We essentially pulled out of Afghanistan to go after Saddam...
Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Qaida... our military is stretached thin because of Iraq... where we'll have tens of thousands of troops for many years to come. And that endeavour hurt our global standing, cooperation is much harder to come by... which is essential in combatting terrorism.
Well over 2 years after 9/11 we're again talking about getting Osama.
If you seek to limit the criticism of the failures of my government, then you embody the greatest threat to the US.
Well-said!
If anyone wants to live where criticism of the government is limited, then you have many choices, but the United States of America is NOT one of them.
In the words of Theodore Roosevelt (quoted below), your position "is morally treasonable to the American public."
Quote:
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.
-Edward R. Murrow
Quote:
My country, right or wrong" is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying "My mother, drunk or sober.
-G. K. Chesterton
Quote:
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
-Theodore Roosevelt
Quote:
The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.
-H.L. Mencken
Quote:
I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.
-James Baldwin
Quote:
Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive.
-Henry Steele Commager
Quote:
The government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
-Mark Twain
Quote:
Patriotism is proud of a country's virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues. The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country's virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries. It wants to be, and proclaims itself to be, "the greatest," but greatness is not required of a country; only goodness is.
-Sydney J. Harris
Quote:
Patriotism does not oblige us to acquiesce in the destruction of liberty. Patriotism obliges us to question it, at least.
-Wendy Kaminer
Quote:
No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots.
-Barbara Ehrenreich
Quote:
The peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country -- when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right."
"Falsified" implies that the intelligence was made up out of thin air. Not that I'd put it past BushCo, but I've seen nothing to suggest that. "Misrepresented" is more in line with my take on this.
I think that it's more a matter of deliberately ignoring certain elements of available intelligence (that did not support Bush's WoMD claims), and misrepresenting the reliability of the intelligence used to support the claim that WoMD's existed and were ready (or nearly ready) to be used.
This is what I think:
I "think" I was pretty clear about it the first time, but I am happy to restate and elaborate 4 ya...
Furthermore, the "cherry-picking" characteristics of the Bush Administration have been discussed elsewhere, including here:
NaplesX: If you want to live where criticism of the government is limited, then you have many choices, but the United States of America is NOT one of them.
In the words of Theodore Roosevelt (quoted below), your position "is morally treasonable to the American public."
I am getting sick of you fact twisters putting words in my mouth.
I never said or implied that you should not criticize this president or anybody.
Please quit trying to impress me with your quotes that have nothing to do with anything relevant here. I do not disagree with any of those statement, i don't think.
What is your point?
My brain is actually aching, or maybe you've given me an aneurism.
You see Kerry testified in front of congress, that soldiers were regularly committing disgusting atrocities.
He and his campaign have backed away from that whole thing, with some lame thing like "that was just an angry young man trying to stop a war." crap.
If you are supporting Kerry you are supporting the very cherry-picking you decry. [/B]
I'm firmly in the ABB camp, and if Kerry is our only chance to get Bush out of office, then so be it.
As far as Kerry and his past in Vietnam - he had the guts to speak out about what he saw (are you saying there were no atrocities commited by American soldiers in Vietnam?). As you might note above, I have great respect for Americans who exercise their patriotism by questioning the policies and actions of their elected officials.
Regarding cherry-picking, I should probably remind you which candidate completely REFUSES to discuss his past alcoholism, drug use, DUI, etc. (hint - it's not Kerry)
I'm firmly in the ABB camp, and if Kerry is our only chance to get Bush out of office, then so be it.
As far as Kerry and his past in Vietnam - he had the guts to speak out about what he saw (are you saying there were no atrocities commited by American soldiers in Vietnam?). As you might note above, I have great respect for Americans who exercise their patriotism by questioning the policies and actions of their elected officials.
Regarding cherry-picking, I should probably remind you which candidate completely REFUSES to discuss his past alcoholism, drug use, DUI, etc. (hint - it's not Kerry)
Here we go...
You have proven my point completely thank you.
ABB huh? So it is now OK to put a man in office that would betray his fellow soldiers and his country and lie about atrocities that he says were a regular occurrence and known up and down the command structure? Many vet's were branded as drugged out murderers because of his testimony.
So your position is not based on truth or right or wrong, but rather ABB. Nice
The whole premise this thread was started on was sarcasm. It was just like a sign saying "Come In - Bash Bush... Again"
Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows.
It has been a gaggle of Bush haters tickling each others ears with "Bush lies, Bush is an idiot...", with the outnumbered SDW trying to point out that you are all working yourselves up into a frenzy, loosing all grasp on reasonableness.
It is very ... well incestuous.
What you seem to be missing is that the "Bush Bashing" is coming from all sides. Moogs, the starter of this thread, can hardly be described as a liberal or progressive generally speaking. In fact, I think his views are much more moderate. So hey, rail against "Bush Bashing" all you want. Your side is slowly leaking supporters.
I am getting sick of you fact twisters putting words in my mouth.
I never said or implied that you should not criticize this president or anybody.
Hmmmm... let's see... giant posted the following:
Quote:
If you seek to limit the criticism of the failures of my government, then you embody the greatest threat to the US
And your reply was:
Quote:
Ok, cool.
I am officially public enemy number 1. Am I above or below UBL?
I did not put those words in your mouth. Unless I missed a major burst of sarcasm, you were saying that according to giant you would be considered public enemy #1, because you did indeed "seek to limit the criticism of the failures of my government".
What did I miss? What words did I put in your mouth?
I did not put those words in your mouth. Unless I missed a major burst of sarcasm, you were saying that according to giant you would be considered public enemy #1, because you did indeed "seek to limit the criticism of the failures of my government".
What did I miss? What words did I put in your mouth?
Please do not address anymore posts to me, as you are clearly unable to understand the language I am using. (Someone that is fluent in leftist spin please translate this to him)
I did not put those words in your mouth. Unless I missed a major burst of sarcasm, you were saying that according to giant you would be considered public enemy #1, because you did indeed "seek to limit the criticism of the failures of my government".
What did I miss? What words did I put in your mouth?
Oh by the way you did miss the sarcasm there. The post by giant was totally retarded to start with IMO. (Translate for him please)
ABB huh? So it is now OK to put a man in office that would betray his fellow soldiers and his country and lie about atrocities that he says were a regular occurrence and known up and down the command structure? Many vet's were branded as drugged out murderers because of his testimony.
This from someone accusing me of putting words in your mouth? [insert your favorite pot & kettle reference here]
No, my position is that Kerry only betrayed the fellow soldiers that were guilty of the war crimes he spoke about, and those that participated in them up.
The ones who went along with the coverup were the truly "patriotic" ones in your viewpoint apparently. I noticed you completely avoided my question about your take on atrocities in Vietnam....
Quote:
So your position is not based on truth or right or wrong, but rather ABB. Nice.
My position is that whatever mistakes Kerry may have made in presenting his observations in such a way as to not create the impression (among the especially impressionable?) that "vet's were ... drugged out murderers", are much less damaging to this country than what BushCo has "accomplished" in its first "term" (marketing campaign). Not even remotely close....
Don't get me wrong with the ABB reference - I'm perfectly willing to vote for Bush (or not vote for Kerry, more likely) if I see anything that convinces me that Kerry would be worse for the country than four more years of BushCo.
Criticizing policy is fine. Questioning the President's intellect is fine. What I (we?) am saying is that you and others here go WAY beyond criticism. You blame Bush for EVERYTHING, and give him credit for NOTHING. Anyone that thinks like this is truly polarized. Yet, what happens is you turn around and with the help of ten other super-liberal posters, call people like me blind zealots who can't think critically. And furthermore, you imply (and sometimes state literally) that anyone who thinks Bush is doing a good job, anyone that supports him is a common fool. That's just plainly delusional. I don't fault you for NOT supporting Bush. I don't even fault you for supporting Clinton. We just DISAGREE. I've said before that every one of my positions has it's reason and thought behind it. But that's not enough for some here, because once an opinion is stated on the board that runs counter to the Leftist mindset, the poster is told he is blind, stupid, fanatical et al. Some of you cannot even admit that AO is generally dominated by your OWN side. It's amazing.
As for polls, NaplesX has a point. No one wants to run as a true liberal....not even Kerry. The country is basically, generally conservative on the whole...or at least moderate. If you don't believe that, see how Kerry runs his campaign in the next few months. He'll spend have the time running away from his Leftist record.
Well to be quite frank he's the president. He is responsible for many things. So I'd guess the criticism would flow into many areas. With his job you just can't get away from that. You know " The buck stops here " and all that.
I'm sorry if this bothers you but I did warn you a year and a half ago that once this starts to unravel it won't be pretty.
People seem to get down right angry when they sense that their president has done something wrong.
This from someone accusing me of putting words in your mouth? [insert your favorite pot & kettle reference here]
No, my position is that Kerry only betrayed the fellow soldiers that were guilty of the war crimes he spoke about, and those that participated in them up.
The ones who went along with the coverup were the truly "patriotic" ones in your viewpoint apparently. I noticed you completely avoided my question about your take on atrocities in Vietnam....
My position is that whatever mistakes Kerry may have made in presenting his observations in such a way as to not create the impression (among the especially impressionable?) that "vet's were ... drugged out murderers", are much less damaging to this country than what BushCo has "accomplished" in its first "term" (marketing campaign). Not even remotely close....
Don't get me wrong with the ABB reference - I'm perfectly willing to vote for Bush (or not vote for Kerry, more likely) if I see anything that convinces me that Kerry would be worse for the country than four more years of BushCo.
You need to research that whole thing a bit. His claims have been shot down many times, and been found to be fabrications. He and his campaign all but admit that. So in the case of Kerry, the ends justify the means?
Let's just say, 10 years from now. We all realize that Bush and his "Ilk" were right after all. The middle east is moving to freedom and democracy. New fresh people are in power and we find out that this huge network of terrorists were intertwined in the many corrupt regimes in the ME. Iraq is found to have ties with Al-Qeada and many others. Syria is found to have harbored WMD for Iraq and others.
What of your current positions on wether the Iraq war was warranted or not? Will you accept then that Bush was right and will you credit him with a good decision?
I know that this is a lot of "ifs", but I personally believe this is what will happen.
Yes but what if 10 years from now the middle east still hasn't recovered from what they see as our intrusion into their part of the world? Terrorism is on the rise as payback? Also because of what we did nobody trusts us?
The most likely scenerio however is that not much will have changed. Petty dictators and religious leaders will still be spawning violence in the middle east much the same as they did 10 years ago.
[B]You need to research that whole thing a bit. His claims have been shot down many times, and been found to be fabrications.
Can we please see the links to YOUR research, if that's what you have concluded?
What I'm finding is stuff like this:
Quote:
Historian Douglas Brinkley, the author of the recently published "Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War," calls Kerry's atrocity comments "greatly exaggerated" and "the weak link" in his Senate testimony. But he adds that the context was an extremely tempestuous period for the nation in general and veterans in particular. "He's very emotional at this point. (Lt. William) Calley is on the cover of Time magazine. You have My Lai in the news (an atrocity Calley was convicted of leading). You have veterans telling these stories at the Winter Soldier Investigation."
Kerry, in fact, was a moderating influence in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a group that had a radical faction, Brinkley said. "He was a dedicated, nonviolent organizer. He got permits (for the Washington protest). He went and stopped confrontations. He went to the State Department. He was not really a street radical. Kerry was this preppy blue-blood who was keeping a lid on guys who were whack."
Comments
Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Qaida... our military is stretached thin because of Iraq... where we'll have tens of thousands of troops for many years to come. And that endeavour hurt our global standing, cooperation is much harder to come by... which is essential in combatting terrorism.
Well over 2 years after 9/11 we're again talking about getting Osama.
We should of never let up on him.
Originally posted by giant
If you seek to limit the criticism of the failures of my government, then you embody the greatest threat to the US.
Well-said!
If anyone wants to live where criticism of the government is limited, then you have many choices, but the United States of America is NOT one of them.
In the words of Theodore Roosevelt (quoted below), your position "is morally treasonable to the American public."
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.
-Edward R. Murrow
My country, right or wrong" is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying "My mother, drunk or sober.
-G. K. Chesterton
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
-Theodore Roosevelt
The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.
-H.L. Mencken
I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.
-James Baldwin
Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive.
-Henry Steele Commager
The government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
-Mark Twain
Patriotism is proud of a country's virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues. The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country's virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries. It wants to be, and proclaims itself to be, "the greatest," but greatness is not required of a country; only goodness is.
-Sydney J. Harris
Patriotism does not oblige us to acquiesce in the destruction of liberty. Patriotism obliges us to question it, at least.
-Wendy Kaminer
No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots.
-Barbara Ehrenreich
The peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country -- when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right."
-Carl Schurz
Originally posted by FormerLurker
"Falsified" implies that the intelligence was made up out of thin air. Not that I'd put it past BushCo, but I've seen nothing to suggest that. "Misrepresented" is more in line with my take on this.
I think that it's more a matter of deliberately ignoring certain elements of available intelligence (that did not support Bush's WoMD claims), and misrepresenting the reliability of the intelligence used to support the claim that WoMD's existed and were ready (or nearly ready) to be used.
This is what I think:
I "think" I was pretty clear about it the first time, but I am happy to restate and elaborate 4 ya...
Furthermore, the "cherry-picking" characteristics of the Bush Administration have been discussed elsewhere, including here:
Scientist (including 20 Nobel Laureates) say BUSH admin distorting science
Do you support Kerry/ Is he your man?
You see Kerry testified in front of congress, that soldiers were regularly committing disgusting atrocities.
He and his campaign have backed away from that whole thing, with some lame thing like "that was just an angry young man trying to stop a war." crap.
If you are supporting Kerry you are supporting the very cherry-picking you decry.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
NaplesX: If you want to live where criticism of the government is limited, then you have many choices, but the United States of America is NOT one of them.
In the words of Theodore Roosevelt (quoted below), your position "is morally treasonable to the American public."
I am getting sick of you fact twisters putting words in my mouth.
I never said or implied that you should not criticize this president or anybody.
Please quit trying to impress me with your quotes that have nothing to do with anything relevant here. I do not disagree with any of those statement, i don't think.
What is your point?
My brain is actually aching, or maybe you've given me an aneurism.
Oww, mommy...
Originally posted by NaplesX
Do you support Kerry/ Is he your man?
You see Kerry testified in front of congress, that soldiers were regularly committing disgusting atrocities.
He and his campaign have backed away from that whole thing, with some lame thing like "that was just an angry young man trying to stop a war." crap.
If you are supporting Kerry you are supporting the very cherry-picking you decry. [/B]
I'm firmly in the ABB camp, and if Kerry is our only chance to get Bush out of office, then so be it.
As far as Kerry and his past in Vietnam - he had the guts to speak out about what he saw (are you saying there were no atrocities commited by American soldiers in Vietnam?). As you might note above, I have great respect for Americans who exercise their patriotism by questioning the policies and actions of their elected officials.
Regarding cherry-picking, I should probably remind you which candidate completely REFUSES to discuss his past alcoholism, drug use, DUI, etc. (hint - it's not Kerry)
Originally posted by FormerLurker
I'm firmly in the ABB camp, and if Kerry is our only chance to get Bush out of office, then so be it.
As far as Kerry and his past in Vietnam - he had the guts to speak out about what he saw (are you saying there were no atrocities commited by American soldiers in Vietnam?). As you might note above, I have great respect for Americans who exercise their patriotism by questioning the policies and actions of their elected officials.
Regarding cherry-picking, I should probably remind you which candidate completely REFUSES to discuss his past alcoholism, drug use, DUI, etc. (hint - it's not Kerry)
Here we go...
You have proven my point completely thank you.
ABB huh? So it is now OK to put a man in office that would betray his fellow soldiers and his country and lie about atrocities that he says were a regular occurrence and known up and down the command structure? Many vet's were branded as drugged out murderers because of his testimony.
So your position is not based on truth or right or wrong, but rather ABB. Nice
Originally posted by NaplesX
The whole premise this thread was started on was sarcasm. It was just like a sign saying "Come In - Bash Bush... Again"
Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows.
It has been a gaggle of Bush haters tickling each others ears with "Bush lies, Bush is an idiot...", with the outnumbered SDW trying to point out that you are all working yourselves up into a frenzy, loosing all grasp on reasonableness.
It is very ... well incestuous.
What you seem to be missing is that the "Bush Bashing" is coming from all sides. Moogs, the starter of this thread, can hardly be described as a liberal or progressive generally speaking. In fact, I think his views are much more moderate. So hey, rail against "Bush Bashing" all you want. Your side is slowly leaking supporters.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I am getting sick of you fact twisters putting words in my mouth.
I never said or implied that you should not criticize this president or anybody.
Hmmmm... let's see... giant posted the following:
If you seek to limit the criticism of the failures of my government, then you embody the greatest threat to the US
And your reply was:
Ok, cool.
I am officially public enemy number 1. Am I above or below UBL?
I did not put those words in your mouth. Unless I missed a major burst of sarcasm, you were saying that according to giant you would be considered public enemy #1, because you did indeed "seek to limit the criticism of the failures of my government".
What did I miss? What words did I put in your mouth?
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Hmmmm... let's see... giant posted the following:
And your reply was:
I did not put those words in your mouth. Unless I missed a major burst of sarcasm, you were saying that according to giant you would be considered public enemy #1, because you did indeed "seek to limit the criticism of the failures of my government".
What did I miss? What words did I put in your mouth?
Please do not address anymore posts to me, as you are clearly unable to understand the language I am using. (Someone that is fluent in leftist spin please translate this to him)
Thank you.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Hmmmm... let's see... giant posted the following:
And your reply was:
I did not put those words in your mouth. Unless I missed a major burst of sarcasm, you were saying that according to giant you would be considered public enemy #1, because you did indeed "seek to limit the criticism of the failures of my government".
What did I miss? What words did I put in your mouth?
Oh by the way you did miss the sarcasm there. The post by giant was totally retarded to start with IMO. (Translate for him please)
*puts fingers in ears*
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Way to go duder, this thread is toast now.
*puts fingers in ears*
I am sick of the spin, I mean am I the only one getting dizzy?
I say "The ball is red"
They say "So you hate red ball do you? You red ballist"
I say "no you just need to identify the ball as being red"
they say "Bush lied about WMD and you are clearly misinformed"
What a crock this thread needs to be locked.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I am sick of the spin, I mean am I the only one getting dizzy?
I say "The ball is red"
They say "So you hate red ball do you? You red ballist"
I say "no you just need to identify the ball as being red"
they say "Bush lied about WMD and you are clearly misinformed"
What a crock this thread needs to be locked.
they see things differently, or else none of this would happen, whose spin is correct? eh?
Originally posted by NaplesX
ABB huh? So it is now OK to put a man in office that would betray his fellow soldiers and his country and lie about atrocities that he says were a regular occurrence and known up and down the command structure? Many vet's were branded as drugged out murderers because of his testimony.
This from someone accusing me of putting words in your mouth? [insert your favorite pot & kettle reference here]
No, my position is that Kerry only betrayed the fellow soldiers that were guilty of the war crimes he spoke about, and those that participated in them up.
The ones who went along with the coverup were the truly "patriotic" ones in your viewpoint apparently. I noticed you completely avoided my question about your take on atrocities in Vietnam....
So your position is not based on truth or right or wrong, but rather ABB. Nice.
My position is that whatever mistakes Kerry may have made in presenting his observations in such a way as to not create the impression (among the especially impressionable?) that "vet's were ... drugged out murderers", are much less damaging to this country than what BushCo has "accomplished" in its first "term" (marketing campaign). Not even remotely close....
Don't get me wrong with the ABB reference - I'm perfectly willing to vote for Bush (or not vote for Kerry, more likely) if I see anything that convinces me that Kerry would be worse for the country than four more years of BushCo.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I am officially public enemy number 1. Am I above or below UBL?
Looking at your web 'design,' I'd say above.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Please do not address anymore posts to me, as you are clearly unable to understand the language I am using.
That's rich coming from a guy who uses a Poison lyric as his sig.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Criticizing policy is fine. Questioning the President's intellect is fine. What I (we?) am saying is that you and others here go WAY beyond criticism. You blame Bush for EVERYTHING, and give him credit for NOTHING. Anyone that thinks like this is truly polarized. Yet, what happens is you turn around and with the help of ten other super-liberal posters, call people like me blind zealots who can't think critically. And furthermore, you imply (and sometimes state literally) that anyone who thinks Bush is doing a good job, anyone that supports him is a common fool. That's just plainly delusional. I don't fault you for NOT supporting Bush. I don't even fault you for supporting Clinton. We just DISAGREE. I've said before that every one of my positions has it's reason and thought behind it. But that's not enough for some here, because once an opinion is stated on the board that runs counter to the Leftist mindset, the poster is told he is blind, stupid, fanatical et al. Some of you cannot even admit that AO is generally dominated by your OWN side. It's amazing.
As for polls, NaplesX has a point. No one wants to run as a true liberal....not even Kerry. The country is basically, generally conservative on the whole...or at least moderate. If you don't believe that, see how Kerry runs his campaign in the next few months. He'll spend have the time running away from his Leftist record.
Well to be quite frank he's the president. He is responsible for many things. So I'd guess the criticism would flow into many areas. With his job you just can't get away from that. You know " The buck stops here " and all that.
I'm sorry if this bothers you but I did warn you a year and a half ago that once this starts to unravel it won't be pretty.
People seem to get down right angry when they sense that their president has done something wrong.
Just ask Bill Clinton.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
This from someone accusing me of putting words in your mouth? [insert your favorite pot & kettle reference here]
No, my position is that Kerry only betrayed the fellow soldiers that were guilty of the war crimes he spoke about, and those that participated in them up.
The ones who went along with the coverup were the truly "patriotic" ones in your viewpoint apparently. I noticed you completely avoided my question about your take on atrocities in Vietnam....
My position is that whatever mistakes Kerry may have made in presenting his observations in such a way as to not create the impression (among the especially impressionable?) that "vet's were ... drugged out murderers", are much less damaging to this country than what BushCo has "accomplished" in its first "term" (marketing campaign). Not even remotely close....
Don't get me wrong with the ABB reference - I'm perfectly willing to vote for Bush (or not vote for Kerry, more likely) if I see anything that convinces me that Kerry would be worse for the country than four more years of BushCo.
You need to research that whole thing a bit. His claims have been shot down many times, and been found to be fabrications. He and his campaign all but admit that. So in the case of Kerry, the ends justify the means?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Let's put forth a little scenario:
Let's just say, 10 years from now. We all realize that Bush and his "Ilk" were right after all. The middle east is moving to freedom and democracy. New fresh people are in power and we find out that this huge network of terrorists were intertwined in the many corrupt regimes in the ME. Iraq is found to have ties with Al-Qeada and many others. Syria is found to have harbored WMD for Iraq and others.
What of your current positions on wether the Iraq war was warranted or not? Will you accept then that Bush was right and will you credit him with a good decision?
I know that this is a lot of "ifs", but I personally believe this is what will happen.
Yes but what if 10 years from now the middle east still hasn't recovered from what they see as our intrusion into their part of the world? Terrorism is on the rise as payback? Also because of what we did nobody trusts us?
The most likely scenerio however is that not much will have changed. Petty dictators and religious leaders will still be spawning violence in the middle east much the same as they did 10 years ago.
And 10 years before that.
Originally posted by NaplesX
[B]You need to research that whole thing a bit. His claims have been shot down many times, and been found to be fabrications.
Can we please see the links to YOUR research, if that's what you have concluded?
What I'm finding is stuff like this:
Historian Douglas Brinkley, the author of the recently published "Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War," calls Kerry's atrocity comments "greatly exaggerated" and "the weak link" in his Senate testimony. But he adds that the context was an extremely tempestuous period for the nation in general and veterans in particular. "He's very emotional at this point. (Lt. William) Calley is on the cover of Time magazine. You have My Lai in the news (an atrocity Calley was convicted of leading). You have veterans telling these stories at the Winter Soldier Investigation."
Kerry, in fact, was a moderating influence in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a group that had a radical faction, Brinkley said. "He was a dedicated, nonviolent organizer. He got permits (for the Washington protest). He went and stopped confrontations. He went to the State Department. He was not really a street radical. Kerry was this preppy blue-blood who was keeping a lid on guys who were whack."