This guy gets my vote for President

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
I love a guy that is not afraid to tell the truth even when he is going against the grain of his own party. Hagel is so truthful in this article and it's about time someone from the Republican Party at least faced reality and stopped falling in the failed and untruthful footsteps of the Bush Administration.This only confirms to me that Cheney is a absolute moron and a disgrace to the be associated with the Ovel Office, this guy makes Boob like Al Gore look smart.



Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) is angry. He's upset about the more than 1,700 U.S. soldiers killed and nearly 13,000 wounded in Iraq. He's also aggravated by the continued string of sunny assessments from the Bush administration, such as Vice President Dick Cheney's recent remark that the insurgency is in its "last throes." "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality," Hagel tells U.S. News. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."

ADVERTISEMENT

That's strikingly blunt talk from a member of the president's party, even one cast as something of a pariah in the GOP because of his early skepticism about the war. "I got beat up pretty good by my own party and the White House that I was not a loyal Republican," he says. Today, he notes, things are changing: "More and more of my colleagues up here are concerned."


Indeed, there are signs that the politics of the Iraq war are being reshaped by the continuing tide of bad news. Take this month in Iraq, with 47 U.S. troops killed in the first 15 days. That's already five more than the toll for the entire month of June last year. With the rate of insurgent attacks near an all-time high and the war's cost set to top $230 billion, more politicians on both sides of the aisle are responding to opinion polls that show a growing number of Americans favoring a withdrawal from Iraq. Republican Sens. Lincoln Chafee and Lindsey Graham have voiced their concerns. And two Republicans, including the congressman who brought "freedom fries" to the Capitol, even joined a pair of Democratic colleagues in sponsoring a bill calling for a troop withdrawal plan to be drawn up by year's end. "I feel confident that the opposition is going to build," says Rep. Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record), the other Republican sponsor and a longtime opponent of the war.


Sagging polls. The measure is not likely to go anywhere, but Hagel calls it "a major crack in the dike." Whether or not that's so, the White House has reason to worry that the assortment of critiques of Bush's wartime performance may be approaching a tipping point. Only 41 percent of Americans now support Bush's handling of the Iraq war, the lowest mark ever in the Associated Press-Ipsos poll. And the Iraq news has combined with a lethargic economy and doubts about the president's Social Security proposals to push Bush's overall approval ratings near all-time lows. For now, most Republicans remain publicly loyal to the White House. "Why would you give your enemies a timetable?" asks House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. "[Bush] doesn't fight the war on news articles or television or on polls."


Still, the Bush administration is planning to hit back, starting this week, with a renewed public-relations push by the president. Bush will host Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari and has scheduled a major speech for June 28, the anniversary of the handover of power to an Iraqi government from U.S. authorities. But Congress's patience could wear very thin going into an election year. "If things don't start to turn around in six months, then it may be too late," says Hagel. "I think it's that serious."


Bush's exit strategy--which depends on a successful Iraqi political process--got a boost last week when Sunni and Shiite politicians ended weeks of wrangling over how to increase Sunni representation on the constitution-writing committee. Now, however, committee members have less than two months before their mid-August deadline. And given how long it took to resolve who gets to draft the document, it's hard to imagine a quick accord on the politically explosive issues they face.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,489
167
63
Bowling Green Ky
Can't say I agree at all
Whether you agree or not that the invasion and defeat of Saddam was initially a war against terrorist and terrorism I don't think anyone can dispute that currently Terrorist have drawn line in the sand and are using Iraq as their stand against democracy and the free world.
The "only way" they can win is drawn out in opinion of few decenting conservatives and the liberal block.
Fortunate we got 3 years to get job done with leader with some hair on his nuts. Don't think we see the Somolia maneuver regardless of opinion.
Think for a minute how many embassies-boats-planes ect were being hit constantly by terrorist world wide--how many since his war on terror???How many terrorist are openly training in Lybia-Yemin--Afgan-Pakistan ect How many countries once ran by tyrants are now ffree with democracies??

--and how have liberals contributed to these factors and war on terror--
they want to give terrorists attorneys--
Constantly whine that we are humiliating prisonors and their religion
Were against actions that resulted above accomplishments and continue to be.
Their military assessment of winning war on terror--pull out.

and if they got their way---would spend next decade jubilantly referring how "we" lost the war.--Go figure

and by the way if anyone see any comments by Biden or Hilliary on their assesment of winning war please post as they currently have not committed either way--appears they are borrowing their last presidential candidates wind sox.;)
 

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
This was not a war on terrorism thats at least not how it was sold to the public! We were told that Saddam was poised to use Weapons of Mass Destruction at any time and that we had proof that justified going to war. This is how both the Bush Administration and Tony Blair's Administration sold Congress and the general public as demonstrated in the Downing Street memo's. If we were truly in a battle to stop terror then Iraq would of been far down the list of countries that sponsor terror or finance terror as I believe it would be tough to link any Iraq nationals to any terror attacks, but in turn we can link Saudi Arabia with both supplying terror and financing terror. To state that we went to Iraq to stop terror is just flat out wrong, perhaps if you rephrased it to read that we went to Iraq as a Humanitarian Mission to remove a brutal dictator then you would be correct, but then why have we not went into Cuba, North Korea, Somalia, or Syria where other savage dictators rule? Hagel is absolutely right in the fact that this administration is completely out of touch with reality and things in Iraq are not getting better they are getting worse, to even go into that country without a concrete exit plan in place is insane. To even ponder that Iraq will be a Democracy is a reach, the three religious factions have never got along anytime in history and I cannot see a time when they will.
 

Iowa Child

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 28, 2002
158
0
0
Dogs that Bark, I couldn't agree more. Being from Nebraska, I have watched Hagel closely, and he's a Republican version of Bill Clinton, sticks his finger in the air to see which way the wind's blowing. He has no backbone, unlike the current President.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Iowa Child said:
I have watched Hagel closely, and he's a Republican version of Bill Clinton, sticks his finger in the air to see which way the wind's blowing.

I think you mean that he's a Republican version of Clinton because he has the backbone to go against the party line.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,489
167
63
Bowling Green Ky
Downing Dtreet Memo's ???
I'm telling you once again you need to getaway from the liberal blog sites and media--did you every ask yourself why media has not ran with this story more??? Let me give you a clue-----

"The media and the Leftists have had a field day with the Downing Street memos that they claim imply that the Bush administration lied about the intelligence on WMD in order to justify the attack on Iraq. Despite the fact that none of the memos actually say that, none of them quote any officials or any documents, and that the text of the memos show that the British government worried about the deployment of WMD by Saddam against Coalition troops, Kuwait and/or Israel, the meme continues to survive.

Until tonight, however, no one questioned the authenticity of the documents provided by the Times of London. That has now changed, as Times reporter Michael Smith admitted that the memos he used are not originals, but retyped copies (via LGF and CQ reader Sapper):

The eight memos ? all labeled "secret" or "confidential" ? were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.

The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material"

:) Yep from un-named source and liberal writer "destroted orignals" Why pray tell--and conveniently typed copies--
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Of course they were typed. The guy took minutes at the minute and typed them. I think that's standard procedure in any company/organization in the world.

Once again, nobody has refuted their authenticity. Your article says that 'until now' nobody has questioned the authenticity and then fails to say who is now questioning it.

You ask why the media hasn't ran with it, then quote some article that says the media has been having a field day. Which is it?

Don't you think that somebody, anybody involved would have refuted it by now?

Your article says that nothing untoward was in the memo, but then tries to stain it's authenticity. What would it matter if it's authentic if nothing is in there?

Your article makes no sense.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,489
167
63
Bowling Green Ky
Makes no sense--What makes no sense is he ,as he says, had originals but destroyed them and offered up retyped ones instead with no source--now doesn't that sound just a little fishy :)

On added note seems Oreilly has bout same questions he'd like Hilliary-Biden and who ever runs for rebs next term to answer.
By the way he has also been defending Hilliary in attacks in new book out past couple of nights----

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

By Bill O'Reilly



The truth about Hillary Clinton, that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."

A book of that title will be out tomorrow. And some right wing Web sites have given it a lot of publicity. The author, Ed Klein, is a colleague of mine. And he asked me to read the book, which I did, over the weekend.

First off, there's little new in the book. If you follow politics, you already know most of what Mr. Klein has put forth. In fact, outside of how Bill and Hillary interact right now, most everything has been written elsewhere.

And most of the contemporary stuff comes from anonymous sources, which is not good. Far too many accusations are coming from people who are settling grudges in a cowardly way.

You may remember we did a poll asking you whether I should interview Kitty Kelley, who wrote a slam book on the Bush family, using a lot of anonymous sources. Well, the majority said no to the Kelley interview. And she did not appear.

To be fair, I'm going to apply the same standard to Mr. Klein. It is not that the book is defamatory. It is simply negative. Again, that's not hard to do. Writing a book or article that slams somebody is simple. Just line up the person's enemies and let fly. They do that stuff to me all the time and to every other successful person in the media or politics.

If you want to read Ed Klein's book, fine with me. Same thing with Kitty Kelley (search). Free country. Knock yourself out.

But understand what you are reading. Don't think there's anything fair or objective about it. As for Hillary Clinton herself, anyone who watches ?The Factor? knows, I have many questions for the senator. And if she doesn't answer those questions, which so far she has not, I will oppose her.

Here's a partial list. What exactly would you do to secure the borders, Senator? What exactly would you do to win the war in Iraq? Would you close Guantanamo Bay (search)? And if so, where would you move the prisoners? Are they entitled to Geneva Convention (search) protections? Do you believe in coerced interrogation? Do you support civil trials for foreign and battlefield combatants not in uniform?

I have tons of other questions for Hillary Clinton, which is why she's never appeared on ?The Factor.? To be fair, perhaps she feels this venue is coerced interrogation.

So I'm saying no to personal attacks on Hillary, but yes to holding her accountable in public policy. She has a responsibility to get up close and personal with the issues. And if she does not, that's a legitimate reason to scorn her. We don't need the personal stuff.

And that's "The Memo."
 

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
NPR devoted a whole show to the Downing Street Memo's last week, I am sure that Conservative leaning rags like Fox News will not cover the memos. The BBC's website had archived shows on the memo's last week.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
The only reason we are fighting terrorist in Iraq is because they know we are going broke doing it. Bush lied to get us in there to fill the pockets of his friends and he is lying to keep us there. It is very cheap forbin Laden to keep us busy in Iraq while we negliect everything else.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Hilarious. The questions that O'Reilly would have for Hillary all revolve around the central question: How would you clean up W's mess.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
they can quote the downing st. memo till they`re blue in the face....

as long as they continue with the "abu gharaib/gitmo" rant,they will leave the american public cold....

what is with them?...the dem. leadership?...the durbin`s and the pelosi`s?.....why attach your wagon to the treatment of people trying to murder us?....

it`s a loser....plain and simple... you average american could care less whether you pull their fingernails out one by one...

the only place this stuff plays is the middle east and europe...and is counter productive in our effort to try and keep terrorists out of commission..

i really don`t get it...

they hate bush sooo much,that they`ll undermine our troops to score political points?....

only,they aren`t scoring points with the voters...only the enemy...

send them a memo,libs.....

the gardenweasel memo...
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,489
167
63
Bowling Green Ky
"The questions that O'Reilly would have for Hillary all revolve around the central question: How would you clean up W's mess."

I think he just wants solutions rather than whining--not to tough to be negative on everything but to put forth solutions is quite a different story.

So far the only liberal suggestions I see are--get out now--our soilders and military are comparable to nazi's ect--and then some wonder why libs are tagged anti military and weak on defence--go figure.

Could someone point out any plan they have on anything???
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,489
167
63
Bowling Green Ky
--more conservatives against personal defamation against Hilliary-

Dick Morris

Personal attacks on Hillary will only embolden her
I am no defender of Hillary Rodham Clinton?s, to put it mildly. But the recent charges in Ed Klein?s book to the effect that she is a closet homosexual or that Bill raped her and that this act triggered Chelsea?s conception are as crazy as the list that was circulating around of the 20 or so people the Clintons allegedly had killed.

These accusations do not belong in our public dialogue. They hit below the belt and tend to discredit the more serious and sober concerns so many of us have about the danger she would present in high office.

How can anyone say if the charges are true? Ed Klein is a respected author, a former editor in chief of The New York Times Magazine and the foreign editor for Newsweek. He would not have written these charges without some substantiation. But these accusations (in The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She?ll Go to Become President) are highly personal and have little bearing on what kind of president Hillary would make.

Why can?t her critics confine their attacks to the relevant and the obvious: that she would not be a good president and has not been a good senator?

These days, one is constantly asked for one?s opinion of the ?Clintons.? There is no such thing. There are two Clintons, Bill and Hillary, and they are very different people.

Anyone who knows both of them realizes how different. He is brighter than she and much more creative. He is intuitive and instinctual, while she works hard to compensate for her lack of these qualities. He crafts novel solutions to important problems; she learns the party line by rote and glories in its recitation. He is an innovator; she is a gladiator. She has discipline that he lacks and self-control he has never even attempted.

Most of all, Bill is a moderate who is a liberal when he has to be. She is an ultra-liberal who moves to the center as a charade to win election. Rated as the 11th most liberal senator by National Journal ? one notch to the left of Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) ? she has a liberal quotient, according to Americans for Democratic Action, of 95 percent, contrasted with 85 percent for the party as a whole and 60 percent for a real moderate such as former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.).

Bill Clinton made a fine president on domestic issues because of his ability to find common ground in the center of our process. Hillary has never been comfortable in the center and is at her most natural when she is deriding the motives of the opposition, as when she wondered if someone could be Republican and Christian at the same time.

There is enough evidence of Hillary?s penchant for deception without having to dig through her private life. When she went on the ?Today? show one week after Sept. 11 and pretended falsely that Chelsea was in danger on that day going for a jog around the World Trade Center towers, Hillary was revealing her true self. Why reach out of the bounds of public conduct to find ammunition to fire at her?

The fact is that these personal attacks just empower the woman and give her examples of over-the-top criticism that she can use to demean the arguments of all who doubt her, for good reasons or for bad. Because some have said that the Clintons resorted to killings to muzzle their opponents and some imply that they may have been behind Vince Foster?s death, Hillary can say that she has been accused of everything ?including murder.? In doing so, she can discredit any critics, no matter how reasonable his or her disagreement, with the same brush and label them fanatics who level absurd and irrelevant charges against her.

That is the tactic she has always used, and Ed Klein?s book gives her license to continue to use it to discredit all manner of opposition.

Criticize Hillary all you want. She deserves every bit of it. But let?s stay within the foul lines, shall we?
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
DOGS THAT BARK said:
Makes no sense--What makes no sense is he ,as he says, had originals but destroyed them and offered up retyped ones instead with no source--now doesn't that sound just a little fishy :)

"

Not fishy at all. When did reporters start giving up their sources? Nobody had denied that the memo was authentic. Except you, I guess.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
DOGS THAT BARK said:
I think he just wants solutions rather than whining--not to tough to be negative on everything but to put forth solutions is quite a different story.

We've been through this one a million times. When you initiate actions that cause problems with no good solution, it's ridiculous to look to the other side to find one and then whine that they don't have one. Why? BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE! And that's been the point all along from some of us, before and after the invasion.

It's amazing that you and others look to democrats to solve all the problems that W has caused. Why in the world wouldn't you look to republicans for a solution? Doesn't that make sense? How can you possibly whine about the dems and give W and co. a free pass. THEY'RE THE ONES WHO GOT US INTO THIS and not a peep about that. Incredible!

I made a similar analogy before. A guy spends like a drunken sailor against all advice from friends and wife. Eventually he has to consider bankrupty. He goes to friends and wife and says, 'well, if you're so smart, instead of just lecturing me, why don't you give me a solution to get out of this.'
 

smurphy

cartographer
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
I think every male who voted for W last election between the ages of 21-39 should be forced into service. (We don't need more women in the service - they don't fight as well - even a liberal like me knows that). We have too many pro-war blowhards unwilling to risk their own lives. We need more overall appreciation for war.

Hell, I didn't vote for W, but I'd happily join a cause like that.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,489
167
63
Bowling Green Ky
"THEY'RE THE ONES WHO GOT US INTO THIS and not a peep about that.

Per elections in U.S.- Briton and Australia I believe there are "a few" that do not see it that way.
Granted the terrorist--Algazeera and liberal media are not to fond of it.

The sad part is dejavu from last war--you have them bemoaning the soilders deaths on one hand and then calling them criminals on the other--will be same result when the soilders at some point come home --the fanny pack & pocketprotector brigade will be out in full force dissing them with Durbin their general and liberal media cheering them on.
I can just see them running Kerry again and Durbin for VP with Dean leading the helm and lets make Teddy Kennedy Rumsfied replacement.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top