Why can't we attack Bush on real issues?

Drake Tungsten · July 27, 2003, 21:09

Quote:

The report pointedly notes that 15 of the 19 hijackers "were Saudi nationals who received visas in Saudi Arabia," and says that some U.S. government personnel described Saudi officials as "uncooperative" in terror probes prior to September 11, 2001.

The Saudi references -- many details of which were redacted from the report -- drew an angry response from Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, who said the report was being used to "malign our country and our people."

One organization representing families who lost loved ones in the attacks called on the Bush administration to release the redacted information, particularly details on Saudi Arabia.

"We seek to uncover facts some powerful people may want hidden, but we are serious about stopping the flow of money from Saudi Arabia to al Qaeda," said the statement from 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ort/index.html

This whitewashing of the role played by Saudi Arabia in 9/11 is apalling, a real issue upon which the Bush Administration should be taken to task. So where is the condemnation?

So far, the Administration is sneaking by on this, as the media and the Bush-haters are all too busy beating the irrelevant, dead-horse that is Bush's "lie" on the African uranium. How can this be happening? Are the usual Bush critics really too stupid to tell the difference between real issues (covering for Saudia Arabia) and trumped-up attacks (the African uranium claim)? How do you all expect to beat Bush in 2004 if you don't even have the common sense to recognize the difference between legitimate criticism and annoying tirades?

I don't get people sometimes. A real issue falls into the laps of the opposition and they do nothing with it. What the hell is going on?

Victor Galis · July 27, 2003, 21:12

How are the real issues in any way relevant to the upcomming election?

GePap · July 27, 2003, 21:14

The media loves beating a dead horse. I agree that the uranium story is not that important (the absencesn of WMD's makes the whole section of the speech devoted to that questionavle), but that "scandal" at least fits like a scandal. The Saudi thing does not: everyone and their uncle knows oil men will be chummy with the guys sitting on the biggest part of it.

As for most Bush haters: they are too mad to see straight. The other issue is this: if a popular admin. won;t out the Saud's, it should give a simple cue to their influence in Washington.

BUt don;t worry, it will be an issue later on, after the media looses interest in Uranium.

Drake Tungsten · July 27, 2003, 21:15

Quote:

How are the real issues in any way relevant to the upcomming election?

You don't think the fact that Bush helped cover for a government that assisted the 9/11 hijackers might be an important issue to raise during the next campaign?

Drake Tungsten · July 27, 2003, 21:17

Quote:

BUt don;t worry, it will be an issue later on, after the media looses interest in Uranium.

I honestly don't think so. This story is too complex for the media to latch onto. They only cover simple ideas anymore, like "Bush lied!". Complex ideas bore the audience and god forbid we do that.

Victor Galis · July 27, 2003, 21:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

How are the real issues in any way relevant to the upcomming election?

You don't think the fact that Bush helped cover for a government that assisted the 9/11 hijackers might be an important issue to raise during the next campaign?

You're talking about an election in America. If the real issues mattered, Bush wouldn't be in the White House right now.

Drake Tungsten · July 27, 2003, 21:21

Quote:

You're talking about an election in America. If the real issues mattered, Bush wouldn't be in the White House right now.

Why are wasting time in my thread if you aren't going to be serious? Issues matter in American elections just as much as they do anywhere else.

Spiffor · July 27, 2003, 21:24

When reading the title of this thread, I thought Bush has finally cheated on his wife

GePap · July 27, 2003, 21:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I honestly don't think so. This story is too complex for the media to latch onto. They only cover simple ideas anymore, like "Bush lied!". Complex ideas bore the audience and god forbid we do that.

So the issue will be "simplfied": Bush is lying "lies of ommision" for the Sauds! People like Graham and Schumer are already trying to make this an issue. The thing is too many people have too many saudi investors around.

Kramerman · July 27, 2003, 21:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Victor Galis

You're talking about an election in America. If the real issues mattered, Bush wouldn't be in the White House right now.

neither would Gore... oh ****!? whos gonna run our country? A person from criminal group A (dems), or a person from criminal group B (repubs).... hmm, i wonder which poison i will take this election

Victor Galis · July 27, 2003, 21:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

You're talking about an election in America. If the real issues mattered, Bush wouldn't be in the White House right now.

Why are wasting time in my thread if you aren't going to be serious? Issues matter in American elections just as much as they do anywhere else.

I'm being perfectly serious. I don't think the average American would recognize a real issue if it hit them on the head.

Kramerman · July 27, 2003, 21:45

luckily the average american is more apt to vote for American Idle, than for the President of the United States

.

call me an elitist, but people outa earn the right to vote... to many dumb asses in this country to screw it up

Victor Galis · July 27, 2003, 21:50

Quote:

call me an elitist, but people outa earn the right to vote... to many dumb asses in this country to screw it up

Sadly, that doesn't seem to be constitutional. Though I'd be in favor of some sort of IQ test being required to vote, or a at least a test that forces you to demonstrate at least a superficial understanding of the issues and politics in general.

notyoueither · July 27, 2003, 21:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Victor Galis

I'm being perfectly serious. I don't think the average American would recognize a real issue if it hit them on the head.

And I guess Blair is PM and Chirac is President because the British and French people are masters of the issues?

Victor Galis · July 27, 2003, 22:05

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

And I guess Blair is PM and Chirac is President because the British and French people are masters of the issues?

I fail to see how that is relevant.

notyoueither · July 27, 2003, 22:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Victor Galis
I fail to see how that is relevant.

It's relevant to your snide generalisations.

Odin · July 27, 2003, 22:11

I think people should be required to take a civics exam to be allowed to vote. It will never pass though because then the republicans would loose a lot of voters (Republicans are ignorant of the real world).

SlowwHand · July 27, 2003, 22:18

I'm going to skip on down and not read the crap I know has been posted.
One can't attack Bush on the "real" issues.
All he's had time to do is clean up after Clinton's foreign neglect.
Does he need to make time to address domestic issues, like jobs ?
Sure, but he didn't get to pick his priorities.
Up until now, I think he's done just fine.

loinburger · July 27, 2003, 22:23

If Bush loses the next election then it'll be from the economy still being in the dumper more than anything else. Bush's supposed lies and half-truths with regards to foreign policy will be secondary, assuming that anybody even bothers bringing them up again. The only reason that the opposition's harping on things like the African uranium claim is that it's premature to start harping on the economy -- if the economy recovers then the tactic backfires. They'll probably stick to issues-of-the-week until then, and forget all about them when election time rolls around.

SlowwHand · July 27, 2003, 22:26

BTW, the Brits stand by their intelligence reports.
That's good enough for me.

monkspider · July 27, 2003, 22:41

Quote:

I'm going to skip on down and not read the crap I know has been posted.

In other words, "what you say doesn't matter, but what I say is worth posting". How, ah, Texan of you.

Kramerman · July 27, 2003, 23:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Odin
I think people should be required to take a civics exam to be allowed to vote. It will never pass though because then the republicans would loose a lot of voters (Republicans are ignorant of the real world).

Oh, and the democrats are just freakin geniouses

I hardly think there is any correlation between intellegence and political party (other than that both parties have pretty low average intellegences... i guess average by american standards), and if there was, i wouldnt be surprised if it is contrary to what you think, seeing as the stereotypical republican is from Big Business and is Ivy League educated

Kramerman · July 27, 2003, 23:05

and whats with the damn party hats on the smilie faces... the freakin winky face doesnt look nearly as coy as it used to, now he just looks like a weak-ass homo faggot

Kramerman · July 27, 2003, 23:07

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider

In other words, "what you say doesn't matter, but what I say is worth posting". How, ah, Texan of you.

no, rather he means, "what you say is the same old horse **** i hear every day, nothing new, nothing interesting".... and ratehr that is, how smart of him, because its brutally efficient. why waste time reading the same ideas and complaints over and over again?

Sikander · July 27, 2003, 23:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
When reading the title of this thread, I thought Bush has finally cheated on his wife

An American would never use the word finally in a sentence about infidelity unless it alluded to someone finally leaving or killing someone else. The little cultural differences are amusing.

Sikander · July 27, 2003, 23:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Victor Galis

I'm being perfectly serious. I don't think the average American would recognize a real issue if it hit them on the head.

It depends on how much the issue weighed. If it is too heavy the resulting death or brain damage would obviously escape notice, and if the issue was very light they might not notice it at all. Thus only moderately weighted issues will be noted by the American people.

Sikander · July 27, 2003, 23:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Victor Galis

I fail to see how that is relevant.

Pull the bag off of your head, your boyfriend has already gone.

Sikander · July 27, 2003, 23:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Odin
I think people should be required to take a civics exam to be allowed to vote. It will never pass though because then the republicans would loose a lot of voters (Republicans are ignorant of the real world).

Hey genius, loose is an antonym for tight.

Sikander · July 27, 2003, 23:42

There are so many clumsy and / or blind moves by Bush's foreign policy team that it is only the generally acknowledged complete lack of a foreign policy consensus by the Dems that gives Bush any cover at all. They need to develop a viable foreign policy alternative so that they can do their duty as loyal opposition. It will help them in the long run, and the country in every instance.

Victor Galis · July 28, 2003, 00:06

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

It's relevant to your snide generalisations.

When I say Americans are idiots, I never make the claim that other people are not. I just don't have to deal with them on a daily basis.