Will Clarke's testimony damage Bush's re-election hopes?

[Mitchell]

This thread is a bit different from the other thread about the Clinton aides. My question here is, does everyone think that Dick Clarke's testimony and book are going to damage Bush's re election hopes? I havent read the book, but based on what I've heard from Clarke's testimony, and political analyists, I think it may be very damaging. What Clark has to say, combined with the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found, and the fact that we have lost over 2 million jobs during Bush's term, which is the worst record on jobs since Herbert Hoover, Bush by all rights should be defeated. The big question is whether Clarke's testimony and book are taken seriously enough to influence the voters, how well John Kerry gets his message across, perhaps who Kerry's running mate is, and whether Bush can successfully manipulate, and play mind games, with enough American voters, to sway them to his perspective, and gain votes. On his record, between the jobs, the war, the fact that he's created huge budget deficit out of a surplus, and essentially lied by stating infatically that there were weapons of mass destruction, and then backtracking to try and save his political ass, this election should not even be close. However, things are not always what they seem, and my prediction is it will be a very close election, just like in 2000. Hopefully, John Kerry will get his message across, and the voters will finally see this guy Bush for what he is, and put him out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue where he belongs.

Mitch

[dreamboy]

:D

[kis123]

I really hate to be the one to rain on your parade.........

but, Bush doesn't need the American people to win the election. He only needs his brother to hijack the state of Florida, and he's back in the saddle again for another four years.

Only problem is, will the American people be able to handle four more years of Bushonomics? We'll leave 9/11 out of it, and we'll forget that he pissed off the homosexual community. There are way too many issues of life to be addressed than to drag an entire community of individuals into his political mess. And Mr. Bush has yet to address them. By the time he is done, there won't be anyone left in the U. S. but him!:sowrong:

[MrMacphisto]

While kis123 is right that if you have a brother in charge of a state with a lot of electoral votes, you can "hijack" its votes, there is another issue involved: media spin. Due to the stupidity and apathy of so many Americans, all it takes is a well-placed TV campaign to win the empty hearts and feeble minds of the people. The president can get away with just about anything as long as his campaign buddies effectively put a spin on the truth and only focus on his strengths (or at least, perceived strengths). Instead of focusing on issues and policy repercussions, you can always make the election a "moral" issue. As long as you continually associate yourself with Christianity, you'll get at least part of the electorate's votes. If you can make yourself look like a "god-fearing" man, the fact that your family is in deep with Saudi Arabian aristocrats won't bother the people.

Logically, Bush wouldn't stand a chance in hell to get re-elected. He's fucked up far too many things for any intelligent electorate to ignore. But see... logic assumes that people would research the issues and policies of the candidates, but this happens among only a small portion of the public, and an even smaller part of this group votes. The most regular voters tend to be the most extremist or the retired. Why else would Bush appeal to the Christian Coalition? Because they vote as often as they can. Granted, Bush probably will only get the most conservative and senile retired votes, considering his stance on Social Security.

The root of why the majority's views are rarely represented by our elections is that they don't vote regularly enough. Those of us with social lives, children, and/or busy work schedules don't seem to have the time to research the issues or even vote sometimes. Plenty of people hate Bush or at least dislike what he's done during his term. I, ironically, am friends with a lot of conservatives, and even among them, about half of them have said they aren't going to vote for Bush this time. The only hopes we have in bringing this society back to a reputable place in the world are if our people pay more attention to what the government is doing and if they vote more. Since neither is likely to happen, and since Bush has over $200 million to work with, I have a feeling that he's going to win. He's essentially bought the election, just like he did last time....

[Mitchell]

I agree with what you said. I will point this out though, I think what we have to hope for is that the Democratic money raisers like Clinton can help John Kerry raise enough to at least have a chance financially. Also, much of Hollywood is Democrat, and hates Bush vehemently. Guys like Alec Baldwin, Ben Affleck, and others will do their best to help Kerry get in. Hollywood has a lot of money, and they will contribute. Whether it will be enough remains to be seen. You are right about what you said. With as much as Bush has fucked things up, this election shouldnt even be close. The problem is that Bush is a master of playing mind games, and a lot of times, such as here in Lancaster county PA where I live, people vote tradition instead of their conscience or logic. I know one guy who is a total enigma, he complains about Bush and how he's not doing a good job, yet Iam sure he'll still vote for him, because thats county tradition, and what his friends do. People like that who have no individuality anger me to no end. If one is conservative because they are pro life, or pro big business, or lower taxes, then fine, but this guy I'm referring to is pro choice, and a middle class man working a normal job, and admits Bush fucks things up, so why in hell would this man I know vote for Bush? I think when people vote, they need to vote with clarity of thought. Iam a Democrat, but I say, are we better off then we were four years ago. My mom is a Democrat, yet voted for Reagan once because Carter was not a good president. I found out last night that during Bill Clinton's term, we created a million jobs a year. Now, we have lost an average of 750,000 a year during Bush's term at the high point when 3 million jobs had been lost. Even with the recent "recovery" we are still down 2.2 million jobs since 2001, thats an average of still 750,000 a year. How can one say with those numbers that this guy deserves to be reelected, unless you like him for other reasons. Hopefully, the voters will go to the polls with clarity of thought, because I shudder to think of what this country will look like in 2009 if we have four more years of this guy.

Mitch

[ShadowTklr]

I think Clarke is confirming what many Americans have suspected all along. The fact that Condoleezza Rice won't rebut Clarke under oath is also suspicious. I wonder why she wants a private hearing with the committee, rather than an open forum to rebut Clarke?

[dreamboy]

Originally posted by ShadowTklr
I think Clarke is confirming what many Americans have suspected all along. The fact that Condoleezza Rice won't rebut Clarke under oath is also suspicious. I wonder why she wants a private hearing with the committee, rather than an open forum to rebut Clarke?
And, as is being reported, it's not so much she won't, but her boss is REFUSING to let her testify publicly.
:confused: :confused:

[ShadowTklr]

Originally posted by dreamboy
And, as is being reported, it's not so much she won't, but her boss is REFUSING to let her testify publicly.
:confused: :confused:

Precisely. I wonder what, if anything, they are trying to hide.

[maniactickler]

GO BUSH!!!!!!!!!

[BOFH666]

You know, I wasn't going to comment on this, I've bored enough of you over on the other thread ;) but it seems every time I turn around the Bush Administration has another allegation flying around...

First of all, to answer the original question, is this going to damage the Republican bid to get re-elected? Tough one to answer, and most of the important points have been covered already by Kis, Macphisto and Mitchell, so I'll keep this bit brief. Basically, if this had happened closer to the election there would have been far more trouble over it, and the electorate would probably have remembered it far more clearly than they will with it breaking when it did. BUT, that may change depending on what the Bush Administration does next. If they start bringing some facts to the table to support their position, then it'll blow over pretty quickly. Or for that matter if they simply sit back and wait for the official commission report they should be able to weather the storm. However, if they do their usual trick of going for character assassination. I'm really not sure they've got enough to make it stick this time round.

What is interesting is just how strongly the incumbent administration is pinning their campaign to the “War On Terror”. My own personal views on this notwithstanding (how the hell do you win a War On Terror, or a war on any concept for that matter? See, Drugs, War On.) if that is the absolute best that they can point to it should at the very least be setting off alarm bells in the minds of the swing voters that are going to be the key battleground for this election. If you assume that the number of die-hard supporters of both main parties are roughly even it comes down to those in the middle to decide which way the vote goes and, by and large, this group DOES spend some considerable time looking at the various issues, and an unbiased look at the War On Terror is not pretty reading:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article-2-1477.jsp


In the past two years, many members of al-Qaida and its associated movements have been killed or detained, the Taliban and Iraqi regimes have been terminated and some paramilitary attacks have been prevented.
Against this, there have been far more attacks on western interests across the world than in the equivalent period before 9/11, killing or injuring over 1,000 people. In fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US forces have killed at least 9,000 civilians and injured tens of thousands more. Afghanistan is deeply unstable with Taliban forces still present, and the security situation in Iraq is frankly dire. There are near-weekly warnings of terror attacks, which heighten the sense of alert symbolised by the London Underground simulation of a gas attack and the warnings of anti-aircraft missile attacks on British Airways planes in the last few days alone.
In this global context, it is very hard to accept any argument suggesting that a successful military campaign is being prosecuted and there is every reason to question what is being done. For the moment, there is a singular unwillingness in Washington to face up to the reality of the American predicament. But given the state of affairs in Iraq and Afghanistan and the beginnings of serious political questioning in the United States, such a dose of reality might be forced on the Bush administration much sooner than might be expected


So in the very best case scenario the War on Terror has now killed three times as many people as died on 9/11. Terrorism is on the rise, Osama is still (officially at least) unaccounted for, and the cost of the war is sending America ever deeper into debt. And yet this is the main focus of the Republican party's re-election campaign, it seems almost suicidal. Or perhaps it's very, very clever indeed. After all there hasn't been another incident, and there have been all those (unspecific) terror alerts so, to some anyway (and possibly the majority) it must seem as if the War is being won. The fact is though that the last terrorist act on American soil before 9/11 was the Oklahoma city bombings, and that was carried out by “domestic right wing terrorists” (Bill Clinton, 1995). So really, what's changed?

What is interesting though is that already the spin machine is being well and truly revved up, and character assassinations are well under way, mostly directed against John Kerry. Just to give a couple of examples, George Bush, addressing a Rally in Orlando, Florida said:

http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=2346


It is the President's job to confront problems, not to pass them on to future Presidents or future generations.



THE PRESIDENT: We're beginning to see a pattern here. (Laughter.) Senator Kerry is one of the main opponents of tax relief in the United States Congress. However, when tax increases are proposed, it's a lot easier to get a "yes" vote out of him. (Laughter.) Over the years, he's voted over 350 times for higher taxes on the American people --

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: -- including the biggest tax increase in American history. He also supported a $.50 gallon tax on gasoline.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: He wanted you to pay all that money at the pump and wouldn't even throw in a free car wash. (Laughter.) Now, Senator Kerry is proposing a lot of new federal spending in this campaign. He's going to have pay for it somehow. There's a gap between Senator Kerry's spending promises and Senator Kerry's promise of a lower deficit. It's what I call a tax gap. Given Senator Kerry's record of supporting tax increases, it's pretty clear how he's going to fill the tax gap. He's going to tax all of you.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: Fortunately, you're not going to give him that chance. (Applause.)




Interesting viewpoint. “It is the President's job to confront problems” and “there's a gap between... spending promises and... promises of a lower deficit.” And in this case President Bush is absolutely correct... so how exactly does a budget deficit of $521 Billion for the 2004 financial year (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/defi-f04.shtml) fit into this philosophy? Especially considering that two years ago that was predicted to be $14 Billion?

However, the bigger issue here is “ he's voted over 350 times for higher taxes on the American people”. Can that possibly be true? Well, yes, but only by a very odd definition. It's being phrased to imply that those votes were for tax rises, when in truth this count includes:

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Bush-Cheney%20List%20of%20Kerry%20Tax%20Votes.pdf


* Votes for tax increases
* Votes against tax cuts
* Votes to reduce the size of a tax cut
* Votes against repealing tax hikes
* Votes against making tax cuts permanent
* Votes for watered-down, Democrat “tax cut” substitutes


The above link includes the full voting record for every instance listed by the Bush Administration. And frankly, when your country is predicted to end up with $5 Trillion of deficit over the next decade without policy changes, maybe the time's come to up taxes a little to cover this.

On the 17th March Vice President Dick Cheney had a few comments of his own regarding Mr Kerry:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3521714.stm


The vice-president also poked fun at Senator Kerry's recent claim to have the endorsement of foreign leaders.
The election, he said, would be decided by American voters, not unnamed foreign leaders.



"Had the decision belonged to Senator Kerry, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today in Iraq - in fact, Saddam Hussein would almost certainly still be in control of Kuwait," Mr Cheney said.


The first quote I think speaks for itself, and on a personal note I find the notion of the Vice President of the worlds largest military power saying anything like that to be a very worrying sign. However, the second quote raises some very interesting questions indeed, mainly that the only reason Iraq was in a position to invade Kuwait in the first place was thanks to American support in the Iran/Iraq war (and I'm ashamed to say Britain was no better) and considering that the American government basically said “we won't get involved” if Iraq attacked, it sounds just a little hypocritical.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html



Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait)

July 25, 1990 - Presidential Palace - Baghdad
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?
Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptab le?
Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)
On August 2, 1990, Saddam's massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait. _____
Baghdad, September 2, 1990, U.S. Embassy
One month later, British journalists obtain the the above tape and transcript of the Saddam - Glaspie meeting of July 29, 1990. Astounded, they confront Ms. Glaspie as she leaves the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
Journalist 1 - Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)
Journalist 2 - You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait ) but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait.
Journalist 1 - You encouraged this aggression - his invasi on. What were you thinking?
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.

Journalist 1 - You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed , he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be. You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country!
Journalist 1 - American green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signaling Saddam that some aggression was okay - that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumeilah oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) - the territories claimed by Iraq?
(Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closed behind her and the car drives off.)


Considering Cheney was the Secretary Of Defense at the time, it is surely reasonable to conclude that this policy had to have involved him at some stage and therefore he shares the blame for not only that conflict but all the deaths that have resulted from it?


So, to sum up and attempt to answer the original question, I fear America will once again vote for the short term, those that have found themselves better off will vote for Bush, those that are worried, or that find themselves worse off will vote for Kerry, and as usual it will degenerate into a slightly up-market episode of Jerry Springer.

Originally posted by maniactickler
GO BUSH!!!!!!!!!

Maniac – this isn't a knock, I'm just curious, why are you voting for Bush? What policies in particular attract you to his platform?

[Shem the Penman]

Originally posted by maniactickler
GO BUSH!!!!!!!!!

I agree entirely. He should go.

[dreamboy]

Originally posted by maniactickler
GO BUSH!!!!!!!!!
Yes, there are many who want him to go. WHERE is the question.

[Mitchell]

I just want to add one thing, and thanks all for the replies. I think we have an interesting feedback going on this topic. I had a history professor in college who always told us that if we didnt know why we felt the way we do about a particular issue, or why we took a stand or wrote an opinion paper on a subject, we knew nothing. I commend Myriads on putting forth an important rule in the forums, if you are going to take a position on a subject, back your argument up. This being said, I do agree with one of the posts which said that Clarke may have been more damaging to Bush had this testimony happened in say the summer or fall. However, that being said, I think of equal importance is for John Kerry to use this situation to his advantage now. Kerry needs to do whatever he can to discredit Bush's presidency, of course, and this is a big issue. I guess we really wont know ultimately how damaging Clarke's testifying was until some polls are taken about it, and we see how the public and voter opinion reacts. The election may be 7 plus months away, but this should have an impact, I think, it remains to be seen just how much of an impact.

Mitch

[kis123]

Originally posted by maniactickler
GO BUSH!!!!!!!!!

MT;

Would you care to elaborate please? The vast majority of thread posters vehemently disagree with you, but you have the right to an opinion, and I am personally interested in hearing it.

Considering the presented facts to the contrary, this should be interesting!:cool:

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by Shem the Penman
I agree entirely. He should go.


ROFLMAO... damn that was funny....

[Roseblossom]

Originally posted by Shem the Penman
I agree entirely. He should go.
Yes, wish he was gone already.

When we get rid of him and his cronies it'll feel like finally getting a splinter out.

~Rose~

[Knox The Hatter]

Good thread...

Clarke spent the first nine months of 2001 trying to convince Bush and Condi and Dumsfeld and Asscroft and Armitage and the other creeps in this administration that we were more vulnerable than ever before to an attack from Bin Laden, but it was like talking to a brick wall. You see, somehow, dilligence in warding off terrorism would affect the profit margin of various and sundry bulwarks of this administration, in fact, it would interfere with the tax cut that Rupert Murdoch so desperately needed to reinvest in his empire.

Now, he writes a book telling everyone about it, and it took a week and a half to get a response from this administration. Rather than try to prove him wrong (an impossibility, apparently), they've decided to point out inconsistencies.

Given that everything regarding this administration has been one treasure trove of inconsistencies, if not outright lies, I think of it as rather funny.

Yeah, Maniac, Go Bush. Just Go. Go back to Crawford and make plans to renovate the landscape. Go back to the Nineteenth Hole and have another Scotch and Soda, nothing's stopping you now. Go to...

Well, you know where.

[maniactickler]

ive already stated my opinions before on Bush. bottom line, i would never vote for a liberal. ive said it before, even a bad republican is still better than any liberal. i think liberalism is just a subtle form of domestic terrorism. :P

[drew70]

Originally posted by kis123
Bush doesn't need the American people to win the election. He only needs his brother to hijack the state of Florida, and he's back in the saddle again for another four years.Interesting opinion if a tad paranoid. Tell me, how does one go about "hijacking" electoral votes? Do you have conclusive evidence of this occuring in the past?

[Mitchell]

Thank you, my good friend Mr Knox. Knowing how you feel about Dubya, I had a feeling this would evoke a positive response from you. As I said, hopefully Clarke's testimony will serve to reflect negatively on Bush, and will help the Democrats, Kerry has to play his cards right, for this whole issue to go in his favor.

Mitch

[kis123]

Originally posted by drew70
Interesting opinion if a tad paranoid. Tell me, how does one go about "hijacking" electoral votes? Do you have conclusive evidence of this occuring in the past?

After an extensive campaign of voters registration in FL pre-election, many of those voters found their registration info was missing or unavailable on election day. Let's not talk about the acutal ballots. Those ballots were used all over the country. Please explain why the myriad of problems and inconsistencies only occurred in FL? Who's brother is the govenor of Florida? My fourteen year old figured this out when she was 10 (2000).

These stories don't occur on mass media. There are many independent stations that report the news no one wants you to know. One of them are on my local cable station. They don't get a lot of attention, and maybe that's why they can get the news out before they're censored and run off the air. They're real reporters, not media a**wipes that kiss the government's butt!

[maniactickler]

The only people to blame in Florida are the brain dead voters who cant fill out a simple ballot.

[MrMacphisto]

I totally agree that there are plenty of idiots in Florida, Maniac. The best proof of this is how they re-elected Jeb. The electoral fiasco of 2000 was due partially to the stupidity of many Floridians and due to the pathetic infrastructure of that state's ballot systems. Granted, the same problem would have been more heavily televised about many other states if the election were as close in them. NC, for example, had to throw out several thousand votes, but since Bush easily won this state, no one cared. The truth of the matter is that many states have archaic ballot systems, and these infrastructures will probably never get upgraded without as much media exposure as the system in Florida got. It's no wonder so many people don't vote; who knows when your vote might get thrown out? So much for democracy... or even a republic... The U.S. is a plutocracy.

[dreamboy]

Originally posted by maniactickler
The only people to blame in Florida are the brain dead voters who cant fill out a simple ballot.
And Kathrine Harris, among others, who arbitrarily set new, unrealistic standards as to which ballots would be counted. Ultimately, anyone having the name of a convicted felon in the state, whether it was that felon or not, had their ballot disqualified. Officials did not take the effort to determine which individuals with that name actually WAS the felon, so all were out. This especially affected the largest counties, which would likely have swung the final count the other way. And the Republican officials, at the time, knew this.

[maniactickler]

No need to tell me about idiot people. i know first hand here in Mass. this state is filled with morons. it boggles my mind how trash like Kerry and Kennedy get re-elected with ease time after time. i think thats proof that way too many people in this country dont have the slightest clue about politics. their like mindless puppets in a cult. ;)

[BOFH666]

Hey maniactickler (and anyone else that's interested), I was wondering if you'd mind giving your opinion on a few yes/no questions? It won't take a minute:

1) Should abortion be legal?
2) Do you believe that discrimination based on "race, color, religion, or national origin" is right?
3) Is it important for colleges to have racially diverse student bodies?
4) Do environmental problems pose a threat to the standard of living in the USA?
5) Should Federal safety regulations be enacted on the manufacture of handguns?
6) Should health insurance be provided equally to everyone in the country?
7) Should gays and lesbians have equal opportunities in the workplace?
8) Do you support labor unions?
9) Does the government give enough consideration to working Americans?
10) Should non-violent drug users be sent to jail?

Thanks for your time.
Steve.

[maniactickler]

1. yes
2. no
3. no
4. nothing too serious
5. no
6. i think if you can afford better help care than someone, then more power to you
7. yes
8. no
9. a fair amount
10.no

hope i passed!

[BOFH666]

Thanks Maniac, you'd be surprised how few would take the time. And it's not a "Pass or Fail" test mate, but there is something worth thinking about...

Legal abortion, non-discrimination, equal rights for gays and lesbians in the work place and not sending non-violent drug users to jail are considered, by some, to be liberal policies... Not that it makes you a 'liberal' to hold those views, but you might want to think twice before using such a wide brush...

For the record, I'm the same, views from both left and right (though leaning more to the left) which makes life interesting come election time in the UK...

[maniactickler]

Hey, im definately not a full blooded republican. i dont fall in like the rank and file. i have different opinions on issues. i could care less if they are liberal or conservative. i believe what i believe. it just so happens most of my beliefs are conservative. i dont even know if you can get Rush Limbaugh over there. if you can, give him a listen though. you might be pleasantly surprised, or at least entertained. ;O