Hillary Rips Bush

[Guest Cerebus]

You know, is it really *required* in this case that the incumbent president run again?  Can't we just pick another Republican more intelligent, qualified, charismatic, and open to compromise?

I wish we could, but no one has stood up to the plate...and hasn't stepped up to realistically challenge the nomination of a sitting pres since LBJ (who was so embarassed that he decided not to run). I'm stuck with praying for Clark, or just wearing a paper bag over my head when I go to vote between Dean & Bush II

[Cartman 0]

Can't we just pick another Republican more intelligent, qualified, charismatic, and open to compromise?

*Malfunction in Brain* Statement does not compute...Meltdown commencing....

 

Fun Theory of the day: Mikey Moore would get 15-20% of the vote if he ran for President right now.

[Justice 0]

Can't we just pick another Republican more intelligent, qualified, charismatic, and open to compromise?

*Malfunction in Brain* Statement does not compute...Meltdown commencing....

Of course, it doesn't take that much to overload your brain.

 

"Oh, hey there."

 

"... Information Overload. System Crash in 5..."

 

Fun Theory of the day: Mikey Moore would get 15-20% of the vote if he ran for President right now.

 

If he were the ONLY Democratic Candidate against Bush? Yes.

 

If he were running as a third party? I'd say he'd get less than Pat Buchanan, and that's pushing it.

 

cartman: Continuing to set the standard for stupidity at TSM.

[Guest Cerebus]

Can't we just pick another Republican more intelligent, qualified, charismatic, and open to compromise?

*Malfunction in Brain* Statement does not compute...Meltdown commencing....

[Cartman 0]

Well at least i'm recognized for something around here.

 

Not easy to make a name for myself here ya know

 

ALthough I would much rather be known here for setting the standard of stupidity than setting the standard for being nothing but a mindless sheep that believes everything he reads somewhere because it all just HAS to be true...BUT only if it supports his "beliefs".

[Guest Cerebus]

ALthough I would much rather be known here for setting the standard of stupidity than setting the standard for being nothing but a mindless sheep that believes everything he reads somewhere because it all just HAS to be true...BUT only if it supports his "beliefs".

<---Yuo

[Cartman 0]

ALthough I would much rather be known here for setting the standard of stupidity than setting the standard for being nothing but a mindless sheep that believes everything he reads somewhere because it all just HAS to be true...BUT only if it supports his "beliefs".

<---Yuo

LOL, that's hot.

 

I guess I should say i'm sorry, that was a bit flamatory. I have no interest in getting into a flame war with anyone here.

[Justice 0]

Oh, I do question things. But then again, I don't make moronic conspiracy suggestions like you did a while back when you suggested that the Bush Administration somehow caused 9-11 or willingly allowed it to happen in some way. Of course, if I'm a sheep for thinking that my government would never commit such a henious act on its own people....

 

Edit: Okay then, no flamewar. Truce for now.

[Cartman 0]

...and I still believe that the whole thing could have been avoided if it didn't benefit certain individuals greatly.

[Guest Cerebus]

...and I still believe that the whole thing could have been avoided if it didn't benefit certain individuals greatly.

Like Al-Queda. I see what you mean.

[Cartman 0]

Honestly, I have NO problem with you or anyone else who agrees with you. Each and every person as a right to believe whatever they choose to believe in. I happen to have distrust for most everyone, not just politicians

 

I'm not a bad guy once ya get to know me bro. I just get over-emotional with my theories sometimes, no malice is intended.

[Justice 0]

Honestly, I have NO problem with you or anyone else who agrees with you. Each and every person as a right to believe whatever they choose to believe in. I happen to have distrust for most everyone, not just politicians

 

I'm not a bad guy once ya get to know me bro. I just get over-emotional with my theories sometimes, no malice is intended.

I understand what you mean. Arguments get heated, etc, etc... It happens to me often enough that I get what you mean. I think everyone on this board is MUCH MUCH MUCH different in reality than what they show here.

[Cartman 0]

Honestly, I have NO problem with you or anyone else who agrees with you. Each and every person as a right to believe whatever they choose to believe in. I happen to have distrust for most everyone, not just politicians

 

I'm not a bad guy once ya get to know me bro. I just get over-emotional with my theories sometimes, no malice is intended.

I understand what you mean. Arguments get heated, etc, etc... It happens to me often enough that I get what you mean. I think everyone on this board is MUCH MUCH MUCH different in reality than what they show here.

See there's already one thing we can both agree on

[Slayer 0]

I think everyone on this board is MUCH MUCH MUCH different in reality than what they show here.

I'm pretty much the same

[Vern Gagne 0]

You know, is it really *required* in this case that the incumbent president run again?  Can't we just pick another Republican more intelligent, qualified, charismatic, and open to compromise?

I wish we could, but no one has stood up to the plate...and hasn't stepped up to realistically challenge the nomination of a sitting pres since LBJ (who was so embarassed that he decided not to run). I'm stuck with praying for Clark, or just wearing a paper bag over my head when I go to vote between Dean & Bush II

Wesley Clark? At least Howard Dean has a platform he actually believes in.

 

How can anyone say President Bush doesn't compromise. The man has gone out of his way to work with the Democratic party. Look at the education bill, he more or less let Ted Kennedy call the shots. The recent medicare bill calls for large amounts of spending. The President is spending like the liberals would, the only reason their against it is they can't admit Bush did something right, and they aren't the ones iniating it.

 

President Bush is doing what President Clinton did. Steal alot of the agenda of the opposing party on domestic issues.

[AndrewTS 0]

Can't we just pick another Republican more intelligent, qualified, charismatic, and open to compromise?

*Malfunction in Brain* Statement does not compute...Meltdown commencing....

I don't like McCain because of his views on censorship, but sadly he was the candidate I disliked the least.

 

I'd rebut you on that cartman, but the fact that you made your screen name a South Park character (without even the proper capitalization) speaks volumes about you and renders it unnecessary.

 

President Bush is doing what President Clinton did. Steal alot of the agenda of the opposing party on domestic issues.

 

Kinda late on it, though.

 

Still, you and I both know that those issues aren't what most of the voters care about.

 

What voters care about is the economy, taxes, and avoiding war if at all possible. Nothing else matters to them, really.

 

Plus, face it--if the economy's bad and you're the party in office, you get the blame, and you get ousted come election day. Most voters don't understand that economic policies often take years to show their results. I'm not saying that Bush's policies have helped, because I think they haven't. However, I don't foist the blame on him or the current administration because the economy has been in a decline and there's no rapid turnaround possible even with effective policies. The issue's far too complex.

 

Because of the state of the economy, it's almost guaranteed to me that the next president will be a Democrat. Unless the economy drastically turns around ASAP, Bush is as good as out.

[Guest MikeSC]

It's a good thing she isn't running in 2004. She hasn't a better chance than 2008. She probably doesn't have a chance in 08.

 

Although it would be interesting to see:

 

Son of a former president vs. wife of a former president?

 

Who is more unpopular within even their own party?

 

You know, is it really *required* in this case that the incumbent president run again? Can't we just pick another Republican more intelligent, qualified, charismatic, and open to compromise?

A few things:

 

1) Bush has compromised plenty. He did sign that horrible McCain-Feingold bill and the debacle-to-be Medicare bill.

 

2) More charismatic? Like whom?

 

3) More intelligent? The man only graduated from Harvard.

 

4) Bush unpopular in his own party? I'm not sure what alternate reality you reside in, because it sure isn't the case in this reality.

 

There is NOBODY more qualified than Bush out there for either party to be President.

 

Nobody.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

You know, is it really *required* in this case that the incumbent president run again?  Can't we just pick another Republican more intelligent, qualified, charismatic, and open to compromise?

I wish we could, but no one has stood up to the plate...and hasn't stepped up to realistically challenge the nomination of a sitting pres since LBJ (who was so embarassed that he decided not to run). I'm stuck with praying for Clark, or just wearing a paper bag over my head when I go to vote between Dean & Bush II

Clark?

 

The man changes positions more often than Clinton did --- and is even LESS honest.

 

I hope you're kidding.

-=Mike

...And to whomever said McCain --- the main paper in his state supported Bush over him. That should tell you something

[Guest MikeSC]

I don't like McCain because of his views on censorship, but sadly he was the candidate I disliked the least.

People who support McCain, by and large, can't name a single thing he stands for. Being a "war hero" doesn't exactly make one Presidential timbre (see Kerrey, John)

President Bush is doing what President Clinton did. Steal alot of the agenda of the opposing party on domestic issues.

 

Kinda late on it, though.

 

Still, you and I both know that those issues aren't what most of the voters care about.

 

What voters care about is the economy, taxes, and avoiding war if at all possible. Nothing else matters to them, really.

"Avoiding war"? Remember when Clinton would bomb Iraq, or Sudan, or several other places to both distract the public and get his numbers up?

 

The public LOVES a war, as long as it is just and casualties are light.

Plus, face it--if the economy's bad and you're the party in office, you get the blame, and you get ousted come election day.  Most voters don't understand that economic policies often take years to show their results.  I'm not saying that Bush's policies have helped, because I think they haven't.  However, I don't foist the blame on him or the current administration because the economy has been in a decline and there's no rapid turnaround possible even with effective policies.  The issue's far too complex. 

 

Because of the state of the economy, it's almost guaranteed to me that the next president will be a Democrat.  Unless the economy drastically turns around ASAP, Bush is as good as out.

Economy is in full recovery. Has been for a little while now. Stock market is going up --- this time, without the outrageously over-valued internet stocks fueling it, unemployment is dropping, productivity is skyrocketing, economic growth is quite solid.

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

Clark?

 

The man changes positions more often than Clinton did --- and is even LESS honest.

 

I hope you're kidding.

 

I don't like him all that much, and I agree with you about the waffling but not to that extent, but he's given a pretty clear plan about what he wants to do in Iraq. Hell it's clearer than anything I've heard come out of Bush & Co. so far.

 

...And to whomever said McCain ---

 

That'd be me.

 

the main paper in his state supported Bush over him. That should tell you something

 

Main paper in his state? That would be...?

[Guest MikeSC]

Clark?

 

The man changes positions more often than Clinton did --- and is even LESS honest.

 

I hope you're kidding.

 

I don't like him all that much, and I agree with you about the waffling but not to that extent, but he's given a pretty clear plan about what he wants to do in Iraq. Hell it's clearer than anything I've heard come out of Bush & Co. so far.

What are his plans in Iraq? I've heard nothing concrete out of him. And he changes his views on a virtually daily basis --- and that, sadly, is NOT an exaggeration.

 

Bush has been quite clear what he wants to do --- he wants to put down the insurgents and leave Iraq in the hands of a democratically elected gov't when the time is right for it. It takes time.

 

Just to give you some reference --- we still have troops in Japan and Germany. Rebuilding isn't quick.

 

...And to whomever said McCain ---

 

That'd be me.

 

the main paper in his state supported Bush over him. That should tell you something

 

Main paper in his state? That would be...?

The Republic, if memory serves, supported Bush.

 

And, just to note, he didn't win a state (that I can remember) where the primaries weren't open (i.e, Dems couldn't vote in GOP primaries). The Dems love the guy because they know they could walk over him.

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

What are his plans in Iraq? I've heard nothing concrete out of him.

 

MR. RUSSERT: In one word, how would you describe the current situation in Iraq?

GEN. CLARK: It’s a mess.

MR. RUSSERT: How would you describe the Bush administration’s policy?

GEN. CLARK: They have not had a strategy for success. I don’t think they have one yet.

MR. RUSSERT: If the president of the United States called you in tomorrow and said, “General Clark, I need your help, your guidance. The United Nations is gone from Iraq. The French, the Germans will not allow them to participate. NATO will not participate because they’re now working in Afghanistan, taking the United Nations and NATO off the table, what do I do?” what do you advise him?

GEN. CLARK: I’d say, “Mr. President, the first thing you’ve got to do is you’ve got to surrender exclusive U.S. control over this mission. You cannot build the kind of international support you need if we retain exclusive custody of the mission, and there’s no point in it. Build an international organization like we did in the Balkans. We call it the Peace Implementation Committee there. Call this one the Iraqi reconstruction Development Authority. Bring in every nation that wants to contribute, give them a seat at the table, put a non-American in charge and the responsibilities are to assist the political and economic reconstruction of Iraq, and then go to the Iraqis and there’s no reason to wait until June to give the Iraqis back their country. We should be transferring that authority tomorrow. They’ve already elected local councils. Let each local council send two people to a central location. Let that be a transitional central

government. Give them staff and let them start forming up the kinds of committees they need to have visibility over and make decisions on what’s being done in Iraq. Give the country back to the Iraqis. We’re not there to occupy it; we’re only there to help. So let’s give them their country back.”

MR. RUSSERT: Is the country now secure enough to give back to the Iraqis? How could an Iraqi interim government possibly protect itself against the same insurgency that is attacking the U.S.?

GEN. CLARK: Well, two things here. First of all, of course it’s not secure and you’ve got to have the United States there for a while. I would still go to NATO, and under my plan, I would announce a new Atlantic charter. I don’t think this administration can do it, but you’ve got to rebuild that relationship with our allies in Europe. This administration’s practically, severely, maybe permanently damaged that relationship. It’s got to be built back. I’d still like to have NATO there so that other nations can see what we’re doing military, but we’ll be there for a while. We’ve got to train that Iraqi force and bring it up to speed so it really can help secure the country, and step by step, they’ll pick up regions of the country.

MR. RUSSERT: In terms of NATO, this is what the NATO Secretary-General George Robertson said: “We’re trying to get it right to make sure that it works in the long term. ...And before we take on any new obligations, like, Iraq, I think we’ve got to get Afghanistan right.” NATO’s not ready to go into Iraq. Which other countries would you possibly attract into Iraq that aren’t there now?

GEN. CLARK: Well, I think that you start with what’s there right now. And then I think you ask NATO. I think you tell John Abizaid to report to the NATO military committee and through NATO to the United States, just as I did in Kosovo, because this brings NATO into the problem. These two problems are in many ways linked. We’re running them by the same command, the U.S. Central Command. We should link these two problems, and we should have NATO nations watching. Now, it’s true that Germany and France have said they don’t want to participate, but we have Italy, we have Poland, we have other countries who are participating on the ground. What they don’t have, Tim...

MR. RUSSERT: But just one country can veto NATO participating.

GEN. CLARK: They can. They can. And you’ve got to work those things, but this is a kind of diplomacy that works. I mean, you’ve got to talk with people, you’ve got to build relationships, and you’ve got to see and seek common interests. This is the whole thing about leadership. You know, with the United States and Europe, you can emphasize the things that separate us, and no doubt, there are differences in perspectives, but I think we have to build on what unites us. We have common interests. We have common heritage. We’re the greatest investment partners in each other’s countries. We need to tighten, strengthen, build this relationship so it can help us move into the 21st century successfully. One of my greatest concerns is this administration hasn’t done it, and now it may be too late because of the poisonous personal relationships between the administration and some European leaders.

MR. RUSSERT: May be too late. You think we may lose Iraq?

GEN. CLARK: I think it may be too late to strengthen this relationship. Now, let’s talk about Iraq for a second. I think there was a window of opportunity at the end of the military operation to be able to bring the Iraqi people on board. They could have seen a really smooth, effective, impressive U.S. occupation. American soldiers could have been in every village, they could have known the names of the people there, they could have provided food and water right away. But we didn’t do that. There was no plan for that. And as the weeks went by and this insurgency began, the targeted insurgency is the will of the Iraqi people to resist the American presence. That’s the target of the insurgency, and every helicopter shootdown strengthens those in Iraq who would use the Americans to gain their own power inside Iraq, and they would strike the Americans, they would show their power vis-a-vis the Americans. It’s those

cheering crowds in Fallujah that all this is directed toward. And so I don’t know if it’s too late, but I know that window’s closing very, very quickly. In order to take advantage of this time, we must move right now to give authority back to the Iraqis. I know June is too late.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe we should have more U.S. soldiers on the ground in Iraq in order to stabilize it?

GEN. CLARK: I think we need to change the force mix in Iraq as rapidly as we can. I think we need a lighter, more mobile force, more agile, more intelligence-driven. We need to take those 1,400 people who are searching for weapons of mass destruction, pull them off the search, give that to the United Nations people, use them to help us track down Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and to help us find the people in Iraq who are attacking our soldiers. And then we need to start reducing the size of the U.S. force there. We may have to temporarily increase it, but we need to transform what it does. All these heavy forces have big logistics footprints. I mean, you have lots of logistics. You have lots of unarmored Humvees, you have lots of opportunities for ambush. We need to reduce those opportunities.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Mr. Clark earlier this year you spoke out in favor of President Bush. Skeptics of your criticism of the President, would say it's a mere political ploy on your part.

 

Clark will get grilled for his political past. Which tends to lean toward supporting Republican canidates, including the current President.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Clark basically took Bush's plan, made some administrative changes and claimed it was this huge new plan that would solve all the problems in Iraq over night.

 

And remember he said he'd have caught Bin Laden right now though he left out those important reasons of how.

[Cartman 0]

I'd rebut you on that cartman, but the fact that you made your screen name a South Park character (without even the proper capitalization) speaks volumes about you and renders it unnecessary.

Wow, your smart. Making fun of the way I have my name typed on a Message Board must make you feel so superior. Congrats.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Or did the Hillster stop pretending to be part Jewish sometime between the point where she declared herself a lifelong Yankee fan and a lifelong Met fan(while living in Arkansas mind you) during her Senatorial campaign?

Ah sheesh, you have so much you could slam her for and you pick that stupid shit?

 

MrRant:

OMG DRUDGE REPORT 2003 LOLZ~!

 

Actually, Drudge's credibility is questioned mainly when he doesn't list a source. He does here. I just hate it when a story was posted by "anonymous sources close to (___) told DRUDGE." Then a bulldozer carrying a massive fucking grain of salt is required.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

If the Democrats are smart they'll NEVER let Hillary come in because that means the Republicans will get either Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell to run to counteract the whole "She's a woman running for president" thing, and you DON'T DON'T DON'T want that.

Colin Powell would be running for President as a woman? That's a shocker.

 

I think Hillary could probably defeat Condoleeza, she's not in the public eye as much as Powell and Rumsfeld yet will still manage to have that "responsible for the Iraq war" stigma if it turns out by 2008 we never found any WMDs, stable Iraq or not.

 

I could live with a Powell administration. Unfortunately, he's pretty close to bailing, possibly even before a second Bush term ends if there is one. He really really wants to spend time with his family and get out of all this.

 

 

I suspect if Hillary ran though, the GOP would run Giulianni. And even I know who I'd vote for in that case. Rudy Guilianni is the motherfuckin' MAN and IMHO is pretty much a lock for whenever he decides to run.

[Guest BDC]

This whole Hillary thing is just the "I wish" stage. Libby Dole had the same thing going on for her and look how that worked out. The American public has stated over and over that they'd like someone to run, but if they do, their public support isn't hardly enough to win the election. It's easy to chant "I wish 'x' woudl run" but when it comes right down to it, that's just wishy speculation.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Nice little conservative vs. less conservative flamewar going on here, so I think I'll just pop into address one thing before I let you kids get back to your fun.

 

How can anyone say President Bush doesn't compromise. The man has gone out of his way to work with the Democratic party. Look at the education bill, he more or less let Ted Kennedy call the shots.

 

Yeah, and then he cut all funding for anything that NCLB stood for. That's real compromise there; sign a piece of legislation that sounds like you're a freakin' liberal and then go ahead and ignore that you signed it when you pass your budgets.

[Vyce 0]

I suspect if Hillary ran though, the GOP would run Giulianni. And even I know who I'd vote for in that case. Rudy Guilianni is the motherfuckin' MAN and IMHO is pretty much a lock for whenever he decides to run.

PLEASE let that happen.

 

Guiliani would fucking own.