When political polarization goes too far

If it comes down to it, don't bet against Karl Rove pushing the ouster of Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld, i.e. the major neocon forces in the administration. It would be pretty easy to place the political blame on them and deflect it from the president.

That would leave the door open for who else? Vice President Rudy Guiliani. I think the democrats would have to kiss their chances goodbye. To be honest, I don't know if I'd necessary have a problem wtih a second bush term if the neocons were out. They were the ones pushing for this Iraq mess in the first place since the PNAC was formed.

 

I'd agree. Myself i'm prtty jaded on the political process. But this edwards guy seems promising. Though it doesn't seem as if he'll win the nomination.

 

We'll see next Tuesday

 

Edwards is losing by 40points in new york and california. i just don't see how he pulls it out. I've been a fan of his for a while now. It's really unfortunate that the primary season has been so compressed this year thank-you-very-much-terry-mcaullife, or Edwards would have a great chance at winning the nomination.

All the current system does is encourage herd voting.

 

a kerry/edwards ticket might be attractive purely because of edwards...

I dun wanna see dean within a continent of the white house... that mans scares the crap out of me...

 

Well, I never said or implied Natoma ever supported Kerry...

 

Um, did I say it wasn't? Who is the one here bashing Bush, while saying criticizing someone like Kerry is "wrong?"

What false points?

Right.....like they're trying to do with Bush...

 

Enough of the chicken hawk accusations. Powell, and Rumsfield both served in combat.

Bush did his air national guard stint.

Cheney was too young for Korea, and too old for Vietnam.
Same with Wolfowitz.
Rice couldn't have served in combat.

But ignoring that, you have the same sort of thing in the last administration. You've got a mix of "soldiers" and non-soldiers.

 

Yes, you could accuse him of being AWOL.

Problem is, John, these are completely separate and irrelevant issues. Whether or not Bush is or isn't a "chickenhawk" has no bearing on the evaluation of his actions with respect to the Iraq war. Get it now?

*Swish*

Oh, and thanks for quoting another opinion piece, like it has any relevance? Do I need to start pulling opinion pieces from conservative mouthpieces? What's the point?

As opposed to conservatives losing races who are slanderd with accusations of "forcing seniors to choose between food and drugs", "starving children", and "running over gay couples with cars?" (That last one should ring a bell.)

Give me a break John. Your hypocricy is laughable. It's one thing to point out the typical bullshit partisan rhetoric. It's something else to only accuse one side of being "guilty" of it...and It's yet quite another to not realize you're doing the same thing yourself.

 

I rest my case. More rhetoric.

And I have little respect for someone criticizing the President's job who's father isn't one, and who he himself hasn't been put in his shoes. Sound fair?

It's not enough that when Bush does send our troops to fight, that he

1) Doesn't micromanage the execution of the war based on politics, but lets leaves execution of the war to those who ARE in the business of fighting war

2) What he can do...offer up funding, to execute the war, he does without reservation.

Um, john...you pointed to an EDITORIAL PAGE. I can't go to the whitehouse for actual, statistics?

Again, I rest my case.

Really? As if I midlessly defend everything that Bush does? I defend the Administration when I see fit. I criticize it when I see fit.

What I don't do, is levy patisan, bullshit rhetoric toward the administration when I criticize it. But then, I'm a conservative so I guess you would expect that.

On the other hand, you call yourself a "moderate"...so why are you doing it?

You're acting like the partisan hack that you are criticizing others for being. I don't know if you have an issue with that label in general...or only when it applies to yourself.

 

Even if Edwards was VP, I don't think I could vote for it, simply because Kerry would be President. Unlike Bush, Kerry would actually be a president, and not a puppet of his VP, Dick Cheney.

Seriously though, I voted for the lesser of two evils in 2000, and it didn't matter anyway. I just don't know if I have the strength to do it again if Kerry wins the democratic nomination. Ugh.

 

Nah...Kerry would be a puppet, to the polls, of course.

 

S_O, why expect people to get the reasons for the impechement straight. Those on the far left will obviously spin/distort the truth to suit their own needs.

Natoma, exactly where has the president lied about the wmd's. Its not like he is the one who sifts through all the data, he's not the one that goes undercover to iraq to see whats there (or not there). He dependeds on what others give him. I very much doubt that he would have PURPOSELY lied and then expected people to forget about the reasons once the war was done. BECAUSE he would have added more to his reasons last year. Instead of just using wmd's he would have added all the other crap that their talking about now. I hope that makes sense.

later,
epic

 

There's more than enough evidence to make a charge of misconduct in office wrt the Iraq war in both the lead up and prosecution of such war. The point is, Kenneth Starr and his backers were pushing toward impeachment hearings even before clinton officially said "I did have sex with that woman."

Impeachment is nothing but a trial of the official, not actual removal from office.

 

Nice label. I'll be sure to let everyone else in the national guard know your feelings toward them.

Yeah, who would've thought someone with a box cutter would take down the WTC?

That's beacause you won't.

Show me where I posted "abused" statistics. Go on.

Other than the law, you mean.

Yes...and they're both partisan rhetoric hack responses. Point?