GOP Spam!

[chucK]

I guess I got on a spam list for the GOP somehow. It's interesting to find out what their current official slander is now.

 

Here's an excerpt of the current one supposedly from "Chairman Ken Mehlman"

 

"It's time to set the record straight about Iraq. That's why we've released this new web video, "Democrats: Dishonest on Iraq." Watch it now on GOP.com. <http://www.republicanvictoryteam.com>

 

Watch, and you'll see Senator Hillary Clinton talking tough when it came time to confront Saddam, saying "I can support the President, I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interests of our national security ..." Or Howard Dean calling Iraq an "international outlaw." Or House minority leader Nancy Pelosi stating unequivocally, "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."

 

Watch Democrat after Democrat on tape <http://www.republicanvictoryteam.com>, reaching the same conclusion the President reached about Iraq. "

 

I haven't checked out the video (yet). But it amazes me that they can put Howard Dean in that list. Howard Dean is the only Dem I can remember who was openly arguing against going to war in Iraq.

 

Anyway, looks like the campaign is in full swing!

 

 

p.s. I understand it's against netiquette to post personal emails, but I don't think this should apply to unsolicited mass-mailings (i.e. spam).

[KaskadskyjKozak]

do you ever think of anything other than politics?

[mattp]

I understand how they may think this is a good argument for much of their base who may be looking for a reason to ignore the current criticisms of their great leader, but this may or may not turn out to be a good tactic.

 

For one thing, it makes an easy target for nit-picking: for example, the Dem's are idiots if they allow the President to maintain they had access to the same intelligence (does anybody think some senator from New York or the governor of Vermont had or should have had access tot he same intelligence as the President?).

 

For another, they are only going to look like worse liars if it turns out there are more leaks that show they actively twisted something. And given the statement from Powell (UN Speech was low point of his career), the Downing Street Memo, statements from El Baradi, and the ongoing Plame affair, do they really want to argue that it is the Dem's who are rewriting history?

 

Even Wolfilwitz has said that the WMD's were really not the reason we went into Iraq.

[Dave_Schuldt]

Rep Jim McDermot was against the war from the start. He spoke at the anti war protest.

[sexual_chocolate]

He was one of the few.

Kucinich was another.

Most Dems went along with it, and now they're crying.

Boo fuckin' hoo.

[sexual_chocolate]

I remember many discrepancies regarding the intelligence before the war. The Dems had access to this, yet they voted to authorize Bush.

Every Dem who did sucks, and they doubly suck now when they moan about the White House role in manipulation.

 

EVERYONE with a conscience knew from the start that this administration was up to no good!

Edited November 16, 2005 by sexual_chocolate

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I remember many discrepancies regarding the intelligence before the war. The Dems had access to this, yet they voted to authorize Bush.

Every Dem who did sucks, and they doubly suck now when they moan about the White House role in manipulation.

 

EVERYONE with a conscience knew from the start that this administration was up to no good!

 

The Dems who voted for the war did so because they were afraid if they did not then they would not get reelected. CYA trumps all. Period.

[mattp]

The Dems who voted for the war did so because they were afraid if they did not then they would not get reelected. CYA trumps all. Period.

 

Roger that.

[mattp]

EVERYONE with a conscience knew from the start that this administration was up to no good!

 

I agree here, too: the Democratic party is a disgrace. But that is no reason to give the administration a free pass on this nor is it a valid reason, in my opinion, to suggest that only a very small handful of politicians can complain: the fact is we WERE misled and manipulated even though some of us knew something about some of it at the time.

[Squid]

Stop flip-flopping. This no time for hand-wringing. You're either for us or against us.

[chucK]

Can this be true?

 

Robert Scheer writes:

 

"It was enormously telling, in fact, that the only part of the Senate which did see the un-sanitized National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq -- the Republican-led Senate Select Intelligence Committee -- shockingly voted in the fall of 2002 against the simple authorization of force demanded by a Republican president."

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Can this be true?

 

Robert Scheer writes:

 

"It was enormously telling, in fact, that the only part of the Senate which did see the un-sanitized National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq -- the Republican-led Senate Select Intelligence Committee -- shockingly voted in the fall of 2002 against the simple authorization of force demanded by a Republican president."

 

This scale of operation really should require a formal declaration of war by the congress. Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War were bad precedents in this regard.

[Stefan]

I do not like the amount of power the president has.

 

I say a new ammendment needs to be added. Instead of Congress enacting war....it needs to say something like:

 

"The deployment of more than 500 troops in any single conflict needs to be 2/3 authorized by the Senate and the House"

 

That way the president has some authorization on very little skirmishes and can be dealt with immediately, but when these skirmishes become very large then there should be more difficulty in exposing lives. It also would require more negotiation with other nations to help out in large conflicts.

[Jim]

Can this be true?

 

Robert Scheer writes:

 

"It was enormously telling, in fact, that the only part of the Senate which did see the un-sanitized National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq -- the Republican-led Senate Select Intelligence Committee -- shockingly voted in the fall of 2002 against the simple authorization of force demanded by a Republican president."

 

This scale of operation really should require a formal declaration of war by the congress. Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War were bad precedents in this regard.

 

Oh, oh. This is the second thing you have said in one thread that I agree with.

[Doug]

So Bush is in effect telling the dems "shut the fuck up. you assholes voted for the war, don't try to re-write history to make it look like my bad decision."

 

I say fuck you Georgie . Based on the sales job you gave the congress & senate, they believed we were imminently threatened by Saddam. Now, we see that you fucking lied to them and all they are saying is "we were lied to." Doesn't sound like re-writing history to me. They saw your assholes cooked analysis of the intelligence (a word that will forever be linked to you in a dubious way) not the raw data.

[underworld]

who's the salesman?

[Doug]

how many american lives were lost in that operation? there's no comparison to the two. clinton fired a warning shot across the bow, based on the data he was given. and ultimately, we found no wmd, did we?

 

yeah, clinton was/is morally repugnant, but at least he possessed some level of intellect.

[underworld]

not comparing the operations...just pointing out that bush was such a good salesman - that he convince clinton in '98.

[Stonehead]

I guess I got on a spam list for the GOP somehow. It's interesting to find out what their current official slander is now.

 

Here's an excerpt of the current one supposedly from "Chairman Ken Mehlman"

 

"It's time to set the record straight about Iraq. That's why we've released this new web video, "Democrats: Dishonest on Iraq." Watch it now on GOP.com. <http://www.republicanvictoryteam.com>

 

Watch, and you'll see Senator Hillary Clinton talking tough when it came time to confront Saddam, saying "I can support the President, I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interests of our national security ..." Or Howard Dean calling Iraq an "international outlaw." Or House minority leader Nancy Pelosi stating unequivocally, "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."

 

Watch Democrat after Democrat on tape <http://www.republicanvictoryteam.com>, reaching the same conclusion the President reached about Iraq. "

 

I haven't checked out the video (yet). But it amazes me that they can put Howard Dean in that list. Howard Dean is the only Dem I can remember who was openly arguing against going to war in Iraq.

 

Anyway, looks like the campaign is in full swing!

 

 

p.s. I understand it's against netiquette to post personal emails, but I don't think this should apply to unsolicited mass-mailings (i.e. spam).

 

I see what the GOP is doing about the Democrats but what will they do about some of their own?

[Stefan]

What about Afghanistan? Doesn't anybody remember Afghanistan?

[freefall]

Oh it swings to the left it swings to the right....that's what makes our country great. But if it was up to me shoot first, second and third and ask as many questions as you want later. Keep the fight overseas and let our military guys do the work that they sign up for and want to do. (Speaking from experience). Fact is the terrorists HATED us before, during and certainly will after the war. The only good terrorist is a DEAD one. Don't try to make friends with them, just figure out who your enemies are draw lines in the sand and take the fight to them and keep my family safe. The terrorist aren’t going away, can't be reasoned with don't care about politics they just want to kill us!!!!!! This is not fiction it is FACT! Screw politics, BOMB, ASSASSINATE, NUKE, whatever it takes. War is a battle of will. Let’s make sure our will has what it takes to finish the job. They WILL be coming to our shores AGAIN if we don't! Enough.....climb on.

[whidbey]

bush is not to bright...we all know this.. if you don't then i suppose your about as bright as a dim bulb. What bothers me about all this talk is that... he can never and will not say I made mistake. I don't know about you..but I don't have a problem saying to people that i fucked up. Is this a personality flaw of mine?... hell who knows after all this bullshit.

[chucK]

John Murtha (D - Pennsylvania) rocks :

 

"Vice President Dick Cheney jumped into the fray Wednesday by assailing Democrats who contend the Bush administration manipulated intelligence on Iraq, calling their criticism "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."

 

Murtha, a Marine intelligence officer in Vietnam, angrily shot back at Cheney: "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

[mattp]

Didn't somebody else point out (maybe it was Kerry) that of all the people in Washington, there is no prominent player with LESS credibility on Iraq than Cheney?

 

Go Dick!