Edwards, Not Bad, but Not First
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 07-06-2004 - 3:29pm |
Tuesday July 6, 2004 4:16 PM AP Photo WX101 By LIZ SIDOTI Associate Press Writer
PITTSBURGH (AP) - President Bush's re-election campaign will launch a television ad featuring former Republican rival John McCain and titled ``First Choice,'' an effort to paint Democrat John Kerry's running mate as his second choice.
McCain, the Arizona senator, rejected Kerry's overtures to be No. 2 on the Democratic ticket. On Tuesday, he selected Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., to be his running mate.
``He has not wavered, he has not flinched from the hard choices, he was determined and remains determined to make this world a better, safer, freer place. He deserves not only our support but our admiration,'' McCain says of Bush in the ad.
The 60-second commercial - titled ``First Choice'' - shows McCain speaking when he campaigned with Bush in Reno, Nev., last month, praising Bush's efforts in the war on terror. The ad is to run soon on national cable networks and in selected local media markets in battleground states.
``America is under attack by depraved enemies who oppose our every interest and hate every value we hold dear,'' McCain is shown saying. Referring to Bush, the senator says: ``It is the great test of our generation and he has led with great moral clarity and firm resolve.''
In May, Kerry ran a biographical ad that showed a picture of himself with a hand on McCain's shoulder, as the two walked away from the camera. The ad said: ``He joined with John McCain to find the truth about POWs and MIAs in Vietnam.''
The Bush campaign has not run ads for more than two weeks in local media markets in 20 battleground states where it had been on the air. It has been off the air on national cable channels for more than a week. The campaign spent $83 million on advertising over three months. As of Friday, it had not yet bought airtime for July.
Last month, McCain - Bush's rival for the GOP presidential nomination in 2000 - rejected the notion of a bipartisan ticket with Kerry, and shortly thereafter appeared with Bush.
Kerry and McCain, fellow senators and Vietnam veterans, became close when they worked together to help President Clinton normalize relations with Vietnam. On the other hand, McCain has had a cool relationship with Bush, and the 2000 campaign was so bitter that it left wounds some believe may never heal.
Since Kerry secured the nomination in early March, McCain has praised him as ``a good and decent man.'' McCain also defended Kerry when the White House accused the Democrat of being weak on defense.

Pages
The ones OWNED by Conservatives.
>>
Namely the libral 'journalists' on CNN when they were doing their informal chatting. They were the ones that started the ball rolling and then kept up the momentum. From there, liberal pundits & Dem analysts picked it up. I think Peter Jennings or Dan Rather even got into the idea.
Renee ~~~
Renee ~~~
“So, just for the record: You call not having one agent on the ground gathering Intelligence since 1998, reliable Intelligence?”
No, I don’t call that reliable intelligence. And if Iraq were in compliance with the UN resolutions I’ve mentioned before, there would be no need for such agents. Again, the inspectors were supposed to be there to observe and document the destruction of weapons, not look for them. Going further to place agents on the ground to try to find them was/is also not our job. It was Iraq’s job to provide this information and they refused.
You can thank John Deutch for that.
I guess he was too busy downloading pornography and taking classified and top secret information home on his laptop from CIA headquarters to worry about agents in the field actually getting reliable intelligence.
--
This explains the absence of ANY agents since 1998? You don't like the question? How can something be called Intelligence when no one representing the United States was gathering any for over 5 years?
I understand you're probably republican and you support Bush, but how can you support the Iraq war knowing this?
UNSC 1441 didn't even authorize military action against Iraq, it did use the term SERIOUS consequences (Because the words MILITARY FORCE wouldnt be accepted so Powell changed it), but again it comes back to: You can't cite UN resolutions when you ignore (and thumb your nose at) the authority on which it's based.
Hell, Bush wouldn't even call a vote for the use of force.
Amazing, if this war was a result of Clinton doing the same thing, you guys would be calling for his head on a pike.
Well, you got your war. Enjoy it, because your President is incapable of winning it.
Namely the libral 'journalists' on CNN when they were doing their informal chatting. They were the ones that started the ball rolling and then kept up the momentum. From there, liberal pundits & Dem analysts picked it up. I think Peter Jennings or Dan Rather even got into the idea.
--
Then why on earth are you saying that McCain was Kerry's first choice when it wasn't :)
No, I don’t call that reliable intelligence. And if Iraq were in compliance with the UN resolutions
--
No UN resolutions were enforced or even voted on. That requires the authority of the UN, which it was based. Furthermore, Saddam was not in violation of UNSC 1441 in any way.
So you can either play games with words and issues, or look at them objectively.
Look, I'm no fan of Saddam Hussien ok? I am a fan of the country of Iraq and the civilization and history of which it was built, that was why I was initially against the war.
I followed Bush faithfully into Afghanistan and never questioned his motives for it, so don't confuse me with a peacenik tree-hugger.
War's a serious thing. I want a President that can say: I did everything I could to prevent the death of your son or daughter.
This is not the case with Iraq, no matter how you try and spin it into Bush's favor.
Second, the reason that there were no intelligece assets in the region is twofold.
One, John Deutch convinced Bill Clinton to reduce the number of field agents stating that the CIA could rely more on electronic intelligence. Obviously he was not very good at his job, because this is mainly the reason we have such bad intelligence.
The second stems from the Torricelli doctrine which basically put rules into effect where the CIA could no longer pay "undesireable" people for intelligence. I guess Torricelli thought that there were Eagle Scouts in all parts of the world providing the CIA with the necessary intelligence that they needed.
I know you have a hard time dealing with the facts on this matter. Clinton was hoodwinked by a man that did not have a total grasp of what his position entailed, and as a result, the CIA of 1999 had betwen 65 and 70% fewer assets in the field than just three years prior.
After reading that post I suspect if the cops refused to police your neighborhood that you would hold it against the citizens of the community to police the area. That’s pretty much the problem with the UN; They’ll talk the talk, but not walk the walk. BTW Iraq signed a cease fire agreement with the US in addition to the one they signed with the UN. In short, we agreed to stop shooting at them and blowing their stuff up and they agreed to comply with US and UN demands written over a decade ago. They failed to fulfill their part of the arrangement and their was no other way to get them to fulfill their obligations to us other than making them with the use of force. We were well within our rights to do so. It just happened to be the right thing to do as well.
So you can either play games with words and issues, or look at them objectively."
I’ve posted quotes to the contrary. Iraq was (and always was) in non-compliance with the UN resolutions. I’m also looking at the situation objectively. SH was dangerous and a threat, in order to save his own butt when we could have wiped him out in the 90’s he agreed to do certain things that would remove the threat. He refused to do these things, so we removed him.
You’ve mentioned a couple of times that we should have put intelligence agents in Iraq to find his WMDs and yet still claim Iraq was in compliance. If he were in compliance and divulged the location of the WMDs as prescribed by the resolutions, there would be no need for agents to “verify” we got them all. You’re actually admitted SH was in non-compliance and was not forthcoming by claiming we should have had agents there when it was Iraq’s responsibility to provide us with all of this information, not have us search for it.
“Look, I'm no fan of Saddam Hussien ok? I am a fan of the country of Iraq and the civilization and history of which it was built, that was why I was initially against the war.”
If it seems as though I’m making broader assumptions about you, I am not. I just disagree with you in this area. I won’t call you a tree-hugger unless you tell me you’ve hugged a tree. Come to think of it, I’ve hugged a tree before… Doesn’t seem all that peculiar to me. I also wouldn't insult you by calling you a fan of SH. I aslo am a fan of Iraq.
Pages