Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Excellent aricle about Bush's dreamworld of a safer Amerca

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
buycitgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 09:01 AM
Original message
Excellent aricle about Bush's dreamworld of a safer Amerca
from Fred Kaplan, on Slate

dunno if it's been here before: two weeks old

he does a good job of putting the lie to the Kaddafi story, WRT getting rid of something he never had: nuclear threat

http://slate.msn.com/id/2103989 /

see? this isn't news, but * keeps LYING about this, and, as usual, the dems don't say bopeep about this, not to mention the hoes

So, Qaddafi was negotiating about giving up his nuclear ambitions before the war in Iraq, yet he furtively persisted in these ambitions after Saddam's regime had tumbled. Maybe his nuclear gambitsthe arming and the disarminghad little to do with the war, after all.

How close was Qaddafi to getting a bombthat is, how much disarmament did his sacrifice involve? Mohammad ElBaradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, after examining the cache and the facilities, said Libya's nuclear program was "at a very initial stage." Not just an initial stage, a very initial stage.

David Albright, a specialist at the Institute for Science and International Security, breaks it down. Libya had ordered 10,000 centrifuges but almost none of the associated components needed to connect them into a spinning cascade for enriching uranium hexafluoridethat is, almost none of the stuff you'd need to turn uranium into bomb-grade material, much less into a bomb.

It looks like Qaddafi knew his nuclear program was going nowherehe'd tried it once before, in the 1980s, to no avail. Then he got caught. Meanwhile, his economy was tanking. And maybe he sensed it would be a good idea, for now, to chummy up to the West. So, he made a big deal of giving up something he didn't really have,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
buycitgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
1. here's another good one by Kaplan, going over that
Kerry voted to gut intel territory

useful to debunk when THIS lie recirulates

Yesterday, President Bush told a crowd of supporters in Houston that, back in 1995, two years after the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, Sen. John Kerry introduced legislation to cut the intelligence budget by $1.5 billion. "Once again, Sen. Kerry is trying to have it both ways," the president said. "He's for good intelligence; yet he was willing to gut the intelligence services. And that is no way to lead a nation in a time of war." Bush further charged that Kerry's bill was "so deeply irresponsible that he didn't have a single-co-sponsor in the United States Senate."

Bush and his operatives are making a practice of mischaracterizing the voting record of the presumptive Democratic nominee. Two weeks ago, the Republican National Committee put out a "Research Brief" that flagrantly distorted Kerry's votes on weapons systems. (Click here* for the real facts.) Bush's remarks yesterday are more dishonest still.


* http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127 /

actual story
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096874 /

don't tear down the door here, mK?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buycitgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
2. OK...here/s why we should be worrying
Kerry's campaigners are INEPT as hell, much of the time

Kaplan does their own work for them, quite effectively

if you read the article, you see the story is, of course, pretty complicated, with many versions of many bills, aimed at going after corruption, reducing spending, etc

here's Kaplan's response, that could/SHOULD have been made by the amateurs in Kerry's war room

Kerry's campaign office has thus far been a bit off-the-mark in responding to Bush's outlandish charges. A Kerry spokesman, Chad Clanton, is quoted in today's Times as saying that the senator had "voted against a proposed billion-dollar bloat in the intelligence budget because it was essentially a slush fund for defense contractors." Not quite. The NRO had a slush fund, but not for "defense contractors." It's difficult to correct the distortions of a 10-second sound bite. Usually, it takes a minute or so to set the record straight, and that's too long for the networks. But this one should have been easy. How about something like: "Sen. Kerry was merely trying to return unspent money to the taxpayers. Shame on President Bush for twisting a simple bookkeeping adjustment to make it look like an act of treachery."

this is FRICKIN imPORTant stuff, folks

Kerry is NOT doing much better than Gore in responding to the cascade of LIES being put out there

he won't even deal with easy stuff like the 87 billion story, which he SHOULD HAVE swatted out of the park, while TURNING it back on Bush

I just don't understand
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buycitgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. hey is for horses
wake up, white people
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. slush fund sounds WAY better
Sorry, cynical Americans would scoff at the idea a politician wanted to "return taxpayers money". A slush fund, they'd believe that. The money was spent on a huge building project. It was a slush fund, that's the truth. And you know, part of Kerry's strategy is to make the Bush team look like the petty little liars they are. Maybe the campaign wants the Bushies to keep spinning this stuff to make them look like the pathetic failures they are. And this $87 billion pissed people off last year. The people know what happened with that vote. For the ones who don't, he'll straighten it out in the debates, when it counts the most. Getting in a spitting match over it now takes Kerry's attention off the important matters, getting his plans and leadership abilities out there. With crowds of 20,000; how can anybody seriously think this $87 billion is having any affect at all?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buycitgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. actually, that bit about returning taxpayers' money
Edited on Tue Aug-03-04 10:01 AM by buycitgo
is a FUNDAMENT of pug campaigning:

it's YOUR money

we're just returning it to you

that's why he said it, IMO, cause it's a well-established meme

the two of them together would work quite well, but, as usual, the War room was at peace on this one, just as they appear to be on the latest terrascam
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Oh yeah
That would be good. While they're campaigning on the fact that Bush's "returning taxpayer's money" is all a fantasy. Just because somebody has a different idea, doesn't make it automatically a good one. And just because some people are naturally inclined to complain, doesn't mean they know what they're talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buycitgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. AFA the87 billion, I started a thread about that, which turned nasty
Kerry really blew it when confronted by Stephie Sunday, choosing to REFUSE to even deign to answer the charge, when he could have NAILED dumbo on his own craven flipflop, WRT vetoing his OWN BILL!!!

it would have been SO easy

my point is that they're doing a BRUTALLY efficient job of defining Kerry, and if he doesn't start responding the way Clinton did in 92, the debates won't matter: all this crap will have been imprinted into the anterior recess of news consumer's cranials, and they'll think Kerry is just whining
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Good
Think on this. Bush is supposed to be this great war President. And all they're doing is throwing around silly stuff like a vote? Let them keep doing it. They look more and more childish and incompetent. They keep making these wild accusations because they've got nothing to run on. Again. They keep making these wild accusations because they've got nothing to run on. They're incompetent. They're petty. They're liars. That is all they are. Expose them.

That's the campaign. Not getting into a spitting match over every silly little thing. When the time comes to talk about this $87 billion, lack of responsibility in taxes, Franks' book about war on the cheap, the campaign WILL hit it head on and bury it.

I've watched them for a year. I just do not worry about all this silly stuff anymore. I can't wait for the "lost years" campaign. They're going to put Kerry and Iran/Contra, BCCI, Agent Orange and POW/MIA investigations up against Bush bankrupting oil companies? It's going to be too funny.

Calm down.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. I don't understand your hostility to the question of countering lies.
But I can offer this anecdote. I have a neighbor who is 83 years old. She's sort of a democrat, but more from habit (Democratic demographic) than conviction and careful consideration of the issues. She listens to a morning radio talk show that spews RW talking points (there aren't a lot of alternatives for her to listen to), and I am constantly having to try to straighten her out on the facts. Basically, she is appalled by corruption, cronyism, the power of special interests, etc. So in the end, I'm pretty hopeful that she'll vote for Kerry, but she is precisely the sort of voter these GOP lies are out trolling for. The lies confuse her. She gets all her news/info from tv and radio (and me).

So, no, I don't think the lies are inconsequential. Of course, they don't affect the people who turn out for Kerry rallies--and that's great. But they DO affect a great many others, if only to make them doubtful.

And I don't see why the Kerry campaign can't do two things at once. By all means focus on the message, but a sideline in setting the record straight sounds do-able (and imperative) to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Won't help your friend
That right wing radio show isn't going to report anything he says anyway. And she certainly does have a choice, turn the crap off. She doesn't. She wants to listen to it. If she doesn't understand what's happening in this country, she doesn't want to. That vote has been explained, numerous times. If people don't want to hear, they won't. If they don't want to believe Bush is a liar, they won't.

They would like us to get diverted by all this petty stuff. First it's this vote, then when that's resolved, they throw out another diversion. Next thing you know, everybody is crawling around in the mud and America is turned off by the whole thing. Kerry's going to focus on the real issues that face this country and keep talking about his plans.

It's the right way to handle it.

BTW, have you given your friend Ron Reagan's Esquire article? If that won't convince your friend, nothing will. Good test of where people really stand.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Actually, I have given her the Ron Reagan article, among many others.
She's not a pro-Bush type, really. And the Reagan name isn't particularly potent for her (but she passed it on to some others for whom it may have a special appeal). But she read it and was convinced. The trouble is that she is easily swayed by the last thing she's heard. She doesn't seem to be able to sort out whom to trust. She thinks all politicians lie. She despises Rowland(CT ex-governor) and Lieberman equally. But she thinks Brad Davis (the RW radio host) is a good person. She definitely doesn't have a well-developed bullshit sensor. I don't know--she's only one person (though her friends are sort of similar). And possibly she's not representative of large numbers of people. And I agree that getting into a habit of defending against each and every lie could be bad policy.

Still, I don't really see why it has to be either/or. And, frankly, people are uneasy with any response that looks like evasion. (*I* am uneasy with it.) Better to do what Kerry did on the Iraq questions Stephie asked on Sunday--he explained, very convincingly, WHY he wouldn't lay out his plans in detail. Kerry doesn't have to sound defensive or apologetic, or go into too much detail. But I think buycitgo and Fred Kaplan are right that they need to respond with simple zingers, not silence. But maybe you are right that the tide for Kerry is so huge that people like my neighbor won't matter (and can't be trusted to stay convinced of anything anyway).

My uneasiness with leaving the RW propaganda just sit out there for long is also related to a fear of just how powerful propaganda can be. But I also think that there is a growing disgust for *Bush in the nation, so maybe you're right that in the face of that the lies just look pathetic, the propaganda won't work. I'd be more optimistic about that, though, if the media were not so slimy.

But pax--I appreciated your laying out some of Kerry's arsenal. Wow--if he can effectively deploy stuff about BCCI and Iran-Contra, that would be dynamite!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-04 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. I feel somewhat vindicated
after hearing Clinton defend Kerry's Senate record on Letterman last night. I don't think Kerry himself has to do this, but I'm glad others are jumping in to fight the lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buycitgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
4. great articles, BCG! that Kaplan guy is on top of things
thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buycitgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 09:48 AM
Original message
computer fun happening
Edited on Tue Aug-03-04 09:49 AM by buycitgo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buycitgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. you're quite welcome
Kaplan is very astute, and doesn't fall for all the BuSh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. lol.....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
13. It's about someone treats this issue as more than just a puff piece
:puffpiece: :puffpiece: :puffpiece: :puffpiece: :puffpiece: :puffpiece: :puffpiece: :puffpiece: :puffpiece:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
15. .
:freak:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 25th 2014, 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC