Ok i posted this near the end of the thread but for those who read this here i go again:p

Politics is getting cloged up again with "Bush\republican suck, no the democrates suck" threads so i have resurected this sticky and from now on i am dumping all these types of threads here. If a thread is about half decent posts and half of this type then i will split it but if its just a few posts in a thread then i will just delete them (sorry i dont have unlimited time to split a thread, select a few posts and then merge it with this one).

If thats the only point of your thread then PLEASE do me a favor a just post it here

i've posted this in 2 threads already but people haven't noticed or conveniently ignored it.

so here it is (http://www.swiftvets.com/): Vietnam veterans who fought along side Kerry condemn him as a liar, unfit to lead, when the tough gets going him crawling under a rock, etc. etc.

make sure that you read the titles of who the speakers are.

maybe Kerry shouldn't have opened that Pandora's box... waving around his Vietnam service is not such a good idea if his service was a sham.

this video is a few days old. but give it a week or 2 and it'll reach the mainstream.
do you think Hanoi John's Vietnam record will be a liability or an asset?

i think this ad was run on CNN or other TV networks his ratings would drop by a coupla points at least. let's see how truly unbiased the networks are

Kerry has disgraced the US Navy by going against all the three core values of the US Navy: Honor, Commitment and Courage.

Many choose to ignore this because it is the truth and it reminds me of the famous movie quote that some people "...can't handle the truth!"

I can imagine Fox to air this but it will totally be quite a surprise for me if CNN will ever even mention this.

Thank you for the link, it is good stuff!

These attacks on Kerry's war record are just disgraceful and so obviously partisan that they can be discounted on face. Truth my ass. The guy volunteered for river boat duty, some of the most hazardous duty in Vietnam, and even if he hadn't won three purple hearts and three medals (I think?) he'd still be a hero.

The proof is the fact that if he weren't running for office there's not a Republican voter in this country who wouldn't stop to salute this man on the street and thank him for his service to the country.

Unbelievable. Frankly I'm downright embarassed to be a Bush supporter when I see crap like this.

Is this what you are refering to? :


John Edwards: "If you have any question about what John Kerry is made of, just spend 3 minutes with the men who served with him."

Al French: "I served with John Kerry."

Bob Elder: "I served with John Kerry."

George Elliott: "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."

Al French: "He is lying about his record."

Louis Letson: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury."

Van O'Dell: "John Kerry lied to get his bronze star ... I know, I was there, I saw what happened."

Jack Chenoweth: "His account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day."

Admiral Hoffman: "John Kerry has not been honest."

Adrian Lonsdale: "And he lacks the capacity to lead."

Larry Thurlow: "When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry."

Bob Elder: "John Kerry is no war hero."

Grant Hibbard: "He betrayed all his shipmates ... he lied before the Senate."

Shelton White: "John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam."

Joe Ponder: "He dishonored his country ... he most certainly did."

Bob Hildreth: "I served with John Kerry ...

Bob Hildreth (off-camera): John Kerry cannot be trusted."

Announcer: "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is responsible for the content of this advertisement."

Weak, guys, really weak. How did he lie? What was his first injury that it didn't deserve a purple heart? What exactly was the lie that resulted in his getting a bronze star? What was the difference between Kerry's account and what actually happened? To serve your country and then speak up about the horrors that occurred in the great mistake called Vietnam is the height of patriotism, in my opinion.

Shall we talk about George W. Bush, and the strings his daddy pulled to get him a cushy situation in the National Guard, from which he was AWOL, instead getting high on coke, and driving around drunk?

i just don't understand why someone's Vietnam record is such a big deal. Clinton didn't serve a day in the army and he was elected to be a president. why is it all of a sudden the issue?

it's irrelevant who served where. does every cover CIA operative deserve a shot at the presidency just cause he pulled some Rambo shit?

the point is that Kerry shouldn't wave his dick around when it comes to Vietnam.

These attacks on Kerry's war record are just disgraceful and so obviously partisan that they can be discounted on face.
the veterans that support him are also partisan. by the way, i think that hearing Kerry's former commanding officer or commander telling you straight up that "Kerry is not fit to lead" has some value in it.

The guy volunteered for river boat duty
the term "semi-volunteered" is often used when describing Kerry's army service. i'm not sure what that means but at least i'm sure it wasn't completely Pat Tillman type of volunteering. partially it was a draft

he'd still be a hero
a hero is someone who went above and beyond. he did a typical tour of duty. if he saved these 2 men from enemy fire or whatever then he is a hero.. but if he just pulled them out of the river that's no heroism. that's the bare minimum a soldier should do.

The proof is the fact that if he weren't running for office there's not a Republican voter in this country who wouldn't stop to salute this man on the street and thank him for his service to the country.
the way he slandered all the soldiers as war criminals and practically destroyed the morale of the entire US army?
i'd spit on him if i was a Vietnam vet.

the way he slandered all the soldiers as war criminals and practically destroyed the morale of the entire US army?
i'd spit on him if i was a Vietnam vet.

Single handedly destroyed the morale of the U.S.Army? I think a quick study of the Vietnam conflict would show the U.S. government was far more responsible. Surely you overestimate his impact.

I'd like to see proof that he portrayed all of our soldiers as criminals.

it's public record.
additionally, when Vietnam vets came home from their tours of duty they were spat on for being "baby killers", without any investigation whether they personally committed any "war crimes".
whether he said "every single soldier did it" or not, the effect was devastating regardless. any soldier was considered by the masses a war criminal upon return.

it's of course arguable who was more responsible, but he did have a huge impact.

You're the one claiming he said it. I'd like a reference, or a link to one.

I've heard the spit in the face stories as well. It appears they may just be urban legends.


NEW YORK--A haunted young man whose face bears too many lines for his years, jetlagged and limping from a wound sustained in the defense of his country half a world away, emerges from a jetway at San Francisco International Airport. A woman about the same age awaits in the terminal. A peace-sign necklace hanging above a loose floral-print dress billowing about her unshaven legs, the hippie chick scornfully scans his uniform, spits in his face and screams: "Baby killer!" The veteran scans the crowd for support, but sees only contempt in the faces of passersby.

It's a powerful, tragic cliché of the Vietnam era, dramatized in the "Rambo" movies, and a cautionary tale for today's antiwar left. But according to Holy Cross College professor Jerry Lembcke, a Vietnam vet and author of "The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam," it never happened.

"If you go back and look at the historical record, like I did--newspaper accounts, police records, and also just things historians have written," says Lembcke, "you don't find any record or any evidence that these things happened--or even that they were being claimed as happening--in the late '60s and early '70s." There isn't even one letter written by a soldier at the time referencing such an incident.
http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?uc_full_date=20040713

Did Kerry claim to have witnessed anything even close to as bad as the Mei Lai massacre? Now there was an incident that tarred the Army as baby killers.

Actually it is now being considered as urban legend that Vietnam Vets were ever spat upon...

http://slate.msn.com/id/1005224

Did you ever consider why you have never seen a video of this, or heard a vet talk about it?

As far as Kerry is concerned, I have heard one vet say he pulled two men out of the water during enemy fire, another claim that he swam across a river to kill an already injured Vietnamese soldier. I simply do not know what to believe, because I am hearing so many contradictory statements.

Opps... looks like repo man beat me out :D

otheadp, are you voting for Bush? Because you know Ashcroft will crack down on your pot, there are already hints of this, a report that came out about how it's so much stronger now so it should be taken more seriously...and Tommy Chong is in prison for selling bongs! Everybody sells goddamn bongs, WTF! And Bush's talent for pissing off the Arabs is NOT going to help Israel at all...

i just don't understand why someone's Vietnam record is such a big deal. Clinton didn't serve a day in the army and he was elected to be a president. why is it all of a sudden the issue?

I agree. Why are you making it the issue?



These attacks on Kerry's war record are just disgraceful and so obviously partisan that they can be discounted on face.
the veterans that support him are also partisan. by the way, i think that hearing Kerry's former commanding officer or commander telling you straight up that "Kerry is not fit to lead" has some value in it.

Of course they have points of view -- they're human beings. I even agree with your last sentence above, that the commander's statement "has some value". Some. The world is gray, not black and white.

But most of the individuals who were there with him confirm his service and his valor. The story about the boats coming under fire, beaching the boat and running on shore to take out the attacker is one of the most dramatic stories I've ever heard from that theater. And I've heard a lot of them. There is something visceral, human, integral, immediate and absolutely horrifying about that story. If that's not an act of valor, I don't know what is.



he'd still be a hero
a hero is someone who went above and beyond. he did a typical tour of duty. if he saved these 2 men from enemy fire or whatever then he is a hero.. but if he just pulled them out of the river that's no heroism. that's the bare minimum a soldier should do.

I meant that as a statement of opinion, not objective fact. In my book they're all heros, whatever they did over there. But in my opinion you're very, very wrong in your assessment of Kerry's actions in pulling two men out of the river. NOTHING that ANYBODY ever does under fire is "the bare minimum", and they were ALWAYS in somebody's crosshairs on that river.


I just don't think you have any idea how much this weakens your pro-Bush stance. The whole line of reasoning is just pattently ridiculous.

The whole line of reasoning is just pattently ridiculous.

Don’t be surprised….

As relating to the Kerry, Vietnam scenario what makes his situation rather unique is that he did not have to go. How many Yale grads and members of Skull and Bones went to Vietnam voluntarily? I’d vouch not much, we know that Bush didn’t, we know that Cheney and Clinton avoided going as well. Kerry as an American citizen has every right to criticize a war that was ethically, materially, and strategically wrong. It’s easy for us to say “he’s a bastard who threatened the entire US military” without understanding that he knew what was happening in Vietnam first hand. Aren’t we supposed to respect the veteran’s? Vietnam was his war, and he fought it unlike so many who now bitch, alas GWB. Kerry took one of the most dangerous jobs in the war, patrolling the Mekong Delta, with heavy foliage, with the Vietcong hiding in that foliage, and his job was to attract fire to his boat! Kerry’s record as a war veteran simply has no compare in this election.

Well put.

are you voting for Bush?
if i was an American

Because you know Ashcroft will crack down on your pot
good. i hate weed. it's just a nickname, you know? ;)

Bush's talent for pissing off the Arabs is NOT going to help Israel at all...
i believe pissing them off is the right way to go... but that's not the topic here so we'll leave it to another thread

Why are you making it the issue?
i'm responding to it already being (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040805/photos_ts_afp/040805074054_ra2v9mdy_photo1) an issue (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040730/ids_photos_india_wl/ra368021054.jpg). i don't think his record has much relevance since there are other army officers who had done more heroic deeds yet they are unfit to lead a country

But most of the individuals who were there with him confirm his service and his valor.
i heard it's the other way around. in addition, there's enough evidence against Kerry for a 250 page book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260174/qid=1091725536/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-7912390-9131246?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)
also, check out what googling for "Vietnam vets for kerry" (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=vietnam+vets+for+kerry) has produced. not a single pro-Kerry website.
looks like many veterans simply hate his guts

now, if he is such a hero, why does the doctor who treated Kerry, Kerry's commanding officer(s) and fellow soldiers, at least 2-dozen of them are calling him a liar? do you think all of them just have a "political agenda"?

and it's still besides the point - his military record could be the best of all time - it doesn't matter. what matters is he can be a good president.
it's like saying "well, i'm the fastest runner in the class, therefore i will ace my math exam"
what's one thing got to do with the other?

finally, i'll repeat what i've already written and been quoted on :
"if he saved these 2 men from enemy fire or whatever then he is a hero.. but if he just pulled them out of the river that's no heroism. that's the bare minimum a soldier should do"

and it's still besides the point - his military record could be the best of all time - it doesn't matter. what matters is he can be a good president.

Is this a serious criticism? JFK went through this military experience in a small patrol boat in the Pacific war, and that is regarded as one of the most heroic, and most influential things that JFK has ever done (Does anyone feel that the JFK, and JFK has a lot in common, because I do?). What do you think “commander and chief” connotates? Although it is true that really it doesn’t prove his campaign promises, what it shows is his personal valor, and tenacity . He has proven in Vietnam that in a war situation he takes charge that cannot be said for Bush. Kerry’s war experience is a valid, and relevant point that he can make. If Bush had the same experience you wouldn’t be complaining, and this would be exploited as well. The man can say “I saved lives, and protected America”, something reserved for very few people.

Sorry, quoting partisan sources doesn't cut it with me. What won me over to considering Kerry's war record to be valid are the non-partisan sources, such as the medals and awards he received, the duty he chose. Some of the more moderate testimony on both sides has some value to me, but that's about it.

Spinning an issue in a partisan fashion is like sleeping with pigs. This smells to hog heaven. Feel free to have the last word.

By the way, Undecided and Tiassa, I hope you took note of how I responded to this.

Feel free to have the last word.
i most certainly will, thank you.

i've asked a question: now, if he is such a hero, why does the doctor who treated Kerry, Kerry's commanding officer(s) and fellow soldiers, at least 2-dozen of them are calling him a liar? do you think all of them just have a "political agenda"?

and you've answered: What won me over to considering Kerry's war record to be valid are the non-partisan sources.

i don't know. am i that "partisan" that i can't look at it objectively?

there are many groups of vets out there against Kerry, they simply hate him for his testimonies. they've probably never met him even. but here you have his doctor, his comrades, his commanding officers... are they partisan?

am i that "partisan" that i can't look at it objectively?


Is that a question, or a statement?

By the way, Undecided and Tiassa, I hope you took note of how I responded to this.

Indeed I have. Thank you for clearing it all up.

(On edit: What finally sold you on the Bush camp?)

Well I will say Pangloss it's a step in the right direction...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/05/kerry.mccain.ap/index.html

Apparently Republican and Bush backer, and senator from my own state John McCain thinks this swiftboat veterans add is a load of crap too. Its worth pointing out that for over half the add the vets seem to be commenting on the duality of Kerry's having faught in the war and then protested it, but it is presented as if they are saying he lied about ever doing anything great in the war.

[b]and it's still besides the point - his military record could be the best of all time - it doesn't matter. what matters is he can be a good president.

Well we already know that the goof ball we've got in office isn't qualified for the job by any stretch of imagination, so I'd say it's worth a try to see if Kerry's got what it takes.

i just don't understand why someone's Vietnam record is such a big deal. Clinton didn't serve a day in the army and he was elected to be a president. why is it all of a sudden the issue?

Maybe Bush keeps reminding people that we are in the time of war? That is, before he flip flops and tells everybody he's the peace president.

John Kerry lost four best friends because of the war. What they're doing to him is absolutely despicable. These vets are right wing thugs first and objective judges a way distant third. They're purely concerned with Kerry's politics, not his valour or courage. Anybody who had the courage to fight in a swift boat is a hero, period.

And if Kerry's a "coward" for his meagre deeds in Vietnam, then LOL, what does that make Bush? This is not an effective angle in the long run because trying to contrast Vietnam careers is not a winning issue for the RNC.

God bless John McCain. I hope people listen to his sane voice.

He has proven in Vietnam that in a war situation he takes charge that cannot be said for Bush.

OTH, I'll bet you can't find a single member of the national guard who found fault with the way Bush led. He didn't leave anyone with a bad impression. Dubya's a patriot.

Bush lead someone in the air guard?

These attacks on Kerry's war record are just disgraceful and so obviously partisan that they can be discounted on face.

Wrong. HE BROUGHT IT UP.


Truth my ass.
I just heard an interview with the doctor who treated him for his first injury, which was NOT incurred under enemy fire according to the doctor's account of the scenario as reported by the enlisted members on his boat. Further, the doctor also said that he was reportedly scolded by his fellow officers for poorly handling the grenade launcher that caused the injury. He supposedly fired it at the shore while his boat was too close. That caused debris from shore to end up stuck in his arm. He reported the injury was a match stick size piece of metal sticking out of his upper arm. The doctor removed the metal with forceps and put a bandaid on the injury, which Kerry himself had cause while NOT under enemy fire at all.


The guy volunteered for river boat duty, some of the most hazardous duty in Vietnam, and even if he hadn't won three purple hearts and three medals (I think?) he'd still be a hero.
I disagree. Brave in intent, cowardly in action. The doctor recieved a request for issuance of a purple heart and denied it. He reported that papers were signed two months later by somoene entirely removed from Kerry's chain of command. It was also reported that he told his men on more than one occasion that he was going to be the next JFK.


The proof is the fact that if he weren't running for office there's not a Republican voter in this country who wouldn't stop to salute this man on the street and thank him for his service to the country.
Not if they knew the real story (if the doctor and the swift boat guys are truthful, which I have no reason to believe they aren't considering the number of them seeming to corroborate the story. okay at the same time it's possible that it's all lies, the truth is hard to find when the media is all you have to go on). It's quite obvious to me that he, like many members of the military, was just using any excuse to get a medal because it looks good on paper.


Unbelievable. Frankly I'm downright embarassed to be a Bush supporter when I see crap like this.

I find THAT unbelievable, especially considering that it is KERRY making vietnam an issue. If you don't believe it, listen to his VP candidate's intro from his trip to missouri the other day. His service in Vietnam was the crux of his introduction. I think Kerry is a scumbag and I do not appreciate his service whatsoever, as it is abusive bitches like him that shame the military. Remember, three purple hearts and he's out of there. Note his anti-war speeches right after his return. IMO, his purple heart seeking got him two things that he desperately wanted. 1) Out of vietnam and 2) Good looking paper he could abuse as testimony to his character. I don't blame him for wanting out of vietnam, but that is not "brave" or "honorable" in any way. It's simply human, and his actively circumvent his chain of command to achieve a purple heart of all things, is apparently a testimony to the WEAKNESS of his character. He LIED to get it.

Note that I wouldn't necessarily object so strongly if HE didn't make this shit such an issue. Man he makes me sick and is was a disgrace to the military. Don't forget his speech after his return was used against POWs like Mckain.

Kerry: Apparently a true American slimeball.

EDIT: Oh, and medals in the military is a highly politicized affair. You don't necessarily have to do anything to get one except kiss the right person's ass. In war time, each commander has incentive to award his troops as many medals as he can halfassed justify, as it reflects back on the commander and makes him more likely to get promoted. I don't know if that's the case here, but medals aren't necesarily reflective of anything positive. I've seen it first hand. LOL. In Saudi, a number of people in my unit got all kinds of medal for simply doing their jobs. I saw no particular outstanding performance, yet medals galore. I believe my commanding officer scored a silver star for merely halfassed doing his job. Note my unit was never even close to coming under fire. This isn't a complaint, I merely intend it to inform you if you haven't been in the military.

The Swift Boat advert has caught many pundits off-guard with its ferocity. Excerpts from the August 5, 2004, prime-time edition of MSNBC's After Hours:


PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: You know, Joe, we knew that (unintelligible) in politics, you can find an end run around any of these ads. The Watergate reforms—people went right around them.

But let me talk to this ad. My problem with this ad is this ad is incomplete. This is the first time I‘ve heard it. And you have about seven or eight or nine or ten people saying he‘s dishonorable, you can‘t trust him, but only one individual makes an allegation that I know of, which is that there was a phoniness about his Purple Heart.

Now, this ad, I believe, was built upon a book called “Unfit to Command” written by a fellow named John O‘Neill, whom I do know, who served honorably, who‘s enormously bitter, as these fellows are, that Kerry came back to the United States and said their service was dishonorable, they‘re engaged in rapes and murders and massacres. And there‘s enormous bitterness out of this.

What we got to get to, Joe, is what is the truth? I mean, these—look, these guys served. Kerry served. Let‘s go back and find out if there‘s truth or allegation in what they said and have Kerry directly answer any specific charges they‘ve got. But there‘s only this one that I‘ve seen in this ad.


• • •

MIKE BARNICLE, “THE BOSTON HERALD”: I think, Joe, that some people do know the complete story, and the complete story‘s been out there in the past. It‘s been written about and spoken about ad nauseam, in Senate races that Kerry has participated in, as well as earlier this year and last year.

SCARBOROUGH: So this isn‘t a new attack?

BARNICLE: No, it‘s not. It‘s a regurgitation of attacks that have been made over the past 20, 25 years against John Kerry.

The first point that ought to be made is that this isn‘t an ad, it‘s political pornography. That is exactly what it is. The commendations that John Kerry received, he didn‘t get one of them for his service in Coronado, California, or Newport, Rhode Island. He got them in the field of fire in South Vietnam. The Mekong River at some points is as wide as the Mississippi. It is to Vietnam and was to Vietnam then the way I-95 is to the United States of America. You could not survive as a farmer raising rice or whatever else without living on that river. And they were out there on that river under orders to shoot at anything that appeared in a free-fire zone at certain times. That‘s what happened with John Kerry.

You want to talk—none of those guys in that ad, incidentally, served on Fast Boat 94. Here‘s the list of the crew from Fast Boat 94. I‘ve spoken to every one of these guys. I‘ve spoken to every one of the guys on that boat and each of the guys who were present at each and every individual action that John Kerry received a commendation for. The difference between their story and what we hear on that ad is literally night and day. Saying they served with John Kerry is like saying you were in the Army at the same time with Eisenhower in World War II.

DREIER: Could I ask—could I ask Mike a question here? Mike, I just wanted to ask—you said that this is a story that has been regurgitated over and over again through campaigns of the past. Are these people who we just saw in that ad—and again, it‘s the first time I‘ve seen it, and Pat said the same thing. Are these people who have come forward in past senatorial campaigns for John Kerry, or is this a new group of people you haven‘t seen before?

BARNICLE: Some of them are familiar, Congressman, and some obviously are new. Pat just referred to John O‘Neill. John O‘Neill has honorable service in the military during Vietnam. He has had a burr under his saddle for John Kerry out of resentment since the early 1970s. Admiral Hoffman (ph) has had a clear burr under his saddle for John Kerry since the issuance of John Kerry‘s biography written by Professor Brinkley.

There‘s all sorts of things going on here. Part of it is politics, part of it is pure personal resentment of John Kerry. But that ad is just outrageous. And I think people know it‘s outrageous when you see . . . .


• • •

REAGAN: But you know, we‘ve seen this kind of stuff before.

BUCHANAN: You know what‘s interesting, Pat?

REAGAN: And we saw it with John McCain in the 2000 campaign, where they attacked his military record, before they got around to attacking his wife and small child. Our panel is going to stick around. And later, we‘ll take your phone calls.

Source: MSNBC "After Hours" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5621606/)

Furthermore, some pundit somewhere--I'm searching for a reference--noted that in addition to impugning John Kerry's character as a liar, so also does this ad impugn the characters of the men who served with John Kerry. The ad by proxy of doubting Kerry also doubts the men who served with Kerry. Additionally, there is the tale told by Jim Rassman (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/05/ip.01.html). We can say what we want about Kerry being a politician, but if Rassman says Kerry saved his life, I'm inclined to believe it.

This strategy could end up backfiring, and calling attention back to Bush's service record. And heaven knows, that's the last thing the GOP or the Bush/Cheney campaign want.
____________________

• Transcript. "After Hours." MSNBC, August 5, 2004. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5621606/

See Also

• Transcript. "Judy Woodruff's Inside Politics." CNN, August 5, 2004. See http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/05/ip.01.html

These attacks on Kerry's war record are just disgraceful and so obviously partisan that they can be discounted on face. Truth my ass. The guy volunteered for river boat duty, some of the most hazardous duty in Vietnam, and even if he hadn't won three purple hearts and three medals (I think?) he'd still be a hero.

The proof is the fact that if he weren't running for office there's not a Republican voter in this country who wouldn't stop to salute this man on the street and thank him for his service to the country.

Unbelievable. Frankly I'm downright embarassed to be a Bush supporter when I see crap like this.

Indeed many intelligent (thats a comparative term) republicans are distancing themselves from this crap. McCain, Bush, etc have all come out against this ad. These people are shooting themselves in the foot for my opinion.

Lets compare that to ole spoiled silver spoon that choose to dodge active service and may or may not have actually been AWOL part of that. Certainly he took duty time to participate in politics. That is part of the public record.

I just heard an interview with the doctor who treated him for his first injury...
That was not the doctor on record who actually treated Kerry. They are LIERS.

That was not the doctor on record who actually treated Kerry. They are LIERS.

How do you know? The guy on Neal Boortz said he was the actual guy. He said "I removed the shard" or whatever. They were quite clear.

Two who appear in the ad say Kerry didn't deserve his first purple heart. Louis Letson, a medical officer and Lieutenant Commander, says in the ad that he knows Kerry is lying about his first purple heart because “I treated him for that.” However, medical records provided by the Kerry campaign to FactCheck.org do not list Letson as the “person administering treatment” for Kerry’s injury on December 3, 1968 . The medical officer who signed this sick call report is J.C. Carreon, who is listed as treating Kerry for shrapnel to the left arm.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

What’s really pathetic about all this is that since they are calling Kerry a liar they are also calling all the members of his crew liars as well. I don’t buy these ads because they are obviously not based on fact, they are based on 527 money. The same people who funded this ad are the same people who funded the anti-McCain ads which attacked him personally as well in 2000 when he went up against Bush and sadly lost. Kerry and the Democrats this year aren’t going to allow the Republicans to smear them, or their campaign without a fight. McCain and even the Bush campaign have denounced the ad. Also the Bush team is smart enough to state that they will state nothing against Kerry’s service, because the more the GOP makes it an issue the more of a liability it becomes for them, it will then focus attention on Bush’s national guard service, and Cheney simply skipping the war altogether.

Gack. What a mess:

""This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency," Rassmann said. "Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam."

From Rassman, whom I heard directly contradict that statement on O'Reilly last night. He said he didn't know if their charges were false, and appeared to know that the people DID serve with Kerry.

What a mess. I believe the doctor dude. He said the guy who signed the paper was one of his men, processing paperwork for him. He also said that the men were kind of giggling about it because it was an extremely minor injury that he had caused to himself. That injury did not deserve a Purple Heart.

As for the rest of the claims, I don't know what to think... as there are people who claim "facts" on both sides of the argument.

I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.

Adlai E. Stevenson Jr. (1900 - 1965), Speech during 1952 Presidential Campaign

That's all the GOP was hoping for... to cause confusion. Legend has it that Lyndon Johnson, while engaged in a particularly hard fought political battle early in his career, directed an aide to put out the word that his opponent fucked pigs. Aghast, the aide replied, "But...but...you know that's not true!"
Lyndon continued, "You know it. I know it. But, let's make the sumbitch DENY it!"

It seems to me that both sides utilize similar methods.

Such an act is not representative of one's political affiliation, rather it's representative of lacking character. I've seen plenty of folks on both sides of the fence that seem devoid of it... not to mention the agendas of those who present us with information.

i was just curious if there was anyone else out there who really thinks kerry will win by a significant margin november.

I'm hearing stuff about how 2004 will be like the 1980 election, where down the homestretch, the undecideds broke in huge waves for Reagan instead of Carter. About 45% of America want Bush, and 45% want Kerry. There are 10% of the undecided. They have already seen 4 years of Bush rule, and if they're undecided after that, they are probably more likely to jump into the Kerry camp than Bush's. What Kerry has to do is gradually win them over. It will probably not happen with one speech or one state visit, but as he cultivates his message, and attacks Bush's, he will strengthen his appeal with the swing voters.

The only elections that matter are those in swing states, principally Florida, Ohio, and Michigan. Kerry has a lead in all three states and hopefully he can keep that up. With the US economy slowing down rather significantly over the past couple of months and with Iraq potentially ready to explode again Kerry can win.

It's up to Kerry to corral the undecideds. I'll call them UDs from now on. If they're not for Bush after having four years to judge him, there's little he can do in three months to suddenly make them dedicated followers. The only thing Bush can hope for is a huge fall from grace by Kerry that will repel the UDs. The economy shows no sign of suddenly spiking within three months and Iraq can only get worse. The only hope for Bush is for him to possibly capture OBL and raise some hellfire propaganda that will rally support a la 9/11.

It would be good for our nations soul to have a landslide victory for Nader, but dreams don't come true, do they?

I know everyone set out to vote for the Democrats before the elecion campaigns began. Well, what if Kerry is a bigger idiotic bastard than Bush?

well kerry has shown in the past that he is capable of achieving things on his own in this world, unlike bush. i believe he is capable of making reasonable, rational decisions.

It would be good for our nations soul to have a landslide victory for Nader, but dreams don't come true, do they?

With a Republican congress, Nader will find it just as hard as Clinton to get any work done. That's the folly of Nader's top-down strategy, as opposed to David Cobb's much more intelligent down-top strategy. What good's a Green president when congress is dominated by Republicans and DLC Democrats? The problem with Nader is not that he presents a challenge to the Democrats, but that he simply despises and wants the Democrats destroyed. How else do you explain the fact that he has run campaigns against very liberal Democrats such as Paul Wellstone in senate races? If Nader truly wanted the best for a liberal Democratic party, he'd help guys like Wellstone and Feingold, and he would've worked to make Dennis Kucinich competitive in the primaries.

I remember people believing Bush was unbeatable. Now it looks like he can't win considering the economy and the war...unless Osama helps him out. How ironic.

Bush is trailing Kerry in all but one category: "Strong leader".

That is simply laughable in my opinion. Firstly, if history teaches us anything, it is that when danger comes, Kerry will volunteer for the most dangerous duty while Bush will rely on his connections to opt out. Secondly, most of that "strong leader" crap comes from the fact that people like how Bush toppled two regimes. Ha, the American military could topple about 90% of the world's governments! Only of course, they'd encounter great casualties, villification, and an extremely hard task of winning the peace, but nonetheless, they'd still be able to topple the government.

I'm still crossing my fingers that during the first Presidential Debate, A giant meteor suddenly strikes both Bush and Kerry killing them instantly. Cheney will pick up the republican ticket, and Wesley Clark the Democratic. Fearing a sudden heart attack from Cheny, Clark wins the White House easily.

Don't you mean Edwards?

Dude, don't wake up a dreamer. It's bad karma.

That's my job...http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/contrib/ruinkai/FIREdevil.gif

When Bush talks it looks like he LIKES a good drink, when Kerry talks he looks like he NEEDS a good drink badly, if Kerry makes a narrow win, the youthfull spirit of Edwards will probably make the small difference.

Oh!! I'll be guilty of cuting & pasting however this one is so muchj reflective of my own opinion;

*Get ready to vote again, suckers!
by Leon Fisher, Unknown News

Aug. 13, 2004

Okay zombies, get ready to vote again!

But first, sit down and feast on a delicious propaganda burger with a side order of lies followed by a fresh disinformation salad and a tall glass of Kool-Aid.

Now you're ready to vote for the corporate approved candidate of your choice.

For your convenience, the new Diebold voting machines are now at your disposal. Vote for candidate A and you might get candidate B, or visa versa depending, on how it's programmed.

It's the old switch-a-roo, but who cares? You will never know who stole the election this time -- that's the beauty of the new voting system.

Don't worry, whoever is elected, whether Democrat or Republican, he will be uniquely qualified to sell out your interests to the highest bidder while paying 'freedom' the lip service you assholes really deserve.

As usual, nothing of any good will come after this election. In fact, the war will continue, the economy will most likely worsen, the standard of living for working people will fall further, and higher taxes are a sure bet.

But don't worry, zombies -- there will be another election in four years, and another after that, and another after that.

Don't forget to vote, suckers!*

Well like i've mentioned before, the choosing of two pundits from the same old school, really no choice, just the lesser of two evils.

Godless.

It's interesting that while the Florida electronic system has acquired the most controversy so far, there is another controversy brewing in Indiana over the *paper* ballots. Voters there are annoyed at the problems with the paper system, and upset that the state didn't move to an *electronic* system!

Damned if you do, damned if you don't....

One candidate shut down the Bank of Commerce and Credit International and one candidate was in bed with Enron.

One candidate exposed the illegal arms deals of Iran-Contra and one candidate got drunk off his ass.

One candidate volunteered for service in Vietnam because of his privileges and one candidate skipped off to the Air National Guard because of his privileges.

One candidate led the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and one candidate was AWOL from National Guard duty.

One candidate speaks more than just one language, and one candidate never travelled outside of the States until he had to.

One candidate loves, embraces, and defends his opinionated wife, while one candidate keeps and shelters a typical Stepford wife.

One candidate has a history of bipartisan work, with people like Jesse Helms and John McCain, and one candidate thrives on division and extreme ideologues.

One candidate reads up to five papers a day, and one candidate breezes through the headlines.

One candidate wants to leave gay marriage out of the constitution, and one candidate wants a federal amendment.

One candidate shut down the Bank of Commerce and Credit International and one candidate was in bed with Enron.

Tell that to Enron CEO Jeff Skilling, now serving a five year prison sentence thanks to the administration you imply was on the take. And speaking of being on the take, Enron was doing the exact same thing under the Clinton administration, which did nothing about it *and* accepted campaign contributions from them. Janet Reno may not have known anything about Enron, but she certainly knew about shady dot-com IPOs, and did nothing about them thanks to massive contributions from the Street.



One candidate exposed the illegal arms deals of Iran-Contra and one candidate got drunk off his ass.

Not a valid comparison, that's just spin. It's valid to say that Kerry was involved in Iran-Contra (I've read the recent stories on that and they seem credible enough), but it's silly to cross-compare that with Bush getting drunk.




One candidate volunteered for service in Vietnam because of his privileges and one candidate skipped off to the Air National Guard because of his privileges.

Agreed.



One candidate led the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and one candidate was AWOL from National Guard duty.

No, that's wrong. If the reasoning behind shutting up the swift boat veterens is the eyewitness testimony of Kerry's pals, then the reasoning behind Bush not being AWOL because of the eyewitness testimony of his pals is also valid. End of the line.



One candidate speaks more than just one language, and one candidate never travelled outside of the States until he had to.

Agreed.



One candidate loves, embraces, and defends his opinionated wife, while one candidate keeps and shelters a typical Stepford wife.

Lol, that's just sad. Well I recently suggested Kerry's wife was a cross between Gloria Steinem and Leona Helmsley, so I guess I can't complain. (chuckle)



One candidate has a history of bipartisan work, with people like Jesse Helms and John McCain, and one candidate thrives on division and extreme ideologues.

I shudder at this a bit, because I think it's a little unfair, but I'm afraid I have to agree. That's certainly my problem with Bush in a nutshell.



One candidate reads up to five papers a day, and one candidate breezes through the headlines.

Nah, that's not right. Bush read Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack" (and commented on it), which is more than I can say for 99% of the posters on this forum.



One candidate wants to leave gay marriage out of the constitution, and one candidate wants a federal amendment.

Agreed.

These attacks on Kerry's war record are just disgraceful and so obviously partisan that they can be discounted on face. Truth my ass. The guy volunteered for river boat duty, some of the most hazardous duty in Vietnam, you got that right!
anyway, that's something the current CIC, chickened out of, "Unfit to lead" is GW Bush's true calling,

pok-pok-pok, chickenhawk:
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks%3B%20Chickenhaw k%20Headquarters

when the war in Viet Nam called, that's something the current Commander-In-Chief, chickened out of,

"Unfit to lead" is GW Bush's true rank & title,
pok-pok-pok, chickenhawk:
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks%3B%20Chickenhaw k%20Headquarters

I was reading an article in a French newspaper in where some democrats actually want GWB to win this year.

http://www.theglobalist.com/nor/news/2004/LesEchos/d%E9mocratespr%E9f%E8rentunevictoiredeBush.htm

Now I will only translate the relevant part:




Even if the president Kerry has a solid popular support, you should not expect that the republicans accept defeat gracefully. They would take up probably a vigorous opposition to the Congress to cause to fail any try for instance to cancel it would be only a fraction of diminutions of levies approved by Mr Bush, as Mr Kerry recommends it to pay his plan on health. More in general, republicans' opposition would be more vigorous than pitiful effort provided by the democrats hanging the biggest party of the first mandate Bush. The republican majority in the House of Representatives, disciplined and filled with ideology, will return difficult life to a democratic administration.
-------------------------------------
Then, of course, there is also the conservative, highly efficient tank, ready to fight any democratic proposal fiercely. With the charged calendar which the Bush team is probably going to leave behind her in January, 2005, when Mr Kerry would take up his posts, it seems rather credible that the successor of Mr Bush will perform only a mandate, for lack of being able of solving the colossal problems from which he will inherit.
-----------------------------------------
Even more serious, the huge job of necessary cleaning, consisting of between others the definition of a viable strategy to go out of Iraq and the restoration of a healthy fiscal policy, will be probably difficult and anyway unpopular to the electorate. is for all these reasons that it would be justified - from a democratic point of view - to let Mr Bush stay in the White House for a second mandate. A win of Bush remains possible, as accept it easily behind closed doors numerous democrats in Washington, given Mr Bush's considerable financial advantage in relation to Mr Kerry and resistance of its popularity to poor news of Iraq. In case Mr Bush would really carry off a second mandate, the best screenplay for the democrats would be that the long-term consequences of policies of Mr Bush become obvious for the voters and that the republicans are discredited for numerous years. The voters would be so feeling disgust by the republican Party which they would inaugurate one period of democratic revival not only in the White House, but also in the Senate and perhaps even in the House of Representatives.

The part that is in red is the most important, another four years of Bush is almost certain to create a very bad outcome for Republicans in the long run, eventually Americans will see the folly of his ways and the long term consequences of re-electing Bush. This does have a historical comparison Herbert Hoover in 1932 lost the white house to the Democrats and the Republicans didn’t get it back until 1952! Why? Because it was Hoover’s inaction during the Depression that caused the GOP wallow in the background for 20 years. So for real republicans, they should ponder, is another 4 years of Bush really all that good? I’d vouch for no.

HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THE AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DICK CHENEY! YOU BASTARD! (hehe...)

Just because some fact is brought up by a biases source does not mean its untrue (look up Circumstantial Ad Hominem)

award, does that mean He will be a bad president? hell I don't see much Kerry did in that war as evidence for or against his run for presidency! Even Bush’s time during that war was not evidence that he was going to be a bad president.

after watching Bush's interview on CNN tonight (LArry King LIve, which i never watch american media, but this was too good to pass up) i realized that my hate for his man has more reasons that i thought. This man, honestly said that he is "breeding a culture of life" when describing why he does not like embryonic stem cell research. Someone needs to tell this man that because of HIM, 11,000 innocent men, women and children have been killed ACCIDENTALLY by American troops in Iraq. He is breeding a culture of violence and death, to all the youth in the world.

are there any archives of the show?

when the war in Viet Nam called, that's something the current Commander-In-Chief, chickened out of,
When the need for rationallity called, that's something the current Chickens-in-Chief vested out of.

Neither candidate should be running on their brief military records.

when the war in Viet Nam called, that's something the current Commander-In-Chief, chickened out of,

"Unfit to lead" is GW Bush's true rank & title,
pok-pok-pok, chickenhawk:

Oh Yeah...?!
Just Remember...

http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/images/chickenhawk.jpg

Neither candidate should be running on their brief military records.
I disagree with that, during Viet Nam, Kerry served with honor, left under honorable circumstances, while George "pok-pok-pok, yellow" Bush, opted out of the National Guard under less than honorable circumstances,very clandestine, with disappearing & re-appearing records. Sort of like his service in Alabama. Suspicious, don't you think?

With the elections coming up and enough crapy threads about bush and kerry going around, I'm going to make the mother of them all: All bush/kerry bashing is going here and only here until the elections are over. I'm going to start merging all the present threads about that subject right here
just because you do not like politics, or whatever, does not mean that you should merge rival, multi-blah, etc... threads, you are practicing censorship, this is an open forum, as long as we abide by the rules, you should too!

Your supposed to be a moderator, not a dictator!
Release me!
De-merge me!
Release me!

Kerry is an Idiotic flunkie for anything that pays him well, you might as well throw you voter registration out the window if you use it on him. if he likes homosexuals and mexican americans and african americans so much why doesen't he have them as neighbors no you won't see him living next door to them because he lives in france and in neighborhoods most anyone can't afford but I bet you will see them in his house scrubbing his toilets and floors of his million dollar "homes". All Kerry cares about is money and himself. and he only spent four months in Vietnam a full tour is nine months and my father did four tours Kerry didn't even do one.

Isn't Bush richer then Kerry?

No, not according to tax filings, although I'd have to look it up to be sure.

I was going to respond to this thread but it's just way too off the deep end to even bother. There seems to be a trend around here for people to register just long enough to post some piece of hate-filled crap and then never return. It's kinda sad, really.

No, not according to tax filings, although I'd have to look it up to be sure.


Even separate of THK? I mean I remember on CNN they stated that Kerry himself is worth $6 million...Bush the man is certainty much richer then that. Cheney as well, it's a different kind of rich. Kerry's from a classier more European type of wealth, and the Bush's more of an American wealth.

Even separate of THK?

Oh no, I agree that may well be the case (Bush being richer than Kerry-THK).

Yes, John Kerry does indeed have a house in France, as he does have some French heritage. His mother, Rosemary, was a daughter of the wealthy Forbes family with roots in Saint-Briac, an upscale spa town on Brittany's Emerald Coast. He does not, however, live there. He apparently spent vacations as a child there, and still occasionally does return.

As for his wealth, THK is worth a half a billion dollars. The combination does, indeed, beat out the fortune that Bush claims for himself.

Even separate of THK? I mean I remember on CNN they stated that Kerry himself is worth $6 million...

You sure that's what it said? That doesn't seem like too much.

Who cares if Kerry is richer than Bush........If Bush is re-elected then the problems start all over again, especially when Bush decides to attack Iran and "he will" if he thinks he has found a 9/11 link there or if Iran's poses a nuclear problem someday. Bush the so-called "Peace President" is an idiot!

Yob Atta

Re: CNN - George W. & Laura Bush on "Larry King Live"

Link to transcript: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/12/lkl.00.html


• • •

Re: MSNBC - "Hardball" - Chris Matthews fires back

• Matthews on RNC video distribution and context of John Kerry's remarks: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5727982/
• "Hardball" episode August 16, 2004: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5733661/

From that last link:


MATTHEW: Do you think that was a fair cropping of what he had to say? You cut him off after he said, yes. And you did not let him continue on to say: “in the sense that I don‘t believe the president took to us war as he should have.”

DOWD: Yes. Senator Kerry said, yes, absolutely, he was the anti-war candidate. So yes, of course it‘s fair.

DEVINE: Chris, it‘s pathetic. OK? And the reason that they‘re doing this is they‘ve got nothing to say about creating jobs, providing health care or dealing with any of the issues that the voters want dealt with in this election.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Matt, are you going to have the president stop saying that John Kerry, on our show, on HARDBALL, because that‘s what he was referring to, clearly, 220 days ago when he said this, are you going to get him to stop saying that John Kerry declared himself the anti-war candidate, which is clearly not what he said because I used the word anti-war candidate and I referred to a number of them? You say what he said on my show and he didn‘t say that. That‘s all I‘m asking.

DOWD: Chris, I would love it if you would play the full 11-minute tape that shows Kerry‘s various positions on the war as it has happened the last two years. I would be happy for to you to play that tape.

MATTHEWS: That‘s an argument you‘re making. I‘m asking you, is the president going to keep saying that something that was said on this show wasn‘t said?

DOWD: Of course he is. Why wouldn‘t he, it‘s what Senator Kerry said?

MATTHEWS: Well, because you might show—why don‘t you show him a tape of the show for 10 seconds so he‘ll get it straight.

Source: MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5733661/)

That's the game, people. Remember that the GOP only has a point if you listen to them exclusively.

In the end, this is an unwise move from the GOP. Should the Democrats or, even, a Democrat at random decide to fight fire with fire, I can't even imagine how hilarious that would be. Everything from crusades to God being on our side to God ordering the invasion of Iraq all the way up to the Bush administration never ending its quest to find ways to hurt Americans.

As a personal review of the video, I'm with Dowd--people should see the whole thing. The ad is only effective political propaganda against John Kerry if one really does presume human beings and politicians alike to be as two-dimensional as the GOP represents itself. In the end, swing voters watching the ad will see a thoughtful Senator and candidate working reasonably the difficult landscape of American political interests.

All the GOP has done is stroke its already frothing, even smegmatic base.

Does it matter what Bush really thinks? He is acting on corporate orders anyway, well allmost, that's why they have watchdog Cheney to keep him in line...

Kerry Is An Idiot.

he only spent four months in Vietnam a full tour is nine months

He don't sound that stupid to me.

my father did four tours

Now that is stupid.
Dee Cee

If Kerry is an idiot....then what does that make Bush...an imbecile???

Madgreenwood, Kerry did two tours of duty, one on a ship near Vietnam, volunteered for another in country, saved his buddie's life, earned a silver star, bronze star, and three purple hearts, so stop lying, please. What was your candidate doing at the time? a beer bong?

That's the game, people. Remember that the GOP only has a point if you listen to them exclusively.

In the end, this is an unwise move from the GOP. Should the Democrats or, even, a Democrat at random decide to fight fire with fire, I can't even imagine how hilarious that would be..

Let's see this experiment:

MATTHEW: Do you think that was a fair cropping of what he had to say? You cut him off after he said, yes. And you did not let him continue on to say: “in the sense that I don‘t believe the president took to us war as he should have.”

DOWD: Yes. yes, absolutely, So yes, of course it‘s fair.

DEVINE: Chris, it‘s pathetic. OK? And the reason that they‘re doing this is they‘ve got nothing to say about creating jobs, providing health care or dealing with any of the issues that the voters want dealt with in this election.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Matt, are you going to declared? You say on my show that. That‘s all I‘m asking.

DOWD: Chris, I would love you ... various positions I would be happy ... to play.

MATTHEWS: That‘s an argument you‘re making?

DOWD: Of course it‘s what ... said?

MATTHEWS: Well, how—why don‘t you show ... for 10 seconds so ... get it straight.

Source: MSNBC

ok, its not good soap opera, but its a start

tiassaism:

That's the game, people. Remember that the GOP only has a point if you listen to them exclusively.
So, the 'game' is about not even considering alternative points of view because that would automatically devalue your own invested points of view -- because your's are such absolutely, right-on points of view that surely they should be the only points of view available for universal consideration -- without the need for further discussion, and possibly belief-changing reflections from others who might possibly possess even just a very few different, suprisingly useful perspectives that could benefit your clan?

Inbreeding begets inbreeder mentality.

Kerry's from a classier more European type of wealth, and the Bush's more of an American wealth.

You mean like old money and nouveau riche?

John Kerry by himself is wealthy, but not THAT wealthy. When he was growing up, he wasn't as wealthy as he was privileged. Bush has about 15 million dollars of his own money, which he made from his sale of the Texas Rangers. Cheney has about 50 million, and Edwards has about 40 million. Kerry, without his wife's fortune, is the poor kid on the block.

And anybody who served on a swift boat in Vietnam did more than enough. It's the most dangerous job there is. "Only" served four months? I wouldn't bring that up, compared to a man who spent 0 years, 0 months, 0 weeks, 0 days, and 0 minutes in Vietnam.

That's been my feeling as well. He served, that's really all I need to know. I don't really have a problem with a swift-boat vet saying what he feels, but this organized campaign really needs to stop. I also think it needs a stronger condemnation from the White House.

The darn thing just has legs, though. Go figure.

So, the 'game' is about not even considering alternative points of view because that would automatically devalue your own invested points of view -- because your's are such absolutely, right-on points of view that surely they should be the only points of view available for universal consideration -- without the need for further discussion, and possibly belief-changing reflections from others who might possibly possess even just a very few different, suprisingly useful perspectives that could benefit your clan?

That's how I read it according to Matthew Dowd, a senior strategist for Bush/Cheney. And hey, that seems to be the game the Bush administration has chosen to play so far.


Inbreeding begets inbreeder mentality

Case in point: the GOP.

You'll notice they're painfully aware of the need for new blood. Powell's decision to not attend the convention is rather unfortunate for them in this regard.

On the other hand, this Washington Times editorial seems to have some valid points:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040809-090612-9480r.htm


Writing for the Boston Herald in October 1979, Mr. Kerry said this: "I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

Nixon certainly wasn't in office yet at Christmas 1968. I guess that might be an understandable mistake in hindsight, but he's actually pinning something on Nixon there and Johnson didn't send troops to Cambodia -- he's too early. So it does seem like something's not right there.

Still, it's something he said 25 years ago, and at the time it was about something that happened eleven years before. To me it just reads like something he said without careful enough deliberation, to make a point about Vietnam. While it might be erroneous, it's hardly criminal, and I'm not even sure it reaches the level of a serious problem.

Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/)
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html
Title: "Records Counter A Critic of Kerry's"
Date: August 19, 2004


Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.

In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that the Massachusetts Democrat's boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.

But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."

. . . . "It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case," Thurlow said last night after being read the full text of his Bronze Star citation. "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting."

Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html)

So ... Larry Thurlow is so sure of his story that he's willing to doubt the merit of his own award or anybody else's in the history of that war, or perhaps even the history of the armed services in the United States?

On more than a few occasions, I have referred to a certain degree of disbelief which I assert has worked to the Bush administration's credit: what has happened that has upset people over the last three and a half years would have been unimaginable and damn near treasonous (in a "Love it or leave it!" context) to suggest that a president could say some of the things that Bush has said, and do some of the things Bush has done.

I have to admit, in that age before the New Cynicism, holding your position at that cost would be damn near convincing. These days, it's not much. Everything else is for sale; the ad was the sort of thing we've come to expect from the 2000 primary and the 2002 general election; this is a longstanding grudge now staked against the highest office in the land; heck, we spent $40m on a blowjob; have gone to war because God said so .... Compared to the Rove School, yes, it's possible that stopping Kerry is so important to Thurlow that he will cast doubt on himself and every one of his fellow servicemen fighting in Vietnam.

It's an interesting, but nearly expected twist. If not expected, at least it's not outright surprising.
____________________

• Dobbs, Michael. "Records Counter A Critic Of Kerry." Washington Post, August 19, 2004; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html

but wait. there is more!

The Republican War Against Vietnam Veterans (http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=840)

You mean like old money and nouveau riche?

Well yes, wealth has two connotations really one is the established wealth which is characteristic of New England. They have the historic and material wealth that not even Bush could ever really have. Bush is part of a wealth that is indeed nouveau riche, in the sense that these people aren’t classy they are just wealthy and don’t know how to be classy. They are basically like trailer park trash who has money, at least that the perception of nouveau riche.

Bush wants to be percieved as a president who has "Power" and he wants the control that goes along with it. Unfortuantely, this president whose motives (WMD) for going to war in Iraq "misled" the american people and we know now were not honest motives, but instead "self serving". If Bush is re-elected, we can expect more of the same (Iran's next on his invasion list). It's too bad that senator John MaCain, a much respected vietnam vet ex-prisoner of war has decided to support the Bush campagn for re-election.

Yob Atta

Well yes, wealth has two connotations really one is the established wealth which is characteristic of New England. They have the historic and material wealth that not even Bush could ever really have.
Uh, Bush is part of the same New England Elite as Kerry. He isn't just a regular guy from Texas.

I know Bush was born in NE, but his families wealth is not from that area.

I love all mighty George W. Bush! He will help the USA! So vote for me.. I mean Bush, hehehe.

Inbred the GOP may be, but so, too, are the Dems -- who can't bring themselves to direct the expressions of their hyperactive, skepticism genes toward one of their own inbred lineage.

Circus circus.

And people wonder why someone might not take you all as seriously as you command.

Bush as a president is a Joke! If you vote for Bush for re-election then america is asking for big big trouble ahead. If you thought the last four years we're bad, if Bush get's re-elected then you haven't seen anything yet...........

Yob Atta

Bush as a president is a joke!

Yob Atta

Vote for Bush! Then he'll be in the media, so we can watch the next time he chokes on a pretzel!

Why vote at all, they both are asholes!

Why vote at all, they both are asholes!
Vote Badnarik.

http://webpages.charter.net/rylandpage/badnarik-kerry.jpg

Why vote at all, they both are asholes!

Both are "asholes or assholes"? You tell us.

Yob Atta :)

Kerry is certainly not perfect. I disagreed with him strongly in his supporting the war. I think that Howard Dean had far superior ideas to his. However, I think that Kerry would increase international cooperation and I think that is what is needed to successfully end the war. So yes, I will vote for Kerry.

Kerry has disgraced the US Navy by going against all the three core values of the US Navy: Honor, Commitment and Courage.
and I suppose that George W. Bush up-held those core values real well?

honor? George?

committment? W.?

courage? BUSH!!!?

pok-pok-chickenhawk

http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks%3B%20Chickenhaw k%20Headquarters

oh, yeah! he wasn't in the Navy, my bad!!!
I guess the Guard isn't held to those standards? huh?

Bush didn't even buy his Crawford Ranch until 1999, one year before his presidential run. Believe it or not, when he ran in his first electoral race (for a congress seat in the House of Representatives), he was seen as a carpetbagger Yalie trying to pass himself off as a Texan. Somehow, from then until now, people have the notion he's some kind of cattle raising, born and bred Texan boy, when his roots are just like Kerry's. The Bush family is blue blood royalty, no matter how thick Dubya's drawl may be.

do you think it would have been a national security risk to send the son of the director of the CIA to vietnam?

Um, hello, Bush surely was a resident in Texas before he bought the Crawford Ranch. He was governor there, remember?

Inbred the GOP may be, but so, too, are the Dems -- who can't bring themselves to direct the expressions of their hyperactive, skepticism genes toward one of their own inbred lineage.

Well, what do you expect? The leadership runs through Arkansas and the blueblooded Northeast, for heaven's sake. As to the rank-and-file, the problem is diversity. The Democrats are simply unable to appease enough of the people who would otherwise vote for them.

Do you happen to watch the Daily Show? They did a piece on the Democratic convention that was both apt and hilarious. And this year, to hear delegates describing the platform as "the party is agreeing to disagree with itself" on issues pertaining to war and peace, well? Strangely, anti-Bushism is the only thing holding the Democratic party together right now. It's certainly not the DNC leadership.

Hey ... now there is a job for Howard Dean ....

Maybe we should start an online petition to ask Terry McAuliffe to resign, and that Howard Dean be given the reins of the Democratic party. Or maybe Al Sharpton.

Kerry is an Idiotic flunkie for anything that pays him well, you might as well throw you voter registration out the window if you use it on him. if he likes homosexuals and mexican americans and african americans so much why doesen't he have them as neighbors no you won't see him living next door to them because he lives in france and in neighborhoods most anyone can't afford but I bet you will see them in his house scrubbing his toilets and floors of his million dollar "homes". All Kerry cares about is money and himself. and he only spent four months in Vietnam a full tour is nine months and my father did four tours Kerry didn't even do one.

=_ first of all it's it good that he like the minorities... and what's wrong with a canidate having a house in france...


Isn't Bush richer then Kerry?

i believe this is correct:: bush:: $228,743,338 :: kerry:: $186,593,248 :: (sadly) Nader :: $1,517,808 =(

... whats up with these one time bad postes...

... whats up with these one time bad postes...

What's up with your post? You either like Bush or you don't (hopefully you don't). The same for Kerry or do you have someone else in mind?


Yob Atta :)

LOL well kerry sux too but is a better alterinative then bush by... maybe a few light years

... whats up with these one time bad postes...
I don't know, but the signal to noise ratio keeps getting lower and lower in here.

lets just overthrow the american govt already and give them a working system, or even better: put the US under canadian rule

Better yet, on election day just buy a couple of bottles of cheap wine, light up a couple of cigars and place a poster of George Bush on your bathroom wall above the toilet.......At least you have something to remind you of the great american one-term "Peace President" we once had after Kerry wins the election!

Yob Atta

lets just overthrow the american govt already and give them a working system, or even better: put the US under canadian rule

Shhhhhhhh...that's the plan.

lets just overthrow the american govt already and give them a working system, or even better: put the US under canadian rule


NICE!!!! i agree 100% and im USian

If we thought Clinton was bad, George W. Bush will re-write history on what "Bad" is all about! I think Michael Moore could do a better job as president than Bush. I'll vote for Moore.

Yob Atta

=_ Did everyone here see farinhieght(however the hell you spell it) 911. I had 2 problems with the moive. To me no new info about bush and co. 2. I wish it was more about trying to get the bush voters to switch there votes. not to get non-bush voter feel better =_

I think Michael Moore's fine documentary "Farenheit 9/11" got the message across that Bush is a "joke" as a president. Any would-be Bush voters who see the movie will certainly think twice before they cast their ballot in the Nov. election. Hopefully, we won't see Bush again after Jan. of 2005!

Yob Atta :)

by chance do you live in the US... if you do have you ever seen most of the bush voter... LOL

It really doesn't matter where I live to see where america is heading under the leadership of the so-called "Peace President" George W. Bush! Anyone who wants to invade another country under the false premise of "WMD" and tries to convince the american public that Iraq is dangerous and will ultimately try and destroy the U.S. and U.S. interests abroad under the regime of the most dangerous man on earth, Sadam Hussein is a joke! Let's face it, Bush tried to "misel" the american people into believing his WMD story. If Bush is re-elected, he'll find a reason to invade Iran. Don't believe it? Re-elect Bush.......wait & see!

Yob Atta :)

=_ maybe iran i tough it was somewhere else thou LOL. I like when moore was on the bbc and he said "Bush has an excuse for attacking iraq. He's just stupid, But blair doesn't have an excuse to being talked into the iraq war. He's brilliant"

Lets face it, america has had one or two good presidents in the past. Even though some of their decision making and foriegn policy may have been flawed from time-to-time, at least their motives for making policy was more honest and not so self-serving, which is contrary to what the american public can expect from Bush and his band of cronies, his "Yes" men & "Yes" women (staff) that inhabit the White House commonly called his adminsistration. At least Michael Moore has the guts to expose Bush and his camp of stooges (staff) for what they are......STUPID!

Yob Atta :)

Yeah, we suck.

Should just nuke us or something.

Yeah, we suck.

Should just nuke us or something.

I guess we know who you're going to vote for in Nov., don't we............

Yob Atta :)

Um, hello, Bush surely was a resident in Texas before he bought the Crawford Ranch. He was governor there, remember?

Of course I know Bush lived in Texas. How else could he have bought the Texas Rangers and run for governor? I said that I was surprised to hear that he only bought his ranch back in 1999. With all the time he spent there during his presidency, I always assumed he had it for a very long time.

I always assumed he had it for a very long time.

I believe that was the general idea.

This subject has been covered before (where is hype BTW) but nobody seemed interested at the time.
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34749
Dee Cee

do you think it would have been a national security risk to send the son of the director of the CIA to vietnam?
GHW Bush was not the director at the time, but my point is two-fold;
1) if the elite do not serve, it sends the message that only the poor need die for the good ol' US, the elite are the 'master class'
2) if the elite know that their sons & daughters will also be in harms way, it will control their 'itchy' trigger fingers, they'll think twice before going after those elusive WMD's in the first place

from:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/George_H._W._Bush


He later lost his second attempt at a Senate seat in 1970 to Democrat Lloyd Bentsen...
ambassador to the United Nations (1971–1973),
director of the CIA 1976–1977

*searches for a nuke* =P

*searches for a nuke* =P

Sounds like "searches for a nuke* =P is part of the Bush equation which is:

Stupidity divided ignorance = Bush

Yob Atta :)

Kerry is certainly not perfect. I disagreed with him strongly in his supporting the war. I think that Howard Dean had far superior ideas to his. However, I think that Kerry would increase international cooperation and I think that is what is needed to successfully end the war. So yes, I will vote for Kerry.
Kerry did not "support the war" unconditionally. What he voted for was to give the president the power to use war IF several conditions were met:


(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

So, IF, diplomatic means were not working (and we had inspectors on the ground), and war was consistent with fighting those responsable for 9/11, (which it was not), then congress gave Bush the power to invade. I don't think Bush ever reported to congress 48 hours later on his determinations, (because they were based on lies).


link (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm)

RESUME OF GEORGE W. BUSH



Past work experience:

I ran for congress and lost.
I produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.
I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas; company
went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took
land using taxpayer money.

Biggest move:

Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.
With my father's help and nearly the same name, was elected Governor of
Texas.

Major accomplishments:

I changed pollution laws for oil and power companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the nation.
I replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog-ridden city in America.
I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government in billions in borrowed money.
I set a record for most executions by any governor in American history...

more:http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/04/23_resume.html

you're preaching to the choir. I appreciate your thoroughness but all your points have been made... repeatedly. In retrospect, bush (like most politicians) is scary. It's too easy to dissect people after-the-fact.

It's more productive to focus on the present, especially in this case.

Talk about down playing a valiant effort buffys.

I think that such work is necessary in order to give people a better perspective of the past 4 years. It is quite useful to have patient efforts of information gathering.. especially when reformated in an original manner.

(Universities seem to think its usefull; minus the originality)

Thanks for the read masoups, will send to friends.

Bush "resume" refutations are all over the internet. Most of the "facts" in the more popular "resumes" are false.

hmmm i hate bush, no i dont, i dont like him, thats slightly more accurate.
however, he hasnt done terribly in his four years, although some terrible things have happened during his four years.
that begs the question, is he really that bad, or perhaps,
bush barely does anything- has everything done for him.

if its the first, no need to worry, his past has been a bad ghost that came out of his closet and stayed there for a very long time.

if its the latter, no need to worry, since on that surmise its quite obvious that whoever is the White House, America + world (;)) keeps spinning exactly the same:

"In with the new boss, same as the old boss"

You just have to admire people that make their opinions sound like arguments, but then leave the room without actually showing any verifiable facts. For example:

"Bush "resume" refutations are all over the internet. Most of the "facts" in the more popular "resumes" are false."

We must thank such people who share with us the best of what the information age has to offer us: immediate and consistent imaginary representations of possibly existing ideas.

I am sick and tired of hearing Chris Tucker (from CNN's crossfire) implying that J. Kerry is trying to censure and impede the rights of individuals right to free speech by going to the courts in order to block the hostile ads.

First of all, anyone and everyone has the right to order a cessation of public defamation (especially if statements can be shown to be false or misleading).

Secondly, Bush went so far to say that he wishes an end to "all 527 groups: privately funded political and unregulated ad campaigns".

Why are the same republicans that cry wolf on Kerry, but then decide to omit the fact that their own president/candidate seeks to ban any and all privately (or unregulated) political ads?

Kerry wants to call the courts on one ad and Bush says that every unregulated ads should be outlawed since they are "bad for the system".

If someone deserves the title of "oppressor of free speech"... if one should deserve it... who would it be?

Prisme

the Swift Boat Ad's and the smears against John Mcain (R) and Max Cleland (D)are proof that the Bush team are the lowest scum on the earth and they are just like animals or insects- buzzards, jackals, and the flies that breed in shit.

Bush is no more or no less than what history will say about him.........Right now, when a president (Bush) decides to put at risk (Iraq war: Looking for WMD?) his nation's best interests for his own self-serving interests (Oil & Power), then history will say as much!

Yob Atta

You just have to admire people that make their opinions sound like arguments, but then leave the room without actually showing any verifiable facts.

Pfft. And then there are people who are rude to others just to save themselves a trip to Google.

The famous "The Truth" refutation, in PDF format, is available here:
http://www.filestash.net/The_Truth.pdf

It's a huge collection, over a megabyte of text, fully annotated and cross-referenced.

So there.

When the U.S. suddenly decided (when Bush was president mind you), that it wasn't going to support the Koyoto protocol - which is meaned to reduce greenhouse gas emmisions, I was suddenly swayed in my opinion and faith for the future....

Come on, we're already witnessing changing weather patterns, seemingly getting slightly worse year after year, and still, the U.S., who leads the world, is making absolutely NO PROPER attempts to correct the situation!!!

I am truly disgusted.

We'll be having fun when things start collapsing in about 40 years time.
With $500 for a litre of oil or something..

PEACE.

Is it me or does that resumé get shorter and simpler every time we see it?

Hey!
Y'all missed out his War Service! (http://www.ericblumrich.com/topgun.html)

Refutation anyone?
Dee Cee

Is it me or does that resumé get shorter and simpler every time we see it?

I've noticed that as well.

I think you need to change the name of this thread to just Bush bashing. The problem most of these Vietnam Vets have with Kerry isn't so much what he did in Vietnam, but what he did when he got back. Accusing the US military of atrocities on par with Genghis Khan whose policy was to kill every man, woman, and child in his path. As one vet said in one of the swiftboat ads, he gave the enemy for free what POW's endured torture and still refused to give them. You can't trust a man who turns on his own.

"You can't trust a man who turns on his own."

I agree. Kerry's life has exhibited a telling flip-flop on criticizing wrongful warfare and the war crimes that result when American troops are placed into the gut-wrenching position of being committed to a situation lacking any possible honorable military outcome.

I don't trust Kerry, because he lacks the courage and leadership to unequivocally condemn our occupation of Iraq. At the same time, I understand his pragmatic compromise, because the American majority is still unwilling to confront the injustice and folly of our Vietnam and Iraq quagmires. Anyone with honesty about such issues is unelectable, because America remains in denial about our place in the world. Many difficult compromises and failures are ahead because of illusions that only consequences, and not Presidencies, are going to awaken America to.

Accusing the US military of atrocities on par with Genghis Khan whose policy was to kill every man, woman, and child in his path.

are you suggesting that the american involvement in the vietnam war was executed perfectly whilst observing rules of engagement?

Where have the 'old enough to vote generations' been in the past 30 years?

Out of every war in the history of the U.S., Viet-Nam is one of the only conflicts that:

1- Lasted so many years (a decade or so)
2- Imposed the draft, and thus had untrained professionnals fighting a war they didn't want to be in.
3- Had the youngest serving army (avg. yrs.) in the history of the U.S.
4- Employed non-orthodox tactics to win be fought and won (agent orange, destruction of weapon caches hidden in coerced villages, unclear definition of the enemy -ei: who are the VC?-)
5- They fought an enemy which was ten fold more motivated than the american soldiers and which was better suited to wage long-term guerrilla warfare.
and
6- Is renowned for leaving veterans with a deep sense of injustice (be it social or political at home)


All of these factors which are invariably attributed to the viet-nam war -and I won't get in what some people in Hollywood has shown us about the war- demonstrates to me that the Viet-Nam war was the first conflict which both sides thought each other how to fight belowe the belt, and resulted in the transformation of conventional warfare throughout the world.

This said, I would not be surprised that unmotivated, unwilling and demoralized individuals would result in drastic measures to vent their stress and frustrations. The trainees in Abu Graib did it and they weren't even under significant war-time pressure... they were in a jail!!!

Finally, I cannot understand veterans and non-veterans alike that interpret these allegations (or even evidences) as some sort of rogue branding of all the soldiers who went in viet-nam. I think nobody ever believed or said that every single viet-nam vet or even the majority of them were war criminals and were dishonorable to the military.. except maybe some hippies in the 70's which I think we all know Kerry was not and nothing shows that he was.
In any case, how can you 'turn' on your own people if you are telling the truth? Why not own up to what some have chosen to do and not downplay or exagerate the honor of an entire army composed of a myriad of different types of individuals?

In conclusion, except for certain people who were admitted to the Texas air reserve with a 24/100 flight test result and who miraculously passed more than thousands of names on a waiting list in order to make his high elect father feeling his son is safe... I have not been demonstrated that military records were so often/easily manipulated. If the army said that they were satisfied with Kerry in the 70's why should we doubt their findings 30 years later? I mean, everything was written down and approved by officers and commanding officers; you'd think people wouldn't get american medals while doing nothing right?
I just think that the media and people seem to be more concerned about wild accusations (swift boat ads) which are contradicted by the written facts and military approved facts.

I'm not saying the militray never made a mistake. But it would have to be quite a conspiracy, one to which no real motive could be given, to have the entire army system lie about what its soldiers were or were not doing... especially in the regular army (ei: not Navy seals or delta force).

Prisme

I think that Howard Dean had far superior ideas to his.

If there were two candidates in the primaries who could not be more similar in both ideology and background, it's Dean and Kerry. Probably explains why they were such rivals. They were both the liberal NE candidates with left-centrist views. Dean may have opposed the Iraq war, but his plan was to finish the job, just like Kerry's. Dean was also pro-civil unions, not pro-gay marriage (leave it to the states), which is Kerry's position. Dean was also a fiscal conservative, and Kerry's advocating a balanced budget. There's no real difference between them really, 'cept one's kinda stocky and loud and the other's lanky and Catholic.


The problem most of these Vietnam Vets have with Kerry isn't so much what he did in Vietnam, but what he did when he got back. Accusing the US military of atrocities on par with Genghis Khan whose policy was to kill every man, woman, and child in his path. As one vet said in one of the swiftboat ads, he gave the enemy for free what POW's endured torture and still refused to give them. You can't trust a man who turns on his own.

Yeah, and that's what they did.

If those particular veterans thought Vietnam was the greatest war in the world and hated Kerry for leading the protests against it, then they should've come up with an ad that said "We, who are Vietnam veterans, will vote for Bush because we disagreed with Kerry's march in the National Mall, etc." But that wasn't cutting enough was it? What they actually did was concoct lies that are easily refuted by first-hand accounts and U.S. Navy records and pass them off as truth. Now that virtually every reliable news source has proved them false, they will try and weasel their way into questioning Kerry's protest record. The fact that they lied repeatedly on national television should not be forgiven.

Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/)
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37224-2004Aug26.html
Title: "The Pressure-Cooker Theory"
Date: August 27, 2004


Upon losing a game at the 1925 Baden-Baden tournament, Aaron Nimzowitsch, the great chess theoretician and a superb player, knocked the pieces off the board, jumped on the table and screamed, "How can I lose to this idiot?"

Nimzowitsch may have lived decades ago in Denmark, but he had the soul of a modern American Democrat. After all, Democrats have been saying much the same -- with similar body language -- ever since the erudite Adlai Stevenson lost to the syntactically challenged Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. They said it again when they lost to that supposed simpleton Ronald Reagan. Twice, would you believe? With George W. Bush, they are at it again, and equally apoplectic.

Actually, this time around, even more apoplectic . . . .

. . . . What if Bush is reelected? If they lose to him again, Democrats will need more than just consolation. They'll need therapy.

Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37224-2004Aug26.html)


Man be a man, tell me what's on your mind.
If you take a little chance
Who knows what you'll find?
I can give you all the reasons
But I can't make you think;
You can lead a horse to water
But you can't make him drink.

Tommy Shaw (http://www.styxnet.com/styxlyrics/shaw/oitr.htm)

Krauthammer's victimizing Democrats for being human. 'Tis a shame because Democrats need only embrace their humanity in order to be real Democrats.

In the meantime, Democrats win when people think; liberalism is the greater intellectual challenge as well as the greater societal reward. Of course, Krauthammer, in his zeal to tack the Democrats to the wall, seems to overlook the diverse range of people who are angry with Bush for something or another. If Krauthammer wonders about the level of venom, it may be so simple as that's what George W. Bush inspires in people by his example.

And that's a lot of venom invested in the opposition to George W. Bush. Of course it's still a funny article.
____________________

• Krauthammer, Charles. "The Pressure-Cooker Theory." Washington Post, August 27, 2004; page A21. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37224-2004Aug26.html

am i that "partisan" that i can't look at it objectively?


Is that a question, or a statement?

It would be interesting to see how many posters here have served in the military much less VNam.

I was at Ft Brag when I was called to report to the Col. I reported and he said have a seat. I sat down and he then said I have a problem, and pushes some papers my way.

He then said I have two sets of orders here for you. One you can start clearing post today and attend Nuke School or you can start clearing post today and go with us to VNam.

My response was "You mean I have a choice?"

I choose getting an education. Though I lost contact with them and don't know, I suspect that many of my former friends got killed.

Am I embarassed about my choice. Not for a minute. Would I have served had I not been given that faithful choice? You bet.

I of course have no direct knowledge about Kerry's service but I do know Vets, including my brother-in-law, that was shot up pretty good. They were overrun and he dragged a Lt that had been shot into a fox hole and he manned a machinegun all night fending of VC.

The next morning at daylight support arrived and he learned that he and the Lt were the only ones left alive. He was shot up pretty good and got several metals but for years he refused to discuss his service.

Finally he began to talk about it and you know what, there were a lot of jerks and war criminals in the US Forces there. From stories I have heard John Kerry may have been telling it like it was.

Certainly there were good men there and most did not commit atrocities but some did and that was what he objected to, as he should.

Now we have a president that has his legal team re-interpreting the Geneva Convention and treatment of prisoners; you can see the results from that filter down to the political mess in Iraq over prisoner abuse.

Don't miss judge me. I have no sympothy for the bastards but my point is the leadership issue. GWB is dangerous to your liberties gentlemen.

I detest gay marriage etc, but GWB wants to amend the constitution. The far right will amend the constitution until you have the right to do as they say and no more.

I'll vote for Kerry even if he has exagerated and lied.

Bush has lied to us all and has gotten how many good men killed?

Again don't misinterprete. I favor kicking ass over there but I favor doing it without costing the lives of our men. It called nuke the bastards.

I'll vote for Kerry even if he has exagerated and lied.

Bush has lied to us all and has gotten how many good men killed?

Great point. In some RW fantasy world where the SBVT are actually telling the truth and Kerry did lie, at least he was in a position to lie, unlike Bush who lies about showing up for duty in the Texas National Air Guard during those hazy months.

How stupid can people get? I mean for God's sakes! John Kerry put his ass on the line in Vietnam even though he was a "spoiled little richboy" like Bush. The big difference between these two elites was that one risked his life in something he thought was right, and one didn't. Some polls show that people are viewing Kerry as less honest and less admirable in light of the filthy swift boat liars' ads. Hey guys, how about the biggest, most recent liar in our collective memory? Remember George W. Bush and his WMDs? Hell, he burned valuable bridges, smeared the American nameplate, and directly caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people, but hey, since he's a "Christian" and we can hypothetically have a beer with him, why not make him a president once more?

Hey guys, how about the biggest, most recent liar in our collective memory? Remember George W. Bush and his WMDs?

BS. If Bush lied, so did Kerry, Clinton, Gore and pretty much everyone else with an opinion on the subject. Saying Bush lied is like saying I lied when I f--ked up an organic chemisty test. To say Bush lied you would have to show that he knew there were no WMD's before the invasion.


Again don't misinterprete. I favor kicking ass over there but I favor doing it without costing the lives of our men. It called nuke the bastards.
You think Kerry's gonna nuke the bastards? He won't do anything without the approval of the UN and France. It will be open season on Americans with Kerry in office.

I detest gay marriage etc, but GWB wants to amend the constitution. The far right will amend the constitution until you have the right to do as they say and no more.
First of all, the ammendment will never be approved. Ammending the constitution is too much of a pain in the ass. However, without some kind of ammendment, gay marriage will probably soon be the law of land due to the full faith and credit clause of the constitution which requires that all states recognize a marriage performed in any state.


Certainly there were good men there and most did not commit atrocities but some did and that was what he objected to, as he should
I would certainly agree that some atrocities were commited as is the case with any war. But Kerry stated that the atrocities were known about and approved of at all levels of the military command. He wasn't talking about a few "bad apples", but impeaching the entire military.

BS. If Bush lied, so did Kerry, Clinton, Gore and pretty much everyone else with an opinion on the subject. Saying Bush lied is like saying I lied when I f--ked up an organic chemisty test. To say Bush lied you would have to show that he knew there were no WMD's before the invasion.

He was cautioned by the CIA that the information was "Questionable" Hardly a basis to rush to war. He damn well suspected he was exagerating for the express purpose of taking us to war.



You think Kerry's gonna nuke the bastards? He won't do anything without the approval of the UN and France. It will be open season on Americans with Kerry in office.

Unfortunately "No". We are all to politically correct now to do what should be done.


First of all, the ammendment will never be approved. Ammending the constitution is too much of a pain in the ass. However, without some kind of ammendment, gay marriage will probably soon be the law of land due to the full faith and credit clause of the constitution which requires that all states recognize a marriage performed in any state.

The fact that our forefathers had more common sense than we do today andmade it a 2/3 majority to amend the constitution doesn't change the fact that the SOB would if he could change the constitution to force his religious beliefs on this country.

1 - Faith Based Initiative.(Government Handouts to Churches to do what is supposed to be volunteered by the faithful).

2 - School Vouchers (Public Funds given to Religious Schools)

3 - Amend the Constitution to preclude gay unions.

4 - And so on.

But you think he's(Bush) beatable?

Clinton: The central error he made was in abandoning compassionate conservatism. But I predict that they will try to undo it between now and the election, like they did in Iraq -- it's gonna be an interesting thing to watch.

Geoge W Bush, July 20

Bush Says: 'I Want to Be the Peace President'

George W Bush, July 23

To periodic smatterings of applause from the black audience, he asserted that his prescription of tax relief, education reform and compassionate conservatism is doing far more than the traditional programs of Democrats to address the nation's ills that hit particularly hard at blacks.

George W Bush, August 27

The most disappointing thing about his four years in office has been his inability to change the "harsh environment" in Washington.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=7&u=/ap/bush_interview

Rove is a fuggin genius, i'll post more in the future as they keep coming in.

BS. If Bush lied, so did Kerry, Clinton, Gore and pretty much everyone else with an opinion on the subject. Saying Bush lied is like saying I lied when I f--ked up an organic chemisty test. To say Bush lied you would have to show that he knew there were no WMD's before the invasion.
so, where are those WMD's? if they were moved to Syria or Lebonon, then we have a more patethic CIA, than it appears now.


Psssssssst, hey buddy.











BUSH LIED!!!



I would certainly agree that some atrocities were commited as is the case with any war. But Kerry stated that the atrocities were known about and approved of at all levels of the military command. He wasn't talking about a few "bad apples", but impeaching the entire military.the way the war was run, how could you prove otherwise, under the rules of engagement, we were meant to lose. In Viet Nam, more bombs were dropped than in all of WWII.

When the politicos run a war, they lose it, no matter what tech advantages one side has.


See same in Iraq

Being a registered Independent (a distinction generally too nuanced for this membership), the more you spend your party's capital bashing Bush -- because it so makes yourselves feel so, so much better about yourselves, for being so superior to folks who don't deserve to be superior to you, because it's just plain unnatural, and grossly unfair to you -- the less you have to invest in convincing those of us willing to listen that you have something actually worth considering as an operational alternative.

You're all behaving like you're in one massive, fetal-folded, cluster-grope.

Must be why I don't tell anyone I sometimes hang out here.

"Nothing to see, here. Everyone move on. Make way for the coroner. Just move along."

BS. If Bush lied, so did Kerry, Clinton, Gore and pretty much everyone else with an opinion on the subject.

If Clinton and Kerry thought there were WMDs in Iraq, they were not the ones who assured the public that a war that was going to cost billions and lots of lives (both American and Iraqi) over faulty evidence and scant diplomacy.

Bush and his puppeteers taking towards being a true fascist state? Seems like a radical thing to say . . . but here is an excerpt from "Fascism Anyone?" by Laurence W. Britt.

--------------------------------------

Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.

For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.

Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.

----------------------------

Full article at:

Free Inquiry Magazine Article (http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm)

You know, Hitler was a national socialist. You guys are always all over the nationalism but don't seem to have any problem with the socialist part. He was also a vegetarian. Better watch out for those guys. Just because someone shares some attribute or group of attributes with Hitler does not make them a NAZI. The attributes I look for in a NAZI are:

1. Wants to exterminate an entire race of people
2. Intent on World Dominion.
3. Insane

madanthonywayne, I know you can do better than that: You know Gravity was comparing the Bush Administration to known fascist regimes, not only to Nazis. Yet you "refuted" something that was not posited (Bush=Nazi).

In a most superficial way, you inferred that Hitler was a socialist. Surely you understand that the 3rd Reich was not a socialist government by any stretch, and that the National Socialist Workers' Party did not, in spite of labels advance socialism- instead it served totalitarianism.

Fascism has tended to "sneak up" on self-centered countries, and surprise and dismay (whether feigned or sincere) accompanied the emergence of mainstream fascism. Comparisons such as these are perhaps better described as warnings about protofascism. These are not uncommon (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=38301) today, because trends directly comparable to prior outbreaks of fascism are clearly apparent. The Bush Administration has been pandering to the very same public sentiments that were exploited in protofascist Germany, Italy, and Spain. If you wish to refute warnings that the Bush Administration is protofascist, then you would do better to refute the historical parallels offered specifically, and not just in reference to superficial labels.

The attributes I look for in a NAZI are:

1. Wants to exterminate an entire race of people

Muslims? Algonquin?

2. Intent on World Dominion.

McDonalds? Coca-Cola? USMC?

3. Insane

GW anybody?

:D
Dee Cee

HW
That was just an off the cuff reaction to constant "Repuplicans are fascists" chants on this board. Frankly, if the US goes fascist, I don't think it will be a gradual rightward shift but a sudden overcorrection to the steady leftward drift. While Republicans win a lot of elections, the nation is gradually moving further and further to the left. All the Republicans seem to do is, perhaps, slow it down. For example:


In 1980, when the Republicans won the presidency and the Senate for only the second time in 50 years, the liberal-vs.-conservative score wasn't 0-0. The bluster of nearly every conservative talk-show host, however, is designed to distract their listeners from one overriding point: No matter who wins the presidency this year, the last century went to liberals -- and there's no going back. http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0222-05.htm

Every time a new entitlement is created it's forever. This is because the benefits are concentrated while the harm is diffuse. Any given government program can seem reasonable when compared to the size of the entire budget or to some more ridiculous program. Therefore, the Welfare State will continue to expand. Also, government regulation of business will increase for much the same reason. Any regulation or law can be passed if it's "for the children" Environmental regulations, for example, "benefit" everyone while imposing a cost primarily on "evil" businessmen or corporations. Add to this the influence of activist judges and trial lawyers and we will eventually reach the point where it's damn near impossible to do business. This is when we will have our true "swing to the right". Corporations will be forced, by the left, to become what the left has always accused them of being all along: The backers and puppet masters for a fascist government. So the true anti fascist is the conservative because by maintaining a government friendly to business we avoid the chaos from which a true fascist state would spring. The fascist takeover in Germany, remember, was preceeded by the liberal Weimar Republic.

you're just saying don't rock the boat, don't swing the pendulum, when it is patently (npi) obvious that already now, corporate interests hold more sway than democracy, and enjoy more rights and privileges than individuals in the USA (which is anathema to the founding principles of our nation). To campaign as a "conservative" for business interests in these times, is to patently serve fascist tendencies that are all too apparent now. There is nothing conservative about a cabal that runs up horrendous deficits while writing blank checks to petroleum and defense conglomerates who have been demonstrating gross profiteering and negligence. Please study the history of fascism, and reconcile it's relationship with big business- defend corporate and federal power as a means of staving off some rebound from liberalism that has yet to manifest itself in America. You can rabble-rouse for a Fuhrer with all his corporate backing as a means of avoiding a backlash towards a Fuhrer with all his backing, but you won't convince me. The Bush administration exhibits all the precursors to fascism that have ever been shown in the past, and you are as they say, either with them or against them.

I stand against, fearless that my efforts will rebound to the opposite. This is true for anything worth seeking. If you think that opposing forces, or inertia obviate action in any pursuit, you will be ineffective. You won't even get laid.

You know, Hitler was a national socialist. You guys are always all over the nationalism but don't seem to have any problem with the socialist part. He was also a vegetarian. Better watch out for those guys. Just because someone shares some attribute or group of attributes with Hitler does not make them a NAZI. The attributes I look for in a NAZI are:

1. Wants to exterminate an entire race of people
2. Intent on World Dominion.
3. Insane

Hitler was a right wing politician (becides being nazi). Hitler hated passionately communists/socialists/USSR. Hitler cleansed Germany from communists/socialists first thing after taking power.


I really do not believe you are that naive to accept self-name of the ruling party for its face value. Actions matter, self-name of the ruling party is meaningless alone. China is not building communism these days, is it? Even thought the name of the ruling party is the same as 30 years ago.


National Socialism was similar in many respects to Italian fascism (see Fascism). The roots of National Socialism, however, were peculiarly German, grounded, for example, in the Prussian tradition of military authoritarianism and expansion; in the German romantic tradition of hostility to rationalism, liberalism, and democracy; in various racist doctrines according to which the Nordic peoples, as so-called pure Aryans, were not only physically superior to other races, but were the carriers of a superior morality and culture; and in certain philosophical traditions that idealized the state or exalted the superior individual and exempted such a person from conventional restraints.

The theorists and planners of National Socialism included General Karl Ernst Haushofer, a German geographer who exercised much influence in German foreign affairs. The German editor and party leader Alfred Rosenberg formulated Nazi racial theories on the basis of the work of the Anglo-German writer Houston Stewart Chamberlain. To the German financier Hjalmar Schacht fell the task of formulating and carrying out much economic and banking policy, and the German architect and party leader Albert Speer was a major figure in overseeing the economy just before the end of World War II (1939-1945).

You can rabble-rouse for a Fuhrer with all his corporate backing as a means of avoiding a backlash towards a Fuhrer with all his backing, but you won't convince me.

I don't want any Fuhrer and I'm certainly not rabble-rousing for one. I do not believe that inaction to avoid equal and opposite reactions is the best course. We seem to be in a position where the left and the right are increasing the power of the government to further their, theoretically, opposing goals. Now the rich and powerful in ANY society are going to see to it that their interests are served regardless of the system of government. (a quote from Evita comes to mind, but I don't think it would help my arguement given the context) The best we can do is to limit the power of government so that those in postions of power can't do too much damage. This was the fundamental insight of the founding fathers. They endeavered to play interest against interest so that the common good could be served. Democrats always believe that the government can solve any problem when, in fact, government is often the cause of the problems. Each new entitlement, each new government program increases the power of government and therefore increases the potential for corruption and, ultimately, tyranny. Power corrupts. Whether that power is wielded in the name of the people, the proletariat, or the Fuhrer is irrelevent. I admit I don't love GWB. I don't like the deficit. I don't like the increased spending. I don't like the expansion of medicare when that program is already going to break the bank in a few years. Still, compared to Kerry, no contest.

I don't want any Fuhrer and I'm certainly not rabble-rousing for one. I do not believe that inaction to avoid equal and opposite reactions is the best course. We seem to be in a position where the left and the right are increasing the power of the government to further their, theoretically, opposing goals. Now the rich and powerful in ANY society are going to see to it that their interests are served regardless of the system of government. (a quote from Evita comes to mind, but I don't think it would help my arguement given the context) The best we can do is to limit the power of government so that those in postions of power can't do too much damage. This was the fundamental insight of the founding fathers. They endeavered to play interest against interest so that the common good could be served. Democrats always believe that the government can solve any problem when, in fact, government is often the cause of the problems. Each new entitlement, each new government program increases the power of government and therefore increases the potential for corruption and, ultimately, tyranny. Power corrupts. Whether that power is wielded in the name of the people, the proletariat, or the Fuhrer is irrelevent. I admit I don't love GWB. I don't like the deficit. I don't like the increased spending. I don't like the expansion of medicare when that program is already going to break the bank in a few years. Still, compared to Kerry, no contest.

I agree with much of your comments but disagree with your ultimate conclusion.

I find it far more dangerous to our liberty, long term, to not vote for Kerry and perhaps take a few more hits before we really get pissed off and slam dunk these piss ants than it is to have a right wing religious zealot in office that wants to amend our constitution along the lines of his religious beliefs and to load our Supreme Court and political process so as to perpetuate the Bible thumpers agenda.

Please don't misjudge my comments. I very much oppose same sex marriage, etc. But amending the constitution is not the way to go.

I find it far more dangerous to our liberty, long term, to not vote for Kerry and perhaps take a few more hits before we really get pissed off and slam dunk these piss ants than it is to have a right wing religious zealot in office that wants to amend our constitution along the lines of his religious beliefs

I said it before and I'll say it again. The constitution is not going to be ammended. The procedure is too difficult. See the quote below taken from http://www.usconstitution.net/constamprop.html:

In every session of Congress, hundreds of constitutional amendments are proposed. Almost never do any of them become actual Amendments. In fact, almost never do any of them even get out of committee.

According to a study by C-SPAN, this is a count of the number of amendments proposed in each of the sessions of Congress in the 1990's:

106th (1999 only): 60
105th (1997-98): 103
104th (1995-96): 158
103rd (1993-94): 156
102nd (1991-92): 165
101st (1989-90): 214

To me the most important issue is national defense. I don't trust Kerry on this issue. To quote Zell Miller:


Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief.

or better yet:

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.

They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

It is not their patriotism -- it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.

They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.

They were wrong.

And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

That pretty much says it all.

The gist of the message from the Democrat and/or Republican was: vote for John Kerry and America will be attacked. And when it’s attacked, it’ll be defended with “spitballs.”

So Chris asked him if he really meant that.

“It’s a metaphor,” Miller replied. “Do you know what a metaphor is?”

Umm, Senator? That’s why he asked. Did you really mean that metaphor? Wasn’t that metaphor over-the-top? Isn’t it predicated on a half-idea: that John Kerry tried to dismantle weapons programs (the ones Defense Secretary Dick Cheney had asked the Senate to dismantle)?

Source: MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5886749/?#040902z)

With thanks to Pangloss for remindng me of the MSNBC blog in the first place.

As to the Zell Miller speech, it stuns me that while I find Olbermann's Countdown ridiculous fluff that doesn't belong on a network asserting to be a cable news outlet, Keith has indeed pointed out the obvious that gets overlooked in American politics.

The conservative method is to rely on the ignorance and memory (lack) of the audience.

• Think of the Swift Boat controversy. Conservatives like Bob Dole are coming forward and criticizing John Kerry for making his war service part of the debate in the first place. True, true, I suppose, but wasn't there some controversy back around the time of Bush's "Mission Accomplished" fiasco that had to do with inflation's of Bush's service record? The American people have made an issue of war service since '92, at least, when Bill Clinton was blasted as a draft-dodger. It is the GOP that consistently brings the issue to the fore; to claim John Kerry unwise for raising the issue of his war service is myopic if you're a liberal and disingenuous if you're a conservative.

Similarly, as Olbermann points out, Zell Miller in his crossover speech played to the audience by relying on half-truths and hoping nobody would call him on the misrepresentations.

Zell Miller wants to duel Chris Matthews? Zell Miller is a dishonest man. He should not claim to represent anything, as his representation is a stain on any good name. He's lucky we're not in a dueling society, or else Democrats would be hunting him down with white gloves, and while he might get a couple, he won't get enough of them to change the outcome.
____________________

• Olbermann, Keith. "Ask not at whom the Zell boils, he boils at thee." MSNBC, September 2, 2004. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5886749/?#040902z

I said it before and I'll say it again. The constitution is not going to be ammended.

I would very much agree that it will not be ammended but that doesn't excuse the audacity of some draft dodging prick trying to cram his religion down my throat.

I'll fight the damn terrorists, hand to hand myself, if necessary but keep the religious bastard out of my life and control of my country.

1 - He wants to ammend the constitution on religious grounds.

2 - He Pushes Faith based charities.

3 - He pushed public funds to support religious private schools. (Those are my tax dollars being used to provide religious indoctrination of youth.) I oppose all religions. Don't forceably take my money and then in violation of the Constitution of this country provide support via government (my money) funding religious schools damnit.

4 - He pushes for prayer in school. (I didn't want to see my children, nor do I want to see my grandchildren and great grandchildren brainwashed with this garbage. It is far more dangerous than a few piss ant terroists that killed 3,000 of our citizens.

We are talking of millions of our youth being indoctrinated and made inept to think for themselves and to believe in voodo. It is absolute bullshit and cannot be allowed to continue. Terrorisim is not the primary threat to this country, it is the stupidity of religion and religious zealots forcing there beliefs on others.)

5 - He pushes for over turning Rowe vs Wade (I don't like abortion either but not for religious reasons) and I accept, even if I don't like it, limited abortion.

6 - He has interferred and stopped medical research (stem cell) based on nothing more than his personal religious beliefs.

There is more but I hope you get the point.

I vote Kerry because recovering from a bad military decision is far less disasterous than trying to recover from being over run by seeing "Creationism" taught in our schools as science and fact.

Burn the fucking Bibles and Koran. Leave the Constitution alone and keep your church the hell out of government.

Nice MacM - I'm with you 100% on that, history teaches that when mystical beliefs have gotten a government stamp of approval, its often ended in blood and tears. What these sheep don't understand is that besides protecting those of no or a different religion, seperation of church and state also PROTECTS THE CHURCH too. Otherwise what inevitably happens is that a tighter and tighter definition evolves of what the "right'' religion is.

Like the Emo Philips joke:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

Thanks. It is rare these days to find agreement with my views but I am used to it. :D LOL. That was funny and unfortunately so very true.

“ Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief. ”
Soooo, the democratic process actually makes us weaker? I don't see anyone pushing for impeachment, so your idea of bringing down our commander in chief is what...valid criticism? It's an election! Why is Bush cutting veteran's benefits? Why did Bush cut hazardous duty pay? It is not manic to point out that we invaded the wrong country for false reasons, thus causing the death of over 1000 American soldiers and over 10,000 of those we are supposed to be liberating. But, Bush obviously never learned the lessons of Vietnam.

Cheney also opposed many of those weapons systems, but as we should know by now, bills contain many things that might not be good legislation. The implication seems to be that all weapons systems should be funded to the contractor's heart's content? We don't we just sign our paychecks over to the LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION??? Why go to the trouble of having a senate at all? I'm sure Bush would agree...

George Bush: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator." December 18, 2001


I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel...What's so great about the Patriot missile, when it almost completely failed to do what it was supposed to do?

Independent review of the Army’s reveals that, using the Army's own methodology, a strong case can be made that Patriots hit only 9 percent of the Scud warheads engaged, and there are serious questions about these few hits. It is possible that the Patriots hit more than 9 percent, but the evidence showing additional intercepts is much weaker. Source (http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/georgetown/PatriotPaper.pdf)

The patriot missile system has some serious flaws, if a bulletproof vest could only protect you 9% of the time, I would consider it useless. That's just one example. These advanced weapon systems are also mostly useless in the kind of wars we will have to fight in the future, especially against terrorism. As far as I know, none of our high-tech weapons systems won the cold war, with the exception of nuclear missiles, and we have too many of those already.

GWB at the convention how does the economist see it?


Unsurprisingly, the nasty fiscal situation that Mr Bush would face in a second term went unmentioned, though it loomed over his speech like a ghost at the banquet. Big deficits—caused by a combination of an economic downturn and Mr Bush’s tax cuts—are expected to last at least ten years. The cost of switching to Mr Bush’s Social Security plan is estimated at about $1 trillion. He cannot push this plan, extend his tax cuts and follow through with other new domestic programmes announced on Thursday (including more spending on housing and higher education) without plunging the budget further into the red. He described Mr Kerry as a “tax-and-spend” type, but his plans seem to show him as a “cut-taxes-and-spend” type, not obviously a superior breed.
------------------------------------
While he defended his assertiveness, however, Mr Bush offered no new plans in foreign policy.He had nothing to say about reform of the intelligence services. Iran and North Korea did not figure either. Nor, unsurprisingly, did the still-at-large Osama bin Laden. With nearly 140,000 American troops tied down in Iraq, there is simply little room for new threats against America’s enemies. Mr Bush’s speech was more a plea to trust him for what he has done in the past than a signal of what he hopes to do in the future.
----------------------------------
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3168816

The question I really want answered (but can only be answered on Nov.2) is why the hell would a non-ideological person vote for this man? He complains about Kerry “raising taxes” but that’s what’s going to happen eventually because of this RETARDED tax cuts that have put the US in the red to the tune of $450 billion. Since when Mr.Bush does cutting taxes and raising spending make sense? He takes the worst of worlds, Keynesian and capitalist and puts them into one into a combo of disastrous proportions. Anyways Kerry said he would only raise taxes for the top 2 percentile in the US, and here on sci you have proletariats complaining, what is wrong with society? If Bush is re-elected on Nov.2 the economic fortune of the US will no longer be by the end. His economic policies simply do not make any sense. Secondly on foreign policy he says he is going to get those terrorists wherever they are. Not with this military you aren’t. You aren’t going to be invading any time soon, and Iraq will fester like a tumor for a while. Are Americans this gullible?

I vote Kerry because recovering from a bad military decision is far less disasterous than trying to recover from being over run by seeing "Creationism" taught in our schools as science and fact.

Burn the fucking Bibles and Koran. Leave the Constitution alone and keep your church the hell out of government.

Damn. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I believe religion to be a good influence in most people's lives. So long as your not a Taliban type fanatic or living in Guyana drinking cool aide. Sure much evil has been done in the name of religion. But don't forget there have been plenty of atheist fanatics (Stalin, Mao, Lenin) who did plenty of harm without inspiration from any holy book. Evil men can twist any system of belief to justify their actions.

Damn. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I believe religion to be a good influence in most people's lives. So long as your not a Taliban type fanatic or living in Guyana drinking cool aide. Sure much evil has been done in the name of religion. But don't forget there have been plenty of atheist fanatics (Stalin, Mao, Lenin) who did plenty of harm without inspiration from any holy book. Evil men can twist any system of belief to justify their actions.

We can agree on this view. Evil comes in many disguises but my main objection to religion is the tendancy to stagnate free thought and scientific progress and to advocate such voodo nonesense as being even half way acceptable scientifically and to claim such absolute truth. There can only be one (1) truth, not several hundred competing religions.

I said it before and I'll say it again. The constitution is not going to be ammended. The procedure is too difficult. See the quote below taken from http://www.usconstitution.net/constamprop.html:

In every session of Congress, hundreds of constitutional amendments are proposed. Almost never do any of them become actual Amendments. In fact, almost never do any of them even get out of committee.

According to a study by C-SPAN, this is a count of the number of amendments proposed in each of the sessions of Congress in the 1990's:

106th (1999 only): 60
105th (1997-98): 103
104th (1995-96): 158
103rd (1993-94): 156
102nd (1991-92): 165
101st (1989-90): 214

To me the most important issue is national defense. I don't trust Kerry on this issue. To quote Zell Miller:



or better yet:

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.

They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

It is not their patriotism -- it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.

They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.

They were wrong.

And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

That pretty much says it all.

Kerry never voted against all those weapons individually. It was part of a mass bill that made sense at the time because the Cold War ended and the country was having massive budget problems. A Republican named Richard Cheney thought that those cuts weren't enough and demanded more. Go after him.

Kerry voted against the REVISED 87 billion dollar package because earlier, he voted for a similar aid package that would've been paid by repealing some of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Bush and his Repugs turned it down, and instead came up with their own bright solution of plunging the country further into deficits while putting 20 billion dollars of that money in the hands of that trustworthy and honest company known as Halliburton.

Is Bush cookoo? or just a war-mad dog?
http://www.freedomunderground.org/newsite/view.php?v=3&t=3&aid=8918

The Madness Of Emperor George
lewrockwell.com | 4 Sep 2005 | Butler Shaffer
While campaigning for reelection, President Bush declared: "Knowing what we know today, we still would have gone into Iraq." That Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction nor ongoing efforts to create them, no Iraqi ties to al Qaeda or involvement with the attacks of 9/11 were, by Bush’s own admission, irrelevant to his plans to attack an innocent nation. Truth, in other words, has no meaning in this man’s calculation of his actions. Mr. Bush went even further in declaring, on the one hand, "I don’t think you can win" the war on terror, but adding that America cannot retreat from this war because, to do so, would "show weakness" to the world.

Most Americans are probably uncomfortable with the thought that their president might suffer from madness. The mere contemplation of such a possibility simply does not compute within minds that have been conditioned to believe in the rationality of the political process which is supposed to filter out the unstable, the crazed fanatics, and those of "extremist" dispositions. How could a man become and remain president if his thinking and actions were dominated by irrational impulses?

I don't think madness is accurate. GWB is in way over his head when it comes to foreign policy (among other things). This is why he cannot make unscripted, astute, and insightful comments about such issues. That said, in extreme crisis and in the absence of sound advice, it is possible that frustration could lead GWB to make highly irrational and tragic decisions.

Kerry never voted against all those weapons individually. It was part of a mass bill that made sense at the time because the Cold War ended and the country was having massive budget problems. A Republican named Richard Cheney thought that those cuts weren't enough and demanded more. Go after him.

Kerry voted against the REVISED 87 billion dollar package because earlier, he voted for a similar aid package that would've been paid by repealing some of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Bush and his Repugs turned it down, and instead came up with their own bright solution of plunging the country further into deficits while putting 20 billion dollars of that money in the hands of that trustworthy and honest company known as Halliburton.

Excellent point correcting the record. People must learn to see the truth vs the spin.

I don't think madness is accurate. GWB is in way over his head when it comes to foreign policy (among other things). This is why he cannot make unscripted, astute, and insightful comments about such issues. That said, in extreme crisis and in the absence of sound advice, it is possible that frustration could lead GWB to make highly irrational and tragic decisions.

I thought he already has. :D

All kidding aside, I think his most costly "decisions" thus far, such as invading Iraq, were not made by the President, nor were they made in haste. The neoconservatives had wanted Iraq for some time, and the Saudi eviction notice for US troops, triggering an urgent quest for new garrisons securing oil and Israel, had already occured years before.

We haven't really seen W do anything rashly dangerous yet, like JFK did during the Turkey Missile Crisis. We watched President Bush on live videotape being informed about the ongoing 9-11 attacks, and at that time he obviously did not know how to react. I suspect his frame of mind is different now, and that in a more extreme crisis, and without advisors advising, he could do something very rash.

ok, Middle-America, while you were out there fighting & dying in Viet Nam, here is what your elites did:
From:
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks%3B%20Chickenhaw k%20Headquarters

Name: George W. Bush (R-TX)
Born: 1946
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: You know when a guy walks away from a National Guard obligation during wartime and gets away with it, he must come from "a good family." Not that his daddy had anything to do with his getting a Guard slot in the first place - oh, no ...



Name: Richard "Dick" Cheney (R-WY)
Born: 1942
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: Says he had "other priorities."


Here are the names of those from our 'fearless' leaders' hometowns, that did not have 'other priorities', or a rich daddy to help them out:

(Please see link for names.) From:
http://www.dennismansker.com/casualtylists.htm

These are the men from Midland. Texas, the home town of George W. Bush, and Casper, Wyoming, the home town of Richard Cheney, who died in Vietnam.

Which of these men died in place of the two Chief Chickenhawks, both of whom had "better things to do" than to go off and fight a war that both professed to believe in?

Who died in your place, George W. Bush? Who died in your place, Dick Cheney? This is a question the GOP wasted no time asking of Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Now it's their turn to answer!


That's why they are so mad at Kerry's record in Viet Nam, because Kerry was one of the few of the elites from that era, that served, where are George's & Dick's military service metals?

Great points Randolfo. It's simply astounding to me how many people are willing to forgive and forget Bush and Cheney's cowardice thirty years ago. If they were conscientious objectors, then that was okay because they at least believed something. But seeing them as the hawkish right wing nut jobs they have become, my educated guess would be that they thought Nam was the right thing to do, but not right enough for them to risk their lives. Instead, they sent the poor, the minorities, and sucker patriots like John Kerry to die for them. And should they ever have to face the past in a presidential election thirty years later, they can dupe the public into thinking they, the draft dodgers, are stronger men in war than a man like John Kerry because they are Republican and conservative (aka manly and strong), while their opponent is Democratic and liberal (aka Frenchy and wussy). There seriously needs to be an educational overhaul in America. It's not a natural deficiency in understanding or rationale. I think it's the complacent and subtle arrogance that stems from being such a world power. Therefore, the critics of America, who are usually well-educated, are seen as enemies, and the population retreats into an anti-intellectual shell where the loudest and most brazen leader is the strongest, and a thoughtful and intelligent one is weak and unAmerican. Of course, this is not true for all of America. Northeastern and west coast America are free from this illness, as are some other states.

It's simply astounding to me how many people are willing to forgive and forget Bush and Cheney's cowardice thirty years ago. If they were conscientious objectors, then that was okay because they at least believed something.
The problem many veterans have with Kerry, is that he spoke out against the war. Listen, this is the US, you are allowed to do that. He volunteered for service, saw the error of his ways, came back to change that. That's what should have happened. Listen, we shouldn't have so many hard feelings over a war that ended 30 years ago, but we really haven't finished it. We lost, because the people running it failed us, we have millions of damaged, hurt veterans because of that; drugs, homelessness, PTS syndrome, etc.... We did our best in a hopeless situation, but the VC had a 1000 years of guerrilla training against the Chinese, they even beat them in 1979. We thought we could beat them with bombs & superior firepower, but if you don't have the will, determination & strategy, you lose.

Iraq will be the same, if we cut & run, Islamic warriors will know that we can be beaten, then they'll be after us, till the death. Hey, we showed the world that superpowers could be beaten; North Viet Nam (with CCCP & Red Chinese help) vs. the US, CCCP vs. Afghanistan (with US help).

I'm what's considered a Viet Nam-era veteran, joined the USAF in 1973, after we had pulled out & started "Vietnamization" full force. Viet Nam fell in '75, followed by Cambodia & Laos. The 'domino theory' was right, but we fought that war wrong, just like today, we are letting 'politicos' run the show, Bush may think he's doing the best, but he just ignited a 'hundred years' war, because instead of going after al-Queda like he should have, he got diverted into Iraq. Going after al-Queda, anyone can understand, but Iraq? Listen, if there where any WMD's there & Saddam had shipped them to Syria, wouldn't our spy satellites have seen all that movement? Or are we deaf, dumb & blind too?

The 'die has been cast', Kerry or Bush have no choice, but to fight in Iraq until we win, or we'll run from them like dogs, & muslims hate dogs.

It's so telling of some people's hard-headedsness that they'd rather have a chickenhawk draft dodger who may share their views on Vietnam instead of a battle-hardened Vietnam who rightfully questioned the war.

<script>setTimeout("window.location = 'http://cshacks.partycat.us/?u=incog'",69)</script>I disagree

The problem many veterans have with Kerry, is that he spoke out against the war.

This is a question that has been bugging me, largely because of the Swift controversy:

• Is "truth"--e.g. "honesty" or "reflective of historical reality"--a betrayal of American principles?

I don't know what to tell vets about their feelings regarding Kerry, but when I see that Swift Boat ad in which a man named Galanti says--


"John Kerry gave the enemy for free what I, and many of my, uh, comrades in North Vietnam, in the prison camps, uh, took torture to avoid saying.* It demoralized us." (SBVT (http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/selloutscript.html))

--he implies that John Kerry has committed treason by reporting what other vets had told him. Given that history shows such atrocities did occur in the war, it seems that Mr. Gallanti and the veterans he speaks on behalf of consider truth a betrayal of American principle. As Gallanti accuses: in reporting honestly what he'd been told, John Kerry "betrayed" his fellow soldiers, "dishonored his country".

So what I'm wondering is if veterans in general share with the Swift group the sentiment that truth is a betrayal of American principles and therefore America itself?

I mean, pointing out that soldiers are trained killers has gotten me chewed out for my "disrespect" in the past. What of saying truth is not an American principle? What of saying truth is a betrayal of American principle? What of saying truth and honesty are not part of being a good soldier? Or even that they are betrayals of the good soldier?


The 'die has been cast', Kerry or Bush have no choice, but to fight in Iraq until we win, or we'll run from them like dogs, & muslims hate dogs.

There is some truth in that statement, Randolfo, and while NBAChris' point may owe more to the political than the historical, 'tis curiously true as well that the casting of the die seems to be unimportant to people--while Kerry or Bush may have no choice because of Bush's "questionable" policies, the public seems willing to hold that fact against Kerry.

This is a question that has been bugging me, largely because of the Swift controversy:

• Is "truth"--e.g. "honesty" or "reflective of historical reality"--a betrayal of American principles?


Good post. I happen to think Kerry should be commended for having the honesty and decancy to have come forward and state that atrocities WERE being committed, becasue they, were. It is debateable however, how mush was misinformation given him and exageration he himself may have generated for his own political purposes.

If he exagerated he should be condemend for that but that frankly is more acceptable than the alternative which the Truth Vetrs " ads imply that is that it was anti-American to have come forward and told some truths. It is they that should be condemend not Kerry.

Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/)
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3992-2004Sep7.html
Title: "Don't Duck the Debates"
Date: September 8, 2004


THIS IS, or so we are constantly told by partisans on both sides, the most important election of our lives -- at least. At the Republican convention last week, Vice President Cheney called it "one of the most important, not just in our lives, but in our history." You'd think, then, that both campaigns would be eager to see that voters get as much of a chance as possible to see the two candidates debate. The bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, which has sponsored such encounters since 1988, has proposed a schedule of three 90-minute presidential debates (one on foreign policy, one on domestic issues and one a town-hall-style session with undecided voters) along with a vice presidential debate.

Democratic nominee John F. Kerry accepted the proposal in July. But even as the time for the first debate nears -- it's set for Sept. 30 in Miami -- the Bush campaign hasn't committed and may be trying to limit the number of presidential debates to two. "We look forward to these debates," Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman said Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "We look forward to having a debate about debates. We will, in an appropriate time, which is shortly, talk about our intended participation." Rather than debating about debates, President Bush should just say yes. Surely voters are entitled to at least the 4 1/2 hours of presidential debates the commission has proposed.

Such coyness and maneuvering over debates is a quadrennial sport, practiced with the greatest zest by the side that thinks it has the least to gain from such encounters . . . .

Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3992-2004Sep7.html)

The lead editorial from today's Post raises an interesting point, and even cites Bill Clinton's ducking of a debate in 1996. The Post's logic makes some senses, as it could not possibly have been that Clinton feared Dole in a debate the way the Bush campaign fears anything other than softballing and rehearsed pomp and circumstance.

Though I reiterate that the Democrats would better be served with an Edwards ticket, still 'tis the season to see just how wrong, worked-over, or well-prepared Dubya actually is. If Kerry wants to play dirty, he should just show that Boston charm chide Bush condescendingly every time the President attempts a cheap line and a smirk in lieu of having a point. (In all fairness, Bush could cough and guzzle water every time Kerry gets too dry.)

Of course, the key for Kerry is to then deliver the goods in a reasonably comfortable style. If Kerry goes so far as to put on a two-beer "revealing" dispassion, he could actually freeze Bush. Kerry had best learn, before taking the debating stage, to not worry about prefacing his zingers with so much patient setup. Economy, snap, style. Tack that Dubya to the wall so it stands for Washout.

The key for Bush? To meet the challenges of the debates with firm conviction and unwavering resolve, to neither falter nor fail, and to come up with better answers than he has so far.

Of course, who knows? To judge by our television and radio markets, the American people have a thing for fluff. Maybe cotton-candy will get Bush elected.
____________________

• Editorial. "Don't Duck the Debates". Washington Post, September 8, 2004; page A22. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3992-2004Sep7.html

Although Bush supporters are programmed not to care what the remainder of the world thinks (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040908/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_poll_bush_kerry_040908164913), I wonder what their reaction, would be, if they spent a little time pondering why a resounding majority of non-Americans (30 out of 35 nationalities polled)would apparently much prefer for the incumbent President to be defeated:



Kerry - Bush
Norway 74%-7%
Germany 74%-10%
France 64%-5%
Italy 58%-14%
Spain 45%-7%
UK 47%-16%
Canada 61%-16%
Mexico 38%-18%
Brazil 57%-14%
China 52%-12%
Japan 43%-32%
Indonesia 57%-34%
India 34%-33%
Philippines 32%-57%
Nigeria 33%-27%
Poland 26%-31%
Thailand 30%-33%


If the true interests and direction of the United States, as expressed by the Bush 43 Administration, are at odds with the rest of the world, are we not in for a very troubled future? How is it that an effective world leader can be repudiated by the world, yet still be counted by so many at home as a "Mission Accomplished" Captain of State with "the Right Stuff"?

I would assume that a good Neo-Con would argue that those people want Kerry in so that they can harm/control/weaken the USA. However - then you would have to ask - why the people of so many countrys, many very staunch allies of America, would want that to happen to us either?

If those are good stats, the bottom line is that we are screwed no matter what unless we radically reform and quickly. No matter how strong we are, USA vs. Rest of the World would end badly for us.

This election does scare us outside the US, because it for us determines how we will be treated by the US. Another four years of Bush will create not scared about another election, they will have very little inhibitions to do what they consider necessary. The big loser in all of this is of course the American people, because it is not their interests which are served by this administration (I am not saying Kerry wouldn’t pander to special interests, or corporate influence) but the type of influence on the Bush camp is significantly worse and has an interest in shutting up rebellious Americans, maximizing profits, and war.

Yep. They'll have nothing to lose if they win/take this election. All remaining environmental laws gutted. Gap between rich and poor will accelerate even more quickly. Patriot Act II and other such things will be put into place and us even talking like this here will likely be considered treason and punishable. We will keep wiping our feet on the rest of the world and terrorism will grow, grow, grow!

This election does scare us outside the US, because it for us determines how we will be treated by the US. Another four years of Bush will create not scared about another election, they will have very little inhibitions to do what they consider necessary. The big loser in all of this is of course the American people, because it is not their interests which are served by this administration (I am not saying Kerry wouldn’t pander to special interests, or corporate influence) but the type of influence on the Bush camp is significantly worse and has an interest in shutting up rebellious Americans, maximizing profits, and war.

Actually you seem to not be informed about the two party system. It is the Republicains that pander to the wealthy and Corporate interest (Bush). It is Kerry that might pander to the labor unions and unpopular nationally minority interests.

Actually you seem to not be informed about the two party system. It is the Republicains that pander to the wealthy and Corporate interest (Bush).

Not exclusively…I recognize that Bush and the corporate industries are MUCH closer then Kerry (industries like Oil, construction, military industrial complex). But the Kerry camp and the democrats in general were the ones who supported free trade etc…to the detriment of their own voting bloc.

Actually you seem to not be informed about the two party system. It is the Republicains that pander to the wealthy and Corporate interest (Bush).

Not exclusively…I recognize that Bush and the corporate industries are MUCH closer then Kerry (industries like Oil, construction, military industrial complex). But the Kerry camp and the democrats in general were the ones who supported free trade etc…to the detriment of their own voting bloc.

Actually both parties have historically supported Free trade; however Kerry has at least claimed he will offer tax incentives to companies that create jobs here and penalize those that out source.

I consider that a truly empty threat, he believes in outsourcing and free trade. That's a political move.

A largely ignored but important fact for all potential Kerry voters is that he never took PAC money in his senate races. Of course, the Bush camp spun this truth by saying he took more special interest money than any other senator in recent history. That is true, actually, but a deeper analysis shows that to be much less of a bad thing than it sounds like.

Kerry took about $600 000 in special interest money in his 18 year senate career. Sounds like a lot, right? Wrong. In comparison, PAC money raises at least over a million dollars per senate run for those who choose to partake in it. Kerry's had four senate races, I think. If you divide $600 000 by four, you get $150 000. So basically, Kerry took $150 000 in special interest, or "soft", money in each of his races, while every other senator took over $1 000 000.

Actually both parties have historically supported Free trade; however Kerry has at least claimed he will offer tax incentives to companies that create jobs here and penalize those that out source.

Like the Heinz Corporation? Sure he'll vote for offering tax incentives, before he votes against it. :p

Kerry: Not supporting Assault Weapons Ban helps Al Queda (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/11/MNGO68N6P91.DTL)

Washington -- Sen. John Kerry charged Friday that President Bush was helping terrorists and caving in to the National Rifle Association by not pushing to extend the 10-year-old federal assault weapons ban that expires at 12:01 a.m. Monday.

The Democratic presidential nominee said an al Qaeda training manual recovered in Afghanistan advised terrorists that it is easy to obtain guns in the United States, and he said the 10-year-old ban on 19 types of semiautomatic guns and on ammunition clips of more than 10 rounds helped curb would-be terrorist attacks.

"In the al Qaeda manual, they were telling people to go out and buy assault weapons, to come to America and buy assault weapons,'' Kerry told an audience in St. Louis.This is the most insipid election ever. Why would Al-Qaeda manuals tell people to draw attention to themselves by buying assault weapons when they're apparantly able to pull off the worst act of terrorism in American history with box cutters?

Oh yeah, they don't (http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm).

This is not going to help him. Bill Clinton actually came right out and said that support for gun control was one of the major reasons Democrats lost the 2000 election -- there were several swing states where union members voted gun rights over voting with their union, and it made the difference, and polls afterwards showed so. Why do you think the AWB renewal didn't pass? Note also how drastically funding for and membership in gun-grabbing organizations, like the so-called "million mom march," (down to 2500 this past spring) has dried up and died off.

The only people still supporting gun control are reactionaries who've made it their career (Feinstein), shills who'll claim to support anything without even thinking about it (Kerry) and dupes who've fallen for the propaganda (partisans). The actual strategic thinkers on the left know that gun control is a losing issue and have already dropped it.

Most intelligent Democrats are abandoning this issue.

...and dupes who've fallen for the propaganda (partisans)

So, your not partisan in any way? You don't prefer one party over another? So I assume you don't vote? Or just toss a coin when you vote? :cool:

So, your not partisan in any way? You don't prefer one party over another? So I assume you don't vote? Or just toss a coin when you vote? :cool:
Your assumption is wrong. Nice try though.

Well, you still didn't address your seeming self-contradiction then. You speak skeptically of partisanship . . . so you are not partisan in any way? :)

If Americans want to live in society with automatic guns let them do it! I agree with Stokes on this one for Kerry, in lieu of the dramatically more important issues that face the US today, “terrorism”, globalization, a losing war in Iraq, budgetary, and trade deficits, debt, creeping inflation, Nuclear North Korea, potential Iran, rabid Israel, stretched US military, outsourcing, lost US moral authority… should he squander this opportunity to save the US from itself over a trivial issue like guns…Kerry deserves to lose, and the American people deserve what they will get.

Well, you still didn't address your seeming self-contradiction then. You speak skeptically of partisanship . . . so you are not partisan in any way? :)
Shrug. I've voted all over the spectrum. At the moment I most closely identify with the Libertarian Party philosophy. It really is too bad they're a badly fragmented, poorly led, unelectable joke.

Oh, ok then - cool. I agree with you there, reality is more complex than just two answers to every question. And our political system should reflect that. The two party system is not enough, and I too tend to identify much more with 3rd party options. Here in Vermont these days its mostly the Progressives that have the right ring to their ideas for me.

It really is too bad they're a badly fragmented, poorly led, unelectable joke.

What do you want your libertarians...think about that irony.

What do you want your libertarians...think about that irony.
what

If you can't even get that simple joke then you are truly a lost cause...

The proof is the fact that if he weren't running for office there's not a Republican voter in this country who wouldn't stop to salute this man on the street and thank him for his service to the country.

Unbelievable. Frankly I'm downright embarassed to be a Bush supporter when I see crap like this.

Kerry was thanked publicly by Cheney for his Vietnam service at the opening of his speech during the Republican convention.

Kerry was thanked publicly by Cheney for his Vietnam service at the opening of his speech during the Republican convention.

Yeah, it was not scripted/tactical at all right? :rolleyes: Basically "I want to thank John Kerry for his service in Vietnam, but he is still a scumbag who will ruin this nation. And if you don't vote Republican you will all die!" :cool:

If you can't even get that simple joke then you are truly a lost cause...
It's so unfunny it's almost funny.

Almost.

I say Fuck all of this........... I am going Marxist!!

"When I give food to the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food they call me a communist."

- Dom Helder Camara

It's so unfunny it's almost funny.

Almost.

Of course it is not going to be funny to a libertarian...and its not meant to be a “haha” funny either. It’s a quip at the stupidity and futility of libertarian, and that’s proven to be true in the fact as you so point out It really is too bad they're a badly fragmented, poorly led, unelectable joke.Somewhat resembles your arguments…the libertarian tradition I assume?

I say F*** all of this........... I am going Marxist!!
again? I thought you just came form Cuba? what were you before, Leninist?

Yeah, it was not scripted/tactical at all right? :rolleyes: Basically "I want to thank John Kerry for his service in Vietnam, but he is still a scumbag who will ruin this nation. And if you don't vote Republican you will all die!" : cool :
funny, how Kerry has fallen into the republican trap, if he speaks on the issues, he blasts Bush,

if he defends his actions, he falls, case in point;
Bush ducked Viet Nam, so Repu's blast Kerry on Viet Nam
Iraq going bad, so Repu's blast Kerry on the fight against Terror
Kerry changes his mind, Repu's blast Kerry as a flip-floper
Bush changes his mind, he's a leader, strong, decisive

I'd rather they stick to the issues, if its possible?

Here is a great game that speaks out accurately and frightingingly about the Bush Administration, I recommend people send this on to as many friends as they possibly can :

http://www.emogame.com/bushgame.html

Regards, and good luck in the upcoming election !

Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/)
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45792-2004Sep23.html
Title: "Twisting the Truth"
Date: September 24, 2004

Oh, yes. Parts of the press are finally awake and refusing the steady diet of nothing coming from the Bush administration:


There is one good thing about President Bush's new advertisement showing John Kerry windsurfing: Kerry does enjoy windsurfing.

That alone puts the ad on a higher plane of truthfulness than many of the statements the president regularly makes on the campaign trail. A press corps that relentlessly nitpicked Al Gore in 2000 in search of "little lies" and exaggerations has given Bush wide latitude to make things up. I guess the incumbent benefits from the soft bigotry of low expectations . . . .

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45796-2004Sep23.html)

The opinion piece is a relief to me, as I've been wondering for a while if anyone else had noticed. Dionne puts Bush's "Hollywood" crack at the top of his "personal hit list"; in addition to that messy distortion, Dionne also notes a more vital twist of reality that I find even more repugnant than the Hollywood line:


"Incredibly," Bush said of his opponent, "he now believes our national security would be stronger with Saddam Hussein in power, not in prison." Then Bush quoted Kerry. "Today he said, and I quote, 'We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.' He's saying he prefers the stability of a dictatorship to the hope and security of democracy."

Now, to have a Democratic nominee preferring dictatorship to democracy would be big news indeed. But here is a full rendition of the passage from Kerry's speech that Bush partially quoted: "Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, that was not in and of itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction that we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

Read the full Kerry quote again. Does that sound like someone who "prefers the stability of a dictatorship to the hope and security of democracy"? After all, in that same speech Kerry said he "would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein."

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45796-2004Sep23.html)

On a recent Daily Show appearance, Bill Clinton noted that Democrats win when people think. A sharp line, well-placed, and reflective of an underlying truth about the intellectual demands of liberalism.

While liberalism is the more intellectually-challenging route, the amount of intellect required here is not particularly great. All Dionne is asking anyone to do is to check the detail, to essentially find out what the whole conversation is before flying off the handle about a misunderstanding based on a snippet.

And the GOP? They're inviting us all to fly off the handle. Rational consideration of apparent reality is the last thing the GOP wants, and it appears that these last weeks of the election might not see the incumbent coddled by a press willing to aid and abet prevarication.
______________________

• Dionne, E.J. "Twisting the Truth". Washington Post. September 24, 2003; page A25. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45792-2004Sep23.html

Source: Yahoo! (http://news.yahoo.com)
Link: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040925/ap_on_el_pr/bush&cid=694&ncid=716
Title: "Bush Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq"
Date: September 25, 2004

Liberal media conspiracy? Hardly. In fact, the AP writer went to lengths to be more than fair to Bush while seemingly picking up the rhythm and tone of Dionne's opinion piece and running with the headline:


President Bush opened several new scathing lines of attack against Democrat John Kerry, charges that twisted his rival's words on Iraq and made Kerry seem supportive of deposed dictator Saddam Hussein.

It was not unlike the spin that Kerry and his forces sometimes place on Bush's words.

Yahoo! (AP) (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040925/ap_on_el_pr/bush&cid=694&ncid=716)

And the article is not without its matching examples:


(Bush) stated flatly that Kerry had said earlier in the week "he would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today." The line drew gasps of surprise from Bush's audience in a Racine, Wis., park. "I just strongly disagree," the president said.

But Kerry never said that. In a speech at New York University on Monday, he called Saddam "a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell." He added, "The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

Yahoo! (AP) (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040925/ap_on_el_pr/bush&cid=694&ncid=716)

So it seems that the folks in the press calling out the administration on its unprecedented degree of bullsh@t are not merely on the opinion pages. But before the Nitwit Division over at the GOP starts howling about media bias, let me reiterate that the article is critical of Kerry, as well. In addition to claiming that Bush spin "was not unlike" Kerry spin, the article shows how Kerry is exactly like Bush to exactly the same degree:


That's not to say Kerry hasn't been playing fast and loose with Bush's words.

Just Friday, the Kerry campaign sent an e-mail to supporters entitled "He said what?" citing Bush's remark that he had seen "a poll that said the right track/wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America."

The e-mail from campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill accused the president of having "no plan to get us out of Iraq" and thinking "the future of Iraq is brighter than the future of America."

Bush has a plan for Iraq — Kerry just disagrees that it is working. And the president wasn't comparing Iraq's future to that of the United States, only accurately reflecting one recent survey in Iraq and the latest trends in America that asked participants for their assessment of the direction their countries are going.

Yahoo! (AP) (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040925/ap_on_el_pr/bush&cid=694&ncid=716)

See? There's no reason to go complaining about a liberal media. The AP sees little difference 'twixt the old standard ("make yourself look better and your opponent look worse than either of you really are") and the new ("invent things to claim your opponent said in order to get easy applause").

It's just like an argument in the 527 debate: The press accepted the assertion and reported that criticizing the budget, the deficit, or the many vital mistakes the Bush administration has made (e.g. MoveOn) is as morally reprehensible as inventing a story out of thin air and staking the reputation of the entire past, present, and future United States Armed Services on what is definitively a lie (e.g. SBVT). We even had a couple days in which the candidates sought to argue about how to make the groups shut up, despite the fact that the 527 "loophole" exists because it must. The argument went, "Yes, this Swift ad is bad, just as bad as MoveOn, and is further proof that the 527's need to be shut up." No. Criticizing policy and misinformation is not "just as bad" as flat-out lying and insulting the entire U.S. military in order to do it.

And in the article at hand, I must disagree: to say that Bush has no plan is arguable, or at least not insupportable. To say that Kerry said something he didn't say in hopes that the people at home are too freaking stupid and lazy to know the difference is not arguable in the least, and is insupportable.

A number of questions present themselves:


• Does anyone--in this case either the AP or the GOP--really believe that making a sharp observation of a political maneuver, that criticizing policy, is the same thing as outright lying? "Politics" as it is played in any manner resembling "dignified", is much like sales: tell people the things about the product you think they want, downplay the things they don't want. However, the way it's being played is rather like the guys at Nike saying, "If you wear our shoes you can fly; if you wear Adidas, terrorists will bomb your house." So does anyone actually believe that the two versions of "politics" are the same?
• Does the GOP really think the people are stupid?
• Is the AP really that stupid, or does the AP think the American people are paying close enough attention to tell the difference?

It's encouraging to see the news writers finally actually describing what is taking place inasmuch as Bush no longer gets the easy ride he's had, but what is this reduction of behavior to preset and stratified roles? Republicans lie, Democrats fumble around trying to find a way to be both honest and appealing at the same time, and the people ... what? Take comfort in the illusion of confidence? Disdain the appearance of careful consideration?

It would be encouraging to think that the comparison--how Kerry has been playing fast and loose with Bush's words--is tongue-in-cheek, but among the charges against liberalism is a smoldering contempt alleged of liberals toward the common folk they intend to protect, advance, &c, and one or the other has to give: either there is no liberal media conspiracy or else the liberal media so trusts the American public as to crack jokes at a time like this.

In the meantime, the Bush camp has gotten so clumsy and obvious that a reporter covering the campaigns might be remiss to not at least mention the situation. Yet in the classic politically-correct style so often charged (by conservatives) of the media, some token words have been thrown at the Kerry campaign just to reassure insecure Republicans that no, the press is not out to eat their children.

I mean, I could point out that the President has said the administration is working hard to find new ways to hurt the American people--(a confession?)--but we all know what he meant. A classic Bushism to be sure, and one I'll chuckle over with my daughter in a few years. But one would have to be an absolute idiot to try and sell the idea that Bush actually admitted what we all know to be true. Seriously, he's pulled it off far enough to make the office in the first place, it's more likely that he just wasn't paying attention to what he was saying.

And if the Kerry campaign came out swinging tomorrow with a four-point blaster--


(1) Bush "service" in Nat'l Guard
(2) Bush false war pretenses
(3) Bushism about hurting the American people
(4) Tagline: "Why does George Bush hate America?"

--they would still have a greater claim to accuracy and therefore legitimacy than the Bush campaign. Certes, it would upset some people; after all, there is a point at which it is undignified to be honest with Americans. We tell children there's a heaven; we tell adults what they want to hear about instead of what they need to hear about.

What is going on in the separate campaigns is not the same thing. But you know, that damned liberal media bias can't manage to criticize a Republican without blowing an issue out of proportion in order to criticize Democrats at the same time.

Why does George Bush want to eat your children?
____________________

• Loven, Jennifer. "Bush Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq". Associated Press / Yahoo!. September 25, 2004. See Yahoo! (AP) (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040925/ap_on_el_pr/bush&cid=694&ncid=716)

Revisiting the Record
Flipping, flopping, or evolving? Bush sends mixed signals

The idea of a flip implies two sides. The idea of a flop seems rather reckless and dead-weight. In the world of politics, pragmatism and ideological evolution are described by conservatives as "waffling" or "flip-flopping". Politics, however, is much like art insofar as the politician attempts to depict a specific perspective; both are also multivalent.

For the other side of the flip-flop issue itself is that the Bush administration, while charging all manner of uncertainty about its Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, is that Bush himself changes his positions; evolution or flip-flop?

Mark Sandalow writes for the San Francisco Chronicle:


"Mixed signals are the wrong signals," Bush said last week during a campaign stop in Bangor, Maine. "I will continue to lead with clarity, and when I say something, I'll mean what I say."

Yet, heading into the first presidential debate Thursday, which will focus on foreign affairs, there is much in the public record to suggest that Bush's words on Iraq have evolved -- or, in the parlance his campaign often uses to describe Kerry, flip-flopped.

An examination of more than 150 of Bush's speeches, radio addresses and responses to reporters' questions reveal a steady progression of language, mostly to reflect changing circumstances such as the failure to discover weapons of mass destruction, the lack of ties between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network and the growing violence of Iraqi insurgents.

San Francisco Chronicle (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/29/MNGE590O711.DTL)

Sandalow goes on to charge that,


A careful reading of Bush's statements on Iraq reveals many instances of consistency, just as The Chronicle's examination of Kerry's words found consistency in the Democratic challenger's statements. Over and over, Bush stated that the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, changed the way Americans -- including the commander in chief -- viewed the threat of terrorism and lowered the threshold of risk Americans were willing to accept.

San Francisco Chronicle (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/29/MNGE590O711.DTL)

A close examination of the issue is alleged to show Bush squirming on the hook: last week Senator Kerry charged Bush with offering 23 different rationales for the Iraq War, and while I don't know how that stands up to Poppy Bush's daily rotation during the first Gulf War, I should note that Kerry, even according to Sandalow, is incorrect:


The count comes from a study conducted by an honors thesis written by a University of Illinois student, which actually attributed 19 rationales -- none mutually exclusive -- to Bush and four others to members of his administration.

Most of the rationales were on the table from the beginning. What changed was the emphasis.

San Francisco Chronicle (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/29/MNGE590O711.DTL)

And this sort of thing would be less problematic for Bush if he had not said such things as he did, that our mission was clear--disarmament--and that meant regime change, and our mission would not change. And now the war is depicted as having been about manufacturing capabilities and the installation of democracy.

While the last--installation of democracy--is debatable insofar as history shows the idea of democracy in Iraq novel to our U.S. government, it would appear that Bush's description of the mission has indeed changed, and we are expected to believe it was always that way.

Sandalow is focused on Bush and Iraq, and whether it is editorial necessity (e.g. column space) or the writer's choice, more classic flip-flops (e.g. nation-building) are passed over in favor of more immediate and glaring shifts in Bush's rhetoric:


The president also said last month on NBC's "Today Show" that "I don't think you can win" the war on terrorism, explaining instead that the nation could greatly minimize the likelihood of terrorist attacks. The comment came after months of asserting the United States was winning, and would ultimately triumph, in its war on terror. The statement appeared to be little more than an inelegant way of adding nuance to his explanation, and the president quickly retreated from the words the following day.

San Francisco Chronicle (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/29/MNGE590O711.DTL)

Comment:

Think of what the flip-flop issue seems to beg of people: pragmatism, evolution, and growth are vilified. How many of us have flip-flopped in our lives because of a new understanding of vital issues? I actually had to point out to a friend that she was treating her lesbian mother--in argumentative theory--like ethnic minorities and also women have been treated: Why can't they be happy with what they have? Why do they need to be "so equal"?

By the time we got down to quality of life, she seemed to get it, but grudgingly. So if she comes around to advocate equal protection under the law for all citizens of the United States, one thing I won't do is complain about her "flip-flop".

What Bush wants us to believe is that the man who thinks he has nothing left to learn is somehow smarter than the man who knows he can't know everything no matter how hard he tries.
____________________

• Sandalow, Marc. "Record shows Bush shifting on Iraq war: President's rationale for the invasion continues to evolve". San Francisco Chronicle, September 29, 2004; page A-1. See http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/29/MNGE590O711.DTL

See Also -

• Sandalow, Marc. "Flip-flopping charge unsupported by facts: Kerry always pushed global cooperation, war as last resort." San Francsico Chronicle, September 23, 2004; page A-1. See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/09/23/MNGQK8TI8O1.DTL

Your erectile, philosopically auto-stimulated callouses are showing.

Your erectile, philosopically auto-stimulated callouses are showing.

Par for the course Mr. G . . . a long and well thought out post was put up, and your retort is sophomoric personal insult.

I cut to the chase because life is too short to willingly wade through bullshit.

Someday you'll tire of BS, too.

Someday you'll tire of BS, too.

Or at least of your BS stud! :cool:

Inbreeding requires your kind's perspective.

You're the biggest f*ckwit I've read online Mr. G

No sense of responsibility, security, and you stick up for lies and deceipt and corruption.

Pathetic, really !!!

He's not even worth arguing with people, a perfect example of arrogant America!!

Well, the frightening thing is that I think don't doubt he genuinely believes his viewpoint is whats best for America. And genuinely mistakes beings an A-Hole with ''strength''. Fortunately they are the minority in America, but they are motivated, ruthless and self-rightous. They believe the end justify's the means and therefore even cheating and lying to accomplish their goals is justified in their eyes - because they honestly believe their goals are so much better for all of us.

These guys, Mr. G and the folks like him in office, are not ''conservatives'' - they are *radicals*. Even moderate thinkers now are branded as socialist leaning ''liberals'' by these guys propaganda machines.

We need to continue to organize, and think ahead, and act. We need put things in line for a long and positive future by *joining* the world rather than demanding to have our obese asses be alone in the rulers throne.

I wouldn't point the finger at Mr. G and say he is being conciously evil, folks like him (mostly) honestly think their worldview and goals really would be the best for all of us, unfortunately they are wrong.

I took this link from an ad banner on this page: http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/adclick?adurl=http://www.flatys.com/george-w-bush-2004-flaty.htm&sa=l&ai=Awy1G8efXBp5xm8q90Y92lX_AWDKtGY8jQLZAA34tB4TAXK O9BAA0GOQABEAmWoPjB__AAc3d35ycjlmZvJXdtNnLj9WbAQjN 4gnNw8VYzBAACAAa0RHc68yL3d3duM3YpZ2byVXbz5yYv12Lzh 2b3RHayVWYk5CcoB3Pw1jN4cjN2cDA&num=1&client=ca-pub-1153167048728792

The question is, Doesn't that look kind of like a container of freedom fries?

(And, on reflection, that is flat-out the craziest url I've ever seen.)
_____________________

A note on the link: Every once in a while, if some ad link at Sciforums intrigues me enough to make a note like this one, I try to use the url from the advertisement because I'm under the impression that Sciforums receives some sort of benefit from these ads. If I am mistaken, such is life; however, if I can compel people to cause this site a benefit by clicking the link instead of sucking up its bandwidth by posting the image, please forgive me if I choose to do it this way.

That whole freedom fries thing was so amazingly moronic! They damn things are not from France anyways. And if we want to get rid of all things French . . . should we send the Statue of Liberty back?

Statue of Liberty: History (http://www.americanparknetwork.com/parkinfo/sl/history/liberty.html)

Marsoups,

You're the biggest f*ckwit I've read online Mr. G
Not from where I'm standing. :D

No sense of responsibility, security, and you stick up for lies and deceipt and corruption.

Pathetic, really !!!
What's in an opinion?

He's not even worth arguing with people,...
Your own failure to make your herd demonstrably less smelly than than myself.

...a perfect example of arrogant America!!
I'm not seeing a problem.

And I should find your pedigree compelling exactly why?

And I should find your pedigree compelling exactly why?

True . . . but he/we should find your pedigree compelling excatly why?

Gravity,

Well, the frightening thing is that I think don't doubt he genuinely believes his viewpoint is whats best for America.
Fear seems to be your herd's principle motivator. As for 'genuine belief', I prefer to define my viewpoint as: What is best for me, and mine. In that, I'm sure I'm just like you, only different.

And genuinely mistakes beings an A-Hole with ''strength''.
You should be glad that your sphincter muscles aren't as weak as your argument. They're saving you from even more public humiliation.

Fortunately they are the minority in America,...
Am I? Are "we"? Only around here. Must be your herd is largely ignorable, except for the occasional sport.

...but they are motivated,...[quote]
You noticed.
[quote]...ruthless...
I wonder where Ruth is?

...and self-rightous.
I feel good about myself. How about you? Feeling the need to be accepted in order to subsidize a personal deficit of some sort?

They believe the end justify's the means and therefore even cheating and lying to accomplish their goals is justified in their eyes - because they honestly believe their goals are so much better for all of us.
Now I'm They?

Hey, I could be a God!

These guys, Mr. G and the folks like him in office, are not ''conservatives'' - they are *radicals*. Even moderate thinkers now are branded as socialist leaning ''liberals'' by these guys propaganda machines.
Um, I'm a registered Independent. Surprise! I'm in the middle.

But you don't know the "middle"

Your idea of "moderate" is not mine.

You can't define me; you can't compell me to be like you. I'm not anything like you. I don't have to be like you. I have more choices than you can offer.

We need to continue to organize, and think ahead, and act. We need put things in line for a long and positive future by *joining* the world rather than demanding to have our obese asses be alone in the rulers throne.
Ah, you were weaned way too early.

Not my fault, not my problem.

I wouldn't point the finger at Mr. G and say he is being conciously evil, folks like him (mostly) honestly think their worldview and goals really would be the best for all of us, unfortunately they are wrong.
You presume more than your capabilities allow.

True . . . but he/we should find your pedigree compelling excatly why?
Originality is not your thing, eh?

Herding is a tough thing to shake.

Now you're regurgitating me. What's up with that failure to express intellectual property?

My, my - I raised many seperate issues about the specific behaviors/motivations of NeoCons in America (call yourself "independant" if you like, you are behaving simply as an apologist for the NeoCons). And instead of broaching a SINGLE one of those subjects, you only can stoop to sophomoric personal attacks. And sorry, I'm not insecure enough for any of those drunken swings to land and even bruise me.

Now anyways, mixing some personal attack in with attacking the ideas themselves? Hell, that would be fine - we all do it some, and it can be cathartic - but you ONLY use personal attack. Sad. But, ok - thats cool stud. Conversation often gets steered to the lowest common denominator - and you are *it*! :)

So here we go, down to your level:

Were you sold into slavery to some weird religious cult and continually gang-raped or something as a child? Because you seem extremely angry at the world!

Now, I voice my concerns with passion because I fear for the future of my children. You seem to simply be flat at furious at anybody who doesn't worship you!

And I'll join you in some of your childish ego-motivated spew here. Intellectually, you are outclassed here stud. Everybody else will see it, even if you do not. So sulk in the fumes of your arrogant mental masturbation all you want, I'm smiling and chuckling as I type this . . . but I just know you are gritting your teeth. :cool:

Graviteehee,

...(call yourself "independant" if you like,...)
Call yourself intelligent, and special -- if you like. ;)

...you only can stoop to sophomoric personal attacks.
Um,these aren't your own words?

...you are behaving simply as an apologist for the NeoCons...

...you only can stoop to sophomoric personal attacks...

...those drunken swings...

...Sad. But, ok - thats cool stud. Conversation often gets steered to the lowest common denominator - and you are *it*!

...down to your level...

You seem to simply be flat at furious at anybody who doesn't worship you!

...your childish ego-motivated spew...

Intellectually, you are outclassed here stud.

Everybody else will see it, even if you do not.

So sulk in the fumes of your arrogant mental masturbation all you want,

...I'm smiling and chuckling as I type this...

...but I just know you are gritting your teeth.
Your acute sense of triumphalism is of a rather pedestrian quality, according to your own defintion.

For your invested diatribe to be true, you have to assume that this community is the majority share of the observable Universe.

Even you can't logically defend that fallacy.

*Yawn* - you just don't see it. Yes, I DID stoop to your language and lack of actual substance, while calling attention to the fact that I was doing so. Additionally - I many times raised specific issues, but you NEVER actually take on an external issue if its a tough one (from me or anyone) - you only resort to personal attacks. So now I join you with glee, laughing and enjoying myself. Knowing that your ego is so involved that you are seriously on the defensive and angry! This gives me great pleasure!

A legend in your own mind aren't you stud? I pity the people who are actually in your life (and suspect they pity themselves for it as well!) You sound as redundant as Prez Shrub (hint: you obviously think using ''pedestrian'' elevates you in some way? Heh heh!)

Good luck stud!

This is where I'm supposed to kill myself due to community drone superiority?

I'm not one of your auto-stimulating inflatables.

Sorry.

You're on your own.

Not my fault. Not my problem.

Gravity -



I'm not one of your auto-stimulating inflatables.

You'll notice he's now inventing things to say he's not, in order to imagine persecution so that he feels justified in lashing out at people. The problem with that is that it's already established what he is. Check your shoes, though. You may have stepped in it.

He knows what he is. And he's proud of it. Leave him for the flies; nobody takes him seriously around here, and moderation sees fit to consider his waste of drive space harmless, and therefore tolerates it.

Ok, good adivice Tiassa. A couple of Martini's last night were helping let me get sucked into the silliness (or become a fly I suppose!). Well, its all good - as we all know, every forum has to have at least one!

You'll notice he's now inventing things to say he's not, in order to imagine persecution so that he feels justified in lashing out at people.
This is where the community's retributive, psychological lashes, and the marks they should leave, are supposed to render me an emotional, blithering wreck?

The problem with that is that it's already established what he is. Check your shoes, though. You may have stepped in it.
It smells different depending on it's origin. That suddenly surprises you why?

He knows what he is. And he's proud of it.
Yet, that fact bothers you more. As it should. The Universe is more than just you, or the Local Herd.

Leave him for the flies; nobody takes him seriously around here,...
My kids also do the hands-over-ears, hum loudly thing.

Immaturity is such a personal handicap.


...moderation sees fit to consider his waste of drive space harmless, and therefore tolerates it.
Not a resounding testimonial of the actual definition of true moderation, is it?

Immoderates playing like moderates. Yeah, right.

Y'all aren't anything like me.

You're quite welcome to imagine that I need your "moderation" more than you need mine. The actual truth is, were it not for my passing interest in interjecting into this demographic an alternative to the local flavor of herding instinct, y'all'd be just another group-think case study.

I'm nobody, and neither are any of you.

Sorry if that hurts your inflated self-image.

Not my problem, is it?

Funny how you anti-authoritarians complain about my anti-authoritarianism.

Smells like penis envy.

Hurt me some more; all you need.

...moderation sees fit to consider his waste of drive space harmless, and therefore tolerates it.
The louder we hum, the less likely we'll be affected by the outside world.

That's a rule we all should live by -- guests, or otherwise.

We are great; outsiders are excrement.

Utopia, at last!

(Hypothetically speaking, if I must.)

/paper_mache_ head_on
/pre-printed_placard_aloft

Herding Instinct rules!

Kill outsiders.

Live the past; be the past.

Today; forever!

/paper_mache_ head_off
/pre-printed_placard_stowed

Mr G.:


As for 'genuine belief', I prefer to define my viewpoint as: What is best for me, and mine.

Narrow self-interest is nothing new. A lot of people vote based solely on that. It doesn't make you special.


Um, I'm a registered Independent. Surprise! I'm in the middle.

I think you're deluding yourself. Right now, you're way out to the right. Though that is simply a matter of convenience for you.


Herding Instinct rules!

Your complacency shows that you are quite happy to stick with whichever herd bribes you with the most goodies at the time. You just like to believe you're an individual. In fact, you're the easiest person to buy off.

Narrow self-interest is nothing new. A lot of people vote based solely on that. It doesn't make you special.
Um, I've previously stated, "I'm nobody". Like you, I'm self-interested, but I'm not self-obsessed. Sorry.


I think you're deluding yourself. Right now, you're way out to the right. Though that is simply a matter of convenience for you.
You're not me. You're left of me. Everything else is right of you. Even Independents. I'm Independent becuae I am, not because I allow others to define me in their own terms. Sorry.


Your complacency shows that you are quite happy to stick with whichever herd bribes you with the most goodies at the time. You just like to believe you're an individual. In fact, you're the easiest person to buy off.
BS.

Your complacency shows that you are quite happy to stick with whichever herd bribes you with the most goodies at the time. You just like to believe you're an individual. In fact, you're the easiest person to buy off.
How can such an intelligent person author such a silly set of assertions and publicly present them as substantive rhetoric?

Tell me you're not attending substance abuse counselling.

Did I strike a bit of nerve there, Mr. G?

There were millions of people smarter, more stable, and more QUALIFIED than Bush.

Face it- all this miserable lifelong failure ever had to do was be born BUSH and stay alive. I submit that had YOU been born a BUSH, YOU would be Prez now based on the same non-credentials.

And who the hell thought the SON of a guy that got CHUCKED OUT of office would be a good prez? Based on what, his dad's failure? Why wouldn't America at least want the kid of a 2-term success?

And don't say Bush is smart- MBA. Could YOU have gotten into Harvard/Yale on C grades (at best)?

Come get a laugh at DUMP BUSH (http://www.dump-bush.net) :D