PDA

View Full Version : Anyone catch Bob Woodward on 60 Minutes?



mariners216
04-18-2004, 05:37 PM
Talking about Iraq...says Powell and Cheney can't even speak to each other now due to disagreements on the war..


Says Bush cut a deal with the Saudis to lower oil prices before the election in November...prices artificially raised now. Is this legal?

mariners216
04-18-2004, 05:39 PM
Also Saudi Prince was notified of decision to invade Iraq before Powell and Congress..

mariners216
04-18-2004, 05:45 PM
Wasn't watching for a bit but caught an update on another board, talking about Bush diverting $700million (towards Iraq I assume) without congressional knowledge..

Pain_is_temp
04-19-2004, 06:57 AM
Come on Mariners; you know better than to put any stock into what someone who opposes the Bush regime says. You KNOW they are lying, the only people that tell the truth in this country are the people IN the Bush regime, we have to wait until they get their spin errr story out. Then we will know the truth!
:rolleyes:

BigKazWSM747
04-19-2004, 09:50 AM
Yeah it was very interesting to say the least. I have a feeling that Dubya is going down this November because the **** hasn't hit the fan yet and his support ratings are dropping faster than a little boy's pants in a confessional. :D:D

LordNeon
04-19-2004, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
Yeah it was very interesting to say the least. I have a feeling that Dubya is going down this November because the **** hasn't hit the fan yet and his support ratings are dropping faster than a little boy's pants in a confessional. :D:D

Woo-hoo :D It's amazing how crappy the past month has been for Bush - every week, a new embarassment. They've spent like $40 million on ads and it's had almost no effect whatsoever.

bgzee
04-19-2004, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by LordNeon
Woo-hoo :D It's amazing how crappy the past month has been for Bush - every week, a new embarassment. They've spent like $40 million on ads and it's had almost no effect whatsoever.

It still baffles me how Bush beat out McCain for the republican nomination back in 2000. I knew it would make for an interesting 4 years once Bush got elected... but who woulda thought? Now its all starting to catch up with him, and it looks like just the tip of the iceberg.

kmac12
04-19-2004, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by bgzee
It still baffles me how Bush beat out McCain for the republican nomination back in 2000. I knew it would make for an interesting 4 years once Bush got elected... but who woulda thought? Now its all starting to catch up with him, and it looks like just the tip of the iceberg.

I do not know what will come of these allegations (white house response and so on). Some of it is probably true, but I do not know if Joe Public cares anymore. I think the majority already believed that he had a hard on for Iraq anyways. This doesn't seem to be anything new.

The $700 million will not be a problem since it was also for the war on terror (Bush's claim about Iraq also being the war on terror). Again, it is legally questionable and I doubt anything will come of it.

Basically, I think the Iraq war has hurt him about as much as it will. That is, unless there is a substantial rise in the loss of life in the coming months.

His main goal over the next few months is to paint John Kerry as the liberal that he actually is. Bush's advertising worked according to the polls.

The former mayor of Boston (and friend of Kerry) said last week that Kerry is a liberal who is basically going to move to the center to get elected. I think people will see through that.

Again, Kerry cannot win this on his own. This is Bush's race to lose.

In the end, I do not think that America will swear in someone as liberal as John Kerry. I guess we will see though.

bgzee
04-19-2004, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by kmac12
I do not know what will come of these allegations (white house response and so on). Some of it is probably true, but I do not know if Joe Public cares anymore. I think the majority already believed that he had a hard on for Iraq anyways. This doesn't seem to be anything new.

The $700 million will not be a problem since it was also for the war on terror (Bush's claim about Iraq also being the war on terror). Again, it is legally questionable and I doubt anything will come of it.

Basically, I think the Iraq war has hurt him about as much as it will. That is, unless there is a substantial rise in the loss of life in the coming months.

His main goal over the next few months is to paint John Kerry as the liberal that he actually is. Bush's advertising worked according to the polls.

The former mayor of Boston (and friend of Kerry) said last week that Kerry is a liberal who is basically going to move to the center to get elected. I think people will see through that.

Again, Kerry cannot win this on his own. This is Bush's race to lose.

In the end, I do not think that America will swear in someone as liberal as John Kerry. I guess we will see though.

There has been speculation and the slight possibility that Kerry could choose McCain as his running mate. Personally I would love to see this happen.

kmac12
04-19-2004, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by bgzee
There has been speculation and the slight possibility that Kerry could choose McCain as his running mate. Personally I would love to see this happen.

Well, John McCain said last weekend on Meet the Press that he would not even consider a VP nod with Kerry. He stressed it very dramatically. He did not dance around the question.

Would you under any circumstances run as John Kerry's vice president?

SEN. McCAIN: When my kids were smaller, my wife used to wear a T-shirt that said, "What part of no don't you understand?" I'd like to start wearing that T-shirt myself. No, no and no. I will not leave the Republican Party. I cherish the ideals and principles of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. I will not be vice president of the United States under any circumstances. I feel I can be far more effective in helping shape policy in the future of this country as a United States senator, and I will not, I will not, stand for vice president of the United States.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4717276/

LordNeon
04-19-2004, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by kmac12
The former mayor of Boston (and friend of Kerry) said last week that Kerry is a liberal who is basically going to move to the center to get elected. I think people will see through that.

Again, Kerry cannot win this on his own. This is Bush's race to lose.

In the end, I do not think that America will swear in someone as liberal as John Kerry. I guess we will see though.

Of course Kerry will move to the center to get elected, just as Bush pretended to be centrist in 2000 and then swerved way to the right, giving the Christian fundies everything they wanted.

As for Kerry winning it on his own, he doesn't have to win it on his own, he just has to win.

kmac12
04-19-2004, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
Of course Kerry will move to the center to get elected, just as Bush pretended to be centrist in 2000 and then swerved way to the right, giving the Christian fundies everything they wanted.

As for Kerry winning it on his own, he doesn't have to win it on his own, he just has to win.

GWB is more moderate than you and others let on...

http://www.issues2002.org/George_W__Bush.htm

Also, he has never avoided the conservative label not even in 2000.

Now, if Kerry is asked point blank, 'Are you a liberal?', he will dance around the answer.

Reborn79
04-19-2004, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by kmac12
GWB is more moderate than you and others let on...

http://www.issues2002.org/George_W__Bush.htm

Also, he has never avoided the conservative label not even in 2000.

Now, if Kerry is asked point blank, 'Are you a liberal?', he will dance around the answer.

I really hope you are joking... Bush is one of the most fundamentalist, religious, right-wing presidents in recent history. If you can't admit that, even if you support him, then you have blinders on.

# Bush claims gay tolerance but record differs. (Oct 2000)
# Tolerance & equal rights, not gay marriage & special rights. (Oct 2000)
# No gay adoptions; but listens to gay GOP group. (Apr 2000)
# Against gay marriage, but leave it to the states. (Feb 2000)
# No gays in Boy Scouts. (Aug 1999)
# Hate-crime rules donít apply to gays. (Jul 1999)

Abandons campaign pledge to reduce CO2 emissions. (Mar 2001)

# Scientists are unsure about global warming. (Oct 2000)
# Kyoto Treaty puts too much burden on US. (Oct 2000)
Double funding for abstinence to prevent STDs. (Jan 20)
Promote abstinence in schools and via churches. (Apr 2000)


I found this one pretty amusing...

America should be a humble nation, but project strength. (Oct 2000)

Anyway, the list goes on. Look it up yourself.

Kerry is to the left, yes. He is not, however, far to the left. For that, look at Kucinich(sp) or Nader. Personally I would have liked to see those guys run and get more popular.

But that isn't the case, and so I am backing Kerry.

BigKazWSM747
04-19-2004, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by bgzee
There has been speculation and the slight possibility that Kerry could choose McCain as his running mate. Personally I would love to see this happen.

I thought McCain publicly came out and said he would no accept to be VP for either party.

kmac12
04-19-2004, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
I really hope you are joking... Bush is one of the most fundamentalist, religious, right-wing presidents in recent history. If you can't admit that, even if you support him, then you have blinders on.

# Bush claims gay tolerance but record differs. (Oct 2000)
# Tolerance & equal rights, not gay marriage & special rights. (Oct 2000)
# No gay adoptions; but listens to gay GOP group. (Apr 2000)
# Against gay marriage, but leave it to the states. (Feb 2000)
# No gays in Boy Scouts. (Aug 1999)
# Hate-crime rules donít apply to gays. (Jul 1999)

Abandons campaign pledge to reduce CO2 emissions. (Mar 2001)

# Scientists are unsure about global warming. (Oct 2000)
# Kyoto Treaty puts too much burden on US. (Oct 2000)
Double funding for abstinence to prevent STDs. (Jan 20)
Promote abstinence in schools and via churches. (Apr 2000)


I found this one pretty amusing...

America should be a humble nation, but project strength. (Oct 2000)

Anyway, the list goes on. Look it up yourself.

Kerry is to the left, yes. He is not, however, far to the left. For that, look at Kucinich(sp) or Nader. Personally I would have liked to see those guys run and get more popular.

But that isn't the case, and so I am backing Kerry.

No, I do not have blinders on and I agree with most of what Bush stands for.

I never said that Bush isn't conservative, but he is not either of the Pats (Robertson or Buchanan).

Kerry is one of, if not, the most liberal senator in Washington. I definately do not see him doing well in the south. He also may lose in CA due to the political climate change there.

LordNeon
04-19-2004, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by kmac12
No, I do not have blinders on and I agree with most of what Bush stands for.

I never said that Bush isn't conservative, but he is not either of the Pats (Robertson or Buchanan).


And Kerry is not Kucinich or Nader.



Kerry is one of, if not, the most liberal senator in Washington. I definately do not see him doing well in the south. He also may lose in CA due to the political climate change there.

LOL ... dream on. You win one governorship in CA with a moderate movie star and you think California's turned Republican? And if all the Republicans can do is scream "liberal, liberal, liberal" (it's practically the only thing they know how to do) ... well, go ahead. It's going to take more than that.

kmac12
04-19-2004, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
LOL ... dream on. You win one governorship in CA with a moderate movie star and you think California's turned Republican? And if all the Republicans can do is scream "liberal, liberal, liberal" (it's practically the only thing they know how to do) ... well, go ahead. It's going to take more than that.

Actually, I was speaking of the recall vote, not just the governor. Can you explain why so many voted for the recall?

I am not saying that Bush will win in CA, but he has a better chance than you think. It was 54% to 42% in 2000, but Kerry is more liberal than Gore. It will definately be closer.

If I were you, I would not paint that state blue just yet.

Reborn79
04-19-2004, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by kmac12
Actually, I was speaking of the recall vote, not just the governor. Can you explain why so many voted for the recall?

I am not saying that Bush will win in CA, but he has a better chance than you think. It was 54% to 42% in 2000, but Kerry is more liberal than Gore. It will definately be closer.

If I were you, I would not paint that state blue just yet.

And you shouldn't paint Texas red.

The former CA governor was a shady person, and as such he was recalled. It had nothing to do with his party and it didn't hurt the parties image.

It is a solid blue state.

Jimineye
04-19-2004, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by kmac12
Actually, I was speaking of the recall vote, not just the governor. Can you explain why so many voted for the recall?

I am not saying that Bush will win in CA, but he has a better chance than you think. It was 54% to 42% in 2000, but Kerry is more liberal than Gore. It will definately be closer.

If I were you, I would not paint that state blue just yet.


Bump

LordNeon
04-19-2004, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by kmac12
If I were you, I would not paint that state blue just yet.

As a Democrat, I can only hope that Bush's campaign managers are as confident as you, and waste lots of time and money trying to win over California. :)

wermwud
04-19-2004, 08:29 PM
Bush's mouth and Bush's actions have a habit of contradicting one another.

Pain_is_temp
04-19-2004, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by a. americanus
74 anonymous sources in that book. LOL! Nuff said.

Other than; how much lip stick do you think Woodward needs to wear, anyway?


Yeah Bob Woodward can't be trusted when he uses anonymous sources can he?


Oh wait.... what was that thing about Watergate and some one they called Deep Throat? I guess that source turned out pretty credible.

Maybe you should try to find some other way to try and attack this guy's credibility; you certainly have to be running out of ways with the daily on-slaught of well thought of people telling the truth about Bush.

irpker
04-19-2004, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
And you shouldn't paint Texas red.


You really think a texan would rather vote for a northern democrat rather then a former governor?

kmac12
04-20-2004, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by Reborn79
And you shouldn't paint Texas red.

The former CA governor was a shady person, and as such he was recalled. It had nothing to do with his party and it didn't hurt the parties image.

It is a solid blue state.

Again, I am not saying that he will win, but it is definately closer than you think. In 2000, it was 54% to 42%. After the election, we will see how close it was.

As for Texas, you can definately paint it red. It will not even be close. Just like Mass will go blue for sure.

kmac12
04-20-2004, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by LordNeon
As a Democrat, I can only hope that Bush's campaign managers are as confident as you, and waste lots of time and money trying to win over California. :)

They have plenty of money to spare. So, why not?

CA has only recently been democratic (since Clinton). They went to Republicans many years before that. Carter didn't even get CA in '76.

Kerry is much more liberal than Bill, so I see it being alot closer there. If you do not think so, then you are being naive. It will definately be a tighter race.

Also, IMO, I think FL will easily go to Bush this year. Again, it goes back to Kerry's liberal record. I just do not see them backing Kerry. He is going to have a tough time in the south (he being a northerner who likes to raise taxes). At least ole Al was from TN and a little more moderate.

kmac12
04-20-2004, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
Yeah it was very interesting to say the least. I have a feeling that Dubya is going down this November because the **** hasn't hit the fan yet and his support ratings are dropping faster than a little boy's pants in a confessional. :D:D

Support going down? Not yet, if ever.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/19/bush.kerry.poll/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117574,00.html

I am actually suprised that Kerry does not have a lead right now. It has been a terrible month for the white house and yet Bush still has the lead in the polls.

kmac12
04-20-2004, 08:05 AM
Good article. I highly suggest that you read it....

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/20/woodward.book/index.html

For some reason, I never thought that this book or its allegations were that bad for Bush. They actually made him sound good.

Now, Clark's and O'Neill's books were a different story.

BigKazWSM747
04-20-2004, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by a. americanus
Yea, deepthroat, another Woodward anonymous resource. I have to give it to him. The guy is a good fiction writer. He comes off as credible to a lot of sheeple.

This daily onslaught you speak of, in case you haven't noticed, is highly politicized. Its not just a bunch of independent sources that just happened to release their books before the elections. The same publisher printing and publicizing the book, the same network publicizing it, all owned by the same corporate conglomerate. Please, don't tell me you're so much a corporate sheeple that you believe its all an accident are you? They see a good thing. These books sell well to the hate Bush minority. Keep filling their pockets, sucker. :)

So you are not a republican or conservative? all I ever see you doing is defending Bush and blasting Kerry or whoever else brings out dirt about Bush.

kmac12
04-21-2004, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by Reborn79
The former CA governor was a shady person, and as such he was recalled. It had nothing to do with his party and it didn't hurt the parties image.

Then why was a Republican voted in?

If it was just because the former governor was a shady person, why did Arnold win and not a democrat?

I forsee Arnold and GWB campaigning in CA closer to the election. I am sure it will happen and make the CA race alot closer than it was in 2000. Period.

I do not see why that is such an outlandish statment.

As for Texas, I bet Kerry will not even make a campaign appearance here (maybe one). He knows he will not win TX.

Ruhanv
04-21-2004, 07:41 AM
Historically the party of the ruling Gov in CA has not made any impact on the actual voting trend of Californians. When Reagan won in CA, they had a Dem Gov, similarly with Clinton where they had a GOP Governor. California will not vote for Bush, and if Arnie was not a celebrity, he would not have won in that state.

kmac12
04-21-2004, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by Ruhanv
Historically the party of the ruling Gov in CA has not made any impact on the actual voting trend of Californians. When Reagan won in CA, they had a Dem Gov, similarly with Clinton where they had a GOP Governor. California will not vote for Bush, and if Arnie was not a celebrity, he would not have won in that state.

Actually, they had a Republican governor during most of the Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton years. Davis (a democrat) was elected in 1999.

Again, I am not saying that CA is definately a win for Bush. I am saying that it will be closer than 2000 and possibly a win for Bush due to the political climate and that Kerry is a flaming liberal. It is still Kerry's state to lose though.

Overall, I think the democratic party would have a much better chance this year with Al Gore as their nominee.

http://www.detnews.com/2003/politics/0308/13/a11-240439.htm