117 replies to this topic

[DJS]

Polling numbers

americanresearchgroup.com

electoral-vote.com

NYT.com

rasmussenreports.com

Opposition to Bush within the scientific community

UCSUSA.org

Bush vs Kerry on science

Transcripts from the debates

Kerry vs Bush I

Kerry vs Bush II

Kerry vs Bush III

Edwards vs Cheney


And for those who hate filling out those annoying questionaires before getting access to articles, try this website out...

www.bugmenot.com

[DJS]

Bush vs Kerry on science

[DJS]

Kerry-Edwards Stem Cell Platform

Supporting Stem Cell Research To Find Cures For Millions Of Americans Suffering From Debilitating Diseases

Today, millions of children and adults suffer from incurable diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, heart disease, cancer, and spinal cord injuries. John Kerry and John Edwards believe that we must lift the barriers that stand in the way of science and push the boundaries of medical exploration so researchers can find cures that may exist. Continuing in our nation's great ethic of discovery, John Kerry and John Edwards believe that stem cell research holds immense promise for curing or treating these diseases and medical conditions. They will lift the ideologically-driven restrictions on stem cell research that are impeding progress toward cures for millions of Americans suffering from debilitating diseases.

Stem Cell Research Has Broad Bipartisan Support. Fifty-eight Senators, including John Kerry, sent George Bush a letter urging him to lift the ideologically-driven restrictions on stem cell research. Fourteen Republicans - including Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), and John McCain (R-AZ) - joined Democrats in sending Bush a loud and clear message. John Kerry has joined members from both sides of the aisle to work toward overturning the ban on federal funding of research on new stem cell lines while providing strict ethical oversight as doctors and scientists explore their full potential.

Fewer Cell Lines Available Than Originally Promised. The August 2001 stem cell policy allegedly made available more than 60 suitable stem cell lines to federally funded researchers. However, this has proved to be false. Many of the cells have turned out not to be genuine stem cell lines or turned out to have no scientific value. As of today, there are only 19 lines available - less than a third of the number originally promised.

Human Cells Contaminated With Mouse Cells. All of the cells available under the Bush policy were originally grown on what is known as a "feeder layer" of mouse cells, making their therapeutic value uncertain. The Bush policy prevents federally funded scientists from conducting research on stem cells grown without this contamination. Only by expanding the policy will federally funded scientists be able to conduct research on uncontaminated stem cells that have the greatest value to patients.

Other Cells Not Available For Research. Every day, scientists work to develop better techniques for growing and using human stem cells, yet the cell lines made available were all originally developed using techniques that are nearly three years old - a very long time in a fast-moving field like stem cell research. For example, scientists have now discovered ways to grow cells without a feeder layer of mouse cells. Restricting doctors to cells developed with outmoded techniques is like forcing NASA engineers today to work with technology from the old Apollo moon missions.

U.S. Losing Leadership In Stem Cell Research. Without federal funding, the nation's top researchers at universities, medical schools, and teaching hospitals cannot be part of the work to find new cures and treatments. Other industrialized nations have allowed extensive research on stem cells with strict ethical oversight. Britain in particular has been aggressive in establishing stem cell research programs. Due to the limited opportunities for federally funded stem cell research in this country, many scientists - particularly young scientists - who seek to engage in this research do so overseas.

John Kerry And John Edwards Support Lifting The Ban On Stem Cell Research. Stem cells hold enormous promise for the development of new treatments for the most devastating diseases. John Kerry and John Edwards believe our medical researchers should be permitted and encouraged to simultaneously pursue embryonic stem cell research. As president, John Kerry will overturn the ban on federal funding of research on new stem cell lines, and he will allow doctors and scientists to explore their full potential with the appropriate ethical oversight. Patients and their families should no longer be denied the hope that this new research brings.

[DJS]

CNN

Poll: Presidential race tight in Florida
Friday, September 24, 2004

CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows President Bush has slight lead in Florida over John Kerry.



(CNN) -- President Bush has opened a slight lead over Sen. John Kerry in the pivotal battleground state of Florida, but the race still remains within the margin of error 40 days before the election, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Thursday.

The poll also found that Republicans in the Sunshine State were more enthusiastic about voting this year than Democrats, but voters overall were less optimistic about economic conditions than they were in July, before three hurricanes battered the state. And forecasters predict another may be on the way.

Thursday's poll in Florida was the fourth CNN/USA Today/Gallup battleground state poll released this week. Bush also led in the other three states surveyed -- Iowa, Nevada and West Virginia.

Also Thursday, two other polls showed Bush opening up a significant lead in another swing state, Wisconsin, which went Democratic four years ago.

Among likely voters surveyed in Florida, 49 percent said they supported Bush, 46 said they supported Kerry and 2 percent expressed support for independent Ralph Nader. Among registered voters, 47 percent chose Bush, 45 percent chose Kerry and Nader's support remained at 2 percent.

The margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.

[DJS]

Kerry, Bush Campaign in Battleground States
Appearances Come as Polls Show a Tightening Race

By William Branigin and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, October 4, 2004; 2:00 PM

With new polls showing a dramatic tightening of his race against President Bush, Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry today lashed out at the administration over stem cell research, calling on Bush to lift "political barriers" that he said were imposed when Bush gave in to "extreme right-wing ideology" on the issue.

Bush today campaigned in the battleground state of Iowa, where he signed into law the fourth tax cut of his presidency. The bill, the "Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004" that was passed by Congress last month, extends tax breaks for an estimated 94 million Americans.

The campaign appearances by Kerry and Bush in key swing states came as the latest opinion polls showed the two candidates in a statistical dead heat.

According to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll issued Sunday, Bush and Kerry are tied at 49 percent among likely voters, with independent candidate Ralph Nader far behind at 1 percent. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. In the Gallup organization's previous poll, taken Sept. 24-26, Bush led Kerry among likely voters by 52 percent to 44 percent.

According to a Zogby International poll conducted Oct. 1-3 and released today, Bush leads Kerry by 46 percent to 45 percent in a two-way contest, with 8 percent undecided. This represents a narrowing of the race from a previous Zogby poll conducted Sept. 17-19 that showed Bush at 47 percent, Kerry at 44 percent and 7 percent undecided. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percent.

When Nader is included, the latest Zogby poll shows Bush leading Kerry by 46 percent to 43 percent -- unchanged from the September poll -- with Nader at 2.4 percent.

Pollsters said the latest surveys appeared to reflect Kerry's performance in last week's debate with Bush, a contest that surveys immediately afterward said was clearly won by the Massachusetts senator.

"The close race got even closer," pollster John Zogby said in a statement that accompanied today's survey results. "There is some evidence that Kerry's debate performance and increased clarity on the war has helped him consolidate at least some of the support that he has lost. But undecideds are up to 8 percent, and there is still a month to go."

Zogby said there was "also no doubt that Ralph Nader is hurting Kerry." He said Bush's biggest electoral hurdle appears to be undecided voters, "who give him a 31 percent positive job performance rating and a 69 percent negative rating." He said his polling shows that only 13 percent of undecided voters feel that Bush deserves reelection -- his lowest percentage yet -- while 37 percent feel it is time for someone new.

In a town hall meeting in Hampton, N.H., with actor Michael. J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, Kerry charged that Bush "has turned his back on science" through his decision three years ago to permit federal funding for a limited amount of research on embryonic stem cells and prohibit it for stem cell lines created after Aug. 9, 2001.

"The hard truth is that when it comes to stem cell research, this president is making the wrong choice to sacrifice science for extreme right-wing ideology," Kerry said. [ang]

Coinciding with the line of attack, the Kerry campaign released a new ad on the topic, which Democrats say is a popular one with their audiences.

In the 30-second ad, Kerry argues, "It's time to lift the political barriers blocking the stem cell research that could treat or cure diseases like Parkinson's. . . . There's no time to wait. At stake are millions of lives."

In reinforcing that message, Kerry told the town-hall style meeting in a Hampton, N.H., school gymnasium, "We stand at the next frontier, but instead of leading the way, we're stuck on the sidelines" on stem cell research. And Bush is "unwilling to change course," he said.

"The majority of the American people support stem cell research, and it's high time we had a president of the United States who does, too," Kerry said. "We can't afford any more stubborn refusal to face the facts."

Kerry listened to several tales from people hoping stem cell research could lead to cures for their afflictions. The invited crowd became emotional when a father, on stage with his diabetic son, held a large package of needles to show how many insulin injections the boy must have in a month.

Kerry was joined by Fox, the actor who has become a stem cell research activist since being stricken with Parkinson's. Fox told the gathering that Bush "has so restricted the stem cell lines available to us that it was kind of like he gave us a car and no gas and congratulated himself for giving us the car." [lol] [thumb]

According to polling conducted for the Kerry campaign in July, 69 percent of voters support stem cell research, including majorities among Democrats, Republicans and independents.

Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said that Bush has not banned stem cell research and has, in fact, provided the first federal funding for such research.

"John Kerry's attacks on stem cell research are trying to mislead the American people by implying a ban that doesn't exist," he said.

Kerry has argued that the limitations imposed on embryonic stem cell research by Bush's August 2001 decision are so severe as to amount to a virtual ban.

According to biomedical researchers, the existing embryonic stem cell lines that were approved for federal funding three years ago are inadequate to achieve significant scientific advances. Although the Bush administration at the time said there were 64 such stem cell lines, the number that can actually be used is no more than 21, and all are contaminated with mouse cells, researchers say.

www.washingtonpost.com

[DJS]

DON'T FORGET POLAND!!!

www.youforgotpoland.com









Poland eyes possible Iraq pullout in 2005
Remarks by president, defense chief are first to suggest time frame
The Associated Press
Updated: 3:59 p.m. ET Oct. 4, 2004

WARSAW, Poland - Poland should withdraw its troops from Iraq by the end of next year, Polish leaders said Monday, the first time the key U.S. ally has indicated a time frame for pulling its soldiers out of the war-torn nation.

President Aleksander Kwasniewski said no final decision has been made on when to withdraw forces but Warsaw was considering the late 2005 deadline with the hopes that elections scheduled for January in Iraq would bring stability to the country.

“We decided to speak with the Iraqis and our coalition partners (and) the United States about a reduction of the Polish forces from Jan. 1 — and maybe to finish our mission at the end of 2005,” Kwasniewski said on a visit to Paris.

The issue was sparked when Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski mentioned the possible pullout date in an interview, the first Polish official to do so publicly.

Official assails ‘cheap populism’
Szmajdzinski argued that 2½ years in Iraq would be “enough” for the Polish military and said his suggestion was aimed at countering “cheap populism” by opponents of the Polish presence. However, he later said his remarks were his “personal opinion” and “not the official position of the government.”

BY THE NUMBERS Troops in Iraq

Which countries are providing military support
United States 138,000
Britain 8,530
Albania 70
Australia 850
Azerbaijan 150
Bulgaria 455
Czech Rep. 92
Denmark 510
Dominican Rep. 300
El Salvador 360
Estonia 55
Georgia 150
Hungary 300
Italy 2,700
Japan 1,000
Kazakhstan 25
Latvia 120
Lithuania 105
Macedonia 28
Moldova 25
Mongolia 180
Netherlands 1,263
New Zealand 60
Nicaragua 115
Norway 150
Poland 2,400
Portugal 120
Romania 730
Singapore 200
Slovakia 105
South Korea 675 (3,000 on way)
Thailand 460
Tonga 44
Ukraine 1,700

“In my opinion, the deadline should be the date of expiry of the U.N. Security Council’s resolution 1546,” Szmajdzinski was quoted as telling the Gazeta Wyborcza daily. That resolution provided for the handover of power to Iraqi authorities and includes steps that run through December 2005.

Prime Minister Marek Belka, who has maintained that he wants to transfer more authority to Iraq to make an eventual withdrawal possible, said he had not been consulted on Szmajdzinski’s remarks.

In Washington, a senior White House official said the U.S. administration did not believe Poland had changed its position.

U.S. sees no policy change
“Their position remains the same — that their troops would be there as long as it takes,” the U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “The Poles have made clear their position is one where any decisions they make will be mission-driven.”

Separately, Ukrainian authorities released a letter in which Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih asked the former Soviet republic not to withdraw its troops, saying the foreign forces were needed in Iraq to “face the ongoing reality of global terrorism.”

Salih thanked Ukraine’s president for his country’s “contribution to the improvement of Iraq’s security, economy, governance” and said withdrawing any of the nearly 1,600 Ukrainian troops would have grave consequences for Iraq and international community.

Ukraine has said it plans to reduce its contingent by 200 troops starting with the next rotation scheduled to be completed in October. President Leonid Kuchma had no immediate response to the letter.

Observers said the Polish defense minister’s comments had less to do with state policy on Iraq than internal politics.

Government faces vote of confidence
Belka’s government faces a parliamentary vote of confidence on Oct. 15 and a leading member of his junior coalition partner, the Labor Union, has threatened to withdraw support for Belka unless he first presents a plan for pulling Polish troops out of Iraq.

The Iraq mission has broad political support in Poland but opposition has been growing among the Polish public. An opposition party, the Polish Peasants’ Party, has launched a petition seeking an immediate pullout.

Poland last year took command of a multinational security force in central Iraq that currently includes about 6,000 troops, including more than 2,400 Polish soldiers.

Szmajdzinski said the mission in “such difficult conditions” is a major challenge for a former Warsaw Pact army that is still “reaching new capabilities and introducing new equipment.”

“It is enough,” he said. “It is a rational period of time.”

In Paris, Kwasniewski said that he hoped the elections are going to bring stability to Iraq.

“Our plans are known: we want to reduce our forces after January 2005 and we are thinking very seriously about ending the mission . . . Will it be at the end of 2005 ... or another date? It’s hard to say today,” he said.

[ocsrazor]

Absolutely 100%, no two ways about it big whopping lies from the Bush election website. The first 3 statements below are in direct opposition to the facts. Under Clinton, the research was fully funded until the 1996 Dickey amendment passed by a repbulican Congress which banned the use of federal money for research using human embryos. That ban is still in effect. Clinton's administration found a way around the ban in certain instances through loopholes. Bush sealed all of them shut and essentially forced the research to a crawl with his actions.

This Bush spin is being propagated by the general news media and is easily verifiably false.

http://www.georgebus...ad.aspx?ID=3731

from Bush's campaign website:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Facts Are:

President Bush delivered the first funding ever for embryonic stem cell research.  Prior to the President's announcement of new funding, federal funding of embryonic stem cell research was $0.

The President's announcement did not ban, limit or restrict stem cell research.

It is inaccurate to say the President "limited federal funding" of stem cell research, as such funding did not exist to limit.  This language misleads voters to believe that the President put restrictions on existing federal funding.

The President did announce the first ever federal funding of stem cell research with ethical requirements on which stem cell lines are funded.

[DJS]

Yes Peter, big whopping lies, also known as politics as usual . Its a diversion tactic designed to diminish the negative impact the issue of stem cell will have on the election. A recent poll I saw on stem cell showed a full 66% of Americans support stem cell research, with even a majority of Republicans in favor. Bush&Co is hoping that stem cell is enough of a periphory issue that people won't scrutinize the admistration's record on it too critically. Hopefully, Kerry will make a real effort to put stem cell on the table during the next two debates as this issue plays out decisively in the Democrats' favor.

[DJS]

Ah, this is really just too sweet! [thumb]

Last night during the debate, Cheney asked viewers to go to www.factcheck.com to get the real story about Haliburton. What he meant to say was www.factcheck.org .

Guys, I'm not going to spoil this one. Go to factcheck.com and see for yourself where the redirect takes you. I nearly hurt myself I was laughing so hard... [lol]

(Ah, the link expired, but for future readers of this thread it should be noted that the redirect took you to Billionaire George Soros' personal web site whose home page read in big bold letters "WHY WE MUST NOT REELECT GEORGE W. BUSH". The article then proceeds to demolish Bush's record on foreign, economic and social policy.)

[DJS]

I'm just having too much fun with this thread. If you have any political satires or caricatures for the other side feel free to add them. [thumb]







Beavis and Butthead -- you gotta love this stuff. [lol]




And the Penguin, of course [sfty]

[DJS]

Overall opinion of the debate results so far:

Kerry vs Bush I -- decisive victory for Kerry

Edwards vs Cheney -- draw.

Favorite line from last nights Vice Presidential debate -- Edwards referring to Cheney, "He voted against meals on wheels for seniors. He vote against the Martin Luther King Holiday." [g:)] [g:)] )

[Lazarus Long]

I must admit too that I enjoy this thread far better than either debate so far )

[DJS]

Why thank you Lazarus. This thread will be my baby over the next month and I'm telling you now, its going to be hard work, extremely-unbelievably- hard work. [8)] Seriously though, I understand your sentiments completely. There is not much substance to political debates nowadays is there? I guess I'm learning to take them for what their worth and (instead of looking for real substance) analyze the rhetoric, distortions and underlying agendas. hardwork, mixed messages, mixed messages, mixed messages...





hardwork

[Kalepha]

LOL! The Beavis and Butthead one is right on the money. Genius! [g:)]

[123456]

Very funny pictures there Don Spanton; the Mr. Burns one is the funniest lol. Seriously, I thought Bush was a fairly ok leader, that is until I learned the facts. No weapons of mass destruction found ( The cause to go to war in the first place; which somehow threatned the USA); He is against Crucial Research involving Stem Cells ( This sorth of thing has the potential to save so many Lives); Finally, Not doing a good job defending the American Public ( He Flew in a Gamma Scanner from here in Canada to a Port somewhere in the USA because a news crew was checking up about Port Security I heard; that sorth of stuff should have been purchaced for all ports long ago).

Edited by 123456, 06 October 2004 - 08:07 PM.

[DJS]

New numbers have Kerry surging past Bush in key battle ground states.

Battle Ground Info

[DJS]

[jhershierra]

obviously this is the I hate Bush crowd.

[DJS]

Obviously jhershierra, this is the "crack a few jokes at the expense of our political leadership" crowd. ) I have created this thead and as such, I have populated it with materials which I find personally amusing. I have also made clear that desenting opinions and materials will not only be tolerated, but encouraged.

You should lighten up a bit, and learn to appreciate the satirical creativity presented on this thread, regardless of whether it is incongruent with your subjective reality.

[DJS]

An interesting issue which was brought to my attention the other day was the use of "code" by the two candidates during the second Presidential debate. I'm sure that one could find instances of both candidates issuing subtle ques to their base, but the instance which I would like to cite came during the dialog regarding the appointment of Supreme Court Justices.

Remember when Bush referenced the Dred Scott decision? I don't know about you, but I was thinking to myself, "Boy, he's really rambling. Why the hell is he bringing this up?" [huh]

[sfty] Well, he wasn't rambling, he was speaking in code to his "right to life" base. The Dred Scott decision is commonly cited by right-to-lifers in their literature as an instance where property rights were used to deny individuals their human rights. Yeah, I know it's a bit wacko [8)] , but these people are actual quite serious. They really believe that comparing slavery to abortion is legitimate.

By making this reference Bush was basically saying to his base, "If I'm reelected I will nominated Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v Wade."

[DJS]

Richard Dawkins

Dear Americans,

Don't be so ashamed of your president: the majority of you didn't vote for him. If Bush is finally elected properly, that will be the time for Americans travelling abroad to simulate a Canadian accent. Please don't let it come to that. Vote against Bin Laden's dream candidate. Vote to send Bush packing.

Before 9/11 gave him his big break - the neo-cons' Pearl Harbor - Bush was written off as an amiable idiot, certain to serve only one term. An idiot he may be, but he is also sly, mendacious and vindictive; and the thuggish ideologues who surround him are dangerous. 9/11 gave America a free gift of goodwill, and it poured in from all around the world. Bush took it as a free gift to the warmongers of his party, a licence to attack an irrelevant country which, however nasty its dictator, had no connection with 9/11. The consequence is that all the worldwide goodwill has vanished. Bush's America is on the way to becoming a pariah state. And Bush's Iraq has become a beacon for terrorists.

In the service of his long-planned war (with its catastrophically unplanned aftermath), Bush not only lied about Iraq being the "enemy" who had attacked the twin towers. With the connivance of the toadying Tony Blair and the spineless Colin Powell, he lied to Congress and the world about weapons of mass destruction. He is now brazenly lying to the American electorate about how "well" things are going under the puppet government. By comparison with this cynical mendacity, the worst that can be said about John Kerry is that he sometimes changes his mind. Well, wouldn't you change your mind if you discovered that the major premise on which you had been persuaded to vote for war was a big fat lie?

Now that all other justifications for the war are known to be lies, the warmongers are thrown back on one, endlessly repeated: the world is a better place without Saddam. No doubt it is. But that's the Tony Martin school of foreign policy [Martin was a householder who shot dead a burglar who had broken into his house in 1999]. It's not how civilised countries, who follow the rule of law, behave. The world would be a better place without George Bush, but that doesn't justify an assassination attempt. The proper way to get rid of that smirking gunslinger is to vote him out.

As the bumper stickers put it, "Re-defeat Bush". But, this time, do it so overwhelmingly that neither his brother's friends in Florida nor his father's friends on the Supreme Court will be able to rig the count. Decent Americans - there are absolutely more intelligent, educated, civilised, cultivated, compassionate people in America than in any other country in the western world - please show your electoral muscle this time around. We in the rest of the world, who sadly cannot vote in the one election that really affects our future, are depending on you. Please don't let us down.

· Richard Dawkins is professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University. More letters to Clark County will be appearing in G2 over the next fortnight.

[Mind]

Here is an interesting column from Robert Novak about plans for troop withdrawal. I cannot believe this has not gotten more mainstream media coverage. For crying out loud, Rumsfeld was just over in Iraq last week saying the exact same thing...that U.S. troops would be pulling out next year. Nary a report in the media. Anyone have any ideas why. The cynical side of me that sees the socialist media bias everyday in the U.S. thinks that they are ignoring it because it would help Bush...how it could help him...I don't know. Maybe they are too busy propping up Kerry to notice.

Another question is...if this is true (troop withdrawal), will the international media hatred for the U.S. be quelled? Even a little? Personally, I doubt it, but I still retain some hope. Any thoughts out there?

No victory in Iraq
Robert Novak (archive)

October 7, 2004

CORAL GABLES, Fla. -- When I reported in this column Sept. 20 that there is "strong feeling" in the "Bush administration policymaking apparatus" that "U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year," Republican politicians -- most recently Bush-Cheney campaign manager Ken Mehlman -- disagreed. But Don Rumsfeld has not contradicted me.

Nobody from the administration has officially rejected my column. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, in his usual teasing of words, says pretty much what I did. While politicians such as Mehlman talk about "victory" in Iraq and President Bush implies it, war planners such as Rumsfeld do not. These realists recognize that aims in this ugly war have been reduced.

Neither George W. Bush nor John Kerry, as campaigners, wants to risk advocating cut-and-run in Iraq. With the war looming as the decisive issue in this presidential campaign, neither candidate dares appear a defeatist. But it is a given that, whoever the winner is, he will not risk losing another 1,000 troops if that is what's needed to win the war.

Last Saturday, Mehlman appeared on CNN's "Capital Gang" as my temporary replacement (at my suggestion). In Coral Gables to cover the first Bush-Kerry debate, I had stupidly slipped on the water on the bathroom floor of the Hyatt Regency Hotel and broke my hip. At this writing, I am still a patient at Doctors Hospital in Coral Gables.

On "Capital Gang," moderator Mark Shields noted to Mehlman that I had reported "there are plans afoot in this administration to get out of Iraq next year." The campaign manager replied: "I hate to say this about someone who is recovering, and I am a big Bob Novak fan. That particular column was inaccurate. There is no plan. There is only one plan, and the plan is for victory. And the reason is because there's no alternative."

I believe Mehlman is doing an outstanding job in the Bush campaign, and I am a Ken Mehlman fan. However, Mehlman would have realized I was not inaccurate if he had heard Rumsfeld's interview earlier Saturday with Rita Cosby of Fox News -- a remarkable performance that should have received more attention.

When asked by Cosby whether there would be "total elimination of U.S. troops," Rumsfeld replied: "We want to go in and be helpful and leave. That's basically the American way." In Rumsfeldese, that was pretty close to a flat "yes."

The interview really got interesting when Cosby asked what would be the earliest the U.S. could pull troops out of Iraq. Predictably, the cautious Rumsfeld would set no date. But what he did say was not far from what my sources had told me:

    That part of the world tends not to be perfectly peaceful. . . . It never will be, is my view. And do I think that when we leave, it'll be a perfectly peaceful situation? No, I think it'll be a situation where the Iraqis have developed the ability to manage their situation from a security standpoint. And we will have a mutual agreement that it makes sense now to bring down the coalition forces and leave.

Rumsfeld's carefully parsed prose was almost exactly what my administration sources had put more bluntly. When Cosby asked Rumsfeld whether the U.S. may "start to pull out" after the Iraqi elections next year, he replied: "We've already started. We had 150,000 troops over there originally. We're down to 137 [thousand] right now."

There was no talk of "victory" by the defense secretary. The closest he came was saying "we're going to win" by holding Iraqi elections despite insurgent efforts to block the vote. In public comments on Sept. 24, Rumsfeld conveyed his goal:

    An Iraq that is a single country, not broken in pieces, that was at peace with its neighbors and didn't have weapons of mass destruction; [that] fashioned a government that was respectful of the various women, religious groups, all the diversity that existed in that country.

In asserting that the U.S. had not fashioned a "template" for Iraq, Rumsfeld suggested a war without clear victory. Whoever wins the election Nov. 2, it is hard to imagine the winner condoning an endless war in Iraq that would mean long casualty lists unacceptable to Americans.

[DJS]

Hey Mind

I cannot believe this has not gotten more mainstream media coverage

Actually, it was on the front page of the Star Ledger (the major NJ newspaper) a few days ago.

For crying out loud, Rumsfeld was just over in Iraq last week saying the exact same thing...that U.S. troops would be pulling out next year.

So if Rumsfeld and Novak say it, it's just gotta be true, right? Would you not admit to the possibility that such announcements are politically motivated? I for one, would contend that the media is justified in providing only luke warm coverage. Such statements by high ranking defense officials are A) questionable based on the obvious political affiliation of said officials (however I do not wish to commit an ad hominem circumstancial fallacy) There are two additional reasons for discounting Novak and Rummy's claims: B) They are speculative. C) The situation on the ground inside of Iraq is not secure or in anyway stable and does not even remotely suggest that a reduction of US forces will happen in the short term.

And there's actually also a fourth reason, which is slightly more speculative on my part, but still something that I believe strongly D) Based on my former Neo-con leanings, I am quite convinced that the driving motivational force behind this administration's decision to invade Iraq was not to capture Saddam - it was not to enforce the sanctions - and it was not to combat the production or proliferation of WMD. It was to create a large, forward positioned, military presence with quick strike capabilities in the heart of the Middle East.

And obviously if you are of this opinion, then Rumsfeld's announcements are LIES LIES LIES!

The cynical side of me that sees the socialist media bias everyday in the U.S. thinks that they are ignoring it because it would help Bush...how it could help him...I don't know. Maybe they are too busy propping up Kerry to notice.

It's funny that you say this, because I have dialoged with quite a few individuals on the other side of the political spectrum who hold the exact opposite view. They believe that the media exhibits an extreme conservative bias. I personally think that the media is way too easy on both political parties and is one of many reasons why this country can not break the two party system which is failing it so miserably.

will the international media hatred for the U.S. be quelled? Even a little? Personally, I doubt it, but I still retain some hope. Any thoughts out there?

Does the international community hate us, or are they terrified of us? I would contend that a complete withdrawal of US troops from the Arabian peninsula would go a LONG WAY toward reducing animosity against the US abroad.

[th3hegem0n]

I just watched the third presidential candidate debate (this is the first one I have been able to watch).

I've got one thing to say:

BADNARIK '04 !!!

[Mind]

I'm with you th3hegemon.

[scottl]

Just discovering this place is more than just the supplement board...

Mind and th3hegemon...I was just thinking that a libertarian would be an improvement....

They believe that the media exhibits an extreme conservative bias.

like Dan Rather.....

[DJS]

Scottl, I do not necessarily agree with charges of bias one way or the other. I'm sure that one could find numerous examples of bias within the media coming from both ends of the political spectrum. HOWEVER, if we are going to discuss the deficiencies of the media, let us not forget the *STAGED* nature of white house press conferences. [sfty]

[DJS]

As far as Libertarian. Sounds great if you're living on a small farm in Idaho. [lol] [lol] (I'm just joshing) The problem with this political philosophy is that we have been past the point of no return for a long long time. We live in an inter-connected world where individuals depend upon each other for resources and services. Society [expects], no DEMANDS that the government provide for the common welfare of the people in numerous ways. Libertarianism is a movement whose chances for success are negligable at best. All I'm hoping for right now from our government is a little moderation and a pro-technology, pro-progress platform. That's why I'm voting for Kerry.

I would further add that, in much the same way that the Neo-Cons take the ultimate righteousness of the USA as an article of faith, so too do the Libertarians take the utility and ultimate legitimacy of capitalism as a system. One should be cognizant of the fact that every developed economy in the world today is a mixed one. The kind of Laze-faire economic system describe by Adam Smith 200+ years ago is nothing other than a reductionist fiction in today's globalized economy.

[scottl]

Society [expects], no DEMANDS that the government provide for the common welfare of the people in numerous ways.

In the words of John Adams, "there was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

One of the ways that happens is that the majority vote themselves money from the public treasury [sorry, don't remember where this came from]

Ya I know this country...isn't a democracy....still applies

[vortexentity]

I was reading this page that indicated that Ws behaviour looked a lot like he was on coke last night. I have only just now watched it and I have to admit that he looks pretty jacked up on something. Maybe they are giving him nootropics. LOL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editor note: [Link deleted. Humor is fine, but conspiracy theories degrade the legitimacy of this thread and will not be tolerated.] The editor also notes that vortexentity has a kick ass avatar. )

Edited by DonSpanton, 14 October 2004 - 09:21 PM.