Blow For Bush

MSnbc/Newsweek ^ | Mar 27, 2004 | Brian Braiker

[jla]

The Left's Smear Tactic & Dirty Trick Machine is greased and well-oiled for this campaign.
Too bad our upright, decent & resolute President will prove impervious to the vileness & immorality of the Clinton/Kerry Campaign for President.

[Dog]

The point is not to give up, but not to be a pollyanna either

Why you directing that at me.....Cedar Dave is the one you need to direct that post at.

All I told him is to take a deep breath and relax..

[broadsword]

Now, just imagine what you would have thought if the title of this article was BLOW FOR CLINTON, Hmmmm?

Aren't you glad the adults are in charge?

I am!

[veronica]

Hey Mo......look how they are spinning there own poll...

Can you believe this crap? Bush is ahead in this poll, and on balance it shows that Clarke didn't hurt Bush much at all. What a joke...

[veronica]

65% of Americans believe that the Clinton administration didn't do enough to combat terrorism.. Yes, but look at the Newsweak headline... They wouldn't recognize the real headline -- the real truth -- if it bit 'em.

Folks need to READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE. Thank you. :)

[Dog]

This headline will make all the evening and morning news shows...

[MJY1288]

All that lying sack of shiite Richard Clarke is a flash in the pan. The RATS might get a bump out of this, but the aftermath will hurt them a lot more in the end.

[Dog]

Folks need to READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE

Veronica......people won't get to see the whole poll......this will be the lead in the morning......Bush in free fall on the terror issue.

[veronica]

They can't report the poll without reporting that Bush is ahead of Kerry, if Nader is factored in.

[TexasCowboy]

"the media lib WHORES....I HATE THEM WITH A FRIGGIN PASSION!!

Oh, come on, Rose!
Don't sugar coat it! Tell us how you really feel!

BTW: I agree!

[Unicorn]

You'r nuts

[Sorcerer3]

Clarke's house of cards is crashing down. There is evidence out there that proves Clarke's assertions at the 9/11 hearing claiming that he "only mentioned the good points to make bush look good" to the press in the Aug. 2002 background briefing are freaking lies. Here is a link to a PDF file that contains a letter to the 9/11 commission with 2 attached letters from congressman Christopher Shays. One is regarding Clarke's "less than useful" information he provided to an oversight committee about funding terror just following the bombing of the USS Cole. The other letter was sent to Condi Rice on Jan 22, 2001 complaining about Clarke's lack of a plan to combat terror and outlined that he was "part of the problem". I haven't really heard anything about these letters out there in the media except from Newsmax.com. It really is interesting reading considering the fairy tales that Clarke is spewing now. Hope you all enjoy it as much as I did.

http://www.cnsnews.com/pdf/2004/911commissionLetter.pdf

[NYC Republican]

Can you believe this crap? Bush is ahead in this poll, and on balance it shows that Clarke didn't hurt Bush much at all. What a joke...

Unreal.

Bush 45%

French-looking ketchup boy Heinz Kerry 43% !

That's the real story here.

[driftless]

I subscribe to Web tv which get its news from MSNBC. Every news item they use concerning the Bush admin has a negative spin to it. Make no mistake, Big Media is trying as hard as they can to help Kerry.

[CyberAnt]

I just couldn't agree more. The word is: perjury!

[Kirkwood]

As someone who works on the emergency medical rescue side of Homeland Security, I can assure you that none of the people I work with believe Clarke to be in any way credible, and we strongly support the efforts of President Bush during this difficult period.

[Bob J]

the percentage of voters who say they approve of the way the president has handled terrorism and homeland security has slid to 57 percent, down from a high of 70 percent two months ago.

As usual, this bit of info is spun. The ony accurate estimate of Clarke's effect is what Bush's ratings were immediately prior to his whirlwind PR tour and what they were after.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Clarke seems to be on a SYOA quest. He served under Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2, and has a trail of failures that stretch back more than twenty years. Every terrorist attack on Americans and American interests occured on his watch.

That none of the Presidents Clarke allegedly served under never terminated his employment for allowing a plague of terrorist attacks to happen, attests to the fact that up until the liberal democrats decided for political expedience to hang the 9/11 albatros around the neck of Bush, Clarke's failures were dealt with under the theory that "shit happens."

For reasons known only to him, this world class loser, has chosen to serve the forces that despise our President with a passion so extreme that what ever they feel toward the likes of Osama, Hussein or the devil himself, seems warm and loving by comparison. Who knows what vital part of ones treasures may be clamped in a vice, or by whom, when a person's actions become totally out of character for said individual.

Could be though that individual never did possess what I've mentioned that may be under stress. That could explain a lot too.

[HarryCaul]

I know it sounds all tin-foil hattish and so on, but one of my email addresses was mistakenly added to a mailing list for a "group" that meets regularly in Manhattan. The address apparently resembles one for an actual intended attendee.

Anyway, the mailing list organizer doesn't understand "BCC", and this group includes a number of names I immediately recognized as leading media and political types. Further research showed that they all were such figures. The group meets to discuss various topics that either are or soon become "hot". It's fascinating to get this glimpse of the machinery that manufactures what you hear about via the mainstream press. I have no doubt that this group is merely one of several that do this sort of crossover all the time. In fact, I've long been aware of the "cocktail party" circuit in places like Manhattan and DC, but it's really odd to see it plainly laid out.

There's nothing inherently wrong with it, but do you imagine that reporting and editorial decisions aren't influenced by this sort of thing?

[Liberty Valance]

We're Winning!!!!!!


Bush/Cheney '04