http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&e=6&u=/ap/20030918/ap_on_go_co/kennedy_iraq_1 Damn, that is hard core.
and instead of conservatives possibly pointing out any inaccuracies, the personal attacks will start in 10..9...8....7....
Re: Re: Sen. Kennedy takes point in anti-Bush offensive This is why, from the Democrat standpoint, Kennedy was the best guy to start this. It's not like the Republicans like him in the first place. What, they're going to hate him more? Kennedy (as opposed to any of the presidential candidates) will be a punching bag for the Republicans on this, and if it sticks, it hurts Bush. If it doesn't stick, the only person it hurts is Kennedy, and it probably won't hurt him enough to cost him re-election anyway.
I always admire the courage of Senators Kennedy and Robert Byrd standing up to the Bush war machine in the pre-war Congress war hearing while almost every other democrats were getting down on their knees kowtowing. These two men are truly brave, courageous, magnificent. Two thumbs up!
Here Here! I listened to a heck of alot of the Senate debate on the war resolution and Byrd's impassioned and eloquent fight made me wish that all of our Senators could have had his insight, experience and wisdom. Byrd was fooled once by the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. He could smell *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#e a mile away and he did it in this case. I even called Byrd's and Kennedy's offices to thank them for standing up for what was right.
I am shocked...SHOCKED that Teddy Kennedy would utter these things about a Republican. I am sure the earth is right now spinning out of its orbit.
Re: Re: Sen. Kennedy takes point in anti-Bush offensive Fixed By the way, this is the same Ted Kennedy who backed the president's No Child Left Behind Act (about which he was also lied to).
Geez, a murderer and a Klansman are the beacon of bravery, courage, and magnificence in the Democratic Party. You should've thrown in rapist Bill Clinton and then you could've given three thumbs up.
A 'Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon' sidebar... 1) President Bush recently said Arnold would make a fine governor of California. 2) Last night on Larry King, Arnold said he had learned a lot about politics from his Kennedy in-laws, including Uncle Teddy. https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=1603570#post1603570 3) And now Kennedy accuses Bush of manufacturing a "fraud" with regard to Iraq policy. What was the point? Uh. Dunno. We now return to your regularly scheduled partisan bickering.
Yes, how dare I mention the backgrounds of a murderer, racist, and rapist. That is so low of me. I apologize. The next time I talk about Charlie Manson I will make sure not to blur the conversation by drudging up things in his past.
Re: Re: Sen. Kennedy takes point in anti-Bush offensive I am shocked...SHOCKED that Karl Keller would be so "liberally cynical". I am sure the earch is right now spinning out of its orbit.
In related news... Ted woke up today at 4pm, had a coupe Bloody Mary's, watched the news and yelled..."I said that?"
Man, that was pretty harsh, what Kennedy said. One thing I found very, very interesting...he says half of the $4B a month isn't being accounted for, and he thinks it's being used to bribe the coalition of the shilling. I have no idea if he's right about the money not being accounted for, but I will say this. That's the kind of accusation that doesn't allow for alot of wiggle room. I kinda think he's right about it just because if he's wrong, he hasn't left himself an out. Either the administration is reporting the spending to Congress, or it isn't. And if Kennedy's wrong, then he really hurts his own credibility. I would add that his idea about where the money is going gibes with alot of the reporting I've been reading about our attempts to get other nations involved. Also, John Murtha (D-Pa, but apparently a hawkish Dem) was on Hardball. He says he was lied to by the Bushies, and says if he had known there were no WMDs, etc., he wouldn't have voted for the war. He's also asking for someone, whoever made the recommendation to Bush, be fired. If Bush had come out earlier and gotten some resignations, I think it may well have helped his standing on the issue. But he can't do it now, because it'll look like he did it because of the Dem attacks. If you believe that Kennedy's and Murtha's comments weren't coincidental, then you have to ask why. My guess is that the Dems have decided that Rummy, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle, etc., will hurt Bush, and they'd like for them to be around next year as punching bags and fundraising tools.
Yeah, nothing like playing partisan politics with the issue of national security. That's why the Dems will lose...again.
Whose fault is it when he was being so naive or stupid? It's always other people's fault, typical ordinary politican.
verybdog...on the one hand, I see what you're saying. On the other hand, you would think a congressman making a decision on war could believe his president. Obviously, in retrospect, he couldn't, but that's 20-20 hindsight. You know how I wrote that I tend to believe Kennedy just because that's the kind of thing that is either right or wrong, that doesn't leave wiggle room? I'd say the same thing about the Bushies' pre-war statements. And alot of them were lies. But I believed them for a long time, until after the vote in Congress, just because my inclination is to believe people aren't pathological liars (until proven otherwise.) Remember, alot of the reporting debunking the administration claims came well after the vote in Congress. Nobody has a time machine.
Some reactions of the Bush sups in this thread are very interesting. It seems to me that they now know Bush lied to us. They can´t find anymore descent arguments and throw in things like rape or alcoholism (forget about a war we all were lied about the reason it was started).
Just exactly how much objective intelligence information do you think the Administration lets your average member of Congress see? But you are right to the extent that Congress abdicates its constitutional obligation to declare war and essentially delegates it to the Executive branch. This is the crux of the problem.
Which, (deleted), is exactly what Poopypants said you would do (thus the brown star). Prove me wrong and address the issues instead of making personal attacks.
And our president is what? A failed businessman who only survived because of the deep pockets of his Saudi business partners who are now implicated as possibly being involved in the greatest attack of Americans on American soil? He was grounded by the Texas Air National Guard because he failed to take a routine, annual physical and then all traces of his service after that until he was discharged have vanished. Why would a pilot fail to take an exam that he knew he need to pass in order to keep flying? And his family's fortune made by two war profiteers who did business with the enemy (including owning a coal mine worked by inmates from Auschwitz). Now, you could say that he never murdered anyone personally like Ted. But then you could easily count up all the innocent prisoners he executed in Texas after failing to give any review of their sentences when they came before him. Or the thousands of innocent Afghanis and Iraqi civilians killed as a result of his wars which he instigated based on lies. I don't know. If I'm lady justice (with her bossom covered up by John Ashcroft) and I put George on one side of the scale, and Ted, Bill and the Byrd man on the other, George's side is definitely going down. Straight to hell.
I'm not so sure. Bush has been soooo bad, he may lose. Once Kennedy starts playing 'partisan politics' with the No bid Halliburton contracts and Bush/Cheney shuttling Bin Laden's relatives out of the country after 9-11 the "National Security" may be deemed to be in better hands with the democrats.