News Can Ed Koch's Endorsement of Bush Swing Florida Votes?

[Prometheus]

As a President, you have to have a certain level of faith in information provided by your intelligence services. Sometimes they can let you down.

I will grant you this. Still, Bush was very gung ho in maximizing all evidence that points to Iraq as justification for the invasion that he personally felt was important. As a result of his attitude, in conjunction with the intelligence that he received, filtered as it was to select that which supported his goals, he conducted actions with significant global implications.

Do you think that Bush is exonerated completely due to the errors in the intelligence that he received? Or, do you think that he should take responsibility for the errors that he made, even though it was not 100% his fault? By taking responsbility, I mean more than uttering the words "I take responsibility." By taking responsbility, I also mean more than contending that although all of his primary justifications for the war turn out to have been based on faulty or misleading information, all this goes to prove that the war was the correct move in the first place.

 

[kat]

I will grant you this. Still, Bush was very gung ho in maximizing all evidence that points to Iraq as justification for the invasion that he personally felt was important.

I'm not sure that he was as "gung ho" as your suggesting. In fact, I personally think that weaponry was moved/hidden as a result of the time lapse between mentioning attacking and giving the many "chances" that were given.

As a result of his attitude, in conjunction with the intelligence that he received, filtered as it was to select that which supported his goals, he conducted actions with significant global implications.

does the 9-11 report suppost that it was filtered to "select that which supported his goals"? Despite the repeated crime of "global implications" it appears to be less global and more regional.

Do you think that Bush is exonerated completely due to the errors in the intelligence that he received? Or, do you think that he should take responsibility for the errors that he made, even though it was not 100% his fault? By taking responsbility, I mean more than uttering the words "I take responsibility." By taking responsbility, I also mean more than contending that although all of his primary justifications for the war turn out to have been based on faulty or misleading information, all this goes to prove that the war was the correct move in the first place.

ALL of his primary justifications? Why don't you list what you think they are and we can go line by line to see if the basis for your question is correct before we answer it.

 

[Gza]

I'm not sure that he was as "gung ho" as your suggesting. In fact, I personally think that weaponry was moved/hidden as a result of the time lapse between mentioning attacking and giving the many "chances" that were given.

A unilateral action without the support of the UN (or any other major country aside from britain) seems pretty gung ho to me.

 

[Gza]

Second, the faulty information sucked in the British too. So the idea that Bush was the only one misled is, well, misleading. As a President, you have to have a certain level of faith in information provided by your intelligence services. Sometimes they can let you down.

I'm not sure if you were aware of this, but a large part of Britains case against Iraq involving the WMDs, came from a plagerized document of a graduate student in California. This wholesale plagiarism was one of the many desperate, shameless attempts at pushing the coalition into war, when it was realized that after 12 years of intelligence gathering by the CIA, NSA, DIA, NRO, Israel's Mossad, Turkeys MIT, Britain's MI6 and GCHQ, defectors,
Kurds and the like, we still had zero(0) information on the purported link.

 

[Prometheus]

In fact, I personally think that weaponry was moved/hidden ...

Why don't you list your reasons for what you think and we can go line by line to see if the basis for your thinking is correct before we respond to it.

 

[FZ+]

In any case, the jury is still out on whether the UK government was sucked in by the oh so evil intelligence services. I mean, there is a rather obvious question, isn't there? Why was it that before the war, when the invasion was deeply controversial, and it was apparent that this was a major decision with major reprecussions, the government chose to react not by looking over its data more carefully (which should immediately show up page after page of reservations, and dissenting opinions, and so on), but by brushing it all under the carpet so that later on, they can pretend that they accidentally failed to read it properly?

 

[Prometheus]

Why was it that before the war, when the invasion was deeply controversial, and it was apparent that this was a major decision with major reprecussions, the government chose to react not by looking over its data more carefully (which should immediately show up page after page of reservations, and dissenting opinions, and so on), but by brushing it all under the carpet so that later on, they can pretend that they accidentally failed to read it properly?

Very well put.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Do you think that Bush is exonerated completely due to the errors in the intelligence that he received? Or, do you think that he should take responsibility for the errors that he made, even though it was not 100% his fault? By taking responsbility, I mean more than uttering the words "I take responsibility."

What exactly do you want him to do?

Keep in mind that the President is not going to say anything damaging to the US. While it may serve some people's political interests for the President to skewer himself publically (rightfully or not), that doesn't make it wise.

 

[loseyourname]

A unilateral action without the support of the UN (or any other major country aside from britain) seems pretty gung ho to me.

Spain isn't a major country?

 

[Gza]

Spain isn't a major country?

It may be a major country, but answer me this: how many Spanish troops are/were fighting in Iraq? Vocal support and physical support are two different things.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

This could spell a lot of trouble for Kerry if his opposition to Bush's middle east policy means that more prominent Jews, like Koch, turn their support to Bush.

Since when does anyone listen to Ed Koch?

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Since when does anyone listen to Ed Koch?

Somebody must have listen to him, he was a three term Mayor of New York and a two term U. S. Congressman.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

Somebody must have listen to him, he was a three term Mayor of New York and a two term U. S. Congressman.

Uhh, when, 20 years ago? I just think it's funny that we're resorting to quotes from Ed Koch as a way to show support for Bush.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Uhh, when, 20 years ago? I just think it's funny that we're resorting to quotes from Ed Koch as a way to show support for Bush.

Many of those same people that voted for him 20 years ago are now elder retirees living in South Florida.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

Many of those same people that voted for him 20 years ago are now elder retirees living in South Florida.

HUH? What does that have to do with anything? And I might add, many of those same retirees living in Florida who you refer to are the ones who didn't get their votes counted in the last election...

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Bush won Florida by about 500 votes during the 2000 election. Recent polls suggest that Florida will once again be up for grabs. A Koch endorsement of Bush could persuade some of these former New York democrats, now Florida democrats to vote for Bush. If Bush can garner just 250 of these votes, it would mean a 500 vote swing for the republicans.