'll a) be happy to dispel such a myth, and b) avoid in turn calling you a racist, looking to pin racist motives on my personage where none exists. See unlike you, I refuse to resort to name calling at the hint of meaningful debate.

Nowhere did I say that you were racist. However, your inane rants about how we supposedly measure the worth of the Iraqi people were impugning bigotted motives on us. So drop this self-righteous horse****.

No it actually implied a desire for Kerry in his effort to impune the efforts of this administration to not understand the devestating morale effect this has on already comitted allies, chief amongst these the Iraqis. Moreover it is in character with his similar attempts to think first and foremost of the US at the expense of its commitment to its allies, hence the invocation of South Vietnam and the betrayal thereof.

Now if you read that as racist and/or playing the race card you'ld be wayyyy off the mark. I never once implied any racial motive for disparging the efforts of the Iraqis. But please feel free to imply motive where none exists, you'ld be a fit punch drinking lacky for the Kerry campaign were you to continue to do so.

[Ramo]

This represents statement of fact. No where does he otherwise imply an opinion otherwise it would be stated as such. Such as "In my and by almost every other expert's opinion on the matter, the president underfunded it by $28 billion". Nope it simply was the pres underfunded by 28 billion, "factual" no item for debate.

Do you say "in my opinion,..." everytime you mention your opinion on something? I don't do that, I don't know anyone who does that, so I certainly don't expect politicians to do that where it'd be percieved as wishy-washy waffling by the pundits (especially with Kerry's reputation).

I am by no means missing the point. You on the otherhand choose to ignore my point that there has been a significant double standard when it comes to DeKerry. By drawing attention to the Bush family household income it signals a man throwing stones. But given no opportunity to uncover the dirty little secrets Teresa may or may not have he has all the cover he needs to snipe.

Having stock in a company that was involved in lumber (ironically, the truth, that it's oil, would sound worse) would be a "dirty little secret?" This is absolutely rediculous.

Until named sources are quoted, I'll allow the media their little games as guesses into the insights and motives of pentagon back office politics. If one relies on the equivalent of gossip collumn articles to substantiate your(kerry) spin on things in front of a national audience, you'll pardon me my skepticism. I would prefer a bit more tangible evidence (you know that same stuff you seem to cry about wrt WMD in Iraq).

I haven't read the article. Have you? How do you know that the source is anonymous?

No it actually implied a desire for Kerry in his effort to impune the efforts of this administration to not understand the devestating morale effect this has on already comitted allies, chief amongst these the Iraqis. Moreover it is in character with his similar attempts to think first and foremost of the US at the expense of its commitment to its allies, hence the invocation of South Vietnam and the betrayal thereof.

How is it a betrayal of the Iraqis to state that this Admin ineptly and irresponsibly conducted diplomacy, making the occupation of their country that much more devastating?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo

This represents statement of fact. No where does he otherwise imply an opinion otherwise it would be stated as such. Such as "In my and by almost every other expert's opinion on the matter, the president underfunded it by $28 billion". Nope it simply was the pres underfunded by 28 billion, "factual" no item for debate.

Do you say "in my opinion,..." everytime you mention your opinion on something? I don't do that, I don't know anyone who does that, so I certainly don't expect politicians to do that where it'd be percieved as wishy-washy waffling by the pundits (especially with Kerry's reputation).

Thank you for rationalizing what can only be described as a statement of fact. I don't care for reasons why only that it was submitted as fact. Matter of fact, too freakin bad Kerry has the rep of being a waffler.

I am by no means missing the point. You on the otherhand choose to ignore my point that there has been a significant double standard when it comes to DeKerry. By drawing attention to the Bush family household income it signals a man throwing stones. But given no opportunity to uncover the dirty little secrets Teresa may or may not have he has all the cover he needs to snipe.

Having stock in a company that was involved in lumber (ironically, the truth, that it's oil, would sound worse) would be a "dirty little secret?" This is absolutely rediculous.

How many dirty little secrets are in Teresa's closet. May they ultimately see the light of day.

Until named sources are quoted, I'll allow the media their little games as guesses into the insights and motives of pentagon back office politics. If one relies on the equivalent of gossip collumn articles to substantiate your(kerry) spin on things in front of a national audience, you'll pardon me my skepticism. I would prefer a bit more tangible evidence (you know that same stuff you seem to cry about wrt WMD in Iraq).

I haven't read the article. Have you? How do you know that the source is anonymous?

Nope I'll readily admit I don't subscribe to WaPo. But until I read the sources quotes I stand behind my position that this is nothing more than gossip columnry.

No it actually implied a desire for Kerry in his effort to impune the efforts of this administration to not understand the devestating morale effect this has on already comitted allies, chief amongst these the Iraqis. Moreover it is in character with his similar attempts to think first and foremost of the US at the expense of its commitment to its allies, hence the invocation of South Vietnam and the betrayal thereof.

How is it a betrayal of the Iraqis to state that this Admin ineptly and irresponsibly conducted diplomacy, making the occupation of their country that much more devastating?

I believe I covered that earlier. In implicitly stating the coalition does not include Iraq, it implies that Iraq does not exist hence delegitamizes the provisional governement. At the time when the Iraqi governement came into existance they too became part of the coalition to fight for the establishment of Iraq proper.

[Ramo]

Thank you for rationalizing what can only be described as a statement of fact. I don't care for reasons why only that it was submitted as fact.

Omitting "in my opinion" doesn't mean a statement is not a value judgement. Just about every political statement is a value judgement. Expecting politicians to preface every opinion with "in my opinion" is absurd.

How many dirty little secrets are in Teresa's closet. May they ultimately see the light of day.

How much do I give a **** about a politician's wife's finances? Not bloody much.

Nope I'll readily admit I don't subscribe to WaPo. But until I read the sources quotes I stand behind my position that this is nothing more than gossip columnry.

So, you're making **** up, again?

In implicitly stating the coalition does not include Iraq, it implies that Iraq does not exist

Logic does not compute.