Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Stephen

The 60 Minutes story was designed to help defeat Bush. It is timed so that Bush and his allies do not have time to respond properly to the alligations. We all know that wonderfully staged television programs can lead you to false conclusions. Consider the Dan Rather forged documents. We have seen that from CBS before. I am not saying it is not a truth, but it is probably not the whole truth. And it may lead us to the wrong conclusion. If the military feels mistreated by Bush, why are so many voting for him? I think we should explore this after the election.

The 60 Minutes story was designed to help defeat Bush.

The Report barely mentions Bush.

It is timed so that Bush and his allies do not have time to respond properly to the alligations.

This particular charge has been out in the open for months. If they haven’t figured out a way to deal with it in all that time, they deserve to lose.

We all know that wonderfully staged television programs can lead you to false conclusions.

And it can also bring out the best in a true story, too.

Consider the Dan Rather forged documents. We have seen that from CBS before.

Forged Humvees? Staged Videos? Unreliable witnesses? Are you arguing fraud because you know something I don’t, or are you arguing it because you’re finding these things hard to believe? I think this is more your media bias than theirs.

I am not saying it is not a truth, but it is probably not the whole truth. And it may lead us to the wrong conclusion.

A minute ago you were saying it might be a fraud, a CBS conspiracy. Now you’re saying effectively that it might be true, but only in the context of other information.

So what facts do you know that might help to complete that picture conclusively?

If the military feels mistreated by Bush, why are so many voting for him? I think we should explore this after the election.

I’m not going to argue ignorance, or naturally higher conservative numbers, or anything else, because your first question there means nothing.

Sorry, it doesn’t. Until we get the actual numbers, arguing the motivations for what military personnel will do, politically speaking, will be an exercise in psychoanalyzing a potential action. I’d say the same thing about people analyzing why Americans in general will reelect Bush. Let’s wait for the actual vote to come in before we discuss the particulars of it.

What I would find interesting is how National Guard and reserve numbers stack up against regular army. An Army guy who’s well equipped on a regular basis might have a different opinion than a national guard member carrying a Vietnam Era M-16 into the firefights.

The reason troops don’t have the newest body armor (they have body armor, just not the newest) or all the equipment they’d like is because of a giant bureaucracy in the DOD that makes multiple levels of the chain of command approve every little thing. This was a by-product of the $100 hammers fiasco of the ‘90’s. Bush’s already put in legislation to stream line the purchase and delivery of equipment to combat troops. It’s not for a lack of money, blaming Bush is not answer, more correctly blame the congress that had the job of making sure shit our government runs. Including Kerry (and the rest of the 20+ year incumbents) who spent more time in front of the camera than doing the job he was sent to do.

-D

I don’t think Dan Rather tried to commit fraud. He was just too eager to believe a story that worked against Bush.

I don’t suppose this story is a fraud either. I didn’t mean to give that impression, but I am sure it is a limited point of view and I am suspicious of the timing two days before the election. You are right. The story has been out there a long time. So why now? There remains a lot of debate about the specifics. It is one thing to show that equipment is not sufficient; it is very different to understand how it happened or why. Logistics can be a very arcane business.

The article might not mention Bush very much, but you can bet Kerry and his surrogates will mention this article. The Bushies can defend themselves on this, but it takes time that they don’t have and they are guilty until proven innocent.

Military operations are not a science. Each mission requires lessons to be learned and relearned. Look at an operation like D-Day. You could pick apart almost every aspect of that operation. Think of the paratroopers,or the amphibious vehicles that weren’t. Were we prepared for the hedgerows? 60 Minutes could have made that look like an abject failure. The military itself does after action analysis. Even the most successful plan looks really bad under close scrutiny.

I was listening to some Nixon transcripts lately as they decided to make the reporting the issue to cover their mistakes. Attack the media. It ‘s an old tactic.

Perhaps 60 minutes motive was patriotism. Perhaps they thought this story was cogent at this time. I think it is.

You say it is from a limited perspective, why? Because you don’t want to acknowledge your hero has a flaw?

Logistics can be very arcane. Well, It’s been nearly two years since the invasion. Perhaps Rumsfeld’s minimum force, blitzkrieg idea is a bust when overthrowing a regime in two countries with reserves to stabilize? Perhaps there was a political agenda that left us in a military and strategic hole? Perhaps G W Bush isn’t the best thing for this country? Or maybe logistics is just arcane.

Hmmm, So Bush isn’t commander in chief, Delzario?
I didn’t realize the Secretary of defense was a secretaty to the Senate committees under the Massachusetts delegation, my mistake. By all means don’t blame Bush. The buck certainly never stops there. Maybe we should ask Dick?

Jack,

I think it very telling and revealing that in your comment posts, you’re more concerned with the alleged bias political motivations, while failing to express any concern for the dire ramifications of evidence you will not contest.

Stephen,

Thanks, because your comments in response to the ‘why are so many military voting for Bush?’ question, gave me pause. With so much more documented evidence of Bush’s injustices and short-changing of our soldiers and their families, I was absolutely baffled by the survey reflecting overwhelming support for his re-election.

But, the scenario you provided convinces me how simple the Right declares a complex issue, in order to exploit it. A similar case is the sole survey of Black voters supposedly showing Bush’s support come election day, doubling to 18% percent. I have no doubt this will be proven wrong on Tuesday, however it only took the repeated mention of Bush surrogates, before the Wolf Blitzers’ and Judy Woodruffs’ in the media, took it as gospel.

You liberals will just say anything to get that chap Kerry elected. He made me sick because he lied and lied again. He lied about his service and he lied about his voting records. And you liberals here are no better.

I can only hope someday you will pick up Bible and read and then you will appreciate how strong is the faith Bush has. No doubt Bush will win 24 hours later because we normal decent American people are not corrupted by the Hollywood liberals and New York homosexuals, and we will use our vots to make our voice heard again. All my friends in the Church will vote for Our Greatest President Bush!

Interesting how Jack provides a measured response, in which he agrees there might be some truth to this story, and he gets blasted for it anyway. Talk about blaming the messenger!!

A question to ask those who apparently want to believe anything that CBS says: Why issue this story NOW?? As Stephen said, the story has been out for a long time, so why NOW?

Jack pointed out the obvious, but still many wont understand or hear it. There are two sides to every story, but CBS’s timing allows for only one side. Had the fraudulent memo story come out last night, there would have been barely enough time to respond to it. Remember the number of versions of the Jessica Lynch story—and how incorrect and incomplete the first versions were?

If the CBS story is totally true, then it makes sense that those in harms way (ie the military) would be furious at Bush for putting their lives at risk. But they arent—in fact, they overwhelmingly support Bush. This puts the left into a dilemma: are you calling the military people stupid or unprincipled? Perhaps you want to call them ignorant?

If the story is true, and of course the military would be the first to know if it were true, then what possible reason could convince them to vote for Bush? Until you find a reasonable answer to this question, your argument suffers.

We’ve all seen comments from soldiers who say that the Iraq presented by the media is far different than the one they experienced first hand. Are these soldiers liars? Did they dream up their experiences?

Most likely, its back to the two sides to the story conversation. But when only one side is presented, and people take it for the absolute truth, it is neither the media nor the military that is stupid. Its the people.

I don’t think Dan Rather tried to commit fraud. He was just too eager to believe a story that worked against Bush.

You should be more careful about your phrasing, because what you said implied intent.

It is one thing to show that equipment is not sufficient; it is very different to understand how it happened or why. Logistics can be a very arcane business.

That’s part of what made me feel ill. You should follow the link and find out the answer that 60 Minutes came up with on the issue. It would likely make you sick, too. As I said, it’s not a partisan issue.

…but you can bet Kerry and his surrogates will mention this article. The Bushies can defend themselves on this, but it takes time that they don’t have and they are guilty until proven innocent.

They’ve had a year and a half since the accident to fix things. The best response to these things is not a set of slick talking points, but action, swiftly and surely taken.

You could pick apart almost every aspect of that operation. Think of the paratroopers,or the amphibious vehicles that weren’t. Were we prepared for the hedgerows? 60 Minutes could have made that look like an abject failure. The military itself does after action analysis. Even the most successful plan looks really bad under close scrutiny.

Win. That’s all you have to do. People consider the problem-plagued Omaha Beach landings and the Battle of the Bulge successes because in the end we took the beachhead and fought back the German counteroffensive. If you want people to consider Iraq a success, start Winning. Simple as that. Give people a reason to be optimistic. Don’t act as if it’s their duty to look on the brighter side of things, after all the setbacks.

You liberals will just say anything to get that chap Kerry elected. He made me sick because he lied and lied again. He lied about his service and he lied about his voting records. And you liberals here are no better. I can only hope someday you will pick up Bible and read and then you will appreciate how strong is the faith Bush has. No doubt Bush will win 24 hours later because we normal decent American people are not corrupted by the Hollywood liberals and New York homosexuals, and we will use our vots to make our voice heard again. All my friends in the Church will vote for Our Greatest President Bush!

We don’t have to say just anything. He didn’t lie about his military record. The Swiftvets did. They couldn’t keep their own medals straight, much less Kerry’s.

As for the appreciation of Bush’s faith, our Lord Jesus Christ said you will know a tree by it’s fruits. Where Kerry goes, he tries his best to make peace. Where Bush goes, he’s anxious to make war. Where Kerry goes, corruption withers away. Where Bush goes, corruption follows. When Bush speaks, he aims at Kerry’s character, questions his loyalty to Americans. When Kerry speaks, he aims at Bush’s policies which have generally lost favor with the public.

As for Hollywood Liberals and New York Homosexuals, I don’t mind them, they don’t mind me, but they don’t make up my mind for me. I take my cue from a long, exhaustive familiarity with the actual results of Bush’s policies.

As for the Greatest president Bush, He’s not running in this election, unfortunately.

Jack:

I would start to rethink you position that members of the military and their families are voting for Bush. The ready reserve is exhausted after having their tours of duty extended time and time again. The stop loss mandate by this administration of active duty personnel hasn’t been very popular either. The families wan’t their warriors home.

Businesses want their workers home as well.

Why is it that every time Bush screws up, the Bush-fans think it’s vast left-wing conspiracy to discredit Bush? Can’t it ever be that Bush just screwed up?

I can understand why people say they’re voting for Bush on moral issues, even though I disagree with them. I can understand why people say they’re voting for Bush on ideological issues, even though I disagree with them. I can understand why people vote for Bush on character issues, even though I really disagree with them.

What I can’t understand is how people can keep saying we shouldn’t take Bush to task for anything that has happened in the last four years. “It’s not his fault,” people keep saying. “You can’t blame him.”

If I’m not to judge a president by the state of the country, how am I to judge him? By what he WANTED to do? By what he intended? I’m sorry, but that’s simply not sufficient. It wouldn’t keep anyone else in a job if they said, “I MEANT to come to work every day.”

Bush may not have complete control over how military funds are spent but he had complete control over beginning a war with Iraq. He also has a cabinet that is widely thought to be very intelligent. There is no excuse for beginning a chosen war without adequate planning and funding, and comparisons to D-Day are completely irrelevant. We had no choice in that war.

All I was saying is that the timing of this article was suspicious. I don’t know the facts. Neither do you. What you saw on 60 Minutes is one aspect. Many things look different after closer investigation. We don’t have time to investigate before the election. Therefore, you should not let this story influence your vote.

My point with 60 Minutes is not to attack the media generally. CBS has a record of hostility to George Bush. Dan Rather spoke at a Democratic rally a couple years back. What about John Kerry’s consultations with the North Vietnamese and VC? That is like something out of a spy novel. Maybe Bush was out drinking during that time, but at least he wasn’t cavorting with the enemy. You could make a pretty interesting 60 Minutes article about Kerry’s cloak and dagger in Paris. If they aired it on a Sunday, would you consider that manipulation?

Bush made mistakes. He can’t say that because the media would jump on him. Has Kerry admitted to mistakes, except the ones that he allegedly made by supporting Bush? Politicians in tight races don’t admit important mistakes.

Liberals won’t even admit the possibility on Kerry mistakes. They go on the offensive.

Kerry’s comments when he returned from Vietnam were unbelievably horrible and harmful. Has he ever apologized without equivocation? If I bring that up, people say that I can’t question his patriotism. Actually I am questioning his judgment. His Senate record, we hear little about. If someone questions it, liberals talk about Dick Cheney’s record. Dick Cheney?

To Maggie, you’ll say anything to support Bush. My comment to the Bush/war supporters are: If you feel so strongly in support of the wars and violence of Bush, why don’t you volunteer and take yourself over there and fight for it. Talk is cheap. You should not argue and talk so strong about something if you’re not willing to fight over it. That was the difference of the original Americans - they STOOD for what they believed in and FOUGHT for it. So if you feel so strongly in support of these wars that Bush started (in particular, Iraq - which was a ploy to cover up his failure of vacationing instead of protecting America from terrorism initially), pack up your gear, volunteer, and head over to Iraq yourselves and fight it, instead of sitting back here in the sidelines talking trash.

Maggie-

No bible thumping in here, please. We use rational thought to formulate our arguments… not 2000 year old texts. You should try it!

Hey Maggie:

Faith is for the lazy and/or the ignorant. Your irrational thinking is proof of that.

Big question to you. Have you ever taken the oath of enlistment in service to this country? Do you have enough “faith” in your president to take that oath? Those of us that served have are mighty sick of the moral conservative cowards who wear their patriotism on their sleeves, and wrap themselves in the flag. Rather than having faith, try learning the truth about partiotism, by grabbing a weapon and putting your back into defending this country. I bet if you did, you would see how wrong “Dubya” was in going into Iraq, and cutting taxes at the same time.

It’s interesting how Dave and Roy try to say that faith is somehow a bad thing. Roy is especially off base by suggesting that by joining the military, one would understand “how wrong “Dubya” was in going into Iraq, and cutting taxes at the same time.”

Apparently Roy doesnt realize that those in the military overwhelmingly support Bush. Poooof—so much for THAT argument.

Both John Kerry and George Bush claim to be men of strong faith. Bush’s religious views have long been common knowledge, and Kerry has been outspoken about his own religious upbringing and beliefs of late. I guess Roy and Dave think that both Kerry and Bush are idiots for their comments about faith, though I suspect Roy and Dave will somehow turn a partisan eye to Kerry’s faith.

Sounds to me that Roy and Dave are the ignorant ones here. They don’t understand that faith in our country, faith in God, faith in our leaders etc is very important. Those who dont understand that are surely those doomed to ignorance.

Maggie,
Bush is religous yeah for him, that does not mean his beliefs should be forced on the rest of the country. And just because he has strong beliefs does NOT make him a strong leader. Would you be so blind to follow him if he said women shouldn’t be allowed to vote? What if he reinstated stoning as punishment for criminals? Thats in the bible, but we would certainly wouldn’t consider it an acceptable form of punishment.
A true leader should not expect anyone to blindly follow them no matter the circumstances just because he has strong faith.

Is it just me, or does anyone else sense that there is a basic immaturity and ignorance to bible thumping people who claim that the best reason to vote for Bush is his faith?
To people like these, reading the newspaper everyday to gauge Bush’s performance as a president isn’t nearly as important as reading their bible and feeling smug, self-satisfied and superior to others. The fact that he talks about religion is of greater priority to them than looking into whether or not he has utilized his faith to do good for the people in this country or to all his fellow man - rather than just the “normal religious people” who think as exactly and as narrowmindedly as themselves.
And there is a clear similarity between such people and our president himself. Bush believes what he wants to believe, and is blind to everything else.

IMMATURITY AND IGNORANCE.
Both of these characteristics are the very things that have endangered our troops in Iraq (and indeed, sent us there in the first place when we should have been persistently hunting down Bin Laden - the man who perpetrated 9/11), and leave us completely vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

People who are IMMATURE:
DON’T LIKE TO THINK THAT BAD THINGS CAN EVER HAPPEN TO THEM,
(like another 9/11 terrorist attack, or an environmental disaster due to global warming, or think about how the country is supposed to keep going when there are no longer enough people working and earning good wages to pay taxes)
WHILE PAINTING THINGS IN BLACK AND WHITE,
(“they hate us because of our freedoms”, “freedom is on the march”, “I’ve been chosen by God to be the president”, “tax cuts for the rich will jump-start the economy”)
AND THINKING THAT THINGS SHOULD ALWAYS GO THEIR WAY.
(winning in Iraq will be easy and quick, our soldiers will be greeted with flowers and baskets of fresh fruit by the Iraqi people when we arrive to occupy them, dressing up in a flight suit and saying “mission accomplished” means the war is over)

Coupled with immaturity is always IGNORANCE, a guarantee that:
IMPORTANT THINGS WILL BE OVERLOOKED,
(how many troops were needed to secure Iraq and the stockpiles of explosives we knew were there, how much and just what equipment was mandatory to keep the troops safe, how much the war was going to cost, homeland security measures and how much they were going to cost, medicare and how much it was going to cost, what we will do for seniors when social security goes bankrupt)
OR NOT THOUGH OF AS IMPORTANT,
(running up an enormous deficit that will impoverish the next generation, letting big business destroy the environment in order to make a buck now at the expense of our future health or the health of the planet, the enormous rise of people without health insurance, getting a better deal for seniors on drugs from Canada, the enormous rise of children living in poverty)
OR CLAIMED TO BE AGAINST GOD’S WILL, (abortion, stem cell research, homosexuality and therefore, civil rights for gay Americans),
OR WILLFULLY IGNORED.
(diplomatic relations with our historic allies, Iraq and North Korea as they build nuclear programs, the Isreali and Palestinian crisis)
THIS IS HOW WE ENDED UP WITH WHAT WE HAVE NOW.

I say:
DOWN with CRAZY, BORN AGAIN APPOCALYPTIC FAITH, AND DOWN WITH IMMATURITY and IGNORANCE.
A man like Bush guarantees us a future of FAILURE.

RIGHT NOW WE NEED A PRESIDENT WHO IS RATIONAL, MATURE AND INTELLIGENT IF WE HOPE TO SUCCEED. NOT ONLY TO SURVIVE TERRORISM TODAY, BUT TO THRIVE AS WE WERE DOING ONLY FOUR SHORT YEARS AGO.

“RIGHT NOW WE NEED A PRESIDENT WHO IS RATIONAL, MATURE AND INTELLIGENT IF WE HOPE TO SUCCEED. NOT ONLY TO SURVIVE TERRORISM TODAY, BUT TO THRIVE AS WE WERE DOING ONLY FOUR SHORT YEARS AGO.”

- So who do we vote for then?

Why is it that every time Bush screws up, the Bush-fans think it’s vast left-wing conspiracy to discredit Bush? Can’t it ever be that Bush just screwed up?

You asked a good question AP. At the same time, can’t we say the exact same thing about Kerry and his supporters?

kctim:
“So who do we vote for then?”

Anyone but the incumbent administration.

I have yet to find anyone else that would do any better than what we have now.
Why take out one clown and replace him with another clown?

Maggie:

Your faith has led you astray once again.

The reason you hear that the military is in support of the president, is that they can be brought up on charges (officer, and enlisted alike) under Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. My information comes directly for men and women of my old reserve unit that I have chosen to stay in touch with. In private, they will tell you a much different story to what the UCMJ will let them say in public. Pooof…so much for your argument!

So Maggie, is your faith in this president strong enough to get you to raise your right hand and take the oath of enlistment? If you think that this is the right war at the right time, by all means show us what you are made of. Serving and protecting people that you don’t know or even the concept of what our country is about is the most moral thing that one can do. Or are you like so many other cowardly republicans who thought it was Mr. Wilson’s War, or Mr. Roosevelt’s war, and will let others pull the weight of a nation while you cry about your taxes.

This country asks little of it’s citizens. Either pay your taxes to help others defend this nation, or grab a weapon and join the fun. Either way, I don’t care.

kctim. And I and everyone who frequents this side of the street so to speak think that you would be hard pressed to find someone other than Dumbya who would do a worse job. I can’t wait to get him the hell out of there!

Roy
Pooof… Her arguement is back again.
Military individuals are free to say what they want and support who they wish. As long as it is not classified information or does not endanger personel or the mission or is disrespectful (contemptuous words).
While its not what the left likes to hear, those who support Bush are not brainwashed and telling people you support Bush/kerry has no bearing on a soldiers career.
A soldier supporting kerry or saying he supports kerrys views is not being contemptuous.

The UCMJ is a needed tool of the military. It does not take away any soldiers rights.
I was subject to it and enforced it for 10 years.
If your Reserve buddies only signed up for their 2 weeks a year and just wanted the easy money but now are pissed because they are being told they are real soldiers, I guess I would pick better friends who have at least a little intergrity.

rapidray
At least your upfront with how you feel and believe man. No sugarcoating, distorting or any crap. At least I can respect that.

Kctim:

Go back and read Article 88 again. It most certainly restricts what a unifored member of the military can say in public. You can’t attend political activities in uniform, you are not allowed to speak publicly about civilian members of your chain of command as an identified member of the military.

My buddies are members of a patrol squadron that served in the first Gulf war. I don’t think that they have any problem knowing the difference between a war that needed to be fought, and one that could have waited until the time was right. I’m sure that they would love to tell you themselves, but because of Article 88, aren’t allowed to.

kctim, I voted for George H, and for Bob Dole. As I told Maggie in a different thread, I’m rather open minded about my political decisions. When was the last time you didn’t vote a straight ticket?

Roy
I never vote a straight ticket. It is an injustice everytime that happens. In fact, I tend to vote for true democrats in local elections and I actually gave perot the benefit of the doubt the first time.
I understand Article 88 very well. As an NCO, it was my duty to notice and correct violations, even when not in uniform. Nowhere does it state that military personel cannot say who they support. I activley campaigned for perot while in the military.

By the way, USAF here. Did you mention somewhere you were Navy? Nice to see a military view, from the opposite side, on here.

Ignorance can be remedied; stupidity is for life.

kctim:

I know how you feel. Nice to know someone that has been there. My greatest respects to you. I was an air crewman doing SAM suppression.

How do you feel about all the people that want to wrap themselves in the flag, and tell you that we should go and just kick *** in any country we feel like. Or if you don’t support our president, that you obviously don’t support our troops, therefore you are a traitor.

I have a real problem with people that believe that partiotism is fashonable. I find most of them to support Bush. The Kerry supportse make me almost as sick. When asked if they would be willing to give the military personnel a pay raise by paying their fair share in taxes, they tend to get a little more quiet. Either pay your taxes to support our troops who are making due on food stamps (E1-E4), or grab a weapon and help defend this nation.

Talk to you in another thread.

Jack:
“Ignorance can be remedied;

The President of the United States is supposed to represent the most intelligent and capable among We the People. Bush has shown himself to be neither intelligent nor capable. The remedy for his ignorance is to vote him out of office.

“stupidity is for life.”

We need to send him packing tomorrow - because his stupidity has cost so many of our brave soldiers their lives or their limbs, as well as over 100,000 Iraqi lives. He can be as stupid as he wants, for as long as he wants, while cutting all that brush on his ranch back in Crawford.

Reading The Best and the Brightest I was forced to come to the conclusion that one of the favorite Democratic presidents of the last half century was responsible in some part for getting us into one of the worst foreign policy mistakes of that time.

The answer to the question “How do we get into such deep shit as this?” can typically be answered “An inch at a time, while we were telling ourselves it was only potting soil.”

You tell yourself you’re not soft, so you’ll do something to show the other side just how resolved you are. You’ll delegate authority to people, and not question them too closely, you’ll maintain optimism, because supposedly it’s optimism that wins wars, never mind the facts. You’ll tell yourself that what the American people don’t know won’t hurt them. You’ll tell yourself about the unpopular leaders you back “He may be a bastard, but he’s our bastard.”

As things go on, loyalty will become most important, expertise only valuable when it tells you what you want to hear.

On and on it will go, until it all closes in on you, and you realize everybody who told you not to get roped into was right.

But then you have a political life on the line, and admissions of failure will be admissions of defeat.

We at least have the benefit of a second chance here, my fellow voters. If we vote for Kerry, we have a chance to resolve this mess before we’re up to our eyeballs. If we don’t, the long march to defeat continues.

I agree that the 60 minutes piece was partisan with the intent of making bush look bad. They know that most people either can’t or won’t get the facts for themselves. Unfortunately, news programs, whether your local news or shows like 60 minutes, are not in the business of reporting the facts. They are in the business of making money be selling air time to advertisers. If they can get your attention through controversy or sensationalism, that is what they will do.

RJ-
Calling it partisan is your way of avoiding the conclusion that you should act on it. Problem is, it’s the truth. IEDs have killed and injured half the casualties out there. If this harms Bush it is only because the preponderance of so much other evidence has predisposed people to take this as a sign of Bush incompetency.

The entire invasion, from top to bottom, has demonstrated this administration’s inability to confront terrorism and wage war wisely.

In the event of a Kerry victory, I expect the news to suddenly start looking a lot better. 5.4% unemployment will be a good figure. Casualties in Iraq will be amazingly light by historical standards and the things 60 Minutes reports on will become the inevitable frictions and fog of war.

If you look at the Bush record, it is fantastically good.

Tell me you would have believed in October 2001 that we would successfully defeat the Taliban and Afghanistan would hold reasonable free elections without significant violence, that we would kick Saddam out of Iraq with 1000 American deaths during a year and a half and we would hand sovereignty back to Iraqis, that there would be no follow up terrorist attacks in the U.S. We are spinning as failure one of the best possible scenarios. If Bush loses, it will be the triumph of spinning bad news over reality.

This is addressed to any Bush Supporter,

I have voluntered @ a hospital named Walter Reed in Wash DC where most of the military personel go for treatment. I have first hand seen the results of this war and how the men fighting REALLY feel about the war. I have to say that if any of you witnessed the families that have been torn apart due to a mother or father who has died or the people whose lives have been taken from them because of lost limbs of from being paralyzed, it would seem as if you would think twice about supporting a man who starts a war for the benefit of himself on the expense of your fellow Americans. But then again, you all would question the person that he shoots and ask “What did they do to deserve that?” as opposed to holding him accountable for his actions. Loyalty, no, I believe it is complete stupidity.

Jack-
If Kerry gets elected, he will benefit in the short term from the fact that he didn’t lead the nation into the Iraq war. But I promise you, it can become just as much of an albatross around Kerry’s neck if he doesn’t do a competent job, or if events spiral out of control. Where Democrats have been the watchdogs on Bush, the Republicans would be the same on Kerry.

As for Bush’s record, Osama escaped, People expected Gulf War level casualties, not 1965 Vietnam level. As for follow up attacks, I’d say this: Bush is playing a dangerous game of complacency. It took eight years for a second attack to hit the WTC. We are on year three, and though our shores have not seen another attack, terrorist attacks have already been directed at allies, so we have no cause whatsoever to rest on our laurels.