Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

So for the Bush fans, it’s always war first? There is never any alternative? Never the chance of a solution short of war? At every juncture, we must destroy, invade, and kill, otherwise we are weak?

That’s just twisted.

Ironic Eric,

I just did an analysis of the Chicago Tribune’s endorsement of George Bush, where they also charged that Kerry’s foreign policy/war on terror approach consists solely and totally on diplomacy. They did add, such an approach would be more attractive if are old allies (France, Germany and Russia) and the UN - integral to his alternative course of action - had been more proactive and effective in staring down the gathering nuclear threat in Iran and North Korea, and the heinous butcher of Iraq.

That means Bush must have the moral authority to pre-emptive strike of a ‘perceived’ threat, and is free to act unilaterally due to clear evidence that diplomacy is ineffectual (Iraq), and the rest of the world is too weak or cowardly to confront real terror (Iran, North Korea).

This is a similar leap of logic used by this administration in spinning the Dulfer Report as proof that (surprise!), the invasion was legit. I can only hope that voters now have a ‘fool me once/stupid no more’ radar, last tested by Dick Cheney’s unfortunate memory block.

Alanis Morrissette recently observed that too much attention has been paid to the disappointing reality that a large segment of American voters, will fall for such ‘a busload of bushwah!’ She opined, we need to have faith there is a much larger majority of smarter Americans, who will act to right this ship.

In 1991 [Kerry] said such a vote [to support Gulf War I] would be dangerous and flawed.

[…]The first gulf war appears to fit all the criteria Kerry reviles George W. Bush for not meeting, including his ‘global test’, yet the First Gulf War got a failing grade. “On CBS’s This Morning before the first Gulf War, Kerry said, “I’m convinced we’re doing this the wrong way.” If the first Gulf war didn’t pass his ‘global test’ what would?

I thought 911 changed everything.

So, by ‘fakir’, you mean JF a yoga master? When do you think he will teach us yoga via national boardcast?

Ooops, it may be unamerican to practice Yoga. Sorry.

Funny, M. Cheney. On Eric’s fakir link is this:

In Islamic cultures the fakir renounces the material world and follows Allah as a beggar.

I don’t really know what Eric is trying to imply about Kerry.

Ahh…1991. Those halycon days when terrorism was something that happened in the Middle East, the internet was something only geeks knew about, and we Americans could focus on important stuff, like baseball. (How ‘bout those Red Sox? I just love to see the Yankees lose…) Which brings us to, what was W doing way back then? was he really lighting up at Camp David? does that explain why he traded Sosa?

Some tidbits from about.com:

It’s what happened (and how it alledgedly went down) after Bush became an owner that leaves some folks skeptical about his integrity and honesty. Basically, skeptics contend that Bush and his fellow investors attempted to blackmail the city of Arlington (home of the Texas Rangers) into paying for a new stadium through a sales tax increase by threatening to take the team elsewhere.

“…whether the public interest issue is taxes, size of government, property rights, or public subsidies of private sports ventures, Bush’s personal ownership interest in the Texas Rangers baseball team has been wildly at odds with his publicly declared positions on those issues. And ongoing litigation over the Ballpark deal has revealed documents showing that beginning in 1990, the Rangers management—which included Bush as managing general partner—conspired to use the government’s power of eminent domain to further its private business interests.”
Robert Bryce writing for The Texas Observer

A conspiracy? Or could it simply be that he made some good business and financial decisions. Was Bush an active participant or was he simply the name that opened doors for others? What do you think?

“Bush and his partners hit what can only be described as a towering home run by selling the Texas Rangers to Thomas Hicks for $250 million. Bush [for his $605,000 investment will get] between $10 million and $14 million. [But] they still haven’t paid the $7.5 million they owe the city of Arlington.”
Robert Bryce writing for the Austin Chronicle

Bush and fellow investors disagree with the city over who should pay the outstanding debt. Each side has their own interpretation of the agreement. So, is Bush willfully refusing to pay a legitimate debt or does he truly believe that he is not legally liable? In other words, is he a liar shirking his responsibilities or a businessman standing by his (his lawyers) interpretation of a legal contract. Which is more important, the letter of the law or the way this whole mess made Bush look during a Presidential election whether he’s guilty of wrongdoing or not?

But be fair, it’s been so long. Bush is a different man now, I’m sure. But let’s go back to 1991 anyway, why don’t we Eric? it’s nice to get nostalgic over a time when we had a President Bush that was a war hero and understood foreign policy.

Eric, as usually, you are fighting your stereotypical weak liberal. You know, Kerry supported Clinton on Kosovo, where our soldiers were sent in without UN mandate, under a NATO banner.

Ergo, Kerry is willing to bypass the UN under certain circumstances.

Kerry didn’t hesitate to send us into Afghanistan, to chase after the real culprits of 9/11. He didn’t hesitate to give his president the conditional authority to go to war if all else failed, as it did in Kosovo, where Russia would have blocked any more efforts to go after their fellow slavs for their genocide. Kerry was made to believe by an administration that knew differently, that there was a serious imminent threat being posed by Iraq to American and our interests. He couldn’t have known that the Administration had put in evidence that even their own people were disputing behind the scenes.

I think what this is about is using scare tactics to distract from the fact that your president didn’t have a good reason for taking us to war in Iraq in the first place. Your president has impressed the world by showing them how boldly he can waste America’s prestige, it’s tax dollars, it’s military readiness for other conflicts, and most despicably, American and innocent Iraqi lives, to protect us from a threat that didn’t even exist.

The president cannot go to war for one reason, and tell America we’re going to war for another. He cannot invoke the specter of a slaughter that would dwarf 9/11 before the war, then turn around, after the invasion, and tell us that it doesn’t matter whether we found such a threat at all. I mean, how can you possibly tell us that Kerry’s not being straight on Iraq when President Bush isn’t even acknowleging what a fever pitch of fear he drummed up before the invasion?

You may think it is moral to lie to the American people or present them with flimsy or false evidence to get us into a war you deem to be morally and strategically necessary, but I don’t. This country is built on the idea of a government that answers to its people. If this administration could not or would not justify the war on it’s original premises and their original intentions, then it does not deserve the right to go to war, much less the support of the American people and the silence of Bush’s political opponents.

Kerry is willing to use force to protect this country. Afghanistan proves that. Kosovo proves Kerry is willing to circumvent UN authority when there is a real and urgent matter at stake. Two tours of duty show that Kerry has the discipline and the tenacity to stick with his committment. Four Months of Swiftboat duty with decorations for bravery show (regardless of what some cynical, bitter rivals say) that Kerry will not shrink from a fight. His tough investigations of Iran-Contra and the politically sensitive matter of BCCI prove that he will not sit back on the sidelines and let evil persist in the world. His testimony on Capitol Hill during the Dewey Canyon III event shows that he is capable of facing the truth unflinchingly, not just go home and wish it wasn’t there.

All in all, I see more character and more guts in John Kerry than in Bush. Bush puts on a good show, says all the right things, but it comes time for action, for apology, for simple matters of judgment, the President never acts with the same character he professes to have. I mean, what happens with the next terrorist attack, Eric, will he blame the Democrats for not supporting his efforts in Iraq, then stonewall yet another investigation so none of his people or himself have to be held responsible for the failures? Will he pass the buck just as often as he’s done in this term? I think he will. I don’t think I can countenance that kind of irresponsibility in a president. I don’t think we can afford a president who cannot admit his mistakes in a day and age when there is such a small margin for error.

BTW, what’s going on with you Red Team editors? There seems to be way fewer postings on this side of the page.

I strongly approve of the format of this site - I think it’s good to get both sides of a story out, and have a back-and-forth discussion to unravel the truth - but I don’t want it to look like a Blue heaven with a few Red punching bags.

:-)

Kerry’s sole self-justification for being president is that he’s not Bush. For Democrats, that is obviously enough.

I’ve been giving some thought to what we could expect from a Kerry administration, based on his track record and his reactive positions taken during this campaign:

- We know that he will never strike back at any attacker for any reason under any circumstances, without first going to the U.N or at least getting other countries to agree with it. His track record shows that and his reaction to the liberation of Kuwait in 1991 is a clear indicator. The very conditions that he said should have existed before invading Iraq were in place in 1991, but he still voted against that war. For Kerry, despite his eloquent denials, there will never be a right war in the right place at the right time.

- Our military forces will be “streamlined” so that he can cut the defense budget by a considerable margin and shift the funds to a government takeover of our healthcare system. Since he’s most unlikely to ever need troops, why have a military force at all? We have the U.N. to protect us, not to mention Canada and Mexico. If anyone attacks us or any of our areas of vital interest, we’ll simply have them arrested and convince our friends at the U.N. to boycott them.

- With at least two supreme court justices likely to retire within the next four years, he will pack the court with liberal judges who will make new law by decree instead of simply interpreting the consitution, which is their job. Don’t be surprised if you see one of the Clintons nominated for Chief Justice to replace Rhenquist. Federal judges at all levels will be of the same persuasion. Get used to it.

- Federal funding of any faith-based charities will be ended. They’re a common-sense Bush program that would almost certainly be eliminated under a Kerry presidency.

There are many more, but these are depressing enough for now.

I am continually amazed at how much some Red folks, Eric in particular, seem to absolutely loathe John Kerry. The thing is, for every character flaw or supposed lie or mistake they accuse Kerry of, if you hold Bush up to the same scrutiny he falls short every time. On military service, Bush served with less valor no matter how you slice it. Kerry was a successful prosecutor and career senator, while Bush drove drunk and ran companies into the ground. During the last four years, the state of the union has declined in almost every way measurable. Yet people HATE Kerry.

Why is that? It makes no sense to me. Even if you take it to the simplest level — Are we better off than we were when George Bush was elected? — the answer is no.

And as for Kerry lying — whatever. We all know politicians distort facts for their own benefit. Don’t tell me Kerry is a liar as though Bush isn’t; I’ve watched George Bush take words Kerry spoke two minutes previously and pretend they meant something completely different from what was said. He has lied even when he exposes himself as a liar at that exact moment. So let’s not worry about who’s a liar. Let’s worry about who has done the worst job as president.

NOTOTH —

You kill me, man. Interesting logic you use there.

— He voted against one war, therefore he’ll be against all war. By this logic, he also voted for a war in Kosovo, therefore he must be for all wars. Does not compute, does not compute!

— He’ll streamline the military — by adding two divisions and increasing Special Forces. Uh huh.

— He’ll pack the Supreme Court by getting to appoint two justices. As though the Supreme Court isn’t right-leaning now and Bush’s Supreme Court wouldn’t be his bitch.

— Faith-based initiatives will end — even though Kerry has specifically said he approved of them.

Bert:

I mean this somewhat in fun, but I must admit that your using Alanis Morrissette as your bellwether for a serious political discussion gives me great pause. I mean, couldn’t you have at least referred to one of the greater entertainer/politicos of our time, like Babs Streisand or Sir Elton? Perhaps their sheer intensity of political wisdom could bolster your point.

Eric:

You are exactly right in your position. Kerry talks tough, but his record shows an inability to ACT tough. When given the opportunity to do so, he has drifted away, wilting like the schoolyard bully finally challenged to a real fight.

Kerry could have been tough in 1991 with Iraq, but favored waiting to see if sanctions might deter Saddam from pillaging the country of Kuwait.

I don’t believe much of what is said within the campaign cycle. Look back at the past 10 presidencies and see how many of the campaign promises have been shunted aside after the election. This year, I don’t believe Kerry’s sudden toughness, in stark contrast to his 20 year record.

I DO believe that Kerry’s record shows that he would seek international approval far more than Bush would, in determining how America should act. In 1994 Kerry suggested that US deaths in a UN approved war are more honorable than US deaths in a US only war….what kind of message does this send? The message he sends is that he truly believes in a global test of some kind….but he also recognizes on the campaign trail that sounding tough is good.

So once again, Senator Kerry straddles the fence, talking tough while ducking behind the fence when it comes time for the actual fight.

John Kerry voted for the use of force resolution in 2002. He explained that he was not really voting for the use of force, but voting for the “threat of force.” Was Kerry really the only person in the world who didn’t think Bush would invade if authorized?

Stephen:

Ergo, Kerry is willing to bypass the UN under certain circumstances.

The precise circumstance appears to be whether the President is a Republican or a Democrat. Kosovo and Desert Fox: Democratic President.

Gulf War: Republican
2nd Gulf War: Republican…..though I’m not sure which position to use——since Kerry voted FOR the war while saying its the wrong war.

I’ll give Kerry credit for approving going into Afghanistan, but that’s such a blatantly obvious political suicide to vote against that Kerry really had no choice.

Two tours of duty show that Kerry has the discipline and the tenacity to stick with his committment.

Its amusing that you use Kerry’s tour of duty as a sign of his “discipline and tenacity” considering that he spend the better part of his second tour in an office building in Brooklyn. He did have the discipline to document his Purple Hearts, and the tenacity to find a loophole to get out of combat, so I gues you are correct there.

jbod —

I still don’t understand how a Bush supporter can impugn Kerry’s military record. I really don’t. I can understand how someone with other concerns might, but if you’re trying to sell me a car with brakes that work 10% of the time when I can buy one with brakes that work 95% of the time I’m not going to buy your car, no matter how many times you tell me that my brakes have a 5% chance of failing.

Alejo:

My apologies for poorly wording my post in such a way that it could be taken as discrediting Kerry’s service. I can see how it might appear that I’m impugning Kerry’s valor. That is not my intent. The intent is solely to say that his shortened tour of duty doesnt indicate tenacity to me.

If you have read my previous posts, you would see that I have consistently praised Kerry for his military service to our country. I have stated that while questions have been raised about the worthiness of his medals, I will continue to honor his service and his medals until given a definitive reason to do otherwise.

In this thread, I was amused that Stephen used Kerry’s tour of duty as a sign of discipline and tenacity, given that Kerry voluntarily cut his tour of duty short by invoking a Navy regulation. I’m not sure how that indicates tenacity.

You kill me, man. Interesting logic you use there.

Aw shucks, Alejo, I wouldn’t kill you for any reason. I get too many chuckles out of your posts.

— He voted against one war, therefore he’ll be against all war. By this logic, he also voted for a war in Kosovo, therefore he must be for all wars. Does not compute, does not compute!

I used 1991 as an example, but Kerry has made it very clear (for him), during this campaign and earlier, that the only way American forces should ever be deployed is as part of a multi-national force. While I agree with the desirability of having a unified front, there are times when it simply isn’t possible. I don’t believe that Kerry would break from that position, regardless of the provocation.

— He’ll streamline the military — by adding two divisions and increasing Special Forces. Uh huh.

You’re accepting what he says during a political campaign over what he has done in the past. His votes against most military appropriations bills during his career are a much better indicator. His present political sabre rattling is a cynical attempt to soften his record of long-term opposition to the military.

— He’ll pack the Supreme Court by getting to appoint two justices. As though the Supreme Court isn’t right-leaning now and Bush’s Supreme Court wouldn’t be his b[…]h.

Actually the court is probably more neutral now than it has been in the past twenty years — defining neutral as not making up laws to fit one’s agenda. Can you imagine President Hillary in four years with Bill as Chief Justice? It’s not out of the question. If elected, Kerry will be a one-term president and that combination isn’t as remote as it may seem.

— Faith-based initiatives will end — even though Kerry has specifically said he approved of them.

Once again, you’re confusing rhetoric with reality. Anything that smacks of cooperation between government and religion will have to go away. Liberals will demand it and Kerry will go along with it as a matter of political expediency.

When you get your first job, what you did in college matters a lot. As you develop a record and experience it matters less until finally it is mostly historical.

I do not impugn Kerry’s war record, but it is not enough to decide whether or not he should be president. I know a lot of guys who served in Vietnam, some even more than four months in combat. Some would make good leaders, others not. There seems to be no pattern. Kerry’s service (anyone’s service) is important as an indicator of what he will do. As we see more of what he DID do, this indicator becomes less important.

John Kerry did the proud thing as a young man. Then he went on to do the wrong thing (accusing his fellow soldiers of war crimes) as an older young man. Then he had a 20-year record in the senate. Now he is explaining what he WILL do. The Vietnam experience was great, but it doesn’t help us very much in judging what he WILL do.

George Bush’s record in his early life is less heroic, even negative. But we now have seen him in action for four years. That is the best indicator of what he WILL do. We may disagree about that. I think it shows he can do the job and compared to what I know about John Kerry, can keep the U.S safer in this uncertain and dangerous world.

BTW, what’s going on with you Red Team editors? There seems to be way fewer postings on this side of the page.

Posted by William Cohen at October 21, 2004 09:23 AM

I think if you look at the fierce attacks from the lefties that follow any piece in the red column, you can see why stating an opinion simply wouldn’t be worth it for many.

I appreciate Eric’s voice in the wilderness and hope that he continues. There are a few others, of course, but none as durable.

Kerry goes ‘Goose Hunting’.

Kerry went hunting to show his support for the people who hunt and own guns.
When asked why he wasn’t carrying his prey, he replied, ‘I’m still giddy about the Red Sox.’
He didn’t carry out a dead bird because he would have offended those who don’t like hunting.
He can say he shot it but he won’t get caught holding up a dead bird.
Guess you can say Kerry has managed to ‘Kill two birds with one stone’ again.
He’s a master !

First, if anybody’s attempting to streamline the army, it’s Donald Rumsfeld under George Bush. What do you think all transformation and Stryker Brigade Bushwa is? Why do you think they insisted on going in so light- to demonstrate the virtues of Rumsfeld’s streamlining!

Second, Kerry’s proven that when presented with evidence that indicates a potential threat, and the specter of a UN veto might compromise our national security, he sides with Giving the president the power to strike at our enemies. The only reason Kerry is calling it the Wrong War at the Wrong Time now, is that Bush’s case for war has since fallen apart and like many of us out there, that’s pissed us off. Being mislead into war will make many people angry, you know.

You know, I don’t post anything without getting criticized by the Red Column and the libertarians. But you know something? I give back as good as I give. I have the confidence and the command of the facts to not feel overwhelmed when I don’t get coddled by my opponents on the site.

Really, if you have the conviction of your beliefs, and the facts to base it on, then you shouldn’t be failing to post quality responses to the Blue column as often as we do to you.

You should be worried about the fortunes of your party, if it’s this easy to scare them off.

NOTOTH:

Kerry’s sole self-justification for being president is that he’s not Bush.

It seems from the Red Column that Bush’s only qualification for president is that he’s not Kerry.

what exactly has bush accomplished?

1) an end to terror? NO, actually an increase in global terrorism by all documented sources.

2) victory in Iraq? NO, quagmire and increasing instability with the nation rapidly approaching failed state status. increase in casulties since declaring major combat operations over.

3) a safer america? NO, he has taken some steps, but far fewer than have been recommended and he has done little to nothing to protect our nuclear facilities, ports, or interstate commerce.
additionally, he stalled and tried to evade the creation of the homeland security dept and the 9/11 commission.

i understand blind faith, and a complete and utter need to dismiss your political opponent, but this defies any reasoning.

Bush had NO substantial record before becoming president, so to impugn Kerry’s record (let’s forget for the moment that it’s 20 years long) is the height of being hypocritical.

I doubt I’ll change any minds on this side of the page, but seriously your arguments against Kerry are pathetic.

we’re in this together. the need to fight terror is real, but you have to be realistic and honest about the possibilities. neither of these candidates will rid the world of evil.

I think if you look at the fierce attacks from the lefties that follow any piece in the red column, you can see why stating an opinion simply wouldn’t be worth it for many.

But, that’s what this site is for, isn’t it?

It’s amazing.
People can point out that Bush has not ended terrorism and not made us safer at home.
You make it sound like these things that have coming at us for decades should have been magically fixed in 3 years.
Maybe if Clinton or Gore were in office the world would be a peaceful place. Hardly.
Kerry is making claims that he will fix all the messes that George Bush created.
It seems to me that George Bush is trying to fix the messes that this country was headed for when he took office.
I really don’t hear him blaming the ones before him much. Maybe he should.
Kerry has ‘plans’ to ‘make plans’ and fix the whole world. Bravo! That is the most impressive platform in years.
Maybe you Kerry supporters should take a closer look at his Senate record and find the things he voted for that got us in some of the mess George Bush is trying to get us out of.
Then ask yourselves if you can trust a man who helped cause the problems to get us out of them.
I doubt it.

i understand blind faith, and a complete and utter need to dismiss your political opponent, but this defies any reasoning.

I was recently introduced to this great quote from HL Mencken:

Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on “I am not too sure.”

NOTOTH said

I appreciate Eric’s voice in the wilderness and hope that he continues. There are a few others, of course, but none as durable.

Yes. A lone voice in the wilderness, crying over and over, “Kerry is Satan! Kerry is Satan!” And “durable” meaning sticking to the same argument no matter how many people debunk it.

I would truly love to hear a rational voice in the wilderness that is support for Bush. What I do hear is people doggedly repeating the same thing over and over again in an attempt to make me believe it’s true. Well, folks, it may work on you but it doesn’t work on me. No matter how many times you try to hand me bulls**t I will still recognize it as manure.

Alejo-

As opposed to the dozen or so blues that scream Bush is Satan, Bush is Satan. He Lied, He Lied He Lied. No matter how many times their accusations are proved false.

The reason there are fewer and fewer reds in here is because any time one of us opens our mouth we get piled on by the blues, often with questionable accusations and blanket generalizations. It’s a full time job just trying to get David R. Remer to admit that Civil war isn’t inevitable. The big difference I see is when the reds questions something about Kerry, the blues just change the argument to be something about Bush.

This thread is a perfect example. Eric points to Kerry’s vote against the first Gulf War and his bizarre statement that an American death is only honorable if it’s under a UN flag. The blues instantly change the subject to Bush’s alcoholic past. So basically the reds argue, and then the blues scream at a mirror. Gets boring some days.

-D

“The big difference I see is when the reds questions something about Kerry, the blues just change the argument to be something about Bush.”

Come on now, isn’t everyone guilty of this?

Delzario —

I’m not saying by any means that all the Blues are rational or intelligent or self-aware. Nor would I imply that none of the Reds are, because I don’t believe that to be true either. And changing the subject when you can’t counter an argument is lame whoever does it.

Perhaps my response came across as more general than I meant it to be. I was trying to say, without being chastised by the Editors, that there is a particular poster who seems to bear a personal hatred for one of the candidates, and that to me means there’s no room for discourse. I admit that I think Bush has done a poor job for this country but I do believe that he has pursued a course he felt to be right, which is in contrast to how this poster seems to feel about Kerry. He seems to feel that Kerry is a complete charlatan and thief who is actually bent on destroying the country.

I think part of the problem in the Red column is that there are quite a few Reds who are willing to interject but few who will go as far as to post a column on their own, which leaves it to Eric, Dawn, and an occasional stranger. I could be wrong, but I don’t think there are actually more Blues reading (although there may be more of them unemployed, thus with more time to post), so I think the Reds need to speak up.

I’m not here simply to argue. I truly do want someone to convince me that Bush could do better with another four years than he’s done with the first four, seeing as how he may get them. So why don’t you apply for editorship and dazzle me with your logic, Delzario?

Bugcrazy spake: Kerry goes ‘Goose Hunting’. Kerry went hunting to show his support for the people who hunt and own guns.

Yeah, I saw the photo of his Elmer Fudd impersonation while assassinating small animals (killing for political purposes). The man is shameless.

NOTOTH —

Yes, the Kerry the Hunter bit is embarrassing. You pretty sanguine about Bush in his jumpsuit on the aircraft carrier, are you?

NOTOTH,
The difference between Kerry and Elmer Fudd is that Kerry got his Bunny Rabit. Elmer Fudd (i.e. Bush) is still out his range hurting for UBL.

joseph,

that is a great quote.

NOTOTH,

I appreciate Eric’s voice in the wilderness and hope that he continues. There are a few others, of course, but none as durable.

High praise indeed. If you don’t mind, I’ll put that on my blog.

Alejo, et al

I don’t hate or loath Kerry. What you mistake for loathing is spirited rebuttal. Kerry is out every day basically lying through his teeth about Bush, about Iraq, about his own beliefs, and about this country and what makes it great. I am merely pointing out his record. His own words.

Do you realize that Kerry indicts Bush for overspending and then in the next sentence says he is not ‘fully funding’ virtually every domestic welfare program? That’s a clear contradiction. Now either Kerry is for less spending, or he is for more spending. My suspicion, based on the stated views of 30 years of liberalism, is that Kerry would spend more. Sounding like a fiscal conservative is important only for the election. As is looking like a pro-gun hunter in certain states…

How about the man with his gun in Ohio today? Who says, “I will bring my faith with me to the White House and it will guide me,” Kerry said. ??? Is this not puzzling to you? Does this not tickle your truth detector? I thought his personal faith would in no way influence his policy decisions— such as on abortion. Which his stated personal belief is that it is killing a life?

But I can’t take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn’t share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can’t do that. debates.org

Life begins at conception, and it’s you’re right to kill it? Here’s a guy that wants pro-abortion voters to vote for him, and is trying to convince pro-life voters to vote for him too by saying he agrees with both of them. Fakir. Flim flam. Con-man.

Kerry is not trustworthy. He will say and do whatever it takes to get elected. But then what will he do in office?

Do you realize that Kerry indicts Bush for overspending and then in the next sentence says he is not ‘fully funding’ virtually every domestic welfare program? That’s a clear contradiction.

No, it’s not a clear contradiction. If Bush is overspending in some areas while not fully funding others, the statement can be understood as consistent.

Eric,

If you listen to the context, not just one sentence out of a paragraph, Kerry made it clear that his faith guides his decisions but he won’t make his faith into law.

cali_:

that is a great quote.

Yes, and so apt for our current circumstances.

Eric —

Do you realize that Kerry indicts Bush for overspending and then in the next sentence says he is not ‘fully funding’ virtually every domestic welfare program? That’s a clear contradiction.

Sure it is. As long as all I look at is that statement. If I look for myself I see that Bush has championed so-called “welfare” programs and then tried to starve them out of existence while still taking credit for initiating them. I also see that Kerry talks about how he wil pay for the programs he proposes, while Bush simply promises more tax cuts.

Let’s not oversimplify, okay? It’s insulting to both of us.

Who says, “I will bring my faith with me to the White House and it will guide me,” Kerry said. ??? Is this not puzzling to you?

Nope, it sure isn’t. I appreciate the fact that Kerry will follow his own religious beliefs without trying to force them down my throat. He personally believes abortion is wrong, but he doesn’t feel he has the right to force that belief upon me. As far as I’m concerned, he represents exactly what I look for in a leader in that respect: He can acknowledge that his faith and mine are different and that that is the way it should be in America.

He’s a politician, so he is doing his best to appeal to as many people as possible, because he’s supposed to represent all of us. But I don’t think he misrepresents himself fundamentally. He went hunting because he wanted to remind people that he wasn’t anti-gun, but it wasn’t as though he took up the hobby only after beginning the campaign. He has attended church his whole life, but he respects that not everyone wants to do that or believes in the tenets of his church.

Kerry is not perfect, nor is he the worst thing that could happen to this country. He’s not above using statistics that make him look good and Bush look bad, but he isn’t a fundamentally dishonest man. He’s a human being who is, for better or worse, a lifelong politician. And I honestly believe that he is the best choice we have for president.

I was recently introduced to this great quote from HL Mencken:

Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on “I am not too sure.”

Posted by Joseph Briggs at October 21, 2004 01:08 PM

As long as you’re quoting Mencken, how about these that seem appropriate in this season?

A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier.
-
A politician is an animal which can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground.
-
All government, of course, is against liberty.
-
An idealist is one who, on noticing that roses smell better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
-
Criticism is prejudice made plausible.
-
Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.
-
I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time.
-
If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner.
-
Let’s not burn the universities yet. After all, the damage they do might be worse.
-
No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.
-
The common argument that crime is caused by poverty is a kind of slander on the poor.
-
The typical American of today has lost all the love of liberty, that his forefathers had and all their disgust of emotion, and pride in self- reliance. He is led no longer by Davy Crocketts; he is led by cheer leaders, press agents, word mongers, uplifters.

And finally:

When a new source of taxation is found it never means, in practice, that the old source is abandoned. It merely means that the politicians have two ways of milking the taxpayer where they had one before.

Nice, NOTOTH. I am apparently going to have to read some of this Mencken guy ;).

Alejo:

You have commended me in past threads for being reasonable and intelligent. You also have by now recognized that I support George Bush. While I doubt I will convince you to change your opinion, nor am I really intending to try, I will attempt to be the rational voice supporting Bush.

Economically, the US has gone through 9-11, the accounting scandals, major bankruptcies and the tech bubble burst, yet we are still growing. None of these bad occurrences can be blamed solely on any one President, and certainly not on Bush. That the economy is headed in the right direction, with unemployment down, 1.9 million jobs created in the last 13 months etc is a tribute to both the resiliency of our economy and the economic strategies of the administration.

Terrorism….It is here to stay, but I believe Bush’s clear direction is superior to the wavering line from Kerry. While Kerry might not give veto power to other nations, he most certainly will lend an ear to their concerns, and be far too concerned with their opinions and approval than I beleive he should be.

I believe the world might just like us more with Kerry as President, but being liked is not the ultimate goal. Sometimes people like those who they can take advantage of. I prefer an America where we are seen as strong, and if not liked by all, then at least seen as not being able to be beat up on.

Domestic Policy: Bush HAS in fact funded No Child Left Behind, but not to its maximum levels. The Dems call this a cut, but its actually been an increase—-one simply has to look at the numbers to see this. I agree with the idea of an “ownership” value, I agree with limiting abortions, I agree with focusing on adult versus embryonic stem cell cures.

Alejo, its certainly possible to see the attributes that I see as positive as negative. That’s where it becomes opinion.

So, now you have what I hope you find to be a rational, open eyed viewpoint of why I like Bush.

Hurrah JBOD!

Joebagodonuts,

1. Economy. I admit that the economy is not entirely Bush’s fault. However, as in all of his other policies, when things changed Bush continued to plow ahead with massive tax cuts, and now we have a sluggish economy and a record deficit. I think Kerry should be more focused on reducing the deficit as well, but at least he tries to come up with ways to pay for what he is going to do.

Terrorism: I think that it is important to realize that there is a difference between maintaining our soverignity (sp?) and actually alientating our allies. Bush has gone to great length to offend our strongest historical allies. Even in our greatest friend, Britain, the majority of the people are Anti-Bush. With Tony Blair in a fight for his political life over the botched Iraq war, I don’t think even the UK will support us again. Also, the terrorist threat is an international threat. The way to defeat it is by being strong at home, judiciously using our force to bring the fight to the terrorists, and recieving help from the rest of the world. The bush administration is so secretive they refused to turn over evidence to German courts who were prosecuting terrorists involved in 9-11. Jingoism is not going to win anything, but it will make our job in fighting terrorism harder, and increase our enemies’ ability to recruit.

Domestic Policy:

The greatest burden on American employers is the cost of health insurance. Kerry’s plans would not only benefit the health of the nation, but our financial well-being by helping American countries to be more competitive. Also, on stem cells: I, too, have ethical questions about stem cell research. However, the Bush administration’s attack on science transcends stem cells. From refusing to allow anything related to climate change into any briefing or policy, to selecting members of scientific advisory boards based on personal loyalty to president Bush, the current administration is, as in so many things, putting ideology ahead of reality, and the science in America is worse off for it (I’m an immunologist, so I care about these things).

I have a lot more to say, but this post is getting long, so I’ll end here

Joseph,

Regarding moral certainty… Which of your liberal morals are you unsure of? Which ones are wrong because they are whooped up and enforced?

Alejo,

…there is a particular poster who seems to bear a personal hatred for one of the candidates, and that to me means there’s no room for discourse.

It seems to me that turning this into a ‘personal hatred’ really is a way of avoiding the issues. How is it personal hatred to point out the lies and distortions of John Kerry? I am opposed to Kerry, that does not equal hatred. When Kerry says that US soldier deaths have more worth when they die under a United Nations effort than when they are fighting unilaterally for the United States what does that say to you? I find it appalling.

I admit that I think Bush has done a poor job for this country but I do believe that he has pursued a course he felt to be right, which is in contrast to how this poster seems to feel about Kerry. He seems to feel that Kerry is a complete charlatan and thief who is actually bent on destroying the country.

You believe Bush has pursued a course he felt to be right? I don’t get that sense from the left. I get the sense that Bush is alternately an evil genius bent on world domination and on the other hand a brain dead smirking chimp. I’ve had numerous arguments on this blog about how Bush was responsible for 9/11 for pete’s sake.

I am merely expressing my view that Kerry is the wrong man, at the wrong time, for the wrong job. Kerry should be running for Kofi Annan’s job— or Chirac’s. I question his veracity, his motives, and his integrity. Hadn’t he just finished saying that the last thing his mother told him on her death bed when he said he was thinking about running for President was, “Integrity. Integrity. Integrity.”?

This sounds so phony to me because after saying repeatedly that Bush has lost all credibility and that only John Kerry can regain it for America this quote seemed like it was directed at Bush. It seems a strange thing for a mother to say to their over 50 year old son. Did she know something we don’t?

Right after that is when Kerry chose to point out that Cheney’s daughter was a lesbian. A cheap shot designed to ‘discredit’ Cheney and hurt Bush. Such integrity.

Joseph,

In 1991 [Kerry] said such a vote [to support Gulf War I] would be dangerous and flawed.

I thought 911 changed everything.

I see your point and raise you— It did change the ruleset for warfare and intervention. My point is that his vote for the authorization of force in 2002 was the right choice. A choice he now repudiates implicitly, if not explicitly.

jbod —

I appreciate your response. I can, if I put myself in other shoes than my own, understand where you’re coming from. However, my philosophy differs from yours to the point that, as you say, I see some of your positives as negatives. For instance, you see Kerry’s desire for diplomacy as an attempt to make the world like us as an end in itself. In my view (and, I imagine, Kerry’s), the point is not to be friends but to reap the benefits of being on good terms.

I don’t blame Bush for the economy sliding downward, of course. I don’t see his moves the same way you do, though. To me, unemployment down means fewer people are eligible to receive benefits. We still have a private sector job loss, which means many of the jobs created are in the same government Bush claims he wants to shrink. I see a huge deficit that doesn’t appear to have a solution with Bush.

As for No Child Left Behind — when the founder of the original program speaks out in no uncertain terms about how the program isn’t functioning the way it did before Bush took it over — well, it could be sour grapes. But it sure sounded to me like genuine grief over the usurping of a program that wasn’t broke to begin with.

As for the morality issues, of course we stand on different sides of that fence. Bush is very, very far from what I want in a president in that respect.

I guess what we need in order to convince each other of anything is an ability to really see another perspective. If you could understand exactly why I believe the things I believe, you could tell me of Bush’s accomplishments in that regard. (And vice-versa for Kerry.) Unfortunately it’s not possible to literally see another person’s point of view. But if nothing else at least we can agree that neither side is entirely comprised of blitering idiots. That’s a start, isn’t it?

Eric —

You believe Bush has pursued a course he felt to be right? I don’t get that sense from the left.

I’m not the left. I’m Alejo.

Eric —

I’m dashing this off because it’s time to leave the hell-hole job, but here goes….

My intention wasn’t to devalue your opinion, honestly. I just felt that you were covering the same ground you had covered before, that we were arguing in circles. (And maybe we still are.)

I haven’t decided how I feel about the UN comment. Today was the first I’d heard of it and I’ve not read exactly what Kerry said. I’ll get back to you on that.

Yes, I do think Bush is doing what he believes to be right. That’s not the same as thinking he IS right. I respect that he is following his vision. But it’s completely different from mine by nearly 180 degrees.

The integrity story was awful. I totally agree. It sounded like a George Washington/cherry tree fabrication. But he is a politician and I expect some of that, as silly as it is.

Okay, time to run. More later.

Brian,
You Said-
“I admit that the economy is not entirely Bush’s fault. However, as in all of his other policies, when things changed Bush continued to plow ahead with massive tax cuts, and now we have a sluggish economy and a record deficit.”
Tax cuts don’t help the exonomy????!!!
I’ve yet to hear any lib explain how taking money out of the economy helps it. That’s because it doesn’t! Tax increases take money out of the economy and therefore hurt it. Any economist will tell you that.
The deficit is from the war, not the tax cuts.
Sluggish??? Have you seen any of the indicators lately??? As for jobs, we have less unemployment now than when Clinton ran for re-election.

Alejo:

But if nothing else at least we can agree that neither side is entirely comprised of blitering idiots.

Nope, not entirely. But enough on both sides to cause genuine concern for our fair land.

Joe and Alejo,
“…at least we can agree that neither side is entirely comprised of blitering idiots.”
Did you write “neither” instead of “both?” ;)

Traveler,
I refer you to The economist.com, who reports that 7 out of 10 economists surveyed felt that Bush’s tax cuts and proposal to make them permanent were a bad idea. They seemed to think that fiscal discipline was important for the country. The same survey showed that 7 out of 10 economists felt that Kerry’s plan for limited, middle-class tax breaks was better. It seems to me that giving the ultra-rich more money to bank away (or, because of all of our deficit spending, buy T-bills with) does not do much to help the average guy trying to get a job. Doing things that actually help the companies that give people jobs, like cutting the cost of their health insurance and elimnating tax breaks that encourage outsourcing, are much better solutions. Although the economy is improving, every posted job increase has fallen far short of the predictions by the presidency, and has not ever generated enough jobs simply to keep up with population growth.
Also, taxes don’t take money out of the economy. The largest gain in jobs in the Bush presidency has been in government jobs, paid for by taxes. When the government spends money, it usually goes to Americans. Not just wealthy Americans collecting dividends, but construction workers, teachers, police officers, firefighters, and all kinds of other people.

Brian,
I aggree that fiscal disipline is important. Unfortunately, Bush and Kerry don’t seem to know the meaning of the term.
Raising taxes to pay for more government jobs is wrong.
As we all know, the government wastes quite a bit of out money on stuff that has nothing really to do with running a country. Cut some of that and then cut taxes on businesses. Oh yeah, they never cut any spending. Well, it was a good thought…
Where on the site is the survey you mentioned?

Eric-
To be blunt,my sense is If it were twenty years ago, you’d be red-baiting him. Sorry if that comes off a little mean, but it always seems you’re looking for ways to twist Kerry’s record out of recognizable form. I keep on reading your source articles, and they’re either editorials, or news stories whose context defies your interpretation of the selections you quote.

As for this:

Do you realize that Kerry indicts Bush for overspending and then in the next sentence says he is not ‘fully funding’ virtually every domestic welfare program? That’s a clear contradiction. Now either Kerry is for less spending, or he is for more spending. My suspicion, based on the stated views of 30 years of liberalism, is that Kerry would spend more. Sounding like a fiscal conservative is important only for the election. As is looking like a pro-gun hunter in certain states…

It seems to me that they are not completely relevant points. On one hand, he says Bush is spending us into deficit. This is not an opinion, it is the truth- that Bush has increased spending more than anybody else but LBJ. His deficits are record, and he’s stretched this country’s credit to the limit. That last item is particularly pathetic because Bush had Congress change the law to increase the amount of debt the Federal government took out. Now he’s asking for it to be increased again.

Meanwhile many programs are being underfunded. It can happen that way, you know. Bush has made a lot of promises, signed a lot of bills shuffled a lot of money- Oh, and yes, the unfunded mandates, like No Child Left Behind. You do realize that most of the money for that comes from the states? The Federal Government mandates that the state funds the program.

As for abortion, my opinion and his is this: Pro-Choice means people take personal responsibility for their actions. For the time being, abortion is constitutionally legal. Additionally, the matter of abortion recieves different treatment in different religions, sects and denominations. Kerry and I are Catholics. We both believe life begins at birth. But next door to either one of us is a person who thinks otherwise, and so far, the Supreme Court maintains that his view is protected by the consitutional right to privacy.

If you were to breach that right, without preserving the right of medical privacy, it could give the legislature the right to meddle in other kinds of personal medical issues. Imagine the legislature compelling sterilzation or abortions on the grounds that people don’t have reproductive privacy rights.

Forced Abortions. All it would take is a political swing away from the religious right to some more authoritarian kind of government, left or right.

I am opposed to Bush. Doesn’t mean I hate him. I’m not going to criticize the guy on sleazy matters like Kitty Kelley would, I’m going to criticize him on the issues. I don’t call Bush a liar or a misleading candidate without providing some kind of incident to back that up.

Kerry says, that our soldier’s deaths will be less in vain (though likely of equal meaning either way) if we have the effort internationalized, if we have the cooperation of the Arab world and the European community.

As for criticizing Kerry representation for some of his mother’s last words, if you do that, you have no business talking about the SHOCKING revelation that Mary Cheney was a lesbian, especially when the VP candidates amiably spoke on that subject. Your better objection would be him using a subject that is sensitive to conservatives for debate points. It was gratuitous, but on the other hand it had impact because it had a hint of truth to it that’s hard to deny directly. Lynne Cheney can’t say “Oh, but it isn’t a choice”

As for 9/11 changing things, it did and it didn’t. It doesn’t change the need for a president to be honest and transparent for his reasons for going to war. It’s bullshit to be railroaded by fear of the next 9/11, the next terrorist threat, only to find that the threat didn’t exist, and that the people who sold the threat very well may have had another foreign policy agenda in mind when they were planning this war. He doesn’t repudiate the choice he made with the information he had. He repudiates the idea of defending the validity of that choice, long after the facts have declared the evidence for it null and void. He regrets that the President abused his trust, turned his willingness to defend this country to the service of a legitimate war. And there are many people who feel just like him that they were used.

Joe-
Bush failed to re-regulate, when it was clear the laxity had cost us in terms of how far we could trust our business as customers and investors. He pushed tax cuts that have caused deficit spending, which in turn is piling deadweight on this economy.

Terrorism- yes, here to stay, but in what form, what strength. Your’re among a minority in this country who believe that the war in Iraq has cut down on terrorism. Bush’s stand on it? I knew what his stand on terrorism was the minute he said Osama Bin Laden was no longer important, the minute he started talking about Saddam Hussein. The central reason, I would say, is that Bush has been convinced that the real problem is state sponsors and non-democratic, anti-Israel governments. That is a view that will not help this country defeat al-Qaeda. We will not be able to reform that region by war. The cultural sensitivities to westerns waging war on their soil are too high.

This war will be waged on the basis of our ability to counter the dark-side globalism of the terrorists, to enforce order against the chaos they sow, and to protect the Homeland both here and abroad, not just saying we will do it abroad and cover all our bases that way.

As for this:

Domestic Policy: Bush HAS in fact funded No Child Left Behind, but not to its maximum levels. The Dems call this a cut, but its actually been an increase—-one simply has to look at the numbers to see this.

I have to check whether you’re okay, because you’ve seemed to have swallowed a whole bunch of stuff there. Not funded to maximum levels? Doubletalk. It’s a fancy way of admitting they’re underfunding it. There are anecdotal and statistical records of the damage that is doing.

Have you heard the news? Saudi Arabia is financing the Iraq Insurgency!!! Quick, we need to invade Saudi Arabia now!!! Link Below:
http://martinirepublic.com/item/bush-s-friends-the-saudis-funding-iraqi-insurgents

Regarding moral certainty… Which of your liberal morals are you unsure of? Which ones are wrong because they are whooped up and enforced?

Very funny. :) Nothing is certain.

In 1991 [Kerry] said such a vote [to support Gulf War I] would be dangerous and flawed.

I thought 911 changed everything.

I see your point and raise you— It did change the ruleset for warfare and intervention. My point is that his vote for the authorization of force in 2002 was the right choice. A choice he now repudiates implicitly, if not explicitly.

Well, I was being facetious since I do not subscribe to the idea (that 911 changed everything). My point was that it is inconsistent from (what I gather of) your perspective to use Kerry’s ‘91 vote on Gulf War I as it might relate to his current position on Iraq with 911 (a supposedly universal transformational event) set between.

As to your point, I just have a hard time taking it seriously. Maybe it’s because I’ve been exposed to FactCheck.org for some time now. The distortions from Bush & company of Kerry’s position on Iraq are old hat. The mischaracterization of his vote against the $87 billion supplemental is similarly refuted.

I agree, though. Kerry was right to support the president and authorize the use of force in Iraq in order to push Saddam to accept the new sanctions that Bush’s administration was able to pass through the UN. He was also right to advise that more international support was needed before resorting to war, and more time be afforded the inspections. I don’t think Kerry has disavowed these positions.

Oh, this is going to get ugly-

Moveon ad shows Bush making joke of missing WMDs. Well, for some people, the nonexistent WMDS aren’t such a joke.

This ad tested very effectively among likely voters, from what I heard.

re: the MoveOn ad. It is somewhat misleading in that the Bush joke was during a roast. Much like Michael Moore’s use of the “have and have mores, or as I like to call you, my base,” comment is during the same kind of event (if not the same). Certainly, it is as inappropriate as you can get, but laughter and humor are understandable coping methods that shouldn’t be assailed like this.

Oh, yeah. I get it. Yes, it’s ugly.

joebagodonuts said Sometimes people like those who they can take advantage of.

Hmn.

Stephen,

To be blunt, my sense is If it were twenty years ago, you’d be red-baiting him.

You say that like it’s a bad thing.

Sorry if that comes off a little mean, but it always seems you’re looking for ways to twist Kerry’s record out of recognizable form. I keep on reading your source articles, and they’re either editorials, or news stories whose context defies your interpretation of the selections you quote.

I beg to differ. I prefer always to use direct quotes. It’s hard to sometimes because news stories are themselves highly selective with their quotes and often have an identifiable tilt themselves. For instance, remember the Annenberg poll of the military who were three quarters in favor of Bush? How did the AP report this poll? Military Families Express Some Iraq Doubts Not a mention of the overwhelming support of Bush. There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. Imagine what the title of that story would be if they were 69% overall favorable to Kerry? Perhaps something like, “Military demands new commander-in-chief!”

The same thing is happening in news from Iraq, Stephen. Lies of omission.

Most of the Washington Post article with the quote about Kerry valueing the deaths of US soldiers more under a UN operation than under a solely US operation is itself an interpretation. Facts are facts and reporting is a mixture of facts and angles. You can try to say I took it out of the context the writer of the story put it into, but I did not alter John Kerry’s words, nor have I altered his changed positions, flip flops, or votes. They are the facts the writer used to construct his story and they remain facts.

Kerry says, that our soldier’s deaths will be less in vain (though likely of equal meaning either way) if we have the effort internationalized, if we have the cooperation of the Arab world and the European community.

Why reword his quote? Because what he said was indefensible.

As for 9/11 changing things, it did and it didn’t. It doesn’t change the need for a president to be honest and transparent for his reasons for going to war. It’s bullshit to be railroaded by fear of the next 9/11, the next terrorist threat, only to find that the threat didn’t exist, and that the people who sold the threat very well may have had another foreign policy agenda in mind when they were planning this war.

The left only hears what it wants too I suppose. It is democrats who made WMD the sole reason to go into Iraq. It is democrats who made that a condition of gaining their support. The reasons never changed, you just weren’t listening to the reasons when they were given all along.

Wait — now it’s the Democrats’ fault the intelligence information was bad? Or was it the Democrats’ fault that the information that was there had to be trumped up justify a war? [comment deleted - do not refer to members of any party here as stupid — WatchBlog Manager]

As for the “liberal media” — I really don’t think so. As has been said time and time again, the media is capitalist: They show what wil excite, outrage, shock, and frighten people because that’s what gets ratings. But liberal? If they were so liberal, why do they so willingly go along with Bush’s command that they never show any blood or violence in Iraq? You can talk all day long about how they make the war look bad, but I can absoultely guarantee that if we saw uncensored pictures of the war Bush’s approval rating would be the same as it is in Britain. The press is out for itself, not the left.

I refer you to The economist.com, who reports that 7 out of 10 economists surveyed felt that Bush’s tax cuts and proposal to make them permanent were a bad idea.

According to my old Econ prof years ago, 7 out of 10 economists correctly predicted 10 of the last 3 recessions.

According to my old Econ prof years ago, 7 out of 10 economists correctly predicted 10 of the last 3 recessions.

Well, say no more. Clearly, it’d be foolish to consider the opinion of leading economists when we’re discussing economic policy.

Is this all part of the reality-lite world we’re now supposed to be living in?

Eric wrote:

Do you realize that Kerry indicts Bush for overspending and then in the next sentence says he is not ‘fully funding’ virtually every domestic welfare program?

Some have already commented, but I couldn’t resist! Yet, another one of Eric’s many distortions.

There is clearly no argument that No Child Left Behind has been severely underfunded, as Kerry has pointed out. A program created by Bush, is this a domestic welfare program?

It is equally apparent that Homeland Security has been vastly underfunded, even with allocated funds being diverted to Iraq. Another domestic welfare program?

Your singling out the one Associated Press article for criticism of omission, is shrill and disingenuous. I saw plenty of articles and news segments emphasizing Bush’s lopsided preference, whereas your point might have been strengthen by additional examples of such bias. Yet, quoting from the same article:

The National Annenberg Election Survey found that 62 percent in the military sample said the administration didn’t send an adequate number of troops to Iraq. And 59 percent said too much of a burden has been put on the National Guard and the reserves when regular forces should have been expanded instead.

Sounds like doubt to me.

I do say it as if it’s a bad thing. When you bludgeon people with false charges for political gain, it’s a pretty nasty thing to do.

As for your quotations, it’s either a ditto of somebody’s editorial or some quotation that you’ve bent out of shape in the interpretation of it. You couldn’t even get Kerry’s position right. The only lies of ommission are those from Bush, and our supposedly iberal media not showing the violence and havoc going on over there.

The truth about this war is that it is rapidly going downhill, and we need a change in government if there is to be anything salvaged from this war, much less a victory won. People died to protect America from a terrorist and WMD threat that never existed I don’t care what spin you apply or what ad hoc defense of Bush’s policy you bring in, over a thousand American soldiers have died in an unecessary war.

It would be criminal in less dire times. It’s absolutely unforgiveable in a time of great danger.

The left only hears what it wants too I suppose. It is democrats who made WMD the sole reason to go into Iraq. It is democrats who made that a condition of gaining their support. The reasons never changed, you just weren’t listening to the reasons when they were given all along.

Do you know what Bush was authorized to do by law? Respond to terrorist and WMD threat that Iraq supposedly posed. That’s all. Nothing authorized a war of pre-emptive political reorganization. Nothing in that law authorized Bush to go after Saddam because he was a bad man, or because of humanitarian crisis going on in Iraq. Nothing. This administration signed that authorization, and is legally bound by it.

And no, the Whereas clauses don’t count. They are not legally binding. Nor are they a congressinal finding as Bush has used them in his Authorization required Determination, the report he was required to submit in order to justify his military action.

This is former White House Counsel John Dean’s opinion on the matter:

JOHN DEAN: I am convinced he did lie, and in fact I put an appendix in the book to really show others how they can establish that for themselves. What I did is I looked at one of his major speeches. And took the statements that he had made relying on rather publicly available material. It’s not highly classified. There are reports that anyone who takes the trouble to look online can find. And you can see where he literally takes a statement and drops all of the qualifications, all of the modifiers and makes it a declarative statement. He does it time after time after time. This is a misrepresentation of the facts. When he went to Congress in October of 2002 to get a resolution to go to war in Iraq, he wanted something that the Congress had never given before, which was a delegation of a power that he wouldn’t have to go back to Congress to get war powers when he actually went to war. The Congress had never granted such a power. So, the Congress said, all right. We’ll take the two — we’ll do this with conditions. The two conditions are — really the premise that he had been arguing for war. So, when they granted the resolution, they said, we want a formal Presidential declaration from you that, one, there is no diplomatic way to resolve the problems of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That was the first condition. The second condition was that going to war in Iraq would be consistent with the war on terrorism, which was his second point, that there was an Al Qaeda connection with Saddam Hussein, was the implicit rationale. Bush, in a secret deal with the House of Representatives, agreed to that. The resolution was written, passed and signed by the President. No one really paid any attention to this resolution, and the President in March of 2003 goes to war. 48 hours after, under the resolution, he had to report that he had done that, and he had to submit his formal declaration. His declaration is one of the most — I can’t really find the right word for it, Amy. It’s just — I use all of the modifiers I can think of in the book. It’s a fraud. It is a deliberate, misleading resolution the President himself asked for. It’s a violation of trust to the Congress who granted him very unusual powers. It’s a violation of the trust of the American people. His declaration is phony. His determination, excuse me, is phony. It’s actually bizarre. So I lay that out in the book to explain to people what he has done and how he did it, and how questionable it really is.

Read the book: Worse Than Watergate. Or don’t read it and argue with me out of ignorance.

Stephen

Tried to read “Worse than Watergate” but it reminded of a story. An author suspects that prospective publishers are not reading the manuscripts he sends them, so he glues together pages 100&101. When a returned manuscript still has the pages glued together, he angrily writes to the publisher, “I know you didn’t read my manuscript” and explains about the glued pages. He gets a reply, “Concerning your letter: one need not eat the whole egg to know it is rotten.”

There are a lot of anti Bush (and anti-Kerry) books out there. They are making hay while the sun is shining. Ask yourself, “what would John Dean know about this and how would he know it?”

Take a look at the people who have come out against this president. These aren’t doctrinaire liberals here. The major books in this situation are all written by people who worked for Republican Presidents. Just take a look at their body of opinion. These aren’t left wing looneys, regardless of how helpful their books have been to the Democrats.

Go back and Read Dean’s book.

Hey Stephen, don’t forget Pat Buchanan, “Where the Right Went Wrong”, and Joe Scarborough, “Rome Wasn’t Burnt in a Day : The Real Deal on How Politicians, Bureaucrats, and Other Washington Barbarians are Bankrupting America”.

Eric,

George Bush presented his request for the authorization to go to war, as a means to force Saddam to comply with UN inspections. Bush “conned” the congress, told UN Inspectors to pull out and then WHAM! War had started.

If you ever bother to read your own parties history in the Project for A New American Century you will see that Bush’s so called war was fully planned in the mid 1990’s and NOT in 2003 as claimed.

Many many times Kerry has explained that he voted for the $87 million appropriation that was the DEMOCRATES version, of being able to pay for the money. Kerry voted against the REPUBLICAN version, that passed, which added $87 million to the already burgeoning deficit. Now 413 billion and counting!!

Its a crock the money was to supply the troops. As recently as last week it was learned that troops still did not have enough armored vehicles, proper vests or ammunition. The bulk of that $87 million already spent went for Bush’s untested star war missle system, and to Halliburton, KBG, Contractors and Bechtel - NOT TO THE SOLDERS!

Why is it that Republicans believe whatever sound bite offered without even looking at something called FACTS?

Being stubborn or intrangent is NOT equal to strong leadership. It consitently lets those against us know the man in office is too stupid to change with changing realities.

Over 1,103 Americans have died, Over 8,000 have been evacuated for direct combat wounds, and another 14,000 have been evacuated for being hit while in camp or on non duty tours. According to the hospital in Germany, over 17,000 Americans are seriously injured and/or have lost limbs.

I know no one in the Bush Cartel has lost or had anyone injured in Iraq? Tell us Eric, how many of your family are serving or have served in Iraq?

I know no one in the Bush Cartel has lost or had anyone injured in Iraq? Tell us Eric, how many of your family are serving or have served in Iraq?

Posted by NH Native at October 23, 2004 04:54 PM
Post a comment

Well, I’m sure Eric can answer this for himself, but your self-righteousness here is astounding.

Have you ever served in public office at the national level? Do you have a degree in political science? Have you personally reviewed the wording of each of the senate bills you discussed? Do you know anyone presently serving in Iraq?

Does any of that determine your right to comment here? Of course not, and nobody would suggest otherwise.

And by the way, do you know of anyone in the “Kerry Cartel” serving in Iraq?

To discuss my SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS is an attempt to slam or ridicule. I made no personal attacks on any of you,

I have an MBA and a second masters. No, not in Political Science. However ANY higher education usually provides the ability to read and research.

Yes, by simply using “google” it is relatively easy to read any bill, as long as they are written in an approximation of the English language.

I have family that worked in National Campaigns including the one for Bush 41, as well as for Democratic candidates. I have assisted them in their endeavors and even met Bush 43, while he was still in his prolonged youth.

Yes, I know people serving in Iraq and I make it a point to keep in touch with them as well as their families here. And yes, there are members of the “Kerry Cartel” who have people serving. General Wesley Clarks family for one.

Nice of you to acknowledge that a list of credentials is not necessary for the exercise of first admendment rights.

I do not know you - and really do not want to get into a “mud slinging” contest. However, you do not know me either. Why do you feel your condescending tone is necessary for something called communication?

NOTOTH

NH Native is quite correct. Your message was in violation of our critique the message, not the messenger policy. Debate the merits NH Native’s comments, not the character of NH Native.

NH Native, just a helpful hint: if you supply links to articles supporting your facts, it sounds less like opinion.

Here’s the 1998 Project for A New American Century document I think you’re referencing.

Here’s factcheck.org debunking the flip-flop BS Republicans have tried to tag Kerry with over the Iraq resolution.

And I’d be interested in seeing an article backing up you’re assertion that the $87 billion didn’t go to the troops. I just assumed it did and never followed up.

Go git ‘em, NH Native!

To discuss my SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS is an attempt to slam or ridicule. I made no personal attacks on any of you,

I have an MBA and a second masters. No, not in Political Science. However ANY higher education usually provides the ability to read and research.

Yes, by simply using “google” it is relatively easy to read any bill, as long as they are written in an approximation of the English language.

I have family that worked in National Campaigns including the one for Bush 41, as well as for Democratic candidates. I have assisted them in their endeavors and even met Bush 43, while he was still in his prolonged youth.

Yes, I know people serving in Iraq and I make it a point to keep in touch with them as well as their families here. And yes, there are members of the “Kerry Cartel” who have people serving. General Wesley Clarks family for one.

Nice of you to acknowledge that a list of credentials is not necessary for the exercise of first admendment rights.

I do not know you - and really do not want to get into a “mud slinging” contest. However, you do not know me either. Why do you feel your condescending tone is necessary for something called communication?
Posted by NH Native at October 23, 2004 06:52 PM

NOTOTH

NH Native is quite correct. Your message was in violation of our critique the message, not the messenger policy. Debate the merits NH Native’s comments, not the character of NH Native.
Posted by WatchBlog Manager at October 23, 2004 07:39 PM

My questions were rhetorical and intended to demonstrate the fallacy of MH’s suggestion that someone must either have served, or have family serving, in Iraq as a qualification for participating in discussions on this forum.

That my post was taken as a personal attack is unfortunate. That was not my intent.

Bush and his administration have degraded Kerry personal character. I can’t imagine anyone voting for Bush.

Just for the record:

When I posted

Wait — now it’s the Democrats’ fault the intelligence information was bad? Or was it the Democrats’ fault that the information that was there had to be trumped up justify a war? [comment deleted - do not refer to members of any party here as stupid — WatchBlog Manager]