Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Flap Over Iraq Charge Shows Bush Vulnerability (Washington Post)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
LauraK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 11:43 PM
Original message
Flap Over Iraq Charge Shows Bush Vulnerability (Washington Post)
With surprising swiftness, an esoteric debate over 16 words in this year's State of the Union address has changed the national political scene in recent days.

Once-lifeless Democratic presidential candidates, buoyed by declining support for President Bush and his Iraq policy, talk of a full-blown scandal. They say the sentence in Bush's speech declaring Saddam Hussein sought nuclear material in Africa -- a charge the White House now admits was wrong or insufficiently documented -- is symbolic of a president who misled a nation into a costlier-than-expected war by distorting intelligence.

The White House has been uncharacteristically flat-footed, responding with defensive and often contradictory explanations. "It is 16 words, and it has become an enormously overblown issue," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said on CNN on Sunday.

Political strategists say the controversy ultimately depends on events far away -- in the streets and fields of Iraq. If Hussein is killed or captured, illegal weapons are found in Iraq and the near-daily attacks on U.S. soldiers subside, Democrats and Republicans agree the intelligence flap will be largely forgotten. If, however, Congress returns from its summer break in September with Hussein still at large, no discovery of weapons of mass destruction and continued attacks on U.S. troops, the issue will almost surely become the subject of congressional hearings and fodder for the presidential campaign.
<cut

More here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
revcarol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. Pap! or Crap!
We're only objecting because the war was 'COSTLIER THAN EXPECTED?????'

Damn librul media!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arcturus Donating Member (165 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. In what sense?
"Costly" does not necessarily refer just to money. True, the war has cost us money, but it's also cost us other resources, our credibility, and human lives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cronus Protagonist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. Here's a pic to go along with the story
http://bushfordummies.com





http://kucinichforpresident.com - Kucinich Is The One
http://cronus.com/prayer - One of Kucinich's speeches

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13 - cute little buttons
http://bushspeaks.com - sardonic political toons
http://cronus.com - enlightening and educational liberal fun

Conceptual Guerilla
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. write the reporter
Edited on Thu Jul-17-03 12:03 AM by grasswire
....but be nice to him, because he's the most critical of Bush. Let him know that this breach of the public trust isn't a political issue. This is about the most fundamental bedrock principles of our democracy. milbankd@washpost.com

"Fueling the controversy is the awakening of Democrats, who have a lot of pent-up frustration because they have not believed they could challenge Bush on foreign affairs since the Sept. 11 attacks."

Wrong. We always knew that if the lap dogs of the press would fulfill their public trust, Bush would be challenged on a dozen different fronts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caledesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Cronus - that says it all. Excellent
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arcturus Donating Member (165 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. Two words
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Clinton's testimony that got him into trouble a mere two words?

He was asked if he had had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, to which he responded, "No, never."

If two words can get you impeached, what can sixteen words do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC