|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: New Book: Kerry ‘Unfit for Command’ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The most significant thing I gather from his four months is the fact that he video taped himself in action and even re-enacted certain situations to capture himself in a postion of glory possibly with future political ambitions in mind. But that's simply not true. As executive editor of the NYT, Bill Keller discovered:
quote: This isn't a guy staging heroic bullshit to show his friends. This is a guy taking souvenier film on a camera he picked up in the PX, like anyone might do and many did.
This little bit, unlike the swift boat vets claims is undebateable No offense, but to characterize it as "undebateable", it would have to be true.
Well, that and telling us "help is on the way," and giving broad generalizations promising to magically fix all the nation's problems by treating the symptoms, and promising to shirk this terrorist business off on the UN. I haven't heard Paragraph One from Bush about the issues that matter to me, like health care (apparently the skyrocketing costs of healthcare is one of the reasons companies aren't hiring), the economy, campaign reform, election reform, etc. All I hear are "ter'rists!" Terrorism killed less people in 2000 than motorcycle accidents. For every person that dies in a terrorist act, hundreds starve to death. Terrorism is not my number-one priority, I'm sorry. There's a lot more people who are going to die from the other stuff. And if terrorism does become a much bigger problem in the near future, it's going to be Bush's fault. I don't know that Kerry's plan is better, because I'm not that smart. I literally don't have the training to assess. I'm not entirely sure that anyone does. But I'd rather have cautious leadership than devil-may-care cowboy arrogance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 781 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
Oops hit submit too soon...
Did you go to his website? Did you watch the DNC? Been to his website and watched his acceptance speech and saw a few parts of other speeches as well.
Or are you just paying attention to what's in the news? The mass media is in love with Kerry. Why would they turn me away?
It's true that he hasn't stuck his name on any really great bills; he is, on the other hand, the junior senator from his state. How many years has he been in the senate? I had 18 stuck in my head, but I could be wrong. I know its around 20 years, which is long enough to get something important accomplished.
This Swift Boat shit does just that so I expect we'll keep seeing it, Well, why did Kerry bring the Swift Boat shit up in the first place? IMO he wants to paint himself as a great war leader because the war on terrorism is one of the foremost issues in the minds of the public. I won't vote for a candidate that paints pictures of himself rather than enthusiastically outlining the specifics of his plans to fix pressing problems.
Again, though, if you're waiting for the media to beat you over the head with this stuff, it's not gonna happen. Yeah, there's a lot of OTHER stuff that the media is not willing show me and a lot of negative spin on things that would help Bush. I heard a reporter on the radio a couple of weeks ago say in a downcast voice that ONLY 500,000 some odd jobs were created last quarter as if that were a tragedy. Why do people have to make us believe we're living in "hell" to vote for Kerry?
If you're interested in reading about his accomplishments, hopefully this link still works: Nope, I did the ad and it said, "Page not found".
which I'm sure suits Bush just fine. I honestly don't think Bush has been putting a lot of effort into this campaign so far. I kinda wish he would. I'm looking forward to seeing Kerry and Edwards get whipped in the debates in the fall.
It's obvious that you haven't really bothered to find out anything about his plans or his record, so how can you claim to know enough to judge his character? Even if his records showed him to be a restless driven hard worker and completely honest, I am against his liberal policies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote:Are you speaking of when the Vietnamese people finally threw out the foreign invaders of their country and achieve a measure of independence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 781 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
Thank you for your reply.
I haven't heard Paragraph One from Bush about the issues that matter to me, like health care (apparently the skyrocketing costs of healthcare is one of the reasons companies aren't hiring), the economy, campaign reform, election reform, etc. All I hear are "ter'rists!" Terrorism killed less people in 2000 than motorcycle accidents. For every person that dies in a terrorist act, hundreds starve to death. Terrorism is not my number-one priority, I'm sorry. There's a lot more people who are going to die from the other stuff. And if terrorism does become a much bigger problem in the near future, it's going to be Bush's fault. Haha... yes, terrorism is always Bush's fault... (shaking head) Did it ever occur to you that terrorism has a significant impact on the economy?
I don't know that Kerry's plan is better Well, if you look at how indecisive the UN is, and how they've botched so many military actions in the last century, you can be assured that handing the terroris problem to the UN is NOT better.
But I'd rather have cautious leadership than devil-may-care cowboy arrogance. I'd much rather go kill the terrorists now than wait for them to attack us again before we pull our heads out of our asses and say, "well by golly maybe we outta do something about that." The same democrats who accuse Bush of going hastily into battle are the ones who accuse him of in-action prior to 9-11. We've ignored the terrorist problem for the past two decades; its about time we became proactive, and that is just what Bush has done. Not only that, but he has seeded a free democratic anti-terrorist ally on the toughest street in the world. Democracy is infectious. It's why the soviet union fell. If Iraq succeeds in keeping their country terrorist free and a free democracy it will eventually destroy the poor radical muslim dominated societies which are the terrorist breeding grounds. Bush is not stirring up the hornets nest, he's introducing a new predator to them. This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 08-24-2004 10:49 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5622 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Jar, Though George is not the topic, I thought that he got John Ashcroft to help him in the interpretativness of law, think were all concerned, as is George how a few immoral judges are changing the laws to the point its no longer the will of the people but the will of these immoral judges, it may take Congressional amendments to reign in some of these treasonous judges, or at the least overrule some of their dubious decree's, etc...
P.S. To answer your question, George is going through the processes to get Congressional amendments, and if a bill comes to his desk, its at that time he votes for or against, etc...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Funny that all the independent non-political evaluations of the Kerry swiftboat buisiness say that the evidence is there that the Kerry version is verified by actual official US Navy documents (from medal citations to boat repair records), while the positions of the attack ad crew are contradicted by such documents and internal discrepancies.
Funny that this issue first arose when Kerry first ran for Senator and Nixon recruited O'Neil to smear him, and they were answered then. Those answers have not changed but the attack ad versions have? Interesting to see your response to Opus's post on the flipping and flopping of shrub ... and in just three years (one off on vacation) compared to Kerry's Senate career, even as distorted by the neocons. Now you may think that 4 months is not sufficient to judge a person, but I have to ask if those were compared to a few years that included a DUI, a missed mandatory medical with drug test, a suspension, apparently being AWOL, and having no documentation of an honorable discharge at the end of his service, I'd say you can make a judgement of relative character. What Kerry said was "I was there, I did show up, I did serve, and I'm ready to do it again." That singular difference has not been refuted by anyone. Not the attack ads, not the smear campaign. If you let neocons criticize Kerry (by paid self-serving surrogates or whoever), and follow those criticisms without looking equally at shrubby at the same time then you are not being honest about your criteria for credibility. The claim that it is only an issue between Kerry and the other vets and the claim that only Kerry can be criticized because he brought it up are both bogus due to the fact that bush claimed his service record when running against gore ... and still has no answers for the gaping holes in his stories four years later. If you ignore the negative character implications of this it is to your shame, as Kerry still comes out the better candidate even if all the bogus claims of the vet crew were true. Try side by side comparisons and you should change your tune. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
yeah, the ones that subverted the provisions in the constitution to appoint shrub president and overrule the election process. together with the ones that think the patriot acts are improvements instead of gutting the constitution ... those types?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Whatever.
Does George Bush enforce the laws of the land. A simple yes or no is all that is needed. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Whatever, where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
Also, whare is Ossama bin Laden? How is the war in Iraq going? What is the US national debt right now compared to 4 years ago?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: That's not what was said. Ehat was said was: (emphasis added) And if terrorism does become a much bigger problem in the near future, it's going to be Bush's fault. The Bush administration had the sympathy of the world after Sept. 11, which is why so many of our allies joined us in going after Al Qauida and Ossama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Since special forces were not deployed in Afghanistan two months after we attacked, Bin Laden got away. Bush and Co. seemed to be, and continue to be, completely unconcerened. They turned to Iraq, a country which is no threat to the US, lied to the American people repeatedly about WMD and the nonexistent connection between Al Qauida and Iraq, and invaded to get access to the second largest untapped oil field in the world. In speeches and statements, the implication that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 was repeated over and over again, to the point that a majority of the US public believed in the run up to the war that the people who crashed the planes into the WTC were Iraqi, not mostly Saudi. Now, because of all of this, combined with trying to do the war in Iraq on the cheap, Islamic extremism in Iraq and elsewhere is much more common, Al Qauida is reorganized, our allies are alienated because we basically flipped them off and invaded a sovereign nation on the basis of the flimsiest/fabricated evidence. Religious extremism is on the increase, and is appearing in nations that previously didn't have much, such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia. If it can be agreed that religious extremism can and has led to acts of terrorism, the Bush has created an atmosphere that is a fertile ground for anti-American religious extremism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So why did we not finish the job in Afghanistan? Why did we invade Iraq when they didn't do anything to us at all? If we wanted to invade the country most responsible for producing the suicide bomberes, we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
the dissassociation of thought from reality is truly amazing isn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Did it ever occur to you that terrorism has a significant impact on the economy? Clearly not as significant as skyrocketing health care costs. I don't hear companies saying "we can't hire new workers because somebody flew airplanes into buildings four years ago."
I'd much rather go kill the terrorists now than wait for them to attack us again before we pull our heads out of our asses and say, "well by golly maybe we outta do something about that." Absolutely, me too. We're not doing that. We're bogged down by the irrelevancy of Iraq. We've left Afghanistan to the wolves - or rather, the warlords, who are the people that they instituted the Taliban to deal with. If Bush wanted to play nation-builder in the Middle East, what was wrong with Afghanistan? I'm all in favor of going after the terrorist breeding grounds. There's a big one - its called "Saudi Arabia." Of course, so long as we're sucking their oil teat, that's not gonna happen, now is it? Me, I figure that the first step in reducing dependance on foreign oil sources is getting oilmen out of the White House.
The same democrats who accuse Bush of going hastily into battle are the ones who accuse him of in-action prior to 9-11. So, inaction and hasty, reckless action are the only two alternatives to you? Call me crazy but I figure there's a middle ground - doing the right thing.
It's why the soviet union fell. Well, no, the Soviet Union fell because it was inevitable that it would; they couldn't manage their scarce resources effectively and efficiently. But that's not the topic. Isn't Taiwan a democracy? How's that working for China, by the way?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MisterOpus1 Inactive Member |
quote: And as I was pointing out, the Smear Boaters continue to contradict their previous glowing after-action and fitness reports about Kerry's heroic acts. They are also contradicting Naval records as well as true eyewitness accounts of individuals who were NOT JUST ON KERRY'S boat. I demonstrated a number of individuals who have come forward lately to support Kerry whom were on other boats. According to Naval records, the closest the Smear Boaters were to Kerry's boat was a couple hundred yards away and were patrolling the OTHER side of the river. The eyewitnesses that support Naval record and Kerry's version were patrolling literally right next to Kerry. I then demonstrated the contradiction with Thurlow's account as yet another piece of evidence against the Smear Boaters. Combine this with this group's well-known agenda, previous smear record against McCain, and big-bucks Texas Republican backing, this group rots to high heaven.
quote: You're free to believe their claims, so long as you accept the fact that you're believing highly contradictory evidence to Naval record, along with unsupported assertions.
quote: Nor would I. But his act of volunteering to the military and request to serve his tours in Vietnam, vs. a guy who deliberately wanted to skip the war by enrolling in a politician-friendly Air Guard, scored in the 25th percentile on his test but was allowed in ahead of other passing scores anyway, flat-out requested NOT to be sent to fight in Vietnam, and couldn't even finish his service in the first place, tends to speak volumes about the building of character to me.
quote: Could have fooled me. I stand by my statement. Odell's statement: "I do not have a single document," Odell said. "I have the fact that I wasn't wounded in that 5,000 meters of fire that he wrote about." is absolutely preposterous. Odell claims that Kerry has not been honest and does not have any evidence to his claim that Kerry embellished his after-action report on his Bronze Star and 3rd Purple Heart. In fact, as I so neatly pointed out, it's highly doubtful that Kerry even wrote the report for his Star and PP, given the fact that the initials on the report are not his and also show up on other reports unrelated to Kerry in any manner. But yet he wants us to go by the fact that he himself wasn't shot, therefore there was no shooting involved? Please don't tell me you buy into that logic? If he utilized this type of logic in a court, he would be laughed right out the door.
quote: Again I stand by my statement of "scarcely" during his speech. I do agree with you that his opening line was a little corny, but no biggie. After that line, however, he rarely referred back to his military service again (perhaps maybe one other time). The Swift Boat men on the stage were not a part of his actual speech, even though they were a part of the nightly speeches altogether. I was specifically referring to his speech.
quote: Hmmm, must have heard a different speech than I did. I have an idea next time you hear a Kerry speech on TV - Switch the channel off of Faux News. That might cut down on the Conservative attack, I mean Conservative talking points during his speech a little better. As for the speech itself, ALL nomination speeches are broad. Did you not listen to Bush's nomination speech in 2000? Very few details are given, which is kinda funny how that correlates exactly with what I said: "he broadly outlined nearly every one of his policies and stances..." The specifics are there for you to read here: http://www.johnkerry.com Feel free to read them, if you really care to.
quote: Have you really listened to any of his stump speeches or any of his speeches at all? Granted, he has touched on his war record throughout his speeches, but he does so as a demonstration of his leadership and character. If you have listened to any of his speeches, and not to the distortions of Hannity or Limbaugh, you would hear about his proven accomplishments in the Senate. For the most part, his Senate record was that of an investigator, not a policy maker (though he did create a few here and there). He wasn't the type of Senator that wanted his name on everything he touched. Rather, he utilized his investigative background on a number of events (Iran/Contra, BCCI bank, etc.) that proved invaluable for our government and our country. Often times he went against powerful individuals in his own party, if he felt what he was doing was right. Hardly the flip-flopper that the Conservative mouthpieces want to slap him with.
quote: Explain. Be specific as to which policies give you the shivers.
quote: Explain. It is just my opinion, of course, but it seems that the main issues of the day (Iraq, economy) favor Kerry, as does the public. How is what I said hypocritical?
quote: You really should listen a little better to what he is saying as opposed to the Conservative mouthpieces. If you think we can fight the war on terror by ourselves without the help of the UN and European nations, you are not only shortsighted but terribly misguided. The assistance of the European nations so far in fighting terrorism has been invaluable. But it certainly could be better. With Bush's current "piss on the UN" type stance, however, we are only moving backwards on our global war on terror.
quote: Again, you really need to listen to what Kerry has said. He would have voted the same, but NOT for the President to utilize that power and fail to have a stronger coalition, kick the UN inspectors out prematurely, and have no real post-war plan. But even more so, who's to say that under the same circumstances if Kerry were President 4 yrs. ago, that he would have even pushed Iraq on the forefront the way Bush did, while at the same time neglecting Afghanistan and pulling troops out of there who were searching for the REAL terrorist threat? My guess is that Kerry (or I guess, Gore to be more historically accurate) would likely not have pushed Iraq out there as a threat, esp. when there was counterevidence that clearly indicated Saddam was very well contained regardless.
quote: What part didn't you understand?
quote: Well if you think it's hidden, then allow me to come out and say it - Bush is a complete dumbass. There, now there's no hidden feelings involved here.
quote: But one can listen and plan for possible consequences quite a bit better, can they not? So was it true what Rumsfeld said about the Iraqi's welcoming us with "open arms"?
quote: Most of the soldiers are happy with the consequences? Source, please. Are you really being serious with this comment? It is reported by our own military that our troops are overstretched over there in Iraq. It is reported that men and women are serving longer than their expected 1 yr. tours. We are unfortunately having to use many retired reservists in order to keep our rotation of tours fair to everyone serving right now. Bush and Rumsfeld was told we needed more troops by the State Dept. and high ranking Pentagon officials. They ignored this completely and now we have this overstretched military fiasco. From a NYTimes article:
quote: This info. can be found here, BTW (free registration required):
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/09/opinion/...{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus} Furthermore, the water supply is being tainted by sewage as a result of all the fighting occurring, offering lovely diseases such as typhoid and hepatitis E to the citizens: http://www.iraq.net/displayarticle5004.html Additionally, the latest Iraqi public opinion poll still demonstrates a wide majority of Iraqis wanting our troops out now. They reject our help and their puppet government.
quote: There was no indication from intelligence that they were. Even if they had, surely something would have been found by now.
quote: A little hunt on your statement turned up this in March of 2003: http://www.news24.com/...aq/0,6119,2-10-1460_1340941,00.html But our Administration could not confirm such a link: Page not found | Power Line And then the Iraqi Survey Group offered the opposite account in Sept. of last year, saying such an event was "highly unlikely"
BBC NEWS | UK | Politics | No WMD in Iraq, source claims
But then the "trusty" old World Net Daily decided to run yet another unsupported account of events last January: Page not found - WND But then Conoleeeeeeza Rice came out and stated this:
quote: http://216.26.163.62/2004/ss_iraq_01_11.html Unless there's something new since then that I haven't noticed, there is NO evidence to support the notion of WMD being smuggled into Syria at this time.
quote: Well we know now that he has no WMD, and there were no ties between him and the 9/11 terrorists, as well as no working relations between him and bin Laden, so what was the vital reason that he "needed to be taken out immediately", esp. since he posed no imminent or "serious" threat to us?
quote: That I can agree with. But then again, that's Bush Sr.'s fault, wasn't it?
quote: Yeah, a coalition of individuals who gave a few troops here or there and a coupla bucks and a pat on the back. When it comes down to it, however, it was us and the British. And when it comes down to who's paying the big majority of the bill, it's most certainly us. How could it be the right thing to do if Saddam has no WMD, and no ties to Al Qaeda terrorists, esp. the ones that attacked on our soil?
quote: Oh, perhaps you didn't read the reports that indicated that Al Qaeda and it's supporters have now poured into Iraq to kill our men and women there? Or perhaps you didn't read the confession by Powell that global terrorist attacks are actually much higher now than they ever were before? Hardly a hole plugged up by anyone's standards.
quote: Which is effectively crippling the rest of the country of Iraq as a result. Read the report on the water and sewage as an example. Let me be clear, there are some positives here and there. But the negative effects override the positives, and for good reason - they have a much more lasting effect on the people as a whole.
quote: Then why debate me in the first place? Just kindly don't respond then. Or don't even read, if you so desire.
quote: It would be quite a feat if it were true and done on correct pretenses. I won't deny that progress has been accomplished, but the cost of that progress on us is astonishing (esp. when you consider that we are trying to recover from a domestic economic downturn), and the process from which it has occurred is nothing shy of sloppy and shortsighted.
quote: Because of both the foreign and domestic policies by this Administration have done very little to truly move us forward.
quote: It would have been much more worthy if Saddam truly was a threat to us, and that our pretenses for invading their country were true. That was not the case by any stretch of the imagination.
quote: I agree.
quote: I didn't realize I was trying to convince you of this, nor is Kerry. But since Iraq did not pose an imminent threat, and since there were no ties to bin Laden, I fail to see how invading Iraq was a worthy fight right now in our war against terrorism. Don't you think our efforts should have been more towards Al Qaeda instead?
quote: Oh just give Peter a chance for the RNC - he'll be pissing his pants there just as much. I would hardly agree with you about the press and Kerry. I can't remember how many times I heard the numerous Conservative talking points coming out of their mouths about him ("flip-flopper", "liberal Senate record", etc. etc.). In fact, the case can be made for the opposite. Just recently, both the NYTimes and the Washington Post have made open apologies in their papers for going along the Conservative and Bush rhetoric about Saddam's WMD without equally weighing or even INVESTIGATING counterevidence against this claim. The press is out for one thing - sensationalism. They care very little who they trash or praise. If it makes them a few extra bucks or it grabs higher ratings, then they will all be for it.
quote: Well then perhaps you should read more about his proposals instead of listen to his rhetoric: http://www.johnkerry.com And then weigh his ideas with Bush's. If you do so with equal footing on both and still vote for Bush, more power to you. But at least you can read exactly what Kerry stands for instead of listening to the Conservative mouthpieces attempting to define/distort his words and policies for him. This message has been edited by MisterOpus1, 08-25-2004 03:13 PM This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-25-2004 03:41 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024