Whenever I hear or read the phrase "Democrat Playbook," I just tune it out ... because I know what the source is. Just another right-wing talking point.

 

Tuning it out doesn't change the facts of Democratic behavior.

It's your assessment of "Democratic behavior," not a fact ... and you generalize so well. Not every Democrat has the same opinion about every issue.

The Gas Prices Chapter of the Democratic Playbook

 

Gas prices go up:

 

Claim it's a Bush conspiracy to line the pockets of his oil buddies.

 

Gas prices go down:

 

Claim it's a Bush conspiracy to get Republicans re-elected.

 

Some folks might think differently if the prices were at $1.98 per gallon for a couple of years, then rose to $3.00 8 weeks before the elections.

It's your assessment of "Democratic behavior," not a fact ... and you generalize so well. Not every Democrat has the same opinion about every issue.

 

 

Certainly not every Democrat but you don't have to look any farther than BGP to find Democrats who have made both charges.

Certainly not every Democrat ...

Exactly. The "Democrat Playbook" reference implies otherwise.

... but you don't have to look any farther than BGP to find Democrats who have made both charges.

I don't know that they were necessarily "charges" ... but if they are, you're certainly entitled to try and debunk them.

Do gas prices coming down and Bin Laden possibly dying are political yet Clinton doing an interview isn't?

 

Clinton had been doing lots of interviews on his humitarian efforts, Wallace made it political.

Yet Republcians blame the first WTC attack on Clinton who was less then 6 weeks into his first term. USS Cole also was in the last month of his term. Could you image the feedback by Republicans in 2000, if Clinton would have acted with the Cole, while all that election mess in Florida was going on. 8 months is not a long time, but they like the adminstration before them had their faults with this, no doubt about it.

 

Good Point

Bush will be declassifying the entire NIE. I hope this isn't another embarrassment for the NY Times.

 

I heard he is only releasing PARTS of the NIE report....hmmmm, wonder what parts he will cherrypick. I think he should release the entire report.

 

I also heard there is a second report dealing ONLY with the effect of Iraq and increased terror but marked it as a DRAFT so he does not have to release it.

Good Point

 

I think it is a great point. Clinton put national security aside because he was afraid of the feedback he would receive.

Bush will be declassifying the entire NIE. I hope this isn't another embarrassment for the NY Times.

 

3 out of 35 pages is hardly the entire report.

I think it is a great point. Clinton put national security aside because he was afraid of the feedback he would receive.

 

Feedback was not all of it. The investigation was concluded in Dec of that year, during the heat of the Florida mess. The Country was in crises with the election, that is not a time to start bombing, or go to war, especially when you a few weeks left in a term, and you don't at that point who the next President is going to be. Why didn't the Bush Adminstration do anything then? Rice was asked during her before the 9/11 commission, she said

 

" do not believe to this day that it would have been a good thing to respond to the Cole, given the kinds of options that we were going to have. ... We really thought that the Cole incident was passed, that you didn't want to respond tit-for-tat. ..."

 

"Just responding to another attack in an insufficient way we thought would actually probably embolden the terrorists -- they had been emboldened by everything else that had been done to them -- and that the best course was to look ahead to a more aggressive strategy against them."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/clarke.rice/index.html

 

What was Bush anti-terrorism strategy before 9-11? How many campagin and speches after he becamse President and before 9-11 did he make?

Feedback was not all of it. The investigation was concluded in Dec of that year, during the heat of the Florida mess. The Country was in crises with the election, that is not a time to start bombing, or go to war, especially when you a few weeks left in a term, and you don't at that point who the next President is going to be. Why didn't the Bush Adminstration do anything then? Rice was asked during her before the 9/11 commission, she said

 

" do not believe to this day that it would have been a good thing to respond to the Cole, given the kinds of options that we were going to have. ... We really thought that the Cole incident was passed, that you didn't want to respond tit-for-tat. ..."

 

"Just responding to another attack in an insufficient way we thought would actually probably embolden the terrorists -- they had been emboldened by everything else that had been done to them -- and that the best course was to look ahead to a more aggressive strategy against them."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/clarke.rice/index.html

 

What was Bush anti-terrorism strategy before 9-11? How many campagin and speches after he becamse President and before 9-11 did he make?

 

 

I was responding to a previous post that said he did respond because of the feedback he would have received from the Republicans. Which to me is a bad reason the thing I don't get is the election was 3 weeks after the attack, why didn't he respond within that period?

 

For the record I am no Clinton fan but I don't think 9/11 was his fault. Could he have done things differently? probably so but Bush could have also and I feel certain that if either would have know what was going to happen they would have done anything necessary to stop it.

I was responding to a previous post that said he did respond because of the feedback he would have received from the Republicans. Which to me is a bad reason the thing I don't get is the election was 3 weeks after the attack, why didn't he respond within that period?

 

For the record I am no Clinton fan but I don't think 9/11 was his fault. Could he have done things differently? probably so but Bush could have also and I feel certain that if either would have know what was going to happen they would have done anything necessary to stop it.

 

The investigation was not concluded until after the election, around Dec.

The sad thing is that I don't think there is a winning solution in this whole mess. If we pull out then it is going to get worse. If we stay then more people are going to die. If we are spread out then we are weaker at home. If we stay at home then they are just getting bigger and stronger. Personally I'm pretty sick and tired of Democrats and Republicans bickering in this Country! Our backs are beyond against the wall on this one. The way I was raised is that you dig in and work together when times get tough. To me it seems like the tougher times get, the more people want to point fingers.

It really makes me sad for my kids!

What was Bush anti-terrorism strategy before 9-11? How many campagin and speches after he becamse President and before 9-11 did he make?

 

The honest truth is that before 9-11 Bin Laden wasn't the priority he should have been for either Clinton or Bush. I don't know how many anti-terrorism speeches Bush made before 9-11 but I'm sure it wasn't many. I am also sure that when he was president Clinton said very little about terrorism except immediately following a terrorist attack (when he couldn't avoid addressing the issue) and then it wasn't long befre he would go back to business as usual which was to put it on the back burner.

 

Here's a question for you: During the 2000 presidential debates how many questions did the media ask concerning Bin Laden or terrorism? Why so few?