GOP attacking Democratic critics on issue of Iraq

[Khephra]

Top Republican officials launched a fierce counterattack yesterday against Democratic critics of the prewar intelligence about Iraq, harshly ridiculing their political opponents for challenging President Bush on foreign policy and foreshadowing an approach the party plans to take in the 2004 presidential campaign.

Ed Gillespie, the new chairman of the Republican National Committee, described Democrats as angry about being out of power and lambasted several of the opposing presidential candidates by name. He and other prominent speakers, including former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, raised the specter of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as the best argument for toppling Saddam Hussein - a powerful statement less than a mile from the site where the World Trade Center fell.

''If you get the impression the other party has come to the conclusion that what's worst for the American people is what's best for them, it's only because it's an explicit strategy,'' Gillespie said. ''They offer Americans a steady diet of protest and pessimism. They're still protesting the 2000 election. Some of their loudest voices protested the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.''

In particular, Gillespie accused Senators John Edwards of North Carolina, Bob Graham of Florida, John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, and Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut of switching their views on Iraq after the regime toppled in order to appeal to their party's liberal base. ''Their new rhetoric may be good positioning in a Democratic primary, but it will not make us safer as a nation,'' he said.

more.........................

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/207/nation/GOP_attacking_Democratic_critics_on_issue_of_Iraq+.shtml

[Ress1]

1. Yep,

merely shout us down, this is the same strategy they use so often and so successfully against us. Always works.

[Christian73]

3. I think the answer

is to simply shout back as loudly as they do.

James Carville said this same thing in a speech the other day. In a nutshell, he said that we can't allow ourselves to be beaten down by the GOP rhetoric. That we must remain consistent in our criticism of our country being led into an unnecessary war for oil through lies and spin.

[bemildred]

2. Bring it on!

.

[Demobrat]

4. They're going to have to do better than this.

New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, raised the specter of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as the best argument for toppling Saddam Hussein.

There is no connection, there never was any connection, and while people may still think there was, it's really just another lie for us to hammer on. It may have worked for a while, at least long enough for them to get their war, but they'd better change their tactics quick because people are catching on.

[diplomats]

8. Agreed

that argument is pretty weak. I'm surprised that's the best they can come up with.

[jono]

5. Please

"''When he came here on Sept. 14, it wasn't a photo op. It was honest concern and leadership,'' Pataki said."

So if it was honest concern and leadership, why wasn't he there on Sept. 12?! :eyes:

[JPace]

7. "why wasn't he there on Sept. 12?"

Good question!

Truth is on Sept 11 he was busy running and hiding,
the next day was pretty much the same. True leadership
qualities were totally absent when the country was
in such great need from its's pResident.

[NNN0LHI]

6. Heard retired General Clark say he did't think the invasion was necessary

Its good to have a General, retired or not on our side of this issue. And scaring the Repugs to all hell that he might run for president. I dout he would, but its nice to keep them off balance with worrying that he might. They don't even know what party he would be running under. Which is good. He might hurt them more by running as a Republican or Independent? Never know?

Don

[Elidor]

9. This is good news, because Bush has no foreign policy to speak of

If this is their strategy, we can hammer them with the very obvious failures associated with it.

"It will not make us safer as a nation," Gillespie said. Irony steeped in hypocrisy.

[lkinsale]

10. Strange, Graham voted NOT to go to Iraq

on the BASIS that it would make the nation UNSAFER, so how has he "switched his view" since the regime fell?

Maybe this will give them all a chance to counter. More publicity. Good.

[peterh]

11. You're supposed to find the WMDs before the war, silly rabbit!

In a Ted Rall piece titled, “The beginning of the end?”, I felt, above all else, this defined the illegality of this war.


<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=127&ncid=742&e=13&u=/030717/7/4pc8y.html>

--"When it's all said and done," Bush still confidently insists, "the people of the United States and the world will realize that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had a weapons program." This once again begs the question of presidential dyslexia: You're supposed to find the WMDs before the war, silly rabbit!