October Indifference:
The Democrats Apathy Toward John Kerry

Democrats — By on October 25, 2004 at 9:02 am

Over the weekend the blogosphere was abuzz with anticipation after Powerline teased that a major newspaper would be breaking a story that would be damaging to the Kerry campaign. This morning the Washington Times broke the news that ‘



  • Anonymous

    Democrats are indifferent to

  • Anonymous

    Democrats are indifferent to

  • http://www.InklingBooks.com/inklingblog/ Mike Perry

    You got it exactly right about Democrats. Integrity and honesty matter little to them. In the mid-1990s, some 20 women accused Washington state governor Mike Lowry, a liberal Democrat, of sexual harassment, gropping etc. Despite that, Lowry wanted to run again and party officials had to force him not to. The polls said he still had the support of most Democats and would win the primary, But those same polls also showed that his behavior meant he didn’t stand a chance getting elected. Democrats didn’t mind the sexual harassment. Everyone else did.
    That said, there is hope for independents and the undecided being influenced by this. I know someone who was very influenced by the image Kerry conveyed during the debates. The fact that he was lying to establish credibility may sway her.

  • http://www.InklingBooks.com/inklingblog/ Mike Perry

    You got it exactly right about Democrats. Integrity and honesty matter little to them. In the mid-1990s, some 20 women accused Washington state governor Mike Lowry, a liberal Democrat, of sexual harassment, gropping etc. Despite that, Lowry wanted to run again and party officials had to force him not to. The polls said he still had the support of most Democats and would win the primary, But those same polls also showed that his behavior meant he didn’t stand a chance getting elected. Democrats didn’t mind the sexual harassment. Everyone else did.
    That said, there is hope for independents and the undecided being influenced by this. I know someone who was very influenced by the image Kerry conveyed during the debates. The fact that he was lying to establish credibility may sway her.

  • Ronald Wallenfang

    Kerry is a proven liar. He is a religious hypocrite of the first order. “Gigolo John” also lives high off the wealth of his wives.
    Oh, and his political views are all wrong too. Liberals like his politial views and care less about anything else!

  • Ronald Wallenfang

    Kerry is a proven liar. He is a religious hypocrite of the first order. “Gigolo John” also lives high off the wealth of his wives.
    Oh, and his political views are all wrong too. Liberals like his politial views and care less about anything else!

  • ~DS~

    Sorry folks. All due respect to your ‘October surprise’, meanwhile 380 tons of RDX and HDX have been looted from an unsecured site in Iraq. It was known about and reported to the CPA by the IEAE, but for some odd reason the Bush admin didn’t make securing it a priority…oh and they didn’t bother to tell anyone. That’s 380 tons of high powered reasons why the world is in more danger now than before the invasion. Bravo! our guys are being killed with explosives that we let the insurgents have!

  • ~DS~

    Sorry folks. All due respect to your ‘October surprise’, meanwhile 380 tons of RDX and HDX have been looted from an unsecured site in Iraq. It was known about and reported to the CPA by the IEAE, but for some odd reason the Bush admin didn’t make securing it a priority…oh and they didn’t bother to tell anyone. That’s 380 tons of high powered reasons why the world is in more danger now than before the invasion. Bravo! our guys are being killed with explosives that we let the insurgents have!

  • Ken

    I know from experience (usually on the receiving end) that if they talk about their Concern and Compassion (TM), they’re a sociopath.
    Compassion (TM): the sure sign of a sociopath.

  • Ken

    I know from experience (usually on the receiving end) that if they talk about their Concern and Compassion (TM), they’re a sociopath.
    Compassion (TM): the sure sign of a sociopath.

  • http://pseudopolymath.blogspot.com/ Mark O

    ~DS~,
    Of course what you (and the unbiased NYT) fail to mention is that this theft occured a long time ago. Do ya ever wonder why the article sprung this week? I guess it’s a “non-partisan” NYT attempt at their own October surprise.
    Do ya think they would want to report an estimate of how much High explosives *were* lying around in that time period? No? And what percentage do you think the 377 tons represents? No?
    Didn’t think so.

  • http://pseudopolymath.blogspot.com/ Mark O

    ~DS~,
    Of course what you (and the unbiased NYT) fail to mention is that this theft occured a long time ago. Do ya ever wonder why the article sprung this week? I guess it’s a “non-partisan” NYT attempt at their own October surprise.
    Do ya think they would want to report an estimate of how much High explosives *were* lying around in that time period? No? And what percentage do you think the 377 tons represents? No?
    Didn’t think so.

  • http://pseudopolymath.blogspot.com/ Mark O

    ~DS~,
    Oh, one other thing. Your comment just demonstrates Joe’s point. You don’t give a rat’s ass about Kerry’s integrity or lack.

  • http://pseudopolymath.blogspot.com/ Mark O

    ~DS~,
    Oh, one other thing. Your comment just demonstrates Joe’s point. You don’t give a rat’s ass about Kerry’s integrity or lack.

  • Mikey

    Great points, good thing we’ve had men of real character like Nixon and the gang, Newt, Ollie, Trent and Delay – all of whom were unfairly attacked for their integrity. Hey, wait…

  • Mikey

    Great points, good thing we’ve had men of real character like Nixon and the gang, Newt, Ollie, Trent and Delay – all of whom were unfairly attacked for their integrity. Hey, wait…

  • ~DS~

    There is no way to judge integrity in a politician, what we get is pure inagery and fluff, we get what they want us to see from both sides. Personality spin. So it’s best if you want to make a solid judgement on the isssues to stick with facts. I’d makwe the case that’s tough to be both moral, informed, and a Bush supporter over Kerry given the facts but again since these are subjective values it’s easy to deludes oneself.
    The explosives story is what’s on the AOL Welcome screen and all over the news today. It’s the one getting covered not the UN stuff. It has the legs, at least for now, so I think you folks should consider taking it seriously especially given that the centerpiece of Bush’s foreign policy is terrorism and safety. And this is the story which is more likely to kill Americans.
    So far what appears to be the facts are that On March 1, 2003, before the invasion, when those explosives were under scrutiny, lock, and key, by the UN Inspectors, they couldn’t be used against us or anyone else without it being noticed they were gone. Now they are gone and either no one noticed…or they didn’t bother to tell anyone. But some are making the case that we’re safer with them in the hands of terrorists? That doesn’t make any sense to me folks. It seems to me the world is clearly better off in a scenario where the terrorists don’t have 380 tons of high explosives than one in which they do.
    But I’m willing to listen if someone wants to try and explain it to me. What threat is it that Iraq or Iraqi’s posed to us in March 2003 that they don’t pose now? Explain it to me very carefully and specifically using facts-not opinion-why the US is safer now, than we were then?
    “I can’t believe we haven’t been on top of this from the get-go. By not securing these sites, we’re killing our selves”, Soldier from the 39th Brigade of the AR Nat’l Guard upon seeing a looted ammo dump that had been left unsecured for months.

  • ~DS~

    There is no way to judge integrity in a politician, what we get is pure inagery and fluff, we get what they want us to see from both sides. Personality spin. So it’s best if you want to make a solid judgement on the isssues to stick with facts. I’d makwe the case that’s tough to be both moral, informed, and a Bush supporter over Kerry given the facts but again since these are subjective values it’s easy to deludes oneself.
    The explosives story is what’s on the AOL Welcome screen and all over the news today. It’s the one getting covered not the UN stuff. It has the legs, at least for now, so I think you folks should consider taking it seriously especially given that the centerpiece of Bush’s foreign policy is terrorism and safety. And this is the story which is more likely to kill Americans.
    So far what appears to be the facts are that On March 1, 2003, before the invasion, when those explosives were under scrutiny, lock, and key, by the UN Inspectors, they couldn’t be used against us or anyone else without it being noticed they were gone. Now they are gone and either no one noticed…or they didn’t bother to tell anyone. But some are making the case that we’re safer with them in the hands of terrorists? That doesn’t make any sense to me folks. It seems to me the world is clearly better off in a scenario where the terrorists don’t have 380 tons of high explosives than one in which they do.
    But I’m willing to listen if someone wants to try and explain it to me. What threat is it that Iraq or Iraqi’s posed to us in March 2003 that they don’t pose now? Explain it to me very carefully and specifically using facts-not opinion-why the US is safer now, than we were then?
    “I can’t believe we haven’t been on top of this from the get-go. By not securing these sites, we’re killing our selves”, Soldier from the 39th Brigade of the AR Nat’l Guard upon seeing a looted ammo dump that had been left unsecured for months.

  • http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/ Joe Carter

    DS,
    So far what appears to be the facts are that On March 1, 2003, before the invasion, when those explosives were under scrutiny, lock, and key, by the UN Inspectors, they couldn’t be used against us or anyone else without it being noticed they were gone.
    Actually, that

  • http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com Joe Carter

    DS,
    So far what appears to be the facts are that On March 1, 2003, before the invasion, when those explosives were under scrutiny, lock, and key, by the UN Inspectors, they couldn’t be used against us or anyone else without it being noticed they were gone.
    Actually, that

  • Jack

    I have found that when it comes to Kerry’s duplicity, his supporters fall into three camps:

    Kerry supporters don’t care if their candidate lies. They either hate Bush so much or are so indifferent to character that it simply doesn’t matter to them that their candidate has been shown to be absolutely capable of making up facts to support his positions, as long as he wins.
    Kerry supporters are the ultimate cynics. They know their candidate is dishonest, but think all politicians are dishonest, so they just picked the one whose lies they happen to agree with.
    Kerry supporters think there candidate is honest, but a vast journalistic conspiracy exists to make him out to be dishonest.

    I would be interested to hear which option Kerry supporters pick to explain this latest ‘tall tale’ from Kerry.

  • Jack

    I have found that when it comes to Kerry’s duplicity, his supporters fall into three camps:

    1. Kerry supporters don’t care if their candidate lies. They either hate Bush so much or are so indifferent to character that it simply doesn’t matter to them that their candidate has been shown to be absolutely capable of making up facts to support his positions, as long as he wins.
    2. Kerry supporters are the ultimate cynics. They know their candidate is dishonest, but think all politicians are dishonest, so they just picked the one whose lies they happen to agree with.
    3. Kerry supporters think there candidate is honest, but a vast journalistic conspiracy exists to make him out to be dishonest.

    I would be interested to hear which option Kerry supporters pick to explain this latest ‘tall tale’ from Kerry.

  • ~DS~

    Joe again, how are we safer with those explosives missing as opposed to known about and inventoried? This is where your argument is going to be challenged.
    I’m not the guy making this stuff up. Just since I posted the first indication there has been a huge buzz, sites discussing this are getting record hits. And you better believe every IED that goes off from here on out will bring this topic to the forefront. Reletives of soldiers in coutnry and on active status are pissed.
    What makes it really damaging is several jounrnalists are working on stories showing that A} they had no way to NOT know about it, B} they did bnot secure them, C }they DID secure the oil ministry…that’s all going to play very badly.
    Your welcome to practice your responses on me, but don’t kid yousself Joe. This could be a huge issue and saying we’re better off with those explosives unaccounted for than accounted for is not going to fly outside of those who supoprt Bush already.
    Here’s a copy of the K/E ’04 e-mail I’ve receieved in my inbox from eight different folks in the last two hours and which is jamming the cable and news channels:
    This morning, The New York Times published a story that offers further proof of how the Bush administration’s incompetence and arrogance has endangered the lives of our troops and the American people.
    Even before invading Iraq, the Bush administration knew that a huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, contained nearly 380 tons of deadly explosives. Despite the fact that they knew exactly where this facility was and what was there, they took no action to secure or protect the site. Due to the stunning incompetence of the Bush administration and their incomprehensible failure to plan, these explosives have disappeared.
    Let me put this in perspective — the bomb that took down Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland used less than one pound of this same explosive. There were 760,000 pounds at Al Qaqaa.
    You can read the article by visiting:
    http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2004_1025.html
    Our troops are the best-trained and best-led forces in the world, and they have been doing their job honorably and bravely. The problem is the commander in chief has not being doing his. George Bush refuses to recognize his failures in Iraq, so he can’t fix them and is doomed to repeat them.
    Thank you,
    Joe Lockhart
    Senior Advisor
    P.S. Use our online volunteer center to talk to your local media outlets about this story:
    http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/speakout/
    After being warned about the danger of major stockpiles of explosives in Iraq, this administration failed to guard those stockpiles. This is one of the great blunders of the Bush policy in Iraq. The administration has several key questions to answer:
    Why did the administration ignore warnings from the IAEA to secure the nearly 380 tons of explosives in Iraq?
    Did President Bush’s failure to listen to General Shinseki and others about the troop levels that would be needed to secure Iraq after the initial military operations contribute to the military’s inability to secure the site?
    How many terrorist bombings in Iraq, Egypt or elsewhere have been carried out using HMX, RDX or PETN explosives since 2002?
    Who knew what, when? When was the civilian leadership at the Pentagon told about the missing explosives? When did Secretary Rumsfeld learn that the explosives had gone missing? When was the president’s National Security Council informed? When was national security advisor Condoleezza Rice briefed on this? When was the president told?
    What is the chronology of action taken by the Bush administration after being informed that the explosives had gone missing?
    Has the site been inspected recently?
    Why did the Bush administration deny the IAEA’s request to go back into Iraq to verify the status of the stockpile?
    What action did Paul Bremer take after reportedly being warned in May 2004 that the explosives had gone missing?
    In addition to the missing explosives and reports of machine tools that can be used for nuclear and non nuclear purposes, what other sites in Iraq with dangerous material were not adequately protected and subsequently looted?
    Is there an estimate for the total amount of munitions, weapons and explosives that have gone missing in Iraq?

  • ~DS~

    Joe again, how are we safer with those explosives missing as opposed to known about and inventoried? This is where your argument is going to be challenged.
    I’m not the guy making this stuff up. Just since I posted the first indication there has been a huge buzz, sites discussing this are getting record hits. And you better believe every IED that goes off from here on out will bring this topic to the forefront. Reletives of soldiers in coutnry and on active status are pissed.
    What makes it really damaging is several jounrnalists are working on stories showing that A} they had no way to NOT know about it, B} they did bnot secure them, C }they DID secure the oil ministry…that’s all going to play very badly.
    Your welcome to practice your responses on me, but don’t kid yousself Joe. This could be a huge issue and saying we’re better off with those explosives unaccounted for than accounted for is not going to fly outside of those who supoprt Bush already.
    Here’s a copy of the K/E ’04 e-mail I’ve receieved in my inbox from eight different folks in the last two hours and which is jamming the cable and news channels:
    This morning, The New York Times published a story that offers further proof of how the Bush administration’s incompetence and arrogance has endangered the lives of our troops and the American people.
    Even before invading Iraq, the Bush administration knew that a huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, contained nearly 380 tons of deadly explosives. Despite the fact that they knew exactly where this facility was and what was there, they took no action to secure or protect the site. Due to the stunning incompetence of the Bush administration and their incomprehensible failure to plan, these explosives have disappeared.
    Let me put this in perspective — the bomb that took down Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland used less than one pound of this same explosive. There were 760,000 pounds at Al Qaqaa.
    You can read the article by visiting:
    http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2004_1025.html
    Our troops are the best-trained and best-led forces in the world, and they have been doing their job honorably and bravely. The problem is the commander in chief has not being doing his. George Bush refuses to recognize his failures in Iraq, so he can’t fix them and is doomed to repeat them.
    Thank you,
    Joe Lockhart
    Senior Advisor
    P.S. Use our online volunteer center to talk to your local media outlets about this story:
    http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/speakout/
    After being warned about the danger of major stockpiles of explosives in Iraq, this administration failed to guard those stockpiles. This is one of the great blunders of the Bush policy in Iraq. The administration has several key questions to answer:
    Why did the administration ignore warnings from the IAEA to secure the nearly 380 tons of explosives in Iraq?
    Did President Bush’s failure to listen to General Shinseki and others about the troop levels that would be needed to secure Iraq after the initial military operations contribute to the military’s inability to secure the site?
    How many terrorist bombings in Iraq, Egypt or elsewhere have been carried out using HMX, RDX or PETN explosives since 2002?
    Who knew what, when? When was the civilian leadership at the Pentagon told about the missing explosives? When did Secretary Rumsfeld learn that the explosives had gone missing? When was the president’s National Security Council informed? When was national security advisor Condoleezza Rice briefed on this? When was the president told?
    What is the chronology of action taken by the Bush administration after being informed that the explosives had gone missing?
    Has the site been inspected recently?
    Why did the Bush administration deny the IAEA’s request to go back into Iraq to verify the status of the stockpile?
    What action did Paul Bremer take after reportedly being warned in May 2004 that the explosives had gone missing?
    In addition to the missing explosives and reports of machine tools that can be used for nuclear and non nuclear purposes, what other sites in Iraq with dangerous material were not adequately protected and subsequently looted?
    Is there an estimate for the total amount of munitions, weapons and explosives that have gone missing in Iraq?

  • http://www.gryphmon.com/ Gryph

    “A story showing once again that John Kerry is a liar is not an October Surprise. It’s not even news. It’s merely further confirmation of what we

  • http://www.gryphmon.com Gryph

    “A story showing once again that John Kerry is a liar is not an October Surprise. It’s not even news. It’s merely further confirmation of what we

  • George

    You know, I almost forgot one of the most fascinating tropes of the left in my earlier post. Besides lying and resorting to violence, the left, when threatened, loves to change the subject, usually in an ad hominem direction.
    Thanks, DS, for reminding me.

  • George

    You know, I almost forgot one of the most fascinating tropes of the left in my earlier post. Besides lying and resorting to violence, the left, when threatened, loves to change the subject, usually in an ad hominem direction.
    Thanks, DS, for reminding me.

  • http://www.leanleft.com/ tgirsch

    Coming from an avid Bush supporter, I find your accusations of me not caring about my candidate’s integrity to be laughable.

  • http://www.leanleft.com/ tgirsch

    Coming from an avid Bush supporter, I find your accusations of me not caring about my candidate’s integrity to be laughable.

  • http://www.leanleft.com/ tgirsch

    Also, if Kerry’s the one who lies so much, then why is it that it’s overwhelmingly Bush’s supporters who continue to believe false things?

  • http://www.leanleft.com/ tgirsch

    Also, if Kerry’s the one who lies so much, then why is it that it’s overwhelmingly Bush’s supporters who continue to believe false things?

  • ~DS~

    George the topic is integrity. The headlines today show a huge mistake was made with regard to this weapons depot by the SecDef or CENTCOM, or the WH, take your pick. Now we have a chance to observe the integrity of the WH responding and in this instance we aren’t talking about sexual affairs or parsing words. It doesn’t get anymore serious than screw ups which endagner our troops and the rest fo the world as well. So now we get to observe the integrity of the WH as to how they respond…So far, they haven’t responded at all.

  • ~DS~

    George the topic is integrity. The headlines today show a huge mistake was made with regard to this weapons depot by the SecDef or CENTCOM, or the WH, take your pick. Now we have a chance to observe the integrity of the WH responding and in this instance we aren’t talking about sexual affairs or parsing words. It doesn’t get anymore serious than screw ups which endagner our troops and the rest fo the world as well. So now we get to observe the integrity of the WH as to how they respond…So far, they haven’t responded at all.

  • Jack

    So just as I suspected, no Kerry supporter actually tries to defend Kerry’s statements; which causes one to wonder – are they the least bit concerned about their candidates penchant for fantasy, or merely dissemblers themselves?

  • Jack

    So just as I suspected, no Kerry supporter actually tries to defend Kerry’s statements; which causes one to wonder – are they the least bit concerned about their candidates penchant for fantasy, or merely dissemblers themselves?

  • Rich

    Note the following timeline from the Boston Globe:

    January 2003: IAEA inspectors viewed the explosives at Al-Qaqaa for the last time. The inspectors took an inventory and again placed storage bunkers at Al-Qaqaa under agency seal.
    February 2003: IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei told the United Nations that Iraq had declared that ”HMX previously under IAEA seal had been transferred for use in the production of industrial explosives.” This apparently did not include the HMX that remained under seal at Al-Qaqaa.
    March 2003: Nuclear agency inspectors visited Al-Qaqaa for the last time but did not examine the explosives because the seals were not broken. The inspectors then pulled out of the country.
    March 2003: The U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq.
    After the invasion: The Pentagon said Monday that ”coalition forces were present in the vicinity at various times during and after major combat operations. The forces searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings at the facility, but found no indicators of WMD (weapons of mass destruction). While some explosive material was discovered, none of it carried IAEA seals.

    The explosives with IAEA seals must have thus been removed prior to OIF. Why did IAEA not remove or destroy components of a ballistic missile per U.N. Security Council Resolution 687?

  • Rich

    Note the following timeline from the Boston Globe:

    January 2003: IAEA inspectors viewed the explosives at Al-Qaqaa for the last time. The inspectors took an inventory and again placed storage bunkers at Al-Qaqaa under agency seal.
    February 2003: IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei told the United Nations that Iraq had declared that ”HMX previously under IAEA seal had been transferred for use in the production of industrial explosives.” This apparently did not include the HMX that remained under seal at Al-Qaqaa.
    March 2003: Nuclear agency inspectors visited Al-Qaqaa for the last time but did not examine the explosives because the seals were not broken. The inspectors then pulled out of the country.
    March 2003: The U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq.
    After the invasion: The Pentagon said Monday that ”coalition forces were present in the vicinity at various times during and after major combat operations. The forces searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings at the facility, but found no indicators of WMD (weapons of mass destruction). While some explosive material was discovered, none of it carried IAEA seals.

    The explosives with IAEA seals must have thus been removed prior to OIF. Why did IAEA not remove or destroy components of a ballistic missile per U.N. Security Council Resolution 687?

  • http://johncoleman.typepad.com/ John

    One of the first things I learned watching intercollegiate extemporaneous speaking was that among people who are more worried about victory than accuracy or truth, the litmus test for what can and cannot be said becomes what one can get away with.
    Lies are often effective rhetorical devices. Kerry has a past that benefits from embelishment. So, he lies to get elected (when he thinks he won’t get caught). Dick Cheney joked that he had never seen John Edwards in the senate because it was rhetorically effective as a fisk of his opponent.
    One of the biggest problems with our electoral system (nothing new, I might add) is that it encourages this type of behavior. Read the literature on public choice and you see a whole new world of bureaucratic self-interest. Re-read Hayek, when he discusses the fact that in fascist and communist societies, only the worst and most unscrupulous among us ascend to rule. Look at the modern U.S.
    The more power you confer on these governmental offices, the more corrupt will be the candidates who challenge one another for the positions. And, if the candidates are not corrupt, their administrations, generally, are filled with those who are.
    The old adage states that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” With the current system, we are bound to receive a never-ending stream of liars and power-hungry, ambition driven egomaniacs. The question is not why are they sociopaths. The question is how do we restructure the system and the society to select against them.

  • http://johncoleman.typepad.com John

    One of the first things I learned watching intercollegiate extemporaneous speaking was that among people who are more worried about victory than accuracy or truth, the litmus test for what can and cannot be said becomes what one can get away with.
    Lies are often effective rhetorical devices. Kerry has a past that benefits from embelishment. So, he lies to get elected (when he thinks he won’t get caught). Dick Cheney joked that he had never seen John Edwards in the senate because it was rhetorically effective as a fisk of his opponent.
    One of the biggest problems with our electoral system (nothing new, I might add) is that it encourages this type of behavior. Read the literature on public choice and you see a whole new world of bureaucratic self-interest. Re-read Hayek, when he discusses the fact that in fascist and communist societies, only the worst and most unscrupulous among us ascend to rule. Look at the modern U.S.
    The more power you confer on these governmental offices, the more corrupt will be the candidates who challenge one another for the positions. And, if the candidates are not corrupt, their administrations, generally, are filled with those who are.
    The old adage states that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” With the current system, we are bound to receive a never-ending stream of liars and power-hungry, ambition driven egomaniacs. The question is not why are they sociopaths. The question is how do we restructure the system and the society to select against them.

  • Larrry Lord

    Mark O., eternally clueless, writes
    “~DS~, Of course what you (and the unbiased NYT) fail to mention is that this theft occured a long time ago. Do ya ever wonder why the article sprung this week? I guess it’s a “non-partisan” NYT attempt at their own October surprise.”
    No, Mark. Only shameless pretend hacks like you pretend that the inept lazy folks at the New York Times are “liberally biased.”
    The clear answer to your question is that our “professional” media simply failed until recently to seriously ask the obvious question about where the Iraqi insurgents were getting their explosives.
    But go ahead, Mark: blame the liberal media. After all, those are the instructions provided to you on page 1 of your Bush-apologist script, written in simple sentences for elementary schoolchildren like yourself to understand.

  • Larrry Lord

    Mark O., eternally clueless, writes
    “~DS~, Of course what you (and the unbiased NYT) fail to mention is that this theft occured a long time ago. Do ya ever wonder why the article sprung this week? I guess it’s a “non-partisan” NYT attempt at their own October surprise.”
    No, Mark. Only shameless pretend hacks like you pretend that the inept lazy folks at the New York Times are “liberally biased.”
    The clear answer to your question is that our “professional” media simply failed until recently to seriously ask the obvious question about where the Iraqi insurgents were getting their explosives.
    But go ahead, Mark: blame the liberal media. After all, those are the instructions provided to you on page 1 of your Bush-apologist script, written in simple sentences for elementary schoolchildren like yourself to understand.

  • ~DS~

    Amen John. People still seem to labor under the illusion that one party can be “trusted” to do the “right thing” because they’re morally superior to the other. It’s pretty funny when one looks at history to realize that people from either side seriously entertain that notion.
    We’re best served when our leaders are under intense scrutiny and that generally comes about when there’s a split between who controls one House of Congress vs the Oval office; and a media industry heavily focused on investigative journalism doesn’t hurt. Personally I’d like to see a third party in the mix and I wouldn’t mind four or five, but we need at least two to keep both in check.

  • ~DS~

    Amen John. People still seem to labor under the illusion that one party can be “trusted” to do the “right thing” because they’re morally superior to the other. It’s pretty funny when one looks at history to realize that people from either side seriously entertain that notion.
    We’re best served when our leaders are under intense scrutiny and that generally comes about when there’s a split between who controls one House of Congress vs the Oval office; and a media industry heavily focused on investigative journalism doesn’t hurt. Personally I’d like to see a third party in the mix and I wouldn’t mind four or five, but we need at least two to keep both in check.

  • Larry Lord

    Markos responds to Mark O.’s inane question:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/25/11273/423
    Once again, Condi Rice proves she can lick the floor with dirtiest roaches alive.

  • Larry Lord

    Markos responds to Mark O.’s inane question:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/25/11273/423
    Once again, Condi Rice proves she can lick the floor with dirtiest roaches alive.

  • http://pseudopolymath.blogspot.com/ Mark O

    ~DS~:
    Why do you think the WH should respond (besides partisan political ones). What fraction of munitions in dumps placed pre-invasion by Iraq do you think this missing explosives represents? 1 part in 1000? less? This was during a major invasion right? What am I missing?

  • http://pseudopolymath.blogspot.com/ Mark O

    ~DS~:
    Why do you think the WH should respond (besides partisan political ones). What fraction of munitions in dumps placed pre-invasion by Iraq do you think this missing explosives represents? 1 part in 1000? less? This was during a major invasion right? What am I missing?

  • Larry Lord

    The “liberally biased” Wall Street Journal has an article today which discusses our Commander in Chump’s incompetent self-serving and criminally negligent decision making when it comes to protecting American lives (i.e., removing Saddam more important than protecting Americans from known terrorists in our immediate sights):
    As the toll of mayhem inspired by terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi mounts in Iraq, some former officials and military officers increasingly wonder whether the Bush administration made a mistake months before the start of the war by stopping the military from attacking his camp in the northeastern part of that country.
    The Pentagon drew up detailed plans in June 2002, giving the administration a series of options for a military strike on the camp Mr. Zarqawi was running then in remote northeastern Iraq, according to generals who were involved directly in planning the attack and several former White House staffers. They said the camp, near the town of Khurmal, was known to contain Mr. Zarqawi and his supporters as well as al Qaeda fighters, all of whom had fled from Afghanistan. Intelligence indicated the camp was training recruits and making poisons for attacks against the West.
    . . .
    But the raid on Mr. Zarqawi didn’t take place. Months passed with no approval of the plan from the White House, until word came down just weeks before the March 19, 2003, start of the Iraq war that Mr. Bush had rejected any strike on the camp until after an official outbreak of hostilities with Iraq. Ultimately, the camp was hit just after the invasion of Iraq began.

  • Larry Lord

    The “liberally biased” Wall Street Journal has an article today which discusses our Commander in Chump’s incompetent self-serving and criminally negligent decision making when it comes to protecting American lives (i.e., removing Saddam more important than protecting Americans from known terrorists in our immediate sights):
    As the toll of mayhem inspired by terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi mounts in Iraq, some former officials and military officers increasingly wonder whether the Bush administration made a mistake months before the start of the war by stopping the military from attacking his camp in the northeastern part of that country.
    The Pentagon drew up detailed plans in June 2002, giving the administration a series of options for a military strike on the camp Mr. Zarqawi was running then in remote northeastern Iraq, according to generals who were involved directly in planning the attack and several former White House staffers. They said the camp, near the town of Khurmal, was known to contain Mr. Zarqawi and his supporters as well as al Qaeda fighters, all of whom had fled from Afghanistan. Intelligence indicated the camp was training recruits and making poisons for attacks against the West.
    . . .
    But the raid on Mr. Zarqawi didn’t take place. Months passed with no approval of the plan from the White House, until word came down just weeks before the March 19, 2003, start of the Iraq war that Mr. Bush had rejected any strike on the camp until after an official outbreak of hostilities with Iraq. Ultimately, the camp was hit just after the invasion of Iraq began.

  • Jack

    So , based on this thread I take it the left’s response to “Is John Kerry a sociopathic liar?” is “Hey, look at that headline over there!”. Sort of the rhetorical equivalent of “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”

  • Jack

    So , based on this thread I take it the left’s response to “Is John Kerry a sociopathic liar?” is “Hey, look at that headline over there!”. Sort of the rhetorical equivalent of “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”

  • ~DS~

    Mark O it seems to me that this was a pretty big depot. And it’s not the only one they let go either. We didn’t mroe to secure a ton of stuff all over the place. We didn’t have enough troops to do it even if we had tried.
    They knew about it, they were told about it, it was public knowledge, they have sat photos of it…If the sat photos show the thing being emptied prior to March ’03 I suspect we’ll hear about it shortly. If we don’t see that explanationw with the evidence, or if we hear that claim but the evidence is real sketchy, we’ll know they’re covering their ass.
    The war has two primary points of weakness.
    1. The WMD’s and the links to 9-11/AQ have not been found
    2. The war was prosecuted with too few troops to control the country which directly led to the predictment we’re in today. Warnings to the DoD are on public record from senior military management on this matter which were ignored.
    (Had either one of those failures not happened, the GOP would be sitting on an airtight lead right now)
    This issue with the missing explosive underscores the second failure in a fairly substantial way that is most likely causing CPA and Iraqi deaths, so that’s a fairly powerful indictment of a President that is running on his War Competence.

  • ~DS~

    Mark O it seems to me that this was a pretty big depot. And it’s not the only one they let go either. We didn’t mroe to secure a ton of stuff all over the place. We didn’t have enough troops to do it even if we had tried.
    They knew about it, they were told about it, it was public knowledge, they have sat photos of it…If the sat photos show the thing being emptied prior to March ’03 I suspect we’ll hear about it shortly. If we don’t see that explanationw with the evidence, or if we hear that claim but the evidence is real sketchy, we’ll know they’re covering their ass.
    The war has two primary points of weakness.
    1. The WMD’s and the links to 9-11/AQ have not been found
    2. The war was prosecuted with too few troops to control the country which directly led to the predictment we’re in today. Warnings to the DoD are on public record from senior military management on this matter which were ignored.
    (Had either one of those failures not happened, the GOP would be sitting on an airtight lead right now)
    This issue with the missing explosive underscores the second failure in a fairly substantial way that is most likely causing CPA and Iraqi deaths, so that’s a fairly powerful indictment of a President that is running on his War Competence.

  • Larry Lord

    Jack hits the nail on the head:
    “based on this thread I take it the left’s response to “Is John Kerry a sociopathic liar?” is “Hey, look at that headline over there!”. Sort of the rhetorical equivalent of “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”
    Exactly. The claim that Kerry is a sociopathic liar is so idiotic and hypocritical it’s not worth responding to. By way of analogy:
    You: “George Bush is Satan incarnate.”
    Me: “Are you crazy?”
    You: “Oh, trying to change the subject, are we?”

  • Larry Lord

    Jack hits the nail on the head:
    “based on this thread I take it the left’s response to “Is John Kerry a sociopathic liar?” is “Hey, look at that headline over there!”. Sort of the rhetorical equivalent of “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”
    Exactly. The claim that Kerry is a sociopathic liar is so idiotic and hypocritical it’s not worth responding to. By way of analogy:
    You: “George Bush is Satan incarnate.”
    Me: “Are you crazy?”
    You: “Oh, trying to change the subject, are we?”

  • Larry Lord

    DS writes
    “This issue with the missing explosive underscores the second failure in a fairly substantial way that is most likely causing CPA and Iraqi deaths, so that’s a fairly powerful indictment of a President that is running on his War Competence.”
    Yes, and let’s not forget crap like the Bush Admin policies which led to Abu Ghraib, a debacle which understandably but unnecessarily ignited anti-American rage in thousands of Arabs in Iraq and around the world.
    Of course, it was common sense among rational people who weren’t blinded by religious hate, lust for vengeance, or ignorant paranoia, that invading Iraq was going to create more trouble for the United States and the world than it would prevent, even if the invasion HAD been properly planned for which it clearly wasn’t.

  • Larry Lord

    DS writes
    “This issue with the missing explosive underscores the second failure in a fairly substantial way that is most likely causing CPA and Iraqi deaths, so that’s a fairly powerful indictment of a President that is running on his War Competence.”
    Yes, and let’s not forget crap like the Bush Admin policies which led to Abu Ghraib, a debacle which understandably but unnecessarily ignited anti-American rage in thousands of Arabs in Iraq and around the world.
    Of course, it was common sense among rational people who weren’t blinded by religious hate, lust for vengeance, or ignorant paranoia, that invading Iraq was going to create more trouble for the United States and the world than it would prevent, even if the invasion HAD been properly planned for which it clearly wasn’t.

  • Jack

    Exactly. The claim that Kerry is a sociopathic liar is so idiotic and hypocritical it’s not worth responding to. By way of analogy:
    You: “George Bush is Satan incarnate.”
    Me: “Are you crazy?”
    You: “Oh, trying to change the subject, are we?

    We could argue about whether or not Satan exists; but the fact that Kerry is telling bald faced lies is now a matter of objective record.
    Kerry’s blatant lies are of course the actual topic of the thread, based on the claims by Kerry’s that he had spoken with top level officials at the UN concerning the situation in Iraq. Presumably, this was to inform his vote to send troops into harms way, thus
    creating the situation you are discussing now. This statement has now been shown to be false.
    If he didn’t in fact talk to UN security council members, then he is at least guilty of the most frightening lie, i.e., the delusional lie, of the sort so easily disproved that it can only be the product of a mind that can convince itself of something.
    And considering he stated it repeatedly tells us that he actually believed it to be true, even though we now know that isn’t so.
    So we have US Senator voting to send troops into harms way based on a lie he made up and later came to believe. Personally, this frightens me more than Bush’s excuse of ‘faulty intelligence’.
    Jack

  • Jack

    Exactly. The claim that Kerry is a sociopathic liar is so idiotic and hypocritical it’s not worth responding to. By way of analogy:
    You: “George Bush is Satan incarnate.”
    Me: “Are you crazy?”
    You: “Oh, trying to change the subject, are we?

    We could argue about whether or not Satan exists; but the fact that Kerry is telling bald faced lies is now a matter of objective record.
    Kerry’s blatant lies are of course the actual topic of the thread, based on the claims by Kerry’s that he had spoken with top level officials at the UN concerning the situation in Iraq. Presumably, this was to inform his vote to send troops into harms way, thus
    creating the situation you are discussing now. This statement has now been shown to be false.
    If he didn’t in fact talk to UN security council members, then he is at least guilty of the most frightening lie, i.e., the delusional lie, of the sort so easily disproved that it can only be the product of a mind that can convince itself of something.
    And considering he stated it repeatedly tells us that he actually believed it to be true, even though we now know that isn’t so.
    So we have US Senator voting to send troops into harms way based on a lie he made up and later came to believe. Personally, this frightens me more than Bush’s excuse of ‘faulty intelligence’.
    Jack

  • Larry Lord

    Jack, evidently suffering from schizophrenia, writes
    “This statement has now been shown to be false. If he didn’t in fact talk to UN security council members …”
    So which is it? Did he or didn’t he? Has Kerry’s statement (which you failed to quote)been “objectively shown” to be false or not?
    And just for grins, let me know what the hell difference it makes, and when you let me know what the hell difference it makes, please include in your analysis (1) all of the statements by Cheney and Bush and their cronies which have been shown to be false; and (2) the effect those statements have had on the lives of American soldiers and innocent people around the world.
    Thanks man.
    In reality, Kerry’s statement is irrelevant. He is going to be the next President because the ineptness of Bush’s Administration is sucking his chances of re-election right down the drain. Today’s bombshell was only the beginning. Get ready for Bush’s steep wild slide into the history books as the Worst Predisent Ever. WOoo HOOOoooo!!!!!!!!!

  • Larry Lord

    Jack, evidently suffering from schizophrenia, writes
    “This statement has now been shown to be false. If he didn’t in fact talk to UN security council members …”
    So which is it? Did he or didn’t he? Has Kerry’s statement (which you failed to quote)been “objectively shown” to be false or not?
    And just for grins, let me know what the hell difference it makes, and when you let me know what the hell difference it makes, please include in your analysis (1) all of the statements by Cheney and Bush and their cronies which have been shown to be false; and (2) the effect those statements have had on the lives of American soldiers and innocent people around the world.
    Thanks man.
    In reality, Kerry’s statement is irrelevant. He is going to be the next President because the ineptness of Bush’s Administration is sucking his chances of re-election right down the drain. Today’s bombshell was only the beginning. Get ready for Bush’s steep wild slide into the history books as the Worst Predisent Ever. WOoo HOOOoooo!!!!!!!!!

  • George

    tgirsch:
    I enjoyed your comment: “Coming from an avid Bush supporter, I find your accusations of me not caring about my candidate’s integrity to be laughable.”
    A few days ago, when we had a discussion about taxes, you made the suggestion that if I were unwilling to pay tax levels you seem to believe in, I wasn’t willing to “invest” in America. Well, after I stopped laughing, I marveled at your lack of knowledge. You see, In the post you responded to, I noted that one of my (and Teresa’s) primary tax-avoidance “schemes” is the purchase of tax-exempt municipal bonds. I’ve loaned lots of money to CO (my former abode) and TN (my current home), as well as managed muni funds. There is no more direct way of investing in America.
    So, when you comment on integrity, I must wonder exactly what you know about it. You deceptively snipped my comments about munis, and proceeded to change the subject and impugn my patriotism.
    As I said previously, “Besides lying and resorting to violence, the left, when threatened, loves to change the subject, […]” Perfect example. Thank you.
    And your candidate is a documented liar, without the necessity to have relied on bad intelligence.

  • George

    tgirsch:
    I enjoyed your comment: “Coming from an avid Bush supporter, I find your accusations of me not caring about my candidate’s integrity to be laughable.”
    A few days ago, when we had a discussion about taxes, you made the suggestion that if I were unwilling to pay tax levels you seem to believe in, I wasn’t willing to “invest” in America. Well, after I stopped laughing, I marveled at your lack of knowledge. You see, In the post you responded to, I noted that one of my (and Teresa’s) primary tax-avoidance “schemes” is the purchase of tax-exempt municipal bonds. I’ve loaned lots of money to CO (my former abode) and TN (my current home), as well as managed muni funds. There is no more direct way of investing in America.
    So, when you comment on integrity, I must wonder exactly what you know about it. You deceptively snipped my comments about munis, and proceeded to change the subject and impugn my patriotism.
    As I said previously, “Besides lying and resorting to violence, the left, when threatened, loves to change the subject, […]” Perfect example. Thank you.
    And your candidate is a documented liar, without the necessity to have relied on bad intelligence.

  • Jack

    In reality, Kerry’s statement is irrelevant. He is going to be the next President because the ineptness of Bush’s Administration is sucking his chances of re-election right down the drain. Today’s bombshell was only the beginning. Get ready for Bush’s steep wild slide into the history books as the Worst Predisent Ever. WOoo HOOOoooo!!!!!!!!!
    And now I understand why Kerry followers disregard his delusional thinking…thanks for clearing this up.
    Jack

  • Jack

    In reality, Kerry’s statement is irrelevant. He is going to be the next President because the ineptness of Bush’s Administration is sucking his chances of re-election right down the drain. Today’s bombshell was only the beginning. Get ready for Bush’s steep wild slide into the history books as the Worst Predisent Ever. WOoo HOOOoooo!!!!!!!!!
    And now I understand why Kerry followers disregard his delusional thinking…thanks for clearing this up.
    Jack

  • The Voice of Reason

    tgirsch and DS,
    Just because you and and a lot of people don’t believe something for which there is a lot of evidence, does not mean that it is not true. There is a lot of evidence that Saddam worked with al Qaeda.
    Yes, the overwhelmingly leftist bureaucrats who failed on 9/11, who informed us that al Qaeda could not be infiltrated only to be embarrassed by John Walker Lindh, who all believed Saddam had WMD, and who don’t think it is possible that Mohammed Atta could be in the Czech Republic when his cell phone is in the US have not seen enough evidence to conclude that Saddam orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. But even if he did not orchestrate the 9/11 attacks, he very well may have aided them. His government certainly took a great deal of pride in the 9/11 attacks. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/mural.php
    Excuse us if we are a bit skeptical of your conclusions.
    Look at this: http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=SpecialReportsarchive200410SPE20041004a.html
    Consider the following facts: According to the Clinton Justice Department’s spring 1998 indictment of bin Laden, “Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” “In 1992, elements of al Qaeda came to Baghdad and met with Saddam Hussein,” Abu Aman Amaleeki, a 20-year veteran of Iraqi intelligence, said on ABC’s Nightline on September 26, 2002. Speaking from a Kurdish prison, he added: “And among them was Ayman al Zawahiri,” bin Laden’s chief deputy. “I was present when Ayman al Zawahiri visited Baghdad.” Former Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) Deputy Director Faruq Hijazi supplied blank Yemeni passports to al Qaeda in 1992. Mohammed Salameh, a 1993 World Trade Center attacker, called Baghdad 46 times in the two months before bomb maker Abdul Rahman Yasin flew from Baghdad to New Jersey to join the plot. Salameh’s June 1992 phone bill totaled $1,401, which prompted his disconnection for non-payment. After the blast

  • The Voice of Reason

    tgirsch and DS,
    Just because you and and a lot of people don’t believe something for which there is a lot of evidence, does not mean that it is not true. There is a lot of evidence that Saddam worked with al Qaeda.
    Yes, the overwhelmingly leftist bureaucrats who failed on 9/11, who informed us that al Qaeda could not be infiltrated only to be embarrassed by John Walker Lindh, who all believed Saddam had WMD, and who don’t think it is possible that Mohammed Atta could be in the Czech Republic when his cell phone is in the US have not seen enough evidence to conclude that Saddam orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. But even if he did not orchestrate the 9/11 attacks, he very well may have aided them. His government certainly took a great deal of pride in the 9/11 attacks. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/mural.php
    Excuse us if we are a bit skeptical of your conclusions.
    Look at this: http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html
    Consider the following facts: According to the Clinton Justice Department’s spring 1998 indictment of bin Laden, “Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” “In 1992, elements of al Qaeda came to Baghdad and met with Saddam Hussein,” Abu Aman Amaleeki, a 20-year veteran of Iraqi intelligence, said on ABC’s Nightline on September 26, 2002. Speaking from a Kurdish prison, he added: “And among them was Ayman al Zawahiri,” bin Laden’s chief deputy. “I was present when Ayman al Zawahiri visited Baghdad.” Former Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) Deputy Director Faruq Hijazi supplied blank Yemeni passports to al Qaeda in 1992. Mohammed Salameh, a 1993 World Trade Center attacker, called Baghdad 46 times in the two months before bomb maker Abdul Rahman Yasin flew from Baghdad to New Jersey to join the plot. Salameh’s June 1992 phone bill totaled $1,401, which prompted his disconnection for non-payment. After the blast

  • ~DS~

    Fact is, all politicians lie. This isn’t exactly shocking news, or shouldn’t be anyway.

  • ~DS~

    Fact is, all politicians lie. This isn’t exactly shocking news, or shouldn’t be anyway.

  • http://www.leanleft.com/ tgirsch

    George:
    Let’s assume, for a moment, that Kerry is a documented liar (never mind the biased source for a moment). So what? So’s Cheney, so’s Rumsfeld, so’s Rice, and in all likelihood, so’s Ashcroft. Even if what Kerry said was indeed a bald-faced lie, then you would have a choice between two candidates of questionable integrity, rather than just one. This helps Bush how?
    And what “comment about munis” did I “deceptively snip?” I have no quarrel with your investment in municipal bonds, and in fact I encourage it. What I quarreled with was your statement that you would never pay more than 15% in taxes again (which, by the way, is less than the lowest tax bracket pays, once you include the payroll taxes). But that’s off-topic for this discussion. I’ll go back to the tax thread if you care to continue.
    Jack:

    Kerry’s blatant lies are of course the actual topic of the thread, based on the claims by Kerry’s that he had spoken with top level officials at the UN concerning the situation in Iraq

    Except that, if I understand it correctly, Kerry did talk to the top-level officials, just not the entire council, as he had claimed. There were a few, notably Mexico and Bulgaria, to whom he did not speak. So the only thing in question is the veracity of his “all of them” claim. Replace “all” with “many” or “most,” and you would still have a true claim.

  • http://www.leanleft.com/ tgirsch

    George:
    Let’s assume, for a moment, that Kerry is a documented liar (never mind the biased source for a moment). So what? So’s Cheney, so’s Rumsfeld, so’s Rice, and in all likelihood, so’s Ashcroft. Even if what Kerry said was indeed a bald-faced lie, then you would have a choice between two candidates of questionable integrity, rather than just one. This helps Bush how?
    And what “comment about munis” did I “deceptively snip?” I have no quarrel with your investment in municipal bonds, and in fact I encourage it. What I quarreled with was your statement that you would never pay more than 15% in taxes again (which, by the way, is less than the lowest tax bracket pays, once you include the payroll taxes). But that’s off-topic for this discussion. I’ll go back to the tax thread if you care to continue.
    Jack:

    Kerry’s blatant lies are of course the actual topic of the thread, based on the claims by Kerry’s that he had spoken with top level officials at the UN concerning the situation in Iraq

    Except that, if I understand it correctly, Kerry did talk to the top-level officials, just not the entire council, as he had claimed. There were a few, notably Mexico and Bulgaria, to whom he did not speak. So the only thing in question is the veracity of his “all of them” claim. Replace “all” with “many” or “most,” and you would still have a true claim.

  • George

    This just in:
    Kerry previously viewed Poland as a member of “[…] some trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted.”
    Now, however, it’s: “On the economic front this will mean granting true and tried friends – like Poland – a share in the multi-billion dollar reconstruction contracts, in a share proportional to Poland’s contribution to the Coalition.”
    Sounds like bribery to me. This guy Kerry is A-mazing!!

  • George

    This just in:
    Kerry previously viewed Poland as a member of “[…] some trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted.”
    Now, however, it’s: “On the economic front this will mean granting true and tried friends – like Poland – a share in the multi-billion dollar reconstruction contracts, in a share proportional to Poland’s contribution to the Coalition.”
    Sounds like bribery to me. This guy Kerry is A-mazing!!

  • ~DS~

    It’s not that Kerry is amazing George, it’s that we know he’s at least competent. Against a solid competent opponent in the midst of a war he wouldn’t stand a chance. That’s not the situation though. Bush has put the entire GOP at risk by advancing his rather narrow agenda and by his shenanigans in iraq. I suspect most of the turncoats who have left him over Iraq would have remianed had he simply cleaned house of the folks that gave him the bad advice. He chose not to, and now he’s quite vulnerable because of it.

  • ~DS~

    It’s not that Kerry is amazing George, it’s that we know he’s at least competent. Against a solid competent opponent in the midst of a war he wouldn’t stand a chance. That’s not the situation though. Bush has put the entire GOP at risk by advancing his rather narrow agenda and by his shenanigans in iraq. I suspect most of the turncoats who have left him over Iraq would have remianed had he simply cleaned house of the folks that gave him the bad advice. He chose not to, and now he’s quite vulnerable because of it.

  • Larry Lord

    George writes
    “Sounds like bribery to me.”
    Too bad it doesn’t matter what Kerry’s words “sound like” to you. What matters is Bush’s feet, which are increasingly hard for you to find underneath all the dead bodies, but which you are nevertheless compelled to lick clean. You’re falling behind, man.

  • Larry Lord

    George writes
    “Sounds like bribery to me.”
    Too bad it doesn’t matter what Kerry’s words “sound like” to you. What matters is Bush’s feet, which are increasingly hard for you to find underneath all the dead bodies, but which you are nevertheless compelled to lick clean. You’re falling behind, man.

  • http://johncoleman.typepad.com/ John

    DS, I think the question everyone on this blog has is, “How do we know Kerry is competent?”
    He did very little of consequence in the senate.
    He approved the war, and he has proposed no real concrete alternative paths.
    He served in Vietnam, but half the guys that served with him hated his guts and he admitted that he committed war crimes.
    A lot of people are scared to death because it seems that he doesn’t say very much that is completely truthful and they have absolutely no idea what kind of leader he would be.
    I believe KErry is a smart guy. I believe Bush is a smart guy. I believe there are a lot of smart people that do foolish and / or mailicious things. That is why people are so worried about character–a record of the way people behave (i.e. lying, not lying, serving, not serving, etc.)

  • http://johncoleman.typepad.com John

    DS, I think the question everyone on this blog has is, “How do we know Kerry is competent?”
    He did very little of consequence in the senate.
    He approved the war, and he has proposed no real concrete alternative paths.
    He served in Vietnam, but half the guys that served with him hated his guts and he admitted that he committed war crimes.
    A lot of people are scared to death because it seems that he doesn’t say very much that is completely truthful and they have absolutely no idea what kind of leader he would be.
    I believe KErry is a smart guy. I believe Bush is a smart guy. I believe there are a lot of smart people that do foolish and / or mailicious things. That is why people are so worried about character–a record of the way people behave (i.e. lying, not lying, serving, not serving, etc.)

  • George

    The Kerry intifada (links and stolen name here):
    Bush/Cheney HQ in Flagstaff, Arizona vandalized, Bush/Cheney HQ in Cincinnati, Ohio burglarized and ransacked, Bush/Cheney HQ in Miami attacked by mob, Bush/Cheney HQ in Orlando, Florida attacked by mob, Mob attacks Bush/Cheney HQ in Tampa, Florida, Shots fired into Bush/Cheney HQ in Knoxville, Tennessee, Shots fired into Bush/Cheney HQ in West Virginia, Bush/Cheney HQ in Spokane, Washington burglarized and vandalized, computers stolen, Bush/Cheney HQ in West Allis, Wisconsin attacked, Bush/Cheney HQ in St. Paul, Minnesota attacked, Bush/Cheney HQ in Gettysburg, Pa. attacked, Kerry/Edwards HQ in Bozeman, Mt attacked-mentions earlier attack on GOP HQ , Bush/Cheney HQ in Fairbanks, AK attacked, Bush/Cheney HQ in Oxford, Ms vandalized, Bush/Cheney HQ in Edwardsville, Il vandalized, Bush/Cheney HQ in Bloomington-ARSON , Bush/Cheney HQ in Canton, Ohio burglarized and vandalized, Bush/Cheney HQ in Mt. Vernon, Il vandalized, Bush/Cheney HQ in Edmond, OK vandalized, Bush/Cheney HQ in Gainesville, Fl. attacked by union mob, Santa Cruz, CA Republican Congressional candidate receiving death threats, Escambia County (Pensacola) Republican HQ vandalized for 4th time, Rochester, NY Republican Congressional candidate’s office ransacked, Vilas County (Arbor Vitae, WI) Republican County HQ vandalized, ransacked, Democrat thuggery in Longmont, Co., York, Pa Republican HQ vandalized, SLC, UT Republican gubernatorial candidate’s office vandalized, Democrat thuggery in Lake Havasu City, Az.
    Thuggery. Nice term. Lies are, well, nothing of note. THe socialist left today, and historically, will stop at nothing. Lies. Piffle. Integrity. Pshaw! Power?? Youbetcha.

  • George

    The Kerry intifada (links and stolen name here):
    Bush/Cheney HQ in Flagstaff, Arizona vandalized, Bush/Cheney HQ in Cincinnati, Ohio burglarized and ransacked, Bush/Cheney HQ in Miami attacked by mob, Bush/Cheney HQ in Orlando, Florida attacked by mob, Mob attacks Bush/Cheney HQ in Tampa, Florida, Shots fired into Bush/Cheney HQ in Knoxville, Tennessee, Shots fired into Bush/Cheney HQ in West Virginia, Bush/Cheney HQ in Spokane, Washington burglarized and vandalized, computers stolen, Bush/Cheney HQ in West Allis, Wisconsin attacked, Bush/Cheney HQ in St. Paul, Minnesota attacked, Bush/Cheney HQ in Gettysburg, Pa. attacked, Kerry/Edwards HQ in Bozeman, Mt attacked-mentions earlier attack on GOP HQ , Bush/Cheney HQ in Fairbanks, AK attacked, Bush/Cheney HQ in Oxford, Ms vandalized, Bush/Cheney HQ in Edwardsville, Il vandalized, Bush/Cheney HQ in Bloomington-ARSON , Bush/Cheney HQ in Canton, Ohio burglarized and vandalized, Bush/Cheney HQ in Mt. Vernon, Il vandalized, Bush/Cheney HQ in Edmond, OK vandalized, Bush/Cheney HQ in Gainesville, Fl. attacked by union mob, Santa Cruz, CA Republican Congressional candidate receiving death threats, Escambia County (Pensacola) Republican HQ vandalized for 4th time, Rochester, NY Republican Congressional candidate’s office ransacked, Vilas County (Arbor Vitae, WI) Republican County HQ vandalized, ransacked, Democrat thuggery in Longmont, Co., York, Pa Republican HQ vandalized, SLC, UT Republican gubernatorial candidate’s office vandalized, Democrat thuggery in Lake Havasu City, Az.
    Thuggery. Nice term. Lies are, well, nothing of note. THe socialist left today, and historically, will stop at nothing. Lies. Piffle. Integrity. Pshaw! Power?? Youbetcha.

  • ~DS~

    George I bet you John and Theresa have solid alibis for each of those dates ;)

  • ~DS~

    George I bet you John and Theresa have solid alibis for each of those dates ;)

  • http://daddypundit.blogspot.com/2004/10/why-president-bush-will-win.html Daddypundit

    Why President Bush will win

    I’ve been checking around several of the blogs today for reaction to this article which appeared in this morning’s Washington Times and (according to the buzz) was going to deliver a huge blow to the Kerry campaign.

  • http://daddypundit.blogspot.com/2004/10/why-president-bush-will-win.html Daddypundit

    Why President Bush will win

    I’ve been checking around several of the blogs today for reaction to this article which appeared in this morning’s Washington Times and (according to the buzz) was going to deliver a huge blow to the Kerry campaign.

  • Larry Lord

    George writes
    ” Shots fired into Bush/Cheney HQ in West Virginia”
    Wasn’t this reported on by that same freak who habitually gets his sign stolen from him by Democrats at airports?
    Your list is a joke, George. For starters, I’ll bet half of those “acts of vandalism” are phony sympathy-eliciting pranks carried about Republican morons. Secondly, for their miserable attempts to disenfranchise Floridian minority voters, at least 1000 random Republicans deserve to have their shrunken testicles kicked hard and repeatedly.

  • Larry Lord

    George writes
    ” Shots fired into Bush/Cheney HQ in West Virginia”
    Wasn’t this reported on by that same freak who habitually gets his sign stolen from him by Democrats at airports?
    Your list is a joke, George. For starters, I’ll bet half of those “acts of vandalism” are phony sympathy-eliciting pranks carried about Republican morons. Secondly, for their miserable attempts to disenfranchise Floridian minority voters, at least 1000 random Republicans deserve to have their shrunken testicles kicked hard and repeatedly.

  • http://www.gryphmon.com/ Patrick (gryph)

    The last time I checked, both George W. Bush and John Kerry are politicians. And the way you can tell if a politician is lying is when you see their lips moving.
    However, if anyone here believes that George W. Bush doesn’t lie, then they should contact me immediately as I have a once-in-a-lifetime investment offer that will make them millions overnight.

  • http://www.gryphmon.com Patrick (gryph)

    The last time I checked, both George W. Bush and John Kerry are politicians. And the way you can tell if a politician is lying is when you see their lips moving.
    However, if anyone here believes that George W. Bush doesn’t lie, then they should contact me immediately as I have a once-in-a-lifetime investment offer that will make them millions overnight.

  • Amber

    Hi all,
    Well, I have to say that I think the only Christian way to vote is for Kerry. I checked the “facts” in here with main stream news sources and this seems to be correct.
    At the risk of looking “fanatical,” Bush is reminding me of the Book of Revelations and being led by the Devil. I never really feared the prophecy until now. I would be interested in hearing comments from others who are not “fanatical.”
    This is a very interesting site. It seems irrational but it really appears to be true. Very thought provoking.
    http://superchango.com/stuff/The_United_States_of_Mammon-memo.pdf
    Thanks and God Bless America!
    Amber

  • Amber

    Hi all,
    Well, I have to say that I think the only Christian way to vote is for Kerry. I checked the “facts” in here with main stream news sources and this seems to be correct.
    At the risk of looking “fanatical,” Bush is reminding me of the Book of Revelations and being led by the Devil. I never really feared the prophecy until now. I would be interested in hearing comments from others who are not “fanatical.”
    This is a very interesting site. It seems irrational but it really appears to be true. Very thought provoking.
    http://superchango.com/stuff/The_United_States_of_Mammon-memo.pdf
    Thanks and God Bless America!
    Amber

  • http://www.leanleft.com/ tgirsch

    John:
    Step away from the Kool-Aid. Let’s begin:

    He did very little of consequence in the senate.

    Unless you count busting a terrorist-funding bank (one which had strong ties with his own party as well as the opposition party); exposing an illegal scheme in which weapons were sold to state sponsors of terror in order to fund an illegal war; breaking with his party to balance the federal budget in 1993 and 1997; improving Veterans health care; adding 100,000 police officers. Wow, you’re right, nothing of import in the senate from that guy.

    He approved the war, and he has proposed no real concrete alternative paths.

    On the contrary, Kerry’s position on the war has been quite consistent:

    Yet taken as a whole, Kerry has offered the same message ever since talk of attacking Iraq became a national conversation more than two years ago.”Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm (Hussein) by force, if we ever exhaust … other options,” Kerry said 23 months ago on the Senate floor before voting to authorize the force, imploring Bush to take the matter to the United Nations.”If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community,” Kerry said, insisting that Bush work with the United Nations. “If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out,” Kerry said.

    You then go on to say:

    He served in Vietnam, but half the guys that served with him hated his guts and he admitted that he committed war crimes.

    Really? Half? That seems odd. Particularly the swift boat guys — just about all of the guys who were actually on the boat with Kerry (you know, the ones who actually served with Kerry instead of just serving at the same time as Kerry) support Kerry.

    A lot of people are scared to death because it seems that he doesn’t say very much that is completely truthful and they have absolutely no idea what kind of leader he would be.

    You could say the same thing about Bush, actually. If you haven’t read All the President’s Spin, you ought to. (Lest you think it’s a partisan hit piece, they’ve got plenty of unkind things to say about Clinton, and their work has been praised by the likes of that commie Tucker Carlson.) President Bush has never met a fact that he hasn’t stretched to the breaking point.

  • http://www.leanleft.com tgirsch

    John:
    Step away from the Kool-Aid. Let’s begin:

    He did very little of consequence in the senate.

    Unless you count busting a terrorist-funding bank (one which had strong ties with his own party as well as the opposition party); exposing an illegal scheme in which weapons were sold to state sponsors of terror in order to fund an illegal war; breaking with his party to balance the federal budget in 1993 and 1997; improving Veterans health care; adding 100,000 police officers. Wow, you’re right, nothing of import in the senate from that guy.

    He approved the war, and he has proposed no real concrete alternative paths.

    On the contrary, Kerry’s position on the war has been quite consistent:

    Yet taken as a whole, Kerry has offered the same message ever since talk of attacking Iraq became a national conversation more than two years ago.

    “Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm (Hussein) by force, if we ever exhaust … other options,” Kerry said 23 months ago on the Senate floor before voting to authorize the force, imploring Bush to take the matter to the United Nations.

    “If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community,” Kerry said, insisting that Bush work with the United Nations. “If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out,” Kerry said.

    You then go on to say:

    He served in Vietnam, but half the guys that served with him hated his guts and he admitted that he committed war crimes.

    Really? Half? That seems odd. Particularly the swift boat guys — just about all of the guys who were actually on the boat with Kerry (you know, the ones who actually served with Kerry instead of just serving at the same time as Kerry) support Kerry.

    A lot of people are scared to death because it seems that he doesn’t say very much that is completely truthful and they have absolutely no idea what kind of leader he would be.

    You could say the same thing about Bush, actually. If you haven’t read All the President’s Spin, you ought to. (Lest you think it’s a partisan hit piece, they’ve got plenty of unkind things to say about Clinton, and their work has been praised by the likes of that commie Tucker Carlson.) President Bush has never met a fact that he hasn’t stretched to the breaking point.

  • http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/ Joe Carter

    Tgirsh,
    Really? Half? That seems odd. Particularly the swift boat guys — just about all of the guys who were actually on the boat with Kerry (you know, the ones who actually served with Kerry instead of just serving at the same time as Kerry) support Kerry.
    I’ll let the others poke holes in the rest. As for this one I’d like to point out this interview by Dean Esmay of one of the SBV:

    DW: What do you say to those who say that because you were not on Lt. Kerry’s boat, you did not serve with him?
    VO: I say two things: right now they’re trotting out a guy named Rich McCann who didn’t serve on Kerry’s boat, they appear to feel what he has to say is valid.
    But really, our boats served in combat together, we went on missions together, we knew each other intimately and fought together. This is like saying Major Reno and Captain Benteen did not serve with General Custer because they did not ride on the same horse with him.

    I don’t know anyone in the military who every bought that the only people who “served” with Kerry were the ones who were on the swift boat with him.

  • http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com Joe Carter

    Tgirsh,
    Really? Half? That seems odd. Particularly the swift boat guys — just about all of the guys who were actually on the boat with Kerry (you know, the ones who actually served with Kerry instead of just serving at the same time as Kerry) support Kerry.
    I’ll let the others poke holes in the rest. As for this one I’d like to point out this interview by Dean Esmay of one of the SBV:

    DW: What do you say to those who say that because you were not on Lt. Kerry’s boat, you did not serve with him?
    VO: I say two things: right now they’re trotting out a guy named Rich McCann who didn’t serve on Kerry’s boat, they appear to feel what he has to say is valid.
    But really, our boats served in combat together, we went on missions together, we knew each other intimately and fought together. This is like saying Major Reno and Captain Benteen did not serve with General Custer because they did not ride on the same horse with him.

    I don’t know anyone in the military who every bought that the only people who “served” with Kerry were the ones who were on the swift boat with him.

  • http://pseudopolymath.blogspot.com/ Mark O

    Larry,
    Your link to Kos didn’t answer my question, but LGF did here.
    I guess ~.1 of 1 percent is a big effing story.
    Larry I think your delusion that the NYTimes isn’t “leaning left” is that you define left as left of yourself and right as right of you. How ego-centric of you. That explains the epicycles in your reasoning processes. :)
    And it does seem funny that the reaction of the “Bush Lied” crowd to Kerry lying is, so what? We expect him to lie. I’m missing rational behind the the urgency in replacing a “Lying Bush” with a “Lying Kerry”.

  • http://pseudopolymath.blogspot.com/ Mark O

    Larry,
    Your link to Kos didn’t answer my question, but LGF did here.
    I guess ~.1 of 1 percent is a big effing story.
    Larry I think your delusion that the NYTimes isn’t “leaning left” is that you define left as left of yourself and right as right of you. How ego-centric of you. That explains the epicycles in your reasoning processes. :)
    And it does seem funny that the reaction of the “Bush Lied” crowd to Kerry lying is, so what? We expect him to lie. I’m missing rational behind the the urgency in replacing a “Lying Bush” with a “Lying Kerry”.

  • Larry Lord

    Mark O
    “And it does seem funny that the reaction of the “Bush Lied” crowd to Kerry lying is, so what? We expect him to lie. I’m missing rational behind the the urgency in replacing a “Lying Bush” with a “Lying Kerry”.”
    No, the reaction of the Bush Lied crowd is that Bush’s lies serve to line the pockets of his friends while killing thousands of innocent people and making the rest of the world think that America needs to be hurt again, and badly. When Kerry tells lies like that, I’ll happily get on his case as well. Don’t worry about that.
    “I guess ~.1 of 1 percent is a big effing story.”
    Evidently the Bush Admin thought it was big enough to hush up.
    Little Green Footballs, Mark? What a sad joke.
    The hypocricy is so ripe, once again. Earlier this year a useless canister of sarin was likened to a nuclear bomb. Now hundreds of tons of missing explosives, some of which is evidently being used to blow up our troops, are shrugged off.
    Again, the point Mark is that this is just ANOTHER example of how incompetently and arrogantly the Bush Administration handled the Iraq invasion. It was politics first, safety second. Disgusting.

  • Larry Lord

    Mark O
    “And it does seem funny that the reaction of the “Bush Lied” crowd to Kerry lying is, so what? We expect him to lie. I’m missing rational behind the the urgency in replacing a “Lying Bush” with a “Lying Kerry”.”
    No, the reaction of the Bush Lied crowd is that Bush’s lies serve to line the pockets of his friends while killing thousands of innocent people and making the rest of the world think that America needs to be hurt again, and badly. When Kerry tells lies like that, I’ll happily get on his case as well. Don’t worry about that.
    “I guess ~.1 of 1 percent is a big effing story.”
    Evidently the Bush Admin thought it was big enough to hush up.
    Little Green Footballs, Mark? What a sad joke.
    The hypocricy is so ripe, once again. Earlier this year a useless canister of sarin was likened to a nuclear bomb. Now hundreds of tons of missing explosives, some of which is evidently being used to blow up our troops, are shrugged off.
    Again, the point Mark is that this is just ANOTHER example of how incompetently and arrogantly the Bush Administration handled the Iraq invasion. It was politics first, safety second. Disgusting.

  • Rich

    Amber, first of all the book is Revelation and not Revelations. The cartoon strikes me of Jack Chick comics that are long on invective and short on truth. The Westminster Larger Catechism provides and exposition of the Ten Commandments. In it, the imputation of motives was rightly shown to be a violation of the Ninth Commandment not to bear false witness.
    The useful thing discussed therein was Acquinas’ exposition of a just war. I believe Christians can rightly differ as to whether the Iraq war was just or not. What is not appropriate is to impute motives like this cartoon and the Kerry campaign are doing. By his constant imputation of motives in violation of the Ninth Commandment Kerry disqualifies himself. I therefore cannot in good conscience vote for him.

  • Rich

    Amber, first of all the book is Revelation and not Revelations. The cartoon strikes me of Jack Chick comics that are long on invective and short on truth. The Westminster Larger Catechism provides and exposition of the Ten Commandments. In it, the imputation of motives was rightly shown to be a violation of the Ninth Commandment not to bear false witness.
    The useful thing discussed therein was Acquinas’ exposition of a just war. I believe Christians can rightly differ as to whether the Iraq war was just or not. What is not appropriate is to impute motives like this cartoon and the Kerry campaign are doing. By his constant imputation of motives in violation of the Ninth Commandment Kerry disqualifies himself. I therefore cannot in good conscience vote for him.

  • http://www.leanleft.com/ tgirsch

    Joe:

    I don’t know anyone in the military who every bought that the only people who “served” with Kerry were the ones who were on the swift boat with him.

    Fair enough, but that still doesn’t even come close to corroborating John’s point that “half” the guys who served with him hate him.
    Mark O:

    And it does seem funny that the reaction of the “Bush Lied” crowd to Kerry lying is, so what?

    If Kerry did indeed lie about this, how many lives has that lie cost? That’s a pretty big difference between Kerry’s alleged lies and Bush’s confirmed deception.

  • http://www.leanleft.com tgirsch

    Joe:

    I don’t know anyone in the military who every bought that the only people who “served” with Kerry were the ones who were on the swift boat with him.

    Fair enough, but that still doesn’t even come close to corroborating John’s point that “half” the guys who served with him hate him.
    Mark O:

    And it does seem funny that the reaction of the “Bush Lied” crowd to Kerry lying is, so what?

    If Kerry did indeed lie about this, how many lives has that lie cost? That’s a pretty big difference between Kerry’s alleged lies and Bush’s confirmed deception.

  • Iomegaman

    Suprisingly the issue of Kerrys honesty is not an issue with those who would vouch for his Presidency, why is this suprising? Because one of the monumental arguements made for Kerry is that Bush was dishonest to Americans on the War in Iraq.
    This seems to be a double standard to me, but I have come to expect it. When you compare many of Kerrys key strategies they are not radically different than Bush’s, even his handleing of Iraq would not be significantly different (depending on which poll was popular at the time of Mr. Kerrys policy).
    I went to the daily KOS (which should be renamed the Daily CUSS for the large amount of profanity and innuendo) and as usual Markos is basically saying that Kerrys statements are being exaggerated, he actually met with “some” of the council…maybe it is mincing words but these are the types of issues that Kerry supporters are saying Bush is guilty of and deserving defeat for.
    SO I gotta ask the question, is a half-truth acceptable or not?
    If it is, then there were no distortions about Iraq, if it isn’t then Kerry is disqualified as well.
    KettlePotBlack.

  • Iomegaman

    Suprisingly the issue of Kerrys honesty is not an issue with those who would vouch for his Presidency, why is this suprising? Because one of the monumental arguements made for Kerry is that Bush was dishonest to Americans on the War in Iraq.
    This seems to be a double standard to me, but I have come to expect it. When you compare many of Kerrys key strategies they are not radically different than Bush’s, even his handleing of Iraq would not be significantly different (depending on which poll was popular at the time of Mr. Kerrys policy).
    I went to the daily KOS (which should be renamed the Daily CUSS for the large amount of profanity and innuendo) and as usual Markos is basically saying that Kerrys statements are being exaggerated, he actually met with “some” of the council…maybe it is mincing words but these are the types of issues that Kerry supporters are saying Bush is guilty of and deserving defeat for.
    SO I gotta ask the question, is a half-truth acceptable or not?
    If it is, then there were no distortions about Iraq, if it isn’t then Kerry is disqualified as well.
    Kettle\Pot\Black.

  • nonpartisan

    Wow, this one took a long time to read. Whats amazing to see is that most of the people here are following their party’s candidates almost religiously without resorting to reason (except for in part DS and Voice of Reason).
    Here’s the deal with the current situation from a nonpartisan point of view
    1. GWBush screwed up in the war or terror. If America continues on the same line of action, it will be alienated / isolated in this war – and dealing with terrorism in isolation is an epic task that a stay-away-from-facts-and-embrace-faith kinda administration can’t handle. In short Bush and his administration appear to be morons with power – and that means America is moving towards economic doom with these guys. [theres a lot more to write but the other Democratic guys will tell you all about it]
    2. Kerry – seems like a good enough dude. with a decent record (republicans should not repeat the bush anti-marketing cries here – they are propaganda and can’t pass a fact check). But he has a major character flaw – running against one of the most vulnerable candidates (as point one proves) he was lagging in polls till the debates. which goes on to show that he and his team are not very good strategists. also, these guys are not as aggressive as the bush/cheney dudes. furthermore, the VP canditate for the democrats looks like a wimp. All in all, the democratic team doesn’t look very strong and dynamic.
    All said the statemets from Kerry hinting at bribery to nations to become a part of the iraq reconstruction and stabilization effort show that the dude knows how to get international participation – its a big pie – you can eat it if you are prepared to send your troops kinda thing.
    Bush on the otherhand wants to go unilateral – which spells doom.
    I think even for staunch republicans its time to lean towards the weak-looking Kerry – Coz he can’t be as bad as Bush.

  • nonpartisan

    Wow, this one took a long time to read. Whats amazing to see is that most of the people here are following their party’s candidates almost religiously without resorting to reason (except for in part DS and Voice of Reason).
    Here’s the deal with the current situation from a nonpartisan point of view
    1. GWBush screwed up in the war or terror. If America continues on the same line of action, it will be alienated / isolated in this war – and dealing with terrorism in isolation is an epic task that a stay-away-from-facts-and-embrace-faith kinda administration can’t handle. In short Bush and his administration appear to be morons with power – and that means America is moving towards economic doom with these guys. [theres a lot more to write but the other Democratic guys will tell you all about it]
    2. Kerry – seems like a good enough dude. with a decent record (republicans should not repeat the bush anti-marketing cries here – they are propaganda and can’t pass a fact check). But he has a major character flaw – running against one of the most vulnerable candidates (as point one proves) he was lagging in polls till the debates. which goes on to show that he and his team are not very good strategists. also, these guys are not as aggressive as the bush/cheney dudes. furthermore, the VP canditate for the democrats looks like a wimp. All in all, the democratic team doesn’t look very strong and dynamic.
    All said the statemets from Kerry hinting at bribery to nations to become a part of the iraq reconstruction and stabilization effort show that the dude knows how to get international participation – its a big pie – you can eat it if you are prepared to send your troops kinda thing.
    Bush on the otherhand wants to go unilateral – which spells doom.
    I think even for staunch republicans its time to lean towards the weak-looking Kerry – Coz he can’t be as bad as Bush.

  • JBP

    nonpartisan,
    Don’t believe the hype! Everyone including Clinton and the French thought Saddam has WMD. Even Kerry has justified his vote to invade Iraq on the basis of WMD. Kerry made the same decision that Bush did. If that makes Bush incompetent then it says the same about Kerry.
    The whole unilateral charge is really thoughtless. It was merely an attempt to force Bush’s hand. The unilateralist Bush assembled a coalition that included most of the EU nations including Poland, Italy, Spain, the UK, and Australia. (Australia is not a EU nation, but in the coalition) No Bush could not get the approval of France and Germany. But we have learned that these nations were taking bribes from Saddam. So it is not like saying pretty please would have changed things.
    After 9/11 Mr. unilateralist, Bush:
    Won a UN resolution calling on all states to suppress terrorist financing;
    Won a UN resolution before going into Afghanistan;
    Won Un resolution approving the occupation;
    The UN was invited into Iraq to oversee reconstruction.
    The US went to war with Saddam because the old policy was collapsing. Saddam forced the UN inspectors out of his country. Saddam skimmed billions from the Oil for Food program and used the money to buy among other things prohibited missiles. Guess which country led the sanctions-busting? France, which was Saddam Hussein’s largest trading partner.
    Consider Iran. The Bush has dealt with this issue similar to how Kerry would: He went to the International Atomic Energy Authority because Iran is violating its agreements. The IAEA has done nothing because Germany opposes action. Germany is the world’s largest investor in Iran.
    The old alliances were more charity than deals. The US provided Western Europe’s defense, asking very little in return. After 9/11, the United States asked Europe for help some have responded and some have decided that they like money more. Fine. That is how the cookie crumbles. But that is hardly a good reason to criticize the US or the President!
    It seems to me that the charge of unilateralist as used by Bush’s critics seems to boil down to a rule that France and Germany have not agreed. Good thing we did not have the rule in World War II!

  • JBP

    nonpartisan,
    Don’t believe the hype! Everyone including Clinton and the French thought Saddam has WMD. Even Kerry has justified his vote to invade Iraq on the basis of WMD. Kerry made the same decision that Bush did. If that makes Bush incompetent then it says the same about Kerry.
    The whole unilateral charge is really thoughtless. It was merely an attempt to force Bush’s hand. The unilateralist Bush assembled a coalition that included most of the EU nations including Poland, Italy, Spain, the UK, and Australia. (Australia is not a EU nation, but in the coalition) No Bush could not get the approval of France and Germany. But we have learned that these nations were taking bribes from Saddam. So it is not like saying pretty please would have changed things.
    After 9/11 Mr. unilateralist, Bush:
    Won a UN resolution calling on all states to suppress terrorist financing;
    Won a UN resolution before going into Afghanistan;
    Won Un resolution approving the occupation;
    The UN was invited into Iraq to oversee reconstruction.
    The US went to war with Saddam because the old policy was collapsing. Saddam forced the UN inspectors out of his country. Saddam skimmed billions from the Oil for Food program and used the money to buy among other things prohibited missiles. Guess which country led the sanctions-busting? France, which was Saddam Hussein’s largest trading partner.
    Consider Iran. The Bush has dealt with this issue similar to how Kerry would: He went to the International Atomic Energy Authority because Iran is violating its agreements. The IAEA has done nothing because Germany opposes action. Germany is the world’s largest investor in Iran.
    The old alliances were more charity than deals. The US provided Western Europe’s defense, asking very little in return. After 9/11, the United States asked Europe for help some have responded and some have decided that they like money more. Fine. That is how the cookie crumbles. But that is hardly a good reason to criticize the US or the President!
    It seems to me that the charge of unilateralist as used by Bush’s critics seems to boil down to a rule that France and Germany have not agreed. Good thing we did not have the rule in World War II!