Pubs will attack Dems tonight: "obstruction in time of war"

[nostamj]

(caught the end of a pre-whine-a-thon news conference on CNN)

yes my friends, they are going to play the 'patriot' card tonight.

for 30 hours. over 4 judges.

you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists.

you will give us 100% of what BushCo asks for, or you're a traitor.

their 'patriotism' is a phoney as bunnypant's crotch enhancement but the cablewhores will be in full spew-mode nonetheless.

orrin hatch calls it a "constitutional disaster" if they don't get their way.

this is sickening. dems in the house have been emasculated already. now they want a rubber stamp senate as well.

it just gets worse and worse and worse and worse.

p.s. major combat operations have resumed

[WilliamPitt]

1. Yup

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/11/12/gop_will_trumpet_preemption_doctrine/

(snip)

The strategy will involve the dismissal of Democrats as the party of "protests, pessimism and political hate speech," Ed Gillespie, Republican National Committee chairman, wrote in a recent memo to party officials -- a move designed to shift attention toward Bush's broader foreign policy objectives rather than the accounts of bloodshed. Republicans hope to convince voters that Democrats are too indecisive and faint-hearted -- and perhaps unpatriotic -- to protect US interests, arguing that inaction during the Clinton years led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"The president's critics are adopting a policy that will make us more vulnerable in a dangerous world," Gillespie wrote. "Specifically, they now reject the policy of pre-emptive self-defense and would return us to a policy of reacting to terrorism in its aftermath."

Inviting a fierce foreign policy debate in the months to come, Gillespie continued: "The bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, Khobar Towers, our embassies in East Africa, and the USS Cole were treated as criminal matters instead of the terrorist acts they were. After Sept. 11, President Bush made clear that we will no longer simply respond to terrorist acts, but will confront gathering threats before they become certain tragedies."

Republican strategists maintain that this tack is consistent with Bush's style: direct, sweeping, and bold to the point of brazenness.

But by going on the offensive on Iraq -- effectively saying "bring 'em on" to his potential Democratic rivals, daring them to question his fundamental foreign policy doctrine in the face of a rising body count -- Bush is taking a measurable political risk. Starting with a major foreign policy address last week, Bush has begun embracing a subject that has proved increasingly problematic for him both in the public dialogue and the polls.

...more...

[loudnclear]

13. Whose going to watch besides Republicans?

not me!

[nostamj]

15. the time is divided btw pukes and Dems

i'll be watching or listening when I can.

the pukes want a FIGHT and they are going to be calling any opposition to the WH unamerican/treason

the Dems MUST fight this

[flpoljunkie]

18. Dem responses to the Rethugs in this article from Kerry and Dean...

By and large, most Democrats have been opposed to a full-blown "doctrine of preemption," arguing that the United States has always reserved the right to take preemptive action to protect itself without codifying it as the basis for US foreign policy. And that, they argue, is an articulate belief that resonates with the public -- especially in the absence of weapons of mass destruction or the capture of former dictator Saddam Hussein of Iraq.

"If the White House believes President Bush can run for reelection on Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney's right-wing think tank doctrines, then Karl Rove has lost a step or two," Senator John F. Kerry of Masschusetts, one of the contenders, said.

"Everyone knows we need to hunt down and destroy those who are plotting mass murder against Americans. But it takes a lot more than that to defeat terrorism in the long term, and the clumsy, arrogant way the Bush administration boasts about preemption alienates allies we need to help us and makes it a lot harder to stop proliferation in trouble spots around the globe."

Howard Dean, an opponent of military action in Iraq from the start, dismissed preemption altogether. "A preemptive strategy never fits into an American strategy," the presidential candidate and former Vermont governor said last week.

"It is a policy that doesn't serve us well, and Iraq is a perfect example. The first time we used the preemption policy, it got us into an enormous amount of trouble."

end

IMO, Dean is unwise to utter the phrase, "A preemptive strategy never fits into an American strategy."

Statements like this will be endlessly repeated by the GOP minions if Dean becomes our nominee.

[MIMStigator]

2. BRING IT ON!

It lets the country see what kind of freaks they try to put on the courts.

[w13rd0]

3. "time of war"...

...Gore's speech was a good response to this. Perpetual war, shredding our Constitution, GOP railroading the American people...THAT is the injustice. Hatch is a shameless thug.

[nostamj]

4. Judy (uberwhore) Woodruff

just had Hatch and Leahey on...

Hatch was given free reign to spew his evil shit.

she interrupted Leahey CONSTANTLY.

god i loath her.

[flpoljunkie]

6. They try so hard to please their corporate masters by being tough on Dems

but they are actually intimidated by the Rethugs--afraid to displease the right wing and their minions who are quick to complain and threaten to boycott their shows.

Our media is, for the most part a sad bunch who, rather than monitoring the sources of power, seem to act like spokespeople for this inept and corrupt administration.

[nostamj]

8. Judy Woodruff = Leni Reifenstal

only less talented.

[kentuck]

10. Why do they do that?

They act like they're obligated to tear down the Democrat no matter what his position. Just once, I would like to see one of these ho's take the side of the Democrat...

[gratuitous]

5. Are we back at war again?

Then why isn't this corrupt administration observing the Geneva Conventions? Why is it converting Iraq's national assets to private use in violation of The Hague protocols?

If we're at war, why aren't the prisoners in Guantanamo being treated humanely, and why aren't international observers allowed in?

Don't crumble on this one, Mr. Daschle! You've ceded far too much to this cabal of thieves. It's time to stand up for America.

[nostamj]

7. did you miss the press conference today ???

scotty told us we've been at war since al Qaeda declared it on 9/11.

again, the question must be asked:

WHO benefitted from 9/11?

[gratuitous]

9. Whoops, I guess I did

So, back to my original questions.

These creeps need to be called on every last one of their lies. I've had enough of this "negativism turns people off" nonsense. It's time to shove their prevaricating pusses right up their fat, saggy bottoms.

[nostamj]

12. after seeing Harry Reid's opening salvo

I HAVE to believe that the Dems have their act ready for tonight.

the pukes have NOTHING new to say about these judges.

they seem to feel they are entitled to their hypocrisy, god I hope they are HAMMERED HAMMERED HAMMERED over the next 30 hours....

[flpoljunkie]

21. I heard on CNN yesterday that the Dems will not be allowed to speak...

during this 30-hour Rethug, base stroking filibuster! If this is so, I am really pissed now!

[nostamj]

22. that is NOT true

the time will be equally divided.

[walkon]

11. Obstruct For Democracy

Support the Constitution
Advocate for Human Rights

Patriotism is NOT a rubber stamp!

[underpants]

14. Some great FACTS in this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=697689

[nostamj]

16. thanks!

good stuff indeed! (missed it earlier)

[Renew Deal]

17. I hope our guys kick their ass with the truth.

And they will. Orin Hatch should have been thrown in prison for giving away war plans. I hope one of ours remembers that. :kick:

[remfan]

19. Dems get HALF the time

so it's going to be quite entertaining.

A whine and geez party!

[Guaranteed]

20. These Repuke clowns are nothing.

They have nothing. Pure rhetoric. Fucking PUSHOVERS if we just get some balls and call them on it.


typossssss

[RapidCreek]

23. What was on that little sign Dick Durbin had on his desk....

during a recent hearing? 63 to 4? Anybody remember seeing that little sign? It referred to the number of Clinton judicial nominees the Rethuglicans blocked compared to those of Bush by the Democrats. It seems to me that a HUGE blow up of this sign, placed behind the Democrats dias tonight would say all that needs to be said. Every Democrat that gets up to speak tonight should say just one thing and one thing only. "Rethuglicans obstructed 63 of Clinton's nominees, Democrats have obstructed 4 of Bushes....who's obstructionist?". Such a novel approach, I suspect, would garner some heavy media attention. It would force the media to focus on the numbers.....something Rethugs have thus far obfuscated in a fog of bullshit, a practice the Dems all to often enable with wishy washy defensiveness. I say keep it simple....simple enough for the simplest of people to comprehend. Numbers don't lie.



RC

[nostamj]

24. it is so pathetic....

they have their own banners...

tell me ROVE isn't conducting this symphony of stupidity

[snippy]

25. The democrats are too timid to use this as an opportunity.

If the democrat stick to the facts they will lose public support over this. The republicans have no intention to stick to the facts and will lie constantly during this Bushshit debate. Republicans will be big winners unless the democrats are bold and ballsy.

The media will present primarily the republican point of view. Then there will be a small mention of the democratic position. Most people will remember only that there was a controversy because democrats were blocking Bush's judicial appointments. They will not remeber the facts.

The democrats could dominate the news coverage of this if every democratic Senator would just point blank accuse the republicans of being hypocritical liars on this issue and back the accusation up with the facts. The democrats should avoid being polite or respectful or genteel. They should be shocking and brutally honest.

An accusation of hypocritical lying made on the Senate floor would be exceptionally newsworthy if it was made loudly, consistently, and boldly enough. After reporting the accusation, the media would have to report that the democrats were the truthful ones. Then most people would remember the accusation that the republicans were lying hypocrites about this issue.