Finally, the Kerry campaign gets some passion in response to the attacks.
-
Archives
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- May 2011
- March 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- August 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
-
Meta
Yes, we’re all well aware John Kerry served in Vietnam. Perhaps he could move his campaign forward a few decades and deal with things in the here and now.
Here’s a tip: Bush is completely vulnerable on border security and immigration/employment issues.
At the same time that he is universally acknowledged to be keeping our homeland safe, he’s left our borders largely unguarded.
His “guest worker” plan would be open not just to serf laborers. Here’s a quote from his assistant: “We do envision that [the Bush/Fox amnesty/”guest worker” plan] would be open to any type of employee and any type of employer, such as nurses, teachers, high-tech workers, low-skilled workers. This is a concept that can apply broadly”
In effect, Bush would like to put American jobs on eBay.
My suggestions are here. If he gets desperate enough or if he gets better advisors Kerry might consider becoming the American candidate rather than last century’s promise-them-anything candidate.
I think if Kerry made more speeches like this, he’d have a much better chance of winning. I would like to see much more substantive debate, but it simply isn’t going to happen. Given the state of politics in America today, media disinterest in elementary fact checking, and the even more profound disinterest of the bulk of voters, this is about the best you can do without turning your campaign into a suicide run ala Gore.
Hitting back is an American value.
yes finally. let’s hear in detail about those two tours of duty, especially the story of the self confessed atrocities.
Yes, let’s hear him defend himself. He has YET to confront the accusations by the swift boat vets AND his campaign has ADMITTED some of his LIES.
Instead, he attacks Cheney for things he NEVER said.
Amen to Mojo – the press has no interest in fact checking anything that is anti-Kerry – only impuning the morals of those who make the claims.
Kerry’s speech will prove to be the turning point of this whole election….and not a good turn for him.
I agree with Lonewacko on the issue of open borders – but Kerry won’t attack Bush on that because Kerry is even more extreme than Bush on this (have to keep the hispanic vote, after all!).
Uh, Alan, the Swift Boat Liars have been thoroughly debunked. Even Republicans like John McCain are completely disgusted with them. And there is no doubt whatsoever that Cheney got FIVE deferements so he didn’t have to actually go to Vietnam and walk the walk instead of just talking the talk. Same for Bush: his family connections got him a nice little cushy National Guard job (which he was largely AWOL from), and he got out of Vietnam as well.
Strange you didn’t mention any of those indisputable facts, but instead persist in maligning a decorated veteran. One more measure of the desperation of chickenhawks in trying to turn attention away from Bush’s failings in Iraq, the economy, the environment, and within his own character. Shame on you.
In some ways Kerry is more extreme, in other ways he is not.
Jeb Bush came out in favor of driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, but Kerry has opposed them. And, Kerry opposed them on Telemundo, so his opposition is already “in the market” so to speak. A spokeswoman from MALDEF had to take a deep breath and regain her composure when told that Kerry opposed driver’s licenses for those who are here illegally.
So, if MALDEF is somewhat upset, does that mean that Kerry has lost the Hispanic vote? Well, consider that MALDEF was created by the Ford Foundation and gets very little money from grassroots. They no more represent Hispanics as a whole than People for the American Way represents Americans as a whole.
So, if Kerry comes out for stronger border control and an end to illegal immigration some of the far-left Racial Identity groups would certainly be upset. But, I don’t think he’d lose too many votes of average Hispanics. And, he’d certainly gain many more votes of non-Hispanics.
At a meeting of one of these Racial Identity groups, Kerry promoted his amnesty plan. At the same time, he said that 1.3 million Hispanic-Americans were out of work. I have trouble understanding how he intends to do something about the latter at the same time as he’s flooding America with millions of low-wage workers.
It all depends on how this is presented. Instead of blaming illegal immigrants themselves, he could blame the greedy companies that hire illegals and talk about how they specifically hire illegals because they aren’t covered by the same laws as legal workers. He can talk about protecting American jobs. He can show Bush to be weak on homeland security and promise to keep the homeland safe. He could also talk about Bush’s cozy relationship with Vicente Fox. He could oppose the loony plan to give social security to illegal aliens. And, he could come out in favor of farm and factory mechanization as an alternative to back-breaking stoop labor.
On the minus side, Kerry supports the AgJobs amnesty. Here’s what that amnesty entails: They would have to continue to toil in the fields a certain number of days for at least three more years to be eligible for residency, which would assure farmers of a legal labor pool. I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether that qualifies as indentured servitude. Perhaps Kerry could drop his support for AgJobs and portray it as righteous opposition to indentured servitude.
Here’s what Kerry had to say about DLs: “I think that driver’s licenses are part of the legality of being here and if you’ve been here a period of time we may work something out as part of that immigration process, but I wouldn’t give somebody who is automatically one year in here illegally all the rights and privileges of being here legally,” Kerry said in the interview…”I think that’s wrong. That defeats the purposes of the law,”
And, note that Hillary Clinton said at the DNC that we need to “secure our borders.”
And, note the Ds in this frightening article about Bush’s failure to keep the homeland safe.
The main reason so many Republicans seem to want to smear Kerry’s war efforts is not to draw away attention from the many failings of the Bush administration, but because they realize that Kerry’s strategy simply works. Kerry: hero. Bush: coward. Kerry: hero. Bush: coward.
It does not matter if Kerry was a bad soldier or a bad leader; at least he wasn’t a coward.
And the utterly galling thing must be to Republicans that these are the sort of good-bad contrasts as the right like them defined. A left-leaning person might have thought Kerry a real hero if he had actively opposed the draft and gone to prison.
In other words, Kerry is beating them at their own game, and the Republicans hate that.
Borodoni:
Get a clue…they have not been debunked at all. Have you read the book or just the leftist press.
Let’s talk facts:
FACT according to Kerry himself: Kerry also sought deferments – when that strategy failed he sought a cushy Navy job – then he found out that he was going to end up in the middle of it (source: his own interviews with the press)
FACT according to Kerry himself: His first purple heart was from a self inflicted wound (source: his journal as quoted in his biography)
FACT according to Kerry himself: There is NO proof that GW was AWOL from the National Guard (source: interviews on CNN)
FACT: George Bush and Cheney have both HONORED Kerry for his service (source: RNC convention)
FACT: Kerry has YET to attempt to refute ANY Swift Vet allegations.
FACT: Kerry refuses to release his medical/military records.
FACT: Kerry puts words into Cheney’s mouth that he never uttered (Kerry’s speech after RNC, Cheney’s speech at RNC)
I will talk facts with you all day long. If I should be ashamed for talking about facts, then I live in the wrong world.
As a registered Republican, I have to admit that Kerry’s speech was better-written than I had believed after hearing only a paragraph or two from the media broadcast.
For those who still cannot figure out why Kerry’s two tours aren’t able to trump Bush’s National Guard service or Cheney’s repeated deferments, remember that Democratic Party explained in 1992 that Clinton’s draft-dodging activities did not disqualify him as the Commander-in-Chief. They did such a good job that it wasn’t really brought up in 1996 against Dole (a disabled WWII vet). In 2000, Gore didn’t have any military service to speak of, so Bush’s time in the National Guard was looked at only on the surface (somebody admitted to pulling strings, but denied that anybody asked for it).
The Swift Boat issue is interesting, because Kerry may end up a casualty to friendly fire. His constant begging that Bush denounce the Swifites only led Bush to file legal action to get the FEC to enforce a part of campaign finance law the the Swifites had violated, but the Moveon.org and others had also violated in Kerry’s favor. Moveon’s actions had led people to believe there was a grassroots anti-Bush effort (a la The Cluetrain Manifesto. The FEC action will probably make that effort look more like astroturf, and Kerry has himself to blame.
Also, remember, Kerry brought up Viet Nam, and he should have had an idea that the Cambodia story wouldn’t hold up to scrutiny (partly because Nixon wasn’t president in 1968, and Buddhists don’t celebrate Christmas or Christmas Eve — Kerry “revised” his location but [to my knowledge] never explained how he flubbed on the President; I would expect a soldier to know who the Commander in Chief is). And his ridiculous pet story was going to be debunked just because it was clearly an effort to get votes.
Yes, some people have come to his rescue, but Kerry has had a deer-in-the-headlights look on his face for some time (the story is that Kerry didn’t come out swinging sooner because he got bad advice from his staff). However, Gore’s decision to go over the top (“Vote for me, I invented the Internet!”) hurt him in several ways, and it looks like Kerry looks hasn’t avoided that quicksand.
After thinking about my previous post, I would like to clarify and add:
i guess I just don’t see why how people block out how terrible of a president bush is by attacking Kerry about shit that happened during Viet Nam… Bush decieved the country at the best time he could… we were vulnerable after sept 11th.. scared and confused we wanted to get those whoever did it… and we haven’t even done that.. we did a little dance in afghanistan and moved onto our presidents objectives which were Iraq… not only the deception of Iraq but our economy is the worst it’s been in the last 50 years.. he hasn’t created 1 new net job ( we’ve lost 2.7 million ) and industrial jobs are flowing out of the country at a terrible rate… fact is politics are kinda like religion.. and the right wingers have “faith” in G.W.B. and there is nothing that can change that.. it doesn’t matter how many facts are in front of their faces they will never let their faith for the liar die… so we just need to get out there and vote and we will see what happens… 2 more months 2 more months… or else I’ll have to deal with it for 4 more years ( god forbid )
and not to mention health care prices have doubled… doubled.. yep .. idk if it has happened to you… but the best contract we could get at work was to settle for doubling our rates over the next 3 years :/…….. ohhh yeah.. and that’s not to mention 175 people are being laid off this next month.. this is at a company that hasn’t laid anybody off in the last 15 years and that was only 8 people.. yep…but now our plant is laying off 1/3 of it’s workers 🙁
pretty sweet… vote kerry… please
Kerry looked like a desperate whiner. He couldn’t even wait until the next day to spew his rambling, disjointed responses to the RNC’s convention. If Kerry wants to keep this election close, he’s got to stop all the Vietnam crap and say something about the office he’s running for! What are his specific plans on the domestic front?
I’m sorry, I thought the article was about a speech given by Kerry in response to Bush. I tried to keep my comments targeted to the speech.
Yeah, shame on you, Alan. Don’t you know freedom of speech is only a right if you’re on the left?
From the John Kerry Dictionary of American English:
Skerry’s got two options: 1) Run on his record in the senate, or 2) Run on the fact that he was in Vietnam.
If he runs on Vietnam he knows that it will be revealed that he’s distorted, exaggerated, fabricated facts out of whole cloth and just plain lied. People are going to point out that his Vietnam service was 35 years ago. He’s going to look foolish for trying to be a war hero when he opposed the war. He risks alienating supporters that now realize they are anti-war (which they didn’t know when Monica’s boyfriend was president). People are going to wonder about the sanity of a man who pathologically addresses every single issue with “I served in Vietnam!”
So he chooses to run on his Vietnam service.
What does that tell you about his record in the senate?
BTW, Nixon was elected in ’68, took office in January 1969. Doesn’t change anything, Kerry still fantasized the whole thing. Just wanted things to be accurate.
Wouldn’t it be great if we could have a 2004 election? What we’re having is a rematch of the 2000 election. The result of this election will be a measure of how effective the disgruntled Gore supporters are at spreading their gospel of hatred. Alleged Kerry supporters don’t want Kerry any more than real people do. They’ve just bought into the doctrine of Bush hatred being spread by the losers of the 2000 election.
Legitimate differences on policy like immigration and health care don’t result in the Carvillesque spewing of venom like we’re seeing from the left.
Notice to Phil Hendrie–it’s time to reign in your character. The joke’s gone far enough.
Hitting back is indeed an American value. Oh, wait. Unless you’re Bush and you’ve been compared to Hitler and you use the democrats’ own ads . . . then it’s dirty pool.
This is just plain bizarre.
Is it true that democrat comes from the Greek word meaning hypocrite?
When is anyone going to resurrect the AWOL record of the Commander? It’s not old news; it’s news that’s been buried in SOP fashion. It evidences the real character of the stubborn invader who says one thing and does another.
When are distortions and half-truths going to get the treatment they deserve?
(to Grumpy Conservative) LOL
I need to look at my “times tables” again. 68 is divisible by four, 70 isn’t, 72 is. I don’t know how I overlooked that. Thanks for the correction.
(to Anonymous) What do you want? Bush has released several records (such as dental records) that show he was physically in Texas when he was supposedly AWOL. Without a time machine, this is the best that’s available.
On the other hand, if you wish to bring up his drunk driving conviction or his cocaine use, please remember Bush is not running on his drunk driving record or his cocaine record. Kerry, on the other hand, is running on his four-and-a-half months in Viet Nam, so it seems fair to look at those four-and-a-half months.
Bush is running on the Patriot Act (and related military action), No Child Left Behind, Medicare drug benefits, and proposals for a large but conservative government. Yes, there are unpopular parts in each of those, and Kerry has brought some of them up. Kerry, in fact, looks like he’s begging to be able to debate these specific issues. However, Bush currently has Kerry off balance, and will continue to press the advantage and “run down the clock.”
What is Kerry supposed to do in a campaign where the only strength Bush can even attempt to claim (which I don’t personally consider a strength) is his ability to act as commander-in-chief? Kerry can’t just fail to mention the fact he was in Vietnam, and isn’t it strangely convenient that the Swfit Boat book didn’t come out until around the DNC? They had over 30 years to put this book out.
In any event, this controversy seems like a red herring to distract people from the real issues that should be addressed during this campaign. Clinton’s dodge of the draft certainly didn’t stop him from being in office for 8 years.
Kerry should be addressing what he thinks should be done differently and point out the problems with what the present administration’s policies are.
Just about all of the SBVT’s claims look debunked to me. Hard to find anything of substance that stands up, although perhaps you might think the dates of the Cambodia story are substantive.
Omigosh! Somebody posted something on the internet saying the Swift Boat Vets are liars! I guess the Swift Boat Vets have been debunked after all.
Next topic: We never landed on the moon. I know that’s true ’cause I read it on the internet.
Let’s see . . . why would the whole thing not be an issue until the man’s running for president? . . . Why in the world would somebody not publish a book about an obscure senator’s activity in Vietnam until that man brought up his activity in a presidential campaign? . . . . Why oh why oh why wouldn’t some publisher leap at the opportunity to invest in a book before anyone gives two microcraps about the subject? . . . .
Doggone it Lesley, I guess it’s like the square root of a million–We’ll just never know.
Grumpy, just about everyone who has looked at what these guys have said with an open mind has noted what can charitably called difficulties with their claims, not the least of which is contradictions by themselves in the past – often in the recent past – let alone anything to do with the official record.
Read the link I posted. It’s fairly comprehensive, with references to sources rather than unsupported assertions. It points out both the obvious issues and the subtle ones that the average TV viewer wouldn’t detect without a fair bit of additional knowledge.
If you want to put your head in the sand and avoid any evidence, that’s your prerogative. But people with their head in the sand look stupid doing it leave their backside vulnerable, and don’t contribute to the eternal vigilance necessary to protect liberty…
Good question. O’Neill was backed by Nixon when Kerry was testifying to the Senate about Winter Soldier. He wasn’t obscure then, and Nixon’s tapes show that Nixon wanted Kerry politically damaged.
So why in the world – with all of Nixon’s underhand resources, and much more recent memories of events than now, and more witnesses alive to recall – didn’t any of this come out back then?
It doesn’t pass the smell test, let alone any detailed investigation…
Hey! Wait a minute! Here’s a news flash that might clear things up a little bit.
You say they’ve been debunked, I say they haven’t and we exchange little internet links back and forth until November 3rd. But I know something you may never realize�lying or not, the Swift Boat Vets are on your side. Vietnam is John Kerry’s Monica Lewinsky.
Monica Lewinsky was the best thing that ever happened to the Clinton administration because it distracted everyone’s attention from the important fact�that Clinton was an abysmal president.
In the same way, the longer we talk about what a fraud Kerry was in Vietnam�something as important to this election as personal hygiene is to Michael Moore-on�the less we talk about what he did after he came home. I don’t just mean Kerry’s appalling record in the senate. I mean his aiding the enemy in handing the United States military it’s only defeat in 200 years of history.
I shudder to think of a man like that in the White House. The funny thing is, his supporters are going to suffer just as bad if he wins. Supporting Kerry is like competing in the Special Olympics–even if you win, you’re still a retard.
The Swift Boat Vets are not on anyone’s side but Bush’s, and that includes America’s side. You have it exactly right that they want to distract from the true debate – especially about Bush’s record.
You say Clinton “was an abysmal president”, but he left office with rather high approval ratings – a lot higher than Bush has been enjoying lately. Sounds like wishful thinking to me.
Grumpy, you appear to come from the camp that Zell Miller comes from, where questioning policies that involve the troops amounts to treason:
Your country was founded on freedom to question. It is the patriotic duty to question what appear to be mistakes, to determine what is right and what is wrong and to change policy if wrong is found. People like you and the hard right of the RNC are trying to take that away with binary thinking (“you’re either with us or against us”, “questioning policy is aiding the enemy”). That is un-American and unpatriotic and does enormous damage to your country. Kerry was far braver in his Senate testimony questioning established power than those who seek to quell dissent. Without dissent you have dictatorship or monarchy, throwing the fate of the country on the abilities – or otherwise – of the man at the helm. That is truly scary, and if your mindset holds sway in the US, you will get the type of country you deserve.
Okay, everybody pay up. I nailed that bet.
Oh, stop it, I’m not really psychic. I’ve just had enough experience with liberals to predict the “Your expression of opinion is a violation of my freedom of speech!” gambit.
Kerry’s allowed to falsely accuse veterans of war crimes. But if I support Bush I’m a dangerous American.
AAAAAGGHHHHHH!!!! SOMEBODY STOP ME BEFORE I OPINE AGAIN!!!!
free speech isn’t inherently dangerous (as some stupid republicans would like us to believe). war on the other hand…
Actually, anything powerful is dangerous. If it’s not powerful, it’s not useful. Free speech is an excellent example of something that’s dangerous.
War is no exception. On behalf of us stupid Republicans let me just say “You’re welcome” for allowing you democrats to live in a society made free by those who understand why we prepare for and fight wars.
1000 soldiers killed in Iraq! Oh, the horror, the agony!! The campaign sound bite opportunities!!!
You know, Tired, you’re right. Let’s spare the soldiers. Let’s let your teenage daughters get blown up in shopping malls by terrorists on our own soil. That’s a great idea! Why didn’t we stupid Republicans think of that? Let’s not wage war. I’m sure our enemies are reasonable people and will leave us alone. I’m not saying you’re stupid, but if you believe that, I thank God you’re teaching art history to junior high schoolers instead of designing navigation systems for the space shuttle.
God forbid soldiers should die on foreign soil when we have mothers, daughters and children by the millions that we can sacrifice on our own soil.
Sorry Lesley, I overlooked your comment in the back-and-forth between Grumpy and a few others. You wrote (in part):
/*What is Kerry supposed to do in a campaign where the only strength Bush can even attempt to claim (which I don�t personally consider a strength) is his ability to act as commander-in-chief? Kerry can�t just fail to mention the fact he was in Vietnam, …
*/
You’re right, the incumbent has a great advantage precisely because of this. However, the incumbent can be defeated, even during war (remember, Nixon beat Johnson while Kerry was in Viet Nam). And, yes, if Gore were in office and McCain were running against him, you can bet that McCain would talk about his time in Korea (and especially his time as a POW in Korea).
But McCain would talk about other things too. He would talk about what he’s accomplished in the Senate that protects Americans today. He would point to bills he’s sponsored and what he’s voted for.
It seems to me that Kerry can’t do that because he hasn’t shown any strong convictions about anything while in the Senate. He hasn’t sponsored much legislation in the last twenty years. There isn’t a Kerry gun control bill, like there’s a Bradey Bill. There isn’t a Kerry-Feingold campaign fincance reform act like the McCain-Feingold campaing fincance reform act, or a Kerry-sponsored INDUCE act (shudder). Gore even worked on getting the “Parental Advisory” stickers attached to music CDs.
Kerry’s had a chance, too. He’s on several “National Security” committees, and for years he’s said that port security in the US needs improvement. But he hasn’t actually done anything to improve it.
/* Kerry should be addressing what he thinks should be done differently and point out the problems with what the present administration�s policies are.
*/
I agree. I’m salivating over the debates. I can’t wait to see them. Thing is, Kerry has tried to not do this, since (originally) his undefined quality allowed many voters to fill in the blanks in their own mind. For a while, he could “support family values,” for instance, and some voters thought that he supported gay marriage and others thought he opposed it. McCain, btw, did something similar — when the press loved him he didn’t point out that he wasn’t actually liberal. The press called him “moderate” compared to Bush, and McCain allowed voters to determine how much more moderate he was.
Clinton was an abysmal president. Two words: nine eleven.
(Place your bets–I can predict the party-sanctioned liberal response verbatim)
Well, Mr. Lessig, I thank you kindly for the use of your web space. It’s been fun but I must get back to work.
Keep up the good fight, Max. Take it easy on these libs, now. You know that one conservative brain against a dozen liberals is ganging up on them.
~poof~
Lotharsson, I appreciate your views on freedom to question. And George Bush appreciates your support.
Bush, as you recall, is the one who doesn’t threaten lawsuits against people who question him or write books about him.
Tell me again, who is it that’s seeking to quell dissent?
Tell me, is there a distinction between dissent and smear, between questioning policies and playing the man, between presenting facts and spreading libel? I know Bush doesn’t do nuance, and that seems to be the same for his followers. They do like it that way, because it allows them to claim moral equivalence for dissent and smear, between facts and libel…
To those it concerns:
Thanks for placing the blame for 9/11 sqaurely on Clinton again. I’m amazed that, despite the 9/11 Comission’s findings that the blame should fall on everyone from Bush to Clinton to Congress, that you have some inside knowledge, some silver bullet that it was all Clinton.
And your logic is just bang-up flawless. If someone doesn’t support a pre-emptive war against an evil dictator who had little or no connection to Al-Quaeda and no connection whatsoever to 9/11, then they obviously support terrorists planting bombs at your local Nordstrom’s and killing little girls. Nope, no middle ground in there. You’re either with the Republicans or you’re in favor of having Paris and Berlin set our foreign policy.
And, of course, Republicans are the only ones who have ever sent troops off to war, and they’re the only ones who have ever defended the U.S. Famous Republicans who served as role models for other Republicans such as Reagan. Famous Republicans who defended the world from fascism. Famous Republicans like FDR.
Oops.
And, we all know that Bush would never sue anyone who wrote an unflattering book about him.
Oops again.
I’m sure you’ve already categorized me as a “Bush-hater” or “useless liberal” (even though I’m a registered independent), but the bottom line is that neither Kerry nor Bush is a saint or the Sacred Defender of All That is Good, Holy, and American. They’re politicians –both of them — and their job is to distract you long enough to steal your baby’s candy after they’ve kissed their forehead and shook your hand. It’s just a matter of where the money goes after they’ve got it from you, period.
Now, can we
and
Or is that just a pipe dream?
Can’t we all just get along?
Oh, no. It wasn’t Clinton who allowed the terrorists to gain a stronghold. It was that other guy who was president during the 90s.
/* If someone doesn�t support a pre-emptive war against an evil dictator who had little or no connection to Al-Quaeda and no connection whatsoever to 9/11, then they obviously support terrorists planting bombs at your local Nordstrom�s and killing little girls. Nope, no middle ground in there. You�re either with the Republicans or you�re in favor of having Paris and Berlin set our foreign policy.
*/
First, while Saddam had no direct involvement in 9/11, and little connection to Al-Quaeda, 9/11 wasn’t the first terrorist act ever, and Al-Quaeda isn’t the only terrorist organization in the world.
Saddam’s best-known connection to terrorism is his undying support of terrorism in Israel. His second-best-known connection is his attempt to kill Bush Sr (if that counts as state-sponsored terrorism; it wasn’t an act of war, a diplomatic mission, or even a police enforcement act).
Second, I (personally) have a problem with Kerry on the war, because saying the country was “misled into war” is quite a bit different from simply not supporting the war. The only possible response to this is to list why going to war was right (well, another response is asking if Kerry really felt misled).
Third, I see no difference between my tone defending the war, and the tone of those critical of it. I harbor no hard feelings against any of the posters in this forum, and I don’t sense any in their responses. In all, I think this discussion has been very civilized.
Max:
I wasn’t so much targeting your comments, but instead Grumpy’s comments like
Real constructive, there.
Yes, Saddam was handing out checks to the families of suicide bombers, and, yes, he had a plot to assassinate GHWB. He’s firmly in the “bad guy who needs to be dealt with” category.
But I’m a scientific kinda guy. I look at a problem (or a set of problems) and try to deal with the worst ones first. Pakistan’s lead nuclear scientist was setting up a info bazaar, Russia’s got literally tons of bombs not accounted for, and Iran and North Korea are threatening to set up nuclear bomb assembly lines and flea markets.
Hunt down the Russian nukes, tell Pakistan to get serious about keeping its own house in order, and do what it takes to convince North Korea and Iran that building nukes is a Very Bad Thing for them. Don’t put ~150K troops into a country that can’t even get nuclear weapons for themselves, much less others.
Oh, and ferret out all the idiots at the UN who were abusing the oil-for-food program: American, French, German, Russian, and Kofi’s relatives (IIRC). Then put the screws down on oil-for-food funding.
[/soapbox]
I feel better now. And for my next trick, I’ll cure cancer. 🙂
Well, thank you for not targetting my comments. (g)
I have to say that I’m glad I’m not President. While I do wish, once in a while, that I could be some sort of “temporary supreme ruler” and make sweeping changes to the law and social fabric, I wouldn’t want the job for very long. Indeed, I would want to limit the scope of the job I would take.
I supported the war cautiously. It’s no secret that people die in war, and an order of magnitude more are disfigured, and an order of magnitude more are mentally affected. My support for the war was predicated on my general belief that Bush had weighed those facts with previous attempts to deal with the threat Saddam posed, the threats Saddam would likely pose in the future, and the chances of success.
While it may surprise people, my support for the war has strengthened since then. I believe that the facts have shown that Bush did weigh these things out. If he hasn’t hit the strange bar set by the media, that isn’t necessarily proof of failure (“Mr. President, why haven’t you captured Baghdad yet? It’s been four hours since you entered the country. Mr. President, you’ve found weapons labs in violation of the UN-imposed cease fire, and conventional weapons that violate the cease fire, but you haven’t found stockpiles of WMD that violate the cease fire. Why not? Mr. President, although the casualty rate has been roughly 1/5 of the rate in Viet Nam, people keep dying in this war. Why? Mr. President, my favorite countries aren’t part of your coalition, although several bona fide countries, such as Australia and Great Britain are, doesn’t that mean this isn’t a real coalition? …”).
And, yes, I agree that Iraq was a crisis, not the only crisis in the entire world. There are several important issues that must be dealt with and that have been allowed to fester for years. Anybody who disagrees with the order Bush has attacked those problems should consider that when voting in November.
I’m personally very worried about North Korea, but I have hope that a diplomatic solution can be found (although I don’t have much hope, since North Korea violated a diplomatic agreement it made with Clinton when building the nukes it has today). China has temporarily disrupted oil shipments to North Korea when the country wouldn’t agree to multi-lateral talks, so I believe we have a lever available. I’m very glad that Bush has been very patient with this one. However, you’re free to have your own views.
Kerry had better get his facts straight when he talks aoout the Cheney girls. He called one a lesbian, when in reality she is the fifth deferment.