From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
Just how undecided are you?

October 13, 2004 8:09 AM

New Zogby poll shows only 11% of undecided voters feel Bush deserves re-election -- the lowest it's ever been. 40% feel it's time for someone new, and 49% are completely undecided.

Why aren't we slaughtering this guy? Sigh...

More from the archive in Bush, Elections.

Just how undecided are you? (10.13.2004)

Next Entry: Yet more Republican shenanigans in Nevada (10.13.2004)
Previous Entry: George W. Bush is developing Alzheimer's (10.12.2004)

Read the 22 comments.

John Aseff:

We might just be "slaughtering" Bush. Check out Joe Trippi's article here: (2nd one down at the time of this post)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086/

Wed Oct 13 2004 8:13 AM


Right Wing Robby:

Answer: Because the majority of people prefer Bush over Kerry.

Wed Oct 13 2004 8:20 AM


Tom from Madison:

Answer: Because it's easier to mindlessly repeat a lie than to admit a mistake.

9/11 changed a lot. It didn't change the need to hear the truth from our President.

Wed Oct 13 2004 11:01 AM


Right Wing Robby:

Calling this war a "mistake"; is saying you preferred this.

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/14004914?source=Evening%20Standard

This war was not a mistake Tom.

Wed Oct 13 2004 11:40 AM


dhermesc:

So is Kerry admitting it was a mistake on HIS part? Or is he for the war?

"I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq - Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991." -- John Kerry, 7/29/02

Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that and I disagree with the Governor [Howard Dean]." -- John Kerry, 12/15/03

Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." -- John Kerry 12/20/03

Wed Oct 13 2004 11:48 AM


C9:

Robby, before what about all the other mass graves that are filled by all the other militant leaders of other countries?

Oh wait.. they don't have WMD's, or could even afford them.. Guess they must not be a problem..

Genocide.. its ok..
Genocide with WMD's.. now thats a problem.

Wed Oct 13 2004 12:00 PM


Red Ghost:

What bothers me most is that there appear to be dualing sets of standards.

Kerry's comments are continually taken out of context and distorted. Take "sensitive war," "global test" and now this "nuissance" business. All out of context. All distorted beyond their original meanings. Why is that?

Bush's actual record seems rarely challenged. And, yes, his presidency has very concrete results. The deficit is a huge one. The lack of consitent reasoning for the war in Iraq is another. This is not out of context or distorted. We were told, very specifically, reasons for supporting the President in going to war with Iraq. These reasons didn't pan out and have been supplanted with new ones. Likewise, we know that this latest round of tax cuts is being added directly to the deficit, yet it's somehow supposed to be our win. Why is that?

Wed Oct 13 2004 12:26 PM


Red Ghost:

Sorry, I am continually distracted. "Nuisance" not "nuissance."

Wed Oct 13 2004 12:29 PM


Right Wing Robby:

Bush is spreading freedom to parts of the world were people like you laughed and said it was impossible. Women who used to get executed for showing there face in public cast a vote a few days ago.

The genocide in Iraq which you consider a mistake stopping is now over and they will be voting in January.

Libya has surrendered there weapons and have decided to work with us, rather than against us.

75% of the terrorists under Osama have been captured or killed.

He accomplished all this in one term as President. So please don’t come here and claim Bush hasn’t done anything. He has done more than can be imagined. Democracy is on the rise, terrorism in retreat.

Then we look at the liberal hero Clinton and we think about Rwanda. We remember how he sat by while 800,000 people were killed. We remember how he did nothing to stop terrorism. That’s your approach, and more and more we find out that is Kerry's approach as well.

Let’s go back further. G. Bush sr. frees Kuwait from Saddam's invasion. A war in which KERRY VOTED AGAINST.

One more step back? Reagan won the cold war. and freed a billion people from the USSR's evil grasp.
The Kerry voted against the policies that made that happen.

There is nothing in the recent history of Democrats that tells me they are willing to do a thing and you are going to tell me that Bush isn’t doing enough? Give me a break.

Wed Oct 13 2004 12:36 PM


Jim Gilliam:

When did the opposite of democracy become terrorism?

A perfect example of republican framing.

Wed Oct 13 2004 12:45 PM


Aaron:

Right Wing Robby does a really good job of regurgitating the President's talking points. Unfortunately, that still doesn't make them true.

Bush has not spread democracy, he's got the Middle East more pissed off at us then they've ever been.

You think things are going great in Iraq? That genocide has subsided? Read this personal and honest e-mail from a Wall Street Journal reporter in Iraq to some of her friends about what goes on on a daily basis in Iraq.

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=72659

Libya was a sorry excuse for a threat, so you can stop playing that card. Nobody's buying it.

And 75% of the terrorists under Osama have not been killed. Maybe 75% that the Bush administration knows of. But they're now multiplying everyday. They regenerate exponentially thanks to our presence in the Middle East.

Wed Oct 13 2004 12:59 PM


Anonymous:

"Red Ghost: What bothers me most is that there appear to be dualing sets of standards.

Kerry's comments are continually taken out of context and distorted. Take "sensitive war," "global test" and now this "nuissance" business. All out of context. All distorted beyond their original meanings. Why is that?"


"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." -- John Kerry 12/20/03

Let me know how that statement is supposed to be taken. To me it means what it says, is there some hidden nuance I'm not picking up? Most of Kerry's campaign seems to be is that he would do the same thing Bush did only with a French accent.

Wed Oct 13 2004 1:06 PM


dhermesc:

"Bush has not spread democracy, he's got the Middle East more pissed off at us then they've ever been."


Could you name a time the middle east wasn't pissed off at us? During the oil embargo in the 1970s? Could it be when we had 50 hostages held in Iran for over a year? Could it be when the marine barracks in Beruit was bombed? When our embassies in Africa where bombed? When the WTC was bombed in the early 90s? When the USS Cole was bombed, or maybe 9-11-01 was the high point of our relations. Why should we be bending over to kiss the asses of some camel jockeys while they are inflicting losses & pain like that for the past 30+ years?

Wed Oct 13 2004 1:15 PM


Tom from Madison:

This war has been a series of horrible mistakes.

We killed 14,000 innocent Iraqis in the short time we were there. Many more civilian deaths are likely on the way. Many more American troop deaths are likely on the way. More contractor beheadings are likely on the way.

All the rantings about the USS Cole and 9/11 might mean something if Iraq had been the country that attacked. There was no link between 9/11 and Iraq.

It's not just WHAT the president is doing either. It's HOW he's doing it. Bush put contractors in harms way. His poor planning, unnecessary hurry, unwillingness to build a better coalition, and reliance on private contractors resulted in hostages being taken and beheadings. It didn't have to happen.

Then there's also the corruption aspect. Iraqi oil was supposed to pay for this war--remember Wolfowitz's words? When is that going to start? I doubt anyone on the Bush team has even thought about how $ is going to flow from Iraqi oil profits the US treasury.

After this series of blunders, it's time to put someone else in charge. Too many lives are being lost because of Bush's incompetence.

Wed Oct 13 2004 1:51 PM


Paul:

"Why should we be bending over to kiss the asses of some camel jockeys while they are inflicting losses & pain like that for the past 30+ years?"

Much like our current president, you seem to have great difficulty telling the difference between terrorists and civilian populations.

Wed Oct 13 2004 2:06 PM


Paul:

"Most of Kerry's campaign seems to be is that he would do the same thing Bush did only with a French accent."

Much of Bush's campaign is to do the things he promised to do four years ago but did not follow through on. Another four years of broken promises? I think not.

Wed Oct 13 2004 2:11 PM


Anonymous:

Tom in Madison:

"Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that and I disagree with the Governor [Howard Dean]." -- John Kerry, 12/15/03

Kerry himself links the "ranting" about the USS Cole and 9-11. So are you for Kerry or not? Maybe you need to learn a little about "your" candidate before you speak up for him.

As for putting someone else in charge, is there anything about Kerry's past that would lead one to beleive he is going to do it right? For 20 years he's been perfectly happy lounging in the shadow of sweaty Teddy. The few occasions he's taken to step up to the plate and been counted he's been on the wrong side (Central America, John Kerry sided with the Sandinistas, Vietnam, Kerry sided with the communist, Cold War, Kerry again sided with the communist).

He keeps stating that he would bring more "allies" into the war but so far he hasn't named who they would be. Both of his favorites (France & Germany) have said not only no, but Hell No! His election might even dissolve the coalition currently in place given his passion for "dissing" them. Meanwhile Kerry's sister is in Australia spouting off about how being a member of the coalition is like painting a target on your country - that helps.

Wed Oct 13 2004 2:12 PM


Paul:

The majority of the mass graves are from the Iran-Iraq war, but Republicans will use any possible excuse to justify, in retrospect, their reckless and self-defeating policies.

Wed Oct 13 2004 2:14 PM


Paul:

Anonymous,

Your entire post is filled with falsehoods.

Wed Oct 13 2004 3:39 PM


Anonymous:

"The majority of the mass graves are from the Iran-Iraq war, but Republicans will use any possible excuse to justify, in retrospect, their reckless and self-defeating policies"

Good to see you agree with John Edwards that the deaths of Iraqis mean nothing. What counts are the deaths of white Europeans.

Thu Oct 14 2004 6:27 AM


Thorn:

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."
-- John Kerry 12/20/03

Believing the world is better off without Saddam and believing Bush made a mistake going after him are not contradictory. Other than some North Koreans, who wouldn't believe the world would be better off without Kim Chong-il? But not even the current administration is stupid enough to go marching in there and try and capture him. Capturing Saddam may be good for Iraq, but it could have been done with more international support before the fact, with less cost of lives on both sides. Saddam was not an immediate threat, and using hand picked intelligence that only supported his side was a mistake.

And why should the members of the "coalition" be angry with Kerry? If I were they, I'd be angry at Bush. He drew their support with promise of a grand coalition, and then fell far short. It isn't a failing of the other coalition members that Bush can not draw more support, nor is it a statement about the contributions they have made.

Thu Oct 14 2004 10:39 AM


Anonymous:

And why should the members of the "coalition" be angry with Kerry? ......


John Kerry March 2003, in reference to the forces in Iraq: "The greatest position of strength is by exercising the best judgement in the pursuit of diplomacy, not in some trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted, but in a genuine coalition."

Just more political nuance, or preview of what Kerry diplomacy in action? I'm very sure the coalition currently serving in Iraq will remember that quote for some time. Meanwhile it appears the coalition of the brided existed in the UN. Certain nations Kerry (had) hoped to bring into the war on the receiving payments from Saddam himself.

Thu Oct 14 2004 11:38 AM


Jim Gilliam
Jim Gilliam

Email:







Add to My Yahoo!

Last week's soundtrack:

jgilliam's Last.fm Weekly Artists Chart

</