What “haunts Kerry” (according to the AOL newsfeed) is his youthful days as a staunch protestor against war after serving his country in Vietnam.
As opposed to what haunts Bush, is his youthful days as a drinking, partying drug user who disappeared for months on end while serving his country in Texas.
And Bush’s numbers still appear strong while Kerry’s seem soft.
Ohhh, that wacky liberal media…
PAD
• 
Mr. David can be politcal as much as he wants to be. It’s his board. But talking about President Bush as a drunk or whatever only makes you (IMHO) seem childish. You sound as silly as the right wing talk show hosts who denigrate Ted Kennedy, JFK and Bill Clinton for their mistakes of the past. The truth is a lot of those hosts have done worst things. You mentioned that the emperor of Japan during WW Two renouced his claims of divinty to help rebuild his country. AFTER Democrat Harry S Truman gave the ok to drop two atomic bombs which killed well over 100,000 innocent Japanese.
Why do you complain about different religious factions in Iraq? There different religious factions in America who have been at each other for centuries. That one of the prices of freedom.
To me, the vision thing in Iraq is clear; help make Iraq a democracy. Period. Bring freedom to the middle east. And dont give me that old line of “some people can’t handle freedom.”
The world can laugh it’s ášš off all it wants. But America tried to feed Somalia, America tried to stop ethnic cleansing, Mexicans cross the border to come to America, Hatian and Cuban built boats and brave shark infested waters to get to America. and yes 50 million Iraqis are free because of America.
I know there are no Starbucks, Wendys or Foot Lockers there yet. But it took a while to get this country going too.
The truth be told if Senator Kerry were elected, he would not do a dámņ thing differently.
forgive my spelling errors
aj
“Good thing he never billed himself as a ‘war president’, huh?”
You know, in all my posts here,I have yet to blast Clinton for his political or personal shortcomings. I really see no need to do it now, either. But the job as ANY President is as “commander-in chief”. That really is THE MOST important job a President has, even ahead of “feeling your pain”. So if allegedly being AWOL is reason to blast Bush, then dodging a draft and protesting on foreign soil should be, at the least, fair game as well.
If anyone has questions about how Bush is conducting the war, fine. But these cheap shots and personal attacks on him doesn’t make anyone’s argument stronger. In fact, it makes it weaker, especially when you make illogical arguments like “Clinton didn’t say he was a war president, so that lets him off the hook, even though he was commander-in-chief and used that power on a few occasions.
How did those work out?
Personally, I have yet to see anything in Iraq approaching the sickening feeling in my stomach I felt when our soldiers were dragged through the streets in Somalia.
Kerry lies about his involvement in VN, insulting the already beleagered VN Vets and he expects to win? Please.
I’ve met both GW and Kerry (Bush a few months ago, Kerry two years ago) and getting up close and personal will open eyes, believe me. GW is warm and caring, able (and willing!) to ask insightful questions. Kerry couldn’t even comprehend normal conversation.
Bush will win by a lot, if not a landslide. Kerry doesn’t have a hope in hëll. The more people find out about him, the farther behind he will fall.
I personally found the “war president” line disturbing not because he is indeed a wartime president but that he assumed that label with such relish in the interview with Tim Russert. He repeated it so often and used it with such a gleam in his eye that I was really frightened at what he would do with our military once he no longer had to fear the electorate.
No president should enjoy using the powers of commander-in-chief as much as he appeared to.
Kerry couldn’t even comprehend normal conversation.
Sounds like my kind of boy!
I’ve got Asperger’s syndrome. One of the many consequences of this is that I, too, am unable to engage in what you NTs (neurotypicals) call “normal” conversation. You keep wanting me to look you in the eye, to use less-formal construction in my sentences (and how, exactly, am I to maintain the level of precision I expect from myself otherwise?), to understand your “body language” and respond appropriately with my own, and countless other things that make NTs who speak with me think I’m “off”.
I’d much rather have someone in office who doesn’t “talk normally” than someone who can comfortably look right at me and either lie about everything he knows, or be so (apparently deliberately) ignorant that his “advisors” can tell him anything, and he’ll swallow it.
Normally, I’m an Independent. This year, I’m a Yellow Dog Democrat (I’ll vote for a yellow dog if the Democrats put it up for office).
It’s just too important to get Mr. Bush out of the White House.
PAD wrote: “And Bush’s numbers still appear strong while Kerry’s seem soft. Ohhh, that wacky liberal media…”
Actually, from what I can see, the media DOES lean liberal, and the current Bush/Kerry poll situation could be an indication that Democrats, if they are not careful, might find themselves in the exact same situation as the 1968 and 1972 presidential elections — big losers.
In a 1972 book called “The News Twisters,” Edith Efron did a comprehensive, two-year study to see how the media portrayed the candidates and issues during the last seven weeks of the 1968 presidential election. She taped and analyzed all news broadcasts on ABC, CBS and NBC (the only three sources of national TV news in 1968), and then compiled her findings. The results were compelling. All three networks were skewed significantly or totally liberal on most issues; and all three consistently portrayed Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey as a quasi-saint, and Republican candidate Richard Nixon as a sneaky, uncaring cad (Watergate later proved them mostly right, but that
You know what’s funny?
Brinkley is a conservative who was caught on tape saying how much he despised Clinton.
Den,
Not so funny. I know a lot of people who felt the same way:)
Unfortunately, none were in the media:)
Den wrote: “You know what’s funny? Brinkley is a conservative who was caught on tape saying how much he despised Clinton.”
You know what’s even funnier? Brinkley was a liberal in 1968.
Brinkley apparently became more conservative as he grew older. As far as the Clinton remark, did Brinkley say “despised”? I thought he said Clinton was “a bore.” In any case, he did apologize in person to Clinton, on the air, as I recall.
Seems like the choices are rather clear-cut to me:
John Kerry is a decorated Vietnam veteran and long-time Senator.
George W. Bush dodged National Guard duty, ran three businesses into the dirt, lied about his tax cut plans, lied about his support for stem-cell research, lied about “changing the tone,” lied about his commitment to fiscal responsibility, lied about his commitment to fighting al Qaeda, lied about iron-clad proof that Saddam had WMDs, lied about his support for investigating the failures of 9/11, took away three million jobs, gave us a record-setting deficit, and pìššëd øff all the international support and goodwill we used to have.
Why is there even a debate about this? The election is a no-brainer; only one candidate has a brain, and it isn’t George.
Robert wrote: “John Kerry is a decorated Vietnam veteran and long-time Senator.” “Why is there even a debate about this? The election is a no-brainer; only one candidate has a brain, and it isn’t George.”
That’s ALL you know about John Kerry, and he’s already your guy? He has no flaws or issues you disagree with? What are his strengths? Weaknesses? Is he a good organizer? What’s his voting record like? Is he honest? Does he flip-flop on issues? Can he handle pressure? Does he have a concrete PLAN about anything?
Geez, it must be nice to be a partisan Republican or Democrat! It makes life sooooooo easy.
But I guess it’s no worse than the criteria I used when I voted in my first election back in 1972. “Oooo! The state treasurer’s name sounds cool — I’ll vote for him. Hmmm, there aren’t very many women judges — I’ll pick her. Ooops, I’ve picked too many Democrats — got to pick some more Republicans, and maybe an independent or two, just to be fair. Who’s this guy, Gus Hall? A Communist? Man, they’ll put anybody on a ballot!”
Sad, but true. At least I can say I didn’t vote for Nixon.
Russ Maheras
[b][i]what haunts Bush, is his youthful days as a drinking, partying drug user[/i][/b]
[b]Did I miss something, or is it still the case that for all the rumors about it there is not one shred of evidence that Bush was ever a drug user?[/b]
There’s tons of circumstantial evidence, but admittedly that’s not much.
However, when asked directly about whether W ever used cocaine, the official response was something on the lines of “Bush has not used any illegal substances since 1979”. That’s about as ironclad as a tacit evidence goes.
Did I miss something, or is it still the case that for all the rumors about it there is not one shred of evidence that Bush was ever a drug user?
So, alcohol isn’t a drug anymore?
Brinkley apparently became more conservative as he grew older. As far as the Clinton remark, did Brinkley say “despised”? I thought he said Clinton was “a bore.” In any case, he did apologize in person to Clinton, on the air, as I recall.
I believe his exact words were that Clinton was a “gøddámņ bore” and a “disgrace.” His tone of voice made his contempt for Clinton very clear.
The apology notwithstanding, it was a clear insight into his personal feelings about a sitting president.
You know, in all my posts here, I have yet to blast Clinton for his political or personal shortcomings. I really see no need to do it now, either. But the job as ANY President is as “commander-in chief”. That really is THE MOST important job a President has, even ahead of “feeling your pain”. So if allegedly being AWOL is reason to blast Bush, then dodging a draft and protesting on foreign soil should be, at the least, fair game as well.
Actually, the most important job of a President is ensuring the national interest and prosperity of the citizenry that elects him (or her). So long as the Prez does his ultimate to benefit the nation, __that__ is his most important duty, whether that means being Commander-in-Chief or Commander-in-Peace is irrelevant. A President who can fight wars well, but lets the domestic front decay is not a good leader.
And concerning
Craig,
We obviously disagree on a lot. But your definition of “vision” seems somewhat contradictory.
No, not really. Perhaps not explained the best, but not contradictory.
Vision is more than saying “Let’s invade Iraq.”
It’s also “How will we get Saddam, how will we take on his army, how will we rebuild his country, how long will we be there,” and many other questions that I seriously wonder whether Bush has bothered to ask.
But it also comes back to the fact that our first priority was bin Laden. We still haven’t gotten him.
But instead of moving on down to the next item on the list… oh, wait, there was only that one item on the list.
Saddam was on a separate list, the list that existed before 9/11 and was incorporated into the post-9/11 War on Terror list since Bush just couldn’t let that go.
The arguments that Tim presented once again, the ones I have presented multiple times, still apply – Saddam was not a threat that demanded the attention he has gotten.
Sasha,
Yeah, we “quickly and decisively” turned tail and ran from Somalia after they hurt us and our soldiers. Sort of sent a message that we were soft. Maybe you don’t see it that way, but people who wish to hurt us did, including Osama Bin Laden.
As for Kosovo, we “quickly and decisively”…wait a minute, we STILL have troops there!
As for avoiding other entanglements, well the Clinton administration was in charge for five terrorist attacks:
In 1993, the World Trade center was bombed by Muslim extremists
In 1995, five Americans were killed by a car bomb set by Muslim extremists
In 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists
In 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists
In October 2000, our warship the USS Cole was bombed by Muslim extremists.
Our sum response to these five attacks was firing missiles that blew up an aspirin factory, a tent and a camel.
But none of that mattered because “It was the economy stupid!”
As long as he had the longest peacetime expansion in history, the basic act of defending ourselves wasn’t on his radar. To be fair to him, it wasn’t on ours either. we were enjoying low interest rates, low unemployment, a bullish stock market. People were buying SUVs left and right, even liberals who still claimed to care about the environment. And he felt our pain.
And you know what? Economic prosperity is not enough in a dangerous world. It just isn’t. Which is why so many people are even willing to give up civil liberties to feel safe. Because they know that without safety, everything else – “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” – can be taken away in an instant.
The economy has many uncertain factors. But, while the president cannot guarantee our safety, it is something he has more direct control of. And that’s why, in my opinion, it HAS to be the number one priority for ANY government.
Our sum response to these five attacks was firing missiles that blew up an aspirin factory, a tent and a camel.
Okay, I think I’ve commented on this before, but it comes up again, so…
Jerome, why is it that you have no problem with the idea that our enemies might lie to us about WMDs, the number of “sleeper cells” in the US, and other matters on Bush’s watch, but you believe them when they claim Clinton blew up an “aspirin factory”, and an “abandoned” camp?
Did you actually think at the time that the terrorists were going to hold a press conference, and announce the loss of one of their leading toxic-gas suppliers, along with the deaths of a number of terror-trainees?
Or is this just a reflection of hatred of everything done by one President, and “support” for everything done by another?
“That’s ALL you know about John Kerry, and he’s already your guy?”
Let’s put it this way — if the election were held today, and the only choices were either George W. Bush or Pat Buchanan, I’d vote for Pat Buchanan, because I already know he’s the smarter and more honest candidate. Hëll, at least Pat was able to admit back in 2000 that the elderly Jewish ladies in Florida didn’t intend to vote for him.
That’s how screwed up George W. Bush is, that he makes Pat Buchanan look good by comparison.
Umm…President Bush graduated from Yale and has a MBA in Economics. He also knows how to fly fighter jets. Where do people get the idea that he is not as smart as Kerry?
If Bush lied about WMDs, so did Kerry, Daschle, President Clinton and the UN.
Which is why so many people are even willing to give up civil liberties to feel safe. Because they know that without safety, everything else – “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” – can be taken away in an instant.
Then, with all due respect, and I say this without any apology — “so many people” are idiots.
Safety is never iron-clad until and unless you’re dead. Lock yourself in your house and refuse to leave, and there’s always the possibility of a stray meteor.
Life is inherently unsafe. Giving up essential civil liberties for the chimera of “but it’s making us saaaaaaaafer” is thinking with our R-complex instead of our forebrain. I’ll have none of it, thank you kindly.
I don’t really need to once again drag out the usual Ben Franklin quote, do I?
TWL
So, alcohol isn’t a drug anymore?
Yes, it is but with PAD’s saying “…drinking, partying drug user…”, it is implied that he is meaning alcohol by the word drinking, and other drugs by the rest of the statement.
AJ, the reason I think Bush isn’t as smart as Kerry is that Bush doesn’t act particularly smart, and his various, not denied, quotes, show that he has near zero intellectual curiousity. As for his Yale background, well, as someone who attended Yale for a year myself, I’ll just note that Bush did so at the tail end of the “Gentleman’s C” period. For the last few decades, the Ivies have, for a very large part, been meritocracies. Before that though, they were an odd mix of very sharp folk and, well, not that sharp rich kids. Given that Dubya was a legacy *and* the scion of an extremely powerful political family *in Connecticut to boot* (remember who H.W.’s father was), at that point in time he’d practically have to be drooling in the corner not to have been admitted. It’d be more of a tossup today. But even today, it’s a standard in the top Ivies that it’s *much*, *much* harder to get admitted than to flunk out. So while it’s quite possible that a Yale grad of Dubya’s age is extremely smart, it’s also quite possible they coasted in on connections (and note that while I find Kerry much smarter than Bush, I get much more of the “student council President” vibe from him than the intellectual vibe, so I’m not at all sure about the exact reasons he got into Yale either).
As for his Harvard MBA, well, to be honest, that one I just don’t know about. I don’t know enough about the history of the school to know how influenced they’d be in terms of a rich grandson of a New England Senator when making admissions decisions at the time Dubya applied. It is worth noting that Dubya was a complete failure at pretty much any business that didn’t directly involve taking major advantage of his father’s contacts and associates, so it’s questionable how much he paid attention in class at least.
“Personally, I have yet to see anything in Iraq approaching the sickening feeling in my stomach I felt when our soldiers were dragged through the streets in Somalia.”
Fallujah (sp)?
Monkeys
I guess when Bush was flying those jets his it was his father’s influence reading the instruments. I hate to break the news to you but nearly every business person will tell you that they have failed at some point in their lives. Not everybody knocks it out the park the first time at bat. Bush had business failures then became part owner of the Texas Rangers and succeeded. You have no proof that Kerry is any smarter than Bush. How do you know what intellectual curiousity that Bush has or doesnt have?
As for his Harvard MBA, so according to you Harvard just hands out MBAs?
Bush had business failures then became part owner of the Texas Rangers and succeeded.
Um, I wouldn’t use that example if I were you….thanks to its monopoly exemption, you can do anything EXCEPT fail….
Posted by Toby:
” ‘Personally, I have yet to see anything in Iraq approaching the sickening feeling in my stomach I felt when our soldiers were dragged through the streets in Somalia.’
Fallujah (sp)?”
Those were civilian contractors, not soldiers. The outcome would probably have been the same if it had been a 4 person, lightly armed military squad. However, when making comparisons, it’s always best to get the facts correct.
And yes, I know the contractors all had military training and were security specialists, but that’s different than being heavily armed active duty soldiers.
Posted by roger tang:
” ‘Bush had business failures then became part owner of the Texas Rangers and succeeded.’
Um, I wouldn’t use that example if I were you….thanks to its monopoly exemption, you can do anything EXCEPT fail….”
Ah, the new scientific method. If a fact doesn’t agree with your conclusion, throw out that fact.
Tim Lynch:
Then, with all due respect, and I say this without any apology — “so many people” are idiots.
Thanks for that. Usually I find your posts fairly insightful and well thougth out, but that is a mutually exclusive statement. You want to give me “due respect”, then call me an idiot? And of course you’ll say it without apology while saying it with respect? Try again.
Tim DOES normally have insightful comments, Steve. What I’m willing to bet is that you guys are arguing different civil liberties.
Targetted profiling, airport security, and tightened borders make sense. They don’t infringe on freedoms though they may be inconvenient. Ben Franklin never meant to throw the baby out with the bathwater (he didn’t insist on allowing Redcoats into revolutionary meetings, after all).
So, Tim, which civil liberties do you believe are being infringed? Dollars to doughnuts that despite my conservative leanings, we’d be in agreement. (It’s my contention that there is certainly a philosophical gap between libs and cons, but frank and honest discussion will narrow that gap over time).
Steve,
Are you one of the nameless masses Jerome mentioned as willing to sacrifice liberties for safety?
If you’re not, then the statement doesn’t apply to you and I’m not sure why you’re stepping in.
If you are, and your only justification is the sentence Jerome attributed to you in the piece I quoted … then while I’d regret the hurt feelings, the opinion stands.
The “without apology” was a reference to Jerome’s all-encompassing indictment of liberals, which he then apologized for. I was saying (or at least trying to say) that this wasn’t a rash statement I’ll backpedal on later. Agreed that it came out less than clearly — that part I will apologize for.
I don’t agree that “with all due respect” and “without apology” are mutually exclusive, however.
All that said … do you object to the content of the claim, or just the phrasing?
TWL
So, Tim, which civil liberties do you believe are being infringed?
Ask Jerome. He’s the one who issued the blanket statement that “so many people are willing to give up civil liberties for safety.”
To use one of your examples, though, I don’t consider the changes to airport security as a civil liberties issue, no. I don’t think anyone argues that the Constitution guarantees a right to convenience. 🙂
If that’s the sort of thing Jerome meant, then I’d retract the “idiots” comments … but I’d also think he has an odd definition of what civil liberties are.
If he meant things like Bush’s “free speech zones” (i.e. shepherding protestors into places where he doesn’t have to hear them), then we agree on the definition and my opinion stands as originally written.
TWL
Tim,
I actually see both points, yours and Jerome’s. So that isn’t my issue. I happen to agree with just about everyone to an extent, as I have seen both sides of many issues. I usually don’t care what people think of me as a “fence rider”. What I do care about is how someone can say “with all due respect” and in the same sentence call the people idiots. If you think of someone as an idiot, you obviously don’t respect them.
That’s my beef.
” ‘Bush had business failures then became part owner of the Texas Rangers and succeeded.’
Um, I wouldn’t use that example if I were you….thanks to its monopoly exemption, you can do anything EXCEPT fail….”
Ah, the new scientific method. If a fact doesn’t agree with your conclusion, throw out that fact.
I’m merely pointing out that baseball is a legal, recognized monopoly, where it is very hard to lose money, particularly after sale of franchises. It just doesn’t particularly buttress your point about Bush’s business acumen.
Steve,
The “with all due respect” is aimed at a different set of people than the ones being characterized. I agree that it’s awfully tough to simultaneously respect someone and think they’re an idiot, but that’s not what I was doing.
Hope that helps. If not, I think we’re in “agree to disagree” mode on this particular point.
TWL
Jonathan (the other one),
I will respond to all your questions, since you seem to be misstating both my position and intentions in regard to the statements I have made.
1.) “Jerome, why is it that you have no problem with the idea that our enemies might lie to us about WMDs, the number of “sleeper cells” in the US, and other matters on Bush’s watch, but you believe them when they claim Clinton blew up an “aspirin factory” and an “abandoned” camp?”
Well, I don’t have a proble with the idea our enemies might lie to us about the matters you mentioned, because they would definitely have reasons to keep those things secret, right?
“Did you actually think at the time that the terrorists were going to hold a press conference, and announce the loss of one of their leading toxic-gas suppliers, along with the deaths of a number of terror-trainees”
Of course not. Of course they would hide whatever they could to make us look bad. The same way I and many others think the Iraqi WMDs are in Syria. But not too many liberals believe me on that front.
To be honest, I had forgotten claims that we had hit their leading toxic gas supliers and killed a number of terror-trainees. I do not remember Clinton making a big deal about it, and I certainly do not remember him – or Gore for that matter – making a big deal about it recently.
If he was sure he had accomplished something substantial in the War on Terror, I think he would have said so quite often.
In fact, it seems he made a bigger deal in basically blaming the oklahoma city bombing on Rush Limbaugh. He blamed “loud and angry voices” heard “over the airwaves in America” that were making people “paranoid” and spreading “hate”. He couldn’t have been more specific if he had said “the guy al Franken called a big fat idiot”.
“Or is this just a reflection of hatred of everything done by one president, and “support” for everything done by another?”
First, I don’t “hate” everything done by Clinton. As I told another poster, I feel the Republicans looked silly when they wouldn’t give him ANY credit for the economy and /or balancing the budget. I also give him credit for passing NAFTA, GATT and welfare reform. He did many other good things and a lot of stuff I didn’t care for.But i hardly foamed at the mouth at the mention of his name (unlike a lot of Republicans I know – and how many democrats/liberals react to Dubya, as this blog can attest).
At the same time, I wish Bush had done some things differently.
But this is all beside the point.
The main point I was trying to make, in response to PAD’s sarcastic “Goog thing he never billed himself as a ‘war predident’, huh?”, was that all presidents automatically assume the role of Commander-In-Chief (sorry, Sasha, the Commander-in-Peace or whatever line was kind of cute but inaccurate). Since the world is a very dangerous place, it is quite important that whoever is in the position be prepared to handle the responsibility.
But after Reagan won the Cold War, and Bush41’s term saw the end of apartheid in South Africa, the release of Nelson Mandela, the reunification of a free Germany, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, we all felt very safe. The threat of nuclear annihilation that had hung like a dagger over our heads for over four decades was gone. We forget this now but it was and still is a very big deal. As a result, the American electorate felt Bush41 “spent too much time on world affairs” and felt he should spend his time on important things like extending unemployment benefits and other “domestic issues”. So we elected Bill Clinton to do that, and through policies and a lot of luck we had a very bullish economy. But the threat of terrorism was not high on his radar screen, because – I said this before but I’ll say it again SINCE YOU DIDN’T HEAR ME THE FIRST TIME – it WASN”T HIGH ON OURS EITHER! We were eating well, putting lots of gifts under our Christmas trees and lots of other good stuff. we didn’t fear an invasion from anyone, and we were not on a “war footing” in regard to terrorism, because we still felt it couldn’t happen to us.
The media and the voters still felt that way in 2000. If you doubt that, see how many questions during the campaign in general and the debates in particular were about world afairs in general and terrorism specifically. I believe NO questions on terrorism were asked during the three debates.
As a result, DUBYA WAS NOT ON A WAR FOOTING EITHER. AND HE DIDN’T RUN AS A WAR PRESIDENT.
But 9/11 changed that.
Because on September 11, 2001, our government failed to live up to its most important responsibility – to protect its citizens. It failed because the federal government uses its $2 trillion budget to meddle in our personal and financial affairs and to provide goods and services that Americans can and should provide for themselves.
So now we are focused on what we need to do. But, truthfully, if you or any other posters hate Dubya so much that instead of arguing the merits of the case for war and the other actions DURING HIS TERM and would rather focus on his past- like the AWOL garbage – well good luck. Kerry tried it yesterday, and it is absurd. It is petty, childish behavior, does not adress anything significant and does not harm Bush one iota with people who don’t totally hate his guts.
an election is almost always a referendum on the incumbent and his record in office.
That’s what people care about.
I’m merely pointing out that baseball is a legal, recognized monopoly, where it is very hard to lose money, particularly after sale of franchises. It just doesn’t particularly buttress your point about Bush’s business acumen.
Not to mention that the Rangers were heavily subsidized by the taxpayers of Texas.
Umm…President Bush graduated from Yale and has a MBA in Economics
Let’s go back to that FedEx commercial…
“Oh, you have an MBA…” as if it’s supposed to mean something in the Real World.
Must be nice to get into a college you don’t deserve. Kind of like Bush going to Harvard.
Isn’t Kerry a Harvard graduate as well?
Wouldn’t that mean that Kerry is *at least* as smart as Bush?
Or are we just speaking hypotheticals?
From Den:
“Isn’t Kerry a Harvard graduate as well?
Wouldn’t that mean that Kerry is *at least* as smart as Bush?”
Speaking in hypotheticals, Kerry doesn’t have to be as smart as Bush. Kerry could be less smart and still manage to graduate.
But, truthfully, if you or any other posters hate Dubya so much that instead of arguing the merits of the case for war and the other actions DURING HIS TERM and would rather focus on his past- like the AWOL garbage – well good luck.
Um. We have. Repeatedly. On the environment, on the economy, on the war, on 9/11, on church-state separation … take your pick. Perhaps you haven’t noticed because you’ve been too busy repeating your usual talking points.
Believe me, if I found this administration anything but incompetent and/or abhorrent about most of the things it’s done since 2001, I’d completely agree that dredging up the past would be fairly stupid.
Since I don’t — I will bring up any and all pieces of evidence that will help evict them from the White House.
Which ones I choose to focus on will depend on which arguments the people I’m talking to are more likely to listen to — just like any other political campaign in history. Nobody chants the same two-sentence argument everywhere. (Even Bush has about four. 🙂
Kerry tried it yesterday, and it is absurd.
To slightly misquote Angel … “Well, not to get all schoolyard or anything, but Bush did it first.”
I mean, seriously, Jerome — why is it that addressing the merits of Kerry’s Purple Hearts is apparently okey-dokey by you, but Bush’s actions in comparison are off the table?
An election is almost always a referendum on the incumbent and his record in office.
Yes it is. And if the merits of this incumbent’s administration are brought fairly out in the open and examined publicly, I have faith that there’s no way in hëll Bush can win.
That’s why the administration is doing everything it can to make sure the focus is on something else. Anything else — like, say, Vietnam?
TWL
Speaking in hypotheticals, Kerry doesn’t have to be as smart as Bush. Kerry could be less smart and still manage to graduate.
And Bush could be less than deserving to even *be* in such a university and still manage to graduate.
Funny how that works.
As I mentioned in my last post, Kerry is also a Yalie (undergrad). Why do you think Trudeau drew him back in the earliest days of the strip? (I find it amusing that, if elected, Kerry will be the first President to have been shown non-metaphorically in Doonesbury). Also amusingly, both he and Dubya are Skull and Bones members.
(checks web) His law degree was from Boston College, which is at least as useful as a Harvard law degree if you plan to be active in Boston law/political circles.
“Those were civilian contractors, not soldiers. The outcome would probably have been the same if it had been a 4 person, lightly armed military squad. However, when making comparisons, it’s always best to get the facts correct.
And yes, I know the contractors all had military training and were security specialists, but that’s different than being heavily armed active duty soldiers.” Jeff
So, being an American contractor as opposed to an American heavily armed soldier makes a difference when you are brutaly murdered and dragged through the street? Especially considering it happened because of the US presence in both cases? (if the war in Iraq wasn’t going on, I doubt the attack on the contractors would have happened {as there would probably be fewer groups frustrated with our presence gunning for anything American}, and if the war wasn’t going on, would the contractors have been there in the first place?)
Just wondering.
Monkeys
Every death in Iraq is on George Bush’s head.
Wht do you expect expect when you invade another nation?
Posted by Toby:
“So, being an American contractor as opposed to an American heavily armed soldier makes a difference when you are brutaly murdered and dragged through the street? Especially considering it happened because of the US presence in both cases? (if the war in Iraq wasn’t going on, I doubt the attack on the contractors would have happened {as there would probably be fewer groups frustrated with our presence gunning for anything American}, and if the war wasn’t going on, would the contractors have been there in the first place?)”
I pointed out the difference between them being soldiers and contractors because it was mentioned in a previous post about the incident in Somolia.
And US civilian contractors have worked for years in the middle east, especially in the oil fields. And they have been targeted in the past in many different countries by terrorists. Most of the oil fields were developed and partly run by US companies, so saying that US citizens wouldn’t be there if we weren’t in a war isn’t accurate.
We weren’t at wa when the first attack on the WTC happened, or when the Cole was attacked, or the embassys in Africa were attacked. Terrorists don’t seem to need war for an excuse to attack, just an opportunity.
“We weren’t at war when the first attack on the WTC happened, or when the Cole was attacked, or the embassys in Africa were attacked. Terrorists don’t seem to need war for an excuse to attack, just an opportunity.”
None of those events were perpetrated by Iraq and we wouldn’t be attacked by terrorists in Iraq if not for this highly suspect war we are currently embroiled in.
“Kerry lies about his involvement in VN, “
What did he lie about? He was in Vietnam, he fought, he was wounded in combat, he has the medals to prove it.
“insulting the already beleagered VN Vets and he expects to win? Please.”
Kerry has more in common with those beleagured vets your talking about than anyone in the current administration.
“I’ve met both GW and Kerry (Bush a few months ago, Kerry two years ago) and getting up close and personal will open eyes, believe me. GW is warm and caring, able (and willing!) to ask insightful questions. Kerry couldn’t even comprehend normal conversation.”
Were these brief meetings or long, personal encounters?
I would never try and do a full character assessment of a man based on a fleeting encounter.
“Bush will win by a lot, if not a landslide. Kerry doesn’t have a hope in hëll.”
I doubt that very much. The country is very divided and whoever wins this election will only do so by a slight margin.
“The more people find out about him, the farther behind he will fall.”
Considering the man has lived his life in the public eye for the better part of 35 years its quiet easy to find out all you need to about Kerry on your own. You’d also get a better picture of the man by doing this than to solely rely on the skewed picture the current administration is trying paint of him in their desperate and slimy attempt to stay in power.
I love how the party that has always prided itself on honoring the brave soldiers of this nation don’t hesitate to demean the service record of anyone they deem to be an enemy. They did it to McCain in the 2000 primaries, they did it to Max Cleland in 2002 and they are trying their darndest to do it to John Kerry right now.
Its laughable in a sad way when you consider the dubious service records ( or lack of service records) of the inner circle of the Bush administration.
Kerry’s lies about VN are the claims he made about soldiers regularly and consistantly taking trophies, killing non-combatants, etc. I’m not demeaning his service in VN, just his behavior afterward.
The current administration respects now, and always has respected veterans. I doubt Kerry can claim he respects the people he maligned.
I had lunch with GWB here in Orlando (no, not alone, he’s a friend of my lawyer’s. There were quite a few of us there).
Kerry, off and on throughout an afternoon in the capital.
I’m not basing my opinion of either of them solely on these encounters, but on their records as well.
I could well be wrong, but I don’t think this election is going to be close at all.
The current administration respects now, and always has respected veterans.
Cutting their benefits is an awfully odd way of showing respect.
TWL