Hello Everyone:

I have already shown how that Bush can be effectively nationalized by Democratic challengers against their Republican Bush rubber-stamp incumbent opponents in red states and in red districts:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16242

How red state Democratic candidates can defeat GOP Bush rubber-stamp incumbents!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on August 7, 2008 - 4:10am.

Here are five more serious questions that I have seen since then which Democratic candidates in my opinion should be asking to their Republican Bush rubber-stamp incumbent opponents right now:

1) Do you agree with McCain surrogate Republican Senator Lindsey Graham when he said about the huge budget deficit and the huge national debt "President Bush should have vetoed some of these bills. Maybe I should have voted more -- no more times than I did," do you regret your votes to rubber-stamp Bush's irresponsible fiscal agenda just like how Lindsey Graham did, and were you truly representing the people of your state or district when you were rubber-stamping Bush?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0809/09/sitroom.01.html

THE SITUATION ROOM

Interview With South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham; Obama Slams McCain Over Iraq War; Joe Biden vs. Sarah Palin

Aired September 9, 2008 - 16:00 ET

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: "Remember, President Bush, four years ago, at his convention, he promised to cut the budget deficit in half by the time he leaves office. Instead of doing that, it's effectively doubled by the time he leaves office.

And the national debt, during his eight years, has gone from about $5 trillion to almost $10 trillion, almost all of this on Republican watch. Why shouldn't the American taxpayers blame the Republicans and Senator McCain, who is part of the Republican Party, for this economic mess?...

BLITZER: Well, would you agree that President Bush, who has the veto power -- he can veto those bills if he wants to...

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: He should have.

BLITZER: ... that over eight years, that he deserves the most blame for this economic mess, the -- the huge budget deficit and the huge national debt?

GRAHAM: I think, when it comes to appropriating, apportioning blame, I think all of us are to blame up here.

And, yes, you're right. President Bush should have vetoed some of these bills. Maybe I should have voted more -- no more times than I did. But, at the end of the day, we have got to look toward and fix it..."

2) Do you agree with John McCain's decisions to "loathe, loathe to mention President Bush's name," with his trying as hard as he can "to stay away from anything that has to do with President Bush," with his "not talking about George W. Bush, even on a day the president said 8,000 troops would be coming home from Iraq," and do you agree with the McCain adviser who "admitted that talking about anything related to Bush, especially policy, especially Iraq policy, is basically a political death knell:"

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0809/09/sitroom.01.html

THE SITUATION ROOM

Interview With South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham; Obama Slams McCain Over Iraq War; Joe Biden vs. Sarah Palin

Aired September 9, 2008 - 16:00 ET

DANA BASH, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: "Well, one thing that I think is really noteworthy, so far, we haven't heard, we haven't heard -- that is very telling about how the McCain campaign thinks this campaign is going, Wolf -- we have not heard John McCain from the podium talk about the major news with regard to Iraq today, and that is President Bush announcing that 8,000 troops are going to come home.

That's something you would think that he would tout as success, but they are loathe, loathe to mention President Bush's name, especially something -- especially coming from John McCain's lips at this time.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: They really think that even mentioning the president's name would be poisonous in that kind of atmosphere? Is that what you're saying, Dana?

BASH: It certainly seems to be.

Now, I can tell you that the McCain campaign issued a written statement in Senator McCain's name really about the issue, about the news today, very much, as you can imagine, going after Senator Obama for not supporting the surge to begin with and saying that his approach is wrongheaded.

But, unless he's saying it behind me, and I can't hear it -- I don't think he is -- Senator McCain -- I'm told from one of his senior advisers, it is not an accident that Senator McCain himself was not planning to talk about the news, because they are trying as hard as they can to stay away from anything that has to do with President Bush..."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0809/09/sitroom.03.html

THE SITUATION ROOM

Does Palin Help or Hurt McCain?; Where Is North Korea's Leader?

Aired September 9, 2008 - 18:00 ET

DANA BASH, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: "And, for McCain, talking change means not talking about George W. Bush, even on a day the president said 8,000 troops would be coming home from Iraq, a sign of success you would think that McCain would trumpet, but no mention of the Bush announcement at rallies in Ohio or Pennsylvania.

MCCAIN: Senator Obama voted to cut off funding for our troops in Iraq.

(BOOING)

BASH: Instead, it was all about Obama being wrong in opposing the surge.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BASH: The McCain campaign did release a written statement about the president's troop announcement, which focused almost entirely on Barack Obama and his -- quote -- "utterly confused Iraq position."

Now, Wolf, it is no accident that McCain didn't want to talk about the president here in front of voters in a battleground state. I'm told by advisers that they have concluded that swing voters, they are not sure they want to vote for Obama yet, but they know they don't want four more years of Bush -- Wolf.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: So, you listen, Dana. You cover him. You listen to all these stump speeches from Palin and from McCain. They never, ever talk about Bush in any way?

BASH: Not talking about President Bush. They have not talked about him at all..."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0809/09/acd.01.html

ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES

Palin Power; Obama's Ohio Challenge

Aired September 9, 2008 - 22:00 ET

DANA BASH, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: "But I will tell you, what's interesting is that they also say that talking about change, it means not talking about George W. Bush. And, Anderson, the most interesting thing, I think, on the campaign trail with McCain today is what we didn't hear.

You know what happened at the White House. The president announced 8,000 troops are coming home from Iraq. That is something you would think John McCain would be trumpeting from the rooftops as evidence that Iraq is actually succeeding. But he didn't mention it at all. Why?

A McCain adviser I talked to tonight admitted that talking about anything related to Bush, especially policy, especially Iraq policy, is basically a political death knell, especially for John McCain right now, so he didn't mention it at all.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Fascinating.

Dana Bash, thanks..."

Why are you intentionally trying to run away from your record of rubber-stamping President Bush like how John McCain is trying to do? Why don't you stand up and try to defend your record instead of running away from it? Are you as ashamed of President Bush as John McCain is and if so, then why did you spend years rubber-stamping him in such an irresponsible manner?

3) Do you have any regrets rubber-stamping the irresponsible manner in which Bush conducted the Iraq war and do you regret not asking him and his people the tough questions that you should have asked?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26702299/page/4/

'Meet the Press' transcript for Sept. 14, 2008

Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Bob Woodward, Chuck Todd

MR. TOM BROKAW: We're back, and joined now by Bob Woodward, author of the new book "The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008."

Before we begin, Mr. Woodward, we're going to share with our audience kind of your sweeping conclusions that you had at the beginning of the book...

MR. BOB WOODWARD: Sure.

MR. BROKAW:  ...if we can.

"President Bush has rarely leveled with the public to explain what he was doing and what should be expected.  ...  The president rarely was the voice of realism on the Iraq War.  ...

"After ordering the invasion, the president spent three years in denial and then delegated a strategy review to his national security adviser.  Bush was intolerant of confrontations and in-depth debate.  There was no deadline, no hurry.  The president was engaged in the war rhetorically but maintained an odd detachment from its management.  He never got a full handle on it, and over these years of war, too often he failed to lead."

This has brought a response, as you know, from the White House today.

MR. WOODWARD:  Certainly.

MR. BROKAW:  The "Afterword:  Mr. Woodward's Reporting vs. Mr. Woodward's Editorializing." This is what the White House had to say.  "In `The War Within,' Bob Woodward uses a prologue and epilogue, along with commentary scattered over a few other pages, to offer the opinion that the military was marginalized and outmaneuvered in the decision-making process that led to the surge.  Woodward's contentions are inaccurate."

Having read the book, it seems to me that there is kind of a mixed judgment here.  For example, in that August 17th meeting in 2006, he pulls everyone together to talk about the surge.  The president's fully engaged at that point.

MR. WOODWARD:  Yes.  But he's also saying publicly that he's got--he knows exactly where he's going, and, as you note, in that meeting he's kind of wringing his hands.  I mean, the, the--what so much of this White House response reminds me of, going back to Nixon and Watergate, if you remember, 34 years ago...

MR. BROKAW:  I have good reason to remember it, yes.

MR. WOODWARD:  ...Nixon--you sure do.  And Nixon put out that big telephone book-size transcripts, 1200 pages, edited, "This is the full story, this is true." And then he threw out was not--what he didn't like.  That's what the White House has done here.  They're--the president's own words are quoted in the prologue, which they criticize, in which the president says, "I knew it wasn't working, the strategy in Iraq.  So the question was, what to do?" It is the president, in the prologue, that is the focus, not any commentary by me...

But when you look at it, over the years of this war--now, look, look, the war in Iraq is probably the most important thing going on right now. We have a political campaign going on, which is indeed significant, but whether it's Obama or McCain who go into the Oval Office on January 20th, 2009 and sit there, topic one is going to be the Iraq war, topic two is going to be the Afghan war. It is a giant deal, and they are going to feel it..."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0809/08/lkl.01.html

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Interview with Bob Woodward

Aired September 8, 2008 - 21:00 ET

LARRY KING, HOST: You assert in your book that: "The president rarely was the voice of realism on the Iraq War."

The obvious question, then, is why?

Was he not well-informed?

BOB WOODWARD, AUTHOR, "THE WAR WITHIN": No. He wanted to fix it, but they didn't want to come out and say, hey, look, this is a mess. They said it was difficult. But you compare the public language with the private language and the memos and the discussions and the meetings, and it's -- it couldn't be more different.

And, you know, the question of why is, as I say in the book, I think -- I never questioned the president's sincerity here, but there was an avoidance of conflict within the team in the White House and the cabinet.

He never -- as best I can tell from everyone, including himself. I asked him, I said, "Did you ever say to General Casey -- did you ever say to Rumsfeld, hey, this isn't working? Hey, Don."

And the president said, "I don't remember those meetings -- discussions. I don't have any recollection of that."

Well, here is where the rubber meets the road in war. This isn't preparing for war. This isn't the aftermath of a war.

KING: Yes.

WOODWARD: This is right in the guts of a war.

KING: Our guest, Bob Woodward.

The newest book is "The War Within".

You also write, Bob, that: "The president was engaged in the war rhetorically, but maintained an odd detachment from its management. He never got a full handle on it. Over these years of war, too often he failed to lead."

Who was running the show?

WOODWARD: Well, as the president -- the president was ultimately deciding. But one of the points he kept making in these interviews is that Steve Hadley, his national security adviser, drove all of this.

Let me give you a key example. We're in these interviews in the Oval Office about four months ago and the question becomes what -- where did the idea of five brigades -- about 30,000 troops to Baghdad, the surge, the increase?

And in the conversation, Hadley says well, that idea of five brigades -- because the Army officially was only asking for two brigades -- Hadley says it comes from his -- Hadley's -- discussions with General Pace, the chairman of the joint chiefs.

The president says -- and I think it's one of the tape clips -- he said, "OK, I don't know this."

And then he says that he's not in these meetings. I'll be happy to hear -- that's what he said. And then he said he's got other things to do.

Now, this is the key pivot point in these decisions -- in this decision on the surge and he's not there and he's telling me I should be happy that he's not there and he's got other things to do.

KING: Wow!

WOODWARD: Now, he does have other things to do, but this is a war -- when the intelligence and everyone is telling him it's failing, it's not working and it's hell.

KING: Wow!

WOODWARD: I don't understand that disengagement. I've done this for 37 years of reporting. This isn't a source. This isn't somebody thinking that they saw...

It's right out of the president's own mouth..."

4) Do you agree with Bush's decision to flat out refuse to compromise or try and find any common ground with the Democrats? Is that the right way how a President should govern the country in your view? Do you have any regrets at all about your rubber-stamping a President like Bush who has this kind of an attitude toward people who disagree with him?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26702299/page/4/

'Meet the Press' transcript for Sept. 14, 2008

Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Bob Woodward, Chuck Todd

MR. BOB WOODWARD: "And, you know, this idea of divisiveness is so important. At one point, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, who--she does not have a good relationship with Bush, but she actually, in private, March 2007, reached out to him and said, "Can't we reach some sort of common ground? Can't we work together?" And he said, "My views are known, and I've decided..."

5) Do you agree with conservative columnist and deputy editorial page editor at the "Washington Times" Tara Wall who agreed with Wolf Blitzer's comment on CNN that "the country is sort of sick of eight years of the Bush administration" when she said "Exactly. Well in so many words, absolutely" to that?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0809/14/le.01.html

CNN LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER

Battle for the White House

Aired September 14, 2008 - 11:00 ET

WOLF BLITZER, HOST: "Welcome back to LATE EDITION, I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin held her first solo campaign appearance outside her home state speaking to several thousand supporters in Carson City, Nevada. Governor Palin has been able to drawn huge crowds, but can she influence women voters to support John McCain?

To help us assess her effect on the campaign, we're joined by two of the best political team on television, Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen is here and conservative columnist and deputy editorial page editor at the "Washington Times" Tara Wall is here well...

BLITZER: The generic numbers, we're not mentioning names, because the country is sort of sick of eight years of the Bush administration. Is that what you're saying?

TARA WALL: Exactly. Well in so many words, absolutely. And I think that's why you've seen even John McCain run up against this -- with this maverick title and up against what he I think has considered -- he even says it failed last few years, four years in his words. So I think it's also -- conservative columnists are having a lot of fun with this. They're calling it the Sarah surge, and you can't deny the impact that she has certainly had on his numbers..."

In my opinion, no Republican Bush rubber-stamp House or Senate candidate even in a red state or in a red district should be able to run away from answering these kind of serious and tough questions!

Democratic challengers should definitely be using these kind of key questions to press their GOP Bush rubber-stamp opponents to debate. If they refuse to debate, then they should be asking these important questions to their local media to try and pressure their opponent to debate, they should be running campaign ads asking these key questions, and they should be putting up an empty podium with the name of their opponent on it at their town hall events calling on them to debate with the local media and with a lot of people there seeing that empty podium in an effort to publicly embarrass them!

No Democratic candidate should ever allow their GOP Bush rubber-stamp incumbent opponent to avoid answering these kind of questions when they are fair and when this election is all about accountability!

Mitch Dworkin

http://www.securingamerica.com/

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16039
RESOURCES: Speeches, Articles, and Career Highlights to help define Gen. Clark!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 7, 2008 - 2:51pm.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10756
StopIranWar.com: "War is not the answer"
Submitted by Wes Clark on February 21, 2007 - 11:40am.

http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!