I don't think they should be immune from attacks on the issues, but if John Kerry 'wasn't so great', then why did he get the Silver Star or the Bronze Star? Was he *not* responsible for saving the lives of everyone on his boat from enemy attack by taking out that grenade launcher?
The bottom line is that former President Bush had set his son up in a cushy position in the Air National Guard so he wouldn't have to serve in Vietnam, and Vice President Cheney never served, yet they are making the *CENTRAL* point of their campaign for re-election to be John Kerry's military record. The point is that John Kerry was recognized as being a hero who saved the lives of the men on his boat and the Bush campaign doesn't want the people to know of his acts of bravery.
John Kerry has pointed out that he is a war veteran, this is true. But how is it inappropriate to point out one's national service record, especially when that person is a decorated officer? It is disgraceful that the Bush administration is trying to find people who will attack Kerry's war record when President Bush himself is hard pressed to find anyone who even *served* with him in the 70s.
Fran you have it totally backwards. Kerry is the one that is making his service a *CENTRAL* point of his campaign. He hasn't just "pointed it out" but instead injects it into every issue.
Who was the last American POW to die languishing in a North Vietnamese prison forced to listen to the recorded voice of John Kerry disgracing their service by his dishonest testimony before the Senate?
Fran you have it totally backwards. Kerry is the one that is making his service a *CENTRAL* point of his campaign. He hasn't just "pointed it out" but instead injects it into every issue.
Thank you! Kerry talks about his war service at every opportunity. This, despite his rather questionable behavior immediately following the war. Kerry has not been a supporter of the military, and yet he's running as a moderate war hero. He'd have more success if he just ran as what he IS.
I'm sure the Kerry campaign would try the same type of thing but they can't seem to find anyone that served with George W. Bush so it's kind of a moot point.
Seriously though, are they trying to say that Kerry didn't deserve his Silver Star? Two of his Purple Hearts have never been called into question, are they signing this because of the third?
This is why I have so much respect for Senator John McCain. McCain has the backbone to stand up and say that political attacks on war veterans such as John Kerry and Max Cleland are wrong, especially when it's questioning the service they gave to their country.
The Bush campaign got McCain in South Carolina in 2000 and overshadowed the issues with absurd fake news stories and by questioning his patriotism, etc. That's how Bush is able to win- not on a platform but by launching character attacks on his political opponents.
Of course, with the economy the way it is, the number of jobs lost in the last 4 years, gas prices going up, milk prices going up, a war on terror going poorly, a war in Iraq going even worse, and scandal after scandal (which the press just ignores at this point), why would Bush want to focus on the issues? Let's not forget that this is the man who can't think of ONE THING HE HAS DONE WRONG EVER!
Is it any real surprise that the Republicans want to slander Kerry like this? There's no other way that Bush can win re-election and if there was, why are they spending so much money on attacking John Kerry instead of defining President Bush's message for the future?
First, I respect McCain too. Though, I do disagree with him on some points, and also think he's got a temperment issue. \\
Second, to say Bush doesn't have a platform is simply amazing. He has a very clear platform, one with which you happen to disagree. Bush is for lower taxes, even on the rich. He's for premptive force. He's for big military budgets. He's for medicare and social security reform. He's willing to tolerate deficits, apparently. He's for faith based charities, and increased education acountablity. Feel free to disagree, but don't say he has no platform. All of these positions are debatable, and I for one don't agree with him on some of them. But, he certainly has a platform.
As for your next points, which I'll entitle "state of the nation":
1) There are not fewer jobs than there were four years ago. It's false. Say it with me: "False".
2) The economy is strong. Growth is very good. Manufacturing data is good. The Fed is getting ready to raise rates to prevent inflation, which is a key sign of strength. Home ownership is at record levels. Shall I go on?
3) The WOT is not going badly. If you disagree, you'll need to cite some data to prove your point. We have a security problem in Iraq, and casualties have been higher than expected. That does not mean the WOT is going "badly". This is nothing but a rhetorical, unsubstantiated opinion on your part.
4) Gas Prices: I agree this is a problem. Blaming Bush for it is problematic.
5) Milk prices: Now you're just being funny. Perhaps if 50% of farmer's income didn't come from government subsidies, things would look better. I wonder which party supported policies leading to the farm welfare state? Hmmm....
6) Mistakes: Bush believes his decisions have been correct based on the information he had at the time. Why is this a problem? He also said "I'm sure I've made some [mistakes]". He was asked on the spot at a press conference...what was he supposed to do? "Well, I shouldn't have X, Y, and Z". Right...that's what we all want in a President.
Fran, I'm sorry, but Kerry is weak. Bush is defining Kerry for what he IS: an extreme liberal trying to run as a moderate war hero. As for his vision of the future, he's clearly laid out what he'd like to do. You just don't like what you see....which is fine. BTW, what's Kerry's vision?
Your point purposely ignored an important part of the article. If you bad mouthed your college, would you expect every single professor you ever had sign a statement saying what a useless tit you were? Would additionally, 19 out of 23 classmates claiming you were a dishonest, cheating moron be the only point of focus, or should both be examined as possibly being related, perhaps even important as to your character?
You imply that the 19 out of 23 is useless, because they must have been hand-picked and the 100% of commanding officers is useless, because they must be lying, bitter men. The opinion 19/23 of any group that knew you intimately should probably be considered, if trying to get to know you from a distance. The opinion of 100% of your superiors, bitter or not, should also have some weight.
Nope. They were hand selected. There is no validity of the claims of these men other than the simple fact that they now have this opinion of kerry -- it would be as if I found the friends you once had that you pissed off and asked if they would confirm you are an arogant asshole. Kerry was primarily bad-mouthing his commanders in the early '70s... I know from personal experience that a single event can turn an entire department against you, so even your example is wrong...
Things only have weight when you consider them in the light of who/what/where and how... Given those considerations this is a minimal blip on an otherwise overly senstive radar... Regardless, your in canada, why should i give a flying fvck what you think? How is that for american arogance?
I'd love to hear your nuanced explanations on how weak vs. strong applies to, say, decisive vs. pig-headed, forceful vs. bullying, resolute vs. clueless of other alternatives, confident vs. arrogant, etc., then apply these criteria to Bush and Kerry.
Or would you rather just grunt, grab your nuts, and give me the finger to show how STRONG you are?
Wait-- this is the "letter" that is such a devastating blow to Kerry?
John O'Niell prefaces it by saying "I was on Mr. Kerry's boat in Vietnam. He doesn't deserve to be commander in chief."
Which suggests that he has some startling revelations about how Kerry comported himself as as officer and a soldier while in Vietnam.
Instead, we get a rehashing of the same old "Kerry lied about atrocities in Vietnam" that O'Niell has been pitching for the last 30 years.
The implication has been that the people that served with Kerry are eager to sign up with the idea that he has something wrong with him, something that they observed while under fire and working with him.
Instead, we get old grudges about who supported the war and how.
If anyone has a specific allegation that Kerry was a poor officer let them make that case, bearing in mind he got nothing but glowing commendations while serving, before he "betrayed" his peers by speaking out against the war.
But this casual conflation of chatter, of "maybe he didn't deserve that silver star" and "there are unanswered question about his tour of duty" with "everybody he served with thinks he's a dick" and "did he throw back those medals or not" is so very obviously the old republican strategy of omni-FUD:
Just keep rolling shit out and hope it starts to congeal in people's minds as a "pattern". It doesn't matter if any or all of the particulars are weak or dubious or just made up, you can always find someone to "allege" something and if you have the right connections you can make it an "issue" and 4-5 "issues" mean "graves questions about character".
And by the time your first "issue" has been rebutted, you've already three or four down the line, so nobody ever really takes stock and your victim is constantly on the defensive.
Oh, and of course, if anybody ever thinks to point out that this has been a consistent pattern in republican campaigns for the last 15 years or so, they get accused of and mocked for subscribing to the "vast right wing conspiracy".
First, I respect McCain too. Though, I do disagree with him on some points, and also think he's got a temperment issue. \\
Second, to say Bush doesn't have a platform is simply amazing. He has a very clear platform, one with which you happen to disagree. Bush is for lower taxes, even on the rich. He's for premptive force. He's for big military budgets. He's for medicare and social security reform. He's willing to tolerate deficits, apparently. He's for faith based charities, and increased education acountablity. Feel free to disagree, but don't say he has no platform. All of these positions are debatable, and I for one don't agree with him on some of them. But, he certainly has a platform.
As for your next points, which I'll entitle "state of the nation":
1) There are not fewer jobs than there were four years ago. It's false. Say it with me: "False".
2) The economy is strong. Growth is very good. Manufacturing data is good. The Fed is getting ready to raise rates to prevent inflation, which is a key sign of strength. Home ownership is at record levels. Shall I go on?
3) The WOT is not going badly. If you disagree, you'll need to cite some data to prove your point. We have a security problem in Iraq, and casualties have been higher than expected. That does not mean the WOT is going "badly". This is nothing but a rhetorical, unsubstantiated opinion on your part.
4) Gas Prices: I agree this is a problem. Blaming Bush for it is problematic.
5) Milk prices: Now you're just being funny. Perhaps if 50% of farmer's income didn't come from government subsidies, things would look better. I wonder which party supported policies leading to the farm welfare state? Hmmm....
6) Mistakes: Bush believes his decisions have been correct based on the information he had at the time. Why is this a problem? He also said "I'm sure I've made some [mistakes]". He was asked on the spot at a press conference...what was he supposed to do? "Well, I shouldn't have X, Y, and Z". Right...that's what we all want in a President.
Fran, I'm sorry, but Kerry is weak. Bush is defining Kerry for what he IS: an extreme liberal trying to run as a moderate war hero. As for his vision of the future, he's clearly laid out what he'd like to do. You just don't like what you see....which is fine. BTW, what's Kerry's vision?
Now tell us the rest of the story. You've been repeating that so long part of it has become true.
Jobs were a real issue in this last recession. Given Mr. Bush's record of handling the economy what's to keep things from not being so rosy after the election?
Nope. They were hand selected. There is no validity of the claims of these men other than the simple fact that they now have this opinion of kerry -- it would be as if I found the friends you once had that you pissed off and asked if they would confirm you are an arogant asshole. Kerry was primarily bad-mouthing his commanders in the early '70s... I know from personal experience that a single event can turn an entire department against you, so even your example is wrong...
Things only have weight when you consider them in the light of who/what/where and how... Given those considerations this is a minimal blip on an otherwise overly senstive radar... Regardless, your in canada, why should i give a flying fvck what you think? How is that for american arogance?
You have no basis for saying they were hand selected. None. Go prove it.
Ok, anti is maybe a bit strong. I'm guessing you are basing your incredulity on Kerry's insistence in going to the UN re Iraq and his promotion of a UN role there now as well as his declared intention to reinstate America there if he wins....err...hold on.....I'm defeating my own argument....umm err, well, ok he may not be totally anti UN but he is definitely all those other things.....AND we don't know that he's not just blowing it out of his exhaust either.
Oh look, semantics and hair splitting. The proof of Kerry's liberalism is in his voting record. You can't point to handful of positions and say "He's Bush Lite!!!". Joe Liebermann...now HE was Bush lite. National Journal ranks Kerry THE most liberal Senator in the US. That's a fact, and some partisan hack or rant.
Now tell us the rest of the story. You've been repeating that so long part of it has become true.
Jobs were a real issue in this last recession. Given Mr. Bush's record of handling the economy what's to keep things from not being so rosy after the election?
You have no basis for saying they were hand selected. None. Go prove it.
From your article:
"people contacted by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth responded"
Hand picked or at least on a list compiled by people who want this exact type of result. You just shouldn't trust a 'poll' done by an agency that has an alterior motive.
Comments
Originally posted by Fran441
I don't think they should be immune from attacks on the issues, but if John Kerry 'wasn't so great', then why did he get the Silver Star or the Bronze Star? Was he *not* responsible for saving the lives of everyone on his boat from enemy attack by taking out that grenade launcher?
The bottom line is that former President Bush had set his son up in a cushy position in the Air National Guard so he wouldn't have to serve in Vietnam, and Vice President Cheney never served, yet they are making the *CENTRAL* point of their campaign for re-election to be John Kerry's military record. The point is that John Kerry was recognized as being a hero who saved the lives of the men on his boat and the Bush campaign doesn't want the people to know of his acts of bravery.
John Kerry has pointed out that he is a war veteran, this is true. But how is it inappropriate to point out one's national service record, especially when that person is a decorated officer? It is disgraceful that the Bush administration is trying to find people who will attack Kerry's war record when President Bush himself is hard pressed to find anyone who even *served* with him in the 70s.
Fran you have it totally backwards. Kerry is the one that is making his service a *CENTRAL* point of his campaign. He hasn't just "pointed it out" but instead injects it into every issue.
Who was the last American POW to die languishing in a North Vietnamese prison forced to listen to the recorded voice of John Kerry disgracing their service by his dishonest testimony before the Senate?
What???
Originally posted by segovius
Iraqis ?
Of course that wasn't posted by me but instead is quoted from the op-ed. Please be more careful in your replies.
Originally posted by Scott
Fran you have it totally backwards. Kerry is the one that is making his service a *CENTRAL* point of his campaign. He hasn't just "pointed it out" but instead injects it into every issue.
Thank you! Kerry talks about his war service at every opportunity. This, despite his rather questionable behavior immediately following the war. Kerry has not been a supporter of the military, and yet he's running as a moderate war hero. He'd have more success if he just ran as what he IS.
Originally posted by Fran441
I'm sure the Kerry campaign would try the same type of thing but they can't seem to find anyone that served with George W. Bush so it's kind of a moot point.
Seriously though, are they trying to say that Kerry didn't deserve his Silver Star? Two of his Purple Hearts have never been called into question, are they signing this because of the third?
This is why I have so much respect for Senator John McCain. McCain has the backbone to stand up and say that political attacks on war veterans such as John Kerry and Max Cleland are wrong, especially when it's questioning the service they gave to their country.
The Bush campaign got McCain in South Carolina in 2000 and overshadowed the issues with absurd fake news stories and by questioning his patriotism, etc. That's how Bush is able to win- not on a platform but by launching character attacks on his political opponents.
Of course, with the economy the way it is, the number of jobs lost in the last 4 years, gas prices going up, milk prices going up, a war on terror going poorly, a war in Iraq going even worse, and scandal after scandal (which the press just ignores at this point), why would Bush want to focus on the issues? Let's not forget that this is the man who can't think of ONE THING HE HAS DONE WRONG EVER!
Is it any real surprise that the Republicans want to slander Kerry like this? There's no other way that Bush can win re-election and if there was, why are they spending so much money on attacking John Kerry instead of defining President Bush's message for the future?
First, I respect McCain too. Though, I do disagree with him on some points, and also think he's got a temperment issue. \\
Second, to say Bush doesn't have a platform is simply amazing. He has a very clear platform, one with which you happen to disagree. Bush is for lower taxes, even on the rich. He's for premptive force. He's for big military budgets. He's for medicare and social security reform. He's willing to tolerate deficits, apparently. He's for faith based charities, and increased education acountablity. Feel free to disagree, but don't say he has no platform. All of these positions are debatable, and I for one don't agree with him on some of them. But, he certainly has a platform.
As for your next points, which I'll entitle "state of the nation":
1) There are not fewer jobs than there were four years ago. It's false. Say it with me: "False".
2) The economy is strong. Growth is very good. Manufacturing data is good. The Fed is getting ready to raise rates to prevent inflation, which is a key sign of strength. Home ownership is at record levels. Shall I go on?
3) The WOT is not going badly. If you disagree, you'll need to cite some data to prove your point. We have a security problem in Iraq, and casualties have been higher than expected. That does not mean the WOT is going "badly". This is nothing but a rhetorical, unsubstantiated opinion on your part.
4) Gas Prices: I agree this is a problem. Blaming Bush for it is problematic.
5) Milk prices: Now you're just being funny. Perhaps if 50% of farmer's income didn't come from government subsidies, things would look better. I wonder which party supported policies leading to the farm welfare state? Hmmm....
6) Mistakes: Bush believes his decisions have been correct based on the information he had at the time. Why is this a problem? He also said "I'm sure I've made some [mistakes]". He was asked on the spot at a press conference...what was he supposed to do? "Well, I shouldn't have X, Y, and Z". Right...that's what we all want in a President.
Fran, I'm sorry, but Kerry is weak. Bush is defining Kerry for what he IS: an extreme liberal trying to run as a moderate war hero. As for his vision of the future, he's clearly laid out what he'd like to do. You just don't like what you see....which is fine. BTW, what's Kerry's vision?
and also think he's got a temperment issue. \\
That's why I
Originally posted by Tulkas
Your point purposely ignored an important part of the article. If you bad mouthed your college, would you expect every single professor you ever had sign a statement saying what a useless tit you were? Would additionally, 19 out of 23 classmates claiming you were a dishonest, cheating moron be the only point of focus, or should both be examined as possibly being related, perhaps even important as to your character?
You imply that the 19 out of 23 is useless, because they must have been hand-picked and the 100% of commanding officers is useless, because they must be lying, bitter men. The opinion 19/23 of any group that knew you intimately should probably be considered, if trying to get to know you from a distance. The opinion of 100% of your superiors, bitter or not, should also have some weight.
Nope. They were hand selected. There is no validity of the claims of these men other than the simple fact that they now have this opinion of kerry -- it would be as if I found the friends you once had that you pissed off and asked if they would confirm you are an arogant asshole. Kerry was primarily bad-mouthing his commanders in the early '70s... I know from personal experience that a single event can turn an entire department against you, so even your example is wrong...
Things only have weight when you consider them in the light of who/what/where and how... Given those considerations this is a minimal blip on an otherwise overly senstive radar... Regardless, your in canada, why should i give a flying fvck what you think? How is that for american arogance?
Originally posted by alcimedes
how is "every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam. They all signed a letter that says he is unfit to be commander-in-chief" hand selected?
I doubt they would have been contacted if the response wasn't already known.
Regardless, this is all irrelevant...
Originally posted by SDW2001
Fran, I'm sorry, but Kerry is weak.
<grunt> <grunt> me want STRONG leader!!! <grunt>
I'd love to hear your nuanced explanations on how weak vs. strong applies to, say, decisive vs. pig-headed, forceful vs. bullying, resolute vs. clueless of other alternatives, confident vs. arrogant, etc., then apply these criteria to Bush and Kerry.
Or would you rather just grunt, grab your nuts, and give me the finger to show how STRONG you are?
John O'Niell prefaces it by saying "I was on Mr. Kerry's boat in Vietnam. He doesn't deserve to be commander in chief."
Which suggests that he has some startling revelations about how Kerry comported himself as as officer and a soldier while in Vietnam.
Instead, we get a rehashing of the same old "Kerry lied about atrocities in Vietnam" that O'Niell has been pitching for the last 30 years.
The implication has been that the people that served with Kerry are eager to sign up with the idea that he has something wrong with him, something that they observed while under fire and working with him.
Instead, we get old grudges about who supported the war and how.
If anyone has a specific allegation that Kerry was a poor officer let them make that case, bearing in mind he got nothing but glowing commendations while serving, before he "betrayed" his peers by speaking out against the war.
But this casual conflation of chatter, of "maybe he didn't deserve that silver star" and "there are unanswered question about his tour of duty" with "everybody he served with thinks he's a dick" and "did he throw back those medals or not" is so very obviously the old republican strategy of omni-FUD:
Just keep rolling shit out and hope it starts to congeal in people's minds as a "pattern". It doesn't matter if any or all of the particulars are weak or dubious or just made up, you can always find someone to "allege" something and if you have the right connections you can make it an "issue" and 4-5 "issues" mean "graves questions about character".
And by the time your first "issue" has been rebutted, you've already three or four down the line, so nobody ever really takes stock and your victim is constantly on the defensive.
Oh, and of course, if anybody ever thinks to point out that this has been a consistent pattern in republican campaigns for the last 15 years or so, they get accused of and mocked for subscribing to the "vast right wing conspiracy".
Originally posted by SDW2001
First, I respect McCain too. Though, I do disagree with him on some points, and also think he's got a temperment issue. \\
Second, to say Bush doesn't have a platform is simply amazing. He has a very clear platform, one with which you happen to disagree. Bush is for lower taxes, even on the rich. He's for premptive force. He's for big military budgets. He's for medicare and social security reform. He's willing to tolerate deficits, apparently. He's for faith based charities, and increased education acountablity. Feel free to disagree, but don't say he has no platform. All of these positions are debatable, and I for one don't agree with him on some of them. But, he certainly has a platform.
As for your next points, which I'll entitle "state of the nation":
1) There are not fewer jobs than there were four years ago. It's false. Say it with me: "False".
2) The economy is strong. Growth is very good. Manufacturing data is good. The Fed is getting ready to raise rates to prevent inflation, which is a key sign of strength. Home ownership is at record levels. Shall I go on?
3) The WOT is not going badly. If you disagree, you'll need to cite some data to prove your point. We have a security problem in Iraq, and casualties have been higher than expected. That does not mean the WOT is going "badly". This is nothing but a rhetorical, unsubstantiated opinion on your part.
4) Gas Prices: I agree this is a problem. Blaming Bush for it is problematic.
5) Milk prices: Now you're just being funny. Perhaps if 50% of farmer's income didn't come from government subsidies, things would look better. I wonder which party supported policies leading to the farm welfare state? Hmmm....
6) Mistakes: Bush believes his decisions have been correct based on the information he had at the time. Why is this a problem? He also said "I'm sure I've made some [mistakes]". He was asked on the spot at a press conference...what was he supposed to do? "Well, I shouldn't have X, Y, and Z". Right...that's what we all want in a President.
Fran, I'm sorry, but Kerry is weak. Bush is defining Kerry for what he IS: an extreme liberal trying to run as a moderate war hero. As for his vision of the future, he's clearly laid out what he'd like to do. You just don't like what you see....which is fine. BTW, what's Kerry's vision?
Now tell us the rest of the story. You've been repeating that so long part of it has become true.
Jobs were a real issue in this last recession. Given Mr. Bush's record of handling the economy what's to keep things from not being so rosy after the election?
I love what we're doing in Iraq :
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html
The WOT is kind of not doing so well ( it kind of reminds me of the " War On Drugs " ).
By the way were's those WOMD?
How could 911 have happened at all given that someone knew Al-Queda was planning to use airplanes as weapons?
Also look at that deficit go! Too bad it used to be a surplus not long ago.
Sorry SDW, myself and many others aren't buying today.
Many of the things that Bush has told us aren't exactly like he led us to believe ( or just aren't true at all ).
Rather than have Bush continue to reck the country and our way of life I'd rather have Kerry in a heatbeat.
We're not just measuring a lesser of evils. We're measuring Kerry against the worst!
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
Originally posted by addabox
John O'Niell prefaces it by saying "I was on Mr. Kerry's boat in Vietnam. He doesn't deserve to be commander in chief."
Notice how he doesn't say "I was on Mr. Kerry's boat in Vietnam months after Mr. Kerry had left with his Purple Hearts and Silver Star"
That's like me saying "I drove through Texas once and George Bush is not fit to be President"
Originally posted by tmp
Notice how he doesn't say "I was on Mr. Kerry's boat in Vietnam months after Mr. Kerry had left with his Purple Hearts and Silver Star"
That's like me saying "I drove through Texas once and George Bush is not fit to be President"
You mean they were not on the same boat AT THE SAME TIME?!?!?
That is an outrageous distortion on the part of O'Niell!!!!
if that is the case it reveals the partisan agenda of his statement!
Originally posted by billybobsky
Nope. They were hand selected. There is no validity of the claims of these men other than the simple fact that they now have this opinion of kerry -- it would be as if I found the friends you once had that you pissed off and asked if they would confirm you are an arogant asshole. Kerry was primarily bad-mouthing his commanders in the early '70s... I know from personal experience that a single event can turn an entire department against you, so even your example is wrong...
Things only have weight when you consider them in the light of who/what/where and how... Given those considerations this is a minimal blip on an otherwise overly senstive radar... Regardless, your in canada, why should i give a flying fvck what you think? How is that for american arogance?
You have no basis for saying they were hand selected. None. Go prove it.
Originally posted by segovius
Ok, anti is maybe a bit strong. I'm guessing you are basing your incredulity on Kerry's insistence in going to the UN re Iraq and his promotion of a UN role there now as well as his declared intention to reinstate America there if he wins....err...hold on.....I'm defeating my own argument....umm err, well, ok he may not be totally anti UN but he is definitely all those other things.....AND we don't know that he's not just blowing it out of his exhaust either.
Oh look, semantics and hair splitting. The proof of Kerry's liberalism is in his voting record. You can't point to handful of positions and say "He's Bush Lite!!!". Joe Liebermann...now HE was Bush lite. National Journal ranks Kerry THE most liberal Senator in the US. That's a fact, and some partisan hack or rant.
He's not moderate.
Originally posted by jimmac
Now tell us the rest of the story. You've been repeating that so long part of it has become true.
Jobs were a real issue in this last recession. Given Mr. Bush's record of handling the economy what's to keep things from not being so rosy after the election?
I love what we're doing in Iraq :
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html
The WOT is kind of not doing so well ( it kind of reminds me of the " War On Drugs " ).
By the way were's those WOMD?
How could 911 have happened at all given that someone knew Al-Queda was planning to use airplanes as weapons?
Also look at that deficit go! Too bad it used to be a surplus not long ago.
Sorry SDW, myself and many others aren't buying today.
Many of the things that Bush has told us aren't exactly like he led us to believe ( or just aren't true at all ).
Rather than have Bush continue to reck the country and our way of life I'd rather have Kerry in a heatbeat.
We're not just measuring a lesser of evils. We're measuring Kerry against the worst!
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
Bush is Satan. Yes, we know, jimmac.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Bush is Satan.
What if?
Originally posted by SDW2001
You have no basis for saying they were hand selected. None. Go prove it.
From your article:
"people contacted by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth responded"
Hand picked or at least on a list compiled by people who want this exact type of result. You just shouldn't trust a 'poll' done by an agency that has an alterior motive.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Bush is Satan. Yes, we know, jimmac.
Nope! But as a leader he's the next best thing.
How about answering the WOMD question? Those don't seem to have turned up yet.
I realize you don't have any real answers. I'm just asking.