What Did You Do In The War On Terror, Daddy

[red states rule]

Why the kneejerk reaction? I'm more than sure Congress will be all over this looking for flaws. If and when they find any, THEN it's time to call foul. Otherwise, it is what it is.

The liberal media already on the attack

CNN Reporters Skeptical of al Qaeda Intel in Bush Speech
Posted by Matthew Balan on May 23, 2007 - 17:28.
Today, President Bush gave an address at the Coast Guard Academy's commencement, in which he revealed specific details about Osama bin Laden's personal involvement in the creation of a terror cell in Iraq that sought to commit terrorist attacks in the U.S.

Yet several hours before the speech, "American Morning" host John Roberts and CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux questioned the timing of the President's speech.

In his first question to Malveaux, Roberts asked, "what's the reason that he's declassifying part of this and trotting it out in his speech? The information is two years old." Malveaux attributed the release to President Bush "using any kind of power that he has to make his case to justify the Iraq war."

Bin Laden and other top al Qaeda officials have expressed their desire to commit terrorist attacks inside the United States on numerous occasions. Malveaux herself admitted that "we have heard this general story before" about the coordination between bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq group, "but the specifics we have not heard." Even with all of this, both Roberts and Malveaux expressed more than a healthy amount of skepticism about the recently declassified material and the Bush administration's motives for releasing it.

This skepticism hit its peak towards the end of the segment:

ROBERTS: Now, Suzanne, we've seen this before. As you said, that the president selectively declassifies this information. People are rather skeptical about it because they remember one of the big declassifications was -- which was that national intelligence estimate back in 2002, which didn't turn out so well for the White House.


MALVEAUX: Well, you're absolutely right, because, I mean, it really is an act of faith here. We don't know, viewers don't know, really, the full body of intelligence here. Just a select group of people in the administration know, including the president here. So, yes, critics have pointed out to the fact that, look, you know, the whole thing with weapons of mass destruction, selective declassification, all of it turned out to be wrong. So, you know, we'll have to wait and see on that.

Even though bin Laden and al Qaeda conclusively want to strike America again, and are actively trying to use Iraq as a base of operations to do so, CNN would rather that its viewers dismiss any intelligence that is released by the Bush administration that further drives this point home.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12960

 

[red states rule]

It is NOT a logical question. You cannot just "cut funding" for troops in the field. I doubt ANYONE actually believes you can.

The Democrats proposed a bill to which they attached a rider proposing troop downsizing on a gradual basis. They are quite aware that no matter what, the troops have to be funded.

The President accepts or rejects the bill, not Congress. When Congress got the bill the President was willing to sign, he signed. That's the way it works.

There is a law in place signed by Ronald Reagan called a "Continuing Authority." All operational expenses will be met pending the authorization bill.

Your scenario just isn't going to happen.

I did not say it would happen

I said the Dems are gutless and lacked the political guts to do it

The point is, IF Dems believe the war is lost, and the troops are being slaughtered - the right thing to do is to cut of funding

 

[maineman]

So the Dems break a promise. It would not be the first one they have forgotten about

the democrats never promised that they would be able to override a presidential veto

 

[red states rule]

the democrats never promised that they would be able to override a presidential veto

Dems promised not to raise taxes, not to cut and run from Iraq, they would stand up to terrorists, they would work with Republicans, they would reduce pork, they would "drain the swamp", and they would reduce Congressional perks

So far they are 0 - 8

 

[maineman]

Dems promised not to raise taxes, not to cut and run from Iraq, they would stand up to terrorists, they would work with Republicans, they would reduce pork, they would "drain the swamp", and they would reduce Congressional perks

So far they are 0 - 8

and doesn't it just piss you off that Americans STILL think that congressional democrats are doing a better job than congressional republicans????

lol

 

[red states rule]

and doesn't it just piss you off that Americans STILL think that congressional democrats are doing a better job than congressional republicans????

lol

Not according to the latest polls to come out

IN BOTH of them, Pres Bush has a higher number then the Dem Congress

Your party always steps in it when they are in power

Time to rant and rave MM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18

 

[maineman]

Not according to the latest polls to come out

IN BOTH of them, Pres Bush has a higher number then the Dem Congress

Your party always steps in it when they are in power

Time to rant and rave MM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18

nope...I am right on this one..the lastest polls that ask voters ro differentiate between congressional democrats and congressional republicans give the democrats a solid 13% lead over republicans....time to tap dance and run away RSR!

 

[red states rule]

nope...I am right on this one..the lastest polls that ask voters ro differentiate between congressional democrats and congressional republicans give the democrats a solid 13% lead over republicans....time to tap dance and run away RSR!

Spin and ignore - MM's way of dealing with the falling poll numbers

 

[maineman]

Spin and ignore - MM's way of dealing with the falling poll numbers

I do not ignore poll numbers. People are unhappy with washington right now....people wanted the democrats to stop the war and we've been unable to do that. people are deeply divided on many social issues...that has always been the case.... the fact that you continue to ignore is that, regardless of the people's overall view of the effectiveness of the nation's legislature, a solid majority of the people were totally supportive of the democrat's plans for funding the war with withdrawal deadlines.... a solid majority of the people were against the president's veto of that bill..... and a solid majority of the people were upset at congressional republicans for sustaining that veto against the wishes of the electorate.

The only answer you have ever given to the quinnipiac poll question that I quoted two weeks ago was that "maybe they polled more democrats" which, as we both know, is a total cop out because polling methodology removes party bias from the calculations.

The only other answer you pose for that problem of that 57% number is to suggest "how can 57% of Americans approve of something that the democrats in congress do if only 30% of the people have a positive opinion of congress in general"?

That is kinda like saying, "how can 57% of the people like the hat that the Queen of England wore to the Kentucky Derby when only 30% of the people approve of the british monarchy?"

 

[red states rule]

I do not ignore poll numbers. People are unhappy with washington right now....people wanted the democrats to stop the war and we've been unable to do that. people are deeply divided on many social issues...that has always been the case.... the fact that you continue to ignore is that, regardless of the people's overall view of the effectiveness of the nation's legislature, a solid majority of the people were totally supportive of the democrat's plans for funding the war with withdrawal deadlines.... a solid majority of the people were against the president's veto of that bill..... and a solid majority of the people were upset at congressional republicans for sustaining that veto against the wishes of the electorate.

The only answer you have ever given to the quinnipiac poll question that I quoted two weeks ago was that "maybe they polled more democrats" which, as we both know, is a total cop out because polling methodology removes party bias from the calculations.

The only other answer you pose for that problem of that 57% number is to suggest "how can 57% of Americans approve of something that the democrats in congress do if only 30% of the people have a positive opinion of congress in general"?

That is kinda like saying, "how can 57% of the people like the hat that the Queen of England wore to the Kentucky Derby when only 30% of the people approve of the british monarchy?"

If Dems REALLY wanted to stop the war - they could cut off funding

They do not have the political guts to do that - and they know surrender is NOT what the voters want

 

[maineman]

why do you continue to run away from that 57% number?

what are you SO afraid of?

 

[red states rule]

why do you continue to run away from that 57% number?

what are you SO afraid of?

If the Dems are doing the will of the people why does Pres Bush have a higher number then the Dems

These makes four polls in a row that show the Dems tanking

 

[maineman]

If the Dems are doing the will of the people why does Pres Bush have a higher number then the Dems

These makes four polls in a row that show the Dems tanking

why do you keep twisting the polling about congress to imply that it is solely about democrats....i showed you the harris poll numbers that differentiate.

do you have any other cogent arguement or is repeating a false statement about democrat (versus congressional) approval rating all you have?

 

[red states rule]

why do you keep twisting the polling about congress to imply that it is solely about democrats....i showed you the harris poll numbers that differentiate.

do you have any other cogent arguement or is repeating a false statement about democrat (versus congressional) approval rating all you have?

MM - Your pol is month old

The CURRENT polls show the Dems klower then Pres Bush

Get over it

 

[maineman]

MM - Your pol is month old

The CURRENT polls show the Dems klower then Pres Bush

Get over it

no the poll shows congress lower than the president.... congress...many of whom pissed off at least 57% of their constituents by voting against the democrat's funding bill and voting to sustain bush's veto of it. No wonder so many folks are pissed at congress!

 

[maineman]

MM - Your pol is month old

The CURRENT polls show the Dems klower then Pres Bush

Get over it

my poll is a month old, but you cannot explain away the 13% disparity between D's and R's.

 

[red states rule]

my poll is a month old, but you cannot explain away the 13% disparity between D's and R's.

The current polls show Pres Bush with higher numbers the your Dems

If it upsets you so much - see your shrink

 

[maineman]

The current polls show Pres Bush with higher numbers the your Dems

If it upsets you so much - see your shrink

no...it doesn't. it shows him with slightly better numbers than congress.

If you have a more recent Harris poll or any other poll that differentiates democrats versus republicans in congress, now would be a good time to produce it because THAT whould show whether President Bush was higher than congressional democrats and not just higher than congress.

I can see why you would run away from that disparity.

 

[red states rule]

no...it doesn't. it shows him with slightly better numbers than congress.

If you have a more recent Harris poll or any other poll that differentiates democrats versus republicans in congress, now would be a good time to produce it because THAT whould show whether President Bush was higher than congressional democrats and not just higher than congress.

I can see why you would run away from that disparity.

I have current polls MM - you have old ones

Get over the facts - your party is sinking son

 

[maineman]

I have current polls MM - you have old ones

Get over the facts - your party is sinking son

show me the current polls that ask the respondents their opinions of congressional democrats versus the president.

I'll wait. numbnuts