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
• 
he’s a friend of my lawyer’s
Why does this not surprise me in the least. 😉
Rob S.:
I certain that when Kerry came back he didn’t throw anyone under the bus ( to coin a popular term of my fathers) and I would appreicate links to quotes that would show where he maligned the soldiers who fought in Vietnam.
Derek,
Try this:
http://www.aim.org/publications/guest_columns/fielder/2004/mar18.html
Tim,
Cite please?
Rob S. wrote:
John Kerry served his country during an unpopular war — no one can take that away from him.
I think that’s where I make the distinction between Kerry & Bush.
I don’t care whether they inhaled, got drunk, got head, or wore drag at their fraternity initiations. I’ll have a laugh about it and stuff, but it’s not a big deal in the long run.
Nor is the fact that Kerry was outspoken against the war and it’s obvious that Bush didn’t want to get sent over.
But when a presidency is spent pushing for war with a man who didn’t do any fighting himself… well, hopefully you can see where I’m coming from.
Rob S:
That opinion piece doesn’t necessarily prove that Kerry is a liar. All that piece did was call into question the honesty of Al Hubbard and I’d hate to think that Kerry was being charged with guilt by association due to a friendship with a dishonest man.
It is at this point in time where Kerry
John Kerry on CNN’s Crossfire, November 12, 1997:
“The administration is leading. The administration is making it clear that they don’t believe that they even need the U.N. Security Council to sign off on a material breach because the finding of material breach was made by Mr. Butler. So furthermore, I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests. And clearly it is not just our best interests, it is in the best interests of the world to make it clear to Saddam Hussein that he’s not going to get away with a breach of the ’91 agreement that he’s got to live up to, which is allowing inspections and dismantling his weapons and allowing us to know that he has dismantled his weapons. That’s the price he pays for invading Kuwait and starting a war”
John Kerry at the Democratic 2004 Primary Debate at St. Anselm College Jan 22, 2004:
“I stood up to the people of Massachusetts and the country. Those are the people I answer to. There was a right way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable and there was a wrong way. The right way was what the president promised, to go to the UN, to respect the building of an international coalition in truth, to exhaust the remedies of inspections and literally to only go to war as a last result.”
So, he’s for the US to act without approval of the UN, but then he’s against it. Just like a lot of his other “stands” on things.
Rob,
Here’s your citation about Bush and vets’ benefits.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1222-01.htm
Obviously commondreams.org isn’t a site one can claim is unbiased, but the actual article is forwarded from the Boston Globe, and the organizations in question are certainly reputable vets’ groups.
I’ll try to find other citations over the course of the day if I can, but hopefully this is a start.
TWL
Craig,
Maybe slandering his fellow soldiers while they were still dying in a foreign land is “not a big deal in the long run” to you, but it sure is to the soldiers who were maligned.
As Russ says, it was a horrible thing to do. Not only was it as a singular event, but it continues to reverberate to this day.
People have such a negative image of Vietnam (why else would Kennedy and the like choose to portray Iraq as Bush’s “Vietnam” unless that war had negative connotations, and unique at that. Again, every military action we take seems to get political opponents and the media comparing it to Vietnam. Not Kosovo, not Somalia. Vietnam.) thanks to people like Kerry and his admittedly emotional accusations.
To this day, Vietnam Veterans are the subject of jokes, and are portrayed as “losers” at best and “babykillers”/”drug using psychos at worst.
Myths have somehow taken on the form of facts.
Such as:
“We got our butts kicked”
No. We won every battle but lost the war because politicians – especially LBJ – did not have the guts to do what was necessary to win.
“Everyone was against the war, especially the 18-30 crowd”
No. Most Americans supported the war, and support was actually GREATER among young people.
“The war was immoral”
Open to interpretation, sure. But when you consider that two million Vietnamese have fled since the end of the war and the complete communist takeover of the country(the early exodus of vietnamese boat people was so vast and overwhelmingit created an international humanitarian crisis, which the brilliant U.N. solved by deciding to send them back to Vietnam); that communist “reeducation” camps, political prisoners and gruesome bloodbaths became commonplace in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia (yep, the democrats were right and the ‘domino theory WAS bunk. Oh wait.); that in Cambodia over a third of the population – easily over one million victims – were slaughtered by Marxist ideologues in “the killing fields”; that Cambodians were forced to watch as family members were decapitated or garoted and that cambodian children were forced to hang their own teachers; that in Laos, 10% of the population wound up fleeing and that hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese were “reeducated” and hundreds of thousands more were killed or died fleeing in fear on boats.
Well, when you consider all those things, maybe the war wasn’t immoral. Maybe abandoning all those people to those fates was.
So, with regard to Kerry, the fact that his high-profile statements and actions helped originate and/or perpetuate the nasty and vile images of Vietnam and its soldiers, which still haunts the nation to an extent. Well, that’s highy relevant. Especially to the Vietnam vets who he is trying to appeal to and who think he is a piece of šhìŧ for the reason described above.
“We got our butts kicked”
No. We won every battle but lost the war because politicians – especially LBJ – did not have the guts to do what was necessary to win.
I’m going to throw something out here. Much of the argument here is that the two sides are arguing over tactics. For one side, the definition of victory is primarily a military one. For the other, the definition of victory is primarily a political one. The disagreement is which definition can and should take precedence (or whether there should be a mixture)(e.g., you can gain a clear military victory by slaughtering the entire enemy population, and include a few folks we’re not sure about…but it would be a clear political defeat and ultimately a defeat in toto).
To this day, Vietnam Veterans are the subject of jokes, and are portrayed as “losers” at best and “babykillers”/”drug using psychos at worst.
Um … by whom? I’ve never heard Vietnam vets referred to as the former — ever — and don’t think the latter has been used since the height of the antiwar marches 30+ years ago.
(Now, the US’s eventual loss in Vietnam is made fun of, yes — cf. “A Fish Called Wanda”, which I quoted here a week or so back — but not the soldiers.)
So just exactly do you claim is saying these things? Can you name someone who’s heard himself called that any time in the last 20 years?
(My suspicion is that the “myths have taken the form of facts” claim is cutting both ways.)
TWL
“So, he’s for the US to act without approval of the UN, but then he’s against it. Just like a lot of his other “stands” on things.”
There’s a vast difference between saying “We reserve the right to act in our best interests” (while repeatedly emphasizing the concept of “leading the world”) and advocating bombing the crap out a country and its citizens based upon misinformation and outright lies (which are then dismissed as irrelevant by a President who literally cannot distinguish between the concepts of “Saddam wanted weapons” and “Saddam had weapons.”)
And by the way, for all those obsessed about Kerry’s war record…
Just how much shrapnel, exactly, does George W. Bush have in *his* leg?
PAD
Peter….I’m going to say that I do not believe that Bush used lies or misinformation to justify his Iraq adventure.
But I DO believe that he consciously slanted it, did not vette his intelligence and did not critically appraise the intelligence he did get (i.e., he saw only what he wanted to see).
Frankly, I find that MUCH scarier.
Tim wrote:
PAD,
Your comment about those “obsessed” with Kerry’s war record is far off the mark.
First, as I said, there are many Vietnam veterans – some of whom I know personally – who resent the fact that he claimed during a Congressional hearing that so many of his “band of brothers” were basically war criminals. The actual quote was that U.S. soldiers committed atrocities in Vietnam “on a daily basis”. So the toughest questions have not come from the Republican Attack Machine but from other Vietnam veterans who find it outrageous that Kerry would ever have sugested that so many were involved in war crimes. If you can’t grasp how and why they would feel this way, I’m sorry.
In 1971, this veteran of that war also threw away his ribbons and medals – or did he? For years, Kerry has said he tossed his ribbons, not his medals. But the recently revealed ABC tape from that year has the host specifically asking about the medals: the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Hearts. “Well, and above that, I gave back my others”.
The words “above that” certainly make it sound like Kerry was affirming that it was his own medals he threw away.
The debate over John Kerry’s role on both sides of the Vietnam War highlights the debate this country still engages in concerning what constituted the heroic course of action. It is hardly insignificant.
Especially, and this important, KERRY HAS MADE HIS VIETNAM EXPERIENCE THE CENTER OF HIS CAMPAIGN.
He touts it as the defining experience of his life, one that is meant to exemplify his character.
I he had wanted to downplay his experience in the war, I think many would have respected that. But he didn’t. In fact, it was his military experience that voters cited as the reason they felt he could beat Bush, which is about all he ran on and all the voters voted on. To then say he should not have to answer tough questions regarding experience he himself has made a centerpiece issue of his candidacy is faulty thinking at best.
A campaign spokesman for Kerry was quoted last October as saying “John Kerry has always said military experience is not a prerequisite for the presidency, but it informs the tough questions he asks and it certainly gives him the firsthand perspective you can’t learn in the situation room.”
Of course, Kerry and the Democrats were singing a different tune with Bill Clainton when he ran against World War II vet George H.W. Bush and World War II war hero Bob Dole. Their sacrifice and heroism was deemed irrelevant.
Dole even came under a cruel attack by Trudeau’s “Doonesbury” strip, which ran an insulting series of strips criticizing Dole for allegedly exploiting his war wound (damage to his arm that is so sebere that he has to hold a pen constantly to keep it from spasming)for political purposes.
Yeah, that Trudeau is a real riot.
And i am shocked – SHOCKED! – that Trudeau has likewise made no mention this time around of Kerry’s unabashed exploitation of his Vietnam military record. But Trudeau -who donated $2,000 to Howard Dean – has made blistering attacks on Dubya. In fact, he has offered $10,000 to anyone who could prove Bush actually served in the National Guard.
Now THAT’S obsessed!
Not only were vets called baby killers back then, the phrase is still being used to describe today’s soldiers. If you are feeling too clean take a few moments to visit some of the left wing Indymedia.org sites. The North Carolina one claimed he died in a, get ready for it, “aby-killing raid”. Zing! The Portland chapter had the headline “Dumb Jock Killed in Afghanistan.”
Oh my sides!
But most liberals are pretty embarassed about the sorry reception given to the Vietnam vets and are also not well represented by the hatemongers on the liberal websites (not that we will see much outrage over it printed in the papers). That’s a good thing. personally, I think that the extremists on the left are gonna sink Kerry at this rate. They have passion but it’s very unattractive and it will turn off a lot of people who might otherwise be sympathetis. But if yelling about how evil and stupid Bush is makes them feel better about themselves and if doing so helps Bush win (pleasing conservatives), well, everybody ends up happy, more or less.
Do a Google search with the keywords
You know, you should never believe anything you read on the internet. 🙂
A few thousand hits? I tried doing a search the other day for “vietnam war myths” and I found alot of sites… all copying the exact same info from each other.
I could probably find more hits for bigger falsehoods (such as reasons why we went to war with Iraq), but that doesn’t mean everybody actually believes it.
Yes, there are extremists on the left, spewing ridiculous levels of hate and rancor.
There are similar minds (and I use the term loosely) on the right.
The difference is, the ones on the right have radio timeslots and cable-TV shows, and the ones on the left have cheap-ášš websites. Also, the ones on the right actually seem to get some attention from Republicans, while the ones on the left are ignored by their more sensible liberal cousins (kind of like the way everyone just ignores that one uncle who gets drunk at family gatherings, and starts insulting people’s clothes and haircuts until he passes out. What, you mean you don’t have an uncle like that?).
KERRY HAS MADE HIS VIETNAM EXPERIENCE THE CENTER OF HIS CAMPAIGN.
No, actually, he hasn’t. If he were, then his entire campaign would be “I’m a vet, so vote for me.”
He’s said that Vietnam helped define his life. Bush has said that “coming to Jesus” has helped define his.
By your logic, then, Bush has made his evangelical Christianity the center of his campaign.
Even I don’t buy that. (Center of his governance, perhaps.)
So — if you keep saying that Kerry’s nothing more than Vietnam, I’m going to have to start asking how being a reformed got-religion drunk informs a president’s life-and-death decisions better than actually serving in a war.
TWL
Tim,
Thanks for the cite. Don’t bother looking for more, I can do that. I appreciate you taking the time to find that one. As I recall, there’s a lot more to the story than that. If I find it, I’ll share.
Is Kerry a liar? Probably no more than any other politician. I do think he’s got a very fluid concept of “truth” though.
My question to the left is, is Kerry your best choice? Does anyone really think he’d make a good president? If the primaries were held again, is Kerry the guy you’d go for? (Someone said he’s emotional… I haven’t seen that. Cold and calculating, but emotional? Maybe I haven’t watched the news enough.)
I won’t fault Kerry on his service. I didn’t serve and now I wish I had. That he went at all says good things about him. I’ll give him that much. It’s everything since then and now that I question. I still have my doubts that he’ll even make it onto the ballet. Edwards might be able to give Bush a run… I’d even consider voting for Leiberman if I didn’t personally like Bush. But Kerry? You all have greater faith than I.
Is Kerry my best choice?
No, not remotely. As I’ve said before, I voted for Dean in the primaries even when it was obvious Kerry was going to be the nominee.
I’ve also said before that I’d very much like to have lived in the universe where the 2000 election was Bradley-McCain rather than Bush-Gore. Bradley-McCain would have guaranteed someone I respected held the office, even if I disagreed at times.
In terms of how thrilled I am with Kerry, on a scale of 1-10 he’s probably around a 4 or a 5.
Bush, however, resides somewhere in the double-digit negative numbers on the same scale — so Kerry is my clear choice, if not my favorite choice. And yes, I think he’d make a perfectly decent president — not thrilling, not everything I want, but perfectly okay.
(How can you possibly have doubts that he’ll make it onto the ballot? He’s already over the top mathematically. Unless he abruptly drops dead or there’s a full-fledged rebellion in the party the likes of which we haven’t seen in a century, he’s going to be the nominee.)
That said … let’s turn it around. Do you really think Bush is the best choice to be president on the right?
TWL
Oh, wait — you said you had doubts Kerry was going to make it on the **ballet**. Geez, I’m right with you there — limber he’s not. 🙂
TWL
Jeff wrote:
“So, he’s for the US to act without approval of the UN, but then he’s against it. Just like a lot of his other “stands” on things.”
Ah yes, the old “Kerry is a flip-flopper” routine. Why don’t we take a gander at the steadfast resolute decision making that Bush has demonstrated during his presidency…GW’s performed flipflops on:
Abortion
Creating The Homeland Security Department
Campaign finance reform
Nation building
Starting an investigation into Iraq’s WMD intelligence
Tariffs on steel
Taking an active role in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict
Pushing No Child Left Behind but not alloting sufficient funds for it
Protecting the environment
Allowing States to decide whether to honor gay marriages
Not negotiating with North Korea
Being “for the troops” while cutting veterans benefits
The reason we went to war with Iraq (was it WMD’s; was it human rights; was it violation of UN sanctions? Depending on what day of the week it is it could be all or none of them)
Add to that the fact that the man ran on a proise of restoring dignity and honor to the White House yet has presided over one of the most divisive, secretive and dirty tactic using administrations in recent memory and I am completely baffled by the amount of slavish devotion that the right heaps on this guy. His administration has been a disaster, he has made the entire world despise our country, his big economic boom is made up of lowpaying service jobs and a monstrous deficit that will be dumped in the laps of a generation that never had the opportunity to voice their opinion on just what a lousy president GW Bush is.
Kerry may not be the best man ever to be nominated for president but he is dámņ sure better than the guy thats currently occupying the Oval Office.
Whoops, I deleted a line in my post–the negative comments on Indymedia.org were directd at Mr. Tillman, a guy who left a million dollar NFL contract to serve in the Rangers and was recently killed in Afghanistan.
Tim,
I love it when you cherry-pick what you want to respond to. Again, the Democrats and the Kerry campaign:
A.) Have stressed his war record as a way of counterbalancing Bush’s status as a “War President”
B.) Are the ones who have presented John Kerry and max Cleland as “war heroes” while maligning Bush’s national Guard service.
Kerry in his stump speech when he was rolling through the primaries continually said he had four words Bush understood, “Bring!It! On!”
So he is, and so are fellow Republicans, and that’s why he deserves everything he’s getting.
Consider it “brung”.
Oh, and it’s really cool how you ignored my Trudeau points, or does the fact that he donated to Dean give him special dispensation to slander a disabled veteran like Dole?
Every death in Iraq is on George Bush’s head.
Wht do you expect expect when you invade another nation?
I expect that the blame for our soldiers’ deaths rests with the enemy!
CJA
“PAD,
Your comment about those “obsessed” with Kerry’s war record is far off the mark.”
Mm hmm. Fine. Ribbons vs. medals, stuff he said thirty years ago, etc., etc.
So *how* much shrapnel does George W. Bush have in his leg again? What wounds of any sort did Bush, who has put his “war president” status front and center of his campaign, acquire serving his country? You didn’t mention.
PAD
Just how much shrapnel, exactly, does George W. Bush have in *his* leg?
PAD
About as much as Bill Clinton.
It’s amazing how far Democrats have come on the serving in a war issue. When it was George H W Bush and Bob Dole, being a soldier didn’t count for anything. Now as in 2000 with Gore it means something.
The Iraq war is a complete non-issue between Bush and Kerry. Kerry voted for the invasion of Iraq. You can’t change that fact. I Know he wants too. But he can’t. Even now he says that America can’t leave. He says that he wants more help. That’s it. There is no real distinction between the two. All of the people who post about WMDs are missing the point. Kerry is not going to do anything differently. Nothing. He AGREES with president Bush about the importantance of Iraq. Ralph Nader calls for complete withdrawl of the troops.
Kerry had every right to protest the Vietnam, speak out against the government, against Nixion(although LBJ somehow gets off the hook). But now that he’s running a national campaign, he has to live with his past. He protested the war but is proud to have served? He hated the war but is mad that Cheney and Bush didn’t go? Logic says that he should be indifferent(as he was with Bill Clinton) towards Bush and Cheney and there lack of war service but now he wants to know about Bush’s record. Umm…Kerry the same people that gave you medals or ribbons or whatever gave Bush a honorable discharge.
You know it would almost be amusing the fact that the same people who use Dubya’s past by constantly caling him a “drunk”, a “drug-user” and a “failed businessman” cry foul when words Kerry said “thirty years ago” come back to bite him on the ášš.
Those “words he said thirty years ago” hurt a lot of people and slandered a lot of people who suffered far worse fates than having shrapnel in their legs.
Or don’t they count and their views considered irrelevant to those who are intent on slamming Bush?
Oh, and no one has commented on how cruel Trudeau’s strips were to Bob Dole back in 1996, someone who suffered a severe wound on the battlefield.
Or was that okay, and even funny, because he was a Republican?
But now that he’s running a national campaign, he has to live with his past. He protested the war but is proud to have served? He hated the war but is mad that Cheney and Bush didn’t go? Logic says that he should be indifferent(as he was with Bill Clinton) towards Bush and Cheney and there lack of war service but now he wants to know about Bush’s record. Umm…Kerry the same people that gave you medals or ribbons or whatever gave Bush a honorable discharge.
Yup,he claims that anyone who questions any aspect of his Vietnam service or his anti-Vietnam service either is questioning his patriotism or is part of the “Republican attack machine.” The first time Kerry felt the heat, he dropped his promise not to criticize Bush’s National Guard service like a bag of dirt.
The problem goes much deeper for Kerry because this mini-scandal illustrates the more fundamental contradiction at the core of Kerry’s candidacy.
The argument from Kerry’s supporters is that his service in Vietnam proves that he’s strong on defense and qualified to be commander-in-chief. The response from his critics is that whatever Kerry did in Vietnam is mute because of his antiwar behavior and his long and detailed voting record in the Senate.
But if signing up for Vietnam proves Kerry’s got the right judgment to be commander-in-chief, how come Kerry believes Vietnam was a huge mistake for America?
Think about it. Kerry has mocked Ðìçk Cheney and other members of the Bush administration for not serving in Vietnam. But Kerry made his political career by saying that Vietnam was a moral and national-security disaster. He claims that going to fight for “a mistake” was his defining moment. Well, if Vietnam was a mistake, how does it demonstrate Kerry’s good judgment?
He wants credit for fighting in what he insists was a criminal war. He even confessed that he and his comrades committed “atrocities,” though he hasn’t run any commercials bragging about calling his comrades war criminals.
Kerry’s position is a mess. He wants credit for throwing away the symbols of his service (the ribbons) and for the service he rendered to earn those medals (which he kept, but claimed until recently he didn’t). If that sounds like a contradiction, it should. Because that’s what Kerry is, a walking contradiction.
Trudeau drew Clinton as a waffle. If Kerry becomes president he is going to have to draw a very, very big waffle.
But, once again, it’s Dubya who is proudly proclaiming that he’s a “wartime president”. If this is really a “war”, then one’s past wartime record becomes fair game.
Clinton did not fight, nor serve. But Clinton never ran as a war president; his motto, as you may recall, was, “It’s the economy, stupid!” Thus, the question of shrapnel does not enter into the question.
Bush’s handlers decided that the best way to attack Kerry, when he started to become a front-runner, was to impugn his patriotism, because he dared to protest our involvement in Vietnam. Apparently, freedom of speech doesn’t apply if you plan to one day run for office… At any rate, I’d say that Kerry’s wounds are at least a match for Bush’s hawkish rhetoric, as a qualifier for a “wartime” president.
I also doubt he’d try to ignore entire swaths of the Constitution, as the Bush administration’s lawyers want to do (see the arguments in the Padilla case, before the Supreme Court yesterday – the government’s official position is that the act of Congress passed in the wake of 9/11 gives the President imperial powers, so long as he can claim there’s some tie to terrorism. You know, a lot of peace activists have been publically accused of aiding the terrorists by not falling into line with Bush…).
Sorry Spider, but America is the invading force, Iraq is the defender. America IS the enemy in this case…
Bah, end the whole election mess by pulling Social Socurity Numbers of native-born citizens for all three branches, Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary. Your number gets pulled, you go serve the office of President, Vice-President, Senator, Representative, or Supreme Court Justice.
Incarerated felons excluded.
Yeah, Bush is my guy. I think Clinton’s “it’s the economy, stupid” policy was short sighted because it’s more than just the economy. Moving the response to terror from police action to war makes a lot of sense. We may like to pretend that it isn’t the focus of the world stage, but it is. Allowing these guys to get stronger and stronger was a mistake that we paid for with the towers (no, I don’t think 9/11 was Clinton’s fault, it was the fault of the terrorists). I also think the economy is improving and that the tax cuts are working very well.
That said, I’m not in full agreement with everything. The sited policy above of depriving due process to “citizen terrorists” makes me queazy, as do a few other things.
I have no idea who to run for president in 08, though.
Heh-heh. Ballet… there’s an image. Kerry has to be confirmed at the Convention, doesn’t he? I’m not so sure he will be. Silly and naive, but that’s me. 🙂
Jerome,
I didn’t address your claims about how the Democrats are being hypocritical because I didn’t have time at that moment. Now that I do have time … frankly, Jonathan’s response just above is a pretty fair approximation of mine. A point-by-point comparison of Clinton’s lack of combat experience vs. Bush’s is a weak and inane argument, because Clinton never for a moment claimed he was running as a “war president”. He was not given to warlike, good-vs-evil rhetoric which basically set himself up as having a direct line to God.
Bush does. As such, whether he’s put his money where his mouth is is relevant. I realize you’re not likely to agree, but I’m afraid that’s on the list of Things That Aren’t My Problem.
As for Trudeau’s alleged “cruelty” to Dole, I would like to see the strips in question before I comment. (If anyone can point me to them, either an online source or a print source, I’d appreciate it.) Particularly in light of how much some of your recent claims have been utterly debunked in other threads, I trust I’ll be forgiven if I don’t consider your assessment of the strips gospel truth.
But I am sorry for not falling into line with your script.
(I do, however, consider it something approaching the height of hypocrisy for you to condemn ANYONE “cherry-picking” responses. How many lengthy posts with detailed rebuttals of your claims or responses to your questions have you responded to with a one-sentence “hmm, food for thought, more later” and nothing else?)
TWL
Jerome,
I didn’t address your claims about how the Democrats are being hypocritical because I didn’t have time at that moment. Now that I do have time … frankly, Jonathan’s response just above is a pretty fair approximation of mine. A point-by-point comparison of Clinton’s lack of combat experience vs. Bush’s is a weak and inane argument, because Clinton never for a moment claimed he was running as a “war president”. He was not given to warlike, good-vs-evil rhetoric which basically set himself up as having a direct line to God.
Bush does. As such, whether he’s put his money where his mouth is is relevant. I realize you’re not likely to agree, but I’m afraid that’s on the list of Things That Aren’t My Problem.
As for Trudeau’s alleged “cruelty” to Dole, I would like to see the strips in question before I comment. (If anyone can point me to them, either an online source or a print source, I’d appreciate it.) Particularly in light of how much some of your recent claims have been utterly debunked in other threads, I trust I’ll be forgiven if I don’t consider your assessment of the strips gospel truth.
But I am sorry for not falling into line with your script.
(I do, however, consider it something approaching the height of hypocrisy for you to condemn ANYONE “cherry-picking” responses. How many lengthy posts with detailed rebuttals of your claims or responses to your questions have you responded to with a one-sentence “hmm, food for thought, more later” and nothing else?)
TWL
Oops — got an error message the first time around. Sorry for the double-post!
TWL
Umm…President Bush is a wartime president because we are at war. Clinton didn’t say he was but he entered us into the Kosovo war to stop ethnic cleansing. See no us troops died but a lot more civilians did because no ground troops were involved. The UN didnt approve of THAT either but it didn’t stop President Clinton. Using the Kerry rhetoric and some posters here, Clinton did set himself up as Godlike. He wanted to stop ethnic cleasning because it was evil. He also this year said he was sorry that he didn’t use troops to stop the slaughter in Rowanda, Africa. Where was the good ole UN on that?
It’s easy to take pot shots at a President. It’s easy to sit on the sidelines and make your comments. Democrat Harry S Truman had a choice. Either send troops into Japan,prolong World War Two, have hundreds of thousands of ally troops die. Or bomb Japan with the air force and atomic bombs. His decision killed over 500,000 innocent Japanese. It ended world war two. He never regreted his decision.
You would think such an act would of made Japan an eternal enemy. But wait. It didnt. Now Japan is one of our biggest allies.
Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo. Hussein, Bin Laden, Arafat. It’s all the same. George Bush said this is a war on terroism and terror sponsoring nations. This is war that began on September 11,2001. and no matter who’s president or how much some people want to bury their heads in the sand we are in it no matter what. The enemy isnt going to stop. We shouldnt either.
Well AJ, the “enemy” flew planes into two buildings full of civilians, so based on your last line, we should too…
AJ:
>Umm…President Bush is a wartime president because we are at war.
Umm… President Bush is a wartime president because he started the war.
AJ,
Declaring a “war on terror” is equivalent to declaring a war on pride, or a war on lust. It’s eternal and unwinnable. Terror, and terrorism, is not something that’s ever going to completely go away unless human nature fundamentally changes (in ways I doubt anyone would completely agree with).
You want to say “we’re at war.” Fine — but specify parameters. With whom — exactly? Under what conditions do we get to say “the war’s over and we’re back to normal” — exactly?
Your contention seems to be that the “war” won’t end until the country is perfectly safe — but there’s no way to make that happen, ever. Even taking over the world and imposing a Pax Americana would only work for a very, very short time — in the end, we’d fall as surely as Rome.
“We’re at war” only works as a justification if said conflict can eventually end. Using it as a claim that we can do anything we want, to whomever we want, for however long as we want, because “everything changed and now we’re at war” is asking the American public (not to mention other nations) to hand over all their rights to the US government and trust that they’ll keep us safe.
Thanks, but no.
As for “Clinton set himself up as Godlike, too” — um, no. Taking unilateral action alone does not do that.
What Bush does is cast everything in stark, simplistic, good-vs.-evil terms. I can’t offhand think of any issue he’s ever admitted has more than two sides: it’s always right and wrong, period. Either you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists. Either you support the Patriot Act or you’re allied with Osama. Either you support the Iraq war or you think Saddam’s a lovely gentleman you’d like to have over for tea. Either you agree that “enemy combatants” can be locked away forever without justification, or you want terrorists to be able to join White House tours.
That is the source of the “setting himself up as having a direct line to God” problem. Bush has made it very, very plain that he considers himself on a mission from God (and not in the cool Blues-Brothers way), and that America has “a higher calling” to spread our way of life across the planet. Look it up in speeches and press conferences — he alludes to it all the time.
It’s arrogance bordering on fanaticism, and it’s not what I want in a leader regardless of party affiliation. The fact that he’s using it to push through policy after policy I find abhorrent and destructive adds to the problem, but the absolute lack of discussion and certainty that his way is always the 100% perfectly right way to do things is what I find truly terrifying.
TWL
As for Trudeau’s alleged “cruelty” to Dole, I would like to see the strips in question before I comment. (If anyone can point me to them, either an online source or a print source, I’d appreciate it.)
Tim, I tried to find them but couldn’t. I only remember one, mostly because it outraged John McCain so much he denounced it ont he floor of the senate–something about using “Bob Dole’s War Wound” as a character. Ish, I don’t remember the specifics but I remember cringing at the strip the first time I read it. Well, nobody’s funny 100% of the time.
Well AJ, the “enemy” flew planes into two buildings full of civilians, so based on your last line, we should too…Bladestar
HUH?
Umm… President Bush is a wartime president because he started the war. -Fred Chamberlin
UNLESS YOU HAVENT BEEN PAYING ATTENTION. BECAUSE SADDAM HUSSEIN DIDNT FOLLOW UN RESOLUTIONS, THE GULF WAR OF 91 DIDNT END. ALSO THE UN APPROVED OF THE INVASION OF IRAQ. IN 1998, THE SAME REASONS CLINTON GAVE TO BOMB IRAQ, BUSH USED TO INVADE. WMDS, NOT ALLOWING WEAPON INSPECTORS FULL ACCESS TO HIS COUNTRY. LOOK IT UP DONT BELIEVE ME.
Declaring a “war on terror” is equivalent to declaring a war on pride, or a war on lust. It’s eternal and unwinnable. Terror, and terrorism, is not something that’s ever going to completely go away unless human nature fundamentally changes (in ways I doubt anyone would completely agree with).-Tim Lynch
How about ending the war on poverty too? Its unwinable and human nature is involved there too.
The war on terror is not going to end. Ever. Bush said it would last beyond his administration. He also said that each situation demanded a different solution. Its not going to end if John Kerry is elected either. I never said that the war will end if the country is considered perfectly safe. I say this is a new way of life. That terrorist have taken to another level and the world must respond. Or do you forget 9-11?
You say Bush scares you. Does giving 20 billion to help combat AIDS in Africa scare you? Freeing 60 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan scare you? I guess we have to look at the shades of gray with Kim Jong Ill who uses his countries money to build nuclear weapons as most and do mean most of North Korea starves. A Korean friend of mine calls North Korea “Evil Korea.”
Life is tough. Im sorry but thats the way it is. Ignoring terrorists wont make them go away. As I said before, THEY’RE not going to stop. You cant have it both ways. You keep Hussein in power, he would of continued to gain power, fund terrorist
(including AL Queda) and become a bigger threat to all the world.
You claim Bush is the problem. OK. What is the solution? How do you deal with AL-QUEDA? Kim JONG ILL? Castro? Saddam Hussein?
Kerry would not do ANYTHING differently with these issues.
What are your answers to the problems AJ since you know so much and asked?
Secondly, the “War on Poverty, Drugs, etc” are NOT Wars. Who do we invade and/or bomb to end Poverty? More people want drugs than want them illegal, these are not actual wars.
In a war you have an enemy, and you have end conditions when the war is over. As long as human beings have free will, there will ALWAYS be terrorists and things to declare “War” on.
Why waste $20 billion American taxpayer dollars on African AIDS? It’s a waste of our money. Dis Iraq and Afghanistan invite us to invade and “free” them? As as far as N. Korea building nukes while their people starve, take a look at the nuubmer of jobless and homeless in America first bucko. Saudi Arabia funds terrorists too, but we aren’t “liberating” them…
Hussein was contained and no threat to the United States. And don’t forget who helped build and train Afghanistan and the Taliban back when Russia wanted to take it… America created the mess in Afghanistan…
Kerry would do alot differently, he’s a totally different person than Bush, he may implement many of the same reforms ultimately, execute the same maneuvers, but hos would have a lot more reason and intelligence than “God wants me as president and Jesus said to invade” and all the other god-crap Bush spews…
I only pop in to say that I’d gladly join the debate, but Tim Lynch is doing a good job at making the arguments that I’d make, so I’ll let him keep at it. 🙂
Fred,
Umm…Bush is a wartime president because 19 Muslim extremists flew planes into the Twin Towers – killing aproximately 3,000 people – and the Pentagon and tried to hit the Capitol/ White House.
Or wasn’t that a big deal?
Typical. America is attacked, but we’re not supposed to respond because if we do, they’ll respond.
Strong logic there.
Bladestar.
Just a couple things;
1.) Afghanistan and Iraq didn’t “ask” us to free them from oppression because…they were oppressed! funny how that works.
Also, I can see having misgivings about the policy in Iraq. I don’t agree, but I can at least see it. But Afghanistan? There is an undisputed link between the taliban in Afghanistan and 9/11. What would you have is do? Nothing?
The “we supported the Taliban 20 years ago” argument is especially weak. People change alliances all the time (look at how many divorces there are). Heck, the Soviet Union changed sides in the middle of World War II, and just because we worked together to stop the common threat that was Hitler, didn’t mean they were our alies afterward. Quite the opposite as a matter of fact. To assume that an ally is always going to be an ally, or that an enemy is always going to be an enemy is faulty thinking. Relationships between people and countries change over time.
2.) If you think the starvation and horror under a dictatorial regime is anywhere comparable to our homeless problem (most of whom can still get a meal at soup kitchens and shelter at shelters) and poverty situation (wjere many on welfare still get cable TV), I don’t know what to tell you
3.) I find it amazing that someone who spends his time taking care of dogs and cats finds helping poor Africans with AIDS a “waste” of money. Shouldn’t we use some of our wealth to help others? Or do you realize you sound just like Jerry Falwell?
The “Iraq War of ’91” didn’t end, because it didn’t start. War was not declared in 1991. The President is authorized by the War Powers Act to deploy troops for up to 90 days without consulting Congress. Bush I overshot by about ten days, so nobody made any big deal about it. This conflict is completely separate, although I don’t remember a formal declaration of war this time, either…
And Jerome, by the reasoning above, why aren’t we at war with Saudi Arabia? 15 of the 19 terrorists were Saudi citizens, after all. Al-Qaeda’s master is a Saudi citizen, and a (shunned) member of a prominent Saudi family. As best I can determine, none of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi, nor did the Iraqi government provide any direct support of al-Qaeda, nor did Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti ever even meet with Osama bin Laden (and had they met, bin Laden would probably have spent most of his time excoriating Saddam for being an apostate and a heretic, and the rest of it awaiting execution). Where is the reasoning behind our attack on Iraq? (No, the UN resolutions don’t count – no US resolution authorized the use of force, and after the fact the Bush administration said that the UN was irrelevant. Kind of invalidates any attempt to use them as a shield at this point…)
Tim,
Frankly, I think giving Clinton a pass on his service because “he didn’t say he was a war president” is beyond inane and weak. What if 9/11 had happened under his watch. What then? Would he have gotten a pass if he didn’t know what the hëll to do because, well, that’s not what we elected him for?
See, that’s one of the major disconnects with most liberals, seeing national defense as just one of many issues along with National health Care and Social Security, when it must always be THE issue.
I realize we disagree, but at least you make your points intelligently and with respect for others. If I don’t seem to be answring all points raised, I apologize. I recently have been shouldering a vastly increased workload. add that to the fact that I always wish my posts to be informed and thought out and a little more substantive than “Clinto screwed everything up” and similar nonsense AND the fact that I always like to respond to Craig, Jonathan and others, and that most of all the posts here sem to bring up at least two new points for every one raised, well I’m sorry for not responding to everything. i a trying to.