Democrats Seeking Presidency Denounce Bush Iraq Policy

[RevolutionStartsNow]

Sorry if this has already been posted, but

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/05/politics/campaigns/05DEBA.html

Gephardt wins the quote of the night: "This president is a miserable failure on foreign policy."

[Terwilliger]

1. yeah, and that quote will get people to vote for Democrats

:eyes:

[sandnsea]

2. As a woman

"You can't use 56 cents to buy a dollar loaf of bread," she said.

That's the quote of the campaign season.

[paulsbc]

3. if they say

Bush is a miserable failure on foreign policy, yet supported the war effort, and are bashing him only because of his going in without the UN, or with no "plan for the peace", I don't see how that will play well with the average American voter, especially when they sit there and say "Bush should go to the UN", ok, he is. "We should keep our troops there and finish the job". ok, Bush is doing that. "We need to make up with our allies". ok, Bush is doing that, albeit horribly...

in other words, I don't see enough differentiation with the current view of man of the candidates, especially Gephardt... Perhaps you can spin it better for me :)

[sangha]

7. It would be better if they say

Bush* incompetently bugled the diplomacy, lowered the nation's credibility in the int'l community, planned poorly for the occupation, planned poorply for the capture of BinLaden in Afghanistan, withdrew our troops from Saudi Arabis, which is EXACTLY what Bin Laden DEMANDED, and now can't get assistance from our allies for Iraq.

Then there's North Korea and Iran. And Israel and Palestine. And Syria and Lebanon. India and Pakistan. The Taliban is still active in Afghanistan.

Nah, it's just one or two things.

[gratuitous]

8. Yeah, no sense criticizing Bush's foreign policy

He's doing everything anyone could possibly ask of him. Everything that is, except what's right when it's right.

Bush promised in the staged press conference (the one where the reporters submitted all their questions ahead of time) that he would go to the Security Council for a second vote. No ifs, no maybes, no trifectas. He said he'd do that for sure. He didn't. Why? Well, if you're cynical, it's because the vote would have been vetoed by France or Russia. If you're cynical and you know how to count, it's because he would have lost outright, something like 6-9.

He's going to the UN now because it's what he's got left. Bush and his administration mouthpieces had a lot of haughty things to say about "old Europe" and "cheese-eating surrender monkeys." Although it caused a great deal of merriment among Freepers and their ilk, anyone with half a brain knew that sort of high-handedness was just as likely to turn back against him. And so it has.

The original U.S. proposal is basically, "Give us a whole bunch of your troops and money, and let us use them as we see fit, cause we've already burned through a lot of our troops and money." Understandably, not too many nations are eager to take up that offer. So Bush sent his house n-word Colin Powell up to New York to whine and pout about how "No" wasn't a sufficient answer. I'll take the liberty of answering further: Hell, no!

And as for "finishing the job," well, what does that entail, exactly? As cowed as Democrats were late last year when Bush was thumping the tub for war, quite a number of them have learned from that experience that simply taking the corrupt Bush administration's word for something isn't a very smart thing to do. Pointed questions are being asked (finally), and answers are actually being demanded. The Bushistas don't like answering for themselves; they prefer to call the shots. If the Democrats (and not a few Republicans who are getting antsy about the whole affair) stand firm with their questions, it has been the habit of this administration to back down when it's challenged.

Sure, they'll bellow like enraged bulls. They'll send their minions out to the talk shows to yammer about how the President knows what he's doing, and how the American people aren't concerned with partisan posturing, but eventually they'll knuckle under. This isn't the usual rigged fight the PNACers prefer to wage.

When we fight, we win. Happens every time.

[w4rma]

4. That was my favorite quote, also.

It just rolls of the tongue. :)

George Bush is a miserable failure.

[ibegurpard]

5. good quote

sounded a bit hollow to my ears coming from Gephardt, though.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

6. I think they should all take turns using it

"President Bush is a miserable failure on the economy"

"President Bush is a miserable failure on worker's rights"

"President Bush is a miserable failure on the environment"

"President Bush is a miserable failure on dog handoffs"