Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush* is on the ropes - Will Dems deliver the knockout punch?

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
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 08:03 AM
Original message
Bush* is on the ropes - Will Dems deliver the knockout punch?
- Bush* is seen as vulnerable for the first time since he was selected by the SC to run this country like a CEO. He has been caught red-handed manufacturing evidence to take the United States to war against a country that had already been disarmed by the United Nations.

- But this morning on CNN...the RWing talking heads were already 'suggesting' that Dems are trying to get payback for Clinton's impeachment. Consider this a sign that the Neocons are planning to do as they always do...find a way to blame a Democrat for their misdeeds.

- This may be the Dems last chance before the 2004 election to demonstrate just how dangerous the Bushies are to the peace and stability of this country and the world.

- Bush* is on the ropes and bleeding from all the lies and deceit. Will the Dems allow him to recover and lie again...or make sure he goes down for the count?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
foxglove1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 08:06 AM
Response to Original message
1. Hell, he can be brought down just on his quote the other day
on the 14th, when he said we invaded Iraq because Hussein wouldn't allow the inspectors in!

Sue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Well...for that matter...he 'could have' been brought down...
...for his lies and deceptions about 9-11.

- This goes way beyond lies about sex and blowjobs. Bush's* lies are getting people killed.

- There is real good evidence that we don't need to be in Iraq at all...that evidence was manufactured to push this nation into an unnecessary war.

- This is indeed a HIGH CRIME. Our country literally can't afford to let this go without punishment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. The media will 'discuss' this issue for a few more days....
...and then give little or no coverage to the 'investigation' into Bush's* numerous lies.

- The ONLY reason the media is even talking about this story is to give the impression that they're 'impartial'. But you'll see no in-depth stories or followups to unanswered questions.

- We've been here before...when the American Media covered up the details of Bush's* involvement with Enron and 9-11.

- Investigative journalism is dead...at least in America. This is why the Democratic party MUST make sure this story doesn't die. People are dying and will continue to die until the whole truth is told about the Bushies and their plans to use the US military as mercenary forces for their own political agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 08:19 AM
Response to Original message
3. I heard Daschle on the radio
today, regarding the intel lies:

"I would not be prepared to accept that any president, this president or any president, would deliberately mislead the American people on something as important as this."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030715/pl_afp/us_iraq_weapons_politics_1


I was waiting for him to say something like that. True to form, and depressing as hell...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JewelDigger Donating Member (440 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. So Daschle is saying he "can't 'accept' the truth"
Obviously Daschle can't accept the truth when it REPEATEDLY stares him in the straight in the face. He, and everyone else like him that 'can't accept the truth' should just get the hell out!

"I would not be prepared to accept that any president, this president or any president, would deliberately mislead the American people on something as important as this." - Tom Daschle

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Daschle is a case in point...
...as to why the Democrats are in a weak minority posture.

- No one is compelling Daschle to say these things. He didn't HAVE TO give his opinion in a way that will actually HELP BUSH* escape justice.

- Daschle has become a 'Bush* enabler' and stands in the way of a full and open investigation into 9-11 and Bush's* numerous lies that wrongly pushed our nation into war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JewelDigger Donating Member (440 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Absolutely agree
that's why he really has to go!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stuckinthebush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Wrong
Daschle is not an idiot. He is a professional politician.

Remember that the Republicans kept trying to deliver the knock out punch on Clinton, and they never did it. The public gets very tired of what they see as "partisan politics", and they don't have much patience for attack posturing by members of congress.

Now, what Daschle is doing is setting Bush up for a fall. Remember that even now, most Americans are beginning to wake up to this fiasco of the Bushies. They are not political left wing junkies like us. While we crave a knock out punch, the majority of the public will cringe at that.

Daschle is saying that he would be amazed if the Office of the President was used to start a war based on lies. He is correct here. That would be unacceptable. He also knows that Bush is getting caught, and that he won't be able to escape some serious questioning. If Daschle came out and said that Bush lied and we need to impeach his butt, then the Repubs could claim that the deck was stacked against Bush during any hearings coming up.

Daschle and the Dems must publically give Bush the benefit of the doubt so that when more and more info comes forward they can shake their collective heads in amazment and solemnly state that impeachment may be the best route.

Otherwise, we look like partisan attack dogs willing to go to any lengths to bring down a president. While we would love to see Daschle snarl a bit, the public won't.

Easy does it is the best way to move on this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
poskonig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. Daschle isn't thinking for the party.
He is thinking about getting re-elected where he lives.

South Dakota, Bush country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stuckinthebush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. Well, that is true...
but he is the leader of the party right now, so he also is thinking about getting Dems elected nationwide.

Time after time we hear the electorate say how much they hate attack dog politics. If the Dems can meet the ultimate goal of making this president and his party look like criminals by calmly going through the process, then we win.

Remember, the electorate has a very, very short memory. If we light a short fuse now, then by the elections, it will have faded. Keep the pressure on by stating that it would be unthinkable for a president to lie, and then have lengthly hearings into the mess which will be played out over a longer period of time.

As long as the Dems are seen as the rational, cool, calm ones in this mess, they win.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
poskonig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. One can be rational and cool
without heaping senseless praise on Bush. Stuff that sounds like this -- "Dubya would never mislead us, it must have been the intelligence, blah blah blah." -- doesn't help us get Bush's approval rating down. Perhaps suggesting the *administration* isn't being honest, and leaving the Bush question open would be more conducive towards our political goals, no? This is why people are annoyed with TommyD -- he never misses a chance to heap praise on Bush.

He is corrupt? Is Daschle out to get Democrats? No, he lives in South Dakota.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yowzayowzayowza Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 08:21 AM
Response to Original message
4. W/O Congress...
The Demz don't have a knockout punch to deliver.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Of course the Dems can deliver a knockout punch...
Edited on Wed Jul-16-03 08:29 AM by Q
...but first they must put on their 'gloves' and get in the ring.

- Some Dems are asking the right questions and demanding investigations...just as the GOPers most certainly would if they were in the minority.

- You can bet the farm that if the Neocons caught Clinton or Gore in these types of lies involving NATIONAL SECURITY...they'd have them on the defensive and DEMAND investigations. And if no investigations happened...they would call it a coverup...just as we should be doing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lisafromstlouie Donating Member (70 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
10. Does "knock out punch" mean Bush leaves office?
Goodie! But when will that happen? I'm tired of waiting for all these scandals to actually force him to leave. Or at least put a democrat ahead in the polls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Knockout punch means a full and open investigation...
...which is always the first step in seeking redress.

- It's obvious that Bush* and the Republican party is in 'coverup mode' and they'll beat the rap if their message is louder than those seeking the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
12. no
haven't you figured that out by now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. This is an issue that concerns NATIONAL SECURITY...
...and we should frame it as such.

- For the executive branch...there's no higher crime than lying about the need to use our military against another country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. The Dems voted for Bush
-they knew he was lying and still voted for him.

-They tried to play political games.

-Dems can't exactly separate themselves from these lies, because they really didn't try to stop it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Loonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
17. LOL
Don't make me laugh!


BTW, Tom Daschle says he's "deeply saddened"!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Some Dems are saying Daschle was 'taken out of context'...
...but the media will use it as yet another concession by the Dem 'leadership'. The Bush* media will certainly quote him 'out of context' when they use his words to help defend Bush* in the 2004 campaign.

- Does anyone STILL THINK this government is capable of investigating itself? That's exactly what they're doing with these 'commissions' and kangaroo courts disguised as a search for the truth.

- Indeed...it looks as if some Dems are trying to cover their asses because they VOTED for Bush's* 'preemptive deterrence' policy and illegal invasion of Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
21. A few stalwarts will do their best, but most Dems will protect Bush, or
sit by quietly contributing nothing.

People like Waxman, Conyers, Kucinich etc will do what they can.

People like Biden, Daschle, Dodd, Lieberman etc will actively protect Bush. MOST Democrats will either be in this group, or will sit by passively sucking their thumbs.

In a few days, this entire issue will become PAST HISTORY, unless the Democrats seize it en masse in a unified, organized & determined way. But they clearly are not capable of doing that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
22. You keep betting against the Dems
if you lose, you won't pay up, is my prediction.

Which DUer was it that ate his words, was it Walt Starr?

Why don't you be more like Walt, and less like George "cards on the table" Bush? You predicted that the dems were going to drop the WMD issue two weeks ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. Are you suggesting that DU should be a happy-talk cheerleading club?
Do you want everyone here to sit around saying stuff like "Rah rah Dems, Go Dems Go!" all day long?

The idea, I thought, is that each poster should call it as he or she sees it. What's the point of urging someone to alter their real opinion, just to be more vapid & crowd-pleasing?

"Let's all sit and tell each other pretty lies." What good does that do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. Because I think Walt 'ate his words' a bit prematurely...
- He interpreted the media's 'interest' in the story as a 'sign' that the floodgates were open. But the media never had any intentions of seeing this story to the end.

- In the absence of a free press it's up to the loyal opposition to keep the heat on Bush* until the people are satisfied that the whole truth has been exposed to the light of day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ILeft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
23. Bush on the ropes and Dems are still in " rope-a-dope" mode
Maybe Angelo Dundee is available to help the Dems with their strategy and tell them it's ok to fight back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. Lots of ammunition to use against the Bushies:
20 Lies About the War

Falsehoods ranging from exaggeration to plain untruth were used to make the case for war. More lies are being used in the aftermath. By Glen Rangwala and Raymond Whitaker

13 July 2003

1 Iraq was responsible for the 11 September attacks

A supposed meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, leader of the 11 September hijackers, and an Iraqi intelligence official was the main basis for this claim, but Czech intelligence later conceded that the Iraqi's contact could not have been Atta. This did not stop the constant stream of assertions that Iraq was involved in 9/11, which was so successful that at one stage opinion polls showed that two-thirds of Americans believed the hand of Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks. Almost as many believed Iraqi hijackers were aboard the crashed airliners; in fact there were none.

2 Iraq and al-Qa'ida were working together

Persistent claims by US and British leaders that Saddam and Osama bin Laden were in league with each other were contradicted by a leaked British Defence Intelligence Staff report, which said there were no current links between them. Mr Bin Laden's "aims are in ideological conflict with present-day Iraq", it added.

Another strand to the claims was that al-Qa'ida members were being sheltered in Iraq, and had set up a poisons training camp. When US troops reached the camp, they found no chemical or biological traces.

3 Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa for a "reconstituted" nuclear weapons programme

The head of the CIA has now admitted that documents purporting to show that Iraq tried to import uranium from Niger in west Africa were forged, and that the claim should never have been in President Bush's State of the Union address. Britain sticks by the claim, insisting it has "separate intelligence". The Foreign Office conceded last week that this information is now "under review".

4 Iraq was trying to import aluminium tubes to develop nuclear weapons

The US persistently alleged that Baghdad tried to buy high-strength aluminum tubes whose only use could be in gas centrifuges, needed to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Equally persistently, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the tubes were being used for artillery rockets. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed El Baradei, told the UN Security Council in January that the tubes were not even suitable for centrifuges.

5 Iraq still had vast stocks of chemical and biological weapons from the first Gulf War

Iraq possessed enough dangerous substances to kill the whole world, it was alleged more than once. It had pilotless aircraft which could be smuggled into the US and used to spray chemical and biological toxins. Experts pointed out that apart from mustard gas, Iraq never had the technology to produce materials with a shelf-life of 12 years, the time between the two wars. All such agents would have deteriorated to the point of uselessness years ago.

6 Iraq retained up to 20 missiles which could carry chemical or biological warheads, with a range which would threaten British forces in Cyprus

Apart from the fact that there has been no sign of these missiles since the invasion, Britain downplayed the risk of there being any such weapons in Iraq once the fighting began. It was also revealed that chemical protection equipment was removed from British bases in Cyprus last year, indicating that the Government did not take its own claims seriously.

7 Saddam Hussein had the wherewithal to develop smallpox

This allegation was made by the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in his address to the UN Security Council in February. The following month the UN said there was nothing to support it.

8 US and British claims were supported by the inspectors

According to Jack Straw, chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix "pointed out" that Iraq had 10,000 litres of anthrax. Tony Blair said Iraq's chemical, biological and "indeed the nuclear weapons programme" had been well documented by the UN. Mr Blix's reply? "This is not the same as saying there are weapons of mass destruction," he said last September. "If I had solid evidence that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction or were constructing such weapons, I would take it to the Security Council." In May this year he added: "I am obviously very interested in the question of whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction, and I am beginning to suspect there possibly were not."

9 Previous weapons inspections had failed

Tony Blair told this newspaper in March that the UN had "tried unsuccessfully for 12 years to get Saddam to disarm peacefully". But in 1999 a Security Council panel concluded: "Although important elements still have to be resolved, the bulk of Iraq's proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated." Mr Blair also claimed UN inspectors "found no trace at all of Saddam's offensive biological weapons programme" until his son-in-law defected. In fact the UN got the regime to admit to its biological weapons programme more than a month before the defection.

10 Iraq was obstructing the inspectors

Britain's February "dodgy dossier" claimed inspectors' escorts were "trained to start long arguments" with other Iraqi officials while evidence was being hidden, and inspectors' journeys were monitored and notified ahead to remove surprise. Dr Blix said in February that the UN had conducted more than 400 inspections, all without notice, covering more than 300 sites. "We note that access to sites has so far been without problems," he said. : "In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew that the inspectors were coming."

11 Iraq could deploy its weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes

This now-notorious claim was based on a single source, said to be a serving Iraqi military officer. This individual has not been produced since the war, but in any case Tony Blair contradicted the claim in April. He said Iraq had begun to conceal its weapons in May 2002, which meant that they could not have been used within 45 minutes.

12 The "dodgy dossier"

Mr Blair told the Commons in February, when the dossier was issued: "We issued further intelligence over the weekend about the infrastructure of concealment. It is obviously difficult when we publish intelligence reports." It soon emerged that most of it was cribbed without attribution from three articles on the internet. Last month Alastair Campbell took responsibility for the plagiarism committed by his staff, but stood by the dossier's accuracy, even though it confused two Iraqi intelligence organisations, and said one moved to new headquarters in 1990, two years before it was created.

13 War would be easy

Public fears of war in the US and Britain were assuaged by assurances that oppressed Iraqis would welcome the invading forces; that "demolishing Saddam Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk", in the words of Kenneth Adelman, a senior Pentagon official in two previous Republican administrations. Resistance was patchy, but stiffer than expected, mainly from irregular forces fighting in civilian clothes. "This wasn't the enemy we war-gamed against," one general complained.

14 Umm Qasr

The fall of Iraq's southernmost city and only port was announced several times before Anglo-American forces gained full control - by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, among others, and by Admiral Michael Boyce, chief of Britain's defence staff. "Umm Qasr has been overwhelmed by the US Marines and is now in coalition hands," the Admiral announced, somewhat prematurely.

15 Basra rebellion

Claims that the Shia Muslim population of Basra, Iraq's second city, had risen against their oppressors were repeated for days, long after it became clear to those there that this was little more than wishful thinking. The defeat of a supposed breakout by Iraqi armour was also announced by military spokesman in no position to know the truth.

16 The "rescue" of Private Jessica Lynch

Private Jessica Lynch's "rescue" from a hospital in Nasiriya by American special forces was presented as the major "feel-good" story of the war. She was said to have fired back at Iraqi troops until her ammunition ran out, and was taken to hospital suffering bullet and stab wounds. It has since emerged that all her injuries were sustained in a vehicle crash, which left her incapable of firing any shot. Local medical staff had tried to return her to the Americans after Iraqi forces pulled out of the hospital, but the doctors had to turn back when US troops opened fire on them. The special forces encountered no resistance, but made sure the whole episode was filmed.

17 Troops would face chemical and biological weapons

As US forces approached Baghdad, there was a rash of reports that they would cross a "red line", within which Republican Guard units were authorised to use chemical weapons. But Lieutenant General James Conway, the leading US marine general in Iraq, conceded afterwards that intelligence reports that chemical weapons had been deployed around Baghdad before the war were wrong.

"It was a surprise to me ... that we have not uncovered weapons ... in some of the forward dispersal sites," he said. "We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there. We were simply wrong. Whether or not we're wrong at the national level, I think still very much remains to be seen."

18 Interrogation of scientists would yield the location of WMD

"I have got absolutely no doubt that those weapons are there ... once we have the co-operation of the scientists and the experts, I have got no doubt that we will find them," Tony Blair said in April. Numerous similar assurances were issued by other leading figures, who said interrogations would provide the WMD discoveries that searches had failed to supply. But almost all Iraq's leading scientists are in custody, and claims that lingering fears of Saddam Hussein are stilling their tongues are beginning to wear thin.

19 Iraq's oil money would go to Iraqis

Tony Blair complained in Parliament that "people falsely claim that we want to seize" Iraq's oil revenues, adding that they should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN. Britain should seek a Security Council resolution that would affirm "the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people".

Instead Britain co-sponsored a Security Council resolution that gave the US and UK control over Iraq's oil revenues. There is no UN-administered trust fund.

Far from "all oil revenues" being used for the Iraqi people, the resolution continues to make deductions from Iraq's oil earnings to pay in compensation for the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

20 WMD were found

After repeated false sightings, both Tony Blair and George Bush proclaimed on 30 May that two trailers found in Iraq were mobile biological laboratories. "We have already found two trailers, both of which we believe were used for the production of biological weapons," said Mr Blair. Mr Bush went further: "Those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons - they're wrong. We found them." It is now almost certain that the vehicles were for the production of hydrogen for weather balloons, just as the Iraqis claimed - and that they were exported by Britain.
 

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=424008
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 Wed Apr 24th 2024, 08:03 PM
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