"Kerry Unfit to be Commander-in-Chief" (Letter)
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialR...20040503a.html
What do you think about this? We're talking about a lot of people who served with him, not a few rogue Republicans or Bush partisans. Many of these people did not vote for Bush last time around.
Or, will Kerry supporters say this is all the work of Karl Rove?
What do you think about this? We're talking about a lot of people who served with him, not a few rogue Republicans or Bush partisans. Many of these people did not vote for Bush last time around.
Or, will Kerry supporters say this is all the work of Karl Rove?
Comments
This is ugly. I can't imagine they're all partisan wankers. What I don't like about that article is that is gives no elaboration on anything. It just keeps saying over and over "we don't think he's fit, we're signing a letter". OK fine. WHY isn't he fit. If it's all flack over his post-war protesting, then it means nothing. If it's because of his conduct in Viet Nam then let's hear about it.
Either way: what the fvck is this country's problem?? Four years, two elections, zero respectable candidates?!! The system is broken and I'm quickly losing faith in the public all together. Seems like we have neither the will nor the brains to fix what needs fixing from one election to the next.
Originally posted by Moogs
This is ugly. I can't imagine they're all partisan wankers. What I don't like about that article is that is gives no elaboration on anything. It just keeps saying over and over "we don't think he's fit, we're signing a letter". OK fine. WHY isn't he fit. If it's all flack over his post-war protesting, then it means nothing. If it's because of his conduct in Viet Nam then let's hear about it.
Either way: what the fvck is this country's problem?? Four years, two elections, zero respectable candidates?!! The system is broken and I'm quickly losing faith in the public all together. Seems like we have neither the will nor the brains to fix what needs fixing from one election to the next.
I agree with Moogs. As put forward, the letter seems to be ugly politics, rather than setting out the reasons for concern. If there is something substantive behind this, let?s here it.
That being said ? quite aside from the particular issue in SDW?s link ? I have to acknowledge that Kerry has not communicated a platform or an even an image that gives Americans clear reasons to make him President. The most that he has going for him is that he is not G.W. Bush. While I agree that this one advantage is considerable, it is not one that leaves many moderates and liberals enthusiastic: it?s like selling a food product with the slogan ?It?s better than eating sh*t.? Meanwhile, right-wingers have reason to love their man. Their only complaint is that he has not gone far enough.
NAYDAR!
Shorter Kos, John O'Neill was:
a hack/flunky for Nixon against Kerry in the 70s
a clerk for Rehnquist
a general counsel for G.W. Bush
But beyond all this, why on Earth does the White House keep wanting to compare Kerry's war record for Bush's lack of one?
If they keep piddling on this particular third rail like this, they're bound to see sparks.
Screed
It's very difficult to make an opinion on that matter. Kerry may be right, may be wrong, or was exagerrating at the time. Anyway, Vietnam was certainly not made of roses.
On an another subject, the truth about some french soldiers horrible behaviorings in the algerian war, only arrise now, after years of denial. The sujbject have been taboo for over 40 years. People who have spoken to the public where not welcome among the others veterans. The war was dirty for both camps, algerians have also made atrocities (soldiers throat cuted, founded with their balls in their mouth ...). So people do not love to show the other side of the story.
Originally posted by sCreeD
Ugh, this twit again? John O'Neill. Who is John O'Neill?
Shorter Kos, John O'Neill was:
a hack/flunky for Nixon against Kerry in the 70s
a clerk for Rehnquist
a general counsel for G.W. Bush
But beyond all this, why on Earth does the White House keep wanting to compare Kerry's war record for Bush's lack of one?
If they keep piddling on this particular third rail like this, they're bound to see sparks.
Screed
Thanks for this link.
Politicians have a very bad reputation nowdays in our democracies, the political campaign they made, help create this situation. When you bring your competitor in the mud, you bring also yourself in the mud.
Politicians are responsible of their bad reputation.
Originally posted by segovius
I don't see why right-wingers want to bash Kerry anyway - he's just Bush lite, maybe worse...err...I mean more 'conservative'. Certainly more pro-Israel and that won't play well in the ME wars which will continue under a Kerry administration.
He's kind of the dems answer to Blair really isn't he - more right-wing than any candidate in recent memory but with a 'leftie' description tag.
I'd vote for Bush every time if it was a straight choice between the two. Luckily I don't have a say in it so I'll shut up.
I don't see how that's accurate. Kerry is very, very liberal...it's just that he knows he has to try and be a moderate to have a shot. He literally is the most liberal senator we have, and yet he's running as a moderate war hero. Hmmm. At least Clinton was able to run a New Democrat and get away with it.
As for the larger issue of his campaign, it is true that he hasn't articulated a vision. I'm actually quite surprised at this, given that it's now May already. His Iraq position is very vague. The economy is heating up, and now we have the flap over his war record (and anti-war record). The polls are close, but I don't see his campaign doing so well.
I actually spent the time to read that piece of "investigative" journalism. To be completely honest, this O'Neil character was completely slimmy in the 1973 debate and he is still slimmy today. A few weeks ago I was wondering what became of him, and now I know. Throwing out statistics like 90% of the people we called signed the letter gives no indication of the statistics of the entire group. It simply isn't a random sampling especially considering that the group that did the calling has at its singular focus to call kerry out on something
Originally posted by billybobsky
This is utter and complete BS and I am sorry that SDW2001 had to come back and bring this drivel to the table.
What else did you expect?
Originally posted by pfflam
What else did you expect?
I was hoping the apparent break would have smoothed over the rough edges...
Originally posted by SDW2001
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialR...20040503a.html
What do you think about this? We're talking about a lot of people who served with him, not a few rogue Republicans or Bush partisans. Many of these people did not vote for Bush last time around.
Or, will Kerry supporters say this is all the work of Karl Rove?
You know I really don't see what difference it would make even if it was true.
You see we already have someone even more unfit to lead in office.
As for the article it really didn't say much of anything.
I do agree with this part however :
-----------------------------------------------------------
" The Michigan Democrat called Kerry "very likeable," adding that "he'll come through as who he is, which is a very thoughtful, very sincere and a?person with a great deal of integrity and a great deal of sincerity."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by billybobsky
Oh, god...
I actually spent the time to read that piece of "investigative" journalism. To be completely honest, this O'Neil character was completely slimmy in the 1973 debate and he is still slimmy today. A few weeks ago I was wondering what became of him, and now I know. Throwing out statistics like 90% of the people we called signed the letter gives no indication of the statistics of the entire group. It simply isn't a random sampling especially considering that the group that did the calling has at its singular focus to call kerry out on something
I'm not claiming that the article is well written or even completely accurate. Honestly, I was just waiting for someone to bash the source rather than argue the point.
The overall concept of a huge number of Kerry's comrades and CO's coming forward to sign their names to this letter is stunning. It's not "utter and complete BS" in any way. Did you even read the article? What do you say to this?
"We have 19 of 23 officers who served with [Kerry]. We have every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam. They all signed a letter that says he is unfit to be commander-in-chief," O'Neill said.
19 of 23? That's quite a number. How do you explain that? Again, I'd dismiss this as well if it came from a handful of officers. This is not a handful. We're talking about people signing their names here. We're talking about folks who are not necessarily Bush voters. You can't just dismiss it.
Originally posted by tonton
So... let me get this straight.
I could easily call 23 of my friends to sign a letter gainst George W. Bush. And at least 19 would sign. To call this anything but misleading and malicious is extremely shortsighted, misleading and malicious.
The point is could you get 19 out of 23 Republicans who had worked above or with Bush to sign that letter.
If you did, that would seriously say something. Your example says that the opponents will easily line up against those they are working against. SDW's example has those that Kerry was working WITH. It would be like saying 19 out of 23 delegates would vote against Kerry.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
The point is could you get 19 out of 23 Republicans who had worked above or with Bush to sign that letter.
If you did, that would seriously say something. Your example says that the opponents will easily line up against those they are working against. SDW's example has those that Kerry was working WITH. It would be like saying 19 out of 23 delegates would vote against Kerry.
Nick
No nick. SDW's stats are from 23 people this group bothered to call who happened also to have worked with Kerry -- its a biased group.
I have little regard for those who think that speaking out was the less honorable choice.
Originally posted by billybobsky
No nick. SDW's stats are from 23 people this group bothered to call who happened also to have worked with Kerry -- its a biased group.
Are you claiming there are other officers who served with Kerry who were not contacted? It reads to me that they contacted all 23 and 19 were willing to sign this letter.
"We have 19 of 23 officers who served with [Kerry]. We have every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam. They all signed a letter that says he is unfit to be commander-in-chief," O'Neill said.
If you have some other sources that claim the 23 were selective, or that there were other officers who served but wouldn't sign above the four they indicated. Please toss out that info because I would be very interested in it.
Nick
For those who don't get it, Bush is not running on his national guard duty.