| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34367 Activity:insanely high |
10/26 Lawrence O'Donell exposes O'Neill of SVFT as a liar. This
must be what the media means when it says these guys have
been discredited.
http://64.91.230.181/~recycler/videos/windbag.WMV
\_ Well O'Donell is also the guy who has stated he doesn't
care if troops in Iraq become demoralized, that they should
shut up.
\_ This sounds like either a quote taken out of context,
or a very liberal paraphrase. Do you have a URL or decent
news source showing the quote and its surrounding context?
Honestly, both of those gentlemen strike me as partisan
mouthpieces furthering The Party's agenda with, at best,
coincidental regard for the truth.
\_ "MR. O'DONNELL: Look, it's not our job to lie about
war to make troops feel good. And I don't care what
they feel."
"MR. O'DONNELL: I don't care if they're demoralized.
They have to go to war and be prepared ..."
\_ gee I wonder why you didn't provide the context. -tom
\_ It's a McLauglin group transcript.. search for it,
I don't want to corrupt you with the link I'd give.
\_ what's so bad about
http://www.mclaughlin.com/library/transcript.asp?id=434?
All he's saying is that you can't bury your head
in the sand and squash all debate about whether
the war is a good idea, just because you need to
"support the troops." Lying about the war
doesn't support the troops. -tom
\_ True, lying about the war doesn't support
the troops. Write a letter. Ask your media
to tell us both the good and the bad, not just
the bad.
\_ This is yucky, and really proves nothing -- aside from the fact
that both sides are pretty passionate.
\_ Well O'Donell is also the guy who has stated he doesn't
care if troops in Iraq become demoralized, that they should
shut up.
\_ This sounds like either a quote taken out of context,
or a very liberal paraphrase. Do you have a URL or decent
news source showing the quote and its surrounding context?
Honestly, both of those gentlemen strike me as partisan
mouthpieces furthering The Party's agenda with, at best,
coincidental regard for the truth.
\_ "MR. O'DONNELL: Look, it's not our job to lie about
war to make troops feel good. And I don't care what
they feel."
"MR. O'DONNELL: I don't care if they're demoralized.
They have to go to war and be prepared ..."
\_ gee I wonder why you didn't provide the context. -tom
\_ It's a McLauglin group transcript.. search for it,
I don't want to corrupt you with the link I'd give.
\_ what's so bad about
http://www.mclaughlin.com/library/transcript.asp?id=434?
All he's saying is that you can't bury your head
in the sand and squash all debate about whether
the war is a good idea, just because you need to
"support the troops." Lying about the war
doesn't support the troops. -tom
\_ Wow. That O'Donnell is a fruitcake. When someone talks over his
opponent, it pretty much proves to me that he doesn't know what he's
talking about.
\_ Shrug. It suggests to me that the guy is too emotional at the
time to make a reasoned argument, unless he does it all the time.
\-Hmmmmm ... ok, I sort of agree LO'D went a little nuts there,
but your characterization of his comments on McL Groups is
preposterous [I saw the show]. If anything I think Bush's
comment during the 3rd debate:
BUSH: The best way to take the pressure off
our troops is to succeed in Iraq.
is more incoherent and insensitive. That comment is also
in line with his view "it's not a draft if we dont call
it a draft". The troops are not demoralized because of
Kerry suggesting Iraq has bogged down, or has suggested
our allies are few and far between, but because they are
being kept there longer than promised and are being blown up.
To be a little more charitable than LO'D: you are either a
liar or stupid. --psb
\_ The military vote is roughly 80% for Bush, that should
\- what %age of teachers vote for the "education
president" ?
\_ wrong question. "what %age of parents vote for
the education president?" is what you're looking
for.
\- the military is the group paid to deliver
"national security" ... everyone is a
comsumer of national security. similarly
parents are the consumers of ecucation,
not the agents to deliver it. anyway, my
point was that military number doesnt mean
much. --psb
\_ That's fine about the military number. My
point about parents still stands. I don't
care in particular if teachers like/dislike
the president as a block. They're a left
wing union group. I do care if parents are
happy with the education system. They are
not an organised political block. Parents
are real people, not an axe grinding PAC.
tell you something. The military is especially cognizant
that Kerry, in his antiwar antics and petitioning to
completey abandon Saigon, is a traitor. You can not
sign on to war and then say, 'oh that's not what I really
intended' - its a complete disgrace and is not behavior
befitting a CIC.Exactly which allies are you pining about?
The French, who in GWI sent an aircraft carrier
with no planes?
\- i am not pining for any allies. i think the un and the
rest of the world fairly reasonably see this as america's
mess to clean up. if a serviceman feels he can never
forgive kerry for his antiwar activities after vietnam
i think that is reasonable enough, just like i think
people are entitled to have been anti-clinton on the
grounds he was a draft-dodger who also cheated on his
wife. i just think it is odd they are not equally
disgusted with a coke addled rich kid who used family
connections to not even set foot "in country". --psb
\_ You were ok until the last line. At that point you
became "false, but accurate" as CBS would say.
\_ Could you post a URL for that 80%? All I found was this:
<DEAD>www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5964655<DEAD>
which gives 57% Rep among soldiers, in general (I think)
and 66% Rep among officers. Those show a stronger lean
than the country at large but far from 80%. The same
article also mentions that "Rep officers outnumber their
enlisted counterparts 9:1" according to "surveys" (no
source given) -- ulysses
\_ Why do Cons love to go over and over how they have "the
military vote"? Do soldiers count for more vote or
something? I think it is an implicit coup threat,
personally. If we have another Florida 2000 on our
hands, do you plan on calling out the troops to enforce
election results when half the country goes ballistic?
\_ Coup threat? Damn, dude, stop eating tinfoil! You're
supposed to wear it on your head. It is not a food
product.
\_ Why do Libs love to go over and over how they have the
"insert random small demographic here" vote? Does
"random small demographic" count for more vote or
something? The point is the military is just another
of those demographics. There isn't a plot. Stop
eating tinfoil. Wear it on your head for safety.
\_ You see, I remember a time when two people on a news show would not
shout over each other, when a moderator would not put up with such
behavior, when guests would not hog the mic, when longwinded
discourse actually lost you credibility, and when the integrity and
logic of your argument counted for more than the volume of your
voice. When did we agree to accept the opposite?
\_ When ratings went up with all the yelling on certain shows. I
agree they've gone way too far and I see it swinging back the
other way now.
\_ God, I hope you're right. |
| 5/25 |
|
| www.mclaughlin.com/library/transcript.asp?id=434 ANY REPRODUCTI ON, REDISTRIBUTION OR RETRANSMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED. UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION, REDISTRIBUTION OR RETRANSMISSION CONSTITUTES A MISAPPROPRIATION UNDER APPLICABLE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, AND FEDERAL N EWS SERVICE, INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO PURSUE ALL REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO IT IN RESPECT TO SUCH MISAPPROPRIATION. IS A PRIVATE FIRM AND IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH T HE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. NO COPYRIGHT IS CLAIMED AS TO ANY PART OF THE ORI GINAL WORK PREPARED BY A UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AS PART OF THAT PERSON'S OFFICIAL DUTIES. FOR INFORMATION ON SUBSCRIBING TO FNS, PLEASE CALL JACK GRAEME AT 202-347 -1400. John Kerry launched a biting and tightly-argued challenge against the jud gment of George Bush in the first presidential debate on Thursday night. Mr Bush returned fire by saying, in effect, Kerry does not have the sp ine to be commander-in-chief. And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and taking it off to Iraq, where the 9/11 commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itse lf and Saddam Hussein. I don't see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. He also said, in December of 2003, that anyone who doubts that t he world is safer without Saddam Hussein does not have the judgment to b e president. MR MCLAUGHLIN: Question: Is this what the voters' choice boils down to, judgment versus spine? And the president came in to respond to him with the anti-Kerry sound bit es which have caused Republican rallies to cheer. But the president coul d not get any response from Jim Lehrer or the audience to these sound bi tes that he was delivering out there. So as a result, when the cutaways to the president went on, he looked peeved. And what John Kerry did was diminish, to a good degree, the image of him as a flip-flopper and all the rest of it, because he didn't look like that. Whether it's going to have a lasting impact or effect at the polls, I don't think we're going to know until around the middle of next week. MS CLIFT: Well, first of all, spine and judgment don't have to be mutual ly exclusive attributes. And I think the point that John Kerry was getti ng across is that he had the judgment but he also had the spine. He has this passionate belief in his convictions, sometimes to the willful exclusion of facts, whereas Kerry operates really by rea son and intellect. And those virtues had been mocked by the president an d his minions over the last few weeks, and Kerry went into that debate a s a cartoon figure. And when he didn't show up to be this flip-flopper l acking core convictions, he gave a very different impression. He was in command of the facts and he comported himself with great dignit y, as opposed to Bush, who got really agitated as though he was annoyed that he had to be there. He didn't look at his watch like his dad did, but h e might as well have. You're free to ta lk about that, and also the basic question: Was this a faceoff between j udgment versus spine, and did it work for either party? MR BLANKLEY: Yeah, I agree with Eleanor that it's a false dichotomy. Let me focus -- MR MCLAUGHLIN: How did Kerry emerge on that front? MR BLANKLEY: No, I think on judgment, Kerry's first example, that we div erted resources from Afghanistan to Iraq, is provably wrong. We never di verted -- MR MCLAUGHLIN: Are we going to argue merits or are we going to argue abo ut performance? He doesn't have the judgment to even ge t the facts right. General Tommy Davis (sic/means Franks) had to come ou t afterwards and say he was in charge of both those operations; So judgment -- I wouldn't say that Kerry makes any points on that. MR MCLAUGHLIN: You mean, because somebody's going to actually check the facts and say -- MR BLANKLEY: Yeah. MR MCLAUGHLIN: You don't think that Franks is in a position where he als o wants to protect his own legend? MR BLANKLEY: If you're accusing General Franks of being a liar, you're w elcome to. MR MCLAUGHLIN: No, I'm accusing everybody of seeing through their own pa rticular lenses -- MR BLANKLEY: Well, we all do. Let me just -- MR MCLAUGHLIN: I happened to hear the Franks interview. MR BLANKLEY: I just want to say, we'll get to style later, and obviously Bush didn't do a good job on style. But as far as spine is concerned, w e know the president's spine. MR MCLAUGHLIN: Did you notice the extended reference to George Herbert W alker Bush's book dealing with not going into Baghdad and the quoting of that by Kerry to Bush? Do you think that got under the son's skin and i t rattled him? MR O'DONNELL: It seemed that every -- MR MCLAUGHLIN: Was that some kind of a secret weapon that you knew about in advance? MR O'DONNELL: Yeah, all these published books that you can choose. Look, the whole debate process got under the president's skin in the first round. It didn't take Kerry -- it wasn't a matter of Kerry's skill. This is the problem that the Republicans have constructed by having this vacuum in which the Republican campaign has taken place -- the self-delu sional quality of the Madison Square Garden rally convention where no co ntrary thought was ever allowed, and then these crazy Bush public events that the public has to have a ticket to go to. And Jim Lehrer was bri nging to him a reality that he had not been confronted with since the Ir aq War started. MR MCLAUGHLIN: In addition to that, is it not true, Pat -- you can speak to this -- every president lives in a hermetically-sealed bubble? Even though they say they're not yes men, the deference that is accorded to h im can create an illusion of omnipotence almost, and omniscience. MR O'DONNELL: Look, I don't think they're wrong on that -- MR MCLAUGHLIN: Is that true or false? I think the fact that Bush has not been subje cted to tough interrogation by the press, which is not going to cheer hi m; he's got a staff which, in effect , does not contradict him, in my judgment. I think he went out there and felt that, as Eleanor says, he's a convicti on-and-belief politician. He is not a man who's reflective and deals in a debate type of discussion. MS CLIFT: Ninety minutes is too long for President Bush. MR MCLAUGHLIN: You mean there was a -- MS CLIFT: And he kept repeating himself. MR MCLAUGHLIN: You mean, "It's hard work, it's hard work, it's hard work ." MR MCLAUGHLIN: Well, he had a reason for doing that, because that was al so a subliminal statement that John Kerry is not hard at all; But there was also some fatigue setting in with President Bush, was there not? MR BLANKLEY: I think -- MR BUCHANAN: Kerry was as -- look, Kerry came in there -- I mean, he loo ked like a million dollars. He -- MR MCLAUGHLIN: He was a little nervous, though, in the beginning. MR MCLAUGHLIN: Let's hit this important thrust made by the president. Wh om do the American troops want as commander-in-chief? And if I were to ever say, "This is the wrong war at t he wrong time at the wrong place," the troops would wonder, "How can I f ollow this guy?" You cannot lead the war on terror if you keep changing positions on the war on terror and say things like, "Well, this is just a grand diversion." When I was in a rope line just the other day coming out here from Wiscons in, a couple of young returnees were in the line, one active duty, one f rom the Guard. First of all, we have a disciplined military and th ey will follow the commander-in-chief. And they know better than anyone, because they're on the ground, how they have been cheated in the fact t hat there wasn't a plan to get the peace, that they were under-equipped. And Kerry has made excellent points here, and I think he really handled t he question about his allegedly changing positions by stating his core p ositions in succinct fashion. That little red light on the podium, Kerry ought to take it everywhere he goes. MR MCLAUGHLIN: You think he cleared the president's point that the troop s will and can follow him even though he said that this war is a colossa l diversion. MR BLANKLEY: Well, as Eleanor said, obviously the troops will obey order s But the larger point is that he m... |