Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Dan, with all due respect, you don’t know the first thing about leadership.

As a public policy major at Duke University I studied leadership on a multitude of levels, read several books on the subject, heard several revered leaders speak and engaged in community leadership programs.

If I boil down my entire education on this subject it can be summed up in two very simple points:
(1) Leaders exhibit responsibility
(2) Leaders have followers

This “strong and decisive” BS the Bush administration is spoonfeeding you is not leadership. Sadaam was strong and decisive, but I wouldn’t call him a leader. “Strong and decisive” are only admirable leadership traits when accompanied by responsibility.

What Kerry is promoting is a truer meaning of leadership. Kerry is saying he’s not afraid to change course if the circumstances call for it. That doesn’t mean backing down from terrorists — it means choosing a more effective means of engagement. It means sensing and responding to the situation at hand. THAT is responsibility. Literally, the ABILITY to RESPOND.

Kerry is also espousing leadership by his call to re-engage the international community in this fight. Kerry is attracting followers, not alienating them.

Bush very clearly has no followers. He “manages” a very divided country and has completely alienated the international community.

Dan, allow me to pose a couple questions to you, and I’d appreciate a direct response: Is Bush fighting the most effective war on terror that he can be fighting? Are there things he could be doing to improve how this war is being fought on all fronts? If so, why isn’t he able to accomplish this?

To me, and to the vast majority of the international community, Bush is being stubborn and unwilling to swallow his pride for the sake of the greater cause. I don’t see how that approach exhibits even the slightest shred of leadership.

Posted by: Andrew L. at September 14, 2004 09:59 PM

Dan- As a Paleo-Con I am delighted about the attacks on Pres. Bush and I hope the Dems continue. Why ? To paraphrase Pat Caudell and Dick Morris (Clinton’s Brain Trust) to attack the integrity of a sitting President, even Clinton’s, is campaign suicide. Why do you think that Clinton served two terms and not simply one ? Both of these men are in agreement and are in a position to know the facts.
The really fun thing, of course, is to be able to speak the facts, watch the Dems go ballistic and rest easy knowing that there is NOTHING that they can do to change the election !! It’s like telling someone NOT to do something that you absolutely know they WILL do anyway. “Not the briar patch , anything but the briar patch, don’t throw me in there” !! Well “Brer Donkey” just can’t help it and Brer Rabbit….Eerrr “Brer Elephant” is headed for the briar patch….whether he wants it or not. Heh, Heh !

Posted by: Samaritan at September 14, 2004 10:07 PM

Andrew

When will the Kerry Campaign figure out that this election is not about what anybody did 30 years ago? My guess is never. Especially since all the shaking up within their campaign leadership has brought us this! Unbelievable!

To keep harping about what Bush did 30 years ago, when he has admitted he was a screw up and has said repeatedly said that John Kerry served honorably is simply beating a dead horse. The problem is that Kerry wants everyone to believe he is the same person he was 30 years ago. Otherwise why on earth would he have ‘reported for duty’ at the DNC!

Kerry is also espousing leadership by his call to re-engage the international community in this fight. Kerry is attracting followers, not alienating them.

His call to re-engage the international community just means he is delusional! Nothing more, nothing less.

To me, and to the vast majority of the international community, Bush is being stubborn and unwilling to swallow his pride for the sake of the greater cause.

The vast majority of the International Community. I presume you mean France and Germany? One country that was responsible for the worst wars in modern history and the other that needed help just to get their country back. And this is the International Community that you believe Bush should be looking to for guidance? Unbelievable.

Posted by: MAW at September 14, 2004 10:11 PM

Take a stand and stick to it, huh? Like Bush’s view on the 911 Commission? Or his support for an NID? Or maybe his plan for post-war Iraq? His appointment(s) of the head of the CPA? Or maybe his view on the role of the UN (in Iraq)? Or his belief in the possibility of success in the war on terrorism? Or mercury emissions? Stem cell research?

Has Bush brought democracy to the Middle East and Afghanistan yet? Even if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt on this, how can you view either Iraq or Afghanistan as successes in “eliminating the root causes of terrorism”? I’m afraid I’m gonna need some evidence.

And really, what has Bush pursued? Does he really want intelligence reform? I can’t tell. Is he really pursuing anything in Afghanistan? Hell, they forgot about them on their stinking budget a while back. His administration pursued two things vigorously in Iraq, secured oil fields and a liberalized economy. Didn’t his administration want a secular democracy in Iraq? Didn’t they give up on that?

And is No Child Left Behind really equal pursuit? Or is it just a untenable unfunded mandate?

If he has pursued so much in his administration, why was his 2004 acceptance speech filled with so many of the same promises from his 2000 acceptance speech?

Andrew L: great rebuttal regarding leadership, though I wouldn’t characterize Bush’s foreign relations as “completely” alienating.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 14, 2004 10:32 PM

Oh, and I almost forgot Osama - and I know Bush has. Do you think Bush has done enough to pursue Osama?

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 14, 2004 10:34 PM

Jeez, Dan, where to Start?

Discredited. To quote that noble old soul Inigo Montoya “My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my-” Whoa, sorry. I believe the phrase is

“I don’t think you know what this word means.”

“Inconceivable!”, you say. Well, here’s the thing: The documents have not been proven forgeries, and besides, none of the important points rely on the contents of those documents. Also, Rather accepted them on good faith that the signature on the page belonged to the officer in question. He was told the document was good. If you’re looking for any and all excuses not to believe him, fine, but if you’re trying to build a fact-based case, you’re not doing well.

First point- String pulling. Barnes said this in court. Prove purgery, then you can say its discredited.

Second point- missed physical A matter of public record. Disprove public record on the missed physical, then you can say it’s discredited.

Third point- missed time- again a matter of public record, same measures required for discrediting. Additionally, we have your own candidate on record saying he made up for those days. You don’t make up for things you haven’t missed.

You know what this ad is about, Dan? It’s about somebody coming clean about the spotty record they have out there. If you want to build a case of how beautifully consistent and honest your candidate is, it sure helps that he doesn’t lie left and right about his record.

Nobody’s saying his unwillingness to fight in Vietnam was bad per se, we’re just asking about why he’s not been more honest about his service.

Well, Dan, why? Why does he try to present himself as squeaky clean with a record so full of issues? Kerry came clean with what problems plagued his service. He spoke of the missions he found morally troubling. Whatever real controversies are out there, Kerry is honest about them. He doesn’t dodge the questions.

Your candidate has done nothing but.

Leadership. Who’s doing the leading isn’t as important as where we are being lead. We could have the Dread Pirate Roberts leading us in a burning holocaust cloak, but if he makes the right decisions, he’s a good leader.

You keep on saying what a decisive leader he is. Well yippie-ki-yay what a wonderful day. Any idiot can be decisive. It’s the quality of those decisions that matter. Right now, Bush doesn’t have a lot of successes to draw off of. He says he said the right things in the weeks after 9/11, deposed a cruel dictator. Never mentions that he failed to find the head terrorist, and has turned that successful invasion into a nice little interminable death trap for our army. Well, gee thanks for your decisiveness, Mister President.

Frankly, I just think Bush has a talent for bald-faced lying. No nuance necessary, he just says what he wants people to believe and just repeats it until people are tired of speaking truth to his power. Well, I for one am sick and tired of having to wade through his B.S. Nation’s at war need competent leaders, not overbearing blowhards.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 14, 2004 10:40 PM

First of all Dan,

Only in that parallel Conservative universe has the Rather piece been ‘thoroughly discredited’:

Forgery Feeding Frenzy-Media Matters

Why can’t the Kerry campaign understand that most voters do not care what either President Bush or Kerry did thirty years ago. What is truly important, and what really matters is what they will do in the next four years if elected to the presidency this November.

WHAT HYPOCRISY!! 8 of the last 2 months Red Column entries have been about the Swift Boat smear campaign. Attacks you Bush apologists justified because Kerry is running on his Vietnam record.

Such hypocrisy!

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at September 14, 2004 10:41 PM

Samaritan-
A documentary makes over a hundred million dollars questioning Bush’s integrity, and you say people are turning against the Democrats?

Good lord, what facts? Have you checked in on Iraq lately? How’s our control of Falluja and Sadr City? Do you think sixty attacks a day is declining or escalating violence. Does it trouble you that a year and a half into this occupation we can’t get people to line up to become cops without having a terrorist blow themselves up in their midst? This is Brer Rabbit and the tar-baby here.

MAW-
This ad isn’t about what Bush did thirty years ago, it’s what he’s done recently- lie about his record. Bush counts on his integrity as his means of electability.

Look into his days in government, and you’ll see he’s one of the most secretive governors and presidents of all time. He even arranged it to where his Gubernatorial papers got hid in his Father’s presidential library, rather than be released to the public as he left office, as is legally required.

Time after time, when given the chance to come clean, his administration’s response has been to lie and deny. They denied the WMD were nowhere to be found right up to the point that David Kay told the world we weren’t going to find them. They still try and imply a connection between al-Quaeda and Iraq. Cheney disagreed with the 9/11 commission on their conclusion that there was no active collaboration, suggesting he had other evidence. They look over their files, and as it turns out, they’ve seen everything he’s seen.

The question is, can we trust Bush. Given all the screw-ups and secrecy, I can’t see why.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 14, 2004 10:57 PM

I’d like to see the Kerry campaign focus on a simple message.
“Two wars, a recession, and a deficit.”
It’s that simple. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Posted by: Don at September 14, 2004 11:05 PM

How can we talk about Kerry except on the very grounds he’s chosen? We talk about the Swiftvet controversey because Kerry bases so much of his campaign on his experience in Vietnam and because his fellow veterans, who deserve just much as respect as Kerry for serving, have disputed his stories. No other reason.

So far he has failed to address most of the Swiftvet’s claims and has dealt with the whole issue by hiding from reporters, calling names, and refusing to release documents that are in his power to release.

Contrary to the media’s constant claim, the Swiftvets are far from discredited except in the lying, document-forging leftist fog generated by the media itself.

Kerry’s campaign has even admitted that they are right about certain things—like his Cambodia story (which would never have been exposed if it weren’t for the Swiftvets).

If Kerry wanted to step up and explain his side of the story instead of just call the majority of his fellow veterans liars, I’d give him a sympathetic hearing and be more than willing to weight the evidence in his favor, if the evidence supported it.

For the record, I’m perfectly willing to say that Bush kept out of Vietnam by flying fighter jets for the TANG or even that he pulled strings to do so. Members of my own family served in Vietnam while others played whatever angle they could to get deferments, and I don’t think this was unusual for the time. It’s just not important these many decades later, especially in regards to somebody with a readily-available record as president.

I had to laugh when I heard a CNN pundit say that yes, CBS has played dirty in using forged documents to attack Bush, but it’s just the media’s way of making up for playing dirty against Kerry with the Swiftverts. He even used the analogy of a basketball referee blowing a call on one end of the court and making it up for it by blowing a call on the other end to even things out. Ridiculous. The media did everything they could for as long as they could to IGNORE the swiftvets and go on doing so today.

Where was CBS’s 60 Minutes piece on John Kerry in Vietnam? Nowhere. After all, the swiftvets are known by them to be “discredited” without even an airing of their claims. And some of which (like Cambodia) have been proven. And yet they’ll use forged documents to attack the president on a story nobody cares about in order to “make up” for something that never happened. Ridiculuous.

Posted by: Martin at September 14, 2004 11:14 PM

Joseph

Take a stand and stick to it, huh?

Kerry vacillates in the same day, week and month. To not acknowledge this means you have not been listening.

Or his belief in the possibility of success in the war on terrorism?

I assume from this statement the war on terror can not be won?

Has Bush brought democracy to the Middle East and Afghanistan yet?

And exactly how long did it take Germany and Japan? Perhaps a little more than 18 months.

And is No Child Left Behind really equal pursuit? Or is it just a untenable unfunded mandate?

It has been funded, but the money is not getting into the classroom. Well what do you know! Could this be a classic reason why the government should not be trusted to run ANYTHING efficiently?

If he has pursued so much in his administration, why was his 2004 acceptance speech filled with so many of the same promises from his 2000 acceptance speech?

Perhaps you weren’t listening then either!

Oh, and I almost forgot Osama - and I know Bush has. Do you think Bush has done enough to pursue Osama?

I am assuming you have seen Osama on a video recently. Posted by: MAW at September 14, 2004 11:36 PM

Bert

WHAT HYPOCRISY!! 8 of the last 2 months Red Column entries have been about the Swift Boat smear campaign. Attacks you Bush apologists justified because Kerry is running on his Vietnam record.

The HYPOCRISY is that 60 minutes has not given the SBVT one minute of airtime! Not one second, but chose this to put on the air instead! And you don’t call that HYPOCRISY!

Posted by: MAW at September 14, 2004 11:48 PM

No offense MAW,

But, I see absolutely no logic in your statement. The SBVT are not campaigning candidates due equal air time in the media. And, if they were given equal air time on CBS, I’d doubt you’d be happy with the outcome.

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at September 15, 2004 12:07 AM

You know what Stephen, I would like some, even one of the Kerry supporters on this board to insist that Kerry sign form 180. Bush did! It would be so refreshing to see that they are interested in the truth. I am. If the SBVTs were lying, wouldn’t that put it to rest?

I would be relieved to know everything that is in his military records. Wouldn’t you, if for no other reason than to put an end to the so-called lies and deceits of the SBVT. Yet you insist that Bush is the secretive one. And while on the subject, has Teresa Heinz Kerry released her tax information yet?

They denied the WMD were nowhere to be found right up to the point that David Kay told the world we weren’t going to find them.

And because no stockpiles were found this of course means there were never there! If a drug dealer was told for months the cops were coming, would you find it odd to believe that he…. Guess what! Got rid of them!

This ad isn’t about what Bush did thirty years ago, it’s what he’s done recently- lie about his record.

And did Kerry finish all of his service when he was discharged? I believe if you check into his records you will find that Kerry never completed his promises either. In addition, along with 5 deferments he requested, 4 of which were accepted to attend Yale. The last denied to study in Paris. Yes, I would like to know the truth of all of this. What is so absurd is that you don’t.

Posted by: MAW at September 15, 2004 12:08 AM

Bert,

But, I see absolutely no logic in your statement. The SBVT are not campaigning candidates due equal air time in the media. And, if they were given equal air time on CBS, I’d doubt you’d be happy with the outcome.

I am speaking of hypocrisy and what it looks like. It looks like 60 minutes, specifically Dan Rather. You must not have read my post!

I suppose Richard Clark is a candidate. And he is running for what exactly? Or perhaps Bob Woodward?
All the Bush bashing conveniently ends up on 60 minutes. BTW, equal air time is a thing of the past and for good reasoning. Now we can see the hypocrisy in its full glory.

You speak of hypocrisy and you only recognize it when it is against your candidate.

Posted by: MAW at September 15, 2004 12:24 AM

Martin-
The SwiftVets are discredited because-

1)Certain SwiftVets have contradicted previous statements without sufficient explanation of the reversal of their position. Like Thurlow, who supported Kerry in the 1996 election, like many of the commanding officers in Vietnam, who gave him glowing reports while there, but now savage him. The SwiftVets could have avoided this by saying “I said positive things about him, then, but then I realized…” But they never did. They never had any deviation in their material from the idea that he was a terrible soldier and everybody knew it. Why were they not honest about previous statements and reports?

2)Other SwiftVets have received awards whose citations list the same kind of action that they deny ever occurring. If they really wanted to be honest, they could have told the truth long ago, given up the medals in question. They did not. They could have turned that around, been honest about it, saying “The citation for this medal of mine reads as such… While I would like to say I earned this medal, fact is, there was no gunfire” or something like that. But they did not even acknowledge that

3)The SwiftVets interpret sources uncritically, miss important details about who signed what, basic military procedures. They inaccurately assumed that the initials KJW, on the ambush report were Kerry’s initials, despite Kerry’s initials being JFK, and the document being intitialed by the man who recieved them, not the one who sent them. An additional inaccuracy deals with the Silver Star/Combat V episode, where they wrongly assumed that Kerry was the author of the document, and the typo was therefore a fraudulent document. By not checking crucial facts and procedures, the SwiftVets undermined their own credibility.

They also missed the true reason for Kerry’s Silver Star, saying he chased down a loinclothed teen and shot him in the back, when the death of that soldier, fully clothed or not doesn’t even show up on the citation. Kerry was given the medal for his aggressive style of dealing with the enemy, heading into the Ambushes and taking the fight to the enemy.

and 4), last one for right now, They were dishonest about the nature of the group, and the politics of those who lead them. You don’t hide your associations unless you think they will do damage to your credibility.

A CNN pundit. You know, that’s what’s going to wreck your party, sooner or later. The Pundits. I listen to them from time to time, but I prefer to learn rather than be told.

Why doesn’t 60 minutes do the SwiftVets? The preceding reasons. As for airing of the claims, I find it disingenuous that you say the SwiftVet charges didn’t get a fair hearing. They were everywhere!

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 15, 2004 01:44 AM

Dan,
What Bush and Kerry did does matter to anyone over 50. Why? Because a person normally fell into fours groups, sort of like today. You had hard core rights (Bush41, Cheney, Rumfield) republicans which was in charge. You hard the Peaceniks and Society Dropouts (Bush43) which thought all society and war was wrong. Than you had Middle America supportive of our troops and angered at what we were finding out about our government, sort of like this past summer Congressional Hearings (Strongly recommend listening to them). Although Kerry served 2 tours in Vietnam, he stood up and broke the line os silence, much like the police silence today.

Than Kent State happened in 71 and all of America grasped, sort of like 9/11. Kerry and thousands of other Veterns from all Wars spoke up for calm across this land. Remember Kerry’s medals? Every ask what that was about? Kent State, Ohio were 4 laid died! Listen to the March on Washington in 71. The question asked to Nixon says it all. Our troops will not be used on our own citizens. Yes or No!

It seems Nixon threatened to send federal troops into Ohio and onto the campus unless Governor Rhodes acted with National Gaurd. Now, to all who was there and the 9 investigations no one can really tell you what happened.

Why does 35 years ago matter? Because it was the last time the country stood as divided as it is today. The only difference today vs than. Than the Adults and youth of are country was ready to go to war with each other.

As far as Bush on the War on Terror, it reminds me of his fathers idea of a thousand points of lights. Without a real plan of action, Bush has shown he can not lead.

>We are a nation at war. In times of war people >want someone strong and decisive for a leader, >not necessarily someone who can take a position >they agree with on every issue.

I agree with that statement. Strong and decisive is only good as a military leader planning a war. However, even the most confident general knows there better be a plan B.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 15, 2004 01:45 AM

Dan said: “Why can’t the Kerry campaign understand that most voters do not care what either President Bush or Kerry did thirty years ago.”

They don’t have to. Just as the SBVT ad damaged Kerry in the polls, by questioning what is recorded record, the Kerry campaign has realized that a positive campaign is simply not going to get the numbers up. So, they are going to take Bush’s down. Appears to be working too, according to a new poll showing Bush’s lead slipping. Dan Rather appears to know what he is doing.

And afterall, all is fair in war and politics, right? At least everyone seems to think so when they are on the winning side.

Posted by: David R Remer at September 15, 2004 01:53 AM

Don,
You stated:
“Two wars, a recession, and a deficit.”
It’s that simple. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Two wars that are going badly.

A recession that did not have to happen. (Clinton did it in 98). He had to close the markets for three days, but they got their act together.

The deficit: “Kerry voted against it before he voted for it.” Excuse me for the play on words, but I think it is somewhat funny that Bush would force a deficit on our country just to try and win a political point.

Are you sure you want four more years of Lather. Rinse. Repeat.? Can we afford $.5 billion dollar deficit a year?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 15, 2004 01:58 AM

Stephen,

Why doesn’t 60 minutes do the SwiftVets? The preceding reasons. As for airing of the claims, I find it disingenuous that you say the SwiftVet charges didn’t get a fair hearing. They were everywhere!

This isn’t about whether they got a fair hearing. It is about whether 60 minutes has an agenda. Which is so blatantly obvious that for anyone to deny it would be ludicrous.

As for the preceding reasons, all of them could be succinctly dismissed by Kerry by signing the form 180. Unless of course he likes the conversations surrounding his service and post service activities. That in effect relieves him from talking about the real issues and what his plans are. Which are totally lacking in substance. Kerry’s campaigning is solely based in Bush bashing. Which is the reasons his poll number are circling the drain.

Posted by: MAW at September 15, 2004 02:31 AM

David,

the Kerry campaign has realized that a positive campaign is simply not going to get the numbers up.

What he fails to realize is that no campaign has ever been won by a campaign of ‘Anybody But Somebody’. This is the reason his poll numbers are downward. He has no message and even if when he tries to communicate one, he boggles the mind of any thinking person.

As for his poll numbers they certainly are not shooting up by any sense of the imagination. Especially when Bush has 212 solid electoral votes and 95 leaning to Kerry’s 170 with 61 leaning.

Posted by: MAW at September 15, 2004 02:53 AM

Are you sure you want four more years of Lather. Rinse. Repeat.? Can we afford $.5 billion dollar deficit a year?

Simply put, yes! And you are suggesting that Kerry’s promises don’t add up to a deficit? And besides taxing the “wealthy” and in the process stifling a recovery, exactly where will all the money come from to fulfill all his promises. You certainly aren’t suggesting that any red blooded Democrat would cut spending. That’s a laugh.

So Lather, Rinse, Repeat sounds much better than digging a hole, sticking your head in it and proclaiming that someone turned off the lights.

Posted by: MAW at September 15, 2004 03:23 AM

> As for the preceding reasons, all of them
> could be succinctly dismissed by Kerry by
> signing the form 180.

Has Bush signed 180? If so, please provide a link. If not, you have zero grounds for your demands. Zero.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 15, 2004 08:34 AM

Has Bush brought democracy to the Middle East and Afghanistan yet?

And exactly how long did it take Germany and Japan? Perhaps a little more than 18 months.

Okay, since Bush won’t be president 50 years from now, let’s look at what he can claim. Successful invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq? Meh, I don’t know about that. Iraq sure doesn’t look like success, and I don’t think Afghanistan does either but I can’t tell since there is so little about it in the media. Last I heard Doctors without Borders left after a quarter century of service there, the Taliban has regained some of its lost strength, and the interim government isn’t sure it can pull off the elections without UN help. Not to mention the meteoric rise of the opium trade after the invasion. None of that sounds good.

I don’t think I’ve heard GW mention any of this though. All I hear is crap about how he created two new democracies and something about sunshine.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 15, 2004 09:00 AM

And is No Child Left Behind really equal pursuit? Or is it just a untenable unfunded mandate?

It has been funded, but the money is not getting into the classroom. Well what do you know! Could this be a classic reason why the government should not be trusted to run ANYTHING efficiently?

Are you being sarcastic? Or are you an anarchist? Do you honestly think the government can’t do anything right?

If he has pursued so much in his administration, why was his 2004 acceptance speech filled with so many of the same promises from his 2000 acceptance speech?

Perhaps you weren’t listening then either!

No, I didn’t listen, I read them. I have a tough time listening to George try to speak. After it was apparent in his 2004 acceptance speech that he was using that metered rhythm from his My Pet Goat lesson, I had to tune out.

But what’s your point?

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 15, 2004 09:19 AM

Has Bush signed 180?

No need to Chris, as President all he needs to do is order the access be given. Which he has done and the Pentagon has released his records.

But of course you can hide behind asking if President Bush has signed the form. It is so very weak, so very weak!

Posted by: MAW at September 15, 2004 09:28 AM

the Kerry campaign has realized that a positive campaign is simply not going to get the numbers up.

That’s an interesting observation, David. I saw a similar analysis by a guy in my local paper,

Mr Kerry will try in the coming weeks to refocus the campaign on domestic issues and the Iraq war, and he will implicitly pose this question: ‘Do you feel things are going in the right direction?’

He knows from the polls that most people will answer no. If he can convince them that George W. Bush is to be blamed for their sense of malaise - and that the ‘W’ in his name means ‘wrong’, as Mr Kerry has begun to repeat like a mantra on the campaign trail - the senator wins.

Mr Bush, for his part, knows he is vulnerable on many fronts. He knows if this election is a referendum on his job performance, he will be in danger. Other than the broader war on terrorism, he doesn’t get high marks from the electorate on a whole host of issues. To avoid becoming the focus, he has no alternative but to turn the election into a referendum on his opponent.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 15, 2004 09:40 AM

And Andrew L., that first retort was brilliant. I agree. Bush doesn’t know the first thing about leadership. If he did, he’d have at least a 60-70 percent approval rating, wouldn’t he?

Posted by: American Pundit at September 15, 2004 09:43 AM

No need to Chris, as President all he needs to do is order the access be given. Which he has done and the Pentagon has released his records.

Then why do records keep appearing?

“Oops, they were in an overlooked file - this time we promise, there aren’t any more!”

It’s getting a little old.

Posted by: ceejayoz at September 15, 2004 10:05 AM

Joseph,

Don’t you love it when women are tortured and treated as less than human? Probably shot in the middle of a sports arena by a family member. Are these the things you mean when you say the Afghanistan invasion has solved nothing! Unbelievable! Must be nice being a man and be able to make statements like that

Are you being sarcastic? Or are you an anarchist? Do you honestly think the government can’t do anything right?

After it was apparent in his 2004 acceptance speech that he was using that metered rhythm from his My Pet Goat lesson, I had to tune out.

So I am the sarcastic one, right? If you honestly believe that the funding for local education is best served by the Federal Government then perhaps reading “My Pet Goat” is a real challenge for you. But then my sources are not from the likes of Michael Moore!

Posted by: MAW at September 15, 2004 10:25 AM

Whether 60 minutes has and agenda is not the question. It’s whether they have their facts straight. I’ll admit that 60 minutes II did not have their facts straight on the four documents. On the other issues there, there is separate Corroboration.

But I’m sticking to my position on why 60 Minutes doesn’t run something on the SwiftVets- Same reason why most newsmagazines won’t do it. They aren’t confident that something like this wouldn’t happen.

As for form 180, your heroic, straight-shooting sherriff of a president won’t take the hit on that, why should Kerry? Whatever those documents said, it was only valuable because it confirmed what people already thought, and what other evidence, legitimate evidence already has suggested. I think the only way you can get Kerry to sign that form, is to have Bush sign it himself, revealing the truth of what he did during the war. Has he done it? Again, no. So you guys have no business asking us for the disclosure your side isn’t prepared to make either. Besides, the SwiftVets have done a good enough job undermining their own credibility.

And because no stockpiles were found this of course means there were never there! If a drug dealer was told for months the cops were coming, would you find it odd to believe that he…. Guess what! Got rid of them!

Convenient isn’t it? It’d be more convenient if you had proof he moved them. Problem is, though, he probably did get rid of them.

By destroying them, that is. The discrepancies at the UN related to undocumented stocks of CBWs, that is, stuff nobody signed a document or had the right witness to declare destroyed. If the weapons were destroyed, and the documentation of this was lacking, the weapons still remained destroyed.

It’s convenient to say the weapons are somewhere else. It means you don’t have to find them there. It means that the jury is still out. But in all the time since, where has there been evidence that this is the case. Occam’s Razor here. All things being equal, the less elaborate explanation’s likely the truth. The less elaborate, better proven explanation is destruction without documentation.

Kerry did exit the service early, but unlike Bush he had already completed an entire tour of duty previous to his early exit from this one. And Kerry, unlike Bush, cannot be shown to have taken unauthorized time off from duty. He showed up, he asked for and received his early leave from the service by legitimate channels. Do I want to know the truth? Yeah. But Kerry has told enough truth about what he did during the war, with enough corroborating evidence so that I don’t have to be so piercing in my examination of his record.

60 minutes (the Wednesday edition) though, needs to come clean on what’s going on. The longer they put that reckoning off, the worse things get. I agree with that. But all this talk of agenda does nothing to hide the fact that the most critical parties to this debate are essentially the people you smear as being unfairly biased against you. Fact is, news is news, whichever end of the spectrum you’re on. It’s a competitive field, and if you screw things up, your competitors are only so glad to jump on it. So endeth the lesson on the realities of media bias.

Richard Clarke’s book does not Bash Bush the way the SwiftVets Bash Kerry. The book is not a repository of far left attacks on Bush. That’s what made it so politically lethal. What it is, is a man qualified to state an opinion on the War on Terrorism saying that the President wasn’t fighting it right. If you actually read the book, you’d find his position on things is actually closer to yours than you’d expect. Only trouble is, he thinks the war in Iraq has been a terrible miscalculation. Now if this was Paul O’Neill speaking, there’d be no story. But this is a man so respected in the counterterrorism field that your own administration kept him over into their term.

As for Bob Woodward, his books are required reading by the Bush Administration, despite the troubling issues raised by them. You can beat up on him as much as you want to, but his books are about the best possible light your president can be shown in and still acknowledge the facts. Plan of Attack itself is about the best source I’ve ever had on the lead up to the war.

It’s ironic that you criticize Kerry for running an “anybody but” campaign. Fact is, that’s what the Convention was about- showing the American public that Kerry was worth electing on his own merits. If anybody has run their campaign on the bashing of their opponent, it’s Bush. Our Keynote address was a hopeful message about a brighter future, one where we’ve transcended their errors of your administration. Yours was a red-faced tirade on Kerry’s inability to hold the office. Every time your people talk about Kerry, they’ve got something nasty to say about him as a person. We just tell people he’s wrong.

Why is it that your people always have to go after the people who say these things, instead of dealing with the facts? Why is it that your first thought is to discredit, not present a different case? I mean, if the facts were so plainly wrong, why would you guys need to engage in such consistent character assassination?

You certainly aren’t suggesting that any red blooded Democrat would cut spending. That’s a laugh.

Challenged by Republicans to specify what spending cuts he’d make, Kerry listed some. They included freezing the federal travel budget, cutting the government’s electric bill by 20% and reducing by 100,000 the number of contractors the government hires.

Read the article. This is what Kerry, a known deficit hawk, has been trying to do his whole career. Tax and Spend he may be, but he limits what he spends, and he pays for it in our taxes, rather than raising the ultimate expense by paying for it by our children’s taxes. Kerry’s a better Republican on this issue than Bush is.

If you can show me how Bush has lowered the deficit and cut spending, then you are welcome to say otherwise.

It’s time for Republicans to stop making excuses for their president I mean when you have to resort to

And is No Child Left Behind really equal pursuit? Or is it just a untenable unfunded mandate?

It has been funded, but the money is not getting into the classroom. Well what do you know! Could this be a classic reason why the government should not be trusted to run ANYTHING efficiently?

to defend your president’s policies, it’s rather sad.

You do realize, don’t you, that what Bush did was basically to require states by law to set up this program and force them to pay for it. Of course, our economic troubles have made a policy that could work in times of surplus one that fails in times of deficit. This is the dark side of Bush’s style of fiscal conservativism- tons of unfunded mandates, which basically raise taxes by proxy, as the states are forced to keep their budgets balanced. It’s his way of having his cake and eating it too. He gets to say he’s a compassionate conservative creating programs, while not raising the federal budget to do it.

But the money is still coming out of your pocket. Do you like being played for a fool? At least Kerry won’t pick your pocket when he asks for your money At least he is on record as limiting spending growth.

This is why I dislike Bush so strongly. What he says and what he does present two different pictures of the man he is, where Kerry’s record, with a bit of good analysis easily reconciles with what he says.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 15, 2004 11:05 AM

Here’s a radical idea. Perhaps Kerry’s fall in the polls has less to do with the SBVT and more to do with the one month anniversary of Kerry’s last questions answer with a reporter last week. How can a presidential candidate not hold a press conference or answer questions for almost all of August?

How can someone that wants to be president answer every ‘What would you do…’ questions with a ‘I’m no going to say because…’? That’s why he’s become a rock in the polls. He won’t say what specifically he’d do in Iraq; he won’t say what he’d do differently with North Korea; he won’t say what he’d do differently with Iran. All he can say is Bush is doing it wrong, I’d do it better. Ok, better how?

So don’t blame negative ads for his fall, blame his inability to answer America’s questions.

-D

Posted by: Delzario at September 15, 2004 11:07 AM

If you honestly believe that the funding for local education is best served by the Federal Government …

Don’t put words in my mouth. I just said NCLB is an unfunded mandate.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 15, 2004 11:45 AM

Re Swiftboats and the National Guard – “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.” Kerry tried to base his campaign on events 30 years ago; it didn’t work. Bush’s enemies have tried to tarnish his current reputation with 30-year-old dirt; it won’t work. The 60 Minutes debacle will probably help Bush (a little) since there is reasonable doubt (even in the liberal Washington Post this morning) about their veracity and reasonable suspicion about where they came from.

The Swiftboats may have stopped Kerry’s momentum, but they are not responsible for his troubles with the electorate. I have been listening to Kerry’s speeches on CSPAN Radio. These are subject he is bringing up himself. He is just bringing up silly things. Let me list some of them:

U.S. troop redeployments. – a technical issue. Kerry had previously castigated Bush for NOT doing something similar.

College dropout rates in the U.S. – The rates are higher in the U.S. than many other countries. Of course, the rate of college attendance is commensurately higher. Not an issue in any case.

The assault weapons ban – Nobody in Congress brought it up. Bush said he supported an extension. Making this stick to Bush is hard. Nobody is buying. Besides, Kerry going around brandishing rifles doesn’t seem to fit his outrage.

Quality jobs – any president has limited control over these things and the quality is not dropping. Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post addressed this issue this morning. The American public has become more sophisticated about these sorts of things since the last time a Democrat from Massachusetts tried that line. The “nation of hamburger flippers” threat didn’t work for Dukakis. Kerry should know better.

Playing the race card – Kerry has been making noises about disenfranchisement etc. Those who believe it already will vote for Kerry. Those that don’t believe it will be unaffected by his inflammatory statements and will probably resent them.

I could go on. Each morning he manages to annoy me anew by bringing up an important issue that is irrelevant to the presidential race. In all this bluster, he still has not really told us how he would do better in Iraq or with the allies other than people would like him better. Nobody likes Kerry better and the better they get to know him, the less they like.

Posted by: Jack at September 15, 2004 12:12 PM

ceejayoz.

Then why do records keep appearing?

You say this as if the papers are in the White House under his bed! The papers are at the Pentagon. And why they keep popping up is not making the WH happy either.

It’s getting a little old.

Try another diversion. That one won’t work, it too is old! But it didn’t take as long as it took Hilary to produce records and those were probably under her bed!

Posted by: MAW at September 15, 2004 12:31 PM

A lot has been made of the bias at CBS, but let’s not forget our friends at NBC. The Today Show has invited tabloid gossip Katy Kelley to drop by and discuss her Bush bashing effort The Family for three consecutive days.

To maintain their balance they also invited anyone from the Swift Boat Vets to appear…uh, let’s see, that would be zero times.

Posted by: NOTOTH at September 15, 2004 12:33 PM

I just have one question, what unit did Bush serve in when he was at Harvard? He previously stated he had served in a Massachusetts unit.

Oops, the records had no such person in their ranks. The Whitehouse has yet to explain this bold faced lie.

Whether the CBS documents are real or not, there are experts on both sides of this, It seems rather likely that Bush did use influence to avoid Vietnam. Many people did. I would have, if I had been drafted. It was a political football rather than a just war. Kinda of like Iraq is now.

The point is, that Bush is a phony. He lies reqularly. He took us to war over phony intelligence, lied about leaks to the press over Valerie Plame, lied about funding the war in Iraq, lied about the Medicare bill, lied about Abu Ghraib, lied about doing cocaine, lied about the the cuts he made in the CIA and I’m sure with a little more effort I could fill the page.

Only those who choose to ignore his lying because it serves their interests and those blinded by the lies due to their very real ignorance of reality believe he is an honest man.

He has advanced himself and some of his causes through this lying. Gehring couldn’t have done a better job. If you are truly patriotic, I cannot understand why you wish to continue this farce of a leader. I suspect those that do will live to regret it.

Posted by: Greg at September 15, 2004 01:16 PM

NOTOTH-
I don’t think most Democrats are going to use Kitty Kelley’s Books. Her reputation is that of an author of trashy tell-alls. It might affect certain voters, but I think Richard Clarke had more effect on Bush than Ms. Kelley ever will have. As for your continued charges of liberal Bias, I recall John O’Neil being on nearly every pulpit O’ punditry in the country, not the least of which was The Newshour with Jim Lehrer Poor SwiftVets, they never got to go on the morning news show.

MAW-
Your people keep on saying, “there’s nothing left to reveal,” but the documents on his service just seem to keep on coming back. And each time it comes back worse.

Take this from the U.S. News and World Report:

A review of the regulations governing Bush’s Guard service during the Vietnam War shows that the White House used an inappropriate—and less stringent—Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty. Because Bush signed a six-year “military service obligation,” he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush’s own records show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period. The White House has said that Bush’s service should be calculated using 12-month periods beginning on his induction date in May 1968. Using this time frame, however, Bush still fails the Air Force obligation standard.

Just wait, it gets better:

The U.S. News analysis also showed that during the final two years of his obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a time limit on making up missed drills. What’s more, he apparently never made up five months of drills he missed in 1972, contrary to assertions by the administration. White House officials did not respond to the analysis last week but emphasized that Bush had “served honorably.”

Also of interest is his implicit claim that his honorable discharge proves anything about the conduct of his days in the Guard. Well…

Perhaps more striking is how often serious questions of misconduct have been flat-out ignored. John Allen Muhammad, convicted last November for his participation in the D.C. sniper shootings, served in the Louisiana National Guard from 1978-1985, where he faced two summary courts-martial. In 1983, he was charged with striking an officer, stealing a tape measure, and going AWOL. Sentenced to seven days in the brig, he received an honorable discharge in 1985.

-The New Republic by way of Media matters

As the article puts it, you really have to get some officer really dedicated to making your life hell to get a dishonorable discharge. Bush had way too many friends in terms of his superiors for that, and besides, who wants to have that conversation with Bush Sr.?

Jack- Troop redeployments is a tricky issue. Th Question is why Bush is doing it. One obvious answer is that the logistical strain of Iraq is getting to us. A nice image of Iraq as a black hole sucking our troop strength worldwide into it. Another answer is, this is somewhat necessary. I’ve said that to you before, that there is some merit to easing out of military committments that no longer have a Cold War to rationalize them. But there are troop withdrawals, and then there are troop withdrawals. Korea, I can’t figure out. Iraq has proven boots on the ground still matter.

I don’t know. The Assault weapons ban, I think, is not too high of a concern, but it can be used to stick it to Bush.

Quality jobs-
This time, the charge could stick. There are plenty of people who had good jobs or the potential for good jobs whose prospects have gone down hill in this economy. Bush can only praise his policy as stopgap measures- that is, “things are not worse because I became president”. He can’t say, “I made more jobs, promoted more growth than my predecessors. He will be the first president since Hoover to have a net job loss on his watch. He has also brought back deficits which will make a serious economic impact when the bill becomes due.

As for playing the race card, your party is the party that carpetbagged a black guy all the way from Maryland to oppose Barak Obama. I mean, we may try to appeal to minority voters, sometimes field candidates for them, but we don’t transport such candidates across state borders to try an neutralize another candidates diversity factor.

You know, I think Kerry has made it clear that he will bring in allies by various means, that he will increase troop numbers to relieve the strain that Iraq is putting on our soldiers worldwide, and that he will increase our special forces soldiers, so we can take the fight to the terrorist harder and faster. Your president’s plan- Well what is your president’s plan. Could you explain what his strategy is, past, present ,or future? I mean, go ahead, tell me.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 15, 2004 01:54 PM

Stephen,

I think the only way you can get Kerry to sign that form, is to have Bush sign it himself, revealing the truth of what he did during the war. Has he done it? Again, no. So you guys have no business asking us for the disclosure your side isn’t prepared to make either.

But then again Kerry is the true leader, as I have heard on numerous occasion. But yet, he is waiting for President Bush to sign a form 180 when in fact as President he doesn’t need to, he merely has to order them released which he has done. So again, spin, spin, spin to make people think President Bush has not released his records.

I think Kerry has more to hide in this respect. After all, those missing after action reports would go a long way in determining if there were any hostile fire now wouldn’t it?

By destroying them, that is. The discrepancies at the UN related to undocumented stocks of CBWs, that is, stuff nobody signed a document or had the right witness to declare destroyed. If the weapons were destroyed, and the documentation of this was lacking, the weapons still remained destroyed.

I believe you conveniently missed the purpose of the UN Resolutions, which was for him to prove that he destroyed them. Not just say he did and to take his word for them and pretend that he is the good guy and certainly would not hide them anywhere! Of course not!

With logic like this you could get stuck on an escalator.

It’s convenient to say the weapons are somewhere else. It means you don’t have to find them there.

It means you get to say Bush lied! Isn’t that the folly here. Being duped by the likes of Saddam Hussein whom you seem to trust more than anyone in this scenario!

Kerry did exit the service early, but unlike Bush he had already completed an entire tour of duty previous to his early exit from this one. And Kerry, unlike Bush, cannot be shown to have taken unauthorized time off from duty.

Again you spin! Kerry was required to do reserve duty as a condition of his early release for several years. And he was too busy calling Americans in POW camps murderers to be doing trivial stuff as finishing his duty in the service. And conveniently these records are not being released. Gee I wonder when the date of his discharge was? Care to comment?

Richard Clarke’s book does not Bash Bush the way the SwiftVets Bash Kerry.

Please. Richard Clarke’s position in the Administration in itself was a death blow and especially when he was allowed to grandstand in front of the country by testifying to the 9/11 commission contradicting his own earlier statements and being treated as the National Hero of the Week. And conveniently orchestrated a week prior to the release of his book!

The SBVTs are merely expressing their opinions. Last time I checked this was still allowed under the Constitution.

I can agree with you on Bob Woodward’s book. But it still appeared on 60 minutes and not because they believed it to be Pro Bush.

showing the American public that Kerry was worth electing on his own merits.

And when someone differs from his opinion of his service you call it disingenious. He made it the issue. If he hadn’t I doubt that we would have even heard SBVT. Your keynote address, as you put it, forgot to mention his entire life other than 4 months of service in Vietnam!

Yours was a red-faced tirade on Kerry’s inability to hold the office.

Ours was a tribute to President Bush by McCain about his moral clarity and determination to take a position unlike the previous head in the sand philosophy on terror. A heartwarming story by Scharznegger and the possibilities of coming to America and why he chose to be a Republican and not a Democrat because he just left a repressive regime and it reminded him too much of where and what he left behind. And Rudoph Guiliani who reminded us just how we have been treating terror since Munich and guess what. IT DIDN’T WORK! And you call this a tirade on Kerry’s inability to hold office! Did you actually watch it?

Every time your people talk about Kerry, they’ve got something nasty to say about him as a person. We just tell people he’s wrong.

Actually there is nothing to say about Kerry. Knock, Knock… he hasn’t done anything! Most people have never heard of him before this year! The truth is we can’t wait for people to find out just who he is. And now that they have, guess what? The polls have done a quick turn around now hasn’t it? And no wonder. He made himself known.

This is what Kerry, a known deficit hawk

Unfortunately it was only at the expense of the military or on intelligence spending. That’s the tragedy!

If you can show me how Bush has lowered the deficit and cut spending, then you are welcome to say otherwise.

Have you not heard of the attack that happened on 9/11? Perhaps you don’t realize what that did to our economy and to a country that was already in a recession. What it did to the job situation in this country. There are plenty of us that think that he did a tremendous job getting back on track after that! Even Kerry when it was politically expedient for him to do so. So the bashing continues. All I have heard from you is what a terrible job Bush has done without giving him credit for anything at all. At the same time you bash him you make a statement that says everyone bashes Kerry. You must think I am stupid that I can not form an intelligent opinion of a person I have come to know and respect. You expect people to vote for some unknown quantity but please don’t look at anything that might be detrimental. No, no don’t look at that!

NCLB is called accountability. Federal Level spending on education has increased during the Bush Administration not decreased. Federal funding for disadvantaged children under Title 1 has increased and has risen from $7 billion in 2000 to $14 Billion in 2005. Source 2005 US Budget. Look it up! Unfortunately less than half gets into the classroom. Another tragedy because the Federal Government is just too big

Instead Kerry wants to double what we spend on Aids from $14 billion to $28 billion. Yes, I know I am not compassionate. Spare me that one! But Aids is a preventable disease. And there are other countries on this planet.

Do you like being played for a fool? At least Kerry won’t pick your pocket when he asks for your money At least he is on record as limiting spending growth.

He is on record for everything and against everything on every issue at the same time. And you say I am the fool? You believe all this happy horse poop stuff he spews out at every campaign stop and preys on the people he is speaking to. Do you honestly believe all this poop? Juan and Evita Peron would be proud, proud that he follows in these same footsteps…. And you think I am the fool here.

He spews populists opinions that appeal to the masses that can not possibly be carried out! Unless every man in Congress goes absolutely brain dead! Absolutely unbelievable.

It is so amazing that you can reconcile Kerry’s record. Yes his record, denounce any and all military or intelligence spending and say you are a strong military proponent and strong on defending this country when all actions say exactly the opposite. Parade medals around like a hero and also want credit for Anti War protests. And you say I am the fool! Don’t pee in my pockets and tell me its raining!

Posted by: MAW at September 15, 2004 02:16 PM

Stephen-

What exactly does ‘bring in allies by various means’ mean? Talk about a vague statement. What carrot is he going to use to bring in these allies? Is he planning to threaten them with something to come to Iraq? What possible motivation can he find to make France and Germany change position on their stated intent to never send troops to Iraq? Those statements of Kerry’s are not a solution, or a plan, it’s just sound bites. He’s in the senate now, why isn’t he putting those bills on the floor now? Why wait till January? Ohh yeah, he doesn’t go to work anymore.

Bush’s plan is to realign our troop deployment towards the middle east. He’s also pushed for more troops. His plan for leaving Iraq is to establish a democracy, build an Iraq security force, and transition the peace keeping duties to the Iraqi people. His belief is that an established democracy will assist in an economic development and increased prosperity.

Granted, current instability is hindering that process, but like in any battle the winner is the one that inflicts enough damage to the opponent that it breaks their will to fight. Bush will not allow that to be us, he will make sure the insurgents give up first.

-D

Posted by: Delzario at September 15, 2004 02:28 PM

This commercial is everything democrats accused the Swift Boats of being— and it’s the DNC putting it out! Hee hee.

Say and do anything indeed. I wonder when Democrats will finally be ashamed of themselves?

Laura Bush sold dime bags? Bush engaged in drug abuse, abortions… people fear the Bush family like the mob? How can anyone expect to take the Democratic party seriously after this stuff?

Confirmed forged documents that may have come from the Kerry campaign itself? This speaks of a complete desperation. What will the Kerry campaign not do to slander this President?

Posted by: Eric Simonson at September 15, 2004 02:44 PM

Laura Bush sold dime bags? Bush engaged in drug abuse, abortions… people fear the Bush family like the mob? How can anyone expect to take the Democratic party seriously after this stuff?

Eric, do you really think these notions are that far-fetched? Kids make mistakes, and privileged kids tend to make a lot of mistakes.

Need we look any further than Barbara and Jenna, or JEB’s Rx-shopping daughter, or Al Gore’s son, or virtually anyone related to a Kennedy, to know that these kids have predilection for scandalous activity?

I realize these reports are unsubstantiated rumors at this point, but I’d be willing to bet there’s some truth behind them. I love how everyone comes running to defend the allegations against Laura Bush. You think she was always this demure? I’m sure she partied in college. She was quite the looker I bet.

Probably a quarter of my friends in college trafficked pot on at least some level. Personally I don’t think it’s a big deal — a case of something sounding much worse than it is in reality. But I still happen to think there’s a strong chance it’s true about Laura.

Posted by: Andrew L. at September 15, 2004 03:35 PM

Confirmed forged documents?

Growing evidence suggests that George W. Bush abruptly left his Texas Air National Guard unit in 1972 for substantive reasons pertaining to his inability to continue piloting a fighter jet.

A months-long investigation, which includes examination of hundreds of government-released documents, interviews with former Guard members and officials, military experts and Bush associates, points toward the conclusion that Bush’s personal behavior was causing alarm among his superior officers and would ultimately lead to his fleeing the state to avoid a physical exam he might have had difficulty passing. His failure to complete a physical exam became the official reason for his subsequent suspension from flying status. Source

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 15, 2004 03:37 PM

Please Joseph, why The Nation? Even Kitty Kelley would have been a better source than this!

No bashing here? When will you guys get it. Bush does not need to go back to his service. Doesn’t choose to. Whenever Republicans bury the hatchet, you keep digging it up!

Posted by: MAW at September 15, 2004 04:59 PM

Joseph, MAW has a point. The Nation is even more partisan than CBS.

You and I both know those documents are forged. CBS just didn’t think hard about whether or not they were forgeries. They just assumed they were legit because they just *KNEW* it was true.

All of CBS’s experts have come out and said they were forgeries. Killian’s secretary even said she didn’t type them and Killian didn’t type. Every independent expert has said, at best, that it might have been possible to produce these documents at the time, but not likely these exact documents were.

It’s sad, but this yellow journalism is going to hurt Kerry, not Bush.

Posted by: Eric Simonson at September 15, 2004 05:23 PM

Eric,

I heard an interview last night with a document expert who said that the preponderance of evidence she’s seen is that the documents aren’t forgeries, so pull back the victory dance a bit. The jury’s still out.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 15, 2004 05:45 PM

MAW:

When will you guys get it.

You might notice that I ended my question with a question mark.

I, like the documents expert LawnBoy mentions, have the impression that there is a preponderance of evidence which in itself lends some credibility to the claims. So I asked, in shorthand, have they been confirmed frauds? I haven’t seen that reported yet. I was hoping Eric would cite something for me.

I may think Bush’s NG time a useless and counterproductive attack but that doesn’t mean I don’t want to stay informed. I have already stated in Media Responsibility that I despise the fact that this issue has been brought up to attack Bush, so don’t go trying to pigeon hole me.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 15, 2004 06:40 PM

Just noticed this:

Don’t you love it when women are tortured and treated as less than human? Probably shot in the middle of a sports arena by a family member. Are these the things you mean when you say the Afghanistan invasion has solved nothing! Unbelievable! Must be nice being a man and be able to make statements like that

You insinuation is rather rude. I’m sorry I don’t want to cure all the world’s ills with American soldiers and tax dollars. I just can’t bring myself to view this as either viable policy or justification for mission failure. We had clear objectives for invading Afghanistan and though every politician these days tacks on human rights abuses as a reason to kill thousands, it was still lower on the priority list than the real reasons we went.

Bush had a chance to make the invasion of Afghanistan worth something. He blew it.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 15, 2004 09:28 PM

Well, I am in possession of a document proving Kerry committed henious and gruesome war crimes— in his own words no less!

Kerry memo

And no I can’t tell you where I got or how it came into my possession. Karl Rove would never do anything like that.

Posted by: Eric Simonson at September 16, 2004 01:01 AM

AP,

How’s this for a ringing endorsement of their validity?

The secretary for the squadron commander purported to be the author of now-disputed memorandums questioning President Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard said Tuesday that she never typed the documents and believed that they are fakes.

But she also said they accurately reflect the thoughts of the commander, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, and other memorandums she typed for him about Mr. Bush. “The information in them is correct,” the woman, Marian Carr Knox, now 86, said in an interview at her home here. “But I doubt,” she said, pausing, “it’s not anything that I wrote because there are terms in there that are not used by Guards, the format wasn’t the way we did it. It looks like someone may have read the originals and put that together.” nytimes

Read on down about the other ‘experts’ whom CBS used to prove they were authentic.

When questions about the documents first arose last week, the anchor Dan Rather said at least four experts had helped convince the network of their authenticity.

But the network has continually declined to provide the name of more than one of those experts. That one, Marcel B. Matley, said in interviews that he validated only that the signature on the documents was Colonel Killian’s. But, he said, he did not vouch for the documents themselves and could not rule out that the signature had been cut and pasted onto the records.

On Tuesday, two more experts came forward and said they had been consulted by CBS. One, a forensic document examiner from Texas, Linda James, said in a telephone interview with The New York Times that she noticed indications that the two documents she inspected were the product of a word processor and relayed that to the producers.

“I had questioned the superscript on there,” she said, referring to the raised letters that appear after the number 111 to indicate the name of the flight squadron, adding she also had some questions about what she believed were some inconsistencies in the documents’ signatures. She said she was awaiting more documents and more type samples to draw a stronger conclusion but with time running out she referred the network to another expert, who officials at CBS identified as Mr. Matley.

The real story here is the total mismanagement of the truth by CBS.

Posted by: Eric Simonson at September 16, 2004 01:11 AM

Eric,

The real story here is the total mismanagement of the truth by CBS.

The words ‘truth and CBS’ in the same sentence. Interesting concept! Not quite an oxymoron, but definitely moronic.

Posted by: MAW at September 16, 2004 04:41 AM

MAW,

Seems you’ve gotten deep into other debates, but I wanted to reply.

Your clarification describes alleged bias on the part of CBS, not hypocrisy. And, yes they’ve broken only stories injurious to Bush, and Rather has a Liberal edge. Agreed? Of course, you’d prefer I stop there? Not gunna do it!

I know this will be futile, but MAW, it’s all about facts and the truth! CBS didn’t touch the Swift Boat Vet claims because they were lies. I can offer up many links to evidence of such, but I’d be wasting my time, right?

But, why didn’t news organizations like Fox News, or The New York Post take up an investigation of the Swift Boat Vet’s accusations?

I see Eric is trying to salvage something from this, still trying to make a connect to the Kerry campaign. Looks like the Washington Post just blocked his hail mary pass!

So, what about Killian’s secretary? Is she telling the truth? Or, are you working on that?

Posted by: thatcoloredfella at September 16, 2004 05:27 AM

In their heart o hearts Eric,Martin and Maw know Bush is fortunate son who was too busy being coked up and drunk to serve in the national guard. He couldn’t pass a physical.They also know the lies he has been espousing during his term as POTUS. If he is elected, they know that Iraq will become the death knell for the Republican party. But ever hopeful, ever faithful they fight on for the elephant. Nixon was reelected. If Bush is, his lies will begin to catch up with him. Even Reagan’s lies about the weapons deal he made with Iran before he was even president caught up with him, even though he claimed altzheimer’s and let the staff fall on their swords for him.

It was hillarious to watch Rumsfeld the other day say Sadam was behind 9/11 and hiding from capture. Another victim of Altzheimer’s I’m guessing.

Posted by: Greg at September 16, 2004 08:35 AM

thatcoloredfella,

The Swift Vets are who they are. They came out in person and made their claims. Most of the disputed claims come down to competing testimony. But how do we know since the media still haven’t covered their claims?

In contrast where did these forged documents come from?

Dan Rather is now a DNC attack dog. Credibility as a journalist now: 0. Knox is in fact a secretary who was part of a pool. And is a hardcore democrat herself. Even she says the documents are forgeries. Rather coaches her and she says they are fake but it was what was in Killian’s mind. Not authentic but accurate. Is that your standard of truth?

For democrats I guess this is enough. For the rest of humanity who would rather not be lied to by partisan hacks, it’s not.

Posted by: Eric Simonson at September 16, 2004 04:26 PM

greg,

But ever hopeful, ever faithful they fight on for the elephant. Nixon was reelected. If Bush is, his lies will begin to catch up with him.

Still Vietnam. Seems to be the template for this election.

Posted by: Eric Simonson at September 16, 2004 04:28 PM

Tell me something Eric- when did Ad Hominem arguments start becoming valid? Every time something negative comes up, the answer is never that the Republican party or candidates is somehow fallible, it’s the media making up things because they’re liberal, or because they’re partisan attack dogs.

But what about the facts? Is Killian’s secretary telling the truth/ You never get that far. You’ve already dismissed a woman whose testimony IS backed by records Bush himself released. Hell, she even’s done what you wanted somebody to do, put a stake through the heart of those memos. ToO bad she’s not denying the content, but hey, that’s real life for you. The facts aren’t going to arrange themselves at our convenience.

I think truth is more important than politics, and therefore filtering for facts is more important than filtering for biases. You filter for biases, you filter for your own perceptions, and that can be a vicious cycle of denial which leave anybody stuck in a bubble.

It was why I was willing to entertain the possibility that these documents were forged, yet at the same time provide evidence where approrpriate for how they might not be. A person stuck on one side or the other might not have the flexibility to acknowledge the truth when it comes their way.

I’ve pretty much accepted that the documents were forged now, given the evidence the secretary presented.

I think Rather’s career is safe for the time being, given that the content of the memos has been vindicated, and accepting the woman’s story and broadcasting it has at least signalled a tacit agreement with the notion that the documents are probably forged. He gets the best of both worlds, and the public gets an amazing twist in an otherwise dull story of typesets and superscripts. The only people not satisfied are those who want to burn Rather in effigy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 16, 2004 05:46 PM

Eric, those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.:)

Posted by: Greg at September 17, 2004 12:57 AM

TCFella,
Yes, you would be wasting your time. If you think I will give CBS and 60 Minutes a pass when they choose not to even acknowledge SBVT and trot out some 86 year old secretary to support the contents of forged documents, I too Not gunna do it!

I know this will be futile, but MAW, it’s all about facts and the truth! CBS didn’t touch the Swift Boat Vet claims because they were lies.

Well TCF, one man’s lie is another man’s truth. Besides to call SBVTs liars when they express opinions is a weak and flimsy excuse not to air their story. This way they would have been able to expose their ‘so called’ lies on national TV! Why do you suppose they didn’t? I’ll take a guess! Because they couldn’t. To not air their story in a professional journalistic fashion, strange concept for CBS BTW, leads me to believe there is more truth in their story than not.

And to make a statement that it’s all about facts and the truth where CBS is concerned is an hypocrisy. You went from calling them biased and not hypocrites to calling them fact and truth tellers. So I will definitely agree they are biased.

Bias as a transitive verb means to influence in a particular, typically unfair direction; prejudice.

Hypocrisy on the other hand would mean practicing beliefs, feelings or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

Semantics aside, yes I would call them biased. But you I would call a hypocrite!

BTW Fox News is a cable station with many commentators. Programs such as O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Brit Hume and Special Report had plenty to say about the SBVTs and John O’Neill has appeared on Fox News Channel in many of these programs. So what is your point?

The Washington Post I do not read, I live on the West Coast, don’t get, don’t want it.

Posted by: MAW at September 17, 2004 01:53 PM

Bush Campaign Video

Bush Video

Posted by: Tim at September 17, 2004 02:15 PM

Greg,

In their heart o hearts Eric,Martin and Maw know Bush is fortunate son who was too busy being coked up and drunk to serve in the national guard.

I can’t speak for Eric or Martin, but yes I know he is a fortunate son. The question I have is so what? Is this a news bulletin of some sort? Good grief people, give it up!

I could go on to make statements like he tried several times to go to Vietnam but was turned down because he needed more training and was trained on a different fighter jet than was used in Vietnam, or perhaps he logged more hours than needed to complete his service, but what would be the use.

You are convinced he was a coke head. So for the sake of argument, lets suppose he was. The real question is simply, is he now? And if he isn’t, do you have any idea of the strength that it takes to get off of a cocaine habit? Any at all?

I don’t, but have personally watched my nephew struggle with it and fight it with all his being. It was heartbreaking, but he has done it. He is 24 now and had been involved with drug use since he was a young teenager and he is the most endearing, beautiful and trusting person I know. Because of the struggle he went through he is a different person now. It would be a tragedy for anyone to characterize him by what he did in his teens when he is in his 50’s. So again, give it up! It’s not working and nobody cares, at least normal thinking people don’t care. The ones that will decide this election.

Posted by: MAW at September 17, 2004 02:21 PM

MAW,

TCF was actually my weblog alias, and I inputed by mistake.

Your shading of the basic principles of accuracy and proof, are a perfect example of why I’d express futility in continuing this debate.

If I owned a TV network, let’s say I have the ability to discern right from wrong, and truth from fiction. I can then read volumes of evidence and come to a personal conclusion on whether it is accurate or false. I can listen to others and their interpretation of the same set of evidence, for additional input.

And, if I come to the conclusion that evidence I’m being offered is inaccurate and false, I could choose to air it. But, like every network has decided on the SBVT, proven lies is not good for business.

Well TCF, one man’s lie is another man’s truth. Besides to call SBVTs liars when they express opinions is a weak and flimsy excuse not to air their story.

My opinion, is that I personally snorted coke with George W. Bush on numerous occasions? Can you get me on Fox News Channel?

This way they would have been able to expose their ‘so called’ lies on national TV! Why do you suppose they didn’t? I’ll take a guess! Because they couldn’t. To not air their story in a professional journalistic fashion, strange concept for CBS BTW, leads me to believe there is more truth in their story than not.

Again MAW, I can supply you with links to ample evidence that discredits the SBVT’s accusations, and maybe TV news segments after some digging. But, the last line of the above quote tells me you’ll have an excuse or objection ready. Right?

Again, CBS is biased, but Fox News is the poster child for ‘hypocrisy’. Yes, John O’Neill appeared almost every night on Hannity, and other Fox shows. And, I can supply ample evidence of Fox working in concert with O’Neill, by not challenging his claims, but instead taking them at face value and amplifying them. Chris Matthews was the only one to really challenge O’Neill, and now he is on the Right’s blacklist. But, you won’t be interested in such evidence, right?

In my comment post (tcf authored) of the 9/16, there is a live link to the Washington Post, where you can register free. Highly recommended.

Are you registered at the Washington Times?

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at September 17, 2004 09:27 PM

Granted, current instability is hindering that process, but like in any battle the winner is the one that inflicts enough damage to the opponent that it breaks their will to fight. Bush will not allow that to be us, he will make sure the insurgents give up first.

-D

Posted by: Delzario at September 15, 2004 02:28 PM

One of the leaders of the 1916 Irish rebellion against the British Empire said, ” it is not those that can inflict the most, but those who can endure the most, who will prevail”. History proved him right. He also said, “The fools, the fools, they have left us our fenian dead. While Ireland holds these graves, Ireland unfree shall never be at peace”. History proved him right. America has lost the battle for Iraqi hearts and minds, and America, like the British in the last century, is likely find that its position in Iraq is impossible. The one thing that might have given the coalition a chance of achieving its objectives in Iraq, providing security to ordinary citizens, they have failed to do, and with a little foresight, it should have been obvious that such security could not have been provided. This war is becoming more like Vietnam every day. Unwinnable. Sooner or later, Americans will realise that their kids are dying in a lost cause and will call for disengagement. This will leave a situation much worse than before the invasion. Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history, are condemned to repeat it.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at September 18, 2004 06:32 PM

Bert,

I have checked out your Web Site in the past and I knew who you were because we have had exchanges on other threads, though I can’t remember which one, and I know where you stand politically. That will remain a puzzle to me because you sound like an intelligent person anyway. Pun intended.

And, if I come to the conclusion that evidence I’m being offered is inaccurate and false, I could choose to air it. But, like every network has decided on the SBVT, proven lies is not good for business.

First off, I and many others have not concluded any such thing. I have seen no evidence of lies only evidence of different opinions. And since when is ‘proven lies are not good for business’?

I am stunned that you can, in light of what has happened this week, take that position. It has nothing to do with truth or fiction to get on network news. Example, Kitty Kelly’s 3 day interviews with Matt Lauer. Are you going to tell me that the history of Kitty Litter Kelley has anything to do with truth and accuracy? And of course, SBVTs have not been given the same opportunity on the Today Show. Surely you know this.

I can tell you what the standard is for getting on network TV in a word. RATINGS. I can even go so far as to say that 60 Minutes thought they had a ratings bonanza and that was the reason they went for it but got caught with egg on their face. I can forgive them for that but the sad part is the way they handled the damage control in the aftermath. That is the telling part.

My opinion, is that I personally snorted coke with George W. Bush on numerous occasions? Can you get me on Fox News Channel?

Maybe not on Fox News Channel but definitely on 60 Minutes. And stating that you snorted coke with George Bush is a statement of fact not an opinion. It either happened or it didn’t. I am sure if you are willing to swear to it and find other corroborating evidence you too could have your 15 minutes of fame ala Burkett. But what is the point of this statement. Are you saying this to infer that there is absolutely no accuracy to SBVT’s opinions?

Again, CBS is biased, but Fox News is the poster child for ‘hypocrisy’. Yes, John O’Neill appeared almost every night on Hannity, and other Fox shows. And, I can supply ample evidence of Fox working in concert with O’Neill, by not challenging his claims, but instead taking them at face value and amplifying them. Chris Matthews was the only one to really challenge O’Neill, and now he is on the Right’s blacklist. But, you won’t be interested in such evidence, right?

Do you mean hypocrisy as defined in my last post? Or is this a dramatic editorial on your part? If it were not for FNC who would have ever talked about the scandals in the Oil For Food program back in January before anyone else did or Richard Clark’s duplicitous statements concerning the Bush Administration or even, for goodness sake…. Memogate! No one would be reporting any of this. Should I go on? I think you get the point. Besides you make a grand contradiction when you say O’Neill was even on Hardball, and I believe that O’Reilly did a fair reporting with O’Neill… but as you say… what’s the use!

You define them as hypocrites just because they have a different opinion than yours. Interesting?

Besides Chris Matthews is not on my blacklist for that. He’s on my blacklist for soft-balling any guest that is on the left. I watched with horror his treatment of Michelle Malkin because she dared to simply imply something negative about his candidate John Kerry but his questioning of Kitty Kelly was a nerf ball. I have taken lots of hits on this board for the same reason. To insinuate that John Kerry got 3 scratches and a bruise got a barrage of posters that were highly offended. But offered no proof of anything to the contrary, only shock and ‘how dare you’. But then again, what did I care! I believed it then and believe it even more now for reasons I won’t go into. When Kerry signs that form 180 though, all this will be a moot point. Doubt it.

So, what about Killian’s secretary? Is she telling the truth? Or, are you working on that?

I consider Killian’s secretary highly partisan and her opinion of what happened 30 years ago should be consider highly suspect. Especially in light of the fact that she had acknowledged her affinity to Kerry and stated that Bush was selected not elected. So 3 guesses how I feel about Killian’s secretary.

Are you registered at the Washington Times?

I am registered with the Washington Post and get a daily email post.

Posted by: MAW at September 21, 2004 09:27 PM

Paul in Euroland,

America has lost the battle for Iraqi hearts and minds, and America, like the British in the last century, is likely find that its position in Iraq is impossible. The one thing that might have given the coalition a chance of achieving its objectives in Iraq, providing security to ordinary citizens, they have failed to do, and with a little foresight, it should have been obvious that such security could not have been provided. This war is becoming more like Vietnam every day. Unwinnable.

To compare the war in Iraq with Vietnam is simply careless and irresponsible. First off, the number of casualties in Vietnam in 3 weeks was far more than the casualties we have incurred in 18 months of the current conflict.

Secondly and more importantly, winning the war in Vietnam had no impact on our own security and safety as is the present day situation. To lose this war in Iraq or not fight this war would mean giving up to the demands of terrorists all over the planet.

Sooner or later, Americans will realise that their kids are dying in a lost cause and will call for disengagement. This will leave a situation much worse than before the invasion. Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history, are condemned to repeat it.

The lessons of history I have learned is that conversations such this serves only one purpose. To empower the enemy! If that is your purpose you are on the right track. It is certainly evident in the current situation in Iraq! That we can agree happened in Vietnam also, ala J.F. Kerry. Yes, history is repeating itself, only this time a lot sooner and without due time to give the people of Iraq a half hearted chance.

Congratulations.

Posted by: MAW at September 21, 2004 09:49 PM

Maw,

I really can’t allow you away with these canards. You go too far sir!!

Firsty, you did not have the hearts and minds of the people in Vietnam, and furthermore, too many of those Vietnamese, who might have at least stayed neutral as between the US and her corrupt Vietnamese allies, were getting killed in the crossfire. Too many vills had to be destroyed to be saved!!!

As to US casualties in Iraq, well, if you stay off the streets as much as possible, and leave as much as possible to the fledgling Iraqi forces, then you will minimise casualties. Many parts of Iraq are no go areas for US forces, for example Falluja. An interesting point is that we don’t actually know the number of US casualties. We do know the fatalities. We don’t know the maimed and wounded count.

Next, I don’t know how old you are. I’m not very old, but I do recall the whole basis of the War in Vietnam. It was to defeat the Communist Threat. Stop another domino falling. This was considered critical to the US and Western security by the US at the time . To lose that war, we were told, was to give up to Godless Communism all over the planet, and everyone knew, better dead that red.

As to your final point, ever heard the expression, when you’re in a hole, stop digging? If the US is fighting the wrong war in the wrong place, remaining committed and taking the full course of medicine is not going to cure the disease. In fact, in contradiction to your claims about my position empowering the enemy, it is in fact the US presence in Iraq which empowers the enemy. A golden opportunity was gift wrapped to the terrorists such as al zaqawi when the US invaded. The fact is, the situation in Iraq is not getting better. It is spiralling out of control. Despite the best efforts to recruit and train an alternative indigenous security force, they are deserting almost as quickly as they are passing out, adn taking their weapons with them. Indeed, according to reports, some are even acting for the insurgents in carrying our attacks and in collecting intelligence. Meanwhile your average Joe Citizen in Iraq is fed up and resentful of the occupation. It has brought him and his sister only tears, fears and heartache. On the streets of Baghdad, the people are saying, at least when Saddam was there, if you stayed clear of politics, there was safety and security. As you will know yourself, the first requirement of people in order to build lives for themselves and their families, is a least a minimal level of security. Iraqis don’t enjoy that. And the evidence on the streets does not suggest things are getting better, but much, much worse. As for giving the people of Iraq a half hearted chance, when were they consulted about any of this? What kind of nonsense is it to remain on a mulish course simply because to do otherwise might encourage the enemy? How encouraging is that to an enemy? You mention John Kerry. I get the impression that you think I am a Kerry supporter. Kerry impresses me not at all. Yet I do think he is the lesser of two evils. A little reflection and reserve is what we require in this complex world of ours, not shooting from the hip. The current incumbent of the Oval Office spurned the advice of his professional soldiers and diplomats to rush into this merry little adventure. I recall as a child my Mom telling me, ” Fools rush in, where angels fear to tread” Enough!

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at September 22, 2004 08:11 PM

Paul,
I can tell from your naïve view of the world that you are indeed young. Unlike myself who is not a man but a woman, a mother and a grandmother, I resent the fact that you think I take the war in Vietnam casually.

I watched it nightly on Network news while raising 2 girls and 2 boys with the fear of a mother that the war might go on long enough to take my young boys. Do not confuse me with others on this board that have not seen the agony of a war without an exit strategy and do not confuse me with those that think that by vilifying the cause of the soldiers we have sent to fight and die in another land we are doing something to save lives.

My dearest sir, you made the comparison to Iraq with Vietnam. Not me! So don’t choke up and cry mama when you are called on it.

So that you will be perfectly clear with my position, in no way can you compare this war with Vietnam. You simply do not know anything about the feelings of those that lived in this country during that period. And you simply do not know the feelings of those that lost friends from high school and saw friends that came home with serious personality issues and were never, ever the same. You simply do not know and to espouse anything that resembles an opinion on the Vietnam War is the real canard.

So if you can tell me the canard in the statement that we lost more lives in 3 weeks in Vietnam than we have in 18 months in Iraq then I will stop right here. Unfortunately, you cannot. So I will continue.

My second point is simply this. To pull out now would mean mass murders, chaos and civil war and an ungodly mess. If your position is to pull out immediately, it is hardly worth the brainpower I will have to use to move my fingers to write this.

If the situation is spiraling out of control in Iraq, have you ever heard the expression, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. To sit and criticize an operation when you know nothing of the actuality of the situation is part of the problem. Especially when it puts American Soldiers in jeopardy, then you are part of the problem and in the process getting more American men and women killed.

Wear it proudly. John Kerry did.

To consider John Kerry the lesser of two evils, since when is it the lesser of 2 evils to support someone who has no position on a war, that shifts constantly, who wants to leave our security to the likes of the Useless Nations and some 2 bit banana republic dictators and worse, the likes of France and Germany. One of which was responsible for more deaths in the last century than all wars combined while the other would rather lie down and be invaded than fight for their own liberty and freedom. I hardly expect anything from them with the exception of stealing money from an otherwise noble cause such as the Oil for Food program.

So do not tell me that Kerry is the lesser of two evils. He is the evil incarnate as illustrated by his cavorting with the enemy during the Vietnam War, his tossing of his medals, burning the American Flag, being in concert with those that flew the Viet Cong flag, writing a book mocking the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima and his vilifying soldiers that were dying and should have been tried as a traitor. Should I go on? I can, but of course, you know that.

Call Bush a coward if you wish, but never call him a traitor.

Posted by: MAW at September 22, 2004 10:30 PM

MAW said: “I can tell from your naïve view of the world that you are indeed young.”

No, MAW, you can’t tell that. You can guess that. Let’s stick to critiquing other’s messages, NOT others themselves. Please!

Posted by: WatchBlog Manager at September 22, 2004 11:01 PM

Paul,

Next, I don’t know how old you are. I’m not very old, but I do recall the whole basis of the War in Vietnam.

Please accept my apologies for calling you naive. It was based on your statement above that made me consider your opinion in that light which led to that insensitive statement.

But then again, I chuckled when you called me sir!

Posted by: MAW at September 23, 2004 03:03 AM

Hi Maw,

I had my tongue very firmly in my cheek when I called you sir! Please accept ma most abject apologies, Ma’am!. As to calling me naive, well, I’ve been called a lot worse than that, and as we say over here, that’s water off a ducks back.

Now, to battle! Firstly, as to relative casualty figures between Vietnam and Iraq. The US is only in Iraq about 18 months. At the beginning of active US involvment in the conflict in Vietnam, casualty figures for US personnel were much lower than the figures you suggest. Secondly, at the moment, the US forces are not standing holding ground or going out seeking combat situations. They made a foray into Fallujah, and then pulled back, without taking control of that city and committing a force to occupy and pacify it. They are either fortified in their own bases, or out patrolling in well armoured vehicles largely. They do not present as easy a target now as the Infantry did in jungle conditions. In order for the US forces to attempt overcome the insurgents, they will need to be out in the streets, boots on the ground reacting immediately to insurgent activity. Indeed in todays paper, it is reported as follows;

” The American embassy in Baghdad, formerly known as the green zone, is the largest and most heavily defended US embassy in the world. Despite its secure location and fortification it is mortared daily by insurgents.
Given the relatively short range of such weapons and the fact that they are crew served, their use implies that Iraqi insurgents enjoy realtive freedom of action in Baghdad itself.

This fraught security environment is further emphasised by ongoing insurgent attacks on other “hard” military targets such as US patrols and convoys. During one such attack on a so called hard target last week, seven US marines lost their lives in a roadside bomb attack on their armoured vehicles.

The only way for Centcom to thwart such attacks - in the absence of effective intelligence - is to deploy outside of their military bases and, in military parlance, to hold ground. To achieve this objective the Americans would have to do two things. First, they would have to re-inforce massively to get the correct number of “boots on the ground” They would also have to engage in urban combat, the type which they have been thus far keen to avoid - as witnessed in Falluja, with good reason.” (Irish Times 23 Sept 2004 - Tom Cloonan retired army officer and fellow of Inter University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society, based at Loyola University, Chicago) I apologise for such a long extract, but I think every word is relevant.

The point of comparison with Vietnam Maw, is not how many casualties anyway, it is about what the US can realistically do there. In Vietnam, to quote your own words, it was part of the problem, not part of the solution. Look at Vietnam today, and what do you see? A country dragging itself back from the abject poverty it was bombed into during two wars, against the French who they defeated at Dien Bien Phu, and the Americans whose people lost faith in the struggle against a poor people. Vietnam in not an enemy of the west today, nor or America in particular. It is a country finding its way back into the mainstream international community. In essence, the US went into Vietnam out of a paranoid fear of communism, attacking what was more a war of independence against the colonial master than an attempt at world domination.

Today the US has a paranoid fear of terrorism. That statement will probably shock you. What about 9/11 you will say. An horrific and evil attack on innocents. But from the point of view of the actual threat it poses to the average US citizen, less than 3,000 were killed. In terms of a single murderous attack, a shocking toll. In terms of the number of Americans dying untimely deaths in any given year through murder, road deaths, or whatever unnatural cause, it does not represent a huge risk to the average citizen. Please stay wi