Republicans Criticize Bush 'Mistakes' on Iraq [Archive]

W8EFA

09-19-2004, 05:44 PM

How many times and how many people must point out GWB's ineptness and total incompetence before America wakes up? George Walker Bush continues to lie to the American public. He has only his core Republican Constituency left. Will Republicans really vote Republican no matter what the facts are?

Leading members of President Bush s Republican Party criticized mistakes and "incompetence" (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20040919/pl_nm/iraq_usa_policy_dc_2)

N7AAO

09-19-2004, 05:51 PM

Oh, yeah, there are now four named Republicans (Hagel, McCain, Lugar, and Kyl), as opposed to two the last time you posted this story. Please see the old thread (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=71085) so we can save space redoing all the old arguments.

By the way, four named Republican Senators out of 51 is still only 8%, which leaves 92% of Republican Senators supporting Bush's actions.

To paraphrase SY:

Thank you. Drive through, please.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unclesam.gif

(edited to fix bold tags)

KA9VQF

09-19-2004, 05:59 PM

Now, now, some people don’t seem to understand that only the republicans, being the only intelligent people in America, can look at all sides of an issue using the best information/intelligents available, utilize reasonable thought processes, make their own decisions, talk with other republicans to ramify and support their thoughts, shore them up anyway possible to be right, present them to the democrats and other sub humans.

Republicans can then make bold public statements of what is right and what is wrong, statements of what the American government should and should not do in the world theater and at home, {like nation/empire building} then when the republican president does a 180, turns away from stated commitments and programs, they support him 100% and want to keep him around because:

1.) They are not quitters.

2.) Their man it ‘THE MAN’ no matter what.

3.) Simply because he is a republican right or wrong. {no matter who is pulling the strings}

4.) Follow the party line/doctrine right or wrong. {rewrite what ever documents need rewritten eg: the constitution, ecological documents, BPL physics}

Now if a democrat tries this he is an uninformed dolt doing flip flops.

W8EFA

09-19-2004, 06:03 PM

Quote[/b] (N7AAO @ Sep. 19 2004,10:51)]Oh, yeah, there are now four named Republicans (Hagel, McCain, Lugar, and Kyl), as opposed to two the last time you posted this story. Please see the old thread (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=71085) so we can save space redoing all the old arguments.

By the way, four named Republican Senators out of 51 is still only 8%, which leaves 92% of Republican Senators supporting Bush's actions.

To paraphrase SY:

Thank you. Drive through, please.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unclesam.gif

(edited to fix bold tags)
Once again, just because they list 4 that doesn't mean the the rest are for his policies. We can do without your assumptions.

They just happened to list THE TOP 4 Republican Senators. There are many more than that. Why did Bush lie to us once again? The article states credible evidence that we need to escalate the ground war and he is waiting till after the election. What a pathetic political move

N7AAO

09-19-2004, 06:11 PM

Please explain why they would not list the names of the "many more" Senators that spoke out against Bush's policies?

We cannot assume that anyone except the four named are against his policies. Therefore, we must logically assume that they are just fine with his policies in Iraq.

4 from 51 does not make a majority.

Thank you, drive through please.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unclesam.gif

W8EFA

09-19-2004, 06:34 PM

Quote[/b] (N7AAO @ Sep. 19 2004,11:11)]Please explain why they would not list the names of the "many more" Senators that spoke out against Bush's policies?

We cannot assume that anyone except the four named are against his policies. Therefore, we must logically assume that they are just fine with his policies in Iraq.

4 from 51 does not make a majority.

Thank you, drive through please.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unclesam.gif
[QUOTE]Leading members of President Bush (news - web sites)'s Republican Party " #I think that speaks for itself. Leading Republican Senators are calling it like they see it. Leading being the key word.

You are not addressing the article. #

Would you like to explain why Bush has not been telling us the truth about Iraq?

After the CIA report was disclosed on Thursday, Kerry accused the president of living in a "fantasy world of spin" about Iraq and of not telling the truth about the growing chaos.
McCain said Bush had been "perhaps not as straight as maybe we'd like to see."
"I think the president is being clear. I would like to see him more clear," McCain said. He said Congress was expected to hold hearings on Iraq soon.

Sen. John Kyl, like McCain an Arizona Republican, said, "Allowing the Iraqis to make the decisions not to go into some of these sanctuaries, I think, turns out to have not been a good decision, which we're going to have to correct now by going in with our Marines and Army divisions."

Would you like to explain that?

McCain also called for enlarging the U.S. Army by 70,000 soldiers and the Marines by 20,000 to 25,000.
Kerry and other Democrats have said Bush plans to call up more part-time National Guard and Reserve troops after the November election to compensate for thinning ranks in the full-time military due to Iraq. The Bush campaign denied this.

Would you like to explain this also?

Would you like to explain how 18 billion has been appropriated yet only 1 or 2 billion has been spent and we have a mess because Bush can't seem to utilize the resources he has been given?

I wil tell you why, as these Senators are saying, because he is incompetent!

N7AAO

09-19-2004, 06:44 PM

If he is so incompetent, why aren't more Senators going on the record as saying so?

(yawn) same thread (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=71085), different day. Please see the old thread for the answers to these arguments.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unclesam.gif

W8EFA

09-19-2004, 07:37 PM

Quote[/b] (N7AAO @ Sep. 19 2004,11:44)]If he is so incompetent, why aren't more Senators going on the record as saying so?

(yawn) same thread (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=71085), different day. Please see the old thread for the answers to these arguments.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unclesam.gif
Nice try but not true

That thread was about not using the appropriated resources.

This report is about Bush keeping quiet the CIA report and once again lying to the American people - as the leading Republican senator's report TODAY.

It also addresses another issue besides the CIA report - that Bush is not addressing because we will need to bring in more troops which he will wait till after the election.

If you can't address these issues then just don't post!

N7AAO

09-19-2004, 07:44 PM

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Sep. 19 2004,12:37)]Quote[/b] (N7AAO @ Sep. 19 2004,11:44)]If he is so incompetent, why aren't more Senators going on the record as saying so?

(yawn) same thread (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=71085), different day. Please see the old thread for the answers to these arguments.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unclesam.gif
Nice try but not true

That thread was about not using the appropriated resources.

This report is about Bush keeping quiet the CIA report and once again lying to the American people - as the leading Republican senator's report TODAY.

It also addresses another issue besides the CIA report - that Bush is not addressing because we will need to bring in more troops which he will wait till after the election.

If you can't address these issues then just don't post!
Actually, EFA, you tried (unsuccessfully) to bring in the illegally leaked CIA report in the old thread:

Quote[/b] ]W8EFA Online

Group: Ham Members
Posts: 230
Joined: Feb. 2004
Posted: Sep. 16 2004,12:11 QUOTE
U.S. Intelligence Offers Gloomy Outlook for Iraq

Bush has had this report since July - so he has been lying to us trying to paint a rosy picture since then. Things are falling apart for this administration as the truth is coming out.

Kerry has promised he will get us out in his term. That is still a long time. What a mess Bush got us in to!
(it's on page 3 of the old thread)

Everyone ignored it then, so why bring it up again? Don't ya have any new axes to grind?

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unclesam.gif

W5MEJ

09-19-2004, 08:00 PM

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Sep. 19 2004,11:03)]The article states credible evidence that we need to escalate the ground war and he is waiting till after the election. #What a pathetic political move
Let me see if I understand this, EFA. #You are quoting an article that makes the case that we need to escalate the ground war and send in more troops. #By quoting this article, you seem to be trying to convince me to vote for a candidate that has said he will pull troops out "in the first six months" of his term if he is elected.

Why am I having such a hard time understanding your logic?

Chuck

N7AAO

09-19-2004, 08:22 PM

kc7jty

09-19-2004, 08:41 PM

How many years did it take for us to finally get out of Viet Nam? I believe it will take many more years to get out of Iraq. Americans are quick to rationalize away any thought of failure or mistake even though a relatively small failure is always better than a long drawn out catastrophic one.
Too bad kiddies....we are locked into this one for the long haul with the same inevitable predictable outcome.

Oh yes....Washingkton is another RED state. A vote for Georgie boy there will be null and void.

W8EFA

09-19-2004, 08:47 PM

Quote[/b] (W5MEJ @ Sep. 19 2004,13:00)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Sep. 19 2004,11:03)]The article states credible evidence that we need to escalate the ground war and he is waiting till after the election. #What a pathetic political move
Let me see if I understand this, EFA. #You are quoting an article that makes the case that we need to escalate the ground war and send in more troops. #By quoting this article, you seem to be trying to convince me to vote for a candidate that has said he will pull troops out "in the first six months" of his term if he is elected.

Why am I having such a hard time understanding your logic?

Chuck
First of all Kerry has promised to try to get us out of Iraq in his term which would be 4 and 1/2 years from now. He has also stated he will try to go back and get international support as opposed to Bush's go it alone policy. I havn't seen anything where Kerry has said he would pull troops out in the first 6 months. If you have some evidence of that please post it.

I think you missed the point of this artivcle in that Bush is letting things get out of hand because he doesn't want to escalate before the election. However all indications are he will do so after the election. Another example of him playing politics and not being upfront with the American people.

McCain and othere have been campaigning for and want Bush re-elected. However they know that Bush is not being upfront and is being incompetent and have to speak up.

There are people that will never change their vote no matter what evidence is presented to them and that is really sad to me. Nobody has addressed the issues presented in this thread with any kind of explanation to my mind.

N7AAO

09-19-2004, 08:53 PM

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Sep. 19 2004,13:47)]McCain and othere have been campaigning for and want Bush re-elected. However they know that Bush is not being upfront and is being incompetent and have to speak up.
So, let me see if I get this...

McCain "knows" that Bush is being dishonest, yet he campaigns for Bush anyway, even going so far as to speak at the GOP Convention. Therefore, by campaigning for Bush, McCain himself is being dishonest.

So, if this is true, why should we trust what McCain says about anything... including Iraq!

Oh, no, what McCain says about Iraq must be the absolute truth... even though he dishonestly campaigns for a dishonest President.

Whew! Liberal logic gives me a headache.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unclesam.gif

kc7jty

09-19-2004, 09:13 PM

Anyone remember the old Country Joe McDonald words about Viet Nam for American mothers? "Be the first one on your block to have your boy come home in a box"?
How about..."send you back to Texas make you work on your ranch"? which applied to the President back then.

Odd how things have a way of repeating themselves.

W8EFA

09-19-2004, 09:18 PM

Quote[/b] (N7AAO @ Sep. 19 2004,13:53)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Sep. 19 2004,13:47)]McCain and othere have been campaigning for and want Bush re-elected. #However they know that Bush is not being upfront and is being incompetent and have to speak up.
So, let me see if I get this...

McCain "knows" that Bush is being dishonest, yet he campaigns for Bush anyway, even going so far as to speak at the GOP Convention. Therefore, by campaigning for Bush, McCain himself is being dishonest. So, if this is true, why should we trust what McCain says about anything... including Iraq!

Oh, no, what McCain says about Iraq must be the absolute truth... even though he dishonestly campaigns for a dishonest President.

Whew! Liberal logic gives me a headache.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unclesam.gif
Pretty simple - this all happened (CIA report)after the convention so McCain is speaking out about it. #As we all know McCain says what he thinks which is admirable in today's say what they want to hear politicians.

May not make a difference to you but when one of your leading Convention speakers for your re-election accuses you of not being truthful to the American people I think that is a problem that undecided voters will look at.

However if McCAin is being untruthful as you insinuate( #which I seriously doubt) that is certainly not a good image for the Republicans either. #With your logic why should we trust any speaker at the Rebublican #Convention. #In fact the speakers they trotted out were all moderates that would appeal to the Public but whose views were diametrically opposed to the Republican platform of the person they are trying to get re-elected.

On the lighter side, I have more bad new's for you. #Over the last 18 presidential elections when the Redskins lose the game before the election the incumbent loses. #The Redskins play the Green Bay Packers this year.

n3ijw

09-19-2004, 09:24 PM

Is this the same CIA that dropped the ball on intel leading us into Iraq in the first place?

N7AAO

09-19-2004, 09:26 PM

Quote[/b] (n3ijw @ Sep. 19 2004,14:24)]Is this the same CIA that dropped the ball on intel leading us into Iraq in the first place?
Uh... yep, that would be them. Of course, now that they are saying things that the Dems like, they are absolutely correct in everything!

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unclesam.gif

W8EFA

09-19-2004, 09:32 PM

Excuses, excuses, excuses.

Are you guys part of this Administration as they are now known as the excuse administration.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaah it's not our fault WAAAAAAAAAAAAh

n3ijw

09-19-2004, 09:33 PM

The unfortunate thing is we are going to have to listen to four more years of this drivel when Bush is re-elected.

ai4ep

09-19-2004, 09:48 PM

The bad part is that if KERRY is elected and six months later there still no jobs for the unemployed that were lied to to get their vote for Kerry.....gonna be some highly upset folks !!

N7AAO

09-19-2004, 09:50 PM

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Sep. 19 2004,14:32)]Excuses, excuses, excuses.

Are you guys part of this Administration as they are now known as the excuse administration.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaah it's not our fault WAAAAAAAAAAAAh
Very mature post there, EFA. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

W5MEJ

09-19-2004, 10:26 PM

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Sep. 19 2004,14:18)]On the lighter side, I have more bad new's for you. #Over the last 18 presidential elections when the Redskins lose the game before the election the incumbent loses. #The Redskins play the Green Bay Packers this year.
Interesting stat, but I'm not going to base my vote on a football game.

On a more serious note...When Sen. McCain speaks, i pay close attention. #I respect the man, and i respect his opinions. #I would have liked seeing him as the republican candidate in the last election, but unfortunately that didn't happen. #You should also pay close attention to what he is saying here. #He is not endorsing Sen. Kerry by any stretch of the imagination, he is just asking that President Bush be more forthcoming in his take on the current situation in Iraq.

During an election year, both parties try to boil everything down to sound bites. #I'm sorry, but anyone who fully supports everything that either side says is a fool. #You should examine the issues, and vote your conscience. #Look at each candidate, and decide if you believe that they will represent your beliefs when they perform their duties.

I vote in every election we have. #I firmly believe that local elections have a much bigger impact on our "quality of life" than national elections. #I have voted for Democrats and Republicans on every level. #I've been proud of some of my votes, and i have regretted others. #I think that anyone who votes a "straight ticket" is not really considering the issues.

I will be voting for George W. Bush again this year.

73
Chuck

N7AAO

09-19-2004, 10:30 PM

Quote[/b] (W5MEJ @ Sep. 19 2004,15:26)]On a more serious note...When Sen. McCain speaks, i pay close attention. I respect the man, and i respect his opinions. I would have liked seeing him as the republican candidate in the last election, but unfortunately that didn't happen.
Chuck MEJ:

McCain/Rice in 2008?

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unclesam.gif

W5MEJ

09-19-2004, 10:38 PM

Quote[/b] (N7AAO @ Sep. 19 2004,15:30)]McCain/Rice in 2008?
I hadn't really thought about that combination, but it wouldn't be a bad choice!

N7AAO

09-19-2004, 10:43 PM

Quote[/b] (W5MEJ @ Sep. 19 2004,15:38)]Quote[/b] (N7AAO @ Sep. 19 2004,15:30)]McCain/Rice in 2008?
I hadn't really thought about that combination, but it wouldn't be a bad choice!
I actually would vote for Rice at the top of the ticket, but there's a lot of folks who wouldn't... and she keeps saying she wants no part of the Presidency. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

n3ijw

09-19-2004, 11:07 PM

I wouldn't want McCain on the ticket. He is an unprincipled, mediocre politician and one of the worst enemies of the First and Second Amendments in Congress. He does nothing but look out for himself, and his opinions will blow whichever way gets him the most press coverage.

I hold a lot of respect for the man, but I think he needs to stop pretending to be a conservative.

N7AAO

09-19-2004, 11:13 PM

Quote[/b] (n3ijw @ Sep. 19 2004,16:07)]I wouldn't want McCain on the ticket. He is an unprincipled, mediocre politician and one of the worst enemies of the First and Second Amendments in Congress. He does nothing but look out for himself, and his opinions will blow whichever way gets him the most press coverage.

I hold a lot of respect for the man, but I think he needs to stop pretending to be a conservative.
Okay, so who can we tap as a running mate for Condi Rice? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Cheney/Rice!

Or, even better for liberal heartburn...

Jeb Bush/Rice!

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unclesam.gif

n3ijw

09-19-2004, 11:31 PM

I think Cheney is much better suited to the job than almost anyone else, including the current RNC darling Rudy Giuliani. He is extremely smart and very capable. Unfortunately he carries a lot of completely unfounded baggage from his days as an oil executive, which by default makes him "evil" in the small minds of many. That and he doesn't seem very durable from a medical standpoint. But I think he is well suited to the job.

Personally I'd like to see one of the two senators from Idaho - Mike Crapo or Larry Craig - show interest in running in '08. There are others I would like to see running as well, but right now it is way too early to pick a favorite.

N7AAO

09-20-2004, 01:11 AM

Quote[/b] (n3ijw @ Sep. 19 2004,16:31)]I think Cheney is much better suited to the job than almost anyone else, including the current RNC darling Rudy Giuliani. He is extremely smart and very capable. Unfortunately he carries a lot of completely unfounded baggage from his days as an oil executive, which by default makes him "evil" in the small minds of many. That and he doesn't seem very durable from a medical standpoint. But I think he is well suited to the job.

Personally I'd like to see one of the two senators from Idaho - Mike Crapo or Larry Craig - show interest in running in '08. There are others I would like to see running as well, but right now it is way too early to pick a favorite.
Can you see the ads making fun of his name if Crapo ran?

Besides, historically, Senators and Representatives don't do that well in Presidential elections (not speaking of any particular candidate, just in general). People seem to understand that being a legislator doesn't really prepare one for the Presidency. Governors tend to do much better, since the job of a Governor is very similar to that of the President.

We need to start looking for good Republican Governors to groom for next election.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unclesam.gif

09-20-2004, 03:00 AM

Ahh! I see EFA is here, playing the game, again!

(I thought he went to the showers after being exposed as the master gamesman he is!!??)

Guess not.. ahh well! A dedicated gamesman NEVER gives up.. always looking for the next tournament and seeking the challenge of the game!

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

k5rna

09-20-2004, 04:24 AM

Did any one here watch C Span,i believe it was Fri morning?.Part of it was to let democrats only call in and give their reason or reasons they belived Kerry would make a good president.They could not bring up Bush or even mention him.What a riot.People kept getting cut off because they coulden't come up with any thing that would qualify Kerry for president and would start to bash Bush.Any one not familiar with C Span on TV only lets caller ins stick to the subject and question they ask at the time.Then thay gave the rebubs their chance to say why they thought Bush should be re elected and coulden't mention Kerry.

09-20-2004, 12:52 PM

RNA, it seems that the C-SPAN broadcast proves that the results of MY poll here on QRZ.COM was accurate too! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Thanks for providing that info. I listen to C-SPAN but I missed that segment. (did they do it concurrently on C-SPAN radio I wonder?)

When I asked the same question, all I got from the Dems was 'bash bush', etc..etc.. posts. Even when one guy posted some things.. he listed things that were 'not really' 'WHY I LIKE HIM' but more along the line of 'here's what he did not do'.

It is damn near impossible for ANYONE who is a TRUE Kerry supporter to comeout with ANYTHING that they "LIKE"!

Just goes to reinforce that Kerry 'supporters' are better classified as 'ANYBODY BUT BUSH!' supporters.

They ought to relabel the Democratic party 'The Anybody But Bush!' party. "The ABB's!"

We have the Republicans and the ABB's!

:-)

k8mmg

09-20-2004, 12:57 PM

http://68.185.131.48/bushdance.gif

n3ijw

09-20-2004, 01:04 PM

Quote[/b] (N7AAO @ Sep. 19 2004,21:11)]We need to start looking for good Republican Governors to groom for next election.
One guvnah that comes to mind is Bob Ehrlich. Any Republican that can win the gubernatorial election of one of the most liberal and corrupt states in the country, and subsequently handle the enormous task with remarkable effectiveness, has my respect.

Same goes for Ahnold, but he is neither eligible nor a true conservative.

K6UEY

09-20-2004, 04:43 PM

HOLD ON THERE PODNER!!
You are right Arnold is not Native born,so is restricted from being President. Us Conservatives in California are going to defeat any moves to try and change that law.
We want to keep Arnold here,he is doing a real bang up job of puting California back at the head of the line as a leader,a position the Liberals have not allowed in many decades. Although I find his methods are some what questionable to my way of thinking,he allows the Liberals to reform,before dropping the hammer on them. I say a skunk never loses it's stripe,and the Liberals have had decades to clean up their act,and failed to do so.His pseudo-Conservative actions are making a difference and we don't want to lose him here in California. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

n3ijw

09-20-2004, 05:13 PM

Oh I agree, and compared to some of the ultralefties in Cali, Arnold is well to the right of Reagan. But he isn't, and he is just the sort of moderate leader CA needs right now in order to return to the full upright position, after years of leaning so far to the left it was in danger of falling into the ocean. Arnold has so far shown himself to be a fine governor and a good fit for California.

And it means he has much less time to make movies, which is an added bonus. *ducks*

"Nor a true conservative" was not meant to be derogatory in any way. It's just a matter of perspective. California is sort of a world unto it's own, and what is good for the state is not necessarily good for the rest of the country.