Replies

Agree on all the vulnerabilities of Kerry - but let's not kidding ourselves - the dims did incredible damage to the President's credibility issue during this period of "silence" by the Whitehouse and the administration. It is critical for the president to repair this credibility damage ASAP. If you are not credible, even if you speak the truth, no one will believe. As a result of that, the American people will treat all Kerry truth-revealing ads as just part of a desperate losing incumbent going negative.

The president must repair his credibility gap. I find it truly amazing how stubborn, how out of touch Bush has become in the last few weeks. Had he came out and said - "look, I take the Saddam intel. at good faith, I weighed the uncertainties, I look at the risk and the threat Saddam could post to this country, in the post 9/11 world, I couldn't afford of not acting. and let me remind you that the intel. I got is the same pres. Clinton had, the same the Brits, French, Russians saw, so how could I suggest our intel. is bad and treat as if nothing is looming". - This is a completely defensible position in the post 9/11 world and yet the President is stuck with the national guard issue, the stupid Cheney/rummy insistence wmd will be found, the jobs number bullcrap - what the hell happens to this president. I hate to believe Bush lied to us (and I don't think he did), but I start to wonder if someone close to him did? Liars always insist they are not telling a lie till the last minute and some even believe in their own lies. So I wonder did Cheney lie to the president? BTW, where is Cheney anyway? Maybe 9/11 created no only the war on terror but a co-president with enormous power and hidden agendas. Time to find the real liars in this administration if there are any.

Did anyone catch Ms. Chrissy Matthews the other night regarding Bush's campaign war chest? His exact quote, "Well, the Bush machine has almost 2 million dollars in their warchest for their negative smear campaigning as soon as the democrats name their nominee".

We have yet to start smearing whereas the dems have gone full metal jacket on Bush for the better part of the last year. But ofcourse we are the ones gearing up for the negative campaign. I guess that accounts for his .2 rating last week....

Well, you started alright, but you went off the tracks at the end with the "Bush may have lied to us" and "Where is Dick Cheney hiding out?". I happen to side with the "what did they do with them?" group on the WMD issue, and believe that the President values Cheney for his Washington/government knowledge and the advice that he provides.

No, President Bush is in charge, I have no doubt about that. But I do agree that he can use a little brushing up in his responses to questions on the missing WMD's. He needs to switch his focus more to politics and campaigning as the season heats up. Otherwise he will have lost the lead out of the gate and will find himself playing catchup (or ketchup) as the season progresses. And playing catchup is never easy, especially when the opposition (aided by the press and TV media) keeps throwing down more rocks on the road that detract from his message.

There has been no silence from the White House. The public just isn't hearing the response. It's the Democratic Primary season, and any charge the Left makes is going to be echoed (by the media) to voice out any defense from the President.

Lost in all of this frenzied lather of "Bush lied" accusations is common sense and facts. Of course, both of those factors ceased to be important to the media long ago. They've got an agenda, and it has nothing to do with telling the truth.

The evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was overwhelming, and those beliefs transcend party lines and oceans. Britain believed it. The UN believed it. Colin Powell believed it. Bill Clinton believed it. Robert Byrd believed it. Saddam's son-in-law insisted there were WMDs, and he was later murdered by Saddam. Furthermore, the fact that Saddam refused to cooperate with inspectors - repeatedly - should constitute enough doubt to consider him a threat. After all, why would Saddam defy the US and UN when it could very likely lead to his removal from office, and (probable) execution. Why destory the weapons and allow himself to be destroyed too? It's not because Saddam wanted to be seen by his fellow Arabs as a martyr - look at how he acted when he was captured.

Where are the weapons? The likely explanation is that either Saddam hid them well or he shipped them off to somewhere else - my guess is Syria. God knows he had enough time to do either under the last administration.

Furthermore, why would Bush deliberately decieve Congress and the American people? It's not for oil - that charge from the Looney Left died a long time ago. It's not because he's looking for a rise in the political polls - his numbers were very high last year. Look at the historic 2002 elections. It's not to deflect from bad economic news - investors don't like Middle East wars - they're potential powder kegs that threaten the lifeblood of the American economy - oil.

To believe that George W. Bush deliberately lied about Iraq takes a twisted mind - or a Democrat (A redundancy in terms, I know.)

If this election is to be decided by issues, one man will be seen as a liar, and it won't be the sitting president. Look at John Kerry's voting record as a Senator, versus what he's saying as a candidate for president. But for the public to see these things, Bush will have to rely on his war chest. The media won't do it for him.