Happy 10th Birthday...

[GrizFanStuckInUtah]

I would really like to hear some more input from all the people that keep talking about how it was all just a big lie. For instance, what are we doing to fix it if it is the 100% gospel truth that it was all Bush/Cheney? I don't see our beloved leader doing anything different and I am not hearing anyone talk about how to win or get the fuck out of there. I don't have a problem with either plan, I just want leadership and we are not getting it. We are loosing way too many troops due to our bullshit rules of engagement and lack of leadership. I seem to remember a similar engagement we went through not so long ago that is eerily familiar. But maybe I am just looking to far back in history and expecting too much.

[Bronco]

-
The plan carried out by the donkey party and media pals worked
Bush had very high approval ratings at this time

Dems plan to undermine America to beat Bush
By DOUG THOMPSON
Jan 6, 2003, 19:21


Democrats plan to undermine public confidence in President George W. Bush by challenging his credibility and raising doubts about America, sources within the party tell Capitol Hill Blue.

A multi-pronged attack against Republicans and the President will focus not only on economic issues, but question American values, raise doubts about how this country is viewed by other nations and question the patriotism of Bush and his party.

The extensive campaign, developed by senior Democratic consultants and party leaders, was launched last week with attacks on the Bush economic plan by Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Richard Gephardt.

In coming weeks, Democratic elected officials will question the President?s intentions on the pending war with Iraq. Writers and broadcasters friendly to the Democratic cause have already been provided talking points suggesting the war is about oil, not terrorism.

The talking points were developed before the end of last year and sent out to operatives and friendly media, one Democratic consultant confided. No Democratic member of Congress will question the Presidents patriotism openly but we will use the media and other surrogates to raise doubts.

Capitol Hill Blue obtained a copy of the talking points when the Democratic National Committee sent them to a news outlet recently acquired by CHBs parent company. The talking points outline a strategy to raise public doubts of the President?s real intentions, including:

--Saying the war is about oil and will be fought to benefit oil companies that have long supported Bush and the Republican party;

--Claiming the Bush administration has manufactured evidence against Saddam Hussein and used that evidence to encourage Britain and other allies to join the American fight against Iraq;

--Suggesting a wartime economy is the only way the administration can revive the country's lagging economic situation.

It is clear that the current approval ratings of the administration are tied directly to strong American feelings toward traditional values, the talking points say. To counter this, doubt must be raised as to America's true position within the world community and the true intent of the Bush administration in waging war.

Some Democrats admit privately they are uneasy with the party strategy to undermine American values in an attempt to get Bush.

My boss doesn?t want anything to do with it,?one senior Senate aide told Capitol Hill Blue on Monday. You don't undermine this country to win elections.

Others, however, are willing to try anything to put the White House and Congress back under Democratic control.

The real war isn't in Iraq,? one Democratic consultant said. It's right here at home, at the ballot box in 2004.

Among the other points Democrats hope to make in the coming weeks:

--Both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are controlled by oil and defense industry special interest groups.

--The war on terrorism is a failure because Osama bin Laden is still at large.

--America is unprepared for another terrorist attack because of White House preoccupation with Iraq.

--War will increase the country?s economic woes.

--Bush will be forced to raise taxes to finance the war.

It's time to take the battle to the people and make them understand just how dangerous George W. Bush's policies are to the future of America, the talking points conclude.

Democratic sources say the talking points were developed by Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe, former Clinton campaign strategist James Carville, Senate Majority Leader Daschle and former House Democratic Leader Gephardt.

This is a classic, Jim Carville, scorched earth campaign, crows one DNC staffer. Take no prisoners. That?s how you win elections.

Democratic party spokesmen would not return phone calls seeking comment on this report.
© Copyright 2003 by Capitol Hill Blue

http://web.archive.org/web/200406130356" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 3&num=1476

[houndawg]

I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with Clucker and Kleany. Like Kleany, I believe that the Bush administration neo-cons mislead Congress and the public in order to further their own agenda and invade Iraq. Like Clucker, I agree that Obama, despite his campaign promises to the contrary, continued much of the neo-con military policy by keeping Gitmo open, trying to maintain the US presence in Iraq, etc. Cluck's characterization of Obama as Obushma is spot on.

Trut so pure. Obama lost me when he didn't leave Afghanistan immediately after Osama went down. That's when it was no longer possible to believe that bin Laden was job 1, but rather a convenient smokescreen. And then, to add insult to injury, he is presiding over turning us into the most surveilled nation on the planet.

[Seahawks08]

More troops died under Bush, but far more under Obama - your memory is a little fuzzy. If Bush manufactured intel, then he inherited it from the Clinton administration.

I didn't mention Obama for a reason. You brought up Clinton, but he didn't have the itch like Bush and his cronies did to invade a country based upon lies even if he did have the same intelligence.

[YoUDeeMan]

I dont have Brown Eyes

I'd imagine they are somewhere between a dark green and a reddish black, depending on what you had to eat and whether your stool is full of blood.

Either way, you are full of shit.

[ASUG8]

More troops died under Bush, but far more under Obama - your memory is a little fuzzy. If Bush manufactured intel, then he inherited it from the Clinton administration.

I didn't mention Obama for a reason. You brought up Clinton, but he didn't have the itch like Bush and his cronies did to invade a country based upon lies even if he did have the same intelligence.

I'm no Bush apologist, but Bush/Cheney used basically the same rationale that Clinton gave in '98 for firing 75 tomahawks into Sudan and Afghanistan, then commenced Operation Desert Fox in Iraq a few months later. Clinton didn't order a ground invasion on the scale of Iraqi freedom, but he certainly used very similar intel to exert military force in his presidency.

[mrklean]

I didn't mention Obama for a reason. You brought up Clinton, but he didn't have the itch like Bush and his cronies did to invade a country based upon lies even if he did have the same intelligence.

I'm no Bush apologist, but Bush/Cheney used basically the same rationale that Clinton gave in '98 for firing 75 tomahawks into Sudan and Afghanistan, then commenced Operation Desert Fox in Iraq a few months later. Clinton didn't order a ground invasion on the scale of Iraqi freedom, but he certainly used very similar intel to exert military force in his presidency.

So you are saying the CIA and FBI are full of shyt?

[kalm]

I didn't mention Obama for a reason. You brought up Clinton, but he didn't have the itch like Bush and his cronies did to invade a country based upon lies even if he did have the same intelligence.

I'm no Bush apologist, but Bush/Cheney used basically the same rationale that Clinton gave in '98 for firing 75 tomahawks into Sudan and Afghanistan, then commenced Operation Desert Fox in Iraq a few months later. Clinton didn't order a ground invasion on the scale of Iraqi freedom, but he certainly used very similar intel to exert military force in his presidency.

There's a big difference between targeted strikes and an invasion. There are numerous reports that Cheney, Libby, Feith, etc were applying pressure to get the intel "right." Not to mention making sure there were links to Al Queada.

[ASUG8]

I'm no Bush apologist, but Bush/Cheney used basically the same rationale that Clinton gave in '98 for firing 75 tomahawks into Sudan and Afghanistan, then commenced Operation Desert Fox in Iraq a few months later. Clinton didn't order a ground invasion on the scale of Iraqi freedom, but he certainly used very similar intel to exert military force in his presidency.

There's a big difference between targeted strikes and an invasion. There are numerous reports that Cheney, Libby, Feith, etc were applying pressure to get the intel "right." Not to mention making sure there were links to Al Queada.

No arguments here....just saying that if you listen to anything Clinton said he referred to Iraqi WMD's and links to Al-Qaeda as justification for his targeted strikes. Just like we heard with Iraqi freedom.

[ASUG8]

So you are saying the CIA and FBI are full of shyt?

Either the CIA and FBI failed to collect complete intel, collected faulty intel, or had their good intel twisted to fit a political agenda. I suspect it was a bit of both.

[kalm]

There's a big difference between targeted strikes and an invasion. There are numerous reports that Cheney, Libby, Feith, etc were applying pressure to get the intel "right." Not to mention making sure there were links to Al Queada.

No arguments here....just saying that if you listen to anything Clinton said he referred to Iraqi WMD's and links to Al-Qaeda as justification for his targeted strikes. Just like we heard with Iraqi freedom.

Correct, but he didn't link the two together.