The Official US President Election Thread

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

in the news in UK at mo' is that some people seem to think that
Bush was wearing a wire, and was being fed the answers to any
tricky questions that came up in debate - what do american
mooters think on this subject?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

No problem. The "watch it" link was on the first page. it's sort of misleading because it sort of indicates that you can only watch it live, but I've gone in their after the debates and it's still worked.

Ok, thanks.

By nuts and bolts - I'm referring to the ins and outs of the constitution and so forth. Without seeing our political commercials, full debates, press conferences, etc - an outsider can not get a full picture of our politics. An outsider is merely basing their opinions on the media filter of their country and the way it is presented to them.

But someone said earlier that they get the real campaign ads. In that case they get the same media filter that all Americans get. (Maybe that person should point that out again for our benefits, because I forget the exact quote.) In that case they would be getting the real thing.

Other countries have a right to their opinion - just like I was hoping that John Howard was going to win the Australian elections - which he did. But I don't know what the internal issues are with Australia that Australians might have been voting on. I know there was ONE reason why I wanted him to win - and that was based on the war on terrorism. He is a close ally to the US. On the other hand - outsiders seem to think they should have a say in who our president is. I would never campaign or openly support a foreign leaders election - because as far as I am concerned - that leader represents that country. I think it's a bit presumptious to do that. On the hand - others don't seem to have a problem - such as BoP who has a poltical avatar ("Anyone but Bush") as if she has some say in who our president is. The president represents the interests of the US - and outsiders seem to forget that fact. Our president is NOT there to represent the interests of New zealand, France, Germany, or Canada. Who the leader of France, Australia, Canada, etc - also affects us too.

Yes, because of international politics, the leaders of every country affect everyone else, some to more of a degree than others. The American president is very important to Canadians (as our Prime Minister is important to you). I don't like George Bush, and I would rather see John Kerry as President. I don't want to see anyone but Bush - I think he's still be much better than the fruitcake with the centurion helmet. I may not agree with some important policies, but at least he's serious about the job. I still don't imagine that I get to choose your leader for you (or some such ridiculousness), but I have hopes, as you had hopes about John Howard.

By the way - I did watch the Canadian Parliament on C-SPAN tonight. It was the parliamentary question period. The conservatives were bringing up the anti-american statements which have been coming from some key figures in the Liberal party. There was one positive thing, it did bring an uproar of support to reprimand the people in government who are making these statements and that the majority of parliament were against the anti-american statements and agreed that it does affect our relationship. The point was made - how can the Canadian government expect us to negotiate trade issues and so forth - when you have people in the government saying "Americans are idiots" or "I hate those American bastards". I guess someone who was just made foreign minister or something (can't remember) was one of the key anti-americans and has repeatedly made statements against us and our country.

Aaaargh. *bangs head against desk* The Conservatives used to be a great party, now they're just... well... anyway, that's beside the point. They do have some good members - mostly people from the old PC party.
Anyway, I don't agree with anti-american statements, even if they come from a party that I like most of the time (the Liberals). I think there's a very important difference between disagreeing with a policy made by the American government, and having anti-american statements. The first is good and usefull, the second is pointless and damages our relationship. We're neighbours, and if we disagree (which we will) we need to do it in a mature way so that we still respect each other. People don't listen to people they don't respect, or to people who don't respect them.

I have a list of links of some of the various parties on my website Here is the listing I have...
Republican National Committee
Democratic National Committee
Communist Party
Constitution Party
Green Party
Hawaii Independence Party
Libertarian Party
Natural Law Party
New Party
Patriot Party
Reform Party
Socialist Party

There are also many other parties too.

This is very cool. I didn't know there was a Hawaiin separatist movement. Do any other states want to separate? (Alaska can join us! Be the fourth territory! [The other three are the Yukon, the North West Territories, and Nunavut.] )

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

in the news in UK at mo' is that some people seem to think that
Bush was wearing a wire, and was being fed the answers to any
tricky questions that came up in debate - what do american
mooters think on this subject?

If he was, he needs to get a better prompter!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

If he was, he needs to get a better prompter!

and ain't that the truth!!

(no offence intended toward Bush-supporters, but he is rather stupid)

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

and ain't that the truth!!

(no offence intended toward Bush-supporters, but he is rather stupid)

And why should that not be offensive? I consider it a notion constantly promoted by the very liberal media, who hate him and would stop at nothing to deride him and his positions.

If I'm right, what does that say of those who 'buy into' those persistent media portrayals?

As for the suggestion of Bush being prompted, IMHO, THAT would be harder to pull off than being actually prepared to give a real-life answer.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

quick clarification, I actually meant Bush is portrayed as being stupid, as i have never met the man, i can not comment

[Valandil]

OK - I'll accept that. And frankly, he wouldn't have been MY first choice, given a broader field of candidates. However, I think that portrayal of him is quite unfair and unreasonable.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I agree that polls are over-done, and that journalists are often incapable of, to paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, telling the difference between the end of the world and a bicycle accident.

However, I don't agree that the best approach is to read all the primary documents yourself. Here are three reasons why:

1) Doing that has never been practical for the vast majority of any electorate.

2) Even primary documents have a source, and are subject to bias, censorship and/or manipulation.

3) A good quality secondary review will give you a much more informative view of any topic.

If you had heart disease, would you spend 5 years studying medicine then read every article in the medical literature on the topic before deciding on your treatment?

No, you'd go and see a doctor. These people are experts for a reason, and the same rationale applies to journalism.

In politics, it's particularly important, because politicians are particularly expert at evading the truth.

Of course, most journalism is ratings-obsessed populist trash, but that doesn't mean that it's not a cornerstone of a free society.

Journalists ARE NOT experts on international affairs, nor are they experts on military action. They are journalists and their sole purpose should be to report the news, NOT interpret it. I do not think media is the cornerstone of a free society - if they routinely twist the truth or limit their reporting. A memo from ABC came out that said they will be easier on Kerry than Bush. Dan Rather has such a hatred for George Bush and wants him out of office so much - he'll stand by erroneous documents for weeks before finally accepting that they were forgeries.

The news media tried to make Bush look like an idiot for not knowing that he owned interest in a timber company. Everyone said FactCheck.org had said it - therefore it must be true. Well Fox reported yesterday that actually in 2001 when the $84 in income was reported, they weren't in the timber industry. They were the ONLY one that reported the correction, factCheck.org even now says that it was not the case - but they will correct the article that erroneously said this. At least they corrected their statement, unlike the rest of the news media.

Bush forgets he owns a tree-growing company.

Bush got a laugh when he scoffed at Kerry's contention that he had received $84 from "a timber company." Said Bush, "I own a timber company? That's news to me."

In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." (See "supporting documents" at right.)

So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income.

Kerry got his information from an article we posted Sept. 23 stating that Bush on his 2001 federal income-tax returns "reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise." We should clarify: the $84 in Schedule C income was from Bush's Lone Star Trust, which is actually described on the 2001 income-tax returns as an "oil and gas production" business. The Lone Star Trust now owns 50% of the tree-growing company, but didn't get into that business until two years after the $84 in question. So we should have described the $84 as coming from an "oil and gas" business in 2001, and will amend that in our earlier article.

With the small amount of $84 in income - it seems as if Bush owns only a very very small amount of stock in the company. Unless Bush read all of the annual report. which I'm sure he isn't going to wade through it - he most likely would not have known that they had diversified into the timber industry.

Last Child of Ungoliant - There is a BIG difference between being a good public speaker and being smart. I suck at public speaking - but I do NOT consider myself dumb. I think that Bush is smart. If he wasn't - he wouldn't have been governor of Texas for two terms. But hey - the same thing was said about reagan - even by the democrats - now Kerry even mentions Reagan when talking about great presidents of the 20th century. It's funny - no one was calling Bush dumb and stupid during 9/11. It's also funny how people now complaining that he didn't go into Afganistan right away - but basically used diplomacy to get a KEY ally on our side - Pakistan. He didn't just rush into Afganistan, but wanted to make sure key pieces were in place - yet he now gets criticized for that. He also didn't rush into Iraq either. Iraq was a year of negotiations and diplomacy. The diplomacy failed - mostly because the countries who were opposing us - France and Russia and Germany - were in bed with Hussein.

The Duelfer report shows how Hussein had close ties with France, that there were agreements to get sanctions lifted. Hussein's plan was to restart his WMD programs immediately after the lifting of sanctions (which France had been pushing for for year). CNN and many other media outlets are only reporting how the report shows that Hussein had no WMD - not about the plans of Hussein or who he was in bed with and why there was NO WAY that the US was going to get anywhere in the UN. What is also disturbing is that the person Hussein was dealing with was a top level Minister in France and a close friend to Chirac. It wasn't just some company breaking the sanctions. This is why it is important to look into what the press reports and look at the actual documents. The Duelfer Report does have a 19 page summary of the key points and you can go into the details if you want. As I have said - Dr Germ wasn't in the Iraqi government as eye-candy. There was a PURPOSE for her being there and a key figure at that.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

CNN and many other media outlets are only reporting how the report shows that Hussein had no WMD - not about the plans of Hussein or who he was in bed with and why there was NO WAY that the US was going to get anywhere in the UN.

Completely untrue and it exposes the extreme pro-Bush myopia in your interpretation.

The British and US government spin doctors went into overdrive to emphasise what they could out of this report: that Saddam had "intent" to resume production of weapons once sanctions were lifted. All the media outlets I have seen reported this, and gave it far more prominence than it deserved.

And, since everybody already knew that there were no WMDs anyway, they got away with it. It's typical of the cynical manipulation of the media which is now a massive, sophisticated industry. Without skilled, incisive journalism, we are just left with government sound-bites.

Anyway, since when was "intent to manufacture weapons" grounds for invading a country?? Under international law, you have to have actual weapons and intent to use them to justify a pre-emptive strike. Iraq had neither.

The real message of the report was that sanctions had worked: he disarmed.

I take it that, by "not getting anywhere at the UN" you mean the UN wouldn't have backed an invasion, in which case you're right, because clearly such an invasion had to be illegal.

[Janny]

What was the figure? How many security council resolutions was it? And wasn't that actually a term of the ceasefire in 1992? We also seem to be ignoring the corruption of France, Russia and China here vis-a-vis Oil for Food. Concerning correlation that, what else did those three want?

No sorry, I'm writing in right wing spin again. You see, it's so hard to differentiate between fact and spin. Or fact, and fact that people like Michael Moore don't like.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Janny

... vis-a-vis Oil for Food...

I believe the proper title was Oil for Palaces.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Janny

What was the figure? How many security council resolutions was it? And wasn't that actually a term of the ceasefire in 1992? We also seem to be ignoring the corruption of France, Russia and China here vis-a-vis Oil for Food. Concerning correlation that, what else did those three want?

No sorry, I'm writing in right wing spin again. You see, it's so hard to differentiate between fact and spin. Or fact, and fact that people like Michael Moore don't like.

You have to realise that left wingers don't like to admit that the people they side with are corrupt.

And Gaffer - it WAS and is NOT well reported about the role of France, Russia, China or Germany in Iraq. There is hardly anything ever reported on the investigation going on right now in the UN concerning the Oil for Food scandal. There has only been ONE mention that I have heard concerning Koffi Anna's son being given a position in one of the companies which were INVOLVED in the underhanded deals with Hussein.

You would think that one mention of the report would be too much for you handle. Show me the law where it states - "Under international law, you have to have actual weapons and intent to use them to justify a pre-emptive strike. " Becuase you know - Meloshivic had NO intentions of attacking any country yet we preemtively went into Bosnia. Why? Because Europe was AFRAID it was going to spill over. there was no proof it was going to. So why didn't we wait then? he was merely killing his own people - something Hussein was doing.

[jerseydevil]

Janny - you are also right by the way. The Gulf War technically never ended because Hussein was never fully cooperative with the resolutions which were a condition to the end of the war.

Valandil - shhhh - don't call it Oil-for-Palaces - that's juust right wing propaganda. There was NO problems with the oil for food program at all - all hail the great and wonderful UN. Let's just sweep the scandals of the left wing supporters under the rug. Let's ignore that France, Germany, Russia and China all had financial reasons for opposing the US. Talk about blood for oil. Those countries were perfectly willing to sell out the US and the people of Iraq for money. With friends like France - who needs enemies.

By the way - Chirac was in Vietnam this last week bad mouthing the US. One thing he said was that the "US hedegmony must be stopped"

[brownjenkins]

some US companies were also on the list as being involved in a questionable way with the oil for food program... but the CIA is refusing to release the names

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

some US companies were also on the list as being involved in a questionable way with the oil for food program... but the CIA is refusing to release the names

That's funny that you say that considering fox news yesterday reported the names of the companies - one of them was Exxon. The thing that is different is that those were companies - unlike with France and Russia where the people were actually in high level positions in the government.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

That's funny that you say that considering fox news yesterday reported the names of the companies - one of them was Exxon. The thing that is different is that those were companies - unlike with France and Russia where the people were actually in high level positions in the government.

at the time i read about it (last week) the names had not been released and were being kept unmentioned for reasons of privacy

do you honestly believe that a company like exxon doing business via the oil for food program with iraq in the 1990s was doing so with zero US government observation and involvement? and if you do, then is it not possible that the same is true of the french and german companies? cheney was involved with haliburton for years, yet you seem to be willing to deny any ties between him and the company once he took office

i'm not giving the UN or France or Germany a free ride... i'm saying the US does it too... it's a simple fact of the world, if there is money to be made, whether illegal or not, the big players will jump in... irregardless of the consequences... and the US has always been the biggest player in the game

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

at the time i read about it (last week) the names had not been released and were being kept unmentioned for reasons of privacy

Well I'm considering boycotting Exxon and writing them a letter concerning it.

do you honestly believe that a company like exxon doing business via the oil for food program with iraq in the 1990s was doing so with zero US government observation and involvement? and if you do, then is it not possible that the same is true of the french and german companies? cheney was involved with haliburton for years, yet you seem to be willing to deny any ties between him and the company once he took office

The problem is that the person in France was ACTUALLY going over to Iraq - not just dealing in oil. There is also a big difference in the amounts of oil. Another thing - do you remember who was in office during 1990's? Bill Clinton. Now I know YOU support him - do you think he was involved? I didn't really think he was involved - because there has not been any evidence brought forward of US officials being involved in this at all. Now with France and Russia there has been. It was actually going on right up to the time we invaded.

i'm not giving the UN or France or Germany a free ride... i'm saying the US does it too... it's a simple fact of the world, if there is money to be made, whether illegal or not, the big players will jump in... irregardless of the consequences... and the US has always been the biggest player in the game

Hmmm- when I suggested that "others do it too" a few pages back (not even actually condoning a situation regarding the presidency) I was attacked. The funny thing is - the US isn't the biggest player in the game I bet. Do you have actual facts to back up your statement - or is that just based on perception? I feel it's just that people would rather blame everything on the US while pushing their stuff under the rug. People like to think of us as being evil and up to no good. Look at how much reporting is done on the Oil for Food scandal. You never hear anything about it on the news - other than in passing reference. You never heard what is going on with the investigation.


One thing I find interesting about entmoot also. So many people are bitching about Bush and how terrible he is, they also repeatedly start threads about anything the US does wrong. It's rather ironic that there isn't a thread about the elections that took place in Afganistan yesterday and how well they went off. There weren't the terrorist attacks everyone was afraid of, there wasn't any major problems and there was a HUGE turnout. I think the US and Bush should be given some credit for this, since everyone is so eager to constantly lay the blame on us for anything that goes wrong.

[Rían]

I've been out of touch with TV since the debates - any more news on the ABC memo thing where Bush was supposed to be held to a greater accountability than Kerry?


PS - thanks, JD, for the info on the lumber thing.

[jerseydevil]

brownjenkins - since everyone seems to be going by FactCheck.com - why aren't people using it for Cheney and Haliburton....

Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton

A Kerry ad implies Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton and is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq. The fact is, Cheney doesn't gain a penny from Halliburton's contracts, and almost certainly won't lose even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.

The ad claims Cheney got $2 million from Halliburton "as vice president," which is false. Actually, nearly $1.6 million of that was paid before Cheney took office. More importantly, all of it was earned before he was a candidate, when he was the company's chief executive.

....

That still would leave the possibility that Cheney could profit from his Halliburton stock options if the company's stock rises in value. However, Cheney and his wife Lynne have assigned any future profits from their stock options in Halliburton and several other companies to charity. And we're not just taking the Cheney's word for this -- we asked for a copy of the legal agreement they signed, which we post here publicly for the first time.

The "Gift Trust Agreement" the Cheney's signed two days before he took office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education , a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools.

The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," so the Cheney's can't take back their options later.

The options owned by the Cheney's have been valued at nearly $8 million, his attorney says. Such valuations are rough estimates only -- the actual value will depend on what happens to stock prices in the future, which of course can't be known beforehand. But it is clear that giving up rights to the future profits constitutes a significant financial sacrifice, and a sizeable donation to the chosen charities.

...the plain language of the Office of Government Ethics regulations on this matter seems clear enough. The regulations state: "The term financial interest means the potential for gain or loss to the employee . . . as a result of governmental action on the particular matter." So by removing the "potential for gain or loss" Cheney has solid grounds to argue that he has removed any "financial interest" that would pose a conflict under federal regulations.

...

It is important to note here that Cheney could legally have held onto his Halliburton stock options, and no law required him to buy insurance against the possibility that Halliburton wouldn't pay the deferred compensation it owes him. Both the President and Vice President are specifically exempted from federal conflict-of-interest laws, for one thing, as are members of Congress and federal judges.

And even federal officials who are covered by the law may legally own a financial interest in a company, provided they formally recuse themselves -- stand aside -- from making decisions that would have a "direct and predictable effect on that interest." And Cheney says he's done just that.

Cheney says he takes no part in matters relating to Halliburton, and so far we've seen no credible allegation to the contrary. Time magazine reported in its June 7 edition that an e-mail from an unnamed Army Corps of Engineers official stated that a contract to be given to Halliburton in March 2003 "has been coordinated w VP's [Vice President's] office." But it wasn't clear who wrote that e-mail, whether the author had direct knowledge or was just repeating hearsay, or even what was meant by the word "coordinated," which could mean no more than that somebody in Cheney's office was being kept informed of contract talks.

Indeed, a few days later it was revealed that Cheney's chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby was informed in advance that Halliburton was going to receive an earlier contract in the fall of 2002 -- to secretly plan post-war repair of Iraq's oil facilities. But being informed of a decision after it is made is a far cry from taking part in making it. And according to the White House, Libby didn't even pass on the information to Cheney anyway.

So to sum up, this Kerry ad's implication that Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton is unfounded and the $2 million figure is flat wrong.

[brownjenkins]

that's where i differ... i see reports from both sides of most issues all the time... maybe it's the news outlets i follow, but between the BBC, NPR and 'the news hour' on PBS you get a pretty fair picture of the world

a world where there's lots of bad guys and lots of good guys... sometimes in political positions, sometimes not... and country of origin has very little to do with which type they are

if you continue to look only at the attacks JD, that's all you will ever see... there is other stuff out there more worthy of your attention